Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-27 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading,.., f t~~CEIVEQ 16 Lowell Street ~t{~~~ CLERK SING. MASS, Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-9012 264 DEC -I A 8; 4 0 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly@d.reading.ma.us COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: September 27, 2004 Members Present: Neil Sullivan, Chair (NS), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Susan DeMatteo (SD), John Sasso (JS). Also Present: Chris Reilly (CR), Town Planner; Joseph Delaney (JD), Town Engineer The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Zoning Workshop Site Plan Review Waiver Loading Zone Waiver CR has provided the waiver language to the Commission for final review; the noticed, advertised public hearing is scheduled for October 4, 2004. Public Hearing (continued): Definitive Subdivision 175 Franklin Street, Richard Merrill Trust 'i NS opened the continued public hearing. Peter Ogren from Hayes Engineering represented the Applicant. They were before the Commission approximately a month ago to open the public hearing and have attended a DRT; staff instructed the Applicant that the present plan does not meet the Aquifer Protection District's zoning by-law regulations, which allow no more than 20% impervious cover. Options discussed during the DRT were: i Request a variance from the ZBA Reduce the number of lots Acquire more land from an abutter ➢ Review other development scenarios, such as a comprehensive permit Mr. Ogren indicated at the DRT that he would need to confer with his client and counsel on how they wanted to proceed. CR explained that the action date for a decision will expire in October before the meeting on October 25. Therefore, given the time needed to explore the alternatives the Applicant has submitted a request for an extension to October 25, 2004. SD moved to grant an extension for the Applicant to continue the hearing for 175 Franklin Street to 8:00 PM on October 25, 2004. JB seconded. Voted 4-0, all in favor. Public Hearing (Continued): Site Plan Review Danis Realty Trust, One General Ave. Attorney Mark Favaloro, Paul Caggiano, Engineer Chris Sparages and Traffic Engineer Kim Hazavartian represented the Applicant. Attorney Favaloro discussed the Applicant's request to review the draft decision and close the public hearing; the intention is not to grant another extension. The Applicant has met with Town staff and the neighborhood several times since the last meeting on September 13 and has tried to address all concerns where practical. The drainage design has been revised in response to the Conservation Administrator's and Town Engineer's comments. Mr. Hazavartian made a presentation. They have updated the Traffic Study in consultation with the Town's peer review Traffic Engineer, John Diaz. The issue of the proposed signal design should be reviewed and discussed further; the Applicant has agreed to provide alternatives for the signalization on Walkers Brook Crossing to the Town for review in advance of a hearing with the Selectmen, as Road Commissioners, to review the design. Mr. Sparages made a presentation. They have provided a memo on their response to the DRT comments. In the lastly revised plans dated September 17, 2004 they have addressed many of the outstanding issues identified in the public hearings and DRT meetings. CR suggested reviewing the draft decision he has prepared. In the lastly revised draft he has incorporated the comments from Commissioner Dick Howard, who could not be present. The draft reflects changes through September 27; the prior draft decision included in the packets was obsolete. Procedurally, for efficiency and complete due process for the benefit of the public CR recommended going through in full the whole draft as written, allowing the public to comment on each Finding and Condition to insure that every member of the public was allowed full opportunity to provide input and have their concerns reviewed and addressed as practical. NS commenced review of the draft decision, which proceeded through the rest of the public hearing. Public comment was acknowledged as requested and responded to where appropriate, as indicated by the following: Public Comment: The decision Findings were reviewed first. CR explained that the Findings provided the basis to demonstrate that the decision was not arbitrary and capricious and is consistent with applicable Town practices, policies and regulations. Finding 1 was reviewed and approved as worded. There was general public discussion about Finding Number 2 relative to the signalization; JD explained that the Applicant has stated that they need the traffic signal on Walkers Brook Drive and the peer review indicated that it would be warranted under the proposed use. JB discussed the possibility that traffic mitigation measures other than the signalization could be considered during the review process before the Selectmen. Attorney Favaloro explained that the Applicant needs the signalization to attract a viable tenant but other traffic measures would be considered by the Applicant as warranted. NS commented that the proposed signalization would enhance the safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. There was general discussion by the public of existing traffic conditions and concerns on Washington Street. 2 JD explained that there were numerous public meetings associated with the Walkers Brook Crossing development application and the process degenerated into neighborhood against one another; regardless, the CPDC does not have the authority to approve changes to the roadway network given the Selectmen's authority as Road Commissioners. Finding 4 on the adequacy of the plans for CPDC site plan review and approval was reviewed; no comments or concerns were submitted by the public. Finding 5 was reviewed. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John St: the lighting will negatively impact the neighborhood and the buffering will be reduced. NS repeated that this was covered later in the Conditions of the decision, as explained before, and will be reviewed when appropriate. Leon Osborne, 235 Washington St: Finding 5 should be modified to indicate the temporary status of the skateboard park. JB commented that the skateboard park was always presented as temporary; the finding should reflect this understanding. SD agreed that Finding 5 should reflect the temporary status of the park, as it was proposed; it was so amended. It was agreed that reference to increased buffering would be maintained. There was general discussion about the skateboard park; JB and JS were comfortable approving the temporary skateboard park as proposed given the efforts by the Recreation Committee to address neighborhood concerns. The conservation issues raised are more appropriately dealt with under the authority of the Conservation Commission. JB discussed the responsibility of the CPDC; within the constraints of their authority they review and approve projects as directed by the law and with thoughtful and thorough consideration to all the parties of interest, not just particular neighborhoods who may have narrow interests, whether reasonable or not. Roger Wade, Washington St. will drainage get worse? JD explained that the drainage will not get worse; the Applicant is required to provide a drainage design adequate for the proposed redevelopment and the proposed drainage is sufficient. The Conditions were reviewed. It was agreed the notice on Condition 1 would be expanded to all abutters within 900'. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John St: Condition 5 refers to Zoning By-Laws Section 4.3.3.6.c which addresses scenic views, not utilities. The Condition was amended specifically according to Mr. D'Arezzo's comment to strike reference to subsection "c". Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John St: Condition 6 referred exclusively to the DPW DRT comments and does not incorporate other staff recommendations. CR explained that most of the comments from the DRT meeting conducted a month and a half ago have been incorporated by the Applicant in one way or another, as reflected in the lastly revised plans and the public record; obviously the Applicant and CPDC are not required to adopt every DRT comment and they are not necessarily Town standards but advisory recommendations from staff. JB explained that the DRT provides technical review that is often addressed by the Applicant prior to approval; as has been the consistent practice of CPDC certain Conditions may refer specifically to DPW comments but other DRT comments are addressed by the Applicant in subsequently revised plans, or in the Decision through other Conditions. 3 CR explained further that the Applicant has addressed most of the comments from all DRT meetings, many of which are not requirements but were related to neighborhood or abutter concerns reflected in the public record. Condition 6 was adopted without further public comment. Conditions 7-10 were reviewed and approved as proposed. Condition 11 was reviewed. JD explained that this Condition means if any contamination is found it must be removed. Mr. Sparages explained that a 21E study was conducted and the site has a clean bill of health but the Applicant has agreed to have a licensed professional monitor the excavation process and take remediate measures if necessary. Ellen Childress, 105 Green St: there should be tests for heavy metal radiation as well. Mr. Caggiano and Mr. Favaloro explained that the Applicant has completed proper remediation in the past and was trying to be responsible by going beyond what is required to ensure the site is clean. The Condition was amended to provide for further remediation as identified by the Board of Health. Condition 12 was reviewed. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John St. There should be advance notice if the Town Manager approves waivers of Hours of Construction; he was "extremely disappointed" to receive notice from the Town Manager on an Hours of Construction waiver for Walkers Brooks Crossing allegedly one day after they began. The Condition was amended specifically according to Mr. D'Arezzo's comment by providing at least 2-day advance notice. Condition 13 was reviewed. JD requested that the Condition require Town Inspection of water main, sewer and drainage to ensure compliance with Town specifications. Ellen Childress, 105 Green St: Town staff should be able to designate site inspection access. The Condition was amended to allow for staff or designee access and utility inspection. Conditions 14 and 15 were reviewed and approved substantially as proposed; pest management was added to Condition 15. Condition 16 was reviewed. Ellen Childress, 105 Green St: there needs to be a decommissioning plan for the skateboard park; suggested language would require a plan be submitted within 2 years of opening. Attorney Favaloro suggested including language that would limit the operation of the skateboard park to a 3 year lease. The Condition was amended to include these additions. Conditions 17-20 were reviewed and approved substantially as proposed, with the addition of language in Condition 20 that the Town Manager's approval of the Financial Assurance Mechanism (FAM) shall not be unreasonable withheld. Condition 21 was reviewed. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John St: the architectural plans submitted are inadequate for proper review. CR explained that the Condition 3 already reviewed and approved without public comment clearly requires CPDC design review and approval; final, detailed architectural plans will be subject to additional Conditions and Condition 21 requires additional "design review and approval by the CPDC for any subsequent exterior modification. Conditions 22-26 were reviewed and approved substantially as proposed. Condition 27 was reviewed. 4 Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John St: the site lighting will negatively impact abutters. Ellen Childress, 105 Green St: at 30' the height of the lighting will provide glare and be detrimental to the neighborhood. The lighting should be no more than the existing lighting and reduced even further if possible. Mr. Sparages and Mr. Caggiano went over the site lighting, which was reviewed in prior public hearings where their analysis demonstrated only 1-foot candle at the property line, which is the standard found in towns with lighting by-law regulations, such as Lynnfield. They are not proposing anything different than the 30' light poles proposed on the plans and cannot reduce the lighting without effecting vehicular and pedestrian safety on the site. CR suggested a compromise where the light poles at the perimeter of the site nearest abutters be limited to no more 25' in height. The Condition was specifically amended to address Mr. D'Arezzo's and Ms. Childress's concerns. Condition 28 was reviewed. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John St: the proposed signage does not comply with the by-laws. CR explained that the Condition clearly and specifically requires that the signage comply with the by-laws prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Other Conditions previously reviewed and accepted by the public with no comment reiterate compliance with all applicable Town regulations. To address Mr. D'Arezzo's apparent concerns regarding public input on the approved signage, the Condition was amended to require public notice for the signage design review and approval. Conditions 29-33 were reviewed and approved substantially as proposed. Condition 34 was reviewed. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John St: the site plan does not indicate the required number of loading spaces. CR once again noted that Conditions 1, 2 and 17 they have already reviewed specifically address this; the Applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with all zoning-by- law permitting and regulations prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Like all Conditions in the draft decision, these Conditions were reviewed in full and no comments or concerns were received from the public at that time. Conditions 35 and 36 were reviewed and amended to ensure delivery truck and vehicular traffic would be directed on and off the site from and to Routes 128 and 28, via Walkers Brook Drive and Goodall-Sanford Road. There being no further discussion JB moved to close the public hearing. SD seconded. Voted 4-0, all in favor. JB moved to accept the lastly revised site plan for Danis Realty Trust-One General Way, dated September 17, 2004, subject to the decision as amended and Conditioned in the public hearing. JS seconded. Voted 4-0, all in favor. JS made a motion to adjourn. SD seconded. Voted 4-0, all in favor. These minutes were prepared by Chris Reilly, Town Planner and submitted to CPDC on October 25, 2004; the minutes were approved as amended by CPDC on October 25, 2004. 5