7:00 PM Continuation of Hearings
Roseland Property Company and Samuels & Associates -349 Lincoln St.
Major Amendments to the existing Mixed-Use Special Permit and Site Plan Review at the Hingham Shipyard
____________________
Present for the Planning Board Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Chair, Paul Healey, Clerk, Sarah Corey, and Judy Sneath. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
Present for the Zoning Board of Appeals: Steve McLaughlin, Chair, Victor Popp, Todd McGrath, and acting Planning Administrator Sue Eddy.
Ms. Murphy and Steve McLaughlin opened the public meeting at 7:05 P.M. at the Hingham Town Hall.
RE: Continuation of Hearing for Roseland Property Company for Major Amendments to the existing Mixed-Use Special Permit and Site Plan Review at the Hingham Shipyard
Present for the applicant: Richard Cook, BSC, Jed Lowry and Joe Shea, Roseland; Bill Warrick, Partners Architects, and David Hawk, Landscape Architecture.
Richard Cook spoke on behalf of the developers to say that they had received the peer review letter from Paul Brogna, and that they had met with Mr. Brogna and were preparing responses.
Joe Shea of Roseland described the basic differences between the original submittal and the proposed revision. The primary change is a change in the mix of housing from 20 single family homes, 87 two story courtyard homes and 43, three-story townhouses to 94 three-story units and 66 courtyard homes. Additional changes resulting from the change in units include:
1) Greater setbacks on Staynor Drive
2) Reduction in building coverage by 51,000 square feet
3) The creation of a two-acre open space area
4) The addition of a tennis court or multi-sport area
Joe Shea also mentioned that each of the three-story units would have elevators inside that would be maintained by the condo association, though the financial responsibility for maintenance would lie with individual owners.
David Hawk, Landscape Architect, showed slides showing other residential developments that he had worked on. He went over the conceptual plans for the open and park areas on the site, including a central esplanade area, a multi-use "amenity" area, fountain park, and smaller pocket parks. He noted that because the plans were preliminary he had not included site furniture such as benches.
Bill Worrick, architect from Partners Associates, also showed examples of previous residential developments on which his firm had worked. He showed elevations and computer models of the proposed courtyard homes and waterfront condos.
Paul Healey asked if the owners of the waterfront units could install fences to separate their units from the Riverwalk. Joe Shea responded that they could not, and that the landscaping separating the waterfront homes from the Riverwalk would be strictly spelled out in the condo documents. He stated that there would be planting and benches marking the strip between the path and the front of the condos. Sarah Corey asked if the developer would provide more details about the landscaping on the Riverwalk in general.
Steve Heikin presented his comments as summarized in his memo to the Board dated December 7. He reiterated his desire to see additional building elevations, and his concerns with the treatment of the driveway aprons. He noted that ideally the Townhouses should be differentiated enough to show the different units, but with a consistent look. He also noted that the applicant needed to provide additional information about the interpretive treatment of the Riverwalk area.
Jed Lowry noted that the 2003 Landscape Plan prepared by the Cecil Group remains the approved plan for the Riverwalk area. This plan shows specific treatments for the shipways that were the result of many years of permitting and planning on the part of the Conservation Committee, DEP, the Army Corp, etc. so it would be difficult to change them. In these plans, some of the Shipways were planted, and some were left bare so that people could walk out on to them. The planting was put in place for environmental reasons to prevent run-off from the developed portions of the site.
Paul Healey requested a 3-D model of the site. There was a long discussion about the cost and time associated with this request. Jed Lowry suggested that they could utilize computer modeling instead to show detailed views of the site from various angles. Steve Heikin agreed that the computer modeling would be sufficient, and perhaps even more useful. Tod asked Steve for guidance on what views would be the most beneficial for the boards to see. Steve noted that additional elevations of the various building clusters were critical to understanding the look and character of the development.
Judy Sneath asked if there would be bike access from Bradley Woods into the site along the Riverwalk. Jed Lowry noted that the Riverwalk was intended for pedestrians, and that bikes and skateboards would be discouraged.
Sarah Corey asked for additional information about what space would actually be open to the public, and which would be limited to private use.
In terms of public comment, several people expressed concern about the height and appearance of the 3-story townhouses. Susan Murphy noted that the building complied with the height provisions in zoning by-law. Mr. Stan Hersey said that he did not like the character of the waterfront buildings. Jan Mannion noted that the path into the Shipyard from Bradley Woods was still being shown as coming from the wrong location. She noted that the agreement with the neighbors stated that the path had to come in from the park area. Jed Lowry and Joe Sugar stated that this would be changed on future plans.
Jim Watson asked about the affordable units and was told that they were at Avalon Bay. He noted that it would be great if there was public access to one of the piers or shipways for boats to dock and allow people to go for a walk at the site or in the Bouve property. He expressed concern that there was not sufficient access to, or signage for the Bouve property. Joe Sugar noted that the Riverwalk lead directly to the Bouve property, and that limited public parking was available for visitors. Glen Olsen, Hingham Police, noted that the Bouve property would be gated at dark like all Town conservation land.
Susan Murphy stated that there would be a separate hearing on the treatment of the common areas within the site, along with the heritage planning for the site overall. She noted that at that hearing they could discuss the architecture proposed for the site, and compare it to what was originally approved as well.
RE: Continuation of Hearing for Samuels Development Co. for Major Amendments to the existing Mixed-Use Special Permit and Site Plan Review at the Hingham Shipyard
Present for the Applicant: Robin Mosle, Samuels; Jeffery Tocchio, Drohan, Hughes, Tocchio and Morgan, PC; Richard Cook, BSC Engineers.
Susan Murphy stated that the topic of tonight's hearing was the general site design, building layout, and location and layout of open space in the Samuels' portion of the property.
Susan Murphy asked Steve Heikin to summarize his peer review findings for the two boards, as outlined in his memo dated December 11, 2006. Steve outlined the major changes between this plan, the 2003 approved plan, and the plan submitted for preliminary review earlier in 2006. He noted that, in the current plan, some of the Board's concerns were addressed, and others were not. He stated that the primary issues to be resolved remain
1. The placement of the residential building, in any configuration, on the north side of Shipyard Drive blocking full and open views of the Harbor;
2. The cinema use in general, and, if there was going to be a cinema, the location of the cinema building so far back on Shipyard Drive instead of at a location closer to Lincoln Street; and
3. Viewscapes into the site from Route 3A, which now reveal a massive parking field, and could be at least partially screened with buildings.
4. the treatment of the back sides of the buildings facing the parking lot
5. The placement of Building "K", and the smaller office buildings on the eastern side of the site
Susan noted that at the last hearings the Board did not have a chance to comment on how the applicant had responded to their comments following the preliminary hearings, so she asked each of the board members to provide their comments. She stated that she did not feel that the current plan was sufficiently responsive to the concerns voiced by the Board after the preliminary submittal. I
Judy Sneath expressed concern with "quality of life" issues, particularly with regard to the location of the 30-unit residential building on the waterfront across from the cinema. She also expressed concern about the traffic impacts on Beal Street.
Sarah Corey noted the large scale of the four story, residential building, and wondered if the cinema was an appropriate use for the site. She expressed particular concern with the proposed size of the cinema.
Paul Healey reiterated his concern with the lack of integration of historic elements into the design, and, in particular, the architectural design of the site. He also expressed concern that the representatives from Roseland appeared to have left the hearing, saying that he still felt it was important for them to look at the project as a whole.
Tod McGrath, a former Planning Board member who had been actively involved in the preliminary review, stated that he was still opposed to the presence of the tall residential building and associated parking lot on the waterfront, and the location of the cinema so far back in the site. He stated that a better location for the park would be closer to the ferry terminal, in closer proximity to public parking.
Susan Murphy noted that she was still uncomfortable with the residential building, the location of the cinema, and the lack of convenient eating or shopping locations right near the commuter terminal, which she felt was a missed opportunity. She expressed frustration at the fact that the Board had been very clear about their dissatisfaction with the placement of the residential building, and that no substantive changes had been made. She said that she still did not understand the justification for why certain design decisions had been made.
Jeff Tocchio noted that the Samuels team had met with Steve Heikin and Katy Lacy, and had been informed of the Board's concerns, and that Samuel's presentation would address them.
Robin Mosle outlined the various constraints associated with the site, including the MBTA parking lot, the alignment of Shipyard Drive, the single point of entry, and the fact that the site was not on a major highway. She also noted the tremendous assets, including the proximity to the water and the strong retail market here in Hingham. She stated that the design team had explored a very wide variety of options in terms of the placement of the buildings.
She attempted to respond, point by point, to the concerns raised by Steve Heikin. She noted that the location of Building K in its somewhat isolated location on 3A was because they were trying to get a grocer to locate there, and that they required the visibility and parking afforded by this location. She also noted that they agreed to relocate the two smaller buildings on the eastern side of the side so that they lined up with Shipyard Drive, to create a more cohesive streetscape.
In terms of the cinema, she noted that it was a critical element in the overall "merchandising" of the Shipyard, in that many restaurants would only locate there if the theatre was there. She said that the location at the back of the site is critical in that it would draw people past the other uses, and anchor all of the commercial uses. Further, she noted that there were other retail uses that did not want to be near a cinema. In summary, the demands of the retail tenants also placed significant restraints on the site layout.
She described her concept for the "active waterfront park". She noted that in her opinion it was critical that the park be surrounded by a mix of uses, including retail and residential.
Tod McGrath reiterated the idea that the cinema would be better located at the entrance to the site. He also questioned why it was so important for the cinema to be in place to draw the various restaurants. Ms. Mosle responded that the restaurants that she had spoken to wanted a cinema to ensure sufficient business. Tod pointed out that there were 2000 commuters, and potentially 1000 new residents at the Shipyard who would provide a strong customer base.
Sarah Corey noted that she liked the sound of the development as described by Ms. Mosle, but had little faith that it would evolve as described and needed more information on the cinema. She noted her disappointment that Derby Street Shoppes did not turn out as originally proposed.
Robin reiterated that every design decision that was made was intended to support the viability of the development, and ensure that there are no vacancies.
Ms. Murphy asked again about why the commuters were not taken into account more in the design. She said that it seemed to her that a market or eating establishment near the boat would draw lots of customers. She asked about the possibility of building on the Chapter 91 or 21 locations, noting that that she had asked this already, and that the developer had not provided information verifying whether or not this land could be built upon.
Steve McLaughlin asked whether the developers had taken the presence of the marina into account in their design. He noted that there were potential negative impacts, such as boat noise, as well as potential advantages to the location. He said that the park layout should reflect the fact that visitors would want to look at the boats, etc.
Robin Mosle said that the boats certainly added to the ambience, but would not serve to draw retailers to the site.
Paul Healey said that he supported the idea of an "active" park, surrounded by a mix of uses.
ZBA member Victor Popp spoke in support of the project. He noted that there was a real need for a different kind of development, and additional venues for entertainment. He said that despite the fears that this would be a magnet for teenage loitering, that there was, in fact, a real need for places where teenagers would go to have fun and be entertained.
Lt. Charlie Souther noted that the pick-up and drop-areas associated with the movie theatre had not been sufficiently planned. He suggested a drop-off area from Shipyard Drive. He also expressed continued concern with the intersection of Shipyard and Essington Drives.
Ms. Murphy announced that the hearing would be continued on January 8 at 8:00 PM, and the topic would be traffic.
RE: Old/New Business
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, unanimously, by those present to accept the minutes of November 30, 2006 and December 4, 2006.
The meeting ended at 11:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner