Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 06/14/1978MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD AGENDA June 14, 1978 1) Call to order (8:00 P.M.) 2) Clerks Report a. Correspondence b. Minutes of May 31, 1978 3) Warrant 4) Visitors Agenda 8:15 P.M. - Thomas Associates - re. Livable Cities Program 5) Old Business a. Livable Cities Application b. 1978-79 Work Program 6) New Business a. Status of Plans 1) John Cotterill - Form A - Pratt Street - 6/21/78 2 R nald Webster - Form A - Walnut Street -6/9&/f9 3Hc-tu( F4nec-he H c _ r -¢c.. 0- :So, Ct%laiuf - 6/a(, 179 b. Bond Estimate - Basin Street c. Correspondence d. Public Discussion e. Date for Next Meeting f. Around the Table 7) Adjournment 0 MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 14, 1978 Present: Chairman Parsons, Clerk Lesuer Planners: Mahana, Hartmann, Mangiaratti, Grant, Matoian Planning Director Maurer 1. Letters were read from the following: Conservation Commission to Leon Grant regarding pond enlargement. Conservation Commission to Robert L. Rizzo:, order of conditions Conservation Commission to Bruce Evans, order of conditions Memorandum to Department Heads from Town Manager regarding unpaid bills Building Inspector to Karl Clemmey regarding removal of surplus material. Housing Authority to Planning Board regarding rezoning of land on Bi -Centennial Court area. Planning Board to Building Inspector regarding removal of surplus material for Karl Clemmey. Memorandum to members of the Planning Baord regarding cancellation of meeting Newsletter from Department of Community Affairs Newsletter from Habitat. Robert Chavaree to Planning Board regarding Riverside Park Downtown Advisory Committee agenda, minutes and memorandum from Planning Director 2. Motion: To approve the minutes of May 31, 1978 as presented. (Lesuer-Hartmann, all in favor) VOTED 3 Board met with Mrs. Carol Thomas of Thomas Associates and Mr. Michael Southworth of Southworth Associates to discuss the LLivpble Cities Application. Chairman Parsons noted that at the last meeting there was alot of discussion about the Program itself and the type of work that the consultants have been involved in within other communities. He noted that what the Board was curious about is the background and the scope of work provided in other communities, and what they hoped to provide to the community. Minutes June 14, 1978 Page 2 MichaelSouthworth noted that the National Endowment for the Arts Program is for environmental design with emphasis on creative work. Thev_do urban design and architectural design grants. He presented three programs that were done under the National Endowment for the Arts program. The first was the Urban National Park in Lowel;l, which started in 1967 and involved a study to find out what kmnd of a potential it had before anyone knew what an Urban National Park was. He noted that all the mills, the locks and the channels where still standing and so they suggested a linear park system system, which re -used the sites for industrial and educational programs. He noted that namely two grants were issued for this project and one was used basically for an old mill called the Boott Mill which contained one million square feet of space and was 70% empty with the rest of the space renting for 50¢ a square foot. $20,000 was received for the restoration of the mill. The second program was the Boston 200 Discovery Network. This was done in 1974 for the bi=centennial in Boston. He noted they did a survey of all 12 central heighborhoods and designed working trails with information centers along the way and created a public neighborhood map. He noted that the National Endowment for the Arts funded 50% of this project. He noted that information centers are in different areas, like the Back Bay, to tell the shoppers and visitors what kind of services and travel is available. The third program was in Detroit in which they turned a street into a mall. This was done through signing, lighting and facade treatment and each`merahant received a package for their building as to how they should go about renovating it. He noted that another street project involved in with Mrs. Thomas was in Williamstown, Mass. He noted that out -skirts of the Town had the most hidious commercial strip in Massachusetts,and there was at least one curb cut for every business, with no landscaping and terrible signs. They had to design controls for improving the signing and landscaping.. Mrs. Thomas noted that DCA now has a new series out on improving highways with design guidelines, which suggests a service road to reduce curb cuts. She noted that they were able to do things not only with the street design but also with the parking lot design to combine access and landscape parking lots. She noted that they also made a proposal for uniform signing to give continuity to the street and gave them a uniform plan and in this case it was a cedar post with a 4 x 8 sign, and that new construction had to be in conformance with design guidelines. Mrs. Thomas noted that they recently completed a report, which is at the printers now, which is also NationalEndowment for the Arts funded for the rehabilitation of the water front buildings in the center of the City of Burlington, Vt. The funding for this project is $30,000 Planner Grant questioned if all the program had been along major highways. Mrs. Thomas noted that they had one in Waltham that was on Main Street. Planner Grant questioned if any of these had been put to use. Mr. Southworth noted that the Lowell and Boston 200 projects had been done. Mrs. Thomas note&tthat the Burlington project is still coming from the printer, but some of the buildings are starting to be rehabilitated. Planner Grant questioned how they would encourage the land owners to do this. Mrs. Thomas noted that they show them evidence that a design character in the total area will enhance business and will be profitable to them. The second way is to work on zoning incentives, if the owner will do one thing, we will return to him Minutes June 14, 1978 Page 3 something else in trade that he would not normally be allowed to do, or have parking areas with less curb cuts and the Town will agree to plow the parking lots for them. Planner Grant noted that all this is not to destruct and reconstruct but to re -do and that we have a situation in our downtown in that there is wide open zoning. He noted that he felt the people own the property and they should be allowed to do what they want. Mrs. Thomas noted that they show the people a financial advantage or some kind of trade off. She noted that this has been talked about in Mansfield for many years and that shows that there is a need. Planner Grant noted that his biggest concern is that when built to the side- walk where do you plant your trees. He noted that the only thing left to do is to uplift the face of the buildings but how do you get them back from the street and open it up where it belongs. Mr. Southworth noted that what you have to do is when someone paints there building gray you don't want something next to it that will clash. Planner Matoian noted that they have already had some merchants in Town do somework on their buildings and questioned would they base the study around these buildings or would you make -them change their structures after investing the money. Mrs. Thomas noted that these buildings would be part of the input of the study when they establish what the overall character is that the Town wishes to project. Mr. Southworth noted that one of the problems here is to develop three alterantives and after discussion with businessmen and other town leaders , then illustrate what they would like and select one alternative and follow it through. Chairman Parsons questioned what the direction of their study wbuld be as far as how broad and encompassing. Mr. Southworth noted that the first would be to select guidelines on the approach you want to take and then an overall plan and then, pick a few indivmdual buildings and show in particular you can do with those. Planner Grant noted that the Gas Companies don't want to redo the buildings because they don't want to put money into it. Mrs. Thomas noted that they wrote to every company that franchises along the highways and not one gas station responded. She noted that her son did a master theasis on gas stations and that the gas companies do not want to even talk with them and they have the attitude that if it is a local by-law or a local preference they will follow it as they are not trying to antagonize the community. Mrs. Thomas noted that there would also be an educational package to tell owners the advantage of doing this, what would help them, and the Kind of improvements and guidelines should be chosen in the public sector such as litter cans. She noted that one of the concerns that she has had in Mansfield back in 1950 when she was working with the Town on zoning is how the Mansfield people felt about Mansfield, what it represents and what it looks like. She noted that it is not quaint and it isn't colonial so there has to be something that bulls the people here to shop rather than get in their cars and go another 10 miles to shop somewhere else. Planner Grant questioned what you do in Mansfield center when every building, including some of the residences, have already been redone. There is only about 500 feet of Mansfield center that needs reconstruction. How much can you do from a builders point of view and an engineers point of view. Minutes June 16,1978 Page 4 Mrs. Thomas noted that there are somethings that the Town can do to help. Planner Grant noted that there is no money and that the Zoning Board of Appeals can't even hold their hearings, and they can't pay for the snow plowing as it has been a bad year. He noted that it would take alot of persuasion from the sellers to the owners, especially with :a mall coming in nearby. Mrs. Thomas noted that this is the purpose of having an educational package to have something to sell and that re -use also has to be considered. Planner Mahana questioned what firms they are dealing with. It was noted that it is Thomas and Southworth. Mrs. Thomas noted that the National Endowment for the ARts`:has been interested in improving the community life and the downtown area for the hub of the community life. They look for ideas to come out of the project. They also look for an area where there is some local imput;. She noted that in this case there has been alot of consideration for local input in the downtown, as there is a history of input. She noted that the Town has a`competent person, Planning Director Maurer, to make a report as she has worked with him before. Chairman Parsons questioned if Mrs. Thomas had any idea why the earlier aoolication was declined. Mrs. Thomas noted that she thought it was not ,st is they way m, if ai ived noted ith the ialBusiness ve (a plan whole area; atoian row that wait and they felt that hat in then the dollar hairman heme, the study time this noted that it put together. tnai rman rar5un5 wnanneu rn s. 1-111aa "l— „ --- Minutes June 18, 1978 Page 5 4. Board continued their discussion on the Livable Cities application. Planner Mahana questioned how Planning Director Maurer became involved with Mrs. Thomas. Planning Director Maurer noted that when they were updating the Master Plan in 1973 SRPEDD did phase one and on phase two they decided to have a private consultant and they interviewed several consultants and it is the Planning Boards decision to have Mrs. Thomas partioapate in the Town. Planner Mahana noted that everything that was submitted stated Universal Engineering. Planning Director Maurer noted that it is Uninversal Engineering,Thomas Associates Division however it has been with Mrs. Thomas and no one else from Universal Engineering, on the review of the Master Plan. Planner Hartmann noted that none of the plans seen tonight were Thomas Associates and that they all stated Universal Engineering. Planning Director Maurer noted that the Burlington and Williamstown projects were done by Thomas Associates. He noted that Mrs. Thomas' main expertise is planning and Mr. Southworths is design. Planner;;Mangiaratti noted that they both seem to have a good idea of the problems in the area and he was favorably impressed that they could do a good job. He noted that they all have to recognize that because of the situation in the downtown it is a long shot that anything is going to Happen but the Town has made a committment to do what they can for the Jowntown and these people can make an effort. Planner Mahana noted that Some of the words that the Board was hung up on last week was committment to Thomas Associates at the time it was ( Universal Engineering and not Thomas Associates. He noted that it was brought out that it would be a breech of faith if the did not go along with these people. Planning Director Maurer noted that this was on the previous application and that Planner Hartmann noted at the last meeting that it is a whole new application and the Town does not have a committment. Planner Mahana noted that this is a new firm and it is not with Universal Engineering any more. Planner Matoian noted that he agreed with Planner Mangiaratti that they seemed qualified and what it comes done to is do we need it. Planner Mahgiaratti noted that the word need is afunny word and we don't need it as much as snow plowing or rubbish removal but if they are going to give the downtown a shot they do need it. Planner Grant noted that he amended the motion last week as he was interested in seeing, not what a town looked like now or years ago but what it will look like tomorrow. He noted that he is disappointed as he has not seen any photographs as what has happened since this study was done and this is what he asked for at the last meeting. He noted that he is not interested in what money has been appropriated for studies, but what has actually happened andhe wanted to see something. Motion: To deny the application for the National Endowments for the Arts Livable Cities application. (Grant-Mahana, Hartmann, Matoian in favor, Lesuer-Mangiaratti opposed) VOTED Planning Director Maurer noted that they have to put the application in perspective with the downtown revitalization effort that has been before the Town since 1975. He noted that this was the area that the Harvard group studied and they emphasized the point of visual improvement and consideration to the area. The Planning Board and Selectmen in the Fall of 1975 formed the Minutes June 14, 1978 Page 6 Downtown Development Committee, which was given the responsibility in a two year time period to make an investigation on the downtown area. He noted that there was substantial effort made by that Committee as they talked to consultants, developers and the merchants to gather input to see what direction the Town should go and to see if there was any value in the future of downtown Mansfield. He noted that the Committee felt that if an effort was to be successful it had to come from within the community with private capital. He noted that the Committee's report was presented and accepted by the voters at the 1977 Annual Town Meeting and in the report there were several points which the Town should be working on. One is zoning, which has been done and there is a proposal for minor renewal and major renewal, which would be the Fairfield Optical property, which the Committee is working on. He noted that there is parking and traffic which the Committee is working on, but the first item is identification of the visual coordination of the downtown area. Planning Director Maurer felt that if they are going to dismiss this item then they should say that and let it be known. He noted that if they are going to use this mechanism of the Li4able Cities Application then they can persue this project. He noted that the Town doesn't have all of the resources that are available to larger communities in the planning capacity and they should take advantage of the resources that are available and get assistance to work with it. Planner Grant noted that he would assume that the Planning Director is capable of making out an application for assistance of any nature or, if he can't, then it should be put in the hands of a few applicants that could be interviewed so the Board could make a selection on who should be chosen for the job. Planner Grant felt that this had been pushed on the Board. Planner Grant noted that they are spending their own money whether it comes from Uncle Sam or the Town, especially when there is a good possibility that it is never going to go anywhere. Planning Director Maurer noted that this showed that Planner Grant did not have any confidence in the improvement of the downtown Mansfield. Planner Grant felt that people are not going to invest if they are not sure of end results. Planning Director Maurer noted that an effort is being made by the Downtown Advisory Committee and they have an ambitious program for the next town meeting. He noted that the Town is already making an investment because he is working on the downtown as a major project and is putting a substantial amount of effort into this and if they get the grant they can hire additional help to the community that have expertise in that area. Planner Mahana noted that in California they had a case of spend, spend, spend and they had to restirct the amount of money that the politicans give away and felt that they have seen enough of this federal giveaway. Planner Grant noted that he lived in Mansfield all his life and has seen the Town change from 4,000 people to 14,000 people and has seen alot of money wasted. Planner Mahana noted that on the Downtown Advisory Committee there is not any one with expertise He noted that he submitted names that would have expertise for this Committee and not even one was solicited. Planner Mangiaratti felt he was being very unfair to that committee and they are doing a very good job and the Committee before --them -devoted _agreat_many hours. He noted that the Town has made a committment to the downtown and the people have spent alot of effort and that today they are defeating the effort. He fett that they would be telling the people that the negative comments are coming from this Board. He noted that they have a well prepared application prepared by the Planning Director and a group of consultants that he was very impressed with and that the proposal goes along the line with the downtown development committee and it is a good proposal to get money to be able to have professional help to the Town. Minutes June 14, 1978 Page 7 Planner Mangiaratti noted that he has heard talk about the expertise of the Town people, of no faith in the downtown, and of the selection of Thomas 4 Associates and felt that all of this was a smoke screen behind which is a negative vote and that they will find all kinds of excuses to vote against an unobjectionable application. He noted that the application is in line with the policy of the Town for the past three years and in line with what the Town has worked towards. He noted that the Planning Directer has worked hard on it and he and Thomas Associates worked more on it then this Board or the Downtown Advisory Committee but it is along the policy of the Town Meeting and if this Board votes against it, It is a breech of faith. Planner Mahana noted that this is the second time he has stated it is a breech of faith and objected to the comment that he is throwing a smoke screen when it is him, in fact who stated that not to hire these consultants would be a breech of faith, is throwing up a smoke screen. Clerk Lesuer felt that no one is throwing up a smoke screen and that he personally felt it would be a mistake not to allocate the funds, and if they do not go along with it the thrust of the Downtown Development Committee will loose its position. He noted that the study and educational package that they give to the people of the Town would be very beneficial and he would urge that they vote in favor of it. Planner Matoian questioned if the Grant was for the consultants or the Town of Mansfield. Planning, Director Maurer noted the grant comes to the Town and the Town disperses it. He noted that the way the grant is set up the grant is for $13,000 and $2,000 comes to the Town primarily for the printing of the educational material and the $11,000 goes for a consultants services, but it comes to the Town and the Town would sign a contract with the consultant for a given amount. Planner Matoian questioned if they could apply for this grant without a consultant. Planning Director Maurer noted at this time it would be difficult for the Town to apply on their own because they want proof that they have done work before for the National Endownment for the Arts. Planner Mahana noted that he took exception and offense at the implication that those that vote against it are voting against the good of Mansfield as every member is voting for what he feels is correct and right and just because they don't go along with this line of thought doesn't mean they are not looking out for the good of Mansfield. 5. Board discussed the 1978-79 Work Program. Chairman Parsons noted that in the mailing of items for this meeting there is a page that summarizes the items brought up at the previous meetings, a copy of the 1976 Memorandum on the work program and also a copy of the Community Attitude Survey, as well as a copy of the Comprehensive Planming Program up -dating. Board reviewed the 1976-77 Planning Board/Planning Director Work Program. It was noted that under Zoning Home Occupation was to be reviewed. Planning Director Maurer noted that the way home occupation is in the Zoning By-law it is very loosely worded. He noted that permits have been given out for real estate offices in their homes. It was noted that customary home occupation use to list the items such as dress making, ceramics, eeal estate, dentist, and doctor. Planner Grant felt that customary bhme occupation would not present a problem if You had a competent person making the determination. Planning Director Maurer noted that he has seen the wording causing enforcement problems. Planner Mahana felt that under 21a that professional occupation should be the limit of the home occupation. Planner Grant noted that customary home occupation is something that is conducted within the home and not in the garage or within the backyard. Minutes June 14, 1978 Page 8 It was noted that under the Wetland Protection Provision of the existing by-law you have to have 25,000 square feet of building area in the agricultural -zone prior to the filling of any wetlands to have a buildable lot. Planner Mangiaratti questione d if there was any problems with this. Planning Director Maurer noted that when this was originally designed it was against the soil: conditions and now that the flood plain study has been done they may want to incorporate this into the zoning map showing the limits of the flood plain area and the limit of development in the flood plain. He noted that some communities have limited the building within those areas. Elimination of use variances - Planner Mahana questioned why the Planning Board made recommendations to the Board of Appeals. To be discussed under new business. Sweet Property - It was recommended in the Planning Program for residential property and should be rezoned from Industrial to Residential, along with the property on short and ware Streets. Planner Grant noted that this would require under the General Laws that 20% of the land owners cannot object or it can't be rezoned. Planning Director Maurer noted that this is under city government with council form of government. Subdivision Regulations - to be studied in full. Planner Mangiaratti felt that maybe the cost was too high. Planner Grant recommended that Planning Director Maurer put specific recommendations together. Business District Zonin g - Completed Capital Improvement Program - an on-going program Fire Department Needs - Mahana felt this was a munffipal building committee responsibility. Airport - Planning Director Maurer noted that this was inserted at the time that they wanted to have an Airport Industrial Zone because the State was going to take the North-South runway, but the FAAhas since evaluated the highway design and noted that there is no interference. Planning Grant felt that they should meet with the Airport Commission and advise them in sprucing up the place. It was noted that this is not a responsibility of the Planning Board. Mansfield Industrial Park Access - Planning Director Maurer noted that it was considered to have Copeland Road developed to eliminate the trucks going into the center going to the industrial park. He noted that the Catholic Church is interestedin having this done. Hodges Brook - Planner Mahana felt that this was a high priority as this was a pet project of his when Cabot, Cabot and Forbes came into Town. He noted that he expressed concern about it and all he got was the Bristol Mosquito Control came in and rerouted the brook on his property without his consent. He noted that in 1966 the bridge caved in and the economic Town Manager has repaired it in a way that there is more flooding. He felt that they should make a positive statement that the bridge be repaired to its original condition. This item to be put on the agenda. Board discussed the Items Discussed for Work Program for 1.978-79 At Prior Planning Board Meetings: Housing Authority Rezoning to be added to this list. Minutes June 14, 1978 Page 9 Cluster Development - to be reviewed towards the end of the year. Planner Hartmann noted that Mansfield is so low that they are going to cluster the development on high, dry land and the remaining area will all be swamp. To be the subject of discussion. Planner Grant questioned if the Town Manager had made any comments on the new Work 'Program. Planning Director Maurer noted that he was in agreement with it. It was noted that the Charter statesthatthe Planning Board review all municipal projects and make a recommendation on them -to the Board of Selectmen. As a work item the Board to go through the Comprehensive Planning Program. Planner Grant felt that they ;should :review the downtown zoning and see what they have eliminated and 'how it has affected the area. Chairman Parsons noted that they should look at the extension of the Fulton Pond Residential District all around the pond. Board discussed the Community Attitude Survey. Chairman Parsons felt it might be appropriate to do one again. Planning Director Maurer noted that when the computers are installed in the Light, Department that they can not use the light bill for mailing it as the light bills will be on postcards. Motion: That by the next meeting a list of items for a questionnaire be prepared by the Planning Director for the Planning Board's approval and to include the needs of the Fire and Police Department. (Mahana-Grant all in favor) VOTED Planning Director Maurer noted , they should outline the work they want to accomplish and set a schedule for the various items. He noted that on zoning items there is ai.time'deadline of February lst. Planner Mahana suggested that the Community Attitude Survey be completed as soon as possible because of the loss of the free mailing and to also review the expenditures of money for Capital Improvements, how the people feel about a new library, or additional items in the school department as none of the questions in the previous questionnaire hit the pocketbook, other than schools. Chairman Parsons questioned if they could piggyback the Community Attitude Survey with the Downtown Survey. It wasnoted that this could not be done as it can only go on one sheet. 6. Board reviewed the Form A Plan for John Cotterill. (Planner Mahana left the meeting room) Motion: To approve the Form A Plan -for _John Cotterill for land on Pratt Street with the stamp that Vn6 building permit can be issued on lot 44 without prior;, approval of the Mansfield Planning Board. (Grant-Matoian, all in favor) VOTED (Planner Mahana re-entered the room.) Board reviewed the Form A Plan for Ronald Webster for land on Walnut Street. It was noted that there is a variance on the existing house lot for not less than 85 feet frontage ,and a depth of 196 feet. Minutes June 14, 1978 Page 10 Motion: To approve the Form A Plan for Ronald Webster for land on Walnut Street. (Mangiaratti-Grant, all in favor) VOTED (Mr. Webster took the linens from the meeting.) 8. Board reviewed the Form A Plan for Paul Frechette for land on South Walnut Street. Motion: To approve the Form A Plan for Paul Frechette for land on South Walnut Street. (Grant-Mangiaratti, all in favor) VOTED 9. Board reviewed the Bond Estimate for Basin Street within the Riverside Park subdivision. Motion: To set the bond requirement for Basin Street within the Riverside Park subdivision at $12,291.00 in accordance with the estimate prepared. (Grant--Mangiaratti, all in favor)` VOTED 10. Mrs. Jellinek requested to be put on the agenda"'for the next meeting to discuss the Wetland Zoning within other Towns 11. It was the consensus of the Board to hold the next Planning Board meeting on June 21, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. 12. Meting adjourned t 10:35 P.M. Clerk