pages: PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf, 17
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-06-23 | 17 | Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the language would return to the Planning Board for Item 2, but would still like the recommendation to go to the CIC that all three levels of affordable housing be put in the mix for the off-site project. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion as amended, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0 Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed. 9-E. V07-0008 and Design Review, DR07-0048 - 1607 Pearl Street/2622 Edison Court. The applicant is seeking Variance and Design Review approval for adjacent properties. A second building to be built 5 feet from the rear property line, where a 20-foot required rear yard is usually required and 3 feet from the side property line, where a 5-foot side yard setback is usually required. Encroachment into the rear and side yard setbacks requires a Variance. The proposed new structure is an 868 sq. ft. hobby woodworking workshop. The project will also require a lot line adjustment to transfer a portion of 1609 Pearl Street to 1607 Pearl Street. The property is located within the R-1, one family residence, zoning district. (LA) Mr. Garrison presented the staff report, and noted that staff was unable to make two of three required findings for the variance. Staff was able to make the finding that the project would not be detrimental to the public welfare, or adversely affect the neighboring properties. If the variance was not approved, the design review would be considered a moot point. Staff recommended denial of the variance and the design review at this time. The public hearing was opened. President Cook noted that there were no speaker slips, but that she had been asked to read a public comment into the record: "The property owner at 2620 Edison Court, Mary Liley, called to voice her disapproval of the proposed project. Her concern was that the building would like house a commercial woodworking shop that would create a lot of noise. She was unable to attend the meeting tonight." Mr. Bob Rollins, applicant, disagreed with staff's assessment that there was no unique situation with respect to this project. He requested this project because he was disabled from his previous job as a 28-year veteran of the Berkeley Police Department. He was unable to do any other jobs because of his disability, and added that the building was as high as it was because he wanted to install a hoist in the building. He proposed putting solar panels on the roof with the intention to make it a zero-use residence. He noted that required the installation of fairly large trusses to support the weight of 39 panels, to produce a 5.5- to 6-kilowatt system, with a three-day battery backup system. He intended to install a water reclamation system for stormwater. He noted that with respect to the solar panels, the Fire Department required a three-foot space around the outside, and three feet between each row to enable access for inspection or emergencies. He noted that the parapets were three feet high in order to screen the mechanics from the neighbors' sight. He believed the size and shape of the building were exceptional, and that the findings Page 17 of 23 | PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf |