pages: PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2006-02-27 | 12 | of the buildings, especially in relation to the waterfront. Mr. Grayson noted that while people use the waterfront for amenities, he emphasized that this was a business park, albeit an attractive one. He noted that this was not a retail center. Member Kohlstrand expressed concern that there were no other amenities for the employees, and did not intend to require the applicant to add retail. She noted that how the site relates to the waterfront, and how the site itself functions, were very important. She compared this site with the previous Harbor Bay project discussed by the Planning Board, and added that there was more of a landscape treatment, with parking tucked around the back. She noted that this was a suburban environment for the business park, and believed there was a better SO in providing building surrounded by parking. She believed there could be a more harmonious relationship between the buildings and the green space. Mr. Grayson respectfully disagreed with Member Kohlstrand's last comment. Ms. Woodbury suggested that if more landscaping around the lower floor offices would help the Board approve the project, staff could work with the applicant in achieving that goal. Vice President Cook encouraged the applicants to strike a compromise with respect to the areas of concern expressed by the Board. She preferred Plan C, but would like more frontage along Harbor Bay Parkway; she liked the setback on that plan. Member Lynch noted that he liked Plans C and D, and added that this was not a retail space. He acknowledged that this item may need to go to City Council to be resolved. In response to an inquiry by Member Lynch regarding the required quorum, Ms. Harryman replied that if one of the Board members brought a motion to approve the project, and it was defeated 2-3, the applicant would have the ability to appeal to Council within 10 days. M/S Lynch/Cunningham to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-06-11 to deny Final Development Plan and Major Design Review applications allowing the construction of three new two- story commercial buildings. The buildings would range in size from 13,946 to 16,952 sq. ft. in size, with a maximum height of 34 ft. The proposed use of these buildings is a mix of research and development facilities and professional offices. The three buildings would contain up to 24 separate units. Specific businesses that would occupy the buildings have not been identified at this time. The applicant also requests approval of a Tentative Parcel Map/Condominium Plan allowing the conveyance of the 24 units to separate owners. AYES - 2 (Mariani absent); NOES - 3 (Cook, Kohlstrand, McNamara); ABSTAIN - 0 The motion failed. Planning Board Minutes Page 12 February 27, 2006 | PlanningBoard/2006-02-27.pdf |