pages: PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-02-26 | 9 | Mr. Thomas noted that staff could return in a month. He was concerned about the height limits brought up by AAPS, and noted that there were no Citywide height limits in the General Plan. Height limits were generally addressed in the zoning or by the Master Plan applicable to the project. President Lynch did not believe the height limits should be addressed in the General Plan, which is a policy document, not a zoning document. He would prefer to see the Planning Board move towards the policies, and should state that in striving towards a certain design goal, it may be met without the designs appearing to be cookie-cutter. He believed those restrictions would belong in a zoning document, such as a PD overlay. Member Cunningham noted that by setting rigid requirements such as wedding-cake step-downs, the design would appear to be cookie-cutter, which he could not endorse. Member McNamara supported the comments about fostering architectural creativity, but was concerned that the heights of some of the buildings in Towne Centre were excessive. She would support imposing some kind of height limit on the waterfront, with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhoods. President Lynch did not differ with that opinion, but believed those restrictions were more appropriate to the design review and zoning rather than a General Plan Amendment. Vice President Cook was uncomfortable about the waterfront development guidelines lagging behind, and believed they should be more than guidelines; she would like them to have more teeth. Member Cunningham noted that there were several instances the document that used the word "consider," and inquired whether it may be helpful to provide more concrete direction. Mr. Thomas noted that it would be helpful for the Planning Board to create a list of potential requirements with respect to those items. He noted that other items, such as an assessment district or other concepts that may remain advisory, and that they should not be forgotten as time passed. Vice President Cook emphasized that she did not want to see any sound walls or gates. President Lynch noted that the Board generally agreed on the first section. Member Kohlstrand believed the traffic mitigation measures, especially with respect to the striping, was fairly specific for a General Plan. Mr. Thomas noted that these particular mitigations were called for after analyzing the EIR. He described the approach taken by staff and the applicant, and noted that better solutions, such as a traffic circle, may be appropriate. Member Kohlstrand preferred that such specific mitigations not be specified in the document because of the long-range nature of the General Plan. President Lynch noted that they seemed to be conditions of approval, and while they had Planning Board Minutes Page 9 February 26, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-02-26.pdf |