pages: PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-09-24 | 4 | was not an endorsement of a particular footprint. Both buildings will be subject to a future development plan and design review application to be reviewed by the Planning Board. President Cook noted that the siting of the buildings were originally set in place because the City wanted to retain the warehouse structures. She inquired whether the Planning Board would have the ability to review the two westernmost new buildings and reconsider their siting. Mr. Thomas replied that it would be possible, and noted that the Clif Bar building and shed were both already approved, and the location was set. The location of every other building on this site plan was still subject to the Planning Board's review and approval through the development plan and design review. Ms. Altschuler added that the revised plan showed a continuous access along the area, which allowed the Bay Trail to come straight into the site, eliminating the previous jog around several buildings. In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding keeping pedestrians safe from the bicyclists, Ms. Altschuler replied that a 12-foot minimum area was required on most of the Bay Trail, and that there would be sufficient room with 44 feet to accommodate both uses safely. She added that benches would be added to invite pedestrians to stop and rest on the trail. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Christopher Buckley noted that he submitted a letter to the Planning Board, and spoke in support of retaining the second warehouse. He believed one of the more compelling features of the original project was maintaining the look of a working waterfront; he believed that the generous length of the two warehouse structures provided that look. He believed that removing the second warehouse reduced the original visual context for the working waterfront, and he did not believe it would provide the sense of place provided by the original concept. He requested clarification of the statement in the staff report that suggested the possibility that the remaining warehouse may need to be removed, that the proposed amendments will define and clarify where a new building would need to be placed if a decision is made in the future to demolish the existing waterfront would have as currently planned for Clif Bar. He inquired whether the Planning Board would be asked to preliminarily endorse the idea of removing the Clif Bar warehouse, and replacing it with a new structure. He suggested using a lighter- weight, more cost-effective planking for the section of wharf over the pilings, such as the wood plankings shown in the illustrations on top of the existing pilings. He believed it was necessary to resolve these issues so that Clif Bar may move ahead on schedule, and suggested that if the City would like to study the options concerning the second warehouse, that the Clif Bar phase to move ahead at the same time. Page 4 of 18 | PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf |