pages: PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-04-25 | 12 | Mr. Lynch did not believe this would be examined in terms of a remodel or anything dealing with construction. He believed the first question was why the Code penalized individuals for parking in their driveway, even in the front 20 feet. A discussion regarding the pros and cons of tandem parking ensued. M/S Piziali/Lynch and unanimous to re-open the public hearing. Ms. Barbara Kerr noted the notion of simplifying the Residential Code by making things more uniform, eliminating differences between the different residential zones, which had been referred to as Zone Compression for the last 15 years. She urged the Board to recognize the differences in Alameda, and that she did not wish the characteristics of the neighborhoods and development rights to be impinged upon. She did not want the community to be treated as if it were a Monopoly set. She opposed simplification of the Codes in such a manner. Mr. Jon Spangler agreed with Ms. Kerr's comments, and agreed with Mr. Piziali's point that a limit should be placed on the tyranny of the automobile and the oversized box on a tiny lot. He noted that Measure A was implemented to eliminate "Crackerjack" apartment houses, which still exist on the Island; he did not wish to see Crackerjack boxes in the R-1 districts. He believed people would be allowed to put larger homes on lots within reason of scale, and for the City to be able to waive parking requirements if the people will sign an agreement that they will not have six vehicles per residence. He did not believe that parking three cars made sense, and believed the Board should restrict that. He believed on-street parking was ugly, and created a hazard for bicyclists, especially on narrow streets like Sherman. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Lynch noted that after the public comments, there was still conflict, and wished to clarify that he had no desire to restrict or to allow people to build to the maximum limits of their lots. He noted that was an economic issue. For the documents before the Board, he understood but would not support SK-5 or SK-4; he would support SK-2. He supported the idea of being flexible based upon zoning. He believed SK-2 would apply to very few lots in Alameda, and that it need not be restricted if they were in conformity in every other sense, constituting a unique benefit to that parcel. He did not suggest opening upon tandem, triple or quadruple parking for all of Alameda. Mr. Piziali stated that he wanted to leave the requirements as is, with two car tandem parking, no parking in the front, and a 20-yard setback. President Cunningham would rather see more green space in the back than tell a resident to balloon their driveway out in the back and cover up more green space. He noted that if a resident is prepared Planning Board Minutes Page 12 April 25, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-25.pdf |