pages: PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2012-02-27 | 10 | President Ezzy Ashcraft referred to the resolution (found on item number 4 on page 4) voted on later about the addition of 4-6 green screens on the front elevation to soften the large expansion of wall. Mr. Thomas replied that the resolution considered how to create a pedestrian scale environment along that long edge. Mr. Kay raised a number of good points about how the building goes in and out and the inclusion of landscaping. One of the main focuses was to find a way to make the I-beam horizontal element more interesting with more shadow lines and a traditional kind of trellis feature than the traditional modern horizontal beam. President Ezzy Ashcraft called for public comment. Jon Spangler stated that he is a Target shopper and the point about windows is well spoken. It would be nice to have real light coming into the building so he refers to the Alameda Library as a good example. Secondly, regarding the external lighting of the signs, he would like to see a 50% reduction of the amount of light emitted and the shape have more curve and narrowness. Thirdly, the color of the building of the target the off-white color seems to be a glaring standout compared to the rest of the elevations and that should be toned down in order to keep up with the rest of the shopping center. President Ezzy Ashcraft called for Board comment on Building K. Board member Burton stated that based on the questions that were asked about the placement of windows there seems to be an error by the team by not including an illustration of the building's interior layout as part of the staff report. Secondly, he doesn't see the Target layout as a real effort to tailor the building into the specific site plan and there should be substantial break down of the building's mass. The trellis elements would not be something pedestrians would be walking amongst and won't be provide shade or shadow. He agreed with Board member Autorino that the entrance should be placed in the middle for the pedestrian-oriented development in theory. When referring to the staff report on page 6, he doesn't see a support for the pedestrian experience adjacent to the building. When referring to page 7, each side of the elevation design is comprised of smaller elements and he determined that it's flat. Lastly, regarding the 2nd to last paragraph on that page there is consistent stucco finished base incorporated around the building, but on the elevations it is described as concrete, he would like clarification about the material. Board member Köster stated that he has seen some Target with multiple entranceways and he would like the design team to look at including another entranceway on the other side of the building. He referred to the main site plan, page 1, the green arrow that links the two Buildings K and Building A. He questioned what Building A will be given this is a secondary spine to the project, then who will walk on this spine. He thought this was an entrance to the Target, but in reality people would want to park as close to Target as possible and then drive to Building A. Thus, the pedestrian experience would be tarnished. Board member Knox White stated that he echoes everything that both board members said. He doesn't think that the employee entrance should be placed where it is. Approved Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18 February 27, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-02-27.pdf |