Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-11 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes �� � � c �EIVEL ° Town of Reading ,, � �� MeetingMinutes � Ir � � �RK �{� d 6jle1M'OtP � � ... � n ij� Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Plannin9 and Development Commission Date: 2024-3-11 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Town Hall Location: Hybrid Meeting - Zoom and Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session Purpose: Hybrid Meeting Version: Final Attendees: Members In person: John Weston, Chair, Tony D'Arezzo, Vice Chair; Hillary Mateev; Mark We[zel, Members Not Present: Tom Armstrong, Heather Clish Ohers Present in person: Community Development Director Andrew MacNichol, Senior Planner Mary Benedetto, Andrew Pandolph, Stephen Melesciuc, Mike Farrell, Lynn Farrell, Sal Bramate, Peter Seibold, Ken Reardon, Elisha Willis, Robert Paccione, Debbie Ribeiro, Carlton Quinn, Jesse Schomer, Saverio Fulciniti, Wen Farina Remote Participants: ]eff Brem, Ed Batten, Sarah Fuller, Kendra Cooper, Sri Narayan, Robert Galvin, Katelyn Lloyd, Linda, Marie, ]ason Brown, Jamal Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Mary Benedetto Topics of Discussion: MEETING HELD IN THE SELECT BOARD ROOM AND REMOTELY VIA ZOOM Mr. Weston called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. Mr. MacNichol gave an overview of the hybrid meeting procedures. Sian Permit Aoolication 533 Main St, Laer Realtv Partners Mr. Ed Batten spoke on Zoom on behalf of the applicant. He reviewed the proposed signs and noted that both signs will not be illuminated. Ms. Mateev noted that in the sign bylaw it states that the secondary sign should be half the size of the original and Mr. MacNichol clarified that because they have frontage on two streets that they are allowed two signs of identical size. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the signs were 10 square foot each and Mr. BatYen confirmed that they were. Mr. MacNichol noted where the signage for the Chronicle building is nezt to these proposed signs. Mr. Weston opened it up for public comments and there were none. Mr. MacNichol reviewed the Certificate of Appropriateness with the members. He asked if the members wanted to allow the approval of a blade sign administratively and it was decided they would prefer them to come back for any additional signs. 1 Pq I Town of Reading I �„ Meeting Minutes 'Q�a'IX(OPpP' Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness fo�533 Main St, Laer Realty Partners. Mr. Wetzel seconded the motion, and it was approved 4-0-0. � Continued Public Hearinq, Definitive Subdivision Aoolication 0 Harold Ave. Zero Harold Ave LLC Mr, D'Arezzo made a motion to continue the public hearing fo� the Definitive Subdivision Application for 0 Harold Ave to April 8, 2024. Ms. Mateev seconded the motion, and it was approved 4-0-0. Approval Not Reauired Plan Endorsement Off Prosoect 117 and 121 Prosoect St Mr. Steve Melesiuc, the land surveyor for the ANR, spoke in person on behalf of the applicants. Mr. MacNichol explained what an "approval not required" plan is for the public. Mr. Wetzel asked if Grant St is a paper street and Mr. MacNichol confirmed it was a paper street and that the lots are non-buildable lots under the current condition and in the proposed future condition. Ms. Mateev asked if the owners would be combining the divided lot into their lots, and Ms. Benedetto indicated they could combine them under common ownership, or choose not to and keep them as a separate non-buildable lot. Mr. D'Arezzo asked what the shape of the lot is currentty. Mr. Melesiuc ezplained that the lot is the current shape, just a rectangle instead of being subdivided into the two square lots. Ms. Mateev asked if the Commission needed to review the Certificate and it was discussed that they did not unless they saw issues, and none were found. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to Endorse the Subdivision Approval Not Required plan for Off Prospect St. Mr. Wetzel seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0- 0. Public Hearina. Definitive Subdivision Aoolication 246 Walnut St, Stella Construction Mr. D'Arezzo read the legal notice into the record. Mr. ]eff Brem presented from Zoom on behalf of the applicant. He reminded the CPDC members that they saw the plan last luly as a Preliminary Plan. He reviewed everything that had been submitted with the Definitive application. He reviewed the wetland line on the site and the riverfront line, the proof plan, the lots being proposed, and the list of requested waivers. He reviewed the comments from the Engineering memo and addressed each point. Mr. Weston asked to darify the steps in the process for this application. Mr. MacNichol reviewed that the Preliminary Plan is non-binding in nature and the Definitive Application is separate. The applicant had already been through Conservation Commission and Mr. Brem confirmed that they had the vote and are done Mr. MacNichol reviewed that staff would recommend the applicant finalize the plans from the Engineering comments before CPDC moved forward on the Decision. Mr. Weston stated that they shouid go through the waivers to get a sense for what the board is feeling and make sure to provide any other comments that won't be already addressed by the Engineering comments, so the applicant can incorporate all those changes into the plan revisions. 2 OFq � Town of Reading � �y. Meeting Minutes . � � I�°'_���o..�`' Mr. D'Arezzo asked about the Notice of Intent that had been filed with Conservation, specifically if the subdivision of the lots shown in this plan would mean that they would or would not have to comply with current regulations. There was a discussion on this point with Mc Brem darifying that because the lots are new lots they do have to comply with current regulations and reviewed how that was interpreted by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Wetrel asked about the test pit log and the soils and groundwater level at the site. Mr. Brem stated he showed sand and gravel down about 8 feet and groundwaTer was 8 or 9 feet down, that they dug the whole test pit and never hit groundwater. Mr. Wetrel asked why they dodt show a 2-inch service going into the cul-de-sac and then splitting, instead of the two 1-inch service and Mr. Brem indicated that muld be possible, there was no reason for it not to be that way. Ms. Mateev noted that the area for the building on Lot 2 is very tight, and Mr. Brem indicated that it will have to be a custom home to fit on the footprint. Ms. Mateev asked if they would be coming back in front of the CPDC for it and Mr. 8rem indicated not for that, as a single-family home it would go straight through buildings, although Planning would sign off that the home is in the approved building footprint. Mr. Weston moved the discussion over to the waivers. The members were fine waiving the traffic study and in the reduction of the road width from 60 to SOft. There was a discussion around the questions related to the road grade. Mr. Brem reviewed the road design and grade with the members. Mr. D'Arezzo stated he wanted the waiver in the Decision to list the actual 4% grade proposed. The members indicated they would prefer to have the Fire Department and Engineer sign off on the roadway before they feel comfortable with that particular waiver. Mr. D'Arezm asked the applicant to darify the request for the waiver from the cross section and it was discussed that the waiver isn't for the cross section but for meeting the street standards in that cross section. Mr. D'Arezzo asked how this intersects with the proposed parking spaces and Mr. Brem reviewed the road design. Mr. MacNichol brought up the waiver for the granite curbing as it relates to the road design. Mr. Brem discussed that [hey would like to do a Cape Cod style berm curb as the curbing, not granite, and because it is a private road they felt that should be acceptable. Mr. D'Arezzo asked who is plowing the road and Mr. Brem indicated the private homeowners would. Mr. Weston stated that the stance of the board typically is that if the curbing is part of the stormwater system then it needs to be vertical granite curbing, for longevity. Mr. Brem indicated which portions of the curbing would be part of the stormwater system. Mr. Wetzel noted that in this instance he isn't bothered by a Cape Cod berm curb, as since the road is so narrow he would prefer something that a truck could drive over, to help with the narrowness of the road. The members discussed that the "street" is really more of a common driveway with a cut-de-sac at the end. Mr. Wetzel asked about sloped granite curbs and noted he is not opposed to the waiver for granite curbinq. Mr. Weston stated he was still not in favor of no granite curbs, he would want the granite curb wherever the curb is part of the stormwater design. Mr. Weston brought up the 20k road width and Mr. MacNichol discussed putting up "no parking" signs on the roadway given its narrowness. Mr. Wetzel stated that the 20R width is preferable in his view, to reduce pavement and help stormwater management. The members discussed the waiver for the length of the dead-end road and it was confirmed it was approved previously and they saw no issues. Mr. D'Arezzo asked where there is a hydrant on the road and it was noted there is one already at the end of the road and thus there would not be an additional one added into the cul-de-sac. The other waivers were discussed and the group generally agreed. 3 rR , Town of Reading I " �� Meeting Minutes � O'6'�DeIKK00.� Mr. Weston opened it up for public mmment and there was none. He advised the applicant to review the changes and come back with the final plans for approval. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to continue the public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision Application for 246 Walnut St to April 8, 2024. Ms. Mateev seconded the motion, and it was approved 4-0-0. Continued Public Hearinc, Definitive Subdivision Aoolication 0 Annette Lane, Peter Seibold Mr. Robert Galvin, the legal representation for [he applicant, was on Zoom presenting on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Andrew Pandolph, the engineer on the project, was in person along with the applicant. Mr. Galvin reviewed the application and the work to date. He reviewed the prior Preliminary Application. He reviewed the Conservation Commission's decision on the Order of Conditions voted on February 14. He discussed the proposed boardwalk and easement at the site. Mr. Pandolph stated the largest change is the elimination of the 30k extension of the roadway. He darified that the boardwalk design will be decided in the fietd with the Conservation Commission. He discussed the stormwater design and that it was unchanged from the prior meeting. Mc Weston asked if what is inside the trench drain on-site would-be lawn and if what is outside would be wooded/natural and Mr. Pandolph confirmed that is the case. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if DPW had weighed in the plan, he wanted to know where the snow storage will go. Mr. Pandolph indicated that the removal of the snow storage area was directly the result of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Pandolph indicated that the homeowner will have to do their own snow removal at the end of their driveway. Mr. Wetzel indicated that perhaps there are some areas on the end of the road for snow storage near the driveway. Mr. Weston asked about the fences at the end of the road and there was a discussion on the fences, Conservation Commission, and the removal of the dedicated snow storage area. Mr. Pandolph indicated that the issue of the abutter wanting fencing was with the extension of the roadway and since the roadway isn't being extended now there isn't much concern from that abutter. Mr. Weston brought up his concerns with having something on a Definitive Subdivision Plan that isn't officially situated. Ms. Benedetto asked to clarify if the issue is with the boardwalk and fence, or with showing them on the plans, and Mr. Weston indicated that since this is a Definitive Subdivision Plan the acwal Plan is what is being approved, so it doesn't make sense to have things on the Plan that are not final. His preference is for a clean plan set with no boardwalk and fence shown. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the enforcement of the fence would be part of their decision. Mr. Weston asked about the Decision and staff indicated that in the Decision there is nothing at all about the fence or referring to its location and that seemed to settle the concerns. Mr. Weston opened it up for public comment and there was none. Mr. MacNichol noted he had received an email that evening that would be included as public comment. Ms. Kendra Cooper, 20 Covey Hill Road, she sent the email over to Mr. MacNichol. She discussed the springs over on Spruce Rd that are what feed the wetland area where the proposed house will go and the condition of flooding in the neighborhood. She is concerned with the boardwalk and it becoming an "attractive nuisance" and though Conservation likes the idea she's not convinced it is a good thing. She noted her concerns about the removal of the trees and she also wondered where the snow would end up going. Mr. Wetzel clarified for her that pre- and post- development is reviewed as part of the stormwater process and Mr. Pandolph discussed their stormwater design. Mr. Wetzel noted that connecting cul-de- sacs where possible is important for making Reading more walkable, which is a Town goal. 4 � ° Town of Reading �� Meeting Minutes i f o �� ^a6Ja:�M 0. Mr. MacNichol reviewed the draft decision with the board. Mr. MacNichol noted that the conditions related to the release of lot are probably not required as they are not actually constructing a way, but he lek them just to cover all bases. Mc Weston pointed out that the boardwalk is going to be constructed within the right of way and Mr. MacNichol said he would investigate if the Conservation bond would cover that and it could be looked at by staff. Mr. Wetzel asked about "during construction" item 6 on time limit of completion, and Mr. MacNichol clarified thai is about the "subdivision" itself, the roadway, utilities, etc. not the house. Mr. D'Arezzo asked about the prior to occupancy condition about right-of-way ownership. The members discussed what would happen if the righFof-way was not correctly trensferred or ownership was dissolved before it was transferred to the Town and it was thought it would end up being a paper street. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to c/ose the public hearing on the Definitive Subdivision Application for O Annette Lane. Ms. Mateev seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to app�ove the waiver requests numbered 1-10. Ms. Mateev seconded, and the waivels were app�oved 4-0-0. Mr. D'slrezzo made a motion to approve the Decision for the Defini[ive Subdivision Application for 0 Annette Lane, as amended. Ms. Mateev seconded the motion, and it was approved 4-0-0. Continued Public Hearino, Site Plan Review Aoolication. Soecial Permit, Stormwater Permit, 252-262 Main St / 10 Pinevale Ave, BLVD Readina LLC Mr. Jesse Schomer, the applicant's legal representation was in person to speak on behalf of the applicant and gave a brief presentation. He noted that Mr. Rob Paccione, Mr. Carlton Quinn, and Mr. Saverio Fulciniti were in person as well as part of the applicant team. He qave a brief presentation reviewing the changes to the plans from the prior submission and reviewed what had been submitted this time. Mr. Wetzel asked about the current conditions of the sidewalk and curbing and Mr. Quinn indicated that he would put in granite curbing on Main St and anywhere they would put in sidewalks. Mr. Weston said to ask Town Engineering whether it makes sense to have one part in concrete and another in a different material. Mr. Schomer reviewed the parking totals, the trash setup, the fencing, the landscaping, the berm, and the changes to the private roof balconies facing main street. Mr. D'Arezzo commented that he did like the removal of the fence below the dumpster between the two parking lots on the south side. Mr. Weston agreed that there aren't a lot of reasons to fence off between two parking lots and they referenced the prior discussion about fencing and gating. Mr. Wetzel asked about the berm in the back and a rendering of what the berm would look like vs. not and Mr. Schomer darified theY haven't done a rendering or elevation, just a cross section and they discussed the changes in screening. Mr. Fulciniti stated that the original submittal package did have a full landscaping rendering in it. Ms. Mateev indicated how helpful the site section was for her in understanding the site. Mr. Weston opened it up for public wmment. Mr. Mike Farrell, 2 Pinevale, Ave asked for more detail on the balconies and which direction they will be facing and Mr. Rob Paccione brought up the architectural plans and he went over the four[h floor plans and balconies, which are really more like private roof decks. Ms. 5 ` : Town of Reading I � Meeting Minutes ?., �S I 6jLINf00.�� I Lynn Farrell asked to confirm what direction all the balconies were facing and there was a discussion about the balconies/roof decks and their usage. Mr. Fulciniti discussed that each balcony is specific ro each individual unit. Mr. Weston darified that all outdoor space is all private, there is no publicly available outdoor space. Ms. Sarah Fuller, 24 Pinevale Ave, asked a question about 10 Pinevale Ave, and if it will meet the lot minimum requirements once part of the backyard is eliminated. Mr. Schomer explained that the dealing will be a private easement, not a transfer of property, so the lot size won't change, just the legal rights of use. Ms. Farrell asked about the fence between SO Pinevale and the neighbors and that it will be a 6ft brown vinyl color. Mr. Fulciniti clarified that there will be additional landscape screening between SO Pinevale and the rest of Pinevale, that was why they proposed moving the driveway. There was a follow-up question about the easement and how easemen[s actually function. Mc Schomer indicated that it is an exclusive right by the developer to use that portion of the backyard, including the fence, parking lot, etc. and it is a perpetual right; the owners of 10 Pinevale won't have access into the parking lot or vice versa. Mr. D'Arezzo asked whether the concern from the neighborhood is about pedestrian or vehicular traffic onto Pinevale and the residents indicated that the concern is both. They felt that the vehicular traffic concerns were mostly resoNed with the removal of the driveway onto Pinevale Mr. Schomer stated that the hope from the current design is for neither vehicular nor pedestrian traffic onto Pinevale. Mr. Weston asked the residents if they had any concerns with no fencing on the south side of the property. Ms. Mateev asked about the fence material, and it was noted that it was proposed as a vinyl fence. Ms. Mateev stated that she would prefer a wood fence or something else. Mr. Wetzel asked if there was a retaining wall along the south side. There was a discussion around the elevation of the parking lot and the proposed retaining wall between the two parking lots on the south side. There was a discussion around if the retaining wall would need a fence on top of it, and how far along the south side the fence would be needed, with the preference for it to not be fenced. Ms. ]ennifer Killeen, 12 Pinevale Ave, spoke in person about the landscaping, fencing, and buffering, nearest to her property. She discussed that she would prefer white vinyl to wood vinyl given that she has existing white vinyl fence. Mr. Weston stated that these are really the decisions of abutters and don't need to be settled in site plan review, that CPDC doesn't need to weigh in. Mr. Fulciniti indicated that white is no problem, he's happy to do whatever is preferred. Ms. Killeen stated that generaily her concerns haven't really changed since the last meeting. Trash is still a concern to her. She stated that she doesn't have strong feelings about berm vs. not but she would love to see a rendering of what the landscaping will actually look like. She noted that the O&M plan that had been referenced had not been put up on the website. Mr. Weston sta[ed Por the public that the plans have not ye[ been reviewed by staff and as such there is still time for changes. He asked if the O&M plan had been put on the website and Mr. MacNichol stated that since the O&M plan is a draft and is unfinished and staff had not yet reviewed it, it did not make its waY on to the website. There was a discussion again on the trash practices of neighboring buildings and that the neighborhood currently has issues with rats. Mr. Wetzel asked about separating food waste from trash and if there were any intentions to offer composting and Mr. Fulciniti stated they did speak to Black Earth and would like ro provide composting as a service if it is feasible. Ms. Debbie Ribeiro, 15 Pinevale Ave spoke about the issues everyone on the street has with rats currently and made daims that renters are people who are not invested in the neighborhood. 6 `R ; Town of Reading I �„ Meeting Minutes � f:IM(OA� Mr. Fulciniti spoke about the trash management prectices of neighboring buildings and clarified that at the Fantasia building that the dumpster came much later with Domino's and as such it is handled separately by Domino's and there is no agreement with the building management He noted that their plan addresses it from the outset and any restaurant there would be more control. He argued that renters are vested in the neighborhood and that no one wants to have rats. He stated again that he is open for questions and discussion with the neighborhood at any time. Mr. Jason Brown, 47 Pinevale, spoke from Zoom and asked about the parking lot design, bringing up the closeness of the exit to Pinevale Ave and the condo exit and his concerns about the closeness and the sight lines. Mr. Weston asked if they had mnsidered the reverse circulation. Mr. Quinn stated that their thought was that if someone coming to the site missed getting a parking space, under the current design they could take two right turns and be back in the lots, vs. two left turns which would be much more challenging. He stated [ha[ if Engineering or DOT wants the reverse they will change it. Mr. Quinn noted that residents seemed indifferent to the berm and there was a discussion around the previously proposed berm. Mr. Quinn reviewed the landscape design for the back amenity area in detail and discussed the proposed landscape plan. Mr. Weston reviewed that this entire area will be fenced with a 6k fence, and then 10 feet of landscaping between the fence and the grass area with existing and new trees. Mr. Quinn noted that the wall of evergreens would be at the expense of deciduous varieties. Mc Fulciniti indicated he is not opposed to any of the options on landscaping in the rear, he will do whatever they want. Mr. Ken Reardon, 25 Pinevale Ave, spoke in person, bringing up mncerns about parking and that he still believes there is not enough parking. He wanted assurances that overflow parking won't impact Pinevale and suggested resident parking only on Pinevale. Mr. Weston discussed the parking issues but supposed that under the current design you'd be much more likely to park in the building's bt to the south than on Pinevale and there was a broad discussion around parking qenerally. Mr. Reardon wanted to make sure that 10 Pinevale won't deteriorate or intentionally be left to degrade and be torn down and put a cut-through in the future and Mr. FWciniti assured him the intention was to leave that house as-is. Mr. Reardon noted he still has concerns about the stormwater and on-site parking for deliveries. Ms. Killeen asked about the shared parking that had been previously discussed and Mr. Fulciniti stated he had reached out to neighboring properties about shared parking agreements and that they haven't heard back from anyone. Mr. Weston noted that shared parking agreements are eztremely difficult to set up in places like Reading where the extra liabillty isn't worth the money. Ms. Killeen asked about the landscaping between the fence and her house and Mr. Fulciniti discussed the improvements and how [hey will be addressed. The board discussed next steps and how the special permit criteria will be reviewed. The landscaping discussion was summarized as no berm preferred and minimized fence on the south side. M�. D'Arezzo made a motion to continue the public hearing for the Site Plan Review Application, Special Permit, and Stormwater Permit for 252-262 Main St/ 10 Pinevale Ave to April 8, 2024. Mr. Wetzel seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Other Business Master Plan: Mr. MacNichol reviewed the memo he had submitted to the CPDC and there was a discussion around the current plans the Town has up-to-date and which sections 7 i ; Town of Reading �I � �� Meeting Minutes ; 61j OF�g* IM would need the most work. The members discussed different styles of plans and pricing. Generally the members agreed with staff that a shorter punchier plan would be more useful when it comes time to update the Master Plan Minutes: The Commission reviewed the minutes for 2/12/24, and made changes. M�. Wetrel made a motion to approve the minutes of 2/12/14, as amended. Mr. D'Arezzo seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. There was a discussion on the status of current construction projects. Adiournment Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to adjourn at 10:59 PM. Ms, Mateev seconded and it was approved 4-0-0. Documents Reviewed at [he Meeting: • 0 Harold Ave Continuance Request • Sign Application Permit 533 Main St o Sign Renderings o Drak Certificate of Appropriateness, dated 3/11/24 • Off Prospect St ANR � o Plan for ANR of Off Prospect St Lot �� � o Memo from CDD to CPDC o Draft Certificate, dated 3/11/24 • 246 Walnut St o Legal NotiCe o Plans, dated 3/5/24 o Engineering Memo, dated 3/8/24 • 0 Annette Lane o Plans, received 3/6/24 �. o Draft Decision, dated 3/ll/24 . . 258 Main St, Strada �. o Presentation slides, by applicant '�� o Plans, dated • Draft Minu[es 0 2/12/24 8