pages: PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2017-02-13 | 3 | Board Member Knox White asked if the existence of the easement negates their ability to find that there is something unique about this property to grant the variance. Staff Member Thomas said the board could make whatever finding they want about the uniqueness of the property, but it is hard to argue that there is no way to provide the parking. President Köster opened the public hearing. Michael McAnaney, applicant, explained why they are asking for a variance. He said there is abundant parking in their neighborhood, their family owns only one car, and he rides a bike and takes the bus to work. Board Member Sullivan asked how they know the addition is 1.000 square feet. She asked if they could even fit a modern car into the existing garage. Mr. McAnaney said the plans are for 1,000 square feet and they could not fit their car in the garage if they rebuilt the driveway. President Köster closed the public hearing. Board Member Knox White said he is not confident that we could make a legal claim to a variance. He said he would like to recommend to the City Council to change the parking requirements to allow a maximum of two parking spaces. Board Member Curtis said he opposes a blanket change in zoning and wants to look at each application on its merits. He said he would support restoring the curb cut and granting the variance. Board Member Zuppan said putting a parking spot on this property would not add to the value of the neighborhood. She said a variance would be appropriate in this instance. Board Member Mitchell said there is a lot of available street parking in the area. He said he can make a finding about the uniqueness of the property in order to provide a variance. He said he would also like to have a broader discussion about these requirements in light of recent changes to state law. Board Member Burton said he would normally love to reconsider parking requirements in Alameda. He said the existence of the easement makes it difficult to find the conditions required to give a variance. He said it would set a precedent for other properties in the city. He said he would be supportive of option two. Approved Minutes Page 3 of 10 February 13, 2017 Planning Board Meeting | PlanningBoard/2017-02-13.pdf |