Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-09 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown 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: January 9, 2006 Location: Police Meeting Room, 15 Union Street 7:30 PM Members Present: John Sasso, Chair (JS), Neil Sullivan (NS), Jonathan Barnes (JB), and Susan DeMatteo (SD). Members Absent: Richard Howard. Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth Joe Delaney, Town Engineer Mr. Carlo Bacci, 25 Wakefield Avenue, Wakefield, owner of The Chocolate Truffle Mr. Paul Fontes, 89 Highland Street Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Ted Moore, Glover Property Management, Inc. 8 Doaks Lane, Marblehead, MA, 01745 Mr. James Velleco, Architect Members and guests of the Historical Commission: Ms. Virginia Adams, Madam Chair of the Historical Commission Ms. Karen Herrick, 9 Dividence Road Mr. Clay Jones Ms. Diane Jones Ms. Roberta Sullivan, 76 Minot Street There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 7:40 PM. Public Comment/Minutes JS asked for comments from the Public. CR said Mr. Paul Fontes of 89 Highland Street would like to ask the Board to approve as a Minor Modification a change to the facade of his store at 505 - 519 Main Street. This is a last minute change to the agenda. ;G Mr. Fontes said the original plan, which the Board approved, allowed Mr. Fontes to increase the height of the brick wall and to add a stucco fagade to the upper portion of the brick wall. Unfortunately, the matching color of brick is no longer made. Also, when the builders set about preparing the wall for the new bricks they discovered that the lower rows Page 1 of 12 T. L(), of the old bricks were poorly laid. Both of these points led Mr. Fontes to decide to rebuild the wall entirely of new brick of a color close to the color of the old brick. He also decided that he preferred the wall without the stucco fagade noting that no other walls in the downtown area are stuccoed. Mr. Fontes said that the new wall is already up. He spoke to CR the week before about the situation and told him that if the Board did not approve the modification he would stucco it over as per the original plans. JB asked if the request for the Minor Modification should not be in writing? CR said it should, but Mr. Fontes was dealing with a work in progress and Mr. Fontes had to make a decision before consulting with the Board or face the loss of valuable.construction time. JB, although not against the modification, was uncomfortable with both the lack of notice given to the Board and the forgoing of a formal discussion of the modification. He noted that the Board receives many requests for Minor Modifications and he thought it might be a good idea for the Board to mark for future discussion just what the procedure for requesting a Minor Modification should be. He also would like to discuss what definitions for "minor" and "major" the Board should use. CR said there is a formal procedure in place but he was trying to accommodate an applicant in a tight spot. He added that the definitions of "minor modification" and "major modification" vary under different regulations. For instance, under 4,33 in the bylaws they are not so clear but under the PUD bylaws they are much clearer. The consensus of the Board was to approve the applicant's request. JB moved to approve as a Minor Modification the changes to the wall at 505-519 Main Street as discussed tonight conditional on the submission from the applicant of a written request for a Minor Modification with all specifics supplied. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. JS asked for other comments from the Public. There were none. He suggested that they postpone the review of the minutes until later in the meeting. The Board agreed. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness 494 Main Street, The Chocolate Truffle (Action Date: January 23, 2006) Mr. Carlo Bacci of 25 Wakefield Avenue, Wakefield, MA is the owner of The Chocolate Truffle. Mr. Bacci said he waisted to improve the appearance of the building by adding awnings. He said there will be a logo on the main awning but the other two awnings will be plain. Also, the logo will be on a sign hanging over and parallel to the front door. The sign will Page 2of12 hang from the underside of the "A-frame peak" that extends from the front of the house over the front door. CR said that the awnings and the sign meet the requirements of the signage bylaws. The representative of Mr. Bacci's sign company said the sign will be circular, made of SignFoam and so it should not rot or split. The letters will be vinyl not raised or engraved. The awnings will be made of canvas. JB thought he might prefer a projecting sign. JS said the problem with that is that you would not be able to see the sign well from either Green or Main Street because the building sits at a diagonal to Main Street. JS said he had no issue with the awnings --.as long as the lettering is no greater than 4" but he would prefer to see engraved letters on the sign. The Board agreed. The representative of Mr. Bacci's sign company said the awning's letters would not be greater than 4" high. Regarding the sign's lettering, he had not considered engraved letters because the signs in town seemed to be a finish-mash of styles. CR said engraved letters have been the Board's standard. JS added that the Board has always tried to require engraved letters on signs. CR noted that as the awnings are not retractable so the Board will have to approve their height. These awnings are 8' off the ground not the required 10'. He added that he thought 8' should be high enough given the location. The Board agreed. Ms. Virginia Adams asked if the awnings would be squared-off or rounded. Mr. C said they would be squared-off. Ms. Adams was pleased and said that is the appropriate style for the building. It was the consensus of the Board to continue the discussion until the next meeting. At that time, the Board would like to see plans for engraved or raised letters on the sign and specifications of the height of all letters (on sign and awning). CR said he could put the item on the 1/23/06 agenda at 7:45 PM. No Motion Necessary Public Hearing (continued): Definitive Subdivision Vale Realty Trust, Piper Glen Lane at 15 Avon Street (Action Date: January 23, 2006) Request for Continuation to January 23, 2006 at 9:OOPM SD rec used herself JS opened the Public Hearing. He said the Board had received a letter from the applicant's engineer requesting a continuance until 1/23/06 and an extension to 2/28/06. Page 3 of 12 CR said the applicant's engineer is still working on the drainage design. After meeting with the Town Engineer and the Conservation Committee, the applicant's engineer had major revisions to make to the drainage design. CR said the applicant's engineer told him that the design should be ready by the next meeting (1/23/06). CR said the Board should vote on the extension and continuance separately. JB moved to accept the extension from 1/23/06 to 2/28/06 NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. JB moved to continue the Public Hearing to 1/23/06 at 9:OOPM. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. For the benefit of those members of the Public who were notified of tonight's hearing, JS explained that the next meeting would also be held at the Police Community Room and that no additional notice would be mailed to the abutters. CR said that when he received the new plans he would post them to the Planning Board's webpage. SD returned. 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 Suggestions made by the Board at the last meeting as well as suggestions made by the ZBA at a separate meeting with the Historical Commission have been incorporated into the Historical Commission's latest draft (dated 1/6/06) of their proposed bylaw. CR asked Virginia Adams if the Commission had taken notes from their meeting with the ZBA? She said they had. CR said it would be helpful to Town Counsel to have a copy of those notes. CR said the Town Counsel has reviewed the Commission's latest draft and updated it with her comments. CR distributed copies this version to the members of the Board and the Commission. Virginia Adams said the Historical Commission had come up with more changes to their 01/06 draft and she distributed a sheet listing their changes to the members of the Board and the Commission. JS asked who would maintain the Master Draft. Virginia Adams said the Historical Commission would. Page 4of12 JS asked how many properties could be affected by this bylaw. No one on the Historical Commission could give a definite number although Virginia Adams did say that it would probably not be many. JS explained that the more information the Commission could provide at Town Meeting regarding the use of the bylaw the better the chances it will be passed. Next, the Board and the Commission reviewed the draft section by section. The Board offered various grammatical and word-choice changes. For instance, under the definition of "Original Lot" the Board suggested changing "the original lot will be subdivided" to "the original lot may be subdivided". The Board explained since it is possible that the historical structure may be moved to a new location the original lot need not be subdivided. Under the "Standards and Regulations" section, the Commission asked the Board if the references to residential zoning districts should include non-residential zoning districts too. CR asked what the ZBA had to say about it. The Commission replied that the ZBA did not want to make the bylaw too narrow in its application. CR said he would try to get a copy of the ZBA's minutes of the meeting. Changes were made to the draft to accommodate the fact that setbacks apply only to houses not to lots. Under the "Conditions to be Imposed" section, Virginia Adams said the ZBA did not think mortgagees would want to place their mortgage subordinate to a Historic Preservation Restriction. The Town Counsel had added a comment to this but no one was sure exactly what her comment was referring to so the Board suggested asking Town Counsel for clarification. Under the "Application Requirements and Procedures" section, the Board suggested that the specific number of applications to be submitted should not be a part of the bylaw. Instead, it should be mentioned in the application itself JS asked, in the case where a historic structure that is going to be moved, is it necessary to require that the applicant have a letter approving the route before submitting the application for the special permit? CR suggesting dropping that requirement. He said the situation could change dramatically before the move so submitting such a letter beforehand may not be helpful. He said the route is usually written into the decision and conditioned on the Safety Officer's review. The Board agreed with dropping the requirement. Virginia Adams said the ZBA had expressed concern over how long it would take for an applicant to have the special permit in hand. CR said he didn't think it would take too long. Virginia Adams asked if the applicant would need the special permit before applying for an ANR or vice versa. The Board said they'd need the special permit first. Ms. Adams asked: what would the applicant do if they couldn't get an ANR? As long as the submission Page 5 of 12 complies with the Massachusetts Subdivision Control Law the Board is obligated to approve the request. JB asked the Commission if they had any idea how comfortable the Selectmen are with this bylaw? Virginia Adams said the Commission plans to meet with the Selectmen on 1/24/06. CR said the Town Manager wants the final version of the bylaw ready by the time the Commission meets with the Selectmen. JS made two points: The Commission should try to have an updated version of the bylaw ready by the next CPDC meeting on 1/23/06. That should be a version already seen by the Town Counsel and the ZBA. 2. The Public Hearing for the bylaw should be scheduled for the first CPDC meeting in February 2006. At JS's suggestion, the Board decided to postpone discussion of the other two bylaws until later in the meeting. Public Hearing (continued): Definitive Subdivision Richard Merrill Trustees, Dwight Road at 175 Franklin Street (Action Date: January 23, 2006) ' JS opened the Public Hearing. Attorney Brad Latham appeared for the applicant. He said a letter (of 12/29/05) had been sent to the Board specifying changes made to the plans in response to the Town Engineer's letter of 11/01/05. Mr. Latham added that it was acceptable to his client to include the Town Engineer's four open items as conditions. The Town Engineer listed the open items: 1. The Developer should retain ownership of the entire roadway so that transfer of ownership to the town is not piecemeal. 2. He needs more information on the proposed retaining wall. Currently, the Town Engineer cannot see how the retaining wall could be built without encroaching on the neighbor's property. 3. The Tree Inventory has been added to the topographic plan but it makes a confusing mess of that plan so he would prefer the Tree Inventory be made a separate plan. 4. He has no problem with allowing the waiver on the sidewalks but before the plans are endorsed he wants to know how much the applicant will contribute to a fund for. sidewalks on Franklin Street. Mr. Latham although he agreed to each condition, made additional comments on two of them. Regarding the retaining wall, he noted that, in law, his client would not be able to encroach upon the neighbor's property. Regarding the sidewalk fund, they need to know how the amount they are to contribute would be calculated.. Page 6of12 CR said he had prepared a Draft Decision and he would attach the Town Engineer's memo to it. The Town Engineer asked the Board if they would make his memo a part of the decision rather than have the decision make reference to it. The Board agreed. There followed a lengthy discussion of the proposed retaining wall. The Town Engineer said that he had asked the applicant for information on the retaining wall in two separate emails. One sent in 2004 and the other in 2005. He said the typical retaining wall built to town standards could not fit there without encroaching upon the neighbor's property. If the developer has a way to build a wall there such that it will not encroach upon the neighbor, then he wants to see plans showing the type of wall and how it would be built. The applicant's engineer said a "Gravity Block" wall could fit there. He added that he had built one in Danvers that was 20' tall. The Town Engineer said he was looking for details for this wall: excavation depth and width, etc. He said he is not an expert on walls and he needs the applicant to demonstrate that it can be done. JB said he it struck him as a significant preliminary fact that the town should be satisfied that a proper retaining wall would be built and that it will not encroach upon the neighbor's property. The Board agreed. JB said he is developing a disinclination to approve when the town's requirements are not satisfied at the time of approval. JS added that the Board has been asked to get these things settled up front rather than malting them conditional. The Board then reviewed the Draft Decision in some detail. JS said the review may tape longer than usual because the Board wants to be specific in what it requires from the applicant. During the review, the Board made it a point to place the Town Engineer's four open items directly into the text of the decision and in the proper sections. Under the section "Prior to the Issuance of an Occupancy Permit", • (4c) A "River Birch" was added to the Landscaping Plan of the island. Also, • (4e) The Town Engineer said the installation of lighting is up to the RMLD • (4f) The final wording of the section establishing the "Homeowners Association" (responsible for the upkeep of the landscape island) must be submitted to the Town Planner for his approval. Under the section "Conditions on the Construction", • (3) Hours of Construction. This brought up the issue of heavy equipment. CR suggested putting it into a finding. The Board agreed. The Town Engineer noted that this