pages: PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-10-24 | 11 | Ms. Congleton advised that this store was Target's smallest format of 127,000 square feet, placed on a podium. She noted that with the podium design there would be additional parking space inside, and that it would be more pedestrian-friendly and more appropriate for an urban setting. She added that unless Target would be able to build the 127,000 square foot building with a lower design, they would not come to Alameda. President Cunningham noted that another solution would be place the store on the ground, with the parking on the top floor with ramps. Ms. Congleton noted that might affect the aesthetics of the roofline. A discussion of the store's pedestrian orientation ensued. President Cunningham would support a smart growth development. Mr. Piziali inquired whether there was any other option beside the podium design. Ms. Congleton noted that parking was always the toughest issue for her clients, and that they tried to find attractive solutions to hide the cars without requiring more asphalt area for parking. Ms. Congleton reviewed the requests for information by the Board members, and noted that she would be pleased to present them: 1. Developing additional quantifications; 2. Addressing issues regarding potential tenants around Target; 3. Addressing the fiscal impact on the Island; 4. Discuss the Port of Oakland and the impact of the number of housing units and; 5. The scale of the overall development. Mr. Knopf noted that the Board requested supporting data behind the assertions made by the economic consultant, especially that Target would rely on 80% of its clientele from Alameda. He noted that Ms. Congleton's report did not address that issue in more depth was because of an analysis performed in 2003 by Strategic Economics. Ms. Lynch advised that he would also like that data to be delivered to the public. Mr. Knopf discussed retail capture patterns, and noted that this report assumed a 30-40% capture rate for sporting goods, and between 60-75% in general merchandise capture due to proximity. With respect to duplication of anchors, Mr. Piziali inquired how many years remained in Mervyn's lease. Mr. Corbett replied that was proprietary information. In response to an inquiry by President Cunningham, Ms. Eliason replied that the next step would be staff working with the applicant on design, and that a design workshop may be held. The economic information would be brought to the Board when the environmental and traffic information is available, which she anticipated to occur in approximately two months. Planning Board Minutes Page 11 October 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf |