pages: PlanningBoard/2010-06-21.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2010-06-21 | 5 | Philip Banta, project architect, thanked the audience for their support. He began his presentation by answering some questions brought up during the public comment period. He stated that there is guest parking on Blanding Avenue, Elm Street and along the loop. There is also additional parking on Clement Avenue, which is currently available. The developer will design the park to incorporate the Bay Trail. The waterfront plan does have a staircase leading down to the water's edge, which could accommodate a kayak ramp. The plan will also include market rate units available in the multi-family dwellings. He thanked the City of Alameda for their hard work on the project. Mr. Banta mentioned that the two parties are on agreement on just about everything except for Item 7 on Exhibit B, Conditions and Clarifications-Elm Street Extension Park Loop. The developer has planned a tighter loop that goes behind the homes and not in the front. Mr. Banta asked that the Planning Board adopt the resolution proposed by staff with an amendment to condition number 7. Board member Kohlstand asked how wide the pedestrian walkway adjacent to the parking at the foot of Oak Street will be. Mr. Banta replied that it is a 5' sidewalk next to the on-street parking locations. Boardmember Autorino stated that he liked the developer's idea for the Elm Street Extension Loop and agreed that the loop should be behind the homes. Regarding the parking on Oak Street he requested that the area be made aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Banta stated that the area will be part of the entrance experience and will be treated in a special way. President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if any of the board members had any questions or comments regarding the proposed resolution. Boardmember Kohlstrand asked whether mitigation measure 4.B-? (top of Exhibit B, p.12) was stating that queue-jumper lanes would be installed or not. In reference to queue- jumper lanes, she asked why the queue-jumper lanes at the new Webster Street intersection had not been installed. The Planning Services Manager stated that the traffic consultant had re-evaluated the lower density alternative and had found that the traffic impact from the lower density alternative would be less than the 242 unit. However, the impact on the speed of public transit on Park Street would not significantly changed with the lower density alternative. As a result queue- jumper lanes would not be installed in the short-term, but would be required in the future, as Park Street would have to be redesigned within the 20-year timeframe. He also pointed out that Public Works was working on improving the streetscape and increasing transit speed as needed pending the full build-out of Alameda Point and other large-scale developments come online. Planning Board Page 5 of 7 Approved Meeting Minutes 6/21/2010 | PlanningBoard/2010-06-21.pdf |