Planning Board Meeting
August 11, 2008
Minutes
These minutes are not verbatim – they are the secretary’s interpretation of what took place at the meeting. – Open Meeting Law – Section III.
Board Members: Marc Garrett, Malcolm MacGregor, Paul McAlduff, Larry Rosenblum, and Bill Wennerberg
Planning Board Alternate: Timothy Grandy
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann and Howard Coppari
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
MEPOD II – Workshop
Atty. Edward Angley introduced the topics for the evening’s presentation: Site Planning and Infrastructure.
Steve Newbold, Gensler Architects, presented the development program as follows:
The Studio Complex - 149 acres (1,096,500 gsf)
Hotel and Amenities - 39 acres (463,000 gsf)
Research Office/Education/Artist Housing - 29 acres (217,000 gsf)
Total Building Area - 1,883,500 gsf.
Larry Rosenblum asked how many single artist residences there would be, for an explanation of the proposed office space and whether the development program was all inclusive or would there be other uses on the site.
Mr. Newbold replied that there would be 10 single artist residences each consisting of approximately 2,000 sq.ft. and approximately 40 units of multi-unit cluster residences. The professional office space would consist of 200,000 sq. ft. of rental space and be utilized by administrative staff for the for the movie studios. The production offices would be attached to the sound stages, consist of approximately 140,000 sq. ft. and be utilized by staff actually working in the studios. The research office space of approximately 100,000 sq. ft. would be part of the educational facility for companies that would be working with the students. The intention is to tailor the bylaw language to this development program.
Malcolm MacGregor asked for information on lot coverage including the parking.
Mr. Newbold explained that there will be some structured parking under buildings and the other parking areas would be constructed using pervious pavers. He stated he would have more detailed numbers on Wednesday. Mr. Newbold stated that the project is hoping to be LEEDS certified. He presented general locations for each zone of the project. The back lot has been moved closer to the schools and Long Pond Road. Mr. Newbold presented cross sections showing the different views from several locations. The cross sections also showed buffer areas and grade changes.
Paul McAlduff suggested creating some type of an aesthetic break to the façade of the sound stages that would be 65 ft. high.
Mr. Newbold stated that they are considering ways to break the facades of the larger buildings and lowering them into the ground to decrease the visible height.
Therese De Silva suggested moving the larger buildings closer to Route 3.
Ken Caputo, Coler and Colantonio, stated that they have been meeting with DPW and other Town agencies on the infrastructure for the project: sewer water and stormwater. The goal is to provide protection of the aquifer and the Eel River Watershed while providing solutions that support the site development plan. Discussions have included installing a sewer line from the site through Town owned property to the wastewater treatment facility in Camelot Park and infrastructure to carry the stormwater toward Clark Road. They have been working with DPW about the pros and cons of the suggested routes to tie into the wastewater treatment facility. Discussions have also included decommissioning the existing school treatment plant and tying both schools into the new sewerage line; providing sewerage access for Crosswinds
Golf Course and Forges Field; tying the schools into the Plymouth Rock Studio well; and installing a reuse water line from the sewerage treatment facility back to the site to be used for irrigation. The studio is exploring the feasibility of a water tank for storage purposes. Mr. Caputo presented maps showing the boundary of the Eel River Watershed, the Zone 2 area including the existing water supply wells and the well head protection areas, and the Natural Heritage endangered species habit area. These three areas limit the developable areas of the site. A low impact design for stormwater would include pervious pavement, underground infiltration, biofiltration swales and zones, Filterra systems within the streetscapes, and cisterns for collection of roof drainage.
Mr. Rosenblum stated that the existing treatment plant impacts the Eel River Watershed and the question of whether the proposed infrastructure would create a net gain or is neutral is critical.
Mr. Caputo stated that this is the first public presentation of the proposed infrastructure and that the alternatives will be analyzed through the MEPA process.
Marc Garrett asked how far along are the discussions with DPW?
Mr. Caputo replied that they have already had two meetings with department heads to discuss infrastructure and they will have more meetings this week. The infrastructure being reviewed will be the location and sizing of the sewer lines. The studio’s goal is to create a partnership with the Town prior to review by the DEP.
Mr. Rosenblum asked if the studio was also looking at the option of a comprehensive on-site treatment facility.
Mr. Caputo replied that they will be considering that option at the MEPA level as it is a viable alternative.
Bill Wennerberg asked whether the water storage tank was needed and how the determination for the location would be made.
Mr. Caputo explained that there is a need for a water storage tank for fire protection and the location is determined by analyzing water pressure and fire flow and it needs to be in a high spot.
Mr. Wennerberg asked if the cost for the water tank would be born by the studio and would it benefit the Town if it was constructed on the school property.
Mr. Caputo replied that the water tank could be constructed by the studio, but benefit the Town and be funded through I3 funds.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the Board would deal with the zoning. If it is I3 funded, it will be a public water facility owned by the Town so it would be done through DPW. Language could be built into the bylaw that allows a water storage tank or it would require a special permit.
Tim Grandy asked who would bear the cost of the maintenance of the sewer lines once they were installed.
Mr. Caputo replied that they have not discussed the maintenance of the lines internally.
Mr. Garrett asked if in ground reservoirs were also being considered.
Mr. Caputo explained that the water tank is the preferable because gravity creates the pressure and it is not mechanical. It is also easier to maintain. They will review the options further with DPW.
Mr. Rosenblum asked for the studio to address the concerns of the abutter regarding the location of the sound stages closer to Long Pond Road and to justify why they were moved away from the highway.
Mr. Newbold explained that the sound stages are on the west portion of the site because of topography. They are located on the flattest part of the site and away from the wetland area and well sites. Another goal was to try to get as much traffic as possible off Long Pond Road by creating a road adjacent to the highway. The studio will provide berms with substantial buffering and try to lower the buildings into the ground to minimize the visual impacts.
Mr. Garrett asked to review the Long Pond Road cross section and asked if the broken line indicated the existing topography and showed the areas for cut and fill. He also asked if the buildings could be set in the ground within the existing topography. He encouraged the studio to lower the buildings into the ground to minimize the visual impact. Mr. Garrett suggested providing a cross section that would show the view from the abutter’s residence.
Mr. Newbold replied that in order to set the buildings into the hollow they would have to do some cuts and fills to level the land. It would be difficult to lower the buildings with the existing topography because of the size of the buildings, the parking areas, service areas on each side and the large truck traffic. They are working on another alternative that would cluster the sound stages and move them further away from the street.
Mr. Wennerberg encouraged the studio to minimize the visual impact of the large buildings by providing substantial screening for the abutters.
Mr. Newbold stated that they will be looking at buffering and screening as part of the design guidelines.
Mr. Rosenblum suggested showing the easements that would be needed if there was ever to be an extension of the service road to create a connection from Forges Field to the schools and for a future highway access.
Mr. MacGregor supported the request for substantial screening for the abutters. He inquired about the noise impact of the service vehicles that emit high frequency beeps.
Mr. Newbold pointed out the access road that the delivery trucks would be using that runs behind the schools to the back side of the mill and primary stages. The road was planned as far away from the schools and Long Pond Road as possible and the service areas for the sound stages were designed so the trucks could pull along side and therefore minimize the backing up of large vehicles. The buildings will also buffer some of the noise.
Mr. Caputo stated that a noise study is currently underway and will review the ambient noise levels and the background noise at the schools and Long Pond Rd.
Mr. Garrett suggested that the noise analysis should include the number of trucks and noise levels of deliveries done at the school and Crosswinds Golf Course.
Mr. Wennerberg asked given the security issues, how realistic it would be to expect road connections through private property.
Mr. Newbold explained that the studio is trying to provide areas for future road connections around the perimeter of the site so they won’t interfere with the studio operations. A lot of the interior traffic would be utilizing golf carts and pedestrian walkways.
Jerry Benezra asked when the economic study would be available. He wanted assurance that the information would be presented in a timely fashion for public review. Mr. Benezra wanted information on the number of vehicles during peak construction; how many students would be living off-site; number of persons working in the office space; hotel capacity; number of students; theater capacity; types and impact of special events; whether there is an area for expansion; and the right of first refusal for the Town; when the MOU would be available; and how the peer review would be done and who would pay for it. Mr. Benezra stated that he is supportive of the project, but needs more information.
Atty. Angley stated that the economic study for this site is still being drafted.
Mr. Hartmann stated that Town Counsel will review the bylaw and Tetra Tech Rizzo has been contacted to do a review of the traffic report and Community Opportunities Group will review the economic report. If the land is purchased under Chapter 61 and stays in Chapter 61, the right of first refusal in not applicable. If in the future if they wish to convert the use of the land, the Town would have the option for the right of first refusal. Right now the zoning doesn’t even exist.
Mr. Garrett stated that the MOU will be drafted at a future date once the all the information has been presented.
Mr. Benezra felt that the MOU process does not provide adequate protection and that the special permit process would be preferable.
William Abbott suggested that a comparison be done of the proposed zoning article for Waverly Oaks and the previous zoning article for the 1,000 acres.
Paul Luszcz stated that there are deficiencies in the plan before the Board. The most objectionable parts of the studio are located close to Long Pond Road. Mr. Luszcz felt that it was incumbent on the studio to show that they can accommodate the concerns of the neighbors. He stated that the as of right process has different rules and a different process. Town Meeting needs to understand the ramifications of their vote. Mr. Luszcz felt it would be helpful to have a time line of the discussions that would be taking place.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the goal is to build adequate protections into the bylaw; define what can and cannot happen on the site; create design standards and then enter into an MOU. An MOU is more powerful than a special permit condition. Off-site mitigation cannot be required as a condition of a special permit. We can continue to work right up until Town Meeting to have all the details.
Mr. Garrett stated that the Board can only support the “as of right” use if the mitigation is in place as part of the proposed project.
Kevin O’Reilly stated that the studio understands that there is a high priority set and they will try to reach it. Mr. O’Reilly also stated that the studio has gone above and beyond to be as open and public with the information as possible.
Joseph DeSilva stated that the economic impact study would be helpful to asses whether the project will be economically beneficial to the Town. Mr. DeSilva suggested that the project could be smaller.
Sharon LaRosa, Martingale Lane, stated that the plan that was presented at an informal meeting several weeks ago showed a different layout of site from what is now being presented.
Mr. MacGregor requested that a comparison of the previous and current draft bylaws be presented to the Board.
Mr. Garrett announced that there will be another workshop on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 with the public hearings beginning on Monday, August 18, 2008. A joint workshop will be held with the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee on Tuesday, August 19, 2008. Mr. Garrett reminded the viewers that there are two spots available on the Citizen’s Advisory Committee.
Other Business:
A4304 – PA Landers and JZM Realty Trust, Industrial Park Rd/Commerce Way, Map 103, Lots 14K-41, 14K-42 and 45 – Note revision to previously approved A4286 and A4304
Larry Rosenblum moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Bill Wennerberg moved to adjourn at 9:50 pm; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: August 18, 2008
Administrative Assistant
| 
