Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-27 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street > IJ A T i t Ir1~. Reading, MA 01867-2683 _ rl ~ i .J 4J Phone: 781-942-6612 C s ~ r'r Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly&i.readiii&ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: February 27, 2006 Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Town Hall 7:30 PM Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Richard Howard (RH), Jonathan Barnes (JB), and Susan DeMatteo (SD). Members Absent: Neil Sullivan Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth Mr. Carl D'Angio, Jr. Mr. William Childress and Ms. Ellen Childress, 105 Green Street Mr. Anthony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Ms. Ellen Evans, 128 John Street Mr. Mark Gilbert Ms. Joyce Kirk, 151 Village Street Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Douglas Neary, 155 Village Street Mr. Justin Ray, owner of Twin Seafood Market Ms. Rachel Seremeth and Mr. Steve Seremeth, 23 Elliott Street Mr. John D. Sullivan, P.E., 22 Mount Vernon Road, Boxford, MA Ms. Lynne Vargas, 103 Green Street For Danis: Mr. George Danis, Danis Realty Trust Attorney Mark Favaloro, Favaloro & Associates, 348 Park Place, North Reading, MA 01864 Mr. Robert Poulos, Construction Project Manager, Danis Realty Trust There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 7:30 PM. Public Comment/Minutes RH moved to accept the minutes of 02/13/06 as amended. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:1. JB abstained. Page 1 of 13 Site Plan Review Waiver Request 30+ Elliott & 100+ Green St., Carl D'Angio, Jr. Site Plan Review waiver request under Zoning By-Laws Section 4.3.3.12.1 for redevelopment of existing 4 unit apartment building as granted by Special Permit from the ZBA. JS briefly explained the purpose and background of the Site Plan Review Waiver. The Board will either: approve the request, approve it with conditions, or deny it. If denied, the applicant will have to apply for a Site Plan Review. Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant, Carl D'Angio, Jr. Mr. Latham said they were prepared to apply for a full Site Plan Review as requested by the DRT although they are concealed with the costs of the DRT's suggestions. Mr. Latham said they have a new plan that: • Moves the building back • Reduces the number of curb cuts • Reduces the number of parking spaces Mr. Latham noted that this project will replace an old structure with a new structure. JS asked the Town Planner to read the DRT minutes. CR did so. Highlights from the DRT minutes: • The Town Planner says more shade trees are needed and the parking lot should be relocated off the street and properly screened. He is also looking for a lighting plan. • The Town Engineer said there are too many curb cuts and the town will want a sidewalk along the frontage. He recommended a full Site Plan Review. • The Health Administrator encouraged the redevelopment of the site. • The Historical Commission noted that the building is on the historical inventory. • The Conservation Administrator said the run-off calculations need to be revised because the size of the roof is not properly accounted for in the current plans. CR said he has received a letter from Attorney Mark Favaloro which states that he has been retained to represent the interests of the abutters at 103 Green Street, Mr. and Mrs. Vargas. CR read the letter aloud. The letter expressed the Vargas' fornlal opposition to waiving the Site Plan Review and their request that the Board deny the waiver. JS asked the Board for their comments. RH asked the Town Planner what the procedure would be regarding engineering reviews now that Joe Delaney has left. CR said an engineering firm would be hired at the applicant's expense. Mr. Latham said that by law the town should have an engineer on staff. RH said the Board also wants to see a lighting plan. He added that if the applicant has specific objections to the DRT recommendations the Board would like to hear them. Page 2of13 JS asked the Town Plaiuier if it is correct that the three reasons the Board may give for granting a waiver are: 1. Interior redesign only 2. Changes in the same "Use Category" 3. The site has undergone a Site Plan Review within the last five years CR said that was correct. RH added that the operative word is "may". JS then asked if the Board may grant a waiver for any one of these reasons or must all conditions apply? CR said only one need apply. JS asked for comments from the public. Roberta Sullivan said the Historical Commission did not attend the DRT and has not yet reviewed the site. She wanted it put into the record that the applicant must come before the Historical Commission. Mr. Bill Childress, 105 Green Street. Mr, Childress presented the Board with a memo written by William, Ellen, and Kyle Childress of 105 Green Street. The memo was addressed to Reading's Design Team and copied to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Childress read this memo aloud. Among other points, the Childresses: • Took exception to the proposed drainage system and to a Mr. Thad Berry's opinions regarding the suitability of the planned drainage system. Mr. Latham objected to the remarks referencing Mr. Berry. • Expressed concern that run=off from the roofs and overflow was not being properly addressed. • Expressed concern that the proposed curb cuts would decrease the number of parking spaces on Green Street. • Believe the construction of condominiums would be a new use. Mr. Favaloro said his clients would prefer a reconfiguration of the garage that would put the curb cuts onto Eliot Street rather than Green Street. Mr. Latham offered to provide the Board with a formal request for withdrawal. RH moved to deny the request for a Site Plan Review waiver based on extensive comments and recommendations from the DRT and the public, as well as the applicant's own offer to withdraw. JB seconded. Voted Denied: 4:0:0. RH said the legal notice for the Site Plan Review of 30+ Elliott & 100+ Green St will be in the paper and all abutters within 300' will be notified by mail. Mrs. Ellen Childress of 105 Green Street asked if the notice will go to both owners and renters. CR said the notice will be mailed to owners. Mrs. Childress said one of the owners Page 3of13 lives in Florida. CR said once the date of the public hearing is set, the Board must advertise it at least two weeks in advance. JS said the Board could not yet give the date and time of the public hearing due to full agendas of the Board's next two meetings. He assured the applicant that his request for a Site Plan Review would be put onto an agenda as soon as possible. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review (continued) 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: February 27, 2006) JS said the Board had received a letter from the applicant requesting an extension to 3/13/06. CR said he expects a substantially changed plan will be submitted. JS said abutters will not be re-noticed. The public hearing will be moved to 3/13/06 at 8:30 PM as recommended by the Town Planner. The meeting will take place in the Selectmen's Meeting Room. - RH moved to continue the public hearing until 3/13/06 at 8:30 PM. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Saturday 02/25/06 Meeting's Discussion Continued As there was time before the next Public Hearing, JS suggested the Board wrap up their discussion of Administrative Review items began at the special meeting the Board held on Saturday, February 25, 2006 in the Selectmen's Meeting Room. Master Plan JS said the Guidance Letter - concerning the use of the Master Plan - has been updated and CR has the final version. JS said he has drafted a letter about the assignment of Master Plan action strategies and he asked the Board members to please review this letter and the accompanying Excel spreadsheet listing the 51 Master Plan action strategies and to add their assigned Boards' or groups' designated point-persons to the spreadsheet as necessary. He asked that all comments on the letter and additions to the spreadsheet be forwarded to him as soon as possible as he would like to mail the letters out in time to receive acknowledgements by no later than the end of March. CR said the Certificates of Appreciation to those who have worked on the Master Plan are ready for RE to sign. Page 4of13 Construction Hours JS said that RH had sent a letter to the Board of Selectmen (BoS) regarding the CPDC's position on Hours of Construction. RH said that in the letter he excluded homeowners working on their own projects and noted that the CPDC reserves the right to apply restrictions as they see fit. Enforcement Letter. JS said he would like to present it to Selectman Ben Tafoya before presenting it to the entire BoS at tomorrow night's (2/28/06) BoS meeting. JS said he would try to attend tomorrow night's BoS meeting to see that the letter is presented to Selectman Chair Anthony. The Board would like a commitment form the BoS for a Joint Meeting with the CPDC to discuss enforcement issues and the Master Plan. Minor & Major Modifications JB has provided an update on the definitions of "minor" and "major" with respect to modifications to submitted plans. Administrative Review: As there was still time before the next Public Hearing, JS suggested the Board take up this meeting's Administrative Review items. One General Way Approved Site Plan Modification Request Attorney Mark Favoloro represented Danis Realty. Mr. Robert Poulos and Mr. George Danis were also in attendance. Mr. Favaloro summarized the applicant's withdrawal of their modification request at the last meeting (02/13/06) and said the applicant is here with a new modification request. Mr. Poulos said this time they are asking for only two changes. The previous request's third modification concerning the lights along General Way has been dropped. He said the lights along the western edge of General Way will be eliminated from the plan. Mr. Poulos said the two modifications they are requesting are 1. To raise the grade by an additional 2' against the outside of the building. 2. To reduce the size of the building by approximately 15,000 square feet and relocate the loading docks to the rear of the building. Mr. Poulos said the Conservation Commission had approved these changes at their last meeting CR said there were no DRT comments. He said he supports the changes and recommends approving them as a Minor Modification. He added that the applicant is going back to the original drainage plan. RH asked if the parking would be reconfigured. Mr. Poulos said it would - they would be losing a net of six parking spaces but would still be five spaces over the requirement. Page 5of13 RH asked if the drive-thru was still part of the plan. Mr. Poulos said it was not. JS asked for comments from the public. Mr. Douglas Neary, 155 Village Street. Mr. Neary was happy to hear that that the applicant would remove the two lights but he said the remaining three are quite bright and he wanted to know how they would be shielded. JS said that those three lights were a part of the original plan and approved by the Town Engineer. CR said that the Town Engineer did not anticipate such bright lights. CR suggested attaching a condition to the Minor Modification requiring shielding for the lights. Helen Evans of 128 John Street. Ms. Evans said the lights are very bright and annoying. She said the applicant had put some kind of shielding on them and that it seemed to help but last Friday the shielding was removed. Mr. Poulos said the louvers also blocked the light onto their own driveway [General Way]. JS asked after the status of the site's Pylon Sign. The Town Planner said the Building Inspector had issued a pen-nit for the Pylon Sign; the design of that sign is not the same design the Board had approved. The Town Planner said the applicant's argument is that the Pylon Sign should not have been a part of the Master Signage but a separate application. The applicant submitted a separate application for the Pylon Sign alone, using a new design, and the Building Inspector approved that design. The Town Planner stated that if the applicant wanted to claim the Pylon Sign should not be part of the Master Signage plan, then it should be consistent with the originally approved sign elevation that was part of the plan set referenced in the CPDC decision, and the applicant should not be allowed to submit a new design without it being approved as a modification by the Board first. Mr. Poulos said the pylon sign's background needs to be made opaque. The Board-agreed and noted that the current sign is in violation of the by-laws because it does not have an opaque background. The Board also agreed with the Town Planner that the current sign is not the design the Board approved. RH asked: why should the Board approve a Minor Modification for a applicant who is in violation of a site plan? JS noted that neither the three lights along General Way nor the Pylon Sign is part of what the applicant submitted tonight. CR said you are looking for the applicant's voluntary agreement to put the three lights and the pylon sign back before the Board. Page 6of13 Mr. George Danis said that the. sign has been approved the Building Inspector approved it. Regarding the three lights, he understood the abutters' issues but there also is a safety issue: General Way must be lit. He then noted that, according to records from the electric company, previously there were even more lights on that road than we want to put there and they were located higher above the ground. He said they have removed lights, shielded lights, and have discussed the matter with the abutters. He asked: when does it stop? We have been trying to move this project forward for two years. JB said the Board was not speaking for the Building Inspector. We are saying we feel the sign's design does not conform to our decision. JS said the Board feels that if we approve the Minor Modification we will lose any way to resolve the lighting and signage issues satisfactorily. We are looking for concurrence from the applicant to place the lights and sign back under the CPDC's oversight. RH suggested two options: 1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupation, the Board could require the applicant to meet conditions on the sign and lights. 2. The Board could deny the Minor Modifications until some agreement is reached as to what is to be done regarding the sign and lights. CR emphasized that the Board would need the applicant's agreement. Without their agreement the Board would be on tenuous ground. Mr. Danis said he could not believe we are "back to square one". Mr. Favaloro suggested that the Board approve with the condition that the applicant use "best efforts" to resolve the issues satisfactorily. JS said it sounds like the applicant has already tried everything and if the Board makes "best efforts" a condition for approval what else could the applicant do? Mr. Poulos said he would have to go back to his lighting engineer. Mr. Danis said they would continue to work with the engineers to improve the situation but asked what the standard would be? Helen Evans of 128 John Street said we [the abutters] don't want to just walk away from this issue. We fear that the same lights will be there. RH pointed out that the town has a lighting consultant too. CR replied that the applicant is correct: the lighting along General Way has been approved. The internal lighting of the pylon sign is another matter and it is clear the sign needs an opaque background. Mr. Douglas Neary of 155 Village Street asked who polices this and who should he talk to. He emphasized that the glare is very bad. He asked for the Board's help. RH asked if there was a lighting plan. CR said there was but the issue is the glare from the lighting. CR suggested lowering the wattage maybe a solution keeping in mind that the Page 7of13 applicant needs safe lighting on General Way. Mr. Favaloro said the applicant could agree to lower wattage. JS asked what would happen if lowering the wattage is not the solution? He was not comfortable leaving it at that. RH noted that Mr. Danis had said it is hard to meet a standard when you don't know what the standard is. The Board has nothing to hold the applicant's "best efforts" to. What are the standards and who decides? Mr. Poulos asked: how do you measure glare? Ms. Joyce Kirk of 151 Village Street said that during the site plan for Cumberland Fann they lowered their lights [wattage?] and that fixed them. RH asked the Town Planner what would happen if the Board decided that the modifications were major. CR said that would open the modifications to appeal from abutters. Mr. Favaloro reminded the Board that the lighting had already been approved and does meet the standards of the site plan review. Danis is trying to accommodate the abutters. It comes down to a level of trust. He said the dilemma for Danis is that if we give up the lighting approval we give up a lot and we may have to weigh that against the modifications. The modifications may be more trouble than they are worth. . JS made a motion to approve the Minor Modification with the following conditions: 1. The two lights along the West side of General Way will be removed 2. The wattage of the lights along the East side of General Way will be reduced 3. An opaque background will be added to the pylon sign. JB seconded. The vote was tied: 2:2:0. Richard Howard and Jonathan Barnes voted against the motion. JB made a motion to add the following to the previous motion: should good faith efforts fail to reach an acceptable resolution the CPDC reserves the right to exert its authority as to the adequacy of the signage and lighting. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 3:1:0. Richard Howard voted against the motion. Public Hearing (continued): Definitive Subdivision Vale Realty Trust, Piper Glen Lane at 15 Avon Street (Action Date: February 27, 2006) SD recused herself. JS opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Jack Sullivan summarized the project to date: • The roadway has been lowered by 3'. • The sediment forebay has been relocated. Page 8of13 • The requested calculations regarding the grass swale's size and rate of flow have been submitted • As requested by the Conservation Committer, a letter has been mailed to the owner of 219 Ash Street requesting a drainage easement. • A draft of the Homeowners Association agreement has been submitted to the Town Planner. • The Town Planner emailed a copy of the Draft Decision to him. • He met with the Conservation Commission last week and they seemed happy with the project. The Board discussed the Town Engineer Joe Delaney's memo on the subdivision and made a point of addressing his comments and concerns directly in the text of the decision in the proper sections. Example: The Sidewalk Fund is addressed under the section "Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit" Mr. Sullivan said a percolation test was conducted and revised drainage calculations have been submitted. RH asked if Joe Delaney had had a chance to review the revised calculations and the data on the grass swale. CR said Joe Delaney did not have a chance to review the data before he resigned his position as Town Engineer. He added that Mr. Delaney did say to him that he thought the swale was fine. The Engineering Division staff could check it. RH asked if the opening of discharge basin would be rotated to the North as Joe Delaney had suggested. Mr. Sullivan said the Conservation Commission was against doing this because the discharge would then empty into the 25' "No Disturb" zone. Mr. Sullivan asked to be allowed to add the drawings showing the addition of the subdivision to Reading's Sewer Base to the as-built. The Board then reviewed the Draft Decision in some detail. Under "Prior to Endorsement", under point #5, the consensus of the Board was to add words to the effect that the percolation test and other changes required by the Conservation Committee shall be submitted prior to endorsement. Also, the swale capacity and flow velocity, and grades shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division. Under "Conditions on the Construction", under point #3, RH suggested and the Board agreed that the text from by-law 8.9.1 "Hours of Construction Operations" should be deleted. Under "Waivers", the Board decided that the Sidewalk Waiver should refer to Section 7.2.a of the Subdivision regulations only and the reference to Section 7.4.4.3 does not apply and should be deleted. Page 9of13 The Historical Commission had suggested naming the roadway "Benjamin Lane" instead of "Piper Glen Lane". The Board agreed. RH moved to close the Public Hearing. JD seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. JS suggested adding a condition stating that at least 15 days prior to issuance of the building permit the applicant shall meet with the Town Planner and Building Inspector to review compliance with the Board's decision. The Board agreed and noted that the same condition should apply to the issuance of an occupancy permit too. RE moved to approve the Benjamin Lane definitive subdivision. JB seconded. Voted approved: 3:0:0. SD returned to her seat. Site Plan Review Waiver Request 589-591 Main Street, Twin Seafood Market (Action Date: February 27, 2006) Site Plan Review waiver request under Zoning By-Laws Section 4.3.3.12.1 for redevelopment of existing retail to allow for a seafood market. JS briefly explained the purpose and background of the Site Plan Review Waiver. The Board will either: approve the request, approve it with conditions, or deny it. If denied, the applicant will have to apply for a Site Plan Review. Mr. Justin Ray, owner of Twin Seafood Market, provided a brief overview of his business. and his plans for the site. Twin Seafood will both sell fresh fish and provide some seating for meals. There will also be take-out. All construction will be interior work. The Town Planner's recommendation was to grant the waiver. He said he had a small concern about the loading area but the business is an appropriate use and it is not located in a resident-intensive area. He noted that the building is an historical structure so we don't want any changes to the facade and the site is within 300' of municipal parking so they are exempt from parking requirements. Mr. Ray said there are two parking spaces in the rear of the building that will be reserved for his own use. CR said the Board will need a sign in the rear designating the two spaces as employee parking. RH asked about waste. Mr. Ray said there will be a dumpster in the rear, but fish skin and bones will be stored in the air-tight, walk-in cooler until taken off-site for disposal. RH said the dumpster will need an enclosure. CR said the Board should require it. Page 10 of 13 RH asked about lighting. Mr. Ray said it is not necessary as there is a street light right in front of the building. RH asked about signage. Mr. Ray said he could come back before the Board about that. He said the sign would be similar to Clockfolk's sign. He may want to illuminate it with gooseneck lamps. JB expressed concern over the interpretation of the waiver language. JS reminded him that only one of the three conditions needs to be met. [From the Eliot Street waiver request above, the three conditions are: 1. Interior redesign only; 2. Changes in the same "Use Category"; 3. The site had undergone a Site Plan Review within the last five years]. Mr. John D'Arezzo of 130 John Street said he thought the Board might be misinterpreting the parking bylaw. Mr. D'Arezzo interpreted the by-law as saying the municipal-lot exemption did not apply to restaurants. It was the consensus of the Board that the exemption does apply to the site. The Board noted that other eating establishments make use of the same exemption. RH moved to approve the waiver request with the following conditions: 1. Food waste must be kept inside the building until picked-up for disposal. 2. Loading and deliveries will be restricted to Haven Street. There will be none on Main Street. 3. A sign will be placed at the entrance to the rear parking lot stating that parking is for employees only. 4. An enclosure, as approved by the Town Planner, will be placed around the dumpster. SD seconded. JS noted that the Pizza World shares the same building and also has a dumpster and asked if the Board could require Pizza World to place an enclosure around their dumpster too. CR said the Board has the authority to require that of the landlord. JS made a motion to amend the previous motion to change the dumpster condition to say that an enclosure should be provided for all dumpsters connected with the site. SD seconded. JB said the "food waste" condition should contain language noting that the waste should be kept in air-tight, refrigerated containers. CR suggested adding a condition stating the approval does not include signage (except for the employee parking sign) and the applicant must come back before the Board for a Certificate of Appropriateness for any signage. RH. withdrew his motion and then moved to approve the waiver based on all of the conditions. Page 11 of 13 SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. 137 Main St. Approved Site Plan Modification Request Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant, Mr. Marls Gilbert JS reminded the Board that this item was continued from the last meeting to give the Board members a chance to have a look at the building. RH said that although he prefers the original proposal, the building is attractive and an improvement over what was there. He did think there was quite a lot of asphalt. CR said that he had requested more shade trees but he does not have the applicant's final landscape plan. JB and JS both liked the building ("professional looking") Mr. Latham said the original proposal proved too expensive and the roofers said there would be trouble with the flashing. Mr. Gilbert is both a business resident of Reading and an occupant of this building so he wants to make sure it is attractive. Mr. Latham said that additional landscaping will not be a problem and he presented a letter from Hayes Engineering with quotes justifying a bond for landscaping costs. CR said the bond was specifically requested by him for remaining work to be done. RH moved to grant the minor modification subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant posts a bond for $20,000 to finish work. 2. The applicant agrees the work covered by the bond shall include an enclosure for the dumpster. JB seconded. JS asked if we want to tie the bond to the approval of the Minor Modification. RH said he could see no reason why they shouldn't. CR said the bond itself is fine but there may be legal problems with the town entering private property without penmission to complete a project. JS suggested requiring an easement but RH and CR thought written permission would be better. JS said the Board has made a pledge to the Board of Selectmen to take such things off of the Town Planner's hands. CR said that he had given the applicant guidance on landscaping and has received nothing from them. JS said he was uncomfortable accepting this if the Town Planner does not have a final landscaping plan in hand. CR said he would marls up the draft landscaping plans tomorrow morning to show what he is looking for and if the applicant can get them back to him by the end of the day then he'll issue the Certificate of Occupancy. Page 12 of 13 RH moved to amend his motion to make the issuance of the building's Certificate of Occupancy contingent upon submission both of final landscaping plans and access permission to the town in the event the town must act upon the bond. SD seconded. Voted Approved 4:0:0. RH moved to adjourn. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting ended at 11:30 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on March 13, 2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on March 13, 2006. Signed as approved, Howard, Secretary 164 16 Date Page 13 of 13