Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 03/27/2024l% Pr_'CEIV ED Town of Mansfield �= o r 7 {f C!.. u (� C 6 Pak Row, [1lansfeld, YAL4 02048 asaos°� 2OZq Al"R ? i A 8: S5 Planning Board • err—�r� Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using Go ToWebinar Platform Present: Joseph Cerretani, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Ralph Penney; Michael Feck; Beth Ashman -Collins; Mark Corsillo; and Sreelatha Allan, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Michael McClanahan and James Turnbull, Associate Mr. Cerretani read the meeting's introductory remarks. Present for the application presentation were: Mike Ahern -Town of Mansfield Project Manager Doug Annino- Municipal Building Committee Chairman John Fasano- Architect, BH+A Tony Donato- Engineer, Hancock Associates Mr. Ahern explained that the team was before the Planning Board to get their thoughts and suggestions on the proposal for 50 West Street and to partner with the Board for the final design concepts and the site. I-Ie said that the site was formally the police station and has been vacant since 2019 and presently serves as a communications structure for the Town's radio and fire alarm infrastructure. The site is comprised of fill and some unsuitable soils in the rear of the property which will need to be managed with DEP involvement. Mr. Ahern and the team then reviewed the presentation as follows: 1. Existing Site Aerial pictures showing connections to downtown, Bike Path, Town Hall, and Fulton's Pond Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/27/24 Page 1 of 7 Site Rendering • Existing building on site (old Police Station) is about 12,500 square feet and the footprint of the new building is about 7,500 square feet • Existing COA area is 6,000 square feet and the new building is proposed at 15,000 square feet 3. Site Plan • .2-mile circuit trail path • Pedestrian signal at West Sheet in front of the site to cross to Fulton's Pond Connection • Boat Dock, Shuffle Board Court, Bocce Court, Pickle Ball Court • Electric Charging Stations (approximately 6) • Parking Spaces- (Approx. 87 spaces) Overall Grading and Site Drainage (no net increase) • Pre vs Post Imperviousness Area • Existing-- 57,948 • Post— 57,588 • Net decrease of 363 square feet 4. Overall wetlands onsite • River Bank stabilization on the westerly side (this may be a separate permitting process) • Knot Weed invasive species removal from a couple of areas on the site (this is being worked on with the Conservation Conunission as a test location along with DEP) Mr. Donato explained the preliminary proposed renderings and briefly explained the water retention and discharge systems. He spoke about the wetlands at the Rumford River, floodplain, new plantings, pedestrian walk around the site, the site being ADA accessible, proposed pickleball courts, additional amenities, covered outdoor seating, and the location of the building and parking. Mr. Fasano spoke about the exterior renderings, the mechanicals being placed in the attic, the roof being sloped, and multiple exterior materials to visually minimize the scale of the building. Bollards will be placed at the front entry for safety. Ms. Friedman suggested fencing in lieu of bollards. When the project is ready there would be a Site Plan submission to the Planning Board. Mr. Cerretani noted that this is part of the Master Plan priorities for multi -generational use. Mr. Ahern said that it would be 25% more expensive to update the existing building as opposed to the new proposed option. The design also includes a small kitchen and multi -purpose rooms. He noted that they conducted an online survey of the Town seniors for their input on facility activities. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/27/24 Page 2 of 7 Ms. Allam asked if they would conduct a traffic study. Mr. Ahern said that it would be included in the site plan criteria. They explained the onsite traffic flow and that the pedestrian crossing should align with the existing crossing. Ms. Aslnnan-Collins asked if there was consideration for adding a floor to accommodate senior housing. Mr. Amnino answered that the site would most likely not support that. Ms. Friedman suggested fewer parking spaces since there are additional parking options around Town. Mr. Ahern said that the next steps would be to prepare construction and bidding documents. The Town is currently seeking grant funding for the project. The JM Goldson team present for the meeting were: Laura Smead, Noah Harper, Flavin Villa Ms. Smead began the Mansfield MSROD Expansion update presentation. She reviewed the meeting agenda and project schedule noting the completion of the community engagement phase and they are now working on the buildout and fiscal impact analysis for the April 10°i meeting. Mr. Cerretani asked what would be considered for the fiscal impact analysis. Ms. Smead replied that they would be looking at the assessed value, estimated number of residents, and estimated footage of commercial and residential space. Then look at the projections based on the buildout analysis results. They will also include the impact on the schools and Town services such as fire and police. Ms. Smead reviewed the in -person 2/28/24 forum results relating to the demographics of participants, their interests, housing density, streetscapes, and outdoor dining. The participants were generally in favor of presented zoning strategies. Mr. Villa then discussed the buildout analysis for the MSROD zoning district. He presented three scenarios using GIS models for each dimensional requirement. • By right residential scenario • By right mixed -use scenario • Special permit incentive 3 scenario The scenarios considered existing uses, environmental constraints, and dimensional requirements. Mr. Villa reviewed each scenario's results for the number of multi -family units, affordable units, mixed -use commercial uses, and special permit incentives. Ms. Smead noted that the affordable units are not a direct ten percent of the overall build -out number because they calculated parcel by parcel and not all the parcels are capable of generating affordable units. Mr. Villa then explained the test fits and case study parcels incorporating items such as the number of units and parking. He then presented test fit interface software results depicting visual architectural designs for each scenario. They also presented visual designs for the existing Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/27/24 Page 3 of 7 MSROD "A" and the MSROD Expansion "C". The presented images are not plaimed, but only for visual purposes of the case study exercise. Ms. Smead said that areas with significant environmental constraints were not included in the calculations. Mr. Harper explained the economic feasibility analysis for a simple real estate pro forma looking at cost and income assumptions for development. The team modeled test fit scenarios for the contemplated districts looking at base zoning, mixed -use, and full -incentive builds, where applicable. Interest rates and construction costs are considered and every tenth unit is affordable (10% inclusionary). Modeling scenarios considered varied bedroom mixes, tested lower interest rates, and the team then created alternate scenarios with cost savings. Mr. Harper reviewed the draft results and observations. He noted that the incentives are not good in the sense that a developer would build by right or mixed -use tier because the incentives are too expensive. Mr. Harper said the next steps would be to refine the scenarios and adjust assumptions based on the test fits and build out analysis. Ms. Smead then reviewed the next steps: April • Summarize digital platform results • Fiscal impact analysis, • Public hearing on MSROD extension • Revising and refining build -outs, test -fits, and market analysis • Design guidelines draft May • Town meeting on MSROD extension • Finalize design guidelines • Drafting zoning templates for future development areas and housing strategies Ms. Smead added that relating to the market feasibility analysis, the assumption is that someone is going to have to buy the land, which is very expensive in Massachusetts. Not many people who own land can develop it themselves. If there were a scenario where someone did own the land and could develop or partner with a developer it could open the feasibility a bit. There are envhournental, infrastructure, and cost constraints that are out of the control of the town. Mr. Penney suggested that increased rents, purchase prices, and reduced interest rates should be taken into consideration. Discussion ensued relating to increased construction costs, and rising housing and rental prices. Future building will result in increased property values and there was hope for lower interest rates and building costs. Ms. Raposa explained the expansion areas including the subdistricts would bring the Town over the total unit requirement. The next presentation will be at the April 10" meeting. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/27/24 Page 4 of 7 Ms. Raposa reviewed the six (6) proposed amendments for the Town Meeting. • Item 1 (Warrant Article 13): Amend Recreational Facilities Definition (§230-3.2.D) - to update the definition to provide clarity on allowable recreational uses. • Item 2 (Warrant Article 14): MSROD Phase H (§230-5.12 and Zoning Map) - to amend the Mansfield Station Revitalization Overlay District (MSROD) district to extend along the west side of Oakland Street to the Chocolate Factory (east side of railroad tracks). • Item 3 (Warrant Article 15): Special Permit/Site Plan Approval Recommendation (§230- 5.5G) - to delete this section entirely as it is an outdated practice. • Item 4 (Warrant Article 16): Zoning Board of Appeals Appointments (§230-7.2) - to make the terms for associate members of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) consistent with the ZBA's charter under the Town Code Section 5.4. • Item 5 (Warrant Article 17): Special Permit for Open Space Percentage Relief (§230-4.10) - to add a dimensional special permit to be issued by the Planning Board to provide flexibility for reuse/expansion of PBD and Industrially zoned land. • Item 6 (Warrant Article 18): Add B4 Zoning District to Sign Bylaw (§230-4.7) - to correct an oversight during the adoption of the B4 zoning district at ATM 20 M The Planning Board would have the ability to update the items during the public hearing. Ms. Raposa told the Board that Item 2 for MSROD Phase II was submitted to the Attorney General's Office for pre -review. The Attorney General's office did not have continents on the proposal but offered comments on the proposal that was approved last year relating to the performance standards of the site plan approval process. Relating to potential four to six -story multi -family developments that would not be in character with adjacent neighborhoods, the Attorney General's office noted that this may raise future issues with the Fair Housing Act. Ms. Raposa said that the draft compliance model was sent to the State in February and it is currently being reviewed, but it could take up to ninety days from the original request for the State to reply. Mr. Cerretani said that the next meeting would focus on MSROD Phase II. Ms. Raposa said that FinCom has been invited to participate in the public hearing process. Ms. Raposa gave a brief discussion on what has not been reviewed yet, mainly the surrounding towns' comparison fees and engineering peer review. After a brief discussion of fee comparisons, the Board decided to review the fees at a firture meeting. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/27/24 Page 5 of 7 There was a brief review of deadlines for application submission and submission of additional material before Planning Board meetings and allowing the presentation of new material by an applicant at the hearing. Motion to continue the hearing to April 10, 2024, at 7:15 pin. (Penney/Corsillo) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Mr. Cerretani expressed that he thought that it was a good meeting and productive. The presentation was well done and there were good public and Board comments. Mr. Cerretani recommended that the Board gather connnents into writing to present to the TOD team for design consideration. Mr. Corsillo expressed concern about traffic back up to the railroad tracks at the proposed rotary design. Ms. Friedman noted business owner concerns about slower business during the construction process. Planning Board Meeting Minutes: January 24, 2023 Motion to approve the minutes as presented (/Corsillo/Feck) Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES February 14, 2024 Motion to approve the minutes as presented and amended (Feck/Ashrnan-Collins) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES February 28, 2024 Motion to approve the minutes as presented (Feck/Ashman-Collins) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES March 20, 2024 Motion to approve the minutes as presented (Feck/Friedman) Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/27/24 Page 6 of 7 Ms. Ashman -Collins and Ms. Friedman noted that they attended CPTC sessions. Ms. Friedman attended the firearms session and said that she would submit a summary of the session to Ms. Raposa. Motion to adjourn at 9:23: pm (Pemiey/Corsillo) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is April 10, 2024 at 7: 00 p. m. SharonFriedman, Clerk Documents Presented at the Meetin A. 24.2o Z 4-- Date of Approval 1. Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development meeting memo dated 3/27/24 2. 50 West Street Proposed Plans and Drawings for new COA building 3. Mansfield MSROD Expansion Update Presentation by JM Goldson dated 3/27/24 4. Notice of Planning Board Hearing Relative to Proposed Zoning Bylaws Amendments distributed 3/19/24 for public hearing date 4/10/24 5. Revised draft Policies & Procedures of the Planning board with Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Rules and Regulations dated 3/27/24 6. Draft Minutes for January 24, 2024, February 14, February 28, 2024, and March 20, 2024 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 3/27/24 Page 7 of 7