pages: PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-02-27 | 11 | an important element in getting people into the building. Member Kohlstrand noted that while the applicant stated the design was a compromise, she did not notice a difference from the last design. Mr. Grayson noted that it was a compromise between the some Board Members' wishes that the buildings face the street, and others' wishes to face the back. He added that they sold the parking spaces, which were identified for the buyers; he noted that was a major marketing advantages for the buyers. Vice President Cook noted that this project was very good for the buyers, but was unsure whether this was the best project for the City of Alameda. She complimented the applicant on the presentation, but did believe that changes could be made to reflect the Planning Board's comments. She would like the site plan to be less intensive, and did not see any changes since the last meeting. She noted that the location of the employee area was of concern to her, and she was unmoved from her previous position. Mr. Grayson displayed the slide identifying the sitting area on the southwest side of Building C, and added that a secondary area could be added closer to Harbor Bay. Mr. Scheinholtz stated that this was the 20th iteration of this design. He noted that some of the issues raised by the Board could not be accommodated according to the Fire Department. Member Lynch believed the bigger issue was the City's concern about a work plan as it relates to design review for the business park. President Cunningham noted that his comments on the previous project stand, and he preferred the current proposal. He could support this proposal, and noted that Phase I was a pre-existing condition. He noted that in Scheme D, it was better to have an environment captured by all the buildings than trying to have a hodge-podge of buildings with no relationship between Phase I and Phase II. He believed that approach produced a more cohesive master plan. He added that the view of Alameda from Oakland was of a greenbelt of trees, and that a green tree-lined shoreline would be the view of this part of Alameda. He understood the applicant's concerns about emergency access and the Fire Department's reservations about outlets at North Loop and Harbor Bay. Member Kohlstrand supported Vice President Cook's statements, and could not support the site plan as proposed. Vice President Cook believed that further work could be done with the relationship between the two phases to reach a true compromise. Mr. Grayson noted that people using the promenade would see parking when looking at the building, and understood that was one of the Board's main objections. He believed the contextual evidence provided at this meeting showed the lanes of Harbor Bay Parkway, the greenbelt and the building's landscaping. He believed it was unlikely that a pedestrian along the waterfront would not be particularly upset about seeing the building's parking because of the berm and the hedging. They wished to maximize the use for the buyers, who would spend 10-12 hours a day in this building. He understood Vice President Cook's concerns about the waterfront views. President Cunningham believed pitched roofs and more articulation would improve the appearance Planning Board Minutes Page 11 February 27, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf |