pages: PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf, 13
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-09-24 | 13 | backsides of the buildings facing Stargell and Mariner Square Loop, it was critical to avoid the "back of the building" look. When he looked at the plans, he had not been aware of the glazing plans, which seemed to be a promising solution to him. He believed that storefronts on the backside would add to the building's presence, but may create functionality problems by the major arterials. He would like to see more glazing at the back, particularly on Building A. He noted that this was a very important project, and would like the colors and materials to be presented to the Planning Board at the final design review stage. He displayed images of a streetscape at the Victoria Plaza shopping center in Rancho Cucamonga, which was following a similar design scheme. Mr. Richard Rutter submitted a speaker slip, but did not need to speak. He agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments. Mr. Bill Smith noted that sufficient earthquake standards in the site were very important, particularly on the landfill by the waterfront. Ms. Karen Bay expressed concern about the large format of this site, and did not want it to become a big box development, rather than a lifestyle development. She envisioned mostly smaller specialty stores and one or two-format stores. She would like to see wording to define a lifestyle center. President Cook noted that during the community process for this project, considerable work was done with the Webster Street businesses. They voiced their concerns about potential negative impacts of this project on Webster Street, and it was decided that this project should focus more on larger format stores so it did not compete directly with Webster Street. She shared Ms. Bay's concern about the large format, but noted that this was the result of the community process in this case. Member Mariani suggested that a continuance of this item based on the lateness of the hour and the potential extensiveness of the discussion. In response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the size of the businesses in the center, Mr. Thomas replied that there was a limit on the number of small-footprint stores, in order to limit the competition with Webster Street. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she generally agreed with the staff's findings, but was not persuaded by some of the arguments regarding the sidewalk design. She noted that the staff report identified a detriment of moving the sidewalk to the other side of the street would result in the reduction of some parking spaces, and might encourage cut-through traffic between Stargell and Mitchell at higher speeds. She realized that while shoppers needed their cars to take their purchases home, she did not want to see people driving from one building to another within the center. She believed that several retailers could share the four spaces per 1,000 square feet that they were relying on. She would like to get away from the tendency to create asphalt jungles. She believed that with ground-up construction such as with this project, that the pedestrians, bicyclists and automobiles needed to be accommodated. She did not agree with the argument under "Design" on Page 13 of 18 | PlanningBoard/2007-09-24.pdf |