2008-09-15-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of September 15, 2008 they did not expect the Planning Board to decide how to finance infrastructure improvements, that was for the Selectmen, but they would look to the Planning Board for recommended changes in the zoning that would best serve the town, balancing increased tax revenue with density and impacts. At 8:55 the Board returned to G-15 to continue their regular meeting. **************************HARTWELL AVENUE AREA STUDY************************** The Board members continued to discuss the upcoming EDTF meeting and possible breakout topics. There was general agreement that the staff would develop three schematics reflecting different densities that could be used to foster discussion of the tradeoffs of costs, revenues and impacts. Planning Topics – The Board began to work its way through the list of topics they had drawn up to discuss and explore as they considered changing the permitted standards for the CM district. The areas discussed were as follows: ?? CM Zone Boundary- There was consensus that the property line of lots on Bedford should be the boundary between the CM and the CRO districts with the possibility of putting the corner lot at Bedford and Hartwell into the CM zone, as it is the gateway into the Hartwell Avenue commercial district. The residentially zoned parcel near the Max Stein property should be considered for CM zoning. ?? Dimensional Controls (assuming that appropriate other measures are included) FAR (floor area ratio)- Board members were asked if they could support a high end FAR o of .9 or 1.0. There seemed to be general agreement to that, but the discussion focused on the lower end. Ms. Manz, Mr. Zurlo and Mr. Hornig said they could support a by-right FAR of .35 while Mr. Canale wanted to leave the by-right FAR at .15, feeling that it would allow greater mitigations to be required for FARs above that. There was discussion of requiring site plan without a special permit for FAR below .35 and special permits with site plan review above a .35 FAR. Height -Mr. Hornig proposed 6 stories and 75’ but argued that there was really no need o for a story limitation, just a height maximum. Mr. Canale suggested 60’ and cautioned that the Building Code may call anything over 60’ a high rise structure and that wouldn’t be appropriate for the area. Setbacks – Ms. McCall-Taylor suggested that there be no side setback so as to allow o shared structured parking. Although members were comfortable with shared parking they were not entirely comfortable with unilateral zero setbacks . A20’ side setback