pages: PlanningBoard/2020-05-11.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2020-05-11 | 3 | Board Member Saheba agreed with Board Member Rothenberg, the Universal Design is setting a higher standard than the baseline code. Also is aware of the unique challenges, but looking at the entire site believes overall goals are being achieved. Board Member Teague was also disappointed but understood. The main issue is that there is no accessible path to the front door. He would like to see the units made adaptable for seniors, lower mobility, and other need occupants. Items listed from the Disability Commission's list that should be included. If these items are met he could approve. Board Member Hom also agreed with most of the comments that have already been expressed. Also agreed that at this point, doing a complete redesign is not a realistic option. Though very sympathetic to the hardships the site presents and understanding why choices were made after reading the engineer's report, he believes they can be still better with regards to accessibility and visitability. Though the applicant needs to step up and propose some additional measures, not sure what those items are, and wanted more discussion. President Curtis agreed with his colleagues. The problem with the inaccessibility is due to the grades. The applicant is asking for a "black and white" solution by having the board waive these requirements. He understands why there is a low percentage of pf accessibility but believes these units can be made adaptable. Did not want to give the applicant a blanket approval on the waiver. Director Thomas suggested that the Board ask the applicant about the list and if they have considered Board Member Teague's suggestions. Mr. McGillis said he understood the concerns and additions suggested by the board, however, the townhomes are just not conducive to the universal design criteria. He then described the challenges of incorporating accessibility within the small footprint of the area. He said they are very open to the list for adaptability. Shona Armstrong, Boatworks LLC, said of the list Board Member Teague presented there were four they are reluctant to be part of the condition. The automatic stove shut off, slip resistance floors, anti-glare counters, and tactile method edge detection. They would strive to include others but mentioned how little time the applicant had with the list. Board Member Teague believes the applicant could work with staff on reasonable solutions for materials used in the kitchen and bath. He asked the applicant if they would use built-in ovens and stoves. Mr. MiGillis said they did not know. Board Member Teague is comfortable if the applicant works with staff on these issues. Director Thomas said they will write the condition of approval very clearly. When the project comes back for design review they will discuss these four items. Board Member Ruiz said she is satisfied with the interior concerns but still had concerns about visitability. She offered thoughts on how to increase visibility on the interior units. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 3 of 10 May 11, 2020 | PlanningBoard/2020-05-11.pdf |