Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 07/12/2006 r RECEIVED C f'! FRYS OFF ICE Planning Board Minutes06 AUG I 0 AH II: ~ 7 July 12, 2006 Present: To~ French, Chairman; Fred Armstrong, Clerk; f1w~~~6Jenkins, John DeMassl, Frank Holmes t\ ~S 1. June 21, 2006 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES ,I""-- 2. ZBA application for variance - 125 High Street - Signage. The application requests three signs totaling 60 square feet. The application indicates the existing signage is in poor condition and the larger signs will make it easier to identify the businesses in the building. Mr. Burke noted that while this is in a business zone, the other side of High Street is all residential; he said he does not recommend supporting the variance. Mr. Armstrong said perhaps a larger sign than allowed might be appropriate because this is a large building with a number of businesses, but said this sign may be too large. Dr. Torman asked if the board has seen this before; Mr. Burke said the businesses had been looking at new signs for some time, but had not submitted anything before this. Mr. French said he didn't have a problem with the smalI2'x3' directional signage, but the third sign is very large. Mr. Holmes said the sign could be made less non-conforming by removing a couple of the empty panels on the sign, since there are more panels than there are businesses in the building. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation. The board does not have a problem with the small directional signs, but suggests the sign could be made less non-confonning by removing a couple of the empty spaces on the sign and redesigning the sign (Holmes-Armstrong) Five in favor. Torman abstained. PASSES 3. ZBA application for variance - 60 Bella Vista Ave - Rear Yard Setback The application indicates an old structure has been tom down and already replaced, with an approximate two-foot encroachment. Mr. Jenkins said there is a built-in pool in the yard that is not shown on the plan. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because there is not enough information in the application (Jenkins-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES ,.-.- 4. ZBA application for variance - 905 South Main Street - Signage The application states there will be 10 businesses in the building. There is no detail of the sign with the application. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because there is not enough information in the application; specifically, there is no detail of the sign. (Armstrong-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Planning Board 1 7/19/2006 ., 5. ZBA application for variance - School Street/Route 140 (Mansfield Crossing)- Signage [See discussion below] " 6. June bU:ikling permit summary 7. Public'i-Ibaring notice. Easton, Norton, Plainville The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French explained how the public hearing would be conducted. Daniel McCormack, 11 Patriot's Way, explained he wants to build a pool cabana in his back yard, outside the building envelope. One of the conditions of the special permit is that any structure outside the building envelope must be no larger than 150 feet; he would like to change that to 450 feet. Mr. French asked if the application seeks to amend the building envelope. Mr. McCormack said it does not; the application only seeks to allow larger accessory structures outside the building envelope. Mr. Burke explained neither the primary structure nor the building envelope would change, but an accessory structure in excess of 120 square feet could be built outside the envelope. He explained there is a condition in the special permit that allows 120 square foot accessory structures to be built outside the envelope. '\ r Mr. McCormack explained the application is to change the size of accessory structures outside the building envelope for the whole development, not just his lot. Dave Hobaker, 12 Patriot's Way, said the residents in the development are in favor of the increase. He said the size of an accessory structure is not limited elsewhere in town, unless the development was approved with a special permit and there is a condition. Mr. French explained this was approved as a special permit, which included the building envelopes especially to protect the open space between the homes and the existing abutters. Mr. Hobaker said they are not proposing to change the building envelopes; they only want to increase the size of the accessory structures. Public Comment July 3, 2006 letter from Randall Tatum, 385 Mill Street, opposing the modification. Mr. Tatum said the original special permit should not have been approved because the applicant was not the legal owner. He said the modification should not be allowed until the ownership issue has been cleared up. Mr. French said during the course of the special permit public hearing, town counsel reviewed the issue and advised the board to go forward with the public hearing. Mr. Tatum said Mr. Mangiaratti's ethics are in question in this case. Mr. French said the board would not discuss that. He said Mr. Tatum is following the correct course by going through the court system, but noted this application is to change one condition of the approved special permit. Mr. Armstrong noted the appeal period on the original special permit has long since passed. Mr. French asked if " Planning Board 2 7/19/2006 I , r. Mr. Tatum is opposed to the board granting the larger accessory structures; Mr. Tatum said he is. Attorney Chris Trombetta, future resident of Patriot's Way, said he has looked at the plan and feels it has been done in a way that will not affect the neighboring properties. Gary Jaegger, 16 Holstein Road, said he attended the original special permit public hearing, and was not opposed to that application as long as it did not cause any water problems. However, he said he and his neighbor now have water problems, which he said are definitely being caused by Patriot's Way. Mr. Burke said there is an extensive wetland off the back of Patriot's Way. He said there are many cases of standing water in the area, which are being caused by the heavy rains over the last few months. He said based on the design of the drainage area, he would be surprised if Patriot's Way has had that kind of impact on the neighbors. Mr. DeMassi said this may be a legal issue between the neighbors; Mr. Burke suggested an easier route may be to have the design engineer attest to the system. Mr. Tatum said there had been concerns from the neighbors about water issues during the original special permit hearing. r Board Comment Mr. DeMassi said right now, a 120 square foot structure can be built outside the building envelope. He asked if there are other setbacks for the property; Mr. Burke said an accessory structure can be placed five feet from the property line. Mr. DeMassi said he didn't think he has a problem with increasing the size of the accessory structures, but would be concerned with how close a 450 foot structure is to abutting properties and how many trees are cut down for the construction. Mr. Jenkins said it appears the no cut zone at the back of the third house on the right on Patriot's Way has been cut. He said the lots are all in the mid- to high-20,000 square foot size, while in the underlying zone they would have been 60,000 square foot lots. He said the smaller lots were allowed with the special permit with the tradeoff of more open space for the development. He said he is concerned about the larger structures outside the building envelope, five feet from the property line. He said he might be willing to support something like this with smaller accessory structures and an added setback. Mr. DeMassi said the board identified the building envelopes specifically because of the smaller lots allowed in this kind of development. Mr. Jenkins said there is also an issue of "buyer beware" in this case, because the homeowners knew the restrictions on the subdivision before they bought their homes. r- Mr. Trombetta said he has seen the plans and they look nice, there are woods behind most of the houses, and said he doesn't think this amendment would be harmful to the neighbors. Mr. DeMassi said while Mr. Trombetta thinks it looks nice now, a different Planning Board 3 7/19/2006 , . neighbor may not. Mr. Trombetta said he didn't know of any situation where cabanas are proposed next door to one another. f) A Patriot's Way resident said this amendment would allow structures other than cabanas, like above-ground pools. Mr. Holmes said there is a no cut zone along Mill Farm Road, and he didn't see that residents outside the development would be impacted. He said the size of the proposed structures might be too large, and suggested a setback of more than five feet. Mr. Armstrong asked how many accessory structures are allowed on a lot. Mr. Burke said as many as a homeowner wants, as long as they meet the setbacks. Mr. Armstrong asked if a homeowner could put up two 450-square foot structures if this were amended; Mr. Burke said that could happen. Mr. Armstrong said he could not support the requested size, but might be able to support something smaller with a limit to one structure with a setback restriction. Mr. Burke said regarding the neighbors' water concerns, the board can require an as-built to find out if the drainage area has been built according to the approved plan and is functioning in accordance with the approved plan. Mr. Burke said he understands what the petitioners are asking for and in a broad sense, he doesn't have a problem with it. He said in order to reach a mutually agreeable solution, he suggested limiting the number and size of accessory structures. He said a setback more than five feet would be reasonable, but suggested not forcing the accessory structure into the middle of the yard. ~ Mr. DeMassi suggested making the accessory structures one story. Mr. French suggested 10-15 feet setbacks, single story, one structure per lot, 350 square feet per structure. He said a second accessory structure could be built within the building envelope. He suggested one above-ground structure, not to exceed 350 square feet, to be allowed outside the building envelope. The structure shall not exceed one story and shall be a minimum of ten feet from the property line. Mr. DeMassi suggested more than one structure would be acceptable, provided the total square footage of the structures does not exceed 350 square feet. A Patriot's Way resident suggested allowing more than one accessory structure having a total of 450 square feet, with no one structure larger than 350 square feet. Mr. DeMassi said he was concerned about setting a precedent for future building envelopes. Mr. Burke said while this may not be a precedent, the board will have to be consistent in its reasoning for future special permits. ~ Planning Board 4 7/19/2006 .-: r Mr. Burke said the 120 square foot accessory structure allowed outside the building envelope is unique to this development Motion: To grant the modification to the special permit, condition #4, with the following conditions: 1. Delete condition #4 of the September 25,2003 special permit and replace it with the following: "To allow for above-ground structures not exceeding a total of350 square feet to be constructed outside the building envelope shown on Sheets 2 of 10 and 3 of 10 of the plans dated September 8, 2003. Said structures shall not be constructed closer than 10 feet from the property line and shall be no more than one story in height. The sum of the square footage of all accessory structures outside the building envelope shall not exceed 350 square feet. No structure shall be constructed within the no-cut zone." 2. The September 25, 2003 special permit is incorporated into this decision by reference and attachment, and all terms and conditions of that special permit, with the exception of condition #4, remain in force. (Holmes-Armstrong) Torman - In favor. I believe the benefits outweigh the detriments, specifically with the addition of the 10-foot buffer requirement. r DeMassi - In favor. I believe there has been good discussion and the decision has been worded carefully enough to avoid any detriment. Jenkins - In favor. I believe the special permit amendment, as modified during the public hearing process, satisfies both the board and the resident. Holmes - In favor. I believe the benefits outweigh the detriments, specifically with the total size limitation and the buffer requirement. Armstrong - In favor. Given the no cut zone and the open space still in place, this amendment will development will protect the abutters. French - In favor. With the conditions placed on the work allowed outside the building envelope, I believe the benefits outweigh the detriments. All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Torman-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES r- Mr. Tatum asked how this application got before the board so quickly and asked if these applicants have an inside track with the board. Mr. French said the board would not discuss that. Planning Board 5 7/19/2006 1) The clerk read a request from the applicant's engineer to continue the public hearing to August 23, 2006. Motion: To continue the public hearing to September 13, 2006 at 8:00 p.m. (DeMassi-Torman) All in favor PASSES Mr. Masiello said he has completed permitting with the Conservation Commission and have been finalizing leasing. He noted there is an ongoing appeal of the ZBA decision, but said he is confident that will be finalized soon. He explained they have filed all the Mass Highway permits for the right turn into the site from Route 140, and have filed a Notice of Project Change with MEP A. They have received an Army Corps of Engineers permit, a DEP 401 Water Quality Certificate and a DEP sewer connection permit. Mr. Masiello said the plan as shown is the same plan that was permitted, with some minor modifications depending on the final leasing. Mr. Masiello said he is here with revised architectural renderings for the first large building on the right side of the main entrance. Mr. French noted Mr. Annino is not here tonight and the board has not seen this before now. He suggested it would be a good idea not to spend hours discussing this, then discussing it again with a full board. Mr. Masiello said he would be happy with the board's feedback on the architecture. He said he is also here for a recommendation to the ZBA for a variance for pylon signs. \ Mr. Masiello said their building signage will comply with the Zoning By-Law, which allows a free-standing sign per building. He said there are 12 building complexes on the site, which could mean at least 12 signs per the by-law. He said there will be more than one store in each building, and as many as 40 on the site, each of which would allow one free-standing sign. He said they do not want to construct that many free-standing signs would like to combine them into three pylon-type signs. Mr. Masiello explained he is proposing one 33-foot tall pylon sign along School Street and two 47-foot high pylon signs, one at the 140 entrance and one near the Chamber of Commerce building near Route 495. He said they have tried to incorporate elements similar to what will be used on the buildings. He explained they have included the "Mansfield Crossing" portion at the top of each sign in the total square footage. He said the "Mansfield Crossing" portion will be externally illuminated, with the rest of the signs internally illuminated. Mr. DeMassi said he didn't have a problem with the style of the signs, but is concerned about the height. He asked if the sign on School Street