Minutes Monday, October 20, 2008
Regular Meeting
Planning Board Agenda for Monday, October 20, 2008
Minutes October 20, 2008
Regular Meeting
Planning Board Agenda for Monday, October 20, 2008
Scheduled:
7:00 PM Informational Meeting on Proposed 40B Rental Development
on Recreation Park Drive with Housing Trust, Selectmen, and others
8:00 PM Downtown Parking Study-Presentation of Findings
9:00 PM Old/New Business
_____________
Present: Planning Board Members, Chair, Sarah Corey, Judy Sneath, Clerk, Paul Healey,
Susan Murphy, and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
RE: Informational Meeting on Proposed 40B Rental Development on Recreation Park Drive with Housing Trust, Selectmen, and others
Lizetta Fennessy of Trammell Crow Residential came before the Board for a preliminary public meeting on 250-unit rental development proposed for an 18-acre site at the end of Recreation Park Drive. The presentation was intended to provide information about the project to the Housing Trust, Planning Board, Selectmen, other town officials and interested residents. Steve Kelsch, president of the Farm Hills Neighborhood Association was present, along with a large contingent from the Farm Hills area.
Ms. Fennessy explained that they were hoping to develop the project as a LIP (Local Initiative Program) In the LIP process, the Selectmen and the developer jointly submit a LIP application to DHCD for approval before applying to the ZBA for a Comprehensive Permit. The idea behind a LIP project as opposed to a traditional 40B is to allow the Town to have more input in terms of the size, scale and appearance of the project. The developer is interested in this site because of its proximity to the Derby Street Shoppes and Route 3A. Ms. Fennessy went on to say that the developer would work with the other abutters on Recreation Park Drive to improve the roadway, which is currently in pretty bad shape.
Ms. Fennessy represented that the project would include one and two-bedroom units, though the number of each type had not yet been determined. She noted that because the project was rental, even though only 25% of the units would qualify as “affordable” all 250 units would be counted towards the Towns affordable housing inventory. Affordable rents would be targeted to those earning 70% median income. Additionally, 70% of the affordable units could be offered to Hingham residents under Local Preference.
The preliminary plans for the project show six 2-4 story residential buildings and a clubhouse. A fifty foot buffer would separate the development from the adjacent neighborhood on Deerfeild Road.
Susan Murphy noted that it was the Town’s position that they already had 10% affordable housing due to the Linden Ponds project, which would mean that the applicant had no right to appeal to the Housing Appeals Committee should the Town deny the project.
Gary Tondorf Dick asked about the mix of 1 and 2 bedrooms, and Ms. Fennessy responded that this had not yet been determined. He also asked why the developer had chosen to do rental development instead of for-sale, and whether there were other examples of their developments nearby. Ms. Fennessy responded that they had constructed a 250-unit project in Pembroke, and had recently had a similar project approved in Concord.
Paul Healey noted his impression that much of the site was rock, and asked whether there would be a common septic system, and Ms. Fennessy responded that they had not yet completed sufficient soil testing to know. Paul also asked about proposed upgrades to Harvest and Deerfield Road in response to the potential use of Deerfield as an emergency access way. Ms. Fennessy noted that they were considering this at this point, in that the emergency access would be gated and very limited.
Judy Sneath expressed concern about the project’s impacts on local schools, and the water supply. She also pointed out that the site was not in close proximity to a fire station, which could cause problems for local public safety officials.
Jim O’Brien of the Housing Partnership asked whether the size of the project was being dictated by financial feasibility, and Ms. Fennessy concurred. He pointed out that, based on the recent lottery for the affordable units at Avalon, that there was still a very large demand for rental apartments in Hingham and by Hingham residents. Gary Ludwig asked whether the project would be phased, and Ms. Fennessy said that it would be built in a single phase.
Paul Healey explained to the audience that this was a preliminary and information presentation, and noted that ultimately the Zoning Board of Appeals would have the Special Permit Granting Authority for the 40B permit. He pointed out that the applicant had done little site investigation to date, and that it was possible that the project could change or shrink significantly due to site conditions.
Steve Kelsch, representing the Farms Hills neighborhood association, noted that the neighbors had big concerns with the scale and potential impact of the project. His biggest concern was that the 50’ buffer was simply too small. He suggested that the buildings closest to Deerfield should be limited to 2 stories, with the 4-story buildings located further back on the site. Other Farm Hill residents including Mary Thomas, Brad Meyers, Cindy Kelsch and Judy Kelly expressed concern with impacts on traffic police, fire and schools. Cindy Kelsch asked whether a new traffic light would be installed at the intersection of Recreation Park Drive and Derby. Ms. Fennessy stated that they would implement whatever traffic mitigation was needed.
Some residents asked why the developer did not have to comply with local height restrictions.
Ms. Murphy provided a brief explanation of how the 40B process works. She asked Ms. Fennessy what the applicant planed to do in terms of mitigation for the project. She responded that they would improve Recreation Park Road and install sidewalks. She noted that they would provide for affordability in perpetuity, and would be willing to discuss units with rents targeted to those earning less than 70% AMI.
Gary Tondorf Dick concluded that the Town would need a significant amount of additional information to properly assess the potential impacts.
RE: Downtown Parking Study-Presentation of Findings
Consultant Jeffery Dirk of Vanasse and Associates presented the initial findings of the Downtown Parking Study. This study is being undertaken at the request of the Hingham Planning Board, Selectmen and HDIC with the goal of rationalizing the parking requirements within the Downtown Overlay District so that when a new construction is proposed, or one type of business is replaced with another, the Planning Board can better determine whether there is sufficient parking to accommodate the use. An RFP to hire a consultant for the project was issued in June 2008, and Traffic Engineers VAI were selected and commenced work on the project in August.
Consultant Jeff Dirk noted that the project scope included three major phases
1) review of available information concerning the parking supply and demand within the Business District and the development of base plans and mapping of the area;
2) updating the parking inventory and land use information within the Business District and the completion of peak period demand observations; and
3) the development of shared parking analysis guidelines to be used by the Town, land owners and prospective tenants within the Business District to evaluate parking adequacy with respect to a specific land use and location within the Business District.
Mr. Dirk reported that at this point they had completed the background research, parking inventory and parking counts. Based on their fieldwork, there are 259 on-street parking spaces, 560 private off-street parking spaces, and 244 public off street parking spaces located in the Station Street Lot. These spaces are all shown on exhibits provided by the consultant.
In order to conduct the parking counts, the Downtown area was divided into six zones. Counts were conducted at the peak parking demand period of 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM on a weekday in August. Based on the parking counts, there is a 55% surplus of parking throughout the downtown area, though the percentage occupied varies significantly from zone to zone.
Planning Board members and members of the audience questioned the fact that the counts were conducted in August, noting that this was frequently a time of lower demand. They also requested that some counts be taken during a weekend evening, when the restaurants were the most active. Mr. Dirk noted that in light of the proximity of this area to the harbor and harbor-related activity there was some sense in doing the counts in the summer, but conceded that an additional day before the Christmas shopping season would provide useful additional information. The Board also suggested that, in light of the fact that this info may be used to inform changes to the off-street parking requirements downtown, the study boundaries needed to be modified to match the boundaries of the Downtown Overlay District. Mr. Dirk agreed to conduct the requested additional counts, and modify the project area as requested.
Nick Amdur of the Harbor Development Committee asked why the two Town-owned parking areas on the Harbor were not included in the count of public off-street parking. Ms. Murphy responded that, while they were included in the original project scope, a recent investigation by Town Counsel had revealed that there were underlying restrictions on the use of these parcels stemming from their park and waterfront status that precluded the Town from counting them as “available” to provide overflow parking for downtown commercial uses.
RE: Old/New Business
Minutes
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to accept the minutes of October 6, 2008.
Brewed Awakenings
Ms. Lacy reported that she was in receipt of a Building Permit Application for interior improvements to Brewed Awakenings including the replacement of counters, flooring, etc. totaling more than $20,000, and thus triggering the requirement for Site Plan Review.
Board members voted to waive the requirement for Site Plan Review due to the fact that the work was limited to interior improvements.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 PM
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner