pages: PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 7 | from surrounding buildings. He believed that the guidelines meant a modernist building rather than contemporary. He suggested that the overly strong horizontal proportions be toned down for visual balance with respect to the surrounding buildings; the two-foot projection should be deleted. The three-foot project should be incorporated as an option to be considered by the architect. He did not believe the Oak Street side of the Cineplex should be notched to show the parking garage; it should be a continuous façade. He did not believe this project should have internally illuminated signs, box signs or individually canned letters; the sidewalk along Oak Street should be at least 12 feet wide to accommodate any large crowds. Mr. Arthur Lipow spoke in opposition to this item. He believed that the public funds could be put to better use than the theater and parking structure, given the current economy of the State and the City. He believed the East Bay already had too many movie screens, and did not believe it was an economically viable project. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. Little noted that the vertical elements that would require ADA access were in the new building, not the historic building. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham regarding the seating capacity, Ms. Little replied that approximately 1,100 seats would be installed. Vice President Cook believed that it was important to be aware of the flexibility of the development deal, and that the tradeoffs would be reflected in design accommodations in the new building. Ms. Little noted that the developer and the architect were anxious to proceed with the project, and added that the comments were very valuable. She noted that the design guidelines were not intended to become complicated, but were an attempt to get good qualitative comments in the beginning of the process. Mr. Lynch agreed with a number of items presented during the public hearing. He did not believe the allocation of public dollars was within his purview as a Board member; the elected leadership of the City Council made that determination. He noted that some ideas will not be incorporated, given the economics of the deal; he noted that the comments presented would be difficult to digest at one time. He suggested that this brainstorming process would have worked well on the department level, to be culminated with a session before the Planning Board. Ms. Mariani agreed with Mr. Lynch's assessment regarding the amount of information to distill. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Mariani regarding the interior design, Ms. Little replied that it would be presented during the design review. Planning Board Minutes Page 7 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |