Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20120430 - Planning Board - Meeting Minutes1 HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, April 30, 2012 7:30 P.M. Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA – Room 215/216 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Ken Weismantel, Chairman, John Coutinho, Vice Chairman, Carol DeVeuve, Christian Ollenborger, Brian Karp, Claire Wright, Dick MacDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Abate, Deb Thomas Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Mr. Weismantel opened the meeting and summarized the agenda. 1. 25-35 Main St. (Hopkinton Village Center) – Request for Extension of Site Plan Approval Ron Roux, Manager, HVC LLC, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel referred to correspondence received from Douglas Resnick, attorney, dated April 18, 2012 and April 27, 2012, regarding the Hopkinton Village Center mixed office/retail/residential development to be located at 25-35 Main St. He noted that due to market conditions the applicant is requesting a 2- year extension of the site plan approval granted by the Planning Board on February 15, 2008, modified and upheld through appeal and now due to expire on May 8, 2012, as well as a change of applicant name. Mr. Coutinho moved to grant the extension of site plan approval to May 8, 2014, and to change the name on the permit to HVC LLC. Ms. Wright seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Documents: Letters from Douglas W. Resnick to Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning & Permitting dated 4/18/12 and 4/27/12, re: Decision of Site Plan Review – 25 Main Street Hopkinton Village Center 2. E.L. Harvey & Sons – Materials Recovery and Recycling Facility – Wood Street – Minor Modification to Approved Site Plan Brian Levey, Beveridge & Diamond P.C., attorney, appeared before the Board, accompanied by J.R. Frey, Brown & Caldwell, project engineer. Mr. Levey stated E.L. Harvey & Sons wants to make a minor change to the approved site plan for the Materials Recovery and Recycling Facility (MRRF) approved by the Board in 2006 and allowed by special permits from the Board of Appeals in 2004/2005. He noted E.L. Harvey consulted Chuck Kadlik, Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer, who determined this request to be an insubstantial change with respect to the special permits so it does not need Board of Appeals review, but has to be approved by the Planning Board. It was noted the proposed modification involves moving the building 29 ft. to the east as well as changes in door locations. Mr. Ollenborger moved to find the proposed change to the site plan minor in significance and therefore not requiring a public hearing. The motion was seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 2 Mr. Frey passed out reduced copies of the updated site plan and elevation drawings. Mr. Weismantel asked Mr. Frey to describe the MRRF operation for members who were not on the Board at the time. Mr. Frey stated a MRRF collects recyclable materials and sorts and processes them into a product to be sold back to manufacturers for new products. He noted the E.L. Harvey MRRF building measures 200 ft. north to south and 400 ft. east to west and they propose to move its location 29 ft. to the east. He submitted photos showing that the proposed shift will have no effect on visibility from Wood St. driving by the facility in either direction. He referred to the proposed change in door locations and noted there are no operating doors on the side facing Rt. 135, so it will have a blank appearance. Ms. DeVeuve asked about the reason for the change, and Mr. Frey stated E.L. Harvey wants to look at ways to maximize the use of the site. Mr. Frey stated for the most part the proposed shift in location is not substantial but E.L. Harvey is considering other changes as well and wants to nail the building location down first, setting the stage for the DEP approval process which is very lengthy. Ms. Wright asked if the proposed change will affect the on-site traffic pattern and maneuverability around the building. Mr. Frey referred to the plan and stated the circulation pattern will remain the same and the change in building location will not create interior traffic conflicts. Mr. Ollenborger moved to determine that with the minor modifications proposed to the MRRF Site Plan, the Site Plan as modified will continue to conform to the Decision Criteria in Zoning Bylaw § 210-136, and to approve the modifications shown on the submitted plans. Mr. MacDonald seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Documents:  Letter from Steve Harvey, E.L. Harvey & Sons, Inc. to Elaine Lazarus, dated 4/12/12, with attachments – re: Wood Street, Assessor’s Map U1, Block 1, Lot 0 – Special Permits Issued to E.L. Harvey & Sons, Inc.  (Planning Board) Decision of Site Plan Review – E.L. Harvey & Sons – 3/3/06  Letter from Charles E. Kadlik to Steve Harvey, E.L. Harvey & Sons, Inc., 3/9/12 – re: MRRF, Wood Street, U1-1-0  Plans – MRRF Relocation Site Development Plan & MRRF Architectural Plan Revised Door Locations – Material Recovery & Recycling Facility Hopkinton, Massachusetts, dated 4/30/12, prepared by Brown and Caldwell  Photographs – Visibility (from Wood St. in east and west directions) 3. Continued Public Hearing – 68 Elm Street and 5 Parkwood Drive – Major Project Site Plan Review – Perkin Elmer Aubrey Doyle, Perkin Elmer, applicant, Scott Richardson and Marc DiPilato, Gorman Richardson Lewis Architects (GRLA), and Mark Beaudry, Meridian Associates, engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel referred to the site plan review public hearing outline and summarized progress made on the discussion of the proposal to date.  Stormwater – Mr. Richardson stated Fay, Spofford & Thorndike’s (FST) review comments on the plan were mostly about stormwater, and they received a letter from them today indicating they are basically satisfied with Meridian’s response and the changes made to the plan. Mr. Weismantel asked Ms. Lazarus for a summary, and Ms. Lazarus stated most of FST’s concerns can be addressed by conditions or plan modifications, except for one item 3 dealing with methodology. Mr. Beaudry stated the remaining item was resolved with FST during the last round of exchanges late today.  Lighting – Mr. Richardson referred to the lighting shown on the site plan. He noted they plan to maintain the existing light poles on the site, and although they originally considered increasing the height from 16 to 18 ft., they have now decided to keep all of them at 16 ft. including those in the new parking areas. He noted the company’s program to turn off the parking lot lights at 10:00 P.M. will still be implemented, but there will be additional lighting along the new building and warehouse addition for safety and security. He stated the wall- mounted lights on the building will be on motion sensors as they are now. He reminded the Board that construction of certain sections of the parking areas will be deferred so no lights are planned there for now. He stated he stopped by Bob Winner’s house at 56 Elm St. to review the visibility of the parking lot lights from his 2nd floor window, but as expected it was not as bad as the week before because there are now leaves on the trees. Mr. Richardson stated that one of Mr. Winner’s main concerns is lights being on after 10:00 P.M., and he confirmed that this should not happen. In response to a question of Ms. Wright, Mr. Richardson summarized the changes made and actions taken to reduce the light levels for the benefit of the residential abutters. Mr. Weismantel stated as he mentioned before he has observed the lights on at 9:30 P.M. and the site was very bright in his opinion. He read from a letter submitted by Mr. Winner to the Board. Mr. Weismantel referred to the Caliper Life Sciences site plan decision for the 2005 additions which includes a condition regarding site lighting, especially with respect to the impact on the immediate residential abutters. Ms. DeVeuve asked if there were any changes to the lighting plan and fixtures discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Richardson stated they plan to replace the existing fixtures and move more toward LED, as previously stated. Mr. Weismantel referred to the four light poles near Elm St. and asked if it would be possible for Perkin Elmer to shut the lights off at 9:30 P.M. instead of 10:00 P.M., and Mr. Doyle stated he would be willing to agree to that.  Landscaping - Mr. Beaudry stated the Elmwood Park industrial park has been there since the 1980’s so there are some mature trees which will be preserved and supplemented utilizing drought resistant native species. He noted they are proposing plantings for parking lot islands and shrubs along the buildings. He noted the plan shown here needs to be updated and clarified in response to comments received. Mr. Weismantel referred to Mr. Winner’s letter regarding maintenance work being done during weekends. He referred to the Town’s bylaw prohibiting use of construction equipment on Sundays and holidays, and Mr. Doyle stated they will make sure this will not happen again. Ms. Wright asked about the planned removal of existing vegetation east of the proposed Elm St. driveway, and Mr. Beaudry referred to the traffic study for photographs and more information on that issue. David Morgan, 6 Birchwood Ln., stated his condominium unit looks directly out on the Perkin Elmer site. He asked about the extent of tree removal for construction of the new parking lot on a currently totally wooded area, which also serves as a buffer from Rt. 495. He stated it appears the plan will remove more vegetation than necessary, and Mr. Richardson stated that additional trees have to be removed for the detention area. Mr. Beaudry stated there is a 50 ft. buffer strip as required by the wetlands protection regulations, 4 but altogether there will be quite a buffer, maybe on the average of 100 ft. Mr. Richardson stated there are wetlands which extend onto the abutting property. Mr. Morgan referred to the existing parking lot at 35 Parkwood Dr. which is being neglected and sits there unused, asking if it could be used instead. Mr. Richardson stated the new parking lot has to be close to his client’s building, although if more spaces are needed there might be a possibility to work something out.  Trash Removal – The Board discussed trash compactor use on site, and the applicant described what compactors look like and how they are installed. Mr. Weismantel referred to Mr. Winner’s letter with respect to dumpster changes in the middle of the night. Mr. Winner stated this issue is unrelated to Perkin Elmer per se, but he included this as a discussion item perhaps to be addressed through a Town ordinance. Mr. Weismantel stated maybe they should look at this matter town wide, but it is good to hear that Perkin Elmer is not the offender.  Draft Conditions – The Board reviewed proposed draft conditions as listed in Ms. Lazarus’ memorandum to the Board. It was noted that the conditions will specify that the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Illicit Discharge Compliance Statements be submitted to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Winner stated he is glad that Perkin Elmer is committed to adhere to the 2005 Caliper Life Sciences approval condition with respect to lighting but this does not account for the lights on the other end and the ones planned for the new parking lot. He noted he had also asked about the possibility of lowering the lights on the building, and Mr. Richardson stated the lights will shine down and are typically mounted at 10 – 12 ft. After further discussion, the applicant agreed to a lighting condition requiring the pole lights near residential properties on Elm St. to be turned off at 9:30 P.M. instead of 10:00 P.M. with one more pole to be added to the list. Ms. DeVeuve asked about the Planning Board’s standard lighting condition language prohibiting spillage onto abutting property, and Mr. Weismantel stated the decision will reference the photometric plan, a copy of which will be attached. It was noted the list of conditions includes a standard condition regarding dumpsters and it was clarified there are trash compactors on site which are not considered dumpsters. The applicant did not object to any of the conditions. Mr. MacDonald moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Ollenborger seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Wright moved to find that the site plan approval criteria in the zoning bylaw are met. Mr. Coutinho seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. MacDonald moved to approve the site plan applications for 68 Elm St. and 5 Parkwood Dr. with the following conditions: Approval Criterion B - The surrounding area will be protected from the proposed use on the site by provision of adequate surface water drainage, buffers against light, sight, sound, odors, dust and vibration and the preservation of adequate light and air. 1. The Planning Board’s engineering consultant recommended additional soil test pit information in the vicinity of the 66 subsurface infiltration chamber at 5 Parkwood Dr. The Applicant has requested to perform the test at a later time, after approval. The Board requires that the test pit information be provided for review prior to construction of the infiltration 5 chamber, which would only be constructed if the reserve parking area is constructed. The Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of the Town’s review of the information provided. 2. More site specific details shall be provided on the two subsurface infiltration chamber arrays prior to the commencement of construction. 3. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by the U.S. EPA shall be provided to the Conservation Commission prior to the commencement of construction. 4. An Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement (as per DEP Stormwater Regulations standard #8) shall be provided to the Conservation Commission prior to the discharge of any stormwater to post-construction BMP’s. 5. The Applicant shall ensure that exterior generators include lockable panels, and that the enclosure provides appropriate noise dampening. Generator testing shall occur during regular business hours. 6. The Director of Municipal Inspections inspects projects under construction for compliance with the approved Decision of Site Plan Review. If the Director of Municipal Inspections determines at any time before or during construction that a registered professional engineer or other such outside professional is required to assist with the inspections of the stormwater management system or any other component of the Site Plan, the Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of those inspections. 7. All construction activity shall adhere to applicable local, State and Federal laws and regulations regarding noise, vibration, dust, sedimentation, and the use of, interference with or blocking of Town roads. 8. The Applicant shall be responsible for mitigating all construction-related impacts, including erosion, siltation and dust control. The Applicant shall maintain all portions of any public way used for construction access free of soil, mud or debris deposited due to use by construction vehicles associated with the project, and shall regularly sweep such areas as directed by the Director of Municipal Inspections in consultation with the Director of Public Works. 9. The Applicant shall regularly remove construction trash and debris from the site in accordance with good construction practice. No tree stumps, demolition material, trash or debris shall be buried on the site. 10. All exterior lighting on the site, whether shown on the Applicant’s submissions or required by the Massachusetts State Building Code, shall be shielded, directed downward and not upward or outward. Light levels at night shall be only what are necessary for safety and security, in the opinion of the Director of Municipal Inspections, with the qualification that the five (5) pole-mounted lights located closest to the easterly property line of 68 Elm Street shall be turned off at 9:30 PM. Furthermore, no light shall spill off the property and onto land in residential use. 11. All fixed mechanical equipment on the Site shall be screened from view from the ground. Such screening shall be sufficient in the opinion of the Director of Municipal Inspections. 12. All dumpsters on the Site shall be screened from view from the ground by a six-foot tall solid fence or other effective means, adequate in the opinion of the Director of Municipal Inspections. A trash compactor shall not be considered a dumpster. Approval Criterion C - The convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent areas and public ways is ensured. 6 13. The Traffic Assessment recommended improvements to sight distance at the existing and proposed site driveways, consisting of the removal of a landscape bush in the northeast corner of the Elm St. and Parkwood Dr. intersection and removal of trees to the east of the proposed Elm Street driveway. Such improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either building. 14. The Applicant requested and the Site Plan shows 126 parking spaces that would not be constructed and held in reserve, in accordance with the provisions of Zoning Bylaw Section 210-124, Off-Street Parking, Item B(4). The Board approves the request. The parking lot areas containing 126 parking spaces which are delineated on the Site Plan may not be constructed at this time. The parking spaces held in reserve may be constructed if needed without further approval of the Board. 15. Within the reserve parking areas, existing mature trees shall not be removed until the parking area is to be constructed. Approval Criterion D - Environmental features of the site and surrounding areas are protected. 16. The post development stormwater runoff volume is greater than pre development conditions at design point no. 1 and 2. The system was constructed prior to the 1996 Mass. Stormwater Policy and subsequent 2008 Regulations, and was not subject to some of today’s requirements. The runoff enters the wetland resource areas, and the proposed modifications will improve the overall quality of runoff to the wetland resource areas by introducing treatment units and enhanced recharge in redevelopment areas to the greatest extent practicable. The result will be that the runoff associated with the new development portions of the project fully comply with the Stormwater Management Standards, but there will be a minor increase in volumes at design points 1 and 2, mitigation of which is not required by the State regulations but which will be offset by the significant improvements in water quality. The Board approves the design shown on the Site Plan. However, since the flows entering the wetland resource areas are subject to Conservation Commission review and approval, the Site Plan shall be modified to reflect any changes to the system which are required by the Commission after its review and approval process are concluded, in accordance with Zoning Bylaw § 210-137. 17. In accordance with Section 210-138 of the Zoning Bylaw, the Applicant shall provide a performance guarantee in the amount of $2,500 to the Town prior to the commencement of construction pursuant to this Decision. The guarantee shall consist of a deposit of money or negotiable securities in a form selected by the Planning Board to guarantee that any unforeseen problems which arise, such as erosion and sedimentation, visual screening of abutting property and the correction of site lighting problems, are addressed. The funds will be held by the Town and returned to the Applicant upon completion of the project. Mr. Karp seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Documents:  Site Plan Review Outline  Site Plans entitled “Perkin Elmer Proposed Campus Expansion 5 Parkwood Drive and 68 Elm Street Hopkinton, Massachusetts” dated March 30, 2012 revised through April 26, 2012, prepared by Meridian Associates and GRLA  Planning Board Decision of Site Plan Review for Caliper Life Sciences, 68 Elm St./78 Parkwood Dr., dated 5/12/05  Traffic Assessment – Perkin Elmer Campus Expansion, dated 4/16/12, prepared by Ron Muller Associates 7  Letter from Mark Beaudry, Meridian Associates, Inc. to Ken Weismantel, Chairman of the Planning Board, dated 4/27/12 – re Perkin-Elmer Response to FST Comments  Email from FST to Elaine Lazarus, 4/30/12 – Perkin Elmer Major Site Plan Update  Letter from Robert D. Winner to the Planning Board, dated April 30, 2012 4. Other Business a) Minutes – Ms. Wright moved to approve the Minutes of March 26, 2012 as written. Mr. Karp seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Document: Draft Minutes of March 26, 2012 b) Chamber of Commerce “State of the Town” Meeting – Mr. Weismantel stated there is a “State of the Town” message meeting on Tuesday, May 1, 2012 at 8:00 A.M. at the Faith Church on East Main St. organized by the Chamber of Commerce, noting they have had this type of meeting before and anyone is welcome to attend. c) Proposed EMC Zoning Change – Mr. Weismantel referred to the proposed rezoning by EMC Corp. for land between Old Town Road and the 176 South St. EMC campus. He noted Town Counsel has prepared a draft agreement with possible use restrictions for review by the Board of Selectmen. He noted he thinks the draft is consistent with the recommendation made by the Planning Board, and if the Board of Selectmen takes action then the Board’s recommendation regarding the rezoning proposal stays the same. 5. Continued Public Hearings – 1) Legacy Farms East Main, Southeast and Southwest Villages – OSMUD Site Plan Review – Pulte Homes of New England, LLC and Legacy Farms, LLC – East Main Street and Clinton Street; 2) Amendment to Legacy Farms Master Plan Special Permit – Pulte Homes of New England, LLC and Legacy Farms, LLC Reid Blute and Mark Mastroianni, Pulte Homes of New England, Roy MacDowell, Todd MacDowell and Steven Zieff, Legacy Farms, LLC, co-applicants, Steve DeCoursey and Jim Bernardino, Bohler Engineering, engineers, appeared before the Board. Mr. Weismantel referred to the general public hearing outline for site plan review provided at the meeting. He stated the last time they discussed the neighborhood plans, they focused on home designs and full/scaled-down hammerhead turnarounds. He suggested the Board finalize its review of the plan and provide guidance to the developer by the end of the night. Mr. Mastroianni stated they met with the Design Review Board (DRB) for the 3rd time resulting in a letter of support of the revised design with conditions for the Planning Board’s consideration. He noted they looked at the village driveways and turnaround configurations at the last meeting, and are submitting a cleaner, more finalized plan at this time. He noted he believes the Board has received copies of the latest version prior to the meeting but he has additional handouts available if needed. Mr. Mastroianni referred to Neighborhood A and asked for the Board’s support of a residential delivery turnaround as designed for the 3 homes at the end, even though it is not required by the OSMUD Design Guidelines. Mr. Weismantel stated he understands the DRB is looking for as many residential side entries as possible, but he would feel better if unit A6 was turned to face the other way, resulting in a dead end street with 2 instead of 3 homes. Ms. DeVeuve stated she feels this would result in a lot of extra pavement to accommodate someone who unintentionally goes a little too far down the road. She noted the OSMUD development criteria were supposed 8 to focus on low impact, and this would be nothing compared to her situation living at the end of Chamberlain St. Ms. Wright stated she would be very annoyed with people constantly turning around in her driveway and the Board has an opportunity here to achieve a proper design with a better flow without intrusions on people’s private property. Mr. Weismantel stated he would be ok with a residential delivery (or light hammerhead) turnaround if unit A6 was turned around. Ms. Wright stated she is not sure turning the unit would make a difference, and they are looking for a better neighborhood design. Most members of the Board expressed support for the proposed layout as presented. Reference was made to Neighborhood B. Mr. Mastroianni stated the plan shows a connection to Neighborhood A as discussed at the previous meeting, and the Board was satisfied. Mr. Mastroianni referred to Neighborhood C. He stated the plan still shows a full hammerhead turnaround and they have not changed that. In response to a question of Mr. Weismantel, it was determined that the area at the end of the road is a bioretention area, not a pond. Russ Ellsworth, 6 Curtis Rd., stated he would prefer the road continue onto Legacy Farms Rd. South for safety reasons and because the noise level associated with a dead end street could be troublesome to the Curtis Rd. abutters. Mr. Mastroianni noted Pulte Homes prefers a private dead end street configuration for marketability, reduced impervious surface, and fewer curb cuts. Roy MacDowell stated he feels that a loop road would attract more traffic and therefore would be noisier. In response to a question of Ms. Wright with respect to Linden St., Mr. Mastroianni noted when planning the project they purposely did not incorporate the old railroad bed. Mr. Zieff stated Linden St. is a combination of abandoned railroad bed and private road and in order to be able to use it they would need to go through a lot of legal work. Ms. Wright asked if one could take a turn onto Linden St. regardless and connect to Legacy Farms even if there was no road. Mr. Zieff stated there just is no clear title and the use of the land is not available for buildings or roads. Mr. Mastroianni referred to neighborhood F. Ms. DeVeuve questioned the bump-out design and Mr. Mastroianni stated they need a place to make the turn. Mr. Mastroianni referred to Neighborhood J near Clinton St. He noted they are looking to include a residential delivery turnaround for 4 homes. Mr. Weismantel stated he has concerns in this case considering the length of the road. Mr. Mastroianni stated he realizes this road is a little longer and suggested additional “residents only” signage. He noted they had decided against a through connection because of the grade difference but perhaps they can make a secondary connection, and Mr. Weismantel stated that would be a good compromise. Mr. Weismantel asked about the length of the driveways from the road to the garage doors, and Mr. Mastroianni stated the minimum is about 20 to 21 ft., but some of them are longer. Mr. Zieff stated the Planning Board’s degree of review is appreciated, but these driveways will remain private and he would like to wait and see how these neighborhoods come together and make changes only if needed, perhaps at the Certificate of Compliance stage. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board has to make a decision at the site plan review stage. Mr. Zieff stated the Board should be consistent and be careful not to over-improve the site, and Mr. Weismantel stated the proposed modifications do not rise to that level and these are unintentional consequences of the introduction of the simplex units with a maximum of 25 ft. in between them. Ms. Wright stated she is not sure another curb cut onto a busy road is beneficial and she would like to preserve the private nature of the driveway and limit the number of curbs cuts. In response to a question of 9 Mr. Ollenborger, Mr. Mastroianni stated because of drainage and grade difference there is no room for a full hammerhead. The Board discussed alternative layouts, and it was determined that the proposed layout would provide adequate turnaround space for larger residential and emergency vehicles with accessibility from Legacy Farms Rd. South in case of a fire. Mr. Mastroianni referred to Neighborhood K. He noted the design has now been modified with homes further back from the street and rotated so the backs are not facing Clinton St., and a full hammerhead turnaround. He noted Pulte Homes would like some direction from the Board as to whether it supports the modifications so that they can go forward with the engineering design in this area. Mr. Coutinho stated this is a much cleaner design than what was shown previously, and the Board expressed support. Mr. Mastroianni explained the changes to Neighborhood L, and after discussion, Mr. Weismantel stated it appears the Board is happy with the proposed design. Mr. Mastroianni referred to Neighborhood M adjacent to Clinton St., which has a common driveway with a full turnaround for 6 homes. He noted they modified the layout at the request of the DRB and abutters by pulling back and redesigning the homes, and incorporating a significant amount of landscaping including farm walls and improved streetscape to match what is there. He noted the landscape architect has not yet done the redesign because they are waiting to get feedback from the Board. Ms. DeVeuve stated she likes this one the best, and other Board members agreed. Mr. Weismantel thanked the members of the DRB for their efforts which have resulted in a better product. Mr. Mastroianni referred to the recommendations listed in the April 26, 2012 letter from the DRB to the Board. He referred to the color Site Plan Exhibit and noted Pulte Homes wants a cohesive development with variety in architectural elements while offering a high quality product and improved streetscape. Reference was made to Item 6 of the draft DRB conditions. Mr. Weismantel stated the DRB tried to provide flexibility to pick different styles coming from a large palate. He noted he feels this particular item is a key provision, and Ms. DeVeuve stated the wording does not appear to match the way the design is being described. Mr. Mastroianni and Mr. Blute provided additional explanation of the intent of the condition, and Ms. Lazarus stated it can be worded differently for clarification of the intent. Mr. Mastroianni noted Condition number 7 is also very important. Mr. Weismantel referred to Pulte’s Bedford, MA development where he had noticed the unattractive appearance of the side facing garages when the doors are open. He suggested finishing the insides of the garages although this is outside the Board’s jurisdiction. The Board reviewed the tally of bedroom counts by unit in Ms. Lazarus’ memo. She noted that the information was provided by the applicant. It was noted landscaping will be discussed at the next meeting when the landscape architect is in attendance. Mr. Mastroianni referred to the topic of signage. He noted they propose 10” x 10” street signs mounted on 12 ft. tall cedar wood poles at the entrances of all neighborhoods to create a cohesive theme and “sense of arrival”. Mr. Weismantel asked if the Board needs finalized names for the 10 streets and Ms. Lazarus stated the names have to be approved by the Board of Selectmen before addresses can be assigned. Ms. Wright stated she does not want the poles to be higher than standard street sign poles and the scope should be kept at a human scale. Mr. Ollenborger agreed that the sign as proposed seems a little tall and Mr. Weismantel stated he is not sure this is the right design yet. Mr. Blute stated they can lower the height by 2 or 3 ft. if the Board wants. Ms. Wright referred to the applicant’s suggestion for dead end street signage at the end of some of the driveways. She cautioned against too many signs and stated that a dead end street sign might not be necessary for an area with only 4 homes, or maybe only if people start complaining. The Board discussed Stop signs at the intersections and it was generally felt these should be standard and recognizable. Ms. Lazarus asked about additional neighborhood signs, and Mr. Mastroianni stated they have not yet done the wayfinding and temporary signs pending finalization of the site plan. Mr. Weismantel asked about the sales trailer, where it will be located and how long the applicant anticipates it to be there. Mr. Blute stated the trailer will be located opposite Neighborhood A on the other side of Legacy Farms Rd. South and it will be more than just a construction trailer, functioning like a welcome center to help people looking for units on the south side as well as the north if Pulte builds there also. Mr. Weismantel stated they should address this in the conditions as they are not looking to have a permanent trailer there, and therefore they will have to work on this together. Mr. Blute stated the trailer plans have not gone beyond a sketch shown to the Building Inspector who seemed open to the idea. Mr. Weismantel stated he would like to see the sketch. Ms. DeVeuve stated it appears they are finalizing neighborhood layouts but have not yet discussed the buildable areas and the proposed amendment to the Master Plan Special Permit. She noted the people in the audience might have issues regarding the proposed changes. Mr. Lazarus referred to an email received from Don MacAdam, Conservation Administrator, dated April 30, 2012 pertaining to one specific area on the south side of Legacy Farms Road and noted the Commission is in support of the change. Mr. Mastroianni explained the color coding of the buildable area plan. He described the area discussed in the Conservation Commission correspondence. A man in the audience stated the old layout was not good but the proposed change results in the most objectionable alternative. He noted as proposed the new homes back up to existing property and cut off trail access from the west of Legacy Farms Rd. South to the east. Mr. MacDowell stated there is still plenty of room for trail access and this was discussed with the Commission. Will Davis, 10 Curtis Rd., referred to the original layout for the neighborhood adjacent to Curtis Rd. He noted as modified the plan pushes the development right up to his rock wall and looking right into his house. Mr. MacDowell stated there is a significant wooded area in between, and Mr. Davis stated those trees are mostly on his land and he objects to the proposed change. Mr. Ellsworth stated the development was shifted too close to the boundary line, closer to the wetlands, and he asked about runoff and lights. He stated he was surprised to see the revised plan and asked why with all the acreage at their disposal, Pulte Homes had to put these 7 units right behind their houses. 11 Kathryn Moschini, 16 Clinton St., stated she is concerned about trail access on Clinton St. with the revised layout for 4 units on Clinton St. Mr. Mastroianni stated they talked to residents before the public hearing, discussed open space access and trails at length and made some modifications but the trail network is not finalized, pending input from various groups. Ken Parker, 69 Clinton St., asked if there still is a trail connection after the changes made. Mr. Mastroianni stated the connection is still there, but the trail plan is not finalized yet. Jennifer Lund, 15 College St., stated the number of trails may not be the equivalent of what was shown previously. She noted the plan presented tonight includes roads and sidewalks and these are not true trails. She noted she would like them to be separated and trails should be connected. Mr. Weismantel stated the Board will talk a lot more about trails. Mr. Mastroianni referred to the concerns expressed by Mr. Davis and Mr. Ellsworth. He stated he understands their concerns but Pulte Homes is planning on a substantial amount of vegetated screening. Kerry Davis, 10 Curtis Rd., asked what the proposed landscaping will look like, and Mr. Weismantel stated Pulte Homes will have their landscape expert at the next meeting. A motion was made to continue the public hearings to May 14, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. The motion was seconded and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Documents:  Site Plan Review Hearing Outline  Topic Outline for Public Hearing Legacy Farms East Main, Southeast and Southwest Villages – Site Plan Review and MPSP Amendment , April 9, 2012  Site Plan Development Plans for Pulte Homes – Southwest, Southeast and East Main Villages at Legacy Farms, revised through 4/30/12, prepared by Bohler Engineering  Legacy Farms (South) – Color Coded Unit Type Plan, 3/20/12, prepared by Bohler Engineering  Letter from Jeanette Thomson, Chairman, Design Review Bd., to Kenneth Weismantel, Chairman, Planning Board, dated 4/26/12, re: site plan review – East Main, Southeast and Southwest Villages at Legacy Farms  Trail Plan Site Plan – Overall Restricted Land Plan (page 58 of 71/Trails) prepared by Bohler Engineering  Buildable Area Exhibit, dated 2/10/12, prepared by Bohler Engineering  Email from Don MacAdam, Conservation Administrator, to Elaine Lazarus, 4/30/12 – re: Pulte Homes at Legacy Farms South – with attachments 1) Bohler Comment letter 4/11/12, and Buildable Area Exhibit rev. 3/2/12 Adjourned: 10:00 P.M. Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant APPROVED: May 14, 2012