Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff objects to removal of cross-access in Edmonton State Bank parking plan
Summary
City staff brought back a revised site plan for an Edmonton State Bank ATM relocation and a 10-space lot on a 0.19-acre CS-zoned parcel after the applicant removed a previously approved cross-access connection; applicant and adjacent property owner prefer the removal, while engineering said removal is not recommended because the connection was part of the prior approval.
Charlie Peoria, the city’s staff planner, presented a site plan for Edmonton State Bank to relocate an ATM and construct a 10-space parking lot on a 0.19-acre parcel zoned Commercial Services (CS) at 242 West Broadway. Peoria told commissioners the plan previously came to the commission about a year earlier as an alternative parking plan; the current submission removes a cross-access that had been shown and approved in that earlier plan, which staff judged a fairly significant change and therefore brought it back to the commission for review.
Lisonbee Turner of Greenwood Design, representing the applicant, told the commission the owner and the adjacent strip-center owner both prefer eliminating the cross-access because of confusing circulation and conflicts with drive-thru traffic. Turner said the proposal would internalize the ATM to the building and add parking that should “clean up the drive aisle.”
An engineering representative told the commission it was not the department’s recommendation to remove the connection because the original approval included the cross-connect and that approval assumed the connection would be shown; when the applicant later submitted an administrative site plan the access was removed without recording the change. Engineering said the previously shown cross-access had been part of a plan approved in September and that the city should work to resolve the discrepancy.
Commissioners generally agreed the applicant’s proposed change could improve immediate circulation but acknowledged engineering’s concern about removing a connection that had been part of prior approvals. The applicant was told to return in a couple of weeks for further action and coordination with city engineering; the transcript contains no recorded vote.
