Minutes November 30, 2006
Regular Meeting
Planning Board Agenda for Thursday, November 30, 2006
(Joint meeting with the ZBA)
Planning Board Agenda for Thursday, November 30, 2006 (Joint meeting with the ZBA)
7:00 PM Roseland Property Company, 349 Lincoln Street - Major Amendment to the existing Mixed-Use Special Permit and Site Plan Review regarding housing units at the Hingham Shipyard
8:00 PM Samuels & Associates, 349 Lincoln Street - Major Amendment to the existing Mixed-Use Special Permit and Site Plan Review at the Hingham ShipyardCentral Meeting Rooms North and South
Present: Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Chair, Paul Healey, Clerk, Sarah Corey and
Judy Sneath. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
Zoning Board Members, Steve McLaughlin, Victor Popp, and Tod McGrath
Ms. Murphy and Mr. McLaughlin opened the public meeting at 7:10 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall. Ms. Murphy reviewed the process for the joint public hearing. She noted that the two boards were considering two proposed modifications to the existing Special Permit for the Hingham Shipyard, one from Roseland, the developer of the for-sale housing in the Shipyard, and the other from Samuels, who is developing the mixed use segment of the project on the western side of the Shipyard. She pointed out, however, that there was still just one permit, and that all of the separate developers would have joint responsibility for compliance with all terms of the permit.
The Zoning Board announced the addition of new member Tod McGrath. Planning Board Chairman Murphy thanked Mr. McGrath for his valuable 6.5 years of service on the Planning Board.
RE: Roseland Property Company, 349 Lincoln Street - Major Amendment to the existing Mixed-Use Special Permit and Site Plan Review regarding housing units at the Hingham Shipyard
Present for the applicant: Joe Shea and Vincent Martini of Roseland Development Corporation, and Dick Cook, BSC Engineering.
Present for the Town: Paul Brogna, Seacoast Engineering, Steve Heikin, ICON Architecture, and Jeffery Dirk, VAI Traffic Engineers.
Steve McLaughlin and Susan Murphy each identified the subject of the hearing, the name and address of the applicant, and the time and place of the hearing.
Dick Cook provided an overview of the proposed modifications. Roseland is the developer of the for-sale housing proposed for the northeast quadrant of the Shipyard. In the original permit, this area was approved for 150 units of housing, including 20 single family homes, 43 Town houses, and 87 Courtyard Homes. In the proposed modification, the total number of housing units, number of bedrooms, and floor space will stay the same, but the mix would change to 94 Townhouses, and 56 Courtyard Homes. The 20 single family homes, originally proposed to be located along the boundary with the Bradley Woods neighborhood, have been eliminated, leaving approximately 2 acres of undeveloped open space. This change in the plan also resulted in the removal of the driveway that was originally shown running along the site boundary with Bradley Woods. In their place, the number of 3-story Townhouses has increased, as third stories will be added to 51 of the 107 previously approved two-story units. This has resulted in a decrease in the overall lot coverage, but an increase in taller buildings. 72 units will be 3-bedroom, and 84 will be two bedroom. Townhouses will be 39' to 42' tall; Courtyard homes will be 33' to 34' tall.
In addition to change to the housing mix, a tennis court has been added to the clubhouse. Additionally, the housing units along the walkway and waterfront have been set back further from their originally approved locations. The single waterfront park has been broken into two smaller parks.
The proposed modifications will not change the approved accommodations for the Bouve property including the parking and access made available through this portion of the Shipyard. The Riverfront walk will remain as approved. There is no proposed increase in wastewater or water usage. Also as in the original plan, there will be 60 on-street parking spaces to provide guest and visitor parking.
Consulting Engineer Paul Brogna outlined the following questions, observations and requests for additional information, outlined in a memo submitted to the Planning Board and dated November 28, 2006:
1. Disposition of the 22 housing units that are not part of the modification application. What are the current plans to apply for building permits?
2. Need for a photoelectric plan to depict exterior lighting intensities of the site. Was one used in 2002-2003 during the prior hearing process?
3. Provide details of all exterior lights.
4. Plan showing above ground utility components such electric hand holes, A/C units with pads, and electric meters.
5. Provide landscaping details showing colored rendering of a typical building unit. Provide rendering of common use sites such as the waterfront area and the walkways areas.
6. Provide tennis court details. Are there lights proposed to allow night time play?
7. Show clubhouse details such as lights, landscaping, and fencing (height, type, etc.).
8. Provide trash collection plan. The application mentions weekly curbside collection.
9. Show snow removal areas on plan. Is sufficient space available or will snow have to be hauled off site if necessary?
10. Need for traffic markings and signage. Provide details if proposed. What did the original approved plan show, if anything?
11. Number of parking spaces for guests, contractors, service workers, etc., appears to quite few. The plans do show 2-car garages with a total of 4 spaces per unit (2 inside and 2 outside the garage). ??? Can the T's parking lot be used on weekends to supplement?
12. Explain the rational for eliminating the 20 single family units from the original plan and replacing them with 3- quad unit type buildings plus 8 additional units throughout the site.
13. Show where the increased green space is located especially abutting the Bradley Park neighborhood. How much decrease in site coverage is there?
14. Show construction details pertaining to roadway thickness, gravel sub-grade thickness, and casting options for the construction of the private roads.
15. Soil pipe from the buildings should be 6" to comply with State plumbing codes.
16. Review of curb radii to ensure all roads and intersections can operate safely and efficiently with the size of today's SUV's, pickup trucks, etc.
17. Additional review is needed to ascertain compliance with zoning by-laws on building heights, housing units per type, etc.
Mr. Victor Popp asked if the waterfront units were the ones with the additional third story. Mr. Cook responded that the third story was being added to the units off HMS Stayner Drive, between Shipyard Drive and USS Amesbury Drive. The Courtyard Units, located at the center of the site, were to remain as two-story.
Steve Heikin of Icon Architecture expressed approval of many of the changes to the design since the original submittal. He noted, however, that the rear of the waterfront units, including driveways and garages, would be facing Halstead Drive, creating an unattractive streetscape. He suggested the use of concrete pavers for a driveway apron, to break up the expanse of paving.
Susan Murphy noted that the design of the Riverwalk needed to be more closely coordinated with the ongoing efforts of the Boston Harbor Island unit of the National Park Service to interpret the Harbor Islands, and Department of Resource Conservation's plan for the new park near the Ferry terminal. She encouraged the applicant to get in touch with Bruce Jacobson, Superintendent of the National Park Service, to coordinate interpretive efforts.
Judy Sneath asked whether it was anticipated that families would be residing at this development, Joe Shea responded that the project was intended for "empty nesters". Ms. Sneath pointed out that it was unlikely that empty nesters would purchase a 3-story townhouse.
Tod McGrath of the ZBA asked whether the driveway aprons were long enough. He also asked whether there were proposed improvements for the Coast Guard Pier.
Susan Murphy asked whether the project was subject to Chapter 91, and Mr. Cook stated that it was exempt.
John Manion of Bradley Park asked whether the existing sewer pump station in Bradley Woods would remain unchanged, and was told that it would.
Steve Heikin of Icon Architecture asked to see some sections of the development going from the waterfront back, to better see the relationship between one building to one another, and to the surrounding public space. He asked whether there were any plans to include a children's play area. Dick Cook noted that Roseland was not marketing the development to families with children, but that is the Town wanted a play area they would consider it.
Steve Heikin asked for floor plans of individual units, and additional elevations and sections of proposed housing units.
Bradley Woods resident John Englebretson asked for more specificity about how trash would be picked up, stored and removed in the development.
Bradley Woods resident Joe O'Connor asked whether there would be access to the Bradley Woods playground, and was told that that was the plan, but that it was up to the neighborhood. John Manion noted that the developers kept saying that the Bradley Woods neighborhood was not getting along, but that the preferences of a majority of residents was already written in a long memo from Seachain to the Bradley Woods Neighborhood Association.
Joe O'Connor asked whether there would be a curfew for public access in the park areas. He also asked whether the open space near Bradley Woods would be deeded back to the Town. Joe Shea noted that it could be dedicated open space, but would probably not be deeded back to the Town.
Ms. Murphy asked the applicants to make ever effort to respond to the questions expressed at the hearing at the next hearing.
The hearing was continued to 7:00 PM on December 18.
RE: Samuels & Associates, 349 Lincoln Street - Major Amendment to the existing Mixed-Use Special Permit and Site Plan Review at the Hingham Shipyard
Present for the applicant: Joel Sklar, Leslie Cohen and Robin Mosle of Samuels and Associates, with Jeffery Tocchio as local counsel; Dick Cook, BSC, and David Manfredi of Elkus and Manfredi Architects.
Joel Sklar provided an overview of the planning process for the modifications to the Samuels portion of the Shipyard, which they refer to as "The Launch at the Hingham Shipyard". He traced the history of Samuel's involvement on the site, and the efforts that they have made to seek public input in the planning process. He showed a slide presentation showing their vision for the mixed use development.
Architect David Manfredi provided an overview of the changes proposed to what was originally permitted in 2003, as well as to the preliminary submittal in July, 2006. As originally proposed, the project will include 238,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, and 159,000 square feet of commercial area, and 94 residential units. The amount of retail space has increased by 8.9%, to 70,580 square feet and commercial has decreased by 14.7% to 66,947 square feet. There is 18.5% open space on the Samuels site (15% is required). Marine services have been eliminated from the plan.
Mr. Manfredi noted that since the preliminary submittal in 2006, there have been several changes to the plan based on the public feedback. The large residential building on the waterfront has been split into two sections, linked by an arched walkway similar to Rowe's Wharf, and shortened in length by 60'. Additionally, the location of the waterfront park has been moved, to create additional views towards the water. The size of the park was expanded
from 30,000 square feet to 47,835 square feet, and an amphitheatre will be added. The cinema was reduced in size to 1000 square feet with six screens down from 1200 square feet with eight screens. Finally, the project will include an interpretive display including a walking tour marked by interpretive plaques.
Robin Mosle provided an overview of Samuels' merchandising efforts relative to the retail and commercial space at the Shipyard. She explained that their intent was to serve the needs to residents of the Shipyard, of the Town as a whole, and to the region. That said, their aim was to have anchor stores, mid-size service facilities, and smaller, more artsy types of stores.
Steve McLaughlin of the ZBA asked about signage and lighting in the development, and asked whether anchor stores would require their own lighting and signage plans.
Two people in the audience expressed support for the project, and hoped that the permitting process would not "hold things up". Ms. Murphy responded that the Boards had no intention of holding things up, but that they felt that this was their only chance for this critical location, and they wanted to get it right.
Paul Healey expressed concern that the historical aspects of the site were not being incorporated into the design sufficiently. Ms. Cohen responded that they have been working with an interpretive designer, and hoped to present this material in subsequent hearings. Ann Collins and Stan Hersey spoke in support of the work that had been done to date relative to historical interpretation.
Consultant Steve Heikin asked about potential traffic and design conflicts between the movie theatre and the commuter boat, both of which result in pulses of traffic. Jeff Dirk, of VAI, noted that he had all of the traffic information provided, and would be coming back with a full peer review that would examine this and other issues.
Following the presentation, the two Boards opened the hearing up to questions from the public. Ms. Murphy noted that the purpose was to get these questions on record, with the idea that the applicant would respond in subsequent hearings.
Members of the public in attendance at the hearings asked the following questions:
How will ongoing public transportation operations on the site (buses, boats) be integrated into the traffic management for the project?
How will the commercial parking be protected from use by commuters?
How will the movie theatre be marketed so as not to attract large numbers of teenagers?
What will the impact be on the traffic passing through Hingham's downtown?
Will the developer provide a public landing that transient boats can access for short visits to the Shipyard?
Will there be pedestrian links across 3A to Bare Cove Park?
The hearing was continued to December 18 at 7:00 (Simultaneous with Roseland hearing).
Old/New Business
After the Shipyard Hearing, the Board adjourned to the Planning Board Office to review a Form A for the property that the Town purchased on Scotland Street using Community Preservation Committee funds. A portion of the land is going to the Conservation Commission for open space, and the remaining portion will be used for affordable housing. The Form A divided the land to create the housing parcel. Board members noted that the remaining parcel did not have sufficient frontage, and marked it with indelible marker to read "Not a Buildable Lot" per state statute.
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, to endorse the Form A plan entitled, "Plan of Land 132 Scotland Street Hingham, MA 02043", dated November 30, 2006, prepared by Cavanaro Consulting, Norwell, MA for the Town of Hingham, 210 Central Street, Hingham, MA 02043, applicant and Gladys & Helen Cushing, 132 Scotland Street, Hingham, MA 02043, owners.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy, Town Planner