Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 08/24/2022Meeting Minutes August 24, 2022 To. wn of Mansfield Planning Board RECEIVED TOWN CLERKS OFFICE 2027 SEP IS P 2- 3,1 MEETING HELD IN PERSON IN MEETING ROOM 3 A/B �MANSFIELD �� �HUSETTS AND VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORNi1,� Present: Beth Ashman -Collins, Chair; Joseph Cerretani, Clerk; Sharon Friedman; Adrian LeCesne; Brendan Roche, Alternate; and Mark Corsillo, Alternate Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Michael McClanahan; Ralph Penney and Michael Feck There were no Form A plans submitted. Meeting Minutes — August 10, 2022 Motion to approved the minutes as written and submitted. (Friedman -Roche) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Discussion for the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and MBTA Privatization. Arek Galle of BETA Group summarized what stage that the project is currently at. 7:03 p.m. Adrian LeCesne arrived at the meeting. Mr. Galle apprised the Board that the discussion will be a review of planning of processes underway for two related efforts of parallel tracks for the MBTA and TOD Station District regarding map concepts, Bylaw review and timelines. He said that the State requirements were recently updated for the overlay district. He reviewed the previous map concepts and overlays for density requirements and progression to hybrid maps for the required minimum 50 acres not including wetlands and streets. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 8/24/22 Page 1 of 5 The map progressions included recently approved projects to include projects such as the Chocolate Factory in the northern area of Map 5. Mr. Galle showed the "spaghetti" map of half mile radius walkability to the station for each side of the tracks. He then showed additional draft maps for potential overlay areas including the walkability areas. Draft Map 10 is a combined map for potential MBTA and TOD Station overlay zone with an increase land area of TOD including the Chocolate Factory and added residential areas. Based on previous maps Mr. Galle inquired if the industrial areas should be more inclusive to the map where there are already sizable buildings in proximity to downtown within the half -mile to downtown. Map 10 represents a more industrial and residential area inclusion with less of the business district than previous maps. The goal is to establish a single map that would work for the TOD and MBTA. Within Map 11 there could be different density areas. Ms. Friedman asked about the southern areas of Map 11 and whether the newest residential complexes could be included in the count and if the Town could make that request to the State. She expressed that she likes the walkability and densification of Map 11. She also spoke of inclusion of a cultural district which was a previous loss to the Town. Mr. Galle noted that Map 11 may not achieve what Ms. Friedman is seeking for a cultural district. Ms. Ashman -Collins noted that the Map 1 I has deliberately not included the parts of downtown that have smaller historic structures so that it would not invite teardowns and densification in that area of downtown. Mr. Corsillo asked for clarification as to where the historic areas were downtown. Ms. Ashman - Collins responded that there are two sections of Main St. where B-1 has larger buildings and B-2 has buildings that are scaled like large houses. Mr. Corsillo expressed that it could be potentially good to encourage revitalization of the downtown area. Ms. Ashman -Collins said that current zoning does allow for density but not to the extent that the MBTA requires. Mr. Burke referenced the previous downtown business overlay district that went up almost to Oakland St. and down to the Town Hall and that it was brought to Town meeting and rolled back up to Villa St. due to a sense from residents that they wanted to keep the density closer to the train station. Ms. Friedman spoke of making sure that the building has some scale to go from new development to keeping in scale with existing adjacent structures. Ms. Ashman -Collins notes that the TOD area allows for very large buildings. Mr. Burke said that density in downtown buildings has a floor area ratio of about 1.5 even though the Zoning Bylaw allows density up to 2.5, which cannot be met unless a large area with structured parking is pieced together. Mr. Burke noted that the current draft map allows for density in the lower portion of the overlay area where there are currently warehouse buildings. He expressed that a goal would be to merge the maps to meet the density that the MBTA requires and achieve the density that would make the TOD work with shared common themes. He noted that the MBTA wants the wetlands to be excluded. Mr. Galle said that the overlay should not include the wetlands and greenspace areas. But it makes sense to go out to the backwash as there may be overarching objectives within the overlay, such as open space, recreation and woodland trails. These areas should remain in the overlay, but for the overlaying calculations relative to units and density they would be backed out of the gross area. Those areas could still contribute in terms of open space and green space. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 8/24/22 Page 2 of 5 Mr. LeCesne noted some areas of wooded overgrowth, debris, and fencing which make some areas not walkable. Mr. Burke noted that the fenced areas are to prevent trespassing to rail lot. He also mentioned walking bridges over the Rumford River with potential to future passive recreation areas. Mr. Galle said that if the Board likes the current draft map, they would then dig further into sub - districts with density bonuses. Discussion ensued to current use of land at the top part of the map for the Town parcel and private owned parcels relating to density. Mr. Galle talked about the industrial land to the south traveling down Rumford. In an ideal situation if there were larger scale building in the area it could create a unique opportunity to build an over -the - track connection in the future. Mr. LeCesne expressed concern with increased density creating increased traffic. Mr. Burke noted that the current draft Map 11 incorporates four districts and encompasses a larger area than required and that it makes sense for walkability. He said that the current draft map does not include 300 North Main Street, but it would make sense