HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-08 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading
v
S.
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: May 8, 2006
Location: Police Community Room, 15 Union Street 7:30 PM
Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Richard Howard (RH), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Susan
DeMatteo (SD), and Neil Sullivan (NS).
Associate Members Present: Brant Ballantyne (BB).
Also Present:
Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth
Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street, Reading, MA
Mr. George Danis, Danis Realty Trust
Attorney Mark Favaloro, Favaloro & Associates, 348 Park Place,
North Reading, MA 01864
Mr. Paul Fontes, 89 Highland Street
Mr. Mark Gilbert
Mr. Alan Schiller, former owner of the Boston Stove property
For Stop & Shop:
Mr. Mark Dickinson, 25 Walkers Brook Drive c/o Dickinson Development Corp.
Attorney Dennis McKenna, Riemer & Braunstein, LLP
Mr. Steve Chouinard, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB)
Mr. Randall Hart, VHB
Ms. Linda Costanzo, Stop & Shop Supermarkets
Alan Belniack, VHB
Edward Shaw, Dickenson Development Corp.
There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 7:35 PM.
Public Comments / Minutes
There were neither public comments nor minutes to review.
Administrative Review
As there was time, the Board decided to address the following Administrative Review
` items before the Public Hearing.
Sailor Tom's Way Definitive Subdivision Endorsements
Page 1 of 11
Benjamin lane Definitive Subdivision Endorsements
CR said the Engineering Department had reviewed both and had found no problems with
either. Neither requires a vote from the Board.
The Board signed both endorsements.
Public Hearing (Continued): Site Plan Review
25 Walkers Brook Drive, Stop & Shop
Application to demolish existing structure and redevelop site in entirety for a 63,000 sq. ft. Stop & Shop,
with related utility, drainage, screening and other site improvements (Action Date: May 8, 2006)
JS re-opened the public hearing. A Draft Decision had been written and the Board had
begun to review it at the previous meeting (04/19/06).
A Draft updated with comments from the previous meeting was provided.
Mr. Chouinard highlighted changes to the plan.
• The parking lot entrance onto Walkers Brook Drive will be shifted 60' to the east.
• Parking spaces will be eliminated at that corner to provides space for White Pines
• The parking lot has been moved two feet to provide room for the planting of Arbor
Vitae to screen the retaining wall.
• Three planter-boxes will be placed in front of the building and the two on either end
will be longer than originally proposed.
• Three landscape-islands have been added to the center of the parking lot.
• Regarding drainage, flood storage will flow directly into the culvert - no pipe
network. Also, an infiltration trench will be added and a catch basin at the front, left
corner.
• There will be a tree screen in the back.
• The left and right sides of the building will have pilasters.
CR said a memo from the Engineering Consultant on the drainage was received late this
day. CR said the Conservation Commission is also reviewing the drainage. CR
recommended the Board rely on both the Engineering Consultant's and Conservation
Committee's reviews.
CR said he had received a letter from the Town Counsel on the matter of the easement.
JS read the letter into the record (see attached).
CR said the essential change to the language is the change of the time limit from three to
eight years. He said eight years was a compromise time limit reached through negotiation
with the applicant.
CR said the twenty foot easement alone would not be enough. It would only be half of what
would be required and the town would need a similar easement from the abutter.
Page 2 of 11
The applicant wanted to change the easement language from a Condition of the building
permit to a Finding of the Board. This would require moving Condition #12 forward as
Finding #3.
RH suggested making it something that can be done after occupancy rather than before
issuance of a building permit. The applicant agreed.
There followed a long discussion of the easement with three major points of view
represented: The Town's (CPDC), the applicant's (Dickenson Development), and Attorney
Mark Favaloro (Danis).
In brief the three points of view are:
Town: The easements are necessary for the town to build a road connecting the Danis
property with New Crossing Road. The town has wanted such a connection for some time
to reduce traffic especially truck traffic through the abutting residential neighborhoods.
Dickenson: They are willing to grant an easement provided they can come to some
agreement with their abutter as to the costs associated with relocating drainage and utilities.
They feel that by asking for the easements the town is essentially asking two property
owners (themselves and the abutter from whom the town needs the other easement) to
benefit a third (Danis).
Danis: They do not like the wording of the easement language. Attorney Mark Favaloro
said the language tips the balance too far to the applicant's advantage as the applicant could
say they don't like this or that about any proposed agreement until the time limit expires
and the easement disappears. Danis is looking for some kind of benchmark that gives them
some ground from which to negotiate with the applicant. Danis feels they have already
given up something for the easement, namely the right for traffic to make a left hand turn
from General Way on to Walkers Brook Drive. They say they conceded this to the town in
a 2004 decision in return for the resolution of the New Crossing easement.
RH agreed that Danis had a valid concern and he would rather that it was up to the Town to
negotiate the relocation of utilities etc... but without the easement it would be meaningless.
CR said that Town Counsel does not believe the Town has strong legal grounds to require
an easement.
RH asked if the applicant would not agree to grant the easement to allow the Town a
greater role in the matter. CR said Town Counsel thought that could be construed as a
taking and the Town generally does not resort to takings.
The Board was uncomfortable with the "fair consideration" clause in the easement
language. JS said he thought it could become an impasse to future discussion.
Mr. Dickenson said the clause was needed because they don't know what "fair
consideration" would be. It depends on the value of all the properties considered from both
functional and financial standpoints.
Page 3 of 11
Mr. Dickenson then read from the findings section of a 2004 decision on the Danis
Property. The decision stated that the Town requested Danis to explore whether access to
New Crossing Road was feasible and that the applicant (Danis) indicated that such access
was not possible at this time. The decision further stated that the CPDC expects and the
applicant agrees that if the opportunity to establish such access at a later date proves
feasible the applicant will make reasonable efforts to pursue doing so. Mr. Dickenson said
that that effort has not been made. Mr. Dickenson said so far they have done more than
Danis has done with respect to the connection to New Crossing Road having gone so far as
to meet with the new owners of the abutting property [Nordblum Real Estate] to discuss the
easement. He said Dickenson should be treated no differently than Danis was in 2004.
Mr. Favaloro said that if the easement condition at least made some mention of what the
town was hoping to accomplish with the access to New Crossing Road then Danis might
have something with which to use in negotiations with the applicant.
Mr. Alan Schiller questioned Danis's recollection of the events leading to the elimination
of left turns from General Way. JS said the Board will not go back over historical aspects
of the issue.
The consensus of the Board was that the easement as written was the best and most realistic
approach Town Staff and Town Counsel could come up and given the circumstances it was
the best alternative.
JB asked what would be the town's recourse if the Board finds there is no compliance. He
asked if the town could hold back the Certificate of Occupancy. RH said the applicant has
eight years to come to an agreement and the Board cannot hold up a Certificate of
Occupancy for that long. CR said it was a legal matter and added he would not call what
we have the best alternative but rather the best alternative to no agreement. He said the
Board has to look at how to define what the easement language refers to as "reasonable
efforts".
JB said he did not like to see the Board in the position this easement condition places them
where either party can be in a position to prevent it.
CR said the parties could resort to arbitration although he did not know how or if the town
could require it. JS pointed out that if the right-of-way proves to be very important to the
town, the town still has the option to resort to a takings.
Mr. Dickenson said when Mr. Danis is ready he intends to sit down with him to discuss the
matter. Mr. Dickenson added that the Nordblom Group has told him they too agree with the
easement language and they are willing to meet with Mr. Danis too. Mr. Dickenson said to
show they are making reasonable efforts he is willing to give the Board a report on these
discussions every six months for the next eight years.
Mr. Favaloro asked: if this issue can be kept open for eight years then from a practical
engineering standpoint how can these plans be considered final?
Page 4 of 11
JS said that the optimal solution seems to be to see this negotiated sooner rather than later.
Putting it off runs the risk of higher costs from having to re-do previous construction.
Returning to JB's question about whether the Board could withhold the Certificate of
Occupancy, Mr. McKenna said such an action would amount to a denial of their site plan
and that is not within the Board's authority. The negotiation is to make the easement a
condition after occupancy and if it can be done beforehand they'll do it but it can't be a
condition of the permit because they are dealing with another private party.
It was the consensus of the Board to strike Finding #3 and the beginning of Condition #12
under "Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit" and to move the easement language to a
new Condition #9 under "After Occupancy".
Mr. Danis said that after occupancy there is nothing anyone can do and some kind of
restrictions should be placed on the applicant or Danis should have the right to make left
turns onto Walkers Brook Drive returned to them.
CR said that Danis would have to discuss that matter with the Board of Selectmen.
The Board continued their review of the Draft Decision.
Findings
No changes.
Conditions Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit
#3. CR wanted details on the design of the cart enclosures. He did not want to see ugly
metal railings. Ms. Costanzo said the metal tubing they use is durable and used at all Stop
& Shop locations. The consensus of the Board was that they should be pleasing to the eye.
CR suggested the enclosures Home Depot uses as an example of 'what he was looking for.
CR also wanted to see the rear, west elevation made more consistent with the other
elevations and another copper roof articulation above the signage. The Board agreed and
directed that this condition focus only on the cart enclosures and the articulations.
#4 Landscaping.
CR said the plan does not show the increased length (from 6' to 10') of the two planter
boxes on either end of the front elevation so it must be mentioned in the decision. The
Board agreed.
CR said a berm is needed for the front tree lawn to block headlights. The applicant did not
think an adequately sized berm could be constructed in the space. CR suggested a
continuous shrub hedge. The applicant and Board agreed.
Regarding the hanging light pole planters, Mr. Shaw said it would be an issue to maintain
them. CR said this was more for aesthetics and could be replaced by flags, etc... Mr. Shaw
suggested decorative banners, the Board agreed.
The table in the draft listing the various landscape islands was edited to reflect changes the
applicant has made to the landscaping plan.
~#10 Historical Commission Comment.
The Board noted that some kind of evidence of compliance should be provided.
Page 5 of 11
#12 Public Access.
The Board decided to move the first three sentences to the easement condition. Also, the
condition should read "Right In Only" and "Right Out Only" rather than "Left In Only" and
"Left Out Only".
Conditions During Construction.
No changes.
Conditions Prior to the Issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy.
#1 Final As-Built.
The Board directed that "within 90 days" should be added to this condition as per the
applicant's comment.
#2 Curbing.
The Board directed that on site sidewalks and landscape islands would not require vertical,
granite curbing. Also, the sidewalks around the building will have concrete curbing.
#3 Drainage.
The applicant said they are still working with the Conservation Commission and the
Engineering Consultant on this.
#4 Financial Assurance Mechanism (FAM) for Drainage System maintenance.
The applicant said the Cons. Comm. already has the authority to impose an Order of
Conditions and they would like to avoid having to report to multiple boards. Mr. Dickenson
said Stop & Shop must maintain the system anyway as per their lease with Dickenson. CR
said the Cons. Comm. has the teeth to enforce this. The consensus of the Board was to keep
this condition in place.
#6 Dumpster Enclosures.
Mr. D'Arezzo said he has visited many Stop & Shop supermarkets and did not see one with
enclosures. Mr. Chouinard said that Stop & Shop uses compactors not dumpsters. He said
there are two compactors one at each loading dock and they do not require enclosures
themselves because they are not exposed to the open air.
CR said he has seen compactor enclosures. Mr. Chouinard said they are screened from the
street and although they are open to the rear parking lot they need to be for removal. He
said there is landscaping nearby.
The inclination of the Board was to strike the condition when Mr. D'Arezzo suggested that
it may be best to leave the condition in case the compactors prove inadequate and
dumpsters are added. The applicant and Board agreed that the language. should be left as is.
#7 Roof Mechanicals.
Mr. D'Arezzo supplied a picture of the Danvers Stop & Shop's mechanicals. The applicant
pointed out that the mechanicals in question had not been screened. Mr. D'Arezzo said
screening would only make it look like an even bigger box.
Page 6ofII
The Board directed that the word "material" be changed to "appearance".
#8 Lighting.
The consensus of the Board was that they required the specific wattage of the lights and
that said wattage must be 175w or less.
Mr. Shaw said they do not yet know where all decorative lighting fixtures would be placed
and he expressed concern that such lighting may not pass the lighting consultant's review.
It was the consensus of the Board that any decorative lighting may be turned off during the
lighting consultant's review.
Mr. D'Arezzo had the following questions and comments.
• Is 175w the maximum wattage? The Board said it was, or less.
• The condition notes that those light poles "closest to the abutters" shall be no taller
than twenty feet. He would like to know how many and which poles are considered
"closest". The applicant said that today all of the lights are higher than twenty feet.
• The condition notes that "all site lighting visible from abutting residential
properties, except for emergency or security lighting, shall be turned off the earlier
of the end of business on the premises, or from 12:00 AM midnight until no earlier
than 5:00 AM". He asked for a definition of security lighting. The applicant said
they would have to get back to the Board on this question. The Board directed that
the applicant must specify on the lighting plan which lights are to be designated
"security lighting".
• Mr. D'Arezzo requested that the CPDC's approval rather than the Town Engineer's
be required for the lighting because there would be no input from the public
otherwise. The Board directed CR to change the wording to "the approval of both
the Town Engineer and the CPDC".
#9 Signage.
Directional Signs.
The previous meeting left unresolved the status of the "directional signs" the applicant
proposed to place along the front side of the building. At that time, the Board could not
agree whether the signs are directional signs, area identification signs, or something else.
The consensus of the Board was that they were not Area Identification Signs. The Board
was inclined to declare them Directional Signs and as such restrict them to no more than
four square feet in size under bylaw 4.9.5.6.4 (b), but the Board acknowledged that there
was an inconsistency in the bylaws since Directional Signs are also exempt from permits
under 6.2.2.5 (b). CR said they are exempt only if the Board finds them to be "directional"
rather than "informational" under 6.2.3.2 (e). The consensus of the Board was that they
were more informational than directional.
There was some question as to which signs referred to separate businesses and which to
subdivisions or departments within Stop & Shop. Separate businesses could be entitled to a
Page 7of11
larger sign under the bylaws. Subdivisions would have to follow the dimensional
restrictions for directional signs.
In the opinion of RH only "Citizen's Bank" qualified as a separate business. The applicant
said "Boston Market" should be considered a separate business too. The consensus of the
Board was that the signs for Stop & Shop itself, Citizens Bank, and Boston Market are fine
as they are but the others must each be reduced to no more than four square feet in size.
Ms. Costanzo said she believed that it may be a State Law that a pharmacy must have a
sign. The Board said the pharmacy could have a sign as long as it was no greater than four
square feet in size.
Pylon Sign.
Illumination. The Board stressed that the only the words "Stop & Shop" may be internally
illuminated.
Size and Height. The Board wanted to reduce the height of the sign but acknowledged that
lowering it too far would interfere with sight distance.
The Board asked the applicant to lower the peak of the sign to 18 feet placing the bottom of
the sign at 10 feet off of the ground. The applicant agreed to do so.
Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the sign area includes the supporting frame. RH said the applicant
calculates area using the supported box as the sign. Mr. D'Arezzo expressed concern that a
more conspicuous sign could be created by keeping the supported box the same size and
setting the supports much wider apart.
Conditions After Occupancy.
#4 The applicant clarified that the "within 90 days" refers to 90 days from when a traffic
problem is identified by the Town.
#9 The Board created this condition to contain the easement language.
RH moved to close the public hearing.
SD seconded.
Voted approved 5:0:0.
RE moved to approve the Site Plan Review as set forth in the decision modified this
evening.
SD seconded.
Voted Approved 3:0:2. Chairman John Sasso, and Jonathan Barnes abstained.
RH left the meeting at 11:40 PM.
Zoning Workshop
- As the hour was late, the Board decided to address all of the following Zoning Workshop
items at a future meeting or meetings.
Page 8of11
Design Standards and Guidelines
Amendment to Zoning By-Laws Section 4.9.6.2.h to accelerate allowable residential
development from 2009 to 2007
Amendment to Planned Residential Development
Lot Coverage
Setbacks
By-Laws Section 4.3.3 Site Plan Review:
Site Plan Review Waiver - Change of Use Category
Minor/Major Amendment
Administrative Review (continued)
As the hour was late, the Board decided to address the following Administrative Review
items at a future meeting or meetings.
Subdivision Regulations
Town Planner, Town Manager directives and CPDC
Town Planner Review
As the applicants for the remaining two Administrative Review items had been waiting all
this time to be heard, the Board decided to hear their cases before adjourning.
519 Main Street - Approved Site Plan Minor Modification/Master Signage Plan
Determination
Attorney Mark Favaloro represented the applicant.
The applicant was before the Board for approval both of signs and a storm water
management plan.
Storm Water Management Plan.
The applicant would like the drain system to remain as is. CR said some standards have
been met and others have not. CR said more work needs to be done on the system. CR
suggested continuing this until the meeting of 5/22/06 by which time the town's new Town
Engineer may have had a chance to look at it. The Board agreed to continue the request for
a Minor Modification Determination on the site's storm water management plan until the
meeting of 5/22/06.
The applicant asked the Board if the business at the site could operate in the meantime. The
applicant said the system was working fine as is and they have had no complaints from
neighbors or the Fire Department. The consensus of the Board was that the business at the
site could not operate in the meantime.
Signage.
CR said the applicant has a Master Signage plan but the signs contain a logo and he did not
feel comfortable approving them with the logo without first seeking the Board's opinion.
The applicant said the feature in question was not really a logo as it describes what he does
"Add Ons" (accessories).
Page 9ofII
The consensus of the Board was that they would like to see written in the application all of
the specifications of the signs including materials, and dimensions of signs and letters.
JS moved to approve the Minor Modification to the Master Signage contingent upon
receiving specifications of the materials used and all dimensional aspects of the signs
(including the letters) by the next meeting of the Board on 5/22/06.
JB seconded.
Voted Approved 4:0:0.
137 Main Street - Approved Site Plan Minor Modification Determination
Mr. Mark Gilbert appeared as the owner. Mr. Gilbert's sign maker was also in attendance.
The applicant's sign maker said he had a revised set of sign plans to show the Board. He
said he had already shown them to the Building Inspector and he had suggested changes
which have been made.
He distributed illustrations of the signs to the Board. JS asked if the Board had originally
approved the three sign locations. CR said the Board had approved two of the signs; the
applicant was here to add a third sign: "Gilbert Insurance". He described the dimensions of
the signs and said they would be made of aluminum. SD asked if the Board had approved
aluminum signs before. JB said the Venetian Moon uses aluminum and the sign maker said
the panels of "Simms Jewelers" and "Town Pizza" are aluminum.
The Sign Maker said they had reduced the size of the signs a little and the signs would not
be illuminated.
CR asked if the Board would like to ask for a scalloped edge. The consensus of the Board
was they would not be necessary.
JB moved to approve the Minor Modification Request for the Signage.
SD seconded.
Voted Approved: 4:0:0.
Mr. Gilbert had another request of the Board regarding landscaping of the site. He would
like to make the following tree substitutions:
Flowering Crab Tree instead of Barren Crab.
Weeping Birch instead of Columnar Beech.
CR said he would not recommend the Weeping Birch as it is too different from the Beech.
Mr. Gilbert said his landscaper said there is an availability issue with the Beech tree.
The consensus of the Board was that Mr. Gilbert must come back before the Board with a
more suitable substitution for the Beech tree.
JS moved to adjourn.
Page 10 of 11
SD seconded.
Voted Approved: 4:0:0.
The meeting ended at 12:20 AM 5/9/06.
These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on July 10,
2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on July 10, 2005.
Signed as approved,
Y/ / 10 Z
Secretary
Date
Page 11 of 11