Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutplanningbrdmin09292010 Planning Board Minutes September 29,2010 Present: Tom French, Chair; Beth Ashman-Collins, Clerk; Michael McClanahan, Anthony Jodice, Don Cleary, Shawn MacDonald, James Ragazzo Alternates: Ralph Penney Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development ,', 11. Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. I 2. Correspondence 1. September 22, 2010 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (McClanahan-Jodice) Six in favor. One abstention. PASSES 2. Special Permit Amendment - TOI Friday's at Mansfield Crossing Odor Scrubbers Motion: To sign the special permit (McClanahan-Jodice) Six in favor. One abstention. PASSES 3. Request for partial release of surety - Autumn Park Phase II / Memo from Mike Ahem recommending the release of $24,247.31 (remaining balance: $87,888.03) Motion: To approve the release of$24,247.31 from the Autumn Park Phase II bond (McClanahan-Cleary) Mr. Cleary asked about the disposition of the Autumn Park open space; Mr. Burke said it will be given to the Conservation Commission. All in favor. PASSES I 4. Form A (ANR) Plans 4. Special Permit Public Hearing continued - Mixed-Use Development - 321 School Street - Mansfield Commons Attorney Edward Valanzola introduced Kerry McCormack, Land Strategies Mr. Valanzola presented a September 29,2010 memorandum and a plan that addresses the remaining issue: the connection between Mansfield Commons and Mansfield Crossing. He explained they have worked out an agreement with the Mansfield Crossing landowner, WS Development, to have a sidewalk on the WS property. Mr. Valanzola said he still has concerns about design and liability issues, but said his client is comfortable with the agreement. He said the crosswalk will be installed as shown on the September 29, 2010 plan, which he said will be in an optimal location for safety. He said he believes they are outside the wetland areas. Mr. Valanzola asked the board to consider not adding a condition to the special permit that requires them to enter the WS property, although their plan at this time is to tie the crosswalk into the sidewalk that will be built on the WS property. He said the principals would rather see a traffic light at this location, but the site does not meet the warrant. He said they will install the crosswalk and the platform, which will tie into the new sidewalk. Planning Board 9/30/2010 III Mr. Valanzola explained the proposed work, including the crosswalk and signage. He said they will not install a blinking light. They will pay for a traffic study at two years or 80% occupancy, but will not pay for the light if it is warranted. Mr. Valanzola said the development will be renamed. Mr. French said he agrees the board cannot add a condition to the special permit requiring this applicant to do work on someone else's land. Mr. Valanzola said they would not be comfortable building the crosswalk and landing without the sidewalk on the other side of School Street. Ms. Collins asked how the crosswalk would be constructed. Mr. McCormick said they would use a standard crosswalk design. Mr. Burke suggested white thermoplastic paint. Mr. Jodice said he thinks the overhead blinking light is necessary; he asked if a demand crosswalk light could be installed. Mr. Valanzola said the type of blinking light discussed at the last meeting would be unsightly, and its location would not provide drivers with much notice. He said they will install signage in both directions in advance of the crosswalk. Mr. Burke suggested illuminated, solar-powered signage in both directions to warn drivers of the crosswalk. Mr. Valanzola said that would be a fair compromIse. Mr. Jodice asked about the 80% occupancy number; he said if the site is full within the first few months, a traffic study wouldn't be very useful. He suggested simply requiring the study to be done in two years. Mr. Valanzola agreed. Mr. Ragazzo said without the site having significant occupancy, it probably wouldn't meet the warrant for a light. Mr. Valanzola said he doesn't believe his client should have to bear the cost of the light because this is the last of three sites being permitted. Mr. Ragazzo said this applicant is not proposing to pay for the light. Mr. Valanzola said the development of this site will create jobs and tax revenue, which will offset the cost of the light, if it has to be installed. Mr. Valanzola said the traffic consultant doesn't believe the site will meet the warrant, even at full occupancy. He said he doesn't want a condition in the special permit that would cause this issue to linger longer than necessary. Mr. French said it is both this applicant's, Mansfield Crossing's and the town's best interest to have a traffic light; he said requiring the study will obligate the applicant to look at the actual traffic produced by this site. Ms. Collins said she was sure the applicant will do the study when it is required, but was concerned that it should be done at the best time. Mr. MacDonald suggested the condition require the study be done at "two years and 80% occupancy, or no more than four years." Mr. Burke said the Mansfield Crossing special permit required a new traffic study at 80% occupancy and two years. Mr. Jodice suggested it be two years from the issuance of a full occupancy permit. Mr. Valanzola said the site may be constructed in phases, with the retail/office building first. He said that decision would be dictated by how quickly the tenants are signed. Mr. Penney said he understands this development is the last one being permitted, and their traffic study will show their own traffic, along with traffic from the other two retail developments. Mr. French said the traffic from this development will be the only Planning Board 2 9/30/2010 111 major change. Mr. Valanzola said he understands the board's concern about doing a study with minimal occupancy. Mr. French suggested doing the study two years after the issuance of occupancy permits for both buildings. Mr. Valanzola said he was concerned about the length of time it might take to build both buildings. Ms. Collins said if the site doesn't hit 80% occupancy, the study may not necessary at all. Mr. Jodice said he is concerned about the possibility of this site having only an office building. Mr. Valanzola explained the second building will have both retail and office uses. Mr. Jodice said he would like the option to use a peer reviewer of the traffic study when it is done. Mr. Burke suggested prohibiting a monopole, but not necessarily a rooftop wireless unit. Mr. French asked about the possibility of allowing a different drive-through use if it is in the same location as the bank. Mr. MacDonald asked about an odor control condition. Mr. Burke suggested using the same language as the TOI Friday's modification. Mr. Valanzola said this site will not have the same size or number of restaurants as Mansfield Crossing; this site is similar in size to Mansfield Marketplace and asked the board to be consistent with what was required on that site. Mr. Penney said the restaurants would be regulated by the Fire Department and Board of Health. Mr. MacDonald suggested requiring the two illuminated signs to alert motorists before the crosswalks, plus whatever additional signs the Police Department requires. Mr. Cleary asked about a police detail at this site during the holidays. Mr. Burke said the Mansfield Crossing permit requires a police detail if necessary. 5. Special Permit Public Hearing continued - Commercial Parking Lot - 905 South I Main Street The clerk read a request from the applicant's attorney to continue the public hearing. Motion: To continue the public hearing to October 27, 2010 at 8:30 p.m. (Cleary-MacDonald) All in favor. PASSES I 4. Mansfield Commons continued Mr. Valanzola said he was concerned having a multi-year condition, and asked the board to consider a condition requiring the traffic study be done at 80% occupancy or two years, whichever is earlier. Mr. Burke suggested the two-year clock start from the date of the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any unit in either building. Mr. French suggested the board vote to direct Mr. Burke to prepare a draft decision, and vote at the October 13 meeting. Motion: To ask Mr. Burke to draft a positive decision for the October 13 meeting (Cleary-Collins) All in favor. PASSES Planning Board 3 9/30/2010 111 Motion: To continue the public hearing to October 13,2010 at 7:30 p.m. (Penney-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES I 6. Public Comment I 7. Around the Table Mr. Jodice said he misspoke at the last meeting about the setback for a detached structure; he said that setback must be 10 feet. I 8. Adjournment Motion: To adjourn at 9:00 p.m. (McClanahan- ) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: October 13,2010 at 7:30 p.m. Sign~~t1 0(.\. 1=1- r~O\ D Date of Approval Planning Board 4 9/30/2010 ITI