pages: PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-04-26 | 14 | Director Thomas said he had completely rethought this issue. He discussed how changes to plans are handled and they do come back to the Planning Board in some way. Staff Member Butler described that the intent was not to delegate the authority of the PAC to the Planning Board but to have thoughtful planning of art. She suggested revisiting this part of the ordinance. President Teague concurred that this did sound like it was part of the Design Review of a project. Board Member Ruiz suggested striking out a sentence that would better define the intent. She thought that since it was the Director's discretion it would show up under Recent Actions and Decisions for Planning Board Meetings. Director Thomas clarified that he was not the Director this would come back to, it would be the Director of the Community Development Department which is where the art program sits. He added what makes this awkward is that you have the Planning Board approving something and then a different group with the power to amend it. Board Member Hom said it would be the minimum to have the developer say if they were doing onsite art or to pay the in-lieu fee. He also thought the PAC should be delegated the primary responsibility for reviewing and approving the art, not the Planning Board. He then discussed when exceptions should be allowed and where they can still have the flexibility for the developer. Board Member Cisneros wondered if the developer had to declare the location of the art, she thought that having a general declaration of either providing onsite art or paying the in-lieu fee should be enough. President Teague agreed that the planning stage was the appropriate time to identify an appropriate location for public art since they had not broken ground and it was early in the process. President Teague asked the staff if they should modify these amendments now or did they want to bring this item back. Vice President Saheba commented that the Planning Board would review everything from plant species being planted to every aspect of the design during the entitlement period so why not also be specific around the art. He still wanted the PAC to weigh in and that way whatever was recommended to the Planning Board would be through their lens. Board Member Curtis thought they had reached a reasonable compromise by having the specificity be done at the Final Design Review and Approval. He thought this would give developers and boards enough time to resolve any outstanding issues. He also agreed Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 14 of 18 April 26, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf |