Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-14 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes9. INCO 10 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street COMMUNITY Reading, MA 01867-2683 PLANNING AND Phone: 781-%2-9012 DEVELOPMENT Fax: 781-42-9071 COMMISSION Email: akrieg@dreadingma.us - CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated.• July 14, 1999 Members Present, Richard Schubert Chairman (RS); Jonathan Barnes, Secretary (JB), Neil Sullivan (NS); Michael Flammia (MF), Richard Howard (RH) Also Present Joseph Delaney, Town Engineer (JD); Anne Krieg, Town Planner (AK) The Chair called the meeting to order at 7.35 PM. The Town Engineer reviewed the roadway construction in the Holly Road, . Redgate Lane area. He explained the necessity for flattening the grade to have the roadway meet AASHTO requirements. The intersecting roadway grade sets the grade for the street, which must be met without the use of vertical curves with no tangents connecting. The Town Planner explained the vulnerability to the Town if design standards are not adhered to. The Commission discussed the obligation and the severity of not deviating from these standards. The Commission, staff, and audience members discussed the placement of curb at 55, 56 and 70 Walnut Street at great length. The issues and options brought forward were: ➢ Grading and embankment issues ➢ Retaining wall - fieldstone option ➢ Asphalt curbing ➢ Principle of scenic way to save trees - curbing does not take away this principle ➢ Widening of roadway not shown in plans allegations ➢ Engineering errors on-site allegations ➢ Country setting, not urban ➢ Use of granite as material Q\My Documents\CPDC\Agenda-Minutes\71499 minutes.doc Last printed 08/75/99 844 PM Created by Anne Krieg TOWN OF READING COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Minutes forMeehng dated.- July 14,1999 ➢ Existing changes not influencing CPDC decision-making - if in original plans, would it have been approved? ➢ Put grading conditions to pre-existing condition - issue with design standard ➢ Balance between public safety and preserving original conditions A motion was made by MF, seconded by NS to retain curbing at 56 and 70 Walnut Street, which did not pass. RS, JB, and RH cast dissenting votes Discussion continued centering on: ➢ Curbing types - i.e. breadloaf ➢ Durability issues with curbing options - asphalt having a lower durability as per staff ➢ Stabilizing the bank as a necessity ➢ Wall would be same height as existing curb, if chosen ➢ Groundcover planting to stabilize the area A motion was made by RH, seconded byJB to remove the curbing at 56 and 70 Walnut Street and replace with breadloaf asphalt curbing and groundcover/fabric installation. The motion did not pass with JB, RS, MFand NS casting dissenting votes A motion was made by RH, seconded byJB, to remove the curb at 56 and 70 Walnut Street and install fabric/groundcover as soft solutions to retain grade at these locations Motion passed, with MFand NS casting dissenting votes Discussion continued on the placement of curbing at 55 Walnut Street. The Town Engineer remarked access to the private property would be necessary to allow for a five-foot pedestrian path within the right of way and to build a wall beyond. If the path were two to three feet wide, this may not be necessary. The property owner remarked no access to this property would be allowed to construct the wall. Comments and concerns continued and centered upon: Historic value of front walk, house, grade in front and overall setting, and Pedestrian safety Page 2 of 5 TOWN OF READING COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Minutes forMeeting dated.• July 14,1.999 A motion was made by RH, seconded byJB, to remove the granite curb at 55 Walnut Street and re grade to provide a flat area for three feet off the road and construct a natural, mortared wall with a dry face. This motion did not carry, with MF, NS and RS casting dissenting votes The CPDC discussed the appropriateness of designing in public hearing to compromise a situation. A motion was made by MF to accept the changes constructed at 55 Walnut Street, seconded byJB. The motion did not carry, with JB, RH, and RS casting the dissenting vote. RH requested for the CPDC to reconsider his option for the placement of a wall. A consensus was established by the CPDC to reconsider this approach. Concerns were raised by the homeowner as to construction mechanism and aesthetics. RHmade the motion to remove the existing curb at 55 Walnut Street, grade a flat area off the roadway for three feet, so as to not encroach upon the private property, and to place there a wall, whose design would meet the approval of the Town Engineer, the Town Planner, and the Chair of the Historic Commission. Motion seconded byJB. Motion carries, with NS and MFcasting the dissenting vote. MFinade an amendment to the motion to allow the homeowner to be involved in the design and placement of such wall at 55 Walnut Street. Motion was seconded by RS, and was passed with RHand JB casting dissenting votes. CITIZEN REQUEST FoR 133 WALNUT STREET Engineering options for the placement of curbing at the existing catchbasin were discussed with the CPDC, staff, and the landowner. JB made the motion to install granite-curbing backing for the existing catchbasin, seconded byMF. Motion carries, with RHcasting the dissenting vote. Page 3 of 5 TOWN OF READING COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Minutes forMeeting dated. July 14,1999 CITIZEN REQUEST FOR 139 WALNUT STREET 139 Walnut Street condition was presented to the Commission by AK. Issues raised and discussed were: ➢ Work to be done not at Town expense ➢ Wall is on private property ➢ The appropriateness of Town involvement ➢ Coordination for work involves posting of bond by landowner ➢ Was this an existing or created condition? ➢ Consistency with the required provision for pedestrian walkways at 55 Walnut Street ➢ Lack of historic value of the wall RHmade the motion to reject the citizen request, seconded byJB. Motion carried with MF casting a dissenting vote. Consensus was achieved to direct the Town Planner to meet with the property owner to assist in a file as a separate application under the provision in the regulations for work within Scenic Ways. The provision for handicap access to the park on Pine Ridge Road was also discussed. RHmade the motion to add handicap ramp access to the westerly side of Pine Ridge Road north of the existing telephone pole. Motion was seconded by NS. All in fa vor. Virginia Adams of the Historic Commission thanked CPDC and staff for their diligence in the review for this project. A motion was made to close the public hearing by RH, seconded my MF. All in fa vor. MF made a note the Town Engineer tried to meet the interests of the Scenic Roads By-Law while maintaining proper roadway design. He also expressed concerns of trust in staff and the Commission. RH commented the focus during the hearing by the audience at times rested upon blame and not always solutions. Page 4 of 5