Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-27 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 -2683 Phone: 781 - 942 -6612 Fax: 781- 942 -9071 Email: jdelios @ci.readmg.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: August 27, 2012 Location: Selectmen's Meeting Room Time: 7:30 PM CPDC Members Present: Charlie Adams, Chair; John Weston, Nicholas Safina, David Tuttle, and Jeff Hansen Also Present: Jessie Wilson, Staff Planner and Recording Secretary Others Present: John Magee, Magee Construction Brett Maganzini, Northeast Cutlery Richard Bova, Contractor — Northeast Cutlery Bradley Latham, Attorney — Latham & Latham Law Offices Ted Moore, Applicant — Johnson Woods, Phase II Judy Epstein, Housing Consultant — JTE Realty Associates Richard Caraviello, 15 Sailor Toms Way Rich Caraviello, 74 Prescott Street, Medford MA Joseph DiMambra, 5 Milepost Road Susan Gravallese, 5 Milepost Road Susan O'Leary, 28 Haystack Road Jack O'Leary, 28 Haystack Road Roberta Martiniello, 11 Milepost Road John Martiniello, 11 Milepost Road Michelle Williams, 31 Melbourne Avenue There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Sailor Toms Way Subdivision: Minor Modification Request, Lot Release Form George Zambouras, Town Engineer, told the CPDC that the subdivision was approved under the old Aquifer Protection District by -law regulations. Those regulations did not allow for impervious coverage over 20% unless a variance was sought and approved. When Sailor Tom's Way was approved the entire subdivision was approved as one lot. Adhering to the old regulations would prevent any future additions to the homes in that part of the subdivision as those improvements would exceed the impervious coverage limits. The request before the CPDC is to allow for the subdivision to be reviewed and approved under the new Aquifer Protection District regulations. Under these regulations, each lot would be subject to compliance and will limit impervious coverage to 15% or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater. Mr. Zambouras has reviewed the infiltration calculations using the new regulations. He recommends the CPDC approved the modification request and lift the previous conditions imposed by the CPDC. The previous conditions included limiting the maximum impervious amounts to 24,080 square feet for each lot and that the driveways are to be constructed with turfstone — a pervious material. Page 1 of 7 CPDC Minutes of 8/27/2012 Mr. Weston asked if each house has an infiltration system. Mr. Zambouras replied that each lot has a stormcepter which accounts for the roof infiltration and the detention basin infiltrates the runoff amounts from the roadway — both of which meet DEP requirements. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to determine the proposed changes to the approved subdivision approval are minor modifications. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to approve the minor modification approval as amended. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Mr. Zambouras stated that the CPDC had previously approved the release for lots A, B and C when the Tri-Party Agreement was approved. However, it is recommended the CPDC sign the approved "Lot Release Form" so that there is clear documentation that the lots have been released from the restrictive covenants. The CPDC Members signed the release form. Johnson Woods, Phase II — Minor Modification Request Attorney Bradley Latham, representing Johnson Woods Phase II, summarized the Minor Modification Request. He noted that the Site Plan Review Decision and Special Permit stipulated certain conditions for the affordable housing requirement which the Applicant would like to address and at the approval of CPDC, modify. The first issue is related to local preference. The Site Plan Decision/Special Permit required that "to the extent allowed by law ", the local preference include former Reading residents of 10 or more years. Mr. Latham stated that DHCD has become increasingly strict on local preference applications and therefore the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan did not include the provision for former Reading residents. As such, Mr. Latham would like to request the language be changed as a minor modification approval if the CPDC agrees. Mr. Tuttle questioned the LIP/PAU process. Mr. Latham responded that the application will be prepared by the Applicant and will be reviewed and signed by the Board of Selectmen. The application will then be submitted to DHCD for approval. Ms. Judy Epstein, the housing consultant for Johnson Woods, Phase II verified this process, noting that the lottery will be held after DHCD has approved the marketing plan. For this project, she indicated it would be near building completion. Ms. Epstein told the CPDC that the plan must conform to DHCD regulations in order to ensure units are placed on the subsidized housing inventory. Mr. Weston did not believe the condition needed to be modified as the language "to the extent allowed by law" was covered the omission of the local preference in the marketing plan. Mr. Tuttle and Mr. Adams agreed. The other change before the CPDC includes a change in the distribution of units between the three garden -style buildings. The approved site plans identified two 36 -unit buildings and one 39 -unit building. Mr. Latham stated the Applicant is now requesting a modification so that the units are distributed as follows: one 36 -unit building, one 37 -unit building and one 38 -unit building. He further indicated that the building footprints will not change and the number of affordable units will remain the same. Mr. Latham also summarized a modification request to change a condition in the Site Plan Decision/Special Permit. The request is that Condition number 18 be modified to allow for DHCD Page 2 of 7 CPDC Minutes of 8/27/2012 approval of the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan to be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Currently, Condition number 18 stipulates that DHCD must approve the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Latham requested the change so that the building permit may not be held up in what could be a lengthy process with the state. He noted that the approval would coincide better as a condition for occupancy. The last item Mr. Latham brought before the CPDC was a plan identifying the location for the trash compactor as required by the Site Plan Decision/Special Permit. Mr. Latham provided the CPDC members with a copy of the plan, noting it was revised based on Town Engineer comments. The compactor would be more centrally located and within a building that is of the same material and design. Two parking spaces would be designated for trash drop -off. Mr. Safina asked if this was to serve all three buildings. Mr. Moore replied yes, indicating that residents will take their trash to the compactor and not store it in barrels. Ms. Wilson asked if recycling will still occur within the buildings. Mr. Moore replied yes. Mr. Zambouras said this plan is similar to the former Avalon Community and that this location will work well. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to determine the proposed changes to the approved Site Plan Decision and PUD Special Permit minor modifications. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to approve the minor modification approval as amended. Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Northeast Cutlerv, 244R Ash Street — Minor Modification Mr. Brett Maganzini owner of Northeast Cutlery summarized the Minor Modification request to the CPDC. He indicated that the approved design called for a window design with multiple mullions that have been modified to not have mullions, in order to have a more commercial look and to be more energy efficient. Additionally, the approved design called for a parapet along the roofline. Due to extensive costs and changes associated with that design, Mr. Maganzini decided to remove the parapet from the design and to have a red accent strip along the top of the exterior fagade. Mr. Maganzini is also requesting approval for a change in the dumpster enclosure design. He would like to use concrete block instead of chain link fence to better screen the dumpster. Chain link will still be used to access the dumpster removal. They also intend to paint the entire building to match the color of the building addition. Mr. Tuttle asked about the roof plan. Mr. Rich Bova, Contractor for Northeast Cutlery replied that it is a tar and gravel roof. The parapet would have had to be designed to accommodate the drainage. Mr. Zambouras told the CPDC that one of the abutters notified the Building Inspector about a drainage issue at the site. A catch basin appears to have been installed at the incorrect elevation and it is not collecting the runoff as intended. The site engineer is working with the Town Engineer to determine whether a modification is required. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to determine the proposed changes to the approved site plan are minor modifications. Mr. Hansen seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Page 3 of 7 CPDC Minutes of 8/27/2012 Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to approve the minor modification approval as presented. Mr. Hansen seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Northeast Cutlery, 244R Ash Street — Sianage Approval The CPDC reviewed the signage application for Northeast Cutlery prepared by Ms. Ann DiCicco with DiCicco Signs. She indicated that the current sign will be taken down and modified with the border design and additional lettering as shown in the application. Ms. Wilson told the board members that the Site Plan Review decision required CPDC approval for future signage. The current sign was installed without CPDC approval and without a sign permit from the Building Inspector. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to approve the signage for 244R Ash Street as presented. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Approval of Minutes Mr. Adams recommended approval of the minutes as the meeting was ahead of schedule. The CPDC reviewed the minutes and suggested minor edits. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC approve the minutes from August 6, 2012 CPDC meeting as amended. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Calareso's Farm Stand and Garden Center, 100 Main Street — Minor Modification Attorney Bradley Latham represented Mr. Joe Calareso, owner of Calareso's Farm Stand and Garden Center. As a result of a site visit with Town staff, three items were identified as requiring CPDC review. The first item is the display of flags within the casements along the Main Street elevation. Mr. Latham reminded the board members that the CPDC has the authority to interpret the PUD By -Law and requested that the CPDC determine that this qualifies as display of goods for sale and not be considered signage. He further stated that the flags do not display a commercial message. Mr. Hansen asked if the refrigeration units are behind the wall in which the casements are located. Mr. Latham replied yes and it was always the intention for them to be "false" windows and for display of goods for sale. Mr. Safina said that blocking the windows with advertising is an issue around town, but that it is different in this situation as the windows are "fake" and feels it is an allowed use as the flags are items that they sell. Mr. Tuttle agreed. Mr. Weston also agreed, noting that the commercial message is the issue. For example, Walgreens displaying a band -aid it would not be a commercial message, but if they were displaying something that said "buy Gatorade" it would be considered signage as that is a commercial message. Mr. Latham said the second item relates to the issue of open storage. During the site visit, it was observed that areas under the overhang were not approved for open storage. The approved Open Storage Plan permitted open storage on the outside of the walkway and not under the overhang. As such, Mr. Latham would like to request a modification to the Open Storage Plan for open storage under the overhang. Mr. Zambouras raised concern about storage in the crushed stone areas as he crushed stone Page 4 of 7 CPDC Minutes of 8/27/2012 serves as part of the drainage system. Mr. Calareso replied that limited product would be stored there and it would likely be potted plants and pumpkins. Mr. Zambouras was ok with this. The third item relates to the area near the southerly loading bay. Due to the delivery process, extra delivery material is stored in this location. Pallets, which-deliveries come in on, are left until the next delivery when they are picked up and taken off site. There is always a rotation of pallets that need to be stored on -site. In addition to the pallets, the bobcat and extra carts are stored here. Mr. Latham said these items would not fall under open storage as they do not relate to the sale of goods. Mr. Tuttle felt that this was the best location for the storage of these items. Mr. Safina agreed. Mr. Weston pointed out that this issue was not discussed during site plan review, and due to the placement of the building there is no "behind" the building. As the building is located closer to the road with and the parking spaces in the back, it leaves no ideal area for the storage of delivery items such as pallets or loaders. Mr. Tuttle questioned the placement of the plants on the wall along Main Street. Mr. Calareso replied that the plants were placed on the wall to beautify the streetscape and that the Police Chief said it was fine. Mr. Zambouras replied that the wall is currently owned by Pulte and will likely be transferred to MassDOT in the future. The question is whether it causes an issue with sight lines. Mr. Zambouras, offered to visit the site to determine if sight lines were blocked by from the plants. The last items relates to the fencing on the site. There had been some inconsistencies between the plans and the question was raised whether a fence needed to be installed at the rear of the main parking lot on the north side of the trash enclosure. The plan set, and specifically the site plan, open storage plan, stormwater management plan, and utility plan all identify a fence in this location. However, this notation also called out fence details to be shown on the landscape plan. However, the landscape plan did not show a fence at this particular location. Mr. Safina reminded the CPDC and Mr. Calareso that if is on any of the plans, the contractor owns it. Mr. Calareso replied stating that the detail on the plan is a detail indentifying a chain -link fence, not a vinyl fence. The CPDC agreed that a compromise must be achieved. Mr. Latham indicated that the owner would like to mitigate the issue by installing additional plantings and vegetation to serve as additional screening. Mr. John Martiniello, abutter located at 11 Milepost Road, read the CPDC a letter he prepared. He also presented the CPDC with a photo showing the view of the overflow parking lot from his home. Mr. Martiniello did not agree that landscaping would provide for additional screening and that a fence should be installed as shown on the plan. Mr. Adams asked Mr. Martiniello what he believes would be a good solution. Mr. Martiniello said he would have preferred to have a fence at the rear of the main parking lot as well as the overflow lot. However, in order to achieve this result, it would have to be at least 12 -feet in height due to the elevations. It was agreed that this was not a practicable solution. Ms. Susan O'leary of 28 Haystack Road agreed with Mr. Martiniello stating that many times they are able to see customers and they are constantly disturbed by the waste removal. Ms. Susan Gravallese of 5 Mile Post Road told the CPDC that she is able to see customers coming and going from Calaresos. In addition, she had to install a retaining wall at the rear of her yard to address a drainage issue and now cannot install any fencing on it. She was under the understanding that a privacy fence was going to be installed. Her preferred solution would be to not see the Calareso property at all. Page 5 of 7 CPDC Minutes of 8/27/2012 The board members continued to discuss the proposed plantings and whether they would serve well for screening. It was agreed that a fence was not to be installed around the overflow lot, but the board was concerned the plantings would not address the screening issues. Mr. Salina suggested that a "three panel fence" system be installed at an angle at the rear of the parking lot to provide the screening Mr. Martiniello desires, while having the "open space" Mr. Calareso hopes for. He recommended that Mr. Calareso do a mock -up so that excessive costs are not incurred and to ensure this method will achieve the desired results. Mr. Latham expressed concern with this suggestion. Mr. Weston indicated that the plan identified a vegetated buffer between the property and the adjacent residential neighbors. During the original public hearing meetings, it was recalled that there was discussion about Mr. Calareso working with the neighbors to address fencing issues. It was also noted in the decision. However, the vegetated buffer was not what they were hoping for in terms of screening. Mr. Adams agreed that a mock -up of the fence panel system should be constructed. The CPDC reviewed the draft decision, adding a condition to have the configuration of the fencing reviewed by the Town Planner, Town Engineer and a member of the CPDC. The CPDC also included a finding that the flags currently displayed in the casements are allowed under Section 4.9.3 of the Reading Zoning By -Laws as display of goods for sale. In addition, the CPDC approved the changes to the open storage plan to accommodate the current operations. Mr. Safina moved the CPDC to determine the proposed changes to the approved site plan, special permit and open storage plan are minor modifications. Mr. Tuttle seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Mr. Safina moved the CPDC to approve the minor modification approval as amended. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Parking By -Law Revisions Mr. Adams told the board members that the Town Manager suggested revisiting the entire Parking By- Law and have the changes presented at annual Town Meeting in the spring. Mr. Weston agreed that the entire Parking By -Law needed to be addressed, but the shared parking should be addressed now. He also noted that once 30 Haven Street opens, the parking needs for downtown will change. Currently it is not an issue, but with additional retail downtown, we will see the demand increase. The board members continued to discuss the draft changes agreeing that the table for parking should not be addressed at this time. Mr. Weston stated that the parking requirements contained in the table should be re- evaluated. The CPDC agreed to move forward with the Shared Parking section only for November Town Meeting. Mr. Tuttle reminded the other board members that a public hearing needs to be held. Ms. Wilson will revise the draft language for next meeting and the public hearing will be scheduled for September 24`h. Planning Updates Ms. Wilson did not have any additional updates. Page 6 of 7 CPDC Minutes of 8/27/2012 On a motion by Mr. Tuttle, seconded by Mr. Safina, the CPDC voted to adjourn at 11:30 PM by a vote of 5 -0 -0. Respectfully Submitted, Jessie Wilson Recording Secretary Page 7 of 7