Minutes Monday, November 3, 2008
Regular Meeting
Planning Board Agenda for Monday, November 3, 2008
Scheduled:
7:30 PM 26 Summer Street Continuation-Request to Reconsider Site Plan Review Condition #1 (Joint hearing with ZBA)
8:15 PM 6 Station Street Continuation-Request for Special Permit A3 and Site Plan Approval (Joint hearing with ZBA)
_______________
Present: Planning Board Members, Sarah Corey, Chair, Judy Sneath, Clerk, Paul Healey, Susan
Murphy, and Gary Tondorf-Dick. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
RE: Old New Business
1. Minutes/Bills
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to accept the minutes of October 20, 2008.
2. Review elevations for Bank (Building L)
(Susan Murphy was not present for this vote)
Mike Fitzpatrick of Samuels and Associates came before the Board for approval of the final elevations for Building L at the Hingham Shipyard, as required by a condition in the September 9, 2008 Site Plan Approval relative to a request for a modification to the Mixed Use Special Permit.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, by all present to approve the proposed elevation for the proposed bank (Building L) as shown on a rendering dated October 10, 2008 prepared by DRL Associates for TD Bank, thus fulfilling Condition #2 in the 9/08/08 Site Plan Approval issued by the Hingham Planning Board.
3. Vote to close certain accounts
The Board VOTED to close the following accounts:
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Boston Golf
Commerce Road
Prospect Ct.
60 Sharp St.
313 East St.
4. Vote to reduce bond for Hilltop Road
Ms. Lacy reported that Intoccia Construction has been requesting the return of the security bond for Hilltop Road now that the roadway is complete, and was accepted at the 2009 Town Meeting. The only unresolved issue at this point is the exact location and appearance of a gate or barrier to be placed on the emergency access roadway to prevent cut- thru traffic from Baker Hill Drive to Hilltop Road.
Board members instructed Ms. Lacy to notify the abutters to the bridge that they had to resolve the issue of the gate by a date certain, or the Board would make the decision for them.
Ms. Lacy noted that in light of the requirement set forth in the Planning Board Rules and Regulations the Town is supposed to hold onto 10% of the total cost of roadway construction for one year after completion, which would amount to $12,000.
It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, by all present to release to the developer $25,000 of the Hilltop Road security bond currently held by the Town, but to continue to hold onto $12,000 until at least May 2009.
5. Sign Certificate of Compliance for Commerce Road
On May 5 the Planning Board made the following vote: “It was moved, seconded and SO VOTED, upon evidence of satisfactory performance in accordance with the approved plans, to release the Subdivision known as Commerce Road extension from the covenant signed by John
H. Spur, and dated July 24, 2004, and recorded with the endorsed subdivision plans.” At that time, however, counsel to AW Perry had not yet reviewed the form of the Certificate.
The Board signed the certificate, which will be recorded with the approved subdivision plans thus denoting the release of any interest on the part of the Town in the roadway.
RE: 26 Summer Street Continuation-Request to Reconsider Site Plan Review Condition #1 (Joint hearing with ZBA. Judy Sneath was not present for this hearing)
Present on behalf of the applicant: Thomas J. Hastings, owner, and Bruce Isadore, attorney for the applicant.
Planning Board Chairman, Sarah Corey, and ZBA Chairman Tod McGrath both introduced the subject of the hearing, which is the application of Hingham Boatyard, LLC for a modification to a 2004 Special Permit allowing the construction of an 8,616 square foot building and 32 slips on the property at 26 Summer Street. The Zoning Board of Appeals has requested that the Planning Board reconsider Condition #1 of the Site Plan Approval for 26 Summer Street, which states that
1. For the uses approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the site the Applicant shall provide at least 80% of the total number of parking spaces required in the off-street parking regulations set forth in section V-A, (2) of the Zoning By-Law, without further reduction as such 80% parking requirement includes a 10% reduction for coincident uses pursuant to Note b of such Section and a further 10% reduction due to the seasonal uses on the property.
The reason that the ZBA requested this change was that during the ZBA hearings the applicant voluntarily agreed to effectively return to the 2004 approved Site Plan, with the exception of a slight shift in the location of the building, and the construction of a perimeter boardwalk. The applicant also agreed that no new slips would be added to the facility, with a limit of 32 boats as approved in 2004.
Ms. Corey asked the applicant if they would like to make a presentation, and Mr. Bruce Isadore replied that he had nothing to add.
Susan Murphy explained that in response to the request to reconsider Condition 1, the Planning Board wrote a letter to the applicant agreeing to reconsider the condition following the receipt of an updated program and Site Plan for the property at 26 Summer Street, including the exact number of slips proposed. The applicant, in turn, submitted a revised Site Plan showing a larger slip configuration than that approved in 2004, including an additional float structure on the eastern end of the marina. Accompanying this plan was a parking table that the applicant would be willing to limit use of the marina to 32 boats, but would not agree to diminish the size of the float configuration (which could accommodate 46 boats). The Planning Board, in turn, concluded that the larger float configuration constitutes a clear change in the intensity of the marina use on the property.
In terms of the Planning Board’s Site Plan Review, reconsideration of Condition #1 depends on whether additional docks are kept or removed from plan. Removal of the additional floats could allow for deletion of condition. If the additional float remains on the plan kept, Condition 1 could be kept but modified to address the requirement for additional parking spaces.
Ms. Murphy also noted that the applicant has not formerly requested any action by the Planning Board with respect to the A3 (which is currently subject to appeal) which would also need to be vacated or modified depending on whether the applicant insisted on retaining the expanded float configuration.;
Ms. Murphy went on to say that if the Planning Board were to approve the site plan with the larger float configuration, it would create a very difficult situation to enforce, which would require the Zoning Enforcement Officer or Harbormaster to count the boats docked on site at regular intervals. This would be a similar situation to that at 3 Otis Street, where there are slips for 32 boats, but only 16 boats are permitted to berth.
Gary Tondorf-Dick noted that the larger slip configuration appeared to extend out into the public water sheet. He pointed out that if the smaller configuration shown in the 2004 plan could accommodate 32 slips, why was the larger configuration needed right away? He went on to ask
why the applicant couldn’t wait for a later date to request an extension of the float system once the parking demand was more clearly determined.
Tod McGrath noted that by providing a larger float configuration for the same number of slips, the applicant was defeating the stated purpose of the slips which was to provide a more compact boat berthing system.
Joe Fisher and Steve McLaughlin of the ZBA pointed out that if the applicant were willing to limit the use of the docks to 32 slips that this could be controlled through conditions, such as number of tie-ups, or roping off a portion of the docks. Ms. Murphy responded that this would be like allowing a developer to building a 10,000 sf office building when there was only sufficient parking for 8,000 s.f. but asking them to leave 2,000 sf empty-very hard to enforce. Joe and Steve both said that it didn’t seem to them that the Special Permit could regulate the configuration of a dock the same way that it could regulate the size of a building.
Bruce Isadore told the Boards that the Applicant would be diligent about enforcing the 32-slip limit, and encouraged them to remove the condition.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, by the Planning Board members present to replace the existing Condition #1 with the following:
The Planning Board has determined that the amount of parking proposed for the site is adequate, provided that the Special Permit references a Site Plan showing a dock configuration identical to that shown in the 2004 approved Site Plan for the property.
Steve McLaughlin expressed concern that the Planning Board’s new condition made it impossible for them to approve the modification to the Special Permit unless a new plan were provided showing the 2004 dock configuration.
The ZBA voted to close their variance and Special Permit hearing, and to meet with Mark Bobrowski at a later date for deliberation. Ms. Murphy asked if it would be possible to also meet that that time with the Planning Board to discuss how to modify or vacate the Special Permit A3.
RE: 6 Station Street Continuation-Request for Special Permit A3 and Site Plan Approval (Joint hearing with ZBA)
Present for the Applicant, Hans and Christine Dietrich and Margaret Walker, owners; Tom Pozerski, Merrill Associates; Tom Fuller, Landscape Architect; M.J. Shultz, Zoning Consultant; Doug Abend, Traffic Consultant, and Bonnie Hobbs, Building Designer
This was a continuation of a hearing initiated on October 6, 2008.
M.J. Shultz presented the revised Site Plan, which reflected the revisions suggested by the Boards at the last meeting. The pick-up area and drop-area had been eliminated, and the parking area was expanded to include 11 on-site spaces. The applicant also has an agreement with the adjacent Country Weddings property for the use of another 12-24 parking spaces during the late afternoon and evening hours, and all day Sunday and Monday.
A continuous sidewalk is shown around the site from North Street to an entrance on Station Street. A 2’ decorative wall, which will function as a barrier wall, is proposed for the perimeter of the site. The size of the Biergarten has been reduced, and the size of the indoor-outdoor Wintergarten has been slightly expanded. The Biergarten wall is recessed back into the property from a few to over ten feet off the front property line, with a planting bed proposed for the area between the two wall structures. Ms. Shultz noted that the actual floor plans and elevations had not been revised, but that the building footprint had been slightly reduced.
In general, Board members responded favorably to the changes in the Site Plan, though noting that they still needed to go through the site plan criteria point by point.
Ms. Shultz noted that the Applicant was seeking a waiver from the requirement for the full number of parking spaces that would be required by the Zoning By-Law, and asked for the Board’s input on this request. Board members asked about changes in the seating count. After a bit of confusion, the applicant determined that there were 150 seats in the dining room, bar, lounge and Wintergarten; 35 seats in the Biergarten, 36 in the upstairs dining area; 36 in the
Rathskeller. The applicant was proposing to utilize the core 150 spaces downstairs at all time, but rotate use of the Biergarten, upstairs eating area and Rathskeller so that there were never more than 185 seats in use at any time. The full number of seats would require 62 parking spaces, which, with the County Wedding parking spots would still result in a 60% deficit.
Jeffery Dirk, VAI, Traffic Consultant, reported that the results the ongoing downtown parking study based on traffic counts done in the Station Street parking lot mid-day Friday, October 24, and Saturday, November 1 from 5:30 PM-10:00 PM. What he found was that there was a surplus of 90 available parking spots at the times of peak use during these periods, and that conservatively that no parking spaces would be available for uses such as this.
Board members discussed at length whether they would need to calculate the parking demand based on the total number of seats, bringing up the fact that the restaurant could be bought by another owner. They also discussed similar scenarios at Tosca Caffe, and Tosca’s, where the permit specifies that only a certain number of seats can be used even though additional outdoor and function area are available. Paul Healey asked whether it was to designate available parking spaces on a “first come-first serve” basis. Joe Freeman responded that the Town has a 20-year record of granting parking waivers downtown based on the availability of public parking (on and off-street). Planning Board members concurred, but noted that the extent of the waiver was the issue, so as not to create unfair competition among neighboring businesses.
Peer Review Engineer John Chessia stated that he had not completed his review, but that it appeared that the site engineering would meet all professional and regulatory standards.
Mr. Richard Heapes, owner of the Sub Galley building, expressed his concern about potential use of the on-street parking spaces in front of his building by restaurant customers. Mr. Heapes estimated that the businesses in his building generated approximately 400 transactions per day, and so short-term parking limits were needed. Paul Healey, who also sits on the Traffic Committee, stated that this would be addressed by the Traffic Committee and Selectmen following completion of the downtown traffic study.
Sue Sullivan, member of the HDCI, spoke in support of the project on behalf of the economic wellbeing of the Town.
The hearing was continued to November 24 at 7:00 PM.
For the next hearing, Susan Murphy asked for more contextual information about the comparable size of the building relative to surrounding buildings, including the Wintergarten. Gary Tondorf- Dick requested revised floor plans and elevations. Finally, several Board members noted that the overall seat count simply needed to be reduced.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner