Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-11 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street 3 i t i J .J . 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 11, 2006 Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Town Hall 7:30 PM Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Chairman; Brant Ballantyne (BB), Secretary; Richard Howard (RH); Neil Sullivan (NS); and 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; George Zambouras (GZ), Town Engineer; and Michael Schloth. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Ms. Nancy Ramsdell, LT, owner, New Image Laser Hair Removal, Inc., 22 Woburn Street Mr. Edward Shaw, Dickenson Development Corp. Mr. Anthony Tambone, President, Tambone Corp. Mr. Jerry Winter, Batten Bros. Sign Advertising, 893 Main Street, Wakefield, MA Hallmark Health Team, 30 New Crossing Road Mr. Frank DiPietro, PE, VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Mr. Dennis McCarthy, Architect Mr. Alan Cloutier, VHB/ Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Public Comments / Minutes There were no comments from the public. RH moved to accept the minutes of 08/14/06 as amended. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0 Signage Certificate of Appropriateness 75 Haven Street, Peace of Mind Action Date: September 25, 2006 Page 1 of 12 The applicant was not present. The Board noted it was unclear if the letters were raised or not. The consensus of the Board was they wanted raised, gold letters and, given the dark color of the building itself, they would like to discuss with the applicant the possibility of attaching the letters directly to the building. BB moved to continue until 9/25/06 at 7:30 at the Reading Police Station's Community Room. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. Tambone Property 80 -100 Main Street - Possible Zoning Amendment This was not a scheduled agenda item. CR said Mr. Anthony Tambone, represented by Attorney Brad Latham, asked to present for the Board's consideration and under Public Comment a zoning amendment to the property at 80 - 100 Main Street. Mr. Latham displayed a map of the property in question. It is in the shape of an "L" flipped along its long side. The short leg of the "L" runs along Main Street and contains two buildings. The long leg of the "L" contains a parking lot. They plan on replacing the two buildings with a- single, low-rise retail building. This use is allowed under the current zoning. The zoning amendment they are looking for is an expansion of the PUD overlay to include a small piece of land - roughly 10,000 sq. ft. in the crook of the elbow of the reversed-"L"-shaped lot. They are asking for this change to allow parking closer to the entrances of the building. The entrances will be opposite the Main Street side of the building. The parking area in the long leg of the backwards-"L" will be reduced at the far end. The entrance to the lot will not change; it will still be off of Main Street. The architect said they are proposing a roughly 26,000 sq. ft. single-story, multi-tenant (about 6 or 8 tenants) retail building. The back of the building will face Main Street but it will not look like the back of a building because of architectural details they plan to add. Roughly two foot high parapets will hide the roof mechanicals and the architectural features will fit in with the adjacent residential areas: dormers, clapboards, etc.... There will be a tower at the Main Street entrance and a smaller tower, also along Main Street, at the South Street corner. There will be illuminated signs along Main Street and at the main entrance. There will be a dumpster and a loading area but not a loading dock. RH asked if this was essentially a map change. Mr. Latham said it was and their objective tonight was to start a dialogue and perhaps have this put on the warrant for Special Town Meeting in January. JS asked if the PUD has a retail component. CR said it does. Page 2 of 12 BB noted there was not much screening the site from the residential abutters. JS interrupted to say the Board does not want to address Site Plan Review questions tonight. As for the Special Town Meeting, he said he knew there was talk of one but he was not sure when it would be held. The consensus of the Board was they liked what they have seen so far and are receptive to the proposal. Mr. Latham said Mr. Tambone has already spoken to a number of abutters about the plan. CR said he would add it to the next Zoning Workshop. JS said he would add it to the Board's Open Project List. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review (continued) 30 Newcrossing Road, Hallmark Health Medical Center Action Date: September 25, 2006. JS opened the public hearing. CR said the applicant has drainage, elevations, and traffic information as asked for by the Board. Also, there are additional memos from both the Town Engineer, and the Conservation Administrator. Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant. CR reminded the Board that they had requested alternatives to the existing architectural style of the building. A colored rendering of the latest elevation plan was displayed. The applicant's architect, Mr. Denis McCarthy, said he has created a focal point at the entrance of the building with an overhang that produces an "eyebrow" effect. To hide the roof mechanical there is an existing parapet at the roofline. The parapets are a deeper color than the building. The signage will be on the North elevation and will provide a "shadow- line" of a richer tone on the building. Mr. Latham provided a brief summary of the drainage. • The data from the test pits has been delivered. • They believe the lot is outside the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission (Cons Comm) and they have submitted a "Request for Determination of Applicability". The engineers have spoken with the Conservation Administrator. Some issues have been addressed. If the CPDC wants to place a condition on the drainage that Cons Comm observe its installation, the applicant would not object. Mr. Alan Cloutier summarized the three memos on traffic VHB had sent to the Board. • June 30, 2006: This was a comparison of trip generations of the exiting use [office building] and the proposed use as a medical facility. The medical use shows more trips during the middle of the day but still much less than the peak office use traffic during the morning and evening rush hours. Page 3 of 12 • August 29, 2006: This time ITE rates were used. The graphs show similar results for peak and off-peak traffic along Newcrossing Road. For office use, the peaks are again in the morning and evening. For medical use, the peaks are smaller than the office-use peaks but they tend to last longer: they show more trips though the middle of the day and are roughly the same height throughout the day. • September 7, 2006: This memo addresses the traffic generated from the site [lot A3] sharing the common driveway assuming the construction of two restaurants there. "Pass-by" trips were not taken into account. Pass-bys will be included when lot A3 is developed. Mr. Cloutier pointed out that although the use of the site is changing there will be a reduced square footage and they will not be adding any significant traffic to the high-traffic times of the previously approved Stop & Shop. Mr. Latham asked Mr. Cloutier if he felt the common driveway would be adequate to handle the traffic from both sites. Mr. Cloutier said he did because the majority of the traffic on Newcrossing Road will be light. He did not anticipate any problems. RH asked if the applicant had considered the traffic on Newcrossing Road when combined with the traffic from both Stop & Shop and the two assumed future restaurants. Mr.Cloutier said they had not looked at that exact scenario but they have reviewed the data Stop & Shop had prepared on the impact of Stop & Shop traffic combined with the traffic from this site when the office building was occupied. Mr. Cloutier said restaurants were not anticipated at that time and their impact on the traffic on Newcrossing Road will have to be reconsidered when the construction plans for the restaurants are put before the Board. Mr. Latham said their position is: whoever comes in with the restaurant plans must satisfy the Board as regards the traffic they will generate. The consensus of the Board was the applicant had not addressed the Board's concerns regarding the impact of traffic from the development of the lot sharing the applicant's driveway. Mr. Latham said they may have misunderstood the Board's intention. The consensus of the Board was they wanted to see a full-impact traffic study of Hallmark Health combined with a worse-case-scenario development (from a traffic standpoint) of the lot sharing the driveway. This study should consider the impact of traffic from both Hallmark Health and the worse-case development on: the shared driveway; and both Newcrossing Road and the intersection of Newcrossing Road and Walkers Brook Drive. The applicant had considered the impact of Hallmark Health's and two restaurants' traffic on the shared driveway, but not the impact of both on either Newcrossing Road or the intersection of Newcrossing and Walkers Brook Drive. The Town Engineer suggested the Board ask for a peer review of the traffic of this site and the adjacent lots. He said the original lot has been divided into three smaller lots and the burden of mitigating the traffic from all three should not fall to the last developer to come before the Board. CR said in his opinion the common access - the driveway - triggers a peer review. Page 4 of 12 Mr. Cloutier said they were not trying to pass costs to whoever develops the last lot. Mr. Latham said this applicant is not an agent for the other two lots. He expressed concern the Board may be being excessive in their demands. JB said he understood philosophically that this applicant should not be saddled with what an occupant of an adjacent lot might do; but, on the other hand, the Board would be remiss in their duty to the town and themselves if they turned a blind eye to the possible impacts from the build-out of the other lots. The Town Engineer highlighted points of his memo: • Easements (these should be furnished prior to occupancy): • An access easement is needed. • The sewer line is shared by others. Who has responsibility for maintaining it? A maintenance agreement is needed. • Near the SE corner, the Lot Al parking spaces are actually on this lot. An easement is needed for this too. • Deliveries: At least one parking space identified as a delivery zone is needed • Drainage: • He would like the catch basin moved to where it would be easier to clean. • The town needs to see a maintenance plan and recommends one be submitted to the town yearly. • He would like to see more inspection ports. • The stormwater calculations need to be revised because there is no pre- treatment. • Parking: The eight spaces on the North side of the building that back-out directly onto the driveway are a matter of concern since we don't know the adjacent lot's use. The spaces may need to be reconfigured or not counted as official parking spaces. Mr. DiPietro said the tenant wants to keep them. BB pointed out the two parking spaces opposite each other at the far end of the South lot can't be used. JS asked for other comments from the Board or town staff. CR said there were extensive comments in a memo from the Conservation Administrator. JS asked for comments from the public. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Mr. D'Arezzo said he would second JB's suggestion of looking at the whole site - all three dots together - and added that the Board should consider not only the impact of the traffic from all of the lots but the impact of the position of the buildings on the lots too. Also, Mr. D'Arezzo suggested the three lots are owned by one entity. Mr. Latham said the three lots are owned by three, separate, limited liability corporations. Page 5 of 12 The consensus of the Board was they would require additional traffic details: • A formal assessment and analysis of the impact of traffic from both Hallmark Health and the proposed restaurants on the common driveway, Newcrossing Road, and the intersection of Newcrossing Road and Walkers Brook Drive. • A peer review. Mr. Cloutier asked if he could use the 2005 traffic data Stop & Shop compiled on the site as a baseline. The Town Engineer was inclined to agree but said he needed to review that data first and he would call the applicant tomorrow. JS reminded the applicant the Board was also concerned with the configuration of the parking spaces especially the end spaces, the loading zone, and the eight spaces along the driveway. CR noted the action date was 9/25/06 and suggested the applicant may want to request extending it to 10/16/06. Mr. Latham agreed and wrote a request. BB moved to continue until 10/16/06 at 8:00 PM in the Selectmen's Meeting Room. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. summarized what.the Board wanted to see from the applicant: • Traffic details Comments on the Town Engineer's memo. • Comments on the Conservation Administrator's memo. • Details of the easements. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness 22 Woburn Street, New Image Laser Hair Removal, Inc. Action Date: October 16, 2006 The applicant, Ms. Ramsdell, and her sign-maker were both in attendance. Before starting, JS noted the Building Inspector had indicated there was a requirement of a Master Signage Plan and asked if the Board should condition approval on the submission of a Master Signage Plan, or as part of a Master Signage Plan. CR said it should be approved as part of the Master Signage Plan and approval should be limited to this sign. RH said the issue is the Board needs to decide what we want to set as the model for the Master Signage Plan: the sign that exists, the sign that is proposed, or something entirely different. Mr. Winter, the sign-maker, said, on the back of the building there was only one, old, 3' x 8' wooden sign and on the front there were no signs. The proposed sign would take the place of and be the same size as the 3' x 8' sign on the back side. The sign would be made of aluminum. The sign would display his client's logo and the letters in the words "New Image Laser Hair Removal" would be "1/4 inch" raised, opaque, and painted. There would Page 6 of 12 be no illumination. The letters of the other words, the telephone number, and the logo would all be flat and vinyl. The border would be raised too. RH said the Board tries to discourage phone numbers on signs and does not approve signs that have them. Ms. Ramsdell said the telephone number was crucial to her business; she said she has seen telephone numbers on other signs in town. Mr. Winter said he would agree with the Board's policy if the sign was facing the open road but this sign faces a parking lot and his client relies on people jotting down the phone number after seeing it on the way to or from their cars. The Board explained that some existing signs may still have telephone numbers but if they ever come before the Board the numbers will have to be removed before approval. Also, the Board does not want to set a precedent that would allow other signs on this building to display phone numbers. BB asked if all of the letters should be raised. CR said only the main lettering need be raised. For example, the "Sounds Unlimited" sign elsewhere in town has only those letters raised. RH asked if anyone had a problem with the colors: blue letters on a white background. No one did. RH moved to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to the signage at 22 Woburn Street, New Image Laser Hair Removal, Inc. subject to the following conditions: • The letters will be raised I/2 inch instead of 1/4 inch. • The telephone number will be omitted. NS. seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review (continued) 650 Main Street, CVS Pharmacy The application proposes to renovate the elevations of the store. Action Date: September 11, 2006. JS noted that once again the applicant was not present. CR said there has been no request for an extension and the Determination of Completion is 60 days from July. BB moved to deny the Site Plan Review on the grounds the applicant has not given the Board requested feedback on the submitted plans. RH said there is no requirement for the applicant to be here. CR agreed. CR suggested the Board approve the Site Plan Review subject to the applicant appearing before the Board. He said it is very hard to deny a Site Plan Review for reasons other than creating a danger to public safety. Page 7 of 12 RH said, in his view, what the applicant submitted was not complete and the clock should not have been started. CR said in his determination the application was complete and ready for review by the Board. JB was extremely unhappy with having to approve the plans as submitted. JS too was not comfortable approving the plans. CR said they could add a condition referring to the minutes of the DRT meeting during which this application was discussed. RH moved to approve the Site Plan Review subject to the applicant addressing, to the satisfaction of the CPDC and prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the comments in the DRT minutes of 8/21 and the Town Engineer's comments of 8/28. BB seconded. JS made a friendly amendment to add: any and all signage is subject to further review and approval by the CPDC. JB added language requiring the applicant demonstrate to the Board at a subsequent meeting they have satisfied the comments of the DRT minutes and Town Engineer. JS asked to have added to the motion the standard language requiring the applicant to meet with the Building Inspector and Town Planner 30 days before requesting a Certificate of Occupancy added. RH said all standard boilerplate including the Hours of Construction should also be added. JB requested a note from Town Counsel explaining when the Board can deny a Site Plan Review. CR said he would ask Town Counsel for general guidance on the matter. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. Administrative Review Stop & Shop Site Plan Review Mr. Ed Shaw appeared for Stop & Shop. Mr. Shaw reviewed the changes to the signage: • All Directional Signs have been removed from the drawings except those for Starbucks, Boston Market, and Citizens Bank. • The drawings show the main Stop& Shop sign on the front of the building as it was approved in the original plans. • A color illustration of the proposed decorative banners was distributed to the members of the Board. Mr. Shaw emphasized the banners would be on the infield light-poles and not on the perimeter poles. • The Pylon Sign is only 6'3" from the ground instead of the required 10 feet. Page 8 of 12 The Board liked the decorative banners and was not unhappy to learn the Pylon Sign would be closer to the ground. RH moved to approve the signage as shown in the drawing of 9/7/06 and the banners as shown in the drawing of 9/6/06. BB seconded. JB asked if the motion implies approval of the banner colors depicted. RH asked if the Board would prefer the banners be all the same color. The consensus of the Board was the banners do not have to be all the same color but should be of the colors shown. RH made a friendly amendment to add language stating the banners should be of the colors set forth in the drawing of 9/6/06. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. The consensus of the Board was not to approve the shopping cart enclosure. The current design is ugly and a more appropriate enclosure should be submitted. CR suggested the applicant look at the shopping cart enclosures at Home Depot for an example of an appropriate design. PUD-I - Home Depot Request for Special Permit Amendment Determimation No representative of Home Depot was in attendance. CR said this concerns an amendment to the store's Open Storage Permit and the PUD-I. The PUD-I needs to be amended because this is an expansion of retail use where it doesn't currently exist. CR said this is similar to what the Board had approved for Jordan's but of a longer duration. He added the Board could deny based on lack of information. JS agreed the application is incomplete.' RH thought it better to continue rather than deny. CR said they should not schedule this item again until the applicant submits a completed application. RH said the Board should also be told the location of the tent and how long it will be up. JB said he would like the opportunity to discuss the matter with someone from Home Depot. JS made a motion that, with regards to the request for a Special Permit amendment, the Town Planner should inform the applicant: 1. their application is not complete, and 2. their request would not be rescheduled for the Board's review until, in the Town Planner's opinion, the application has been completed. BB seconded. Page 9 of 12 Voted Approved: 5:0:0. IM asked if the depth of the tent-stakes is an issue. CR thought this was a good point and said it should be a matter of concern to the Board. PUD-I - Jordan's Lighting Mr. Ed Shaw appeared for Jordan's. CR said he had received an email from the Town Manager asking how to proceed with wrapping-up the lighting issue. The final outcome is not consistent with any approval made or not made and the Board needs to grant an amendment to the original design. Mr. Shaw