Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 03/08/2023F PAF'�ASA4"�Q` Town of Mansfield Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 8, 2023 MEETING HELD IN PERSON IN MEETING ROOM 3 A/B AND VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORM Present: Joseph Cerretani, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Michael McClanahan; Ralph Penney.� Michael Feck; Adrian LeCesne; Brendan Roche, Alternate and Mark Corsillo, Alt%iate y CD 7'r to Z Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development , ,,y rr, n M Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary r� n — ?r c�i rc am Absent: None �- =' D n ..o Emily Miller, applicant and Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering were present. Ms. Miller stated that she was before the Board seeking limited Site Plan approval as outlined in the Attorney General's latest correspondence dated November 21, 2022. The facility's primary use will be for child care. All of the students will be in one building with the component of the existing non-profit elementary program. Mr. Cygawnoski referenced the department head meeting for project review, stating that most department comments have been satisfied and the few outstanding issues will be addressed and submitted as requested. The revised septic design was submitted with pending approval by Board of Health. The stormwater system design has been approved by engineering. Mr. Cygawnoski noted site access and parking and referenced the latest submitted site plans depicting existing conditions, septic system, and proposed conditions for the new building. There is a turn -around and access to the existing Maker building which was constructed in phase one on the site. The 24-foot-wide driveway is proposed to continue to the newly proposed phase two building. The existing building has 18 parking spaces and phase two would have an additional 14 spaces including two handicap spaces. The site will be ADA compliant. The new school septic system will be located between the proposed building and the existing Maker space building. Mr. Cygawnoski explained that there will be two drainage systems. One for the parking lot and one for the new building, which has been reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. He explained that snow storage would be located at the back of the new building near the dumpster and onto the grass area of the property. Ms. Miller noted which existing trees would be cut due to disease. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/8/23 Pagel of 8 Mr. Cygawnoski said that the new building would be outside of the 100-foot and 200-foot river and wetland conservation requirement. A land disturbance permit was submitted to conservation, as there will be more than one acre of disturbance. They will be meeting with the Conservation Board after the Planning Board. Mr. McClanahan asked how the long the driveway would be. Mr. Cygawnoski referenced the submitted car queuing diagram stating that approximately 60 vehicles, with average vehicle length, could be on the property for drop-off or pick-up without being stacked up on Knight Way. The driveway is approximately 700 feet in length. Ms. Miller said that drop -of and pick-up times are staggered with earliest at approximately 7:55am then 8:15am and last at 8:25am. Mr. Cerretani asked what the student capacity would be. Ms. Miller said capacity would be 200 students, but not all at one time since there are half day programs. She further explained that the new building would include all classrooms and those from the existing maker building (23 current students) would be incorporated into the new building when completed. Mr. Corsillo noted that if the school is at maximum 200 student capacity, there would potentially be 200 vehicle hips per day. Ms. Miller said there is carpooling and siblings so it would not typically reach the 200 maximum car trips per day. Mr. Roche asked if the 2017 traffic study still holds up for current and future capacity. Ms. Miller said that it would still be accurate. Mr. Corsillo asked how the traffic would be impacted with fature construction and closing of the bridge to Balcom Street. Ms. Miller suggested alternative ways to access Balcom Street Mr. Corsillo asked if there will be an outdoor nature space. Ms. Miller said there will be, but it has not yet been designed. Mr. Corsillo asked about the property and school ownership. Ms. Miller said that the entity on Knight Way is run by Hands on Montessori, which is a non-profit organization. The property is owned by FOD, LLC. Mr. Ceuetani asked for an explanation of the profit and non-profit entities. Ms. Miller explained that when the main campus building is built, all students and teachers will be in one facility with the majority of use as a child care facility. The elementary component will be a smaller component with less student enrollment. The EEC does license private schools where student majority is considered child care based on the age of the children. The option is to maintain the current elementary non-profit because there are advantages in terms of grants. The primary use would be as a child care facility with a smaller elementary school component. The current elementary program is operating as a non-profit organization. Mr. Corsillo referenced the Mansfield Electric comments that the lighting is not adequate for what is required. Mr. Cygawnoski replied that a new lighting plan was submitted based on Mansfield Electric conmients. Mr. Cygawnoski also said that the Title 5 requirement by the Board of Health would be submitted when the existing house is renovated. Ms. Miller referenced the submitted plan for car queuing, which was a request of the Public Safety & Traffic Officer. Ms. Friedman expressed concern that the queuing plan is "static' and not "fluid" and it would not be an actual representation and suggested a more accurate schematic for specific pick-up and drop-off times. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/8/23 Page 2 of 8 Judi Barrett of Barrett Planning Group was present remotely in support of the Board as a consultant during the interim that there was no Planner. She explained her work with the Board on the Site Plan Bylaw and that the Board is able to review the plan for use, but that conditions could be imposed in the decision. Mr. Feck noted that the entrance is tight for two cars as depicted in the queuing plan and asked if it could be widened, but understood that there are constraints with an easement on one side and a fire hydrant on the other side. Ms. Miller said she could look into whether the entrance could be widened. Mr. Penney asked Ms. Miller for clarification of the times for drop-off and pick-up and number of students for each grade level. Ms. Miller said that based on number of students and the maximum number of enrollments they are allowed 200 students and that currently there are eleven staff. The number of vehicles each day varies based on car pooling and number of siblings riding together. Mr. Penney inquired if there could be a secondary means of egress. Ms. Miller said there is not at this time. Mr. Corsillo asked what the student capacity would be for the proposed structure. Ms. Miller said that the State issues a license for the number of students based on size and number of classrooms. Ms. Raposa suggested that Ms. Miller and the Board consult with counsel to determine the maximum number of students allowed. Mr. Corsillo and Ms. Friedman expressed concern with student capacity increase if the room uses change based on the overall size of the proposed building. They asked Ms. Miller to confirm what she would be licensed for and the total number of student enrollment allowed in the proposed building. Ms. Miller confirmed a maximum enrollment of 200 based on her attorney's recommendation. Ms. Friedman asked, although not required, about fencing and landscaping design. Ms. Miller responded that anything that they do will be in line with EEC licensing guidelines and requirements. The Board requested that revised plans reflect the designated areas for fencing based on the EEC guidelines. Public Comments Ms. Friedman referenced that there were 42 public comments received and the Board agreed that they would not all be read into record as they were posted on the Town Planning webpage and are available to the public. Attorney Jason Talerman of Mead, Talerman & Costa, LLC spoke on behalf of the resident abutters. He expressed concerns with the applicant's qualifications for Dover Amendment protection. He said that the applicant is in the process of setting up a non-profit educational institution. MGL Chapter 40A, Section 3 requires that non-profit educational institution has to own the facility and own or lease the property as well. He felt that it would be important to provide ownership or lease information to the Board and evidence that they are a licensed child care facility. Attorney Talerman referenced the Mansfield Site Plan Bylaw and acknowledged that not all the conditions apply if the applicant does fall under Dover Amendment protection, but that the queuing issues would be germane to the issues. 7: 50 pm Adrian LeCesne arrived. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/8/23 Page 3 of 8 Attorney Talerman encouraged the Board to request a current traffic study in lieu of the older 2017 study that was submitted. Attorney Talerman expressed that the queuing is quantifiable based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) standards which also takes into the consideration ride sharing. He said that he did not feel that the applicant used the proper ITE data for their traffic analysis based on their own traffic expert number analysis and would submit the report to the Board. Mr. McClanahan asked why a new traffic study was not submitted. Ms. Miller said that due to COVID enrollment has not increased and they did not feel it was warranted. Mr. Roche suggested that because of COVID there has been more increases in residential traffic and would warrant a new study for this specific neighborhood. Nicole Wright of 90 Gilbert Street asked if the Fire and Police safety concerns have been met. Mr. Cerretani noted that they have not submitted anything, but it would be posted upon receipt. Mr. Saffelle of 7 Knight Way expressed concern with traffic during drop-off and pick-up and the lack of care for the neighborhood. Jill Keyes of 11 North White Pine Lane expressed concern how the applicant. FOD, LLC which is for profit, falls under protection of the Dover Amendment. The Board commented that they would seek advice from Town Counsel. Ms. Keyes inquired if the Board has asked the applicant for a Form 990 from the Attorney General. Ms. Raposa replied that they will speak with counsel. Ms. Keyes also referenced Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education enrollment counts for the existing Maker school and she noted that the maximum number was 71 students enrolled for the past five years. Lisa Sandberg of 355 Otis Street asked if the Town would consider adding more sidewalks to the neighborhood. Mr. Petmey said that the right-of-way is not wide enough to add sidewalks. Sean Nabi of 11 Knight Way said they are new to the neighborhood and expressed concern for the proposed larger school and the added traffic it would create. He agreed with other neighbor concerns relating to the non-profit clarification and the Dover Amendment. Nicole Mullen of 3 Knight Way referenced other preschool locations in Town, in which there is a waitlist for each, and questioned why the existing Maker school numbers have not increased like the other schools. She urged the. Board to consider adding sidewalks. She also questioned the applicant's non- profit certification. Attorney Lanza, attorney for the applicant was present remotely. Relating to the applicant falling under the Dover Amendment, he responded that they will provide documentation relating to the Dover Amendment qualification. Attorney Lanza also said that the traffic issues were vetted and litigated at the Land Court Appeals Court and are non -issues. He referenced the Attorney General's decision and said that off -sight traffic was not an issue that could be considered in rendering a decision on a site plan review application relative to the Dover Amendment Protected Use. Attorney Lanza expressed that he understands that the Board has concerns and agreed to provide a reasonable request for information on traffic and queuing to give the Board the greatest level of comfort even though it is beyond the scope of the Board's decision under the Dover Amendment. Attorney Lanza expressed his opinion to previous comments made by Attorney Talerman that this site plan application is not reviewable under the newly approved site plan bylaw zoning amendment, but reviewable under the prior site plan bylaw. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/8/23 Page 4 of 8 This is due to the previous subdivision plan application having been denied and appealed resulting in the previous zoning remaining in place throughout the entire review and appeal process. He said that issue will be addressed in writing to the Board and to Town Counsel. Attorney Lanza said that the Dover Amendment protected use is very clear and that the Board cannot put a limit on the number of enrollees for the school, but the applicant has expressed willingness to agree to a limitation of 200 students. Attorney Lanza said that they will provide written documentation on these issues to the Board and Town Counsel for review before the next hearing session. Mr. LeCesne said that both sides have raised questions on the limitation of the Board's authority and asked that the subsequent submission be limited to a memo of no more than three pages relating to which questions are relating to the Board's jurisdictional authority. Mr. Corsillo asked what the multi -use space room would be used for. Ms. Miller replied that the school does not provide food and the room would be a multi -use group gathering space to be used for students to eat food brought from home, recess during inclement weather, and student performances. There is a small staff kitchen area. Mr. Corsillo asked if the Board is allowed to consider or discuss traffic calming measures on Knight Way leading into the school area. Ms. Miller expressed that it would be reasonable to make the street a posted school zone with speed limit signs as she had previously discussed with police. Ms. Miller confirmed that the proposed building is 16,800 square feet. Mr. Cerretani referenced that 200 students at 35 square feet equals 7,000 square feet and asked if the building is over -built. Ms. Miller expressed that she did not feel that the building is over -built. She referenced that there would be storage space, hallways, office space, staff room, music and art rooms, and the largest space for multi -purpose use. Mr. Cerretani reconunended that a new traffic study be submitted for review. Mr. Penney agreed as traffic a paramount issue. Ms. Raposa clarified that the applicant could submit an updated traffic review conducted by a firm of their choice. The Board/Town would then hire their own traffic engineer to review the traffic study and submit a report to the Board. Mr. Cerretani recommended that the applicant's attorney submit written clarification of the owner and school non-profit status relating to the Dover Amendment which would be reviewed by Town Counsel and department heads. Mr. Cerretani also recommended that Town Counsel guide the Board on their review of the application as it relates to the Site Plan Approval process. Motion to continue the hearing to April 12, 2023 at 7:15 pm (Penney -Friedman) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Recess 5 minutes Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/8/23 Page 5 of 8 i a i •e i• a a�•s 1 i !e sa a� Arek Galle and Bill McGrath of BETA Group were present. Mr. McGrath spoke of the MassDOT 25% preliminary design meeting of March 2nd and noted the biggest change is the center turn lane on Chauncy Street. He said that the design was pretty well received with thoughtful questions and comments. The next step is to advance into the final design. Mr. Gallo reviewed the 2018 to 2013 timeline work of the overlay district specific to the density of units per acre. Mr. Galle suggested further discussion to produce a red -line formatted document for Bylaw amendment submission. Mr. Feck asked about the bonus structure and if it could be based on a community development agreement. Mr. Galle agreed that the big picture idea makes sense but that they need to figure out how to get to that point. He talked about density and dimensional regulations with relation to bonus structure to produce elements that are important to the community, such as dedicated public corridors, direct access to the train station, public play areas, connectivity to public rights -of -way, pocket parks, public art, sidewalks, a trail system for public use, and other options. lvh•. LeCesne expressed concern for contributions to the sidewalk fund, for which funds cannot be earmarked. The fiords could be used for other locations and not only the overlay district. Mr. Gallo suggested further discussion for new incentive fiords to be specific to the overlay district. Ms. Raposa said that the incentives are basic site plan elements. The Board agreed that the incentives benefit the developers and the Town with property improvements. Mr. Galle said the incentives are aspirational. Discussion ensued to what percentages could be required for each incentive level to reach the overall total. Ms. Friedman suggested the addition of a performance patio to the incentives. The Board agreed that the incentive structure would not exceed 60 units per acre. Ms. Friedman expressed concern with adding building density and building scale in order to reach the MBTA required 1,392 units capacity. Mr. Galle noted that the existing overlay consists of about 67 acres and when the unusable land is removed there are about 25 acres of developable land remaining which would equate to about 700 units per acre for this first overlay "A" and another overlay "B" would be required to reach the density MBTA by right requirement. Mr. Feck suggested that the incentive bonus structure include mixed use. Discussion ensued on how to apply bonus structures and what percentage to apply. Mr. Feck noted that it is prohibited to require mixed use in the MBTA community structure as it must be a by right all residential use. Mixed use is allowed in the TOD overlay district. The Board agreed that a developer must be eligible for bonus one before moving to bonus two in order to increase density. Included use could be flexible work space, medical, dental, stores, book store, or cafe. Private use space for the residents would not count as it must be open to the general public. Mr. Feck said that the buildings could be designed with the total units in mind based on the bonus structure, which could be submitted in the application presentation. Mr. Galle suggested that by providing latitude toward incentives, it gives the ability for developers to build up rather than out as vertical structure makes open space more viable. Mr. Cerretani expressed that if the incentives are too great it would dissuade developers to build. Mr. Galle said more language and detail should be added to clarify the bonus structure. He then made recommendations for bonus two incentives and asked what structure the board would like to use. The Board agree to have more tangible items at the top of the list with monetary fimded items lower on the list. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/8/23 Page 6 of 8 They talked about naming specific incentive projects to activate Town land that incentive contributions could find. Example projects could be wet land bridges, public accessway links, and art pedestals for rotating art projects. Mr. Galle said that changes will be made from the meeting and a red line draft will be submitted for further review and comments at the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Roche suggested that benches and street trees are more requirement items than incentive bonus items. Mr. Galle said the language could be more defined for requirements and placements. Mr. Penney asked about the Route 106 construction progress. Mr. Galle said that it will be a transition to the neighborhood. Mr. Galle referenced building height and noted that the Town defines a story at 14 feet and the MBTA defines a story at 10 feet and suggested clarification to meet in the middle. He showed examples of articulating the roof line and design elements (step -back roof at top floors, balconies, step -back entry, tiering, and ground floor access passages) to break the visual height of buildings. Mr. Galle suggested taller height at the tracks and less near the neighborhoods. The Board discussed the height options and how to meet density requirements. Ms. Friedman expressed that 65 feet is too high and suggested a maximum of five stories and then step down from that height. Mr. Penney expressed that he is comfortable at 65 feet at the outlying areas with the lower areas to create green space, then near the dense neighborhood's maximum at 45 feet. Mr. Galle suggested requiring roof articulation on facades that abut neighborhoods and access road facades. Mr. Corsillo expressed concern of reflecting noise to neighborhoods on the east side of the tracks. Mr. Galle suggested consideration to landscaping buffering. Ms. Raposa reviewed the proposed meeting schedule with added work sessions leading up to public hearings for the Bylaw amendment and Town Meeting. Public Continent Jean Southard of 15 Old Elm Street referenced friends that live on County Street who are worried that their home would be taken away based on the reconstruction and overlay area. The Board assured her that there will be no land taking, but there would be road improvements in that area. Olivier Kozlowski of 22 Tracey Circle expressed that actual cost should be applied to what is being proposed to determine the real -world impact. This discussion was incorporated into the TOD discussion. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/8/23 Page 7 of 8 Meeting Minutes — January 25, 2023 Motion to approved the minutes as amended and submitted (Feck-McClanahan) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES There were no Board comments for discussion. Motion to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. (McClanahan -Penney) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Date of Next Planning Board Meeting Allarch 22, 2023 at 7: 00 p. ni. Signature of Clerk 9, 13.2,02.s Date of Approval Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/8/23 Page 8 of 8