pages: PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-01-23 | 5 | created, he did not want see a series of individual dwelling houses on very small lots. He suggested investigating semi-detached homes with a zero lot line. He did not want to create a series of wind tunnels with narrow alleys between houses. Board member Kohlstrand requested clarification of the reciprocal easements. Mr. Day replied that they were very similar to a zero lot line concept; a reciprocal easement placed the property line equidistant between the two homes. Through the CC&Rs, a borrowed easement provided for an eight foot side yard. Board member Kohlstrand noted that because of Measure A, some creative solutions for the site are not being implemented and some strange-looking developments were resulting from Measure A limitations. Mr. Day noted that with Measure A, duets could be implemented, but that only two units could be attached. In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand regarding the zoning for the Pennzoil site, Mr. Thomas replied that it was zoned Manufacturing The Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment would recommend that it be rezoned for residential. President Cunningham supported the alley approach, and noted that it worked well in Bayport. He did not want to see a PDA with a street lined with garage doors, and believed that the proposed streetscape was very attractive. He would like to see a three-dimensional model of this project. Board member Lynch believed that this project would be viewed best as a blank slate. He would have liked to consider other models, regardless of some of the local limitations faced by the Board. He was not sure that Measure A could withstand a challenge, and suggested that the applicants look at the Playa Vista development, which had won many awards. He would like to see a similar development in Alameda. He believed that terracing could be included, and that a mix of condo-style and single- family homes could be included in the development. He added that there was open space where concerts could be held, and that the entire effect of that development was stunning. Vice President Cook noted that marina occupancy were cyclical, and asked about vacancies at the Marina. Mr. Day confirmed that the occupancy rate was at 98% at the Marina. Board member Lynch would be in favor of additional open space and less parking. He inquired why gates and permit parking would even be considered. He believed that residents of other neighborhoods would want to have permit parking, which may be a slippery slope. Mr. Thomas noted that staff originally had a negative reaction to the gates, and noted that permit parking and the gates were not staff-initiated ideas. Board member McNamara inquired whether the outside restroom would be maintained by the Planning Board Minutes Page 5 January 23, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-01-23.pdf |