Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'M SORRY, MADAM CHAIR, THAT WAS AN ERROR.

Ted. Thank you. So I don't know if this is for staff or for the proponent. If zoning had not changed and I understand there would have been a four story building, what under the current proposal, other than or in addition to the two additional height stories, what other changes are there from the original proposal that got the variance and the issuance of the building permit?

uh partly so i i understand it's the two additional stories and now you're saying it's it's the issue of the first floor height yeah are there any other changes uh as to the say the envelope of the building The abutters are complaining about various things, about access and other issues about the access way. Were those issues, have those been changed from when the variance was granted?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a few just clarifying questions. The first one is there's some of the documents mentioned a comprehensive permit or seeking one. I just want to confirm the proponent is not seeking one because, first of all, we can't grant one, but also that would require ZBA approval. And the second question is, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATIONS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MODIFIED BUILDING PERMIT WAS NEVER ISSUED, IS THAT RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHY OR ISSUED IN TIME BEFORE.

Yeah, there's some building material, or excuse me, there's some materials, even the presentation tonight, references a club rehab stuff permit. I just want to confirm you guys are not thinking one, because that's 40B, okay, BZ, okay. Understood, okay. The second question is, I just want to confirm, it sounds like the building permit, or the building permit was never issued in time. Is that, okay.

Got it. And then this is kind of a side issue, but I was just curious. Does I don't know if the staff or the promoter knows there is on the plans. There's a little parcel sliver of land next to the highway. I was just curious who owns that right now. It's grass. And then the fourth question is, so just for clarification, I know there's a butters who talked about a little head court, but right now that's 10 feet. It might help reading the plans. It looks like the core will be, or the driveway will be expanded to 25 feet. Is that right? And so is that going to be shared? Is that going to be just

And how I'm reading the plans, I'm sorry, this is Ashley again, but it seems like it will be expanded by another 15 feet, is that right?

Um, I guess I have 2 questions and just the follow up on the name court, because 1 of the public commenters brought this up was kind of curious. If thought has been given to the trash pickup, and if they could exit on that private way onto winter street, and also sort of that landing in court expansion that actually was talking about is going to be sort of the. loading area for like drop-offs and pickups um and then my second kind of that first part was like two questions but the second part is um again following up on Ashley's because I don't know if we got a response was the that grass space

Thank you. So my question is staying a bit on the Linehan and the private way. On the south side of the building where everyone's talking about the roughly 25 foot, is there a reason you couldn't plant within the property line area, pull out the planter area? I'm just wondering if there was any reason it has to be paved versus soft scape.

I guess i'm asking there's the 10 foot that's already functioning for the driveway access and that turns into 10 foot on the private way, especially hearing from a butters relative to visibility, it looks like you could get say at least a 10 foot say planter and still have a 15 foot wide. you know, paved that's broader than what it is today and get trees into that zone potentially. So I was just wondering, is there a logistical reason why that couldn't be planted?

I think maybe I'm not being understood. It's 25 feet wide.

Yes, exactly. A two-way. I think you've answered the question.

Overall, I think it's, I actually love the look of the building. I know it's a unique site. It's on a corridor. And as, you know, pointed out earlier, there is a buffer space between Um, the building and the site between and the highway that's, I guess, owned by the state. So that helps in not needing the full setback that is required on the cam 6. so. I'm personally fine with the relief that the applicant is seeking. I love the balconies. I love the different colors on the side of the wall that has fewer windows. So overall, I'm in support. Thank you.

Thank you. I will say I'm less in love with the look of the building. It feels a little bit retrograde somehow in my mind. I think the CDD memo had a lot of really good comments on coloration and facade and dealing with the differences breaking out the retaining walls versus the ground floor of the building. SO I WOULD PAY ATTENTION TO THE DESIGN COMMENTS AND THE CDD MEMO. BUT GENERALLY, I AGREE THAT I'M NOT OVERLY CONCERNED WITH THE RELIEF THAT IS BEING REQUESTED. I ASSUME AN EASEMENT WILL BE CREATED FOR THE ACCESS ROAD WITH THE NEIGHBORS, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH SYED HIMSELF OR WITH AN EVENTUAL

Yeah, first off, thank you for the discussion on the driveway. I know it's talked about a lot, but it's just a lot of interesting stuff that came up, but I appreciate the responses by the proponents. I'd say two comments on the memo. One of them is the pattern on the on the building. I'm not the biggest fan, but I can see it kind of tying into sort of the building that's across the street. If you're looking that way, the taller building kind of has the same language, you know, the white, black and sort of random I don't know, I just think it needs a little bit more work and I think that's in t

Well, thank you. Yeah, I'm fine with the design of the building. Yes, there's a lot in the staff memo that I hope the developers will look at. But in terms of what they're seeking in terms of the special permits and the changes in the zoning going back and forth, it seems to me this is a situation where they shouldn't be penalized by everything that has gone forward. And from my point of view, the addition of the two stories looks like it will add another eight housing units. And so I'm all in favor of that, that, you know, going from four to six stories, I think is actually a good idea. And I

thank you um so I think relative to everyone else here I feel like the reasons this has come back have been well articulated and it's clearly a rezoning issue so I have no problems with the building uh adding the extra stories it's not to my taste exactly but I I truly just don't think it's an appropriate forum to have those conversations that time has passed Now, I think echoing the staff memo, the public realm and the landscape is not complete. And so my comments relative to say the drive are really relative to pieces that have not been designed. And I say that because even if it has gotten

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question. So I'm delighted at the concept of 1,000 units being created, but I'm wondering, there's a reference to Jefferson Park of 278 units, but is it not true that an enormous number of units, existing units, were demolished in order to make way for this new project. And I'm just curious, you know, at least with that proposal and perhaps with some of the others, was there really a sum total increase in units in Jefferson Park or are we ending up with the number we had, although they will be far superior and newer and function much better. So I'm just curious

Thank you. First of all, thank you for the presentation. I'm very encouraged to hear that the housing trust does, you know, look at our reports and take that into consideration. So that's great to hear. I had a quick question. So as you pointed out, there are, you know, few and far between. in between ownership or home ownership opportunities. And so I was just wondering, is that something that developers bring up when they apply with the housing trust? Is that something that like is a condition or I don't know.

Mary. Thank you. So the first comment I think is everyone says thank you for putting together such a comprehensive report and outlining it so clearly. And it does seem very positive. I felt like that, you know, unambiguous, which, you know, was very nice to see. I was especially happy to see that the distribution you know, it's hitting lots of different neighborhoods. It doesn't feel like it's just one place. And that is so many family units and maybe picking up what Mary Flynn was just describing is seeing so many under construction. Cause I always wonder that too. It's, you know, well, has i

ASHLEY. THANK YOU. SORRY. Similar to Mary Lineker's second point, I was just wondering if the housing staff had any feedback from the developers that come more frequently. I know when we first started this process, it was a little more frequent where we'd see proposals and it was already set, not set in stone, but it was 70% there and there was not much we could change. So I was just wondering... HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK FROM DEVELOPERS ON HOW THIS PROCESS IS GOING FOR THEM AND DO THEY HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS?