Mixed‑use 289 East Main proposal paused after commissioners, residents raise safety and character concerns

The planning commission tabled the site plan review for a proposed three‑story, mixed‑use building at 289 East Main Street after staff highlighted missing information and commissioners and residents expressed concerns about pedestrian safety and downtown character.

Staff described the project as a three‑story building with two ground‑floor retail spaces, six garage units and three condominium units on upper floors, then walked through site‑plan review standards. The staff report flagged several outstanding items required under the site‑plan submittal: a missing benchmark elevation for the southeast corner needed to compute average grade and confirm the roof‑plane height under the downtown overlay, a soil erosion and sedimentation plan, a clear landscaping plan, clarification of refuse and waste management, lighting details, and clarification of garage/circulation geometry.

Commissioners focused on the location and number of garage doors that would open onto Gardner and Third streets, possible pedestrian‑vehicular conflicts near the Lyric Theatre and theatergoers, curb‑cut widths permitted under code, and whether the ground‑floor composition meets the downtown‑overlay requirement for active storefront window area. Staff noted some drainage information had since been submitted but had not yet been reviewed; several commissioners said the plans as presented did not allow them to verify compliance with height, window‑area, and circulation standards.

During public comment, multiple residents urged stronger architectural controls and questioned the balance between retail floor area and private garage bays, warned of traffic and safety problems with cars entering and exiting at sidewalk grade, and said the building’s massing and balconies would alter the historic downtown character. After discussion, a commissioner moved to table the item pending receipt and review of the outstanding materials; the motion was seconded and passed. The applicant indicated a June resubmittal would likely be feasible.

Next steps: staff will review any new submittals from the applicant, and the commission expects to revisit the project at a future meeting once the outstanding materials and code questions are addressed.