pages: PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-06-13 | 12 | Mr. Piziali noted that Condition 8 called for a 20-minute interval between screenings, and suggested that a 15-minute interval would be sufficient. Vice President Cook noted that she had visited the site three times, including an evening show and a morning show. The theater was not crowded either time. She also attended a sold-out show on a weekend evening, and had no problem parking. She had enjoyed her visits, and noted that it was a good place for teens to attend. She noticed there were no bike racks, and strongly suggested that a bike rack be included in the conditions of approval. She noted that the audiences cleared the theater very quickly, and believed that a 15-minute interval would be sufficient. She believed it was important for the patrons to realize that they were in a district bordering a residential neighborhood. She believed the small district businesses would support each other. Ms. Kohlstrand supported this use, but believed that an interval of one year to bring the building up to code was excessive. Mr. Douglas Garrison, project planner, noted that was a combination of an existing standard condition of approval for such projects. He noted that could be changed to six months. Ms. Kohlstrand agreed with Ms. Thomas' assertion that the staff reports should be more specific regarding the parking requirements for particular projects, and how they relate to the Code requirements. She did not believe that substantial new parking requirements should be introduced in such uses, and believe they could exist with available on-street parking. Mr. Piziali noted that traffic and parking would always be a problem in compressed urban areas. Ms. Harryman advised that the prime broker may have this item come back directly for a hearing, or it may request a staff report as an item under "Staff Communications." If the Board decided to hear the item further, it may agendized. She noted that the Building Code violations were being handled by the Building Division on a separate track; the planning issues were being separated from the building issues. Mr. Haskett advised that everything requested by the Building Division had been submitted to them. Ms. McNamara noted that she had not attended Central Cinema, but was impressed by the outpouring of support from the neighborhood. She was very sensitive to the parking issues, and noted that her neighborhood would be affected by the zoning changes. She noted that sensitivity to the neighborhoods was a very important component to those changes. She supported the idea of an analysis report. She believed this was a good business. Planning Board Minutes Page 12 June 13, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf |