Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutplanningbrdmin09222010 Planning Board Minutes September 22,2010 Present: Tom French, Chair; Beth Ashman-Collin, Clerk; Michael McClanahan, Anthony Jodice, Don Cleary, Shawn MacDonald '" Alternates: Ralph Penney Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development , j f'-"""'L [- 1 '") r. ..) 11. Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. I 2. Correspondence 1. August 18,2010 minutes Amendments: Scenic Roads public hearing: Mr. Burke is to approve the location and size of the trees; the trees should stay small so they won't interfere with the sidewalks Mansfield Commons - Mr. Jodice reminded the board of Ms. Collins' concerns about the name of the development and suggestion that it be changed to avoid confusion with the town's commons TOI Friday's odor scrubber - Mr. Penney asked if Bertuccui's had an odor control scrubber and if they had any problems Motion: To approve as amended (McClanahan-Cleary) 6 in favor. One abstention. PASSES 2. September 20,2010 bond release request - Autumn Park Phase I / September 21, 2010 memo from Mike Ahem recommending the release of $20,461.18 Motion: To release $20,461.18 from the Autumn Park Phase I bond (McClanahan-Penney) All in favor. PASSES 3. September 20, 2010 bond release request - Autumn Park Phase II / September 22, 2010 memo from Mike Ahem recommending the release of $8,990.89 Motion: To release $8,990.89 from the Autumn Park Phase II bond (MacDonald-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES 4. Public Hearing notices -Attleboro, Norton, Sharon 5. The Beacon I 3. Form A (ANR) Plans I 4. Repetitive Petition Public Hearing - 64 Patty's Road The clerk read the public hearing notice. Contractor Dennis Ward and Homeowner Todor Petrov Mr. Burke explained the repetitive petition process allows an applicant who has been denied to return to the Zoning Board of Appeals before two years have passed. For that to happen, the Planning Board has to vote that specific and material changes have been made to the plan and vote to allow the applicant to return to the ZBA. He explained these votes do not indicate the board's support of the variance application. Planning Board 9/23/2010 Mr. Petrov explained the size of the proposed deck has been reduced by four feet, which changes the setback from 9.5 feet to 14 feet. Mr. Ward said the ZBA told him they do not grant any setback variance for less than 10 feet. He showed the board the plan that was denied and the new plan, which does not include an overhang. Mr. Ward said one of the neighbors received a setback variance in 2002, and said the neighbors are supportive of this variance application. Mr. French said all the Planning Board has to decide whether the proposed change is substantial, which would allow the applicant to return to the ZBA to present the new plan. Mr. Burke said based on what the applicant was told by the ZBA, that it wouldn't grant a variance for less than 10 feet, the change appears to be significant. Mr. Penney asked what the required sideyard setback is in this area; Mr. Burke said it is 25 feet. Mr. Penney suggested if the applicant returns to the ZBA, he have the plans amended to show the abutting houses and the existing driveway. Motion: The Planning Board finds that the proposed "Plan of Land 64 Patty's Road" dated June 4, 2010 is specifically and materially different than the "Plan of Land 64 Patty's Road" dated April 13, 2010 as a result of the decreased encroachment into the sideyard setback and that the applicant should be allowed to return to the ZBA within two years of denial. (Collins-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES 5. Special Permit Public Hearing continued - Mixed-Use Development - 321 School Street - "Mansfield Commons" Attorney Edward Valanzola introduced Phil Cordeiro, Allen & Major Associates; Kerry McCormack and Ken Cram, Land Strategies; Lou Allevato, architect; Lou Masiello, WS Development Attorney Valanzola explained one of the remaining issues is a traffic light or crosswalk from this site's main entrance across School Street near the Border's entrance. He has spoken with his client, Mr. Burke and Lou Masiello, representing Mansfield Crossing. He said currently, there is nowhere for a crosswalk to connect to on the Mansfield Crossing side of School Street. His explained the Mansfield Crossing owners do not want to build additional sidewalk on their property. Mr. Valanzola said his clients are willing to build the sidewalk, but he said he has advised against that because of liability issues. Mr. Valanzola said another option is signage directing pedestrians along the