pages: PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-04-23 | 5 | Board member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed considerable concern that the occupancy requirement seemed to have been overlooked or ignored. She noted that information discussed between staff and the applicant was not taken back to the Planning Board. She noted that there were few areas in the City where a pedestrian could walk down a sidewalk without crossing a driveway. She inquired whether the additional parking spaces along Shoreline Drive as a result of the construction could be credited towards the parking requirements. Mr. Kyte noted that in 2004, they spent considerable time working through the conditions, and met with staff several times to address many of the conditions. Their examination of the safety and liability issues led them to the conclusion that the north- south walk was a better solution. He noted that the parking ratio was four per 1000, and that the additional parking on the south side ultimately supported the additional retail that had been added. Safeway was a major addition to the shopping center, and he added that the parking should be placed where the need was. They decided that parking should be placed on the south side of the center to support Bed Bath & Beyond. He noted that it was written into the leases that the old parking lot would be removed. Once the road is placed on that parcel, a bike-pedestrian path would be placed there, and the area would be added to the beachfront area for buildings and parking. Board member Kohlstrand noted that the Board had been told that north-south sidewalks could be added, or that the sidewalk requirement could be partially pushed onto the adjacent property owners. She believed that would put the Board and the City into a very bad position, and did not want to see that problem repeated. She did not want to see this situation show up on Whitehall, Franciscan or similar streets. She strongly believed that when the parking was installed adjacent to a particular building, that the applicant should not propose a too-large building that required so much parking that could not accommodate a full-length sidewalk along that roadway. She understood the issue with the parking leases, and would go with the alternative of pushing it to the north side as a second option, but did not believe it was the best solution for this particular site. She would not support the north-south sidewalk, and would rather see a full-sized six-foot- wide sidewalk on the south side of that driveway. As a secondary option, she would support Option B. Mr. Kyte noted that it was determined that the sidewalk would be on the north side, within the existing roadway right of way. Of the 24 feet, four feet would be taken for the sidewalk, leaving two 10-foot lanes. He noted that they had received very succinct direction in 2004 on how to approach this issue, which ran contrary to the Planning Board's wishes. He noted that they were working hard to develop the right solution, and came up with the idea to push the sidewalk north. They had discussed the idea of elevating the crosswalks through the driveways with staff, and they had mutually agreed to use a colored stamp concrete to clearly delineate the walkway. The walkway would also have a four-inch raised curb the entire length. He noted that they were comfortable in that recommendation. Planning Board Minutes Page 5 April 23, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf |