Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-10 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesW Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-9012 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly&i.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: January 10, 2005 Members Present: Neil Sullivan, Chair (NS), Richard Howard (RH), Susan DeMatteo (SD), John Sasso (JS) Absent: Jonathan Barnes Also Present: Chris Reilly (CR), Joe Delaney, Town Engineer (JD), Michael Schloth Historical Commission: Roberta Sullivan (RS) Others: S.R. Weiner associates: Robert Frazier, VP of Development Brian Sierra, VP of Lifestyle Centers Dick Marks, Partner Rod Emery of Edwards & Kelly, Traffic Engineer Richard Askin, Project Manager Attorney Mark Favaloro Walgreens team: Michelle Carlson, Civil Engineer; Bob Vanasse, Traffic Engineer Mike Cassavoy, Architect. Attorney Brad Latham Danversbank: Tom Dunn of Metro Sign and Awning As Neil Sullivan had not arrived by 7:10, John Sasso was declared Acting Chair and he called the meeting to order at 7:10. Zoning Workshop: 7:00 Carriage House Bylaw Taking into consideration the changes made to the proposed bylaw in the previous meeting (Dec. 26, 2004) in particular the elimination of the lot-size restriction and the expansion of the application of the bylaw to all zones the Historical Commission presented an updated list of buildings that could be converted. \\Serverl\elderser\Schloth\CPDC\Final Minutes\Jan10_2005_FINAL.doc 1 RS drew the board members' attention to the addition of a new column on the list: "Number of Rooms". She explained that the Historical Commission is concerned that the 1942 bylaw [allowing conversions only if the structure contains at least eight rooms] would keep some properties from being preserved that deserve to be. RS said that the Historical Commission's main concerns regarding the bylaw are: ➢ Preservation of historical properties ➢ Footprint size of the structure [400 Sq. Ft. minimum] ➢ Single Family owner - (if the lot currently contained a two-family structure it would have to revert to a single family structure before the carriage house is converted) ➢ 1910 or earlier construction date of the carriage house (carriages not cars) There was some discussion over the distinction between "footprint size" and "habitable area". Example: SD asked if multistory structures were taken into account since they could have a small footprint but enough "habitable area". RS agreed that a structure's footprint size might not accurately describe its habitable area and added that a more accurate measurement could be taken at such time as an application for conversion is made. JS asked for comments from the public. There were none. RH noted that the sense of the CPDC was that they liked the proposed bylaw but wondered if the board should study how the bylaw may impact neighboring properties (Ex.: parking). CR noted that use of the bylaw would require a special permit and that in that sense could be denied if there seems to be an extreme impact on neighboring properties. RH asked if language for procedural application requirements should be added. CR said it would be wise to do so and added that he could insert the required language to the draft, have the Town Council review it, and have it ready for the next meeting on January 24, 2005. Neil Sullivan enters and takes the Chair SD reports that Jonathan Barnes is very ill and won't make it to the meeting. Downtown Mixed-Use Bylaw CR: There are three separate approaches on how to look at the Mixed-Use Zoning in the ➢ Cape Cod Village bylaw-holistic approach. May be too ambitious for our purposes. \\Serverl\elderser\Schloth\CPDC\Final Minutes\Jan10_2005_FINAL.doc ➢ Smart Growth Overlay District [40R]: Product of legislation... Policy objective of the State to get municipalities to increase housing in downtown districts. It is a much more involved process than simply amending the zoning to allow additional permitted uses. It is as comprehensive as the Cape Cod bylaw and provides financial incentives: once an approved zoning amendment is passed the town receives money based incrementally on the number of housing units made possible by the zoning change. The selectmen will be looking at the Smart Growth legislation on the 25th [January] so we should review it. ➢ Wakefield Bylaw a much more incremental plan in short: takes existing business districts and adds permitted uses of residential and multi-family districts with incentives for affordable units. Probably the easiest and shortest path to take. It is an existing zoning amendment that has passed the AG's office. Whether it would work in Reading is something to consider. RH outlined his view of the Smart Growth plan. He called it more a policy and a procedure than an ordinance: 1. Need Master Plan or Housing Plan 2. Have to draft an ordinance 3. Have to submit the draft to the DHCD for review 4. Department would have to issue a Letter of Eligibility ...Before it could be passed RH noted the many requirements: density; affordable housing components; an annual report showing that the zoning changes do not overburden the infrastructure... RH detailed the benefits: ➢ Money comes in two packets: $75,000 once the town passes an approved bylaw and projects 21 - 100 units; $3000 per building permit issued ➢ Also, following Smart Growth policies would grant favorable consideration by other [State] departments for other funding applications (environment, transportation...) There was a discussion on whether it might be possible to earn favorable consideration by having a Smart Growth plan without an actual Smart Growth district. CR thought that this was possible if we made Smart Growth an initiative. JS disagreed and said that the implication was that you must have a Smart Growth district in place. JS said that the approach we take goes back to the Master Plan and if we want to get there quickly perhaps we should set aside the Smart Growth plan and opt for the Special Permit route as used by the Town of Wakefield, MA. RH suggested an incremental approach: start with the Wakefield plan and move into the Smart Growth plan. CR thought that this was a good idea: it gets us started and keeps our options open re benefits from Smart Growth. JS wondered if taking this interim route would "dilute" the Smart Growth option. RH suggests using the Wakefield plan for the downtown district and Smart Growth for South Main, or vice versa. \\Served\elderser\Schloth\CPDC\Final Minutes\Jan7.0_200! _FINAL.doc The Wakefield Plan is reviewed. RH asks if the plan should be applied business by business or within an area. CR replied that we should try it in the downtown district, as that is where the real policy interest lies and that's where we want to see if it'll work. RH: Is it allowed in the Industrial area? CR: Multifamily residential? No. RH: Is it allowed in Business C? CR: No but that is an example you may want to consider. RH asks if this plan includes the rehabilitation of existing properties 2nd and 3rd story properties above existing businesses and CR answers yes. RH says that this should be spelled out to be sure that it is not excluded. We want the option of having both in the same building ...a residential/commercial complex. RH notes that there appears to be a consensus calling for the use of the Wakefield plan in the Business B zone and asks that a map of the existing Business B zone be brought next week's Master Plan meeting. JS agrees that the Wakefield plan makes sense but again expresses his concern that by starting with that plan we may lose the benefits of the State's Smart Growth plan because there may be nothing left to apply the Smart Growth plan to later on. RH says that the Wakefield plan is recommended by the State as being similar to the Smart Growth plan. CR will amend the draft and have it ready for next Tuesday's Master Plan meeting (Jan 18). Joe Delaney (JD), Town Engineer, arrives. PUBLIC HEARING: Site Plan Review (continued): 8:00 Mark Investment, I Harnden Street (Action Date: January 15, 2005) Attorney Brad Latham (BL) introduced three members of the Walgreen team each of whom made a presentation to address issues and concerns relevant to their fields of expertise. The three are Michelle Carlson, Civil Engineer; Bob Vanasse, Traffic Engineer; and Mike Cassavoy, Architect. Ms. Carlson listed the following changes to the grounds: • Parking spaces near the loading area increased from 3 to 6 • Added an infiltration system with emergency overflow to drainage system • Added a device - "StormSceptor" that will help to remove floating debris from the drainage system. • Added handicapped parking space. Added a tree along Pleasant Street. • Some land will be deeded to the Town of Reading. \ \Server1\elderser\Schloth\CPDC\ Final Minutes\Jan10_2005_FINAL.doc 4 Mr. Vanasse responded to 5 questions regarding the traffic studies: 1. Given the economic downturn, are the traffic volumes reasonable? Ans.: We don't agree that there is a downturn and even if we grant that there is, unless the downtown is decimated, there should be no major problem. The margins-of-safety in the service levels are high enough. 2. Do we need more traffic counts? Ans.: We don't think so. We used the full build-out of the Walkers Brook project and we believe the traffic growth can be absorbed. 3. Why were "percent" increases not mentioned? Ans.: Simply stated, they are not needed as the engineering standards are based on vehicles per hour not percentages. 4. Pleasant Street: "One Way" or "Two Way"? Ans.: Both cases were studied and in the current iteration it is a two-way street. 5. What if the Town Square project is not built? Ans.: There would be longer delays and queues but no increase in the letter designation of the level-of-service: it would remain "B". Mr. Cassavoy addressed questions about the building itself: ➢ JB in a previous meeting thought the brick too pink and he requested a closer match to the color of the bricks in the neighboring Latham Building. Mr. Cassavoy says he has found a close match for the brick and the grout. ➢ In a previous draft, Walgreens wanted three signs on the west, north, and south elevations but the CPDC told them they could have only two. Walgreens chose the west and south elevations. ➢ A sample of the awning presented at a previous meeting was thought to look too metallic. Mr. Cassavoy thought the problem was that the sample was too light and presented the board with a new sample: dark green with a matte finish. ➢ Mr. Cassavoy emphasized that the fence on the Danversbank side of the property does not belong to Walgreens. At the conclusion of the presentations the board asked their own questions and learned that the entranceway is not an atrium, there will be no neon signs, and the main sign will be made of cast stone. JS wondered why the sign seen through the windows on the north face was not considered a third sign. CR agreed butsaid that the building inspector would be reluctant - to call them on it. \\Serverl\ elderser\Schloth\CPDC\ Final Minutes\Jan10_2005_FINAL.doc, 5 CR read a list of question and concerns emailed to him from Peter Hechenbleikner, the Town Manager. Brad Latham and the Walgreen team responded to each point: • The curbing will be granite? Yes. • There'll be a tree on Hamden St.? Prefer not as the only place for it is directly in front of the entrance. • Dumpster screen? Yes. • Mulch or stone? Your choice. • The Tree Warden will review the site? Yes. • Will trees be accessible to electric power for Christmas lighting? Yes. • Will dark corners be eliminated? Yes-lights have been added all along the perimeter. • Will decorative fencing will be the same as what is already seen in the square? Yes • Finally, will lights be properly shielded? Walgreens is willing to work with the town to see that all lights are properly shielded. Town Engineer, Joe Delaney (JD) spoke of the need for soil testing and adherence to storm water guidelines. He added that the maintenance of the Stormsceptor device should be the responsibility of the applicant because the Town of Reading does not have the equipment to maintain the device. He wants the sidewalks and "brick band" to conform to the town's Downtown Project specifications and to ensure compatibility to it will require a right of entry from the developer. Snow plowing and street cleaning he said would be the town's responsibility. Brad Latham emphasized for the record that the applicant objects to maintaining a drainage system that is on the Town of Reading's property. Aside from this point, Mr. Latham expressed agreement with JD's requests. RH was very impressed with the proposal and asked when it could be approved. CR said he could have a draft decision ready for the next meeting. There was a call for comments from the public and Janet Allen of 45 Johanna Drive asked if the fagade is now a traditional red brick. She was told it was to which she replied "Excellent". Before calling for a motion, CR brought up some aesthetic issues: He'd like to see an extension of the window along the rear of the building to; and he would like to see an architectural feature on the fagade, as it is too flat. JS made a motion to continue until Monday January 24 at 8:00 PM. SD seconded. Voted Approved 4:0:0. °F \\Serverl\elderser\Schloth\CPDC\Final Minutes\Jan10_2005_FINAL.doc 6 Public Hearing: Site Plan Review (continued): 9:00 Imran Alvi, Kim Carter, and Paul Fontes, 505, 519 Main Street Attorney Mark Favaloro, representing the applicants, summarized his clients' changes to the proposal: ➢ Incorporate the architectural plans originally submitted into the building plan. ➢ Request that the Town of Reading wait on the flaring the driveway. ➢ Suggested using a rolling dumpster that could be stored under a rear staircase. As the Building Inspector made the grant of a building permit contingent upon a positive site plan review, the discussion focussed on the other two points. Driveway: Attorney's Favaloro's case is that as the town has plans for a project to make improvements to Main Street in a year or two, why not wait and widen the driveway then? Joe Delaney's concern is having the store open without a wide enough driveway in place. The board asked what would happen if the applicants widened the driveway now and the project launches as planned. Will the driveway have to be dug up again? JD said it would. RH suggested adding a time condition: if the Town of Reading does not modify the roadway by September 2006, then the applicant must bear the costs of widening the driveway. This met with general approval with the board. Attorney Favaloro said his clients would agree to the date condition. RE asked if the execution of the right of access forms could be accelerated to within 14 days of a motion to approve. Attorney Favaloro says that his clients agree to this. Dumpster: The consensus of the board is that it is a mistake to roll the dumpster under the back stairs where it can inconvenience tenants and that it should be left it its original location. Changes are made to the draft to reflect this. RH moves to close the public hearing. JS seconds. Voted Approved 4:0:0. RE moves to accept tonight's changes. SD seconds. Voted Approved 4:0:0. -Attorney Mark Favaloro asks the board to accept his clients' temporary "Space - - - - Available". \\Serverl\elderser\Schloth\CPDC\Final Minutes\Jan10_2005_FINAL.doc 7 RH proposes to approve the sign for 3 months. JS wants to add the condition that if they put up a tenant sign before the 3 months are up, then the "Space Available" sign must come down. RH moves that the temporary sign be approved until April 10, 2005 unless the tenant sign is put up in the meantime in which case the temporary sign must come down. SD seconds. Voted Approved 4:0:0. Next, the applicants present the Tenant Sign. RH notes that it is an attractive sign that meets the dimensional requirements and moves to approve. SD seconds. Voted Approved 4:0:0. Pre-Application Site Plan Review Presentation: 9:45 SR Weiner & Associates, Inc., Addison Wesley The board listens as Bob Frazier, VP of Development for S.R. Weiner & Associates, Inc., and his associates present their plan for the Addison Wesley site. Briefly, their plan is to construct a "Lifestyle" shopping center that would emphasize the - "sidewalk experience" i.e. broad sidewalks, cafes, low-profile buildings (1 or 2 stories). They have already built similar shopping centers in Hingham, MA: Derby Street; and Canton, CT: Farmington Valley. The plan is for one-story buildings to ring the perimeter of the property with the storefronts facing inwards where the parking lot will be located. Two larger buildings (called "pavilion buildings") will be situated in the center of the parking lot. They will try to keep current setbacks and as an additional buffer there will be minimal servicing in the rear of the perimeter buildings. Traffic, landscape, and buffer studies are underway. They know that their biggest obstacle will be winning over the neighboring residents and with that in mind they have scheduled a meeting with them for next Tuesday (January 18) at 7:00 PM in the same Addison Wesley building in which the polls were located. The board was very impressed with the plan, thanked them for coming, and hoped to hear more from them soon. Certificate of Appropriateness: 10:30 Danversbank, 31 Harnden St. (Action date: January 24, 2005) Tom Dunn of Metro Sign and Awning appears for Danversbank. \\Serverl\elderser\Schloth\CPDC\Final Minutes\JanlL2005_FINAL.doc 8 Danvers Saving Bank, looking to present a more upscale image, is changing its name to DanversBank and wants to change its new sign to have a back-lit "halo" style. Tom explains that LED lighting inside the open-backed letters provides the "halo" effect. The LED lighting is safe, low-voltage, and low maintenance. The appearance is softer than gooseneck or halogen lamps. The board is not sure how to define the halo-style lighting based on current bylaws. If it is "internal lighting" then it not allowed in zone Business B. NS doesn't think it is internal lighting since the light doesn't shine through but back towards the building. Js agrees. RH is not so sure. He can see it going either way. His question is do we want to see this style proliferate? RH decides that he'd like to approve without the halo lighting. CR says that the board can demand a permit for the lettering without the lighting, or the board could approve right now. CR asks Tom if he would want a chance to consult with DanversBank if the board votes against the lighting. Tom responds that DanversBank prefers the halo illumination but would respect the board's decision. RH: Motion: approve sign in color and size but without the halo illumination and with the external lighting subject to Town Planner approval. JS seconds. Voted Approved 4:0:0. The chair moves to adjourn. SD seconds. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:00pm 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, , Secretary N/03 \\Serverl\elderser\Schloth\CPDC\Final Minutes\Jan10_2005_FINAL.doc 9