pages: PlanningBoard/2010-04-26.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2010-04-26 | 3 | Ms Decker, resident, favors a development that provides maximum pedestrian and waterfront access. Mr. Woodard, resident, spoke in favor of an Estuary Park and low-rise buildings that do not to exceed two stories in height. Mr. Gong, resident, cautioned that a thorough review of the City resources (police, school, utilities) should not be neglected, the result of which would have a negative impact on the proposed development. He recommended that the property owner include those that live in the neighborhood in the planning process for the development. Mr. Bolten, resident, objects to the proposal. He added that the neighborhood's access to the waterfront is cut off, that three or four story buildings on this site would not be a good fit for the City and there would be negative parking impacts. Mr. Sweeney, resident, noted he is in favor of the lower density alternative plan that was contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. President Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public comment period. Mr. Banta, architect for the property owner, spoke to the different options and stated that the lower density option may be the preferable alternative in order to address the neighborhood's concern. He requested that the Planning Board indicate if the lower density alternative would in fact be the favored alternative. Vice-President Autorino stated that a site visit revealed the property appears to be in a deteriorated state and that it appears infeasible to reuse or rehabilitate many of the buildings on the site because they are in such a poor condition. Board member Cook stated that she would favor some commercial activity along the waterfront in an effort to increase activity and use of the area. Staff discussed the relative infeasibility of reusing the large buildings for commercial uses. He elaborated that the Historical Advisory Board would be asked to evaluate the EIR alternatives plus demolition of the structures and that a mixed use zoning designation could be applied to the property. Board Member Kohlstrand cautioned that the alternatives should include a feasibility analysis so that only fiscally feasible alternatives are considered. Board Member Zuppan supports the development of the park; however, she stated a concern that the City does not have the funding to pursue the development and maintenance of a park. | PlanningBoard/2010-04-26.pdf |