HomeMy Public PortalAbout20140106 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes1
HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD
Monday, January 6, 2014 7:30 P.M.
Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Weismantel, Chairman, John Coutinho, Vice Chairman, John
Ferrari, Deb Thomas, Brian Karp, Matthew Wade, Dick MacDonald, Claire Wright
MEMBERS ABSENT: Todd Holbrook
Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting; Cobi Wallace, Permitting
Assistant
Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting and summarized the agenda. He thanked HCAM for taping
the meeting.
1.
Mr. Weismantel stated the applicant has requested that the Board continue the public hearing.
Mr. Karp moved to continue the public hearing to March 10, 2014 at 7:30 P.M. Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Continued Public Hearing - Reservoir View – OSMUD Special Permit - Christopher
Olson
2.
Conservation Commission members Chris Waldron, Andre Griben, Craig Nation, Melissa Recos
and Kerry Reed, Don MacAdam, Conservation Administrator, and Bob Ingram, Lu cas
Environmental, LLC, joined the Board. Mr. Waldron opened the Conservation Commission
public hearing scheduled for this evening.
Public Hearings - Hopkinton Retirement Residence – East Main St. – Lenity
Architecture - 1) Site Plan Review; 2) Special Permit for Reduced Parking – Joint
Hearing with Conservation Commission
Mark Lowen, Lenity Architecture, Craig Ciechanowski, attorney, Justin Dufresne, Vanasse
Hangen Brustlin (VHB), engineer, appeared before the Board. Craig Lizotte and Dave Pickard,
VHB, were also in attendance. Mr. Ciechanowski stated he is here to present the site plan and
special permit application for reduced parking to the Planning Board as well as the Notice of
Intent portion of the proposal to the Conservation Commission (ConCom). He noted this
concerns a 6 acre site, one half of the commercial subdistrict parcel on the south side of the
Legacy Farms development. He noted the use is a continuing care retirement community, which
is like an assisted living facility except that it does not offer medical services. He noted the
proposal is for 127 living units without full kitchens, noting that they would have something
similar to a wet bar. Mr. Ciechanowski stated the site will share a driveway off East Main St.
with the other half of the parcel. He described the features of the proposed facility, including a
building with a common dining room, chapel, salon, movie room, gym, as well as a number of
exterior congregation areas for outdoor activities, walking areas, and parking. He noted the rent
includes 3 meals a day in the common dining room, linen service, and shuttle bus service.
2
Mr. Dufresne described the location of the site in relation to the surrounding area. He noted
Legacy Farms LLC as the master developer will provide sewer, gas and water connections to the
facility. He noted when the Legacy Farms Master Plan Special Permit (MPSP) was granted,
traffic was projected at 2,800 trips per day for the entire parcel, but the projection for the
retirement units is considerably lower at 250 per day with 7 and 5 trips during the morning and
afternoon peak hours respectively. He noted most seniors won’t have a car and those who have a
vehicle won’t travel during typical peak hours. He noted there will be 82 parking spaces, 12 of
those in garages, and 4 or 5 handicapped spaces. He noted there will be an emergency access
around the building as requested by the Fire Dept., which will also be used as a walking path for
the residents. He noted the path will be connected to the Legacy Farms trail network, so there
will be plenty of opportunity for residents to walk around. He referred to the utility work which
is a big piece of the ConCom Notice of Intent filing. Mr. Dufresne stated sewer and gas will
come up along Clinton St. from Legacy Farms South, and a water connection from Clinton St.
also. He noted there will also be a connection from East Main St,. creating a water loop through
the project with 3 hydrants around the building. He noted the stormwater design will follow
state stormwater regulations, with some work within the 100 ft. buffer but out of the 50 ft. buffer
zone from the wetlands. He noted the stormwater system as designed will achieve the required
80% TSS removal and considers the site’s location within the Water Resources Protection
Overlay District (WRPOD).
At the request of Mr. Waldron, Mr. Dufresne indicated the limits of the 50 and 100 ft. buffer
zones on the map.
Mr. Coutinho asked about the number of handicap parking spaces on the plan and questioned
whether the applicant should provide more than the recommended minimum considering the age
of the residents. Mr. Lowen noted typically 4 or 5 spaces are sufficient for this size facility, as
most of the residents don’t drive, and if they have a car at first they usually get rid of it once they
find out about the van services. He stated the residents who still drive typically don’t need the
handicap spaces.
Chris Barry, 17 Clinton St., asked about the percentage of the lot surface covered by the
building. It was determined the building takes up about 30 to 35% of the site. In response to a
question, Mr. Dufresne stated the runoff from impervious areas will go to infiltration basins. He
added that soil testing indicates good infiltration rates, and there will be provisions for
emergency overflow from the basins. It was noted that the landscaped areas will be good for
additional absorption. Mr. Weismantel noted they have to make sure the project does not exceed
the maximum lot coverage percentage under the WRPOD bylaw, and Ms. Lazarus stated she will
check on that.
Mr. Coutinho noted the proposed site plan shows more impervious area than the original plan in
the MPSP. Mr. Dufresne stated he thinks it is less, as the original plan for the entire parcel
anticipated more parking areas which maxed out the site. Mr. Weismantel noted they expect a
significant development on the other side of the property. Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms, LLC,
stated the amount of parking on this portion of the site will require about half of the amount of
impervious area if developed as a retail use. Mr. Lowen noted their parking numbers work very
3
well to accommodate visitors, employees and residents, and will allow a more park-like setting
so that residents can use the property for walking and other outside activities.
Ann McCobb, 4 Clinton St., asked about the screening of the residential neighborhood on
Clinton St. Mr. Dufresne stated he thinks this is one of the most landscaped sites he has ever
seen. Mr. Weismantel noted they will add a discussion of Clinton St. screening to the Planning
Board’s public hearing outline. Mr. Dufresne stated they are not planning to remove any large
trees on the Clinton St. side of the property, and Mr. Barry noted those trees are mostly
deciduous. Mr. Ingram asked about the applicant’s plans regarding the use of permeable
pavement within the 100 ft. buffer zone, which is shown on one of the plans. Mr. Dufresne
stated they are not proposing permeable pavement on the emergency access/walking path
because they want to be able to sand and maintain. He stated they will correct the plan. Mr.
Ingram asked about rooftop runoff, and Mr. Dufresne noted it is included in the model, and the
water will be directed to a large basin in the back. Mr. MacAdam stated the applicants revised
and improved their original plans which showed work closer to resource areas. He noted the
Commission likes to incorporate the previous plans into the record to show the improvements
made to the plans, and Mr. Dufresne stated they will provide the necessary plans. Mr. MacAdam
referred to an email received from an abutter regarding the utility work on Clinton St. He stated
the abutter is concerned about two large oak trees which would be in the path of the utility lines
where they cross Clinton St. near his property. Mr. Dufresne stated they are not proposing
removal of the trees. Mr. MacAdam asked about potential root damage due to the utility work.
Mr. MacDowell stated they intend to stay on Legacy Farms property far enough back to avoid
any damage to the trees, but they will adjust the plan and walk the site before digging.
Mr. Weismantel stated the Planning Board previously discussed sidewalks on East Main St., and
he is not clear whether it is possible to extend a sidewalk along the retirement facility to the
corner of Clinton St. due to wetlands issues. Mr. MacDowell noted they can install a sidewalk in
front of this portion of the site, but bringing it to the corner would require major wetlands filling.
Mr. Weismantel noted that in a recent sidewalk survey residents have indicated that sidewalks
along busy streets like East Main St. are high on the priority list. Mr. Waldron noted the
ConCom will carefully review that aspect of the plan. Mr. Waldron noted right now he is not
clear about the potential impact on the wetlands. Mr. Coutinho asked if Legacy Farms owns the
property on the corner, and the answer was no. He asked if they can get to Clinton St. anyway,
and Mr. Weismantel noted they would have to stay within the Town right of way.
Mr. Pickard stated he was involved with the initial wetland permitting process for Legacy Farms,
and it is pretty clear that a sidewalk on the south side of East Main St. would require a wetlands
filling. He noted that Legacy Farms cannot go beyond the state and federal permits they have
received, and although he is not saying a sidewalk cannot be done, the Town or some other entity
may have to be the applicant. Mr. Weismantel noted discussion of a sidewalk on East Main St.
will be one of the action items.
Mr. Weismantel asked about conservation concerns with respect to the emergency access road in
the 50 and 100 ft. buffer zones. Mr. MacAdam noted they have approved proposals like this
with all structures outside the 100 ft. buffer before, and it appears the applicant was able to do
that. Mr. Weismantel asked about the emergency access drive, and Mr. MacAdam noted it
4
meets the requirements, and roadways can go within 25 ft. Mr. Weismantel noted he wants to
make sure the Planning Board approval is not in conflict with ConCom decisions. Mr. Waldron
noted he feels the ConCom can support the proposal from what they have seen tonight although
they need more detail and have to bring it to a vote. Mr. Weismantel noted this is obviously a
large building on a relatively small site. Mr. Waldron noted the focus on extensive landscaping
will be very beneficial and make it function as an LID feature on its own.
Mr. Griben moved to continue the ConCom public hearing for the Hopkinton Retirement
Residence to January 27, 2014 at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Nation seconded the motion and the
Commission voted unanimously in favor.
Mr. Coutinho moved to continue to Planning Board public hearing for the Hopkinton Retirement
Residence to later in the evening, following the conclusion of the Hayden Woods Garden
Apartment Site Plan. Mr. Ferrari seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in
favor.
The ConCom members and staff left the meeting at this time.
3.
Bill Perkins, applicant, appeared before the Board. He noted his representative, Joe
Marquedant, is meeting with the ConCom tonight so won’t be able to join the discussion. Mr.
Weismantel noted the Board previously granted a special permit for this development, and has
received the application for the site plan phase. He noted it was determined that the submittal
was less than high quality and not ready for review by the Board or its consultant, and perhaps it
would be better to put the application on hold until additional information is submitted and
revisions made. He referred to Ms. Lazarus’ letter to Mr. Perkins regarding the submission. He
stated he feels the applicant needs to go back before the Design Review Board (DRB) and they
need a more cohesive plan. He stated no response to Ms. Lazarus’ letter was received.
Public Hearing - Hayden Woods – Garden Apartment Development Site Plan – 201 and
215 Hayden Rowe St. – Bill Perkins
Mr. Perkins asked what exactly is wrong with the plans, and Mr. Weismantel referred to the
letter noting that it is the site layout plans as well as the building details. Mr. Perkins stated he
now has the landscape plan which was just completed by Weston Nurseries but not submitted to
the Board yet. Mr. Weismantel suggested the applicant work with Ms. Lazarus, and Mr. Perkins
stated he spoke to her today noting his main concern is flexibility with respect to building
locations. Mr. Weismantel noted the Board has approved plans with options regarding similar
type buildings with basically the same footprint, and has been willing to listen to applicants
about proposed changes later on, but once the project is started they would basically like to see it
finished as approved. Mr. Perkins explained the delay in getting the necessary plans but
indicated he will have something in a couple of weeks. The Board discussed the meeting
schedule and possible continuation dates. Mr. Perkins left the room for a couple of minutes to
confer with Mr. Marquedant. Upon his return, the applicant requested a continuance of the
public hearing and an extension of time for the Board to file a decision with the Town Clerk.
Ms. Thomas moved to continue the public hearing to 2/24/14 at 8:30 P.M., Mr. Ferrari seconded
the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Wade moved to grant an extension to
3/3/14, Mr. Coutinho seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor..
Document: Extension Request Form, signed 1/6/14
5
4.
The applicants and development team members for the Hopkinton Retirement Residence
proposal returned to the Board. Mr. Weismantel referred to the Planning Board public hearing
outline. Ms. Lazarus noted she distributed excerpts from the Legacy Farms Design Guidelines to
the Board, including the design principles and the findings to be made by the Board before it can
grant waivers. She reported on some items noted in her review which are different than those
indicated by others. She noted the Design Guidelines talk about grading and coordinated
plantings to limit or eliminate the need for permanent irrigation systems, and also refer to the
need for native, low water use and drought resistant plant materials as also mentioned in BETA’s
review letter.
Continued Public Hearing – Hopkinton Retirement Residence, East Main St. – Lenity
Architecture - 1) Site Plan Review; 2) Special Permit for Reduced Parking
She noted elevation drawings for the garages have not yet been submitted for review as required,
and she is unclear about the location of mechanical equipment and whether it needs screening.
She stated the applicants need to comply with MPSP condition #43 requiring submittal of a
description of efforts to incorporate renewable energy technology, and follow the Design
Guidelines principles in this respect. Ms. Lazarus stated the Board has not yet received an
updated Traffic Demand Management Plan which needs to be submitted under MPSP condition
#48 with the first and each subsequent Legacy Farms site plan review application. She noted she
distributed the Hopkinton Retirement Residence restricted land plan submitted today, but noted it
would be better to have a base plan with the development on it instead of the existing conditions.
She stated the applicant should also match their plan with the adjacent development project
layout to see how the two components work together. She noted she is looking for clarification
of the building square footage and whether it includes the garages. She noted that if the Board
approves the site plan, it needs to first determine that the submitted documents satisfy the
applicable requirements of the Zoning Bylaw and the Host Community Agreement, and as part
of that determination the Board will have to look at the resultant levels of service at pertinent
street intersections assuming implementation of any traffic mitigation requirements. She noted
the Board also needs to approve and specify a construction schedule in its decision, as required
by the MPSP.
Mr. Weismantel asked Mr. Paradis, BETA Group, to summarize his comments to the Board. Mr.
Paradis referred to his 1/3/14 review letter and stated that some of the comments may not be
applicable as this is the first time BETA has reviewed a site plan application under the OSMUD,
so they will accept direction and clarification as well. He reviewed his letter with the Board and
noted that in general the plan is very well designed except for some details that need to be
addressed and additional minor paperwork. Mr. Paradis stated this portion of the commercial
parcel is being developed first and separately from the other half of the property, and therefore
there are some unknowns with respect to drainage. He described his concerns, and after
discussion with the applicants and the engineers it was noted that it will probably end up ok. Mr.
Paradis noted it may be a good idea to add a sidewalk that connects to the garages. Mr. Dufresne
noted that if the sidewalk along East Main St. does not fit past the wetlands they can fall back on
the Legacy Farms trail connection without direct wetlands impact. Mr. Weismantel stated the
Board talked about such an idea previously with Legacy Farms on an area further west and
determined that a trail is different from a normal sidewalk along a busy road. Mr. Paradis
referred to the Design Guidelines and noted there were no definitive numbers for how much
6
water is needed for irrigation. He referred to signage, and stated that under the Design
Guidelines the maximum sign size is 32 s.f., while the proposed sign measures approximately 57
s.f. He stated there is a large sign on the property now, and Mr. Weismantel stated it is
temporary. Mr. MacDowell noted the proposed sign is intended to cover both sides of the
commercial parcel and that’s why it is slightly larger.
Mr. Paradis referred to the reduced parking special permit application, and noted there is some
confusion about the number of spaces, 82 vs. 84. It was determined 82 is the number requested.
Mr. Paradis noted there are 4 spaces which might interfere with the loading area. He stated the
landscape plan is quite thorough, but asked about coordination and options for snow storage
areas. He stated the entrance seems little tight in terms of turning space for delivery and safety
vehicles but the plan is very good in general. Mr. Weismantel stated that as noted earlier the
applicants are encouraged to talk to BETA directly to resolve issues and answer questions.
Mr. Weismantel asked if the stormwater design will be approved by the Planning Board or the
ConCom, and it was noted that BETA is doing the review on behalf of both and approval will be
by the Planning Board in its site plan decision and the ConCom via an Order of Conditions. Mr.
Paradis noted the original stormwater management study was done a number of years ago, and
perhaps at that point the site was less vegetated. Mr. MacDowell disagreed and stated Weston
Nurseries had a lot of trees there and he would argue the site was more vegetated then.
Mr. Barry asked about the wetlands area buffer along Clinton St. He asked where the runoff will
go and stated the area already gets flooded periodically. Mr. MacDowell noted the site has
gravel underneath and they will be able to address drainage with detention basins, and if
anything, things will be better post construction. Mr. Lizotte stated he prepared the stormwater
design for the entire project for the MPSP. He noted they did numerous test pits to determine the
location of good soils and the model shows there will be no increase in post development runoff
and no increase in flooding. Mr. Barry stated he finds that hard to believe. Mr. Paradis noted
they looked at the calculations basically for a meadow in poor condition, although they did not
see the site before it was cleared and can only evaluate the site based on current conditions. Mr.
Lizotte suggested doing some further analysis working with BETA, and he is sure they can
figure out an answer to this question.
Mr. Weismantel asked for other items to be added to the public hearing outline. Mr. Barry asked
about the driveway entrance on East Main St. and whether there will be a deceleration lane. Ms.
Wright stated she assumes stockpiles will be located on the vacant side of the property, but she
wants to make sure it won’t bother the Clinton St. abutters. It was noted stockpiling will be
added to the list of items to be addressed. Ms. Lazarus suggested dust control should also be
discussed.
The Board discussed building design and the DRB recommendations. Ms. Wright noted the DRB
wants to talk to the applicants again. Mr. Lowen stated they have submitted revised plans and
assume they will be on the agenda for the 1/21/14 meeting, but he thinks they are very close at
this point. Mr. Weismantel asked about the dormer issue, and Mr. Lowen stated they agreed
with DRB’s comment and have made changes. Mr. Weismantel asked about other architectural
details, and noted that this is a very large building and it looks interesting. Mr. Lowen stated he
7
would like to suggest that Board members visit the recently completed Westborough facility
which will be very similar. Ms. Wright noted the DRB wants to see the plans for the sign, and
Mr. Lowen noted the sign was part of the resubmission.
The Board discussed vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow. Mr. Weismantel noted there are some
concerns here and he would like a statement from the applicants for the record. He noted that
while he understands this portion of the commercial parcel will have less traffic than a
commercial design that could have been placed here, he does not know what will happen on the
other side of the lot potentially pushing the impact to the point where a joint entry does not work.
Mr. MacDowell stated he guesses it will work just fine, but if during the site plan review process
for the other side they find out otherwise, they don’t want to be precluded from making changes
because there is enough frontage on the other parcel for a second entrance. Mr. Weismantel
stated he does not want to see an entry design that is too tight making it difficult to get an
acceleration lane. Mr. Dufresne stated it is hard to make assumptions for the other half of the
parcel, but the issue of an acceleration lane was reviewed by VHB after the applicant’s
preliminary meeting with the Planning Board and it was determined that speeds on East Main St.
don’t meet the criteria for that type of additional measure but perhaps the issue can be addressed
with a small pocket. Mr. Weismantel noted there may be a problem with vehicles going west on
East Main St. wanting to go left into the site, potentially causing traffic jams. Mr. Dufresne
stated the determination is based on peak hour traffic flow, and the proposed development has no
real peak hours. Mr. MacDowell stated if there are problems he will talk to the Mezitts about
possibly pushing back the stone wall across the street and widen the road. Mr. Weismantel
stated it appears going east is not a problem, and it sounds as if any westbound problems may be
solved by widening the road on the other side of the street. Mr. Barry asked what is across the
street, and Mr. MacDowell noted there is an entrance to Weston Nurseries and a house, and he
thinks the Town may own 8 or 10 ft. in. Mr. Weismantel suggested adding a determination of
the right of way width of East Main St. in that area as an action item. Mr. Ferrari asked for
clarification as to the capacity of the shared driveway, and Mr. MacDowell stated as of now it is
designed to serve the whole parcel. Mr. Ferrari asked if this assumes that the current design will
work with additional development on the other half of the parcel, and Ms. Wright noted the
applicant feels it will or can make changes to the plan if needed. Mr. MacDowell noted they are
planning on a 30,000 to 35,000 s.f. neighborhood retail center, down from the originally planned
45,000 s.f. Mr. Paradis stated there is some concern about the turning radius for large trucks, and
Mr. Lizotte noted this was designed to accommodate Hopkinton fire trucks and delivery trucks.
Mr. Weismantel stated he is concerned about the parking area on East Main St. within the site,
with 17 spaces and another 7 spots of reserved parking. He asked about queuing space between
this parking lot and the stop sign on East Main St., and Mr. Dufresne stated that is the reason for
the center island.
Ms. Lazarus stated the fire lane will also be used as a walking path on the north side near the
parking lot just discussed and asked if there can be a connection to the sidewalk there, and Mr.
Dufresne replied yes. Mr. Weismantel stated if overflow parking is needed, parking in the future
retail area next door can be an option. Mr. Lowen noted there are only a few peak visiting times,
such as Mother’s Day and Christmas Eve, and perhaps something can even be worked out with
shuttle busses to other parking areas. Mr. Barry asked about the number of employees, and Mr.
Lowen noted there are basically 3 shifts with the equivalent of 16-18 people in total from a high
8
of 10-12 to a low of 6-8 employees in the afternoon, and management will park in the garage.
Mr. Barry asked about the number of tenants, and Mr. Lowen stated there will be 140-142 at full
capacity. He noted they have an on-site manager and co-manager on site at all times.
Mr. Weismantel asked about easements for the shared driveway. Mr. Dufresne noted the
approval not required plan will show the easements.
The Board discussed parking lot design and the special permit application for reduced parking.
Ms. Wright stated she does not see a spot for additional parking if needed. The applicants stated
they think they can take out one of the garages if absolutely necessary and squeeze in up to 12
more spaces, and Ms. Wright stated the bylaw also has a provision for shared parking special
permits if needed. Russell Ellsworth, 6 Curtis Road, asked about storage of snow removal
equipment, and Mr. Lowen it is contracted out.
Mr. Weismantel noted he feels the parking lot design is pretty much all set, but he would like to
see an action item regarding the sidewalk along East Main St. and talk about the wetlands
problem. Mr. Ellsworth noted he is very familiar with this section of East Main St., and it would
be difficult.
The Board discussed East Main St. landscaping, specifically the section along the entrance. Mr.
Lowen stated the issues were addressed in the revised submission which will be discussed with
the DRB. Mr. Weismantel noted the standard concern is that landscaping cannot interfere with
sight distance. Mr. Ellsworth noted the landscaping is very close to the road and asked if
snowplowing will affect it. Mr. Dufresne noted he feels there is enough space between the
landscaped area and the road, and offered to mark it on the plan. He noted BETA asked for a
sight distance figure, and Mr. Weismantel suggested adding this issue as an action item for the
next meeting. Mr. Weismantel asked about snow storage, and Mr. Dufresne stated that during
big snow events there won’t be as many visitors, leaving space for snow storage at least
temporarily, but the issue is addressed in the stormwater management plan. Mr. Weismantel
stated he would like to see snow storage as an action item and/or dig out the information from
the stormwater report.
The Board discussed plant materials, as commented on by BETA Group. Mr. Weismantel asked
about the reasoning for picking particular plant materials over others, and Mr. Lowen noted they
should be able to iron the issues out with their Landscape Architect. Mr. MacDowell stated he
will review the plan in the meantime and make sure it has native plants conducive to this area for
a better survival rate.
The Board discussed screening to the adjacent Pulte development. Ms. Lazarus noted she
provided a copy of the plan for Village M for the Board’s information. Mr. Weismantel noted
the Board would like to see an overlay match plan, as mentioned by Ms. Lazarus earlier. Mr.
Weismantel noted it does not appear there are a lot of houses close by, but the development is
close to the railroad bed/trail access, and he would like a match plan for review as an action item.
Mr. MacDowell referred to the railroad bed, and noted that although not reflected on the plan
there is a significant amount of plant material now owned by Legacy Farms. He noted it
includes some good size trees which will be pruned for the future trail. He noted the nearby
9
Pulte residential development is 9 to 10 ft. lower in elevation, so they are a little concerned about
screening. Mr. Weismantel noted the Planning Board is also concerned, and he would like to see
the proposed plantings in this area as an action item. Mr. Ellsworth asked what will happen to
the stone wall near the railroad bed/trail, and Mr. MacDowell stated it will stay. Mr. Ellsworth
noted he hopes the neighbors in this case will get appropriate screening and don’t just end up
with bushes as in the case of Curtis Rd. Mr. MacDowell stated Weston Nurseries left a lot of
good screening material (mature trees, arborvitae, maples) now owned by Legacy Farms, and
they will give these to Pulte pro bono, as an incentive, so that they can use them. Mr.
Weismantel noted he is not counting on Pulte to plant/replant those trees, and prefers to focus on
the commercial site plan to provide the screening.
Mr. Weismantel referred to signage, noting the one proposed is large, and the pillars make it
even bigger. Mr. Barry asked about the limits under the bylaw, and Ms. Lazarus noted it cannot
exceed 32 s.f., and pillars don’t generally count in the sign area. Mr. Weismantel asked if it
would be better to have a smaller sign here, and let the adjacent development have their own.
Mr. MacDowell stated this is a common driveway and he feels a combined sign is better than
having a lot of signs. Mr. Weismantel noted the problem is that philosophically this would be ok
but the other side could have several small retail stores each wanting their name out on the street,
and one sign would not work. Mr. MacDowell stated he is not opposed to a smaller size as long
as they are allowed to have another sign. Ms. Lazarus noted theoretically each lot can have 2
standing signs per the regulations. Mr. Weismantel asked what the DRB would say about that,
and Ms. Wright noted they often have multiple tenants on one sign with individual,
interchangeable slats plus a sign on the building for each tenant. Mr. Weismantel noted from a
signage perspective the senior residence use is very unique compared to the retail tenants
expected next door. Mr. Lowen noted he will submit revised sign plans for the DRB shortly.
Ms. Wright noted other businesses in Town are satisfied with up to 32 s.f. signs without a
problem.
Referring to stormwater management, the Board noted that most of the stormwater issues would
be best handled between the engineers and BETA and to the satisfaction of the ConCom, prior to
the next hearing.
The Board discussed site lighting. Mr. Weismantel asked the applicant to go through the current
lighting plan, explain the changes to the plan and point out the location of the tall poles. He
stated the DRB’s review indicated there were some hot spots, and it was noted these were
addressed but with higher poles in some locations as a result. Mr. Barry stated that is ridiculous.
Mr. Lowen stated the plan was revised, removing some poles, lowering wattage to remove hot
spots, but some of the poles are higher although shielded and there is no spillage off site
especially with respect to Clinton St. He noted he is not a lighting expert and can only provide a
synopsis of the plan. Mr. Weismantel noted the Board would provide some direction to the
applicant. He referred to the revised photometric plan, and it appears to him there are taller poles
on the west side, which in his opinion is not a big problem with a big building blocking them.
Mr. Barry asked about lights on the building itself, and Mr. Lowen stated there are some, but
they will be shielded. Mr. Barry asked about the type of lights to be used, and Mr. Weismantel
stated the design will be similar to the Wood Partners development. Mr. Weismantel noted he is
more bothered by the interior stairwell lights there than by the pole mounted lights. Mr. Barry
10
noted the building inspector has asked Wood Partners to certify compliance with the approved
plan. He noted he feels the plan is not in compliance and Ms. Wright noted she agrees the effect
is blinding. Mr. Lowen stated he understands Mr. Barry’s concern and they will stick to
approved photometric plan. Ms. Wright noted the Wood Partners lights are shielded but the
poles are so tall that one is looking up into the light source. Mr. Lowen noted they talked to their
lighting expert and plan to tone down the levels on the east as much as possible and plant
evergreens for additional screening.
John Knowles, 23 Curtis Rd., noted that even after Wood Partners turned down the levels, their
lighting still lights up his house, and he warned Clinton St. residents of what they have to look
forward to. Mr. Barry asked if they will lower lighting levels at a certain time of the day, for
instance at 9:00 P.M. or so, and Mr. Lowen noted he does not think it is a requirement and it is
not part of the plan. Mavis O’Leary, 11 Curtis Rd., asked if neighbors on the west side are
considered, and Mr. Weismantel stated this would also potentially affect future Pulte residents.
Mr. Lowen stated he is sure the Hawthorn residents themselves want to be protected from
excessive lighting. Mr. Ellsworth noted proper screening is the key. Mr. Weismantel noted he is
more concerned about entrance lighting, next to each door and balconies particular those on the
higher floors. Mr. Coutinho noted he does not feel they should keep comparing to Wood
Partners on the hill, because this will be more like a 2 story building from the street due to
elevation changes. Mr. Weismantel stated it appears the Board is ok with the overall lighting
level but a little worried about the location of tall poles as shown on the revised plan. Ms.
Wright stated the photometric plan appears to indicate spotlights on the garages resulting in high
light levels in these areas. She noted people typically don’t have these at their private homes,
and Mr. Lowen noted they will bring those levels down. Mr. Lowen noted they will discuss this
with the DRB and come up with a solution.
Mr. Dufresne provided a quick overview with respect to utilities: 1) It was noted that electricity,
telephone & cable lines will all be underground. Mr. Weismantel asked about the need for
service upgrades on East Main St., and Mr. Dufresne stated it will be up to the utilities. Mr.
MacDowell noted they were told it will not be necessary, so as far as he knows it should be ok.
2) Mr. Dufresne noted there will be a water connection on Clinton St. as well as a separate
connection on East Main St., and they will end up with a looped system for the Town through the
site. Mr. Dufresne noted he will update the plan as per Ms. Lazarus’ request to show the overall
system in relationship to adjacent development. Mr. Ellsworth asked if there will be a pipe
through the railroad bed, and Mr. MacDowell stated there will be, to be installed perpendicular in
a small trench. 3) Sewer – In response to a question of Mr. Weismantel, Mr. Dufresne noted it
will be a gravity line and he described the connection. Mr. Weismantel asked how they will get
the sewer connection to the north side of Legacy Farms, and Mr. MacDowell noted it comes out
at Legacy Farms South and will go straight across to Peach St. 4) Gas - It was noted gas will
come from Legacy Farms South and will be in the same trench used for sewer, while the water
line will be in a separate trench 10 ft. away.
Ms. Lazarus asked how they will cross the railroad bed, and Mr. MacDowell noted they will
work with prevention of tree cutting in mind, and Ms. Lazarus noted it will be good to know how
the railroad bed itself will be disturbed, because this is a historic feature and that’s an issue. Mr.
11
MacDowell stated they will put it back the way it is and fully restore it, and Ms. Lazarus stated it
would be nice to know exactly how it will be done, also in view of the future use as a trail.
Mr. Barry referred to his concerns about the two mature oak trees on Clinton St. near his house
with respect to the utilities crossing the street. He asked if efforts to prevent tree removal or root
damage will be a problem in terms because of the wetlands. Mr. Dufresne noted the goal is to
preserve all these trees and Mr. MacDowell stated he feels the same way. Mr. Weismantel noted
besides crossing Clinton St. in two places, this is otherwise a private sewer line on private
property and Ms. Lazarus noted it is covenanted Restricted Land, and they should review the
covenant with respect to this use. Mr. Weismantel noted utilities can go in Restricted Land. Mr.
Barry asked if existing residents on Clinton St. will be able to connect, and Mr. MacDowell
noted he met with NSTAR Gas and was told their ultimate goal is to run a new gas main from
Rafferty Rd.,/Wilson St. through Legacy Farms land all the way on East Main St. eventually to
Ashland.
The Board discussed the topic of dwelling units. Mr. Weismantel noted he read through the
application and it appears there are 2 non-senior apartments within the commercial development.
He asked if this is part of the 940 maximum dwelling units approved under the MPSP, and Ms.
Lazarus noted she does not know yet. Mr. MacDowell noted these are 2 separate 1 bedroom
apartments for the staff. Ms. Lazarus noted the retirement residence is considered a commercial
use, and the bedrooms for the served population don’t count, but the issue is the staff apartments.
Mr. Weismantel noted he feels the two apartments count, and he is also concerned about the
impact on the Town’s affordable housing goal even though these are for the staff. Ms. Lazarus
noted if HUD counts them as dwelling units they should count toward the MPSP specified
maximum number. Mr. Coutinho asked how this was handled in other Hawthorn facilities, and
Mr. Lowen noted in Tewksbury for example they are called management apartments, and the
Board should keep in mind these apartments cannot be rented by just anybody. Mr. MacDowell
noted they will have their legal people look at it.
Mr. Ellsworth asked about the proposed building materials. Mr. Lowen provided a description
and noted it will be easiest to look at the Westborough facility to get the idea.
A motion was made to continue the public hearing to January 27, 2014 at 7:30 P.M. The motion
was seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor.
Documents
: 1) Site Plans for “Hopkinton Retirement Residence” dated December 12, 2013, prepared by
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.; Letter to Town of Hopkinton Planning Board from Philip F. Paradis, BETA
Group, Inc., dated January 3, 2013 (corrected 2014) - Re: Site Review Application & Special Permit
Application, Hopkinton Retirement Residence, O East Main Street – Engineering Review
5.
•
Other Business
Bills: The Board reviewed bills received for payment authorization. Ms. Thomas moved to
authorize payment of $1,500.00 and $2,000.00 payable to Bayassociates Inc. for subdivision
inspection services at the Highland Park IV and Hunter’s Ridge subdivisions respectively,
both to be paid from the 53G accounts. Mr. Wade seconded the motion and the Board voted
unanimously in favor.
Documents: Payment Request Form and Invoices
12
• Hopkinton Square
– The Board discussed the request from the developer to release the
performance bond for the Hopkinton Square commercial development at West Main St. and
South St. It was noted the applicant was asked to provide information regarding the lighting
timing system to make sure it was installed as approved by the Planning Board. Ms. Lazarus
noted the Director of Municipal Inspections indicated this was the only outstanding issue.
Mr. Weismantel stated the Board will make a decision once the Board receives confirmation
that this issue has been addressed.
Other Documents
• Agenda for January 6, 2014 Planning Board meeting
:
• Memo to Planning Board from Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting, dated January 2,
2014, re: Items on Agenda for January 6, 2014.
Adjourned 10:05 P.M.
Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant
Approved: January 27, 2014