Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 05/26/04 . \. .r- RECEIVEI CU::RX.S OFf \CE Planning Board Minutes 04 JUN 1 5 AM 8: 23 May 26, 2004 Present: Tom French, Chair; Fred Armstrong, Clerk; Doug Annin<H~lf~ Walter Jenkins, John DeMassi MAS S ~CHUSETT S Shaun P. Burke, Director ofPlannin and Develo ment I~~" I ." " .' ...... '. Motion: To reappoint Mr. French as Chairman (Torman-Annino) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To appoint Mr. Armstrong as Clerk (French-Annino) All in favor. PASSES 1. May 5, 2004 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-Annino) All in favor. PASSES 2. ZBA application for variance - 65 Park Street - side yard setback Mr. Burke explained this is a shed, an accessory structure that would normally require five feet from the property line. However, this is on a corner lot, so the front yard setback, 40 feet, must be met. Mr. Annino said he didn't see any hardship and said the shed could be relocated. Mr. Burke suggested a negative recommendation. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because there is no hardship shown and the board doesn't feel it is in the town's best interest to have a shed so close to the street (Annino-Armstrong) Five in favor. French opposed. PASSES 3. ZBA application for variance - 67 Pilgrim Road - sideyard setback for garage and mudroom addition. Mr. Armstrong said he didn't see any hardship. The setback required is 25 feet; Mr. Burke said the proposed sideyard is 24 feet. He suggested a negative recommendation. 4. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because the addition could be reduced by one foot and meet the setback. (Annino-Torman) All in favor. PASSES 5. ZBA application for Variance -196 Dean Street -frontage and contiguous upland area to construct a two-story single-family home. He said the lack of conformance to the contiguous upland area requirement concerns him, since the Zoning By-Law was amended to require the upland be in one place on the lot, rather than in small upland islands around the lot. Mr. Annino was concerned this would alter the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Burke said the sideyard setback requirement is 15 feet. He suggested a negative recommendation. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because this would alter the character of the neighborhood (Annino-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES 6. ZBA application for Variance - 235 Chauncy Street - Domino's Pizza - front yard and side yard setbacks, floor area ratio, parking; and Special Permit for landscaping Mr. Burke said the attorneys for Dominos came in several months ago to discuss this proposal; because of the size and shape of the lot, they have proposed a two-story building. Their parking argument is that Domino's is primarily take-out, so there is little demand for parking. Therefore, they felt they could accommodate office space on the second floor. The entrance from Chauncy Street will be eliminated. Mr. Annino said they could build a one-story building and avoid the parking and floor ~ r- ~ r- area ratio issues. The board discussed this being too dense for this lot. Mr. Armstrong asked if a two-story structUre would look better on that corner; Mr. Burke said the buildings on nearby corners are of varying heights. Mr. Jenkins said he was concerned about large trucks being able to make the comer with the building and parking so close to the street. Mr. Annino said he was concerned about the type of building that would be built on this major comer. Mr. Burke suggested a negative recommendation on the parking and floor area ratio issues. He said by reducing the footprint of the building, it could be pushed further off the street. Mr. Jenkins said a variance would run with the building, and was concerned about what other kinds of uses could be there if Domino's were to leave the site. He said the parking is too dense and too close to the street. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because the proposed building is too large for the lot and the need for relief from the parking and floor area ratio requirements may be avoided by the construction of a one-story building. A smaller building footprint and reduced floor area ratio may also allow for additional landscaping and buffering. The proposal is too dense and too close to the street, and large trucks may have difficuhy navigating the turn from Chauncy Street onto Copeland Drive if the building and parking areas are constructed as proposed. The design of the building proposed for this high visibility comer may not be as positive or powerful as this gateway comer demands, and because the variance will run with the land, there is the potential for other, higher-density uses to locate on this site if Domino's were to vacate this site in the future. (Jenkins-Annino) All in favor. PASSES ,.-- 7. May 11, 2004 letter from Bernie Dolan 8. Meeting notices Attleboro, Easton, North Attleboro, Norton, Plainville, Sharon, 9. New England Planning newsletter 10. Planning magazine 11. Downtown Workshops notice ~ Mass Downtown Initiative Robert Devin, attorney for Village Landing LLC, said department head comments have been addressed and the plans revised. He said the density has been reduced from 91 to 82 units, and the building styles will be varied. ~, David Johnson, PMP Associates, explained the landscaping plan showing the site overlayed on a GIS map. He said much of the site has already been disturbed. He presented a site plan showing the changes, including: a 22-foot wide access drive with 24 feet at the entrance; the width of the interior road has been increased to 20 feet; three of the buildings have been reduced from seven units to four, and have been made more narrow; a ten-foot wide circulation pattern to access the back of the buildings and the drainage basin has been added; the parking spaces at the mail boxes have been increased to three; r- r- an emergency access has been provided, which can also be used as a walkway to get across East Street; Mr. Coming's driveway has been located on the plans; the distance to Lawndale Road, 188 feet, has been shown on the plan; snow removal areas are shown on the plan; the traffic study has been revised based upon the applicant's consulting engineer's experience with 55 and over developments; an expanded traffic impact analysis at Lawndale Road has been done; the walkway behind building #6 has been moved closer to the building; the spillway emergency overflow has been moved from the northwest corner to the middle ofthe basin. David O'Sullivan, O'Sullivan Architects, explained the differences in building types A, B and C, including altered rooflines, the addition of porches and gables and color variations. The building types will be alternated down the street. Bob Mulcahy, landscape architect with Landworks, explained the landscaping plan for the 10 acres of developable land. About six of those will be landscaped with walks, roads and perimeter buffers. The landscaping will define project entries and buffers and soften the paths through grading. The street trees will be Bradford pears; flowering trees will be used around the gazebo, with larger trees in the open areas between buildings. Specimen trees will be used between buildings. Austrian pine will be planted around the western border and combined with a slope treatment as a buffer. They will bring in topsoil to ,-- plant 245 trees, five acres of lawn, and over 2,400 shrubs. They have tried to develop a landscape system to go along with the density, and to transform the site into an attractive place to live, with buffering and noise abatement for the neighboring properties. Mr. Mulcahy explained asphalt walkways will be used around the perimeter of site, with stamped asphalt at the driveway aprons. He explained cross sections showing layering of planting materials, such as birch trees at the entry, grading to separate and define parking from roadway areas, the relationship between landscaping and the mail area, noise and sight control between abutting properties and willow trees around the detention basin. The detailed planting plan shows the location of trees and shrubs, species and quantities, building landscaping plans with shrub plantings at the foundations and location of street trees. The irrigation system will have a maintenance plan. Mr. Mulcahy presented a grading plan and site details showing a stone wall with a two-foot wide cap at the entrance to the site, a retaining wall at the perimeter of site, stamped paving, gazebo, sound fence and benches. Mr. Devin said they have been working with the abutters and believe they have addressed those concerns. He said there had been a question about the ownership of the open space land; he said they are willing to donate it to the town as long as it works within the context of the special permit. Mr. French said that land could be gifted to the town without affecting the approved plans. r- .~ I.'''' (" Board Comment Mr. Jenkins asked about the emergency access shown on the landscaping plan. Mr. Johnson explained the gray area on the plan is what they coordinated with the owners of the dance studio and will be an easement for the studio's use. There will be a locked gate, which has been approved by the Fire Department. A second gate will provide emergency access to the middle of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Jenkins asked how the landscape plan would affect emergency access. Mr. Johnson explained the access will be a 10-foot wide paved surface and the landscaping around it will be primarily lawn. Mr. Mulcahy said the landscaping is designed not to conflict with the access, even when mature. Mr. Devin said the condominium association will maintain the landscaping, including pruning trees so they do not impede the emergency access. Mr. Brown said that paved surface will be plowed to ensure access. Mr. DeMassi asked who has keys to the gates; Mr. Devin said the Fire and Police Departments have keys. The clerk read the new correspondence, including a May 26, 2004 memo from Mr. Field indicating his concerns have been addressed. Mr. Brown presented a memo from the Board of Selectmen approving the water connection plan. Pub6c Comment Gary Lililenthal, representing Dr. Sohn, said they have worked with the developers and have reached an understanding that satisfies his client's concerns. He said Dr. 80hn has no problem with the project going forward and asked for copies of the revised plans. ,,- Mrs. Antoinnetta Cardinale asked about a fence adjacent to her property. She said she was concerned about trespass. Mr. Devin said there would be landscaping adjacent to Mrs. Cardinale's land, and there is a natural wetland barrier. Steve Nolan, 625 East Street and dance studio, said his concerns have been addressed and he is happy with the project. Board Comment Mr. Armstrong commended the applicant for addressing all of the comments. He said he is still concerned about the massing of the buildings on the comer and asked if one of those buildings could be replaced with one of the smaller buildings. He said there seems to be more space between the other groups of buildings. Mr. O'Sullivan said the grade drops at that comer, so one of the buildings in that group is substantially lower than the others and will not appear as large. He said these plans show those buildings somewhat farther apart than originally shown. Mr. French asked how close buildings 9 and 10 are; Mr. Johnson said they are 25 feet apart; the other buildings are about 35 feet apart. Mr. Annino said he was impressed with the landscaping plan. He asked how big the stone wall at the front will be; Mr. Mulcahy said it will be 30 inches high, probably made of granite and lit from below, with a carved Village Landing sign. Mr. Annino asked the r- applicant if that would definitely be the design of the wall; Mr. Devin said it would be. r- r- Mr. Annino asked about the mail kiosk. Mr. Johnson said they planned to use similar materials as the building. Mr. Annino said that would have to be designed better than in the original submission. Mr. Annino asked the height ofthe buildings; Mr. Brown said the peak height is 33 feet. Mr. Annino asked about sight lighting; he said the photometric plan looks good. Mr. Brown said they hadn't determined the style of light. Mr. Johnson said the pole height and detail are on the electric distribution plan, which shows what Mansfield Electric recommended. Mr. Mulcahy said he will plan the landscaping around the transformers. Mr. Brown said he would provide the board with details of the light, mail kiosk and gazebo. Mr. Annnio asked about the landscaping in the back, where there will be no irrigation. Mr. Mulcahy said he is planning to use resistant plantings in that area. Mr. Annino asked how many benches would be used; Mr. Mulchay said he would provide a number and location ofthe benches. Mr. Annino asked about directional and unit signage; Mr. Brown said he would coordinate that with the Fire Department. Mr. O'Sullivan said there will be directional signs for the units at the main intersection, with unit numbers at each of the buildings. ~ He said the unit numbers on the buildings will be similar to house-style numbers. Mr. Annino asked about the walkways; Mr. Mulcahy said they would be concrete and asphalt at various locations. Mr. DeMassi asked about public safety type signs; Mr. Devin said they would submit any signage they plan to use to the board. Mr. Devin said they are not planning many signs. Mr. Annino asked about the gate at the emergency access; Mr. Brown said it would be a typical metal bar fence with a lock box; Mr. Annino asked for a detail of that gate. Mr. Annino asked where the sewer lift station would go; Mr. Johnson said it would be underground in the middle of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Mulcahy said that has been addressed in the landscaping plan. Mr. Annino asked about air conditioning condensers; Mr. O'Sullivan said they would be on a concrete pad behind the units and would not be noisy and bother the neighbors. Mr. DeMassi asked how the applicant came to the decision to remove nine units. Mr. Brown explained the team looked at the site following the board's request to reduce the r' density. Mr. O'Sullivan said reducing the size of some of the buildings would help stay away from the wetland areas. r'. r- Mr. DeMassi asked about the fire hydrants; he said there ate four shown on the plan and asked ifthat is enough. Mr. Devin said the number and location of hydrants will be where the Fire Department wants them. Mr. Brown said the units will be sprinklered. Mr. Burke said the applicant has done a lot of work since he met with them a few weeks ago and the landscaping and architectural plans show what they are trying to accomplish. He recommended this plan is ready for a vote and suggested it could be approved with a number of conditions. Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Burke's opinion about the density of the buildings on the comer. Mr. Burke said because that is a comer with an elevation change, he didn't think those buildings would appear to be too close together. Mr. Jenkins asked about the color scheme; Mr. Annino said he thought the colors and the building designs will give enough variation. Mr. Jenkins said he wasn't certain the buildings would be different enough. He said he was concerned about the two buildings in the front, since those will be what drivers on East Street will see. He asked the applicant to make sure those two buildings are of different designs. Mr. Annino said the front of the site will provide a good appearance from the road, especially with the landscaping and the berm. Mr. French asked about the construction sequence phasing; Phase I shows the walkways and detention area. Mr. Brown said all ofthat will be done before building construction.. ~ Mr. Jenkins said the issue of the fence on Mrs. Cardinale's land should be addressed. He said most of the land back there is either wetlands or is within the 100-foot buffer of the wetlands, which should provide a natural buffer. He said if this were a development with a lot of children, he would suggest the applicant put up a fence, but didn't think the 55 and over residents would tend to trespass. Mr. Annino and Mr. Armstrong agreed. Mr. French said the applicant has offered to deed a piece of the property to the town; Mr. Lewis has requested a letter from Mr. Brown outlining the proposal. Mr. Devin said he was concerned it may impact their open space compliance. Mr. Burke said it would not. Mr. DeMassi asked how the public would be able to access that land; Mr. Devin said the town would have to work out the access to the site, if any. Mr. Burke said the Open Space and Recreation Plan advocates the establishment of the Canoe River Green Belt, which this would become a part of. The board discussed the draft special permit, including any change to the special permit requiring a modification or a new public hearing, depending on the nature of the change. Mr. DeMassi noted condition #3 seems to conflict with condition #4 about the extent of allowable changes. The board discussed adding "any provision/condition of the special ".- permit or change to the plans" to #3. Mr. Armstrong suggested taking out the reference to moving buildings in #4; Mr. Burke suggested ending that condition with the first ".- sentence. Mr. Jenkins said he was concerned about variances being granted following the r grant of the special permit. Mr. Devin said if that were to happen, the applicant would have to amend the special permit with the Planning Board. The board discussed changing condition #4 to "cannot be moved more than 2 feet without prior approval of the Planning Board." Mr. Devin said if they come up against anything that appears to be a field change, they will come to Mr. Burke, who can determine the most appropriate action. The board discussed changing condition #3 to "provision/condition and/or plans, except as conditioned in #4." The board requested a condition requiring details be submitted for: light pole detail and height; detail of revised design of mail kiosk; location and number of benches; gazebo detail; signage plans to be provided for review and approval; emergency access detail. Mr. Perrault said the Conservation Commission has asked for a smaller sediment fore- bay, so that may be a modification. They are meeting with the Conservation Commission on June 7. Mr. Lilienthal said he didn't anticipate any problems, but wanted it noted that Dr. Sohn has certain review rights over the design of the fence and suggested he get together with Mr. Burke. (' Mr. Annino asked about trash; Mr. Brown said it would be privately collected and there would be no outdoor dumpsters. Motion: To approve the special permit application of Village Landing LLC to construct 82 age-restricted units in 13 buildings for residents aged 55 and over, along with associated drives, utilities and stormwater management measures at Assessor's Plat No. 30, Lot 20, 21 and 22, 631 East Street in the Business 3 Zone with the following conditions: 1. Plan of land titled the Village Landing, pages 1-15 of 15 in Mansfield, Massachusetts, dated November 21,2003 and revised April 15, 2004, May 15,2004 and May 25, 2004 by PMP Associates, Inc., prepared for Village Landing, LLC, 80 First Street, Bridgewater, MA, is incorporated into this special permit decision by reference. Plans shall be recorded with the special permit decision. 2. This special permit is issued to the applicant, Village Landing LLC, and may not be transferred or assigned to others without prior Planning Board approval. r 3. Any change to any provision/condition of this special permit and/or the plans, except as conditioned in #4 below, shall require a modification hearing by the Planning Board. Further, any substantial change would require a new special permit granted in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A, Section 9. r (" 4. This special permit is issued for a maximum of82 age-restricted residential units to be divided among 13 buildings. No additional structures may be added to the site, nor may the location of the structures shown on the plan be moved by more than two (2) feet without the express written consent of the Planning Board. 5. Details of the following shall be provided to the Planning Director during the 21-day appeal period: light pole, including height and fixture; revised mail kiosk; location and number of benches; gazebo; emergency access gate; on-site directional signage. 6. No outside storage of trash will be allowed on site; trash will be collected by a private firm. 6. An erosion control system acceptable to the Town Engineer shall be installed during construction. 7. The applicant shall provide the Town Engineer with an annual cleaning and management plan for the stormwater management system which includes plans for deicing as well as fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides. Annual cleaning and maintenance reports shall be filed with the Town Engineer, Board of Health and Conservation Commission, along with a statement stamped by a registered Massachusetts Professional Engineer stating that the system is functioning as designed. ( 8. Applicant shall be required to meet with the Police Chief prior to the start of construction to arrange for detail traffic control at the intersection of East Street and Franklin Street as may be necessary, as determined by the Police Chief. The applicant shall meet weekly with the Police Chief to review any problems that may occur and to discuss future plans. Applicant is responsible for sweeping East Street and Franklin Street as needed, as directed by the Town's representative. 9. All site improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the above-referenced plan. 10. The way shown on the plan entering from East Street shall remain a private way. The Town of Mansfield shall not be asked to accept or maintain the way. 11. Occupancy of these age-restricted units is limited to persons 55 years of age and older. 12. No salt shall be used during snow removal activities; the Planning Board suggests the use of sand. r- 13. The applicant shall conform to all Conservation Commission conditions and local wetland by-law setback requirements at all times during construction on this site. Attached and incorporated by reference is the Conservation Commission Order of Conditions, DEP File Number SE211-697. The Order of Conditions shall be appended to this decision following its acceptance by the Conservation Commission. Should the r- r- Order of Conditions require any modification to any feature on the site, specifically drainage, the applicant shall be required to provide the Planning Board with a revised set of plans within the Planning Board's 21-day appeal period. 14. No activity other than minor clearing of debris outside the limits of work shall occur without the approval of the Conservation Commission or the Planning Board. 15. All above-referenced department head comments shall be satisfactorily addressed. (Annino- Torman) Torman - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, especially with the opportunity for seniors to stay in town. This is one of the best projects I have seen before the board and I appreciate how well the applicant has worked with the board. Jenkins - In favor. This provides a needed housing stock without further burdening the school system and creates an attractive use on an unsightly parcel. The applicant has done a good job addressing the board's concerns relative to aesthetics and design. r- Armstrong - In favor. The benefits outweigh detriments with the donation of conservation land to the town, which will add another piece to the Canoe River Greenbelt. The project will provides a needed housing stock with no further burden on the SChoO} and will be an improvement to that comer and property. Annino - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments with the addition of age- restricted housing, the cleanup ofa site that is underutilized and the provision of tax benefIts and jobs to the town. The project will improve the character of the neighborhood. DeMassi - In favor. The benefits outweigh detriments in that it will support the community's senior population. I think this will be a well-designed project, especially with the landscaping. French - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments relative to Zoning By-Law Section 5.5, specifically regarding the impact on the general welfare and amenities of the town: it will improve the character of the neighborhood, provide a needed housing stock, contribute land to the Canoe River Greenbelt for a positive impact on the environment and will have a positive impact on the tax base. AU in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (DeMassi-Annino) All in favor. PASSES r- I'.s.;/~:""...".i." 1. Ware Street - The parcel is being split into two. One has less than the required frontage and less than required lot width; reliefhas been granted by the ZBA. Mr. Burke recommended the plan could be endorsed. r- r Motion: To endorse the Form A (Armstrong- ) Motion did not receive a second Motion: To table the plan indeftnitely (Torman-Annino) Four in favor. Armstrong, French opposed. PASSES The board discussed the fact that the only action it takes on a Form A is to endorse that it has sufficient frontage and area. Mr. Armstrong said the statute says "the board shall" endorse the plan if it does not show a subdivision; he said this does not show a subdivision and he felt the board is obligated to sign it. Motion: To reconsider (Armstrong-French) Three in favor. Three opposed. FAILS 2. West/Forbes (former Ames warehouse) The parcel will be divided into two, both with adequate area and frontage. Mr. Burke said the plan warrants endorsement. Dr. Torman asked if the lot line changes would alter the open space, floor area ratios or setbacks for the existing building. Mr. Burke said it would not. Motion: To endorse the plan (Armstrong-Annino) All in favor. PASSES 1'.~7"'''.\ The alternate members article passed at town meeting, but it will have to go to a town election, which will not be until next spring. Mr. DeMassi suggested there should be a policy for how the alternate members would be used. Mr. Burke said that was the Board of Selectmen's article, so they would have establish the policy. Mr. French suggesting asking town counsel for direction about how alternate members should work. r- Mr. Burke asked about the downtown workshop next Wednesday. The board discussed including design standards, and establishing a committee to put together design standards for Town Meeting in the fall or spring. Hal Horvath from Mansfield Bank will attend to discuss loans for f~ade improvements.@ 17..~.. Motion: To adjourn at 10:15 p.rn. (Tonnan-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: June 2,2004 at 7:30 p.m. (Downtown Workshop) Vi 1'-/0 Cf Date of Approval ;"- r-