Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutplanningbrdmin08182010 Planning Board Minutes August 18,2010 Present: Tom French, Chair; Michael McClanahan, Anthony Jodice, Don Cleary, Shawn MacDonald, James Ragazzo Alternates: Ralph Penney Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development I ... I /,., 1'.1 ~,..... 'v(: l.l\feetirtgealledto order at7:00p.o1. Mr. French welcomed Mr. Penney back to the Planning Board. Motion: To appoint Mr. MacDonald Acting Clerk (McClanahan-Cleary) All in favor. PASSES " /)? u I 2. Correspondence 1. August 4,2010 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Cleary-Ragazzo) 4 in favor. 2 abstained. PASSES 2. Public Hearing notices - Norton 3. Request for partial release of surety - Autumn Park Phase I I Memo from Mike Ahem recommending the release of$10,458.00 (remaining balance: $80,684.02) Motion: To release $10,458.00 from the Autumn Park Phase I bond (McClanahan-Cleary) All in favor. PASSES 4. Request for partial release of surety - Autumn Park Phase II / Memo from Mike Ahem recommending the release of $24,931.52 (remaining balance: $121,126.23) Motion: To release $24,931.52 from the Autumn Park Phase II bond (McClanahan-Cleary) All in favor. PASSES [Mr. Jodice arrived at this time] I 3. . FonnA(ANR)Plans Gilbert Street - Massapoag Realty Trust. The plan seeks to create Lot A, which is labeled a non-conforming, non-buildable lot, and which will have conservation restrictions. The board endorsed the same plan on May 7, 2008, but because the mylar was printed on both sides, the Registry would not accept it. The plan will be recorded along with the conservation restrictions. Mr. Burke recommended endorsing the plan. Mr. Ragazzo asked if the land will be given to the town. Mr. Burke said it would not, but it will have a number of restrictions on what can happen to the property. He said there are a number ofvemal pools on the property. Mr. McClanahan asked if this subdivision (Gilbert Park) has been built out. Mr. Burke said it has not been. Mr. Penney asked if this would affect the Gilbert Street substation. Mr. Burke said it would not. Motion: To endorse the Form A plan (McClanahan-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES Planning Board 1 9/23/2010 .~. '<~'",. """-'-'-'~-"""--"~~""'"-----"'-'-"'I~" __....'m.~.".~_....,.... 11T 4. Scenic Road Public Hearing-Town of Mansfield DPW-32 and 200 Gilbert Street, 120 Stearns Avenue,34S Mill Street The clerk read the public hearing notice. Lee Azinheira, DPW Director, explained his plans to remove the following trees: 32 Gilbert Street: A resident brought the tree to Mr. Azinheira's attention with concerns that is it decaying and could strike his house if it fell over. 200 Gilbert Street: Two dead trees sit right at the edge of the roadway. 120 Stearns Avenue: The tree is blocking sight distance and it is very difficult for the residents to get out of their driveway. There are also questions about the tree's health. 345 Mill Street: The tree is dead Mr. French asked if these trees would be replaced. Mr. Azinheira said he was not planning to, but he would if the board asks. Mr. French said he would like to see the trees replaced, since these are scenic roads. Mr. Azinheira said if there are other areas where trees are needed, he would be happy to plant there. Mr. French suggested replacing the trees two for one in the location from which they are removed. Mr. Azinheira said any new trees would be planted in the fall. Mr. Burke suggested using something deciduous with a significant canopy, depending on what is indigenous to the area, rather than using subdivision trees. Mr. Penney suggested planting something that will stay small so the roots will not interfere with the sidewalks. Mr. Azinheira said they will plant at the back of the right-of-way to avoid sight distance problems in the future. Mr. Ragazzo asked who would pay for and maintain the trees; Mr. Burke said DPW would pay for the trees. Mr. Azinheira noted the town doesn't have the time or staff to water trees, which is why they are planted in the fall. Mr. Burke said he will let the board know the species and location of the new trees. Mr. Penney suggested checking with the Light Department about the appropriate locations for the trees. Motion: To allow the Town of Mansfield to remove the four trees as proposed with the condition that they are replaced in the same general area on a one-to-one basis with trees of appropriate size and species, with Mr. Burke's approval (Cleary-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES s. Prelintinary Subdivision Reviewcollti.u.ed-WaY$ideEstate8__' t,otsoffQld FarmR9adlSaddle.RidgeiRoad Jim Burke, DeCelle-Burke Associates, explained the plan revisions based on the last set of department head comments. Mr. J. Burke explained there are significant wetlands on the site, and the ANRAD has expired, so they will go back to the Conservation Commission. They will conduct new soil testing through the Board of Health to comply with Title V. Planning Board 2 9/23/2010 . -.....--....--.-...--....-.,-----.--'-- !11 Mr. J. Burke said the board had asked him to look at an alternate location for the detention basin so it is less than 100 feet from the property line. He said he has done that, but thinks the original location is best. He noted the abutting property is owned by the same landowner, and the basin as originally designed will require less roadway fill. He said both basins would work. Mr. J. Burke said the Saddle Ridge extension is 225 feet from the accepted way line; the Old Farm Road extension is 550 feet from the accepted way line. Saddle Ridge is 920 feet total and Old Farm Road is 470 feet, which meets the roadway length requirement. Saddle Ridge does not meet the roadway length requirement, but will provide access to 13 lots instead of 10. He said they would be looking for a waiver on that regulation. A cul- de-sac will be added to the end of Saddle Ridge, which he said would improve access. Mr. J. Burke said fire hydrants have been added for both extensions. Mr. J. Burke said he has shown the lot shape requirements for each lot. Mr. J. Burke said they are confident in the wetland delineation, which has been reviewed at the local and state levels. He said the design will meet stormwater management guidelines. Mr. J. Burke said Lot 8, the large lot in the middle, has been combined with Lot 7. Mr. S. Burke said any development with six lots has to conform to the Inclusionary Housing by- law. This will be seven lots, so one will have to be affordable. Mr. J. Burke said he met with the Water Department about the water main, which is willing to test the existing water line through the woods to see if it still viable. Mr. J. burke said there will be a dead-end main on Saddle Ridge and a looped main on Old Farm. He said he does not anticipate the existing infrastructure, which has been in the ground since the 1970s but never used, will hold. He said the Water Department would like the water main looped on Old Farm, but because there are only three lots on Saddle Ridge, a loop is not required. Mr. J. Burke said he anticipates asking for waivers on the length of the dead end street on Saddle Ridge and for the detention basin within 100 feet of a property line. Board Comment Mr. Penney asked which detention basin design is better. Mr. J. Burke said he thinks the original design is better, even though it is less than 100 feet from the property line. Mr. Penney said it appears the original design is better. Mr. McClanahan asked about the roadway lengths. Mr. J. Burke said the town measures the length ofa dead-end street from the edge of the right-of-way to the intersection to the center of the cul-de-sac. Mr. S. Burke said in this development, about 200 feet is being added to the existing roadway network. Mr. Penney asked if that would improve the Planning Board 3 8/30/2010 ~"~'"'_.~'~"~".'-"'-"""-"----""''''''''''"-~''"-'-'-'''''~'-~~'''''' --- situation; Mr. Burke said he thinks adding the cul-de-sac will improve the situation for vehicles turning around, emergency vehicles, trash trucks, etc. Mr. Cleary asked if the detention basin as originally designed is at the low point. Mr. J. Burke said it is. Mr. MacDonald asked if there would be a three-way stop. Mr. J. Burke said there will be one stop sign at the end of Old Farm. Mr. S. Burke suggested putting the stop sign at the new intersection. Mr. J. Burke said it could be a three-way stop. Mr. Jodice asked if there will be a driveway onto Old Farm for Lot 7; Mr. J. Burke said there could be. Mr. Jodice said Mr. Alves is concerned about the location of the drainage area. Mr. J. Burke said he would work on that issue with Mr. Alves. He said he can make the basin work at more than 100 feet from the property line. Mr. S. Burke said he doesn't have a problem with the detention basin being on the property line; he said the intention of that regulation was to protect existing abutters, but the abutting property here is owned by the applicant. Mr. French asked ifthere would be a sidewalk waiver request. Mr. S. Burke said the plans show sidewalk on one side of the road, which would require a waiver. Mr. French said he wouldn't have a problem with 22-foot wide paved surface. Mr. French asked if the detention basins are designed for runoff from the homes as well as the road. Mr. J. Burke said it is designed to handle the homes and front yards. Attorney Edward Valanzola, representing property owners on Peter's Way in North Attleboro, said his clients are concerned about drainage. He asked if the elevations are similar on the new drainage design. Mr. J. Burke said top of the basin is 162 and the bottom 159, which is the same in both designs. Mr. Valanzola asked if that is designed to catch all of the runoff, including Lot 1. Mr. J. Burke said it is. Mr. Valanzola asked if the drainage would run toward Peter's Way. Mr. J. Burke said that section sheds toward North Attleboro and an existing wetland. He said they are not changing any elevations. Mr. Valanzola asked about the existing and post-development drainage, since his clients have existing water problems. Mr. J. Burke said he would provide Mr. Valanzola with that information. Mr. J. Burke said he thinks he has a good idea of how to proceed with the definitive plan; he said the drainage may change slightly, but the lots and roadway will not. Mr. S. Burke said the board has been looking at this preliminary plan for over a year, and has seen a variety of layouts. He said a vote on this plan doesn't do anything other than give the applicant some guidance to move forward on a definitive plan. He said he would not recommend the board vote any waivers at this time. Planning Board 4 8/30/2010 M> - .>. --.. -----. ->.-T-->-----.'--_.--- -......-,r-., Mr. Penney asked about the consensus on the drainage basin. Mr. J. Burke said he would meet with Mr. Alves about that, and will come back with whatever he supports. Mr. J. Burke said he would talk to his client about a sidewalk waiver. Mr. Penney said he has a problem with sidewalk on one side. Mr. J. Burke noted the only sidewalk elimination would be on the drainage basin side, where there are no lots. Motion: To approve the preliminary subdivision plan as follows: the applicant must address all department head comments prior to the submission of a definitive plan; the applicant must meet all requirements of the Zoning By-Law; the applicant will submit a definitive plan for a seven (7)-lot subdivision; the applicant explore the waivers best suited to the site prior to filing the definitive plan; this development shall conform with Zoning By-Law Section 6.0, Inclusionary Housing Requirement The applicant should meet with the Conservation and Environmental Planner and/or the Conservation Commission prior to filing a definitive subdivision plan to address the significant environmental and wetland issues present on this site. (Penney-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES 6. Special Permit Modification Public Hearing - TGI Friday's, Mansfield Crossing - Restaurant Odor Scrubben The clerk read the public hearing notice. Attorney Edward Valanzola introduced Lou Masiello, WS Development and John Long, Carlson Restaurants and Dan Pascucci, National Maintenance and Service Corp. Attorney Valanzola said when Mansfield Crossing was approved, there were a number of residential abutters across School Street, and one of the conditions of approval was the addition of mechanical odor scrubbers in restaurants with over 100 seats. He said most of the homes across School Street are now gone or vacated. He said there are two residential uses on the corner of School Street and Route 140, and the owners have submitted letters saying they have no opposition to the removal of the odor scrubbers. Attorney Valanzola said the development next to this one, Mansfield Marketplace, does not have the same condition for odor scrubbers, although right now it has no restaurants with over 100 seats. He said Mansfield Crossing is the only development in Mansfield with the requirement, though there are other restaurants have much closer abutters. Attorney Valanzola noted there is no by-law requiring this kind of restaurant equipment. He said the odor scrubbers don't work for restaurant uses because they aren't meant to handle animal fat odors, they are intended for industrial fumes. He said the equipment costs the restaurants a lot of money in false alarms.e Planning Board 5 9/23/2010 .~-._--,,---_.._.__.. -.-----.-----. . 111 Attorney Valanzola said the private property owner should decide if it wants to have the odor on their property, and if it is an unpleasant owner, it will negatively affect business. Attorney Valanzola read a June 9, 2010 letter from John J. Long, Carlson Restaurants Worldwide, indicating the restaurant's intention to install a hood and duct system, which will be cleaned every four weeks and a grease guard system, which will be changed as needed. Mr. Long said the type of scrubber Friday's has doesn't work on animal fat and has to be maintained two or three times a week; when it fails, it triggers the fire alarm. He said there is nothing on the market that cleans the air; they propose to install high-efficiency filters at the hood, which will trap 75% of the grease, with a standard exhaust system and a grease guard system on the roof. Mr. Penney asked about doing a two-stage process by adding the filters but keeping the odor scrubbers. Mr. Long said it is a maintenance issue. Mr. Pascucci said the scrubber machine is not designed or sized for a two-stage system. He said technology has changed, and there are newer devices available to place in the hood. Mr. Penney asked if the bypass fan is being used. Mr. Pascucci said that is used when the other equipment is being maintained. Lou Masiello, WS Development, said they have many restaurant tenants under 100 seats that do not have this equipment, and he hasn't heard any complaints about odor. He said they have a Japanese steakhouse coming to Mansfield Crossing that originally planned for 149 seats, but which will be reduced to 99 to avoid this operational burden. He said that is a sign the issues Friday's is having are not unique to that restaurant. Mr. Penney asked if Bertucci's has an odor scrubber and has had problems. Mr. Va1anzo1a said they have not, but that restaurant does a different type of cooking. Mr. Masiello said the Japanese steakhouse has begun construction but not installed the scrubbers. He said in addition to the kitchen units, each table will have a grill. He said the nature of their operation may make the installation of the odor scrubbers even more expensive than it would be at other restaurants. Mr. Ragazzo asked what brought about this condition in the special permit. Mr. Masiello said during the special permit process, there were existing residential abutters, and there was another restaurant in town that had odor complaints. He said this issue came up at the end of the special permit process, and he objected to it at the time. He said he doesn't think they have a restaurant in any of their other shopping centers with this equipment, so he was not familiar with it. He said potential restaurant tenants have all had objections to installing the equipment. Mr. Masiello said the entire permitting process was sensitive to the residential abutters, but most of those homes are now either gone or empty. Planning Board 6 9/23/2010 ,.,.._.......~_.,~,"..."-,'-~.,...~-,._~~~.,._",._~-_.._..'"T~------~'--"-,... 111 Mr. French said this condition came up because of concerns about the residential abutters and because of the potential for several large restaurants in this center. He said the board tried to arrive at a reasonable size restaurant for which to require this equipment. Mr. French said he has a problem with simply removing this condition, because it would apply to the whole site. He said he doesn't want to place unreasonable conditions on the businesses, but there should be a way to address the odors. Mr. Valanzola said they want to install a different system that will help to reduce the odor. Mr. Long said the proposed new system will trap 75% of the grease at the hood, which he believes will reduce odor. Mr. Pascucci said the equipment is rated at 75%. Mr. French said the condition could be modified to reference the different system, rather than be eliminated. Mr. Penney said it does not appear the restaurant installed a mechanical scrubber; they have an electrostatic system. Mr. Ragazzo suggested modifying the condition to something like "a significant or material reduction of odor using the guidelines of the equipment manufacturer." Mr. Burke suggested the applicant put together a proposal to the board with an explanation of the technology and the manufacturer's information. Mr. Masiello said he has a second restaurant tenant in the center of the property, well over 1,000 feet from another property, and asked the board to think about a requirement based on proximity to the site's perimeter. Mr. Cleary asked what Massachusetts requires; Mr. Penney said the regulations don't really address odor. Mr. Pascucci said the state requires a UL listed device. He noted Longhorn has a standard system with upgraded filters. Mr. MacDonald said he appreciates what the board tried to do with this condition, but noted there are no longer residential abutters. He said he would like to see the information about the new equipment. Mr. Pascucci said it will not capture much more than the scrubber system, but the scrubber is a maintenance issue. Mr. MacDonald said the Massachusetts code currently requires the equipment to capture odor; Mr. Pascucci said that is true. Mr. Masiello said Friday's plan is an alternate system that has merit, and suggested the condition could be modified, rather than deleted, to allow the board discretion in the future without reopening the special permit. Mr. Burke asked if the Japanese steakhouse has applied for a building permit for 149 seats. Mr. Masiello said he believes they have, but isn't certain. Planning Board 7 8/30/2010 .. ".."."""'"-'-_._.r-"~-'.' " Mr. Jodice asked why the board required a mechanical scrubber, if they aren't intended for animal fat. He said the board can't simply consider the current residential abutters, who said they don't have a problem with odor. He asked what grade of scrubber Friday's has. Mr. Long explained the system is based on CFMs (an amount of air) and the length of the hood, not on what the restaurant is cooking. He said there are no systems available that effectively deal with animal fat without high maintenance. Mr. Jodice said he would like to have a neutral party review this equipment. Mr. Penney said the grease is the main problem, and Friday's is using an electrostatic system, which gets clogged with grease. He said the compromise will exhaust the air from the kitchen and trap the grease on wire mesh, which will have to be cleaned. He said he doesn't think it will trap odor. He said the applicant should reduce its "air emissions" rather than "odor," which is subjective. Motion: To continue the public hearing to September 1,2010 at 8:45 p.m. (Ragazzo-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES 8. Special Permit Public Hellrlng (readverti$edl- Commercial Parking Lot - 90S South Main Street """ The clerk read a request from the applicant's attorney to continue the public hearing. Motion: To continue the public hearing to September 29, 2010 at 8:00 p.m. (McClanahan-Cleary) All in favor. PASSES 7. Special Permit Public Hearing - 321 School Street - Mixed-Use Development- Mansfield Commercial Investments, LLC - "Mansfield Commons" The clerk read the public hearing notice. Attorney Edward Valanzola introduced Phil Cordeiro, Allen & Major Associates; Kerry McCormack and Ken Cram, Land Strategies; Lou Allevato, architect Mr. Valanzola explained the parcel was permitted in 2008 for three buildings, but that project did not happen. The current owner has an arrangement with the former owner to try to develop the site, and the new plan has been to a department head meeting and the plans revise accordingly. Mr. Va1anzo1a explained the proposal has two buildings: Building A will be a 14,100 square foot retail building and Building B will have 6,500 square feet of retail and 25,000 square feet of office space. Old School Street has been discontinued, and there is a sewer line running through that portion of the site. Mr. Cordeiro explained the parcel is located on School Street, directly across the second entrance (Border's) from Mansfield Crossing and adjacent to Mansfield Marketplace. The site is abutted by the rail line and Route 495. There are two abandoned houses on this site, which the Fire Department has used for training, and which were supposed to come down under the original special permit. The new owner plans to remove them. Planning Board 8 8/30/2010 . .. ."-------- ,."--..--. T IT Mr. Cordeiro explained that during the School Street reconstruction, the utilities that would have served the original project were brought to the site's perimeter. The entrances had been installed during the reconstruction, and no additional curb cuts will be added for this plan. The site will have 191 parking spaces, which meets the requirements for office and retail uses; until they have a restaurant tenant, they don't know how many spaces will be needed for use. Backing out of the retail and office, Mr. Cordiero said they have enough parking for a 134-seat restaurant. The plan meets the 35% open space requirement. Building B will have a drive-through component, which will probably a bank, not a fast food restaurant. There will be two travel lanes adjacent to the bank, one for the drive-up and the other either a pass-through lane or second drive-up. The northernmost entrance will be truck the entrance; the primary vehicular entrance will be at the southernmost entrance. The internal intersections will be stop sign controlled. The development does not meet the criteria for a traffic signal under the state's standards. There will be directional signage throughout site; with traffic being one-way behind the buildings. There will be two signs, one at the truck entrance and the other at the primary entrance. Infrastructure will be the same as what was approved in 2008. The stormwater management system will be primarily underground infiltration and storage. Water will be piped to closed drainage system and recharged to the ground or be stored until it can be recharged to the municipal system. Post-development, the site cannot exceed current rates of runoff. Building B and part of the paring lot behind it will discharge to a detention basin at the southern part of property, per the Conservation Agent. The site will meet pre- and post-development criteria for peak rate attenuation, total suspended solids removal and other stormwater controls. Mr. Cordeiro said he will address all of Mr. Alves's comments. There will be a looped 8" water main through the site; stubs were left at both entrances during the School Street reconstruction. There will be a short dead-end 8" water main to a hydrant. They will bring electric, telephone and cable service through the main entrance. No utility poles will be removed or relocated. There will be four fire hydrants, the locations of which have been coordinated with the Fire Department. A large sewer easement bisects the site; they have been asked to keep drainage out of the easement because of the depth of the sewer and the difficulties of accessing it for maintenance. Both buildings will be connected to sewer. Planning Board 9 8/30/2010 ". _.~_..,......_~.......~._.~...~"._.....--...."-.".._~_.._~.~."-.......... 1'1"I -----,,-......-. Each building will have an extemaI3,000-gallon grease trap. Both will be oversized so that if the whole first floor is developed as a restaurant, the grease trap can handle the size. Mr. Cordeiro said they don't anticipate that happening, so this is an overdesign. An erosion control plan is under Conservation Commission review as part of the land disturbance permit. There will be a landscaped buffer along the front parking edge and along the perimeter and heavy landscaping throughout the site. The crosswalks will be brick pavers. There will be two types of lighting fixtures: the perimeter lighting will be decorative and pedestrian sized fixtures will be installed along sidewalks and along and between buildings. The truck routing plan provides adequate clearances for delivery vehicle maneuverability around the site, as well as for fire trucks. Lt. Tebeau provided them with the template for the town's ladder truck. The truck entrance shows the fire truck can make a left turn into the right-turn only entrance if it has to. The Fire Department had been concerned the secondary lane for the drive-through was only 10 feet wide; that has been changed to 13 feet wide, which is adequate for fire truck. Because the lane was widened, a guard rail has been added along the drainage area. The main entrance will be a right turn only entrance. Mr. Allevato explained the architecture of the retail centers on School Street are threaded together nicely, so he tried to blend the materials, finishes, scales and building features on this site. He explained that looking from a southerly direction, the retail building will be in the foreground and the office building in the background. The retail building is stone on the first floor, with awnings, shingles, gables, etc. on the upper stories. There will be plantings and pedestrian-scale light fixtures along the sidewalk. Mr. Allevato explained he wanted the first floor of the office building to mimic the retail portions of the site, so he used similar materials. The upper floors have varied materials to break up the scale of the building. The public faces of the buildings have more glass, while the office spaces have smaller windows. Mr. Allevato showed the board samples of the types of stone, clapboard and synthetic stucco that would be used. Traffic Mr. Cram explained the traffic study; he said they did a new full traffic study at Route 140/School Street, the School Street/Mansfield Marketplace driveway and the School Street/second Mansfield Crossing driveway. He said the big difference between the new Planning Board 10 8/30/2010 ---~. ...--1"------.--.....'...- ~....,..-. study and the original in 2008 was that Mansfield Crossing and Mansfield Marketplace were not constructed, and Route 140 was under construction. He said they used a growth rate of about 1 % per year and gathered speed data to assess sight distance at the entrances. They did a 13-hour count at the second Mansfield Crossing entrance to look at the need for a signal and a study of historical crash data for the Mansfield Crossing and Mansfield Marketplace entrances and the Route 140/School Street intersection. Mr. Cram said the sight distance is adequate at the site's main driveway He said they looked at how much traffic this development will generate and arrived at a little over 1,600 vehicle trips per day, which is about 800 cars a day for all three uses hen the site is fully occupied. He said some of those trips, approximately 25%, will be people driving by the site anyway, so the real number is about 650 cars a day. The morning peak will be 94-157 cars per hour, which is higher because of the office component. Mr. Cram said the future build conditions show 18-19% of cars going right out of site and 81-82% going left onto Route 140. Those numbers are added to the build numbers to get the future build numbers. He said the Borders driveway currently operates at a service level B in the morning and at level E in the evening. After this is built, it will operate at levels B and F. He said their driveway will operate at levels C and F. Mr. Cram said the site does not meet the main signal warrant, which requires 105 vehicles an hour coming out of a side street. He said if a signal were installed at their driveway, the intersection would operate at level A. Mr. Cram said the School Street! Route 140 and School Street/Mansfield Crossing driveway will have no change in the level of service after this development. Mr. Cram said they concluded the driveway should be stop sign controlled, and they will install a conduit across their driveway for future signal installation. Department Head Comments The clerk read memos from the Police, Light, Fire and Engineering Departments. The applicant submitted a response addressing the Fire and Light Department comments. Mr. Cordeiro said he has spoken with Mr. Alves, and his comments will be addressed. Board Comment Mr. Jodice said the plans look good, and he appreciates all the items that have been addressed already. He asked about increased accidents at Plymouth/School. Mr. Cram said they didn't look at that, but he could check the Mass Highway data. Mr. Jodice asked about deliveries to Building B. Mr. Cordeiro said trucks can go to the back of the buildings and pull off the pavement to unload. He said without knowing the tenants, it is hard to anticipate delivery needs. He said Building B is mostly offices, which will not have large delivery trucks. He said the Fire Department was concerned about accessing the back of Building B while there are cars at the bank drive-through. Planning Board 11 9/23/2010 ..._..._._._-_.._,.....-T-.--~..._....,- rrr Mr. Jodice said Ms. Collins had been concerned about the name of this development causing confusion with the town's commons, and suggested the applicant consider alternative names. Mr. Jodice suggested some additional lighting over some of the awnings. Mr. MacDonald asked about fill. Mr. Cordeiro said there would be about 1,000 yards of fill. The site is close to existing grade, but there is high ground water so it has to be raised slightly. Mr. MacDonald asked the height of the retaining wall adjacent to the entrance. Mr. Cordeiro said it is 5.5 feet at its highest, with a guard rail on top. Mr. MacDonald said he agrees with the Police Chief about the need for a light and a crosswalk at the entrance to this site becase people will walk across School Street to go to Mansfield Crossing. Mr. Cram said there is no landing area or sidewalk on the Mansfield Crossing side of School Street. Mr. French asked if the traffic study took into account the empty spaces at Mansfield Crossing; Mr. Cram said those empty spaces, about 25,000 square feet, will not add enough traffic to meet the warrant. He said when full, those spaces will generate approximately 500 additional cars daily. Mr. Cram said after their site is substantially occupied, they will go back and do a follow-up study. Mr. MacDonald asked to see the signs. Mr. French asked if the signs conform for size. Mr. McCormack said the signs do not conform and would need a variance. Mr. MacDonald asked if the building lights will face down. Mr. Allevato said they will. Mr. Cleary asked about hours of operation for the office uses. Mr. Burke said the board has never regulated office hours. Mr. Valanzo1a said they haven't discussed the retail hours of operation, but he said they would be consistent with what is already out there. Mr. Cleary asked if this traffic study included the latest information from Mansfield Crossing; Mr. Cram said they did not have that, but will look at it. Mr. Cleary asked about pedestrian traffic patterns. Mr. Cordeiro said the buildings are connected along the rear sidewalk. Mr. Cleary asked about a crosswalk. Mr. Cram said there is no sidewalk on the other side of School Street, so there would be nowhere to go once people crosses the street. Mr. Cleary said he would like to see an elevation of this site from the highway. Mr. Allevato said he would do that. Mr. Cleary asked if there is a plan for signage on the highway side of the buildings; Mr. Allevato said there is no plan for that at this time. Planning Board 12 9/23/2010 . ... ..............-..---..-..-'.-..----.- 1lI Mr. McClanahan asked the height of Building B; Mr. Allevato said it is 60 feet at the entry element, and goes down to 48 feet. Mr. Cleary asked the height of the highway from the base of the building. Mr. Cordeiro said the highway is about 185, and this site is about 160. Mr. McClanahan asked about the guard rail at the left of the site. Mr. Cordeiro said that is a standard guard rail. Mr. Cordeiro said there are two dumpsters behind each building. Mr. Ragazzo said he is very concerned about the traffic, and asked if accident data is factored into the warrant numbers. Mr. Cram said five or more correctable accidents per year warrant a signal. Mr. Ragazzo asked if the curb cut has been widened since it was originally installed. Mr. Cordeiro said it has not; the curb cut is 36 feet wide. Mr. Ragazzo said he was concerned about the speed of traffic on School Street from West Mansfield and turning left into this site. He asked if any thought had been given to rerouting traffic to avoid people taking a left out of this site. Mr. Valanzola said the team had not discussed that. Mr. Ragazzo asked about the possibility of a crosswalk along School Street, and about bringing the landowner across the street into the discussion. Mr. Cram said a crosswalk required signage, and if there is enough pedestrian volume, a crossing signal could be installed. Mr. Ragazzo asked about changing the posted speed limit. Mr. Cram said a speed study would have to be done by the state. Mr. Penney asked about the median strip at the eastern entrance; Mr. Cordeiro said that is existing. Mr. Penney said that would prevent people from taking a left into this site. He said the entrance across from Border's is going to be the problem. Mr. Va1anzola said the light at the main entrance to the Mansfield Crossing site will provide some relief for this site. Mr. Penney said there is already a traffic problem in this area, and suggested thinking about some creative solutions. Mr. Penney asked about the retention basin requested by Conservation. Mr. Cordeiro said the Conservation Agent requested they look at something like a rain garden. He said because of the high groundwater, they couldn't do that, so they added a small basin. He said after a few seasons, wetland vegetation will grow in it. Mr. Penney asked about lighting. Mr. Cordeiro said the pedestrian fixtures are LED. Planning Board 13 8/30/2010 Mr. Penney asked if there are any correction factors in the traffic study for the recession. Mr. Cram said there are not. Mr. Burke said he shares the concerns about pedestrians crossing School Street and suggested finding a reasonable solution. He asked if the truck route is signed as trucks only; Mr. Cram said it is not. Mr. Burke suggested looking at the dumpster enclosures and asked for a detail. Mr. Burke said he likes the architecture, but is concerned about the flat roofs at both ends. Mr. Allevato said one of those contains an elevator, and the other is complementary. Mr. French asked about the demolition of the houses on this site. Mr. Valanzo1a said the new owners are not in a position to remove those buildings at this time. He said he has spoken with Mr. Riccio about waiting until the fall to take them down. Mr. French said something is going to have to be done with the traffic signal issue because the town cannot be left having to fund a signal later. Mr. Valanzola said he understands the concerns, but if the warrant isn't met, they cannot install a light. Mr. French suggested the developer could put some funds in an escrow account. Mr. Valanzola said that could create a financial problem that could impact the project's future. Mr. Cleary asked if there is a way for a pedestrian to get from this site to Mansfield Marketplace. Mr. Cram said there is a sidewalk in between along School Street. Motion: To continue the public hearing to September 1,2010 at 8:30 p.m. (McClanahan-Penney) All in favor. PASSES 19. Public Comment I. 10. Around the 1'able Mr. French asked Mr. Burke to get the scrubber information from TGI Friday's to the board at least one week before the September 1 public hearing. ~;~~i....i(:t.l~......... Motion: To adjourn at 11 :45 p.m. (Jodice-) All in favor. PASSES ;:irf- (!berl,2010at7:3op.m. 1/22 /(7J Signature of Clerk Date of Approval Planning Board 14 8/30/2010 .,__.~_~_."'~~_W,__".~__."_~--.....-..-......_ I"