pages: PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-01-24 | 8 | In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding an alternative to this practice, Mr. Alexander replied that trash enclosures throughout the property would be the alternative. Mr. Lynch believed that conformity with City Code should be the overriding factor, followed by design. In response to Vice President Cook's question regarding parking, Mr. Tai confirmed that the site was underparked according to Code. Current parking standards require two parking spaces per dwelling unit, and this property would need 1230 spaces, where approximately 670 currently exist. The applicants proposed to increase the number of parking spaces to approximately 699 spaces by restriping the lots and by using compact spaces. Ms. Barbara Hawkins, Public Works Department, distributed a photo of a trash compactor and the access route. She noted that the new NEPDS requirements called for a roof on the trash compactor to accommodate the truck, which would be two stories. The compactor must be operated with a key, which would be a safety issue. The third issue with the compactor is that it did not comply with the City recycling standards. City staff met with ACI to determine the best solution to the trash issue. ACI had performed a study, finding that people usually took their trash out when they went to their cars, and that placing trash containers near the parking areas was the best practice. In addition, the trash enclosures must be high enough to keep children from playing on them. With respect to circulation, Ms. Kohlstrand believed that the constraints of the existing site must be recognized, and that the applicant was going in the right direction by removing the concrete. She was encouraged to see the connections to Appezzato Parkway. In response to her question regarding the nature of the breaks in the wall, Chris Auxier replied that they would be primarily used by the residents. A discussion of the physical attributes of the fence and the gates ensued. In response to Ms. Kohlstrand's question regarding pedestrian access at Fifth Street and Buena Vista, Mr. Auxier replied that was an area where they did not have the intention to create a public path through the property; it was intended for use by residents. Vice President Cook noted that there was a broad visual corridor at Fifth Street and Buena Vista, especially through the pool area. She was concerned that the proposed garages would impair those visual sightlines. President Cunningham suggested that the location of the gable ends of the proposed garages may be changed to help direct sightlines in a particular direction. Architectural Design Comments President Cunningham invited comment on the three design solutions for the stair tower. He concurred with Mr. Alexander that Option 1 would be the preferred scheme. Planning Board Minutes Page 8 January 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-24.pdf |