pages: PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-05-09 | 8 | the parking structure must be weighed against the total budget of the project. Mr. Robert Wood, 259 Oyster Pond, noted that he would reluctantly criticize the design because the parking garage had been anticipated by the area for decades. He believed this structure had the most minimal of design aspirations of almost any structure in the area. He supposed the garage was mechanically ventilated, and was afraid that the massing and scale of the building would be oppressive. He believed a massing study should be done, and that the top two floors of the garage should be set back; he believed that 15 parking spaces would be lost in that scenario. He would like to see a Specific Plan for this area, and was concerned that Long's may develop a 60-foot-high building on the block because the City did not take the initiative to study and provide limitations on such structures. Mr. Kevin Frederick, 1287 Caroline Street, spoke in opposition to this item and believed the structure was extremely unattractive and uninspired. Mr. Jon Spangler, 1037 San Antonio, noted that in his seven years of residence in Alameda, he's never had a problem parking on Park Street, partly because he rode a bicycle often, and partly because he did not mind walking a few blocks. He endorsed Mr. Buckley's comments. He agreed with Mr. Woods' comments about the massing, and believed the sunlight would be blocked in the morning. He did not believe the massing would be appropriate, and expressed concern about the visual pollution that would be caused by the uplighting. He believed planters should be interspersed between the storefront-size poster displays. He did not believe artwork and vinyl were compatible; he suggested that a bas relief mural would be appropriate. He believed bike logo signs and bike text signs that specify that bikes are allowed to enter at the bike logo area, and in the main driveway. He noted that this was not the first design choice, and would like the design to be redone so that it is the first choice. He urged the Board to take Mr. Buckley's and Mr. Woods' comments into account. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding parking, Mr. Stanton confirmed that the sixth floor would contain parking on the whole floor. He displayed the façade and stated that the rationale behind the vinyl art wall was that it was a property line wall that required significant four-hour construction. The Building Official believed that penetrations would be inconsistent with safety standards for the City, particularly with a relatively high hazard occupancy like a garage. Given the limited budget for the project, they tried to invest in the best quality materials and desirable on the permanent Oak Street façade. It was hoped that the Long's site will eventually be redeveloped in a way more consistent with downtown Alameda; a corner parking lot on a major intersection was not the standard pattern of Alameda's commercial districts. He noted that vines had been considered, but the north facing façade and height of the building made that impractical. A reciprocal easement with Long's for trees had been explored, but did not pan out. He noted that any art may stay on the façade for up to three years, but that the form and medium was in the preliminary stage. Ms. Ott described the Public Art Ordinance, and noted that they were making a good faith effort to Planning Board Minutes Page 8 May 9, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-09.pdf |