development is different from the situation at Johrison Woods where deliveries were an - issue. Deliveries should not be an issue here. Under the section "Waivers", Page 7of12 • Mr. Latham noted that his client was requesting six waivers not just the listed two. Among the other four was both a request for a reduction in the cul-de-sac's tree lawn and a corresponding increase in the radius of the cul-de-sac (per the Fire Chief's request) Virginia Adams said, as a name for the new road, the Historical Commission had offered "Sailor Tom " Where the blank could be "street" or "road" or something else. She asked if it was still possible to give the road such a name? The Town Engineer said the Board has the authority to approve road names. Mr. Latham said his client appreciated the historical significance of naming the road after the "Sailor Tom" restaurant but he did not like the name. Virginia Adams said the Historical Commission is still getting calls asking about the "Ship House" and "Sailor Tom's". NS moved to use "Sailor Torn" in the name of the road. SD seconded. JB asked if it was necessary to vote on the name at this time since the Public Hearing would most likely be continued until the next meeting. The board agreed and tabled NS's motion until the next meeting. It was the consensus of the Board to continue the Public Hearing until 1/23/06 at which time the Board wants to have more information on both the retaining wall, and the landscaping plan (including the shade tree on the island). CR said the Public Hearing would have to be scheduled very late in the meeting. The agenda that night is full already. JS suggested starting the meeting earlier, 7:15 PM, and continuing the Public Hearing until that time. He added that if the applicant has everything the Board is asking for ready at the next meeting then their business shouldn't take long. JB moved to continue the Public Hearing until the meeting of 1/23/06 at 7:15 PM. NS seconded. Voted Approved 4:0:0. Administrative Review Request for Determination of Minor Amendment to the PUD-R 468 West Street, Johnson Woods: changes to building configurations and locations. Attorney Brad Latham, developer Mr. Ted Moore, and architect Mr. James Velleco appeared for Johnson Woods. Architect Jim Velleco explained the modifications to the Board. A long stretch of connected flats and townhouses are being disconnected. This modification will • Provide more open space • Allow the buildings to follow the topography better • Require less grading • Save more trees Page 8of12 • There'll be more guest parking There'll be no change in the number of units but the proportion of affordable housing flats vs. affordable housing townhouses will change. CR said he had no concerns and supports the modifications. He said the modifications were a net benefit to the development. The Town Engineer also thought the modifications were fine but he did have some conditions: • Need calculation of impervious cover • Need soil testing • The paved turn-around should be striped as a Fire Lane • An ANR will be needed for a proposed land transfer • The entrance to Building 19 is not made clear in the plans • Where the exercise path meets the intersection, something should show that it continues on the other side of the road JB agreed that the changes were beneficial and he was inclined to support the request, but it seemed to him that this was not a minor but a major modification. JS asked CR if the bylaws provide any guidance as to whether what the applicant is attempting is in fact a minor modification? CR said he believed section 4.9.3.13 of the PUB bylaws justifies the determination of minor modification and he read it to the Board. The Board agreed with him. Mr. Latham added that the true determination of a Major or Minor Modification is its impact on abutters and there is no impact on abutters in this case. JB moved to approve as a Minor Modification the changes to 468 West Street, Johnson Woods as contained in the plans dated 1/4/06 and subject to the conditions in the Town Engineer's memo and the submission and approval of an ANR by 1/23/06. NS seconded. Before the Board voted, Mr. Moore said Clauses 35 and 36 of the original PUD-R decision specified a specific square footage and number of affordable housing units based on the proportion and number of particular kinds of units (flats to townhouses and the numbers of each). Although the modifications do not change the total number of affordable units they do change the proportion of flats to townhouses and the specifics of the square footage. He is worried that someone might call him on the specifics if the numbers in the clauses are not changed to be in line with the modifications put forward tonight. CR said that once the Board approves the modifications the original decision is changed "de facto" and he would make the necessary changes to the original decision. The Town Engineer said the changes to sizes of the units are not "de facto" changes. The Board decided to add another condition to the Minor Modification approval directing the Town Planner to make the necessary changes to the relevant clauses of the original decision to Page 9 of 12 bring that decision in line with tonight's modifications. The Town Planner will then bring the updated decision to the Board for their review and approval. JB made a motion to add this additional condition and SD seconded it. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Request for bond reduction - 468 West Street, Johnson Woods JS asked if the reduction was consistent with the work completed. CR said it was with respect to the landscaping. The Town Engineer said he has not inspected the site himself. He'll have to check with his department. JB asked if this request could be deferred. It was the consensus of the Board to defer the request until the meeting of 1/23/06. Minutes As the hour was late and there was still much to discuss, JS decided to postpone the review of the minutes until the next meeting. Zoning Workshop Cluster Development (PRD) Zoning In all S-15 and S-20 zoning districts provided one in eight units is affordable and $30,0001market unit is contributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund 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 The Board decided to postpone the discussion of both the Cluster Zoning and the Accessory Apartments bylaws until a future meeting when Board member Richard Howard is present. JS noted that neither bylaw may make it onto the warrant for the next Town Meeting. CR agreed it was unlikely. Review of 01.03.06 Joint Meeting with Selectmen The White Paper written by RE and CR provided options and recommendations to the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen. JS presented three more recommendations that he would like the Board to consider. ~1. Schedule a face-to-face meeting with the Building Inspector. 2. Add "Associate Members" to the CPDC. The Board needs help checking up on the various projects around town. Also, an associate membership could be a training ground for future Board members. Page 10 of 12 3. Get more details of the pennitting process from the Town Planner and Building Inspector. The Board thought scheduling a meeting with the Building Inspector was a great idea. JS said, the Board needs to have more information on permit compliance and enforcement. JB noted that at the Joint Meeting the Building Inspector said that there would be more time for enforcement now that he has a new assistant. He said the Board should make the most of the Inspector's acknowledgement that his assistant is there to help with enforcement. JS said the Board of Selectmen had told them at the Joint Meeting that if there is a problem with enforcement then we need to tell them about it. JB said, at one time the Building Inspector reported to the Town Planner. Today, if the Town Planner does not sign off on a Building Permit or a Certificate of Occupancy because of a condition not being met, the applicant can go over his head. He asked if there is some way a condition or requirement could be worded such that the "heat" falls back on the CPDC and not the Town Planner? CR said that is how it works with the Conservation Commission. The Cons Comm signs off on its permits. JS made three last points: 1. Comments on the White Paper should be made to RE 2. JS to coordinate with CR to arrange a meeting with the Building Inspector and contact the Town Manager as needed. 3. JS to recommend to Board of Selectmen that they consider the addition of Associate Members to the CPDC. Preparation of 01.17.06 Joint Meeting with Selectmen CR said the applicant will give a 30 minute presentation about the Traffic Review. Next, the town's Peer Reviewer will make his presentation. That will be followed by discussion among the members of both Boards. Finally, the Public will be asked to comment. JS asked if the Traffic Study was the only item on the agenda. CR said he believed it was. CR said the original and supplemental Traffic Study, plus the peer reviewer's comments have been posted to the Planning Board's webpage. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness Fuddruckers This was a last-minute addition to the agenda. Attorney Brad Latham and Fuddrucker's owner, Mr. Jim Boland, appeared for Fuddruckers. Mr. Latham presented the Board with two sheets of color illustrations. One shows the existing sign and the other the proposed sign. Page 11 of 12 Mr. Latham said the objective of this sign is to increase Fuddrucker's visibility. Mr. Boland said they are just changing the existing "Johnny's Luncheonette" sign. JS said the Board had already approved the awnings - this is about the directional sign. SD noted that the existing sign includes an arrow but the proposed sign does not and asked if this changes the notion of directional signage? CR said the "Johnny's Luncheonette" sign was originally approved as a directional sign. SD asked if the change puts the sign out of compliance. Mr. Latham said he and Mr. Boland submit that it is still a directional sign. It tells people what is behind the building. CR read aloud the bylaw pertaining to directional signs. It was the consensus of the Board that they need to see an arrow on the sign. Mr. Boland said he could ask "Bose" to move their sign to the adjacent space on the sign to make room for an arrow. NS moved to approve the Signage Certificate of Appropriateness conditioned on the addition of a directional arrow to the proposed sign. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. JB moved to adjourn. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting ended at 11:50 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on January 23, 2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC' on January 23, 2006. Signed as approved, Howard, Secretary Date Page 12 of 12