pages: PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-06-23 | 10 | handicapped vans in the garage. He noted that he could research that issue and added that it was difficult to get his pickup truck in the garage at this time. Ms. Talbot added that there were substantial support beams in the garage, so the effective ceiling would be lower. President Cook noted that there was a slippery slope, and that the current height limit was 30 feet. She noted that it was difficult to treat one case differently. Ms. Talbot noted that was the reason that Mr. Biggs came up with the architectural element, so they would be in compliance with the Alameda Municipal Code, and so that a variance would not be needed. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that no variance was involved in this case, and that the staff interpretation was that it did meet the height requirement. Mr. Brighton stated that the staff interpretation was that it would meet the height requirements if the house was not raised. However, if the Board decided to change the condition to raise the house, then the proposal of using the architectural element was acceptable to staff. Ms. Talbot described the orientation of the house towards the water, and that no one looked at it from behind. She added that it was not strictly a Craftsman style house in the back, and that an addition in the back was constructed in 2000. President Cook noted that the structure behind the house was very nice. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she did not see the discussion with Mr. Biggs reflected in the staff report. Ms. Talbot noted that she was surprised by that issue, and stated that they left the meeting with the design review staff, believing that the issues had been resolved. She believed that their appearance before the Planning Board was more of a courtesy to tell them how they had incorporated the Board's suggestions. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if nine inches was all that kept the Board from be able to find in the applicants' favor, and whether there was any way to shave nine inches off. Ms. Talbot replied that they came forward with the proposal for the gable roof, which they did not particularly like, in an attempt to shave nine inches off the roof. She had not realized how difficult that would be, and added that the height of the garage was very important to them. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she understood what the applicants intended to do with the garage. She also felt strongly about the 30-foot height limit, and added that the Planning Board was not aware of the nine-inch architectural detail. Board member Cunningham noted that they would be able to have up to a 5% slope for handicapped access, and that a berm at the street would keep the water out. Page 10 of 23 | PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf |