Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-17 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street tl"" Ss. Reading, MA 01867-2683 [r3u Wu Phone: 781-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creillyaci.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: October 17, 2005 Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Reading Town Hall 7:00 PM Members Present: John Sasso, Chair (JS), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Richard Howard (RH), and Neil Sullivan (NS). Members Absent: Jonathan Barnes. Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth Ms. Virginia Adams, Madam Chair of the Historical Commission Mr. Tom Buckborough, 3 Avon Street Mr. Bill Downing, 14 Avon Street Ms. Cynthia First, 3 Avon Street Mr. Joe Gallo, 295 Main Street Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Burt Long, 227 Ash Street Mr. Brian Milisci, P.E., Whitman & Bingham Associates, 510 Mechanics Street, Leominster, MA 01453 Mr. Ben Nichols, 25 Avon Street Mr. Edward W. Shaw, Vice President, Dickinson Development Corp., 1266 Furnace Brook Parkway, Quincy, MA 02169 Mr. John D. Sullivan, P.E., 22 Mount Vernon Road, Boxford, MA 01921 Mr. Joe Westerman, 17 Avon Street Mr. Jerry Winter, Batten Bros. Sign Advertising Master Plan Advisory Committee Review of 2005 Master Plan Draft Status At 7:OOPM the MPAC met to discuss the status of the Master Plan. There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 7:30PM. Public Hearing: Definitive Subdivision Vale Realty Trust, 15 Avon Street Right of Way & Utilities for Four Lots off of 15 Avon St. in the SF 15 Zone t.b.k. as Kelly Lane (Action Date: January 23, 2006) Page 1 of 9 SD recused herself. Mr. Jack Sullivan represented Vale Realty. Mr. Sullivan said this was a plan for a four-lot subdivision. Vale has submitted an ANRAD to the Conservation Committee and it was approved. There are marginal wetlands on the western portion of the property and a Wetlands Line has been established. The house on 15 Avon would remain and three additional single-family houses created. Kelly Lane would be a cul-de-sac and all utilities would be run underground. They are looking for two waivers: 1. No traffic study. They claim the three new single-family homes would have a minimal impact on traffic. 2. Sidewalks on the west side of the roadway only. The houses will all front on this side. Drainage is the main problem with this site. Mr. Sullivan said he wanted to use infiltrators but the Town Engineer wants a detention basin because infiltrators are hard to maintain and can become overgrown with roots. To reduce the impervious cover and keep the size of the detention basin down, Mr. Sullivan is asking for a waiver to reduce the width of the . pavement from 30 feet to 24 feet. Mr. Sullivan said he would not increase drainage but noted that two of the abutters are lower than the wetlands which means there are drainage problems with even a Ten-Year Stonn. Mr. Sullivan said he was amenable to the DRT's request for a landscaped island. CR read highlights from the DRT minutes. • The cul-de-sac should have a landscaped island. • The site works better as a three-lot subdivision. • The name should be changed. "Kelly" is too much like "Kylie". • Lot #lA should be dropped. • The Conservation Commission says the site needs a drainage easement and the plans should be expanded to show the wetlands. • All parties agreed on constructing a sidewalk on one side of the roadway only. JS asked the Board for their questions and comments. RH asked the purpose of lots #lA and 2A. Mr. Sullivan said they were necessary to meet the bylaw requirements of Lot Shape. JS asked if the Fire Department's radius requirements have been met? CR said the cul-de-sac would have to be redesigned if an island were added. JS asked why the DRT is requesting an island for this cul-de-sac when they did not for the last one (Kylie Drive)? The Board asked if the plans include buffers or fencing. Page 2 of 9 Mr. Sullivan said they do. The site's abutters include two apartment complexes and "Bagel World". He also noted that trash blows onto the site from Main Street. He added that if the one-sidewalk-only waiver is approved he could add a landscape buffer as well. The Board emphasized that drainage is their major concern with this project. The abutters already have flooding problems. The Board asked Mr. Sullivan to explain in layinan's terms his storm water management plans. Mr. Sullivan went into some detail but in general he said he had made a full drainage study of the area to find the watershed areas and to trace the direction of flow. His original plan was to use infiltrators to offset the impervious areas but as the Town Engineer is against their use he will now have to design a large detention basin. His goal is still to make the drainage situation no worse and, if possible, better. JS asked for questions and comments from the public. Ms. Virginia Adams pointed out that there were a number of historic properties in the area - on the corner of Ash and Avon in particular - and she expressed the Historic Commission's hope that the developer would take care during construction not to disturb them more than necessary. Noting that this subdivision would put a third street adjacent to his property, Mr. Tom Buckborough of 3 Avon Street was concerned that even more water would run onto his property. Mr. Sullivan said the water would be directed away from Mr. Buckborough's property. Mr. Sullivan added that he did have a concern that the sidewalk proposed to run along Mr. Buckborough's side of the new road might create problems for Mr. Buckborough because his driveway is flat. Mr. Sullivan suggested to the Board that it might be better for all concerned if, instead of building a sidewalk along. Mr. Buckborough's property, Vale contribute to the construction of a sidewalk elsewhere in town. CR agreed. Mr. Bill Downing of 14 Avon Street asked Mr. Sullivan how he planned on connecting the proposed new, 8" sewer pipe to the old 6" sewer pipe that runs under Avon Street? Mr. Downing also expressed concern over the condition of the old 6" sewer pipe. Mr. Sullivan said it would not be a direct connection. A new manhole would be built for that purpose. As to the condition of the old pipe, that would not be known until the manhole is constructed but he assured Mr. Downing that the DPW would be on hand to deal with any problems. Mr. Joe Gallo said he and the residents of the condominiums at 295 Main Street are against the subdivision because they too have a big problem with flooding already. He then asked why this subdivision would have access to Avon Street when the thirty residents of the condo complex have had their request for access to Avon Street denied? Mr. Sullivan said the Town has a policy of one curb-cut per property and the condo complex already has a curb-cut onto Main Street. Page 3 of 9 Mr. Joe Westerman of 17 Avon Street said his property is one of the few on Avon Street that does not have groundwater problems and he asked if this project would change the direction or rate of flow of the runoff? Mr. Sullivan said it would not. Mr. Westerman next asked what would happen to the trees on the site? Mr. Sullivan said an effort must be made to preserve all trees 6" in diameter or greater. He wants to preserve as much of the woods as possible. Ms. Cynthia First of 3 Avon Street asked: why waive the traffic study? She added that since people use Avon Street as a cut-through the speed limit should be 20MPH rather than the current 30MPH. JS asked the Town Planner if the traffic study would address the traffic the three, new houses would add or the existing traffic problem? The Town Planner said the Safety Officer had no comment on the existing traffic. The Board asked the Town Planner to solicit the Safety Officer's opinion on Avon Street's traffic. Mr. Burt Long of 227 Ash Street asked if anything could be done about the runoff from 335 Main Street? JS said the Board cannot impose conditions on properties not before them. To give the developer time to address the changes to his plan, RH moved to continue this Public Hearing until the meeting of December 12, 2005 at 8:00PM. NS seconded. - Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Subdivision Approval Not Required (ANR) Elstan Trust, 335 Main Street (Action Date: October 17 2005) RH moved to endorse the ANR dated 9/20/05. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The Board signed the ANR. SD returned to her seat. RH recused himself. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness Gabriele's Salon and Spa, 10 Brande Court (Action Date: November 28, 2005) Mr. Jerry Winter appeared for Batten Brothers Signs. Page 4of9 Mr. Winter told the Board the style of awning was chosen to be similar to the awning in front of Columbo's. It is canvas with an aluminum frame. The Board liked the awning, but when Mr. Winter said that there would be a grating under the awning to hide the lights SD explained to him that the Board cannot approve an internally illuminated sign in the Business-B zoning district. SD asked if the second sign - a wall sign - on the side of the building was allowed? CR said it was as it faces on a public way or public parking lot. NS moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the stipulation that the awning would not be internally illuminated. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. RH returned to his seat. Administrative Review Request for PUD-I Determination of Minor Modification to allow an access drive between the parking lot and 128 Ford - Walkers Brook Crossing, Phase 1 Mr. Ed Shaw appeared for Walkers Brook (Dickinson Development). Mr. Brian Milisci appeared for 128 Ford. Both parties had agreed to modifications as shown in a plan drawn up by 128 Ford and presented at the previous meeting (9/26/05). Mr. Ed Shaw attended that meeting but no one from 128 Ford was there. At that same meeting, the Board made changes to the plan. Mr. Shaw agreed to the changes but before making a determination the Board requested that 128 Ford be shown the changes. Mr. Milisci said 128 Ford would go along with the Board's changes but added that 128 Ford believes their original plan is better. Most of the discussion concerned the DRT's suggestion to move the access to the pedestrian stairway closer to the front of the property. CR said the Town Manager wanted access placed in front because the sidewalk is there. Mr. Shaw pointed out that in fact no sidewalk is there only an easement to provide one. The Board asked why the sidewalk had not been constructed and Mr. Shaw replied that the existing sidewalk under the bridge (128 overpass) is on the other side of Walkers Brook Drive. If the sidewalk were built, it would dead-end at the off-ramp from Route 128. Mr. Milisci said the stairway was really only an amenity for 128 Ford's clients to be able to visit the shopping center, maybe grab a bite to eat, while waiting for their cars to be It was the consensus of the Board not to change the location of the stairway and to approve the request for a minor modification. Page 5 of 9 RH moved to approve as a Minor Modification the plan dated 3/1/2005 and revised 8/12/2005 subject to the condition that 128 Ford install a gate on their side of the proposed vehicular access way. The gate shall be closed during the hours 128 Ford is closed. NS seconded. Voted Approved 4:0:0. Request for PUD-R Determination of Minor Modification to allow a reconfiguration of buildings in Johnson Woods Attorney Brad Latham represented Johnson Woods. CR reminded the Board that the possibility of this and other modifications were discussed at the previous meeting (9/26/05). At that time, the developer was not looking for a vote on the modifications but only testing the waters to see if the Board might be agreeable to the modifications. Brad Latham said tonight's request concerns only the modification of two buildings: buildings #43 and #44. The developer wants to break both buildings into smaller buildings. The same number of units will be built but this modification will follow the topography better and be more attractive generally. RE moved to approve the request for a Minor Modification based on a proposed site layout revision dated 9/20/05 which shows Building 43A as two units, Building 43B as two units, and Building 44 as three units. NS seconded. Voted Approved:4:0:0. Interpretation of Johnson Wood's Landscaping Requirements Mr. Latham asked the Board if they would provide their interpretation of the landscaping requirements as written into the special permit for the Johnson Woods development. The developer feels the Town is asking him to provide landscaping beyond the requirements of the permit. This issue is pertinent to the bonding of the project. The developer interpreted the pen-nit as saying the developer has to provide only as much landscaping as necessary to screen existing, occupied homes from current construction. The Town Manager interpreted the permit as saying the developer must provide all landscaping. Not only landscape buffers but such things as sod, lawns, shrubbery, etc... what the Board referred to as the aesthetic landscaping, too. not a requirement of the special permit. The aesthetic landscaping would be added later and if a buyer wanted to buy a home beforehand, the buyer could work out the aesthetic landscaping details during the purchase negotiations with the developer. Page 6 of 9 JS pointed out that the language specifically mentions a "schedule" and "sections" which suggests that it is not expected that the landscaping would be done all at once. CR made two suggestions. First, that the Board request the Town Manager's interpretation. Second, that the Board request the Town Counsel review the pertinent section of the permit. Mr. Latham was happy to have others review the permit but respectfully submitted that the Board issued the special permit, it is the Board's product, and its interpretation should be left to the Board. It was the consensus of the Board to request input from others and to try to reach a decision by the next meeting. Clarification of terms. Included in the Board's packets was a letter from Mr. Bob Gargano, construction supervisor on the Johnson Woods project, requesting clarification on what is meant by such terms as "Heavy Equipment", "Hours of Operation", "Delivery Times".... Because there was representation from Johnson Woods present, CR suggested to the Board that it might be a good time to discuss the letter. The Board agreed. CR said this has been a lingering issue for some time and he reminded the Board that the Johnson Woods project has been the object of numerous complaints that hinged on the interpretation of these terms. The developer had come before the Board earlier this year asking for clarification of these terms and that that time the Board had asked the developer to submit a letter citing specifics. This Mr. Gargano has done. CR said he has also received a letter from the Police Chief requesting the same clarifications. The Board noted that the clarification of the terms in question would have a much wider application than the Johnson Woods project. It was the consensus of the Board to put the issue under Administrative Review. JS said the Board should show due diligence and ask Town Engineer Joe Delaney and Director of Public Works Ted McIntire for their opinions. CR said he could put it on the agenda for the meeting of 11101105. JS told Mr. Latham not to expect a resolution on this matter at that meeting. Page 7 of 9 Subdivision Approval Not Required (ANR) Jon Asgeirsson,146 Summer Avenue (Action Date: October 17 2005) CR said this concerns the swapping of a portion of land between adjacent lots to allow the applicant to build on a currently non-conforming lot. CR said he had no problems with the applicant doing this. Ms. Virginia Holmes said that this is the location of a very important historic house and she would like to know if this action would involve the destruction of any outbuildings. The Board assured her that after the swap the setbacks of all structures will be conforming. RH moved to approve the ANR. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Public Comment/Minutes JS had two items to discuss: 1. Ms. Sally Hoyt's request to amend the zoning bylaws to provide stronger protection against 40B developments. 2. A letter from Selectman Chair Camille Anthony concerning the size of the residential units in the proposed Mixed Use bylaw. Selectman Tafoya wants the units to be larger than 1000 sq. ft. Selectman Chair Anthony wants the market to determine the size of the units. Regarding Ms. Hoyt's request, it was the consensus of the Board to draft an official reply in which it should be noted that: • Although the Board shares her concerns regarding 40B's, Reading is still subject to State Law. • The CPDC believes that there is already adequate zoning in place. • The ZBA has the authority to negotiate changes with the 40B developers. • The CPDC is taking steps to increase the number of affordable units in town to put off future 40B developments. CR said there is question as to whether or not Ms. Hoyt's request meets the requirements of an official petition. The selectmen are concerned that it does in which case it could appear on a future Town Meeting warrant. Regarding Selectman Chair Anthony's letter, RH suggested, as the only market the Board knows of is M.F. Charles and Haven Junction, the Board should send a copy of the proposed bylaw to the respective developers. Further Comments on the Mixed-Use RE pointed out that every square foot you add to the residential units increases the cost so you have to ask yourself who are we providing these units for? The Selectmen's and Town Page 8 of 9 Manager's view seems to be; snake the units more upscale to attract the upscale market. Our rationale was to provide a low-cost alternative to Johnson Woods. NS agreed with the Selectmen that the dimensions should be left to market forces. SD asked if we are trying to help people to stay in Reading? JS noted that Selectman Tafoya's idea was to increase the size just a little more say 1200 sq ft. RH suggested a minimal change still consistent with the Master Plan: 1100 sq ft. It was the consensus of the Board to go with a unit size of 1100 sq ft with 800 sq ft as the average. It was also the consensus of the Board to set the Impact or Parking Fee at $20,000 to be reviewed every three or four years to determine if it needed to be bumped up by 10%. Minutes RH moved to approve the minutes of August 8, 2005 as amended tonight. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. RH moved to adjourn. JS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on December 12, 2005; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on December 12, 2005. Signed as approved, /-2,3- D. Howard, Date Page 9 of 9