Planning commission approves addition at 1017 Ramona Avenue after debate over roof pitch

The City of Albany Planning and Zoning Commission approved design review application PA 24-47 for 1017 Ramona Avenue on April 9, 2025, by a 3–2 vote after a split among commissioners over roof form.

Staff planning manager Leslie Mendez told the commission the property is a 4,276-square-foot lot with an existing approximately 1,945-square-foot, three-bedroom, two-bath home built in 1928. The proposal would add a 263-square-foot attached garage and laundry room, convert the existing garage with a 48-square-foot family-room addition, and build a 205-square-foot second-level addition over the new garage to provide an expanded bedroom/office. The finished house would be about 2,120 square feet, and the project does not increase the existing 18.5-foot building height. Because the project’s floor‑area ratio is roughly 0.52, it required exceptional design review, Mendez said.

Mendez said staff found the project meets the development standards for the district and recommended approval with two modifications: (1) extend a walkway on the subject property’s north side so access does not require crossing a neighboring yard, and (2) align the plan north on the drawings with true north (to remove confusion in the plan set). She said the applicant had agreed to the walkway change.

A neighbor, Dennis Myers of 1022 Santa Fe, told the commission he was concerned about the size and proximity of a proposed rear picture window and potential noise and privacy impacts: "It's like 10 feet from my property line, and maybe another 10 feet to my bedroom window." The applicant and owner said the addition was intended to match the house’s existing style and that prior additions exist on the property.

Commissioners debated whether the new second‑floor volume should use a pitched roof to better match the main house. Commissioner Pilch said the appearance from the street would be improved by a pitched roof and warned she would vote against the project unless the commission required it: "So unless we specify a pitch roof, I'm gonna vote no on this project." Commissioner Waddie voiced the opposite view, arguing additions can reflect their time and that the flat‑roof element is set back and subordinate to the primary facade.

The motion to approve the project, including the staff‑recommended modifications, carried 3–2. The recorded votes were: Commissioner Pierson — yes; Commissioner Waddie — yes; Chair McCloud — yes; Commissioner Pilch — no; Commissioner Momen — no. The commission noted a 14‑day appeal period for the decision.

The commission’s action approved the design review only; building permits and any technical reviews (for example, the building department’s review of structural, fire and other code requirements) will occur after plan revisions and permit submittal as required by standard conditions of approval.

A 14‑day appeal period applies to the commission’s approval.