Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Albany planning commission approves second‑story addition at 959 Talbot Ave.
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb. 12 approved a design review and use permit to add a roughly 1,071 sq. ft. second story and related additions at 959 Talbot Avenue, including relief to vertically extend an existing nonconforming side‑yard condition. The measure passed 3–0; a 14‑day appeal period applies.
The City of Albany Planning and Zoning Commission approved a design review and use permit for 959 Talbot Avenue on Feb. 12, authorizing a roughly 1,071‑square‑foot second‑story addition, a 41‑square‑foot lower‑level addition and a 583‑square‑foot lower‑level deck at the rear.
The project requires a use permit because it would vertically extend an existing nonconforming 4‑foot north (left) side‑yard setback where a 5‑foot setback is required. Staff explained that a proposed bay window projects 2 feet into the 5‑foot required yard but leaves a 3‑foot clear passage, which the staff report said complies with Albany Municipal Code section 20.24.06 governing architectural projections and with applicable building code provisions.
Associate Planner Mira Hahn told the commission the project exceeds the city’s 45% floor‑area ratio threshold, triggering a higher level of design review. Staff recommended approval subject to the findings and conditions of approval and said no written correspondence had been received about the project.
Architect Stacy (last name not specified) answered commissioners’ questions about materials and design. She said the team intends to match existing materials where possible — asphalt shingle roofing, stucco walls and fiberglass windows — and preserve front and rear landscaping and existing trees. The architect also told the commission the design team would consider fire‑rated decking products such as composite systems (she named ePay and TimberTech as examples) if the homeowners were amenable.
Homeowners Mike and Martha, who spoke to the commission, said they "love where we are" and described the work as a way to remain in the neighborhood while expanding living space for their family.
Commissioners discussed roof form and the desire to preserve the front facade while permitting a more modern expression at the rear. Several commissioners raised fire‑safety concerns and recommended voluntary consideration of noncombustible decking and trellis materials. Staff noted that Title 24 energy calculations on projects such as this often require energy upgrades and that the design accommodates future electrification (the existing gas cooktop in the kitchen is proposed to remain for now, with electric‑ready provisions anticipated for future replacement).
A commissioner moved to approve the project as recommended by staff and another commissioner seconded. The commission voted yes (Commissioner Aileen Pearson; Commissioner Pilch; Chair Ian McLeod), 3–0, and the application was approved. The decision is subject to a 14‑day appeal period.
