pages: CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 6 | encompasses the parcel south of Clement Avenue as well as west; the intention was never to put all 300 units on the little piece of property; inquired whether the property is meant to have a 300-foot span from the water to whatever is developed is residential, mixed- use according to the General Plan was residential, mixed use, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the property could be rezoned and still have the potential of the ten-acre park, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what is the nearby residential zoning. The Supervising Planner responded Mr. Snyder's Elm Street property is zoned R-4; stated the Oak Street property, south of Clement Avenue and along Oak Street, is zoned R-5. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the areas shown on the zoning map are consistent with the General Plan. The Supervising Planner responded generally the areas are consistent with the exception of some of the M-2 zoning within the MU-5 General Plan designation. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the intention was never to cram 242 units onto the single parcel the 13.89 acres could possibly have 333 housing units after setting aside land for the park, roads, etc; the General Plan does not state that all residential units have to be shoehorned on the one little piece of property; other parcels can accommodate residential in the area. Mayor Johnson stated the Planning Board went through a process of reviewing areas for consistency with the General Plan ten years ago; other uses make the area R-4 commercial manufacturing, not the residential structures; she does not recall seeing large residential structures in the area; the area would be more consistent with surrounding areas if zoned R-2. The Supervising Planner concurred with Mayor Johnson, as long as there is a PD overlay provision. Councilmember Daysog stated the Collins' proposal comes out to be approximately 26 units per acre; the math comes out to be approximately 17 units per gross acre when looking at the Supervising Planner's conversions of one unit per 2,000 square feet; the Collins' proposal is coming in too high and argues for something lower than R-4; growth is encouraged, but at a density that fits the City of Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 October 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |