HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-05 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes Orq
Town of ReadingRrCENED
_
Meeting Minutes i 0 N CLERK
^°�B"urcox�
eoard - committee - Commission - Council: til DEC 13 AM 7 $I
Community Planning and Development Commission
Date: 2018-11-05 Time: 7:30 PM
Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room
Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session
Purpose: General Business Version:
Attendees: Members - Present:
Nick Safina, Dave Tuttle, John Weston, Pamela Adrian, Associate Tony
D'Arezzo
Members - Not Present:
Rachel Hitch
Others Present:
Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew
MacNichol, Robert MCIsaac, Steven Clcatelll, Bob Morelli, Ed Peddle, Marcia
Brown, Nick Bonanno, Sally Boemer, Mike Gallugl, Kevin Roche, Jack
Sullivan, Rich Bova, Carlton Quinn, Kristen &Shawn Goldstein, John
Brzezenskl, Chris Latham, Rob Paccione, Praveen Limbachiya
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By:
Topics of Discussion:
Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
Minor Amendment, PUD Special Permit
Johnson Woods, O. Bradley Latham on behalf of Ted Moore
There was no one present on behalf of the Application.
Mr. Safina read into the record that the Applicant has requested the hearing to be continued
until December 10, 2018.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Minor Amendment for the PUD Special Permit for
Johnson Woods to December 10, 2018. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and
approved with a 5-0-0 vote.
At the suggestion of Ms. Julie Mercier, Community Development Director, Mr. Safina agreed
to address a few Items under Planning Updates first and then continue with the agenda.
Sian Permit Application
15 Bolton Street, Rite Aid/Walgreens
David Bolognese was present on behalf of the Application.
Mr. David Bolognese from Accurate Graphics said he is seeking approval to change the
existing Rite Aid sign to Walgreens. He said the original proposal was for channel letters
with illumination, but after a discussion with staff, no evidence was found that the Rite Aid
Illuminated sign was ever permitted. Ms. Mercier said an illuminated sign In the Business-B
Peg. I 1
Zoning District would require a Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. She asked if the
Commission recalls approving an Illuminated sign at this property. Mr. Safina responded
the Commission would have never approved an illuminated sign. Ms. Mercier said there is a
condition in the Decision that a Variance is required for Illumination. Mr. Safina clarified
that the approval is for a non-Illuminated sign and added that the existing directional signs
are not proposed to be changed.
Mr. Safina requested the clapboards be painted when the existing pharmacy sign is
removed. Mr. Bolognese said he is not sure who Is responsible for removing the sign but
agreed the clapboards need to be painted.
Mr. Tuttle said the drive-through sign Is proposed to be changed. He commented on how
the drive-through sign reads, and said the size of the letters appears quite large. Mr. Safina
asked if the letters need to be that size. Mr. Bolognese apologized and said he did not
design the graphics; he was hired to install the sign. He said he is willing to reach out to the
designer with the feedback received from the Commission.
Ms. Adrian gave her opinion the Commission does not have enough information to approve
the replacement sign. Mr. Safina disagreed and said the Commission does have enough
information to approve a non-illuminated sign and suggested the Applicant reduce the size
of the sign.
Mr. Tuttle asked the constraint of a signage area. Ms. Mercier read the sign bylaw.
Mr. Weston said the proposed location of the pharmacy drive-through sign will limit who will
see it and once it is seen it will appear extremely large. He noted that the aerial photo has
the drive-through sign in the wrong place and that it will actually be on the other side. Mr.
Safina requested the size of letters be reduced to 8'x 6"and the sign be centered on the
drive-through overhang. Mr. Bolognese assured the Commission that his client would
comply with the requested changes to the sign.
The Commission agreed that the Applicant should be notified about the changes to the
design before a sign permit is Issued and if the Applicant wants to modify the approval they
will need a new CPDC approval. Mr. Safina summarized the terms of the approval:
• Permit is for a non-illuminated sign with channel letters;
• The pharmacy sign in the front of the building will be removed;
• Drive-through sign letters shall be reduced to 8'x 6"and be non-Illuminated;
• There will be no changes to the two directional signs; and
• The"D"on the aerial photo will be relocated to the other side of the drive-through.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Walgreens at 15
Bolton Street as discussed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a
5-0-0 vote.
Sian Permit Application
13 Hiah Street. Tread on the Mill
Tiffany Freitas and Ann DICicco were present on behalf of the Application.
Ms. Ann DICIcco from DICICco Sign Introduced Ms. Tiffany Freltas the Owner of Tread on the
Mill. She said the Applicant is requesting letters on the front of the building that will go with
the rustic look of the building. She opined that illumination is unnecessary, and said the
entrance of the business Is located on the side of the parking lot. Ms. Freitas described to
the Commission how the building previously appeared and what she did to improve the site.
Ms. DICicco explained the process of how the proposed sign will be painted onto the
building. She explained that the sign letters need to be large because the entrance is
difficult to find and there is no sign on the street or on the door to direct people to the
business. Mr. Safina said he has no problem with the sign and agreed It would enhance the
appearance of the building. Mr. Weston agreed the space needs a large sign. Ms. DICrcco
said if the sign doesn't appear wom enough once it is dried she will go back and touch It up.
Page 1 2
Ms. Freitas said the white part of the building has recently been painted and will compliment
the sign.
Mr. Tutttle asked about the existing storage container located on the property. Ms. Freitas
replied that It is grandfathered since it has been on the property since 1986. She noted that
to Improve the look of the area near her business entrance a mural was painted on the
container and landscaping was added at the rear of the building.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Tread on the Mill
at 13 High Street. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote.
Discussion of Master Sianaae Plan for MF Charles Bulidlna
Ms. DIClcco explained that when the MF Charles Building was renovated, the second and
third floors were originally proposed to be residential units and so the Master Signage Plan
approved at that time did not Include signs for the upper floors. However, the residential
component of the project did not happen, and the upper floors have always been used as
office spaces. There are now three businesses on those floors that would like recognition on
the front of the building. She opined that there is little to no room on the building for the 3D
letters that are required by the Master Signage Plan.
Ms. DiCicco described the proposed location of the signs and materials that will be used;
and added that the businesses have recently approached her to ask about blade signs.
Mr. Safina asked why all three businesses need to go on one panel. Ms. DICICco replied that
the panel will be located at the front entrance over an area where there Is no tenant, and
that the upstairs businesses have no presence on any street. Mr. Safina asked what spaces
the businesses occupy and if they extend to the Haven Street side of the building. Ms.
DICicco confirmed the spaces do extend to Haven Street. Mr. Safina asked if the bank
utilizes all the other panels. Ms. DICIcco replied the bank sign is located on Haven Street.
Ms. Mercier affirmed the Master Signage Plan does not address the second and third floor
because it was thought those floors would be residential. She asked if the Master Signage
Plan should be modified to reflect the second and third floors or whether staff can approve
what Is proposed since it will be within an approved sign location.
Mr. D'Arezzo stated that a blade sign cannot be Installed above the window sill of the
second floor. Ms. DICicco asked If the blade sign would be in place of the proposed sign at
the entrance of the building. Mr. Safina replied the Master Signage Plan should account for
all possible signs desired. Ms. DIClcco pointed out an additional entrance where signage
could be proposed. Mr. D'Arezzo replied that entrance is to the ATM machine but there Is a
door In that space that leads to a corridor.
Mr. Tuttle said the proposal is attractive and the solution to have all signs on one panel is
reasonable but asked whether It allows for a change of tenants. Ms. DiCicco explained the
proposal Is for one sign, but there will be three pieces for each business. Mr. Tuttle said the
Master Signage Plan should have a provision that all three pieces should remain the same
matte black material. Ms. DIClcco said she proposed matte black because It matches a lot
more than the existing green color. Mr. Saflna expressed concern the matte black will fade
and requested a provision that a new business sign must match the existing matte black.
Ms. DICicco said matte black does not fade drastically and a new one will appear similar to
the existing. Mr. Safina cautioned he did not want a checker board sign.
Ms. Mercier explained that the feedback from the Commission should be Incorporated Into a
proposed amendment to the Master Signage Plan for the MF Charles Building. She offered to
follow up with Ms. DICicco later in the week.
Page 1 3
Continued Public Hearing, Site Plan Review
292 (aka 288) Grove Street, Meadow Brook Golf Club
Brian McGrail, Bob Morelli, Kevin Roche and Jack Sullivan were present on behalf of the
Application.
Attorney Brian McGrail said he has reviewed the draft Decision and finds the terms and
conditions acceptable to the Applicant. The only open matter relates to curbing and parking
on Grove Street. Mr. Jack Sullivan from Sullivan Engineering Group pointed out the area
where vertical granite curbing and landscaping will be installed and said the Town Engineer
and the Conservatlon Commission has approved the design. Mr. Sullivan noted that the
Issue Is that the Decision does not allow for any parking, even parallel, along Grove Street.
Mr. McGrail added that the vertical granite curbing was proposed to prevent head-In parking
and to Improve sight lines. He said the Applicant agrees to prohibit parking where the
vertical granite curbing Is installed, but would like approval to allow overflow parking along
other stretches of Grove Street.
Mr. Safina opined that the Club should not be singled out, and that the Decision should
prohibit parking on Grove Street. Ms. Mercier replied that such a regulation on Grove Street
would need to be approved by the Select Board, and explained that the CPDC can regulate
the club members' actions but not the right-of-way. Mr. Saflna clarified that his
recommendation to not allow parking in that area is for safety reasons and is meant for
everyone, not just the club members. Ms. Mercier asked if the condition should be removed
from the Decision. Mr. Safina replied the condition should not be removed and said it is
necessary to help with the sight line. Ms. Mercier responded that having a blanket regulation
on Grove Street regarding parking Is not In the CPDC's jurisdiction. Mr. Weston said the
Commission should make a request to the PTTTF to discuss parking on Grove Street and
have the finding forwarded to the Select Board. Mr. Safina explained his Intent is to regulate
parking along one stretch of Grove Street. Ms. Mercier said the language proposed by the
Applicant will be accepted in the Decision and she will request the PTTTF to continue the
discussion on potential safety enhancements and parking regulations along Grove Street.
Mr. Tuttle opined that it would be inappropriate to restrict parking on Grove Street to the
Club members only. Mr. Weston suggested a change to the language In the Decision to
prohibit parking along the stretch with vertical granite curbing.
Mr. McGrail complimented the Town staff on capturing the feedback received at the last
meeting and drafting the Decision.
Mr. Weston suggested bereavement events not be counted towards the restriction on total
number of events per year. He gave his opinion It would be a shame if a family member
passed away and the Club couldn't hold the event. Mr. Tuttle agreed with the suggestion,
but questioned how the language should read. Mr. Kevin Roche, President of Meadow Brook
Golf Club, suggested the Town be notified If an event would exceed the allowable amount of
thirty (30) events per year. Ms. Mercier said that It is not her job to approve or deny events
before they are held, rather the Club will be responsible for reporting the total number of
events annually to the Town. Mr. McGrall suggested If the amount of events has reached 30
by November the Club will not allow any more unless they are for bereavement and a notice
will be sent to the Planning Department. Mr. Morelli asked for clarification if the Planning
Division will need to approve bereavement events before the Club can respond to the
request. Ms. Mercier indicated she is not Interested In managing them this way. Mr. Weston
said his Intent Is to make sure that if the Club exceeds 30 events, the bereavement events
can still be held. Mr. D'Arezzo suggested the Club notify the Commission If their scheduled
events might exceed the allowable amount. After discussion, the Commission agreed to limit
the Club to"30 non-bereavement events".
The Commission reviewed the Decision and acknowledged the letters received. The letter
from Mr. Bonanno dated November 3, 2018 was discussed. Mr. Safina said the issue about
the occupancy load was addressed at the last meeting. Ms. Mercier noted that the new
occupancy load has been calculated as 427 for the existing building, and that a corrected
Certificate of Inspection has been issued. Mr. McGrail confirmed that 427 is the occupancy
Page 14
calculated by the Architect. He noted that the Decision references that 200 Indoor seats are
allowed, which though more than the prior number of 184, does not constitute a substantial
extension of the use. He reminded the Commission that the Town's software created a
glitch, and since 2012-2013 the number of seats reported to the Health Department and
Town Managers Office has been used as the occupancy load. Prior to this time, however, the
Certlficate of Inspection issued by the Town allowed 315 seats for the existing building.
Mr. Safina asked if Mr. Bonanno understood the difference between occupancy load and
number of seats allowed. Mr. Bonanno said he did, and he reminded the Commission that
the Applicant stated at the last meeting that they are requesting 200 seats but could live
with 184 seats. He said he didn't hear a clear answer if the Commission would allow the
requested 200 seats. Mr. Roche said that the Club is comfortable with 200 seats. Mr.
Cicatelll, the attorney representing Mr. Bonanno, said his client was under the Impression
the Applicant stated they could live with 184 seats as presented to the Commission.
Mr. Safina said that the Decision allows a maximum of 200 seats with an occupancy load of
427 people. Ms. Mercier reiterated that 427 is the occupancy load for the existing building
and added that the occupancy load will decrease with the proposed dub house. Mr. McGrail
said the proposed clubhouse will have an occupancy load of 292, which is different than the
number of seats. Mr. Safina summarized that the abutters are requesting the seating not
exceed 184 and the occupancy not exceed 230.
Mr. Bonanno said his concern is the seating. The Applicant has submitted permit
applications reflecting the 184 seating count and he would like to make sure It does not
increase with the additional seats on the decks. Mr. Cicatelli commented that the condition
in the Decision only relates to Indoor seating. Mr. Safina responded that the members who
use the porch will already be on the property using the pool and the terraces will be
seasonal. He said the Commission has to decide what the maximum allowed should be at
one time or agree the language as written Is acceptable. Mr. Weston replied that he Is
comfortable the way It Is written. His original concern was that functions would be greater
with the new clubhouse than with the existing building. He opined that limiting the functions
to 140 people with 20 additional seats Is not a sizeable increase. Mr. Safina said the
maximum seating total for the property will be 200. Mr. Bonanno pointed out a discrepancy
with the outdoor seating: the Applicant says there are 36 seats but the plans show 46 seats.
Mr. Safina said the Decision reflects 36 outdoor seats. Mr. McGrail pointed out the couches
and soft chairs on the plan.
Mr. Clcatelll said another concern Is that the Decision does not limit the west side deck
hours of operation until 3:00 PM. Mr. McGrail said it was changed when the Commission
agreed 9:00 PM was adequate. Mr. Safina said he has no problem with the hours of
operation extended to 9:00 PM. Mr. Tuttle agreed and said it was a reasonable request and
added other Town restaurants that have outdoor seating are not restricted to 9:00 PM.
Mr. Safina questioned restriction "D" referenced on the letter from the abutters. Mr.
Bonanno clarifled that the decks are not currently used for functions. He opined that the
functions should only be allowed Inside the club. Mr. Safina said the relocation of the deck
will allow people to flow more easily between spaces. Mr. Bonanno said a larger group of
people on the deck will Increase the noise level. Mr. Safina suggested he could make a
noise complaint, but that the Commission does not even have a base level understanding of
the noise at the site. Mr. Bonanno said the abutters do not want to open a 'Pandora's Box'
and file a police complaint.
Mr. Bonanno expressed that his intention is to limit the activity to keep It in line with what
has historically happened. Mr. Tuttle said historically there was no swimming pool and
commented the proposal will reduce the level of activity. Mr. Bonanno said the property Is
classified for recreational events; his concern is with the activity at the clubhouse. Mr.
Weston commented that the proposed building will act as a gigantic noise buffer to the
neighborhood and will result In less ambient noise, even with more people. Mr. Cicatelll said
If the proposal was to move the building back from the street a lot of the concerns from the
Page 1 5
abutters would be addressed. He asked the hours of operation for the westerly porch be
limited to 3:00 PM. Mr. Weston said a previous discussion requested plexiglass and sound
proofing be Installed on that porch to deflect the noise. Mr. Saflna said the pool closes at
dusk and a member might want something to eat after swimming, which is not
unreasonable.
Mr. Safina reviewed the hours of operation listed In the Decision. Mr. Bonanno said in the
last forty days the clubhouse has closed before 11:30 PM. He mentioned that the food
permit issued by the Town specifies days and hours yet the draft Decision states food is
available five days a week. Mr. Safina asked about the renewal of the Health permits and
Common Victualler's license. Ms. Mercier replied that those permits will be renewed in
January.
Mr. Bonanno said the proposed hours of operation resemble restaurant hours, which Is not
what currently occurs. He expressed concern that there are no posted hours, so the
neighbors do not know what Is going to happen. The food license limits food to Wednesdays
and Fridays. Mr. Weston stated that he does not want to be involved In allowing a liquor
license to 11:30 PM but not allowing food to be served. Mr. Safina said the bar will close at
11:30 PM and the liquor license dictates food requirements. He added that he has no
objection to the hours of operation listed in the Decision. Mr. Bonanno said a club liquor
license is not required to serve food and that a restaurant is required to make their full
menu available. Mr. Weston said the CPDC is not the right Commission to discuss an
alcohol policy. Mr. Saflna agreed with Mr. Weston and said he was not aware the Town had
a policy that a business did not have to serve food If alcohol is available.
Mr. Saflna questioned why the abutters would request non-glare glass. There was no
response.
Mr. McGrail said the request to Install cart-crossing signs is a condition In the Decision.
Mr. Sullivan said a stop sign at the driveway exit is proposed on the plan. Ms. Mercier said
the request for a second stop sign outside of the lot and on the Public Way cannot be
approved by the Commission.
Mr. Cicatelli said the abutters are asking for additional areas of screening and suggested
species of trees. Mr. Roche explained the proposed landscaping and infiltration and agreed
to add landscaping along the front. Mr. Bonanno pointed out the area where the abutters
are requesting additional landscaping and said he is trying to mitigate noise impacts.
Mr. Saflna said the Conservation Commission will require sill fencing and the catch basins
will have screening. Ms. Mercier said the police detail will be discussed at a pre-construction
meeting. She said that construction vehicles will be required to park on the property. Mr.
Roche said It Is anticipated a lot of the construction will be off season, but there will be
some done during the season. Mr. Safina said construction parking will not be allowed on
the street. Mr. Bonanno said at a previous hearing the Applicant said the recreation
activities will remain open and questioned if the construction trailers would be placed In
parking spaces requiring the members to park on Grove Street. Mr. Safina said the Town
will require a laydown plan.
Mr. Safina said if the fire road is being blocked the police should be contacted.
Ms. Mercier read the Construction Hours that are allowed by the Town.
Mr. Bonanno questioned If the number events allowed by the Club should be decreased
since what has actually occurred has been less. Mr. McGrail commented a majority of events
are Reading sponsored. Mr. Safina said It is reasonable to allow 30 events a year.
Page 1 6
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the waiver for the Traffic Study for the Site Plan
Review for Meadow Brook Golf Club. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and
approved with a 4-0-1 vote.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review for Meadow Brook Golf Club as
amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-1-0 vote.
Public Hearina. Site Plan Review
258-262 Main Street. Readina LRE Ventures LLC
Chris Latham, Praveen Limbachiya, Carlton Quinn and Rob Paccione were present on behalf
of the Application.
Mr. Weston read the legal ad into the record.
Attorney Chris Latham, representing the Applicant, said the property at 258-262 Main
Street is located In Business A and the rear of the property is within the 5-15 zoning district.
The project has an existing approved Site Plan that has not been realized. He explained that
due to increased construction costs and low commercial rents the approved building cannot
be constructed and will need to be reduced and downsized to be viable.
Mr. Latham presented the proposal, noting the changes from the approved project:
• One-story, 8,092 square foot, 18' high building;
• No parking or storage under the building;
• Parking is reduced to 33 parking spaces;
• Only one means of Ingress/egress off of Main Street;
• Dumpster will be in the back of the building at the southwest comer and be blocked
from view on Main Street;
• Mechanicals will be located on the roof with screening;
• Exterior lighting on poles and light fixtures on building; all lighting will have shields
or blocking;
• An W high wood fence along the northern property line, and portions of the southern
property line;
• Building to be used for retail, consumer services and office tenants;
• Designed for four prospective tenant spaces;
• Building will utilize public water, sewer and electrical; and
• Propane will be utilized for the Interim until natural gas can be connected.
Mr. Latham said the Applicant has agreed to the recommendations received from the Town
DIRT meeting held in October:
• Installation of bollards and planters to the front patio for safety from vehicle traffic;
• Firewall and fire gate around the dumpster; and
• Installatlon of shields on the light fixtures and an 8' high wood fence as previously
approved.
Mr. Latham explained that the Applicant requests waivers from providing a traffic study,
from providing more than one loading zone, and from providing all or a portion of the Site
Plan Review filing fee. He noted that the Applicant has already paid $7500 and the project is
being reduced in size.
Mr. Latham Introduced Carlton Quinn, Professional Engineer of Allen and Major Associates,
and Rob Paccione, Architect of RP Architectural Studio, for the project. Mr. Quinn presented
diagrams comparing the approved and proposed projects. He said the improvements were
made due to economics and presented the changes:
• Better connection to the roadway to activate area;
• Moved building and reduced parking;
• Better stormwater management;
• One curb cut;
• 33 parking spaces;
• Landscape buffers;
Page 1 7
• Impervious area decreased to 66%;
• Landscaped area Increased to 34%, which creates a better buffer for the abutters;
• Dumpster tucked behind building;
• Striped loading area will provide easier access for delivery vehicles; and
• Employee area at the rear removed and snow storage area added.
Mr. Tuttle asked why the substantial change in grade wasn't highlighted on the new plan.
Mr. Quinn said the finish floor of the building will be the same as previously approved. He
acknowledged the lot will be lowered a couple of feet to make the building ADA accessible.
Mr. Quinn confirmed the existing retaining wall between the two lots will be removed.
Mr. Safina said the plan shows a 10' buffer not 15' buffer as stated. He said there is a
building face 10' away from the parking lot.
Mr. Safina said that roof runoff Is not clean, and will have to be treated. Mr. Quinn said It
will be infiltrated to 80% TSS Removal.
Mr. Quinn provided the dumpster truck turning-movement. Mr. Safina asked if the stripes
are flat with no bollards. Ms. Mercier pointed out the tuming-movement plan.
Mr. Quinn confirmed the curb cut is in the same spot as the original approval and said the
DOT issued an access permit for the prior project.
Mr. Paccione presented the architecture:
• One-story retail building with four tenant spaces;
• Main Street fagade has four tenant sections;
• Parking lot side has one end unit;
• Building facade is open and can be viewed from the street;
• Left side elevation has a 20'accent bump-up to add to visual. interest;
• Rear elevation will be lower and provide screening for rooftop units;
• North elevation that abuts the residents will be lower;
• North and rear elevations will have Hardie clapboard siding;
• Brown and blueish gray material at the bump-up will be Trespa acrylic panel;
• Lower elevation will be Hardie board;
• Store-fronts will be basic aluminum;
• Gray areas at the front will be textured panel resembling stucco;
• White overhang is proposed to add visual Interest;
• Minimal lighting is proposed on the front and rear of the building;
• Down-lighting is proposed underneath the white overhang;
• Louver screening at the rear for the mechanical equipment; and
• Fire-rated wall around the dumpster.
Mr. Safna asked if the north side would require a fire-rated wall because it is It 10'from the
property line.
Mr. Safina commented that the proposal Is significantly different than what was originally
approved and added that the change is not for the better. He said the building appears
similar to a strip mall and the back and north faces are stark.
Mr. Safina stated that the original proposal was a nice 4-story building with potential. He
asked If the Applicant looked into using materials other than steel. Mr. Praveen Llmbachiya,
owner of the property, responded that the difficulty is not just the construction cost but also
finding tenants for the upper floors.
Mr. Safina asked for clarification on the grade change.
Page 1 8
Mr. Safina questioned why the building is being proposed for retail, consumer services and
office tenants but not a restaurant. Mr. Latham said the tenant selection will be consistent
with the market. Mr. Safina said the proposal does not provide activity at the front.
Mr. Weston said the front of the building needs attention. He said his concern is the two
units on the north side appear useless. The units are far away from parking. He described
the trouble a delivery truck would have navigating the site. Mr. Quinn explained that there
Is secondary access to the two units. Mr. Safina agreed that the delivery plan Is not Ideal.
Mr. Limbachiya said a tenant who occupies that space may not require deliveries. Mr.
Weston opined that the new proposal is a reduction in economic development to the Town.
Mr. Safina asked whether the Applicant would consider a 2-story building with a smaller
footprint. He added that there is an economic benefit to stacking construction and
mechanical units with better circulation. Mr. Limbachiya said all styles of buildings were
considered. Ms. Mercier asked the Applicant if residential units were considered for the
upper Floors. She said multi-family Is allowed In this zoning district. Mr. Limbachiya said he
was not aware residential units are an option and that he will discuss it with the other
owner.
Mr. Safina said the glass spacing is different for every bay. He commented that glass is nice
but tenants will block windows; not all tenants want this much glass.
Mr. Quinn said there may not be enough parking for a restaurant. Mr. Limbachiya noted
that the first space provides outdoor seating.
Mr. Weston noted that the site circulation differs between the plans. Mr. Safina agreed the
architectural and site plans do not match. Mr. Quinn said the Civil Plan is the correct plan.
Mr. Safina suggested reviewing a restaurant scenario to make sure the site can
accommodate a restaurant.
Mr. Safina opened the meeting to public comment.
Ms. Deb Ribeiro of 15 Plnevale Avenue expressed her concern that the previous approval
was for a building in the middle of the lot and now the building is 10' away from the lot line
on Pinevale Avenue. She asked about the lighting. Mr. Safina said the proposed fixtures
are low.
Ms. Terri Richards of 50 Plnevale Avenue said the proposal is a vast Improvement, but said
she is concerned with the 10'setback. Ms. Richards said there are wetlands and asked for
clarification on the elevations. Mr. Safina replied the Applicant Is proposing to regrade the
site. Mr. Quinn stated there will be no more than a 3:1 slope and there Is no retaining wall.
Mr. Safina pointed out the 100'wetland buffer and said the proposal is outside this area.
Mr. Mike Farrell of 2 Plnevale Avenue described the location of his property and commented
that he is not in favor of the building being 10'from his lot line. Mr. Farrell said there Is an
existing retaining wall that Is going to remain and questioned If It would need to be
modified. He added that the wall is beginning to fall apart. Mr. Quinn said the proposal will
meet all grades at the property lines. Mr. Weston asked if the property at 258-262 Main
Street Is higher than the abutter. Mr. Quinn replied he does not have the grade on that side
of the property. Mr. Safina asked for additional detail on that side of the property. Mr. Tuttle
said there is 8'from the former bridal shop to the existing property. Mr. Weston said the
back wall is as Imposing as the existing structure but longer.
A resident asked about the proposed sign on the plan. Mr. Latham replied the Applicant is
not requesting signage approval with this application.
A resident agreed the proposal appears to look like a strip mall and said the end units will
be useless. He asked why the Commission would request a building be closer to the street.
Mr. Tuttle explained why it is beneficial for a building to be closer to the front of the
Page 1 9
property. The resident gave his opinion no one would walk to this property and the building
should be pushed back. Mr. Safina disagreed and said It is bad planning and bad for the
street to require buildings to be set back and parking In the front. Mr. Weston said the
Intent is to encourage people to walk and vehicles to slow down.
Kristen Mitchell of 10 Pinevale Avenue said she has a concern with a potential restaurant
and the dumpster being located close to her property. Mr. Safina said the Applicant will .
need to make sure the site could accommodate a restaurant. Another resident expressed a
concern that a restaurant would cause traffic and add to the difficulty of entering and exiting
Pinevale Avenue.
Mr. Tuttle mentioned that the State is considering a reconfiguration of Main Street.
Mr. Quinn said the lights are still being reviewed.
A resident noted that there is ledge located on the property and expressed concern about
potential blasting.
Mr. Safina suggested continuing the public hearing to December 301"at 7:45 PM.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Site Plan Review for 258-262 Main Street to
December 10, 2018 at 7:45 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved
with a 5-0-0 vote.
Planning Updates and Other Updates
Mr. Safina requested the Commission vote to reorganize at an upcoming meeting.
Review of 467 Main Street Materials
Dan Riggs and Ray Boghos were present for the discussion.
Mr. Dan Riggs, Architect from EMBARC Studios, said the presentation will focus on the Main
and Green Street elevations. He reviewed the proposal and presented a current rendering:
• The property is located on the corner of Green and Main Street;
• The character of the downtown will be extended to the site;
• The proposal is for a 32-unit residential building with retail on the ground floor;
• The roof deck has been eliminated, which reduces the visible height of the building;
• Retained the fiber cement panel and clapboard that will be wrapped around to the
rear of the building;
• The parking will not be visible from Main or Green Street;
• The brick base Is simplified to represent the existing brick that is utilized downtown;
• The awnings will be presented at the time of the signage approval;
• The major elements that had been previously approved by the Commission have
been maintained;
• The brick bays material will be red lamar brick;
• The Alucobond champagne metallic band will define the commercial space;
• The brick bay at the residential entrance Is simplified to create a regular rhythm;
• The residential signage and area signage for the front of the building will be
presented later;
• A neutral color palette will enhance the brick color, that it still being fine-tuned;
• The fiber cement colors are dark and light gray;
• The canopy material will be aluminum compost; and
• A Cast stone base along bottom of the building and on the 2nd floor sill
Mr. Saflna asked if the Alucobond will be down to grade level. Mr. Riggs responded the Cast
stone product Is proposed for the bottom of the building. Mr. Safina asked what the
material is for the two bays on the right of the building. Mr. Riggs clarified the very end of
the building will be fiber cement panels with PVC trim at the bottom 4-inches to allow close
proximity to the grade. Mr. Safina commented he thought there was an earlier discussion
Paye I iy
that masonry was recommended In that area because the fiber cement will not hold up. Mr.
Riggs replied it Is just a small area that will wrap to the right. Mr. Safina suggested using
mineral wool Insulation behind the material.
Ms. Adrian asked if the Hardi Plank will fade. Mr. Boghos replied there is a 15-year warranty
for factory painted boards that will not fade.
Mr. Tuttle said the glass appears to be flushed to the sidewalk. Mr. Riggs replied the grade
does change in the front of the building and there will be at least a foot above the grade
change for the sill.
Mr. Safina asked about the railings at the balconies and added horizontal pickets are not
allowed by code. Mr. Riggs replied the details are still be worked out, but the proposal Is for
a metal railing with vertical picket system capped with a wood rail Mr. Boghos agreed they
do not want people to climb on the pickets.
Mr. Riggs clarified the top of the building will be fiber cement trim; and the trim at the top
of the windows will complement the adjacent material.
Mr. Safina asked If the mortar will match the brick. Mr. Boghos replied the intent Is not to
match the brick; the proposal is for the mortar to be 4x4 mock-up panels.
Mr. Salina stated the building appearance has a nice palette. Ms. Adrian said the building
appearance is handsome and added the building will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.
Release of Lots Veterans Way Subdivision
Ms. Mercier explained the Lot Release for Veterans Way was voted on earlier this year, but
the attorney for the developer is requesting a recordable document. She said Town Counsel
reviewed and okayed the Lot Release document that was drafted by the attorney.
Mr. Weston asked why the Lot Release previously approved Cannot be recorded. Ms. Mercier
explained that the Form L Is informal and is not signed or notarized. In this case, the
attorney for the developer Is requesting a document that is signed and notarized so It can
be recorded. The Commission endorsed the Lot Release.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:44 PM. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote.
Documents reviewed at the meeting:
CPDC Agenda 11/05/2018
Johnson Woods Continuance Request
MF Chades Mage,Signage Plan
Walgreens—Sign Permit,Certificate of Appropriateness
a) Sign PermR Application&materials
b) Draft Certificate 0 Appropriateness-11/o5/18
Tread on the MITI-Sign Permit,Certificate of Appropriateness
a) Sign Permit Appllcatbo&Materials
b) Draft certificate of Appropriateness-n/0508
Meadowbrook Calf Club-Site Plan Review
a) Site Entrance Plan Sheet-9/12/18
b) Memo from Town Engineer-9/1)/18
c) Draft Decision-9/3]/18
258-262 Main street-site Plan Revlm
a) Application&Plans
b) Memo from Town Engineer-10/31/18
c) DRT Memo-10/02/18
d) Draft Decision-11/05/18
Page 1 11