pages: PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-12-11 | 8 | 8-B. 2245 S. Shore Center (old Walgreen's Building) Major Design Review File No. DR06- 0081; 2246 S. Shore Center (old Ross building): Major Design Review File No. DR06- 0096; 2293 South Shore Center (Petco building) Major Design Review File No. DR06- 0096. (DG). (Continued from the meeting of November 13, 2006.) Mr. Garrison summarized this staff report. He noted that the project design was consistent with the nearby buildings in the center, as well as the residential area. No Planned Development Amendment or additional CEQA review would be required, and construction of the two buildings would not preclude site improvements that may be required under Planned Development Amendment 05-004 (Target). Staff recommended approval of both design reviews. "Vice President Cook noted that the minutes did not discussed concerns raised about the status of the conditions of the 2003 PDA.' She noted that the staff report discussed what was going well, but did not sufficiently address what was not done; she believed that was the more interesting discussion. She requested further information from the staff in that regard. Mr. Garrison noted that the only condition at this point that seemed to be an issue was the condition for the east-west sidewalk behind the bank on the north part of the property. Staff believed that the applicant had met with City staff and pointed out the engineering problems resulting from the creation of the sidewalk. They developed an alternative plan, which included several north-south sidewalks which were designed to serve the function of the east west sidewalk which is to facilitate pedestrian access to and through the shopping center. He understood that staff, in consultation with Public Works, administratively decided that the alternative was acceptable. In hindsight, he believed that was a condition that may not have been an appropriate item to approve on an administrative level. "He believed it was a moot point, because once the Planned Development Amendment application was acted upon, everyone including the applicant acknowledged that everything was back on the table" and the Planning Board could require that sidewalk. As noted in the staff report, they intended to return in January with a comprehensive site plan that showed the sidewalk plan prior to Planning Board determination. Vice President Cook noted that there were a number of current Board and staff members who were involved in this matter. She did not believe it would be difficult to reconstruct their thoughts on the sidewalk issue. She noted that the Board was passionate on the issue of sidewalks, and she believed their viewpoints were clear on the tapes of the meeting. Mr. Thomas noted that the resolution itself was where the conditions are officially documented. A discussion of the conditions and determination on which the permit was originally affirmed ensued. Vice President Cook noted that originally, the building heights were not discussed because they were lower at that time. She noted that height was a concern because of the redesign; the second stories would change the square footage and parking requirements. She noted that the developer had told her that more pedestrian and bicycle usage would reduce parking. "She believed the real issue was how much square Planning Board Minutes Page 8 December 11, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf |