HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-12 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 1
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2683--w ; ;
Phone: 781-942-9012
Fax: 781-942-9071
Email: creffly@ci.reading.ma.us
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CPDC MINUTES
Meeting Dated: April 12, 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, Town Engineer.
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.
RH moved to approve the minutes of the March 8, 2004 and March 22, 2004 with the noted
amendments.
NS seconded.
Voted 4-0-0, all in favor.
Approval Not Required (ANR):
Robert and Sandra Dwyer, 576 Pearl Street
The Applicant requested an ANR for Assessor's Map 211, Lots 21 and 19, in order to
convey a portion of property between neighbors.
RH moved to endorse the ANR.
NS seconded.
Voted 4-0, all in favor.
Public Hearing, Site Plan Review (continued):
10 Haven and 7 Chute Sts., (former Johnson's Hardware)
Attorney Mark Favaloro and Engineer Jack McQuilken represented Applicant Mark Hall
Atty. Favaloro presented the updated plan.
Underground parking is cost prohibitive; the water table is too high.
Mr. McQuilken presented changes to site plan since last meeting.
Chute Street would have angled parking.
Proposed changes to walkways on Chute and Haven include a column-supported overhang
for a pedestrian walkway.
JD discussed his memo to the CPDC on the revised site plan: the BOS would have to
approve curb cuts; Chute St. angled parking is a problem - there are jurisdictional issues with
half public, half private spaces and the existing walkway would be eliminated; assumed
Chute St. parking on the opposite side is not allowed; if parking spaces are public then there
is snow removal issue; the bump out on Chute St. might be too large for truck traffic; the
plans don't indicate curbing; granite curbing should be required; the revised drainage plan
should be OK; sprinklers should be indicated with 6" connection.
Atty. Favaloro explained that they would amenable to an easement to allow public access to
Chute St. spaces for snow removal, etc.
RH asked about proposed exterior lighting.
Mr. Hall described recessed lighting in the doorways. Street lighting will be decorative per
Town specifications.
RH asked if any landscaping was proposed.
Mr. Hall indicated brick will be installed in the entrance bump out; they will plant trees
where the Town specifies and they will have electricity for seasonal lighting.
RH discussed the Chute St. parking options: existing on-street public parking; Chute St.
angled parking; pull building back to provide parking on both sides in widened Chute St.
JD observed that they are only picking up 3-4 spaces by widening Chute St.
Public Comment:
Ron Mini, proprietor of Quarterbacks, presented a petition in opposition to the project.
He feels many people don't understand the issues surrounding this proposal, such as
increased traffic and parking problems.
SD explained the site plan review process and CPDC's permitting authority within the
zoning by-laws.
Mr. Mini wanted explanations on approximately 400 questions on the project which he
claimed people have submitted to him, such as whether an adult store can go in.
Jack Russell, Downtown Steering Committee and Master Plan Advisory Committee member
had concerns about the disparity between the proposed and required parking.
George Katsoufis, Master Plan Advisory Committee member: what is the nature of proposed
commercial uses? How will vehicular access be provided? Has the applicant looked at
pedestrian access?
Joseph Westerman, 17 Avon St: the plan doesn't seem to accurately reflect the amount of
square footage and the parking need is not addressed.
Joseph Kelly: this plan doesn't meet the Town's parking requirements.
RH explained that the zoning by-laws have dimensional controls and this application meets
them.
Adele Blunt, 22 Linden St: there is an existing parking problem in downtown and this
development needs 109 spaces. Will there be deeded parking?
RH explained that the CPDC does not have the right to deny what is allowed by zoning by-
laws; the proposal is exempt from parking requirements because the site is within 300' of a
municipal parking lot.
SD added deeded parking is different downtown than in the suburbs; it's usually an
additional expense in downtowns.
RH asked Mr. Hall if he has concerns on whether the office condos are marketable given the
lack of deeded spaces.
Mr. Hall said he was exploring off-site parking and though nothing has surfaced he
recognizes the need and would continue to pursue it.
Rich Schaffer, 67 Woburn St: what is CPDC authority to approve what is proposed
and what can be done about changing zoning to abolish the parking exemption? He feels
impacts on traffic, etc. will be significant and an environmental impact statement should be
RH reiterated what CPDC has authority over, including environmental impacts; CPDC has to
try and balance interest of abutters, the Town and the Applicant.
SD repeated her explanation of CPDC's role as permitting authority.
Mr. Mini claimed traffic problems will overwhelm downtown; pollution will increase, etc.
Mark Favaloro explained that Reading is changing and this is an opportunity to bring positive
change to the downtown through desirable redevelopment. Parking is the issue: the Town has
always looked at redeveloping downtown and attracting businesses despite longstanding
parking issues; this opportunity reflects that.
Marjorie Wentworth, Downtown Steering Committee member: parking is an existing
problem and the proposal will make it worse.
RH moved to continue the public hearing to May 10 at 8:00 PM at the same location, subject
to an extension from the Applicant, which was granted.
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. Nagero presented the special permit modification request.
They are requesting a modification to the special permit that will allow 75,000 square feet of
retail in Phase 2, instead of the approved office and hotel uses.
The Phase 2 detention area has been revised and the depth has been increased.
The project acreage is still the same.
The modification benefits are as follows: addition of approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of wetlands;
increased flood storage; adding 5,000 sq. ft. of upland; overall reduction of building square
footage; reduction of 268 parking spaces in Phase 2; reduced water use and waster water
generation; traffic for peak trips has been reduced while off-site mitigation is sufficient.
Phase 2 site will consist of: 315 spaces; 360 degree ingress and egress access; 3 restaurants;
increased landscaping in front.
Mr. Shaw went over building elevations: landscaping has been added to the fagade; pilaster
columns were added; the storefront fagade will be angled to break up the elevations.
Mr. Dickinson discussed the Phase 2 status: market conditions and site problems over the
past 4 years resulted in the modification request; they are hoping to start Phase 2 construction
in June; they're finalizing leases on 3 spaces; known Uses: Bank of America, Macaroni Grill,
Bear Rock Cafe; going forward in June is important because the detention basin construction
has to occur in a seamless operation with the contractor; leases are being negotiated for 80%
of the available space; in front there is deep cover that will allow large and dense landscaping
cover with significant rooting potential; sidewalks will be wide to allow outdoor seating with
canopies.
RH asked about changes to parking and pedestrian circulation.
Mr. Dickinson explained a parking is common; leases are just for building pads.
RH asked about Drawing C-4 signage; is that amber strobe?
Mr. Nagero explained that the strobe is a flare signal.
RH asked about the installation of pilings.
Mr. Nagero responded that the foundation will be level spread.
Hours of operation would be the same as approved.
RH asked about whether the proposed bank would have a drive thru window.
Atty. Latham indicated it's a proposed ATM.
RH asked about dumpsters on Phase 2.
Mr. Nagero identified the locations and general design.
RH requested dumpsters with similar design as buildings and 8' gates with pedestrian access.
RH asked about the drainage design.
Mr. Nagero responded that the drainage will outfall to the brook near Chilis and behind the
buildings.
RH asked about the lighting plan in Phase 2.
Mr. Shaw described the proposed pole lighting with 25' shoeboxes to control glare.
Building mounted fixtures will be 15' to 20'.
JB is still reviewing the plans but has comments. the revised traffic study showed an increase
in traffic on the weekend; likes roof articulation; three dimensional fagade is important and
well represented; landscaping is important and the proposed is nice, particularly in front of
the buildings; lighting is important and well-designed; likes town/village emphasis; doesn't
want to see more vehicular traffic-wants pedestrian traffic environment as portrayed; bank
could use fagade improvement.
NS asked about the height of fencing.
Mr. Nagero explained the proposed chain link fence in the rear will be mounted on retaining
wall, with a guard rail.
RH asked about the indicated pedestrian traffic crossings at the main intersection: why are
there 3?
Mr. Nagero stated that they were trying to get people to the "refuge" across the main access.
RH asked about the traffic study: why it indicated a major reduction in weekday AM trips?
Mr. Nagero explained that removal of the office use significantly reduced the trips; VHB has
good data from Jordan's Natick store to cross reference in this scenario.
Public Comment:
Ellen Childress: appreciated presentation but is concerned about lighting and bike lane.
George Katsoufis, Master Plan Advisory Committee: how long is the parking study horizon?
Signage could be more specific.
Tony D'Arezzo, 131 John Street: General Way is not shown; did traffic study account for
redevelopment there?
The VHB Traffic Engineer explained how the numbers were generated.
The meeting went well into the night and some heavy eyelids were reported.
JB moved to continue the public hearing to May 10 at 9:30 PM at the same location.
RH seconded.
Voted 4-0, all in favor.
Administrative Review:
Temporary Signage Request forThe Crossing at Walkers Brook, Walkers Brook Crossing
LLC.
Attorney Brad Latham represented Walkers Brook Crossing LLC.
Atty. Latham requested an insubstantial modification to the Special Permit to allow for
temporary signage that is consistent with the Design Review approval of August 2002.
They want to put up Jordans signage on the westerly side of their building in Phase 1.
RH moved to approve the request for insubstantial modification, subject to the condition that
the temporary signage will be removed upon occupancy of the Jordans building.
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: 20 PM.
These minutes were prepared by Chris Reilly, Town Planner and submitted to CPDC on May
10, 2004; the minutes were approved as amended by CPDC on May 10, 2004.
Signed as approved,
Neil Sullivan
Date