1983-12-15-CRC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 2 L Nichols reported that the Land Use Subcommittee is opposed to the use of the residential areas around the Center for parking areas for employees and customers of the Center The group felt that since the Belfry Lot was not fully utilized at present , further parking in the area could not be justified There was no objection from the Land Use Subcommittee to the development of parking at the end of Park Drive adjacent to the playground W Tonaszuck said that this area was too far from the Center and there was no demand for parking in this area The Land Use Subcommittee is also concerned with safety because of cars backing on to Muzzey Street It would also be difficult to develop the area without worsening the water problems in the area W Tonaszuck also met Don Olson, representing the neighbors There was a lot of negative reaction from the neighbors to the proposal It was felt that if there was to be any parking developed, then it should be behind the church M Battin summarized the concerns expressed by all the people contacted The school department had no problem with parking directly on Park Drive However, even this area would require a 2/3 vote in Town Meeting and 2/3 vote in the Great and General Court T Wege from the Chamber of Commerce said that the proposal should be pursued since the 195 spaces would help alleviate the present shortage of 221 spaces The Chamber would like to see money spent where it would have the most effect to alleviate the parking problem M Battin asked if there was agreement that it would be unwise to proceed with a proposal for a large parking area adjacent to the high school and perpendicular parking on Muzzey because of widespread opposition and our own concerns about safety and aesthetics The committee agreed W Tonaszuck reviewed the options for other development on Park Drive The first was to build 54 spaces of parallel parking for $31 ,000 The second option was to build the 54 spaces with another 10 behind the church for $39 , 000 The third option was to build 86 spaces of perpendicular parking on Park Drive for $82,000 The third option has the problem of cars backing out on to Park Drive and it was being studied to see what the upper limit was in the number of spaces that could be built in the area The above costs are for construction only and do not include cost of landscaping the area L Nichols proposed a compromise of parallel parking on the south side of Park Drive and perpendicular parking on the north side of Park Drive behind the church There would be no parking behind the three houses on Forest Street closest to Waltham Street M Battin asked if the CRC would at least keep space available on the Warrant for development of a parking area and continue to explore more limited parking on Park Drive in line with the Nichols Proposal Meriam Street Lot The discussion turned to the Meriam Street lot W Tonaszuck said there were generally 26 to 28 empty spaces in the permit area In a survey, they found 9 cars with permits had not used to lot in a whole week The permit area has 76 spaces and 94 permits had been sold J Bateson said that the lot was underutilized, but that there were times when people with permits could not find space there W Tonaszuck said there were 30 people on the waiting Iist for permits in the Meriam Street lot , but