Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds planning commission approval for 21 Cambridge Way expansion
Summary
After a contested appeal, the Piedmont City Council voted unanimously to deny neighbors' appeal and uphold the planning commission's conditional approval of a design review permit for additions at 21 Cambridge Way. Staff and the project team said revisions addressed commission concerns about massing and light.
The Piedmont City Council on Nov. 17 upheld the planning commission's conditional approval of a design review permit for an addition at 21 Cambridge Way, denying an appeal filed by nearby residents.
Planning and Building Director Kevin Jackson summarized the project as an expansion of an existing single-family home with front, rear and second-story additions. He told the council the commission reviewed the application in August and September, noted site visits and story pole reviews, and found the revised plans met the city's standards. Assistant planner Joshua Muller said staff's analysis found the appellants had not met the burden to show legal error under the city code and recommended the council deny the appeal. "Based on those reasons, staff analysis believes that the appellants have not met the burden of demonstrating that the commission's decision was an error," Muller told the council.
The appellants argued the addition is "enormous and massive," that story poles and photos show the project would block direct and indirect light into 19 Cambridge Way, and that changes after the August hearing were minimal. Caller Kenneth Ho (identified himself as a former nearby resident) said the project "would not cast no light whatsoever" into the neighbor's primary living spaces if built as proposed. The project team, represented by Michael Bradley, said the applicant reduced the parapet height, altered articulation and materials to break up massing, complied with height and setback standards and did not request variances. "We met with staff and revised the project to address the concerns," Bradley said, asking the council to deny the appeal.
Council members questioned staff about the legal standard for "significant view," which Jackson said is limited to panoramic views of regional landmarks visible from primary rooms (for example, San Francisco Bay or Mount Tamalpais), and about whether the project required a variance. Jackson said the project complied with the zoning standards and therefore did not require a variance. Staff described how the commission concluded that the revised design addressed concerns about scale, light and privacy.
Council Member Long moved to approve the staff recommendation to uphold the planning commission; Council Member Grama seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
The council action leaves in place the planning commission's conditional approval and the attached resolution; the project will proceed subject to the 21 conditions included in the commission's approval. The council did not take additional direction to modify the approved conditions during the meeting.
