{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-08", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting\nMonday, August 8, 2005 - 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nCONVENE:\n7:03 p.m.\n2.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nMs. Mariani\n3.\nROLL CALL:\nPresident Cunningham, Mariani, McNamara and Piziali.\nBoard Members Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch were absent.\nAlso present were Assistant City Attorney David Brandt, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason,\nPlanner III Allen Tai, Planner II Dennis Brighton, Planning Intern Stefanie Hom.\n4.\nMINUTES: Minutes for the meeting of July 25, 2005.\nA quorum to consider these minutes was not present They will be considered at the next meeting.\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nNone.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nMs. Dorothy Reid, Citizens Opposed to SS Target, 2101 Shoreline #276, wished to address\ncomments made by Elizabeth Humstone, on behalf of the American Planning Association, to the\nSenate Committee on Environmental and Public Works. She stated that \"planning was essential to\nachieving smart growth. Plans help a community establish a common vision of development, and a\nmeans of realizing that vision.\nThe plan is the foundation of smart growth agenda, various smart\ngrowth policies from open space acquisition to urban revitalization, are only effectively realized in the\ncontext of a plan.' She noted that the City's retail policy had been developed as a result of four public\nforums. She believed that any big box retail in South Shore Center conflicted with those goals. She\ncommended Doug Garrison in working with her. She believed that Harsch Investments had\nextraordinary access to planning staff and elected officials that the average citizen did not have. She\nbelieved that some of Harsch's plans were very good, but also that the homeowners deserved\nconsideration. She urged the Planning Board to keep the residents' interests in mind.\nMr. Piziali noted that he had been on the Planning Board for eight years, and he had never seen a\ndeveloper who had any unusual access to himself or any other Planning Board member. He stated that\nnot one City staff member had mentioned anything to him, or sent any information, about the Target\nStore. He advised that he had no more information on that subject than Ms. Reid did.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the project timeline, Ms. Eliason\nadvised that a public workshop would be held within the next month, which would be a presentation\nby the developer about their proposal before the item is heard.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 1\nAugust 8, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-08", "page": 2, "text": "7.\n2005-2006 ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS:\n(Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005.)\nMr. Brandt advised that it was customary for a full Board to be seated for an election, and that it\nshould be continued until then.\nM/S Piziali/Mariani and unanimous to continue this item until a full Board is present.\nAYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 2\nAugust 8, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-08", "page": 3, "text": "8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8.A.\nVariance, V04-0002, and Major Design Review, DR03-0146 - Alvin Wong - 2708\nLincoln Avenue (DB). The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval for the partial\ndemolition of an approximately 842-square foot, two-bedroom, single-story cottage and\nreconstruction to provide approximately 1,870-square feet, four-bedroom, two-story, single-family\nresidence, which includes partially covered off-street parking for two-tandem vehicles. Variances are\nrequired to permit the following: 1) The structure would be built to within 3-feet from the\nnorthwesterly side property line, where a minimum 5-foot setback is required; 2) The structure would\ncover approximately 51-percent of the site, where the maximum permitted main building coverage is\n48-percent for residences with attached garages; and 3) The front porch would be relocated and\ncovered and would be setback approximately 7-feet from the front property line, where 20-feet is the\nminimum required front yard setback. The site is located within an R-1 (Single-Family Residence)\nZoning District. (Continued from the meeting of July 25, 2005; item was re-advertised.)\nMs. Eliason advised that a letter of support of this item was received by staff.\nPresident Cunningham read a letter of opposition into the record:\n\"Dear Planning Board and Reviewing Board,\n\"I think it is ridiculous to even consider letting Mr. Wong build his new home. What is the use\nof going to the effort of setting limits for size and setbacks, etc., if you are going to let people be\nexception to the rule? What makes Mr. Wong so special? Will he be allowed to drive 40 miles an hour\naround town? Do the regulations belong to everyone except Mr. Wong? If he wants this house that\nhe has designed, then let him buy the proper size lot.\nSigned, M.B.\"\nPresident Cunningham read a letter of support into the record:\n\"We'd like to say that we support Mr. and Mrs. Wong in their efforts to build a new and\nlarger home. We have felt that for many years, this home was smaller than all others in the\nneighborhood. We would like for Mr. and Mrs. Wong to be able to build in order to increase the\ncomfort for their family and need that the rest of us in the neighborhood recognize should be fulfilled.\nSigned, Lillian and Bob Rolens\"\nM/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-30 to approve\na Major Design Review approval for the partial demolition of an approximately 842-square foot, two-\nbedroom, single-story cottage and reconstruction to provide approximately 1,870-square feet, four-\nbedroom, two-story, single-family residence, which includes partially covered off-street parking for\ntwo-tandem vehicles. Variances are required to permit the following: 1) The structure would be built\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nAugust 8, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-08", "page": 4, "text": "to within 3-feet from the northwesterly side property line, where a minimum 5-foot setback is\nrequired; 2) The structure would cover approximately 51-percent of the site, where the maximum\npermitted main building coverage is 48-percent for residences with attached garages; and3) The front\nporch would be relocated and covered and would be setback approximately 7-feet from the front\nproperty line, where 20-feet is the minimum required front yard setback.\nAYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 4\nAugust 8, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-08", "page": 5, "text": "9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n9-A. Appointment of a Planning Board member to the Transportation subcommittee.\nPresident Cunningham advised that at the last meeting, Ms. Kohlstrand indicated she would be willing\nto serve on this subcommittee.\nMr. Piziali nominated Ms. Kohlstrand to the Transportation subcommittee.\nMs. Mariani seconded the nomination.\nAYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 5\nAugust 8, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-08", "page": 6, "text": "9-B.\nUP05-0010, James & John Costello- 1645 Park Street (AT). The applicants request\napproval of a Use Permit to allow outdoor dining at the rear of the property at McGee's Bar\n& Grill. The proposed outdoor dining area is approximately 300 square feet in size and will\nbe used between the hours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. Wednesday through Saturday. The site is\nlocated within a C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing District.\nMs. Eliason introduced Planning Intern Stefanie Hom, who presented the staff report. Staff\nrecommended a condition limiting the extended hours of the outdoor dining area to Fridays and\nSaturdays only. Staff recommended approval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMr. Robb Ratto, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association, spoke in support of this\napplication, with the new condition, which the applicant accepted. He noted that the applicant was a\nlong-time member of PSBA, and was in his opinion the most responsible tavern/bar owner in the\ndistrict. He noted that the management staff was exceptional as well. He had no doubt that they\nwould comply to all conditions of the Use Permit.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nPresident Cunningham believed this would be a good addition to the Park Street district, which would\ntake some smokers to the back of the building, rather than the sidewalk.\nMr. Piziali noted that the same use had been allowed with the Island Club, Kroll's, Scobie's and\nLucky 13, and he was not aware of any problems with the other uses. He concurred with staff's\nrecommendation.\nMs. Mariani agreed with staff's recommendation and noted that the only opponent was not in\nattendance.\nMs. McNamara wished clarification that no music or amplified sound would be allowed in the\noutdoor areas. Ms. Eliason confirmed that was the case.\nMr. Tai noted that according to the Police Department, most incidents were related to speeding and\nother traffic offenses on Park Street. No noise complaints had been received.\nM/S McNamara/Piziali and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-31 to approve\na\nUse Permit to allow outdoor dining at the rear of the property at McGee's Bar & Grill. The\nproposed outdoor dining area is approximately 300 square feet in size and will be used between the\nhours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. Wednesday through Saturday.\nAYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 6\nAugust 8, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-08", "page": 7, "text": "9-C.\nMDR05-0216 - Regency Centers, LLC. - 2599 Blanding Ave (AT). The applicant\nrequests sign program approval for the Bridgeside Shopping Center. The site is located within\na C-2 PD Central Business Planned Development District.\nMr. Tai presented the staff report, and displayed the various signage options. Staff recommended\napproval of this item.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nThere were no speakers.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMs. McNamara inquired why the signs needed to be so large. She expressed concern about the\nlighting of the tower sign.\nMr. Bruce Qualls, representing Regency Centers, stated that good signage was critical to the success\nof a retailer. He noted that the size of the monument could be bigger and in a more prominent\nlocation. He noted that the Nob Hill sign was 30 square feet, and that the architectural element added\ncohesiveness and an attractive common element to the center.\nMr. Jerry Weiman, sign consultant, gave a brief background of his involvement in this project, and\ndescribed his rationale in designing each signage element. He felt that a large panel sign would be\ninappropriate for the tower signage; using letters were a better method for this element. He noted that\nwould be a visible and bright sign; they still appear to be an open-channel letter. He noted that he\nused the concept of marine architecture as inspiration for this project. He described each signage\nelement in detail.