Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 011007 r ". ~fCflv . I r:?Z( (,ED 07 iAA{ .; !rr:- ViiI, ::6" PJa~=~:' :;utea 114 '!( ..~11 8: 43 I1ASsl"v/- /t..LO Present: Tom French, Chair; Fred Armstrong, Clerk; Ken Torman, Doug Annino, JofJ/UStrrs DeMassi Altemate(s): Michael McClanahan Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development I. January 2, 2007 release request from Red Mill Realty re: Gourdin Estates (Patriot's Way) / January 4, 2007 memo from Mike Ahem recommending the release of $136,690.00 Motion: To release $136,690 from the Gourdin Estates subdivision bond (McClanahan- Tonnan) All in favor. PASSES [Mr. Annino arrived at this time] r 2.. ZBA application for Finding - 26 County Street Mr. Burke explained the two-family home burned down and the application is to reconstruct outside the original footprint. Mr. Burke explained this is a finding because it is a pre-existing, non-conforming use; the statutory limit for rebuilding by right has passed. The setbacks are not met on the rear and on one side. Motion: To send the ZBA a positive recommendation (Armstrong-McClanahan) Four in favor. Annino abstained. PASSES [Mr. DeMassi arrived at this time] r 3. ZBA application for Variance - Nextel Cellular Tower - 30 Reservoir Street Mr. Burke explained the tower is proposed too close to the property line and too close to the existing tower; the existing tower will not support any additional arrays. Mr. Annino asked why the existing tower cannot be removed and reconstructed. Mr. Burke said he didn't know if there is a contractual issue with the carriers. Mr. Annino said this type of situation was exactly why the town adopted the co-location by-law. Dr. Tonnan said he thinks increasing the height of the tower will cause a problem with the airport; he said he thinks the height of the existing tower is at the maximum allowed. Mr. Burke said they would need FAA and Mass Aeronautics approval. Mr. DeMassi asked ifNextel is already on the Maple Street tower; Mr. Burke said they might be, but are not getting the coverage they want. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because there is no hardship Shown, because there may be height issues with the airport, and because the co- location by-law was intended to avoid this type of situation. (Annino- Tonnan) All in favor. PASSES Planning Board I 1/11/2007 4. ZBA application for Variance - 890 Maple Street, lot width and depth r Mr. Burke explained the application is to separate out the existing homestead and create a second lot, both of which will have sufficient frontage and lot width, as well as a third lot without sufficient frontage or lot width. Mr. French asked if a residential compound could be done; Mr. Burke said he thinks this land works best as three Form A lots. Mr. Armstrong said the only hardship arises because the applicant wants three lots rather than two that would conform. Mr. Burke suggested sending the ZBA a negative recommendation. Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because there is no hardship demonstrated and the application does not meet the statutory requirements (McClanahan-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Burke presented the board with a draft decision and revised architectural and engineering plans. He said the outstanding engineering and architectural issues have been resolved, and notes have been added to the plans about the rooftop units and the relocation of the ice cream manufacturing area. Ralph Coppola, Main Street Architects, said the plans have been amended to reflect the board's concems, including the painting and relocating of the hvac units and the addition of architectural elements to the exterior. .r- Mr. Armstrong noted he missed the December 13,2006 meeting, but has reviewed the minutes of that meeting and the draft decision, and said he feels comfortable voting on the permit. Mr. Armstrong noted the inclusionary housing by-law requirement has been added as a condition. Mr. Burke said the applicant was made aware of that requirement at the time of submission and he has discussed the issue with Mr. Botti several times. He said that condition should be included in this permit, as well as future permits where this by-law applies. Dr. Torman asked to change "should" to "shall" in condition #6, regarding the applicant having to meet with the Board of Selectmen as road commissioners. Mr. Annino asked about the roof pitch; Mr. Coppola said he has increased the pitch. r' Motion: To approve the special permit application to demolish the existing two-story residential/commercial building, a single-story ice cream manufacturing building and a single-story shed and replace them with one four-story mixed business/residential use building containing a restaurant and six (6) residential condominium units at 34 North Main Street (Assessor's Plat No. 23, Lot 183) in the Business 2 zone with the following conditions: 1. Sheets 1 through 7 of Plans of "Proposed Mixed Use Redevelopment, 34 North Main Street, Mansfield, Massachusetts" dated June 20, 2006 and revised October 17, 2006, Planning Board 2 1/11/2007 r r r' November 9, 2006 and January 9, 2007 by Prime Engineering, Inc. are incorporated into this special permit decision by reference and shall be recorded with the special permit decision. 2. October 6,2006 revised color elevation and layout plans, Sheets A-I, A-2, A-3 and A- 4, dated (submitted at the December 13,2006 public hearing), revised December 13, 2006, prepared by Main Street Architects are incorporated into this special permit decision by reference and shall be recorded with the special permit decision. 3. All above-referenced department head comments shall be satisfactorily addressed within the 20-day appeal period. 4. Any changes to the plans shall be made within the 20-day appeal period. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permit and/or the sale of any unit in the building, the requirements of the inclusionary housing by-law, Section 6.0 of the Zoning By-Law, must be complied with. 6. The applicant shall meet with the Board of Selectmen as Road Commissioners to obtain the necessary permits from the Road Commissioners and the Department of Public Works to make the proposed improvements to the sidewalks on Fulton Street and North Main Street. 7. Additional architectural detail shall be added to the fascia band on the building. 8. The mechanical units on the roof should be painted to match the color of the roofing materials and should be set a minimum of 15' (fifteen feet) from the exterior roof edge. 9. The areas shown on the floor plans dated October 6, 2006 labeled "manufacturing" and ''washroom'' shall be reversed, so that the manufacturing activities take place in the rear comer of the building, fronting on Fulton Place. 10. A stop sign shall be added at the parking lot exit onto Fulton Place. 11. All public rights-of-way used during demolition, deliveries, site work and construction shall be swept regularly and kept clean of debris. Erosion control measures should be installed around catch basins within the public right-of-way. 12. Hours of operation for demolition, deliveries, site work and construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. No work shall be done on Sunday. These restricted hours of operation shall not apply to interior work. (Tonnan-Annino) Torman -In favor. The applicant has been willing to work with the board and has made all the changes requested. This will be a benefit to the downtown area. McClanahan - In favor. This is a good plan and will be a benefit to the town. DeMassi - In favor. The applicant has done a lot to work with the board and this will be a good reuse of a key site downtown, and will add a nice entrance to that end of the downtown area. The benefits outweigh the detriments. Annino - In favor. The construction is clearly consistent with the downtown guidelines, enhances retail development and the streetscape, promotes existing business in Mansfield and encourages them to grow and hopefully prosper. Planning Board 3 1/1112007 r Armstrong - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, the plan has come a long way since the initial proposal, and I appreciate the applicant working with the board. This will be a positive addition to downtown and I look forward to seeing it built. French - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments and this will be a positive addition to downtown. I commend the applicant and his design team for working with the board. The plan has come a long way and the building will be a wonderful addition to downtown. All in favor. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Annino-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES The clerk read a request from the applicant to continue the public hearing Motion: To continue the public hearing to February 7, 2007 at 8:00 p.m. (Annino-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES 4. ZBA application for Variance - 136 Oak Street To create two lots, one lacking frontage and lot width, the other with adequate frontage and lacking lot width. Mr. Annino said the only hardship is a self-created one. Mr. Burke said that is true, but said the existing house could be demolished and a residential compound constructed. r Motion: To send the ZBA a negative recommendation because the application is inconsistent with the Zoning By-Law, is inappropriate for the neighborhood. The application shows no hardship and does not meet the zoning requirements (Annino-Armstrong) All in favor. PASSES S. Minutes December 13,2006 Motion: To approve as submitted (Tonnan-Annino) Five in favor. Armstrong abstained. PASSES 6. Revised elevations from Kohl's, including new materials samples Mr. Annino said he thinks this plan is an improvement over the original, approved building design. Mr. Annino said he would like a large-scale plan with colors, and a landscape plan with species identified. Mr. Burke said the landscape plan is not changing except for the location of the new entrance. Consensus of the board was it is comfortable with the concept, but it would like to see a full-size plan. 7. Appaloosa Estates mylars to be signed Motion: To sign the mylars (Armstrong-Torman) Allin favor. PASSES 8. December 2006 Building Permit summary 9. Meeting notices Attleboro, Easton, North Attleboro, Norton Clementine Drive - Mr. Burke explained there were three lots left at the completion of the subdivision. The zoning has lapsed; this plan seeks to combine the three lots into two conforming lots. He recommended endorsing the plan. r' Motion: To endorse the Form A (Armstrong-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES Planning Board 4 1/11/2007 r Dr. Torman asked about the landscaping at Erin's Centre; Mr. Burke said that issue is still in arbitration. Mr. Annino said he would like to start an annual design award to encourage good design. Mr. Annino asked about plans for the land across from Mansfield Crossing. Mr. Burke said he has spoken with Ken Hecht, who has optioned a few of the lots across the street., but nothing has been submitted. Mr. Annino asked about a new member; Mr. French said there have been no applicants. Mr. McClanahan said he plans to apply for the full-time position. Mr. DeMassi said he has spoken with Gina Larose about one of the open positions. Mr. Armstrong asked about rOD. Mr. Burke said he has attended a meeting in Boston with The Cecil Group. The state then requested a second meeting, which was cancelled after the gubernatorial election; Mr. Burke said he expects that meeting to be rescheduled. He said he would still like to go to Town Meeting for traffic study funding. f' Motion: To adjourn at 9:15 p.m. (Torman-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: Wednesday, January 24,2007 at 7:30 p.m. 45~&(T7(j Signature of Clerk / /-Z'i)" 7 Date or Approval r Planning Board 5 1/11/2007