HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-10 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading
16 Lowell Street a L C E I V E Q
Reading, MA 01867-2683 ±iJ r E r
Phone: 781942-9012 ti %T t i O I G, MASS.
Fax: 781-942-9071
Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us 2004 JUL I U A 11: 0 rj
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CPDC MINUTES
Meeting Dated: May 10, 2004
Members Present: Chair, Susan DeMatteo (SD), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Richard Howard
(RH), Neil Sullivan (NS).
Also Present: Chris Reilly (CR), Town Planner; Joe Delaney (JD), Town Engineer.
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.
RH moved to approve the minutes of March 25, 2004 and April 12, 2004, with the noted
amendments.
NS seconded.
Voted 4-0-0, all in favor.
Approval Not Required (ANR):
James T. Lynch- L.A.B. Realty Trust, 23George Street
Attorney Steven Cicatelli represented the Applicant, James T. Lynch, Trustee of L.A.B.
Realty Trust.
The Applicant has received ZBA approval for an appealed comprehensive permit at 23
George Street; as part of the settlement resulting in the approval the Applicant has agreed to
deed 2 parcels to abutters, as indicated on the proposed ANR plan.
RH moved to endorse the ANR plan for 23 George Street.
JB seconded.
Voted 4-0, all in favor
Administrative Review:
Signage Site Walk
The notes from the Signage Site Walk conducted on May 8, 2004 will be written up by SD
and CR and the results will be reviewed on May 24, 2004 under Administrative Review. CR
will then prepare a draft letter for further review that will outline the CPDC's
recommendations to the Chamber of Commerce on signage approval and compliance.
Master Plan Update
The next Master Plan Advisory Committee meeting will be at 6:00 PM on 5.24. The results
of the Putting It All Together Forum will be given a final review before being submitted to
the 1viHrL for tnelr complete delivery of products to the Town.
Public Hearing, Site Plan Review (continued):
- 2-4, 10 Haven and 7 Chute Sts., (former Johnson's Hardware)
Attorney Mark Favaloro and Engineer Jack McQuilken represented the Applicant, Mark
Hall.
Mr. Favaloro made a formal request to have revised plans they have prepared submitted as
the plans of record. He went on to describe the revisions, which entailed increased on-site
parking in the rear off of Brande Court and an expansion of the basement to accommodate
the retail space lost by the increase in parking.
He clarified some issues that he claimed had been misrepresented by a local merchant: the
Project doesn't involve blowing anything up; the Property is not for sale; and the proposed
building reflects the Town's policies as adopted in the 1991 Master Plan.
Mr. McQuilken presented the revised site plan.
On-site parking has been increased from 9 to 17 spaces.
Chute Street has returned to the original plan except for the addition of an exit from the
proposed on-site parking.
There will be 3 retail units in the basement.
The transformer pad has been relocated to an underground vault on Brande Court.
They have added an overflow drain from the catch basin.
The revised loading zone is in easterly rear; it will be 13', which will meet zoning
The dumpster location is angled toward the entrance.
The site design largely remains the same.
JD went over his memo dated May 10, 2004.
JB asked for clarification on JD's concerns on angled parking.
JD felt that angled spaces that were formerly proposed on Chute St. would create difficulties
for snow removal and pedestrian access.
Mr. Favaloro said that intent of on-site spaces was to get tenant and employee parking off the
street.
JB asked about the proposed dumpster; how would it be constructed and accessed?
Mr. Hall said that its appearance could be similar to the building, with access for people and
smaller trucks.
Public Comment:
Andy Bramhall, 11 John Street Court: how many residential units are proposed and how
much parking will they have?
Mr. Favaloro explained that no residential uses are currently allowed but the Applicant might
pursue that option if the zoning by-laws are amended.
Ron Mini, Quarterback's proprietor: people have presented questions to him that need to be
answered, such as:
What is actual square footage?
Where are the areas for snow storage?
Does this project comply with the American Disabilities Act?
Will it lessen congestion in the streets?
JD replied that the project is approximately 38,000 sq. ft. as indicated on the plan, snow
removal will be handled no different that any other site downtown and the American
Disabilities Act will be complied with.
2
RH responded that the questions are all relative; what is being reviewed is allowed under the
by-laws much as people have been allowed to buy small Cape Cod cottages, tear the top off
and substantially enlarge the structures.
The parking has been changed to address one of the primary concerns.
Ron Mini had more questions:
Is there a full basement on site?
How can the project be safely constructed given the height of the water table?
Have perc tests and current drainage design been provided and adequately reviewed?
Has a 2le study been required?
Will there be a loss of existing parking spaces?
Has a traffic study been provided?
Mr. Favaloro responded: a partial basement is proposed to make up for ground-level retail
space lost by the provision of on-site parking as a result of efforts to address public and
CPDC concerns about parking; the Project will be reviewed by the Building Inspector and
Town Engineer before the building permit is issued and it will not effect the water table; perc
tests have been performed and the revised drainage analysis has been submitted; the 21E
study is a civil liability matter between the buyer and seller; no parking spaces will be lost
off-site but some additional spaces will be provided on-site; Mr. Mini has stated several
times on the record that thousands of customers frequent his store and since traffic is not an
existing problem the replacement of his store with the proposed uses will not create an
additional impact. It was further explained that this is redevelopment, rather than new
development. Although the square footage will increase the downtown traffic system can
more than accommodate redevelopment on an existing commercial site with multiple modes
of transportation available nearby, particularly given that one or more tenants may be a
restaurant that will generate predominantly nighttime traffic after other businesses are closed
and the rush hour has subsided.
Mary Duffy, Kensington Avenue: they will miss the store and their kids won't have any
similar place to go; will Atlantic Supermarket stay?
SD explained that no changes to the Atlantic are proposed.
The proposed building elevations were reviewed.
Mr. Mini asked about the appeal process.
CR outlined the Chapter 40A Section 17 procedures for appeal.
RH recommended adding a condition requiring parking for employees.
Joseph Westerman, 17 Avon Street had several questions:
What is proposed for basement?
What uses will occupy the building?
Will the width of Brande Court change?
Will there be residential?
Where will the loading dock be?
RH discussed CPDC's purview, which largely relates to the exterior of the site.
SD wanted to review the draft decision CR had prepared.
3
The draft conditions were discussed and amended where the Commission deemed
appropriate and the Applicant agreed. Condition 9: hours of construction and construction
restrictions, e.g., street and sidewalk closures were reviewed. Condition 16: dumpster access
was clarified for gated vehicle and people access. Conditions 23 and 24 were added: condo
documents shall require maintenance and employers shall make provision for full time
employee parking.
RH moved to close the public hearing.
JB seconded.
Voted 4-0, all in favor.
RH moved to approve the site plan lastly revised and amended by the Decision, subject to the
Conditions as reviewed, amended and approved in the public hearing closed on May 10,
2004.
JB seconded.
Voted 4-0, all in favor.
Public Hearing, PUD Special Permit Modification:
The Crossing at Walkers Brook, Walkers Brook Crossing LLC.
Attorney Brad Latham, VHB Engineer Mark Nagero and Project Manager Ed Shaw
represented Applicant Mark Dickinson.
Mr. Latham reviewed the revised design submission submitted to the CPDC.
They are requesting approval of both the second modification to the special permit that will
allow 75,000 sq. ft. of retail in Phase 2, and the design and signage submission.
CR reviewed the results of the DRT on Phase 2, conducted on April 20. Comments revolved
around mitigating the visual impacts to the Lakeview Apartments, providing for more
aesthetic improvements to the facades and enhancing pedestrian access.
JB wanted to know if any other designs were considered for the Bank of America building;
the building elevation was reviewed and possible enhancements were discussed.
JD reviewed his memo to the Commission dated May 10, 2004.
The primary concern was the proximity of the Lakeview Apartments to the rear of Phase 2
and any visual or noise impacts that may result.
Visual and related impacts from Phase 2 delivery and trash pick up activity upon the
Lakeview Apartments were also a concern.
CR has prepared a draft decision, which RH wanted to review.
The findings were reviewed and adjusted to reflect the nature of the modification request and
the change to benefits and impacts resulting from the different uses.
The draft conditions were reviewed and amended as the CPDC deemed appropriate.
There was extensive discussion about addressing the visual impacts to the Lakeview
Apartments. Mr. Shaw explained that there were no opportunities to provide vegetative
screening either on the Applicant's property or the Lakeview Apartments property.
CR recommended that the condition language requiring inquiry to the Lakeview Apartments
owner regarding any screening installation, subject to Town staff approval, be left in.
RH asked if Condition 5 was sufficient.
JD felt more screening on the building itself was needed.
Condition 6: screening of mechanicals shall be subject to Town Planner approval.
Condition -16: hours of trash pick up and delivery were reviewed and agreed upon. -
Condition 9: pedestrian circulation was reviewed and a fourth crosswalk on the main drive
was recommended by JD, which was added to the condition.
4
RH prepared comments and questions he went over; he asked for clarifications on DEP and
MEPA memos on the Notice of Project Change.
The Applicant provided explanations on several questions RH had regarding the information
in the memos. JD noted some of the information was inaccurate such as the I:I ratio, and the
Town and Applicant have long-standing agreements for mitigation.
Condition 17: employee parking was designated on the left of the main access drive to the
upper parking lot on Phase 1, subject to further CPDC review.
Public Comment:
Tony D'Arezzo, 131 John Street: screening of roof mechanicals and the rear of Phase 2 is
important.
The signage for Linen and Things and Staples was a concern and the Commission had
reservations about approving the design submission with such large signage for those
locations.
Condition 9: CR felt that the pedestrian refuge needed further design enhancement to protect
pedestrians, which the Applicant agreed to review and provide.
RH moved to close the public hearing.
JB seconded.
Voted 4-0, all in favor.
RH moved to approve the second major modification to the Special Permit and the design
review submission, subject to the Decision as conditioned and amended in the public hearing
closed May 10, 2004, excepting the signage for Linens and Things and Staples, which shall
be reviewed under Administrative Review at the CPDC meeting scheduled for 7:30 PM on
May 24, 2004.
JB seconded.
Voted 4-0, all in favor.
RH moved to adjourn.
NS seconded.
Voted 4-0, all in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 11: 30 PM.
These minutes were prepared by Chris Reilly, Town Planner and submitted to CPDC on May
24, 2004; the minutes were approved as amended by CPDC on May 24, 2004.
Signed as approved,
Neil Sullivan
Date
5
