pages: PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2020-11-23 | 11 | President Teague asked the applicant if it were possible to close the second-floor outdoor area earlier. Mr. Cukierman explained the challenges and why that would not work. President Teague opened up public comments. Keith Wiseman, a resident, was very concerned about the noise and did not see the issue closing at 10 pm and mentioned other popular restaurants and bars that close at 10 pm. He was also concerned with delivery trucks and buses causing a bottleneck situation on Webster St and felt that there had to be parking made available. Janet Sow, a resident, had concerns about safety and parking. She felt strongly that there should be parking for the patrons and felt that that corner was very busy. She also pointed out other senior citizens' housing that would be affected by the noise. President Teague closed public comments and opened board discussions. Board Member Hom felt fine about the noise and 2 am closing time with the condition that it be brought back for review if there are issues. He also felt that there was an insufficient design detail for him to feel confident delegating the design review to the staff. Vice President Saheba would like to see this project come back for design review and suggested to refine the trellis and extend it out toward Webster St. He also pushed for as many sustainable features as they could do. Board Member Cisneros is happy that WABA (West Alameda Business Association) is in support of this project, and she also supports this project. She did strongly feel that the applicant should have a rideshare drop off space. Board Member Ruiz believes the use permit is appropriate for this site but she does have concerns about the 2 am closing time. She agrees with the staff's last-minute assessment, she could not approve parking reduction but could support a variance when it comes in. She also agreed that the design should come before the board for design review. Board Member Curtis agreed the design should come before the board for design review and that after a year the noise level should be evaluated and brought back for review. For the hours of operation, it depends on the demands and if the extended time is needed that is up to the proprietor. He believed this was a good project and supported it. Board Member Rothenberg agreed with the general comments and conditions that had been noted and with the urgency that the parking variance coming back at the December meeting. She also wanted the board to do the design review and second Vice President Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 11 of 15 November 23, 2020 | PlanningBoard/2020-11-23.pdf |