Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-28 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading - 16 Lowell 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: August 28, 2006 Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Town Hall 7:30 PM Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Chairman; Richard Howard (RH), Secretary; Neil Sullivan (NS); Jonathan Barnes (JB); and Brant Ballantyne (BB). Associate Members Present: David Tuttle (DT), and Israel Maykut (IM), and Nicholas Safina (Nick S.). Associate Members Absent: George Katsoufis (GK). Also Present: Chris Reilly (CR), Town Planner; and Michael Schloth Ms. Ellen Childress, 105 Green Street Mr. William Childress, 105 Green Street Mr. Steve Chouinard, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) Ms. Joanne Coy [sp?], Landlord, 150 Main Street Mr. Carl D'Angio, Jr. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Attorney Mark Favaloro, Favaloro & Associates, 348 Park Place, North Reading, MA 01864 Ms. Jane Grossi, 107 Green Street Ms. Lisa Heard, 26 Elliott Street Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Mike McManus, M.G.Hall Contractors, Inc., 286 Park Street, North Reading, MA 01864 Mr. Nick Nikolaou, Engineering Project Manager, Danis Properties Mr. Joseph Onorato, AIA, 205 Newbury Street, Framingham, MA Mr. Arvind Patel, North Side Liquors, 150 Main Street Edward Shaw, Dickenson Development Corp. Ms. Lynne Vargas, 103 Green Street 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. Page Iof13 RH moved to accept the minutes of 07/24/06 as amended. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0 Public Hearing: Subdivision Regulations Amendments to Reading's Subdivision Rules and Regulations JS opened the public hearing. RH read the legal notice. The amendments comprise the original amendments suggested by previous Town Engineer Joe Delaney as well as the amendments suggested by current Town Engineer George Zambouras. CR said Town Staff has made no further changes and there has been no feedback from developers. The Board discussed the amendment to the section on Cul-de-Sacs [7.1.5.] in some detail. JB took exception to the wording of the new subsection "e". He said it did not reflect what the Board had decided at an earlier meeting, namely, there should be language stating that if no island is proposed for the cul-de-sac then the developer must provide an explanation of why not. RH suggested the addition of a subsection 'f ' which would require developers to supply an explanation if no island is proposed. JB agreed to this but suggested adding language to say the CPDC may still require an island. RH suggested, instead of a subsection 'T', changing subsection "e" to state that an island is required and list the requirements. He added, if applicants do not want an island they can request a waiver. JB did not like this suggestion. He said he did not believe all cul-de-sacs should necessarily have islands. The consensus of the Board was to change subsection "e" to state that cul-de-sacs shall be required and then list the requirements of islands. RH moved to adopt the amendments to the subdivision regulations as amended tonight. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. CR said once the amended regulations have been filed he would distribute copies to the Board. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review 30-32 Elliott Street & 100-102 Green Street, Carl D'Angelo, Jr. The application proposes to demolish the existing building and replace with 4 residential units, with related site improvements. Action Date: September 26, 2006. JS opened the public hearing and outlined the procedure. RH read the legal notice. Page 2 of 13 Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant, Mr. Carl D'Angio, Jr., who was present. Mr. Latham summarized the proposal: • The current structure will be demolished and four new units built in its place. • They have received ZBA approval. • The plans have been changed so that two units face Elliott Street. • There will be eight parking spaces: two per unit. • The driveways have been shifted to conform to Town Regulations. • Landscaping has been submitted. • There will be a leeching field in the rear and a bedding area in the front. • They agree to submit an Operation and Maintenance Plan for the drainage system. • Lighting will be for the four units only and will be typical of a single-family home. • Traffic would not change. CR said the DRT discussed this plan prior to the Site Plan Review Waiver back in February [2006] and most of the DRT's comments have been addressed. There have been two more memos submitted on the site in the meantime: one from the Town Engineer [dated 08/28/06] and the other from the Health Administrator [dated 07/26/06]. CR read the Town Engineer's 8/28/06 memo into the record: 1. The concrete sidewalk should be five feet wide. 2. A granite curb should be installed along both Elliott and Green Streets for the entire length of the property. - 3. Utilities not used should be cut at their respective mains. 4. The proposed handicap ramp onto Green Street must be redesigned to conform to current standards. 5. Because of excavations and recent re-paving of the roads the affected areas of Elliott and Green Streets must be milled and appropriate traffic markings added. 6. The hydraulic calculations are incomplete. Final values are supplied but not the calculations used to reach them. 7. The plans should show how the roof runoff will enter the storage beds and not runoff the site. 8. A list of the site's impervious areas is needed to assist in stormwater management calculations. 9. The plans should reference compass-point "North". CR summarized the Health Administrator's comments and concerns: • The basement floor is two feet above the water table. • The demolition raises safety concerns, in particular: lead, asbestos, and rodents. Mr. Latham agreed to the five foot wide sidewalks. In response to a question about conservation, he said the Conservation Commission is generally in favor of the plan. Questions and Comments from the Board. NS asked if any of the units would be affordable. Mr. Latham said none would be. Page 3 of 13 BB asked what if any would be the difference in living area between the new units and what existed before. Mr. Latham said the existing units' living area is 3,000 sq. ft. total and the new ones will be 6,000 sq. ft. total. RH asked what the fagade would consist of. Mr. Latham said it would be vinyl-textured, clapboard. JS asked what the lot coverage would be. Mr. Latham said the lot coverage, of the building only, would be 22.7%. Questions and Comments from the Public William and Ellen Childress, 105 Green Street The Childresses had written a memo to the Board [dated 08/28/06] setting forth their concerns. The applicant had not been given a copy of the Childresses' memo before tonight's meeting. The Childresses walked the Board through the highlights of their memo. Their chief concern was the adequacy of the drainage and the maintenance of the drainage system. Their other concerns were: • The lifespan of the leeching field. • Tree roots disrupting the drainage. • Runoff from the front of the building flowing directly into the street. • Increased on-street parking. JS asked if the applicant would like to respond to the Childresses memo tonight. Mr. Latham said they were inclined not to respond until after having read the memo. Attorney Mark Favaloro, representing the Vargases of 103 Green Street, said they support the redevelopment of the property but they have concerns with the drainage. In particular, they are concerned that the impervious cover has increased and the buildings will be placed closer to the street. The applicant's engineer said roof runoff will be infiltrated into the leeching field in the rear and the planting beds in the front. JS asked if the front runoff wouldn't also flow into the driveways and then the street. The engineer said some would but the grading would direct it into the catch basins. BB asked how the runoff is handled today. The engineer said today there is no infiltration and the runoff flows straight into the streets. Ms. Lynne Vargas, 103 Green Street. Ms. Vargas said the existing storm drains catch only the runoff from Elliott Street and nothing from Green Street. Also, the storm drain is uphill from her driveway so when the impervious cover is increased she is afraid she'll see more water in her driveway. Ms. Lisa Heard, 26 Elliott Street. Page 4 of 13 Ms. Heard believes the development would be a great improvement but she is looking for reassurance that the drainage will not worsen. Ms. Jane Grossi, 107 Green Street. Ms. Grosse also expressed concern over the drainage. She said there is a storm drain in front of her house and it is maintained but leaves are often washed into it and roots have grown into it. Today, when the storm drain fills up her backyard floods. It was the consensus of the Board that the applicant should meet with the Town Engineer about the drainage situation - including storm drains and catch basins - on Elliott and Green Streets. Also, the Town Engineer should receive a copy of the Childresses' memo and the comments of the neighbors. JB said the plan was a significant improvement to the site but he had the following concerns. • Drainage. As detailed above. • Fagade. He would like more specifics as it is hard to visualize. • Setbacks. The structure sits large on the site. He was not suggesting this was a problem but only noting the plans show the units placed close to both the front and side setbacks. • Fence. Does it stop at the pines? The applicant's engineer said it does. BB asked if the patios could be shown on the plans. The engineer said they could. The consensus of the Board was to continue the Site Plan Review to the meeting of 9/11/06 at 9:00 PM. Mr. Latham agreed. RH moved to continue to 9/11/06 at 9:00 PM. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. JS said no new notice would be given to abutters. Mr. Latham said he had discovered a conflict and asked if the Site Plan Review could be continued to 09/25/06 instead. The Board agreed. CR pointed out the Action Date was 9/26/06 and Mr. Latham would have to write a request for an extension of the Action Date to 10/30/06. Mr. Latham agreed and proceeded to do so. RH made a new motion to continue the Site Plan Review to 9/25/06 at 8:00 PM. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. CR reminded the Board they have "128 Ford" scheduled for that date and time. RH moved to continue the Site Plan Review to 9/25/06 at 9:00 PM. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. CR provided the following directions as to what the Board would be looking for from the applicant. • An operations and maintenance manual. The applicant's engineer said it was in the plans. CR said the Town Engineer needs to review it. • Catalog cuts of the lighting. Page 5 of 13 • Review of the Childresses' memo. • To check with DPW about stormwater compliance. • To look into changing the slope and/or grading of the roadway near the driveway of 103 Green Street. • To meet with the Town Engineer to review drainage issues (including the catch basins on Green Street). • Details of the proposed fagade. • Details of the proposed fence. • The patios shown on the plans. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review 650 Main Street, CVS Pharmacy The application proposes to renovate the elevations of the store. Action Date: September 11, 2006. JS noted the applicant was not present and then opened the public hearing for discussion by the Board and public. RH read the legal notice. CR said there were DRT comments [of 08/21/061 and a copy had been given to the applicant. CR proceeded to summarize the DRT comments: • The plans are confusing. There is no consistency between the applicant's notes and the plans. • What are the awnings made of? • The North Elevation (alleyway) needs lighting. • The upcoming streetscape changes should be accounted for JS said the dumpster needs a better screen. CR agreed. RH asked if the existing sign fits with what the Board is trying to accomplish downtown. JS said the applicant is proposing to reinstall the existing sign over a stucco fagade and the Board needs to see a picture or rendering of this. RH said CVS must have pictures of existing, similar stores. JB said he would prefer new signage more compatible with the caliber of signage they have been requiring i.e. raised letters. BB pointed out that the existing signage is CVS's corporate signage. JB said CVS has alternatives and gave as an example the signage of the CVS in Melrose. Nick S asked if the existing signage is in compliance. No one on the Board remembered the original Site Plan Review of CVS. BB moved to continue the Site Plan Review to 09/11/06 at 9:45 PM. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. Page 6 of 13 JS said no new notice would be given to abutters. JS asked CR to convey to the applicant both the DRT's and the Board's comments and to ask the applicant to request an extension since the Action Date is the same as continuation date. CR said he would do so. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Waiver (cont.) North Side Liquors, 156 Main Street CR pointed out that this was not a public hearing. JS said this was a noticed, Site Plan Review Waiver and a draft decision has been prepared. The owner, Mr. Patel, was present. CR summarized the review to date: • The applicant would be using an existing space and currently has no plans to expand. • A new plan has been submitted showing a reduced curb-cut as requested by the Board. • The Town Planner had recommended the addition of shade trees along Main Street and a planter along the storefront. CR noted that he has been told the address is actually 150 Main Street. RH asked if the applicant has had a chance to review the draft decision. CR said the applicant has not, but the draft is consistent with what was discussed at the previous meeting which the applicant attended. JB said it should be referenced that the site will use the wall sign from the applicant's old location. Mr. Patel said there would also be a new freestanding sign at this location. The Board was inclined to approve the waiver but have the applicant come back to discuss the signage. Mr. Patel said he would like to change his hours of operation to "9:00 AM to 9:00 PM". At the previous meeting he had said he would open at 10:00 AM. JS asked for comments from the public. There were none. The Board reviewed the draft decision. JS asked to have it noted in the minutes that the draft references the 8/23/06 plans. Findings The Board made no changes. Conditions Condition #2: the Board changed the starting hour from 10:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Page 7 of 13 Condition #3: the Board reduced from 30 to 7 the number of days, prior to requesting the Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall have to schedule a meeting with the Town Planner and Building Inspector. Condition #4: Landscaping. CR said the landscaping plan needs to show the species and location of the shade trees. He also noted the existing curbing on the island has deteriorated and is a safety issue. The landlord, Ms. Joanne Coy [sp?], said where the Board wants to place the trees would block signage there. BB said more room for the trees will be created when the curb-cut is reduced. The Board asked the landlord the height of the sign. The landlord did not know. The landlord suggested something floral and low like azalea bushes rather than trees. CR said his recommendation of trees is based on the Board of Selectmen's strong recommendation of the addition of shade trees to that section of Main Street. He added that Honey Locusts would be a good choice. JS agreed the Board had been given a clear direction by the Board of Selectmen that South Main should be upgraded over time, but he was concerned shade trees on the island would block the sign. He suggested adding low, resilient shrubs to the island and placing the shade trees on the other islands: one on the Southern island and one or two on the Northern island. The consensus of the Board was to add the following to Condition #4. Add three Honey Locust trees at locations to be approved by the Town Planner, and continue the existing shrubbery onto the new island-extensions. RH suggested adding a Condition #5 about the signage: "The site's exit sign shall be repositioned as required by the reduced width of the curb cuts. It is the intention of the applicant to use an existing wall sign from a previous location and to add a new freestanding sign provided they are in compliance with zoning bylaws". The Board agreed. CR asked if the Board would like to see a continuous planter in front of the store. The consensus of the Board was it would and the Board asked to have the planter added to the decision subject to approval of the Town Planner as to its dimensions and location. RH moved to approve the waiver for 150 Main Street subject to the conditions in the draft decision as amended tonight. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:2. Chairman John Sasso and Jonathan Barnes abstained. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness (cont.) 231 Haven Street, O'Dea's Barber Shop Action Date: September 11, 2006. The applicant was not present. Page 8 of 13 CR said the applicant was made aware both of the continuation and that the Board wanted to discuss a different design and color. RH recommended voting to continue again or to deny. NS moved to deny. JB seconded. RH suggested expanding on why the Board is denying the application. JB said the Board denies granting a Certificate of Appropriateness due to inadequate information on the shape, color, and consistency of the submitted signage as well as the inability to engage the applicant in a discussion of the signage. Voted Denied: 4:0:1. Brant Ballantyne abstained. Administrative Review Stop & Shop Site Plan Review Mr. Ed Shaw, Mr. Steve Chouinard, and Mr. Joseph Onorato appeared for Stop & Shop. BB disclosed that his firm is a competitor of Stop & Shop and asked the applicant if he had any objection to his voting on this item. Mr. Shaw said he had no objection. JS said although there was still a legal appeal in progress the Board wants to continue with the review. Mr. Shaw said they were back to show the Board the updates to three items: Landscaping, Elevations, and Signage. Landscaping • 8 trees changed from River Birch to Pear. Some pines added too. • Continuous shrubbery added along Newcrossing Road and Walkers Brook Drive. • Evergreens added along the border next to Danis to screen the retaining wall and headlights. • Three planters added along the front of building: one 60 foot long planter in the middle and two 10 foot long planters at either end. • Sidewalk along building will be monolithic and colored to complement the building. JS asked if the Tree Warden will be inspecting the trees along Newcrossing Road. Mr. Shaw said the Tree Warden will inspect the trees and any trees he deems need replacing will be replaced. JS asked to have the minutes reflect the fact that bollards will be added even though they do not appear in the plans. Page 9 of 13 JS asked what decorative treatment would be given to the light poles. Mr. Shaw said they plan on hanging decorative fabric banners from the light poles. He did not know what they would look like. He said he would submit them to the Board for review if necessary. JS moved to approve the Landscaping Plan of 25 Walkers Brook Drive as dated 08/18/06 subject to the following conditions: 1. The decorative banners will be submitted for review 2. The Tree Warden will review the trees along Newcrossing Road. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. Elevations Mr. Onorato described the changes to the elevation plans: • The architectural treatments match the building on all sides. • The roof mechanicals have been turned 90 degrees and moved as far back as possible and the metal louvers screening the mechanicals are pitched to hide them from below. The screening is colored in the same earth tones as the rest of the building. A photograph of the similarly constructed Danvers Stop & Shop was shown to the Board. RH moved to approve the architectural renderings of 8/15/06 as well as the photograph of the Danvers facility but not including the signage shown. JB seconded. Voted Approved, 5:0:0. Si~g Mr. Chouinard said the directional signs are gone and only the Bank, Boston Market, and Starbucks will have signs on the front of the building. These three are independent businesses within Stop & Shop. Mr. Shaw said the freestanding sign has not changed. The Board noted that the Stop & Shop wall sign looks much larger than what was originally approved. The consensus of the Board was to defer approval of the signage until the applicant could submit corrected plans. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo of 130 John Street asked if the eight "logo signs" [four pairs of red and green dots] would be illuminated. Mr. Chouinard said the red and green dots are backlit. JS asked the Board if they consider the disks a logo or a sign. The consensus of the Board was they were more of a logo than a sign. JB asked if a logo was not also a sign. JS said the Board had considered Starbucks' logo across the street a sign and had required that it be r removed. Page 10 of 13 JS said: in response to Mr. D'Arezzo's question, the Board will have to revisit this. The four pairs of dots were on the original plans but the Board is not sure if they were illuminated or not. It is an issue of precedence. The Board needs to be consistent in our decisions regarding the illumination of signs but the actual placement of the dots is as shown in the original plans. Other Items: Historical Commission Mr. Shaw said they had met with the Historical Commission and the Commission has made an appointment to tour the Boston Stove building before its demolition. Mr. Shaw said the Historical Commission is welcome to what they can find of historical value. JS asked the Town Planner to request confirmation from the Historical Commission that they have met with the applicant. Mr. Shaw said they would resubmit three sets of completed plans and the signage will show the correct "Stop & Shop" sign. Danis Site Plan Review Extension Request Mr. Nick Nikolaou and Attorney Mark Favaloro appeared for the applicant. Mr. Favaloro said they were looking for a two-year extension of their Site Plan Review approval to expire 9/28/08. CR said it has been the Board's practice in these situations to grant a one-year extension. JS asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. RH moved to grant a one-year extension of the approval of Danis' Site Plan Review to expire 9/28/2007. NS seconded. Voted approved 5:0:0. Site Plan Review Modification Request - Haven Junction Mr. Mike McManus appeared for the applicant. Mr. McManus had two requests, the first concerned the addition of two signs to the front of the building; the second concerned asking the Board to dismiss their requirement of screening along the Chute Street side of the parking space directly adjacent to Chute street [parking space #101. Two Signs Mr. McManus said this would add an additional 14 square feet or so of signage to the front of the building. A tenant, Dowd Medical, has requested this. They want their sign on the front of the building. Dowd Medical would have one of the signs and another tenant would _J have the other. JS asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Page 11 of 13 RH moved to approve a minor modification to the Master Signage Plan of Haven Junction to allow the two signs as shown on the submitted drawing. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. Screening The Board had previously granted use of a loading-area space as a parking space conditioned on the addition of screening to the parking space next to Chute Street [parking space #10]. Mr. McManus said his primary concern and reason for requesting the dismissal of the screening condition was the screening would take away from the character and general appearance of the building. He listed other points against the screening: • It is a safety hazard. At an angle, the screening would look solid and the view down Chute Street would be blocked. Mr. McManus distributed photographs taken from various angles to illustrate his point. • It would be a maintenance annoyance. Cars would always be bumping into it and it would not be substantial enough to withstand even minor hits. • There is no other place in town where cars are being screened like this. • The screening lacks a purpose. BB pointed out that there is on-street parking on Chute Street and when someone is parked there drivers will be able to pull further out of the parking lot for a better view. RH said the original site Plan Review required adequate landscaping or screening. He asked how high either would have to be. Mr. McManus said it was his assumption the entire opening would have to be screened. CR said that was correct. JS said the purpose of the screen was: 1. Safety: to prevent people from cutting across the parking space. 2. Aesthetics. JS said he did not ascribe to screening the entire opening. He pointed out there was already a walkway at the head of the parking space. He asked if a low brick wall or planter could be substituted. CR said he did not think there was room for either. JB said he felt screening the entire opening was warranted. He said this was a compromise to have the developer add just a little screening. The Board would like to screen more; we cannot, but one is better than none. DT said even a waist-high lattice would create a separation and define a pathway. RH moved to deny the request. JB seconded. Voted Denied: 5:0:0. Page 12 of 13 JS said the screening does not have to cover the entire opening. CR said the screening has to be put up soon. JS agreed and added that this item has already been added to the Board's compliance list. Mr. McManus asked what recourse he had. CR said he could refuse to comply and take the matter to court. PUD-I Special Permit Amendment Request - Home Depot This item was deferred to a future meeting. Zoning Workshop Zoning-By-Laws Amendments This item was deferred to a future meeting. Other Items: CPDC Reorganization. RH moved to nominate John Sasso as Chairman for the 2006 - 2007 term. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:1. John Sasso abstained. JS moved to nominate Brant Ballantyne as Secretary for the 2006- 2007 term. RH seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. RH moved to adjourn. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. The meeting ended at 11:45 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on September 25, 2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on September 25, 2006. Signed as approved, Brant Ballantyne, Secretary Page 13 of 13