Laserfiche WebLink
own o .mil ash e e PCanninq Board <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> Aashpee, .Massachusetts 02649 <br /> Mr. Lehrer stated their participation at the meeting on June 161h. Cape Cod Commission did commit to <br /> the meeting. Board of Selectmen is also interested in having a conversation as well as the Planning <br /> Board. <br /> Mr. Cotton wanted to say a lot of this dialogue is a developing situation, the thought process is to have <br /> a joint meeting with the Planning Board, Selectmen, and Cape Cod Commission to decipher the next <br /> steps. They have already discussed the potential of having advisors or whatever it takes, we have at <br /> our disposal anything it takes. That was what they discussed at Mondays meeting. The Chairs can <br /> discuss joint meetings between them and the Commission. Out of that we may have more direction with <br /> what we are hiring for, we just don't know because the Development Agreement and zoning are <br /> separate but comingled. <br /> Mr. Lehrer said by way of the Cape Cod Commissions requirements with the Development Agreement <br /> regulations, Mashpee Commons have contracted traffic studies with consultants, and there has been <br /> expressed interest in having those assessments and analysis' vetted by a third party designated by the <br /> Board. We will have clarity once that is all provided. <br /> Chairman Fulone would like the Town Planner to take us through the parking analysis. <br /> Mr. Lehrer noted before he gets into parking, he wanted to break down what we are looking at in the <br /> proposed zoning bylaw. Mechanically, it is relatively simple, not form based code, composed of a few <br /> things: The layout of districts (core, transition, and edge) and dimensional criteria (lot coverage, <br /> setbacks, parking ratios, inclusionary requirements, and open space provisions). It is the details <br /> contained therein that require these extra meetings throughout the next month. There are <br /> administrative requirements, the zoning bylaw doesn't just achieve a desired built form, it also needs <br /> the regulation to be implemented and enforced. There are provisions within this proposal indicating how <br /> it will be administrated. He received public comment about parking. He wanted to break down the ratios <br /> as to what they are in the existing bylaw and what is proposed. The Memo in the packet is a layout of <br /> what is different. The parking ratios are nuanced and different in areas, but what is trying to be <br /> achieved is a pattern of development different to what we currently accommodate. We just need some <br /> clarity. Additionally, he received questions regarding building height, lot coverage, and setbacks. <br /> Dimensionally, it's difficult to compare what is allowed today with what is allowed in the zoning bylaw <br /> overlay. The lot coverage is currently 26% in overlay district, everyone needs to understand there are <br /> very specific urban design elements that are intentional differences in the built form that's achieved by <br /> way of those differences. This can be elaborated upon by Mashpee Commons, who will be prepared to <br /> make a presentation relative to dimension criteria proposed in this bylaw. Will it achieve in the built form <br /> in terms of walkable urbanism or urban design principals? He would like to see building height, <br /> dimension criteria, parking ratios, and administrative function. The bylaw is simple. Zoning enables <br /> development. Approved zoning would have positive and negative externalities. When we have an <br /> understanding of density and parking and building height and built form we will be better equipped to <br /> negotiate those proffers. Another thing to address is density calculations. Numbers can seem arbitrary, <br /> 1,000 units in the core or 400 units here, how do we come that number? Is it adequate? The <br /> Community deserves an understanding of methodology behind that maximum. Density is a key point of <br /> 6 <br />