Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-23 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street D F Reading MA 01867-2683 _ , Phone: 781-942-6612 a „ Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: credly@ci.reading.ina.us ( f Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: January 23, 2006 Location: Police Meeting Room, 15 Union Street 7:15 PM Members Present: Richard Howard (RH), Neil Sullivan (NS), Jonathan Banzes (JB), and Susan DeMatteo (SD). Members Absent: John Sasso. Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth Mr. Anthony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Mr. Carlo Bacci, 25 Wakefield Avenue, Wakefield, owner of The Chocolate Truffle Mr. Andrew Bramhall, 11 John Street Court. Mr. Thomas Houpes, 204 Washington Street. Ms. Joyce Kirk, 151 Village Street. Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main. Street Mr. Nalin M. Mistry, owner of the property at 315 Main Street. Mr. John D. Sullivan, P.E., 22 Mount Vernon Road, Boxford, MA Stop & Shop Development Team: 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 Supennarkets Alan. Belniack, VHB Bill O'Brien, Pinnacle Partners Edward Shaw, Dickenson Development Corp. Taryn Warren, Dickenson Development Corp. Representing Danis Corp.: Attorney Mark Favaloro Mr. Joseph Peznola, P.E., Hancock Associates, 185 Centre Street, Danvers, MA As John Sasso was not in attendance, Richard Howard assumed the duties of Chair. There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 7:15 PM. Page 1 of 11 Public Comment/Minutes SD moved to accept the minutes of 01/09/06 as amended. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0 CR asked the Board if they would sign an ANR plan had been submitted the previous Friday regarding changes to the Right of Way on the Tambone property at 80 - 100 Main Street. This item was not on the agenda. SD moved to endorse the ANR plan for the property at 80 100 Main Street. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The Board signed the plan. Jonathan Banles (JB) arrived and took his seat. Public Hearing (continued): Definitive Subdivision Richard Merrill Trustees, Dwight Road at 175 Franklin Street (Action Date: January 23, 2006) CR noted that several conditions were added to the draft decision at the previous meeting (1/09/06). RH had not attended the previous meeting. He asked for clarification of, and suggested changes to, various sections of the draft. 1. On Page 4, under "Prior to Recording", it was his impression that the applicant would supply a CD of the plans in digital forma CR said that could be added. 2. Also on Page 4, under "Prior to the Release from the Covenant", he took issue with wording of the language concerning the termination of bonds. SD suggested adding the word "actual" before the words "completion date". The Board agreed with this change. 3. On Page 6, Part 7, he suggested changing the sentence "This shall be given to the Town before the start of construction." to "This shall be given to the Town prior to issuance of a building permit." The Board agreed with this change. 4. On Page 7, Part 3, under "8.9.1. Hours of Construction", he thought it better not to mention heavy equipment and suggested deleting subsection "b" of 8.9.1 and the definition of "heavy equipment" that followed. In subsection "a", he suggested changing the Hours of Operation on Mondays through Fridays inclusive, from "7:00 AM to 8:00 PM" to "7:00 AM to 6:00 PM". The Board agreed with both changes. 5. On Page 8, under Part 3 of "General Conditions" he suggested that the new name of the subdivision, "Sailor's Tom Way", should be reflected in the plans. The Board agreed. 6. Also on Page 8, under "Waivers", regarding the waiver concerning the "reduction in cover over drainage", he suggested adding language stating that the Town t Engineer should approve the class of pipe used. The Board agreed. Page 2 of 11 JB suggested moving the Tree Preservation requirements out of the Findings section and incorporating them into the decision's conditions under the section "Prior to the Issuance of a Building Pen-nit". The Board agreed. JB moved to approve the draft decision as amended. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness 494 Main Street, The Chocolate Truffle (Action Date: January 23, 2006) Following the request the Board had made at the previous meeting (01/09/06), Mr. Bacci. said he looked into adding raised or engraved letters to his sign. He learned that doing so would drastically increase the cost of the sign (by about $1000). He said that if his business was going to be in the center of town, then he would agree that his sign should have engraved or raised letters to be consistent with the other signs there, but where he .is locating his business the signs are a "mish mash" of styles. He asked the Board to please consider allowing him to use his original plan of a sign of vinyl letters. JB said it was not the Board's desire to make their standards a burden on applicants but the Board has been consistent in requiring that signs should have raised or engraved letters. RE suggested to Mr. Bacci that he might want to consider not having a sign at all. RH pointed out that Mr. Bacci's store's name is already on the large awning and the Board has no issue with the awnings. JB thought this was a good idea. RH asked Mr. Bacci if he would like the Board to consider approving the awning and the sign or the awning alone. Mr. Bacci said: the awning alone. JB made a motion to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness solely for the awning signage of The Chocolate Truffle. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Public Hearing: 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: February 27, 2006) RH called the Public Hearing to order and explained the procedure. SD read aloud the Legal Ad. RH asked the applicants to make their presentation. Mr. Mark Dickenson introduced his team and gave a brief overview of the project. He noted that this project is similar to his previous project at Walkers Brook in that they plan on returning an unused property to economic productivity. The building they intend to build will be smaller than what is there now but it will have a higher assessment. There will Page 3ofII be more traffic but they already have created a traffic corridor - Walkers Brook Drive to handle it. Attorney Robert Buckley spoke next. He said the proposed Stop & Shop is a permitted use under Reading's bylaws and they believe that their site plan is complete. He said they kept aesthetics and "street presence" in mind during the plamiing of the site. He said they have made an effort to solicit comments and concerns from the neighbors and have sent out over 500 invitations to neighbors asking them to meet with the developers in an informal setting. Next, Project Manager Steve Chouinard presented an aerial photograph of the site superimposed with a drawing of the proposed building, parking lot, and roadway changes. Most of the parking will be in front of the building between the building and Walkers Brook Drive. There will be room in the rear for five loading docks. Access will be from both New Crossing Road and a driveway onto Walkers Brook Drive. Appropriate buffers will be added. A new and improved drainage system will be installed. Traffic Analyst Randall Hart spoke next. Three time periods were modeled in a traffic study: weekdays from 7:OOAM to 9:OOAM and from 4:OOPM to 6:OOPM, and Saturdays from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM. He foresaw little impact to traffic during the 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM period. He expects 200 plus additional trips during the 4:OOPM to 6:OOPM period and double that, 400 plus trips, on Saturdays. Mr. Hart explained why the proposed driveway to Walkers Brook Drive should be built close to the edge of the property nearest General Way and not in the center of the Walkers Brook Drive frontage: • To be out of the way of the traffic queue for the lights at the intersection of Walkers Brook Drive and New Crossing Road. • To limit the mix of moving cars and walking people in the parking lot. Mr. Hart said they planned on adding a sidewalk along New Crossing Road and, at the suggestion of a neighbor, an audible signal at the crosswalk. Real Estate Manager for Stop & Shop Linda Costanzo said the design of Reading's store would be similar to the Stop & Shop in Danver's Liberty Tree Mall. There will be expanded departments (produce, sushi...) and a bank. 40 skylights will provide plenty of natural light. The roof will be white and reflective. The loading docks will be fully- enclosed to minimize noise and trash. The hours of operation will be from 6:OOAM to Midnight with deliveries scheduled in the morning. CR read the minutes of the DRT meeting. Under the Plain ing Department's comments, he asked the Board to note that the sentence "On WBD, will want to slip in and out at a more westerly location" should actually read "On WBD, will want to slip in and out at a more easterly location". CR said the applicant has submitted a Notice of Intend to the Conservation Commission. Included in the Board's packets was Conservation Administrator Frances Fink's memo to the Conservation Committee in which she details her concerns regarding wetland boundaries, drainage, buffer zones etc... Page 4 of I I Also in the Board's packets was a memo from Town Engineer Joe Delaney containing the Engineering Division's comments after a preliminary review of the plans. CR read a memo from the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen. It contained the following comments: 1. They would like to see the building moved closer to Walkers Brook Drive. 2. The driveway onto Walkers Brook Drive should be moved to the center of the lot's frontage. 3. Danis should be allowed access to New Crossing Road. RH asked if there would be peer reviews of the Traffic and Lighting Plans. CR said there would be a peer review of the Traffic Plan but as of yet not for the lighting plan-- although one could be arranged. RH suggested that the peer reviewer of the traffic study pay particular attention to the locations of the site's access points. Also, the Board should ask the peer reviewer to . provide the Board with a way of arriving at a contribution towards the improvement of the intersection at Main and Washington Streets. JB disagreed with Mr. Hart's opinion that there would be little impact to the traffic on Walkers Brook Drive between 7:OOAM and 9:00 AM. Noting that Walkers Brook Drive is heavily traveled by commuters and that contractors make pickups each morning at the Home Depot across the street, JB suggested asking the peer reviewer his or her opinion of the impact of Stop & Shop on the morning traffic paying particular attention to the number and frequency of morning deliveries to Stop & Shop. Public Comments. Mr. Anthony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street. 1. Signage: It seems there will be many different departments and/or businesses under this building's roof and rather than giving each their own sign, could there be only one sign saying "Stop & Shop"? 2. The developers say they see this as a neighborhood supermarket. He sees it as a major supermarket that would draw shoppers from a wide area. 3. The developers claim the current building on the site is dilapidated. He disagrees. 4. The reflective, white roof may be too reflective. RH asked that this point be put to the lighting plan peer reviewer. 5. He agreed with the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen that the driveway onto Walkers Brook Drive should be more centrally located. 6. He was concerned that the audible signal may be a nuisance to abutters. 7. No mention was made of landscaping across from General Way. 8. Would there be an external freezer? 9. Hours of Operation: the bylaws allow 6 AM to midnight, but does that include time spent loading shelves? CR said he believes the bylaw's intention is to set the time the store can be "open to the public". Mr. D'Arezzo asked the Board to please review this and the delivery times. Attorney Mark Favoloro, representing the Danis Corporation. Page 5 of 11 Mr. Favaloro said that they generally supportive of the project, but they have some concerns. He introduced Mr. Joseph Peznola, an engineer with Hancock Associates, to explain these concerns. Danis' primary concern is with how the applicant will change the site's drainage. Mr. Peznola said changes to the drainage system could have a large impact on Danis' property. His major concerns were: 1. Box Culvert: He wants to know the condition of the Box Culvert. Adversely changing its flow characteristics could be bad for Danis. 2. Rear Retention Pond: The applicant plans on redirecting drainage so that less will flow to the rear, but if they decrease the size of the pond and it does not do the job that too could be bad for Danis. 3. Buffer: The applicant proposes a 20' or so buffer along General Way, but they are also using that section of land as a flood plain and that will lessen the impact of landscaping there. He suggests shifting the building away from General Way to provide more room for landscaping. Mr. Peznola said he could provide the Engineering Department with his calculations. RH said both Engineering and Conservation should have copies. Mr. Andrew Bramhall, 11 John Street Court. Mr. Bramhall asked for assurance that the Walkers Brook Drive would have two traffic lanes striped all the way back to General Way from the lights at the intersection Walkers Brook Drive and New Crossing Road. Ms. Joyce Kirk, 151 Village Street. Ms. Kirk is an immediate neighbor to the project. She is concerned with the light and noise the store will bring. She said she is already dealing with the light from Danis' huge sign at the intersection of General Way and Walkers Brook Drive and she doesn't need more of the same. RE said the town's sign bylaw is specific on what is allowed and the applicant's lighting plan will be peer reviewed. Mr. Thomas Houpes, 204 Washington Street. Mr. Houpes said Washington Street and Walker Brook Drive are bumper to bumper in the morning and Washington Street is already falling apart from the traffic. This project will only add to the problem. The Applicant Responds. Mr. Hart asked to address what he saw as misconceptions regarding the location of the Walkers Brook Drive driveway. Mr. Hart emphasized that no left turns will be allowed into or out of the driveway. The driveway will be Turn-Right in and Turn-Right out only. A raised island channel would prevent drivers from turning left. In addition., the signals will control the traffic flow. There should be no "weave scenarios" of drivers competing for lanes. He repeated his point that a centrally located driveway would be blocked by the traffic queue at the Walkers Brook/New Crossing lights. Page 6ofII Mr. D'Arezzo said Mr. Hart would be correct if the signals controlled all of the traffic, but they do not control traffic coming from Lakeview Avenue or John Street. He suggested doing away with the Walkers Brook Drive driveway and allowing New Crossing Road to take all of the shopper traffic. JB moved to continue the Site Plan Review until the meeting of February 13, 2006 at 8:OOPM. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Public Hearing (continued): Definitive Subdivision Vale Realty Trust, Piper Glen Lane at 15 Avon Street (Action Date: January 23, 2006) SD recused herself. CR said there has been a substantial redesign of the drainage. Mr. Sullivan said that originally he proposed to use infiltrators but the Town Engineer was against the idea because infiltrators are hard to maintain and, as it was doubtful that a Homeowners Association would be up to the task, maintenance would probably fall to the town. The revised plans call for a more conventional drainage system using a detention pond. Mr. Sullivan noted that the original plan also raised concerns of staying far enough away from abutters. JB read aloud the January 23, 2006 memo from Town Engineer Joe Delaney regarding the revised plans. In it, the Town Engineer wrote that he had not yet reviewed the revised drainage system plans, but he expected to have done so in time to make his report to the Conservation Commission at their meeting on Wednesday, January 25, 2006. The Town Engineer also wrote that he would forward a copy of his review of the new drainage system to the CPDC. RH asked the Town Planner if he had written a draft decision. CR said he hadn't yet. Public Comments. Mr. Nalin M. Mistry, owner of the property at 315 Main Street. Mr. Mistry was greatly concerned that drainage from the development would make his own. drainage problems already bad even worse. He said every time it rains a pond forms on his property and one of his building's occupant's office is below ground. He said he has tried to get a connection to the drainage system of the state highway [Rt. 28] but he has not been successful. His objections to the development are: 1. Building the proposed detention pond would destroy the existing buffer. 2. The increase in impervious surfaces would subject his property to worse flooding. He said he suggested to Mr. Sullivan that he move the detention pond to the wetlands but Mr. Sullivan told him that would mean losing an extra house. Page 7of11 Mr. Sullivan said he provided the revised plans and calculations to Mr. Mistry. The distance from the proposed detention pond to Mr. Mistry's property is 80 feet and the basin is located one foot lower than the grade. Mr. Sullivan said he did not believe the detention pond will have an impact on Mr. Mistry's property but he would perform a "Ground Water Mounding" study. As for moving the location of the detention pond, he said that would not work because then he would have to crate various "no-disturb zones" for the Conservation Commission. Mr. Sullivan agreed that trees would have to be removed to create the detention pond, but the landscaping plan shows that evergreens will be planted along the property line to provide a buffer. RE said the Historical Commission has proposed naming the new road "Benjamin Lane" to recognize Mr. Ben Nichols. Mr. Sullivan said he thought that was a good idea but Mr. Nichols shook his head "no" when he mentioned it to him. It was the consensus of the Board to continue the Public Hearing until the next meeting. JB noted that the Action Date was today: 1/23/06. CR said the Action Date had already been extended through February. JB moved to continue the Public Hearing until the meeting of February 13, 2006 at 9:00 PM. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. SD returned to her seat. Zoning Workshop Historic Preservation Zoning Relief By-Law Proposal by Historical Commission to reduce setbacks by special permit on lots with historical structures to encourage preservation The Board did not discuss this item. CR said the Historical Commission has withdrawn their proposal as it seemed a lot of work for limited impact. 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 the portions of the residential districts adjacent to the Depot RE said his proposal is to remove two restrictions from the current bylaw and add an affordable housing component. The restrictions are: that the apartment must have been occupied prior to 1982, and that no more than 10% of the houses could contain apartments. He said there are two issues: 1. What should be the extent of the overlay district for accessory apartments? 2. How do we add the affordable component? Page 8ofII Regarding the first point, the Board had previously discussed restricting the overlay district to an area adjacent to the depot. Regarding the second, RH said the Board could require that the owner must rent the accessory apartment as an affordable unit for 10 years after which rent could be set at market rates. JB asked if a limited duration of affordability would meet the criteria of "affordable housing". CR said it would count against the town's affordable unit inventory for those 10 years only. RH said he would prefer to keep the apartments affordable in perpetuity but thought that doing so might make the modification tough to pass at Town Meeting. JB was very uncomfortable with removing all restrictions from the bylaw. He pointed out that the ZBA reviews cases based on the restrictions the Board wants to remove. What would the ZBA base their reviews on in the future? RH said there are other criteria for the ZBA to consider parking for instance. JB said if the 10% restriction were dropped, what would keep 100% of the homeowners in the overlay district from adding accessory apartments? That would have quite an effect on the character of the district. RH pointed out that the reason the Board was suggesting placing the overlay district near the depot was to encourage more people to move into an area within walking distance of that "transportation node" but he was open to placing some kind of percentage cap on the number of accessory apartments in the area CR made two points: 1. For as long as he has been the Town Planner he has not seen a single application for an accessory apartment 2. The Mixed-Use Overlay District was just passed and, since you would be increasing the supply of units, this accessory apartment overlay district could have a "chilling effect" on potential developments. RH disagreed that there would be a chilling effect. JB said Mixed-Use offers the opportunity of Smart Growth funds from the state and asked if accessory apartments would do the same. RH replied that the thrust of both Mixed-Use and this modification to the accessory apartment bylaw is the same: more affordable units. The discussion turned to determining the boundaries of the overlay district. JB suggested expanding the district to include the rest of the town provided there would still be some kind of restriction on the percentage of houses that could build accessory apartments. RH agreed with this suggestion and asked JB if he would be agreeable to expanding the overlay district to include the all S15 and S20 zones with a 10% cap? JB said he would be open to an even higher cap as long as there was some kind of cap in place. NS asked: Who would do this? CR said that was a good question since no one is taking out permits to do it today. RE agreed it was a good question and said that is why the bylaw should be opened up to the rest of the town to improve its chances of working. There won't be a long line for pen-nits, but if we say accessory apartments will only have to be affordable units for 10 Page 9of11 years or so, after which they could be rented at market rates, then homeowners will have a reason to come forward. It's a first step and the town will be demonstrating to the state that we are increasing our affordable units. Attorney Brad Latham pointed out that the apartments must qualify as affordable for at least 15 years. The Board drafted language for the bylaw modification and asked the Town Planner to present it to the Town Counsel for review and "tightening up". CR said he would do so and added that although the notion is good he reminded the Board that there is no enforcement of the existing accessory apartments. He said every accessory apartment created since 2002 goes on the town's affordable housing inventory but only if a permit was applied for them. The Board expressed an interest in capturing the accessory apartments legally created since 2002. RH asked if he world be correct in saying that it is the consensus of the Board that we are moving in the right direction regarding this bylaw. The Board agreed. Cluster Development (PRD) zoning in all S-1 5 and S-20 zoning districts provided one in eight units is affordable and $30,0001market unit is contributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund It was the consensus of the Board to discuss this item at a later date. Administrative Review: Request for Determination of Minor Amendment to the PUD-R 468 West Street, Johnson Woods: request for changes to building configurations and locations Attorney Brad Latham represented Johnson Woods. He reminded the Board that the changes to the plan had been discussed at previous meetings. RH asked what would happen if the development company went out of business before providing affordable units, or if the developer decided in one, two or three years that there is a glut of housing and delayed bringing units online? CR said that under the bylaw 4.9.6.10 the affordable units must be provided before market- rate units. Mr. Latham read aloud from the zoning bylaws: "4.9.6.10 shall be satisfied each building phase". CR had a concern that the modifications could reduce the overall square footage of the townhouses. Mr. Latham said the elevator shaft reduces the square footage of some of the townhouses. RH asked if we are losing or gaining ground? Mr. Latham said the townhouses are larger the flats are reduced but the net is greater. r- CR said he was satisfied. He said the changes taken as a whole are worth it. JB agreed. JB said the town is getting additional townhouses, more open space, more parking, and the buildings will fit the location better. Page 10 of 1 I CR said the Town Engineer's comments have been added to the draft decision as conditions. RH said conditions 1 and 5 should be struck since they have been fulfilled already. JB moved to approve the request as a Minor Amendment. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Request for bond reduction: 468 West Street, Johnson Woods CR said this had been continued to allow the Engineering Department time to inspect the site. JB moved to approve the request for the bond reduction based on the recommendation of the Town Engineer. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Subdivision Approval Not Required (ANR) 468 West Street, Johnson Woods The Board did not address this item as Attorney Brad Latham said the ANR was not yet ready. NS moved to adjourn. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting ended at 10:45 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on February 13, 2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on February 13, 2006. igne approved, c,flat Howard, S - - 0~ Date Page 11 of 11