Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 11/09/05 r ,".t. .. 1'( I' I' \.1 ::' r\ ~.~ ~' L.: t) Planning Board Minutes n F fir; E November 9, 2005 .C_ - - Present: Tom French, Chairman; Fred Armstrong, Clerk; FrafilH~I1neirQn lfprman, Doug Annino, John DeMassi, Walter Jenkins Shaun P. Burke, Director ofPlannin and Develo ment 1. Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Special Permit Public Hearing continued - Mansfield Crossing - Retail Development at Route 140/School Street - W IS Development Mr. Masiello presented the board with a letter officially withdrawing the hotel from the application. Mr. Burke presented the board with a draft special permit. Mr. Masiello explained the changes from the last meeting that have been added to the site plans and presented a new rendering of Kohl's with a window treatment on the fa~de. Mr. French asked if the October 31, 2005 are the latest plans; Mr. White said they are. Mr. Masiello presented the Kohl's plans showing windows on the front fa~ade. The plans show a feature intended to have the appearance of a window, but does not penetrate into the store, so no internal display space is lost. Two of these windows are proposed in r- the areas on significant straight sections of building wall that do not have different treatments or are obstructed by tall landscaping. The window height will be above the shorter landscaping in those areas. Mr. Masiello said he has Kohl's elevations available with and without the windows. Mr. Annino said he doesn't like that type of window and would rather not include them because they do not allow pedestrians to look inside. Mr. French asked the dimensions of the windows; Mr. Masiello said the blocks are 8"x8" and 4 blocks by 4 blocks, so the total window would be 3 feet by 3 feet. Mr. Annino said if the windows were on a sizable piece of the fa~ade, they might break it up, but the small size makes it look like an afterthought and may take away from the fa~de. Mr. Armstrong said the windows appear to be too small and said they might be more effective with more blocks. Mr. Masiello said the blocks could be added at a lower level, but said they might be obscured by the low-level landscaping. Mr. Annino said the board's concern was for more glass on the front of the building. Mr. Masiello said there had been discussion during the last meeting that the rendering before this one was acceptable and asked to go back to that one. Mr. DeMassi said he had expected there would have been either real windows or department store type windows with display space. r- Mr. Masiello explained the site plan changes, including rumble strips and speed limit signs on the Route 140 driveway, stone treatment on the sunken jersey barrier around the Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2005 r pond, landscaping on the secondary School Street driveway and the addition of the second way finding sign. They have looked at the lighting behind the Kohl's, and there are four light poles that will adequately illuminate the parking area behind that building. Mr. Annino asked the height of the light poles; Mr. White said they are 35-foot high shoebox fixtures. Mr. DeMassi asked if the poles are on the vegetated side facing the building; Mr. Masiello said they are. Mr. White said they have a high cutoff and shine toward the building. Mr. De Massi asked ifthere will be any conflict with the light poles and the relocated electrical wiring; Mr. White said there will not be because the poles are outside the easement. Mr. Annino asked if all the poles are 35 feet; Mr. Masiello said the parking lot poles are, but the poles in the pedestrian area are shorter. Mr. French asked if the pole with the planter hangers would be used along the fronts of the buildings; Mr. Masiello said they would be. Mr. DeMassi asked about the spruce trees shown on the landscape legend; Mr. Masiello said there are two types and sizes of Colorado Blue Spruce shown. The board reviewed the draft special permit. r Dr. Torman asked about specifically denying a muffler, tire or oil change. Mr. Burke said the permit covers maintenance, which he said would cover that type of use. The board decided to include "maintenance, installation or repair," including tire sales, exhaust or mutller or oil changes. Mr. Burke said the permit talks about the removal of interior demising walls in "Building f' to preclude the use of the building as a single big box store. He said he didn't think the board's intent was to prevent the moving of the walls to create smaller stores. Mr. DeMassi asked if the developer's deal with Kohl's precludes another big box retailer; Mr. Masiello said it does not. Mr. Holmes suggested the condition prevent one tenant from occupying a certain percentage of the building. Mr. French asked ifthere would be a need for anyone tenant to be over 50,000 square feet; Mr. Masiello said he did not have any tenants that large. Mr. Armstrong suggested preventing anyone tenant from occupying more than half of that building; Mr. Masiello said that is reasonable. The board decided the condition should read "No single store shall occupy more than 65,000 square feet of Building I." Mr. Jenkins asked about the grocery store; he asked if something like a Trader Joe's would be a primary use grocery store. Mr. Masiello said it would be, but would be smaller than a store like Shaw's or Stop & Shop. Mr. Jenkins suggested adding a size condition, like 10,000 square feet, which would allow something like Harry & David but preclude a grocery store. The board discussed the possibility of a convenience store; Mr. Masiello said he isn't marketing to convenience stores. Mr. Annino said he is concerned about smells from the restaurants. He asked if the board would want to think about scrubbers on the hood exhausts. Mr. Masiello said he has not ,---- had to ask a restaurant to install scrubbers and doesn't know how expensive they are. Mr. Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2005 2 ~ Annino said he is concerned that all operators do not care well for their restaurants and wouldn't want the neighbors to smell those restaurants. He said there can be a significant amount of particulate coming from restaurant hoods, which a scrubber would remove. Mr. Jenkins asked if all the restaurants would need scrubbers; Mr. Annino said it would be hard to require one and not all of them. Mr. Armstrong asked if a condition could be required for the applicant to work with the tenants to minimize the impacts of smoke and odor. Mr. Burke said this would be a condition rather than a finding. Mr. Burke suggested something like that could go under Site Operation, which deals with things like truck routes and hours of operation. Mr. French asked about the Board of Health's role in something like that; Mr. Annino said that board can only require the restaurant be cleaned. Mr. French suggested adding a condition that the Board of Health review that and if it is necessary, the Planning Board can review it as well. Mr. Masiello said some of the restaurants may not cause this type of problem and suggested a condition forcing the operators who cause the problem to install a scrubber. Mr. Annino said scrubbers would help to avoid the problem before it starts. Mr. DeMassi said it would likely be more expensive to retrofit the restaurants after construction. Mr. Armstrong suggested having the applicant work with the Building Inspector or the Board of Health to determine if there is a problem; Mr. Annino said the Planning Board should consider it at this point. Mr. Holmes asked about a condition that systems be designed to accommodate a scrubber if there are complaints later. Mr. Annino said it would not be a significant cost and didn't think it would make the difference between a tenant signing or not. Mr. Masiello asked about a condition mandating scrubbers for restaurants that are clearly sit-down type and exempting uses like sandwich shops or ice cream shops. Mr. Annino asked if that would be defined by seating or kitchen equipment. Mr. French asked how large a Panera Bread would be; Mr. Masiello said no larger than 150 seats. Mr. French suggested saying anything more than 100 seats will require a mechanical scrubber. The board agreed. r- Mr. Annino asked if the landscaping plan for the School Street island has been submitted. Mr. White said it has. Mr. Armstrong said he thinks the by-law criteria have been very well addressed in the draft. The board discussed Building Fa~ade Review. Mr. Annino asked about the renderings, which will be included as an attachment. Mr. Masiello said he has pulled out the rendering the board didn't like and submitted Conceptual Renderings 1, 2, and 4, including the one showing the Kohl's without windows. Mr. French signed a record copy of each rendering to add as an attachment. Mr. Masiello said they would have architecture for "Building f' when they come in for fa~ade review that would be similar to the elements shown in renderings 1, 2 and 4. Mr. Jenkins asked if the Building Fa~ade Review would be a simple majority; Mr. French said it would be. Mr. DeMassi asked about a change to the building footprint that is not "significant;" Mr. r Burke explained that would require a site plan review, rather than a significant change Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2005 3 r- that requires special permit modification. Mr. DeMassi said he was concerned about reopening the public hearing frequently~ the board decided to make that condition similar to a site plan review. Mr. Annino asked for a color board and actual building material samples to be submitted during Design Review. Mr. Masiello asked if the board would want to see each tenant; Mr. Annino said he would, since there might be new members of the board. Mr. DeMassi said the board would want to see the colors and materials that are different. Mr. Annino asked if the pylons are included in the Signage section; Mr. Burke said they are in paragraph 1. Mr. DeMassi asked if a third wayfinding sign could be added; the condition was amended to read "at least" two wayfidning signs. Mr. Annino asked if the parking lot stripes would be white; Mr. Masiello said they would be white, including the handicapped parking spaces. Mr. French asked about the SchoollPlymouth intersection lights. Mr. Masiello said there will be one light that will change during emergencies. The board discussed the warning signs approaching Plymouth Street from both directions on School Street. Mr. Holmes suggested requiring as-built plans under Required Improvements; Mr. Burke said the Town Engineer will require that. r Mr. DeMassi asked about the landscaping around the Stearns-White House; Mr. Masiello said he would install and maintain the landscaping, as well as plow, pave, etc. He said if the Chamber could take ownership of the building, they would, but said it may not be subdividable and he may have to maintain ownership of it but have a long- term lease. He said the physical repair and ongoing maintenance of the building would be the Chamber's responsibility. Mr. French asked about the Conservation Commission hearing; Mr. Masiello said they have met with the commission, which has the latest set of plans. The next meeting is November 28. Mr. Masiello said his sense is that use of the pond for stormwater will be acceptable. Mr. Burke said the applicant will still be obligated to get a Conservation Commission permit; if things are changed as a result of that hearing, these plans will have to change as well. Ms. Horwitz said the permit specifies that the applicant is still required to get all other pennits and that any change to the permit has to come back to the Planning Board. Mr. Burke said if the Conservation Commission will not allow a crossing and the road location has to change, this Planning Board permit would not allow the new roadway location because it specifies a certain set of plans. Mr. DeMassi said he is concerned that this approval be dependent upon the Conservation Commission's approval. Mr. Burke said the Conservation Commission permit is usually that last one an applicant gets, and if it is not granted, they would have to start the entire process over. Mr. Jenkins said he is concerned about the security section and asked what a "non- r- emergency" would be. Mr. Holmes said he envisioned that covering things like loitering. Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2005 4 r Mr. Jenkins said private security usually does not have enforcement power, Mr. Holmes said that would be a first line of defense. Mr. Annino said on-site security is especially helpful at night when the employees are leaving the site. Mr. Masiello said most of Weiner's properties do not have on-site security. Mr. Jenkins said he would like to see protocols developed between the security and the Police Department. Mr. French suggested the condition be that the developer work with on-site security and the Police Department to develop protocols for operation and response. Mr. Jenkins asked if the $30,000 cap for radio repeaters would cover the cost. Mr. Masiello said the Police and Fire Departments believe that will be sufficient funding. Mr. DeMassi said some types of panic buttons sometimes have problems with moisture and can become a nuisance. Mr. Annino asked about the secondary School Street entrance landscaping plan; Mr. Burke said that has been added to the plan. Mr. White explained the off-site roadway improvements are not part of this plan; he said the landscaping will be within the town right-of-way of School Street. Mr. Masiello said that can be added to the plans. Mr. DeMassi asked about idling trucks; Mr. Burke explained trucks would be left idling during deliveries but the permit specifies the hours they can idle. r Dr. Torman asked if there would be a problem with the restaurant hours. Mr. Masiello said he didn't think that would be a problem ifhe has the ability to work with the Police Chief to allow the restaurants to stay open later some of the time. He said he is not leasing to the kind of restaurants that tend to stay open past midnight; his restaurants are primarily food service, not bars. Mr. Masiello noted condition 10 in the Community Benefits section, regarding the radio repeaters, is repeated earlier; he said the total is $30,000, not $60,000. Motion: To approve the special permit application as drafted with the addition of the exhibits presented tonight and to sign the permit. (Jenkins- Torman) Torman - In favor. Based on the applicant's working with the board for over two years, I feel we have hammered out a remarkable plan, the benefits outweigh the detriments with employment opportunities, tax revenue and the community benefits. Jenkins - In favor. The special permit provisions list a number of requirements that the applicant has met. The impacts on health, safety, convenience and general welfare will be positive and will be good for employment. There will be negative impact from the traffic and loss of open space, but I believe the convenience will outweigh the detriments. The general welfare standard will be met with the amenities brought by the project. The neighborhood character will be significantly impacted. This will be an upscale development with character and design, this will project a positive image. It may be a r negative that this is a retail use rather than an office park, but that type of use is not Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2005 5 r- economically feasible right now. For the most part, the traffic improvements will help traffic at the intersection; however, during November and December, there will be a significant impact on traffic. The development addresses the adequacy of municipal facilities and services and will provide additional benefits to the business park. The town does have long-term issues with water and sewer, and this development is probably the least water and sewer use other than a warehouse use. There will be Fire and Police improvements, particularly with the installation of the repeater technology. There will be effects on the natural environment, and this is a sensitive area, but was significantly impacted with the development of Routes 140 and 495. I understand many residents' concerns but also understand the project still has to go through the Conservation Commission tests. The project will have a positive fiscal impact including tax revenues, employment, revenues through water and sewer, increase in commercial tax base and no impacts to the school system. I believe there will be a limited impact on property values; and there may be some increased value to properties in the immediate vicinity. I am concerned about the other types of development that could be by right at this site, so this development is the highest and best use in today's economy. I am satisfied that the developer has listened to board's concerns, and am happy with the comments from residents who carne to the meetings to express their concerns. However, I have been dissatisfied with groups who have been against the project, but who the board never saw. I believe the benefits of this project will far outweigh the detriments. r DeMassi - In favor. The project has received a thorough, intense and impartial review by the board with respect to its benefits and detriments. The board has kept the best interests of the town at the top of its list concerns, and has listened to all of the public's concerns. Traffic and public safety been reviewed at length, and we know that many intersections are already sub.par, so I am excited about the opportunities to correct some wrongs along the Route 140 corridor with this project. I do not see a better location for this type of use in town, and while I recognize this location on School Street will affect travel into town, I believe the proposed mitigation will help. Parking has been a big issue, and I am no longer concerned with number of spaces, but am still concerned with parking distribution. I appreciate the give and take that has gone on regarding parking issues. I think the site has the correct amount of parking, and understand that snow will take up some spaces, but am confident the developer will take care of it for his tenants. This development will bring in tax revenue with no impact on the schools. There will be benefits to the business community outside the mall area. Many residents are happy to have the opportunity to shop in town, and the development will create jobs, increased tax revenue, and chances for fundraising and other charitable activities. I am concerned about crime and appreciate the addition of a security force to mitigate those concerns. It is critical to provide deterrents to higher crime. Regarding the project's effects on neighborhood character and social structure, this is an 11 zone, so residents should understand there will be industrial uses and there are many ugly alternatives to this one. Regarding municipal facilities and services, the applicant has met the requirements of the Zoning By-Law and addressed all of the department head comments, is providing infrastructure improvements in and around town, as well as support for emergency services, and has worked hard to mitigate any negative impacts on the natural environment. r-- Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2005 6 r- Annino - In favor. I believe the developer has worked long and hard with the board, has exceeded my expectations and has been very patient and understanding. The project has improved over the original proposal and can be a jewel in Mansfield's development. We have examined the project's effects on community, and believe the final plan minimizes effects on School while supporting traffic and pedestrian concerns. The project is an allowed use on this parcel and the board has looked at the neighborhood effects and I believe they have been addressed and will be kept to a minimum. The project will create businesses and jobs, diversity in shopping in Mansfield, as well as the benefit of keeping shoppers in town. I think this will benefit downtown businesses. This is an exciting type of development and I am hoping the board has taken everything into account and hope this will be the finest development around. ,r- Armstrong -In favor. I would like to congratulate the developer on doing a great job, bringing this plan such a long way, and listening to board's concerns. I believe the benefits will outweigh the detriments, the project will be an asset to community, and will provide convenient shopping. It will change the character of the area, but it is zoned industrial and many other things could be built there by right. Through the planning process, the developer has come up with something that will be a good use and attractive. The traffic issues have been addressed within and outside the site, and will be an improvement over current conditions. Municipal facilities and services are adequate, this will use less water than other uses, the sewer extension will be a benefit to the town and add to infrastructure. The effects on the natural environment will be largely mitigated. The fiscal impacts will be positive with jobs, tax revenue, a spillover effect on downtown businesses. The Community Benefits package will have a positive impact. Holmes -In favor. I would like to congratulate the developer. A lot of people have worked hard on this and it has been a great effort. I believe health, safety, convenience and general welfare will be protected. I am happy about the on-site security. The site will have amenities like the pond and additional features like seating and the walkway, and the developer has done a good job incorporating these features into the project. I am concerned about traffic, but it has been looked at by the developer's and the board's traffic consultants and I hope my worries don't come true and the traffic works as it is supposed to. There will be an effect on the neighborhood character, but the property is going to be developed and I am glad it is being developed by professionals who know what they are doing and have a regional presence. Vehicular and traffic convenience issues have been addressed and the development has been well designed within and outside the site. The emergency signal preemption system and on-site security will be benefits to the town's municipal facilities. The developer will have to comply with the town's water policy, so the town's interests will be protected. Between the Conservation Commission's requirements and the DEP stormwater management policy, the effects on the wetland systems will be mitigated to the extent required. The project will result in a net benefit in terms of tax dollars. There will be some detriments, but they will be far outweighed by the overall benefits. French - In favor. I would like to commend Mr. Masiello and his team for an r- outstanding job through a long process. I believe the benefits outweigh the detriments in Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2005 7 ",- accordance with Zoning By-Law Section 5.5. I would like to specifically point out the issues of general welfare, convenience and amenities - the developer has reached out to the downtown business areas, and will make traffic improvements at Route 1 06/North Main Street, which will have a tremendous, positive benefit on downtown. I believe the improvements will mitigate the traffic impacts. There will also be financial benefits through taxes. employment and the community benefits package. All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Annino-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES I 3. Correspondence 1. November 7, 2005 memo from Mike Ahem, DPW Special Projects Manager re: partial release of bond ($111.707.00) - Cobb Street completion Motion: To release $111,707.00, leaving a balance of$116. 782.00 (Armstrong-Torman) All in favor. PASSES I 3. Adjournment Motion: To adjourn at 10:15p.m. (Torman-Annino) All in favor. PASSES r r- Planning Board Minutes November 9, 2005 8