Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutplanningbrdmin03102010 Planning Board Minutes March 10,2010 ," ICE Present: Tom French, Chair; Doug Annino, Michael McClanahan, Tony Jodice, Olivier , '-'1 Kozlowski " ' "\,:.J.) Shawn MacDonald and Timothy V errochi, Alternates Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development 11. Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. Motion: To appoint Mr. Kozlowski acting clerk (McClanahan-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES I 2. Correspondence 1. February 24,2010 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (MacDonald-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES 2. Meeting Notices: Attleboro, Easton, Norton, SRPEDD 3. The Beacon I 3. Form A (ANR) Plans \4. Site Plan Review - Parking Lot Expansion - 777 West Street - Covidien Glenn Dougherty, P.E., Tetra Tech Rizzo, introduced Jack Fitzpatrick from Covidien. Mr. Dougherty explained the footprint of the existing building, the former Albany International building, will not change. This plan is for additional parking. [Mr. Annino arrived at this time] Mr. Dougherty explained there are now 126 parking spaces, and 213 proposed. There will be a generator added at the southeast corner of the building. Mr. Dougherty said they have addressed all the staff comments. Mr. Dougherty explained the entire site is eight acres, with a proposed increase in pavement of a little over 12 acre. The drainage system has been designed to treat more than 3/4 acre. Board Comment Mr. McClanahan asked plans for the interior of the building. Mr. Fitzpatrick explained they are gutting and renovating the interior for more office and R&D space, a fitness center, and possibly warehousing in the future. Department Head Comments The clerk read comments from Mr. Burke, Engineering, Electric, Conservation, Police and Fire. Planning Board 3/12/2010 ...~ Mr. McClanahan asked about connecting this building with the one next door. Mr. Fitzpatrick said they plan to use the existing driveways. Mr. Dougherty said they will use the existing light fixtures on the site and no light will shed off the property. The light poles have been reduced from 22 feet to 19 feet high, to avoid causing glare for drivers going westbound on West Street. Mr. Dougherty said they did an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation with the Conservation Commission in April 2009 to delineate the wetland area. Mr. Dougherty presented an elevation plan showing additional windows in the building. He said some trees will have to be removed for the parking expansion. He said there are some nice trees along the existing driveways, which they will save using tree islands. They will plant additional trees, as well. A retaining wall will be constructed to make up for the difference in elevation. Mr. Jodice said he was concerned about losing green space. Mr. Burke said the site would still conform with the open space requirement. Mr. Annino said taking down the existing trees and planting smaller trees and installing a chain link fence won't look good; he suggested planting street trees. Mr. Dougherty showed the board the planting plan. Mr. Annino said there are no trees shown between the parking lot and West Street; Mr. French said there isn't much room there. Mr. Annino noted the parking spaces are only 17 feet long and he is concerned about cars sticking out into the travel lane. Mr. Burke said those are compact spaces; a standard space is 18.5 feet. Mr. Dougherty said the retaining wall will be 11 feet tall with a vinyl-coated chain link fence on top. Mr. Annino said without a buffer, that will be visible from West Street. He suggested planting some more trees, and reducing the number of parking spaces if necessary. Mr. Dougherty said at full build-out, Covidien would have 225 employees, and with this parking expansion they would have 239 spaces. He said he doesn't think the parking area will be very visible because as West Street rises in elevation, the retaining wall rises to II feet. Mr. Annino disagreed, saying without the existing vegetation to buffer the parking lot, it won't look good. He suggested planting trees where there is enough room for them, particularly on the west side, removing a couple of parking spaces and adding an island with some trees. Mr. Jodice suggested increasing the height of the retaining wall and using a more decorative material rather than a chain link fence on top. Mr. Dougherty said he thinks the vinyl coated chain link fence will blend in with the industrial use. Mr. Annino said he doesn't want to see the chain link fence, and said he likes Mr. Jodice's idea of a decorative wall. Mr. French suggested adding some flowering trees to screen the retaining walls and fence. Planning Board 2 3/12/2010 1. Mr. Annino said he is concerned about the light poles being constructed in the utility easement. Mr. French said if the easement has to be dug up, the property owner would be responsible for it. Mr. Annino asked how the generator pad would be screened. Mr. Dougherty said they could plant some trees around it; Mr. French noted the Light Department would have to have access. Mr. Annino asked about the light pole bases. Mr. Dougherty said they are two feet above grade and two feet in diameter. Mr. Annino said they should be three feet in diameter so a car or snowplow doesn't hit the pole. Mr. Annino asked about the lighting. Mr. Dougherty said they will use shoebox fixtures with metal halide lamps. Mr. Annino asked about the retaining wall material. Mr. Dougherty said they will be VersaLock walls; they do not have a color planned. Mr. Annino said it appears employees would have to walk through the parking lot to get to the building. Mr. Dougherty said there wasn't room to put in walkways there. He said they would add walkways to the south side of the building, to connect with the existing sidewalks. Mr. Annino asked about truck traffic; Mr. Dougherty said they will use the existing loading docks, but truck traffic will be infrequent. He said deliveries would not be in conflict with people coming to work in the morning. Mr. Fitzpatrick said each day, they typically have two UPS deliveries, two FedEx deliveries, and the mail, along with one or two other box truck-type deliveries. He said this is primarily an R&D center rather than a warehouse or manufacturing facility. Mr. Annino said a lot of people walk in the industrial park, and said it would be nice to have sidewalks on the south side of the site to get people out to the street. Mr. Annino asked how many employees there would be; Mr. Fitzpatrick said the maximum number would be 225, but it would probably be closer to 180. He said the parking expansion plan shows 239 spaces. Mr. Annino asked about signage. Mr. Fitzpatrick said there is a sign at the street, and the only other one will be the pylon sign at the south side of the site. Mr. Burke said because of the change in elevation on West Street, drivers will be looking over the first row of cars parked along West Street, but said they would see the second row. He said adding p1antings and using an alternate wall system will help reduce the visual impact. He said a specimen tree will grow to 6-7 feet high, so it won't do much to knock down the view. He said 3-4 foot shrubs would do more to screen the new parking area. Mr. Annino said his intention is to soften the view from West Street rather than try Planning Board 3 3/12/2010 ,.. to screen the whole parking lot. He said he doesn't think putting a chain link fence along the property line is appropriate. Mr. Kozlowski said he would be concerned about pedestrians getting onto the retaining wall. Mr. Annino said he liked Mr. Jodice's idea about a decorative wall instead of the fence. Mr. French suggested a wrought iron-type fence; Mr. Jodice said there is an aluminum product that looks exactly like wrought iron, at about half the price. Mr. French suggested a 48-inch high wrought iron fence with additional, taller plantings along the fence. Mr. French asked if the applicant would consider a minimum four-foot "wrought iron" type fence, increasing the size of the landscaping and adding three flowering trees. Mr. Annino said he would like the height of the light pole bases increased to three feet, a sidewalk from the loading dock behind the parking spaces to the east property line where it would tie into existing sidewalks, and the generator pad screened. He said the building inspector should be asked about installing the light poles in the easement. Mr. McClanahan asked if the 17-foot spaces would have "compact car" signage. Mr. Dougherty said they would. Motion: To send the Building Inspector a positive recommendation with the following conditions: 1. All department head comments (attached) must be fully and satisfactorily addressed; 2. A minimum four-foot high wrought iron (or wrought iron-like product) fence should be installed on top of the retaining wall, rather than the proposed chain link fence; 3. The size of the proposed landscape plantings in front of the fence should be increased from a height of 18" to 24" to a height of 24" to 36", and three additional flowering trees should be added where space allows, in front of the fence; 4. The height of the light pole bases should be increased from a height of two feet to three feet high; 5. A sidewalk should be installed from the loading dock behind the parking spaces to the east property line, where it would tie into the existing sidewalk; 6. The generator pad should be screened with vegetation. In addition, board members questioned whether the light structures adjacent to West Street should be installed within the existing utility easement, as proposed on the plan. (Jodice-McClanahan) Mr. Jodice asked what would happen ifthe building inspector won't allow the light poles to be constructed in the easement. Mr. Burke said they would have to revise the plan and move the light poles to a mutually agreeable location. All in favor. PASSES 5. Special Permit Public Hearing continued - Wireless Communication Facility - 1007 West Street - T-Mobile The clerk read a letter from Attorney Simon Brighenti, representing the applicant, requesting to withdraw the application without prejudice. Planning Board 4 3/12/2010 .... Motion: To accept the withdrawal of the T-Mobile application for a special permit to construct a wireless communication tower application at 1 007 West Street without prejudice (McClanahan-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan-Kozlowski) All in favor. PASSES I 6. Public Comment I 7. Around the Table Mr. Burke gave the board copies of the North Main Street Business Overlay District by- law draft. He said the Board of Selectmen will be signing the warrant at the March 17 meeting, so the Planning Board should come to a consensus about whether it wants this by-law on the warrant or not, and if so, what changes are to be made. He said he doesn't want to go to Town Meeting without definite language. Mr. Burke explained one of the changes he has made was to the "Green Design Incentives" section, to add "similar Green Communities Criteria" which may be less expensive than LEED Certification. Mr. Burke explained his original draft had been to simply reduce the number of required parking spaces. This draft includes five parking alternatives for the sites that meet the requirements for the density bonus. A. allows all parking spaces to be sub-compact spaces; B. allows sub-compact spaces with reduced aisle and travel lane widths; C. allow off-site parking within 500 feet of the site (overlapping uses would have to be considered); D. on-street parking spaces wholly within the building's frontage can be counted toward the parking requirement for the first-floor businesses; E. structured parking to allow first floor or sub-surface parking when the retail space is 50% of the building; parking would not be counted in the floor area ratio of the building. Mr. Burke said option D could be difficult to explain at Town Meeting because the perception may be that business owners have exclusive use of those spaces, which would not be the case. Mr. French asked how many spaces are currently required for residential uses; Mr. Burke said 1.5 spaces are required in Bland 2 in B2. He said public safety expressed concern about the proposed changes in the original draft of this by-law, so this alternative would allow sub-compact parking spaces. Mr. Annino said other towns require even less residential parking in their downtown area, so reducing the requirement is not unreasonable. Mr. Burke said Town Meeting is a political forum, so if the board can get to the same goal with less resistance, the alternatives should be considered. Mr. Annino said the board has to think outside the box for downtown improvements, but if Town Meeting doesn't buy into the ideas, the ideas won't go anywhere. Planning Board 5 3/12/2010 '!II Mr. French said option D, counting the spaces in front of the building, would make a difference in the number of spaces being constructed. He said he would be concerned about the 8-foot wide sub-compact spaces being too small. Mr. Burke said people who buy and live downtown may be more likely to have a small car. He noted currently, sub- compact spaces are 8 feet wide, and 30% of new spaces can be sub-compact. Mr. French said under the proposed by-law, lOO% ofthe new spaces could be sub-compact and suggested they be 8.5 feet wide rather than 8. Mr. Annino said he would like to bring all of the options to Town Meeting. Mr. Burke said he doesn't think the adoption of this by-law would result in a rush of developers doing projects using it, but it will give them more options. Mr. Jodice asked where the 500 feet for off-site parking came from. Mr. Burke said that is a common number in other communities' by-laws. He said that number also changes in some communities depending on the site's proximity to public transportation. Mr. Kozlowski asked if Section 5.10.14 gives the Planning Board the ability to change something that would normally have to go to Town Meeting. Mr. Burke said it does not, because the board adopted the Downtown Design Standards. He said this by-law would only apply to new projects that meet the density bonus standards, not to everything in the overlay district. Mr. French said the Planning Board can change the Downtown Design Standards or the Subdivision Regulations without going to Town Meeting. The board discussed whether the second paragraph of Section 5.10 .14 means there can be no typical franchise construction, or that franchise buildings will not get a density bonus. The board discussed that the first part of the by-law doesn't clearly reference the density bonus. Mr. Burke suggested clarifying it to say "these only apply to projects seeking the density bonus." Mr. Jodice said he would rather leave it as drafted because it gives the board more control over downtown projects. Mr. French said he would like the board to have the ability to work with developers to improve downtown. Mr. Burke said his intent was not to create an architectural overlay district, but rather to help developers make downtown projects work with bonuses, while providing some benefit for the town. Mr. Annino suggested leaving all of the parking options in. Consensus of the board was to leave in options A-E. Mr. Annino suggested leaving 5.10.14 as drafted, with the removal of the last phrase ("as adopted..."). Mr. Jodice suggested making the second paragraph its own section, 5.10.15. Mr. Kozlowski asked if 5.1 0.14 would apply to existing buildings downtown, or only to new projects. Mr. Burke said the ~xisting buildings would be grandfathered, unless they were to come back for reconstruction. Mr. Kozlowski said he is concerned that would create a new class of pre-existing, non-conforming uses downtown. Mr. Burke said that was not his intent when he wrote this; he intended the whole section to apply only to new projects that met the density bonus standards. Planning Board 6 3/12/2010 111' Mr. Burke told the board he has scheduled a meeting on April 14 to accommodate the public hearings on the citizens' petition and the board's article for Town Meeting. Mr. Jodice said he discussed advertising at the school fields at the last CIP meeting, and got some positive feedback. He said he would start researching that. !6....Adjournl1lent Motion: To adjourn at 9:30 p.m. (McClanahan- ) All in favor. PASSES sday, March 24, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. 3~Zc.f~~OIO Date of Approval Planning Board 7 3/12/2010 ... ,...