pages: PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 10 | 8-C. ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC) Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for "replacement-in- kind", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming residential structures. Mr. Cormack summarized the staff report. Mr. Piziali noted that the main change would be the additional two-foot setback for a second story. Mr. Cormack asked whether there was Board consensus to reduce the side yard to five feet. President Cunningham noted that the key element was the opportunity for review by the neighbors in the future. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that instead of mandating the two-foot subject, it could be looked at from the perspective to ensure there would not be adverse shadow impacts on the neighbors. Mr. Cormack noted that the second point was to continue to use the K&L findings for encroachments into yards. Mr. Piziali did not believe that someone with a substandard sideyard should get more of a benefit than someone who had built within the standard setback. He believed that the two-foot requirement for the second floor should be deleted, in favor of a five-foot setback. Ms. Kohlstrand believed there was concurrence within the Board to require a standard five-foot side yard setback. The Board concurred that (c) would be acceptable with respect to cantilevering, as long as there were no shading problems. The five foot setback would apply to new construction. Mr. Lynch believed there would be mechanisms that would encourage homeownership and maintaining the highest value of the property. He believed that losing three feet would be a disincentive to those goals. Mr. Cormack noted that it was uncommon to tear a building down to the ground, rather than doing an extensive rebuild from the existing foundation. Mr. Lynch believed it was important to clarify this issue, and did not agree with manipulation of the Code. He inquired whether the setback should be 7 or 5 feet; the Board consensus was 5 feet. He inquired whether the Board should take this opportunity to make the Code more uniform. He would Planning Board Minutes Page 10 April 25, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |