pages: PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-02-11 | 6 | Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she supported some flexibility for the manager of the shopping center, but was troubled by the proposal in that the development originally was allowed to have 10,000 square feet of office. She noted that was eliminated, but that the Board did not have any history on that action. She expressed concern that 17,000 square feet of office had been added, but she understood that no office was allowed under the current regulations. She was also concerned about the increase to 25% for office, and noted that there was not much discussion regarding that expansion. She would like more information regarding what would be allowed in the shopping center, and would like to limit any further drive-through uses. Board member McNamara noted that she drove around the site, and while she did not have a problem with the 5,000-square-foot pad site, the current site for the two proposed kiosks was the site for the only green grass on the site. She would like that space to be a more pedestrian-friendly environment, and believed it was too intensive a use for that specific area. She would like that area to remain as a green space. Board Member Lynch noted that the amount and type of retail, as well as the amount and type of office space was important, as was the grade of office space. He believed this was an interesting site for retail, but did not consider this to be an ideal site for retail. He believed this space was evolving from one use to the other. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had gone to that shopping center, and that she did not consider it to be optimal for retail because it resembled a glorified strip mall. She noted that a shopper may be tempted to drive from one end to the other. She recalled that a cigarette store had been located there, which she did not consider it to be a desirable use. She was comfortable increasing the percentage of office space from 17% to 25%. She would like to see uses that enliven the walkways, and noted that this may not be the kind of place where the Board's energies should be focused on increasing the retail because there were some exciting possibilities. She would like to see more attention paid to Webster Street. President Cook noted that the location of retail in the Citywide retail strategy was very important. She had used the center before, and found that she was usually glad to be done driving around the area. She noted that many people used the back area of the center to get around quickly. She noted that there were many planning issues embedded in it, and she was hesitant to say yes to it. She agreed with Board member McNamara's concerns about the lack of green space. Mr. Thomas noted that staff recommended approval of this project. He added that the City Council had commissioned a series of retail studies. The studies found that there was capacity and demand for between 500,000-600,000 square feet of retail on the west end. The Council then said that Alameda Landing would be limited to 300,000 square feet. He noted that the City wished to preserve some of that capacity for Webster Street, which was a priority for the City, as was Alameda Point and Alameda Landing. He recalled that a business license for a medical office had been turned down; prior to that, the City had been approving the business licenses until an intern discovered the amendment from 1984. He noted that there had been demand for office space, and that there had been applications for use permits to put office space in residential zoning districts. He noted that there had been a demand for the service-related medical offices. He noted that the Page 6 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2008-02-11.pdf |