Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-24 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesI. LIO~i Town 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: July 24, 2006 Location: Police Community Room, 15 Union Street 7:30 PM Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Richard Howard (RH), Neil Sullivan (NS), and Brant Ballantyne (BB). Members Absent: Jonathan Barnes (JB), Associate Members Present: Nicholas Safina (Nick S.), David Tuttle (DT), George Katsoufis (GK), and Israel Maykut (IM) Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); George Zambouras, Town Engineer (GZ), and Michael Schloth Messrs. Joseph Calareso Sr. & Jr., Calareso's, 136 Main Street Mr. George Danis, Danis Realty Trust Mr. Mark Dickinson, Dickinson Development Corp. Attorney Mark Favaloro, Favaloro & Associates, 348 Park Place, North Reading, MA 01864 Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main 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. Nick Nikolaou, Danis Properties Mr. Alan Schiller, former owner of the Boston Stove property Owner of "Magic Tailor & Cleaners", 587 Main Street There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 7:40 PM. Public Comments / Minutes There were no comments from the public. RH moved to accept the minutes of 06/12/06 as amended. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0 Page Iof11 Administrative Review Other Items Planning Subcommittee JS distributed the draft agenda for the Planning Subcommittee's 07/31/06 meeting. Downtown Parking Task Force. GK, the CPDC's liason to the Task Force, presented a brief report. The Task Force's mission has not yet crystallized, but they are an aggressive, grass-roots, group that should produce innovative ideas that other groups - such as the CPDC - could take to the next step. GK said the Task Force has a lot of data but not in an easily accessible form and they would be looking for technical support from the Town Staff. JS asked if it would be useful for the Board to provide feedback. GK said it would. RH asked if the Task Force would be discussing the financing of a parking garage. GK said they would. NS asked if funding would be limited to what's available from State/Federal sources. GK said there are serious limitations on State funding but they are looking at private and private/public partnerships. JS asked if the Task Force was using data from the Chamber of Commerce and could that data be made available to the CPDC. GK said they were and he would see that the Board receives a copy. JS said the Task Force should take the upcoming changes to the streetscape into their considerations. GK agreed. The Board agreed that finding solutions to the parking downtown was a priority but noted that there are town-wide parking issues and the Board is interested in those too. CPDC Reorganization Because the full Board was not present, this item was tabled. YMCA Approved Site Plan Extension CR did not see any issues with this and recommended the Board extend for one year. No formal letter requesting the extension would be necessary. CR said the YMCA made this request through the Town Manager and he told the Town Manager the YMCA would need an extension. RH moved to extend the Site Plan Review by one year with the following condition: The applicant must meet with the Building Inspector and the Town Planner 30 days before both the issuance of a Building Permit and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review 88 & 89 Walkers Brook Drive, 128 Ford Page 2 of 11 The 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: August 14, 2006. This was continued from the meeting of 06/26/06. JS re-opened the pubic hearing and explained how it would procede. Attorney Robert McCann represented the applicant. Mr. McCann said he had met with the Building Inspector this morning and was told the showroom will require the payment of an additional fee. Mr. McCann said there is a zoning question that needs to be resolved: do we follow the zoning based on the lot's border or the Town's border? If based on the lot's border, then the property conforms. If based on the Town's border, then there are issues of setbacks, parking, lot coverage, demolition, and most likely the site will require its own full review. Mr. McCann said it was the Building Inspector's position that the Town's border governs the situation. Mr. McCann said they need to take this issue to the ZBA and they would not be ready to meet the action date of 8/14/06. Regarding the signage for the showroom, Mr. McCann said the Building Inspector said they are allowed one sign only. Mr. McCann said they would take this issue to the ZBA too. Regarding the proposed canopy, Mr. McCann said he had asked the Building Inspector if he considered it a temporary or permanent structure and the Building Inspector said he had not yet made that determination. CR said he had spoken to the Building Inspector on the matter and he told him he could not see how he could approve a building permit for a structure erected over an easement. Regarding lighting, Mr. McCann said he has the lumens for the existing fixtures but they are old and he expects they will be replaced. He said they are willing to accept the condition that the lumens of the new fixtures will not be greater than what is there now. He added that the new fixtures will be mounted higher and directed downward more. JS said it is the Board's objective to review the proposed changes not the current situation; and the condition is not to maintain the current lumens but to have no greater than one foot- candle brightness at the edge of the property. CR suggested the Board ask for the lighting study to be submitted at least three weeks ahead of time to allow for peer review. The Board agreed. A Regarding the foundation being erected on soft landfill, Mr. McCann said a "geotechnical" review was performed on the site in 2004 and contains detailed recommendations. The consensus of the Board was this was not something necessary for them to see. Page 3 of 11 Mr. McCann said an environmental assessment of the site was commissioned by the Ford Motor Company back in 1998. The consensus of the Board was this would be of more interest to the Conservation Commission and a copy should be given to the Town Planner. Regarding the traffic study on the possible construction of traffic lights, Mr. McCann said they don't have a copy of it yet but when they do they'll mail it to the Town Planner. The Board asked if the applicant intended to address the traffic lights in this review. Mr. McCann said they don't know how soon Mass Highway will complete their evaluation of the traffic study so they intend to go forward with the rest of the plan and come back with changes if Mass Highway approves the traffic lights. Mr. Brian Milisci said the parking lot striping plan was not yet ready. BB asked if the applicant has any outstanding issues with the Town of Wakefield. Mr. McCann said he believed they only have conservation issues with Wakefield - the site falls in a Wakefield buffer zone - and they plan on filing a notice of intent soon. CR read his memo of 07/24/06. In summary: 1. The applicant needs to pay the balance of their fee. 2. The ZBA needs to determine if the lot's or the town's boundary takes precedence before the CPDC can reach a decision. 3. The parking calculations need to be corrected to account for • Commercial parking • Off-Street parking • Service-related parking Regarding the parking, CR added that the plans need to designate which parking is which. Mr. McCann said another issue for the ZBA may be whether the parking of new and used cars is considered an accessory use or a commercial use. CR said in that case the applicant may need a permit for Open Storage but calling it Open Storage or Commercial doesn't matter - the point is the parking spaces designated for the vehicles to be sold cannot be used by customers or employees. NS asked if the applicant has received input from Wakefield regarding the site's lighting. Mr. McCann said there is lighting in Wakefield but it is a pre-existing use. He did not know if he had to go before Wakefield's board but he would look into it. The consensus of the Board was the applicant would have to go to the ZBA and perhaps the Board of Selectmen too (to resolve the easement issues with the canopy) and they asked the Town Planner if they should grant an extension or ask the applicant for a withdrawal. CR suggested extending the Action Date to 10/16/06 and continuing the public hearing until the second meeting in September which would be the meeting just before the meeting of the action date. He said the applicant would have to write and submit a request for an Page 4 of 11 extension tonight. Mr. McCann agreed to the extension and continuation and he said he would submit a handwritten extension request tonight and a follow-up letter later. JS asked for comments from the public. GK said there was discussion of the unloading of vehicles at the curb interfering with the queuing of vehicles off of the off-ramp. Mr. McCann said: 1. The design and landscaping won't allow this. 2. Re-striping of the parking will allow on-site unloading. 3. They were willing to accept condition of no unloading on Walkers Brook Drive. RH moved to continue the public hearing until 8:00 PM at the meeting of 9/25/06. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. JS said there would be no further notices and the public hearing will take place in the Selectmen's Hearing Room at Town Hall. Certificate of Appropriateness (continued) 587 Main Street, Magic Tailor & Cleaners Action Date: July 24, 2006 Continued from the meeting of 07/10/06. The applicant was present. RH moved to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions: 1. The color of sign's background will be burgundy. 2. The sign will have a one inch border colored gold. 3. The sign's letters will be raised, made of plastic foam, and colored gold. NS seconded. BB made a friendly amendment to add: "as shown on the illustration submitted this evening." NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Site Plan Review Waiver Calareso's,136 Main Street Action Date: August 14, 2006 The Board was ready to address this item when CR reminded them the Board had revised the Site Plan Review Waiver procedure to notice abutters and therefore it may be best to wait until the scheduled time for this item. The Board agreed and decided to proceed to the items of the Zoning Workshop. Page 5 of 11 Zoning/Subdivision Workshop Zoning-By-Laws Amendments: Section 2.0: Definitions - Lot Coverage BB said he did not have a chance to re-address this in any detail but the Town Counsel has had a chance to look at what we have and she took the dimensional restraints out of the definition. BB siad that was the direction we were planning to take anyway: focus on the definition and put the dimensional details in the bylaw itself. JS suggested they focus on what is more tangible to residents i.e. Accessory Buildings and Garages, and not try to address impervious cover at the same time. They would just have to be careful not to create conflicts when the Board does get back to addressing the definition of impervious cover. JS noted Town Counsel had asked the Board to think about what exclusions and exceptions they might want to allow. Example: Tool Sheds less than 100 sq. ft. BB asked if the exclusions should be in the definitions or the bylaw. JS suggested placing them within the bylaw but they might consider creating a definition for an "excluded structure". IM suggested using the approach of the Carriage House bylaw which restricts increasing the footprint of the original structure to no more than a certain percentage of the primary structure's footprint. The consensus of the Board was that Town Meeting generally does not like percentage-based definitions. JS recommended starting at a higher conceptual level and asking ourselves how we want the definitions of accessory structures to apply in each zoning district and how we should incorporate the language into the bylaw. He asked BB and CR to work together on this. The consensus of the Board was to revisit this item at the 8/14/06 meeting. Zoning-By-Laws Amendments: Section 4.3.3: Site Plan Review - Modifications CR said he has reviewed neighboring towns' bylaws for examples of "minor /major modification" language. He included Burlington's bylaw in the Board Members' information packets as an example. CR said Town Counsel was looking for less vagueness. He added Town Counsel thought what's minor or major may best be determined by case law and as long as the town is consistent we should be fine. JS asked CR if Town Counsel is OK with the wording but is looking for something more tangible added by way of examples. CR agreed. JS suggested the board compile a list of examples of what they consider major versus minor amendments. He asked how many minor modifications should be allowed before it becomes a major modification. CR reminded the Board that JB feels abutters should be notified in the event of a major modification. Page 6 of 11 JS asked CR to email the Burlington information to both him and JB, and to add this item to the 8/14/06 meeting. Site Plan Review Waiver Calareso's,136 Main Street Action Date: August 14, 2006 Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant. Messrs Joseph Calareso Sr. and Jr. were present. Mr. Latham said this would be a simple change: they propose to remove a 350 sq. ft. jog in the front of the building and replace it with gravel. CR said this was relatively minor and the DRT did not address it. CR asked if any permanent structure for the display of plants would be added because if so it would trigger an "Open Storage" issue. Mr. Calareso said there was no permanent structure there. Mr. Latham said the front of the building is already being used as Open Storage. CR said the site's Open Storage permit does not specify this new area. CR recommended making a minor modification to the Open Storage permit to include the new area. JS asked for comments from the public. There were none. RH moved to grant the Site Plan Review Waiver. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. CR said Mr. Latham should verbally request the Minor Modification. RH moved to grant a Minor Modification to the Open Storage permit to include the 350 sq. ft. area. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Zoning/Subdivision Workshop (continued) Subdivision Regulations Amendments The Board had wanted the new Town Engineer, Mr. George Zambouras, to review the proposed amendments before scheduling the public hearing required to approve them. The Town Engineer was in attendance tonight. The Board welcomed him and asked him if he had reviewed the Subdivision Regulations and the proposed amendments. The Town Engineer said he had and there were some changes he wanted to suggest. Page 7 of 11 The Town Engineer explained his proposed changes to the Board. The Board agreed the Town Engineer's changes should be incorporated into the original amendments and directed the Town Planner to do so. The consensus of the Board was they would review the final draft of the amendments at their 08/14/06 meeting and if acceptable they will schedule a public hearing for their adoption. RH left the meeting. Site Plan Review Modification 128 Marketplace, I General Way The applicant has requested the Board make a determination of minor modification. Attorney Mark Favaloro represented the applicant, Danis Properties. Mr. George Danis was present. Mr. Nick Nikolaou summarized the proposed changes: • Reduction of footprint by 4,025 sq ft of warehouse space. • Removal of eight parking spaces (parking requirements of the original decision are still met). • Addition of retaining wall accommodate additional fill from grading change. • Rearrangement of drainage piping. CR summarized the contents of a memo from the Conservation Commission dated 07/19/06: • The modifications must be submitted to the Conservation Committee • The wetlands vegetation replication has not been submitted • Standing water in the retention basin is a matter of concern • The big berm has been under water • Vegetation has not survived JS asked if these issues preclude the Board from going forward tonight. CR said, no, they are separate matters. The Town Engineer made three comments: • Regarding the rear loading dock, the concrete wall forms a reverse angle forcing vehicles to back in. It may be an awkward approach and an inefficient use of the loading space. • He has no problems with the revised drainage plans except for the section between the two manholes that was designed for 24 inch pipe but now uses 18 inch pipe. Additional calculations should be submitted to show that 18 inch pipe is sufficient. • More details on the retaining wall should be supplied to show that there is sufficient room for it. Page 8 of 11 Mr. Nikolaou said the plans have been updated to address two of the Town Engineer's concerns: • The loading space has been shifted to the East. • The section of drainage has been changed back to 24 inch pipe. Regarding the retaining wall, Mr. Nikolaou said he would coordinate with the Town Engineer the addition of the requested details to the final design plans. Public Comments Mr. Alan Schiller • The original approval conditioned parking on retail to warehouse space. • There is an unaddressed runoff problem at the end of the retaining wall. Mr. Mark Dickenson • The Board has the prerogative to ask the proposed use or tenant of the site. If the use or the tenant will generate a lot of traffic the Board should know that tonight. • The Board should ask to see the elevation plans showing the fagade changes. • He asked if there should be a handicap ramp with a switchback located at the north- side of the building. He said the plans do not show it removed but he assumed it should be removed. • It looks as if the trash compactor is outside and not enclosed. - • What is the trucks' tractor trailers' turning movement at the rear loading dock? • He sees no effort on the part of the applicant to improve the landscaping of the site. • This is not a minor modification. Mr. Dave Tuttle, 27 Heather Drive Mr. Tuttle said he though the proposed changes were not a Minor Modification. The Board Responds Parking. JS said the original Site Plan Review addressed the retail vs. warehouse parking space issue. What the applicant is calling warehouse space is warehouse space. If the applicant comes back before the Board to change it to retail space, then we will revisit the parking issue. Rear Loading Dock. The Board needs to know if trucks can back into the rear loading dock. Mr. Nikolaou said he could overlay the turning template on the plans. The Board agreed he should do so. Trash Compactors. Mr. Danis said the trash compactors are self-contained. The consensus of the Board was if the trash compactors are self-contained then, as they decided with Stop & Shop's self- contained compactors, no screen is necessary. Page 9 of 11 Landscaping. JS said he would not re-open the landscaping issue. CR said there are no landscaping issues outstanding. Facade Changes. JS said he would like to see what the elevations look like now. Runoff and Drainage. The Town Engineer said there is no question the standing water level is over the berm. Also, there is standing water in the retention basin. He said it may be an elevation problem but he did not want to speculate without reviewing the as-built first. CR recommended requiring the drainage issues be addressed before modifying. Usage and Tenant. JS asked the applicant if they have a specific tenant in mind and if they would be willing to share who it would be. Mr. Favaloro said two years ago they went through an arduous site plan review. Tonight, they are here for a reduction of a footprint a tweak. He cautioned the Board against conditioning on who the tenant might be. He said doing so would be beyond the pale of the CPDC. BB said the site seems geared towards a retail use. Mr. George Danis said they have a square footage for retail but they are negotiating with different tenants; people are waiting to see what else is going in. Mr. Mark Dickenson asked if Mr. Danis would have to come back before the Board for sign approval when the tenant is known. JS said a Master Signage plan was submitted so most likely he will need to come back as tenants move in. Mr. Alan Schiller said that absent full elevation plans he did not think the Board could determine if the modifications were minor or major. JS asked for opinions from the Board and Town Staff on whether they thought the modification was minor or major. BB said the building changes seem minor but site features are being changed. CR suggested using the PUD-I definition of minor/major. It would lend itself towards a determination of "minor" but there may be many minor modifications here. Page 10 of 11 JS said the Board in the past has determined similar changes to be minor and he would say the same here but for the retaining wall. JS asked the Town Engineer if, in his opinion, the retaining wall was a minor modification. The Town Engineer said in his experience other communities would not consider it a major modification. NS said the drainage issues were a matter of concern. The Board agreed. Mr. Favaloro said if the Board is looking for safe-guards: • Details of the retaining wall will be provided; and • The Conservation Administrator is watching the drainage as a part of an order of conditions. The consensus of the Board was not to determine if the modification was minor or major until the concerns of the Conservation Administrator have been addressed. Mr. Nikolaou said he would schedule a meeting with the Conservation Administrator as soon as possible. BB moved to continue the Site Plan Review Modification for One General Way until the meeting of 8/14/06 at 9:00 PM in the Selectmen's Hearing Room. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. JS told the applicant they should submit the following in advance of the 8/14/06 meeting: • Plans showing explicit changes • Fagade changes and elevations • Retaining wall details • Turning radius at the rear loading dock JS moved to adjourn. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The meeting ended at 11:25 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on August 14, 2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on August 28, 2006. Signed as approved, Rick d D. Howard, Secretary tf Date Page 11 of 11