Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-12 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Readin-:.; Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2015 -01 -12 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: David Tuttle Nick Safina John Weston Jeff Hansen Members - Not Present: Others Present: DECEIVED OWN CLERK DING. M kSS. 105 APR 2 I P 3 2b Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Jean Delios - Assistant Town Manager Jessie Wilison - Community Development Administrator Sharlene Reynolds Santo - 46 Wakefield Street Dennis Carr - 61 Temples Street Art Kreiger - Anderson & Kreiger Jeffy and Nancy Lamb - 194 Summer Avenue Dan Couet - 321 Fourtune Boulevard, Milford MA Mary Ellen O'Neil - 125 Summer Avenue Joe Lupi - 167 Summer Avenue Lynda Rohmer - 126 Summer Avenue Kevin Sexton - 20 Emerson Street Bob Salter - 247 Summer Avenue George Zambouras - Town Engineer Sarah McLaughlin - 55 Temple Street Janet Sortor - 55 Temple Street Virginial Adams - 59 Azelea Circle Jonathan Barnes - 41 Pratt Street Anne Godwin - 189 Summer Avenue Debbie Shonz - Stackpole - 186 SUmmer Avenue Susan Cocculuto - 195 Summer Avenue Ken Margolin - 426 Walnut Street, Newton MA Marc Maxwell - Maxwell Architects Jack Sullivan - Sullivan Engineering Group Kathy Greenfield - 192 Woburn Street George Katsoufis - Associate CPDC Member Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Jessie Wilson Topics of Discussion: Page 1 1 Mr. Hansen called the meeting to order at 7:50PM. Continuance of Public Hearina for Site Plan Review: 186 -190 Summer Avenue Criterion Child Enrichment Mr. Hansen re- opened the public hearing for Site Plan Review for Criterion Child Enrichment proposed at 186 -190 Summer Avenue. He reminded the CPDC that the use is protected under the Dover Amendment and reminded the public that they will limit comments that are allowed under that provision. He added that the applicant has voluntarily submitted to their application for consideration on lighting, landscaping, and hours of operations. Mr. Ken Margolin, Attorney representing Criterion Child Enrichment introduced the applicant team. He agreed that the Dover Amendment does apply to the proposed use and that Criterion has volunteered landscaping and lighting for discussion. However, even though hours of operation were identified in the application, they are not volunteering that topic under Dover Amendment. He also pointed out that the draft decision stipulates that the lighting has to be turned off at 6PM and insisted that the condition violated their rights under the Dover Amendment. He did suggest a revision to that condition to require that the lights be turned off after the close of business. Mr. Weston clarified that the CPDC wanted a better understanding on the hours of operation but that the CPDC did not have any interest in limiting the hours of operation. Mr. Margolin continued with his presentation. He said that Criterion allowed a discussion regarding the architectural details, but would like to remind the CPDC that that aspect of the plan is limited under the Dover Amendment. He believes that Criterion has been a responsive applicant and has tried to address the concerns from staff and abutters and requested the CPDC make a decision this evening. Furthermore, the discussion around architectural details will occur with the West Street Historic District Commission (WSHDC). Mr. Jack Sullivan presented the revised plan. He said that the ANR plan has been prepared to combine the three lots into one parcel. The ground sign has been located further back on the property. The playground area has been reduced in size from 2400 square feet to 1200 square feet. Criterion will manage how many children will be on the playground at a time. The position of the playground has also been relocated and the parking lot layout has also been revised. The rear parking area was previously a "t" design and it has been modified per the discussion from the last meeting to be an %" shape. As for snow storage, there is one common snow storage location at the back of the site. Mr. Sullivan said that in the original plan there were a few places for snow storage and now it is in one area. He also added "No Parking" signs so there are a total of 4 on -site. The plan has also been revised to include a stop sign at the entrance of the site. The previous plan called for porous pavement. The revised plan shows a more traditional design consisting of deep sump catch basins with gas hoods, drain manholes and two infiltration areas. Drainage calculations were provided to the Town Engineer. Mr. Sullivan said he and the Town Engineer discussed the calculations earlier this week. Two test pits were performed on the property and within the area of the proposed infiltration fields. He proposes to perform another test pit at the rear of the site when the weather warms up. The drainage calculations show that the drain pipes would surcharge, so Mr. Sullivan suggested one of the conditions of the approval would be to perform the additional test hole to evaluate whether the pipes could be located deeper in the ground or if the infiltration field could be relocated to the rear of the site. The Town Engineer said he was concerned with the rear parking area and how turnaround would be performed by emergency vehicles. Mr. Sullivan replied that he can provide truck turning movements to ensure the turnaround is sufficient. He added that other minor changes were made to the water and fire service lines. Mr. Marc Maxwell, project architect, provided an additional summary of the changes since the last meeting. He reported that a parking demand study was provided and noted the maximum occupancy would be 36 students based on standards from the Department of Page 1 2 Education (DOE). The Building Code could allow up to 64 children, but regardless, no more than 36 students would be permitted per Department of Education (DOE) standards. He also clarified that employees /staff would be in the building from around 8AM to 6PM. As for the landscape plan, he told the CPDC that there has been an increase in screening along the south site. On the northern side of the site, they have also increased the number a plantings in the area of the new addition, playground and dumpster areas. As for the back portion of the site, they will have to adjust the snow storage area to accommodate a truck turning area, but that they are able to save several trees with the new layout of the parking area. The building elevations have been modified by increasing the size of the windows and including a trellis. He reminded the CPDC that the Applicant will need to apply to the West Street Historic District Commission for the Summer Avenue Historic District and many of the architectural details will be addressed at that time. As for the lighting, Mr. Maxwell said they were able to eliminate the floodlights. The proposed sign has been changed to a wooden sign with smaller lights to externally illuminate the sign. He said that the proposed light on the barn will be changed to a decorative sconce. And lastly he said that this new plan shows a small change in the front porch. The CPDC allowed comment from the 01867 Neighborhood Preservation Group. Mr. Art Krieger, attorney for the 01867 Neighborhood Preservation Group expressed concern over the parking study and asked the CPDC if they need to require 38 parking spaces which are based on the highest demand for the property. He suggested the CPDC consider reducing the number of spaces to 30, knowing the site can be supported by that. He also suggested the turnaround area for the fire truck be made of turfstone or something other than asphalt to reduce the impact. In general, Mr. Krieger believes the Applicant has not addressed all the issues from the abutters or the CPDC. Mr. Krieger pointed out various alternatives on the plan, suggesting that more spaces could be moved to the rear of the site to limit the visual impact from Summer Avenue. He also expressed concern over the location of the driveway in that it should be moved closer to the house. As for abutter concerns, he said that the neighbors requested a fence be added to the northern side of the property in the area of the new addition. They also requested a row of arborvitae to help with the screening as opposed to the small shrubs. Additionally, they would like more plantings at the entrance of the site and suggested the spaces at the very front entrance be moved to the rear and more plantings be installed in that area. As for the building, the abutters believe the architectural details could be more residential and the changes requested at the last meeting have not been made. Mr. Margolin replied and said that they would like to maintain the two spaces at the very front entrance, especially as many of their clients are handicap. In regards to the comment about turfstone, he said that it would be challenging to stripe but they were amendable to using turfstone for spaces near the barn. As for landscaping, they are more than willing to provide additional landscaping to help with screening. However, he expressed concern with any changes to the driveway at this time, since they will be subject to review from the WSHD who may require additional changes. Mr. Hansen opened the hearing to the CPDC. Page 1 3 Mr. Weston said, typically the applicant would go before Historic District Commission first to obtain their comments, and he agreed that the CPDC should defer all aesthetic details to the HDC. He also noted that they should keep the discussion to those issues allowed under the Dover Amendment. Mr. Margolin replied that they will be working on the landscape plan regardless, and they could return to the CPDC under a Minor Modification when the details are flushed out. Mr. Krieger felt that the plan was not ready for approval and the CPDC should not feel obligated to approve the plan tonight. Mr. Tuttle was in favor of the plan and he agreed that the two parking spaces at the very front are not ideal. He said that the new building is not a historic building and therefore it cannot be completely controlled by the Historic District Commission; however he felt that the design was good. He did express concern about the fire truck turnaround and that issue will need to be addressed, but overall the plan is pretty sound. Mr. Safina expressed concern with the fire truck movement on site and agreed that issue needs to be worked out. Mr. Hansen pointed out that the parking demand study mentioned the current program in Stoneham which will be moving to this location. Although the CPDC does not want to over - plan for the worst case scenario, the goal is to find the right balance. Mr. Weston asked about the fire truck turnaround. Mr. Sullivan replied that the Fire Chief requested a 20 -foot wide turnaround, and he will look at the plan to provide what he needs They may be able to angle the turnaround to limit impact and save as many trees as possible. Mr. Hansen asked Planning Staff for comment. Ms. Delios listed the Planning Staff concerns: Jean - Consider reducing the height of the pole lighting. - Consider reducing the number of bollard lights to reduce overall impact. - Clarification on the luminaire schedule and for lighting type C. - More information regarding security lighting. - Consider eliminating the wall pack. - Consider changing the sign light. - Clarification on snow storage areas. - Confirmation on zoning compliance - students to parking space ratio. Mr. Maxwell clarified that lighting type C is on the plan and the floodlights have been eliminated. He said that none of the exterior lighting is considered security lighting and all lighting would be turned off with the time clock. Lighting Type A and C are the same fixtures just different sizes. As for the recommendation for gooseneck sign lighting, he said that would not work with the wood sign, so they propose to keep the ground lighting directed to the sign. He said they will ensure the height of the pole lighting is 12 -feet. As for the bollard lights, he can find two fixtures to remove, but they do want to make sure the sidewalk is properly illuminated. He reminded the CPDC again that they have to meet with the Historic District Commission who will have ultimate jurisdiction over some of these issues. Mr. Margolin requested the condition in the draft decision be clarified that the lighting will be turned off after employees left the building. It was also clarified that the sign lights would also be turned off. Mr. Zambouras, Town Engineer said that he did request some minor additions to the Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan. He also requested the calculations be Page 1 4 performed again based on different soil types. He also expressed concern for the turnaround of emergency vehicles similar to the Fire Chief. As for the drainage plan, he says the structures do become surcharged. They can operate that way, but in long term can cause problems. The solution is to dig a deeper test pit to see if the structures can be lowered, or if they could relocate the system at the rear parking lot. Test pits would need to be performed to see if it could in fact be relocated to the rear of the parking lot. The remainder of his comments was related to permitting prior to construction. Mr. Hansen opened the hearing up to the public. Mr. Dennis Carr, 61 Temple Street said he submitted two letters and the last one was based on the revised submission. He summarized his concerns: - Drainage and snow. - The 100 year design should be considered based on climate change. There is a potential for overflow of the gutters. He would suggest double grates to meet the 100 year design criteria. - Consider double catch basins at the rear of the site to meet the 100 -year design. - Requested better understanding of the amount of snow that will be stored. He was concerned with that volume of snow damaging the fence. He does not want the deicing material to travel to the neighbor's adjacent gardens. Mr. Sullivan replied that double grated catch basins are generally only used on steep slopes and he felt there was no need for them. He added that his calculations show that the infiltration chambers can handle the 100 -year storm. In this design, even with the surcharge of the pipe, the catch basin at the rear would not surcharge. In addition, there is a 6 inch reveal in the curb and in no case would water back up on the pavement. Ms. Susan Coccoluto, 195 Summer Avenue expressed concern over the proposed turnaround area and the snow storage area. Mr. Sullivan replied that the snow storage area would be reduced, but he will look for other areas to store it. Mr. Jerry Lamb, 194 Summer Avenue, said the original plan only had 20 spaces and he felt that they were using history to rationalize the number of spaces they need. He expressed concern about the hours of operation and why they need 38 spaces. He also felt they could move the driveway closer to the building by 15 feet. Mr. Weston replied that he believed the alignment of the driveway was based on the desire to keep the driveway straight to minimize turns for the fire apparatus as well as the grades that are needed to be maintained between the barn and the sidewalk. Mr. Sullivan agreed and said the grades are challenging and if the driveway was closer to building then he would have to design another switchback ramp for the new addition. He added that at the site entrance, there are two town trees, which cannot be taken down without approval from the Tree Warden. Any adjustment to the driveway would require the trees to be removed. Ms. Anne Godwin asked about the number of handicapped spaces. Mr. Maxwell replied that two are required and they believe two additional ones are needed for the use of the building. Ms. Godwin said that she felt that elimination of the two spaces at the very front would be beneficial to the visual views. She also expressed concern for the construction hours and said the neighbors do not want construction to occur on Saturdays and would like to limit the hours from 7 -5PM during the week. She also recommended that the dumpster be removed within business hours. Page 1 5 Ms. Lynda Rohmer, 176 Summer Avenue, expressed concern about the landscaping and the lack of guaranty. Mr. Maxwell said that the owner of Criterion is happy to provide the fencing on the northern side of the side as well as installing additional arborvitae. The decision should reflect this commitment. Mr. Bob Salter, 247 Summer Ave asked why a decision had to be made today. Mr. Tuttle said they are subject to state law and bylaw regulations. The statutory deadline has passed but the Applicant has granted an extension to today. If the CPDC does not approve the project tonight, the project would be approved under constructive approval. Mr. Salter asked if the applicant could agree to another extension so that we can view the design changes in the public. He felt the neighborhood has given some good argument for reducing the number of spaces and we have not heard why they have not reduced the number of spaces. Mr. Hansen said that the applicant has provided material that shows what they believe they need. Mr. Weston said that he believes there are two spaces that may have visual impact from the street. Those spaces are nearest the front. He said that if other spaces are reduced, he is not sure it would limit any other visual impact. The idea of making those spaces turfstone was discussed, but the Town Engineer said that the curbing would still need to be installed, creating the visual impact. Mr. Safina asked if the proposed turnaround would result in a loss of additional spaces. Mr. Sullivan replied no, but that he would have to adjust the snow storage area. Mr. Safina suggested moving the snow storage to the east. Mr. Sullivan replied that he could do that with the elimination of 1 tree. Ms. Kathy Greenfield said that the two spaces nearest the front are not that beneficial to clients as the classrooms are not in the front of the building. Mr. Hansen agreed that the Applicant should consider a compromise to eliminate the spaces. Mr. Hansen allowed for a 10 minute break so the Applicant could discuss the issue. Mr. Margolin reported that they can make an accommodation on the two first spaces and have those eliminated from the front. Mr. Sullivan added that they would like to relocate those two spaces to the rear of the parking and shift the dumpster and pad back. They do feel the number of spaces needed is 38. He further added that turfstone may not be ideal because of the associated maintenance issues. As a result of relocating the front 2 spaces, they would then extend the greenspace in front of the site. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neil, 125 Summer Avenue wanted to know more about the use of vans and asked how many students are brought in by the vans. Mr. Margolin replied it is difficult to understand what the need would be. Ms. O'Neil said that it appears the Applicant intends to grow their business and that could be a concern. Page 1 6 Mr. Salter said that the Applicant should consider the plan revisions presented by Mr. Krieger early this evening, including the 3 rows of parking. He expressed concern that the neighbors are not being presented with the full information about their operation. Mr. Weston replied that the CPDC reviews several site plans each year, and there are always questions regarding the parking. The CPDC could apply a very rigid formula which some communities do, but that doesn't always work because many times it creates more parking than what is needed. He said they try to work with business owners. He added that sometimes the information is not all there or correct but the CPDC tries to see if it reasonable and passes the smell test. The CPDC has no intention in delving into business policies. The CPDC is concerned with the site plan and does not want to micromanage how businesses operate. There was additional discussion regarding the number of parking spaces. Ms. Rohmer requested that a stockade fence be installed in between her lot and the proposed Criterion lot. Mr. Maxwell said they can install the fence along the portion of her property that abuts the Criterion lot. Ms. Godwin still expressed concern over the construction and felt that Reading's policy for construction was more liberal than the City of Boston's policy. Mr. Weston agreed that construction does cause impact, but that the discussion about the policy should be discussed at Town Meeting. Mr. Krieger wanted to address the issue of acting tonight on the application. He said that Chapter 40A does not impose constructive approval, and he is unware of any case law on that issue. However the Zoning Bylaw, Section 4.3.3.2 states that the CPDC must act within 60 -days, which has passed. That section does not say that it is constructively approved. He said that it does say that a building permit shall be issued without the CPDCs written approval or if 60 -days have passed. He believes there are a lot of open issues and feels the CPDC should continue the meeting. Mr. Weston said that in the past they have received opinion from Counsel that Section 4.3.3.2 does in fact mean constructive approval. Mr. Hansen said he believes many concerns have been addressed tonight and would be comfortable issuing a decision. Mr. Krieger pointed out that the alternative parking lot layout has not been discussed Mr. Katsoufis said that the more parking is moved to the back the more you will observe the movement of cars on -site. He recommended using the perimeter of asphalt for parking. Also if the driveway is moved closer to the building it would have the appearance of more disturbed areas. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to close the Public Hearing for the Site Plan Review Application for 186 -190 Summer Avenue. Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 4 -0 -0. The CPDC reviewed the draft Site Plan Review Decision. The conditions added from the discussion tonight include: 1) Move the two spaces from the front to the rear of the site. 2) Stockade fence on Ms. Rohmer's property line from the retaining wall easterly to the jog in the lot line. 3) Arborvitaes will be installed from the end of the fence to the beginning of the existing building. Page 1 7 4) Applicant to provide a revised design for the turnaround and snow storage. The new snow storage area will be to the east of the property and not to the south. 5) New lighting plan detailing the changes discussed. 6) New landscaping plan to reflect the changes above. 7) New site plan to show the change in parking and turnaround. 8) Revised Drainage and Grading Plan to accommodate Town Engineer Comments. The CPDC reviewed the draft decision and ensured the above conditions we included. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to approve the Site Plan Review Decision for 186 -190 Summer Avenue as amended. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 3 -1 -0. It was clarified that the final plan, developed in accordance with the conditions will be posted and made available for viewing. ANR Plan 186 -190 Summer Avenue Mr. Sullivan said that the property at 186 -190 Summer Avenue consists of 3 parcels. The ANR proposes to combined all three lots. There is sufficient frontage and lot area for this. Mr. Zambouras reported he has reviewed the plan and meets the criteria for endorsement. Mr. Tuttle move the CPDC to endorse the ANR plan for combination of lots at 186- 190 Summer Avenue. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 4 -0 -0. Zo ina Update Proilect Ms. Delios said that a summary was provided to the CPDC as to what has been completed to date. This summary also identifies what we have in draft form, which has not been approved yet by Town Meeting. She anticipates that the AG will make a decision on September and November Town Meeting no later than March. Ms. Delios provided a schedule for November 2015 Town Meeting which was created by the Town Manager to ensure all the public hearings are done well in advance. She added that the ZAC is having one final meeting at the end of the month. The Chair of the ZAC suggested to post the drafts we have received and reviewed thus far and post them on the website. There was concern in doing that because the CPDC has not reviewed them in detail at this point. Mr. Weston said that the Parking and Sign section will require a lot of discussion and public input. He does believe that the PRD and the PUD could move forward for November as well at the Aquifer Protection District. Mr. Tuttle reported that the changes to the Aquifer Protection District were small. As for the PUD /PRD, they are in need of a recodification and we should ensure there is some public education on those overlay districts as well as the boundaries. Plannina Updates and Other Business Mr. Safina said that Cumberland Farms is requesting LED Pump Toppers by variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. He said the gas station on South Main Street has similar toppers and that they flash. He is concerned that this is setting a precedent. Tennessee Gas Line Ms. Wilson provides a summary of the project. Mr. Weston expressed concern that this request is for staff to perform their due diligence for them. Page 1 8 1 General Way — Window Modification Ms. Wilson said that the landlord is seeking approval for some minor changes to the window design at one of the proposed tenant spaces and wanted some input from the CPDC on this. Mr. Safina said they could be better designed to integrate into the storefront system. He provided a markup on the drawing and Ms. Wilson will make the recommendation back to the Applicant. Ms. Delios reported that Bunratty Tavern is nearing completion and they hope to open as soon as possible. Adiournment Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to adjourn at 11:50PM. Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 4 -0 -0. Page 1 9