Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 102407 ,,, ~:I"('r.'IJF-p I, 1,..l:,_,. \ \, ,._,1;) Planning Board Minutes October 24,2007 ni '}(1'1 ? 0 D~~ /' I, ') Present: Doug Annino, Acting Chair; Fred Armstrong, Clerk, Dohg Ximii16, K~n ,..' -., J Torman, John DeMassi, Mike McClanahan, Stan Feck I u Altemate(s): Tony Jodice, Beth Ashman-Collins h' p, ,-, c" ('I 'IJr'roTS I I H :) ,,:'. \ '... ! i" J... I , ", lo..;". 1.......l......~~tiJI.i~..etlt.i....ti.......~;~:li~..... Motion: To appoint Mr. Annino Acting Chair (DeMassi-Torman) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To appoint Mr. DeMassi Acting Clerk (DeMassi- Torman) All in favor. PASSES 12.Col'I'espond~~~ 1. October 10, 2007 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (Torman-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES 2. October 18, 2007 request for release of surety from Keith Signoriello, Suzanne Mary Development re: Suzanne Lane / October 18, 2007 memo from Mike Ahem recommending the release of$119,975.20 Motion: To release $119,975.20 (McClanahan-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES 3. October 24, 2007 letter from Perry DiMascio re: Form J Release for Lots 1,2, II, 12. Autumn Park. Mr. Burke said the surety has been posted, $132,383.02 Motion: To accept the surety of$132,383 (McClanahan-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To sign the Form J Release for Lots 1,2, 11 and 12 (McClanahan-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES [Mr. Feck and Mr. Armstrong arrived at this time] 4. ZBA decisions - 100 Walnut Street (denied); 64 Copeland Drive (granted) Around the Table Dr. Torman asked about the landscaping at Erin's Centre. Mr. Burke said as oflast week there has been no resolution. He said some of the tenants are still on temporary certificates of occupancy and would like to have full certificates of occupancy, and the landowner and business owners are in disputing what should be done. He said this is a contract dispute between those parties and is in court. Mr. McClanahan suggested sending the landowner a certified letter asking about the status. Dr. Torman said the board has done that and has not received a response; he asked if the building inspector has any recourse. Mr. Annino asked Mr. Burke to fmd out what the deadline for the temporary certificates of occupancy is. Dr. Torman said the site is an eyesore and it should be cleaned up. Motion: To ask the building inspector if anything can be done relative to the certificates of occupancy (Torman-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES Mr. Burke said Special Town Meeting will be October 30,2007 at 7:00 p.m. Planning Board I 11/7/2007 . Attorney Charles Mulcahy, representing Hecht Development, introduced Ken Hecht; Tim Tobin from Carter Burgess; Tim Letton, Pat Cleary and Matt Smith from Bohler Engineering. Mr. Smith explained the changes made to the plan, which shows a 6 y.. acre, three-lot site with two buildings, one 8,000 and one 16,500 square feet with retail and restaurant. Mr. Smith explained the changes to the loading areas at the rear of the buildings. On the north side of the site, there is a loading zone proposed at the rear of the building, along the west property line. There is a loading zone to the south of the southerly building Both loading areas are in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning By-Law and are outside the designated aisle widths. They have modified the enclosures and recycling areas, reduced the number and removed parking in front of the enclosures. The doors at the backs of the buildings are shown with bollard protections; Mr. Smith said they are not certain the doors will end up in the locations shown. Bike racks have been added at the rear of both buildings. A sidewalk has been added at the main entrance area to the southerly side of driveway and crosswalks. The driveway has been reduced to 16 feet and wide and has better geometric control. Increased landscaping, detail of hardscapes and snow storage areas are shown on the plans. Mr. Annino asked if the revisions are circled on the plans; Mr. Smith said they are not. Mr. Annino asked if the revisions can be circled on a final set. Board Comment Ms. Collins asked if the crosswalk will be striped; Mr. Smith said it will be. Ms. Collins said she is uncomfortable with the bike racks behind the buildings. Mr. Smith said he had expected the bike racks would be used by employees, but said there is ample room in the hardscape areas. Mr. Hecht said he would rather not have the bike racks at the front of the site. Mr. Armstrong suggested a small sign indicating there is bike parking at the rear. Dr. Torman suggested putting bike racks under the trees near the handicapped parking spaces; Mr. Smith said there is room for that. Mr. Annino suggested putting the Planning Board 2 11/7/2007 . bike racks in the landscaped areas between the buildings. Mr. Hecht said that would be a good spot. Mr. Jodice asked about a pedestrian crossing the driveway. Mr. Smith said there will be a crosswalk at the front of the site. Mr. Jodice asked about the MBT A fence at the back of the site. Mr. Smith said the fence is in good shape; he said they would rather not put up another fence right next to it. He showed the board photographs of the fence area. Mr. DeMassi said the site will likely be clear cut up to that fence. Mr. Smith said the buildings will be blocking the fence and patrons will not see it. Dr. Torman asked if it would be possible to leave a line of trees there. Mr. Smith said they are developing up to the property line. Mr. Tobin said they don't intend to take down any trees they don't have to, but said the equipment may crush the roots of the existing growth. He said if that happens, they may have to come back and cut down the dead trees. Mr. Burke suggested planting a row of arbor vitae at the back of the site. Mr. Hecht said he likes that idea. The board agreed. Mr. DeMassi asked if staff has reviewed these plans. Mr. Burke said he has met with the applicant and his comments have been addressed. He said Mr. Sullivan's comments have been substantially addressed. Mr. DeMassi asked where the sign will be. Mr. Smith said there will be one adjacent to the main driveway and a small monument sign at the first driveway. He said he doesn't know the signage details at this point; he said if the signs do not comply, they would come back to the Planning Board to amend the special permit prior to going to the ZBA. Mr. Smith showed the board sign elevations and suggested the special permit could describe the signs as "similar in style". Mr. DeMassi said he would not agree to that because the board has had problems with signs on past projects. Mr. DeMassi asked if the signs are internally illuminated; Mr. Smith said they are. Mr. DeMassi asked about Mr. Smith's comments about "switchgear." Mr. Smith said they have added landscaping around the transformer. Mr. DeMassi asked about the seating. Mr. Smith explained the building sizes haven't changed, but the seating has shifted between the buildings. He said the plan calls out how many seats there would be for each use; he said that could change as the center develops, but said the total number of seats would not change. Mr. DeMassi asked if the parking calculation matches the number of seats; Mr. Smith said it does. Mr. Armstrong said the developer has done a good job addressing the board's comments. Mr. McClanahan asked about the tree sizes; Mr. Smith said the landscape schedule calls out the specific caliper sizes. Mr. McClanahan asked about the lighting. Mr. Smith said the poles have been reduced to 28 ~ feet high, and the concrete bases have been eliminated. Mr. McClanahan asked if Planning Board 3 11/7/2007 - they looked into LED lighting. Mr. Smith said they did, but found that LED is not yet readily accepted for use in site lighting Mr. Annino asked about the hardscape. Mr. Tobin explained the front of the buildings will have brick pavers. They also added clay pots about three feet in diameter, three feet high with seasonal plantings along the fronts of the buildings. Mr. Tobin said there will be benches and trash receptacles. He said the tenants are still being positioned, as well as the outdoor seating, and the benches and trash receptacles will be placed accordingly. Mr. Burke said he has met with the applicants about his and the board's comments, and the team has done a nice job and has been receptive to the changes the board asked. He said the traffic pattern will be safe for pedestrians and motorists, and the site will be attractive. Mr. Annino said this will be a nice complement to the development across the street. He said he is impressed with the landscaping and the facades, as well as the entry areas. Motion: To close the public hearing (McClanahan-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To approve the special permit application to construct two commercial buildings, one 8,000 square feet and the other 16,560 square feet, with 143 parking spaces at 279, 287, 295 & lot 54 School Street (Assessor's Plat. No. 11, Lots 51, 52, 53, 54) in the Industrial I (11) zone with the following conditions: 1. Sheets 1-13 of 13 of "Site Development Plans for Hecht Development Proposed "Mansfield Marketplace" 279, 287, 295 School Street" dated July 2, 2007 and revised August 3, 2007, August 28, 2007, October 2,2007 and October 10,2007 by Bohler Engineering; Sheet 1 of 1 of "Site Lighting Photometric Plan, School Street Development" dated June 21, 2007 and revised August 22, 2007 prepared by Hubbell Lighting, Inc.; Sheet 1 of 1 of ALTAlASCM Land Title Survey dated October 27, 2006 prepared by Control Point Associates, Inc. are incorporated into this special permit decision by reference and shall be recorded with the special permit decision. 2. The building elevations dated October 15,2007 by Carter Burgess and the Site Plan dated October 10, 2007 by Bohler Engineering, Inc. are incorporated into this special permit decision by reference and shall be recorded with the special permit decision. Any revisions to these building elevation plans must be reviewed by the Planning Board prior to construction. 3. If the developer seeks any signage variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and should relief be granted, the applicant must return to the Planning Board for review, which may include a public hearing to revise or reissue this special permit. 4. All above-referenced department head comments shall be satisfactorily addressed within the 20-day appeal period. Planning Board 4 11/7/2007 - 5. Any changes to the plans shall be made within the 20-day appeal period. 6. This development may be subject to the Department of Public Works' five-year street cut moratorium. 7. The developer may be required to use flowable fill in any trenches within the School Street right-of-way subject to the discretion of the Department of Public Works. 8. 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. 9. 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. All loaded vehicles shall be suitably covered to prevent dust and contents leaving the vehicle and to protect abutters and other residents, and the public way from material spilled from the load. School Street shall be maintained free of all mud, stones or any other conditions that may result in a public safety hazard for vehicles or pedestrians. Sweeping or cleaning must be completed daily or more frequently as deemed necessary during the operation, as directed by the Mansfield Police Chief. The Applicant may be required to have a police officer present during any hauling on or off site. The applicant shall consult with the Mansfield Police Chief as to whether or not this may be necessary and to discuss the best hauling routes. 10. There will be no fewer than two strategically located blue light panic buttons installed for security throughout the site. The location of poles is to be determined by the Mansfield Police Department. 11. Site lighting will be powered down by fifty percent (50%) within one hour after the last business closes. 12. The applicant is responsible for the installation and all costs associated with changing the signalization at the entrance to the Mansfield Crossing development, as well as any signal timing changes and all lane striping [restriping]. 13. All signalization changes, including fixtures, turn signals, timing of same, striping or restriping of travel lanes and traffic signage must be done in accordance with the requirements of the Mansfield Department of Public Works and Mass Highway, if necessary. 14. The preceding two conditions, 12 and 13, of this special permit shall be completed prior to any certificate of occupancy being granted on this site. Planning Board 5 11/7/2007 . ~ 15. The applicant shall install bicycle racks for public use in the landscaped area at the southwest comer of the site, at the rear left of the end of the main entrance driveway. 16. A row of arbor vitae shall be planted along the security fence at the MBT A right- of-way at the back of the southwest comer of the site to screen the view of the rail line from the entrance driveway. 17. All buildings on site shall be single story. 18. All existing residential curb cuts shall be eliminated and replaced with concrete sidewalk and granite curbing to match existing sidewalk and curbing. 19. Any significant change to Mansfield Marketplace and/or its attendant parking, drainage and/or landscaping shall result in the need for a modification to this special permit. A five percent (5%) change to any of the above-referenced aspects of this item shall be considered a "significant change" and shall require review by the Planning Board. A less than significant change shall require a new site plan to be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Board and approved by the Building Inspector. 20. This special permit will allow a drive-up window for a Bank or Pharmacy use, however, the Applicant has specifically stated for the record that it is not the Applicant's intention to conduct a traditional Fast Food restaurant that would include a drive-up window on this site and to that extent, this special permit does not include permission for any drive-up/walk-up fast food window. This special permit will allow Auto Repair and Body Shop under Section 3.5.17. For the purposes of this special permit, Auto Repair and Body Shop is specifically defined as an accessory use to a retail establishment where sales of automotive- related items that may require the installation of such products as automobile stereos, alarm systems or navigation devices within an enclosed bay of the building. Activities such as mechanical repair, auto body repair or maintenance, installation or repair, or other activities generally consistent with mechanical/auto body repair or maintenance, such as tire sales, exhaust or muffler repair or installation, or oil changes, are NOT allowed by this special permit. No free-standing cellular towers shall be allowed on this site. (peck-McClanahan) [Motion: To open and continue the public hearing for 905 South Main Street until the completion of the 279 School Street hearing (McClanahan- Torman) All in favor. PASSES] Planning Board 6 11/7/2007 . Torman - In favor. The developer has been more than willing to work with the board to produce a high quality project that will be an asset to the community. Jodice - In favor. The developer and his team have done a great job and this development will be a good tie-in with the development across the street. DeMassi - In favor. Taking in to account all the changes that have been made for safety, architecture and green space, this will be a good addition and complement the development across the street. Armstrong - In favor. The developer has addressed the issues laid out in the Zoning By- Law, I believe the benefits outweigh the detriments, and the development will be a good addition to the community. Feck - In favor. The developer has done a good job addressing the concerns of the board and department heads, and this development will be a good addition to the area. McClanahan - In favor. The developer has done a good job working with the board and staff, and this development will be complementary to Mansfield Crossing. Annino - In favor. The development will complement the work across the street and will enhance the area. The team has done an outstanding job and I appreciate their willingness to work with board. All in favor. PASSES John Guszkowski and Scott Young, CME Associates; Dennis Flynn, Earth Tech, Tom Danielek, Drake Petroleum Mr. Young distributed a new set of plans. Mr. Guszkowski said he believes they have answered the outstanding questions about the site. He said they have received sign-offs from Engineering, Electric, Fire, Police, and a verbal ok from Mass Highway, which asked to shift the driveway 10 feet to the south. Mr. Guszkowski explained the changes to plans, including the removal of the dental work on the building, additional open space and parking calculations for entire site. He said the site has 16 more parking spaces than are required. The plan shows wetland areas, more details on setbacks, traffic and parking striping, shed, planting, drainage direction, and underground gas storage tanks. Mr. Guszkowski explained the changes to the lighting plan. He said the on the original plan, footcandles were at 95, and have been redesigned with 75-76 maximum footcandles Planning Board 7 11/7/2007 . directly under the canopy. He presented the board with specifications showing the lights' anticipated lifetime and bum-in reduction. He said there would be no glare off premises at the property boundary Mr. Guzskowski said the internal traffic circulation is fine and the parking adequate. He said the traffic study shows the second curb cut alleviates problems with traffic congestion and queuing. Mr. Guszkowski said the traffic report shows that based on anticipated growth, the level of service will decrease because flow will increase, but said this site will not dramatically affect that. He said the level of service will not drop dramatically because of the addition of XtraMart. He said the analysis of one curb cut vs. two shows less queuing with two curb cuts. He said there had been questions about left turns in and out of this site. He said he has received sign offs from the Police Department, which reinforced that during events at the Tweeter events, there will be no left turns into the XtraMart site. Board Comment Dr. Torman asked about a landscaping plan. Mr. Guszkowski showed the board the landscaping plan and a letter from landscape architect. Mr. F eck said the board has just received this set of plans and staff has not had time to review them. Mr. Burke said Mr. Guzskowski told the board the Engineering Department has approved the plans; however, Mr. Burke said the Town Engineer's comments have not all been addressed. Mr. Burke said he discussed the traffic study with the applicant's engineer at a meeting on October 16, 2007 and explained the concern is about turning movements, not capacity and levels of service. He said he suggested at that meeting it would be safer to queue patrons inside the site rather than having two curb cuts. Mr. Burke said he has not received any communication from Mass Highway approving the curb cuts for this site. Mr. Burke said he spoke with CME earlier in the day about giving the board and staff an opportunity to review the plans before coming in. Mr. Burke said the accident report in the traffic study shows the Tweeter Center driveway has a 60% higher accident rate than other intersections, so a left turn out of the proposed northern driveway on the XtraMart site is a significant issue that has not been addressed. Mr. DeMassi said Route 140 goes from a single lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction near this site, so he understands the left turns may be a dangerous Planning Board 8 11/7/2007 . situation. He said he has made it very clear that approval of the second entrance by Mass Highway will have no bearing on how he votes for this plan; he said he would not vote for a plan showing that second driveway. He said if staff hasn't had a chance to review the plans, the board shouldn't spend time on them. Mr. McClanahan asked if the special permit requirement for this use would require a new special permit for the whole site. Mr. Burke said this is a stand-alone use and does not affect the existing uses. Department Head Comments The clerk read two memos from Mr. Sullivan (October 22 and October 24, 2007) and an email from Lt. Boldrighini. Mr. Guskowski said he meant no disrespect to the board and said they are concerned about getting the project right. He said some of the guidance received at the last meeting was unclear. He said he did not expect the board to make a decision tonight but would like to continue discussing the specific problem areas, especially the northern curb cut. Dennis Flynn, Earth Tech, said the high accident rates at Tweeter driveway are in the summertime in the evening, leading him to believe those accidents are during events at Tweeter. He said they used industry standards for evaluating safety at the driveways, and there is clear sight distance to the north. He said they would not speculate about the number of accidents that mayor may not occur. Mr. Feck said he is uncomfortable talking about the new plans without staffhaving had time to review them. Mr. McClanahan suggested the applicant meet with the staff members together. Mr. Annino said the board relies heavily on staff's opinion and without staff feeling comfortable, the board will not feel comfortable. Ms. Collins said the landscaping plan does not show the side of the driveway that will be used for stormwater, and asked how that would be treated. Mr. Young said there will be a basin there and it would be shown on the plans. Ms. Collins said there should be some kind of buffer on that side of the driveway. Mr. Jodice said he is not against this site being developed, but said he needs more information. Mr. DeMassi said if the site has 16 extra parking spaces, he would like to see them removed and become open space. Mr. Guszkowski said they would provide the breakdown, and said most of the excess spaces are at the rear of the site. Mr. DeMassi asked about signage. Mr. Guszkowski said that has not changed from the original submission. The free-standing sign is 15 feet tall, 20 feet to the top of the "V." Mr. DeMassi said the neighbors are very concerned about this project, and the board is required to determine how this project will mitigate the abutters' concerns. He said he Planning Board 9 11/7/2007 .. would like to see where the neighboring houses and driveways are located in relation to this property, and where South Main Street goes from a single lane to a double lane. Mr. Armstrong asked about Mass Highway's request to move the driveway 10 feet. Mr. Guskowski said that has been shown on the plans. Mr. Armstrong said the canopy is too big, the proposal is too dense, and said this may simply be the wrong use for this site. Mr. Feck said he would like to see all abutting property lines and distances from this site to abutting buildings within 500 feet. Mr. DeMassi noted this isn't simply a site plan review, and the board has a lot more to consider with the special permit, regarding things like the project's impact on the neighbors, traffic and safety. Mr. Armstrong suggested the applicant re-read the specifics of the zoning by-law section that the board has to consider in its vote. Mr. Feck asked if the lighting value could be lower than 75 footcandles. Mr. Guszkowski said with the bum-in rates, the lighting would be lower than that within a couple of months. He said there are also issues with safety and visibility. Mr. McClanahan asked the applicant to meet with staff and address their comments before returning to the board. Mr. Guszkowski said he understands the board's concerns and intends to work with staff on the issues. Mr. Feck said staff needs to be comfortable with the plans before the board sees them. Mr. DeMassi said the board has always been concerned about the second driveway, and this site's location and existing traffic issues make it that a big concern. Dr. Torman said he would like to see an effort made to mitigate light going off the property and would like to see taller plantings at the front of the site. Mr. Guszkowski said taller plantings would create a sight distance problem. Dr. Torman said the proposed sign is too tall and too wide and suggested that be reconsidered. Mr. DeMassi said he doesn't have a problem with the sign style, but does have a problem with the size. Mr. Burke said the plans show open space at 25%. But the narrative says it is 35%. He suggested adding a sheet to the plan set and change the table. Mr. Burke said there are a lot of accidents at the driveway to the Tweeter Center, so he is concerned about additional turning movements at this site. Mr. Annino asked for the following to be added to the plans: circle changes; dimension islands, add gas pump details, handicapped parking details, canopy dimensions, setbacks, building and heights, shed detail, landscape detention area where possible. Mr. Annino suggested meeting with staff and making sure they are happy. Public Comment Nancy Pimental, 259 Mansfield Avenue, Norton, explained she also represents her mother, Helen Bielan, 900 South Main Street. Mrs. Pimental said this land was changed Planning Board 10 11/7/2007 . to industrial in the 1980s and the neighbors were assured a gas station would not be an allowed use. She said she has severe chemical sensitivity, and the Zoning By-Law requires the Planning Board to consider things like health, ~ Ifare, and impacts on adjacent parcels under a special permit. She said Massachusetts law describes a special permit as an unusual use that would promote public health, welfare, etc. She said wind usually blows west to east and her mother's house is due east of this site and is in a low- lying area; she said she is concerned fumes will be trapped inside. She said gasoline contains additives like benzene, which has been demonstrated to cause cancer. She said she has an autoimmune disease, and the fumes from the gasoline will be a problem for her. She said there are vehicles turning in and out of the site now, which disturbs the neighbors, and if this is to be a 24-hour operation, that will be a serious problem. Brian Sullivan, who said he represents someone who has an interest in the property, asked if it would be appropriate for the board to ask the applicant to provide funding for an independent consultant to review the traffic study. Mr. Feck said he doesn't think that is appropriate at this time, at least until staffhas had a chance to review the plans. Mr. Guszkowski said they are willing to do that if the board wishes. Mr. Annino said a peer review is a good idea. Mr. DeMassi asked how much something like that would cost. Mr. Burke said the last one was done for a much larger site and cost about $10,000. Dr. Torman asked if it would make more sense to wait until staff reviews the plans before getting a peer review. Mr. Young said he thought this would be about a week's work and cost $3-5,000. Mr. Burke said he would have to get at least three quotes for the peer review. Mr. Young said if the cost is about $3-5,000, they would be willing to fund it. Ms. Collins said she doesn't want anyone to assume that this peer review would result in an approval of this plan. Mr. Burke said he doesn't think it would take a lot of time to get three quotes on a small study like this and said it may be useful for staff. Motion: To ask Mr. Burke to solicit bids and a price for a peer review of the traffic study (Feck-DeMassi) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To continue the public hearing to November 28,2007 at 8:00 p.m. (Feck-McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES Motion: To adjourn at 10:15 p.m. (Torman-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: Wednesday, November 7,2007 at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, November 14,2007 at 7:30 p.m. (Master Plan) ___ ....7. _.~ ./ "'-ie', '(' //, /t /1 It ;-/701 I \ L ,:-:. [. --- . l '/ t Signature of Clerk II J 2 <; jL) 7 Date of Approval Planning Board 11 11/7/2007 .