pages: PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf, 22
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-06-23 | 22 | place to temper very large projects. She believed the City should be able to maintain some control over quality of retail issues to the extent possible. President Cook noted that there would be some large projects that the Planning Board would like, and others that it would not, regardless of the percentage of food items. She believed the 10% of floor area dedicated to food sales was a union issue. She noted that while she generally supported unions, she did not believe it would be a good planning issue. She believed that it would be very important to define the planning issues. Board member Cunningham noted that the community would likely be happy to see a 95,000 square foot Macy's in Alameda, but that under this ordinance, it could not be approved. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it seemed that the Planning Board liked what it originally said, and that it would be important for EDC to weigh in on this ordinance before the City Council heard it. President Cook agreed with Vice President Kohlstrand's assessment, and believed it was very important to have the EDC's opinion, and that it was ultimately a City Council issue. With respect to the 90,000 square foot issue, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like to see more negotiation on the City staff level in working out acceptable square footage levels with Developers. In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the trigger for a use permit, Mr. Thomas confirmed that everything over 30,000 square feet would require a use permit, and would require the Planning Board to make the findings for a use permit approval. Vice President Kohlstrand moved to confirm the Planning Board's original recommendation of defining a large format retail as one or more stores totaling 30,000 square feet and subject to use permit or planned development approval, and to recommend such to City Council. The Planning Board recommends that the Economic Development Commission weigh in on this matter. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0 Absent: 2 (Lynch, McNamara); Abstain: 0. The motion passed. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 4. MINUTES: a. Minutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008. These minutes will be considered at a later meeting. b. Minutes for the meeting of May 12, 2008. Page 22 of 23 | PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf |