pages: PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 5 | 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8-A. Study Session Theater (DSD/JA). Study Session to review revisions for Design Guidelines to construct a new 7-screen Cineplex and 352-space parking structure on the Video Maniac site. This site is located at 2305 Central Avenue within the CC - CCPD, Community Commercial and Special Planned Development Districts. (Continued from the meeting of February 14, 2005.) Ms. Kohlstrand advised that she would recuse herself from this item because she was a principal with the firm of EnviroTrans Solutions, which performed the traffic analysis for the combined parking garage/theater analysis. Ms. Leslie Little, Development Services, advised that the theater's design would be addressed at this study session, and that they would present revised guidelines. She advised that Michael Stanton could not attend this session, and that Brian Lyles would speak on behalf of the project developer. President Cunningham advised that eight speaker slips had been received. M/S Mariani/McNamara to limit the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES - 3 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cunningham, Cook); ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand) The public hearing was opened. Mr. Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, 1017 San Antonio Avenue, requested to speak after the letter from AAPS had been distributed to the Board members. Mr. Richard Rutter, 2205 Clinton Avenue, advised that he had distributed a letter to the Board. He noted that there was considerable detail on the exterior, but that there was less information regarding the interior of the project. If it was a partial package, he believed it should be not as such; if not, he requested an explanation regarding the missing information. He believed the developer's architect should be given maximum design creativity within a set of design guidelines. Mr. Scott Brady, 1812 Encinal Avenue, former chairman of the Historic Advisory Board, noted that he was an architect. He believed the guidelines were unnecessarily restrictive, and that the wording in the draft guideline would lead the designer to a design very similar to the elevations in the packet. He noted that those elevations were labeled for reference only, and should be eliminated from the packet; the reference design was not compatible with the guidelines and featured a large blank walls. He believed the addition to the theater should remain secondary to the existing theater; the art deco architecture were the primary elements on the short block, and any contemporary design would complicate and detract from the main element of the original theater. Planning Board Minutes Page 5 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |