Resolution 13691CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13 6 91
DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL
OF MINOR DESIGN REVIEW, MDR03 -0256 AT 116 BRUNSWICK ROAD
WHEREAS, Todd Meagher of 116 Brunswick Road made an application on September 24,
2003, requesting Minor Design Review approval to permit the construction of an approximately 360 -
square foot, second story room addition. This addition would be located above the attached garage and
would extend an additional 14 -feet forward from the original location of the 2nd story; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on October 22, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan
Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R -1 -PD, Single - Family, Planned Development
Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners' Association reviewed and
conditionally approved the project on appeal on November 13, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director conditionally approved this Minor Design Review on
November 17, 2003; and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2003, Paula Kindrachuk filed an appeal, of the Planning
Director's decision, to the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on this application on January 12, 2004, and
examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board found no merit in the appeal and conditionally approved the
Minor Design Review application; and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2004, Robert and Paula Kindrachuck filed an appeal to the action
of the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS,; on March 2, 2004, the City Council held a public hearing and examined
pertinent documents as well as the record of the Planning Board hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered staff responses to the bases of the appellants'
appeal as set out in the staff report, which is hereby incorporated by reference, and finds that there is
no merit to the basis of appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda makes the following findings with
respect to the appellant's bases of appeal and relative to the Minor Design Review application:
1
The project will have no significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in the
vicinity.
This finding can be made. The proposed second -story addition complies with all standards of the
Planned Development and will not impact adjacent properties in regards to causing excessive
shading or privacy reduction, as stipulated by the approval of the homeowners' association. There
would be only 123 days of the year where there would be from 10 to 60 minutes of shading after 5:30
p.m., therefore, there is no significant adverse impacts associated with shading impacts on adjacent
properties.
2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the
surrounding area.
This finding can be made. The proposal is consistent with the level of development, including
building massing, setback standards, number of stories, and building height of the other residential
buildings within this development and the proposal conforms with the design standards of this
planned development. The proposal will also utilize matching surface materials and will match the
architectural character of the residence and adjacent structures. The proposed expansion will not
change the use of the single - family dwelling.
3. The project is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review Guidelines.
This finding can be made. The proposed expansion is consistent with the development standards of
this planned development and therefore, is consistent with the City of Alameda Design Review
Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Alameda
hereby determines that the proposal is Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines, Section 15301 - Minor Expansion of Existing Structures.
NOW THEREFORE BE FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council denies the appeal
and approves Minor Design Review, MDR03 -0256, subject to the following conditions:
1. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans prepared by Design
Planning Associates, Inc., dated May 22, 2003, marked "Exhibit A ", on file in the office of the
City of Alameda Planning Department, subject to and as modified by the following conditions:
2. The applicant/property owner shall pay all required City fees prior to Building Permit approval
and all required staff time and materials fees accrued through the final inspections.
Exterior materials for the addition shall match the existing structure, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning and Building.
2
4. Design approval is valid for six months after the date of this approval. Final Design Review
approval shall be obtained prior to September 2, 2004, unless the applicant applies for and is
granted a six (6) months extension by Design Review Staff prior to said expiration. Only one
(1) extension may be granted.
5. Planning Staff site inspection is required prior to final building inspection.
6. No windows shall be installed facing the abutting property to the south (32 Cheshire Court).
7. Compliance with Codes: All work related to the proposal shall comply with the applicable
Zoning, Uniform Building, and Uniform Fire Codes.
8. Acknowledgment of Conditions. The permittee shall acknowledge and accept in writing the
conditions of approval set out in this Resolution in order for this Minor Design Review to be
exercised.
9. Hold Harmless. The City of Alameda requires that the applicant, or its successors in interest,
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning this Design
Review approval, which action is brought within the time period provide for in Government
Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim,
action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to
promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
NOTICE. The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein include certain fees and other
exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these Conditions constitute written
notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and
other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day appeal period in which you may protest
these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a) has begun. If you fail
to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, you
will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions.
NOTICE. The time in which to seek judicial review of the appeal of this resolution is
governed by the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6 and Government Code, Section
65009 (c).
G:\ PLANNING \CC \RES0\2004 \4MDR030256CRA
3
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting of the City Council
on the 2nd day of March, 2004, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3.
NOES: Councilmembers Daysog and Kerr - 2.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
3rd day of March, 2004,
U)
Lara Weisiger, City
City of Alameda