Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-08 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: January 8, 2007 Location: Multi-purpose Room, Parker Middle School, 45 Temple Street 7:30 PM Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Chairman; Brant Ballantyne, (BB), Secretary; Jonathan Barnes (JB), and Neil Sullivan (NS). Members Absent: Richard Howard (RH) Associate Members Present: George Katsoufis (GK), and Nicholas Safina (Nick S.). Associate Members Absent: Israel Maykut (IM), and David Tuttle (DT) Also Present: George Zambouras (GZ), Town Engineer; and Michael Schloth. Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Ms. Mary R. Vincent, 17 Indiana Avenue Mr. Tom Quintal, 64 Woburn Street Mr. Russell Graham, 68 Maple Ridge Road Mr. Christopher Vaccaro, 57 Woburn Street Mr. Ron D'Addario, 97 Summer Avenue Mr. Anthony Ricciardone, 17 Pierce Street Ms. Donnan Barnes, 11 Bancroft Avenue Ms. Leslie McGonagle, 140 Pine Ridge Road Mr. Bob Carden, 24 Mt. Vernon Street Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue Ms. Naomi Kaufinan, 64 Woburn Street Ms. Kathy Vaccaro, 57 Woburn Street Mr. Dave Talbot, 75 Linden Street Mr. Michael Giacalone, 9 Orchard Park Drive Mr. Scott Filmore, 25 Linden Street Mr. Rick Shaffer, 67 Woburn Street Ms. Julianne McKenney, 67 Woburn Street Ms. Julieann Thurlow, 180 Haven Street Ms. Adele Blunt, 22 Linden Street Selectman Camille Anthony Ms. Janice M. Jones, 22 Mt. Vernon Street Page 1 of 15 Mr. Mark Doherty, Dynamik Sports Mr. Weston C. Ruthven PE, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), 101 Walnut St., Watertown MA Mr. DiPietro, VHB Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130. John Street There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Public Comments / Minutes There were no minutes ready for review. There were no comments from the public Zoning Workshop 16 Sanborn Street, Parking Overlay District The property owner seeks zoning map and text amendments for the establishment of a "Parking Overlay District" for property addressed at 16 Sanborn Street. JS reminded all present this was not a public hearing but a workshop and there will be ample time (over two hours) for public comment. Tonight the Board will consider the draft language submitted by the applicant and vote on whether or not to send this language to the Board of Selectmen for inclusion on the warrant. The applicant's attorney has two changes to make to the articles' language. The Board will hear the changes and then hear comments and questions from the public. The warrant closes 1/30/07 and the Board still needs to hold a public hearing on the articles. The articles' language must be finalized for the posting of the Legal Notice for this public hearing. Attorney Brad Latham, representing Reading Cooperative Bank; briefly outlined two changes they were suggesting be made to the draft amendment: 1. Section 4.11.2. The language now states the parking Overlay District will only be allowed on land in the S 15 residential zone that directly abut and are within 100 feet of the Business B zone. A sentence was also added to the end that states land separated from the Business B zone by a portion of a street or railroad right-of-way will not be considered to directly abut the Business B zone for the purposes of this amendment. These changes reduce the number of lots that could qualify. 2. Town Counsel had sent an earlier version of this amendment to the Asst. Attorney General to review. The Asst. Attorney General said it looked fine with the exception of the condition that would require anyone who built more than a certain number of parking spaces would have to pay a $1000.00 fee for each space above the limit. The A.G. felt this could be construed as an impermissible tax and suggested the language be struck from the amendment. This has been done. Public Comment Ms. Marv Vincent, 17 Indiana Avenue. Page 2 of 15 Ms. Vincent is an employee of the bank and said the bank has always been a good neighbor with the town's interests at heart. She understands the concerns of abutters that this amendment would open the gates to businesses but it is not so. Mr. Tom Quintal, 64 Woburn Street. Mr. Quintal had several points to make and submitted an informational package for the Board's future review. 1. Re: Post Office's interest in the property. Mr. Quintal said the USPS attempted to buy the property in 1999 but was denied due to budget constraints. Today, the cost of the property is $1.1 million making the individual parking spaces cost roughly $35,000 each where typically they are only $5000. If denied in 1999, it is doubtful they would be interested at this price today. 2. Mass. Court of Appeals says spot zoning occurs when a change is for the benefit of a specific business and not for the town. He asked why what the bank is proposing is not spot zoning. 3. Will the town's dimensional controls (bylaw 5.12) apply to the Parking Overlay? 4. Will off-street parking (bylaw 6.11) apply to the Parking Overlay? 5. Will signage requirements (bylaw 6.2) apply to the Parking Overlay? 6. Re: Bylaw 6.3.10.3 and special permits: will this new use be less detrimental than the current use? 7. In 11/2005, Article 21 - Expanding Business B to Sanborn Street-- was approved by the Board 4:0:0 but was withdrawn at Town Meeting. How does this action compare and why shouldn't it also be withdrawn? 8. How does this action support Smart Growth? 9. Does the CPDC intend to expand the Business Zone? 10. The town's Master Plan states a desire to avoid open parking lots. How does this action support this? 11. The Parking Task Force has been told by the Selectmen not to address this issue. 12. Re: Stormwater management. Has runoff from the parking lot been considered? 13. What is the assessed value of the lot as a parking lot versus a residential lot? 14. In 1996, when the bank built their current building they knew they would not have parking for employees but since they were within 300 feet of a municipal lot they were allowed to build. Now we hear if they don't get the parking spaces they need they will have to leave town. But if they get the spaces they need and grow again - what then? 15. A lottery for employee parking spaces at the Depot would be a good idea. 16. The Downtown Parking Task Force is currently looking at less disruptive alternatives. Why not wait for their report? Mr. Russell Graham, 68 Maple Ridge Road Mr. Garham is the Chair of Reading's Economic Development Committee (EDC). The EDC voted 4:0:0 at their last meeting to approve the Parking Overlay amendment. He has met with many business owners and developers and the consistent theme is the lack of parking in Reading. Where feasible he agrees Reading's village atmosphere should be maintained but it is difficult to do anything in Reading's 10 square miles without disrupting residents somewhere and the town has a need today for parking. Page 3 of 15 The EDC thinks the bylaw the bank is proposing shows they are trying to accommodate the town. Mr. Christopher Vaccaro, 57 Woburn Street. Mr. Vaccaro had many questions for the Board: • Are there communities that have done something similar we can look to for an example of how it has worked? • Are there any Town Planners in other communities who would actively promote the removal of housing units in order to create parking lots? • Will the CPDC take inventory of all lots in Reading that will be impacted by this amendment? It could create an "asphalt necklace". • Has the Board considered alternatives such as a shuttle service? • Has the Town Counsel briefed the Board on whether or not this is spot zoning? I assume this bylaw would supersede all bylaws of the underlying zoning. • Why would the CPDC be the party to issue this special permit as opposed to the Board of Appeals? He added: The Parking Task Force agrees parking is needed but they also point out the bylaw exempting businesses from parking regulations if within 300 feet of a municipal lot is part of the reason we have a parking problem and we are all suffering because of it. Mr. Ron D'Addario 97 Summer Avenue Mr. D'Addario is Chairman of the Cities for Climate Protection Committee. Mr. D'Addario said his committee is willing to spearhead an internet-based carpool system for the employees of the bank. Mr. D'Addario said his committee will be applying fora government grant in 2008 that if approved will provide funds for public transportation in the town which could be used to bring residents downtown to shop etc.... Mr. Anthony Ricciardone, 17 Pierce Street Mr. Ricciardone asked if any business could build a parking lot. by buying a house on a lot that abuts the Business B zone. JS said the business would have to go to Town Meeting for approval first. BB provided clarification: the land must be void of any building at the time of the application for the special permit. Mr. Ricciardone said this is a bad law. He said there are lots of parking spaces available down by the Reading Athletic Club. Ms. Donnan Barnes 11 Bancroft Avenue Ms. Barnes voiced her opposition to both the Parking Overlay and the creation of a parking lot at 16 Sanborn Street. She said there were many discrepancies between the bank's proposal and the language of the town's Master Plan: • From Chapter 4.1 "Reading is perceived by its citizens as a low-to-moderate- density, single-family suburban residential community, into which business, industrial, and multi-family land uses