pages: PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-04-23 | 6 | Mr. Corbitt advised that Bank of America had signed a preliminary letter of understanding, and that the surveying would also need to be done. Wells Fargo had also signed the letter, and Washington Mutual had also begun examining the letter. He noted that the owner of Burger King had indicated he would sign it as well. He noted that they wanted to have the safest environment possible. Board member Kohlstrand noted that she could accept Option B, although she did not believe it was the superior alternative. She wanted to ensure that the development was sized so that the needed parking and sidewalks would be available on the site without having to push them off-site. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that on page 2 (paragraph 1-b) of the resolution covering Option B, the applicants had agreed to complete construction by April 2008. She noted that this had begun in 2003, and was concerned about the timeframe. She was particularly concerned about the construction of the east-west walkway, and did not believe people would be in more peril walking on a sidewalk than sharing a lane with cars. Mr. Kyte noted that it would take at least a year to design the parking lots and get them through the City's permit process. He believed the timeframes were fairly aggressive, and would pursue them with diligence. Acting President Cunningham noted that this condition addressed public safety in an east- west orientation, yet the proposal addressed a north-south orientation, which he found to be at odds. He did not believe that solution would address the design and safety needs of the project. He suggested that some traffic calming measures be employed to maintain additional safety elements, and that any unsafe condition be mitigated. He did not perceive any Board support for the north-south orientation, and believed the existing east- west condition was the orientation to be pursued. He believed the timeframe should also be discussed. Board member McNamara believed the Board's frustration stemmed from the presentation of this project in a piecemeal fashion, and believed there were more recent site plans than those from 2003 to accompany the most recent changes. She supported the east-west alternative, and although it was not optimal by any means, she believed it was the best of the two alternatives presented. She suggested that the Board add a condition with some traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps or raised crosswalks that cross the access road. In response to an inquiry by Board member Kohlstrand regarding the timeline, Mr. Garrison noted that the condition was written to set up definite timelines and milestones; the first was to get the agreement of the property owners, then the permits and then to complete the construction. He noted that the three-month interval was an estimate made by the applicant. Planning Board Minutes Page 6 April 23, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-04-23.pdf |