Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-05-18 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street RECEIVED TOWN CLERK REMDMG, MASS. Reading, MA 01867-2683 & Phone: 781-942-6612 2010 JAN 21 A 9: 05 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: ckowalski@ci.readiisg.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: May 1P, 2009 Location: Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town'Hall Time: 7:30 PM Members Present: David Tutt e (DT);,-Chail7nan °Nicholas-S~fina--(NS), Secrdtary; John Weston (JW), and Clair Paradiso (CP Members Absent: Joseph Patterson (JP). 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 Mr. Luke Roy, Project Engineer for Goddard School project Mr. Andrew Hinman, of Goddard Schools Ms. Joan Chen, of Goddard Schools Mr. Jonathan Poon, 20 Torre Street Mr. Anthony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Mr. Mike Phillips, Deer Run Developers Attorney Jim DiGulio representing Deer Rim Developers Mr. Robert Zeraschi, owner of 10 Torre Street There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Public Comment The Chair noted the receipt of comments via email regarding the Torre Street project and decided to hold off reading them until the public hearing had opened. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review 10 Torre Street, Goddtird School The Chair opened the public hearing. NS read the public notice. The Chair explained this would be a limited Site Plan Review meaning the issues the Board is allowed to address are restricted. to such things as building size, parking, and. setbacks. Attorney Steven Cicatelli represented the applicant. Also appearing for the applicant was Luke Roy (Project Engineer), Andrew Hinman and Joan Chen of the Goddard School, and Robert Zeraschi, owner of the property. Page 1 of 5 CPDC Minutes of 5/18/2000 Mr. Cicatelli noted the proposed use - a child care facility is a protected use under 40A, Section 3 of the Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) and it is the position of the applicant that this project is exempt from any Special Permit process including having to be reviewed by the CPDC. The Building Inspector disagreed and the applicant appealed the Building Inspector's decision to the ZBA. The ZBA agreed with the Building Inspector. The applicant appealed the ZBA's decision and. that appeal is pending. In the meantime the applicant decided to proceed with a limited. Site Plan Review. Mr. Cicatelli said it has taken the applicant three years to receive an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission and these conditions have placed restrictions on their plans but they believe the plans meet or exceed all requirements including setbacks and drainage. The Chair noted that the project has been the subject of extensive staff reports including a Design Review Team (DRT) meeting on 9/8/2008 as well as separate reports from both the Police and Fire Chiefs. The main concerns expressed by all were the project's density, parking, and traffic. The Chair asked if the current proposal addressed the concerns of the DRT. CK said the submitted plan is essentially the same as the one shown to the DRT and many of the concerns stand. The applicant's position was that their parking plan which includes the use of stacked parking for the staff would serve the needs of the site. The applicant had. provided a traffic study/chart which was based on the traffic at other Goddard Schools similarly situated (i.e. in the suburbs) and in the applicant's opinion it showed there should. be no traffic issues when students are dropped off/picked- up because not all parents would arrive at the school at the same time. The applicant added the Goddard School has over 300 franchisees and. parking or traffic has never been an issue. The applicant noted the Goddard School approved the site and would not approve a site if it was thought to be dangerous to students or staff. The Goddard School has over 300 franchisees an it would not risk its reputation Comments of the Board • Building exceeds allowed lot Coverage max of 25%. The plans show the lot coverage at just over 24% but NS pointed out the applicant's calculations do not include the front portico which if included would put the building's lot coverage over 25%. The applicant agreed the portico was not included in the calculations but said it was decorative only and provided no access to the building. • Space for temporary snow storage. If piled too high could block the egress. Board suggested the applicant make allocations for snow removal. The applicant said snow would be removed as necessary. • Shield light fixtures. The applicant said. the lights would be shielded. • Parking layout does not work and could be dangerous. The Board. pointed out the schools used in the traffic study all had two access points to the roadway. This site will have only one. The Board also noted its concern included the close proximity of the parking spaces to the one entrance/exit which would make it difficult for parents' cars to maneuver. CK asked if the applicant could provide the locations of other Goddard Schools which use stacked parking. The applicant could not think of any at the moment. Page 2 of 5 CPDC Minutes of 5/18/2009 • Parking for large events. Would large events (e.g. Parent Night or Open House) be held at the site and if so where would people park? The applicant said any large events would have to be held off-site. The Chair asked this be noted in the decision. Public Comments Mr. Jonathan Poon, 20 Torre Street Mr. Poon was concerned over where people would park if the parking lot does fill up. He also expressed the opinion that nothing should be placed on either side of the entrance/exit to restrict view or maneuverability of vehicles. The Chair thought Mr. Poon's first point was a good one and the Board addressed it more fully later in the meeting. Regarding Mr. Poon's second point, the applicant said there were no plantings proposed. at the entrance/exit and it would not be blocked. CK read the email comments from Mr:. Christopher Crogan. The correspondent's chief concerns were: • Noise from children and increased traffic. The applicant said a landscaping plan was submitted and will provide screening. • Increased traffic and on-street parking. • The site is ugly and stripped of all trees. The applicant said the site had been cleaned up per order of the Board of Health and the landscaping plan should address the lack of vegetation. Action The consensus of the Board was to continue the limited site plan review to the next meeting. The Board provided following directions to the applicant. • Make sure all plans show all necessary dimensions and are in agreement. The site plan and elevation plans do not match. • Provide more and detailed information on how parking will be handled especially in bad weather. Example: consider contracting to use the REI parking lot as necessary. • Consider adding a walkway along the parking lot. JW moved the Board continue the Site Plan Review for 10 Torre Street to June 8, 2009 at 8:15PM. NS seconded. By a vote of 4:0:0, the Site Plan Review for 10 Torre Street was continued to June 8, 2009 at 8:15PM. Mr. Ciccatelli asked to have the draft decision forwarded to him. Request for Lot Release and Bond Reduction: Kylie Drive Subdivision Attorney Jim Digulio represented Deer Run Developers. Also present was Mr. Mike Phillips. Deer Run Developers was before the Board to requests lots #3, 44, and #5 be released; and to request a bond reduction. The Town Engineer was satisfied enough work had been done to allow the release of the lots requested by Deer Run and to reduce the bond_ JW moved the Board approve the reduction of the bond for the Kylie Drive subdivision to $87, 719.00. Page 3 of 5 CPDC Minutes of 5/18/2009 NS seconded. By a vote of 4:0:0, the Board approved the reduction of the bond. JW moved the Board approve the release of Lots 93, 44, and 45 in the Kylie Drive subdivision. NS seconded. By a vote of 4:0:0, the Board approved. the release of the lots. The Board signed the lot release. CK signed the bond reduction. CK said she would have the lot release signatures notarized the next day. CP left the meeting. A quorum was maintained. Downtown Smart Growth District: By-law and Design Guidelines The Board was able to review a portion of the by-law only. The Chair asked that all future documents contain a version date in the footer. The Board agreed. Comparisons were made to the language used in similar sections of the existing Gateway Smart Growth bylaw and some language was edited to match the Gateway bylaw where the Board deemed appropriate. The consensus of the Board was to strike the definition and references of "non-residential" from the by-law. Tonight's text changes would be forwgTded to the Board. CK suggested. the Board. pay particular attention to any sections marked. with a "T' and be prepared to discuss how best to craft the language of those sections at the June 8`" meeting. CK suggested. speaking with the Zoning Enforcement Officer about providing definitions for the uses listed in the Zoning Table of Uses. Regarding the design standards, CK would. provide the Board with the consultant's (i.e. Abacus's) graphics for review before the 6/8/2009 meeting. South Main Street Design Guidelines The consensus of the Board was this item should be postponed- until a future meeting. The Chair asked CK to forward to the Board the Powerpoint slid-eshow NS prepared and presented at Town Meeting. CK suggested the design guidelines should follow the example of the Town of Northampton, MA and make greater use of graphics: photos and diagrams. Other Business: Minutes There were no minutes ready for the Board's review. Page 4 of 5 CPDC Minutes of 5/18/2009 ZBA Case Review 130 John Street: The consensus of the Board was no comments should be made to the ZBA on this case. Lot A, South Street: The consensus of the Board was to provide a comment to the ZBA stating a precedent of building in a setback should not be established. JW would write the conurtent. NS moved the Board adjourn. JW seconded. By a vote of 3:0:0, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 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, JoJI16 Weston, Page 5 of 5