should fit without disruption. New development or redevelopment is judged principally on its ability to conform harmoniously to residential values." Ms. Barnes asks how the creation of a parking lot from a residential lot conforms harmoniously to residential values. • Chapter 10.3: Goal 60 "Encourage all large-scale local developments to cooperate with the TMA, to facilitate the use by their employees of mass-transit passes, and to Page 4 of 15 facilitate employee non-automobile access to and from Downtown and the Depot." Ms. Barnes asked how the bank's proposal encourages non-automobile access. Chapter 5.3; Goals 2A&2B: "A. Encourage rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing buildings for low and moderate income multi-family housing. B. Encourage new developments consistent with Reading's character and identity and meeting state mandated affordable housing goals." Chapter 5.3; Goal 4: "Promote neighborhood preservation." Ms. Barnes asked how creating a parking lot out of 16 Sanborn Street would help the town to meet these goals. Leslie McGonagle, 140 Pine Ridge Road Ms. McGonagle is a member of the Economic Development Committee (EDC) and is on the Board of the Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce. Ms. McGonagle supports the proposed bylaw. Through her work with the EDC she keeps hearing the top problem for businesses in Reading is that there is no parking. She says this bylaw cannot be considered spot zoning because the town receives the benefit of the parking spaces made available as a result of the bank's employees parking off-street. Sometimes bylaws need to be changed to promote growth. Mr. Bob Carden 24 Mt. Vernon Street Mr. Carden said it was very difficult for the audience to hear what the speakers are saying and better arrangements should have been made to ensure everyone could hear each other. Many in the audience voiced their agreement. Mr. Carden said he disagreed with Ms. McGonagle's statements regarding Reading's economic development. He suggested the EDC was using tunnel-vision in their search for developers as the kind of economic development they want for Reading will give us more automobiles and more pollution. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue Ms. O'Neill asked the bank to withdraw their application. She said the bylaw was clearly spot zoning in the guise of a zoning overlay. If it passed it would turn the property from a high-value use (multifamily residential) into a low-value use (surface parking). Ms. O'Neill expressed her concern that they were being led to believe the town would have control over the construction of these parking lots but, speaking as a Town Meeting member, she could not see how Town Meeting could have any legal basis to deny construction. Ms. Naomi Kaufman 64 Woburn Street Ms. Kaufinan said that at one of the meetings the bank scheduled with neighboring residents to discuss this matter someone from the bank admitted they knew they did not have enough parking spaces but were covered under the bylaw that allows a parking-space exemption to buildings located within 300 feet of a municipal parking lot. Ms Kaufinan said this bylaw would solve the parking problem for one business only. She implored the community and its officials to consider a broader based approach and stop trying to solve the problem case-by-case. Ms. Kathy Vaccaro, 57 Woburn Street Page 5 of 15 Ms. Vaccaro was bothered by how this situation with 16 Sanborn St was similar to the situation a few years ago involving a house that burned down next to the Atlantic Supermarket's parking lot: there was a push to turn that burned-out residential property into a parking lot too. Mr. Dave Talbot 75 Linden Street Mr. Talbot noted that a map showing everyone which properties would be impacted by the bylaw has still not been made. He asked if the bylaw would or could apply to properties near the Business B district over by the Registry and REI. Mr. Latham said the wording of their proposal removes that area from consideration. JS said if changes need to be made to limit the bylaw, line edits can be proposed by anyone and as late as Town Meeting - but the Board is trying to get the correct language in place before Town Meeting. Mr. Talbot asked if there would be another chance to make edits before Town Meeting. JS said there would; a public hearing still must be scheduled for this bylaw change. Tonight's meeting is only a workshop. Mr. Talbot asked if the farmhouse on Woburn Street next to Town Hall - an historic property - would be eligible under this bylaw to be turned into a parking lot. He said this parking overlay would be wide-sweeping and we need to pick out the particular properties we don't want gone. Mr. Talbot said there are other solutions to the parking problem to consider, such as satellite parking and employee incentives to car-pool, but if this bylaw is passed the incentive to use those other solutions is removed. Other solutions Mr. Talbot suggested were: • Renting unused spaces in private parking lots. • Allowing employee parking on residential streets. Mr. Michael Giacalone 9 Orchard Park Drive Mr. Giacalone is a member of the Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Giacalone said if satellite parking and allowing employee parking on residential streets were easy to implement it would have been done long ago. Mr. Giacalone said business owners need to provide parking for their employees and the bank has a proposal that will do that. It is a proposal that will not only beneficial to the bank alone, but to all other businesses that will be able to use the spaces freed-up by the bank's employees using the proposed lot. He said the bank should be allowed to build the parking lot. Mr. Scott Filmore 25 Linden Street. Mr. Filmore said the town needs to consider fixture downtown parking needs. He is not opposed to the parking overlay. Mr. Rick Shaffer, 67 Woburn Street. Page 6 of 15 Mr. Shaffer said there are historical properties along Woburn Street that could be affected. His own house dates back to 1815. He asked the Board to review the town's inventory of historical properties. Mr. Shaffer said is able to look up his street and see "Two Hour" parking spaces go unused. He would be happy to have these two-hour spaces changed to employee parking spaces. Ms. Julianne McKenney, 67 Woburn Street. Ms. McKenney said she has lived in Reading for 18 years and parking was a major issue then too. She called the proposed bylaw a band-aid. She feels very strongly about having a strong, vibrant, walkable downtown. She said if this parking lot is worth one million dollars to the bank she would take her own house down for that amount and she is afraid the same thought could see other residential lots turned into parking lots. She asked how the Board would get in touch with abutters. JS said the Board can recommend to notice all those affected by the proposed overlay when a location. Ms. Julieann Thurlow, 180 Haven Street Ms. Thurlow is the President of the Reading Cooperative Bank. Ms Thurlow said the one million dollar cost refers to the cost of building underground and structured parking on the site if such was allowed. She said the bank has over 60 employees and they are currently using spaces all over the downtown area including spaces at the Knights of Columbus and the Senior Center. The hours the proposed parking lot would be used were restricted to the bank's business hours at the request of the abutters. They are not looking to antagonize abutters but this parking lot is part of the bank's growth goals and without it they would have to consider moving out of Reading. Ms. Adele Blunt 22 Linden Street Ms. Blunt said she is not against the bank but it is time for the town to consider changing the 300 foot parking exemption bylaw and to seriously consider building structured parking in the downtown. Ms. Blunt asked why the bank's employees could not use the parking spaces at the depot. She also expressed her fear that the proposed bylaw was too broad and would affect much more than the lot at 16 Sanborn Street. At this point, JS said he would like to have a brief discussion of, in general, the process to bring a bylaw before Town Meeting and, in particular, what the Board needs to do next with this proposed bylaw. Selectman Camille Anthony said she wanted to avoid having changes made to this bylaw from the floor of Town Meeting. It is important the Board hold a public hearing on the bylaw and iron out the language before Town Meeting. JS said there is still time for the Board to provide their recommendation - for or against to Town Meeting. CPDC meetings are scheduled for 1/17 and 1/22. Draft language for the bylaw needs to be posted at least two weeks before the public hearing which is scheduled Page 7 of 15 for the 1/22 meeting. This will give the Board two meetings to finalize the bylaw's language. Selectman Camille Anthony said she had originally thought this bylaw would affect one lot - 16 Sanborn St - but now that she sees it is much broader in its application all who could be affected by it must be noticed. JS said that it is the Board's intention to notice everyone who could be affected by the bylaw. Ms. Kathy Vaccaro and others asked if this zoning amendment is going to move forward or could the Board halt it. The Board said they have an obligation to recommend or not recommend this bylaw to Town Meeting and the Board will vote to recommend or not at the public hearing. The Board said that how the bylaw reaches Town Meeting is an issue separate from the Board's recommendation of it. The Board pointed out that the applicant could present the proposal as a citizen's petition and the Board would still have to vote to recommend it or not. By avoiding a citizen petition, the Board will be able to draft the language of the bylaw presented to Town Meeting. NS asked if 16 Sanborn Street and the Parking Overlay bylaw were two separate issues and if the Parking Overlay bylaw were passed would 16 Sanborn Street automatically be included in it. JS said they are two separate issues and, no, 16 Sanborn Street's inclusion is not automatic. Town Meeting would have to vote separately to allow the Parking Overlay to apply to 16 Sanborn Street. JS said the following are priorities for the public hearing: • Many questions have been asked about this bylaw and the Board needs to find the answers. He suggested posting the answers to the Planning webpage. The Board thought this was a good idea. JS asked the recording secretary to prepare a list of all questions asked tonight. • The GIS administrator needs to create a map showing all lots in town that could be affected by this bylaw. The map will be necessary to determine who should be noticed on the public hearing. • Town Counsel needs to provide a written opinion on whether or not this bylaw constitutes Spot Zoning. Attorney Brad Latham said he could provide a point by point reply to all questions. He also said he has references showing this bylaw is not Spot Zoning. Mr. Christopher Vaccaro of 57 Woburn St. Mr. Vaccaro said it was important how the question on spot zoning was phased. If with reference to the overlay district as a whole, then it is not spot zoning. But if you zero in on one location then it is spot zoning and the purpose of the parking overlay is to put a parking lot on one location: 16 Sanborn Street. JS said the Board needs to come up with the language for the legal notice that will state when the public hearing will be held and since the required two-weeks between the posting and the public hearing means the 1/22 meeting will be too soon he suggested moving the 1/22 meeting to 1/29. The Board agreed. JB asked if the Board should use Mr. Latham's Page 8 of 15 draft of the bylaw as the Board's starting point. The Board agreed they should. Selectman Ben Tafoya said the CPDC will have to be sure to forward the results of their 1/29 meeting (the Board's recommendation for or against; any language changes...) to the Board of Selectmen in time for the Selectmen's meeting on 1/30. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue. Ms. O'Neill asked why the Board should invest time in drafting the language for the bylaw before deciding if the bylaw is something the town should be considering in the first place. JS said the Board must finalize the language to continue the public process: presenting it to Town Meeting. Ms. O'Neill pressed her point: does the Board want this parking overlay for Reading? JB said he not yet made up his mind on the proposed bylaw but as it concerns an issue of great importance to the whole town (i.e. parking) he is inclined to say the proposal needs to be vetted by Town Meeting and therefore should be placed on the warrant. He also agrees with Selectman Anthony that Town Meeting is not the place to make substantive changes to the proposal so the Board needs to work on the language of the bylaw before it is be presented to Town Meeting. JB continued: he was not sure the Board should support this proposal as a Planning Mechanism, but parking has been an issue for over 17 years and it would be a shame if all the momentum that has been generated towards developing solutions for Reading's parking problems were to dissipate when the matter of 16 Sanborn Street is closed. BB said the proposal is going on the warrant whether the Board approves of it or not. Mr. Christopher Vaccaro replied: in that case the Board should let the applicant bring it forward as a petition. Ms. Janice Jones, 22 Mt. Vernon Street Ms. Jones said the Board has to do a better job collecting and making available information on this proposal. She said we all need to see a map showing all the homes that could be affected by the proposal. Also, the Board must notice all abutters - not only those abutting 16 Sanborn Street - all abutters to all homes that could be affected. GK asked if it could be clarified why this parcel - 16 Sanborn Street - was not placed in the Mixed Use district. JS said when parcels were rezoned for Mixed Use they were rezoned for Business B first and then the Mixed Use was added. JB said the Board did discuss expanding the Business B zone to include Sanborn Street and had held a public hearing on just that very issue before the 2005 Fall Town Meeting. There was strong opposition at Town Meeting to placing Sanborn Street under Business B zoning and the motion was tabled. GK asked if a parcel could be in the Mixed Use zone if it was not also in the Business B zone. The Board did not know. Someone from the audience said everyone keeps talking about what is good for the town. What is being overlooked is what is good for the neighborhoods affected by this bylaw. If passed, there would be a continuous line of asphalt lots up and down Sanborn Street. Mr. Latham said the impression is being given that many parcels could be made into parking lots by this bylaw. That is not the intent of the parking overlay. The intent is to Page 9 of 15 only allow the construction of a parking lot at 16 Sanborn St. The changes he proposed tonight should help clarify this. Nick S. thought the word "registered" would exclude company cars from using the parking lot and he suggested the word be struck from section 2.2.10.1 of the bylaw. The Board agreed with this change. JB moved to recommend to the Board of Selectmen that they place the articles as amended tonight by Attorney Brad Latham and Nick S. on the warrant for Town Meeting. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Mr. Christopher Vaccaro asked what the significance of the Board's vote is. JS said it allows the Board to notice the public hearing of the articles. January's Agendas The Board took a moment to sort out the scheduling of items on the next two meetings: 1/17/07 and 1/29/07. 1/17/07 Meeting • Add discussion of "Frontage" definition to the Zoning Workshop items. • Add Sherwin Williams' (345 Main Street) Site Plan Review Waiver. • Schedule for 7:00 PM at Parker Middle School's Multipurpose Room. 1/29/07 Meeting • Schedule for 7:30 PM at Parker Middle School's Multipurpose Room. • Have necessary equipment on hand to make use of the room's speaker system. • Schedule public hearing for the parking overlay and map change articles for 7:30 PM. Site Plan Review Waiver 163 Main Street, Dynamik Sports The application seeks to replace portions of the exterior facade. Action Date: March 12, 2007 Mr. Mark Doherty, owner of Dynamik Sports, was in attendance. This waiver application is not complete because the abutters were not noticed. The recording secretary said this was not the fault of the applicant. He said he neglected to inform the applicant of this requirement until it was too late to send the notices out in time for tonight's meeting. The consensus of the Board was they would hear the application tonight but not vote on it until the next meeting (1/17/07). Before the next meeting, the applicant must apply for an abutters list and using the list provide the recording secretary with stamped envelopes addressed to all abutters. The recording secretary will mail the envelopes after inserting a notice of the Dynamik Sports site plan review waiver re-scheduled for 1/17/07. Page 10 of 15 Mr. Doherty said the front window was smashed in by a car and to prevent it from happening again he is looking to brick it in. The other window on the other side of the door will probably be bricked it too to be consistent. He is considering using a textured block similar to what is used in the Doyon building across the street. Nick S. advised the applicant not try to match the new brick with the old and instead use a darker brick. JS asked if there was a dumpster on the site and if it was enclosed. Mr. Doherty said there was a dumpster but it was not enclosed. JS said the Board always likes to see dumpsters enclosed and enclosing the dumpster will be a condition of the waiver. There was no change of signage. JB had a question on how the Board would proceed since there was no real documentation of what they would be approving. The consensus of the Board was they would make definitive specifications in the decision. JS moved to approve the request for a waiver for 163 Main Street, Dynamik Sports, with the following condition: 1. The on-site dumpster will be enclosed by fencing and a gate. 2. The two existing side panels on the front of the building shall be replaced by split- faced blocks of a dark color that will compliment the existing brick. 3. If any changes to the signage are required, the applicant must come back before the Board and present them for approval. Mr. Doherty said he believes the dumpster may actually be on the adjacent parcel. It was the consensus of the Board that when the applicant comes back on 1/17 he show whether or not the dumpster is on the site in question. JS asked it be noted for the record that since the application is not considered complete it doesn't yet have an Action Date. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review 39 Walkers Brook Drive, Newview Investments, LLC The application seeks to construct 2 new attached restaurants consisting of 12,340 square feet on a 2.78 acre lot, with associated site improvements. Permitting Regulation: Zoning Bylaws Section 4.3.3. Action Date: February 12, 2007 - JS opened the public hearing and asked BB to read the public notice. No one had a copy of the public notice. JS moved to dispense with the reading of the public notice. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. JS asked the recording secretary to be sure to have a copy of the legal notice on hand at whatever future meeting the public hearing is continued to. Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant. He said he would check to see if the noticing was done properly. If it was not they would re-notice. Mr. Latham said they Page 11 of 15 propose to construct one building which will contain two restaurants: Bertucci's and Longhorn Steakhouse. Access will be off of Newcrossing Road on a driveway they'll share with Hallmark Health. They still have issues with the Conservation Commission so tonight they will be asking for a continuance from the Board. Mr. Weston C. Ruthven briefly described the project: • A site plan and Notice of Intent have been submitted. They have met with the Conservation Committee and the DRT. The lot is one of three subdivided from the original TASC building lot. • Seating: 213 seats in Bertucci's; 188 seats in Longhorn. • Deliveries will be made in the morning. They are applying for a waiver on the number of loading spaces. The zoning requires three but each restaurant needs only one. • They have planned for 194 parking spaces and the parking lot will have landscaped islands. • There will be pedestrian connections to Hallmark Health and Stop & Shop • Bertucci's will have a take-out service with separate parking. • All utilities are underground. • They have plans for a complete drainage system including infiltration chambers. • Lights will be done by the same firm that handled Stop & Shop's lighting. • A traffic study was done for lot A2 [Hallmark Health] and that study was done under the assumption two restaurants would be on the adjacent lot [A3 - the lot in question]. This has not changed. • They are working with the Conservation Administrator to resolve the issue with the Riverfront mitigation. • They will meet later this week with both the Conservation Administrator and the Town Engineer to consider drainage, mitigation, etc... The Town Engineer summarized the DRT minutes. • The Town Manager asked if a traffic study was necessary and if a dedicated left- turn would have to be built for access onto Newcrossing from Walkers Brook Drive. The left-turn was considered when, during the review of the Hallmark Health traffic study, it was found if Hallmark was open on Saturdays there would be a drop in the level of service at the Newcrossinng/Walkers Brook intersection. Hallmark Health said they would not be open on Saturdays so it should not be a problem but GZ said he would keep an eye on the situation. Conservation pointed out that a left- turn lane could have further impacts on the riverfront setbacks. • Since the building is a reverse view there is a concern the loading area will be in view from the roadway. We asked for renderings to show how it would look from all four sides. • Looking for good pedestrian access. • The number of shade trees should be maximized. • Lighting should be down-lighting rather than up-lighting. • Conservation: since the riverfront mitigation is a big issue if it cannot be resolved the site plans will have to be revised and redesigned. The issue is they are disturbing more than 10% of the lot. Also, there were trees cut down that should not Page 12 of 15 have been and they'll need to be replaced. There is a section of asphalt that the applicant plans on removing and this would have to be replaced with trees and lawn - not lawn alone. • Fire Dept: need sprinklers. Fire Lane needs to be shown on plans. • Police: Need to be granted permission to ticket on the property. Concern that customers may park in the parking lot of the adjacent building and would like applicant to work out permissions to park there with adjacent-lot owner ahead of time. Will screening for dumpsters etc... block line of sight of patrolling police? • DPW: Where will snow be stored and how many parking spaces would be lost to snow storage? Because it is a new development it requires I & I. • Health: Grease traps and a pest management program are required. If there is any outdoor seating litter pickup would have to be scheduled. Once the kitchens are up cut-sheets of equipments will need to be submitted. • RMLD: Considering altering the feed to this site. They would like to make sure all tie-ins are coordinated with roadwork and Stop & Shop construction. JS noted separate memos have been submitted by both the Conservation and Health Administrators. Conservation says the site has many unresolved issues. Mr. Latham said the memo from the Health Administrator was sent to him to forewarn the restaurants of Heath Dept. requirements. NS asked what the center section of the parking lot was for. Mr. Ruthven said they had been asked to place a sidewalk through the middle of the parking lot. Mr. Ruthven said the applicant would prefer to put trees there - pedestrians already have access through the parking lot - because they have a concern over the amount of impervious cover created by the sidewalk. JS made the following points. • More greenery and pervious space would be welcome. • Perhaps consider adding some landscape buffering. • Lighting is very important to the Board. Does this site need a lighting peer review? When the Board reviewed the Stop & shop project we asked them to put more buffer between their site and Danis's. This lot is further from residential abutters but may still require similar buffering. Mr. DiPietro said there is open space for ground water recharge. They plan to take recharge the parking runoff too. He said they do have a landscape plan and they will talk more about it later. The Town Engineer said he has not given the plans a full review because there is a strong possibility the riverfront issue will force design changes. He did have a concern with the way all traffic in the parking lot must drive past the entrance. He asked if the parking lot could be reconfigured to change this flow. Mr. Luthven said they did look at using cut-thru islands but they lost too many parking spaces. The Town Engineer suggested they should be able to reconfigure the parking lot such that whatever they lose in one are they gain in another. Mr. Luthven said he would look into it again. Page 13 of 15 Regarding lighting, the applicant said they would have more the next time they come before the Board. The applicant said they understood the Board's sensitivity to lighting in this area. Regarding questions on the building's rear side facing the street, the applicant said there really is no back side to the building. All sides will be, architecturally, fully finished. JS summarized what the Board would be looking for from the applicant: 1. The resolution of all of the Conservation Commission's issues with the riverfront. If changes to the plans are required the Board will need to see them 2. A peer review of the site's lighting. 3. A landscape plan. 4. Signage. 5. Renderings of the proposed building from the point of view of someone standing at the corner closest to Home Depot. GK asked if there were any plans to build a connection to the North Avenue (Wakefield) sidewalk. The applicant said they would prefer not to put pavement in the front green-space setback; they would prefer to put trees there. Mr. DiPietro said any pavement in the front would require riverfront mitigation. The applicant said they expected most foot traffic would come from the other side of the building: from Hallmark Health and Stop & Shop. BB pointed out if a front-side walkway was constructed people it might lead to drivers stopping in front of it on Walkers Brook Drive to drop people off. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo of 130 John Street had three questions: 1. What is about the parking at 55 Walkers Brook Drive [location of TASC Building]? Mr. DiPietro said there may be some shifts in the parking there. 2. Longhorn Restaurants use red neon piping all around their buildings. Will this be allowed in Reading? JS said illuminated signs are not allowed. 3. The removed-trees referred to earlier, where were they located? Mr. DiPietro said all of the trees were located on the applicant's property. The Town Engineer said that since the issue with the riverfront may result in a reduction of the number of parking spaces at 55 Walkers Brook Drive, the applicant needs to submit to him proof that the site meets the town's parking requirements. BB moved to continue the public hearing until 1/29/07, 9:30 PM at the Parker Middle School Multipurpose room. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. JS reminded all that no additional notice would be sent to abutters. BB moved to adjourn. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting ended at 10:30 PM. Page 14 of 15 These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on May 14, 2007; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on May 14, 2007. Signed as David Tuttle, Secretary Date Page 15 of 15