pages: PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-03-14 | 7 | PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board He requested that wording be changed to extend the time from six months from the date of destruction to be completed within one year of a permit being issued. He noted that homeowners who had suffered a catastrophic loss due to fire or flood need additional time to settle with the insurance company and obtain funding for rebuilding. Responding to Ms. Kohlstrand's request, he explained the structural implications of the (k) & (1) findings as it relates to this item. President Cunningham believed that the (k) & (1) findings advocate a two-foot setback. Mr. Cormack advised that the Board's previous recommendation to the City Council under this proposal was to still require the 7'-0" setback for the second floor and two-story structures. Mr. Calpestri noted that he did not agree with that. Mr. Ken Gutleben, 3021 Thompson, spoke in support of the two proposed amendments to the Zoning and Development Standards, particularly with respect to the building height definitions. He believed this change would encourage residents to retrofit and strengthen their older homes, replace foundations and install basements. He supported the Building Department's Customer Service Committee's proposed amendment regarding residential parking. He offered examples of the problems associated with the current ordinance, and believed that it obstructed retrofits that could improve the seismic and structural safety of Alameda's older homes. He noted that the hazardous Hayward Fault was the closest fault to Alameda. He requested that the Board reconsider the priority given to cars and parking over retrofitting and protecting Alameda's architectural heritage and its citizens. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham whether Mr. Calpestri's letter regarding the time frame prior to rebuilding was within the Board's purview for discussion, Mr. Cormack advised that this item would have to be advertised for public hearing. Ms. Altschuler confirmed that this item was included in Phase II and could be acted on by the Planning Board. Regarding projections and encroachments, Ms. Kohlstrand expressed concern about requiring the second story additions to be set back two feet; she was also concerned about the resulting aesthetics of that setback. She noted that some earlier second story additions had been unattractive, but that many more recent additions were more sensitive and responsive to the original character of the house. She was uncomfortable supporting that particular text amendment, requiring that all houses have the second story two-foot setback. President Cunningham advised that of a house had an existing seven- foot setback, the wall could go straight up. A general discussion of the setback requirements as they relate to the (k) & (1) findings ensued. Planning Board Minutes Page 7 March 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-03-14.pdf |