pages: PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-11-26 | 6 | the 20-foot-wide sidewalk in front of the large format. Mr. Sullivan confirmed that would occur, and that access ramps would be included where the crosswalks were located. He added that the sidewalks would be at the asphalt level, and the planters would be raised adjacent to them. Member McNamara inquired why that plan would be more challenging from a car perspective than all the current cutouts included in the plan. Mr. Sullivan replied that any vehicle circulating in this parking lot must decide whether to keep circulating in the parking lot looking for a space, or to leave the parking field. He displayed the circulation plan and a discussion of driving and pedestrian circulation options ensued. He noted that from the retailers' point of view, a compromise must be reached between the cars and the pedestrians. He added that the retailers like 4.5 spaces per 1000, and that they were already pushing the limits. He noted that the goal of the plan was to make finding parking space easier for the shopper. They hoped that people parked once and circulated on foot, and he emphasized that they needed to create the safest possible environment for pedestrians. Member Lynch believed the Planning Board and the applicants had a difference of opinion about the retail environment. He noted that they were trying to mix different types of shopping styles, and wished to commend the Planning Department and the applicant for returning with a compromise plan. He believed that while the compromise plan was not perfect, it was better than the previous plan. Member Mariani noted that she shared the concerns previously expressed, and that she concurred with Member Lynch's comments. Member Cunningham inquired about the primary points of access to the site. Mr. Sullivan replied that the major points of access were off of Fifth, and displayed the three intersections. He added that secondary points of access were off of Mitchell, as well as Stargell. Member Cunningham expressed concerns about the traffic movement off the west road along Blocks B, C and D, and that the width of road going into the parking stalls were the same width as featured in the compromise plan. He believed that was a safety issue, and believed that the 90-degree parking along the faces of D, E and F could be a potential problem. He did not believe the users of the handicapped stalls would be able to get out easily with the traffic flows. He would wholeheartedly support the compromise plan, and that having open islands at the end would work well. He suggested using the solution for that quadrant in the approved plan of September 24th, which would have a net loss of 52 spaces and featured an enhanced pedestrian configuration. Mr. Sullivan believed that could be achieved with a loss of only 26 spaces. Member Cunningham inquired about the stated flexibility within the agreement for the Department to allow a variation of 20% of floor area. He inquired what would trigger a return to the Planning Board. Mr. Thomas replied that the discussion of parking in the original Master Plan called for a minimum of 5:1000, followed by months of extensive discussion and negotiation. The discussion of parking then became a discussion of Page 6 of 10 | PlanningBoard/2007-11-26.pdf |