sidewalk on this site's side of School Street to the existing crosswalk at the existing light. He said his client is willing to pay for a study to see if a traffic signal is warranted after two years or when the site is at 80% occupancy, and to pay for the design, but they will not pay for the signal. He said his client is concerned about their parking lot being used as a satellite parking lot for Mansfield Crossing. Mr. Valanzola said he has spoken with Chief O'Neill, who said he wants a traffic light there, but understands it doesn't meet the warrant. Mr. Valanzola said Chief O'Neill agreed that adding a crosswalk with no landing zone on the other side is not a good idea. Mr. Masiello said he is not opposed to Planning Board 2 9/23/2010 I ITl a crosswalk or a sidewalk on the Mansfield Crossing side of School Street. Mr. Jodice asked if Mr. Masiello would be willing to have the sidewalk built if this applicant pays for the design and installation. Mr. Masiello said he may be willing to do that, depending on the circumstances; Mr. Valanzola said there would have to be an agreement with Mansfield Crossing, but he would still be concerned about his client's liability in building a sidewalk on someone else's land. Mr. Jodice said he is very concerned about pedestrian safety at this site. Mr. Masiello explained they are willing to allow the sidewalk to be built on their property, but he does not want to pay for it. He said he had not considered the liability question. Mr. French asked how long the sidewalk on the Mansfield Crossing side would be. Mr. Masiello said it would be about 150 feet. Mr. Valanzola said his client would have no ability to control a sidewalk on someone else's property, and he is concerned about their liability if the sidewalk was not maintained and someone was hurt on it. Mr. Masiello said if the sidewalk were added, it would be maintained as part of Mansfield Crossing. Mr. Cleary said in addition to shoppers crossing the street, the people who work in this center will also cross the street to get food at Mansfield Crossing. Mr. Penney said he would like to see cooperation between the two land owners. Mr. Valanzola said he can only evaluate the liability based on the property his client owns, not on another owner's property. He said he can do the work the board wants on his site and on School Street, but not on someone else's property. Ms. Collins asked if a pedestrian light would have the same criteria as a traffic light. Mr. Cram said a pedestrian light is based on the number of people crossing the street. Mr. Valanzola said he thinks Mansfield Crossing will benefit from this development, because it will likely act as a satellite parking lot for the Border's area, so the Mansfield Crossing landowners should pay for the sidewalk. Mr. Masiello said he is does not want to fund the sidewalk, but if it were constructed, he would maintain it as part of his property. He said he understands Mr. Valanzola's concerns about liability for the Mansfield Commons property owner. Motion: To open and continue the TOI Friday's public hearing to the conclusion of this hearing (McClanahan-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Jodice asked if there is an official process for getting a traffic light if the warrant isn't met. Mr. Cram said there is not. He said an overhead flashing light could be installed, which would alert drivers of a hazard. Mr. Cram said his industry frowns on installing crosswalks that go nowhere. Mr. Jodice asked what the town's liability would be in the event of an injury. Mr. Burke said the board could ask town counsel that question. Planning Board 3 9/23/2010 111 Mr. Valanzola said their plans show several signs directing pedestrians not to cross where there is no crosswalk. He said if there was a crosswalk installed with no connection to the other side of School Street, that would be creating a dangerous situation. He said he understands people may ignore the existing crosswalk, even with the proposed signage. Mr. French said there is much more pedestrian activity in this area than anyone anticipated. He said the board never considered there would be a need for a sidewalk on the Mansfield Crossing side of School Street. Mr. Valanzola said he has spoken with Chief O'Neill, who said he didn't want a sidewalk on the Mansfield Crossing side of School Street because it would have led directly to Route 140. Mr. Valanzola said if the study comes back and they meet the warrant, they will have to put in the traffic light. Mr. Jodice asked if that would include a crosswalk, and ifit did, would Mr. Valanzola still have the same liability concerns. Mr. Valanzola said he would be willing to work with the town to put in a sidewalk and crosswalk on town-owned property to meet with the existing sidewalk on the Mansfield Crossing side of School Street. Mr. Burke said there are wetland issues in that area. Mr. Allevato showed the board the revised elevations, including the addition of gooseneck lighting along the building canopies and the elimination of the stone on the columns at the drive-through. Mr. Allevato showed the board a photosimulation of the site from the highway. He said drivers will be able to see down into the site from Route 495, but the buildings will not be higher than the existing trees. Mr. Jodice asked if any of those trees would be cut; Mr. Allevato said they are not on this property and will not be cut. Mr. French asked about the parking lot lights. Mr. Cordeiro said they would use shoebox lighting for the parking area and LED lighting for the pedestrian areas. Mr. MacDonald asked about rooftop units. Mr. Allevato said there will be several small units screened by a parapet wall. Mr. Cleary asked if the elevations show the size tenants the owner expects. Mr. Allevato said the configuration may be different, depending on the tenants' size needs. Mr. MacDonald asked about the pylon sign. Mr. McCormick said the pylon sign will be larger than zoning allows and will need a variance. Ms. Collins said she had a problem with the name "Mansfield Commons" because the Town of Mansfield has several commons and this would create confusion. Mr. McCormack said he would consider alternative names. Correspondence The clerk read a memo from Mr. Alves indicating his concerns have been addressed. Planning Board 4 9/23/2010 III Mr. Cordeiro explained the plans have been revised to show dumpster enclosures, new radius behind building A and underground modifications to satisfy Mr. Alves' concerns. Mr. Burke said he is concerned about the radius at the entrance. He said it appears fire trucks and large delivery trucks will have to turn into oncoming traffic when leaving the site. Mr. Cordeiro said there is an inherent limitation to large trucks leaving the site with a 25-foot radius; he said there would still be overlap even if the radius was 30. Mr. MacDonald suggested setting hours of operation. Mr. French said the board did not set hours for Mansfield Marketplace because it was a small site with no large tenants. Mr. McCormack said this site is different because of the office uses. Mr. Burke said the board might consider powering down the lights after closing, but he understands the office uses might have later hours. Mr. Penney asked if the restaurants will have more than 100 seats. Mr. Cordeiro said there are two limiting factors: parking and the grease trap capacity. Mr. Valanzola said he understands the board's concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety. He said he has spoken with Mr. Masiello and his client about working out a way for Mansfield Crossing to do all the sidewalk work on that side of School Street and for the Mansfield Commons owners to contribute in some other way to Mansfield Crossing. He asked for time on the September 29 agenda. Mr. MacDonald said he would like to see the pedestrian light installed if the crosswalk is installed. Mr. Valanzola said if they come to an agreement to install the crosswalk, sidewalk and pedestrian light, his client would not do the traffic light study in two years. Mr. Jodice said he would be more comfortable with the applicant putting some money in escrow for a future study. Mr. Valanzola said that might make it financially difficult for his client. Mr. Cleary asked how far below the traffic signal threshold this site is. Mr. Cram said there would have to be 20-30 additional cars or five or more correctable accidents. Motion: To continue the public hearing to September 29,2010 at 7:45 p.m. (McClanahan-MacDonald) All in favor. PASSES 6. Special Permit Modification Public Hearing continued - TGI Friday's, Mansfield Crossing - Restaurant Odor Scrubbers Attorney Edward Valanzola; Lou Masiello, WS Development; Dan Pascucci, John Long Mr. Valanzola presented the board with information about the proposed filtration system and a proposed new condition #8, which reads: "Any restaurant with over one hundred (100) seats shall install (i) a mechanical scrubber on its ventilation system to reduce grease and odor emissions or (ii) a Grease Guard self contained grease retention system and a Captrate multi stage grease filtration system by Captiveaire or approved equal equipment approved by the Building Inspector. All such installations shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and maintenance records shall be provided to the Town zoning enforcement officer upon his/her request." Planning Board 5 9/23/2010 " Mr. Jodice noted the letter from Captiveaire states this system will not control odor. Mr. Penney said there is no requirement in the Zoning By-Law for this type of system; it was simply a condition in the Mansfield Crossing special permit. Mr. Valanzola said they are proposing a two-stage system. Mr. Long explained the Captrate filters reduce emissions by 80%. He said if a scrubber like Friday's is working at 100%, it will reduce emissions to a very small amount. But, he said a scrubber is not designed to handle grease, so it is a total misapplication for removing grease from the air. He said this system will reduce grease, which in turn will reduce odor. Mr. MacDonald asked what the system is capturing now. Mr. Pascucci said with a brand new filter, the existing system captures about 90%, but that decreases very quickly as the filters plug up. He said the proposed new system will work better, and will provide consistently better odor control. Mr. Burke said he spoke with Lt. Tebeau, who was concerned about whether the proposed system complies with NFP A 96 and/or is UL listed. The equipment complies with both standards. Mr. Masiello said he would be proposing this system to all of its restaurant tenants, although he doesn't plan to require it. He said the new Japanese restaurant has applied for a building permit for 99 seats, and if the condition is changed to allow the alternative system, they may add more seats. Mr. Jodice said there is no way to measure odor, so there isn't really a way to test the reduction. Mr. French said this would create a standard for other restaurants to use. Mr. McClanahan said he thinks this will be an improvement over the existing equipment. Mr. MacDonald suggested the new condition should require the equipment to be "similar to" or an "approved equal." Mr. Penney said the existing device is not a scrubber, and the reduction of odor is very difficult to achieve. He said he doesn't think the board should have attempted to regulate odor in the special permit, but said he understood the board wanted to protect the abutters. He said the biggest problem is catching the grease, and when it accumulates it can catch fire. Mr. French said when this site was permitted, there were more residential abutters and several more restaurants proposed. Mr. Pascucci said the proposed system is better than the minimum equipment required under the fire code. Motion: To delete condition #8 of the Mansfield Crossing special permit and replace it with the following: "Any restaurant with over one hundred (100) seats shall install (i) a mechanical scrubber on its ventilation system to reduce grease and odor emissions or (ii) a Grease Guard self contained grease retention system and a Captrate multi stage grease Planning Board 6 9/23/2010 llI' filtration system by Captiveaire or approved equivalent equipment approved by the Building Inspector. All such installations shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and maintenance records shall be provided to the Town zoning enforcement officer upon his/her request." This decision is incorporated by reference and by attachment to the November 9, 2005 Mansfield Crossing special permit, and all terms and conditions of the original special permit remain in force, with the exception of Condition Number 8 ofthe Site Operation section [page 21 of 27]. (MacDonald-McClanahan) Penney - Opposed. I do not believe the Planning Board should be regulating odor. MacDonald - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments and this equipment will have a positive impact on health and welfare and a positive effect on adjacent premises. Cleary - In favor. The benefits to health outweigh any detriments. Collins - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments and the business will be able to achieve better odor control with the new equipment. Jodice - In favor. The new system will be a benefit to health and safety. McClanahan - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments and this system will be an improvement. French - Abstained. Five in favor. One opposed. One abstention. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Cleary-MacDonald) All in favor. PASSES I 7. Public Comment I 8. Around the Table Mr. MacDonald suggested the board think about what it wants to do about the odor issue on the Mansfield Commons special permit. I 9. Adjournment Motion: To adjourn at 10:30 p.m. (McClanahan- ) All in favor. PASSES Septembe 29,2010 at 7:30 p.m. 1')1-/0 Date of Approval Planning Board 7 9/23/2010 1lI