pages: PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-03-26 | 7 | 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-B. MDR07-0003 (Minor Design Review) - Applicant: Peter Ekstein - 463 Haight Avenue (SW). The applicant requests a Planning Board interpretation regarding staff's finding that an existing parking space of 32 feet and 6 inches constitutes two compact parking spaces. Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-7.3 existing parking spaces must be kept in working order and may not be reduced to less than existing numbers. Mr. Thomas presented the staff report in Simone Wolter's absence. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Peter Ekstein, project architect, noted that the most important issue was the location of the stair inside the home, and believed it was appropriately located to be consistent with the architectural style of the building. He noted that the stair location interfered with the location of the second car, which had never been in that location. He believed requiring a second parking space was not consistent with the architectural style. He noted that many people in the neighborhood park in their front yard, although they have garages; he inquired why the City did not seem to be concerned about that. He noted that the clients would not use that second parking space. He inquired when the unconditioned space would be able to be developed, and noted that there was no written guidance regarding that issue. Mr. Mark Takemoto, applicant, noted that they tried to develop the basement to use the space most efficiently and within the existing footprint of the house. He noted that the current space for the parking spot was shorter in length and height than the required standard for a new garage space. He noted that the narrow width of the garage space made it very difficult to park two cars in the garage on a consistent basis. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by President Lynch whether the definition of habitable space included closets, Mr. Thomas replied that they were not included in the UBC definition. The conditioned space may not be heated or cooled, and must be habitable. In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the difference in the square footage numbers cited by staff and the applicant, Mr. Thomas replied that after meeting with the applicant, they agreed to come before the Planning Board and to redesign their plan somewhat. The revised plan was submitted, and staff is still in the process of working out the amount of conditioned space. He noted that the core question of parking spaces would determine the amount of conditioned space. He believed that hallway space was one of the discussion issues. In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether there would be a seismic upgrade, Mr. Thomas confirmed that was the case. Planning Board Minutes Page 7 March 26, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf |