The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutPlanning Board -- 2005-09-20 Minutes '0\UI�lt4E flw111Seil /`/%/po/p��i 00 04D� ED R 9F Brewster Planning Board O 3 ar D BREWSTER BICENTENNIAL 1 p vs= 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 NO a„x.,��°''� �� (508) 896-3701 OO ��i�i��tutnrtiiuiuti `\\ FAX (508) 896-8089 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:00 P.M. Brewster Town Office Building 1) Present: Chairman Henchy convened the Planning Board meeting at TOOPM in the Brewster Town Office Building with members Taylor, Pierce, Bugle, Tubman and Remy present. 2) Approval Not Required — ANR2005-16— 341 Main Street and 0 Main Street, assessors Map 21 Lots 10 & 11 —combine and divide. Present Peter Soule. 3) Motion by Taylor, Bugle second, "endorse ANR as presented. All voted in favor. 4) CONTINUANCE - LEGAL HEARING—SPECIAL PERMIT#SP2005-07— CORRIDOR OVERLAY PROTECTION DISTRICT BYLAW—McGinnis applicant, Hopkins owner -Located at 2750 Main Street,on Assessors' Map 14, Lot 61 — An approximately 3,150 sf. Retail/Restaurant building with attached apartment. 5) Prior to the September 20, 2005 meeting, the Cape Cod Commission provided a written review dated September 15, 2005. The Cape Cod Commission submitted these recommendations: The Bayside Seafood & Market Applicant proposes to construct a 3,150 square foot retail/restaurant building with attached apartment on Route 6A in the Brewster Village Business district. The Applicant has submitted parking and grading plans dated May 25, 2005 and a Traffic Study dated August 2005. The Cape Cod Commission transportation staff has conducted a site visit, reviewed the Traffic Study and offered the following comments. Trip Generation The Traffic Study projected trip generation for this project is based on traffic counts at their existing location and then projected those counts based on a square foot ratio. The Traffic Study did not identify the size of the existing building and the Traffic Study assumed a new building size of 6,800 square feet. Based on this analysis, the Applicant's traffic engineer estimates the new facility will generate 60 new afternoon peak hour trips. Based on the estimated size of the new building as outlined in the Traffic Study (6,800 s.f.), Cape Cod Commission Transportation Staff is unsure of the accuracy of the Applicant's trip generation estimate. A review of Figure 5, Bayside Seafood &Market Customer Traffic and Trip Generation Summary indicates that Friday afternoon, Saturday morning and Sunday afternoon are all busier than the hour of analysis used in the traffic study. In addition, transportation staff is unsure if the Applicant's Traffic Engineer took the new location into consideration when projecting trip generation estimates. Standard engineering practice includes using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual to estimate the amount of new traffic for many types of facilities, including restaurants. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual, a proposed 3,150 restaurant is expected to generate the following new vehicle trips: Average weekday 401 trips (201 in/200 out) Average morning peak hour 43 trips (22 in/21 out) Average evening peak hour 59 trips (32 in/27 out) Average Saturday 499 trips (250 in/249 out) Average Saturday peak hour 63 trips (40 in/23 out) Average Sunday 415 trips (208 in/207 out) Average Sunday peak hour 58 trips (32 in/26 out) Despite the uncertainty of the trip generation calculations, the Traffic Study peak hour trip generation (60 trips) is comparable to the ITE trip generation estimates; therefore Cape Cod Commission staff is comfortable with the site driveway Level of Service analysis as outlined in the traffic study. Driveway Safety The Applicant's traffic study recommends a two-lane driveway (one lane in, one lane out). Cape Cod Commission transportation staff concurs with the assessment of driveway width. However Commission staff is concerned with the location of this driveway. To avoid a hazardous condition, the exiting left turn lane should be opposite the Cape Cod 5 left turn exit lane, such that simultaneous left turns can occur from both facilities. The Applicant must show the Cape Cod 5 site driveway in the site plan to determine if the left turn lanes are aligned properly. Sight Distance Cape Cod Commission transportation staff agrees with the Applicant's traffic engineer that the existing sight distance is adequate. Trip Reduction Cape Cod Commission transportation staff recommends that the Applicant add a bike rack to the proposed site plan, the proposed sidewalk on the Applicant's site should be constructed within the Route 6A right-of-way and the Applicant should add a crosswalk on Route 6A to connect this site to the existing sidewalk on the north side of Route 6A. Recommendations Based on our review, Cape Cod Commission transportation staff recommends the following items to provide safe and effective transportation access and to mitigate the project impacts on the surrounding roadway system. - The Applicant should show the Cape Cod 5 driveway on the proposed site plan and align the driveways such that left turns can simultaneous) occur from both driveway locations. Y Y Y - The Applicant should provide a bike rack on site for both patrons and employees. - The Applicant should move the proposed sidewalk within the Route 6A right-of-way. - The Applicant should provide a crosswalk on Route 6A connecting this site to the existing sidewalk on the north of Route 6A. 6) After consideration of these comments, the Board agreed with the Commission's recommendation and the applicant agreed to comply. The Board made the determination that the use was a restaurant allowed by special permit in the VB zone. 7) Motion by Bugle, with Pierce seconding, "to close to public input." All voted in favor. 8) Motion by Pierce, with Tubman seconding, "to continue to October 4, 2005 and the applicant will change plan to reflect the changes suggested by the Cape Cod Commission and provide copy of petition to the State for crosswalk and inform HDC regarding the changes for their comment." All voted in favor. 10) LEGAL HEARING—SPECIAL PERMIT#SP2005-13— CORRIDOR OVERLAY PROTECTION DISTRICT BYLAW—Northside United Methodist Church - Located at 701 Airline Road,on Assessors' Map 37, Lot 52— Expansion of existing church facility and parking. 11) Prior to the hearing, the Board had requested written comments concerning the application from the Board of Health, Department of Public Works, Water Department, Police and Fire Departments, Conservation Commission and Building Commissioner. The following comments were made at the DPRC meeting: Fire Dept. —Suggested an internal fire hydrant. B.O.H. -No comments. Police Dept—No comments DPW—suggest 25 year storm drainage instead of the 10 year proposed. There were no letters,pro or con,read at the hearing. Abutters were present. 12) Sitting on the Planning Board and present at the hearing were members Henchy, Taylor, Tubman, Remy, Pierce and Bugle. Chairman Henchy opened the hearing at 7:30PM by reading the legal advertisement and making the applicant and parties in interest aware of their rights to appeal as required under Chapter 40A, Section 17. He stated that during the hearing any member of the Board or interested party may direct questions through the Chairman to a speaker relating to the proposal. He asked the applicant to make his presentation. Present: Pastor Rebecca Minicieli;Joe Eldredge, Site Supervisor; Bob Shaw and Ed VanDell. 13) Minicieli — Over the past few years, our church has grown significantly, from about 140 to over 200 and we are now looking to expand to better accommodate. We are finding that our sanctuary, classroom, fellowship and office space is too small for us to effectively reach out and minister to one another and to the community. 13) Eldredge - The church was originally built in 1991. The total proposed seating is 236 this is an increase of 92 seats. The total proposed parking is 140, an increase of 73 stalls. The new addition increase of 5,570 s.f. total gross building area 11,085 s.f. The peak traffic is Sunday morning; the church has one service at 10:00am. There are occasional early evening weekday meetings at the facility. There is no intended increase of services, only to be able to accommodate what is existing. 14) The board asked about parking islands. The applicant said that they would need to clear an additional amount of land, in order to comply. The board asked about the lighting. The applicant produced a plan that showed about 15 light poles, projecting downcast and it showed no overcast onto neighbor's property. The board requested a site visit to review the parking proposal and asked that the applicant flag area for viewing. Site visit was scheduled for September 27, 2005. The board requested that the plans be revised to delineate the existing from the proposed and to show the rear parking stalls and proposed lighting. The applicant agreed. 15) Motion by Bugle, Pierce second"close to public input". All voted in favor. 16) Motion by Pierce, Remy second "continue hearing until October 4, 2005 at 7:15PM, site visit to review the parking proposal, the applicant to flag area for viewing by the board, site visit scheduled for September 27, 2005, revised plans to delineate the existing from the proposed and to show the rear parking stalls and proposed lighting. All voted in favor 17) LEGAL HEARING—MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT#SP2004-17— CORRIDOR OVERLAY PROTECTION DISTRICT BYLAW—Boxer Shorts Realty Trust/Geraldine Boccio Trustee/For the Love of the Breed -Located at 4018 Main Street,on Assessors' Map 30, Lot 22— Proposed Two Story Addition,2,300 SF with a 1 bedroom manager apartment. Modify-eliminate 2"d story and increase foot print with addition 18) Prior to the hearing, the Board had requested written comments concerning the application from the Board of Health, the Department of Public Works, Water Department, the Police and Fire Departments, the Conservation Commission and the Building Commissioner and comments were recorded: Fire Dept. — 1) Smoke detection for apartment with system in 1s` floor. 2) Commercial plan review requirement. 3) Agree that when sign repainted or stationery is ordered to correct house number (mistake not their fault),willing to work with them. B.O.H. -7/20/04 septic needs to be inspected. H.D.C.—No comments DPW-Has no concerns in this matter. POLICE- I have reviewed the proposed plan for the addition @ 4018 Main Street and find no problems w/traffic concerns or access. The existing entrance/exit is more than adequate and provides good visibility. BUILDING DEPT. —Has this proposal been before Development Plan Review Committee? Appears to be deficient on required parking—Sec 179-22/Table 4 (other retail establishments). There were no letters, pro or con, read at the hearing. 19) Sitting on the Planning Board and present at the hearing were members: Elizabeth Taylor,William Henchy, Marjorie Pierce, Jane Remy, Linda Bugle and Bob Bugle. Chairman Taylor opened the hearing at TOOPM by reading the legal advertisement and making the applicant and parties in interest aware of their rights to appeal as required under Chapter 40A, Section 17. She stated that during the hearing any member of the Board or interested party may direct questions through the Chairman to a speaker relating to the proposal. She asked the applicant to make his presentation. Present: Michael Grysho,builder. 20) Grysho — The property is currently being used as a pet supply store. The existing building is about 1800sf and is entirely used for retail. The original proposal was to construct a 2,300 sf addition so as to expand the existing retail use of the property and on the second floor of the addition is a 1,050 sf manager's apartment, as allowed under the Zoning By-Law. The owner no longer wants a second floor and proposed to increase the addition to the first floor of about 672 sq. ft., totaling 2,972 sf. This will bring the total area including the existing retail space to 4, 772 sq. ft. +/- . 21) Abutter Linda Payne present — concerns about the existing lighting spilling over onto her property. Stating that she had approached the owner regarding this but has had no success with a remedy. 22) The Board had previously overlooked the lighting requirements but with this modification added that the request for modification is contingent on a property lighting plan that directs all lighting towards the ground that prevents light from crossing onto adjacent property and replaces existing motion detector lighting with downward illumination that shuts off within five minutes. Sodium vapor bulbs are not permitted. The Board continued the hearing for October 4, at 7:30PM. 23) Meeting Adjourned Sincerely Marjorie Pierce Planning Board Clerk