pages: PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2019-10-28 | 3 | Mr. Stewart said they would love to have more parking, but adding an additional aisle of parking would take away square footage from the building. He said the tenants at his property need full size spaces for their work vehicles. There were no speakers. Board Member Teague said he does not see how the Planning Board can treat the two parcels as one project. He added that it was unfortunate that the Listo building did not have parking requirements. He said the parking is not an issue for him because the 19 spaces for 10,000 square feet is enough for the new building and the Listo building does not factor in to his evaluation. Board Member Teague made a motion to approve the resolution with changes: Refer to 15 surface and 6 covered parking spaces in the Design Review findings; the deed restriction for the surface parking be encouraged but optional. President Curtis said it is in everyone's interest to require the shared parking deed restriction. The applicant indicated his willingness to enter into the shared parking deed restriction. Board Member Teague said he would withdraw his proposed change to the resolution making the parking agreement optional. Board Member Teague restated his motion to approve the project with the change to correctly distinguish between the 15 surface and 6 covered parking spaces. Board Member Rothenberg seconded the motion. Board Member Saheba said the location of the ADA stall may not be compliant with California Building Code (CBC) regulations. He suggested relocating the space to be adjacent to the walkway. He said he would need there to be at least one door in the unit facing Minturn Street for him to support approving the project. Mr. Stewart said they contemplated that design. He said they wanted to maintain consistencybetweer the units and that a door in that location could create a grading issue. Board Member Saheba suggested eliminating the stucco and using masonry for those areas, and increasing the glazing on the south elevation. In response to the applicant pointing out the costdifferences between the masonry and stucco, Board Member Saheba said that he would at least like to eliminate the stucco on the Minturn and Union frontages, and allow stucco to remain on the other two sides. Board Member Saheba asked if there were steps between the parking lot, rear walkway and doors of the units. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 3 of 5 October 28, 2019 | PlanningBoard/2019-10-28.pdf |