pages: PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-11-13 | 12 | Ms. Bobbi [Centurion] spoke in support of this item, and believed that Target offered a retail option that Alameda needed. She did not want to spend her time driving to surrounding cities to shop at Target, and would rather spend her retail dollars in town. She supported the upgrades that have been made so far. Dr. Linda Rickerts concurred with the speakers who wish to spend their retail dollars in Alameda, but would like to see the Target store elsewhere on the Island. She believed the traffic and safety impacts would be too much for the neighborhood, and believed the Target should be located closer to the freeway. She was concerned about the target demographic for the Target stores with respect to potential crime and vandalism in the neighborhood. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Member Kohlstrand commended the developer and the architect on their responsiveness to the Planning Board and Transportation Commission's concerns regarding this project. She was pleased in general with the design. With respect to 8-A, she understood that it was within the Planning & Building Director's discretion to approve the design review. She noted that this was a high-profile, often controversial project and as a Planning Board member, she felt somewhat blindsided when she read about these approvals, tucked into another subsection for Buildings 300 and 400. While she understood the need for expediency, she also wanted the public to feel they had input in these decisions; as a Planning Board member, she wanted input as well. She had been following the Target project in Davis, California, and noted that their proposed Target store was similar in size to this proposed size on a single level. She found it very attractive and was pleased to see it would be LEED certified. She would like the architect to explore a LEED design, and inquired whether a single-story store, rather than a podium design, would be possible. She believed the current design was somewhat large and out of scale for the area. In response to an inquiry by Member Kohlstrand when the final EIR would be available, Mr. Garrison replied that all of the comments had been taken on the Draft EIR. Staff was currently working on the document, and he estimated that it may be available in about a month. President Lynch noted that staff may wish to respond to the comments regarding the podium design. Mr. Kyte noted that a typical one-level Target would be about 127,000 square feet; the podium configuration was used because of the vertical transportation and loading areas, increasing the square footage to 145,000 square feet. To do a 127,000-square foot store, between 10 to 12 acres would be needed depending on landscape percentages. He noted that this site was 5.6 acres, and in order to accommodate the parking, a podium store was the only option. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Cook whether a larger site had been considered for a one-story store, Mr. Kyte replied that they did, and because of the number of leases, it was not possible. He noted that a podium store was a relatively new concept for Target, and that about a dozen had been built for urban settings with limited parking. Vice President Cook noted that it was important to address the larger question of shopping center Planning Board Minutes Page 12 November 13, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-11-13.pdf |