2009-11-23 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

CPDC Minutes of 11/23/2009 The Board had no issue either with reducing the time of the review to 3.5 years or with waiving the loading zone requirement provided the applicant understood that future tenants with uses requiring a loading zone would have to be accommodated by the applicant somehow. There followed an extensive discussion of the screening of parking space #10 from Chute Street. The Board expressed concern that in the three and one-half years since the April 2006 decision so directed the screening of the space, no screening had yet been erected. Mr. Senior suggested the Board modify the April 2006 decision to 3.5 years in which case the review period would be over but the screening requirement would still be in effect and would still be subject to the approval of the Town Planner. DT moved the Board make an administrative change to the original modification of April 2004 reducing the time until the loading zone issue was to be reviewed from five years to three and one- half years. The motion was seconded and approved 4:0:0. Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD): Preparation for Special Town Meeting The public hearing on the language of the DSGD bylaw had been opened and closed at the Board's prior meeting (11/2/2009). At that meeting, the Board had decided to postpone until tonight's meeting its vote on whether or not to recommend to Town Meeting the article containing the DSGD zoning amendment and accompanying zoning map change. The Board so decided to give residents time to consider the comments and concerns voiced at the 11/2/2009 meeting. To that end, the Board had directed that prior to tonight's meeting a list be prepared of the most frequently asked questions (FAQ) about the DSGD and, together with the Board's answers, that this FAQ should both be printed as a handout and posted to the town's web site. The Chair noted it was the Board's intent to craft the best article possible regardless of the State's timeline. The Board proceeded to review of the frequently asked questions (FAQ see attached). Public comment centered on two items: the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) maximum and the per- residential-unit parking space minimum (aka minimum off-street parking for residential units). The consensus of the public comments was that the FAR maximum should be reduced and the per- residential-unit parking minimum should be raised. Selectman Camille Anthony asked why the maximum FAR had to be 3.4 if the Board did not believe any developer would be able to reach 3.4 and if Oaktree's proposal for the former Atlantic Supermarket site would have a FAR of approximately 2.7. The Chair noted that it was not the case that a 3.4 FAR structure could not be built but that a developer would have to be very creative to make a FAR of 3.4 work: Regarding Oaktree, the Chair noted that was a special case and the FAR maximum should not be based on any one particular property within the district. JW noted that the point is to have a mixed use - retail and residential but developers would prefer residential-only as residential is more profitable to them. A larger FAR would be an incentive to developers to make the mix work. Page 2 of 4