pages: PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-09-12 | 3 | 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8.A. Status Report and request for extension of time for construction allowed under Planned Development Amendment PDA02-0003 and Major Design Review DR02-0095, located at 2160 Otis Drive, South Shore Shopping Center (DG). (Continued from the meeting of August 22, 2005.) Mr. Garrison presented the staff report, and noted that while the applicant has met all the vesting requirements, they have not completed the construction. The applicant requested two additional years to complete construction. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Dorothy Reid, 2101 Shoreline Drive #201, distributed a chart to illustrate her comments, and noted that there was confusion over what PDA-02-A2-03 was for. She noted that PDA-02 only approved the four yellow highlighted buildings, as well as the July 2003 site plan; Trader Joe's was already built. She was concerned about approving construction for two more years on one-and-a-half buildings, and that whether there would be a clear understanding regarding the PDA. She believed there was confusion between building square footage and GLA, which were two very different numbers. She noted that the current construction did not expire until January 28, 2006, and would like to wait to approve this item until there was more clarity regarding the entire site. She believed that specific numbers should be cited, and was also concerned about the proposed amendment to Paragraph 2: "Any substantial alteration will require a new PDA and Design Review." She believed that the word "substantial" should be clarified. She did not understand the purpose of Paragraph 21, even in the original PDA. Rather than modifying this paragraph, she believed it should be struck entirely. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Mr. Garrison noted that the only language addressed by staff specifically dealt with the construction timeline; the other comments are outside of the scope addressed by staff at this time. In terms of the square footage questions and the map, the construction was approved for the area where Walgreen's and Beverly's are located. He would have to look at the current Safeway building permit plans to clarify the apparent square footage discrepancy. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Garrison noted that the reason the entire PDA proposed at that time was not approved. The Planning Board wanted to get additional information on the shoreline area, as well as some other areas. The applicant was directed to return with a proposal for a new gas station and to redo the shoreline area; that was where the current PDA application was relevant and is being reviewed by the City. He noted that it was not critical to the resolution, and could be deleted. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason replied that the Walgreen's was in plan check. Mr. Lynch noted that the timeline was created with the expectation of a certain type of performance. Planning Board Minutes Page 3 September 12, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-09-12.pdf |