pages: PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2012-02-13 | 6 | Board member Burton stated that he appreciated staff's design alternatives and the public's comments on the design analysis. He believed the design must comply with the scale of the neighborhood stating the difference in the relative depth in comparison to the neighboring properties. He feels that the parking spaces do not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Vice President Autorino questioned how the project met the design review parameters based on staffs' findings. Mr. Thomas stated the planning department reviewed the design and mistakes were made, that is why it is so important to have a hearing called. Board member Henneberry stated that the square footage looks about 2x as large as the new design proposal and he called for the proposal to go back for review and modification. Board member Knox White asked why the applicant didn't come tonight. Mr. Thomas stated that the applicant didn't come because he was quite frustrated with the process and he was willing to make changes, but he wants to construct at least 2-3- bedroom units. Board member Knox White asked if there is a reason for the Board to continue to review the project and have staff work with the applicant without denying the entire application and having him resubmit the application. Mr. Thomas stated the Board's best option was to not take action on the project that night, but continue with the item along with directions similar to what Board member Burton and staff suggested. President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if there is a psychological affect of having the project denied. She was ultimately aware of how sensitive the project was to the applicant, community members, and neighbors. Board member Knox White suggested that the Board discuss the design review process in the summer and see if the process could be streamlined. He also would like to see the board member who called the project for review included in the staff report. Furthermore, he would like the staff report to include the project's history and the original footprint. Vice President Autorino stated that in the past the City brought in architectural assistance to help applicants. He wanted to know if staff had enough bandwidth to assist applicants with the redesign proposal. Mr. Thomas replied that staff has the expertise and time to improve the plan and they can use the material and advice of qualified volunteers in Alameda. He went on to explain that staff worked with an architect that was known from a previous Park Street project to help an applicant that was having design issues. The staff used the applicant's money that was deposited to the Planning Department to assist with the design. Approved Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 15 February 13, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-02-13.pdf |