Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 03/22/2023�p . Town of Mansfield Plannan Board f $>f�AS s RECEI ED TOWN CLERKS OFFICE Meeting Minutes 20B APR 14 A D 35 March 22, 2023 11 ESEIELD MEETING HELD IN PERSON IN MEETING R06VIYr. AHUSETTS AND VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORM Present: Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Michael McClanahan, Acting Chair; Ralph Penney; Brendan Roche, Alternate and Mark Corsillo, Alternate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Joseph Cerretani, Chair; Michael Feck; Adrian LeCesne Mr. McClanahan was Acting Chair in Mr. Cerretani's absence. Attorney Valenzola was present on behalf of the applicant Limited liability LLC, Mr. Cahill, owner. Attorney Valenzola explained that Mr. Cahill operates a landscaping business at this location for which there was a previously approved Site Plan in 2016. They were before the Board seeking relief for two of the requirements from Site Plan approval in 2016. Because the light poles impede truck turnings and parking, and because the poles are not needed as the business operated during the day and weekend days, they are seeking a waiver to eliminate the light poles. There is sufficient lighting on the building. Attornev Valenzola said that Mr. Cahill is also seekine to waive the reouirement for the Wanting of street configuration which changes the applicant's property corner by making the buffer zone further out. The Town also added crushed stone from the applicant's property line to the street. The applicant would like to add a six -foot -tall stockade fence to shield the landscaping mulch and other materials. Discussion ensued explaining the previous and new street layout. Ms. Raposa referenced the 2016 Site Plan approval which required deciduous trees and arborvitaes along the property line including a fence and mulch bins. She clarified that Mr. Cahill is proposing to place the six-foot stockade fence on the property line to hide the bins in the parking lot and to not do any of the vegetation that was previously required. The land outside the boundary of the applicant's land is Town owned. Ms. Friedman expressed that she would like to see vegetation in lieu of a stockade fence. In regards to the lighting she would be in support of waiving the two light poles. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/22/23 Page 1 of 6 Attorney Valenzola expressed that the buffer was required in 2016, but with the new street changes, it would not be as relevant as the property lines have changed and it creates a financial strain for his client. Mr. Corsillo asked if the previously required berms were added. Attorney clarified that one is in place but not the one on the front. Mr. Corsillo expressed his opinion that it would not be beyond the scope of a landscaping company to plant trees and shrubs. The original plan was approved with conditions to add three maple trees and thirty-seven arborvitaes along the street. Mr. Penney asked if the building lights are on all night. Mr. Cahill confirmed they are on a timer and that there have not been any neighbor complaints. Mr. Penney expressed that he would like the original plantings completed as required. Mr. Roche also expressed that the plantings should remain. Ms. Raposa communicated with the DPW director, who expressed that the Town does not have money in the budget for material or labor to add landscaping in the Town's right-of-way. Mr. Cahill explained that by adding the berm behind the bins it would create a loss of working space within the property. Mr. Penney referenced that the approved plan showed berms and bins and was concerned that it was not constructed per the approved plans. Josh Reinke, DPW Director, joined the meeting and spoke on behalf of the DPW. He referenced drainage improvements on the new road that have to remain in place. He inquired who would maintain shrubs added on town property and expressed sight distances need to be taken into consideration for added shrubs. Attorney Valenzola suggested that planting maintenance be by the applicant for a year as a condition of approval. Mr. Penney suggested that the applicant return to submit a new plan incorporating the berm behind the existing bins and showing plantings as discussed. Mr. Reinke said the applicant is required to submit for a trench permit with the DPW office as they would be doing work in a right-of-way. Mr. Corsillo said he would like to see the thirty-seven arborvitaes be maintained and would agree to waive the two maple trees and the two light poles. Motion to continue the hearing until April 12, 2023 at 7:05prn (Penney — Friedman) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Michael Andrade of Graves Engineering and Andrea McDougal of the Mansfield Housing Authority were present remotely to speak on behalf of the Mansfield Housing Authority. Mr. Andrade said that it is a anulti-building public facility for the elderly and explained when it was built and how many people are housed. The proposed plan for improvements is a DHCD Capital Improvement funded project to improve the private roads and parking to accommodate resident and staff needs. The new plan shows 17 new parking spaces added to the existing parking area. They will also be repaving the walkways to the units, adding landscaping, and benches. They will be moving some existing lights, but not proposing any new lights. There will be storrawater improvements to the exiting drainage system and improvements to water quality. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/22/23 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Andrade said that the work would begin after approval from the Planning Board and Conservation Commission and anticipate it to be a three-month project. They are also seeking a waiver to eliminate the submission of a photometric plan. Motion to waive the submission of a lighting plan. (Penney - Friedman) Mr. McClanahan asked if the existing fixtures could be LED. Mr. Andrade said they may already be LED, and if they are not, they could change to LED bulbs. Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Ms. Friedman asked for clarification of the revised sidewalks and walkways and how far they will be from the building. Mr. Andrade clarified the new layout and distancing. Ms. Friedman ask if other plantings could be added in addition to the day lilies shown on the plan. Mr. Penney suggested plantings that would bloom throughout the season. Ms. McDougal said that the since the site was built in 1976 the planting have not been changed. The State does not find replacement or maintenance of plantings and the applicant is using this grant opportunity to make changes. Mr. Roche asked about the ADA units' location in relation to the new ADA parking spaces. Mr. Andrade referenced the plan and locations near the ADA units. Motion to approve the Site Plan as submitted with the condition that the applicant be more creative with the landscape planting. (Penney — Roche) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Arek Galle of BETA Group was present with Laura Smead of JM Goldson. Mr. Galle noted the topics of discussion as the Master Plan vision, building height, mixed use, density, and zoning incentives. Mr. Galle spoke of the Chimney St. and Route 106 corridor reconstruction MassDOT meeting where vvu auvw�a i..r,,, g.v w..w.w. ,..w. ......... ............wa.. •::y. �.......v ....�....y:.......... �.... � ....�.�...... .+........, working on. Mr. Galle began the discussion for building height walkability, parks, and zoning incentives with activation of the land to the north. Ms. Raposa said that the implementation of a dog park and fitness stations is referenced in the Master Plan, Mr. Galle said the spaces should be integrated into an active use with trails and connectivity. Mr. Galle said that the rail corridor is best for defining the height with the taller buildings at the rail corridor and then scaling back to the neighborhoods. The previous discussion was for six stories at 65 feet at the rail corridor with transition to four stories at 45 feet near the existing neighborhoods. He also noted that the MBTA defines stories at ten feet. The existing Bylaw requires ftuther work to define building stories and maximum building height. The difference between the Town definition and the MBTA can affect the overall height of the building. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/22/23 Page 3 of 6 For example, META five stories reaches a maximum height of 50 feet and the Town five stories reaches a maximum height of 70 feet with an allowed additional five-foot roof structure. Board discussion ensued for how the definition of height was redefined to what it currently is. Mr. Penney said that the Board does not regulate the height of a building by stories. Mr. Galle showed an example of varying heights within a structure of 18 feet, 10 feet, and 9 feet, to meet the overall height of approximately 70 feet. Mr. Penney expressed reluctance to specify stories as it takes away from an architect's design flexibility. Mr. Penney said that he is agreeable with 65 feet maximum height. Ms. Friedman expressed concern with building height where it would be too massive at six stories and that not all the density needs to be at the train station; only 50% is required in the MBTA immediate area. Ms. Smead stated that the MBTA compliance model references a story at ten feet, but it is not mandatory. Mr. Galle again referenced that as a building goes higher, the top floors could be required to step back on the fagade to create visual balance. He also referenced that the current Town height regulations do not align with the compliance modeling in terms of generating TOD density as required, vertically, and the conservation of land that they are trying to promote. Mr. Roche expressed that defining stories other than 14 feet would be a big step. Ms. Smead suggested not specifying "height" but creating an overall height which leaves the interpretation of height for each level at the discretion of the developer. Mr. Corsillo asked about the building height perception from the train platform. Mr. Galle noted that the proposed garage would be at the platform area and could have articulated height and would be surrounded by other elements, not just a parking garage. Ms. Raposa said that this is an opportunity to create density at the station and deliberately scale down to the residential areas to preserve the small -Town feel. Mr. Penney noted that the Chocolate Factory was six to seven stories when originally build and that the neighborhood was developed around it. He expressed that 70 feet may be too tall, but that perhaps 60 feet would be more feasible for overall height. lvlr. Roche said that they still need to define stories versus height to align with the MBTA. Mr. Galle said that the Board could use height and be cognizant of the conversion to meet MBTA requirements. Mr. Penney expressed reluctance to specify stories as it could limit design. Mr. Galle said that if the height near the station is pushed down it then would put pressure on the next overlay zones to make up the density difference to meet the 1,392 unit requirement. Those other overlay areas may not have as much undeveloped area which would make it more difficult to meet the requirements. Mr. Galle noted that making decisions for the current overlay district may put additional pressure of other overlay zones to meet the 1,392-unit number. Mr. Penney referenced a previously noted article in which greater height creates more green space. Ms, Smead spoke of the existing dimensional standards and suggested m< increase density. Mr. Penney said that the Board previously agreed to str requirements. Set -back requirements were discussed and will be address( Mr. Galle reviewed first floor mixed use percentages of 10%, 20%, and 30% and suggested live/work space be included. It was also suggested to have all residential use as development moves further away from the station area. The Board discussed which percentages would be best with potential variations in different areas. Along with developing bonus incentives and its application to the structured parking garage. Mr. Galle suggested that a land assembly process be required for the garage; this is something that would work for all land owners since the existing parcel geometry is odd shaped. Funding for a parking structure is undetermined at this time. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/22/23 Page 4 of 6 Ms. Smead talked about the dwelling units per acre based on the previous Board discussion as: a) By -right: 30 dwelling units per acre b) Bomis 1: 31 to 40 dwelling units per acre c) Bonus 2: 41 to 50 dwelling units per acre d) Bonus 3: 51 to 60 dwelling units per acre The board made suggestions for less units per acre at each tier. Mr. Galle noted that the Special Permit, per state requirements, is eliminated at the by -right threshold but that it could be used in the bonus structures. There will need to be balance that the incentives are enticing to the developer. Ms. Smead will incorporate changes for next meeting discussion. Ms. Smead talked about Zoning Incentive Bonus 2 and added bonus density structures [a], [b], and [c] with options on how that could be structured. Ms. Friedman suggested bonuses of roof gardens above the garage and conununity gardens, which could be created off site but still be a part of the TOD district. Ms. Smead also recommended added incentives relating to affordable units and preservation or rehabilitation of historic properties. Another incentive is [e] for high performance building design that exceeds minimum energy code baseline and is designed to the LEED Certified standard. Mr. Roche referenced the Stretch Code in relation to future changes and suggested that this may not really be an incentive, but rather a requirement based on where the building codes are headed. Net Zero may be the firture base line. Mr. Corsillo expressed that it could be an incentive until it becomes the base line. Ms. Smead referenced incentives [f] for green infrastructure, [g] cultural or historic museum or arts facilities, and [h] density bonus and parking which will be further discussed at the next workshop. Mr. Corsillo asked what would next steps be if the amendment does not pass at Town Meeting. Ms. Raposa said that the existing bylaw would remain in place and then everyone would have to work harder to meet the MBTA requirements. Mr. Penney referenced that there is a separate parking table in the TOD, which should be eliminated and only refer to the table in the parking regulations. Mr. McClanahan asked if Ms. Raposa could review and advise the Board on the parking references. Ms. Smead said that she would also review the parking. identifies areas around town for housing relating to TOD Phase I and TOD Phase ILThe notion of 40R has been brought up and she clarified that the meaning of 40R housing mostly relates to starter homes, single family not to exceed 1,850 square feet with affordability as a sub -component. As of right density would be eight units per acre for the affordability component. The process is that the Town works with the State and the State approves the district with a bonus payment and additional payment to the Town when built. Ms. Raposa did not recommend 40R for Phase I but as a potential for Phase Il. She requested Board feedback and will reach out to SRPEDD for a draft action map for discussion at the next meeting. Mr. Corsillo asked about the SRPEDD photo request for the Housing Production Plan and suggested that he could submit drone aerial photos. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/22/23 Page 5 of 6 611 West Street — Legacy Engineering letter dated march 14, 2023 Community Outreach Meeting notice for Adult Use marijuana Retail Establishment scheduled for March 30, 2023 was read into the record. Ms. Raposa noted that the Special Permit for 611 West Street will be submitted for renewal at an upcoming meeting. Meeting Minutes — not submitted Ms. Friedman said that she and Mr. Cerretani are the Planning Board representatives for the CIP and she is the representative for the Open Space and Recreation Committee. She said that she is happy to continue to be the representative for those meetings. Mr. Penney suggested that when the full board convenes next, that they take a vote for nominating representatives for each committee. Motion to adjourn at 9:58 p.m. (Penney -Friedman) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Date of Next Planning Board Meeting April 12, 2023 at 7: 00 p. m. Sharon Friedman, Clerk Date of Approval Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/22/23 Page 6 of 6