pages: PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2010-05-24 | 7 | Mr. Kim, Elm Street resident, while supportive of redevelopment, is concerned about the traffic circulation pattern and the appearance of a closed-off development without easy public access to park spaces. He added that the design of the development is not pedestrian friendly. He recommended that the developer be asked to provide some economic feasibility analysis to explain to the public why the number of dwelling units is so high. Mr. Ratto, Executive Director Park Street Business Association, spoke in favor of the reduced density concept and expressed his hopes that this project will remedy the blighted appearance of the property and spark the Park Street renaissance. He supported the 2- acre park and the narrowing of Blanding Avenue through the development. Mr. Jones, Alameda resident, is concerned that the traffic impacts will be significant on Park Street. He requested that public amenities be included in the development. Ms. McNally, Alameda resident, finds it difficult to understand the Density Bonus and how it is applied to projects in Alameda. Ms. Decker, Alameda resident, is in favor of the redevelopment of the site with a sustainable, pedestrian-oriented development. She recommended that the higher buildings are stepped back from public space frontages to create a favorable pedestrian environment. Mr. Krueger, Alameda resident, favors extending the street grid to continue through the site. He is concerned that the proposed project would appear to be closed-off and prevent public access to the waterfront. He recommends that Elm Street be continued down to the waterfront. President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period. Board Member Kohlstrand commended the effort to revise the project. She is supportive of the green space extending from Clement Avenue towards the waterfront, with parking and vehicular access. However, she strongly encouraged that Elm Street and Blanding Avenue be extended through the site. The streets need to have standard widths and must maintain the streetscape of the rest of the City. She favors removing alleyways and pedestrian pathways and integrating vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian pathways, plus adding on- street parking. She is concerned that the current proposal does not provide adequate access to the waterfront or public parking spaces for this use. Instead of higher buildings, she prefers allowing reduced or zero side yard setbacks. Board member Cunningham is concerned that the streets' width and feel will not be compatible with the rest of the city. He supports continuing Elm Street to the waterfront and is concerned that there are six access points for traffic onto Clement Avenue. Board member Cook is supportive of the sustainable development aspects, but is concerned that the applicant is not really addressing concerns raised in the last meeting, Planning Board Page 7 of 8 Approved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010 | PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf |