No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-23 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes1 ct E Town of Reading CE IV E 16 Lowell Street -F OW CLERK Reading, MA 01867-2683 F' L m D I'w G. M ; S S: Phone: 781-942-9012 Fax: 781-942-9071 ~U Email: creilly@d.reading.ma.us UCT ( , 6 COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: August 23, 2004 Members Present: Acting Chair Jonathan Barnes (JB), Susan DeMatteo (SD), John Sasso (JS). Also Present: Chris Reilly (CR); Town Planner; Joe Delaney (JD), Town Engineer; Peter Hechenbleikner (PH), Town Manager The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness Cain Oil Trust, 16 & 18 Gould Street John Cain represented the Applicant, Cain Realty Trust. They have submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness application for 3 small, wooden signs on 18 Gould St. and a projecting wooden sign on 16 Gould St. CR explained that the projecting sign is not allowed by the by-law; a directory sign could be installed on 16 Gould St. The signage will be black with gold lettering, per the examples the Applicants submitted and consistent with the instruction CR had given the Applicant on the CPDC design standard for downtown signage. CR would prefer larger signage over the door bays at 18 Gould St. but the signage meets the by-laws. SD moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 16 and 18 Gould Street, subject to the replacement of the proposed projecting sign with a wall sign, of appropriate dimensions consistent with the Zoning By-Laws, to the wall of 16 Gould St. ` JS seconded. Voted 3-0, all in favor. Subdivision Approval Not Required (ANR) The Crossing at Walkers Brook, Walkers Brook Drive Attorney Brad Latham represented the Applicant, Walkers Brook Crossing, LLC. The Applicant requested to make some minor adjustments to the lot lines at the Crossing at Walkers Brook, in advance of the transfer of Phase 1 ownership from Dickinson to Home Depot and Jordan's. JB moved to endorse the ANR for the Crossing at Walkers Brook, prepared by Vanasse, Hangen, Bruslin, Inc., dated July 29, 2004. SD seconded. Voted 3-0, all in favor. Public Hearing: Definitive Subdivision Richard Merrill Trust, 175 Franklin Street Attorney Brad Latham and Peter Ogren, P.E., Hayes Engineering represented the Applicant, Richard Merrill, Trustee. JB opened the public hearing. JS read the legal notice. Mr. Latham made a presentation. The Applicant is seeking approval of a 3-lot subdivision at 175 Franklin St. The property is slightly over 2 acres. Waivers are being requested for the traffic study, environmental impact report and pavement width. Mr. Ogren made a presentation on the definitive subdivision plan. The property is in the S-20 district; the proposed lots meet zoning. The 300' roadway is proposed according to Town standards; it will run through the site where the existing ship is located. The sewer will be gravity fed with E-1 ejector pumps into a force main. The water main will connect to the Franklin main. The storm water management report has been submitted; there will be two catch basins at Franklin St. The collection system will deposit to a forebay and retention pond, which will then feed to some ponds in the rear of the site. The design is consistent with DEP storm water regulations, although not required. There will be no activity in the 100' buffer zone. The waivers for the traffic study and environmental report are requested due to the small size of the subdivision and the Aquifer Protection District regulations that will apply. The size of the houses is dictated by the 20% impervious limit in the Aquifer Protection District. CR reviewed the DRT review conducted on the application: ➢ Some utilities aren't indicated. ➢ The retaining wall height and spec (native stone) needs clarification-does not appear there is room for easement and wall construction. ➢ Town observed soils tests will be needed. ➢ More info is needed for the drainage system and whether detention basin is viable at that location. ➢ Locations of existing 6 inch caliper trees required. ➢ Proposed sewer lines need extension on Dwight Road ➢ Sidewalks w/ vertical granite curb and HC ramps should be extended on Franklin to Collins. ➢ The proposed sidewalk on the west side of ROW should be replaced w/ dense vegetative buffering. ➢ Given Aquifer District, consideration should be made for requiring an environmental impact report. ➢ Natural features such as large boulders should be inventoried and preserved where practical. ➢ Landscaping proposal for island needed. y is turnaround for tire vehicles provided'! (24' inside, 44' outside)-not indicated. ➢ Street lighting indication is needed. ➢ Island maintenance by property owners should be conditioned as part of the deeds 2 JD reviewed his memo dated August 23, 2004: ➢ Sheet 1 does not have a registered surveyor's stamp ➢ The proposed house size seems unrealistic ➢ The driveways don't appear to be included in the impervious calculation ➢ The layout would be better if intersection with Franklin St. was closer to a right angle. ➢ The DPW would like the landscape island eliminated or reduced ➢ Underground electric is not indicated ➢ Sight easements are needed ➢ Sidewalk with wheel chair ramps should be extended to Home Goods and Collins Ave. ➢ Catch basins should be relocated out of crosswalks ➢ Gas utility should be shown ➢ Gravity sewer should be extended ➢ Lot A-1 disposition needed ➢ Developer should retain road ownership until street acceptance ➢ Retaining wall needs specs and detail and should be outside of right of way ➢ The detention basin forebay is not according to subdivision regulations ➢ Additional soil and perc tests witnessed by the Town are needed CR explained that the Applicant has requested to attend the September 20 DRT and there will be further technical review for discussion at the September 27 hearing. Public Comment: Virginia Adams, Historical Commission: made a presentation on the history of the ship on- site and its historical significance; consideration should be made to approve a street name that reflects the site's history. Tom Ward, 11 Collins Ave: the half-acre lots seem adequate for the Aquifer Protection District; why can't the pavement width be narrowed or garages built? JD explained that waivers should be consistent with the best interest of the Town, which needs to be established by the Applicant. According to the subdivision regulations a rationale or justification must be provided by the Applicant and accepted by the CPDC for allowance of waivers. JB mentioned that waivers on pavement width or sidewalks may be warranted if sidewalk elsewhere is needed, as CPDC has allowed in the past. Joyce McKenna, 181 Franklin St: concerned about past sewage problems. JD explained that the Town has allowed E-1 pumps before and they have sufficed. Tom Ward, 11 Collins Ave: will retaining wall effect drainage for abutters? JD explained that the retaining wall will not effect the site drainage, which drains to the rear. Joyce McKenna, 181 Franklin St: could the site easement be explained? What is the Town concern about the retaining wall? JD went over the need for sight easements, which are requested from the abutters for traffic visibility. JB noted that there are public safety concerns about the height of the retaining wall and forebay that need to be addressed by the Applicant. 3 JS moved to continue to September 27 at 8:00 PM. SD seconded. Voted 3-0, all in favor. Public Hearing (continued): Site Plan Review Danis Realty Trust-1 General Way Attorney Mark Favaloro, Engineer Chris Sparages, Traffic Engineer Kim Hazavartian, and Paul Caggianno represented the Applicant. PH and Recreation Administrator John Feudo were present to explain the Town's advocacy of the proposed skateboard park on the site. Mr. Feudo gave a presentation describing the proposed layout and operation of the skateboard park: ➢ the YMCA would run it with monitoring by a full time employee ➢ it would be open to Reading residents only ➢ there would be no nighttime operation and the park would be secured when closed ➢ no lighting is proposed other than as necessary for security ➢ there would be posted rules of use, which would be monitored and enforced by the Police PH explained that the Applicant has agreed to the siting of the proposed skateboard park but the Town would retain operational control and maintenance. Currently there are no other sites the Town has identified that would be suitable for the park. Public Comment: Ellen Childress, 105 Green St: there are no sidewalks on John and Green Street, which could be dangerous for kids making their way to the park. It doesn't appear there is adequate parking. Andy Bramhall, 11 John St. Ct: there should be a sidewalk off of Washington St. Russell Hiltz, 203 Washington St: the drainage should be connected to the stormwater pipe through the site. Max Dawson, 132 Village St: Village St. is dangerous now; he is concerned about safe access to the site. Bonnie Rup, 234 Washington St: we were told there would be no additional traffic when the Home Depot was approved; this is contrary to what was represented to the neighborhood. Kyle Childress, 105 John St: the Town should find out whether the MBTA bus could access the site. Norma Chisholm, 3 Beach St: will the park allow only Town residents? PH stated that it would be restricted to residents and those who violated the rules would be banned. JB asked CR if he thought there was another more suitable location for the park on the site. CR stated that the park could be moved to the eastern terminous of the site to reduce the impacts on abutters, such as noise and lighting. Mr. Caggianno explained that the Applicant believed that location would restrict delivery truck circulation and was therefore not feasible. „.John Diaz from Greenman-Pedersonz Inc. was present to report on the peer review of the traffic study. ` His findings: Traffic Impact and Access Study 4 ➢ counts should be compared with Walkers Brook Crossing project ➢ the 2009 no-build and build volumes should be revised to determine if signal is appropriate ➢ revise trip generation values for existing site ➢ the proposed uses should be clarified for appropriate trip generation ➢ verification is needed that the proposed uses have adequate parking ➢ clarify why intersection conditions get better under future no-build ➢ provide queue information for all intersections ➢ provide cycles, splits and offsets for all 3 signals ➢ the I-95 ramp intersections should be included ➢ clarify actual land use for accuracy of proposed use distribution ➢ clarify expected travel routes ➢ provide separate site-generated networks to clarify intersection volume ➢ operations of the signal should have morning evaluation Conceptual Design ➢ Provide exclusive pedestrian phase ➢ Provide merging impacts (queuing) on signal ➢ Review realignment of the signal to include Lakeview Ave. Public Comment: Ellen Childress, 105 Green St: retail operations will generate truck traffic; how will this be regulated? JD explained that the Selectmen, as Road Commissioners, determine traffic regulations. Douglas Neary, 155 Village: has "major issue" with the traffic, he won't be able to get out of his driveway with the queuing at the signal. Andy Bramhall, 11 Johns St. Ct: the neighborhood would like to enter testimony from Mr. Stokes, their traffic engineer. Mr. Stokes gave a presentation: with operation on the proposed intersection excessive queuing will result on Walkers Brook Drive. There should be traffic mitigation for local streets that will experience increased cut-through traffic. Mr. Caggianno explained that the Applicant was willing to address neighborhood concerns to the extent practical. They are willing to extend the site plan review hearing in order for the traffic study to be updated, with the expectation that the next hearing would be closed. JB moved to request and extension from the Applicant to September 14, for further preparation of the traffic study and site plans. SD seconded. Voted 3-0 all in favor. JS moved to continue the public hearing to September 13 at 9:00 PM. SD seconded. Voted 3-0, all in favor. Zoning Workshop Site Plan Review Waiver CR included a CPTC model site plan review waiver by-law in the packets for CPDC review. 5 JB and JS felt that the model by-law needed more criteria under which it would be applied and JB would like to see the prior waiver language from the by-law. His recollection was that when the site plan review by-law was updated with model by-law language recently the waiver got left out. CR will go back to the waiver language in the previous by-law and provide it in the packets for the next zoning workshop on September 13. Administrative Review Pierce Street Request for Minor Modification to Approved Site Plan The CPDC has conducted their site visits and the removal of the landscaping on the perimeter of the site was observed. CR checked with the abutters to get their input and the abutter to the right of the site had no concerns, but the abutter to the left contacted CR and explained that he was very upset the screening was gone, since he agreed not to oppose the project based on the requirement for the trees that were removed. The screening was just taking shape when it was removed and now he has no privacy; he requests replacement of the trees in their condition before removal. SD made a motion to require the Condo Association to apply for the major modification within 30 days of notification or the Town shall seek enforcement for removing the landscaping in violation of the zoning by-laws. JB seconded. Voted 3-0, all in favor. JS made a motion to adjourn. SD seconded. Voted 3-0, all in favor. These minutes were prepared by Chris Reilly, Town Planner and submitted to CPDC on September 27, 2004; the minutes were approved as amended by CPDC on September 27, 2004. Signed as approved, asso, Secretary Lo~ Date 6