pages: PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-07-09 | 9 | negative terms as it relates to current items under review with the Alameda Landing project. Board member Mariani thanks Board member McNamara for writing this email, which reflected her own concerns about the Bridgeside Center. President Lynch believed this was a compliance issue, and would like staff to respond to these concerns. He suggested that the staff response be agendized. Vice President Cook would like the staff report to include the final approval for the Board's review and reference. She noted that the Planning Board was very painstaking in the details of this approval. She would like to have a site tour, and believed it was important to have the facts in order when further addressing the issue. Board member Cunningham would like to know if the developer had a reason for the empty spaces in the center. Board member Ashcraft noted that she had visited the gaming store and met the owner, and that it was very attractive inside. She recommended that when discussing how the Bridgeside Center could be made nicer, the Board should emphasize that it is not criticizing the hard-working individual business owners. President Lynch believed that it was important for the Board to recognize the public process, and it was difficult to keep the larger issues in sight while focusing on the individual issues. He believed it was important to take a step back and lay out the guiding principals of what the Board would like to see. He would be open to setting up a subcommittee to allow people to work on this issue. He believed the applicant should present the plan to the Board, and allot the appropriate time to examine the issues without being rushed. Board member McNamara understood that the Board's role did not cover which retailers went into a center. Board member Cunningham noted that he was part of the subcommittee formed for the Bridgeside issues. Vice President Cook inquired how the Board would be capable of designing the space to achieve a planning goal, when it would not be allowed to dictate use. She noted that the Board worked very hard to design the space to have two front doors, with the notion of placing the Starbucks there. She noted there was some movement in land use planning to be more specific with respect to the type of use and size. She would like further clarification on the Board's ability in that regard. She noted that the development agreement had a list of nonpermissible uses. Mr. Thomas noted that was an issue staff could explore with future developments. He noted that the City could zone a site MX, which would require a Master Plan, such as Page 9 of 11 | PlanningBoard/2007-07-09.pdf |