pages: PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-03-24 | 5 | Board member Cunningham moved to continue this item to a future meeting. Vice President Kohlstrand seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0 Absent: 1 (Ezzy Ashcraft). The motion passed. 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. PLN07-0020 - 2243 Santa Clara Avenue. The applicant requests a Major Design Review and Variance to attach a two-story covered deck. A Variance is required for this project because both decks will be closer to the rear property line than permitted by the Zoning code. The property is located within the R-6 )Hotel Residential) zoning district (ZS). Mr. Seal presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning Board find that the project will not cause significant adverse effects to the physical environment, is Categorically Exempt from environmental review, and approve Major Design Review and Variance PLN07-0020, with conditions, based on the findings contained in the Draft Resolution. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Italo Calpestri, project architect, noted that the upper drawings illustrated the existing conditions, and that the lower drawings illustrated the proposed conditions. He noted that the two citrus trees had been on the property for many years, and added that the applicant had taken good care of the strip of land for many years. He noted that the windowless wall of the Elks Lodge was windowless and painted white, which would provide reflected sun to the units. He added that the decks were a good amenity for the units. Mr. Falkner noted that he was a trustee of the Elk's Lodge and spoke in opposition to this project. They opposed the variance because they believed it would prejudice future plans for building in the existing Elks parking lot to raze and convert their gym so they could serve their female membership. The gym was built in 1921, and the lodge was built in 1913. The Lodge itself is very underpowered, and as an electrical engineer, he noted that they had developed a proposal for an upgrade to the building, including a new entrance. They did not want to jeopardize the placement of the transformer, which would provide service to the site. He also wanted to ensure that emergency access would be available in the future. He did not believe this project would be compatible with the Lodge's future plans until they were able to undertake future review. Mr. Ed Hershberg, applicant, noted that this property had been in his family for 20 years, and added that the tenants in the lower unit, Unit D, have asked him if they could access the rear yard from their unit to plant a small garden, and enjoy the outdoors. He received initial positive feedback from Mr. Calpestri. He believed the access to the rear yard would encourage increased maintenance of the backyard and enable the tenants to enjoy the back yard. He did not believe this proposed project would negatively impact the Elks Page 5 of 8 | PlanningBoard/2008-03-24.pdf |