\nIn response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the color of the materials and colors of\nthe bridge arch figure, Mr. Weiman replied that it would be either aluminum or steel, either powder-\ncoated or painted with a polyurethane enamel. The width of the monument sign would be\napproximately 12 feet wide, and the columns would be two feet thick.\nMs. McNamara expressed concern that the sign placed at the end of the canvas awning ends up\noverwhelming the proposed softness, as opposed to putting the sign above the canvas awning. Mr.\nWeiman noted that was where the roof started, and that was problematic to the placement of the sign.\nMs. McNamara noted that she would not favor roof-mounted signs.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the Board was very concerned about open visibility with respect to\nwindow signs, and he was concerned that there were no restrictions or criteria to define how much\nwindow signage can actually occur.\nMr. Tai advised that staff included the exact language currently in the latest sign ordinance, specifying\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 7\nAugust 8, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-08", "page": 8, "text": "that \"signs cannot exceed or cover more than 25% of the glazing area. He added that the glazing\narea was defined in the ordinance, and that any window sign cannot exceed ten square feet each.\nMs. McNamara believed that the purpose of a sign ordinance was to control the size of retail signs,\nand was very concerned that the size had been doubled and tripled for retail advertising purposes. She\nbelieved the sign ordinance should be adhered to more closely. She believed the current signage was\ndisproportionate to signage in the rest of the city.\nMr. Piziali noted that the Walgreen's sign did exceed the normal signage in the City, after go to City\nCouncil. He would not support the Nob Hill gasoline sign being the same size as the monument sign.\nPresident Cunningham agreed with Mr. Piziali's sentiments regarding the monument sign.\nMr. Piziali did not see any need for both signs to match physically in height, and added that the\nservice station sign was huge.\nMs. Mariani agreed that the signs, especially the gas station sign, should be scaled down, and\nsuggested continuing the item.\nPresident Cunningham concurred with the Board members regarding the gas station sign, and\nsuggested that the mass be reduced by removing some of the arched elements on top. He would like\nfurther discussions regarding the window signs, and believe that 25% window coverage contradicted\nthe intentions of the Design direction ordinance.\nMr. Qualls noted that this center faced Tilden, which was a fairly major thoroughfare, and that there\nwere not many homes adjacent to it. He did not feel there was quite as much friction as the Board\nmembers perceived. With regard to the window signage, he noted that he respected the Board's\nperspective and preferred to focus the in-window signage to the parking lot side, as opposed to the\nwater side. He would like to see a more open perspective to the water.\nMs. McNamara noted that it would be helpful to have a conceptual drawing of how the signs were\nproportional to the buildings that surrounded them; she believed that would put the project more\nin\ncontext.\nMr. Piziali would like to see an option with slightly smaller signs, and did not believe that people\nwould miss the shopping center without them.\nPresident Cunningham would support concentrating the estuary-side signage more to the parking lot\nside.\nMs. McNamara emphasized her belief that the bright illumination and very large signs were not\nnecessary.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nAugust 8, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-08", "page": 9, "text": "Ms. Eliason advised that staff would examine other sign programs, and present information on South\nShore and Walgreen's signs.\nMs. McNamara requested a summary of the discussion with respect to windows.\nM/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of August\n22, 2005.\nAYES - 4 (Cook, Kohlstrand, Lynch absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN -\n0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 9\nAugust 8, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2005-08-08", "page": 10, "text": "10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice President Cook).\nVice President Cook was not in attendance to present this report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali).\nMr. Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nmember Mariani).\nMs. Mariani advised that there was nothing new to report.\n12.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\nRegarding the comments made during Oral Communications regarding big box stores, Ms.\nMcNamara inquired whether the City had a current definition of a big box store.\nMs. Eliason advised that the General Plan did not have any differentiation, and did not recognize \"big\nbox\" as a definition, but the retail strategy report may have some definitions that have not been\nincluded in the General Plan. She noted that the definition was usually based on square footage, and\nstaff would research that issue for the Board.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT:\n8:22 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nPaul Benoit, Interim Secretary\nCity of Alameda Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the August 22, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 10\nAugust 8, 2005", "path": "PlanningBoard/2005-08-08.pdf"}