Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-24 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-9012 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: January 24, 2005 Members Present: Neil Sullivan, Chair (NS), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Richard Howard (RH), and John Sasso (JS). Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR), Michael Schloth Others: S.R. Weiner team: Robert Frazier, VP of Development Brian Sierra, VP of Lifestyle Centers Richard Askin, Project Manager Bill Brooks, Senior VP of Pearson Attorney Mark Favaloro Walgreens team: _ Attorney Brad Latham Michelle Carlson, Civil Engineer Mike Cassavoy, Architect Danversbank team: Tom Dunn of Metro Sign and Awning Dave T., Facility Manager for Danversbank The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:43 PM. Administrative Review Pondview Lane Subdivision Bond Release Dave Murray is the applicant. RH moves to reduce bond amount based on a recommendation of the engineering department dated January 24, 2005. JS seconds. Voted approved 5:0:0. \ \ Serverl \ elderser\ Schloth\ CPDC\ Final Minutes\Jan24_2005_Final.doc 1 Status of Johnson Woods: Last minute addition requested by Attorney Brad Latham 3 Brad Latham reports: 1. Ted Moore has reached an agreement with Mr. Peterson regarding Rights of Access. The necessary papers will be filed with the conservation commission shortly and a decision by the legislature on the Peterson property is expected in February. Mr. Latham is optimistic that the amendment will be passed. 2. 12 units in four separate buildings are under construction and 4 more foundations dug. 3. 60% of the buyers are current Reading residents and 10 units have been sold. The board is pleased with the progress of the project. CR remarks that Fran Fink often visits the site and he adds that he hasn't heard of any complaints from any abutters. Kim Honetschlager's memo regarding GIS and Autocad submission standards: Last minute addition requested by Chris Reilly, Town Planner. Kim Honetschlager is Reading's Geographic Information Systems (GIS) administrator. In brief, her memo requests that the board consider adopting standards for the submission of digital (e.g. Autocad) plans. She also suggests that a higher fee might be charged if a submission does not include - digital plans. CR asks that the board review the memo and says that Kim will be at the February 15 meeting where her request will be an agenda item. RE asks if this would include submissions for both Subdivisions and Site Plan Reviews and if changing the current submission regulations would require a public hearing. CR answers yes to both questions and adds that currently digital submissions are required for Site Plan Reviews but the requirement is not enforced. RE requests that Joe Delaney, Town Engineer, be asked his opinion. JB draws attention to Kim's question of the legality of charging different fees. RH suggests somehow estimating the administrative cost of digitizing hardcopy plans to justify different fees. CR says he'll contact Charette for an estimate. CR says that he will ask Town Counsel about the fees. He will also review the memo with Joe Delaney. PUBLIC HEARING: Site Plan Review (continued) Attorney Brad Latham presents the latest building elevation drawings and construction sequencing plans. He notes that Joe Delaney's points have been addressed by the revised \ \ Serverl \ elderser\ Schlo th\ CPDC\ Final Minutes\Jan24_2005_Final.doc plans. At the request of the Historical Society, he has presented the board a letter that outlines the Historical Commission's concerns and Walgreens' responses to them. He ends by saying that he has added changes to the draft decision and requests that the CPDC consider these changes before they reach their final decision. Before the draft is reviewed point by point, Roberta Sullivan is asked for the Historical Commission's views. The Historical Commission has three concerns: 1. They would have liked to be called in earlier in the project. They felt rushed in their attempt to properly document the property before its demolition. 2. Although pleased with the look of the latest version of the brick, they would prefer a "New England" red brick and an aged ("toned down") mortar. 3. The windows. They are large and blank and can't be seen through. The Commission worries that the Walgreen windows will become nothing more than a place on which to hang advertising. The fact that the sign-filled windows will face onto the Common in a historical district doesn't help matters. The board too is concerned that the windows will be cluttered with signs. A long discussion of the windows, and the placement of signs in them, follows. Brad Latham points out that the windows were added at the town's request. He explains that the reason the windows are not "see-through" is because display cases will back on to them. CR says that the windows were requested to break up the long wall of brick in the original plans. The consensus of the board is that the windows are aesthetically pleasing and should be kept, but there is still concern that they will be too cluttered with signs especially the upper windows. JB suggests that a possible solution might be to replace a line deleted from the original draft, namely #20 "no window signage...on upper floors". RH points out that as the bylaw allows that 30% of window space may be covered with signs JB's suggestion could lead to a more cluttered look in the lower windows since Walgreens would be constrained to place all of there signage allotment there. CR wonders if the Site Plan Bylaw gives the CPDC the power to impose signage conditions on Walgreens. Brad Latham says that although such conditions (if possible) would not be restraint of trade, they would impose disadvantages on Walgreens. \\Serverl\elderser\Schloth\CPDC\FnaIMinutes\Jan24_2005_Final.doc 3 In the end, CR says that the windows issue is not worth fighting. He notes that the awning will discourage the placement of signs in the upper windows. JB hopes that Walgreens will exercise discretion. Arthur Morin [no address given], a member of the public, asks to be heard. He says he likes the windows and finds them pleasing to the eye. He says that his grandparents once owned the property and that they were very upset to see the disrepair it had fallen into. He would like to seethe Walgreens project go through. He adds for the Historical Commission's benefit that as the original property burned down in 1962 there is nothing left to take pictures of. Next, the draft is reviewed point by point and amendments made and noted. Items: • Onsite employing parking is dropped. Only the selectmen can designate where employees park • Walgreens agrees to cooperate with the Downtown Streetscape Project. This includes providing Rights of Entry. • A loading zone waiver is granted. • The brick to be used is subject to approval by the Town Planner. • Walgreens has responsibility for maintaining the storm water drainage system as long as they retain title. It is assumed that the responsibility will eventually be transferred to the town. • Lights required for the perimeter. • The sign's limestone background and its gooseneck (or other decorative) lighting are allowed. RH moves to close the public hearing. SD seconds. Voted approved 5:0:0. RH moves to approve draft as modified by Attorney Brad Latham and the CPDC tonight. SD seconds. Voted approved 5:0:0. Zoning Workshop: Carriage House Bylaw CR said that he has not yet added the special permit language to the bylaw because the language he uses will depend on which way the board decides to go with the proposed mixed-use bylaw. He reassures Roberta Sullivan that this does not change the Historical Commission's language or criteria in the bylaw. CR says the bylaw, will be on the February 15, 2005 agenda. \ \Serverl \elderser\Schloth\CPDC\ Final Minutes\Jan24_2005_Final.doc 4 Downtown Mixed-Use Bylaw Discussion of this item was deferred until the later in the meeting. CR wants to push this off until the February 15, 2005 meeting. He asks that the board review his narrative beforehand as it will explain his position. Addison-Wesley/Business C District zoning amendment Bob Frazier reports that he and his group met with neighborhood residents roughly 80 to 100 people to learn their neighborhood's history and to discuss their concerns regarding the development of the Addison-Wesley property. He heard --loud and clear-- that their number one concern is traffic. They worry about their children's' safety: there are no sidewalks and even without the office park traffic has increased significantly. Mr. Frazier said he told the residents that he had no ready answer to the traffic question but offered general suggestions: • signs • time of use restrictions with police enforcement • cul-de-sac Mr. Frazier also noted that the residents also concerned with such operational features as lighting, deliveries, and trash collection. Richard Askin spoke next. He reminded the board of the bylaw to Business C proposed by Pearson back in 2000: • A 100 ft set-back for no-build • A vegetated no-build and no-disturb zone abutting the residents' properties. • A 55 ft height allowance • A 95 ft height allowance within 400 feet of Route 128. Mr. Askin then outlined the four main point of the proposed bylaw: 1. Provide a landdonation for a turnoff onto South St. 2. Abandon Jacob Way. 3. & 4. Work together and are concerned with building heights and setbacks. In short, any retail building will be restricted to a maximum height of 55 feet "in the event that the developer chooses to build closer than the 100 foot no-build zone." Also adding a definition change to the term "shopping center" because Reading has nothing in its bylaws that really fits what is proposed here. RH asks how much the buildings will encroach upon the current no-build zone and what will happen to the "restricted area". Mr. Askin replies that three buildings are 30' into the 100' no-build zone (a 70' setback, in effect) andothers are less than that or within the 100' line. The restricted area will be untouched. NS asks if the driveway can be depressed to be less obtrusive. \ \Serverl\ elderser\ Schloth\ CPDC\ Final Minutes\JanN_2005_Final.doc Mr. Askin replies that the buildings themselves are designed to be unobtrusive- low and horizontal - but he is willing to discuss the design of the driveway with the close neighbors. JB asks Attorney Mark Favaloro why a new definition is needed to which he replies that it is needed to allow the project to blend into the existing zoning. Mr. Askin adds that there is a "zero-lot-line" concept in shopping centers that is not recognized in Reading's bylaws. CR requests that all of the maps and images presented by the applicants are sent to him in digital format. Mr. Askin agrees. RE is impressed by the applicants' response to the neighbors. He says it speaks well of the process. CR suggests inviting the neighbors to the next CPDC meeting - February 15, 2005 - for a Zoning Workshop at which time the board can hear their specific concerns. Mark Favaloro hopes to have the proposed bylaw ready to go for the next Town Meeting. JB reminds him that the last time the board went through this it was painstaking and time- consuming to build a consensus. The intrusion into the no-build zone will be a tough sell. The workshop ends with CR saying that he'll look for a larger venue for the next meeting and will expand the notification area to 900 feet. Certificate of Appropriateness Reading Station Coffee Depot, 32 Lincoln Street (Action Date: February 15, 2005) JB wants to know where the sign will hang. CR replies that the sign may not hang or protrude but must attach flat against the wall. RH moves to approve with the following conditions: 1. The sign must be attached flat against the building. 2. The yellow in the sign must be a darker yellow. Roberta Sullivan says that the building is in the national registry and the applicant has not contacted the Historical Commission for review of the sign. She asks if the board can approve without the Historical Commission's prior approval. NS agrees that the board needs the Historical Commission's approval and CR suggests continuing subject to their approval. RH withdraws his motion and moves instead to continue until the February 15, 2005 meeting. JB seconds. Voted approved 5:0:0. \ \Serverl\ elderser\Schloth\CPDC\ Final Minutes\Jan24_2005_Final.doc Certificate of Appropriateness Danversbank, 31 Harnden Street (Action Date: January 24 2005) Tom Dunn of Metro Sign and Awning, and Dave T., Facility Manager for Danversbank, appear for the applicant. The board had already approved the sign without the Halo Lighting at the last meeting (January 10, 2005). The applicant hopes a demonstration of the Halo Lighting will persuade the board to grant approval for the sign and lighting both. Mr. Dunn plugs a sample Halo Light into a socket for the board's edification explaining as he does so that the light must be at least 2 inches from the wall. The board's reasons against approving the sign with the lighting are revisited: • Concern with others wanting the same style of light: does the board want to see this style proliferate? • Internally illuminated signs are not allowed in business B that's in the bylaws - the question is whether or not Halo Lighting should be considered internal illumination. No one is sure. • The style is unappealing. JS for one doesn't like the look of the Halo Light. CR asks if there is no way to adjust the lights? Mr. Dunn answers that with new studs the lights could be moved closer to the building. He adds that the light produced from Halo Lighting is softer than any external lighting. RH moves to approve Danversbank's sign with the Halo Lights as originally submitted with the provision that the lights are set 2 inches from the fagade. SD seconds. Voted approved 5:0:0. Public Comment/Minutes: RH moves to accept the minutes of December 27, 2004 as amended. JB seconds. Voted approved 5:0:0. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on February 28, 2005; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on February 28, 2005. Signed as approved, 3// /O \ \Serverl \ elderser\Schloth\ CPDC\ Final Minutes\Jan24_2005_Final.doc 7