Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 06/07/2006 7' 11 . RECEIVED . .. t! l:lN CLERJ<S OFJ: ICE Planning Board Mmutes .. . . ( June 7, 2006 06 JUN f 5 M1 fO: 35 Present: Tom French, Chairman; Fred Armstrong, Clerk; Walter Jenkins, Doug Annino, John DeMassi, Frank Holmes MANSFIELD MASSACHUSETTS The board observed a moment of silence for Bernie Dolan. Mr. DeMassi said the town and Little League has plans to commemorate Mr. Dolan at one of the fields. ( 1. May 10, 2006 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Annino-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 2. May 24, 2006 letter from Jay Zola, Folkman & Zola Builders re: Final Release of Surety - Eastfield Estates. Nicole Road and Noreen Road have been accepted as public ways. Motion: To release the remaining surety in the Eastfield Estates bond with the exception of $9,400 which will be given to the Town of Mansfield Sidewalk Fund (Armstrong-Holmes) All in favor. PASSES 3. May 24, 2006 letter from Jack Riccio, Riccio Builders re: Final Release of Surety - Mill Farm Estates. Sawmill Court has been accepted as a public way. Motion: To release the remaining surety in the Mill Farm Estates bond (Armstrong-Annino) All in favor. PASSES 4. May 12, 2006 letter from David O'Sullivan, O'Sullivan Architects re: Venting of elevators at Village Landing (Heron Crest). Mr. Annino said the fire-rated shaft does need to be vented to the outside. Mr. Burke said he would look at that again. Mr. French explained the repetitive petition requires positive votes from 6 of 7 members of the Planning Board and noted there is one member absent; therefore, the petition will need 6 of 6 positive votes to be approved. The applicant said he understood and wanted to go forward. The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. Zecher explained there had been two lots before zoning changes; they now do not have adequate frontage now. The ZBA has denied a frontage variance request. Mr. Zecher explained the original plan, which showed one existing house and two new lots. One would have been a conforming lot; the other would have been in back, a "pork chop lot," and would not have adequate frontage. Mr. Zecher explained the new plan, which shows the existing house and two, more regularly shaped lots with frontage on School Street, which both lacking adequate frontage. r Planning Board 1 Mr. DeMassi asked if the ZBA didn't like the original plan because of the "pork chop" ..,." lot or because there would be one house behind the others. Mr. Annino said it was probably because of both of those issues. Mr. Zecher said most of the land is dry. Mr. Burke said he has drafted a decision based on the conceptual subdivision plan, which is not what Mr. Zecher has submitted tonight. Mr. Annino said he likes the new plan better than a subdivision and thinks it is substantially different from the original. ) Mr. Burke agreed and said this plan would eliminate the concern about one house behind the others and provides the lots with more uniform shapes. He said the lots as proposed would be similar to existing lots in the neighborhood. He said he thinks the reasons for denial have been addressed and suggested the board vote in favor of the repetitive petition to allow the applicant to return to the ZBA. He noted the applicant will still need a variance from the ZBA for frontage. Mr. Jenkins said he thinks the proposed lots have enough area to justify the frontage variance. Motion: The proposed "Plan of Land" dated May 28,2005 and revised December 27, 2005 is materially and significantly different than the "Plan of Land" dated May 28, 2005 as a result of the more regular shape of the lots and the elimination of the "pork chop lot"; and the proposed "Plan of Land" dated May 28, 2005 and revised December 27,2005 substantially addresses the reasons for the Zoning Board of Appeals' September 6,2005 denial of the Variance application as a result of the more regular shape of the lots and the --." elimination of the "pork chop lot." (Armstrong-Annino) All in favor. PASSES The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French informed the applicant that there are six members present, and the application will need the positive votes of five of six. Mr. Meeks said he would like to go forward. Michael Trowbridge, Hutchins-Trowbridge Associates, explained the residential compound plan has 17.4 acres, which had a subdivision approved on it in the early 1980s. The zoning has expired. The proposal is for a cul-de-sac driveway with one existing house and four new ones. The open space would be deeded to the town or owned by the homeowner's association. Mr. Trowbridge noted the town owns land adjacent to the parcel. Mr. Trowbridge said he has been to the Conservation Commission and has a confirmed wetland line. The Commission has asked for the pavement to be as narrow as possible. Mr. French asked if Lot 5 is part of the compound; Mr. Trowbridge said it would be, and would have a driveway off the new roadway, not off Williams Street. ~ I Planning Board 2 r T r Mr. Trowbridge said the cul-de-sac has a 45-foot radius, which will be increased to 50 feet to accommodate the Fire Department's equipment. Mr. Burke said there had been a plan approved in the 1980s on this site, but the zoning protection has expired. He noted the approved subdivision layout does not go away, but the lot sizes would have to conform to today's requirements. Mr. Trowbridge said he has prepared a conceptual layout showing the previously approved subdivision with new lot sizes, and said there could be at least six lots. Department Head Comments The clerk read memos from the Fire Department, Police Department, Water Department, Electric Department, Mr. Burke and Engineering. Mr. Trowbridge said he has addressed the majority of the comments, but the plans could not be finalized prior to meeting with the board. He said there aren't any comments he has an issue with or has concerns about. Mr. French asked if the retention basin would be used for recharge; Mr. Trowbridge said each house would have a leaching system. Mr. Trowbridge said there is a ditch that crosses into the wetland area through a 30-inch pipe. . They are proposing a box culvert at that area. The road is pitched down, so flow will be picked up by catch basins and go through an outlet to a small swale before entering the detention basin. The outfall has a v-notch weir. The detention basin has been designed for the 100-year storm. r- Mr. Annino asked the difference between the wetland elevation and the roadway elevation. Mr. Trowbridge explained the proposed grade is 159.4 at the corregated metal pipe, about six feet above the bottom of the invert of the pipe. The road is about five feet higher than the wetland area. Mr. Holmes asked how much the road would have to be filled; Mr. Trowbridge said it would be filled about two feet, but may change with Engineering's concerns. Mr. Annino asked about the slope of the roadway/wetland area. Mr. Trowbridge said it would falloff after the gravel shoulder. Mr. Holmes asked if there would be wetland filling; Mr. Trowbridge said there would not be. He said the slope would be 2 to 1 and be grassed and seeded. Mr. French asked if there would be any wetland filling at all for this project; Mr. Trowbridge said there would not be. Mr. Trowbridge said they have filed a Notice of Intent, and Conservation is fine with the proposed plan; they left the public hearing open pending changes that come out of this meeting. Mr. Holmes said to avoid filling, there would have to be 28 feet between the wetland lines. r Planning Board 3 Public Comment Jeff Weinstein, 12 Windemere Drive, said a lot of the water currently goes between his ') and his neighbor's house. He said there is an existing water problem from this parcel and he is concerned this development will increase that. Mr. Trowbridge said he agrees there is a water problem, but explained it is coming from a different watershed, from property the town owns. He said water from this site is not flowing toward Mr. Weinstein's property. Mr. DeMassi asked what direction the water would flow if the detention basin overflows; Mr. Trowbridge said it would flow in the opposite direction of Mr. Weinstein's property. Mr. Armstrong asked if the grading would be changed such that water would flow in that direction post-development. Mr. Trowbridge said the grading would change, but not enough to change the direction offlow. Mr. Weinstein said he agrees the flow goes away from his house, but said he wanted to bring his concerns to the board's attention and to ensure there are no problems in the future. Mr. French explained Town Engineer John Sullivan reviews these plans in detail to be sure that won't happen. Mr. Meeks said there is a depression in Williams Street that filters water into this area; Mr. Trowbridge said the majority of that water is surface runoff. Board Comment The board discussed the most appropriate width for the driveway; Mr. Sullivan has suggested 18 feet. The board agreed that would be appropriate. Mr. Jenkins asked if on-street parking could be prohibited; Mr. French said it could be made a condition, but noted this would be a private way. Mr. DeMassi asked if there would be curbing; Mr. Trowbridge said they could put a cape cod berm in and noted there is a gravel shoulder proposed. Mr. Holmes asked if there would be a shoulder and suggested a berm to direct flow into the catch basins. Mr. Trowbridge said he has the room to widen the road to 25 feet; in the event he has to fill a small amount of wetland, he said he would go back to Conservation. --..., Mr. French asked if it would make sense to curve the road a bit to get away from the wetland line; Mr. Trowbridge said that could be done. Mr. Trowbridge asked the board what it would prefer be done with the open space. Mr. Burke said he hasn't spoken with NRT or Conservation. He said the town owns some land adjacent to this site. He said if the open space is owned by the homeowner's association, the homeowner's documents will have to be structured so it is very clear the individual lot owners are responsible for their share of the taxes on the open space. Mr. Trowbridge said there is a 50-75 foot buffer to the existing abutters in the open space area. Mr. Jenkins asked where the houses are located on the abutting Jewell Street lots. Mr. Trowbridge said they are several hundred feet away. Mr. Jenkins asked whether keeping the buffer at 50 feet rather than 75 feet would allow for changes to the odd shapes of the proposed building envelopes. Mr. Trowbridge said the existing building envelopes ~ Planning Board 4 would allow for 74' x 35' houses. Mr. French suggested the lots could be reconfigured r slightly to make their shapes more regular. Mr. Trowbridge said he would look at that. Mr. Annino asked to see the abutting houses at the entrance and across the street. Mr. DeMassi said in other compounds, the board has suggested the applicant provide the abutters who may be affected by headlights with some additional buffering. Mr. Annino asked to see the street trees on the plan. Mr. Trowbridge said he has addressed most of Mr. Sullivan's comments, but had to wait to finalize the drainage calculations until the roadway width was set. He said he wouldn't have a problem getting a 30-foot radius. He said the cul-de-sac is 550 feet long. He said he plans to add some landscaping features at the entrance and would show it on the plans. Mr. Annino said the streetlights seem a little short and suggested an 8-10 feet tall metal halide lights. Mr. Trowbridge said there are streetlights proposed at about every hundred feet. Mr. Annino asked about utilities; Mr. Trowbridge said they would be placed underground. Mr. Annino asked if a 2-1 slope is acceptable; Mr. Burke said the Subdivision ( Regulations allow that. Mr. Holmes said 3-1 is more typical, but with the wetlands, 2-1 might be better. Mr. Trowbridge said they could do 3-1 slopes. Mr. Annino asked about the soils; Mr. Trowbridge said it is mostly gravel. Mr. Holmes asked the elevation of groundwater at the detention basin; Mr. Trowbridge said it is about one foot below, but said he would check that. Mr. DeMassi asked about trash collection; Mr. Burke said the residents would have to bring their trash to the end of the driveway to be picked up, or would have to contract with a private hauler. Mr. DeMassi said this is a larger compound than the board has seen in a long time, and the trash from five houses would be a lot. Mr. Trowbridge said he would look at a defined area to place trash barrels. Mr. DeMassi asked if the cul-de-sac has an island; Mr. Trowbridge said it does not. He said it would be about 100 feet pavement to pavement. Mr. DeMassi asked about sidewalks; Mr. Trowbridge said there are no existing or proposed sidewalks. Mr. DeMassi asked if this would create a new bus stop. Mr. Meeks said the bus currently stops at the end of the existing driveway now. r Planning Board 5 Mr. French asked for spot elevations and proposed road grades to be shown on the plan, and asked for a guard rail to be shown. ) Motion: To continue the public hearing to July 12,2006 at 8:30 p.m. (Annino-Jenkins) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Annino asked about the June 21 meeting with Mr. Masiello about Mansfield Crossing; Mr. Burke said he will meet this week with Mr. Masiello about a variety of issues prior to his coming to the board. Mr. Annino asked that the board be given copies of whatever architectural renderings Mr. Masiello has in advance of the June 21 meeting. [Mr. Annino left the meeting at this time] Mr. Cruganle said there had been a number of engineering questions at the last meeting. He said those have all been addressed and the Engineering Department is happy. Mr. Crugnale said the other issue was the building's exterior, which has been amended. Mr. Crugnale said he spoke with the Engineering Department about shrinking the width of the travel aisle in the parking lot; they were uncomfortable with making it narrower than 24 feet. Mr. DeMassi asked about parking under the building; Mr. Crugnale said he didn't want to do that type of construction again. " Department Head Comments The clerk read a memo from the Engineering Department. Mr. Jenkins asked whether the peaks of the gables will be seen above the roofline. Mr. Cruganle said they will be. He said they are thinking of using clapboard for the exterior, with brick around the bottom and stucco details. Mr. DeMassi said he likes the idea of breaking up the colors. Mr. Burke asked what Mr. Crugnale would prefer to use; Mr. Crugnale said he would prefer the stucco in contrasting colors. Mr. Burke suggested there are some vinyl products that look like shingles or clapboards. Mr. Burke asked about the details under the windows; Mr. Crugnale said they are window boxes, but said he would prefer to have some other sort of detail there instead. Mr. Jenkins asked if the units would be real lofts. Mr. Crugnale said the top three units would be lofts, and the others would have high ceilings. Mr. Holmes said he was concerned it will be difficult to get in and out of the last space in the lot and suggested a small turnaround area on the abutting property, which is owned by Mr. Crugnale's father. Mr. Crugnale said he would try that, but part of that area is owned ""'" Planning Board 6 . . by the Catman Cafe. Mr. Jenkins suggested that space could be made a second spot for a r two-space unit. Mr. Crugnale said the dumpster pad might be moved to get some extra space at the back of the lot. Motion: To approve the special permit application to demolish the existing three-story, nine-unit apartment building and replace it with a four-story, 15-unit condominium building at 163 Rumford Avenue (Assessor's Plat No. 21, Lot 166) in the Business 1 zone with the following conditions: 1. Sheets 1 through 5 of Plans of "Proposed Mixed Use Redevelopment, Rumford Avenue, Mansfield, Massachusetts" dated February 1,2006 and revised February 28, 2006 and April 26, 2006 by Prime Engineering, Inc.; and Sheets 1 through 8 of Plans of "A Project for Crugnale Properties, Rumford Lofts, Rumford Avenue, Mansfield Massachusetts" dated May 2, 2006 by Annino Associates, Inc. are incorporated into this special permit decision by reference and shall be recorded with the special permit decision. 2. Sheets 1 through 4 of "Schematic Design" Plan dated January 30, 2006 and March 29, 2006 by Annino Associates, Inc. are incorporated into this special permit decision by reference and shall be recorded with the special permit decision. 3. All above-referenced department head comments shall be satisfactorily addressed within the 20-day appeal period. r. 4. Any changes to the plans shall be made within the 20-day appeal period. ( Planning Board 7 5. The applicant should meet with the Board of Selectmen as Road Commissioners to obtain the necessary permits from the Road Commissioners and the Department of Public Works to make the proposed improvements to West Cottage Street and the sidewalk, as well as to provide street trees within the right-of-way of Rumford Avenue and West Cottage Street. "'"1 6. All public rights-of-way used during demolition, deliveries, site work and COnstruction shall be swept regularly and kept clean of debris. Erosion control measures should be installed around catch basins within the public right-of-way. 7. Hours of operation for demolition, deliveries, site work and construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. No work shall be done on Sunday. These restricted hours of operation shall not apply to interior work. 8. A fire hydrant must be installed if required by the Fire Department. 9. A two-foot back-up area shall be added adjacent to parking space #23 on the south property line. 10. A detail of the six-foot high solid vinyl fence at the rear of the property shall be added to the plans. (Armstrong-Jenkins) ~ ~ Planning Board 8 P T r DeMassi: In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. The original property's configuration is odd for the area and this change will really have a positive impact. The applicant has done a lot with the design to accentuate the property to the south and to create a neighborhood feel. He has worked hard with the board to come up with a nice plan, use complementary colors and materials, and has addressed the landscaping requests and parking issues. Jenkins: In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. The improvements to West Cottage Street will be a benefit and the building will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. The project will bring two more affordable units to town. Armstrong: In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. The project cleans up the corner and will provides affordable housing. The building redesign will fit in well with the neighborhood character as a transition between the larger apartment buildings and the smaller single- and two-family homes. The parking will work well. Holmes: In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments with additional housing downtown and near the train station. There will be a fiscal benefit to the town, with no negative impact to the neighborhood or the environment. French: In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. I commend the applicant for working with the board, as he has on all his previous projects. The design of the building .r will work as a transition for the neighborhood, and will provide adequate off-street parking. All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Jenkins-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES 5. ZBA Application for Finding - 22 Eddy Street - Sideyard Setback The proposal is to expand the existing deck along the line of the existing house. Mr. Burke said the existing structure does not conform to current setback requirements and there will be no new encroachments into the sideyard setback. Mr. Burke suggested a positive recommendation. Mr. DeMassi said the plans don't show abutting properties or a locus. He asked if this would be different if it were an addition or a garage. Mr. Jenkins said it would not be, as long as there is no additional encroachment. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation (Holmes-Armstrong) Four in favor. DeMassi opposed. PASSES 6. ZBA Application for Variance - 37 Monahan Lane - Sideyard Setback The lot is long and narrow, with the septic system in the front, which also slopes down. Mr. Jenkins said there is no real hardship and suggested the addition could be put on the back of the house with no encroachment. The abutting properties are not shown. r- Planning Board 9 r T Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because it appears the addition could be built in another location without any encroachment. (Jenkins-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES 3. Public Hearing notices - Attleboro, Easton 4. Journal of the American Planning Association ) *Riverside Drive - Eames/Parillo Motion: To endorse the Form A plan (Armstrong-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES *Franklin Street - Connell Motion: To endorse the Form A plan (Jenkins-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To adjourn at 10:15p.m. (Armstrong-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: Wednesday, June 14,2006 at 7:30 p.m. (pIt" job Date of Approval ~ ~ Planning Board 10 r T