pages: PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-06-11 | 10 | the staff report, and did not believe there was any leeway around the requirements of this issue. Ms. Mooney noted that there had been some clerical difficulties in assembling the packet, and noted that the resolution had not been included in the packet; staff had distributed the resolutions during the meeting. She noted that when making the findings, the Planning Board should make specific findings as they are found in the Alameda Municipal Code. She recommended that the Board members be specific when stating which findings could not be made. Board member Kohlstrand concurred with her fellow Board members. She believed this was an unfortunate situation because she perceived there was a large population in Alameda that would like to see expanded hours for this gas station. She understood that the findings were specific. She also agreed with the speakers who were unable to use the gas station before and after work hours. She believed the Board members' hands were tied in terms of making a finding to allow the expansion of hours to occur. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was a regular customer of this gas station, and found it to be a very nice, well-run business. She had difficulty with some of the findings, and believed them to be both vague and subjective. With respect to the location of the use being compatible with surrounding uses, she noted that the Code prohibited the expansion of non-conforming uses. In terms of the other land uses in the area, she found it to be a commercial district in a neighborhood that included a coffee shop/café, private businesses, a children's art center, a pub and a nail salon. With respect to the finding that the proposed use would not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that one speaker stated that their property values would be lowered. She believed that property values in that area have remained strong for some time, and added that page 6-7 of the staff report identified no offending noise coming from the site. She believed the public bus that ran along Encinal Avenue generated more noise than the car doors or fueling activities. She was concerned about the safety of schoolchildren, but noted that this interaction was signalized. If the crossing time was not adequate for parents with strollers to cross the street, she believed that Public Works should extend the time of the green light across the intersection. She noted that the crossing guard stood at the corner of Encinal and Paru, near the playground. She believed the children could be instructed to walk on the one side of the street leading to the crossing guard. She added that she favored supporting local neighborhood businesses. She noted that this application had generated 13 pieces of correspondence in opposition, and 237 pieces of correspondence in support, as well as six telephone messages and the petition of support provided by Ms. Battaglia. She would like to find a way to be responsive to the community in support of what seemed to be a reasonable neighborhood business. President Lynch agreed with Board member Ezzy Ashcraft's statements, and noted that paragraph 2 on page 4 of the staff report specifically stated under "Zoning Use Permit History" stated that the first finding could not be made legally. For a legal Planning Board Minutes Page 10 June 11, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-06-11.pdf |