Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-20 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesI'k Comm. Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1986 Page 1 Howard, Secretary Goodemote, Board Members Ensminger and Jenks and Assistant Superintendent for Engineering - William A. Redford. Also present from the Engineering Division was Mr. Michael Taddeo. The first order of business was meeting with Mr. Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager. Chairman Howard opened the meeting by discussing the Incentive Aid Grant Application for a proposed Town Planner. He stated he felt we should try and identify a planner by advertising, screening, etc. Dan Ensminger stated in light of some of the discussions, perhaps we should go before Town Meeting and make an instructional motion. Chairman Howard stated we could have an ad ready and publications identified with some kind of a timetable. Mr. Hechenbleikner stated I don't think you need the contract and documents filed, but we should have a verbal approval of the grant process. The cost of soliciting applications will be somewhere near sl,000. Mr. Goodemote stated this cost might not be eligible if you do it before the commitment of the grant. Mr. Hechenbleikner stated I don't think you would gain anything by interviewing people prior to receiving the award of the grant. Perhaps we could identify the process. As I understand the Charter, I would hire the person. The CPDC should review the job description, you should be involved in the screening and hiring process. My suggestion is to receive r the applications in my office and screen them. You could rank the priority k. of those you receive and select the number of candidates you intend to interview. I would think by this process you could get to perhaps ten people to interview and select three finalists from those. A meeting of the Community Planning & Development Commission convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7;15 P.M. Present were Chairman Howard, Secretary Goodemote, Board Members Ensminger and Jenks and Assistant Superintendent for Engineering - William A. Redford. Also present from the Engineering Division was Mr. Michael Taddeo. The first order of business was meeting with Mr. Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager. Chairman Howard opened the meeting by discussing the Incentive Aid Grant Application for a proposed Town Planner. He stated he felt we should try and identify a planner by advertising, screening, etc. Dan Ensminger stated in light of some of the discussions, perhaps we should go before Town Meeting and make an instructional motion. Chairman Howard stated we could have an ad ready and publications identified with some kind of a timetable. Mr. Hechenbleikner stated I don't think you need the contract and documents filed, but we should have a verbal approval of the grant process. The cost of soliciting applications will be somewhere near sl,000. Mr. Goodemote stated this cost might not be eligible if you do it before the commitment of the grant. Mr. Hechenbleikner stated I don't think you would gain anything by interviewing people prior to receiving the award of the grant. Perhaps we could identify the process. As I understand the Charter, I would hire the person. The CPDC should review the job description, you should be involved in the screening and hiring process. My suggestion is to receive r the applications in my office and screen them. You could rank the priority k. of those you receive and select the number of candidates you intend to interview. I would think by this process you could get to perhaps ten people to interview and select three finalists from those. Comm. Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1966 Page 2 IMs. Jenks stated one of the skills that doesn't come out in an interview is written communication and expertise. I would like to ask for an example of experience in communication and what they have done. Mr. Hechenbleikner replied we could set up a panel of professionals in an "assessment center ". You could perhaps give the applicant a sample Site Plan or Subdivision Plan and review it for comment to the Commission. Mr. Goodemote asked what is the timetable for reorganization? Mr. Hechenbleikner stated I will be discussing this with the Board of Selectmen on Monday with some preliminary thoughts. The goal is to be able to go to the Board of Selectmen and then through the Town Meeting process within the next 4 -5 months. Ms. Jenks further asked how best can we keep the lines of communication open with the Board of Selectmen? Chairman Howard stated Bill Redford and I have worked out a tentative arrangement whereby the Selectmen's agenda is posted and we could therefore get a copy of that agenda in our packages on Thursday and if anyone wants specific background information this could be given to us at our Monday night meeting. Mr. Hechenbleikner stated I would like copies of your minutes sent to the Library for public viewing and copies of your agenda should also be posted, and sent to the Library as well. Subdivision and Site Plan Review applications should also be sent to the Library for public viewing. Chairman Howard thanked Mr. Hechenbleikner for coming. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 that the Commission write a letter to the League of Women Voters thanking them for the reception held 111 for the Town Manager. Comm. Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1986 Page 3 r Secretary Goodemote read the Notice of Public Hearing at 7:45 LP.M. regarding the approval, conditional approval or disapproval of the Site Plan of the property known as the former Gallahue's Supermarket, located at 275 Salem Street and referenced by the Reading Assessors as Plat 79, Lot 177. The submitted site plan proposes to renovate the existing building formerly used as a supermarket and proposes to use a portion of the existing structures as a Registry of Motor Vehicles office. There were six abuttars present as well as Anthony Gianetto, President of Myriad Properties (the applicant) and his Attorney Steven Viegas. Chairman Howard introduced the members of the Commission and the Department. [ Mr. Gianetto stated his proposal is to convert 9,000 square feet ` of the supermarket for use as a Registry of Motor Vehicles Office and the remaining area would be petitioned for other office space. Mr. Redford explained his list of concerns and comments as follows: 1. Formal action on this submittal is required by November 9, 1986. �. No signage for this Use is shown. 3. Parking is not delineated for this building but shared with other attached building. 4. What other use (type of business) will be sharing this building? ' S. No provision for Trash Disposal has been shown. Mr. Goodemote stated the plan submitted as part of the package is dated 1967. Is the parking as laid out what you intend to use? Comm. Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1986 Page 4 will be utilized. Mr. Goodemote asked do you have lease rights that give you a certain number of spaces? Mr. Gianetto replied this is specified in the maintenance portion of the lease. Mr. Goodemote asked what about potholes, restriping, etc.? Mr. Gianetto replied as far as I know I would take care of the entire area. Mr. Ensminger asked does your lease specifically allow you to park anywhere? Mr. Gianetto replied it does not restrict me. Mr. Gianetto stated I physically counted the spaces, the parking rules is not delineated per unit, the area around the Gallahue's supermarket will be utilized. Mr. Goodemote asked do you have lease rights that give you a certain number of spaces? Mr. Gianetto replied this is specified in the maintenance portion of the lease. Mr. Goodemote asked what about potholes, restriping, etc.? Mr. Gianetto replied as far as I know I would take care of the entire area. Mr. Ensminger asked does your lease specifically allow you to park anywhere? Mr. Gianetto replied it does not restrict me. looking for a complete submission. Mr. Gianetto stated whatever you wish I am willing to do. I will go as far as I have to go in order to maintain my part of the building. Ms. Jenks stated this could generate 1.200 - 1400 cars per day, the traffic in this area has already increased considerably, and we have potentially 9,000 square feet going to other tenants. Mr. Gianetto stated one possibility is my own corporation and the other is an insurance corporation, there would he a maximum of 5 -6 tenants. They would not be high volume traffic companies. I would estimate another 200 cars per day generated. {! Ms. Jenks stated that Mr. Goodemote stated my concern is that the rules and regulations have Wes Parkers Restaurant have changed since 1967, my problem is the proposal as it is shown, we are looking for a complete submission. Mr. Gianetto stated whatever you wish I am willing to do. I will go as far as I have to go in order to maintain my part of the building. Ms. Jenks stated this could generate 1.200 - 1400 cars per day, the traffic in this area has already increased considerably, and we have potentially 9,000 square feet going to other tenants. Mr. Gianetto stated one possibility is my own corporation and the other is an insurance corporation, there would he a maximum of 5 -6 tenants. They would not be high volume traffic companies. I would estimate another 200 cars per day generated. {! Ms. Jenks stated that is a lot of traffic for Reading. Chairman Howard stated we also have Wes Parkers Restaurant proposed in the area. Comm. Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1986 Page 5 Mr. Redford stated there is also the warrant article to consider "graphic communications" on the "flea market" side of the building. Mr. Ensminger asked Under Business B do we meet the parking count requirements? Mr. Redford replied 72 spaces is more than he needs for the 19,000 square feet, however, depending on the use of the other half of the building there may not be sufficient. parking. I am concerned about the other half of the building. Ms. Jenks stated I am very concerned about that type of use on that side of Town because of the volume of traffic. I would also like to hear from you on the design of the building, what is it going to look like? Mr. Gianetto replied I would like to put a new front on the Lbuilding to make it look like an office building. Mr. Ensminger stated artists renderings should really be part of your submission. Mr. Goodemote stated I would like to see the left lane entranceway restricted for better traffic flow. Mr. Goodemote added the problem I have is with the traffic volume being generated. In terms of traffic I have a hard time believing the Registry is not going to do an analysis. The other problem I have is with the plan being dated 1967. I don't feel comfortable doing the design on a project. I would rather see the applicant do the design. I would like to see something more concrete. I find this to be fairly incomplete. r Ms. Jenks stated I think we owe it to the neighbors to address this traffic impact on the side street. Reggie Peters of 62 Bay State Road asked who does this person represent? Comm. Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1986 Page 6 1 � Chairman Howard stated he represents a tenant who is going to ! sub -lease the property to the Registry. Mr. Peters stated I would feel much more comfortable talking to the landlord. We have heard rumors of an addition to the building. Commission Member Griset joined the meeting at 8:15 P.M. Mr. Peters asked could we get the number of parking spaces at the Registry in Woburn, it might be helpful. Is there enough parking over there? If it corresponds with what we have on Salem Street there might be a problem. Mr. Sim Ryan, representing the owner - Aaron Dubitsky, stated there are no plans to expand the building in any way. The "flea market" side has been rented by a Herman's type of store, which will generate an additional 800 cars per day. Phyllis Nelson of Governors Drive asked will the Registry of Motor Vehicles in Woburn remain open as a Registry or offices, I would like this clarified from the State. Also, I am not in favor of the Registry. I can not see where the Registry is going to be a benefit to our community. The traffic here now is ridiculous. Tom Stohlman of Mineral Street stated the existing facilities are deteriorated. I would assume that you will require landscaping, fencing, lighting, etc. Virginia Adams of 279 Pleasant Street asked have they proposed landscaping for this areal Mr. Howard replied there was none shown an the material submitted to us. Mr. Ensminger stated I would like to know whether all objections to this have been withdrawn. Comm. Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1986 Page ? William Wagner, Attorney from Latham & Latham, P.C. stated we gave approval for a Site Plan application and we have not given approval for the use. If this Commission approves this plan, we would file for a declaratory action hearing on the use of the lease. Mr. Goodemote asked why are we hearing a Site Plan Review on a piece of a building? Mr. Wagner replied this is two separate distinct buildings. There are two separate occupancy and building permits. Ms. Jenks stated that is an awful lot of cars for this area. I an again very concerned with the overall traffic in the area. Mr. Goodemate stated my question is on the interpretation of two buildings. I have a problem with that whole concept. It seems as though this is a non - conforming use, it requires a 50 foot separation. My problem with this whole thing is that this seems to be a moving target. We are cutting this up into pieces. We are also getting into the middle of a dispute. I would like to look at a site plan review for the entire site. Mr. Griset stated I agree with you and I have some concerns that there will be a declaratory action filed. We may consider and act on a Site Plan application here and it may be years before the action is ironed out. I also have concerns about the inadequacy of the submission. Steven Viegas stated the applicant has had an application pending here for a while. This is valued in excess of 8307000. My client has stated very simply what the use is proposed to be. In terms of coming up with further definitive traffic studies, the result would be highly speculative. We are talking about utilizing the space essentially as it August 18th of this year. I am sorry to hear that you just got this this weekend. We have made a good faith effort to provide you with information. was utilized in the past. We have no plans to add on a second story. We \. have already withdrawn this application once. We made our submission on August 18th of this year. I am sorry to hear that you just got this this weekend. We have made a good faith effort to provide you with information. Comm, Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1986 Page 8 {4 If this is deficient, please give us some guidelines. I am most concerned € about the so- called traffic information request. Mr. Goodemote stated that expertise is available. There are I.T.E. Manuals. There is a lot of information available and standard reference materials. In answer to what you are saying, part of my problem is that you are only doing the inside. Chairman Howard stated while the traffic might be of the same intensity, the traffic on the street has changed and you must provide this Board with what you feel the impact on this lot and on the neighborhood will be. Mr. Griset asked what is the reason why this has taken so long? Mr. Redford replied on advice of Town Counsel. Mr, Griset stated we do intend to set up guidelines for the developers in Town. We do have a set of procedures. I am certain your submissions do not meet the intent of sub - paragraphs 2A - O. You do not have the things that the application procedure mandates. I think there is cause for some sort of traffic study. I don't really feel that it is as if this Board has surprised the applicant or his Counsel. Mr. Viegas stated again, I took advantage of the little guidance that we have and provided for you my response. Chairman Howard stated I think that through staff we should summarize what the problems are and make them specific and get those to the applicant. We can accept from the applicant an extension of time while he acts on those concerns or we can act on this submission as submitted. Mr. Goodemote stated we should get this information to the applicant prior to our meeting of November 3rd. 6W It was the direction of the Board that staff prepare a summary of this discussion and the recommendations by Friday and this will be made available to the applicant on the following Monday. Comm. Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1986 Page 9 It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to continue this hearing w— until November 3, 1966. Secretary Goodemote read the Notice of Public Hearing at 9:15 P.M. regarding the approval, disapproval or modification of Definitive Plans entitled "Emerald Drive" depicting a proposed roadway named Emerald Drive extending westerly off County Road (between number 106 and 128 County Road) a distance of three hundred forty -five (345) feet and which Proposes to resubdivide two existing lots referenced by the Reading Assessors as Plat 36, Lots 24 and 25 into five (5) proposed building lots. Chairman Howard introduced the members of the Commission and the Department. There were 10 abuttors present. David 8eede, Engineer for the applicant, stated the nearest intersecting street would be Wescroft Road. The property is very narrow. This area is presently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Doherty and Mr. and Mrs. Cogan. We are proposing a five lot subdivision served by a short street with a turn - around. The present requirements of the Commission dictates the grading. We end up with a maximum cut of seven feet. The water main is on the east side of County Road. There is a pumping station on the corner, we intend to install a booster pump which will help to increase the water pressure in the area. All the driveways will be sloping toward the street. Mr. Redford explained his list of concerns and comments as follows: I. Formal action on this subdivision is required by November 10, 1986. 2. Full sight and sloping easements are not provided. 3. Roadway does not extend to the abutting land. 4. The proposed drain lacks the required cover. Comm. Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1986 Page 10 5. No storm water retention or runoff mitigating device is indicated. 6. Lot 4 lacks sufficient frontage. 7. Lot 3 must show 120 feet at the building line. 8. No ground water information has been provided. 9. No minimum cellar floor elevations are shown. 10. Abutting structures (and elevations) are not shown. Chairman Howard read into the record the letter from the Conservation Commission dated October 1, 1966 (copy attached). Mr. Goodemote asked did you take a look at the runoff? Mr. Redford replied County Road is so steep it is not a volume problem at all. Mr. Goodemote asked have you looked at the drainage? Mr. Beede replied I don't feel the small amount of runoff is going to impart anyone downstream, there is no increase in velocity. Mr. Redford stated the Department and the Board did not bring up the groundwater problem, the abutting homeowners did. Mr. John Shemkus of 128 County Road stated I am still concerned about surface water sloping towards my property. I am bound to get more water from this development. I already have water in my cellar. I am not sure this has been addressed. Mr. Delong of 134 County Road stated I have water in my cellar presently. I am very concerned about additional runoff. Mr. Johnson of 106 County Road stated we have water in the cellar now. Three times our pool has been undermined because of the water table. This is a big concern of mine. Mr. Mark Nichols of 117 County Road stated presently I get water in my basement. My property is directly across from this proposed street, and I expect a much larger problem. Comm. Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1986 Page 11 Mr. DeLong stated the street up there is full of clay, there are i wells up there as well. pressure? Mr. Shemkus asked will the pumping booster decrease my water Mr. Redford replied the intent of the booster pump is to increase pressure. There is nothing on the list that I feel is not easily corrected. These are all fairly minor items. Ms. Jenks stated this is a good example of the difficulty I face. In this instance, I am hearing from the abettors they are presently having problems and are asking this Commission to insure that this development is not going to increase their problems. Mr. Beede stated we will be placing extra catch basins on our street. There should be no water crossing the road on to Mr. Nichols k property. He added that dry wells are included as part of the proposal. Mr. Griset stated I would call on staff and our engineers to help educate me as to whether there is a great likelihood that the abutting property owners water situation will be affected one way or the other. Mr. Redford stated if the developer put in french drains the probability of everyone getting water in their cellars would be very low except for the property directly across the street. With the installation of double drains that should be alleviated. The risk to the existing homeowners is small compared to constructing the new homes and the impact of having garages under these new homes. The existing concerns are fairly easily remedied and I feel those issues can be solved easier than the new homes. l Mr. Goademote stated my thoughts are that the increase in runoff will be due to the impervious areas, roofs and the paved areas. I would tend to agree with Bill to impose a condition to direct that flow to the street. Comm. Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1986 Page 12 and this Commission to condition any approval upon putting catchbasins on the opposite side of the street and to require some methodology of making sure no additional water runs off from impervious areas of the abuttors. Tom Stohlman stated the driveway elevations should be running off on to the road not away from the road. It was moved, seconded and voted 5;0 to close the hearing. It was moved, seconded and voted 510 to take action on this plan on November 3rd. Mr. Goodemote read the Notice of Public Hearing at 10:15 P.M. regarding the proposed Zoning By -Law changes published in the Subsequent Town Meeting Warrant, November 10, 1966, as Articles 12, 13 and 14 of said Warrant and as shown on the attached Notice. Chairman Howard stated it is the intent of this Commission to give a report to Town Meeting on this. We will ask for a show of hands as to the concensus of those in favor and those opposed. Regarding Article 12, Attorney Bill Wagner stated I represent the proponents of this amendment. The Dubitsky property on Salem Street and the center of Town itself is zoned "Business B ". In "Business D" zones graphic printing is not allowed. At a prior Board of Appeals hearing where this use was denied, the one dissenting voter felt this was a matter that would left up to Town Meeting. He added that the state of technology as far as printing has been computerized since our By -Law of 1942. We are talking about laser printers. Graphics are printed on a disc which is then made into a plan or printout and then xeroxed. The equipment that is used is very large and heavy. We are proposing that the minimum square footage of building Mr. Redford stated all of the abutting homeowners have the recourse of a civil remedy. It is certainly within Public Works domain and this Commission to condition any approval upon putting catchbasins on the opposite side of the street and to require some methodology of making sure no additional water runs off from impervious areas of the abuttors. Tom Stohlman stated the driveway elevations should be running off on to the road not away from the road. It was moved, seconded and voted 5;0 to close the hearing. It was moved, seconded and voted 510 to take action on this plan on November 3rd. Mr. Goodemote read the Notice of Public Hearing at 10:15 P.M. regarding the proposed Zoning By -Law changes published in the Subsequent Town Meeting Warrant, November 10, 1966, as Articles 12, 13 and 14 of said Warrant and as shown on the attached Notice. Chairman Howard stated it is the intent of this Commission to give a report to Town Meeting on this. We will ask for a show of hands as to the concensus of those in favor and those opposed. Regarding Article 12, Attorney Bill Wagner stated I represent the proponents of this amendment. The Dubitsky property on Salem Street and the center of Town itself is zoned "Business B ". In "Business D" zones graphic printing is not allowed. At a prior Board of Appeals hearing where this use was denied, the one dissenting voter felt this was a matter that would left up to Town Meeting. He added that the state of technology as far as printing has been computerized since our By -Law of 1942. We are talking about laser printers. Graphics are printed on a disc which is then made into a plan or printout and then xeroxed. The equipment that is used is very large and heavy. We are proposing that the minimum square footage of building Comm. Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1986 Page 13 required would be 15,000 s.f. Therefore, the Dubitsky property is the only likely site for this type of business. One consideration given by this Commission should be no off the street walk -in business. Mr. Redford stated I have a different view of our permitted use and the reasons behind it. When you go through the Table of Uses it is very clear that publishing, printing and computer services are all excluded from our districts except Business C and Industrial. Business C allows this as long as it is contained within the building. Jim Ryan stated there are very strict standards in the industry right now for hazardous waste. The Federal Government has been very heavily involved in this. Mr. Redford asked what chemicals to be used in lazer printing would be considered hazardous? Mr. Ryan replied alcohol, developers and fixers, these would not go into any drain system. Mr. Goodemote stated the intent of this article seems to be fairly broad. The definition is broad enough to allow for a change of use down the road. Is there any potential for splitting these areas? Mr. Ensminger replied that would be "spot zoning ". Ms. Jenks stated I am again concerned about reactive planning. Mr. Griset stated I share Molly's concern and wonder whether we wish to do this again. Chairman Howard stated the alternative is to reorganize the entire Zoning By -Laws. Mr. Goodemote asked what were the public comments you heard? Mr. Wagner replied no abuttors showed up in opposition at either hearing, in fact, no abuttors showed up at all. Mr. Ensminger stated isn't this somewhat mute now, what is your continuing interest in this property? Comm. Planning & Development Comm. Meeting October 20, 1986 Page 14 Mr. Wagner stated if we prevail. at the declaratory judgement against First National., Microdot will go in. Regarding Article 13, Mr. Redford explained that the zoning map needs to include the Aquifer Protection area. That would bring both the by -laws and the map up to date at the same time. Chairman Howard asked for a sense of those in attendance at the meeting regarding the three articles. (Henry Adams, Virginia Adams and Tom Stohlman). By a show of hands, the following results were obtained from those mentioned above: Article 12 - 3 opposed; Article 13 - 3 in favor; Article 14 - 2 in favor, I abstention. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to recommend adoption of Article 13 as presented. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to recommend adoption of Article 14 as presented. Mr. Goodemote stated that Ed Murphy of the By-Law Committee asked that someone from this Commission attend their meeting on Wednesday evening to explain these Articles. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to close the hearing at 11:05 P.M. The Commission next discussed the report to Town Meeting. Chairman Howard will redraft the report, incorporate the comments of the Commission and get a draft in the packages for the next meeting so that we can finalize this on the 3rd. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 P.M. Jp e tful mitted, etary