2009-03-23 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

CPDC Minutes of 3/23/2009 CK said she would take what the EDC has done to date and put together some draft language for the Board to review. The Board noted there has been no indication from the EDC that there was a need for an increase in the allowed size of signs. Certificate of Appropriateness: 32 Lincoln Street (Train Depot) Swiss Bakers Steve Brickett of Magellan Signs appeared for the applicant. Mr. Brickett: There are two wall signs. Both will be red and white - a Swiss motif - and non- illuminated. One will face up Haven Street and the other will face Lincoln Street. The building is on the Registry of Historical Places but there are no restrictions pertaining to the proposed signage because of this at either the local or Federal level. NS moved the Board approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the signs for Swiss Bakers at 32 Lincoln Street as shown in plans dated 3/2/2009. JW seconded. By a vote of 4:0:0 the Board voted to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness. Downtown 40R Smart Growth District CK: Feedback from the public meeting March 3'd at the Senior Center has been positive. The next step is to craft design guidelines. The consultant's want to know what should be the minimum lot size and lot coverage. The Board reviews the draft by-law and offers suggestions. • Remove work "Overlay" from title for the sake of the acronym. • Change periods at the end of sections to semicolons so there is no confusion over choices. • Under "Administrative Agency" (pg 12): should add scale or scope of cost so developers understand the approximate cost paid to the agency for its work pertaining to affordable units. Also, remove confusion as to who is the "approving authority" who designates the agency: is it the CPDC or the Board of Selectmen? • Under "Application Procedure (pg 12): add that it must be recorded with the Town Clerk to start the clock. • Clarify (pg 3) the formula to be used to determine which households are eligible for affordable units. • Clarify (pg. 6) allowed and prohibited uses. • Clarify (pg. 7) whether or not a building could consist of all residential units. The consensus of the Board was if such a use could not be used at all in the reduced 40R district, then the possibility should not be allowed in the by-law. There must be a mixed-use everywhere in the district. • Storefronts: must they be visible? • F.A.R and parking spaces: somehow equate the two. • Provide options for density bonuses. The consensus was this would require careful consideration as putting it in the by-law would make it available by-right and therefore may be perceived as Page 2of3