to include it. Moving forward to also include similar allowed by right and density bonus to be similar on both sides of the tracks. He noted that Station square was excluded from projected density access because they are at maximum density with 100 units and could not add any additional units under current zoning. Mr. Burke said the MBTA released program guidelines on August Ioth in which Mass Housing Partnership with the MBTA was going to create a buildout model so that all communities are calculating density the same way and that would be ready in the fall. The next map would include those number calculations. Mr. Corsillo expressed concern with having too many overlapping overlay districts in some areas. Mr. Burke agreed. He referenced that on the west side of the tracks there could potentially be the MBTA overlay, TOD overlay, floodplain overlay, site hydric soils overlay, and then the underlying zoning I-2. Mr. Corsillo inquired if it could be simplified and more uniform. Mr. Burke said they could work on reducing overlays in any one area. Mr. Burke said that one overlay does not override another. Mr. Cerretani said that the current overlay district is not very dense and that it should be to meet the requirements for future development. Mr. Cerretani mentioned that there had been Board consensus that development at the West side of the tracks at the train station would not be built up until the new access road at County Street and further access improvements are completed. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked if there would be a TOD that would be discussed separately from the MBTA zone or will the rules for the TOD zone expand and change to be the new MBTA zone. Mr. Burke noted that there are similar goals. The MBTA at 15 units per acre, does not require as much density as the TOD. Mr. Galle said that the goal is to meet the 15 unit minimum and specifically target areas for higher density and it would be ideal for the end result to have one overlay limit. Mr. Burke referenced Mass Housing Partnership in conjunction with the MBTA had sent a request to MBTA communities to participate in their buildout modeling, which Mansfield did send an application to participate. Mr. Galle suggested areas to review within the envelope of the overlay area for density using either FAR or units per acre. Ms. Friedman asked if using the MBTA density allows for more future grants. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 8/24/22 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Burke said that units per acre is used in residential zones and it is better to apply FAR to commercial and mixed -use development rather than units per acre to acquire more density. If Mansfield is chosen for the buildout study, there will be a calculated comparison for both FAR and units per acre. Ms. Friedman noted parcels that have been approved for development but have not yet been developed and asked if the undeveloped parcels would be a detriment. Ms. Ashman -Collins said that it could be a detriment, but that the units are not required to be built. Mr. Cerretani asked, based on the parcels that are in existence in the new zone can it be modeled based on the parcels. Mr. Galle said that further discussion for the overlay would be to meet the minimum MBTA requirement and increase density. The MBTA target is to reach 1,392 units in the new overlay district, which is attainable, and next is to figure the best way to apply that using either FAR or units per acre. It could also be modeled both ways. Mr. Galle referenced the Train Station Revitalization District 230.5.12 of the Bylaw and noted areas of review, such as parking, design standards, materials, density & dimensional, building height, design conformance, zoning incentives, community benefits, open space, and density bonus for discussion moving forward at the next few meetings. He also outlined additional considerations for possible incorporation into the Bylaw, such as applying FAR to align with B-1 and B-1, subdistricts within TOD/MBTA overlay, development vision, delivery zones, short and long-term parking, public common space, energy efficiency, and environmental objectives. Mr. Galle mentioned review of other communities and case studies to bring to the next meeting for discussion. Ms. Friedman expressed that the Town is currently weak in building incentives and they should be more robust and it would be important to further review incentives. Mr. Galle suggested working together on the Master Plan development to regain clarity by augmenting and expanding. Mr. Galle proposed a preliminary timeline for upcoming meetings to incorporate a community outreach workshop, PB meeting for TOC/MBTA density interface, and public hearings for Bylaw amendments. Mr. Burke also mentioned that Special Town Meeting (STM) would be late fall, early winter, but the date is not set. The preliminary timeline is a map to end up with something to present at STM. Discussion ensued for promotion of the public workshop Planning Board Meeting Minutes 8/24/22 Page 4 of 5 Ms. Friedman asked about the follow-up of Old Elm Street and the Town's Right of First Refusal. Mr. Burke noted that the Town recorded a document with the Registry in March that the Town did not think that the offer of Right of First Refusal met the statute so the Town is not acting on it now. He further noted that there is a perspective buyer that has perced the site, which was one of the conditions of purchase and sale agreement that Town Counsel objected to. The offer to buy should be without condition. A second condition of the purchase is confirmation of the wetland lines. Ms. Friedman requested if a letter could be written to the Select Board for an update on the status of purchase. Mr. Burke said that could be done, or the Planning Board could schedule to be on a Select Board meeting agenda to inquire, or someone could ask the question at the STM. Mr. LeCesne referenced tree removal at the Chase Bank site at the intersection of Copeland and Route 106 and asked if some should have been left per Site Plan approval. Mr. Burk noted that the applicant submitted an existing conditions plan and a landscaping plan which the Board approved. Motion: To adjourn at 8:45 p.m. (Friedman-LeCesne) all in favor PASSES Date of Next Planning Board Meeting: September 14, 2022 at 7: 00 p. m. Signature of Clerk Date of Approval Planning Board Meeting Minutes 8/24/22 Page 5 of 5