HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 1/7/2010
ZON2009-00027
Development Issues Meeting - Springfield Utility Board
Proposed Drive-up Kiosk - 250 A Street (Map 17-03-35-32, TL 2700 & 2800)
-.
e.
Q1. SUB believes there will be no measurable impact on circulation patterns on A Street. Does the
City agree or have concerns?
A: PW Transportation to comment.
Q2. Does the City have any concerns about the canopy structure or location that SUB has not
addressed?
A: PW Transportation to comment.
The canopy would be considered an accessory structure. However, there is no provision for
accessory structures of any type in the Mixed Use Commercial (MUG) District (ref. SDC 3.2-610).
Also, automobile-oriented uses such as drive-up windows/kiosks are generally discouraged in the
MUC. The City may sup'port replacement of the existing payment drop box with a comparable
pneumatic kiosk, but without the canopy. In case the question arises, the Development Code does
contemplate public transit stations (bus stop canopies) as a permitted use in the district (ref. SDC
3.2-610).
It is not clear whether the existing or proposed kiosk encroaches into the public right-of-way for A
Street. Any improvements would have to be located entirely within the site boundary.
Q3. Does the City have any concerns about pedestrian safety that SUB has not addressed?
A: PW Transportation to comment.
Planning advises the kiosk should not affect pedestrian safety as it is set back from the. public
sidewalk and the crosswalk to the building entrance is to be equipped with striping and signage.
Because vehicles may cross the sidewalk at an oblique angle, signage that reminds drivers to
watch for pedestrians as they exit the driveway may be advisable.
Q4. Does the City have any concerns about lighting and/or visibility that SUB has not addressed?
A: PW Transportation to comment.
Planning advises that on-site safety is the responsibility of the property owner. In the MUC, there is
no provision for canopies that are supported by posts or backlit, even on building facades (ref. SDC
3.2-625.C.4&5). It appears the kiosk design does not provide a hiding place or obstruct visibility out
to the street.
Q5. Is there any additional information SUB needs to provide as the process moves forward?
A: PW Transportation to comment.
Planning advises that a covered kiosk is not viable in this location based on' restrictions of the
zoning district. .
Date Rece.ived:-4~
Plannc,r: i"L