pages: PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-01-10 | 10 | Mr. Parker believed the separation worked well, because the entrance into the project was in the middle of the Shipways, and the entrance to the public areas were on either end. He noted that the layout was seamless in relation to the trails, and understood Vice President Cook's concerns. Vice President Cook liked the idea that much of the parking was hidden, either above or below. President Cunningham inquired whether the applicants had considered using vertical circulation between Shipways 1 and 2, and 3 and 4. Mr. Parker replied that they had not examined that option, and that they were focused on creating views onto the water. He believed that idea made sense. In response to Mr. Piziali's question about the flats, Mr. Parker replied that there would be parking on the first floor, then a flat and a flat above it. The units on the large wings of the project on either side had garages included in the plan. Vice President Cook noted that the use of the podium was an urban landform, and noted that high-rises in San Francisco brought the question of whether a blank face along the street would be present. Mr. Parker noted that they used open metal along the façade, and wished to avoid a blank wall. Vice President Cook suggested the use of interpretive signage or public art to provide more information for the public. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara for more detail on the amenities for the residents, Mr. Parker replied that there would be a community building with a pool and a whirlpool. President Cunningham appreciated the conceptual drawings, and believed that a three- dimensional model would enable the Board to better understand the intent of the architecture. Mr. Piziali agreed with President Cunningham's request for a three-dimensional model. Ms. Kohlstrand concurred with Mr. Piziali's comments, and would like a better idea of the orientation of the residential units, as well as the landscaping treatment and how the podium wall would be softened. She also believed that a residential use was fine for this site, but noted that it was a somewhat isolated location, and it was necessary to travel through office sites and parking lots to get to the residential units. The relationship to the street for cars and pedestrians was an important issue for her. Vice President Cook would like a better understanding of the height of the proposed project in relation to the Extended Stay America building to the west and the office building to the east, as well as to the buildings located across the Estuary. She believed the scale between the Oakland uses and the Alameda uses on the estuary should be Planning Board Minutes Page 10 January 10, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-01-10.pdf |