Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNINGbrd_04062016f Planning Board Minutes April 6, 2016 p: 'Is OFFICE Present: Tom French, Chairman; Don Cleary (arrived at 7:1 1pm), Clem Bet Michael McClanahan, Michael Feck, Ralph Penney ruj� ,i "Z't ° "' Alternate Joe Cerretani Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development 1. Pla iniing Board Meeting cant d to order at 7:07 pan Motion: To appoint Ms. Ashman- Collins as Clerk (McClanahan — Cerretani) 6 -0 Passes 1. Minutes February 24, 2016 Mr. Penney suggested a wording change in #2, Public Comment. The wording should be changed to "will bring back the mixed use article." The Board had a conversation about one of the items in Around the Table, regarding delivery issues at Firestone and how traffic is backed up as a result. Motion: To approve as amended (Penney — Ashman- Collins) 4 -0 -2 Passes 2. Minutes March 23, 2016 Mr. Penney questioned why one of the affordable housing units would reach their expiration date. Mr. Burke explained that the agreement allowed for a 30 -year period; these units would then revert to market rate units. Motion: To approve (McClanahan — Cerretani) 5 -0 -2 Passes 3. "dorm A (�ilYR) Plans` Bob Palmer and Russell Barnaby, Chocolate Factory, LLC; Attorney Karen Wright; Phil Cordeiro and Chris McCarthy, Allen & Major Associates, Inc.; and Warren Mott, BKA Associates, architect; Ken Cram, Bayside Engineering, traffic engineer Mr. Penney explained that since he has been absent for the last two hearings, he will just listen but not vote. Planning Board 4/6/2016 Mr. Burke commented that the discussion ended at the last meeting regarding the gap between the end of the proposed sidewalk in front of the Chocolate Factory and the northwest sidewalk on Mansfield Avenue. He also noted that one of the names in the memo that attended the March 30 meeting was incorrect; Mr. McClanahan attended the meeting, not Mr. Ahern. Mr. Cleary read Mr. Burke's March 31, 2016 memo into the record. Mr. French asked if the applicant has surveyed the area to establish the right -of -way on Oakland Street. Mr. Cordeiro replied that they began the survey, and that there is a gap in the Oakland Street layout, which the Town Engineer is reviewing some town layout plans. The issue of installing sidewalks is promising, but is unresolved at this time. The actual mathematical layout of Oakland Street is missing and the Town Engineer is working on this issue. Mr. Burke noted that the Board spoke previously about parking lot security and appropriate lighting and pedestrian walkways within the parking lot. One of the items that was in his memo but not discussed was the height of the fence as it relates to security. The 4' fence is decorative but questioned whether or not it provides enough security for the residents' cars. The other issue was emergency phones with blue lighting in the parking lot and if there is there a need for these phones within the building. Perhaps these need to be added in the hallways, near the elevators. Mr. Palmer replied that there is a security system with video surveillance; residents will have access via key fobs and will be able to allow entrance from their units to their guests; there is video monitoring and added that there are external cameras as well. The developers will discuss security measures with the management company. Mr. McClanahan asked about exterior building colors. Mr. Palmer replied that the majority of the building is brick; it will be stripped down and cleaned to its original brick finish. The cinderblock will be painted an earth toned color and the window frames will probably be dark green or black, as well as the doors. Except for the steel building, depending on the client who rents it, they will want to finish it their own way, which will be done within code. Mr. McClanahan asked if the applicant will have to come back to the Board if the steel building is to be physically altered. Mr. Burke replied that if there were physical changes in elevations and footprint of the building, then they would have to come back in. Mr. Palmer does not anticipate a footprint change, but there will likely be a signage change. Mr. Burke noted that he would not want to introduce rigidity in the special permit so it would be difficult to get a tenant. Mr. Palmer noted that there will be minor fagade changes, like a canopy and some paint; it is presently a dull steel building. He pointed out the National Park Service has some strict guidelines as well for the historical structures elsewhere on the property. 2 Planning Board 4/6/2016 The Board had a discussion about what potential types of changes would require the applicant to come before the Board again in the future. Mr. Burke suggested a condition in the special permit that the Planning Board review renderings of the north building, Building E, after a tenant has been identified. Mr. Penney cited the section within the town's Zoning By -laws that allowed for such action. The applicant and Attorney Wright were comfortable with this. Mr. Burke asked the applicant about the National Energy Code and how it would apply for the buildings that fall under the National Register of Historical Buildings. Mr. Mott explained that if the existing building will use less energy now than it previously did, you can leave the systems as they are. The residential units will use less energy than the Chocolate Factory did. Mr. Penney believed the Chocolate Factory was one of the largest customers of MMED when it was operating. Correspondence • March 31, 2016 memo from Mr. Burke to the Planning Board (read earlier in the evening) • Email from Mr. Palmer to Mr. Burke dated March 31, 2016 including "rent roll" showing square foot and monthly rent for affordable units Mr. McClanahan reviewed the one- and two - bedroom rent roll provided by the applicant. Mr. French noted that they are spreading the affordable units amongst the various layouts. Mr. McClanahan suggested making the 2- bedroom loft a market rate unit and making another unit affordable. Mr. Feck noted that we have always asked for the affordable units spread out. Mr. Cordeiro said there are 12 loft units. Mr. Burke said that as a practical matter, they are taking their most profitable unit and making it affordable and Mr. McClanahan is suggesting that they make another smaller 2- bedroom loft unit affordable instead. Mr. McClanahan withdrew this for consideration. The Board is comfortable with the distribution of affordable units. A resident said he was concerned about security in the outer area near the snow storage area and that people may try to sneak other people in to conduct illegal activities and asked if the applicant has any security measures in place, like a camera in the parking area along the perimeter. Mr. Palmer said that there will be a camera in the area. Mr. McClanahan asked if it is a gravel area and Cordeiro replied that it was. It was suggested by the applicant that a post and chain can be installed to cordon off the area and discourage people from entering the area. Public Comment William Clemmey, 55 Fowler Street, asked about the installation of street lights on Oakland Street. Mr. Cleary noted that these streetlights will be installed on Oakland Street heading toward Mansfield Avenue and that there is a current discussion about installing a sidewalk in that same area. Mr. Cleary said the applicant will be installing and paying for the sidewalk and the town Planning Board 4/6/2016 l will install the streetlights. Mr. Clemmey asked what parts of the project are being paid by the applicant and what parts are being paid by the town and wondered if there a list of costs. Mr. Cleary said that no such list exists. Mr. Clemmey believes having a list would be helpful. Mr. McClanahan said that it has not been determined yet if the sidewalk is feasible. Mr. French noted that the applicant has agreed to install the sidewalk from their property to Mansfield Avenue, as a benefit to the town and the residents of the development. The lighting in front of the development is the applicant's responsibility but the town will install the lighting along the sidewalk. Mr. Cordeiro said that the development costs — water, sewer, electricity — are the responsibility of the applicant. Mr. McClanahan noted that at Maple Street that intersection will be reconstructed by the town. Mr. French noted that the Planning Board, if they approve the special permit, will spell out who will be paying for what, the town and the applicant. Mr. Clemmey asked if the traffic study is available for public review. Mr. French replied that the document is available for review. Mr. Clemmey questioned the use of Building E; Ms. Collins said that the use is determined as light industrial but the tenant has not been determined. Ms. Wright noted that Building D & E have been determined as Light Industrial. Mr. French said that there will be a condition in the special permit to allow for discretion to reopen the Special Permit. Mr. Penney asked what is under the dome; Mr. Cordeiro replied that there is a 100,000 gallon water tank. Mr. French commended the applicant for the well thought out plans. He asked Mr. Burke for final thoughts. Mr. Burke can draft a decision, and his sense is that it will be a positive decision. Mr. French said that the decision can be drafted and circulated to the applicant for review and then come back at a future meeting, discuss and vote the special permit at that time. Mr. McClanahan said that the sidewalk issue needs to be addressed. Mr. Burke said that he would like to resolve the issue before drafting the special decision. Mr. Burke noted that there are two items to vote on; the adaptive reuse and the special permit. Motion: To direct Mr. Burke to prepare a positive decision for adaptive reuse and a special permit for the project, including the office and the commercial building (McClanahan — Cleary) 6 -0 Passes The Board asked the applicant for an extension, and the applicant agreed. Mr. Burke said that the decision can be done by May 11, 2016. Motion: To continue the public hearing to April 27, 2016 at 7:15pm (McClanahan - Feck) 6 -0 Passes Planning Board 4/6/2016 The Board thanked the applicant for their time. None 6.,,�r`onlpt�- iheTaiile - Mr. French reviewed the items for the next agenda. Motion: To adjourn at 8:20p.m. (McClanahan - Penney) All in favor. Passes Next Regular Planning Board Meeting: April 13, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. zo 2v Dat of Approval Planning Board 4/6/2016