pages: PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-11-24 | 4 | Staff clarified that an owner would need to determine how best to develop the lot. They would need to choose between being limited to a single family dwelling with a second unit, or develop the site with the number of residential units allowed by the zoning code. Board member Lynch addressed building a second unit and stated that some owners cannot afford to build two units at the same time. Therefore, the owner builds one unit then the second. Board member Cunningham asked about the 10,000 square foot lot size requirement and why it was not included as a standard. Staff pointed out that the intent of the States' laws was to facilitate construction of second units and that with so few 10,000 square foot lots in Alameda, the adoption of an ordinance with a 10,000 square foot lot size minimum could be viewed as not facilitating second units. Mr. Christopher Buckley of the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS) mentioned items outlined in the letter sent to the Board from the AAPS. He believes that the state is being too intrusive. He wanted to emphasize that no review will be required to build the second unit if all the requirements are met. He also expressed concern about the parking requirement being met. He had suggestions to firm up the ordinance, such as having a minimum lot size, having the unit owner occupied, lot coverage maximums, discouraging over-concentration, having design controls, and limiting demolition. Ms. Valerie Turpen stressed a few points such as limiting density and maintaining architectural integrity, having a minimum lot size, and having design review. Ms. Corinne Lambden expressed concern about the second unit ordinance, specifically the single-family dwelling neighborhoods. She is concerned about lot size and excessive lot coverage, and the adverse effects to the design of existing buildings. She also expressed concern with the parking requirements and a change in the overall feel of Alameda. Mr. David Kirwin stated he appreciated the difficulty of addressing housing in Alameda. He is concerned that the State is trying to get too involved in dictating what happens on the local level. He also mentioned Measure A and asked if it protects Alameda from the adverse effects of the Second Unit Ordinance. The public comment was closed. President Kohlstrand requested staff to address how Measure A affects the new ordinance. Page 4 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2008-11-24.pdf |