pages: PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-02-13 | 7 | to the street and to the water. In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch regarding the height limitation, Mr. Grayson replied that in Harbor Bay, buildings could be constructed up to 35 feet. This particular site would be 34 feet. Member Lynch believed that a 34 foot height limit was a limiting factor, and forced several parameters. He would not mind having a three-story building on this site with proper massing. He believed that this project was needed, and suggested that a second-floor entrance be considered. Mr. Grayson noted that one project with that arrangement did not work as well as anticipated. He noted that his clients did not favor larger buildings. Mr. Stuart Sheinholtz, Venture Corporation, project developer, noted that they generally sold to small businesses, and that the first project in Alameda was very successful. He noted that a very diverse group of businesses were buying properties in the site. He agreed with Vice President Cook's comments. He noted that this site was fully landscaped, and that they maximized their views; they made successful use of flex- space. Member Mariani would like to see a second, more creative submission by the architect, and that the space could be used in a more accessible way on the weekends. Mr. Sheinholtz noted that this was primarily a business park, and that when people used it on the weekends, they were able to enjoy the Bay. He noted that if the buildings were swapped, there would be a view of the empty parking lot. Member Kohlstrand noted that she did not have an issue regarding condominiums, and was concerned about the site layout. Member Lynch believed this use was needed, and believed the ability for the business owner to own the real estate was very positive. He would like to see an alternative way for this site to be designed. President Cunningham would like to see the design address the street. Mr. Grayson noted that they took a very conservative approach to provide sufficient parking. President Cunningham did not want architectural context to be sacrificed for a few parking spaces that may not be used. Mr. Grayson noted that the Harbor Bay Architectural Committee endorsed this project, as did City staff. Member Lynch suggested that the applicant consider the height limitations, parking issues, rearticulating the design and approaching the Board at the next meeting. He emphasized that the project itself was supported, and that the design should be revised to reflect the Board's comments. He added that the applicant could take better advantage of what the Bay has to offer. He noted that if the applicant could provide a design rationale for altering the setbacks slightly, he would we willing to hear that. Ms. Woodbury noted that the planning standards could not be abandoned, and that setbacks needed to Planning Board Minutes Page 7 February 13, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf |