Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 05/04/05 Planning Board Minutes May 4,2005 U5 JW; - 2 Mi 9: I~ 9 Present: Tom French, Chairman; Fred Armstrong, Clerk; Walter Jenkins, Ken To~ John DeMass~ Frank Holmes; Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Deve1on#pt;'; ::\'" E JI ITA-S0 f~,CnljSt. TTS 11. M~caIIed to order.. 7:08ip.ID. I Motion: To appoint Mr. Annino acting chairman (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES [? C'" t~ ! , I r ,,\ ! t,~\, ',.. :,.,)~',~~) , "::)' (' f" t". r"'" 1 \.', :j.... '-IC= ,....- ..... (J . i.~. r- 3. Public. u...... ..tlilued - All..... TOWD MeetiJla W....... Article 27 - Site PIa. - PlannUta...... Mr. Burke said Mr. French and Mr. D' Agostino have discussed this by-law and there was some sense the article should be withdrawn to allow the board to work on building consensus before a Fall Town Meeting. He suggested that rather than discussing the merits of the proposed by law now and again later, it may be better to set up a time to discuss it later. Mr. DeMassi said he didn't think it made sense to go forward without agreement between the board, the building inspector and the town manager. Mr. Annino said while the building inspector is here, the board should have a discussion. ,-.. [Mr. French arrived at this time.] Mr. Armstrong said he understands the need for getting everyone on board before going to Town Meeting, but said he would like to have a discussion with the building inspector. Mr. Annino said the board has been talking about site plan approval for several years and he feels frustrated by the quality of site plans and the board's lack of ability to enforce its recommendations. [Mr. Jenkins arrived at this time.] Mr. Annino said the amendment would allow the Planning Board to require applicants to be more prepared, whereas now many site plan applications and presentations seem like an afterthought. Mr. Riccio said to the extent possible, he always tries to incorporate the board's recommendations. Mr. French said many applicants are willing to cooperate with the board, but some are not, and said he understands the building inspector is legally obligated to accept the minimum standard, but he feels the town should have more. Mr. Armstrong said he has looked at the Zoning By-Laws of surrounding towns, which all give the board site plan approval. He said the model by-laws of the regional planning r- agencies give site plan approval to the Planning Board. Mr. Armstrong said this is not a power grab by the board and believes everyone wants what is best for the town. Mr. Riccio agreed. r- Mr. DeMassi said it is difficult for the board because it can ask for higher standards on one type of project, a special permit, but not on another, a site plan. Mr. French said he has spoken with the Town Manager, who said he might be able to support the article after some discussion. Mr. D' Agostino has requested the board take it off the Annual Town Meeting warrant and commit to meeting about the wording and intent and reach consensus prior to the Fall Town Meeting. Mr. Riccio said he understands the board's frustration about not being able to enforce conditions, but said this amendment would bring site plan close to a special permit process. He said he was concerned that could result in litigation, but said he would be wiling to work with the board. Mr. Armstrong said special permit review is a much higher standard than site plan. Mr. Riccio suggested ifthere are certain things the board wants to see in certain places, the Zoning By-Law could be changed to accomplish that. Mr. French said many of the board's concerns are about aesthetics, and the board has always been willing to work with the applicants. Mr. Holmes said there are also issues with neighborhood protection and public safety, citing issues like lighting and queuing lengths, which might not be zoning issues. r"' Mr. Annino said there should be a mechanism to judge aesthetic. Mr. Jenkins said developers try to maximize the remaining land in town, both residential and commercial. Mr. Riccio said staff does a good review prior to the plans coming to the board. I 4. Site.... Review - 985 SoutltMaiD Street - William Ridlant Ralph Maloon, RIM Engineering, explained this is a partially developed site next to the Tweeter Center. There is an existing building and parking lot at the rear of the site, an asphalt drive to the rear building and the rear detention has been installed. There is one additional detention area to be built and a wetland on the site. The proposal is for a second office building with parking on four sides. There will be no loading docks; the trucks drive right into the existing building. The new building will be strictly office space with 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space. There are 117 parking spaces where 112 are required. The new building will have a loading area at the rear, large enough for trucks to access. The site already has sewer, water and electric, to which the new building being connected. A piece of the water main will be moved because it is under the new detention and would not have had five feet of cover. A hydrant will be placed at the entrance and the site will have one entrance and exit. ,,-.- Mr. Maloon explained the lighting plan, which includes wall pack lights and light poles around the parking area. Mr. Richard said he would use metal halide lights, which is what the existing building uses. He said he would be cautious of spillover. Mr. Annino asked if the building lights will be low cutoff; Mr. Richard said they would be. ~ Department Head Comments The clerk read a summary of department head comments, which have been addressed on the revised plans. Board Comment Mr. Jenkins asked what the building would look like; Mr. Richard said it would be similar to the existing building: two stories with a canopy over the front. Mr. Jenkins asked the size ofthe new building; Mr. Maloon said it would have a 16,000-square foot footprint. Mr. Jenkins asked the size of the front lot; Mr. Maloon said it is about an acre. Mr. DeMassi asked if the site would need a second entrance; Mr. Burke said he didn't think there should be a second entrance because of the site's location. He said given the rate of speed and the traffic on that road, a second curb cut might not be advisable. Mr. DeMassi asked about trash pickup; Mr. Maloon said there is a dumpster at the rear of the building. Mr. Annino said there would have to be another one for the second building. Mr. Maloon said it could be placed near the loading area. Mr. DeMassi asked ifthere is Tweeter Center parking on this site; Mr. Richard said there is not. Mr. Annino asked about curbing; Mr. Maloon said there is cape cod berm around the edge of all pavement. Mr. Burke suggested that be added as a note. ".-. Mr. Annino said the parking spaces and islands should be dimensioned. He said the 14- foot aisle would be too narrow for backing out, unless the spaces are angled. He said the spaces are shown as angled on the landscaping plan, but not on the rest of the plan. Mr. Annino said the landscaping plan looks great. Mr. Annino said the Zoning By-Law calls for a 14'x60' loading area; Mr. Maloon said he would follow that. Mr. Annino asked about the sprinkler system; Mr. Richard said it is a 6-inch system. Mr. Annino asked for a photometrics plan and for handicapped ramps at the sidewalk. The clerk read a memo from David Field, Assistant Town Engineer. Mr. Holmes asked about curbing in the landscaped island; Mr. Maloon said the island would be curbed. Mr. Holmes asked if the loading area could be shifted southerly and the landscaping removed to allow for the 14'x60' loading areas. Mr. Maloon said he would do that. Mr. Jenkins asked about mechanical equipment; Mr. Richard said it would be on the roof. Mr. Jenkins said the locations should be identified. Mr. Maloon said there is existing underground conduit for the electric service. -- Mr. DeMassi asked if there will be material brought in or out; Mr. Maloon said there will be a fair amount coming in, with 3-4 feet of fill around and under the building. He said there would be about 6,000 yards brought in. ,- George Dentino, Gladiola Terrace, said the original plan had a 125'x21O' building, but is now smaller and seems to have been shifted to take up some ofthe parking spaces. Mr. Maloon said he wasn't comparing the original plan to the new plan, but calculated the spaces by the actual usage of the existing building and the proposed new building. Mr. Dentino said the original building would have had a certain number of parking spaces. Mr. Maloon said the original plan included both buildings and 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. He said there would have been more parking previously ifboth buildings had been built as offices. Mr. French asked if the parking shown on this plan reflects the existing building and the new building; Mr. Maloon said it does. He said the first plan required 127 spaces with 134 provided; 112 are required for this building with 117 provided. Mr. Dentino said the new building is 32,000 square feet; Mr. Maloon said the original parking was calculated based on all office use in both buildings, but there is now warehouse/storage use in the existing building, rather than all office. Mr. Maloon said the 127 spaces were included for both buildings; he said the bulk of the existing building is storage. Mr. French said the building inspector would review the plan to determine the appropriate number of spaces. Mr. Dentino said there appears to be a 90-foot curb cut, and the maximum is 40 feet. He asked ifthere is a state highway curb cut permit on the site. Mr. Richard said there is a curb cut permit with an extension and when the permanent driveway goes in, he will have to build the curb cut to the maximum requirement. ,,-.- Mr. Dentino asked if the retaining wall is over three feet high. Mr. Maloon said that is a boulder wall and is approximately three feet high. Mr. Dentino asked if that should be an engineered wall. Mr. Dentino asked if there are pre- and post-development drainage calculations; Mr. Maloon said there are. Mr. Dentino asked about clearance around the buildings for fire trucks; Mr. Maloon said there are 34 feet on the left of the building and 40 feet in the back. Mr. Dentino said those numbers must include the parking aisle areas, and there will likely be cars in the lot. Mr. Maloon said that is a one-way driveway. Mr. French asked about the required landscaped buffer strips; Mr. Burke said the plan meets the standard and there is an industrial use next door. He said the plan meets the requirements of the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Dentino said there was no signoff on the first building by the Conservation Commission; Mr. Maloon said there was a Conservation Commission hearing and an Order of Conditions. Motion: To send the Building Inspector a positive recommendation with all department head addressed and the following recommendations: f' 1. A photometric plan showing lighting values of the low cutoff luminaires with metal halide lighting should be submitted to the Buildling Inspector. 2. The dimensions of the parking spaces and travel lanes, along with a note about parking lot striping, should be added to the plan. r- 3. The concrete dumpster pad area should be shown on the plan and should be screened with solid, six-foot high fence with gates. 4. The parking spaces on the north side of the building should be angled to allow a wider travel lane width. 5. Handicapped ramps should be added to the sidewalk. 6. A note should be added regarding the installation of cape cod berm around the edge of all paved areas, including traffic islands. 7. On-grade mechanical equipment should be located on the plan, should the mechanical equipment not be placed on the roof. 8. The length of the curb cut should be verified and should not exceed the maximum allowable width of 40' (forty feet). 9. The number of required parking spaces ofthe exisisting and proposed buildings should be verified for conformance to the Zoning By-Law. 10. The board suggests the loading area be increased in size to conform to the Zoning By-Law and shifted southerly, and the landscaping in that area be removed to allow better truck access. (Armstrong-Annino) All in favor. PASSES [Dr. T orman left the meeting at this time] 6.. .PublitBeariDg....... - AIul.... Town Meeting W......nt Artide50-ParkiDg ,,-- mBI....BI-MarcoC... To see ifthe town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Law to add the following to Footnote (2) of Section 4.2.2, Density and Dimensional Regulations, Business and Industrial Districts (change in bold): (2) Business and residential uses may be combined in the same, or separate buildings, provided that in the Business 1 and Business 2 districts retail, office, bank, restaurant or parking uses shall occupy the entire ground floor (see Section 3.7.2). Ed Roster, Roster & Antine, explained the article has been amended after discussion with counsel. Mr. Burke said Mr. Crugnale's original proposal had been reviewed by his attorney, then reviewed by town counsel, who suggested another amendment. The attorneys arrived at a proposed amendment they both believe address the important issues. Mr. Burke said it would ensure retail uses is in the front ofthe building and are at least 15% of that area. --- Mr. Annino said the amendment is written so that on a corner lot, the retail uses would have to be on the main street, and said he would be concerned about a building like George's Cleaner's, which would have retail on North Main Street but could have a parking lot on West Street. Mr. Burke said that plan shows parking on West Street now, with some retail wrapping around the building from North Main to West. Mr. Burke noted the artists' rendering of Mr. Crugnale's building on North Main Street shows the building as a comer lot, which is not the case. Mr. French asked if a sentence could be added that any frrst floor space abutting a street be either commercial space or screened parking. Mr. Burke said the by-law specifies that the "frontage" ofa building is the shortest conforming frontage. Mr. Annino said any comer lot would be important and he wouldn't want to compromise the requirement to keep retail on the first floor, so he would want to have the retail space go around the corner. r- Mr. DeMassi said he understands Mr. Crugnale's position, but said he thought 15% retail is too little for the main street. Mr. Burke said ifthe building has a 10,000 square foot footprint, 15% would be 1,500 square feet of retail. He said most of the downtown storefronts are about that size or even less, and if the market for larger stores isn't there, the storefronts will end up being vacant. He said he would much rather see a smaller space that can be leased than a larger space that will remain empty. Mr. DeMassi said he didn't want the entire main street to be four story buildings with parking underneath and a sliver of retail in the front. Mr. Armstrong said 1,500 square feet would limit potential uses; he said a restaurant wouldn't fit in 1,500 square feet. Mr. Roster said large retail businesses tend to go into malls or shopping centers, rather than into downtown areas. He said the 15% is a minimum and would not prevent a larger retail use from being downtown. Mr. Armstrong asked the footprint of the Mr. Crugnale's building; Mr. Crugnale said it is just under 10,000 square feet. He said he believes people want to live in the downtown area and smaller shops would help make downtown more vital. Mr. Holmes said he feels the percentage of retail should be higher and said a higher percentage would provide more flexibility. ,,-.- Mr. Burke suggested on a tear down like this, the current amount of retail should be replaced. Mr. Crugnale said his proposal would replace the same number of square feet that currently exists. Mr. Annino said the number may be constraining. He said he agreed with Mr. Burke that as market demand increases and people move downtown, they will need more retail, so the percentage that developers build will grow. Mr. Burke suggested adding a line that on a tear down, the new building must contain no less than the existing retail along the main street. Mr. Jenkins said there are several other uses in the by-law beside retail. Mr. Armstrong said the "non-residential" use would have to be replaced. Mr. Burke said the intention ofthe by-law was to preclude residential uses from being established on the first floor. Mr. Armstrong said the parking within the structure allows a larger building to be built. Mr. Crugnale said the only way his project can work is with the amount of parking he has proposed. Mr. Holmes asked about parcels along North Main Street that don't have any existing retail; Mr. Burke said there would be a minimum percentage required, or a replacement of existing square footage. ,""-'" Mr. Armstrong suggested a higher percentage but allowing it to be lower by special permit. Mr. Burke said the Zoning By-Law allows the board a finding when the use isn't specifically identified; mixed use with parking under is not identified. He said a special permit would be a six-part test. ~ Public Comment Sandra Torman said parking has to be considered with downtown locations. She said the more retail space added to a property results in less available parking. ~ Mr. Dentino said 50% of the intent ofthe footnote was to preclude residential uses downtown, and the other 50% was to protect downtown businesses. He said Mr. Cruganle wants to put more units in the building the Zoning By-Law currently allows and the only reason there is retail on the first floor is to circumvent zoning. He said by putting more parking underneath, the residences just get spread around the second and third floors. Mr. Dentino asked how parking under the building for residents helps the parking situation for businesses, since only residents will be able to use it. He said the board and Mr. Burke supported the retail on the entire first floor at town meeting and said this plan shouldn't have been approved because it violates zoning. Mr. Burke said the board's discussions about downtown reuses resulted in the existing footnote, the intent of which was to prevent residential uses on the first floor. Mr. Dentino said the footnote requires the entire first floor to be retail; he asked ifhaving a small amount of retail would keep businesses in the downtown area. Mr. Burke said Mr. Cruganle's proposal does not reduce the existing amount of retail, it merely replaces it. Mr. Dentino said Mr. Crugnale's plan backed into the amount of retail because ofthe size ofthe residential use. Mr. Burke said the by-law talks about retail on the frrst floor with residential above it; he said the footnote also allows uses other than retail on the first floor. He said the amendment should have been written more clearly, but said the flaw should be addressed. He agreed with Mr. Dentino that the board wanted to save retail downtown and preclude residential uses from the first floor, and said the board believed this plan conformed with what was adopted at Town Meeting. Mr. Dentino asked if the intent was to provide more parking for residential uses on the upper floors; Mr. Burke said the floor area ratio and building heights haven't changed since 1989. Mr. Dentino said the density is what it is because the parking is allowed under the building. Mr. Annino said the density has to be there for a vital downtown area. Jay Barrows said there are a lot of small lots that could be developed lot line to lot line, so the percentage could be an issue. Mr. French said he likes Mr. Burke's idea of using a percentage and maintaining the existing retail. Mr. Annino said he didn't mind that but was concerned about the corner lot issue; Mr. French suggested parking adjacent to a corner lot could be screened. Mr. Annino suggested a certain percentage of retail on both exposures and suggested removing the sentence referencing how the front ofthe building is determined. Mr. Holmes suggested requiring retail along any frontage on a public right-of-way. Mr. Barrows said he thinks ifretail space is created, it will be filled. Mr. Burke said the market would determine what will go downtown in the future. Mr. Crugnale said the size and shape of the lots downtown will determine what future development can occur. ,,-.- -- Mr. Armstrong said he thinks he could support the article ifit is changed to require the existing retail is replaced on a tear down. Mr. Burke said the board doesn't want to discourage downtown reinvestment. Mr. French said he would support the numbers in the amendment and the replacement of the existing non-residential space on the first floor frontage. Mr. DeMassi said he wasn't sure what the building's frontage is and was concerned that could be open to interpretation. Mr. Burke said whatever non-residential uses are being conducted on the fIrst floor would have to be replicated. Mr. Jenkins said he could support 20% retail, with 30% on a corner lot. Mr. DeMassi said he could support 200tlo. Mr. Armstrong said the intention is to retain the existing non- residential uses along the street frontage. He suggested adding "contiguous non- residential space has to be replaced." Mrs. Torman suggested requiring the amount of retail that faces onto North Main Street be replaced. Mr. Burke said the difference between 15% and 20% would be about 500 square feet on Mr. Crugnale's proposal. Mr. Crugnale said that would mean the loss of two units because he wouldn't be able to provide parking. ,-.. Mr. Holmes asked about the special permit; Mr. Burke said that would require writing a new section of the Zoning By-Law, which would have to go to a Fall Town Meeting because it would go outside the scope of this advertised public hearing. Mr. Crugnale said he would like to keep 15% and replace the square footage of commercial space along the street frontage on a tear down. Mr. Annino said it would be impossible to police things like what is frontage and how far back it has to go. He said he would support 20% along the frontage and 30% on a corner lot. Mr. French said he would support 15% with the caveat to replace the existing retail. Motion: To continue the public hearing to May 17,2005 at 6:45 p.rn. (Holmes-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Article 43 To see if the town will vote to add to and amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to amend section 3.1.1 - Schedule of Principal Use Regulations, Industrial by adding to Section 3.6.2 Classification. Bulk Materials Stora2e/Sales, the words "Self & Mini Storage Facilities" in the definition, or take any action in relation thereto. 3.6 3.6.2 CLASSIFICA nON OF INDUSTRIAL USES Bulk Material a.~~~:,. ~~~~ ..~ ,'. fuel oillJ:1.eating ~rvice facility, lumber yard, ...... ...",..:,!I~J~llIlJijll~~, recreatIOnal vehicle center or similar establishment for open and enclosed, distribution or sale at wholesale and retail of material, merchandise, products or equipment provided that all smoke, odor, particulate matter, toxic matter, fire or explosive hazard, glare, noise and vibration shall be ,~ ~ effectively confined to the premises or disposed of in a manner so as not to pose a present or potential hazard to human health, safety, welfare, or the environment. Bob Nicodemus, Bergmeyer & Associates, distributed a substitute motion to define Self and Mini Storage Facility, provide a maximum height and allow it only in 13 with a special permit. The original article had only been to add "self & mini storage facility" to 3.6.2, Bulk Material Storage and Sales definition. Mr. DeMassi said he didn't believe self and mini storage fell under 3.6.2 and it should be in a separate section. Mr. Burke said 13 is the older industrial areas of the town. He asked if changing this to a special permit use would go beyond the scope of the advertisement, since there would be . a new section created with a new definition and a change to the table of uses. Mr. French said that would be up to the moderator. Mr. Burke said he wouldn't recommend supporting this article at Town Meeting. He said the first part of the Hatheway-Patterson process has wrapped up and the town is looking forward to the second phase of the planning study. He said it would be premature to make zoning changes before that study is completed. Mr. DeMassi said he believed the board agreed, but noted the by-law doesn't address self and mini storage, he felt it needed its own definition, but he didn't see a reason why it shouldn't be allowed in 13. ,-.. Mr. Armstrong said the feeling may have been that mini storage is not as negative a use as some of the others listed in that definition. Mr. Nicodemus said this use would fit nicely in the 13 district. Mr. Burke said that might be the case, but the planning process should be completed. Mr. William Clemmey said he didn't think anyone was opposed to the use in that zone, and said it would make sense regardless of what the result of the planning process is. Mr. Armstrong asked if the planning process is going to continue; Mr. Burke said the town has submitted a grant application and the review committee is meeting in a few weeks. He said the town will not find out until after Town Meeting if the funding is received. Mr. Armstrong asked the scope of the process; Mr. Burke said it would include the 13 land from Foxboro to Route 106, across 106 and to the town-owned, Clemmey tank and Cleveland Twist parking areas. Mr. Karl Clemmey said he has met with Mr. Burke twice and said he is not in favor of the grant application. He said no one is going to spend money on Cleveland Twist. He said the Selectmen have granted him a parking license for 105 spaces on the Clemmey Tank site and he is planning to add 300 more. He said Mr. Mangiaratti said the self- storage use has to be defmed, which they have done. He said he have the finances in place and if the town doesn't want the article, he would withdraw it. r- Mr. Holmes asked what the procedure is after town meeting. Mr. Burke said an amendment approved at Town Meeting is presumed to be valid, but goes to the Attorney General's office for procedural issues and usually is approved within 90 days. r Mr. Dan Clemmey said the study for which the town is applying for a grant is a housing development study. Mr. Burke said it is larger than that. Mr. Dentino said the idea is to determine what is the best interest of the community. He said he thought if another landowner came in with this proposal, it would have gone through with no problem. He said he thought Mr. Clemmey could put in self-storage now, without the amendment. He said Mr. Burke is thinking of what is in the best interest of the planning study, but there is no guarantee that will happen. He said the use is a good fit for 13 and will not produce any traffic. Mr. Annino said he doesn't see any problem with the article. He said it is less intrusive than bulk material storage and sales and wouldn't produce much traffic. Mr. French asked what other 13 areas this would apply to; Mr. Burke said 13 is only in the downtown area. Mr. Jenkins said he would be concerned about the fact that the 13 areas south of Route 106 are accessible primarily through residential areas and this may increase traffic in those areas. Mr. Burke said the question would be whether this is the highest and best use of the 13 land. Mr. French said there are areas outside the study area that would be affected by the change. r"' Motion: To support Article 43 if Self & Mini Storage becomes a new section, Section 3.6.8 (DeMassi-Armstrong) Six in favor. French abstained. PASSES Article 37 To see if the town will vote to add to and amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to amend Section 3.1.1- Schedule of Principal Use Regulations, Residential by adding or amending Note I as associated with Section 3.3.1, Single Family Dwelling, under Industrial-2 (12) District to change "at density allowed in Residence I" to "at density allowed in Residence 2," or take any action in relation thereto. SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPLE USE REGULATIONS , RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS P INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS DISTRICTS B DISTRICTS I 2 3 R I 2 3 D I 2 3 A SPA 3.3 RESIDENTIAL USES 3.3.1 SingleFamilyDwelling Y Y Y Y SYN N N YI Y N N I = South of Route 106 only, [as a By-Right use] at density allowed in Residence 1-'2 density. Mr. Karl Clemmey said he owns a piece ofl2 land on Gilbert Street, where there are many existing small lots. He said the current requirement is for lots in the 12 zone to meet the Rl requirements and said the amendment would make lots built in 12 zones fit in more closely with the existing residential lots on Gilbert Street. ,,-.- Mr. Burke explained this land was zoned 12 by petition many years ago. In 1989, Town Meeting approved an amendment to the Zoning By-Law to allow residential development by special permit in 12 zones at R3 density. Mr. Burke explained an abutter to Mr. Clemmey's site applied for a special permit to build duplexes, which was ultimately ~ denied. The board went to Town Meeting in 2001 to change the density to Rl by right rather than R3 by special permit. The current requirement on Gilbert Street is for 60,000 square foot lots with 200 feet of frontage. Mr. Burke noted the town is still in court on the 2001 change in density from R3 to R1 and said he wouldn't encourage another change. He said the value of residential property is such that there is no longer a need to give a landowner a density bonus to take land out of industrial and put it into residential. Mr. Clemmey said he has owned the land for 20 years and he could have built houses when R3 density was allowed, but did not. Motion: Not to support the article (DeMassi-Holmes) Six in favor. French abstained. PASSES r- Article 44 To see if the town will vote to amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to change the Schedule of Principal Use Regulations - Section 3.7.2, Mixed BusinessIResidential in Business 3 Districts, from its present Not Allowable to Allowable and to match allowances under Business 2 District. This article would also apply the Maximum Floor Area ratios to B3 as they are in B2 for Mixed BusinesslResidential Use, Section 4.2.2, or take any action in relation thereto. SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPLE USE REGULATIONS RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS P INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS DISTRICTS B DISTRICTS I 2 3 R I 2 3 D I 2 3 A SPA CLASSIFICATION OF OTHER USES Older Building Reuse S S S S Mixed Bus.IRes. Use N N N N S S S YS W.S N N S S S N N S * . Y 3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 Y 4.2.2 Density and Dimensional Regulations - Business and Industrial Districts SCHEDULE 4.2.2 DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Bl B2 B3 PBD II 12 13 Maximum Floor Area Ratio Bv Ri!d1t Residential BusinesslResidential - 0.5- 2.5 1.5.1.' (1) 0.25 -- 0.25 Mr. Nicodemus explained the substitute motion is for 1.0 FAR for mixed business/residential in B3 rather than 1.5 FAR. Mr. Burke said the current FARis 0.25, so this would quadruple the density allowed in B3. Mr. Karl Clemmey explained there are B3 zones in East (Mansfield Oil and East Mansfield Village) and West (Country Store) Mansfield, which are both developed, along areas along Copeland Drive. Mr. Burke said Bl is the most intense business zone, where an FAR of2.5 is allowed, with 1.0 FAR allowed in B2. He said many B3 areas are rural, abut single-family neighborhoods, and while B3 is "highway oriented business", he said he doesn't believe it is in the town's interest to see a parcel like CVS or the plaza across Copeland Drive redeveloped at four times the density. r- Mr. Clemmey said the town has lost a lot of tax money and jobs, and if the town wants to keep the property next to Benney's undeveloped, it shouldn't support the article. Mr. r" French asked if Mr. Clemmey thought he would be able to develop that parcel at four times the lot size. Mr. Clemmey said he wouldn't because of the setbacks, parking and height requirements. Mr. French asked why, in that case, would the amendment be for 1.0 FAR if development at that density wouldn't be possible. Mr. Clemmey said he had discussed the board's concerns about the original proposal of 1.5 FAR and said this is what he returned with. Mr. Burke said the article seeks to do two things; to make a prohibited use an allowed use and to change the floor area ratio. He said there is currently no existing allowed FAR greater than .025 in that zone. Mr. Clemmey asked what Mr. Burke's recommendation would be; Mr. Burke said his recommendation is to leave the FAR alone. Mr. Clemmey said the change would produce jobs and taxes. Mr. William Clemmey said the last discussion had been that his lot next to Benny's abuts a residential area, so it would be more appropriate as a mixed use. Mr. DeMassi said the board understands that, but said the amendment wouldn't apply to just the lot next to Benny's, but to all B3 zones in town. ,-.. Mr. Nicodemus said the discussion from the last meeting seemed to be that the mixed use was a reasonable use. He said 1.0 is a manageable density, and said. 75 would also be a manageable density that would allow a good use of land, high tax return and be the highest and best use of the land with minimal impacts. Mr. Armstrong said all of the B3 areas would be subject to higher density. Mr. Holmes asked how much of the B3 zone on East Street is the [Village Landing] 55 and Over development. Mr. Burke explained there are several lots in that zone that are not included in that development, like the dance studio, the veterinarian and the plaza across East Street. Mr. Clemmey said the plaza across the street cannot expand. Mr. Nicodemus said he thinks the mixed use in that zone would be a good use. Mr. Karl Clemmey said .20 FAR is allowed in Bl and 1.0 is allowed in B2. Mr. Burke said the business zones are very different because of the types of uses surrounding them. Mr. Clemmey said the mixed use would be a special permit use, so any projects could be denied. Mr. DeMassi said the article wouldn't just effect Mr. Clemmey's property, but about all the similarly zoned lots. Mr. Clemmey said most uses under B3 are not special permit uses. Mr. Armstrong said the idea of mixed business/residential makes sense in a B3 zone, but the density is an issue. He asked the FAR of Benny's; Mr. Nicodemus said he thought it was about .25. ,-- ,--- Mr. Holmes said he thought the FAR for mixed use in B3 could be more than .25, but said 1.0 seemed too high. Dr. Torman asked if. 75 FAR could work; Mr. French said it is a question of appropriate density. Mr. Burke said the .25 FAR came out of a several year-long study and was adopted because prior to 1989, Mansfield only used lot coverage. He said in the 11 zone, FAR is 4.0, which used to be 60% lot coverage. He said the industrial park could have had that 60%coverage, but CC&F didn't want that kind of development. He said the reason for .25 FAR was to place the focus of retail development on downtown and to minimize its impact impact on residential areas; the downtown FAR was intended to promote reinvestment. Mr. Armstrong asked how much of what currently exists in B3 is non-conforming from an FAR point-of-view. Mr. Burke said the offices on either side of Copeland Drive and Chauncy Street, Bertucci's, Rockland Federal Credit Union and parts of the plaza on EastlFranklin Streets probably do not conform. Mr. Clemmey said Bl and B2 have no parking regulations, but B3 developments would have to comply with parking requirements. He said the existing buildings in the industrial park were built as warehouses with variances and have never had enough parking. Mr. Burke said that isn't true and some of the industrial park buildings confo~ ,,-.- Mr. Annino said he didn't mind the mixed use in B3, but wasn't sure about the FAR and lack of open space. Mr. Jenkins said currently, a 10,000 square foot building would be allowed on a one-acre lot. Mr. Nicodemus asked where the common ground is; Mr. Jenkins said he would support mixed use at .35, which would allow about a 15,000 square foot single-story building on a one-acre lot. Mr. Holmes said he could support that. Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Annino said they could go a bit higher. Dr. Torman asked why Mr. Burke doesn't support the article. Mr. Burke said in the developed B3 zones, it made sense to have low-density businesses in those areas because they are adjacent to residential areas. Mr. Nicodemus said mixed use is a national trend and is a good solution, and said he thinks it would work at 0.5. Mr. Annino said he would support mixed use at 0.5. Motion: To support mixed use in B3 at 0.5 (Annino-Armstrong) r Mr. Jenkins asked if there should be a minimum amount of either type of use in the development; Mr. Annino said he didn't think that would be as important in B3 as in the downtown area Mr. Jenkins said he liked the residential component because it would provide less costly housing. Mr. Armstrong noted that anything over six units would have to comply with the affordable housing production plan. Five in favor. Jenkins opposed. French abstained. PASSES ,- Article 46 To see if the town will vote to amend the Town's Zoning By-Laws to the extent necessary to change the Density and Dimensional Regulations - Business and Industrial Districts for Business 3 Districts, the Maximum Floor Area Radio, By Right, for Retail, Office, and Other Non-Residential (Schedule 4.2.2) from its present allowance of 0.25 to the allowance of 1.0, or take any action in relation thereto. 4.2.2 Density and Dimensional Regulations - Business and Industrial Districts SCHEDULE 4.2.2: DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Bl B2 B3 PBD II 12 I3 Maximum Floor Area Ratio Bv Right Retail Office Other non-Residential 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.25 +, 1.0 0.,2$;."0 0.2$. 1.0 .60 .40 0.40 0.25 0.40 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.25 0.25 Mr. Nicodemus said the substitute motion is for retail, office and other non-residential FAR at .75 in the B3 zones, but said 0.5 might be more appropriate. Mr. Annino said he would not support .75, but might be open to .5. Mr. French asked if.5 was appropriate for retail uses. ,,-.- Mr. Burke said he would be concerned about changing density and uses without thought given to infrastructure to support the change. Dr. Torman said any plans would have to come before the board, so ifit doesn't feel the infrastructure is in place, it can deny the plan. Mr. Burke said those considerations should be in place before the plans are filed. Mr. Armstrong said these uses are by right in B3, not special permit. Motion: Not to support (DeMassi- Torman) Mr. French said these are not mixed uses and are not special permit uses. Mr. Clemmey asked what he should do with his land. He said the state gave the town funding for the Hatheway-Patterson site and the study came back with 2.5 FAR for redevelopment. Mr. DeMassi said the amendment wouldn't affect only Mr. Clemmey's property, but would affect every B3 parcel. He said he would donate $5,000 to a Master Plan study and would withdraw all his articles. Mr. Dan Clemmey said the Cecil Group has proposed over 2.0 FAR in 13, which is well beyond what they are proposing. Mr. Burke said the EPA gave the town $65,000 for the study and what the Cecil Group came up with was a concept, not any zoning proposals. Six in favor. French abstained. PASSES r"' I 2. Corresp0a4eaee 1. The Village at Gilbert Street Special Permit Motion: To sign the special permit (Armstrong- Torman) All in favor. PASSES 2. April building permit summary 3. Meeting notices Easton, North Attleboro ,-. I 2. F()I'III A (ANR) Plus Maple Street - Maple Leaf Realty Trust. Mr. Burke explained the plan had been endorsed in 1997, was not recorded and must be re-endorsed. He said nothing has changed and the plan warrants re-endorsement. Motion: To endorse the Form A (Armstrong-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES I 9. .Publie Comment I Regarding Article 27, site plan approval, Mr. Clemmey said the Planning Board wouldn't have time to deal with site plan approval. He said he has been trying to get on the board's agenda for six months and he is going to send the board a letter requesting time on the agenda in order to get some direction. Mr. Dan Clemmey said he had met with Mr. Burke and wanted to go over each oftheir zoning articles, but was disappointed with that meeting. He said he would like to discuss his proposed overlay district with the board, and added Toni Hall :from DHCD is upset because the town's grant application is a "fraudulent document." Mr. French said the board puts applicants on the agenda as they come in. Mr. Clemmey said their projects have been good for the town. Mr. French suggested June 15 at 7:30 p.rn. Mr. Burke noted the board will be one member short for May 18, but the developer cannot make the following Wednesday, May 25. ,,-.- 110. Adj....meDt Motion: To adjourn at 11 :45 p.rn. (Torman-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES TOWN MEETING: MAY 17, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. Mansfield High School Cafeteria ~ /CL/vLfL- ~-d{ f1/JA, (~ Signature of Clerk .lJc t4 I ~ I Cloor- Date o)Approval r-