Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-14 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading , 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 - 7 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: August 14, 2006 Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Town Hall 7:30 PM Members Present: Richard Howard (RH), Secretary; Neil Sullivan (NS); and Jonathan Barnes (JB). Members Absent: John Sasso (JS), Chairman; and Brant Ballantyne (BB). Associate Members Present: David Tuttle (DT), and Israel Maykut (IM) Associate Members Absent: Nicholas Safina (Nick S.), George Katsoufis (GK), Also Present: Chris Reilly (CR), Town Planner; George Zambouras (GZ), Town Engineer; Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager; and Michael Schloth Mr. Steven Baczek, 46 Glenmere Circle Attorney Christopher Coleman, 248 Main Street Ms. Pauline Clark, 515 Summer Avenue. Attorney Mark Favaloro, Favaloro & Associates, 348 Park Place, North Reading, MA 01864 Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Nick Nikolaou, Engineering Project Manager, Danis Properties Mr. Arvind Patel, North Side Liquors, 150 Main Street Mr. Alan Schiller, Boston Stove Company Mr. Chris Sparages, PE, Hayes Engineering, 603 Salem Street, Wakefield, MA Ms. Kathleen Tibbets, 512 Summer Avenue. Hallmark Health Team, 30 New Crossing Road Mr. Frank DiPietro, PE; VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Mr. Dennis McCarthy, Architect Mr. Michael Gerhardt, Hallmark Healthcare Mr. Weston Ruthven, PE, VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. As Chairman John Sasso was not present, Richard Howard assumed the duties of the Chair for this meeting. There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Page 1 of 12 Public Comments / Minutes There were no comments from the public. NS moved to accept the minutes of 06/26/06 as amended. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0 JB moved to accept the minutes of 07/10/06 as amended. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0 Administrative Review CPDC Reorganization Because the full Board was not present, this item was tabled. Summit Village Drainage Board The Town Manager summarized the situation: The CPDC had set aside a bond in 1998 and has recently authorized the town to take the bond for remedial work to the drainage at Summit Village. Agreement is necessary between both the town and the developer as to the amount taken and its use. We thought an equal split of the bond would allow us to cover the cost of the work but the Town Engineer has found more that needs to be done and the Town will need more of the bond to cover the additional cost. The Town is prepared to ask the developer to release the full bond to the Town to cover these costs but if the developer doesn't agree the town is prepared to go forward with the work using town funds and with the approval of the Summit Village Condo Association. The town does not want to wait for potential litigation to get the work done. The Town Engineer summarized his report: • The existing design of the detention basin indicated there would be no runoff but in fact there is some. • The size of the detention is inadequate. It is large but built on a slope and only the bottom two-thirds of the basin provides storage and it can't handle ten-year storms or greater. Its capacity is about 35% of its originally designed capacity. • There are no gutter inlets on the catch basins as was originally proposed and the catch basins are not depressed. They are at or slightly above pavement grade and the gutter flow bypasses about six of them to flow down to Hopkins Street. The Town Engineer proposed: • Adding a divider to the detention basin to create two basins in series. This will increase its capacity to about 78% of its originally designed capacity. • Adding pipes to direct runoff from the detention basin to the Hopkins Street drainage system. • Altering the pavement around the six bypassed catch basins. Page 2 of 12 The Town Engineer estimated the cost at about $55,000. He noted the bond is only for $30,000. RH asked if the Summit Village trustees or abutters had questions. Attorney John Vicarri [sp?] representing the Mannas of 156 Hopkins Street. Runoff from Summit Village flooded Mr. Viccari's clients in July, 2006. In 1998 he represented the Gregarios of the same address for similar flooding. Mr. Vicarri said the bond has been outstanding for eight years and he implored the Board to fix this problem before there is a third flooding. A trustee of the Condo Association asked if the Town Engineer's estimate included fixing catch basins. The Town Engineer said it does. No action was necessary on the part of the Board. RH thanked the Town Manager for providing a status report on the situation and for letting the Condo Association and the abutters know the town's plans. Mr. Vicarri asked for a copy of the Engineer's report. Subdivision Approval Not Required Nelson Realty Trust, 410 & 420 Franklin Street This concerns three separate lots reconfigured to allow for future development. Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant. Mr. Latham said this ANR plan came about after lengthy discussions with both the Conservation Commission and the Historical Commission. CR recommended the Board endorse the ANR.. JB moved to endorse the ANR. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The Board signed the plans. Zoning/Subdivision Workshop Zoning-By-Laws Amendments CR said he and BB had not had time to thoroughly review how the Board's proposed definitions for Lot Coverage, Accessory Buildings, etc... would affect the current Zoning Bylaws. And as BB was not present he recommended postponing this discussion. The consensus of the Board was to postpone discussion of this item until more of the Board was present. Page 3 of 12 Regarding the changes to the subdivision regulations, CR said the Town Engineer's changes will be incorporated into the original changes and the revised draft will be distributed to the Board soon. CR said he has prepared the legal notice and the public hearing is scheduled for 8/28/06. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review 30 New Crossing Road, Hallmark Health Medical Center The application proposes to demolish one building and renovate the remaining building for use as professional medical offices, with related site improvements. Action Date: September 25, 2006. RH opened the public hearing and explained how it would proceed. NS read the legal notice. Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant, introduced the members of the development team. Mr. Frank DiPietro provided a brief summary of the proposed changes: • The one-story building will be demolished along with its connection to the three- story building. • The use of the three-story building will be similar to that of the Reading Health i Center at the end of the road. • The driveway will be shared with the lot at the corner of New Crossing Road and Walkers Brook Drive. Mr. Weston Ruthven described the proposed changes: • They have taken the input from the DRT and applied it to their plans. • The entrance canopy will be the only improvement to the existing building itself. • The driveway will be widened and shifted a bit more of a radius change. • Landscape islands have been added as per the DRT suggestion. • The dumpster enclosure will have a fagade that looks like the main building. • Sidewalks will be placed along the driveway, the frontage, and the building as per the DRT suggestion. • Curbing will be vertical granite at the entrance and concrete internally. • A monument sign will be placed at the driveway entrance. • Lighting will be added along the front sidewalk through wall sconces and under the canopy through "up lights". Light poles will be on the landscape islands. • Regarding drainage, there'll be no more runoff than currently exists. They propose grading runoff away from the building into underground stormwater chambers. Mr. DiPietro said they had met with the Town Engineer and at the Town Engineer's request they have reviewed the flooding on Walkers Brook Drive. He also said the wetlands have been flagged and they fall outside this lot [Lot A2] so they won't have to appear before the Conservation Commission. The Town Planner summarized the minutes of the 7/17/06 DRT meeting. Page 4 of 12 Planning: • The building's elevation should be improved and the roof lines need softening. • More landscaping is needed to screen headlights. • Directional signs are needed. • A waiver for the loading zone is required. • There must be ambulance access and a fire lane. • The Town Manager emphasized lighting should be directed downward. DPW: • Sewer and maintenance easements are needed. The site must meet the storm water regulations for new construction. The water table is close to the surface. Conservation: • There is a memo with extensive comments from the Conservation Administrator. • Whether the Conservation Commission has authority has yet to be determined. The Town Engineer read from his memo. Aside from drainage specifics the Town Engineer expressed concern over traffic from the lot sharing the common driveway. The town needs to know the proposed use of that lot to estimate traffic flow. The Board Responds The Board agreed with the Town Engineer's concerns over traffic from the abutting lot using the common driveway. Mr. DiPietro said they are considering placing a restaurant on the abutting lot and he asked if it was the Board's intent to have them prove that the driveway would be adequate for such a use. RH said the Board would like the applicant's best estimate of traffic generated by the restaurant number of trips, etc.... The Town Engineer added that the applicant should provide a worse-case scenario. Mr. DiPietro agreed to this as long as the Board understands there could be changes to the final plan. The Board agreed. The consensus of the Board was to agree with the Town Planner's suggestion for improvements to the elevation and softening of the roofline. The applicant's architect said the building was built in a style both "bold and stark" and "opposed to ornamentation". He pointed out that they had added a canopy and pilasters already but cautioned that adding too much ornamentation would dilute the style. JB agreed the canopy was a good start. Mr. Latham asked if it would be appropriate to ask the architect to try to make improvements within the building's style. CR said Mr. Latham is assuming the Board sees redeeming value in the style. JB said if the building was brought before the Board as a construction plan he would want a different style but he was reluctant to ask the applicant to give a totally new style to an existing building. CR suggested planting trees in the front of the building to break up the long, monotonous wall. The Board agreed. Page 5 of 12 CR said he would like to see the building resurfaced. Mr. Gerhardt said re-skinning the building is not an option. There was a brief discussion of resurfacing the building using a panel system. The applicant's architect did not think re-cladding would make the horizontal, starkness any softer. He said he did like the idea of more landscaping and pointed out to the Board that the lighting would help [soften the style]. RH asked for comments from the public. There were none. DT said there is only a single dumpster shown in the plans but at least one other would be needed for medical waste. Mr. Latham said the medical waste would be contained within the building and the dumpster would be for general trash. RH asked if the Board should require a peer review of the lighting or traffic. CR said as it is an existing building he did not think a lighting review would be needed. As for the traffic, they need more information about the use of the driveway. The consensus of the Board was to continue the meeting until 9/11/06 at 8:00 PM. CR listed what the applicant needs to submit to him no later than the Wednesday before the 9/11/06 meeting. • Easement plan • Drainage plan. • Results of test pits for stormwater capacity. • Updated elevation plan. • Plans C-2 and C-5 without the overlay of the existing features. • Traffic information on the assumed use of the lot sharing the driveway. JB moved to continue until 9/11/06 at 8:00 PM. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. RH said no additional notice will be sent to abutters. Site Plan Review Modification 128 Marketplace, I General Way Attorney Mark Favaloro represented the applicant. Also present were Mr. Nick Nikolaou of Danis Properties and Mr. Chris Sparages of Hayes Engineering. Mr. Sparages said they were back to review the comments made and concerns raised at the previous meeting. They have met with the Town Engineer and a letter dated 8/9/06 was sent from the applicant to the Board clarifying the changes. Retaining Wall. Page 6 of 12 The retaining wall is needed to support the additional fill required to reduce the grade from 5% to 3%. It will not be higher than 2.5 feet and is more of a "landscape feature" than a structure since it is less than 4 feet in height. Parking bumpers will be added to keep cars from rolling off the wall. RH asked if bumpers would be sufficient. The applicant said they would and they were a common practice. Loading Dock. Mr. Sparages provided an illustration showing the Truck Turning Movement Plan. This plan was created using a software application called "Auto Turn" and showed that a 55 foot tractor trailer could back into the docks including the dock adjacent to the retaining wall. Pipe Size. As per the Town Engineer's request, the pipes in question will be 24 inches in diameter. Conservation. Mr. Sparages said the applicant met with Conservation Administrator Fran Fink today along with the Town Engineer and the Town Planner. The applicant is working on a plan to address the Conservation Commission's issues. The Town Engineer said the changes have addressed the comments of his memo. Wheel stops will replace the guardrail of the original plan. He added it might be beneficial to show in the plans where the guardrail stops. RH asked for comments from the public. Mr. Alan Schiller, Boston Stove Company. • Elevations. At the previous meeting, the CPDC Chairman John Sasso requested the applicant present to the Board revised elevation plans. In his opinion, what has been presented here has been insufficient to meet that request. • Drainage. Also at the previous meeting, drainage issues were discussed which the Board felt precluded its ability to vote on the applicant's proposed changes until resolved. • Continuity of Membership. Of the CPDC members present tonight, only Mr. Neil Sullivan was present to hear testimony at the previous meeting. Regarding the drainage, the Town Engineer said most of the concerns stem from the inadequacy of the retention basin and at the meeting today the applicant acknowledged that more work on the drainage is needed including additional grading. Mr. Sparages agreed that additional grading is needed to make the drainage work and added this should not affect the abutters. RH said the applicant may need to request an extension of time to complete work to the drainage. Regarding Continuity of Membership, CR said he did not believe Continuity of Membership was needed for Minor Modifications and the Board has not yet determined if the applicant's proposal is a Minor or Major Modification. Mr. Favaloro said he did not believe a Minor Modification, outside of a public hearing, needs Continuity of Membership. RH asked if the Board thinks the applicant's changes are Minor given the Page 7 of 12 work outlined in the letter of 8/9/06 and the information presented tonight. The consensus of the Board was the changes are a Minor Modification. RH asked if, given ongoing construction issues, there is anything to prevent the Board from granting a Minor Modification tonight. CR suggested asking for the applicant's consent to conditions. The Board needs the applicant's consent to any conditions put on the Minor Modification. CR cautioned the Board if they vote to approve a Minor Modification they are essentially approving the plans as they are. Mr. Favaloro said the applicant offers the consent the Town Planner is looking for. RH said the only condition would be to have the applicant revise the plans to show the location of the guardrail. Mr. Alan Schiller, Boston Stove Company. • If the Board votes on this item tonight, he believes that technically the Board must vote on the application presented at the previous meeting and not on what was presented in the letter of 8/9/06. • Conservation Approval. At the previous meeting, the Board said they were not comfortable moving forward until the Conservation Administrator signed off on the drainage issue, which she has not yet done. • Continuity of Membership. If the Board does vote, he requests the Board condition their vote on the Town Counsel's review of the matter of Continuity of Membership. Regarding the first point, RH said the letter addresses clarifications requested at the last meeting but they were not the entire modification. CR said the plans have been revised in accordance with the information you requested at the previous meeting and the Board can motion and vote on the last set of revised plans. Regarding waiting for ConsComm approval, CR said the Board has the Town Engineer's assurance that the drainage issue is being addressed. Also, the applicant will have to appear before ConsComm on the issue and may have to come back before the CPDC if ConsComm places conditions on their approval. Mr. Ed Shaw asked, if the Board is going to vote tonight, is the Board voting on the elevations submitted tonight. RH asked the applicant if the elevation shown tonight was informational or a departure from what was approved. The applicant said it was informational. Mr. Alan Schiller said he begged to differ and the Board specifically asked the applicant at the last meeting to return with elevations. Mr. Schiller said the elevation presented tonight doesn't qualify because it doesn't show the building's side or back. JB asked CR if he recalled any specifics as to what was requested at the last meeting regarding elevations. CR said he remembered it being requested based on public comment but he did not remember specific direction as to what elevation should be indicated. He added that as a condition the elevations require subsequent design review so the Board could review them at a future date. RH suggested the following draft motion. Page 8 of 12 The CPDC grant the Minor Modification as shown in the latest drawing submitted with the 8/9/06 letter from Danis subject to the following conditions. 1. An updated site plan will be provided clearly showing where the guardrail starts and stops. 2. This Commission has the authority to make a Minor Modification with the membership present according to Town Counsel. 3. If any modifications approved by the Conservation Commission render this Minor Modification moot, then the applicant will return to the CPDC with revised plans. NS so moved. JB made a friendly amendment to add to the end of the third condition: "for subsequent approval". The Board agreed. Mr. Favaloro asked for clarification on the third condition: is the Board indicating that any modification asked for by the Conservation Commission should be consistent with this plan? The Board said it was. CR asked to have the following added to the end of the motion. "All prior conditions and approvals not expressly contained in the modification shall remain in full force and effect." The Board agreed. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Site Plan Review Waiver North Side Liquors, 156 Main Street Owner Mr. Arvind Patel represented himself. Mr. Patel's previous location was destroyed by fire. This new location is also zoned for retail. Notice was sent to the abutters. CR said there was no DRT review of the application but he suggests minor landscaping changes: a few shade trees and a continuous landscape planter. JB asked if a waiver is appropriate under the "Same Use" category of the bylaw. CR said the previous tenant was a dance studio not a retail store. Mr. Patel said prior to the dance studio a sporting goods store was at the location. RH asked if parking was an issue. CR said it was not unless the applicant decides to expand. RH asked if the storm water practices need to be examined. CR didn't think so. The Town Engineer agreed. CR added that he did not see any site-related issues. The applicant said his hours of operation would be from 10 AM to 9 PM and closed on Sunday. Page 9 of 12 RH asked for comments from the public. Ms. Pauline Clark, 515 Summer Avenue. Ms. Clark was concerned the change of use would increase traffic and she did not believe there was adequate parking. Ms. Kathleen Tibbets, 512 Summer Avenue. Ms. Tibbets she had thought the store might be open too late but said 9:00 PM was a reasonable hour. She was somewhat concerned the store's proximity to the highway might make it more attractive to robbers. Ms. Clark said she had only received her notice the previous Saturday. CR said he only received the application on August 7 and there was no legal requirement to send the notice out any earlier. RH asked if the Board has any jurisdiction over curb cuts. CR said the Board could reduce a curb cut but opening a new one would require the approval of the Board of Selectmen. The Town Engineer said there is no scale on the plan but it appears to him that the left curb cut is wider than what the town requires. RH asked for the Town Engineer's opinion on reducing the site to one curb cut. The Town Engineer said he would have to visit the site first. RH suggested continuing the waiver review to another time to give the Town Planner time to consider the details of the landscaping and the Town Engineer time to review the curb cuts. CR said the applicant has already been granted a building permit. JB said that was putting the cart before the horse and endorsed RH's suggestion. RH strongly urged the Building Inspector not to issue a Certificate of Occupancy until the Board has completed its business. RH moved to continue until the meeting of 8/28/06 at 9:45 PM; to ask the Town Engineer to visit the site to determine if either the number of curb cuts or the width of the widest curb cut should be reduced; and to ask the Town Planner to consider appropriate landscaping. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. RH said he would be in favor of putting a condition on the Hours of Operation: if beyond 9:00 PM the applicant has to come back for a full Site Plan Review. He would like to see words to that effect in the draft decision. Page 10 of 12 Subdivision Approval Not Required Steven Baczek, 46 Glenmere Circle Attorney Chris Coleman represented Mr. Steven Baczek. Mr. Coleman said his client wants to add a garage to his property but his property abuts a "paper street" and the proposed garage will not meet the setbacks to the paper street. When the town took over Glenmere Circle the town took all but the paper street. Mr. Coleman said an extensive title search was made with no result and they now want to invoke the Derelict Fee Statute. CR said Town Counsel has reviewed this situation before. The Town Engineer asked if it was correct you could not obstruct the paper street. Mr. Coleman said the way will not be obstructed; this will be for setback purposes only. CR said for the purpose of an ANR he thought it was okay to endorse it. JB asked if there was any value to asking Town Counsel to have a look at this. CR said there is a time issue and he did not think it could be continued to the next meeting. JB moved to endorse the ANR. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The Board signed the ANR plans. CR said the words "Reading Planning Board" are on the plans and the Engineering Department may take issue with this. The Town Engineer asked the Board if he could change the note if it does prove to be an issue. The Board agreed. Other Items RH noted that the Town Manager wanted to schedule a Special Town Meeting for the PRD and Accessory Apartment amendments. CR said it may be wise to schedule a Housing Forum for the end of September. CR said the Town Manager and Selectmen want a higher percentage of affordable units in the Johnson Woods amendment. RH said the Board will finalize the amendment at the 8/28/06 meeting and have the legal adds ready afterwards. CR emphasized the importance of finalizing the legal ad language for amendments. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness Odea's Barber Shop, 231 Haven Street Action Date: September 25, 2006 No one appeared for Odea's Barber Shop. Page 11 of 12 The consensus of the Board was to defer action on this item until a later date. NS moved to adjourn. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The meeting ended at 10:30 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on September 11, 2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on September 11, 2006. Signed as approved, Brant Ballantyne, Secretary d .w u Page 12 of 12