pages: PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-08-22 | 10 | Ms. Mariani noted she was happily surprised by the current plans, and complimented Raley's on the compromises they made. She stated that she found it difficult to notice transformers, and did not believe they would be burdensome in this project; she preferred them to a big box along the waterway. She believed they could be camouflaged by landscaping. Ms. Kohlstrand advised she had no major concerns. Vice President Cook noted that she had concerns regarding the changes that were not made, particularly the fact that the buildings were treated as having a back door instead of two front doors. The landscape plan did not change her perspective with respect to the orientation between the waterside of the buildings and the waterfront. She saw very few amenities, except for those required by BCDC. She saw very few benches and amenities, and would like people to be able to walk alongside the north side of the building to go shop to shop. She noted that would not be possible because of the grass breaking up the pavement between shopping entrances. She did not see any doors leading out to the waterside from Building B. She was pleased to see the coffee shop tenant would provide tables and chairs, and believed the landlord should also provide tables and chairs that would be permanently affixed outside for people to use for waterside picnics. She wanted to see more articulation and recessed door fronts along the waterside of the building to create a more interesting pedestrian environment. She was strongly opposed to the transformers, and did not believe they were inconspicuous. She expressed concern that the grading necessary for the amphitheatre was not included, although the Board had requested that condition. She was generally dissatisfied with this plan, and believed it did not adequately relate to the waterfront in a manner that would do justice to this unique site. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Piziali regarding the trees, Mr. Tai confirmed that since the staff report was written, the applicant has agreed to move the trees toward Blanding. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch regarding Vice President Cook's comments regarding the grading, Mr. Tai responded that the original amphitheatre proposed did not have specific grading details that would indicate how it would be sloped. When staff received the construction documents, they realized that the amphitheatre area as shown on the plans could be improved upon so it would have more amphitheatre character and more lighting. Staff discovered that the grade difference between the front and the back end of the amphitheatre was only two feet, making it impossible to terrace the amphitheatre to create an actual staging area. Staff decided to place trees along the back and create a wedge-shaped public area that focused on the stage. President Cunningham suggested that the developer bring in some dirt to make more of a grade. Mr. Doug Weile, Foothill Partners, stated that it would not be a problem to bring additional fill material into the site. The issues had to do with the surrounding properties; there was a fence line on the property line separating the site from Union Pacific, and Planning Board Minutes Page 10 August 22, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-08-22.pdf |