would be glaring into residential abutters' homes. Mr. Masiello said the signs will not be lit all night, and will be turned off when the center closes. ~ Planning Board 6 7/19/2006 r Mr. French asked how tall the signs are at Erin's Centre. Mr. Armstrong said the tall sign at Erin's Centre is 65 feet; Mr. Burke said the smaller signs are 30-35 feet. Mr. DeMassi asked what the tallest building on site is. Mr. Masiello said some of the tower elements had been 52 feet, but those have been reduced to around 35-40 feet. He said the buildings are in the 20s- foot range. Mr. DeMassi asked how much of the sign will be seen from Route 495. Mr. Masiello said he thinks it will be visible because that area can be seen from 495 now. He said the median in Route 495 is clear, so the sign will be visible from the southbound lanes. Mr. DeMassi asked if the bottom of the sign could be seen; Mr. Masiello said he thought it could be. Mr. DeMassi asked if that sign could be made wider and lower. Mr. Masiello said the signs can all be made wider and lower, but said they really like the relationship between the signs and the buildings. He said in order to widen and lower the signs, they would have to be half the height and twice the width to fit the same number of panels. Mr. Armstrong asked how high each panel is; Mr. Masiello said the small ones are two feet and the large ones are four feet. He noted some of the panels will be split among the smaller stores and restaurants. He said Kohl's will take one panel, probably at the top. r Mr. Jenkins asked about the style of the signs; Mr. Masiello said they would have the logo and theme of each tenant. He said they give the tenant the right to use their own lettering. He said the background of the panels would be white, depending on the tenant's logo colors. Mr. Jenkins asked to see some photos of the signs in other centers. Mr. Masiello said he would be happy to supply those. Mr. Burke said relief from the conditions of the special permit require coming back to the Planning Board to amend the special permit. Mr. Armstrong said there is a difference between this and Erin's Centre because here, only one sign will be visible at one time. He said he is a little concerned about the size of the sign on Route 140, but not so much about the other two. Mr. Armstrong asked if the smaller sign proposed for School Street would work on Route 140. Mr. Masiello said it probably would, but that would not be his preference. He said he wants that sign to be seen from Route 140. r- Mr. Jenkins asked if all the signs will be perpendicular to the roadway; Mr. Masiello said they will be. Mr. Jenkins said wall signage is allowed, and asked if it is Mr. Masiello's intent to have signage in the interior of the site and on the back side of buildings. Mr. Masiello said he does not intend to have signs on the back of the Kohl's building. He said most of the tenants will want signs on the back of the buildings. Eileen Gibbs said she has written the sign criteria and it only allows one store front sign at each building's main entrance. Planning Board 7 7/19/2006 Mr. Jenkins asked about the restaurant signs; Mr. Masiello said they would be allowed one sign on the front of the building. Mr. Masiello said they have leases with Panera Bread, TGI Fridays, Qdoba, Cold Stone Creamery, Famous Dave's BBQ and a steak house. He said there may be a Papa Gino's. ') Mr. Holmes asked about the Route 140 sign and whether it would be visible from the Cobbler Road/Willow Street area. Mr. Burke said it would be visible from the second floor of some of those houses. Mr. Masiello said the sign would definitely not be visible from the ground on those streets. Ms. Gibbs said the top ten feet of the sign would not be internally lit. Mr. DeMassi said he would prefer the shorter sign on the Route 140 side. Leonard Flynn, 102 Jewell Street, said he is disappointed because signage was discussed during the public hearing process. He said the signs are too big, and the sign on Route 495 upsets him because that area is surrounded by conservation land and is a major approach to Mansfield. He said it would be a mistake to use the signs at Erin's Centre as a baseline for these signs. He said there would be no need for panels on the Route 495 sign because of the speed at which people will be driving and because of visibility issues, and suggested just a "Mansfield Crossing" sign. He asked someone to look at the area's elevations and figure out how far away a 47- foot tall sign could be seen. He said he would rather see signs internal to the site. He asked the square footage of the signs. Mr. Masiello said he respects Mr. Flynn's opinion about the size of the sign, but said he is offended at Mr. Flynn's statement that he didn't plan on signage. He said during the public hearing process he told the board he would be seeking signage variances. ~ Mr. Masiello said as the Zoning By-Law denotes signage area, the 47-foot tall signs are each 375 square feet. He said he doesn't believe individual signs inside the site would be an amenity; he said the intent of signage is to advertise the businesses to the public. He noted the by-law allows the signage to be 10 feet off the property line. Mr. Masiello said he is willing to compromise on the height of the Route 140 sign. Mr. DeMassi asked how low the Route 495 sign can go to be seen by someone driving by. Mr. Masiello said he doesn't know how low the sign can be before the bottom can't be seen. He said there are also issues with the length of the tenants' name. Mr. Holmes asked the minimum height of panels for highway signs; Mr. Masiello said four-foot panels are his preference. He said the smaller the sign, the fewer tenants could be advertised. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation with the following conditions: the board supports the 1-495 pylon sign and the entrance pylon as proposed. The board would support the Route 140 pylon if it were 40 feet high (Jenkins-French) Mr. Masiello said a shorter sign on Route 140 would eliminate two panels. Mr. Jenkins said the smallest sign is on a secondary road, the Route 140 sign is on a divided highway, and the Route 495 sign is on a road with faster traffic and a larger median. '""'\ Planning Board 8 7/19/2006 , I r Mr. Burke said he thinks the sign on School Street is too high. Mr. DeMassi said the School Street sign would be more appropriate for Route 140.. Mr. Burke said School Street is not at a highway scale, with no divided median. He said he doesn't want to drive down School Street and be looking up at this sign. Mr. Masiello noted there will be no sign at the secondary entrance on School Street. Mr. DeMassi said he is less concerned with the height of the Route 495 sign than the Route 140 and School Street signs. Mr. Holmes said it is difficult to understand how the height of the signs will be viewed from abutting properties. He asked if there is a way to present the board with elevations that will show the signs in comparison to the buildings. Mr. Masiello said he would be able to do that. Mr. Masiello said he thinks the board will still have control over the signage, even if the ZBA grants a variance, through the special permit modification process. He asked the board to make a recommendation on the maximum allowable height. Mr. DeMassi said he would like to see elevations of the entrance in relation to the roadway and building heights; Mr. Masiello said that could be done in an artists' rendering. Mr. Holmes said a cross-section had been done through the site, and suggested laying the signs over those cross-sections may help. r Mr. DeMassi asked if a fence was going to be built along Cobbler Road; Mr. Masiello said that was not going to happen because it would require the removal of the existing fence and all the vegetation around it, so the neighborhood decided against it. Mr. DeMassi asked if that neighborhood may change its mind with the pylon signs. Five in favor. DeMassi opposed. PASSES Mr. Masiello showed the board proposed elevations of Building D and a materials board. Tim Tobin, Carter-Burgess, explained the various materials for the buildings, lighting, planters and paving stones. The original vertical tower elements have been resized, with dormer elements added. Mr. DeMassi asked what can be done to break up the longest stretches ofroofline on that building. Mr. Tobin explained that is not a flat roof, it is actually peaked, so visually, it will move away from the eye. Mr. Jenkins suggested providing the board with views of the backs of the buildings. Mr. Tobin said he would do that. Mr. DeMassi asked for an elevation showing a person's eye view of the front of the building. Mr. Tobin said he would have that done. r Planning Board 9 7/19/2006 I 1 8. ZBA application for variance - 26 Aspen Street - Lot Width. Mr. Burke explained the lot width would have to be 150'x150', but this lot is 120 feet deep. Therefore, the lot is wide enough but not deep enough. Mr. Burke suggested sending a positive recommendation to the ZBA. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES '1 905 South Main Street. Mr. Burke explained this parcel is on the town line next to Tweeter. The owner of the back portion of the land recently acquired the front portion and wants to combine them into a single parcel. Mr. Burke said the plan conforms to frontage and area and recommended endorsing the plan. Motion: To endorse the Form A (Torman-Armstrong) All in favor. Mr. Holmes said Mr. Detch, one of the Autumn Park abutters, told him he would like the board to do a site walk. Mr. Burke suggested that is something that should be discussed during the public hearing. Mr. French asked what the board should do about a traffic study for the TOD project. Mr. Burke suggested sending a letter to the Selectmen asking for funding. Mr. French asked if we should send a letter to Mr. Buckland to find out the scope; Mr. Burke said he wouldn't recommend that and said Mr. Sullivan may be able to do that. Mr. Flynn suggested that SRPEDD does traffic studies for its communities. Mr. Burke noted the contract between the town and the Commonwealth for the TOD project was signed in July 2005, so the study has not gone on nearly as long as some have claimed. ~ I Motion: To adjourn at 11 :00 p.m. (Torman-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: Wednesday, July 26,2006 at 7:30 p.m. ~ f)1/ob Signature of Clerk U Date of Approval ~ Planning Board 10 7/19/2006 , .