pages: PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-11-14 | 7 | be willing to take that leap of faith, but was concerned about the lawsuit filed against the new parking structure and will lead to delay. She noted delay raises cost that can be a potential snowballing effect in terms of completing projects as currently planned. She noted she was struggling with it because she wanted to encourage the type of project Mr. Knowles has done so well, but feels this sort of slippery slope in terms of the parking impact in the down town area. Board member Piziali stated when he goes to Park Street he never has a problem parking. He noted he sometimes parks within a block or two of where he is going and this does not present a problem. He felt this idea of being able to pull up in front of the building you are patronizing is not likely to happen each time. He understands there is a parking need but felt people do not like to walk that much. He noted the Board continually mentions parking and traffic in Alameda. He recommended going to neighboring cities and compare their parking and traffic to the Alameda downtown area. He stated he understood the need for more parking and he knows it is critical, but when he frequents Park Street he does not have to park blocks away. He stated he could not make the first finding on the Variance and would not be able to support Mr. Knowles on that request. Board member Kohlstrand echoed Board member Piziali's concerns. She stated she was in a quandary because of the code requirements were too high for this particular use, and she felt that is where the board should be focusing. Board member Lynch stated he would err on the side of revitalizing downtown and economic development because this particular owner has helped to create synergy on Park Street. He felt this project would benefit the community as a whole. President Cunningham echoed Board member Lynch's comments. Board member Lynch inquired on the parking cost and if the city has any flexibility on when the payment is due or a pro-rating over a period of time. Mr. Knowles replied $143,000. Mr. Tai responded the payment is due prior to issuance of the building permit. Board member Lynch inquired if the City was expecting to receive funds from this project to do the aforementioned traffic study. Ms. Soto responded in the negative. Board member Lynch inquired if the applicant had a preliminary construction schedule or construction build out in terms of, months or years. Mr. Knowles responded in the negative. Mr. Knowles stated he hoped to come to market within a year. Board member Lynch inquired if the code recognizes the amount due of $143,000 at the pulling of building permits, would the City or staff consider collecting half the amount at the pulling of the building permit and the other half at the final. Mr. Tai responded that would be a possibility. He noted the maximum amount of time the City could provide applicants to pay fees would be at final building occupancy without requiring additional staff time to administer legal requirements. Ms. Harryman made a point of clarification noting before Board member Lynch's question was Planning Board Minutes Page 7 November 14, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-11-14.pdf |