Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-13 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street T. i~(' r JJ. Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 [D C' Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly&i.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: February 13, 2006 Location: Police Meeting Room, 15 Union Street 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); Joe Delaney, Town Engineer (JD); Michael Schloth Mr. Anthony D'Arezzo, 130 Jo1u1 Street Mr. John Diaz, GPI The Evanses of 128 John Street. Mr. Mark Gilbert Attorney Josh Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Forest Lindwall, Engineer, Mistry Associates, 315 Main Street Mr. Nalin M. Mistry, Mistry Associates, 315 Main Street. Mr. John D. Sullivan, P.E., 22 Mount Vernon Road, Boxford, MA Selectman Ben Tafoya For Danis Corp.: Attorney Mark Favaloro Mr. Robert Poulos, Construction Project Manager, Danis Realty Trust For Sovereign Bank: Mr. Peter Glick, PE, Symmes Maini & McKee Associates, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA Mr. Alan Litchman, Owner of Finagle-A-Bagel, 228 Main Street Mr. Robert Talcach, Portfolio Manager, Sovereign Bank, 75 State Street, Boston, MA 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 Page 1 of 12 Alan Belniack, VHB Edward Shaw, Dickenson Development Corp. There. being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 7:40 PM. Public Comment/Minutes November 28, 2005, December 12, 2005, and January 23, 2006 RH moved to accept the minutes of 11/28/05 as amended. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. RH moved to accept the minutes of 12/12/05 as amended. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. JB arrived. RH moved to accept the minutes of 01/23/06 as amended. SD seconded. JB abstained. Voted Approved: 3:0:1. Public Hearing: Zoning Amendment Modify Section 4.3.2.8 (Accessory Apartments) of the Zoning Bylaws to remove the restriction that an accessory apartment must be occupied prior to 1982 in S-15 and S-20 residential districts adjacent as long as the apartments are affordable. JS opened the Public Hearing and explained how it would proceed. RE read the Legal Notice. He noted that the Legal Notice contained two errors: 1. The second item in the notice should reference bylaw 4.3.2.8.2e not 4.3.2.8e. 2. An additional section of the current bylaw needs the phrase as it existed on August 1, 1982" deleted from it. That section is 4.3.2.8.2b. RH suggested that the current item #2 be made new item #3 and that the section changed to 4.3.2.8.2b be made item #2. The Board agreed. JB pointed out that in last meeting's discussion of this modification the Town Planner had said that any accessory apartment created after 2002 would be considered an affordable unit. JB then asked if such affordable units would count towards the Town's inventory of affordable units with regards to stopping future 40B's. CR said they should but only if they are created through the Special Permit process. Page 2 of 12 CR reminded the Board that he believes that there are many existing accessory apartments that were built without a permit. RH said this modification could provide amnesty for the owners of those apartments. JS asked the Town Planner if the Board needs to provide an explanation of their intentions to the Board of Selectmen or Town Meeting members. CR said he would write up the background and purpose of the modification for the Board's approval. CR reminded the Board that the warrant closes February 28. JS asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. RH moved to close the Public Hearing. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. RH moved to recommend the Modification to the Accessory Apartment Bylaw as amended tonight. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. 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 opened the Public Hearing and explained how it would proceed. CR said Mr. John Diaz was here to present his peer review of the applicant's traffic study. CR said Mr. Tom Lemons' peer review of the applicant's lighting plan is ready, but Mr. Lemons could not attend tonight's meeting and he would present it at the next meeting (02/27/06). It was the consensus of the Board that Mr. Diaz should present his peer review first. Mr. Diaz said he considered three main issues: 1. Traffic. Mr. Diaz thought the proposed use would not generate significant traffic in the mornings by the Institute of Traffic Engineering's formulas, but he added that VHB has done numerous traffic studies of many Stop & Shops and he recommended that VHB make use of that empirical data in their report on the impact this Stop & Shop would have on traffic. 2. The Driveway on Walkers Brook Drive. Mr. Diaz said he originally agreed with the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen that it should be moved further East along Walkers Brook Drive - close to the center of the frontage. After speaking with VHB, he now agrees with them that the location they propose - close to General Way - k`\._ would allow for a more efficient use of the parking lot (easier access to all spaces; safer interaction with pedestrians). Mr. Diaz suggested a compromise location: move the driveway one parking-lot-aisle further East from the original location. Page 3 of 12 3. Funding the Washington & Main Intersection Improvements. Mr. Diaz suggested an amount in the same proportion to the development's square footage as the amount paid by the Walkers Brook Crossing development was to that development's square footage. Mr. Diaz also said he thought the applicant should provide: • A graphic representation of the dispersal of traffic • Accident data • A plan to monitor the impact of traffic on neighboring streets. Mr. Diaz suggested monitoring local traffic for six months to one year after the Stop & Shop opens. Mr. Hart said VHB has drafted a formal response to Mr. Diaz's review. 1. Regarding Traffic, Mr. Hart said that at Mr. Diaz request they have put together a study of the traffic using their collected data and a "25% pass-by". Mr. Hart added that the empirical data VHB has collected while studying the traffic at many Stop & Shops would show the impact to traffic at this Stop & Shop to be less than the Institute of Traffic Engineering's formulas would predict. 2. Regarding the driveway, Mr. Hart said that he still believes that there original location is the best. He emphasized that the queue at the intersection of New Crossing and Walkers Brook will grow a little and they want to put the driveway as far from that as possible. 3. Regarding funding of the intersection improvements, Mr. Hart said they concur with Mr. Diaz's suggestion. They calculated the amount of their contribution to be roughly $25,000. CPDC and Town Staff Questions and Comments JB said: if having the driveway open onto Walkers Brook Drive is of such great concern to everyone, perhaps the Board should consider allowing access from General Way. This suggestion was discussed but no one expressed much enthusiasm for it. Two comments against it were: • Shoppers would be put in the way of the loading docks • The connection would interfere with the flood plain between Stop & Shop and General Way. RH said he recalled from the Site Plan Review of the Danis property that someone wanted to allow Danis access to New Crossing Road when the Boston Stove property (the property Stop & Shop bought) was developed. Selectman Ben Tafoya said it was the Board of Selectmen who wanted that access and it was Selectmen's intention to provide a way to divert truck traffic away from Washington Street. JS said the CPDC does not have the authority to force Stop & Shop and Danis to make the conmection to New Crossing Road and that it was beyond the scope of the CPDC and this public hearing. JB asked Mr. Diaz if he had any suggestions for mitigating the impact of Stop & Shop's traffic on neighboring streets. Mr. Diaz did not believe there was a lot that could be done. He said any impact should be on the "main line" and not the side streets. Mr. Diaz thought adding more signals might help but warned that putting signals at currently unsignalized Page 4of12 intersections could cause more problems than they solve. He said that is why he suggested monitoring the local traffic for six months to one year after Stop & Shop opens. RH asked Mr. Diaz what the town could do if the monitoring showed that Stop & Shop was having an adverse effect on traffic in nearby streets. Mr. Diaz suggested setting up an escrow account for financing future traffic mitigation measures. JB asked Mr. Diaz, if there is not a lot that can be done to mitigate the traffic's impact why set aside money for it? And if there is something that can be done later, why not do it now? Mr. Diaz said there are things that can be done but anything you do would have an impact on the local residents so mitigation becomes a "balancing act". JS asked Mr. Hart why the access to the parking lot from New Crossing Road leads cars straight across the front of the building when earlier he said that one of the benefits of VHB's location of the driveway to Walkers Brook Drive is that it will help stop shoppers from driving straight to the spaces in front of the building? Mr. Hart said, if you move the New Crossing access to the center of the parking lot you'll create a "street" of traffic that shoppers who park in the section of the lot nearest Walkers Brood Drive will have to cross. Also, the further from the building you place the access from New Crossing Road the more likely that access will be blocked by traffic queued along New Crossing Road waiting for the lights to change at the intersection of New Crossing Road and Walkers Brook Drive. Town Engineer Joe Delaney presented his memo of 2/8/06 which listed his comments on the site plan's drainage. As Mr. Delaney will soon resign his position as Town Engineer, JS asked him how the review of this and other developments in Reading will be handled until a new Town Engineer is hired. Mr. Delaney said that DPW Administrator Ted McIntire wants to hire a consultant to conduct reviews for the Planning and Conservation Boards. Mr. Delaney added that he would be meeting with the applicant to discuss his concerns with this site before he leaves. Mr. Chouinard of VHB said they had reviewed the Town Engineer's comments and they would submit their formal response to his comments at a later time. He briefly addressed some of the comments. 1. They would make additional groundwater readings. 2. Although in the future less water should flow to the rear detention pond they would be leaving it the same size. 3. A sidewalk along Stop & Shop's side of New Crossing Road would have to be built on Stop & Shop property. If the Board wants it on that side, Stop & Shop would be looking for a waiver on Open Space. Public Comments Mr. Robert Poulos, Danis Realty. . Mr. Poulos said the "No Right Turn on Red Sign" at the intersection [of General Way and Walkers Brook] will be coming down and he asked if Mr. Diaz could review what effect this would have on traffic. He also said that Danis has yet to receive a reply from the applicant on the comments Mr. Joseph Peznola (P.E., Hancock Associates) submitted at the Page 5 of 12 meeting of January 23, 2006. RH asked if the applicant has seen Mr. Penzola's comments. Mr. Chouinard said they had and they would be responding to them at a later date. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Mr. D'Arezzo could not see the logic of Mr. Hart's explanation, against moving the New Crossing Road entrance closer to Walkers Brook Drive. By leaving the entrance where VHB wants it, all shoppers must cross the "street" of traffic passing in front of the building. Mr. D'Arezzo reminded the Board that Mr. Diaz's suggested location of the driveway to Walkers Brook Drive was a "compromise", which, Mr. D'Arezzo said, means it is not the best solution. Since there is no best solution he suggested dropping that driveway from the plans altogether and allowing access to the parking lot through New Crossing Road alone. Also, since there will be a "street" of traffic across the parking lot no matter where the New Crossing Road entrance is placed, he suggested moving that entrance closer to Walkers Brook Drive and accommodating the resulting "street" with landscape islands, crosswalks etc... Mr. D' Arezzo said he has visited the Danvers Stop & Shop and noticed that the compactors there have exposed hydraulics and are noisy. Would they be the same in Reading? Also, will the mechanicals on the roof be exposed to view? Mr. D'Arezzo reminded the Board of the memo that the Board of Selectmen and Town Manager wrote, which was read at the last meeting, listing their concerns with the site. He asked if those concerns had been addressed. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the applicant would be filling in portions of Flood Zones A and B? Mr. Hart repeated VHB's reasons for the locations of the access points to the parking lot. Mr. Hart said that the traffic estimates they submitted were not based on VHB's empirical data collected from their studies of other Stop & Shops. Mr. Hart emphasized that the applicant still considers the original location of the driveway on Walkers Brook Drive to be the best location. A Mr. Shiller said the Historical Commission had expressed a concern that the lot should have access to the original driveway. He added that during a discussion of the Danis property at a Board of Selectmen meeting, Selectman Chair Camille Anthony had said that the driveway should stay. RH asked the Town Engineer to review the site's snow storage capabilities. Regarding the Selectmen's and Town Manager's memo, JS said the Board has a letter from the applicant's law firm answering the Selectmen's and Town Manager's concerns. JS said the Board needs to consider the proposed location of the building with an eye towards safety and aesthetics. RH said: in light of the Selectmen's and Town Manager's concerns, - the applicant's response, and Sally Hoyt's desire for design standards, the Board should give consideration to the building's fagade. Page 6 of 12 CR said the DRT recommended more landscaping. JS asked if there were enough parking spaces. CR said the site was well in excess of the required number of parking spaces. JS noted there should therefore be plenty of room for landscaping and improvements to the fagade. Mr. Mark Dickenson said there are 282 parking spaces in the plan and Stop & Shop needs all of them. He said the town's zoning is not adequate to meet Stop & Shop's needs. Attorney Robert Buckley said they were flexible as regards to putting money towards future mitigation of any traffic problems. He said they will submit their response to the review of their traffic report tonight and their responses to the Town Engineer's and Hancock Associate's reports at a later time. The Board noted that the Action Date for this Site Plan Review is the date of the next meeting, 2/27/06. RH said the decision could not be filed on that date and the Board would require an extension to March at least. The Town Plainer said he thought there may be some leeway with the Action Date but he suggested the Board might want to ask the applicant if they are willing to agree to an extension. The Board so asked the applicant. Mr. Buckley said they would agree to an extension if it was necessary and reasonable and he added that they believe the Board should have all the necessary information before the next meeting. RH moved to continue the Site Plan Review until February 27, 2006 at 8:00 PM. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. 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. He said the primary reason for the continuance is to review the changes to the drainage system. Mr. Jack Sullivan said the changes were "substantial" and summarized them for the Board. • Previously, a great deal of fill was required. In the current submittal, "grinder pumps" would be used to reduce the amount of fill. • Roof runoff has been addressed. • Based on the comments of Town Engineer Joe Delaney, Conservation Administrator Fran Fink, and abutter Mr. Nalin Mistry, the detention pond will be relocated between lots #3 and #4. • A 25' "no disturb" will be reestablished. • A grass Swale will be added to along the property line abutting Mr. Mistry's property. • Mr. Johnson has made an agreement to purchase the property at 237 Ash Street. He is not including it as a lot of this subdivision. Page 7of12 RH asked Mr. Sullivan what he has done to address Mr. Mistry's concerns. Mr. Sullivan said he has moved the sediment forebay and detention pond further from Mr. Mistry's property to the naturally-occurring, low-point of the site. The Board asked Town Engineer Joe Delaney to comment on the changes. The Town Engineer said he wanted a percolation test done and suggested that the basin discharge should be rotated to face north into the wetlands. He said the addition of the grass swale was a good improvement to the site and requested data on its capacity and rate of flow. CR noted that Conservation Administrator Fran Fink had submitted a memo on this site earlier today. RH asked if the Board would be able to vote on a decision at the next meeting. CR said he would have the draft decision ready for the Board at the next meeting (02/27/06). Mr. Sullivan expressed concern over the fact that the Action Date was the same day as the next meeting. CR said that would not be a problem. Public Comments. Mr. Nalin Mistry, owner of the abutting property at 315 Main Street. Mr. Mistry said he has discussed his concerns with the Town Engineer and although improvements have been made he feels there is still more that can be done. He said the purpose of lowering the roadway was to reduce fill but there is still too much fill. He introduced an engineer from his company, Mr. Forest Lindwall, who went into more detail. Mr. Lindwall said that although the roadway has been lowered, the houses. are still too high. He said Mr. Sullivan's plan calls for "clear cutting" trees to make room for the detention pond. He said the detention pond and forebay both are a little oversized. He suggested moving the detention pond to a location along the North side of the property. Doing so, he said, would reduce the amount of fill, and negate both the need for the Swale and the need to clear-cut trees. He reminded the Board that the trees in question are roughly 8 to 10 inches in diameter and block the view even in the winter. Mr. Lindwall presented a plan showing his own conception of how the subdivision should be laid out. He said his plan reduces fill while still allowing "walk-out" basements and shows that the natural low- point is really towards the north side of the property. Mr. Sullivan's response. Mr. Sullivan said if the two wetland areas are not filled in, then he would have to add a 25' "no disturb" zone and that would eliminate two of the subdivision's lots. He said that the Conservation Commission is in favor of filling in the wetland areas his plan requires. He said Conservation Commission referred to those wetlands as "marginal". Mr. Sullivan said the detention pond is purposely oversized because that is a condition of a waiver. He said the detention pond will be built entirely in the fill. He said the reason for the fill is that the Conservation Commission requires "recharge units" and these units require a certain amount of fill to work. Mr. Sullivan said the plan made for a "tight site" but it works. Page 8of12 Mr. Mistry's response. Mr. Mistry agreed that it was a tight site adding that is why the Board should consider the alternative plan Mr. Lindwall presented. He asked the Board to give consideration to not building a big mound on the site. He said the grass swale and detention pond will overflow onto his property and his property already has problems with flooding. He also asked the Board to keep in mind that the buffer the trees provide today will be lost. The Board asked the Town Engineer for his opinion on the alternative plan. The Town Engineer said there are always alternatives but we can only pass judgement on what the applicant presents us and we don't generally consider "what if' scenarios. He said that moving the detention pond would require a waiver. He concluded by saying that the applicant's drainage system as designed does meet town standards. The Board thanked Mr. Mistry for bringing his concerns to their attention and for his efforts in preparing and presenting his alternate plan. The Board suggested he present his concerns to the Conservation Commission. RH asked Mr. Sullivan when he could provide the Town Engineer with the information he requested. Mr. Sullivan said he could have the information ready later this week after his - meeting with the Conservation Committee. JS asked if a Homeowner Association would be in charge of maintaining the detention pond. The Town Engineer said, no, the town would take care of it. Noting that the Action Date was the same date as the next meeting, RH asked the applicant if he was prepared to grant an extension. The applicant said he was. The Town Engineer said the only wild card is what the Conservation Commission is looking for and we won't know that until after they meet. RH moved to continue the Public Hearing until February 27, 2006 at 9:30 PM. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. SD returned to her seat. Site Plan Review Waiver Request 228 Main St., Sovereign Bank JS briefly explained the purpose and background of the Site Plan Review Waiver. He said that 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. Page 9of12 Mr. Peter Glick said the applicant intends to convert the Finagle-A-Bagel building into a branch of Sovereign Bank. He said they have met with the Town Planner to discuss Open Space and landscaping concerns. Highlights: • A landscape island will be added • The have well over the required number of parking spaces • The drive-thru lane will have a short canopy much like today and there will be a by-pass lane too. • The current landscape strip along Main Street will be extended and a pear tree will be added. • The parking lot will be re-striped after being resurfaced The Town Planner said he was very pleased with the applicant's proactive attitude. He said the applicant has addressed all of his concerns. He recommended approving the waiver. RE asked about trash. Mr. Litchman said there is a dumpster and it is enclosed. Mr. Takach pointed out that the bank would not generate a lot of trash. RH asked if the ATM would be open 24 hours a day. Mr. Talcach said it would. He added that there may be a teller at the drive-up during the day they haven't decided that yet but the ATM would be open all night and illumination would be provided from a light under the canopy and from the ATM itself. JB asked if this was considered a "change of use". CR said Finagle-A-Bagel is a retail business, but both it and the bank fall under the Business and Services category. The only concerns with signage the Board had were with the ATM and the height of the letters on the awning. CR said the sign on the "surround" of the ATM was allowed under the town's bylaws and the height of the letters on the awning can be conditioned to be no greater than four inches in height. RE moved to grant the waiver subject to the conditions: • The illumination of the ATM shall not impact abutters and will be subject to the approval of the Town Planner • Landscaping shall be added prior to issuance of a building permit and shall be maintained in perpetuity subject to the approval of the Town Planner • The letters on the awnings shall be no greater than four inches in height • Standard construction hours shall be observed JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Administrative Review: One General Way Approved Site Plan Modification Determination Attorney Mark Favoloro and Mr. Robert Poulos appeared for Danis Corp. Page 10 of 12 Mr. Poulos described the modifications which consisted of changes to parking spaces, drainage, and lighting. The Town Planner said the plan needs more landscaping and both he and the Town Engineer thought the drive-thru needed a bypass lane. The Town Engineer said that although parking has been reduced the realignment of General creates more impervious surface but that may be offset by larger landscape islands. Regarding the applicant's request for a modification to the drainage system based on their elimination of the skateboard park from their plans, the Town Engineer thought they should keep it the original size. RH said he thought the changes are a major modification to the plans and require a public hearing and a full DRT review. The Board agreed. The Board applauded the applicant's efforts to address the lighting issues. Mr. Poulos said he knew the lighting was a pressing issue with the Town Manager and Town Planner as well as the abutters. He said louvers would be added to the lights along General Way. These louvers should keep the lights from shining into abutters windows. Also, the sign material of the pylon sign is being exchanged for something more opaque. The Evanses of 128 Jolu1 Street They were very concerned with the lighting on the site. They said the lights on General Way shines so brightly into one particular abutter's home that he can read by them. They said this lighting was not part of the original plans. They also said the top sign on the pylon sign is large, garish, and brightly lit. Mr. Poulos said it was requested that Danis put decorative lighting along General Way. He said the louvers should direct the light away from the abutters' homes. As for the pylon sign, he said the internal illumination has been turned off and would remain off until the new, opaque sign is installed. Mr. Poulos added that they don't like the pylon sign themselves and that they want to go back to the ZBA for a variance on it. The applicant decided to withdraw their request. 137 Main St. Approved Site Plan Modification Determination Attorney Josh Latham represented the applicant. Mr. Latham said that back in June of 2004 the Board had approved the demolition of the previous building and the construction of the current building at 137 Main Street. The applicant has made the following changes to the building: • Roofline modification • The center, second-floor window was circular, now it is rectangular. The Board noted that in the original plan all of the second-floor windows were circular. Page 11 of 12 The Board was unanimous in their dislike of the effect these changes have had on the appearance of the building. JB said the building is now just a box. RH said this is why the town needs design standards. The Board was also unanimous in their objection to being asked to render their determination of the modifications after the. fact. RH moved to deny the request both because the request is being made after the fact and because the resulting construction is a significant departure from the original plans. SD seconded. Mr. Marls Gilbert asked to speak. He said this was his first project and he did not realize that the changes would be considered anything but minor. He said he thinks it is a nice building. Others have told him the same. Some have said it looks like an old bank building. He didn't think the picture included with his application shows his building in its best light. RH moved to withdraw his previous motion to give each member of the Board a change to have a look at the building in person. SD seconded. JS said the Board will postpone their decision and place this item on the agenda of the next ~meeting (02/27/06) under Administrative Review. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board decided to postpone discussing or taking any action on the following four items: 2005 Master Plan Adoption ➢ Compliance/Enforcement Recommendations to Board of Selectmen ➢ Sally Hoyt's Request for Zoning Workshop on Design Standards ➢ Addison Wesley Traffic Study It was the consensus of the Board to schedule an extra meeting on Saturday, February 25, 2006 at 9:00 AM in the Selectmen's Meeting Room. The purpose of this meeting is to address the four Administrative Review items postponed tonight. JB moved to adjourn. RH seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting ended at Midnight. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on February 27, 2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on February 27, 2006. Sign as approved, D. Howard, Secretary Date Page 12 of 12