pages: PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-01-14 | 7 | Vice President Kohlstrand noted that when there was a lot of land with low density development, it was a fact of economics that there would not be a lot of structured parking. She noted that because of that tradeoff, some of the City's lofty goals may not be realized. Mr. Thomas noted that it would not be wise to include policies that were not possible to achieve, but it would be desirable to include policies as goals to move toward. President Cook noted that the proposed goal stated that if it cannot be achieved, it should be provided in structures located behind or beside the retail or mixed use buildings, and would like to further discourage "beside," which she believed interfered with the streetscape and pedestrian streetscape. She suggested the wording read, .located behind, or if there is no alternative, beside the retail or mixed use building" to identify a hierarchy of preferences as a goal, rather than a prescriptive. Board Member Lynch noted that University Village in Seattle was an outstanding shopping experience that had very small stores. He noted that the parking was woven through the development, with some parking beside or behind the stores, with walking paths and paths throughout. He noted that could not be possible if President Cook's wording was included. Board member McNamara suggested the following change to the sentence she previously referenced: "discourage construction of new large parking areas in order to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle and other modes.. " Mr. Thomas noted that he would reword the entire policy. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that 2.5(x) contained some key issues, and acknowledged Mr. Thomas' effort to distill the Board's concerns. She suggested specifically stating that there should be sidewalks on both sides of the streets, that the number of curb cuts should be limited, and that the existing block pattern in Alameda should be replicated. She suggested limiting the block length to 150 to 250 feet might be too small. She recalled that the Board had grappled with the public versus private streets, which was a financial issue as well as a design issue. She believed it was very important to keep streets in the public realm. She suggested limiting the number of curb cuts and parking area so the uses must provide all the circulation on-site. She wished to avoid using the blocks as a circulation aisle for the parking lot. Board Member Lynch noted that Santana Row in San Jose has become a promenade, and that parking is no longer allowed on the street. Mr. Thomas noted that there were two different kinds of streets: Park Street, which had a lot of through traffic and acted as a buffer for pedestrians; and Santana Row, which was more of a cul de sac. He cited the portion of Fifth Street north of Mitchell as a similar situation. Vice President Kohlstrand suggested that on-street parking be provided unless there were certain small-scale pedestrian retail environments where it may not be appropriate. Page 7 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf |