HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-11 Community Planning and Development Commission Minuteso� orxG
w Town of Reading
,as Meeting Minutes
RECEIVED r,
TOWN CLERK
Board - Committee - Commission - Council: READING. MASS.
Community Planning and Development Commission I0Ib FEB 23 P I: 581
Date: 2016 -01 -11 Time: 7:30 PM
Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room
Address: 16 Lowell Street
Purpose: General Business Session: Open Session
Attendees: Members - Present:
Nick Safina, Dave Tuttle, John Weston and Karen Goncalves -Dolan
Members - Not Present:
Jeff Hansen
Others Present:
Assistant Town Manager Jean Dellos, Community Development Director Julie
Mercier, Administrative Assistant Caitlin Saunders, Jennifer Killeen, Kenneth
Reardon, Paul Martin, Mike and Lynne Farrell, Paula Pirrello, Kristen Mitchell,
Al Sylvia, Tony D'Arezzo, Chris Latham, Joe Luna, Ian Rubin
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By:
Topics of Discussion:
Acting Chair Nick Safina called the meeting to order.
Public Hearing for Site Plan Review — 256 -262 Main Street
Applicant: Readino CRE Ventures. LLC
Chris Latham, the Applicant's attorney, Joe Luna, the Applicant's architect, and Ian Rubin,
the Applicant's engineer, were present.
The Applicant is seeking Site Plan approval for the two lots at 258 and 262 Main Street. The
proposal includes demolition of the two existing structures. The Public Hearing on the
project was opened at the December 14, 2015 CPDC meeting.
The proposal Includes redevelopment of the site for a four -story commercial building with
retail on the first Floor and offices on the top three Floors. Two parking lots are proposed on
the site; they are unconnected and contain a total of 50 parking spaces. The Applicant plans
to regrade the site down to street level. The building will be handicap accessible. The HVAC
units will be on the roof. There will be a bike rack on the site. Wooden stockade fences and
block retaining walls will act as buffers between neighbors.
Mr. Rubin updated the Commission on changes to the plans and progress since the last
hearing. Eight trees, which are proposed to be removed, were added to the plans. The Fire
Department reviewed the plans and Is okay with the proposed driveway.
Mr. Rubin handed the Commission members a memo between the Applicant's engineer and
the Town Engineering Department. The Commission went through the memo with the
Applicant. Some minor Engineering concerns were addressed; Engineering will allow
additional modifications to be made at a later date.
Pape 1 1
Mr. Rubin indicated that the retaining wall will be made up of blocks that are 12" wide, 16"
deep, and 8" high.
Mr. Safina expressed concern with the parking spaces near the transformer, which will be
difficult to pull into and out of. Mr. Weston opined that if some spaces are hard to use, the
site may need more than 50 spaces to accommodate the use.
Mr. Tuttle pointed out two large parking lots in the vicinity that patrons may use instead.
Mr. Safina commented that people would likely look for other parking lots rather than
parking on Pinevale Avenue, which could allay concerns from neighbors.
Mr. Weston noted that it is hard to determine how much parking will be needed because
there are no tenants yet; however, it is likely the Applicant will need all 50 spaces. He noted
that losing spaces due to snow could be a problem.
Mr. Latham indicated that the building has not been designed to accommodate restaurant
tenants.
Mr. Rubin also noted that the dumpster has not been relocated in order to prevent loss of
additional parking spaces; loading and deliveries will be regulated depending on the size of
the truck; and the site will not be reconfigured to allow through - access via the parking lots.
Mr. Safina clarified that the proposed stormwater design would direct runoff to the center of
the parking lots, not to the State -owned system along Route 28. Mr. Rubin affirmed this and
pointed out that the new site design will substantially decrease the amount of run -off.
Mr. Safina inquired whether the Applicant has had any follow -up conversations with the
Board of Selectmen regarding the curb cuts. Mr. Latham indicated that the Board of
Selectmen is aware of the policy, but that a formal conversation is yet to occur.
Mr. Safina pointed out that the building section depicts the proposed building as 8 feet
higher than the existing building. Mr. Rubin indicated that the actual heights of the buildings
were not measured, but instead the section shows the worst case scenario per zoning. Mr.
Safina opined that actual measurements would be better to help abutters understand the
impacts.
Mr. Safina noted that the Photometric Plan lighting schedule Indicates T4 fixtures, but the
lighting specification sheet is for T3 fixtures. He opined that the lights against the property
line should be fully cut -off.
Mr. Safina asked the Applicant about proposed screening alternatives for the north side of
the building. Mr. Luna commented that on the north side of the property there are concerns
with building height and people being able to look into the neighbors' houses. He opined
that a louver system would make the building look like a fail and be expensive to maintain.
He stated a preference for coated or diffused light glass, which would allow sunlight in but
disable views out. He showed the Commission two glass samples.
The Commission discussed the glass options. Mr. Safina pointed out that It may be hard to
rent a space with windows that are completely unusable. Mr. Luna stated that it is possible
to partition the windows, so that only portion below eye -level is coated. The minimum cone
of vision is typically determined by the height of an average adult plus 6".
Mr. Luna stated that there will be low profile LED lights to light the exterior balcony space.
He is unable to determine what type of screening will be needed for the mechanical units, as
it is unclear at this point how many will be needed.
Mr. Weston asked if the actual building extends higher than 45 feet. Mr. Luna affirmed this
and replied that the Building Department and the Zoning Bylaw allow additional height for
Page 1 2
screening of mechanicals and for elevator shafts. Mr. Weston then clarified that the actual
highest point of the building ( -48 feet) will be the corner closest to the residential abutters.
Public Comment
Michael Farrell of 2 Pinevale Avenue asked the Applicant to clarify how high the elevator
override is on the roof. Mr. Luna noted it is about 3 -4 feet higher than the 45 foot roof. Mr.
Farrell then asked how high the balcony wall will be and Mr. Luna answered 36 ' , which is a
standard railing height per the Building Code. Mr. Farrell asked if the coated glass would be
on all three levels and Mr. Luna said yes. Mr. Farrell asked how high the bushes by the site
entrances /exits will be and Mr. Luna noted those are 10 -18 foot trees, not bushes.
Kristen Mitchell of 10 Pinevale Avenue asked about the size and noise of the transformer.
Mr. Luna said the transformer is about 3 -4 feet tall and makes very little noise. Mr. Safina
asked Mr. Luna to clarify the relationship between the height of the transformer and the
height of the property fence for Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Luna indicated that the transformer will be
about 3 -4 lower than Ms. Mitchell's property once the site Is regraded.
Jennifer Killeen of 12 Pinevale Avenue expressed concerns with the proximity of the outdoor
tables and chairs to her property, especially if the employees use it as a smoking area. Ms.
Delios noted that the Town cannot regulate outdoor smoking; however, the Commission can
include a condition that the tables and chairs must be located a certain distance from the
property line.
Ms. Killeen also asked If there would be a retaining wall between her property the project
site. Mr. Rubin noted that the fence stops at her property line and then there are trees as a
buffer. Mr. Safina suggested extending the fence to continue along her property line. Mr.
Latham confirmed that wouldn't be a problem.
Ken Reardon of 25 Pinevale Avenue commented that there is not a lot of turn around space
In the parking lot for someone who pulls in and cannot find a parking space, which could
result in people backing out onto Route 28. He asked why the Applicant did not design the
parking lot to be continuous. Mr. Rubin said that doing such would result in a loss of parking
spaces they need to make the site work. Mr. Reardon noted concerns for overflow parking,
and opined that having people park in nearby lots puts a burden on other business owners
and is not a long -term solution if those businesses are redeveloped and need the parking.
Mr. Reardon then asked about the maximum height of the building, and commented that
the mechanicais on the roof exceed the allowed 45 feet. The Applicant noted that the
Zoning Bylaw allows this. Mr. Reardon expressed concern that people on the balcony will be
able to see into neighbors' yards.
Mr. Reardon also asked about snow storage on conservation land; the Applicant clarified
that the snow storage area is well outside of the 100 foot wetlands buffer. The Applicant
also noted that snow will be trucked off the site.
Michael Farrell of 2 Pinevale Avenue asked if 'Resident Parking Only' signs could be put
along Pinevale Avenue. Mr. Safina responded that the CPDC does not have jurisdiction to do
that, rather it would have to go before the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Safina noted that Planning staff work closely with the Police Department about traffic
and parking problems, and will be informed if it does become a problem.
Paula Pirello of 262 Main Street noted that she has operated her business on Main Street for
32 years and has always had good relationships with the neighbors. She stated that she has
no issue with overflow parking, and that parking on Pinevale Avenue is rare.
Kristen Mitchell of 10 Pinevale Avenue asked if the design of the building fit in with the
neighborhood. Mr. Safina noted that there are guidelines for building on South Main Street.
Page 1 3
Mr. Weston suggested potentially separating the parking spaces by need once the building
has tenants so that patrons know which parking lot to use.
Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC close the public hearing for 258 -261 Main Street. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4 -0 -0 vote.
The Commission then reviewed the draft Site Plan Approval and conditions.
Mr. Weston commented on condition #35 about a traffic/parking evaluation after 75%
occupancy. He opined that by that point, it will be too late to mitigate traffic/parking
concerns, and suggested it should be changed to 60 %. He also stated that he does not
expect traffic issues.
Mr. Weston asked if they have decided on a color scheme for the siding and Mr. Luna noted
they have not but will work with the Town Planner when that time comes.
The Commission then added conditions regarding the outdoor seating area, the coated
glass, and the siding to the draft Site Plan Approval.
Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC approve the site plan at 258 -262 Main Street as amended.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4 -0 -0 vote.
Approval Not Reauired Plan - 172 -186 Woburn Street
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston
The Commission reviewed memos from the Community Development Director and Town
Engineer, which both state that the Approval Not Required Plan can be endorsed.
The existing property at 172 -186 Woburn Street Is within the Single - Family 15 (S -15)
Zoning District. The S -15 District requires a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. of land area and 100
feet of frontage for permitted non - residential uses. The plan shows a proposed division of
land from one lot Into two smaller lots for the creation of one net additional lot. The plan
shows that each of the two proposed lots will have more than 15,000 sq.ft. of land area and
more than 100 feet of frontage on Woburn Street.
Mr. Tuttle commented the line looks like it falls in the middle of a common driveway. Ms.
Mercier mentioned that review of such is not within the CPDC's purview for an ANR.
Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC endorse the ANR plan at 172 -186 Woburn Street. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 4 -0 -0 vote.
Sian Application - 40 -65 (aka 20) Walkers Brook Drive
Barlo Signs on behalf of The Wilder Company
The Applicant is proposing to add two back -to -back cabinets for two new tenants, for a total
of 4 new cabinets, to an existing free - standing sign at 40 -65 (aka 20) Walkers Brook Drive.
The Commission concluded that the proposed cabinets will not exceed the existing height of
the sign, and that the sign faces will be opaque and will match the existing tenant cabinets.
The Commission determined that the PUD -1 Zoning District allows for the additional square
footage of sign area, and that the application conforms to the Intent of the development, as
the original site plan shows a total of six tenant spaces In the proposed building(s).
Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 40 -65 (aka
20) Walkers Brook Drive. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-
0-0 vote.
Discussion of Potential Zonina BVIaw Amendments for 2016
F,'I,
Ms. Mercier asked the Commission to discuss whether they agree with the priorities and
next steps outlined in the memo. Ms. Dellos relayed that Town Counsel said the CPDC
should start looking at revising the Sign Bylaw now in light of a recent Supreme Court
decision.
Mr. Tuttle stated that the plan to move forward seems appropriate.
Mr. Weston noted that revising the Sign Bylaw could be a significant undertaking. He opined
that it would be good to revise the Sign Bylaw and Site Plan Review together this year, and
proceed with revisions to the PUD and PRD next year. He also suggested taking up revisions
to the Accessory Structures sections, perhaps before revising Site Plan Review.
CPDC Meetina Minutes - December 14. 2015
Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC approve the minutes of December 14, 2015. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4 -0 -0 vote.
Planning Updates
The Town is expecting to have a Development Review Team meeting on the St. Agnes
Residences on Woburn Street fairly soon. The Town has also received an application for the
Reading Village 408; the next step is to open the hearing with the ZBA.
Cookies and Cream Bakery has closed and the Wine Shop went bankrupt. Embellished has
closed as well. The top floors of the MF Charles building are seeing lots of activity; a bank Is
proposed on the 2nd floor.
The Post Office is moving to the Eastern Bank building, and a developer has expressed
Interest in the Post Office building.
Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC adjourn the meeting at 10:05 PM. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4 -0 -0 vote.
Documents reviewed at the meeting:
CPDC Agenda 1/11/16
CPDC Minutes 12/14/15
Memo from Community Development Director to CPDC re: Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for
2016, dated 1/7/16, including attached Zoning Update Project Summary dated 10/27/15.
258 -262 Main Street:
a) Development Review Team meeting notes, dated 10/21/15.
b) Site Plan Review Application, Narrative and Property Deed - received 11/5/15.
c) Certifled List of Abutters - dated 9/28/15.
d) Civil Plans CO, EC, SP, D2, SI, and LP: 258 Main Street, Reading, MA, prepared by Markey &
Rubin, Inc., revised 12/28/15.
e) Civil Plan DS: 258 Main Street, Reading, MA, prepared by Markey & Rubin, Inc. Revised
11/02/15.
IF) Architectural Plans A1.00 - A1.05: prepared by Luna Design Group, dated 7/29/15.
g) Architectural Plans A2.00 - A2.04: prepared by Luna Design Group, dated 9/20/15.
h) Architectural Plan A2.04 (In color): prepared by Luna Design Group, dated 9/4/15.
i) Photometric Plans 1 -2: 258 Main Street Site Lighting, prepared by Photometric; LLC, dated
9/10/15.
J) Lighting Features & Specifications - Saber LED Area Light LSBW Series, prepared by Techlight
(www.techlightusa.com), received 1/4/16.
k) Drainage Report for 258 & 262 Main Street, Reading MA, prepared by Markey & Rubin, Inc.,
dated 8/26/15.
1) Letter from Reading Historical Commission to Building Commissioner, dated 6/16/15.
m) Letter from Huan Li, 19 Pinevale Ave., to CPDC, dated 11/26/15.
n) Email from Huan Li, 19 Pinevale Ave., to Planning Staff, dated 11/30/15.
o) Memo from Community Development Director to Applicant, dated 12/15/15, updated 1/7/16.
Page 15
p) Draft Site Plan Approval, dated 1/7/16.
q) Email from Ian Rubin, P.E., to Community Development Director, dated 1/4/16.
r) Email from Lieutenant Jackson to Applicant, dated 12/15/15.
s) Email from Fire Chief to Community Development Director, dated 1/6/16.
Q Email from Jennifer Killeen, 12 Pinevale Ave., to Community Development Director, dated
1/11/16.
u) Memo from Markey & Rubin, Inc., to Town Engineer, dated 1/11/16.
v) Memo from Town Engineer to Community Development Director, dated 1/11/16.
w) Lighting Specification - Evolve LED Wall Pack N Series (EWNA), prepared by GE Lighting,
submitted by Applicant to CPDC at hearing on 1/11/16 as example of lighting to be used on
balcony.
x) Glass Specification - Okalux Light Diffusing Insulating Glass, submitted by Applicant to CPDC
at hearing on 1/11/16 as example of alternative screening method for north fagade.
172 -186 Woburn Street:
a) Form A: ANR Plan Application, 172 -186 Woburn Street, submitted on 12/16/15.
b) ANR Plan of Land: 172 -186 Woburn Street, prepared by Medford Engineering & Survey, dated
12/4/15.
c) Memo from Community Development Director to CPDC, dated 12/17/15.
d) Memo from Town Engineer to Community Development Director, dated 1/5/16.
40 -65 (aka 20) Walkers Brook Drive:
a) Application for Sign Permit Including attachments, dated 12/14/15.
b) Draft Certificate of Appropriateness, dated 1/11/16.
Page 1 6