Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-06-08 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: ckowalski@ci.reading.ma.us RECEIVED ~jcTgOWNr~CLERK READING, MASS. ;2010 JAN 2l A 9.- 05 Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: June Location: Selectmen's Members Present: David Tu (JW), Joseph Patterson (JP), 2009 sg Room,.Town!Hall Time: 7 e (DT) `Chairman Nicholas Safina (15) Secretary; . PM Weston Also Present: Carol Kowalski (CK), Town Planner; George Zambouras (GZ), Town Engineer; Abigail McCabe (AM), Staff Planner and Michael Schloth, Recording Secretary. Attorney Steven Cicatelli, Cicatelli & Cicatelli, 266 Main St., Stoneham, MA Attorney Christopher Coleman, 248 Main Street, Reading, MA Attorney William Crowley, 626 Main Street, Reading, MA Ms. Meghan-Young Tafoya, Mr. Larry Hodson Mr. Greg Chesnulovitch, 76 Pleasant Street - Mr. Matt Bouchard, Senior Project Mgr., Cramer Levine & Co., Norton, MA Mr. Gordon Whitman, Linear Properties, 5 Burlington Woods Dr., Burlington, MA There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Public Comment There were no comments from the public attending the meeting but CK presented the Board with a request from Mr. Angelo Salamone to comment on the possibility of developing a cottage cluster zoning project of four cottage units tinder a PRD on his Beacon Street property. The Board noted there was a history of resistance to developing that property and any proposal would have to be carefully reviewed. CK said she could provide the Board with internet links and other resources describing such building developments and suggested the Board review them as well as bylaw section 4.10.2. The Board agreed. CK said she would provide her opinion at the next meeting. Approval Not Required (ANR): 37 Pinevale Avenue The applicant and owner, Mr. John McCracken, was not present. AB explained the Board had endorsed this ANR at the 4/11/2009 meeting but the next day the Mr. McCracken's neighbor said he had agreed to a change to the rear bounds not the side bounds as was shown in the original ANR plan. Page 1 of 6 CPDC Minutes of 6/8/2009 There was a question as to if the new ANR met the "lot shape circle" requirement but CK said. she had. consulted. Town Counsel and was told that was not a requirement since a buildable lot was not being proposed and therefore the Board. could endorse the new ANR. NS moved the Board endorse the ANR for 37 Pinevale Avenue dated 5/27/2009. JW seconded. By a vote of 5:0:0 the ANR was endorsed. The Board signed the two mylar plans. The Chair asked if the ANR endorsed on 4:13:2009 had been recorded. GZ said it did not matter because this plan would supersede that one. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review 345 Main Street, Linear Properties NS read the public notice. The Chair opened the public hearing. Attorney Christopher Coleman represented the applicant. Also appearing were Mr. Gordon Whitman of Linear Properties and architect Mr. Matt Bouchard of Cramer Levine & Co. The applicant would like to: • Replace the eight trees conditioned in the Board's site plan review waiver decision of 1/17/2007 with 60 bushes: 13 along Ash St. and 47 along Main St. The applicant feels tenants would object to trees blocking their storefronts and signage. Bushes would provide as much or more greenery and not block views. The applicant noted the bushes would be more expensive than the trees.. • Change the cornice with decorative dentil molding and soft, white LED lighting (approx 40 lumens/foot). The LEDs would. be located at the base of the cornice and light upwards. Mr. Bouchard displayed photos taken at night of a location on the Mall Road in Burlington, MA which has similar molding and LED lighting. These changes would greatly improve the appearance of the site. Comments of the Board Cornice Lights Longhorn Restaurant at Walkers Brook Drive wanted a red LED light band running along the roofline and it was denied. NS said the brightness of the site would be much greater than shown in the photo once you. added up all of the other lights. Mr. Bouchard said a visit to the Burlington location would show the lighting to be subtle and the intent is to pick out the cornice details not to wash them out. Mr. Whitman said one of the photos was retouched. to show brighter lights to highlight the effect for prospective tenants. Mr. Coleman said he could not see how these lights would be a nuisance to abutters or passersby - most would face at an angle to Main Street. DT noted the lights are lighting the building and that is something the Board has not encountered. before. If the lights were illuminating a sign the Board might look on them more favorably. He added the cornice would be attractive with or without the lights. Page 2 of 6 CPDC Minutes of 6/5/2009 NS asked if the tenants' wall signs would be illuminated. The applicant said no changes to the signs' illumination were proposed. CK noted the Board has consistently required shielded lights in its site plan reviews and the proposed cornice lights would not shielded. Trees vs. Bushes CK said one of the first things the Town Manager asked her to do when she started in mid-2007 was to get the eight trees conditioned in the 1/2007 site plan review waiver decision planted. The site needs landscaping. It is the only site in the vicinity without trees. Mr. Cole said bushes would provide as much or more greenery. JW did not see how a row of bushes could be placed where the applicant proposed given the width of the sidewalk. He would prefer trees but suggested a mix of trees and bushes might be a solution. Bushes would collect blown litter. Bushes at the Main Street entrance may make the turn into the site from the North tougher than it already is. GZ said the property line runs very close to the back of the sidewalk therefore a permit from Mass Highway would probably be required for plantings there. He suggested. the applicant consider placing some trees on the parking lot's landscape islands. Public Comments Ms. Megan Young-Tafoya of the Economic Development Committee (EDC) asked if anything was proposed to remedy how badly the site floods after rains. Nothing was proposed. DT noted the storm drains along Main Street are at a higher grade. GZ said it would require pumps to move runoff into the storm drains. Action The consensus of the Board was to continue the site plan review to the next meeting. The Board provided the following directions to the applicant. • Re-check the load calculations for the cornice. • Provide plans less likely to change than the submitted construction plans for the Board's review. • Check if the sidewalks meet ABA/ADA requirements. • Dempster enclosure should be similar in style and material to the building. • Show all site lighting. • Trees must be planted on the site. The Board may be amenable to a combination of trees and. bushes. DT moved the Board continue the Site Plan Review of 345 Main Street until July 13 at 8:00 PM. NS seconded. By a vote of 5:0:0 the continuance was approved. _v No additional notice would be provided. Page 3 of 6 CPDC Minutes of 6/8/2009 Public Hearing: Site Plan Review (continued) 10 Torre Street, Gothlard School This was continued from 5/18/2009. Attorney Steven Cicatelli represented the applicant. A draft decision had been prepared and delivered to the applicant beforehand. Mr. Cicatelli suggested the following edits. • Signage section should be struck because it implies the Board can review the signage. The Board agreed. • Security lighting should be allowed and language stating so added to the decision. The Board. agreed. • Under "Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy", item #3, "...issuance of the building permit" should be changed to "...issuance of the certificate of occupancy" and. the rest of the section struck. The Board agreed the language should be changed but the rest of the section is to remain. • Traffic mitigation and. sharing parking: Mr. Cicatelli said the post-constriction traffic study requirement is unfair and should be struck because they have presented a parking plan that works. CK said Town Counsel agreed that condition should be struck and advised: if the Board. wants to address safety issues it should do so now. The Board agreed to strike the traffic study requirement but modified the section on seeking shared parking to state the applicant would use good faith efforts to enter into a shared parking agreement with local property owners if in the judgment of the Police Chief there is a safety issue on the site. The applicant agreed to this modification. Mr. Cicatelli said lie had delivered the recorded Order of Conditions for the site to the Conservation Administrator. CK reported the Building Inspector does consider the portico a part of the building and therefore must be included in the lot coverage calculations. JP said he did. not attend the 5/18/2009 meeting but did watch the RCTV video recording of that meeting. Under the Mullen Rule he could still vote on actions taken by the Board but he said he had not yet signed the affidavit and asked if he could vote or should abstain. Mr. Cicatelli said he would rather JP vote and would accept a brief note signed by JP until he was able to sign the official document. The Town Planner retrieved a copy of the official Mullen Rule document from her office and JP signed it at the end of the meeting. NS moved the Board approve the Site Plan Review Decision for 10 Torre Street. JW seconded. By a vote of 5:0:0, the site plan review decision was approved. Requests for Site Plan Review Waiver & Signage Certificate of Appropriateness 169 Haven Street, Butcher Shoe Attorney William Crowley represented the owner and applicant Larry Hodson. Mr. Hodson was also present as was the future proprietor of the butcher shop Mr. Greg Chesnulovitch. A draft decision had been prepared and delivered to the applicant beforehand. Page 4 of 6 CPDC Minutes of 6/8/2009 Mr. Crowley said the intent was to replace the storefront windows and clean the brickwork to match the adjacent building (to the east at 175 Haven). All other work would be to the interior. No curbcut would be required to reach the rear parking area because Mr. Hodson also owns the building to the west (between the butcher shop and 123 Haven --now Eastern Bank) and that building has a curbcut that provides access to the rear lot. In the event the building with the curbcut was to be sold, Mr. Hodson would first seek an easement to allow the butcher shop continued use of the curbcut. Mr. Crowley said Mr. Hodson is considering the addition of a mural to the west wall of the building. It would depict scenes from Reading's past. Mr. Crowley asked if the decision could be amended to allow for security lighting in the rear. CK noted front and rear security lighting may already be a requirement of the building code. A dumpster enclosure would be provided as per Board of Health requirements. The Board directed the restriction on parking be struck and mention made of the site being exempt from parking requirements because it is within 300 feet of mlrnicipal parking (as per 6.1.1.1 of the zoning bylaws). Also mention should. be made of the access being allowed. through the curbcut on the adjacent property. DT moved the Board. determine the proposal is eligible for waiver from site plan review. CP seconded.. By a vote of 5:0:0, the site plan review of 169 Haven Street was waived. DT moved. the Board. approve the site plan review waiver decision as amended. JP seconded. By a vote of 5:0:0, the Site Plan Review Waiver decision was approved. The Board next reviewed the plans for the proposed wall sign. The Board had no issues with the design or dimensions. The applicant proposed no lighting for it. NS moved the Board approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the wall sign at 169 Haven Street as shown in plans dated 5/28/2009. JP seconded. By a vote of 5:0:0, the Certificate of Appropriateness was approved.. Downtown Smart Growth District: By-law and Design Guidelines Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board was able to review only a portion of the bylaw and none of the design guidelines. Timeline: Aiming for approval at the September 2009 Town Meeting. But first there must be a public hearing on the bylaw language and then the DHCD must approve it. If September's Town Meeting is missed there could be a subsequent Town Meeting in November. All of the Board's time was spent discussing definitions: what definitions should be kept, added, or modified. Page 5 of 6 CPDC Minutes of 6/8/2009 Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board decided to continue further discussion until the planning session meeting of 6/15/2009. South Main Street Design Guidelines Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board was unable to address this item. Other Business: Minutes Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board was unable to address this item. NS moved the Board adjourn. JW seconded. By a vote of 5:0:0, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted. to the CPDC on June 22, 2009; these minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on June 22, 2009. Signed as approved, JohrAeston, Secretary Page 6 of 6