said that on 8/17 he had met with the Town Manager and the lighting consultant. He said three new shields were suggested and have been added. JS said, given the contentiousness of the lighting issue, would it be best to ask for a final lighting plan to approve and should we approve it at a public hearing? RH said the agreement has already been reached and now we are only interested in determining what that agreement was so we can refer to it in a minor modification. JS asked if there was an official lighting plan, a "record drawing" or "as-built" for the lighting. Mr. Shaw said he could provide an as-built of the lights. JS said the Board also needs any additional information to document the history of the changes. Mr. Shaw said he would submit it all to the Town Planner. JS asked the Town Planner to report to the Town Manager that once the requested information has been submitted the board will put it through as a minor modification. Canopy Illumination JS reviewed the history of this item: Back in March [minutes of 3/27/06], the Board reviewed the Mobil gas station at 178 Main Street and decided the canopy was a sign and could not be internally illuminated. The Building Inspector subsequently ruled a canopy is not a sign and allowed the illumination. As decided at the meeting of 5/22/06, JS sent a letter to the ZBA expressing the Board's contrary stand on the issue and asking the ZBA for their interpretation of the relevant bylaws. The ZBA replied, in essence, that, although they agree on the whole with the Board's letter, they would follow the Building Inspector's interpretation and would not provide an interpretation of their own. RH said the ZBA does not want to be put in the position of providing a general interpretation. They want specifics. He said the Board could appeal the Building Inspector's decision. , Page 10 of 12 JS said the appeal period has passed. He asked the Board if they should leave the issue as is or take it up and decide on a plan of action. The consensus of the Board was they should take the issue further. JS said he would add it to their list of Zoning Bylaw adjustments and clarifications the Board would like to make. Given the length of this list, he said this item would not be a priority. CR suggested the Board consider not allowing it [canopy illumination] if it falls under a Site Plan Review. No action taken. At 10:55, RH left the meeting. Zoning Workshop Amendments to Reading's Zoning By-Laws: Floodplain Regulations CR said he was asked by the Town Manager to bring this to Fall Town Meeting but the Board has not yet even looked at it. The issue concerns making changes to the town's floodplain regulations to meet DEP certification. Joe Delaney proposed this back when he was Town Engineer. Other Items Johnson Woods Acceleration of Development: from 7 years to 4 years The Board was prepared to make a simple one-word change to the relevant bylaw (change "7" to "4') but both the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen want a further change that would provide more affordable units. CR recommended either pushing it off to the upcoming Housing Forum; or voting on it tonight to put it before Fall Town Meeting. JB asked if the developer or his attorney could petition for this to be put before Town Meeting. CR said they could. JS said he would not recommend any action on this item tonight. Housing Plan JS asked the Board Members to please review the Housing Plan and send their comments to CR. BB said the plan could use more definitions of acronyms and important terms such as "Affordable Housing". CR said he would add a glossary. `Planning Board Meetings Page 11 of 12 The next meeting would be on 9/18/06 in the Berger Room. Discussion topics will include IM's draft letter on CPA, and Nick.S's work on an approach to Design Standards & Guidelines. CR said there should also be a discussion on making an amendment to the application and submittal requirements so that Associate Members can get the same information the Board Members do now. JS did not want to put an additional burden on applicants by asking them to provide even more copies of their application paperwork. The Board agreed and suggested asking applicants to supply digital files including PDFs. Nick.S pointed out digital files could be more easily displayed on a screen during meetings. Major/Minor Amendments JS said Town Counsel has suggested the Board provide a list of concrete examples of minor and major amendments rather than relying on general definitions only. CR added that the definitions must be applied consistently and not arbitrarily or capriciously. JB suggested everyone should come up with examples of minor and major amendments. There was some concern that what is considered minor and major amendments under Site Plan Reviews would now be different from what is considered minor and major amendments under PUD/PRDs. CR pointed out that Site Plan Reviews and PUD/PRDs are different. JS said it was too late to get into a discussion of this issue and suggested putting it off until a future meeting. He added he would also like to return to the discussion of Lot Coverage at a future meeting. The Board agreed. BB moved to adjourn. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting ended at 11:20 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 1.6, 2006. Signed as approved, Page 12 of 12