pages: PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 6 | one foot so that the variance for the peak of the roof would be 9 inches. They would like to recharacterize the boat house as a second home so that the boat house would not be an accessory structure; she noted that the Alameda Municipal Code did not have any regulations with respect to boat houses. She noted that they would shift it back three feet to meet the requirements, and to meet the side setback requirements of five feet. She noted that they would like to put all their vehicles into garage, so they would not be on the street. With respect to the dock, she noted that before they approached BCDC, she understood that they must get the approval from the Planning Board. In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham regarding the impetus behind adding the extra 9 inches of height, Ms. Talbot replied that their driveway was not below the street grade. She noted that there was no drainage along the street, and if they excavated rather than going up, the water from the street will drain towards their house. Mr. Rauk added that they were almost level with the street at this time. President Cook noted that it was unusual for the Planning Board to be asked to review a project that they did not have before them. She noted that it was unusual to have so many changes, and not have the project to review. Mr. Thomas noted that staff did not have the plans, but believed their description of changing the boat house to a main dwelling, and to meet those setbacks, would avoid the variances related to the boat house. He believed staff could revisit the driveway variance. He noted the height variance was still unresolved, and would like more feedback from the Planning Board whether the findings for that variance could be made. He suggested that the Board direct the applicants to redesign the drawings along the lines of what had been discussed. If the Board was comfortable with the 9-inch variance, staff would bring revised plans and a revised resolution with appropriate findings back to the Planning Board for reconsideration. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern that applicants seemed to be forced to apply for something they did not want; she believed they wanted a boat house. She appreciated the time and effort put into the staff report, and requested that when numerous Code sections were cited, that they be attached to the staff report. She would also like the significant documents to be attached as well, such as the letter from staff from June 28, 2007, which was paraphrased in the applicants' letter. She observed that the definition for an accessory building did not cover a boat house, and believed that it should be defined, especially in an island community. Mr. Brighton noted that a boat house is defined in the Code, and that it is defined as an "detached accessory structure." He added that a boat house was a garage for a boat. Mr. Thomas noted that the Board could initiate a Zoning Code Amendment to create a definition for a boat house, which would have a different set of requirements than an accessory structure. Page 6 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |