HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-19 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes1/
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: April 19, 2006
Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room
7:30 PM
Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Richard Howard (RH), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Susan
DeMatteo (SD), and Brant Ballantyne (BB).
Members Absent: Neil Sullivan (NS)
Also Present:
Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth
Mr. Jim Boland, Fuddruckers, PO Box 559, Gloucester, MA 01930
Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street, Reading, MA
Attorney Mark Favaloro, Favaloro & Associates, 348 Park Place,
North Reading, MA 01864
Mr. Paul Fontes, 89 Highland Street
Mr. John Hanley, Jordan's Furniture
Mr. Huber, Rand Associates Consulting Inc., 495 Upham Street, Melrose, MA 02176
Mr. Stephen Hughes, 591 Main Street
Attorney Chris Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street
Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street
Mr. Thomas Lemons, TLA Lighting Consultants, 7 Pond Street, Salem, MA
Mr. Mike McManus, M.G.Hall Contractors, Inc., 286 Park Street,
North Reading, MA 01864
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 Robert Buckley, 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.
Page 1 of 12
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. He said the applicant will be presenting an updated design.
A Draft Decision has been written and the applicant has had a chance to review it. The
Draft has been posted to the CPDC's webpage.
Mr. Tom Lemons, the town's lighting consultant, presented his report. Mr. Lemons
concluded that the three floodlights facing the building need to be shielded. Aside from the
shielding for the floodlights, Mr. Lemons said the lighting design was excellent and would
provide light where it is needed without lighting the neighborhood. His calculations
determined that the illumination falls off to less than one foot-candle at the boundary line.
Noting that there was a problem with glare from decorative lighting along One General
Way until Danis had made changes to the lights' wattage and fixtures, the Board asked the
Town Planner to have the Draft specify that Stop & Shop's decorative lighting should be
the same wattage and should incorporate the same changes to the fixtures (if necessary) as
those along One General Way.
The Board also expressed concern over the possibility of glare from the floodlights. Mr.
Lemons said the floodlights point towards the building and therefore the abutters should
not be affected especially if the floodlights are shielded as he advised.
Mr. Tony D'Arezzo of 130 John Street said Mr. Lemons' calculations should be made "per
fagade" and should not be based on the sum of all the lighting. Mr. D'Arezzo also said the
entrance and exit should fall under the lighting code for canopies.
Mr. Lemon responded by saying in his opinion the building is fairly uniformly illuminated.
He said the rear fagade lights are a higher wattage but added that they have to be because
they illuminate the rear parking lot too. Regarding canopies, Mr. Lemons said there are no
canopies in the plans although the entrance is recessed. He added that he did not see any
excess in anything the developers are doing.
Mr. D'Arezzo asked if Mr. Lemons had reviewed the roofs reflective coating.
Mr. Lemons said all lighting is located below the roofline. Only sunlight and moonlight
would reflect off of the roof.
Attorney Mark Favaloro, representing Danis Corp., asked what the lighting would be in the
rear near the Danis property. Mr. Ed Shaw said there would be three lights mounted across
the rear wall of the building. They would be fully shielded and shine down and out.
Sconces on the side of the building would point down and towards the building.
Next, the Board decided to review the Draft Decision in some detail. Brant Ballantyne
recused himself.
Page 2 of 12
Mr. D'Arezzo said Finding #2 could downgrade Lakeside Ave. traffic and Finding #5
could lead to a decreased buffer. RH said there is a $25,000 fund for to cover possible
traffic problems caused by the development although he wasn't sure if its use was restricted
to Washington Street. CR said questions of traffic would go back to the Board of
Selectmen. Regarding Finding #5, the applicant offered to come back before the Board
after landscaping to discuss whether the buffer is adequate. The Board agreed.
The applicant said the elevation plans had been revised.
Mr. Chouinard said the building's sides have pilasters. The sides and rear have a color
band: dark below and lighter above. Planters will be added to the front elevation: a long
planter in the center and a shorter planter on either side of it.
Mr. Buckley said the applicant contends that Condition #3 is not needed because they have
complied.
Mr. Chouinard said the sign package is the same as in the original plans. There will be no
signs on the side or rear fagades. Seven non-illuminated directional signs are specified for
the color band along the front fagade: Bakery, Pharmacy, etc....
This led to a discussion of whether the seven "directional signs" were in fact Directional
Signs under the town's bylaws. A case was made that the signs are more like Area
Identification Signs although RH noted that the bylaws say that Area Identification Signs
are prohibited unless approved for reasons of pedestrian safety. CR said he thought the
Board's decision to allow the signs would be based on pedestrian safety. The applicant said
the signs are there to direct traffic to the correct area to improve traffic efficiency and are a
common feature of shopping centers today. The Board questioned whether the signs
represented separate businesses or if they represented different sections or departments
within Stop & Shop. Mr. D'Arezzo said the entrances are so far apart as to make the whole
concept of showing shoppers the most efficient place to park meaningless.
The Board could come to no consensus at that time on what to do about the seven signs and
decided to put off further discussion of them for the time being and to continue with their
review of the Draft.
JB recalled that at the last public hearing of this site plan review the town and the
developer had reached a mutual agreement to have people from both sides meet in a
Working Group to discuss the plans for the site. He asked what the results were at this
meeting. JS said the results are reflected in the revised plans: parking changes, landscaping,
an easement to allow a future right-of-way to New Crossing road. The biggest result was
that the town agreed with the developer that relocating the building (flipping it in place)
was not a good idea.
Returning to the Draft Decision, the Landscaping Plan was reviewed.
Mr. Chouinard described the Landscaping Plan and other matters pertaining to it:
• The Walkers Brook Drive entrance was moved 60' further East.
Page 3 of 12
• Six parking spaces were eliminated in the corner of the lot nearest the abutters to
provide room to add more landscaping. The Conservation Administrator suggested
planting White Pines there. The developer agreed to this suggestion.
• Three landscape islands were added (six actually - they abut in pairs). The light
poles will be placed on them.
• The area in the rear abutting Danis will be landscaped.
• The trees currently along New Crossing Road will be supplemented with more
landscaping.
• A sidewalk is proposed to cross the wetlands and connect to General Way (with the
permission of Danis).
• Another sidewalk is proposed along the opposite side of New Crossing Road as far
as the Stop & Shop property line.
Regarding the six eliminated parking spaces, JS said the Conservation Administrator had
sent a memo asking for the removal of more spaces. CR said the applicant has not had a
chance to read the memo. The consensus of the Board was that they were happy with
removing only six spaces.
CR said he had proposed more landscape islands but the applicant said they needed the
parking spaces they would cover. CR said he had also proposed a row of vegetation along
the boundary with Danis but the applicant said there was no room for both the vegetation
and the retaining wall they want to put there. CR said an appropriate buffer along the Danis
boundary is vital to screen the abutters. He suggested arborvitae. He agreed there was a
trade-off with the retaining wall but he thought it was a trade-off that should be made. Mr.
Chouinard thought the area was too wet for arborvitae. CR said he was sure something
suitable could be found. The consensus of the Board was that an appropriate buffer is
needed and the trade-off should be made. Mr. Shaw suggested a fence instead. CR said that
would bring us back to the issue of glare. Mr. Dickenson said he thinks the area looks nice
as it is and he asked if the Board could view it for themselves before deciding. The Board
agreed to look at the area in question. JS directed the Board members to report their
opinions to CR who in turn would inform the applicant.
Mr. D'Arezzo expressed concern that the trees proposed for a buffer would not grow high
enough. CR said White Pines should grow twenty feet high or more.
Freestanding Sign.
CR said he had proposed reducing the distance of the bottom of the sign to the ground from
14' to 3' because a lower sign is more aesthetically pleasing. JS asked if a lower sign
would be a safety issue by reducing sight distance. CR said it is a controlled intersection so
sight distance is not a major factor. Mr. Hart disagreed. He said the further drivers can see
the better regardless of traffic lights.
Easement.
CR said the Easement language has been submitted to the Town Counsel for review. The
intent is to provide a full access easement to accommodate at least half of the right-of-way
the town needs to provide access from New Crossing Road to General Way.
Page 4 of 12
Mr. Buckley said the easement raises issues of encumbrances placed on them to the benefit
of the future owner of the abutting property. He said that the easement could be a burden
to them as their drainage may need to be relocated. He added that they are willing to agree
to an easement on a fair and equitable basis.
CR said they were not looking to advantage anyone. JS said he thought the applicant
understood that the Town's position is that they are looking for improved access to reduce
the impact of truck traffic on the abutting residential neighborhoods. RH emphasized that
the Town takes a longer view than the applicant.
Mr. Alan Schiller said this issue of access has been on the table for a long time and yet he
did not think even a traffic study had been made of it. He said that Mr. Danis had said
Danis would be against it if it hurts Danis property and the reality is that Danis would have
to eliminate some parking spaces to make it work. He also said that JS had said at an earlier
meeting that the Board did not have the right to require this easement.
CR said he would speak to the Town Counsel. JS asked that he express to Town Counsel
what the Board believes the intent of the easement to be.
Drainage.
Mr. Chouinard said they had met with the Conservation Administrator and the Town's
Engineering Consultant. They have updated the design adding details and clarifications to
the Drainage Plan.
RH moved to continue the Site Plan Review of 25 Walkers Brook Drive to the May 8
meeting at 8:00 PM in the Police Community Room.
SD seconded.
Voted Approved: 4:0:0.
JS said there would be no additional notice sent to abutters.
Brant Ballantyne returned to his seat.
SD left the meeting.
Site Plan Review Waiver Request
505 Main Street, Quiznos
The Board had received an updated and more clearly printed plan. A Draft Decision was
ready and the applicant had received it.
Mr. Favaloro said that technically a full review of the site is required but they are looking
for a waiver because the Board had recently reviewed the site.
JS asked if the Board's prior decisions were for both 505 and 519 Main Street. Mr.
Favaloro said parking issues relate to 519 Main only.
Page 5of12
RH asked if the ZBA had approved the parking. Mr Favaloro said the ZBA had as far as it
relates to 505 Main St.
The conditions of the Draft Decision were reviewed.
Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
#1: Landscape Island.
Mr. Fontes said placing trees on the landscape island would get in the way of car doors
opening. The Board said they would not if they were planted on the ends of the island.
#3: Granite Curbing.
Mr. Favaloro wanted the following added to Condition #3: The parking configuration set
forth hereunder shall be required only in the event that the Building Inspector determines
in writing that it does not invalidate the variance granted by the ZBA in case #05-32.
The consensus of the Board was that the language Mr. Favaloro wanted to add to Condition
93 applies to Condition #1 as well and that it should be added to the decision as a new
condition 44 and that it should read as follows:
The parking reconfiguration set forth herein shall be required only in the event that the
Building Inspector determines in writing that same does not invalidate the variance in ZBA
Case # 05-32.
Mr. Fontes said a vinyl fence would be too flimsy and requested that he be allowed to
substitute a chain-link fence with vinyl strips. CR recommended against this request saying
that a solid vinyl fence would block the view better. Mr. Fontes said he can't get an 8' tall
vinyl fence - a 6' tall vinyl fence is the maximum he can get. CR said he would be happy
to provide the applicant with information on where to find an 8' vinyl fence. Mr. Favaloro
suggested allowing an 8' fence along the building but reducing it to a 6' fence where it
extends to the street. CR said the fence should not extend to the street because drivers
backing out would not be able to see through it.
The Board added language to the decision stating that prior to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy the Building Inspector and Town Planner would meet to discuss whether or
not the conditions in the decision had been complied with.
RH moved to grant the Site Plan Review Waiver Request as amended tonight.
JB seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
Public Hearing (Continued): Site Plan Review
157 Main Street, Stephen Hughes
Application to allow addition with law office
(Action Date: May 22, 2006)
The Draft Decision had been given to the applicant and updated plans had been submitted
to the town.
Page 6 of 12
- Attorney Chris Latham summarized the changes to the plans.
• The picket fence and arborvitae have been added.
• The glare shields for both the lights shining on the South corner of the addition and
the lights shining on the sign in the front yard have been added.
• The floodlights are shown as being no higher than 8' above grade.
Regarding the drainage issues, Mr. Huber said what was asked for by the town's
Engineering Consultant had been added to the revised plans.
The Board reviewed the Draft Decision.
Under "During Construction"
RH asked that all reference to Heavy Equipment be deleted from Condition #4. The Board
agreed.
Under "Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy"
The applicant took issue with both Condition #8 and Condition #3A (under "Prior to the
Issuance of a Building Permit").. Condition #8 requires the applicant bear the expense of
the installation of a concrete sidewalk along the site's Main Street frontage. Condition #3A
requires that a tree lawn and two trees be installed and maintained along the same Main
Street frontage also at the applicant's expense.
Mr. Latham said the additional expense of a concrete sidewalk and a tree lawn would be
overwhelming to his client and disproportionate to what his client is proposing. He
reminded the Board that this is an addition to the applicant's home and although it would
include office space for the applicant's law practice over 80% of the addition is for
residential use.
Mr. Latham noted that similar requirements were not imposed on the Shell Station at Main
and Hopkins.
RH said the applicant has shown a willingness to address the concerns of the Board and the
changes he has agreed to make to his plans - drainage, lighting, and fencing - are all to the
good. He is unwilling to place this additional burden on the applicant.
Mr. Hughes said that all the other sidewalks are asphalt and asked why they must be
changed to concrete across his frontage. He said he wants to project a beautiful and
professional image and his plans provide for plenty of green space.
CR pointed out that the town was in possession of grant money to be used for the planting
of trees along South Main. The opinion of the Board was that it did not make sense to
require of Mr. Hughes now what the town would be doing with grant money later.
It was the consensus of the Board to delete Condition #3A and the words "and concrete
sidewalk" from Condition #8.
Page 7of12
RH suggested adding a Condition #13 stating that the site's lighting shall be reviewed by
the CPDC to make sure there are no adverse effects and that modifications shall be made if
necessary. The Board agreed.
JS asked for public comment. There was none.
RH moved to approve the Site Plan Review of 157 Main Street subject to the findings and
conditions added tonight.
JB seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
Administrative Review
Haven Junction (2 Haven St.): Request for Determination of Minor Modification to
Approved Site Plan
Mr. Mike McManus represented Haven Junction.
Mr. McManus said the space designated as the Loading Zone for Haven Junction has only
a seven foot clearance making it impractical for deliveries from most trucks. He
understands that the bylaws require a loading zone but he didn't think Haven Junction
would be receiving as many deliveries requiring a loading zone as was originally thought
especially as a restaurant is no longer part of the plans.
CR said the Board could waive the Loading Zone requirement.
Mr. McManus said parking is tight and this space would be valuable as an additional
parking space. He emphasized that this was an honest mistake and not a way to try to
"sneak" an extra parking space by the Board.
The Board accepted that it was an oversight but asked what would happen if someone
decides to build a restaurant at Haven Junction five years from now. Mr. McManus said it
would be difficult to go back to the point where a restaurant could fit into the building. The
original space has already been divided into three separate spaces and it would require a lot
of work to go back.
JS asked how Haven Junction would handle tractor-trailer deliveries. Mr. McManus said
that the Atlantic has tractor-trailer and straight truck deliveries all the time and they have
no problem handling them.
The consensus of the Board was that they were for waiving the Loading Zone requirement
for Haven Junction.
CR said the Board had required landscaping in front of parking space #10 but as it is
situated right up against Chute Street landscaping is not practical. CR suggested requiring
some kind of lattice-work screening instead.
Mr. McManus said he thought such screening would look ugly and out-of-place.
CR said it is a condition of a previous decision and must be addressed.
Page 8of12
RH moved to grant the Minor Modification to Haven Junction to waive the requirement of
a Loading Zone provided that the requirements of the original Site Plan Review regarding
adequate screening - either landscaping or fencing - are met. The screening will be subject
to the approval of the Town Planner.
JB seconded.
JS interrupted to ask if the Board should require a review of the site in five years to see if a
loading zone is needed.
The consensus of the Board was that this was a good idea.
JB made a friendly motion to add to the original motion the condition of a five-year review
for the purpose of determining whether or not a loading zone would be required for the site.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
Sailor Tom's Way Definitive Subdivision Endorsements
CR said this was not ready. The Engineering Department has requested changes.
The Board decided to table this item until a future meeting.
PUD-I Design Review: Fuddrucker's signage
Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant, Mr. Jim Boland.
Also appearing for applicant was Mr. Hanley of Jordans Furniture
This is a continuation of a Directional Sign modification [at the 01/09/06 meeting the
directional sign was approved conditioned on the addition of a directional arrow graphic to
the sign. Mr. Boland was going to ask someone at Bose if they would mind rearranging
their signage to make room for the arrow]
JS noted that the Board was looking for an arrow to add some "directionality" to the
directional sign.
Mr. Latham said the sign could only be seen from the entranceway - it is blocked by
Macaroni Grill.
JB said the arrow is still confusing and he couldn't tell which of the stores it refers to. The
arrow could mean that any of the stores are in the rear.
JS noted that the other stores are in the rear.
RH said the dimensions of the overall sign are wrong. The original plan shows it as 56'
long and the plan we have before us tonight shows it as 64' long.
Mr. Latham said he did not know which length was correct.
e
Putting aside the question of the actual size of the sign for a moment, JS asked if the
change to the sign - the arrow - meets the Board's notion of a Directional Sign.
Page 9of12
The consensus of the Board was that it does.
Returning to the issue of the size of the sign, Mr. Latham said that in the context of the
scale of the building the sign fits. As far as the size confusion goes, he said the Board could
make it a condition that the dimensions of the sign not be increased and we could get you a
new plan
Tony D'Arezzo of 130 John Street read from the bylaws that a directional sign shall not be
greater than 4 sq. ft. Mr. D'Arezzo also noted that under the bylaws the "Johnnies
Luncheonette" sign should have been "painted out" some time ago. Mr. D'Arezzo then said
that this sign [I believe he was referring to most or all of the smaller signs on the large
sign] is more of an advertisement sign than a directional sign. Examples: "Sleepworks" is
part of Jordans; "Liquid Fireworks" isn't a store etc...
JS asked if there was a master signage plan for this location. CR said he believed there was.
Mr. Hanley said there was a misconception as to the purpose of this sign. This was
intended to be more of an advertisement sign and its purpose is to draw people up the hill.
JS said the Board must revisit this. RH noted that the PUD signage bylaw refers to
"performance criteria" rather than dimensional requirements.
RH said we are in a tough position if we want to downsize the sign. We should say:
whatever sign is there must be 56' x 24'. The sign is enormous but having approved it once
we should approve it again.
RH moved to accept the modifications to the sign provided that this approval is for the sign
in its original dimensions.
JB seconded.
Mr. Latham said they want to find out which plan is in error.
RH said the Board was approving the sign in its original dimensions.
Mr. D'Arezzo said if the current sign is in error, then the Board should not compound the
error by approving this modification.
JS he has no problem granting approval as long as the size of the sign is no larger than the
lesser of either what exists or what was originally approved. JS moved to add this condition
to the motion. JB seconded the amendment.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
Master Plan Actions
JS said he met with the Board of Selectmen last night and the CPDC has its actions covered
but we are still waiting for feedback from other commissions and committees.
Page 10 of 12
JS asked for someone to attend the 5/10/06 Recreation Committee Meeting. CR said he
could attend if no one else is available.
Permit Coordinator
CR said this position would be paid for through higher fees. The Selectmen say that people
are frustrated by the town's permitting process. A large part of the Permit Coordinator's
responsibility will be to maintain a tracking system for the permits. CR said he emphasized
to the Town Manager that the CPDC wants to maintain their own tracking system to better
stay on top of compliance issues.
RH said his impression was that the Permit Coordinator would also serve as a kind of
ombudsman for permit applicants with a responsibility for all permits issued by the town
not only building permits.
CR said he thought the CPDC should be asked to provide an opinion on this position and
the Town Manager agreed.
It was the consensus of the Board that without seeing a Job Description they could not
comment beyond saying that any improvement to the permitting process is good.
The Board asked CR if the Permit Coordinator would have a hand in monitoring
compliance. CR said it was his impression that the Permit Coordinator would not be
involved with compliance.
Canopy Illumination
CR asked the Board if he should ask the ZBA about this issue at the ZBA meeting
tomorrow night. The consensus of the Board was that they should first discuss the issue
among themselves to clarify their own interpretation of the relevant bylaws.
The Board decided to discuss this at a future meeting.
TP, TM directives and CPDC
The Board decided to discuss this at a future meeting.
Town Planner Review
The Board decided to discuss this at a future meeting.
Accessory Apartments
One item of this article did not get onto the warrant. for Spring Town Meeting. CR said the
Board's report to Town Meeting could include what is not on the warrant.
JB said it would have to be accomplished at Town Meeting through an amendment on
Town Meeting floor since it was not in the original motion.
CR said Town Counsel said it is important to get the correct language in what you advertise
and what was advertised did not have the deletion of Subsection "B".
Page 11 of 12
JS said the critical issue is: where does the Board stand with this bylaw as it relates to
"4013"s? If we pass it are Accessory Apartments considered affordable by the DHCD?
RH said CR says they are but there is some question over the definition of an Accessory
Apartment. Selectman Ben Tafoya says they'll count as affordable only if rented out at
80% of the median income.
These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on June 26,
2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on June 26, 2006.
CR said his interpretation of the definition was incorrect Accessory Apartments will not
automatically count as affordable housing. There are several ways they might count. One is
as part of a LIP application. Another is through adding a condition to a Special Permit that
the unit must meet the DHCD definition.
CR said the eligibility requirements of the DHCD would require the town to go through an
administrative process to determine affordability.
CR said there are many limitations to the DHCD's definition that would not be consistent
with our current Accessory Apartment bylaw. For example, the DHCD does not allow the
transfer of approval if ownership changes.
JB said if the affordability component does not apply as the Board originally understood it,
then the Board should not move forward until the article is rewritten to properly reflect the
Board's intention. The Board agreed.
JS suggested that the Board should recommend to Town Meeting that they table the article
and give as our rationale that we are now in possession of new information that raises
serious questions about Accessory Apartments and affordable housing.
RH moved to recommend to Town Meeting that they table the Accessory Apartment
article.
JB seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
RH moved to adjourn.
JB seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
The meeting ended at 12:20 AM.
Si adappr ved,
Ric D. Howard, S cretary ate
Page 12 of 12