pages: PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 8 | those districts were given notices by mail, legal notices in the newspaper and posted ads. All responses were provided to the Board. Mr. Piziali noted that he had not noticed any strong reaction to the proposed zoning language change. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason confirmed that this use would be a conditional use in all C-1 districts. She confirmed that it would not allow this commercial use within a residential zone. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding retail and other parking within the C-1 districts, Ms. Eliason replied that the C-1 District was subject to the City's overall parking standards within the Zoning Ordinance. There were special provisions for new uses; buildings over ten years old with uses that do not change substantially according to the Zoning Ordinance, parking is not required to be provided. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding the validity of the CEQA findings, Mr. Garrison stated that everything under CEQA may be challenged. If it was determined to be categorically exempt, the City must prove that. Vice President Cook advised that a speaker slip had been received from the applicant. Mr. Mark Haskett, applicant, wished to address the parking issue and noted that they were trying to get cars off the street. He noted that he lived a block from the theater, and the population density in Alameda was such that people could walk to the theater. He did not believe there was a serious parking problem, and recalled that an adjacent neighbor spoke at the last meeting and stated that on one occasion, they had to park a block away. He noted that he did not advertise because the theater was intended for the neighbors' use. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding avenues for challenging this use if parking was determined to be a problem, Ms. Eliason replied that each individual boutique theater would come before the Planning Board for a discretionary review. A use permit would be associated with it, and individual cases would be considered by the Board. Vice President Cook advised that periodic review for a variety of parking issues had been attached to use permits in the past. Ms. Kohlstrand noted that she supported this kind of activity in neighborhood areas, and that it was a positive contribution to neighborhood commercial districts. Vice President Cook noted that she was in favor of this amendment. M/S Piziali/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution PB-05-21 to recommend approval of an Amendment to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to Planning Board Minutes Page 8 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |