pages: PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-01-28 | 9 | 9-C. City of Alameda General Plan Retail Policy Amendments - Applicant - City of Alameda. The Planning Board will consider a General Plan Amendment to amend Section 2.5 Retail Business and Services, to add and modify policies as recommended by the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy Report. The proposed amendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and mixed use zoning districts. Mr. Thomas presented the staff report, noting that Item 9-D was the companion item to Item 9-C. He noted that no additional community comment had been received on this item since the last meeting. Staff referenced the need to balance the needs of adjacent residential areas with respect to reduced parking requirements, which could be stated in the policy or the explanatory text. The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers slips. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Cunningham noted that the minutes from the previous meeting referenced discussion about the concept of parking at the side of retail areas, as well as the pros and cons of pushing the parking to the back. He found that items 2.5.e and 2.5.s were in conflict with each other, regarding the use of the ground floor for office space. Board member Cunningham noted that 2.5.1, reading "New commercial retail development on the waterfront should be consistent with best practices for waterfront orientated development," and inquired whether there was a definition of those best practices. Mr. Thomas replied that in the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment, which was adopted in the General Plan, there was more specific guidance on public access along the waterfront, attractive façades from the street and waterfront sides, and activities both day and night. This was moved to the Urban Design section of the General Plan, so it would apply to all development. Staff could amend the language by referencing that language. He agreed that there should be more specificity. Board member Cunningham referenced 2.5.n, which discussed building heights "to maintain the historic open form and character of Park Street and Webster Street business districts, limit building heights on both the streets to three stories above grade, measuring 35 to 40 feet, depending on roof configuration. Parking structure ought to be limited by height only." He inquired whether 40 feet was the height limit. Mr. Thomas confirmed that the height limit was 40 feet, and noted that policy was already in the General Plan. President Cook suggested that the wording "40 feet, regardless of the number of levels" be included. Page 9 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-28.pdf |