Resolution 12736CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.12736
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S DECISION TO DENY PRELIMINARY MAJOR
DESIGN REVIEW (DR- 95 -46) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY, FOUR
BEDROOM, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN THE REAR OF AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 543 SANTA CLARA AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application was made on May 22, 1995 requesting
Preliminary Major Design Review, to allow construction of a duplex;
and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Medium Density
Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a R -2 (Two Family
Residence) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 1995 the applicant was informed that as
proposed the project could not be accepted because the required
open space was not provided; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 1995 the applicant modified the
proposal to allow construction of a single family dwelling; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 1995 the application was accepted as
complete; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 1995, the Planning Director approved
the Preliminary Design Review; and
WHEREAS, On November 13, 1995, Shirley Cummins, an interested
neighbor, appealed the Planning Director's decision; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this
application on December 11, 1995, and examined pertinent maps,
drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board granted the appeal and denied
Preliminary Design Review (DR- 95- 46);and
WHEREAS, On December 21, 1995 the property owner appealed the
Planning Board decision; and
WHEREAS, On February 6, 1996, the City Council held a public
hearing on this appeal and has examined pertinent maps, drawings,
and documents; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council denies the
appeal and upholds the denial of Preliminary Design Review (DR -95-
46) based on the following findings with respect to the appellant's
bases of appeal:
The applicant/appellant has asked for an appeal to be granted
because her "project met all development codes, including parking
and open space."
The applicant/appellant is correct that her project met the
property development standards. However, meeting all development
standards is not sufficient since the City Council must also make
findings to approve Preliminary Design Review (DR-95-46) which
requires assessment of the project in its setting. With respect to
the Design Review application the City Council finds that the
project will have a significant adverse effect on persons or
property in the area, because:
1. a) the massing of the structure will decrease light, air and
privacy for adjacent property owners; and
b) the parking configuration provided is of a poor design
because of the egress and ingress and inability to turn
vehicles around to allow forward exiting; and
c) the on street parking in vicinity of the project is heavily
used because of several nearby uses such as a twenty two (22)
unit apartment located across the street from the project
site, a nearby church and many residential units that
historically have no off street parking. The additional unit,
although it will provide the required on site parking , will
place additional demands on the on street parking for overflow
and guest parking, further impacting the existing parking
problems in the neighborhood; and
d) the garage, as designed, appears to be too small and would
barely accommodate parking of a compact vehicle leaving no
area for the types of things routinely stored in garages, such
as yard equipment; and
e) the proposed structure is of poor architectural design. In
addition, the proposed project is dissimilar to other property
development in the area because it provides the two units in
two separate buildings while most other properties in the
vicinity provide the units in the same building.
2) The project will not be compatible and harmonious with the
design and use of surrounding properties. The height, bulk,
and architectural characteristics of the proposed building are
incompatible with the existing single family unit and other
structures in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the creation of
a total of two units, each in a separate building (one
existing unit fronting Santa Clara Avenue and one in the rear)
is inconsistent with the scale of development of surrounding
properties because each would be a large two story structure,
creating a dissimilar land use pattern and an inharmonious
juxtaposition.
2
3) As, conditioned, the project is not consistent with the City's
Design Review Guidelines. The proposed building is
incompatible in scale and character of the existing residence
and neighborhood because the new structure does not have the
character or design detail of the front building.
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 regular meeting assembled on the 6th
day of February , 1996, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Arnerich, DeWitt, Lucas,
Mannix and President Appezzato - 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSENTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hard and affixed the
Official seal of said City this 7th day of February , 1996.
P A21/
Diane. B. F. ?lsch, City Clerk
City of Aameda