SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIAL PERMIT
Mr. Pawlina discussed the changes
in the drainage plan. He stated that the
relief line connected to the Main Street
main was a positive addition. Mr. Pawlina stated that he noticed a problem with the
connection between the pipe and the infiltration system. Crown of the pipe is too high to function
correctly. Specifically, detail C1 and
C2 need to be reviewed by the Petitioner’s engineer and the inverts of the
grade system should be checked.
Mr. Pawlina stated that the detail
and the topographical lines on the plan do not show the same slope. The detail shows a 10% slope where the
topographical lines on the plan suggest a 14% slope. The Planning Board
suggested the Petitioner review whether the proposed cross sectional detail of
the roadway actually works. Mr. Cassidy
noted that the contours are at 1 foot intervals and could be unreliable. Mr. Sadowski stated that allowing 20% is not
acceptable in the industry but rather is a trade off because of the urban
setting of the development and to accommodate below-grade parking without
increasing the height of the building significantly. Mr. Pawlina stated
that he agrees with this point and added that the effect of the 20% slope is
mitigated because it is deep into the property and not at the intersection with
the public way. Mr. Sadowski stated that
the Board expects a 10%-20%-10%
grade, whether the plans clearly show it or not. Mr. Cassavoy added that if the slope of the
road is altered, the Petitioner will need to come in front of the Planning
Board for an amendment to its approval.
Mr. Sadowski stated that he believed the traffic report
included an honest discussion of the issue and commended it for doing so. He added that the overhang in the driveway
was very low but assumed the Planning Board
would leave it to the Petitioner to address that issue. Mr. Zeraski stated
that he had contacted the ADA and
learned that he needed a 8.2 feet clearance to the
garage to allow handicap van access.
Mr. Cassidy asked about garage lighting. Mr. Zeraski stated
that the lighting will be positioned between joists and that such lighting is located on
the parking lot drawing. Mr.
Cassidy asked about the lamp type and stated that the Petitioner should avoid
whitish/bluish light and instead should choose a warmer/softer light
color. The Planning
Board noted that the light choice in the garage should be a
required supplementary submission noted in the conditions of the decision. Mr. Mercado asked about driveway
lighting. Mr. Zeraski
stated that the downward facing lights will be installed at each corner of the
building with recess lighting at the entrance of the garage.
Mr. Cassavoy asked how the sidewalk at the northeast corner
of the lot is accessed and the make-up of the sidewalk. Mr. McAvoy responded that the sidewalk on
the municipal lot provided access to the sidewalk on this property. Mr. Zeraski noted
that the sidewalk will be made of hot top.
The Planning Board asked
about roof top condensers. Mr. Zeraski noted that only one roof top condenser, the one for
the fourth floor unit, will be located on the roof and should not be
visible. Mr. Cassidy noted that units
are getting larger and larger. He added
that while the roof has approximately a three feet
well, the unit will still be slightly visible.
Mr. Zeraski stated that if he can find a heat
pump that can replace the condenser unit he will opt for that option. Mr. Cassidy stated that the condenser unit
shall be a low profile unit, located in the center of the roof and that more
details regarding the unit can be determined later.
Mr. Cassidy stated that he thinks the building is very
attractive and added that he believes the building on West Emerson was built
well. He stated that the proposed
building looks like the hospital used to look like.
Mr. Cassidy invited the public to speak.
Mrs. Gianino of 570
Lebanon Street, asked why the garage cannot have doors.
John Luther replied that there are
Building Code issues related to the garage.
The first floor and the basement are essentially totally separate
buildings because of the amount of insulation between them. He stated that not having the garage doors is
a good idea.
Mrs. Gianino
stated that not have garage doors will not look good.
Members of the Planning
Board explained that the garage opening will not be visible
from her house.
Mrs. Gianino
asked about fire alarms and sprinklers.
Mr. Luther explained that these issues will be addressed later.
Mr. Connolly stated that since the beginning of this
application process neighbors have voiced concern about this developing adding
to the existing parking problem in the area. Mr. Connolly noted that he has driven in that
area at different times. Twice he has
seen no open space and noted that this area has a high parking turnover rate. Based on his experience he does not see
parking as a problem for this areas.
The Board reviewed that the development provides 16 parking
spaces for the 10 units. Ms. Regan
stated that there are parking spaces available in the municipal lot for
overnight parking. Ms. DeSouza-Ward
stated that she is not concerned with daytime parking; however, she stated that
she feels the building still looks tight for the site. Ms. Marcus said that she is concerned with
the parking issue. Mr. Sadowski said
that he is not concerned about the parking for 10 units. Ms. DeSouza-Ward added that 10 units are too
many. Mr. Pawlina
said the project is well designed but he feels 10 units are too many. Mr. Mercado said that the building looks good
but he believes the height of it is still a problem. He stated that the building will change the
character of the neighborhood and recommended that the developer reduce the
height by removing the penthouse. Mr. Pawlina said that on the other hand, the City will be
gaining an affordable housing unit. He
added that the Petitioner has been very cooperative. Mr. Cassidy stated that density is a good
thing in some places – near mass transit, Main Street
and across from hospital. He feels it is
appropriate for the edge of downtown.
The Planning Board discussed
whether the public hearing could be closed.
Ms. Marcus made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Cassidy seconded the motion. All in favor. None opposed
Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to
continue the discussion regarding 560 Lebanon Street
until the next meeting in order to have an opportunity to draft a decision and
review it before voting. Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.
Case SP06-001, 897-911
Main Street, Mark Investments
Bill Gobel with Boler engineering, Lee Chesic,
architect with Edward & Casey, owner and developer Robert Korff of Mark Investment,
Inc, and Attorney Patrick McAvoy, Esq. were
present.
Mr. McAvoy explained that this was
a preliminary meeting and that the developer planned to submit a Site Plan
Review Application. Mr. Gobel explained that the pharmacy building is an odd
configuration because of the sewer and drainage pipes running through the lot. The main entrance is at the corner of the
building and the majority of the parking spaces are located at the northern
part of the site. He explained that lighting
and parking details will be submitted. Mr.
Gobel stated that a decorative fence and landscaping
will be installed at the front of the lot to help connect the street and the
building. Mr. Sadowski asked about
accessibility of the parking spaces on the north west corner and stated that
he believed they may not work. Ms.
DeSouza-Ward spoke about crosswalks and Mr. Gobel
replied they were still looking into that and will submit more later. Mr. Mercado
asked about wetlands and if the building is in the flood plain. Mr. Gobel replied
that the front of the site is in the flood plain. Mr. Mercado asked about screening. Mr. Gobel
replied that he would not necessarily propose fence between gas station and
parking. Mr. Mercado asked about the
height of the retaining walls. Mr. Gobel replied that they would be between five and eight
feet. Mr. Mercado asked about a dumpster
and Mr. Gobel replied that there would be no
dumpster, the only storage area will be a shed to store the materials used for
deliveries. Mr. Sadowksi
asked if green on the plan represents landscaping and was told it does by
Mr. Gobel.
Mr. Sadowski stated that he feels it is important to use a lot of softscape, especially because the building is set
back. There was a discussion about
curbing and how it will be slanted in parking area and vertical around the
building. Mr. Chesik
stated that they prefer to build in masonry.
Mr. Chesic distributed pictures of the proposed
building. Mr. Chesik
explained that he wanted the design to fit the surrounding buildings. He focused on the Food Master design. He explained that the building will have a
split face, covered walk way, signage and lighting that meets the City’s ordinance,
and display cases visible at the pedestrian level. Mr. Pawlina asked
about windows in the structure and questioned if passers-by would be able to
see into the building. Mr. Chesic explained that the windows would look into the
display case. Mr. Pawlina
noted that this is what the CVS downtown has and which was
the topic of much discussion. Mr. Sadowski stated that he felt this was less of an issue
because this proposed building is setback.
He added that he feels it is a good design to have windows lower. Mr. Pawlina stated
that the display cases in the proposed building was a much longer horizontal
distance than the CVS and noted that it would be a long stretch of inanimate
objects. The Planning
Board discussed the proposed mezzanine. Mr. Mercado asked how the symbol proposed for
the window would be lit. Mr. Chesic stated that the light would be neon and set back
four feet from the window. Mr. Chesic explained that there would be glass to the left and
right of the entry door. Mr. Cassidy
spoke about the atrium that Johnnie’s Food Master has in the front, which
houses the bottle return area and thus has windows that show into the
store. He added that Wild Oaks also have
windows that look into the store. Mr.
Mercado asked if the Walgreens is to be open 24 hours,
and Mr. Connolly replied he thinks it is.
Mr. Sadowski had questions about the roof and parapet. Mr. Chesik stated
that the roof will be 19-20 feet and the parapet 24 feet high. Mr. Chesic stated
that the rooftop equipment will be set back away from the parapet and thus will
be masked. He added that there will be
snow guards and gutters. The Planning
Board discussed the bricks to be used and the lighting. Mr. Chesik
said that the down lights under the canopy will be compact fluorescent and
there will be sconce lighting as decoration.
Mr. Cassidy spoke about different features he would like to see: window boxes, bike racks, an area to push
carriages and bikes, trash barrels, street furniture, etc. He also mentioned the importance of breaking
up the wall of “windows” to make it look more welcoming. Mr. Luther then mentioned that the fence at
the front of the building should not be more than three feet. The architect stated masonry pillars on
either end are greater than three feet.
Mr. Luther replied that is fine.
The Planning Board discussed
plantings. Mr. Gobel
said the fence will be close to the sidewalk, the plants will be two-three feet
in height, and the planting strip will be 5-6 feet wide. Mr. Luther stated that this project should be
coordinated with Main Street. Mr. Sadowski stated that the location of the curb cuts for the proposed project need to
be discussed particularly as they relate to the surrounding curb cuts. Ms. Marcus noted that one of the curb cuts
lines up with the curb cut across the street and one does not. Mr. Cassidy recommended that the entrances be
designated the entrance or exit. Mr. Gobel said customers will drive towards the entrance. Mr. Cassidy said perhaps the Petitioner
should consider emphasizing the south entrance.
Mr. Gobel stated that the Petitioner would
like to break ground by spring/summer.
Station Crossing Development
Mr. Cassavoy stated that elements
of the building differ from the plan approved by the Planning
Board. He stated that
the Planning Board had specifically required
that utilities on the roof be screened. Mr.
Luther explained that the visible structure on the roof is related to
ventilation system for the elevator shaft.
Mr. Cassavoy stated that there are two black sloped
structures on the roof and the stair towers are now exposed. He also
noted that the construction of the roof has changed. Mr. Cassavoy stated
that the mansard roof is supposed to have a nice dip. Mr. Luther stated that the roof does have
that. Mr. Cassavoy
discussed the slopes of the entrances and exits to the garage. Mr. Luther said the West
Foster Street side has been changed to an exit
only driveway. Mr. Cassavoy
stated that the driveways have no transition and need to be measured. Mr. Luther said he would get an official
measurement of the slopes. Mr. Cassavoy stated that the eight foot garage height in the
garage and a seven foot clearance at the entrance will not permit a Handicap
accessible van from being parked in the garage.
The Planning Board discussed how the
utilities need to be underground as shown on the plans. Mr. Luther said there are also some smaller
issues that he is working out with the developer, such as the fact that there
will be vinyl clapboards around the bay.
Definitive Subdivision Plan: Patriot
Way, release of funds
Ms. Regan explained that the developers of Patriot
Way have requested a release of funds for the work
completed to date. Ms. Marcus MADE a
MOTION to release funds on approval from Mr. Beshara. Mr. Cassidy SECONDED the MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.
Slope Protection Ordinance
Ms. Regan stated that the Slope Protection Ordinance was
passed by the Board of Aldermen in Decemeber.
Other
The Planning Board noted
that the letter to MEPA written by Denise Gaffey on behalf of the Board was a
very well written letter and the Board was interested to hear how the next step
regarding the state’s review of the Langwood Commons
Project Proposal progresses.
The Planning Board
discussed whether it was appropriate to ask for a site visit of Oak
Grove Village. Members of the Board noted that the Planning
Board is not the entity responsible for post-approval
evaluation. Mr. Sadowski
stated that he thought that the decision included the requirement of mock-ups
of design elements. Ms. Regan stated
that she would review the decision and contact Mr. Walsh from Pembroke and ask
if a site visit could be arranged.
Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to
adjourn. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the
MOTION. All in favor. None opposed.