pages: PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-10-23 | 9 | In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand whether the City had a long-term plan for dealing with the end of Grand Street, Mr. Thomas replied that the applicants had proposed curb and landscaping to replace the temporary solution with the flip-up barriers. Acting President Cunningham complimented the applicants on their progress in refining this application, and believed it could be further improved. He believed that some living standards were being compromised in this design, and believed the density of this project could be reduced. He believed there were many small compromises within the project and added that the general project was very good. Vice President Cook commended the applicants on how far the design has come, and was excited about the paseo and the grid. She was happy that several of the units directly fronted the waterfront, and liked the grass in front of the houses. She would like grass instead of some of the shrubs in other landscaped areas near the other landscaping, such as the low shrubs. She expressed concern about the heights of the houses, and that there would be 30 three-story homes. She did not want the affordable units to stand out. She believed that the market has changed somewhat with respect to the economic feasibility of this project, but would like to reduce the number of units somewhat to allow the owners to have a little more room. She noted that while this project would be consistent with Measure A, she also was hesitant about having a somewhat shaded eight-foot side yard. Acting President Cunningham noted that while this project may be compliant with Measure A, he wondered whether this particular density would be desirable in this case. Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she could support wider alleyways and more moving space for pedestrians and cars, but she also wanted to note that Alameda needs a variety of housing stock to meet the needs of different kinds of people. She noted that there were many busy working families that would like to have a smaller yard to reduce the amount of maintenance, and believed there were many creative ways to landscape a home. She believed this kind of project could offer a good housing choice for certain lifestyles and household types. Member Mariani did not feel that this project was too dense because of the presence of the waterfront. She complimented the developer on the progress made on this design, and noted that she did not prefer the three-story design, especially if the two-story homes were designated as the affordable units. She liked the way the different styles interacted, as well as the historic perspective put on the designs. She believed the designs were very appealing. Member McNamara recalled that the Clement Street project had a density of 24 units per acre, whereas this project was 11 units per acre. She noted that she had once lived in a zero- lot home, and understood the lifestyle choices with respect to home maintenance. Member Kohlstrand noted that she did not have an issue with the density, and agreed with comments made by Members Mariani and Ezzy Ashcraft indicating that it did have a certain open feel to it. She believed the City needed to provide different types of housing in Alameda, and that not everyone wants or can afford single-family homes with big yards. Planning Board Minutes Page 9 October 23, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-10-23.pdf |