pages: PlanningBoard/2010-05-10.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2010-05-10 | 8 | transit-driven alternative. Board Member Zuppan stated that the plan lacks specificity and commitment. She requested that infrastructure, such as storm drains and streets be adequately evaluated. She requested that the public transportation system outlook in 20 years be included. She asked for a careful analysis of the economic impacts, such as jobs creation, be included in the EIR. In addition, she is concerned that the habitat of the Least Terns abuts the residential portions of the development, and raised the question whether the development could be programmed differently to avoid the close proximity to these birds. Board Member Kohlstrand would like to see that the project be redeveloped so that the approval is not dependent on a slew of mitigation measures, but done in a way that embraces all potential concerns and impacts especially the traffic concerns. She would like to see an analysis of proposed building heights and how they would impact the existing neighborhoods. She seconded Board member Cook's comments on preserving the most historically significant buildings. Board member Cook supported the master application for the density bonus concept. She requested information on what benefits could accrue to the City from granting a density bonus application, be it open space, parks. Ms. Ott pointed out that the City Council is briefed on the status of the project at each of their meetings and noted the comments from the Planning Board would be transmitted to the City Council. On a motion by Zuppan, seconded by Cunningham, the Board voted 6-0 to continue deliberation of this project to its next meeting. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:17 pm Planning Board Page 8 of 8 Meeting Minutes 5/10/2010 | PlanningBoard/2010-05-10.pdf |