pages: PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-12-11 | 12 | statement. He noted that a 46-foot-high tower was not very high, and the apartment buildings were substantially higher. Member Kohlstrand noted that she met with the project sponsor after the last Planning Board meeting and looked at the model. She noted that the timing of approvals were a complex balance with other issues, and would like further discussion of that item. She acknowledged that better waterfront views would be possible if the tower were to be moved, but she noted that the property owner and business owners should have some flexibility in terms of where their tenants were located. She supported the changes that had been incorporated. She had spoken with the Chair of the Transportation Commission, and believed that they were beginning to move towards the access solutions. Mr. Kyte noted that staff has been acutely aware of the implications of this piece of the project, long before it was appealed to the Planning Board by community members under the design review submittal. They re-examined the conditions for this phase of the development, including what should be done to meet the conditions of the 2003 PDA as it related to this phase, including parking layout, ratio and landscaping. They believed all those conditions for this phase had been met. Member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern that this project may be stopped at this point while awaiting clarification of the issues addressing previous approvals. She believed that for years, Alameda residents wanted to see this deteriorating shopping center improved. She hoped that there would be a chance for a walk-through. She noted that some of the concerns regarding waterfront views had been met in different ways besides having a tower that faced directly on the water. "She liked the cut- throughs, and did not want to see the issues swept under the rug, and inquired whether the Board could request a date certain for completion of incomplete items once the questions have been clarified." She was concerned that the retail leases could not be held open indefinitely, because retail openings are time-sensitive. She believed the design was attractive. She wanted the center to be pedestrian-friendly, with an emphasis on their safety, particularly on the walkway in front of Building 300. Member Ezzy Ashcraft liked the improvements in Building 500, but believed that it needed a south- facing entrance. She understood that the current tenant did not want to have people looking out on the car wash property, but noted that it may not always be a carwash. She believed that would aid the waterfront view. Mr. Thomas suggested that before the EIR for Target was finalized, staff should return before the Board in January with the 2003 resolution, the map, the matrix, the adopted conditions and an explanation of how the sidewalk condition was handled. Mr. Kyte noted that when they approached staff regarding the sidewalk and the conflicts regarding the driveways and stormwater systems, the north-south orientation became an obvious solution. They believed that if there was a condition with a long-term Master Plan or strategy in place to control sidewalks throughout the shopping center, some would be achievable and others would be more difficult where other owners' property was involved. Regarding the building's design and the Bed Planning Board Minutes Page 12 December 11, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf |