HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-25 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading
e� Meeting Minutes
�{re
6JDIM(OPF�
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Community Planning and Development Commission
Date: 2016 -01 -25 Time: 7:30 PM
Building: Pleasant Street Senior Center Location: Great Room
Address: 49 Pleasant Street
Purpose: General Business Session:
Attendees: Members - Present:
RECEIVED
TOWN CLERK
READING, MASS,
1016 FEB 23 P k581
Chair Jeff Hansen, David Tuttle, Nick Safina, John Weston and Karen
Goncalves -Dolan
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
The Historic Districts Commission, Assistant Town Manager Jean Cellos,
Community Development Director Julie Mercier
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Julie Mercier on behalf of the CPDC and HDC
Topics of Discussion:
The CPDC and the HDC respectively called their meetings to order at 7:34 PM.
Public Hearing for Site Plan Review — 186 -190 Summer Avenue
Applicant: Criterion Child Enrichment. Inc.
Mr. Hansen briefly explained the history of the project, noting that the Applicant received a
Site Plan Approval from the CPDC in January 2015, but then was required to make some
substantial changes to the approved plan by the Historic Districts Commission, which now
requires a new Site Plan Approval by the CPDC. He explained that the joint CPDC and HDC
meeting format would allow the Commissions to discuss and agree to any plan changes at
the same time.
Ms. Mercier briefly described that the Applicant's revised plans include restoring two existing
historic structures and connecting them via an underground tunnel. The Applicant Is also
proposing 38 parking spaces, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, walkways and
a playground area on the site.
Mr. Hansen asked for comments from the HDC and the 01867 Neighborhood Preservation
Group.
Everett Blodgett, HDC Chair, reiterated some of the history of the project.
MaryEllen O'Neill, on behalf of the 01867 Neighborhood Preservation Group, commented
that the group is most concerned about the amount of parking and does not believe there is
a need for that many spaces.
Kenneth Margolin, Esq., Applicant's attorney, explained In detail the changes since the
previous application. He noted that the new application does not include any exterior
additions or changes to the building footprints. The addition that was Initially proposed has
Page 1 1
been eliminated and an underground connector Is proposed instead. The driveway width
was reduced from 24 feet to 20 feet along the portion with one -sided parking, and that
portion of the pavement will be pervious. He noted that 4 parking spaces were relocated to
the rear parking lot, and additional landscaping - including 7 trees along the northern
property edge - was added to the front of the site.
Mr. Margolin asserted that though the gross square footage for programming decreased
since the initial proposal, the intensity of use has not changed. The total number of children,
parents and staff on the site will not be reduced, and because many parents stay with their
children, the parking area functions more for long -term than drop- off /pick -up. He noted that
the CPDC originally approved 38 parking spaces, and all 38 spaces are still necessary to run
the program.
Mr. Margolin pointed out that the previous plans depicted a 6 -foot stockade fence, but that
the HDC never reviewed or approved it. He expressed willingness to work out an agreement
with both Commissions regarding fencing.
Jack Sullivan, P.E., Applicant's engineer, discussed the site layout, grading and drainage. He
noted that he made an effort to match the existing site grades as much as possible, to
reduce the amount of curbing, and to use porous pavement in the areas closest to Summer
Avenue and Temple Street. A total of 15 parking spaces would have porous pavement; 23
would have conventional pavement. He mentioned that the proposed project will result in a
45% reduction In runoff rates than the current site condition.
Mr. Sullivan also discussed utilities, lighting and other site features. Both buildings will be
sprinklered, and new sewer and domestic water with a dedicated fire line will be installed.
There will be 7 bollards to help light the walkways, 3 pole - mounted fixtures, 2 wall- mounted
fixtures, and 1 security light on the rear of the building. Snow will be stockpiled in a 60'x60'
area with a 20 -foot buffer to the closest abutter. The dumpster and recycling area will be as
previously proposed.
John Gonzalez, Applicant's architect, described the underground tunnel. The tunnel will be
12 feet wide, 75 feet long and 10 feet tall and it will connect the main building and the barn.
Under the State building code, the project Is viewed as three separate structures. Both of
the above - ground structures have emergency egress stairs and 42 "x60" handicap lifts. The
tunnel does not contribute to the total occupancy and will be separated from the other two
structures by a 2 -hour fire wall; it is not required to be ventilated, but it will be sprinkled
and accessible to emergency personnel.
Mr. Weston inquired about the use of pervious pavement, noting that the town engineer had
asked for conventional pavement in the initial submittal. Mr. Sullivan responded that the
town engineer did not like the Idea of the whole lot being porous pavement but that he is
okay with a combination of traditional and porous.
Mr. Weston opined that the 6' stockade fence should be Included in the approval since it was
requested by an abutter, and asked if the abutter was present.
Jared Lamb, 194 Summer Avenue, expressed desire for a combination of fence and arbor
vitae trees for screening the southern property line.
Mr. Safina suggested starting the fence further back into the site and then continuing the
screening toward Summer Avenue with trees.
Mr. Lamb agreed with Mr. Safina and Irked the idea of keeping the trees and openness at
the front of the property.
Mr. Blodgett agreed that the HDC would be amenable to keeping the fence back from the
Summer Avenue frontage as much as possible.
Page 1 2
Town Counsel Ray Miyares asked if the HDC wanted to specify the type of material or style
of the fence.
Mr. Blodgett replied that a natural material like wood would be preferred, and that the style
could be discussed later.
Cynthia Rohmer, 176 Summer Avenue, stated that she would like a fence and green screen
on her side - the northern property line - as a buffer.
Mr. Margolin agreed to provide a fence /screen in whatever style the HDC specified.
Mr. Hansen asked if the 38 parking spots were a daily need.
Mr. Margolin stated that the 38 spaces are fully utilized about once a week. He noted that if
the program grows too large for the space on Summer Avenue, Criterion Child Enrichment
will establish another location in the region. He mentioned that the Department of Public
Health (DPH) has a regulation of square footage per student, and that based on that 49
students would be their total capacity. He stated that Criterion on principle allows more
square footage per student than the DPH requirement.
Mr. Weston asked what the normal hours of operation are. Robert Littleton, Criterion Child
Enrichment, responded that the site hours will be Monday through Friday 8:30 am - 4:30
pm with very infrequent night and weekend use.
Mr. Safina expressed concern regarding constructing the maximum need of 38 spaces, when
they will only be fully utilized approximately once a week. Mr. Margolin opined that it is
Important not to have spillover onto the neighboring streets.
Mr. Safina asked if the use should have more than four handicap spaces. Mr. Sullivan noted
that the code requires two spaces but they are providing four.
Mr. Weston commented that eliminating the four tandem spots in the rear would not result
in a large improvement from a site design perspective. He asked if there are parking issues
on Summer Avenue currently, and noted that on -street parking occurs in the area due to
the church and school.
Mr. Hansen asked if reducing the driveway width from 24 feet to 20 feet will make it difficult
for vehicles to navigate the site. Mr. Sullivan explained that a 20 -foot drive aisle next to
single -sided parking allows plenty of room for turning movements.
Mr. Margolin noted that staff will be instructed to park in the back and leave the front spots
closer to the building open for families.
Mr. Sullivan opined that "no parking" signs were requested by the Police Chief, but that 5
signs may be too many. Mr. Blodgett noted that the HDC opposes the signs. Mr. Hansen
suggested posting the signs on the fence.
Virginia Adams, HDC member, noted that the HDC would like to reduce the visual impact of
the site, and suggested that the "no parking" regulation be printed on the pavement. She
pointed out that the Police Chief may have a different opinion about the signs now that the
site has changed. Mr. Blodgett stated that as long as the HDC has oversight of the design,
they are okay with the Police Chief determining the number.
Mr. Margolin agreed to do whatever the HDC and the Police Chief decide.
Mr. Weston noted that this is private property, and that the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) likely does not apply. He asked if the Town Engineer had reviewed
the new plan.
Page 1 3
Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios stated that staff have not received an official memo
from Engineering, but that Mr. Sullivan has been in contact with the Town Engineer. The
Commission agreed to add a condition to the Decision regarding approval by the Town
Engineer.
Mr. Hansen opened the hearing to public comment.
Public Comment
Dennis Carr, 61 Temple Street, said he has drainage concerns and asked if revised drainage
plans were submitted. He also asked if additional soil testing was done at the rear of the lot.
Mr. Sullivan responded in the affirmative to both of Mr. Carr's questions, and noted that the
soil testing revealed no evidence of contamination.
Mr. Carr then expressed his concern about the snow storage area becoming a large puddle.
He mentioned the possibility of extending the curb line closest to the southern property line
an additional 50 feet so the porous pavement does not drain to the rear of the site. He also
asked what the plan is if the porous pavement fails to drain properly.
Mr. Sullivan explained that the site is pitched away from the snow storage area and that the
soils are ideal for drainage. He stated that the site grading creates a clean break in runoff
from porous areas to conventional areas, but that he overdesigned the stormwater system
so that it can handle additional runoff if needed.
Mr. Blodgett noted that the HDC asked for reduced curbing on the south side, so any
additional curbing would have to be discussed.
Mr. Carr asked if there is a curb between the rear parking area and the snow storage area.
Mr. Sullivan responded that there Is a 6" curb.
Ms. O'Neill read a letter from the 01867 Neighborhood Preservation Group to the CPDC. The
letter expressed the Group's concern about parking and asked the Commission to have the
Applicant provide only the required minimum of 21 spaces.
Mr. Hansen asked if the neighbors would be okay with overflow parking on Summer Avenue
if the Commission reduced the number of on -site spaces.
Mr. Lamb said he would not mind overflow parking on the street, and opined that Summer
Avenue usually has a lot of space for parking.
Chris Kowaleski, 147 Grove Street, explained that he has a son at Criterion in Woburn and
that having parking close to the building makes the logistics of getting in and out much
easier.
Debra Stackpole, 186 Summer Avenue, wanted to remind everyone that in the winter when
there is bad weather, on- street parking can present challenges regarding getting in and out
of one's car. It is also not always available or permitted.
Kelly Corwin, 199 Summer Avenue, said she has no problem with parking on Summer
Avenue and is in favor of reducing the amount of spaces to 21.
Anne Goodwin, 189 Summer Avenue, noted that the original parking study was done based
on bigger classroom square footages. She asked about the environmental Implications of
using porous pavement. Mr. Sullivan responded that porous pavement has only come about
in the last 5 -10 years. He mentioned a recent DEP study of a parking lot in Wilmington near
the Ipswich River for which preliminary results indicate better water quality and TSS levels.
He explained that porous pavement lies on top of a layer of stone that filters contaminants,
and noted that on this site, the groundwater depth Is 8 feet, where only 2 feet of separation
Page 14
is required. He stated that Operation and Maintenance (O&M) requirements for the porous
pavement will be listed on the Construction Detail sheets.
The Commission agreed to add a condition to the Decision regarding O &M for porous
pavement.
Nancy Lamb, 194 Summer Avenue, stated that the classrooms are coded as day care use
and that the parking should be for pick -up /drop -off only. Mr. Hansen responded that the
building code and zoning bylaw use different metrics to determine uses. Mr. Salina pointed
out that the building code is concerned primarily with life safety. Mr. Margolin added that
Criterion parents often stay with their children while they are attending programs.
Sharlene Santo, 46 Wakefield Street, asked if the request for additional parking Is so that
the program can expand. Mr. Margolian responded that physical expansion would require
that the Applicant go before the HOC again, and that programmatic expansion is limited by
the size of the structures. He stated that the Applicant Is not planning to expand.
Mr. Lamb pointed out that there are no parking restrictions on Summer Avenue.
Mr. Blodgett, speaking as a resident, asked whether a compromise could be struck between
the requirement for 21 spaces and the request for 38 spaces.
Mr. Carr noted that the neighbor on the south side currently has a fence, so the Applicant
should coordinate with them to have one long fence Instead of two overlapping fences. Mr.
Margollan said they have no objections to doing that.
Mr. Safina asked for clarification regarding the building entrances. Mr. Gonzalez noted that
the front entrance is not the primary entrance as the Applicant does not want to make
families and children walk further than necessary. Mr. Littleton asked the Commission to
consider community needs and family needs.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Hansen asked to keep it open.
Mr. Weston inquired as to whether the conditions in the Draft Decision were appropriate for
a Limited Site Plan Review. Mr. Miyares suggested that the Commission ask the Applicant If
any conditions are objectionable under the Commission's limited review parameters of the
Dover Amendment. Mr. Margolin agreed to go through the conditions.
Mr. Tuttle commented that the only visible parking from Summer Avenue has been moved
and that he thinks Criterion has been very reasonable. Mr. Safina disagreed and opined that
21 spaces are probably too few but 38 spaces are too many. He suggested reducing the
number to 34 and removing the 4 spaces closest to the street frontage. Mr. Hansen agreed
that 34 spaces would probably be a good compromise, and reminded the Commission to
consider both the visual Impact as well as the site use. Mr. Tuttle noted that eliminating the
spaces closest to the building would create functional difficulties for the use, and he
suggested eliminating the 4 tandem spaces at the rear instead. Mr. Weston agreed that 21
spaces are too few.
Mr. Margolin noted that the need for 38 spaces is an estimate and that it is possible they
will be used more often than predicted. He said the need is ongoing and serious.
Mark Warner, 65 Temple Street, pointed out that he can see the rear parking lot from his
property, so eliminating spaces there would positively impact him.
Ms. Adams noted that the visual impact from the street frontage is not too bad when the
parking lot is empty, but that once it starts being used, most people will park closest to the
building and we can't regulate that.
Page 15
Mr. Blodgett asked the CPDC to remember that the Town voted to create a Historic District
here, and that the amount of parking will make an impact.
Mr. Margolin commented that the Commission has discussed parking at length and that
Criterion has improved the site visually by moving spaces to the rear. He also noted that the
CPDC previously approved the 38 spaces after an enormous debate.
Mr. Miyares noted that the HDC assumed that the 38 spaces were required because of the
earlier CPDC approval, and they predicated their Certificate of Appropriateness on a request
by the Applicant for a reduction in parking.
Mr. Safina moved that the CPDC reduce the parking to 34 spaces. Mr. Hansen noted that
the motion was not seconded, so the parking remains at 38 spaces.
Mr. Margolin stated that he had completed his review of the conditions. He expressed the
Applicant's willingness to accept all of the conditions without regard to the limitations of the
Dover Amendment.
Based on prior discussion, some of the conditions needed minor textual amendments. Mr.
Margolin and the CPDC went through the Draft Decision together and amended the wording
on a number of conditions, such that the conditions remained acceptable to the Applicant
but addressed concerns of the Commission and the public.
Mr. Mlyares asked the HDC to vote on the changes proposed by the CPDC.
Ms. Adams moved that the HDC endorse the 6' wooden stockade fence in the locations
approved by the CPDC. The motion was seconded by Mr. Maganzini and approved with a 5-
0-0 vote.
Ms. Adams moved that the HDC endorse the extended curbing in the location approved by
the CPDC. The motion was seconded by Mr. Maganzini and approved with a 5 -0 -0 vote.
Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC close the public hearing at 186 -190 Summer Avenue. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5 -0 -0 vote.
Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC approve the site plan for 186 -190 Summer Avenue as
amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5 -0 -0 vote.
Ms. Adams moved that the HDC amend the Certificate of Non - Applicability and Certificate of
Appropriateness for 186 -190 Summer Avenue to incorporate all modifications approved by
the CPDC. The motion was seconded by Mr. Maganzini and approved with a 5 -0 -0 vote.
Ms. Adams moved that the HDC adjourn the meeting at 11:10 PM. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Maganzini and approved with a 5 -0 -0 vote.
Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC adjourn at 11:10 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Safina and approved with a 5 -0 -0 vote.
Documents reviewed at the meeting:
CPDC Agenda 1/25/16
HDC Agenda 1/25/16
Joint Public Hearing Legal Ad
186 -190 Summer Avenue:
a) Development Review Team meeting notes, dated 9/2/15.
b) Certified List of Abutters, dated 12/2/15.
c) Site Plan Review Application and Narrative received 12/14/15.
Page 1 6
d) Emails from Jack Sullivan, P.E. to Community Development Director, dated 12/14/15 and
12/16/15.
e) Letter from Kenneth Margolin, P.C. to CPDC Chair, dated 12/16/15.
f) Supplemental Documents submitted by Kenneth Margolin, P.C. to CPDC Chair, dated 12/10/15,
including: (1) cover letter to CPDC chair, Jeffrey Hansen, from Criterion's attorney, Kenneth
Margolin; (2) index of documents; (3) Opinion of Reading Town Counsel, J. Raymond Miyares,
Esq. regarding the applicability of the Dover Amendment and the Americans With Disabilities
Act; (4) Reservation of Rights package previously filed by Criterion attorney, Kenneth Margolin;
(5) Summary Program Narrative by Attorney Margolin; (6) Affidavit of Robert Littleton, Jr.,
Ed.D., Criterion's President, regarding the unchanged need for 38 parking spaces; and (7)
January 12, 2015 declslon of the Town of Reading CPDC, approving Criterion's prior application
for Site Plan approval.
g) Cover Sheet: entitled "Criterion Child Enrichment ", 186 -190 Summer Avenue, Site Plan of Land,
Reading, MA, prepared by Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC, dated 10/9/14, revised 12/7/15.
h) Existing Conditions/ Demolition Plan: 186 -190 Summer Avenue, Reading, MA, prepared by
Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC, dated 10/9/14, revised 12/7/15.
i) Plan of Land: 186 -190 Summer Avenue, Reading, MA, prepared by Sullivan Engineering Group,
LLC, dated 10/9/14, revised 12/7/15.
J) Site Plan of Land: 186 -190 Summer Avenue, Reading, MA, prepared by Sullivan Engineering
Group, LLC, dated 10/9/14, revised 12/7/15.
k) Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plan: 186 -190 Summer Avenue, Reading, MA, prepared by
Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC, dated 10/9/14, revised 12/7/15.
1) Construction Details (Sheet 6 of 7): 186 -190 Summer Avenue, Reading, MA, prepared by
Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC, dated 10/9/14, revised 12/7/15.
m) Construction Details (Sheet 7 of 7): 186 -190 Summer Avenue, Reading, MA, prepared by
Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC, dated 10/9/14, revised 12/7/15.
n) Landscape Plan: 186 -190 Summer Avenue, Reading, MA, prepared by Sullivan Engineering
Group, LLC, dated 10/9/14, revised 1/23/16 to Include fencing and fence detail.
o) Site Lighting /Photometric Plan: Criterion - Reading, prepared by Visual, dated 12/22/14, revised
and submitted 1/25/16.
p) Proposed Sign (2 Faces Alike): detail with dimensions, received 12/16/15.
q) Predevelopment Drainage Plan: 186 -190 Summer Avenue, Reading, MA, prepared by Sullivan
Engineering Group, LLC, dated 10/9/14, revised 12/7/15.
r) Postdevelopment Drainage: 186 -190 Summer Avenue, Reading, MA, prepared by Sullivan
Engineering Group, LLC, dated 10/9/14, revised 12/7/15.
s) Drainage Study: 186 -190 Summer Avenue, Reading, MA, prepared by Sullivan Engineering
Group, LLC, dated 12/7/15.
t) Cover Sheet: Restoration and Renovation, 186 -190 Summer Avenue, Reading, MA, prepared by
DHK Architects, Inc., received 12/14/15.
u) A -00 - A -10: Architectural Plans, Criterion Child Enrichment, 186 Summer Ave, Reading, MA,
prepared by DHK Architects, dated 8/4/15, revised 12/9/15.
v) Historic Districts Commission Certificate of Non - Applicability: original ( #1521), first amendment
( #1521A), and final amendment ( #15218). The final amendment is dated 11/18/2015. The HDC
further amended the final amendment at the joint CPDC /HDC hearing on 1/25/16 to Incorporate
all modifications approved by the CPDC herein.
w) Historic Districts Commission Certificate of Appropriateness: original ( #1522), first amendment
( #1522A), and final amendment ( #1522B). The final amendment Is dated 11/18/2015. The HOC
further amended the final amendment at the joint CPDC /HDC hearing on 1/25/16 to Incorporate
all modifications approved by the CPDC herein.
x) Memo from Community Development Director to CPDC, dated 1/21/16, updated 1/25/16.
y) Draft Site Plan Review Decision, dated 1/21/16, updated 1/25/16.
z) Letter from Anne Coneeney to CPDC, dated 10/31/15.
aa) Letter from 01867 Neighborhood Preservation to CPDC, dated 1/21/16.
bb) Email from Mark Warner to CPDC, dated 1/23/16.
cc) Letters from Kenneth Margolin, P.C. to Community Development Director, dated 1/24/16,
re: (1) Memo to CPDC and (2) Draft Site Plan Review Decision.
Page 1 7