pages: PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-06-25 | 10 | Board member Cunningham wanted to ensure the highest and best use was being addressed, and that the potential 50 feet of asphalt would not interfere with that. Vice President Cook would like the public right of way to include the sidewalks, and believed it would be good to connect the waterfront residential uses with the College of Alameda at some point in the future. Board member Kohlstrand resisted the notion of creating more pavement, and noted that was it already paved; she was arguing for a different use of the paved space. Mr. Thomas suggested that the Board may continue this item with the request that the applicant present three alternative ways to deal with the north-south sidewalk. President Lynch suggested that the Board members' thoughts be taken and incorporated in order to make a determination. Mr. Thomas reviewed the conditions of approval to be included. An appropriate place for the pick-up and drop-off being covered and lighted next to the ride share area should be added. The rear sidewalk behind Buildings C and D may have an minimum of five feet of unobstructed space in all places. The landscape plan shall come to the Planning Board for final review and approval. A condition already existed to address the transformers, and that the "big green boxes" and utilities be placed behind the buildings, not in front on Fifth Street. The sidewalk on the south side of Building A should be straightened out for pedestrian use, and a sidewalk would be added on the south side of the road, from Mariners Square to Fifth Street. The north-south sidewalk would be included down the length of the project. Board member Kohlstrand expressed concern about Condition 7 of the new Draft Resolution and would like to have a representative from Department of Public Works to respond to the concerns. Mr. Thomas noted that the Department of Public Works was concerned about a potential scenario where they may determine at a future date that the situation was dangerous, which was the reason for the condition as it existed. He noted that any decision to modify this project in the future would have to come back to the Planning Board for review and approval. He suggested following Vice President Cook's suggestion to approve the site plan with the exception of the north-south roadway and the sidewalks, which could be addressed at a future date with Public Works. Mr. Tiernan noted that they would return with specific plans for Building A, which was 80% of the frontage on the street. Those specific plans could be coupled with various options explored for how to handle the north-south street, and could take place later in the summer. Page 10 of 13 | PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf |