pages: PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 11 | like to see a matrix containing what features are included in each kind of lot coverage, and believed that was a major issue. Ms. Kohlstrand supported a uniform sideyard standard. President Cunningham supported Mr. Lynch's idea of a matrix. Ms. McNamara supported 20% or a five foot minimum on all districts. President Cunningham believed the matrix would help the public. Mr. Lynch believed this was an opportunity to make certain items in the Code uniform. Ms. McNamara added that the issue of equitable application of the Code to nonconforming setbacks was allowed for with the building of the additional story straight up, without being required to go back two feet. M/S Kohlstrand/Piziali to approve a setback of not less than five feet for all interior sideyards and to retain the 20% sideyard regulation for wider lots and continue to use the K&L findings for any projects that needed a variation for all districts. AYES - 6 (Cook absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Regarding tandem parking, Mr. Carvalho displayed examples of tandem parking on the overhead screen and summarized that part of the staff report. Mr. Cormack advised that one issue was conversion of existing garages to allow for more tandem parking on the property and the second issue was the number of vehicles in tandem. Mr. Piziali noted that he was not interested in exceeding one car for tandem parking, as cited in the regulations. He was not in favor of SK-2 as presented at this meeting, but would consider SK-1. He expressed concern about SK-3, where cars would park within the 20-foot front yard setback; he believed that would be poison for Alameda. He was especially concerned about people parking on the front lawn. Ms. Mariani believed that was an unrealistic expectation, and that the third car would end up on the street. Ms. Shumaker noted that planning staff were stymied as to what to do at the counter when a resident wishes to make an improvement to their house, but cannot conform to the ordinance; she understood Mr. Piziali's point of view. Planning Board Minutes Page 11 April 25, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |