Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-20 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTOWN OF READING COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 20, 1996 A meeting of the Community Planning and Development Commission of the Town of Reading was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street in Reading, Massachusetts on May 20, 1996. In attendance were Bryan Irwin, Chair; and Members Susan DeMatteo, Thomas Baillie, Jonathan Barnes, and Richard Howard. Also present were Town Planner Jonathan Edwards and Town Engineer Joseph Delaney. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 PM. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES The minutes of the Commission's meeting of April 1 and May 6, 1996 were accepted. APPROVAL-NOT-REQUIRED SUBDIVISION PLANS The Commission voted 5:0 to approve a motion of Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Barnes, to endorse a Plan of Land for Ceccacci, Courossi, and Fantasia on Zachary and Cory Lanes and Dividence Road, dated April 23, 1996 and revised May 6, 1996; and did so endorse. PENDING BUSINESS Mr. Irwin and Mr. Edwards discussed with the Commission the desire expressed by the Board of Selectmen that given the recent location into Reading of an unexpected adult video store, the schedule for considering an adult-uses amendment to the Zoning By-Laws should be accelerated. The Commission agreed to hold a special meeting on June 3, 1996 to review findings as to poten- tial impacts of such uses and a special meeting on June 17, 1996 to consider developing warrant article language concerning such a potential amendment for placement by the Selectmen before Town Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING--PRELIMINARY PRD-G PLANS: 89 MAIN STREET Mr. Irwin called to order a public hearing to consider prelimi- nary plans for a proposed Planned Residential Development— General, at 89 Main Street. Messrs. Tom Devaney, applicant, and Rich Williams, engineer, presented the plans. Messrs. Edwards and Delaney presented staff comments. Commission members pointed out that this plan departs in major ways from the sketch plan shown to Town Meeting three years ago in pursuit of the PRD-G overlay zoning, particularly in regard to higher.: building coverage and less buffering from abutting properties; that peak hour traffic estimates may be low and existing traffic conditions were not taken into account in the traffic study. Mr. David the closeness of the road, lack of detail, and possible harm from blasting, relative to the eighteenth-century house on the site and that the Victorian barn is proposed to be demolished. 1 Residents expressed concerns about the effect of additional traf- fic from this site compounded by additional traffic shortly to come from the nearby Bear Hill development; that construction noise from this site on weekends would be undesirable; that there should be no access road from the site onto South Street; that paved and traffic areas on the site are too close to abutters and there is not enough screening. The Commission voted 5:0 to ap- prove a motion by Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Baillie, to con- tinue the public hearing to 8:30 PM on June 10, 1996. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING--SITE PLAN REVIEW: 162 MAIN STREET Mr. Irwin called to order a continued public hearing concerning site plan review for Gregory's at 162 Main Street. Mr. O. Brad- ley Latham, attorney for the applicant, presented revised plans reflecting concerns expressed by the Commission at the last ses- sion of the public hearing, and stated that the basement will be used only for mechanical and storage purposes. He added that it has been calculated that the majority of the site is not in the Business-A zoning district, and therefore the expansion of the use into the residentially zoned portion of the site could only be accomplished through a variance from the Zoning Board of Ap- peals, for which the owner intends to apply. Failing such a variance, the plans could not legally be effected. Messrs. Irwin and Barnes pointed out that the sign shown on the front elevation did not match up with the awning shown on the side elevation. The Commission voted 5:0 to approve a motion by Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Barnes, to close the public hearing. The Commis- sion then voted 5:0 to approve a motion by Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Baillie, to approve the site plan with conditions as specified in a Notification to Town Clerk dated May 21, 1996. ADJOURNMENT At 10:10 PM a motion was made and seconded to adjourn and the Commission voted unanimously to do so. Respectfully Submitted: Signed:/ Br n rwin, Chairman Approved: June 10, 1996 Date: 2 0L.,. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF READING 16 Lowell Street Reading, Massachusetts 01867 (617) 942-9012 MEMORANDUM TO: Cheryl Johnson, Tow Clerk FROM: Jonathan Edwards, Clerk Development Co mission SUBJ: Decision--Site Plan Review: DATE: May 21, 1996 to the RECEIVED 1-OWN CLERK( READING, MASS, MAY 21 4 02 Ply % main/isp.rec Community Planning and Gregory's, 162 Main Street Please be advised that at its meeting of May 20, 1996 the Com- munity Planning and Development Commission voted to approve a Site Plan, proposed by Louis Gregorio, entitled "Proposed Retail /Restaurant Building at 162 Main Street", dated April 8, 1996 as revised through May 14, 1996, and accompanying plans and documents, with the following conditions: 1. Prior to making application for a Building Permit, the Ap- plicant shall submit to the Department of Community Develop- ment and to the Engineering Division, Department of Public Works, satisfactory modifications to said Site Plan reflect- ing this approval and its conditions. 2. All necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained prior to construction and occupancy, including as appropriate but not necessarily limited to: Board of Health approvals, Street Opening Permit, Street Tree Removal Permit, Sewer Ex- tension Permit, Curb-Cut Permit, Building Permits, Proof of inspection and certification of Minimum Cellar Floor Eleva- tions, Conservation Orders of Condition for the development. 3. All comments except items 2 and 5 contained in the Town Engineer's memorandum of May 6, 1996 shall•be addressed and satisfied consistent with this decision. 4. All comments except items 2 and 6 contained in the minutes of the Development Review Team of April 30, 1996 shall be addressed and satisfied consistent with this decision. 5. The applicant shall plant and maintain the trees and other plantings on site as shown on the above-mentioned plans as amended by this decision under the direction of the Tree Warden; and all such plantings shall be indicated on revised plans per Condition #1. The Plans shall be amended as sub- mitted according to Condition #1 as follows: a. One additional maple tree. in the frontage landscaping area approximately thirty feet south of the southerly curb of the new site entranceway. b. All new maple trees shall be 3-1/2 inch calipre. 6. Construction activity shall not take place on the site such as may be discernable from outside the property except during the following hours: Mondays through Fridays: 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM /3 Saturdays: 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Sundays and Legal Holidays: none Moreover, heavy equipment shall not be operated in or to or from the property except during the following hours: Mondays through Fridays: 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturdays: 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Sundays and Legal Holidays: none 7. Should any landscaping subject to this approval require re- placement as determined by the Tree Warden within one year after installation, the applicant shall immediately replace such landscaping. 8. The exterior building material and lighting shall be as specified on Drawing A-1 revised May 20, 1996, said drawing to be submitted in accordance with condition ##1. 9. Exterior lighting shall be wall-mounted and shielded from shining directly into adjoining properties or the public right-of-way 10. No mechanical equipment shall be mounted on the roof or on the ground. 11. The basement of the building shall be used only for mechani- cal and storage. 12. A limit-of-work line shall be shown on the plans not closer to the rear property line than fifty feet, and no construc- tion activity shall take place behind this limit-of-work line. 13. All signage must adhere to the Town of Reading Sign By-Laws. 14. The two southernmost parking spaces shall be employee park- ing only and shall be so signed. 15. The requirement for a traffic study is hereby waived. 16. This decision shall not be valid until and unless any neces- sary variances to render all aspects of said plan legal are granted by the Reading Zoning Board of Appeals; should such variances not be granted, this approval shall be deemed null and void. cc: CPDC Board of Selectmen Zoning Board of Appeals Town Manager Director of Public Works DPW--Engineering. Tree Warden Building Inspector Board of Health Police Chief Fire Chief Applicant: Louis Gregorio, 156 Hopkins Street N TOWN OF READING--DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts 01867 (617) 942-9010 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Minutes of April 30, 1996 Participants: Peter Hechenbleikner,. Town Manager Jonathan Edwards, Town Planner Glen Redmond, Building Inspector Ruth Clay, Health Director Donald Wood, Fire Chief Joseph Delaney, Town Engineer Topic: Site Plan: Greg's, 162 Main Street: 1. Zoning and Code Issues: Is the majority of the property in the Business-A Zone? If not, then the 30-foot commercial-use encroachment into the'S-15 Zone is not permissible. Is the basement proposed to be used for commercial use of any kind or for support of or ancillary operations connected with either or both main-floor uses? If so, then the parking and loading shown is inadequate in terms of zoning requirements. If the total occupied area is to be more than 7500 sq. ft., the building would need to be sprinkiered. 2. The last two parking spaces are unusable; a slot toward the southern property line should be provided. 3. There is a drainage easement on the property but not shown on the plans. 4. Curb material is not shown; for the curb parallel to Main Street and the curb along the landscaped entrance peninsula, material should be granite. 5. An inlet should be provided to the drainage pipe located near the southeastern corner of the proposed building. 6. A retaining wall on the southerly side of the property would better allow for emergency access to the side and rear of the building; alternatively, building the structure into the slope, with the foundation and wall acting as a retaining wall, would eliminate the extent of grading shown. 7. Drainage calculations are needed; the extent of impervious surface is being increased. 8. The stop line should be pulled into the property off the sidewalk. 9. Some landscaping along the northerly property line is shown on land owned by that abutter; has that owner given permission? Also, a tree is needed in that location. 10. What facade materials and colors are proposed? 11. Will mechanical equipment be placed on the roof? If so, will it be visible from the street or abutting residences and what noise abatement measures would be appropriate? cc,: Applicant's attorney: Latham & Latham, 643 Main Street CPDC; Team Participants; Joe Veno; Donald Nadeau yr OF)? , c Town of Reading. 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2687 639'INCORQO~P FAX: (617) 942-9070 PUBLIC WORKS (617) 942-9076 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6, 1996 TO: Jonathan Edwards, Town Planner CPDC Members FROM: Joseph E. Delaney, Town Engine SUBJECT: 162 Main Street Site Plan (Gregory's Site) The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed site plan for 162 Main Street and offers the following comments. 1. There is an existing drainage easement across the property. The limits of this easement j should be shown on the Existing Conditions Plan. 2. The southerly two parking spaces do not have sufficient maneuvering room for vehicles to exit. A paved turnout area beyond the parking spaces should be provided. 3. The plans should specify the curbing materials to be used within the site. At a minimum, granite curb should be used around the driveway peninsula and along the planting bed parallel to Main Street. This will allow plows to maneuver without damaging the curb. 4. The proposed 12 inch drain line to the paved swale on the southerly side of the building should have some sort of inlet structure. A catch basin in this location would be preferable because the sump would help prevent debris from entering the Town drainage system. 5. Emergency vehicle access along the southerly side of the building is compromised by the steep slope. A retaining wall at or near the property line would provide better access. 6. Drainage calculations must be submitted to demonstrate that there will be no increase in the peak rate of runoff after development. If there is an increase in runoff, mitigation will be required. 7. The Town requires type VA-4 vertical granite curb within the road right-of-way. The detail provided does not show this type of curb. ),c