pages: PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-02-22 | 5 | Doree Miles wanted to add on to what Mr. Sullivan had been saying since she felt the same way. She was very familiar with the North Park St neighborhood and felt that area had been overlooked. She would like to see this area looked at more and be included in the design element. She also supported the letter sent by AAPS on February 19th. Chris Buckley, AAPS, wanted to discuss and go over the two letters sent from the AAPS. He did feel that the current draft standards were a major improvement from the ones adopted by the Planning Board last February. He felt that there were still some loose ends that needed to be addressed. He wanted the board to consider these issues for a future meeting giving time to work these issues out. He wanted a statement in the document saying that public notice will still be given and he wanted to know if staff decisions made under the Objective Standards still would be appealable. He also suggested a two-tiered system for affordable housing and market-rate housing. President Teague closed public comments. Before moving on he did ask that staff elaborate on the applicability of these objective standards and what projects were allowed to have just a ministerial design review. Ms. Coleman explained the process and what was required by state law. Celena Chen, from the City's Attorney Office and Staff Counsel, further explained the Housing Accountability Act and Senate Bill 35. President Teague asked a hypothetical question about how a ministerial review could be requested for all market-rate housing. Staff Counsel Chen said that a ministerial review only applies to projects that qualify under SB-35, she then added what those requirements were. Staff Member Tai added that the board could set different design standards for affordable housing and market-rate housing. President Teague opened the board's comments and discussion. Board Member Hom agreed with taking another look at the TDA map for the Park Street area. He appreciated how the staff tried to balance the performance base with principles and had standards in place. He also liked how flexibility had been built into the standards and he was interested to see how that would work. He gave his thoughts on Affordable Housing and how he liked to see Affordable Housing blend in with the character of the neighborhood and not stand out. He also gave his thoughts on design choices. Board Member Rothenberg felt that as long the board and the staff had mindfully addressed the comments from the AAPS, WABA, and the Housing Authority she felt the Objective Design Review Standards merited approval. She also believed the TDA map Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 5 of 12 February 22, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-02-22.pdf |