pages: PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-06-25 | 7 | Board member Cunningham noted that the light towers were an interesting concept that could be a signature element. He wanted to ensure that all of the site was sufficiently lighted, and would like further photometric information. Mr. Tiernan noted the light towers covered the site, with the exception of the two side parking lots where they would introduce supplemental parking lot light standards. He noted that they provided better lighting coverage than the pools of light typically produced by parking lot lighting. He noted that the standard parking lot lighting would be provided at the edges. Mr. Sullivan noted that the landscape island adjacent to the ride share program would include the public waiting space. Board member Cunningham noted that the activation of Fifth Street had been executed very well. He noted that on the public parking side, the main service corridor included trash receptacles and questioned the option to increase total GLA to include retail frontage onto the parking lot. Mr. Thomas replied that the Master Plan limited the amount of retail at Alameda Landing as a whole to 300,000 square feet; the idea of limiting the amount of retail at Alameda Landing was because they wanted to minimize the competition with Webster Street and to maintain some retail capacity at Alameda Point. After many retail studies, the City came to 300,000 square feet as the right amount of retail for Alameda Landing. In response to an inquiry by President Lynch regarding the consistency of the amount of leeway allowed versus what had been approved at Alameda Landing, Mr. Thomas replied that in terms of the changes of the footprint of the buildings, the design substantially conformed with what the Planning Board had approved. Staff added a condition of approval stating that if the footprint varied by more than 20% in terms of the size of the building, it would be brought back to the Board. President Lynch noted that he would be open to incorporating the suggestion, and did not think it would substantially damage the retail at Alameda Point or Webster Street if this design element were to be picked up. Board member Cunningham reflected on past experience of the Bridgeside Center, and did not believe that the goals of the Bridgeside Center were able to be achieved in terms of the tenant spaces. He noted that the pizza restaurant painted their windows white, and the pet shop had placed posters over the windows. He did not believe it had worked out at all as envisioned by the Planning Board, and hoped the Board could learn from trying to be too stringent in trying to strive for a goal with respect to tenant leasing. Board member McNamara noted that the Planning Board had pushed for a high-end shopping center, which was not the objective of the Bridgeside developers. She wanted to ensure that a solid foundation of office, retail and residential uses would be established in order to support the high-end uses envisioned at the waterfront plaza. Page 7 of 13 | PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf |