HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-25 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutesi 60
Town of Reading
16 Lowe Street
Reading, MA 01867-2683
Phone: 781-942-6612
Fax: 781-942-9071 `
Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us
Community Planning and Development Commission
CPDC MINUTES
Meeting Dated: September 25, 2006
Location: Police Meeting Room, 15 Union Street
Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Town Hall
7:20 PM
9:00 PM
Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Chairman;' Brant Ballantyne (BB), Secretary; Neil
Sullivan (NS) and Richard Howard (RH).
Members Absent: Jonathan Barnes (JB).
Associate Members Present: David Tuttle (DT), Israel Maykut (IM), and Nicholas Safina
(Nick S.).
Associate Members Absent: George Katsoufis (GK).
Also Present: Chris Reilly (CR), Town Planner; and Michael Schloth.
Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street
Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street
Mr. Edward Shaw, Dickenson Development Corp.
Ms. Ann DiCicco, 124 Pine Ridge Road
Mr. Mark Quental, Store Manager, Home Depot, 60 Walkers Brook Drive
Ms. Ellen Childress, 105 Green Street
Mr. William Childress, 105 Green Street
Ms. Lynne Vargas, 103 Green Street
Mr. Ed Vargas, 103 Green Street
Attorney Robert McCann of McCann & McCann, P.C., 100 Conifer Hill Drive, Suite 313,
Danvers, MA 01923
Mr. Brian Milisci, P.E., Whitman & Bingham, 510 Mechanic Street,
Leominster, MA 01453
Mr. Thad Berry, Benchmark Survey, 38 Montvale Avenue, Suite 180, Stoneham, MA
There was no quorum until 8:00 PM at which time the Chair called the meeting to order.
Public Comments / Minutes
There were no comments from the public.
BB moved to accept the minutes of 08/28/06 as amended.
Page 1 of 11
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0
RH arrived and took his seat with the Board.
Signage Certificate of Appropriateness
75 Haven Street, Peace of Mind, Inc.
Action Date: September 25, 2006
Ms. Ann DiCicco, the sign maker, appeared for the applicant.
Ms. DiCicco said the letters in the store's name "Peace of Mind, Inc." would be raised and
the store's logo would lay flat on a raised oval panel. The other words, "Home Health
Care", may also be on a raised panel but the letters would lay flat. She said she knew the
Board would have an issue with the white background and blue and green letters, but she
said the owners had insisted on those colors and had told her they were prepared to forgo
the sign altogether and letter the windows instead if the Board did not approve the sign as
submitted. Ms. DiCicco said the owners feel the public recognizes their logo and colors and
that is why they do not want to change to the Board's preferred gold and black color
scheme.
Ms. DiCicco said there would be two signs, one facing each street. JS asked if the signs
would completely fill the dimensions of the locations of the previous signs. Ms. DiCicco
said they may not be quite as large as the previous signs. JS said that means there'll be a
white sign on a black background with blue/green logo and letters on the white sign. The
sign as is would look busy against the black background and he would like to tone it down.
Ms. DiCicco agreed but was constrained by the demands of her client.
JS recommended approval with the condition the background is made consistent with the
building i.e. black. Ms. DiCicco said the owners are strongly against just using the building
as the background.
JS noted that the blue letters would be hard to see against a black background. The Board
agreed the color blue would not work.
BB moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the conditions:
• The background is consistent with the building i.e. black
• The letters in the phrase "Peace of Mind, Inc." are raised and colored gold similar
to the sample letter shown to the Board tonight.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 4:0:0.
Administrative Review
PUD-I Special Permit Modification Request, Home Depot
Mr. Mark Quental appeared for Home Depot.
Page 2 of 11
Mr. Quental said Home Depot is making this request so they can raise a 40'x80' tent for an
Oriental rug sales event. The tent would be raised on the right-hand side of the parking lot
in the least-trafficked area.
RH asked Mr. Quental if he had a drawing of the parking lot. He did not.
NS asked how long the tent would be up. Mr. Quental said, two weeks.
Mr. Quental said they would not block the fire lane or handicapped parking but they would
block off the sections of the parking lot for safety as necessary.
JS asked how deep the tent stakes would go. Mr. Quental said he was not sure maybe 12
inches. He added that they did call DigSafe. JS said the Board was concerned the stakes
might pierce or degrade the landfill. CR noted compliance with the DEP Order of
Conditions should be checked. RH suggested to Mr. Quental he look into other ways of
securing the tent: sandbags, etc.... Mr. Quental said he would look into it.
RH asked Mr. Quental if he had specific dates for this sales event in mind. Mr. Quental
said he was waiting on the Board's decision and they are eager to get started. RH suggested
two weeks sometime in October. Mr. Quental said that sounded fine.
RH moved to amend Home Depot's Open Storage Permit to allow the erection of a 40'x
80' tent for a Rug Sales Event during a two week period in October 2006 subject to the
following conditions.
1. The applicant submits a drawing of the parking lot showing the location of the tent.
2. The applicant explores an alternate method of securing the tent that is in
compliance with the DEP Order of Conditions.
3. The applicant keeps all designated fire lanes open.
4. All lighting shall be internal to the tent.
5. The generator as providing the electricity for the lighting will meet State regulations
for noise.
6. The hours of the sales event will be from 9:OOAM to 9:OOPM and the lights will not
be left on over night.
7. On Sundays, the sales event will end at 7:OOPM.
8. The sales event will be set up and taken down (tent, etc...) during normal delivery
hours.
BB seconded.
Voted Approved: 4:0:0.
Public Hearing: Site Plan Review (continued)
88-98 Walkers Brook Drive, 128 Ford
This application proposes to demolish the existing showroom, construct a new service
center and remodel the existing service center for use as a new showroom, with
related site improvements.
Action Date: October 30, 2006.
Attorney Robert McCann represented the applicant and summarized updates to the project:
1. Canopy: They will be removing the canopy from the plans.
Page 3 of 11
2. Issues for the ZBA:
• Setbacks & Town Line: The town line passes through the lot at the edge of the
Service Building. The Building Inspector says this, rather than the lot boundary,
should be considered the "setback line". Mr. McCann has not been able to find a
case in Massachusetts Law where a town line has been used for the purpose of
determining setbacks. The issue will be put to the ZBA. The Building Inspector
thinks the ZBA will ask the Town Counsel to look into the matter. If this is the
case, Mr. McCann said they would offer to pay part of the legal fees.
• Parking: Some of the parking spaces are in Wakefield and there is a question as
to whether or not they could be counted towards the total number of parking
spaces required under Reading's regulations. Mr. McCann said the Building
Inspector has said the spaces in both towns could be counted but they have also
asked the ZBA for their opinion.
• Signage: Currently, there are three signs but the applicant has been told they
can have only one. They have asked the ZBA to allow them to have more than
one.
3. Open Storage of Vehicles: Mr. McCann said this was an issue for the CPDC and
he asked the Board to decide either:
• The open storage permit is not required because the storage of the vehicles is a
pre-existing condition; or
• The application is broad enough to allow the Board to grant an Open Storage
Permit.
4. Additional Fees: They have submitted payment of additional filing fees for the
proposed renovations to the sales building.
5. Extension: They have filed an extension with the Town Planner and submitted with
it two copies each of:
• Traffic Study. This is still pending with Mass. Highway so they will be looking
for approval under existing conditions.
• Environmental Study
• Geotechnical Report
6. Lighting Plan: This has been submitted. Along the front and side boundaries, the
illumination will measure no greater than one lumen. They requested to be allowed
a higher lumen measurement along the rear boundary for safety and security
reasons (cars will be stored there).
7. Parking: Calculations and Striping:
• They have designated both the sales and service parking areas on the plans.
There will be some tandem parking in the service area.
• They have redesigned and restriped the pass-throughs to be 24 feet.
• They have detailed the radiuses on the plans.
• They have designated parking for car storage in the rear of the lot.
• Employee parking will be in the rear; they will no longer rent space across the
street.
r
The Board's Comments
Lighting Plan:
Page 4 of 11
JS said there is no bylaw specifying a number of lumens but lighting has been a problem in
that area and the town is sensitive to the issue. It is not only a matter of light spilling over
the edge of the lot; glare is an issue too. Mr. McCann emphasized they would not be
increasing the brightness anywhere and the brightness will be much less in towards the
front of the lot.
Parking: Calculations and Striping:
JS asked if loading zones have been designated for both unloading cars and unloading parts
and supplies. He said this is a requirement of the bylaws and the Board would like to see
both kinds of loading zones marked on the plans.
RH asked for guidance on the acceptability of tandem parking spaces. CR said the issue
was one of use and the tandem spaces would have to be used exclusively for service uses
and not storage.
Open Storage:
DT said the Open Storage bylaw does not appear to be applicable to the kind of "bulk use"
the applicant would make of the automobiles on the lot. He directed the Board's attention
to the criteria for approval of an Open Storage Permit one of which states the open storage
area shall use no more than 10% of the total lot. RH thought this was a good point. CR said
he could ask for the Building Inspector's interpretation but he would still like to see the
open storage calculations.
Mr. McCann had brought a written request for an extension and asked what date the new
action date should be. RH said 11/06/06 is the only meeting date in November. Mr.
McCann said they still need to meet with the Conservation Commission and they may need
more time. JS said they may add a second meeting date in November and directed Mr.
McCann to make the action date 11/30/06.
BB moved to continue the public hearing until the meeting of 10/23/06 at 8:OOPM at the
Selectmen's Meeting Room in the Town Hall.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 4:0:0.
The Board left the police Community Room and reconvened at the Selectmen's Meeting
Room in the Town Hall.
Public Hearing: Site Plan Review (continued)
30-32 Elliott Street and 100-102 Green Street, Carl D'Angio, Jr.
This application proposes to demolish the existing building and replace with 4
residential units, with related site improvements.
Action Date: October 16, 2006
JS reopened the public hearing. He noted no draft decision had been prepared and the
hearing will most likely be continued.
Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant. He said there were two issues:
Page 5 of 11
- 1. Exterior features i.e. lighting and siding.
2. Drainage
Mr. Latham provided a brief update of the first issue. Catalog cuts of the lighting have been
provided. The lights will be antique-brass wall-lights - not flood lights - of 100 watts or
less. The doors will be six-panel doors and the windows will be six-over-six. The siding
will be an earth-tone color; chips have been provided.
Mr. Thad Berry discussed the site's drainage. He described in some detail the theory
behind infiltration systems and percolation rates. At the request of the applicant they have
"over-designed" the drainage system:
• The percolation test they performed on the site's soil showed water being absorbed
at roughly a rate of two minutes per inch but they designed the system using a rate
of five minutes per inch.
• In calculating the effect of a One Hundred Year Storm they used a rate of 7.1 inches
over a 24 hour period rather than the standard 6.8 inches over a 24 hour period.
Mr. Berry said there was another aspect of the design he wanted to discuss, namely, the
flow of runoff onto Green Street "Pre vs. Post" development. To help achieve zero increase
of flow to Green Street post-development they also added landscape beds to the front yard
to trap the flow before it enters Green Street. Mr. Berry said, between the infiltration
system in the rear and the landscape beds in front, they have not increased the rate of
runoff.
Mr. Berry said the plans have been submitted to the Town Engineer and with the exception
of the granite curbs, which need to be changed to show a "6 inch reveal", the Town
Engineer has accepted the plans. JS noted the Board had received a letter from the Town
Engineer that states the only open issue is the 6-inch reveal of the curb.
JS asked if the memo from the Board of Health regarding the demolition has been
addressed. CR said he has not seen any direction provided by the Board of Health on the
items mentioned in the memo and he believed the Board of Health would be looking into
those items as the project proceeded. Mr. Latham said he understood those items would be
dealt with during the building permit process.
CR said the applicant has addressed the following open issues:
• Provide lighting catalog cuts
• Provide details on the proposed facade
• Provide details on the proposed fence
• Show the location of the patio on the plans
JS recalled the previous meeting during which neighbors had described problems with the
catch basins along Green and Elliott Streets. He said the Board had responded by asking
the Town Engineer to look into the matter. CR quoted the minutes of that meeting: the
applicant had been directed "to meet with the Town Engineer to review drainage issues
(including the catch basins on Green Street)". Mr. Latham said the only comment he
Page 6 of 11
would make is, since there is zero increase [in runoff], there should be no impact on the
catch basins whatever the conditions.
CR said the applicant had also been directed to review the Childresses' memo. Mr. Berry
said the Town Engineer had no issues with the memo. CR said he would get a written
confirmation from the Town Engineer. JS asked CR to also ask the Town Engineer about
the status of the catch basins in the area.
CR said the updated plans had only been recently submitted and town staff may have other
questions or comments.
Questions and Comments from the Board
RH asked what impact the drainage changes will have on adjacent properties.
Mr. Berry said surface conditions would be the same. As far as infiltrating runoff into the
ground water, they would be offsetting the impervious cover and there should be no change
there either. RH asked if the applicant could comment on how this would affect
neighboring basements as regards flooding. Mr. Berry said for small storms there should be
some improvement but he did not want to over-sell the changes they have made. Mr. Berry
said they've met the stormwater regulations and they have overdesigned the system.
BB asked if all the units would be the same color. Mr. Latham said they would. JS asked if
the Condo Association bylaws would contain language on maintenance of the units. Mr.
Latham said yes.
BB asked if there was an Operation and Maintenance Plan. Mr. Berry said there was.
RH asked CR if it was within the Board's purview to require a nominal cash deposit to
provide minimal maintenance for a two or three year period. CR said it was and it would be
appropriate; they have done it before for landscape maintenance. CR added, going forward
the Building Inspector would be responsible for compliance and enforcement. RH noted
that even if they got the money it would require Town Meeting's vote to use it. CR agreed
and added the town would also need to obtain permission to enter the property to do any
work. JS asked if the Board wanted all this covered by the Condo Association's bylaws.
Mr. Latham said it would not be a problem if, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, the Board wanted to see the Condo Association agreement details. CR asked if
the Board would like to provide the applicant direction as to the specific language of the
Condo Association agreement. RH said the language the Board would like to see could be
put into the draft decision. JS suggested the language might read: Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall submit the Condo Association's agreement for
CPDC approval and it shall contain provisions that cover the following. Maintenance of
drainage system, landscaping, etc...
Public Comments
Ms. Ellen Childress, 105 Green Street
1. Ms. Childress questioned the labels on one of the applicants' diagrams dealing with
the runoff and impervious cover (diagram 1A). She asked if there was an error and
if so how the error would affect the runoff calculations.
Page 7 of 11
2. Ms. Childress expressed concern over the decrease in the area between the
buildings and the street. It seemed to her the applicant had "lumped" the roof,
driveway, lawn, and pavement into a smaller area leading to a greater density of
impervious cover in the area.
3. Ms. Childress asked what would happen if a storm peaked at four hours rather than
eight. Would there be an increase in runoff onto Green Street? What historical
storm model was used and from what geographical area?
4. Ms. Childress asked if, when the drains are inspected, the drains on the lower part
of Elliott Street could also be inspected.
Regarding the first question, Mr. Berry said there was no error in the impervious
calculations. He suggested there was some confusion over their original and current models
of the flow. Originally, to make what they were doing clearer to the Town Engineer, they
had made calculations using three models. The first showed the flow as it exists today; the
second showed the flow as if nothing was there; and the third showed the flow after the
addition of the infiltration system. They decided to drop the second and only model the
"pre" and "post" development instead.
Regarding the second question, Mr. Berry spoke of a decrease of flow to Green Street in
that area because there is less pavement and less roof there. Also, the addition of the
landscape beds will decrease the flow further. He added, it was important not to look at one
section of the site only but to consider the site as a whole because they have balanced the
flow across the whole site.
Regarding the third question, Mr. Berry said they used the standard work on the subject
(the TR20) in their calculations to model the worse-case scenario.
Regarding the fourth question, JS said he had meant to say the drains on Elliott Street
should be reviewed by the Town Engineer too.
Attorney Mark Favaloro representing the Vargases of 103 Green Street made the following
comments.
1. Lighting. Please indicate the location of all the fixtures on the plans.
2. Siding. Is it made of clapboard, vinyl, other? Mr. Latham said it would be vinyl.
3. Drainage. The Vargases are particularly concerned with the runoff from the site's
Southeast driveway as runoff flows from it straight into the Vargases lot. Mr.
Favaloro said a flash storm could lead to a new condition and he suggested adding
some kind of drainage to catch this runoff.
In response to the first question, the Board asked the applicant to show the lighting fixtures
on the plans.
Regarding the southeast driveway runoff, Mr. Berry agreed the driveways flow straight into
Elliott and Green Streets but emphasized the proposed driveways will be shorter so there
will be less driveway runoff and downspouts will direct runoff into the landscape beds.
Ms. Ellen Childress, 105 Green Street
Page 8 of 11
Ms. Childress asked if the front downspouts could redirect the runoff to the infiltration
beds in the rear. Mr. Berry repeated what he had said earlier about having balanced the
flow across the entire site and how the infiltration system in the rear will handle the rear
runoff and the landscape beds in the front will handle the front runoff.
JS said the Board would like to have the Town Engineer give his opinion of the driveway
runoff to the Board either I person or in a memo. He said the Board needs to make sure all
appropriate designs have been exhausted and the drainage system has been fully vetted. CR
said he would see to it that such a memo is prepared and would ask the Town Engineer to
attend the meeting this hearing is continued to.
Mr. William Childress, 105 Green Street
Downspout overflow: is this intended to flow into the infiltration system in the
rear? Mr. Berry said, in the rear the downspout pipe goes into the ground and if it
backs-up an overflow pipe will catch the backed-up flow and direct it out over a
splash-pad and onto the lawn.
Where did the numbers for the rainfall inches of a 100 year storm come from? Mr.
Berry said they were from rainfall maps printed by the State of Massachusetts.
RH moved to continue the public hearing to 10/16/06 at 9:OOPM at the Selectmen's Room
in the Town Hall.
NS seconded.
CR said he would like the applicant to provide for review the specific language in the
Condo Association's agreement for both the long-term drainage maintenance and the
escrow agreement.
RH said the plans should show the locations both of the lights and the downspouts.
Voted Approved: 4:0:0.
JS said there would be no additional notice for this Site Plan Review.
Administrative Review
I93/95 Task Force Review of Proposed Alternatives
JS said JB wanted to discuss this item but he was not able to make tonight's meeting. CR
said the Selectmen would be discussing different proposals at their meeting tomorrow night
(9/26/06).
CR said he would ask Selectman Camille Anthony if there was any specific feedback the
Board of Selectmen was looking for from the CPDC.
Traffic Peer Review Consultant
Town Manager has asked the Town Planner and GK to review both the peer review
selection process and what the town should be looking for in peer reviewers.
Page 9 of 11
JS said he supports the idea of the town taking advantage of the expertise available and
competitively finding a peer reviewer that will satisfy what the town wants. He also said
he believes some official document should be written to communicate what the town
expects from a peer review
BB agreed and added the document should mention a timeline defining length of service.
Most towns put out an Request for Proposals (RFP) for peer reviewers and state a two-year
term.
JS felt the Board should provide guidance to CR and GK and he would like to suggest
presenting them with an outline of the Board's ideas. The Board agreed. JS proposed the
Board look at two things:
1. The process: terms of service; criteria for reviewing the performance of peer-
reviewers; etc...
2. The actual generation of the RFP
JS said he would put something together the Board could review and amend before giving
it to CR and GK.
Preparation for Housing Forum
The Board reviewed the agenda of the upcoming Housing Forum (9/28/06) focusing
primarily on Item #5 which concerns developing strategies and tactics for using 40R and
40S to support Reading's affordable housing goals.
JS said the Board has made commitments to present their affordable housing strategies and
goals to other forums and, as their next meeting would not be until October 16, JS
suggested they should meet some Saturday before then to put together their presentation.
The Board agreed and decided to schedule a meeting on Saturday, 9/30/06, at 9:30AM, in
the Town Hall Conference Room.
Zoning Bylaw Statuses
This item was not on the agenda.
JS listed the open items:
• Tambone Property PUD expansion.
• Reading Co-op Bank parking lot.
• Minor/Major Amendment amendments: Need to follow up on the language.
• Flood Insurance: CR said FEMA is updating the flood maps so this is put on hold
for now.
• Johnson Woods Development Acceleration: The Town Manager and Board of
Selectmen are looking for a higher percentage of affordable homes.
• Accessory Structures and Impervious Cover: Definitions
t
c
RH asked if Town Counsel has provided any feedback on the Cluster Zoning amendment.
Page 10 of 11
CR said Town Counsel sees major issues with it as written and she suggests looking for a
model by-law and revising the whole thing.
RH moved to adjourn.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 4:0:0.
The meeting ended at 10:45 PM.
These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on October
16, 2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on October 16, 2006.
Signed as approved,
Brant Ballantyne, Secretary
Page 11 of 11