My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/21/2011 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Minutes
>
6/21/2011 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2019 11:42:29 AM
Creation date
1/3/2019 11:42:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/21/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Minutes of Combined Meeting of <br /> Mashpee Design Review Committee and <br /> Mashpee Plan Review Committee <br /> Held Tuesday, June 21, 2011 <br /> Mashpee Town Hall Meeting Room 3 <br /> Design Review Members Present: Walter Yarosh, David Kooharian, and Robert Nelson. <br /> Plan Review Members Present: <br /> Charlie Maintanis, Local Inspector <br /> Joel Clifford, Fire Inspector <br /> Tom Fudala, Town Planner <br /> Scott Carline, Police Department <br /> Glen Harrington, Health Agent <br /> Charlie Maintanis called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. <br /> 64 Industrial Drive <br /> Proposed Warehouse/Light Industrial/Accessory Office <br /> Robert Spenlinhauer, Tte. Classic Auto Realty Trust <br /> Revised Plans from June 7, 2011 <br /> Representative — Dan Creedon (Attorney) <br /> Dan Creedon, Matt Eddy, and Scott Jones appeared. Attorney Creedon addressed the meeting <br /> saying that they submitted new landscape plan and hope it's responsive to Mary LeBlanc's notes. He <br /> explained the changes that were made. Also new photometric plan was submitted to show lighting <br /> contained on the site. Grading going into buffer issue has hopefully been addressed in the new plans <br /> submitted. Summing it up...new landscape plan, new engineering plans, new building plans and new <br /> photometric plan have been submitted. <br /> Tom Fudala commented that breakdown of use still not answered. Mr. Creedon said their consistent <br /> response to that throughout is they won't know until they have tenant. Matt Eddy added that if entire <br /> site was office—which he said isn't going to happen—it would need 67 parking spaces. They <br /> calculated typical use—manufacturing/warehouse—and they put in 61 spaces but calculations were <br /> that 44 would be required. Matt said they would like to get Planning Board to approve with restriction <br /> that use had to cover not more than 61 spaces. Tom Fudala responded that boards have been <br /> burned in the past by approving this way so you have to get a little more specific. Tom explained it is <br /> better for applicant to specify caps up front, rather than Planning Board. Tom mentioned that medical <br /> offices much more parking intensive than regular office. Walter Yarosh asked about spacing between <br /> parking spaces and overhead doors. Walter said one thing to look at is if you have use that doesn't <br /> need overhead doors and the overhead doors disappear then you pick up 2 parking spaces for each <br /> door—so you could pick up 8 parking spaces on this plan. <br /> Attorney Creedon said we keep talking about deferring to a very restrictive use from parking <br /> perspective—guess it would be 10% office and 90% warehouse. He said each space is going to <br /> need a Certificate of Occupancy and so it can be easily enforced. Walter Yarosh said the problem is <br /> that with a building at a height of 21 feet they illegally build upstairs and then don't have parking for it. <br /> Matt Eddy said they understand that but you have an applicant coming in who needs a warehouse— <br /> you can't penalize someone because someone else did illegal build. Attorney Creedon said we could <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.