Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Commissioner Van Pernis expressed his offense of the revised proposal. He stated that he felt these <br />changes cheapen the feel of the area and increases potential revenue by increasing the leasable <br />area. <br /> <br />Commissioner Roth expressed his disagreement of Commissioner Van Pernis’ assessment. He <br />stated that the changes that were are proposing are relatively minor. He further stated this project <br />exceeds anything else happening in the industrial area and the developer is doing their best to <br />improve the area. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Pernis stated that he is not opposed to the project but he is opposed to the <br />changes that have been submitted because the Commission already approved a plan for them that <br />had public benefit. <br /> <br />Commissioner Andreae stated that she was disappointed that the wainscoting was dropped from the <br />plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Roth stated that he understands how two warehouse style buildings are not cost- <br />effective to rehab and that building two new warehouse style buildings can be more economical. <br /> <br />Mr. Riehm pointed out, in fairness to the developer, no one in the industrial area are doing any type <br />of place making like this which includes plazas, berms, landscaping, sidewalks and shade <br />structures. He stated he thinks the developer is making a good effort to redo this area and <br />encourage more people to come and shop to make this a successful project and area. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Pernis state that this plan should have been presented originally. He also stated <br />that just because the area has cheaper warehouse buildings doesn’t mean it has to continue that <br />way. He also brought up the ulu trees which are indicated as the canopy trees on the landscape plan <br />in the center of the parking lot and that it could be a liability if you have ulu’s falling on parked cars. <br />He stated that this is not the appropriate canopy tree to be placed there. <br /> <br />Mr. Riehm acknowledged that he wished that this was originally submitted but due to things beyond <br />their control the plan had to be revised. He stated that the Landscape Plan was done by Scott <br />Seymore who is a landscape architect and the ulu tree issue will be pointed out to him. <br /> <br />Commissioner Andreae asked for clarification on why the shade canopy in front of Building A was <br />being removed. <br /> <br />Ms. Aguiar stated that the reason for the removal was that the anchor food service tenant, that <br />would be leasing Building A, couldn’t fit an outside dining service area into their plan without a <br />completely attached outdoor dining area. <br /> <br />Commissioner Roth asked if the existing monkey pod trees would be kept. <br /> <br />Mr. Riehm stated that the monkey pods trees would not be removed. <br /> <br />Ms. Aguiar stated that these changes were aesthetic driven not budget driven. Their concept is to <br />create a maker’s market to drive home grown industrial local makers to produce things in the area. <br />The warehouse look is intentional to have a collaborative community similar to a development called <br />Shed in Healdsburg, California. Ms. Aguiar stated that they wanted to be different than Target, the <br />big box stores and Aliʻi Drive by creating something unique to the up and coming industry. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />