Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-05 Planning Board Minutesce " r Minutes of the Meeting of February 5, 1981. Chairman Zorabedian called the meeting to order at 7:42 PM in Room 19, 52 S - - - - -- -with J. Sturm, E. Childress, B. Mitchel and J. Shaw present. Mr. John Fitzgerald was also in attendance. Correspondence Mail was reviewed. The Chairman noted that the Executive Secretary X_4_ sent a format for every department to.use when filing their Annual Report. This format is the same as last year; camera: --ready copy typed on plain white bond and sub- mitted to the Selectmen's office no later than March 2,- 1981. Minutes The Board unanimously approved the minutes of January 26, 1981, as corrected. Horizon Homes The Chairman recessed the meeting to Room 17 to meet with the representatives from Horizon.Homes and a]s interested neighbors from Bay State Road. The Chairman addressed the groupW Ahere were approximately 12 people in attendance. This�was an informational meeting before the scheduled,,hearing for the Comprehensive permit on February 18, 1981. The Board >�received a copy of the comprehensive permit today as it was filed on Friday, January 30, 1981 with the. Board of Appeals. The first publication of�'t notice for the compre- hensive permit hearing was publishe on Wednesday, February 4, 1981 in the Reading Chronicle. Town Clerk's office posted the notice in their office on February 3, 1981. The Chairman briefly reviewed the status of this project as presented to the Board in the Spring of 1980. As presented this project was: - 97 units of housing for low and middle income elderly and /or handicapped - access was off Bay State Road - there were approximately 50 parking spaces provided The Chairman stated that the Board would address those issues which fell within their purview: safety, traffic, parking and impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Converse was then asked to address the group. It was stated that as presently submitted the development was the same as that submitted to the Board in the Spring of 1980. The project calls for a 20,000 sq ft building to be erected on a site with 300,166•sq. ft. This building would be ,a ly 7.2o of the total lot size. Upon questioning it was detekm: ned that..,. was the entire site and not the one lot upon which they intended to place the dwelling The lot where the building would be placed is approximately 3 acres, thus making coverage approx. 170 .i At present they are planning to run a water line from Haverhill - - Street through the back parcel of land and out to Bay State., Road, whchthe Board of Public Works hass� approved They state that is would then give the development a water pressure. The discussion included the following matters: the importancep f adequate parking for this development - the impac&,6'%i ��fieighborhood is presently undergoing and has had tc survive in the past the traffic flow on such a small residential street - the impact of inadequate parking on the neighborhood where additional parking would be placed in this develop- ment, if required a small van would be available to the residents of this proposed development for transportation to various centers and shopping areas - the central entrance provided by.this plan afforded the greatest degree of security to the inhabitants � e - security would be provided by a passkey at the main entrance and a door buzzer from the individual apartments- for those not having a passkey the project as presently presented provides for two elevators and is A' Class I construction to provide adequate fire and safety protection to the inhabitants - the long corridors wereA drafts_ in case of fire and that w_ perhaps smaller cluster' fanning would eli �i hate this - hazard the long orridors were no A.. g .ventil -ted and thus would be an energy drain - requiring 12 month; ventilation and/or air conditioning the plan presently does not have adequate access to the development, although contendkthis was just an architectural oversight -- because of the nature of the project this was not going to be a drain on the Town's resources as the United Church Homes, the Congregational Church would be pro - viding many services to the occupants when questioned as to alternate sites, they said that as presently funded by HUD they cannot cline the site. When they were looking for sites, }er was--- not---any- available_ The Salem Street site next to Gallahues Market was not then available for sale. When questioned on smaller sites, they responded that they did not like that concept. The Congregational Church would be happy to work with.the Planning Board on a design review process of this site. the present design has considered the impact of the develop - ment on the neighborhood and designed the unit in accordance that the tenant selection committee of United Church Homes „would control the occupancy of this development. That there l 51 would have to be advertising for low income within the city to inform them of the availability of this housing, but in their experience have found that mostly neighboring residents of the community in which the housing is located apply. No plap for a buffer area is presently planned for this development. - Impact of this development on titi7et1 and s In conclusion the Chairman asked the members from the Congregational Church to sum up their position on this project. They stated: - At present they plan to go ahead with the Comprhensive Permit hearings and schedule for this 97 units of housing off Bay State Road as presented on their plan They were hoping to -oh obtain support from the Planning Board on this project. Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr,. Peters from-Bay State Road expressed the followQing concerns: - That a project of this size on their small residential street would adversely impact their neighborhood. That (adequate provisions for traffic and safet zn this neigh rhood had not been adequately addresse' A presently impacted from the Flea Market in the shopping area across Salem Street, the neighborhood could not accommodate the parking needs of such a large development - t-l�at- -h not provided adequately for, the_..- proposed - development-- p-ar -k -i rg- n-e-ed .-- That the project is for a 4 story structure in an area where most of the houses are 1 and 1 1/2 stories high and thus would have a detrimental effect on the cash value of their property. Also until such time as this project can be approved because of its impact on \ the Wetlands, the Town should not consider granting a building permit to this development. The Chairman thanked everyone for coming and noted the Board's concerns, as follows:, - the adequacy of the parking for the proposed development the adequacy of the access /egress for this project for both regular vehicular traffic and also fire and safety vehicles - the impact of the traffic in this neighborhood - the lack of sidewalks Vrovided by._. -Ho rz.oaa- :E'o e.s� on Bay State Road for the safety of °the neighboring residents -- the impact of the 4 story structure in a neighborhood of 1 and 1 1/2 stories residences -- the adequacy of the design in relation to fire and safety access and provisions as well as neighborhood impact, impact on Wetlands and discrepancy between the Town's maps and their estimated contour lines for this area The Board then reconvened at 9:05 PM in Room 19 to discuss the remaining agenda items. Meeting Schedule The Planning Board will meet again on Thursday, February 12, 1981. The Secretary will inform -Kr. Amon of this meeting so that he may request an appointment two _meets with the Board' �� discuss land off Bay State Road for rez rri ig. E, x- = ,..,u. On Wednesday, February 18, 1981, The Planning Board will me=et - -rat wn Hal1, the Comprehensive Permit hearing on Horizon Homes PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTAURANTS FOR SURROUNDING TOWNS 2/5/81 Wakefield (245-0703-Dave Cudillo) Stoneham ( 438-3811) - 1 parking space for every 4 seats, Concord - (from By-law handbook, pg. 17) 7.6.1.8. Restaurant, lodge, club, one parking space for recreation use or other each four seats of rated place of assembly capacity or one space for each four persons normally expected on the premises at the time of maximum use, plus such additional spaces as shall be required for the number of.employees' vehicles which can be reasonably expected at any one time on the premises. Lexington - NO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT FOR RESTAURANTS Wilmington - (658-6323 - Sandy Murphy) - 1 parking space for every 2.5 seats; Andover - Mr. DeSalvo-475--7820 - INdustrial Dist. _ 1 for every 4 places; Gen Bus Dist - 1 space for each 3 seats and 1 for every 2 employees on principle workshift. Lynnfield - (1-334-3128) - at least 1 for every 180 sq ft on ground floor level plus 1 additional space for each 360 sq ft floor area in all stories above the first floor, or at least one space for every 3 seats, whichever is greater. North Reading -(664-4431 - Kathy Quimby)- parking-space for every 4 seating capacity. ARTICLE To see if the Town will amend Section 6.1.1.3 (Required Spaces) of the Zoning By-Laws by adding the following, or take any other action with respect thereto: Restaurants - Minimum Off-Street Parkin One Space for each (60) Sixty square feet of dining area. Minimum Off-Street Loading & Unloading Spaces: One Space for the first (1,000) One Thousand square feet of floor area and One Space for each (500) Five Hundred square feet of floor area in excess of (1,000) One Thousand square feet of floor area. Note: An Article should'be written eliminating restaurants from Section 6.1.1. This would be for new restaurants and change of use into a restaurant. Currently any restaurant that is within 300' feet of Municipal parking does not have to supply parking.