2002-01-18-40B-min.pdf - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

' Ad Hoc 40B Review Committee Meeting Minutes January 18,2002 Room G-15 Members Present: Stan Abkowitz, Harriet Cohen, Marshall Derby,John Frey,Tom Harden, Jeanne Krieger, Sheila Marian,Bill Passman, Bill Taylor,Ann Whitney Staff Present: Maryann McCall-Taylor, Rachael Herrup-Morse, Ed Marchant Others: Lawrence Cheng, Marjorie Daggett, Philip Fischer,Tony Galaitsis,Ed Marchant, Tom Montanari,Josh Posner, Russell Tanner, Dexter Whittinghill,Norma Whittinghill All in attendance were asked to sign in. Mr. Abkowitz brought up the matter of minutes. He was concerned that the first set of minutes did not reflect what went on at the meetings and he wanted to know the status of the minutes. Ms. Krieger said that they had not been approved and if anyone wanted to suggest changes they should send them to Rachael Herrup-Morse. The minutes will be put on a future agenda for discussion and adoption. Presentation by Rising Tide Development Josh Posner informed the committee that the plans before the committee were not fully re-designed from those of the previous week. Rising Tide Development attempted to address those concerns that seemed most apparent at the previous meeting, such as the size of the back yards on East Street. Mr. Posner indicated that it would be useful to have a continuation of the discussion of group preferences begun on January 11`h. He also expressed a desire to discover what would be particularly unwanted by the neighbors as well as a sense about what development situation would be `livable.' Mr. Posner concluded by informing the committee that the revised model tried to better reflect the actual scale of the perimeter buildings but that a building-by-building measurement had not be conducted. Lawrence Cheng presented the revised model to the committee. He stated that last year's study of the site looked at a mid-rise building in the center. With this model,privacy was greater for the neighbors and the development had a higher density in the middle with a larger, five-story, building and larger dwelling units surrounding. He indicated that the problem with this type of development was the lack of definition and the scattered appearance the complex takes on. There was no `front-door/back-door' to the unit and there was no effective common open space. When looking at other variations, problems emerged with dead ends, emergency vehicle turning space and front-door/back-door relationships. A development that offered one continuous row house with underground parking would not fit in with the neighborhood. Moving back to the revised model, Mr. Cheng stated that, based on the January 1 discussion,they increased the set backs,tightened the ring, removed one 4-plex building and lost some open space. The architects included one 18-unit building in the center of the development with underground parking. 28 units would be arranged around the perimeter for a total of 46 units. The set back now became 25 feet to the face of the building from the perimeter and the distance between the buildings was now at least 30 feet. The 18-unit building in the middle of the site was about 43 feet high. Bill Taylor expressed disappointment at the presence of the 18-unit building in the middle of the site. He indicated that he thought the total number of units was now 28. Mr. Taylor told that committee that he went to the Locke Village development and that the actual set back with the three abutters was a minimum of 45-65 feet which did not make it readily comparable to the proposed Lowell Street development. Mr.Taylor also pointed out the buffer zone present at Locke Village between the abutters