Albany planning commission approves large Gateview Avenue addition with conditions

The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Albany on May 20 approved design review for a multi‑story rear addition at 707 Gateview Avenue, voting 3‑0 to grant the application with conditions to reduce upper‑floor massing and preserve existing rear trees. The commission set a 14‑day appeal period and asked that story poles remain until staff confirms removal timing.

The project, presented by Mira Hahn, associate planner, would add roughly 2,075 square feet to an existing 4,109‑square‑foot, two‑story home on an 18,621‑square‑foot lot in the single‑family district with the Hillside Overlay District. As proposed, the work would create a four‑story residence with seven bedrooms and five full bathrooms (plus a half bath), a new third story of about 1,136 square feet, a roughly 400‑square‑foot fourth level and a 700‑square‑foot roof deck. Staff reported the lot slopes about 28% from the street and that the project’s height would be about 30 feet, which complies with the overlay standards as shown in the application materials.

Why it matters: commissioners said the house is large for a single family lot but consistent with surrounding properties on the block. Neighbors raised concerns about privacy, noise from the sizable roof deck and the visual bulk of a tall stair/elevator massing at the rear. Commissioners recommended design changes that would reduce visibility and potential impacts to adjacent properties while allowing the owner to proceed with family‑oriented living arrangements.

Applicant Angie (Angie) Cao told the commission she bought the property to provide housing for multiple nieces and nephews after family deaths, describing the home as intended to accommodate extended family rather than short‑term rentals. During public comment Brandon, the owner of 710 Hillside (a neighboring property behind 707 Gateview), said he worried about privacy and windows facing his basement level. Architect Dong Jin Seo said large, existing trees between the properties provide screening and that the window openings along the side are sized mainly for ventilation and do not create sightline problems.

Commissioner discussion focused on the roof deck size and the bulk of the north‑side stair/elevator tower that provides access to the roof deck. Commissioners suggested consolidating circulation (stair and elevator) toward the south, shifting or reducing the fourth‑floor footprint and, as an option, relocating an office space so it either reduces deck size or creates a visual buffer. One commissioner asked that the final design include varied materials or paint shades to break up large stucco volumes so the addition reads as smaller massing from key viewpoints.

Motion and conditions: the commission approved the application with conditions that staff implement the commission’s direction: move the stair and elevator toward the south and reduce the fourth‑floor stair/elevator footprint by about half (or otherwise materially reduce north‑facing massing), permit the applicant to shift or eliminate the proposed upper‑floor office over part of the deck at the applicant’s option to minimize deck visibility, and maintain the existing rear trees as screening. The commission recorded the decision as an approval; commissioners noted the 14‑day appeal period and asked that story poles remain until staff directs removal.

The commission’s approval was unanimous (3‑0). Commissioners Waddie and Pilch were absent. Staff advised the applicant to keep story poles in place for the 14‑day appeal period. The action does not change building permit requirements; any changes required by the conditions will be implemented by staff review prior to issuance of final approvals.