pages: PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 11 | consistent. She wanted to ensure that the parking requirements were consistent, and inquired where the public would park in order to use the public access area of the amphitheatre. Mr. Levesque responded that the office building parking lots on either side of the Shipways were virtually vacant during the weekends. He added that reserved parking stalls for the public were also located in the parking lots, and that quite a few spaces were available in the office parking lots. President Cunningham inquired whether any potential uses had been considered for the bodies of water between the fingers. Mr. Levesque replied that they had not looked at the ability to get access in that area yet. He noted that the concrete structure was essentially one big block, and displayed the area on the screen. He noted that a retaining wall would be built and filled in to provide the lawn area in front of the residential units. Ms. McNamara noted that she did not see any railings, and inquired whether there were any plans to install them along the waterfront. Mr. Parker confirmed there would be safety railings installed along the entire perimeter. Vice President Cook believed a site tour would be very helpful on this project. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the schedule for this project, Mr. Parker replied that they would like to enter the housing market in its current condition and that they hoped to meet a timely schedule. He noted that this was a complex site to work with regarding cost and structural issues. He encouraged the Board members to visit the site. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand, Ms. Altschuler replied that there was currently no requirement for guest parking in the Zoning Ordinance, and that there was a requirement for two spaces for each unit. She added that the 0.7 parking ratio was slightly larger than most projects the Board has approved over the last 15 years; the guest parking ratio is normally 0.5. Mr. Parker advised that they viewed the parking as being self-contained within the project, and not dependent on using any of the office parking. The perception of the high ratio came from the space provided by the garage. The Board comments were noted. No action was taken. A public hearing will be scheduled for a future agenda. Planning Board Minutes Page 11 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |