Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 03/01/2006 ", f.. ""I1.!!"n C,! '. l.\. ,,~ ! "-~ r Planning Board Minutes March 1,2006 05 ~IPR 27 pr1 2: 41 Present: Tom French, Chair; Fred Armstrong, Clerk; Walter Jenkins, John D~tA:~~,j~1 /_ ' Frank Holmes Doug Annino ' """ i ,J i' i i.:. L 0 , ~'.I" C"., >\ ["t'lJ<:'ETT5 Shaun P. Burke, Director ofPlannin and Develo ment ['Ii",;:.:'i-, /1'1, ,)- 1. March 1, 2006 letter from David O'Sullivan, Village Landing LLC re: footprint changes to accommodate elevators, resulting in the buildings being squared off. Mr. Burke explained the Building Inspector will require as-built plans for each building. Mr. DeMassi asked if this, in addition to the previously added three-season rooms, triggers the percentage change detailed in the special permit. Mr. Burke said he doesn't believe it does. He said he has spoken with the developers about the possibility of acquiring a neighboring property, which would trigger that special permit condition and require an amended special permit. Mr. DeMassi said the board had been concerned about the site's density, and asked if this would make the buildings appear to be closer together. Mr. French asked for a plan showing where the elevators are proposed, including an elevation to show how the f~ades will change. [Mr. Jenkins arrived at this time] 2. Meeting notices - Easton, Plainville, Canoe River Aquifer Committee 3. Architecture Boston magazine r Mr. Annino asked about the date for the downtown design standards meeting with the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Burke said that would be May 24. Mr. Jenkins said there has been another TIF submitted for a medical device company that hopes to occupy 40,000 square feet in the industrial park. He said this would result in a significant number of high-paying jobs. He noted there is quite a bit of empty space in the business park, including "shadow space," which is leased but not occupied. Mr. DeMassi asked ifVerizon has started work on their cellular site on Francis Avenue. Mr. Burke said he was not aware they had pulled any permits. He said the town has been contacted by several cellular providers about towers on town-owned land. He said towers are only allowed in a few zones, but co-locations are allowed in other zones. Mr. DeMassi said there had been discussion at the last CIP meeting about the possibility of adding a tower to the new DPW garage on East Street; Mr. Burke said a free-standing monopole is only allowed in Reservoir District, 11 and the PBD. He said the town might be able to do an RFP for a tower to improve emergency communications, which the town would then have to own, then lease space on the tower. That would be a municipal use and be allowed anywhere. Mr. Burke said the board had proposed the Interior Wireless Communication Facility by-law, which passed at Town Meeting, to allow towers to be ,-.. installed in existing structures, like church steeples. However, because there was a Planning Board 1 grandfather date in the by-law to avoid buildings being built for the purpose of installing cellular towers, the Attorney General's office threw out the by-law. The clerk read the public hearing notice. The clerk read a request from the applicant's engineer requesting the public hearing be continued to April 26, 2006 at 7:45 p.m. Motion: To continue the public hearing to April 26, 2006 at 7:45 p.m. (Armstrong-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES [Mr. Annino left the meeting at this time] Richard Peterson, Annino Associates, presented the changes to the plans. The plan is for a wood-framed, four-story building. He said there had been concern at the last meeting about the building's appearance and massing, and how that would affect the neighborhood. Rather than a four-story, flat-roof building, there is a new roofscape with gables, which are common in the neighborhood and would allow screening of the rooftop units and elevator machine house. The size of the project has been reduced from 16 units to 15 units, with three units on the top level. Mr. Peterson explained the setbacks have been increased along Rumford and West Cottage, with a different sidewalk layout that would allow some buffer between the sidewalk and the building. The height of the fence has been reduced and there are now 23 parking spaces. A dumpster enclosure has been included on the existing property, rather than on the adjacent property. Mr. Peterson said there had been concern about several units having their entrances on Rumford Ave; he said those entrances are still on the plan, but they would be gated so people could not walk in off the street. The building's entrance, on West Cottage Street, would have signage on the fence; there is no entrance on Rumford Ave. Mr. Peterson explained the changes to the exterior, including brick on the lower level and stucco above with louvered awnings over the windows. Mr. French asked if there is a plan showing the existing building and the original proposal. Mr. Peterson showed the board those plans, as well as samples of proposed building materials. Mr. DeMassi asked if the size of the units has been decreased; Mr. Peterson said no. Mr. Jenkins asked if the new proposal is taller than the old; Mr. Crunale said it would still be under 45 feet. Mr. Peterson said the peaks of the gables would be higher than 45 feet; Mr. Burke said that can be done under the zoning by-law. Planning Board 2 - ,....."-- '1 , ~ ,..->. r' r Mr. Crugnale said he was here primarily to present the design changes and get direction from the board. He said he still has some engineering to finish. Mr. Jenkins asked if the view is the same from both Rumford and West Cottage; Mr. Peterson said the gables will go all the way through so the views from both sides will be similar. Mr. DeMassi asked if the gables actually bump out; Mr. Crugnale said they do. Mr. Crugnale explained the new dumpster location will be easier for pick up. He said he has removed the compact parking space and added almost seven feet of green space. Mr. Holmes asked West Cottage Street will be narrower with the new sidewalk matching the existing walk; Mr. Peterson said it would not be any more narrow than what exists. Mr. Armstrong said these plans are an improvement. Mr. Burke asked how the stucco on the top three floors would be different from the building across West Cottage Street. Mr. Crugnale said it would have more design elements, including decorative cornices and awnings. Mr. Burke said the building on the other side of West Cottage Street is unattractive and he is concerned this building will look similar. Mr. Peterson said he thinks there will be enough detail on the building that it will look very different. Mr. DeMassi asked why stucco is being proposed. Mr. Crugnale said it is a style he likes, but said he would be willing to use siding. Mr. Burke said the new design has better elements than the original proposal. Mr. DeMassi said he r likes the new details, but he doesn't like stucco. He said the building is still massive, but said he had hoped to see the top floor taken off with the new roofline on the third floor instead. Mr. Crugnagle said he has moved the building back from the street as much as possible and added buffer. Mr. Armstrong said the size is mitigated by the new design and the new roofline helps. Mr. Peterson said the roof will slope back. Mr. DeMassi said it appears the height has increased; Mr. Armstrong said only the peaks of the gables are taller than originally proposed. Mr. DeMassi said he doesn't think the massiveness of the building has been reduced from the original proposal. Public Comment Brad Boscow, 150 Rumford Avenue, said the building is still very close to the street and was concerned this building would decrease the value of their units. He said the Milhaus has 80% owner occupied units and the residents are concerned about their property values. Mr. Crugnale said he believes this will increase existing property values. Ruth Lieberman, 150 Rumford Avenue, said this proposed building is very different and looks beautiful, but she is still concerned about the "tunnel effect" created by this building and Milhaus. She said she doesn't see any dimensional changes to the building and asked where it was pulled back. Mr. Crugnale said it had been sitting on the sidewalk, and has been moved five feet back. Ms. Lieberman said the entire property is .r- being used for this building. Mr. Crugnale said the Zoning By-Law allows him to build Planning Board 3 right up to the property line, which he has not. He said he would have liked to make it three stories, but the project has to be financially feasible. Mr. Boscow asked about the parking spaces. Mr. Crugnale said they would be deeded. Mr. Burke said he has spoken with the Building Inspector about whether the parking has to be unit compliance or overall compliance, and the answer was that the parking requirement must be met for the site overall. Mr. Boscow said he didn't want to see parking along the street in that neighborhood. Mr. DeMassi said parking is allowed on the street; Mr. Burke said there is a prohibition along this part of Rumford Avenue during the daytime hours. Ms. Lieberman asked where the snow would be placed and where people would park; Mr. Crugnale said the snow would be removed and not stockpiled. Kevin McNatt, 150 Rumford Avenue, said there had been a question about the placement of the transformer. Mr. Crugnale said he has met with the Light Department and would have to leave 10 feet free around the unit. Mr. McNatt said this building is much more attractive than the original proposal and said he didn't care for the stucco. Mr. Crugnale said he would revisit using siding. Ji}---" '-. '") Mr. Boscow asked how to prevent the double-stacked parking spaces; Mr. Burke explained there would have to be a zoning change at Town Meeting. He said this plan, if approved, would be grandfathered, so even if the zoning was changed, it would go forward as proposed. He explained projects filed after the town meeting change would be affected. Mr. Boscow said without the ability to do double-stacked parking, buildings ~ couldn't be as large. Mr. Burke said parking should be at the back of the building, not in the front, for the sake of the streetscape. Board Comment Mr. French said he thinks Mr. Crugnale is looking for direction with regard to these changes. He said he thinks the new proposal looks better. Mr. Crugnale said there is still some engineering work to be done. Mr. Holmes said this plan is an improvement, and while the building is as big as it was before, it appears smaller. He said the site plan still needs a lot of work. Mr. DeMassi said he understands the abutters' concerns about the canyon effect, but said a lot of that exists now with the Milhaus. He said a lot of positive changes have been made with this plan and said he would like to see a more complete plan. Mr. Crugnagle said he thinks the details he has added will make a big difference. Mr. Jenkins said he had hoped for the fourth floor to be stepped back more and asked iftthere was a way to drop the gables back another six feet. Mr. Jenkins asked about the primary entrances for the ground floor units with exterior doors; Mr. Peterson said the primary entrances would be from the lobby, and the exterior individual entrances would be gated and locked. Planning Board 4 '"""'\ ..c' 'r' r Mr. Jenkins said he is still concerned about the height and the pitch of the gables; Mr. Peterson said it is about a 12% pitch. Mr. Jenkins said he doesn't like stucco either, but said the new design is much better. Mr. Armstrong said he likes stucco and said many of the issues have been addressed within the constraints of the site. He said the building could act as a bridge between the smaller houses in the neighborhood and the Milhaus. Mr. Burke said he likes the separation between the public and private space on Rumford Avenue and said it may address some of the on-street parking issues because the main entrance is through the lobby, so people will be more likely to park in the lot. He said adding the gables helps reduce the massing of the building. He said he is concerned about three stories of stucco being too much, but said it can be broken up with details and different colors. Mr. French said he doesn't have a problem with stucco. He said the driveway at the property line has to be 24 feet, but asked if the board would consider 22 feet inside the site. Mr. Peterson said that would make tight turning radius. Mr. DeMassi noted with the new dumpster location, that wouldn't be as significant an issue, and could result in more green space. Mr. Crugnale said he wouldn't want to make the parking lot too tight for the residents but said he would look at that change. Mr. Jenkins suggested making the r second space in each of the tandem spaces compact spaces. Ms. Leiberman asked if the large tree on the corner would be removed; Mr. Crugnale said that would remain. Motion: To continue the public hearing to May 10, 2006 at 8:00 p.m. (Armstrong-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Mr. French said it might be time to look at updating the Master Plan. Mr. Burke said it has been 10 years, and he has spoken with the Town Manager about putting financing in place to start working on that. He said the last plan was done for $25,000, but it would be much more expensive this time. Mr. DeMassi asked if the board could start looking at what sections have to be updated and what sections are still valid; Mr. French said it could, but noted the board cannot do this plan alone. Mr. Burke suggested the board could schedule a night to review the Master Plan with an eye toward deciding whether or not a revision is necessary. Motion: To adjourn at 9:45 p.m. (DeMassi-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: Wednesda , April 5, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. ~ 111~ c., I 0 f::, Date of Approval r Signature of Clerk Planning Board 5 ~ ." ": ) ~ ~