Minutes
of April 17, 2007
Present were: Marilyn Richards, Chair; Thomas Morrissette, Vice
Chair; Louis Calabrese, Clerk; Donald Anderson and Michael Przybylowicz.
The Board re-organized the officers and upon motion duly
made and seconded, Louis Calabrese was elected Clerk of the Planning
Board. Upon motion duly made and
seconded, Marilyn Richards was elected Chairman of the Planning Board and upon
motion duly made and seconded, Thomas Morrissette was elected Vice Chairman of
the Planning Board, all for the 2007-2008 year.
Informal Meeting with Jayson Falcone
Mr. Falcone advised the Board of a
minor change to the site plan for
Mr. Przybylowicz had concerns with snow removal and the concrete
wheel stops. Mr. Falcone he said that it
would be trucked to a more remote part of the site and not left to mound on
site. Mr. Morrissette was concerned with
someone being in their car and not being able to see that there is a wall in
front of them and they hit the wall. He
also was concerned about losing the required percentage of landscaping, however,
Mr. Falcone assured the Board that they would still meet the requirement.
Ms.
Richards asked the Board members that, based on the fact that the Board has Mr.
Falcone’s word that the landscaping will not go below the 10% the requirement
for the project and the fact he is proposing there will be no new impact on
traffic flow, number of parking spaces or the square footage of the building
were they comfortable with making the decision without amending the Special
Permit? After
further discussion, the Board agreed that a wrought-iron fence would be the
best plan. Therefore, upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to allow the change and
not require an amendment to the Special Permit as the sidewalk change is
insignificant to the approved overall plan.
Mr. Falcone then asked the Board
about the entrance and exit signs to Rocky’s stating that they are in poor
shape and would like to replace them. He
said that they are proposing to do the exact same size and type face but with
an architectural treatment of an arch over the top similar to the shopping
center signs, and that he was not asking for approval at this meeting. However, he wants to present a plan to the
Board showing these changes and wanted to know if they would be treated as they
are, pre-existing, non-conforming? Mr.
Morrissette questioned if these signs were indicated on the original plan that
was approved and whether theses signs were ever addressed? Mr. Falcone said no they were not and they do
not show on the current plan. Ms.
Richards reminded him that the signs (in today’s by-law) would be illegal. However, they can be maintained and/or
repaired without having to bring them into conformity.
Mr. Falcone will get back to the
Board on the design, future designs for the small signs in front of Rocky’s, and
for the application for the Walgreen’s sign.
Mr. Przybylowicz
asked Mr. Falcone about making improvements to the Walgreen concrete building. Mr. Falcone said that they have been giving
it time to let the efflorescence leach out of the limestone to determine if
that is a process that will help to improve the look. Mr. Przybylowicz
also asked if there where any developments for the sidewalk in front of
Walgreens? Mr. Falcone said they have
been waiting for the weather to clear, were not certain of what choice would be
made and they still need to meet with DPW.
Mr. Falcone then stated that Rocky’s
would like to have a tent sale on the site for the bank, with a 20 x 40 tent on
Saturday & Sunday, May 5th & 6th - not take any
additional parking from the shopping center.
He said that they would lay astroturf underneath the tent to eliminate
any tripping hazards on the dirt with a 24 hour security officer because the
merchandise will stay out over the weekend.
There would also be a police officer available during the sale hours to
handle any increase in traffic on
Mr. Falcone brought the Board up
to date with the center project by stating that he was hoping the bank would be
able to break ground in the next 4 to 6 weeks.
He added that the upstairs suites
in building C will be occupied by Attorney Frank Fitzgerald and Falcone
Development. Mr. Falcone said he also
has a lease that is about 99% of the way for the remaining 3 bays in the
building that is retail that will complement what they are doing there and is
not a major high traffic use.
Public Hearing Site Plan Review –
The Chair,
Doug Mattoon, Architect from
Associated Builders introduced Peter Wood, Associated Builders and Roger
Jarosz, Principal of Inglewood Development.
Mr. Mattoon said that the plan was originally approved in 2004, and since
then Associated Builders has become involved with the project and made some
minor modifications to the plan. He said
that the Conservation Commission approved the revised plans on March 14, 2007 and
comments from the department heads have been received and incorporated into the
plan being presented. Mr. Mattoon explained
that the project is for a 10,180 square foot building. He stated that the minor modifications made were
to the circulation around the building as they were concerned about truck
turning movements on the site and around the building. He said the proposed change will be an
additional entranceway to allow the trucks to enter and back into the loading
docks - then pull out making it an easy circulation which pleased the Fire
Department.
Mr. Mattoon stated that the
building is a combination office/warehouse storage facility and the developers
run a construction company. They will have
their offices and intend to house equipment in the building. Mr. Mattoon said that the building is
designed to have 2 tenants and instead of having 1 entrance on the north side
of the building they are proposing two entrances along Benton Drive to allow
them to break up the building and have a more pleasing appearance. He said that parking calculations were based on
two tenants with 50% being office use - requiring 26 spaces and they are providing
37. He said that the excess spaces would
contribute toward the warehouse space, or if a manufacturing company wants to
come in, they could go towards the requirement for manufacturing. Mr. Mattoon said the building will consist of
a sandwich panel that has more of a contemporary look to it. Mr. Wood said that they have taken to
consideration WF Young and
Mr. Mattoon said that the loading
docks will be to the rear of the building and not visible from the street. He said the only thing that is not indicated
on the plans is the mirror that has been requested by the police, and his
suggestion would be to place it on a pole at the corner of the dumpster pad
giving a truck driver visibility of any cars in the lot.
Ms. Richards addressed the Board
for any questions. Mr. Przybylowicz asked why the large
striped area on the plan said “no parking”? Mr. Mattoon said that is for the trucks to be
able to pull in front first, that because of the site configurations in order
for the truck to be able to pull all the way in they had to block the spaces
off so the truck could pull forward. Mr. Przybylowicz asked if any commercial vehicles would be stored
there? Mr. Jarosz said no that they do not do site work or have any
large equipment.
Mr. Anderson asked if there was a
snow removal plan? Mr. Mattoon said when
they redesigned the site they were able to put the detention basins back
towards the wetlands so all of the natural topography will be utilized as there
is a fair amount of area where the snow could be stored. Mr. Mattoon explained the changes in the
utilities and showed that the redesign now allows the sewer system to stay
straight across one area. Mr. Mattoon said that it simplifies the construction
of the street and the drainage of the sewer and the sewer line will go across
in front of Young’s building, the transformer will have screening and that the
gas and water will be in the same area.
Ms. Richards brought Mr. Mattoon’s
attention to the inaccuracies in the legend and asked that he fix them to
reflect the proper requirements for parking.
Ms. Richards questioned the sign location in the middle of the site and stated
that the Board was not approving signage at that time, rather the occupant
would have to come back later.
Mr. Morrissette asked which side
of the building the owner was going to take? Mr. Mattoon said the southern portion. Mr. Morrissette asked if there was going to be
access to the warehouse for the tenant?
Mr. Mattoon said yes and referred to the floor plan and explained it.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked if roof top equipment was going to be
shielded? Mr. Mattoon said currently
there is going to be very limited HVAC.
He said the heating will be gas fired units inside of the building and
depending on the need for the air conditioned space, they are going to be split
systems with the condensing unit outside.
Mr. Mattoon added that they have
correspondence from WestMass approving the plan.
Ms. Richards addressed the
audience for any questions. There being
none addressed the Board for any further questions. With the Board being
satisfied with the information and upon motion duly made and seconded, the
Board voted unanimously (5-0) to close the hearing. Ms. Macdonald reminded the Board they needed
to address the request for waiver of traffic study separately. Mr. Morrissette said if it turns into more of
an office building than a warehouse building will the parking still conform?
Mr. Mattoon said that it was his
understanding when a tenant comes on board they would have to come before the
Planning Board. Ms. Richards said that
was correct and the Board might say it’s not going to fit based on what they
have and the Board will have the final say on what type of tenant occupies the
building, based on the parking provided. Therefore, upon motion duly made and seconded,
the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to waive the traffic study, and further, upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the
site plan conditioned upon the requirements of police, fire and department of
public works’ recommendations being met.
Public Hearing Site Plan Review
–
The Chair, Marilyn Richards opened
the hearing and introduced the Board Members. Clerk, Louis Calabrese read the
legal notice and correspondence into the record.
Selectmen voted to recommend
approval subject to the Police and Fire’s recommendations. Police recommended that exterior lighting be
installed to illuminate the parking lot
and driveways. Further, according
to the police report, the revised site plan still does not have lighting
installed specifically at the parking areas around buildings “A”, “D” & “E”. They are recommending that additional
lighting be installed. Further, each
building entrance /exit needs to be illuminated; signage should be installed as
not to interfere with the visibility from vehicles entering and exiting the
site; that the two handicapped parking spaces on the south side of the parking
area for building “C” be moved so they are adjacent to the proposed building;
that the center line pavement marking on the main driveway be extended into the
site until it reaches the parking area.
Sergeant Bates also stated that stop signs, stop lines and a center line
be installed on the entrance/exit to building “A”. Additional sidewalks need to
be installed along the south side of the parking lot of Phase I building. Any plantings at the site shall not restrict
visibility for pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
The Fire Department required that
fire hydrants be located as shown on the plan and installed as directed by them.
Because they were concerned about the
number of cars entering and exiting the site, the department has asked, and the
developer has provided, an emergency access/egress to be used only by emergency
vehicles, if an emergency occurs. This
emergency exit is located at
Mr. Calabrese advised the Board
that the applicant is requesting a waiver of traffic study in consideration of
the fact that they made previous contributions to the town for traffic
elevations and improvements during Phase I of the master plan for the site, and
the traffic data previously provided is being provided again for their review.
Doug Mattoon from Associated
Builders reminded the Board that Phase I was previously approved, and that he
was in attendance for approval of the entire master plan for the site, and the
build-out for all 5 of the buildings.
Mr. Mattoon said that the roads, stormwater detention basin, and
pavement up to an area (referred to the plan) are currently installed. Also, the stormwater management and utilities
are functioning at a level to run the site for the entire build-out. He said
departmental reviews were held and the comments read have been addressed and
the revised plans submitted. Mr. Mattoon
said that the rest of the project consisted of one single story 15,000 square
foot building; one single story 5,000 square foot building; and, two 20,000
square foot buildings each with 10,000 square feet per floor. He said the building will have ribbon windows
- a lot of glass and metal and the finish material that gives a look more of
stone.
Further, Mr. Mattoon said that
they have received Conservation approval on March 28th. He explained that the plan is the master plan
- a condominium ownership association. Mr. Mattoon said the most recent plans show
the painting of the center line, painting of the center line stop signs and
that the requested pole lighting was indicated.
Mr. Morrissette asked if the center line was going to continue all the
way through the project? Mr. Mattoon
said no just on the driveway portions.
He said that the site as good circulation as there are no dead end
parking lots and wall packs have been added at all exits. He said that no snow storage shall be placed
within the 100 foot buffer area and once it is stock-piled it will be removed. Mr. Mattoon further stated that traffic signs
are being proposed such as handicap parking, stop signs, one-way signs and that
no building signage is being proposed currently. He said that Conservation did ask them to
indicate on the drawing the proposed limit of work and pointed out that the
permanent marker locations have been shown in their entirety. He said the square foot areas of impervious
surfaces of the proposed detention basins have been designed and noted on the
plan.
Mr. Mattoon said the concern of
the Police and Fire had with regard to the emergency access drive has been
addressed. He added that it is not
designed to be identified for regular traffic and will be emergency use only.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked who will be responsible to maintain the
easement? Mr. Mattoon said the owner. Mr. Przybylowicz asked how many
dumpster there would be and are they enclosed?
Mr. Mattoon said 5 dumpster and a 10x12 concrete pad with fence
enclosure are designated for each of them.
Mr.
Anderson asked if it does become a warehouse and requires larger vehicles, have
you already made it count for traffic flow as well? Mr. Mattoon said yes but the owners and
developers are not interested in that being a warehouse – however, one could
never guarantee that - if that did take place we would have to modify the site
plan and come before the Board again to accommodate truck turning movements.
Mr.
Morrissette asked if he could explain about the traffic study? Mr. Mattoon said in 2006, the owner of the
site agreed that a gift be given to the Town of East Longmeadow as a
contribution synchronization of the traffic lights. Ms. Macdonald said the gift was given to the
town in lieu of the traffic study for Phase 1, to be used in conjunction with
the East Longmeadow Department of Public Works and the Town of Longmeadow for
the intersections at Benton & Chestnut and Benton and Maple Street.
Ms. Richards addressed the
audience for any questions. There being
none and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0)
to waive the traffic study and reserve the right to revisit it if necessary. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (5-0) to close the hearing.
Without the need for further discussion, and upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the site plan review as
approved for the buildings described above and shown on the plan. Ms.
Macdonald requested that new plans be prepared showing the placement of the
mirror and presented back to the Board for endorsement.
Continuation Public Hearing –
Ramona Circle
The Chair, Marilyn Richards said
that the legal notice was already read and
asked if there was any additional correspondence
to be read into the record? Clerk,
The Board along with Mr. Suffriti reviewed
the revised plan and Mr. Suffriti said that the easement drain was moved out of
the 200 foot buffer. Ms. Macdonald said
the fire hydrant was moved and the size of the drainage pipes had been changed
to meet the requirements of DPW.
Mr. Morrissette asked about the
sidewalk issue. Mr. Suffriti said that
they ended up staying on one side like it was.
Ms. Richards said the she thought they had said they would bring it down
the other side to other driveway. Mr.
Suffriti said whatever the Board wanted him to do. Mr. Morrissette said originally they had it
going to the middle of the cul-de-sac and then the Building Inspector questioned
it. Mr. Anderson said personally he is
fine with it unless it is a clear violation, which he does not think it is.
After discussion the Board agreed
to have the sidewalk on one side of the roadway to the halfway point with a
ramp down to the road off the curb. Ms.
Macdonald advised that the water line had been moved because the gas utility
was underneath and the size of the water lines were changed per requests from
DPW. Mr. Suffriti said they also
changed the name to Romana Way instead of Circle.
Ms. Richards said just for the
public, the changes on the plan are pretty technical with respect to DPW and
Conservation and in terms of the sidewalk it is going to go down all the way to
the middle of the cul-de-sac on one side.
Ms. Richards addressed the audience for any questions.
Dawn Bretta, Fern Glen Road asked how big will the houses be? Mr. Suffriti said between 1,800 – 2,200
square feet like starter homes around $389,000 to $429,000. Ms. Bretta asked if
the lots were going to be 25,000 square feet?
Ms. Richards said that is a requirement. Ms. Bretta asked from the back of the house
will they be 50 feet away from the property line? Mr. Morrissette said typically they is a 50
foot setback and where the backyard ends up there is usually more left. Ms. Bretta asked if there was going to be a
privacy buffer making it 70 feet?
Ms. Richards reminded her that
they had talked about that issue at the last meeting and the only time the
Planning Board requires landscaped privacy buffers is when a residential
district abuts a commercial, business or industrial district.
Rebecca Quinlan, Fernwood Drive asked if the detention basin isn’t cleaned by the
owner would the town clean it? Mr. Suffriti
said that the town has the right to take action against the owner of that
property if they don’t do it. He said
the water leaving the property will be less than what is leaving now.
Ms. Richards addressed the Board
for any further questions, there being none and upon motion duly made and seconded,
the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to close the hearing. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
unanimously voted (5-0) to approve the definitive subdivision plan for Ramona’s
Way incorporating all the changes and the sidewalk change.
The Board reviewed the minutes of February 20, 2007 and upon
motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously (5-0) to approve, with
edits.
The Board reviewed the minutes of March 6, 2007 and upon
motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously (3-0) to approve, with
edits.
The Board reviewed the minutes of March 20, 2007 and upon
motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously (4-0) to approve, with
edits.
The Board reviewed the minutes of April 3, 2007 and upon
motion duly made and seconded, voted unanimously (5-0) to approve, with
edits.
Miscellaneous
Mr. Morrissette asked what
happened to the modular at Mapleshade?
Ms. Macdonald said the Dr. Costa has not responded to her as of yet. Ms.
Richards said that Business Partners has 3 banners on the fence and Ms.
Macdonald stated that she would speak to the zoning enforcement officer.
Request for Signage – Cost
Cutters, 420 North Main Street
The Board reviewed the signage
presented for Cost Cutters replacing the existing sign presently on the
building measuring 1’4” x 19’ for a total of 25 square feet. Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board
voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the signage conditioned upon approval by the
Building Inspector.
Therefore, with no further business and upon motion duly
made and seconded, the Board voted to close the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Very
truly yours,
Louis
Calabrese, Clerk