pages: PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-09-24 | 10 | the applicant shall submit a design review application " He suggested the addition of a second condition, reading, "Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the Phase 3 development plan for the office buildings or the waterfront promenade design review for the Phase 3 buildings, the applicant will provide an assessment of the feasibility of retaining all or a portion of the existing waterfront warehouse for an adaptive reuse.' The Planning Board generally concurred with that additional condition. Mr. Thomas added that the later language read, "Now therefore be it further resolved that the Planning Board recommends the City Council approve the development agreement with the following revision: 4.9.2(b) Member Ezzy Ashcraft would like that sentence to begin, "In the event that Clif Bar elects not to occupy the wharf building, and the building is demolished after creation of a reuse parcel " Board member Mariani thanked the applicants for being creative with this project, and encouraged them to retain the historical character of this site. Board member Mariani moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. 07- to approve a Waterfront Development Plan amendment, a Master Landscape Plan amendment, and a Development Agreement amendment to revise the design of the proposed waterfront promenade and open space proposed as part of the Alameda Landing Project. The following condition will be added: "Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the Phase 3 development plan for the office buildings or the waterfront promenade design review for the Phase 3 buildings, the applicant will provide an assessment of the feasibility of retaining all or a portion of the existing waterfront warehouse for an adaptive reuse." Mr. Berry wished to emphasize that the buildings were not historic. They were fully analyzed under the EIR, and the DDA allowed for the demolition. He believed the additional language would be acceptable, if language similar to that used in the retail center having to do with substantially similar requirements, or inconsistencies contained in the conditions of the approval on one hand, and for mitigation monitoring on the other hand, the development agreement and the DDA shall rule. He did not want to be put in a position of doing a feasibility analysis, where a DDA amendment would be required. He wished to clarify that the DDA was the controlling document, and requested assurances that the condition was not meant to conflict with the DDA. Member Ezzy Ashcraft was concerned by the preface to Mr. Berry's remarks with respect to the historical nature of the buildings. She understood that there was a specific definition of historical, and added that from the beginning of this project, the Planning Board had heard of adaptive reuse of the site. She noted that the Planning Board would like the developer to take their concerns into consideration moving forward. Member Lynch inquired whether the DDA was the controlling document when there were conflicting conditions throughout the resolutions. Ms. Mooney replied that would Page 10 of 18 | PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf |