No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-21 Community Planning and Development Commsssion 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: February 21, 2007 Location: Great Room, Senior Center, 49 Pleasant Street 7:30 PM Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Chairman; Brant Ballantyne (BB), Secretary; Richard Howard (RH), and Jonathan Barnes (JB). Associate Members Present: George Katsoufis (GK), David Tuttle (DT), Nicholas Safina (Nick S.). Associate Members Absent: Israel Maykut (IM) Also Present: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager; George Zambouras (GZ), Town Engineer; and Michael Schloth. Mr. Curtis Barnes, 11 Bancroft Avenue' Ms. Donnan Barnes, 11 Bancroft Avenue Mr. Ralph C. Blunt, 22 Linden Street Ms. Adele Blunt, 22 Linden Street Mr. Bob Carden, 24 Mt. Vernon Street Ms. Marie Carden, 24 Mt. Vernon Street Mr. Michael Giacalone, 9 Orchard Park Drive Mr. Russell Graham, 68 Maple Ridge Road. Mr. Patrick Jammal, Owner of Comically Speaking, 580 Main Street Mr. Clayton Jones, 16 Mt. Vernon Street Ms. Janice M. Jones, 22 Mt. Vernon Street Ms. Naomi Kaufinan, 64 Woburn Street Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Attorney Chris Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Michael Linnane, 180 Haven Street Mr. Ted Londi, Owner of Londi's Pizza & Roast Beef, 214 Main Street Ms. Julianne McKenney, 67 Woburn Street Mr. Gus Niewenhous, Esq., Chairman Board of Trustees, Austin Preparatory School Mr. Curt E. Nitzsche, 453 Haverhill Street Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue Mr. Tony Pimentel, Sasso Construction Co, Inc., 231 Andover Street, Wilmington, MA. Mr. Gil Rodrigues, 97 Avalon Road Page 1 of 15 Mr. George Rio, 11 Estate Lane Mr. Kenneth Rossetti, 2 Haven Street, Suite 204 Mr. Jack Russell, 91 Spruce Road Selectman Richard Schubert, 119 Winthrop Avenue Mr. Brandon Simpson, Owner of Pizza World, 583 Main Street Mr. David Smith, 52 Sanborn Street, #207 Mr. Jeff Struble, 4 Tower Road Mr. Dave Talbot, 75 Linden Street Ms. Julieann Thurlow, 180 Haven Street, President of Reading Cooperative Bank Mr. Christopher Vaccaro, 57 Woburn Street Ms. Mary R. Vincent, 17 Indiana Avenue There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. Public Comments / Minutes There were no minutes ready for review. JS asked if there were any general comments from the Public. Someone from the audience said that Article 5 seems to be a compromise with regards to the Parking Overlay play discussed at a previous Public Hearing but that he did not consider it a compromise and that it is spot zoning. JS said questions and comments on Article 5 would be discussed during the public hearing. There were no general comments from the public. Public Hearing: Zoning Amendments Article 5: Expansion of Business-B and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts to include assessor's Map 64, Lot 21, (16 Sanborn Street) currently within the S15 Zoning District. JS opened the public hearing. BB read the legal notice. JS suggested they proceed. directly to comments from the public. He reminded all present that the Board had already delivered its decision on Articles 6 & 7 and that questions and comments should focus on Article 5. Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner. • The Town Manager provided a brief history of Town Meeting articles concerning 16 Sanborn Street in general and particular: o In 3/2005, a fire at the site caused extensive damage. • In 11/2005, an article was brought before Town Meeting to rezone what amounted to all of Sanborn Street between Woburn and Haven Streets to Business B. This was opposed by abutters who said they were not given adequate notice and the Page 2 of 15 rezoning would have a large, negative effect on the neighborhood. Fall 2005 Town Meeting tabled the article. The Reading Co-op Bank bought the lot and hoped to develop it as a parking lot for its employees. The Bank tried to address the concerns of the abutters - the primary concern being no business should establish itself at 16 Sanborn Street - through the Parking Overlay plan developed by their attorney Brad Latham. Although the plan's intent is to give the Town as much control as possible over the development of the site as a parking lot only, many felt the overall effect of the plan would be negative as it raised the possibility of other lots - including lots of historic value - being redeveloped as parking lots. It was with the negative effects of the Parking Overlay plan in mind that it was decided to present to the Board of Selectmen the simplest plan which would be to rezone 16 Sanborn Street only as Business B. Unfortunately, the Town Manager was late to the Board of Selectmen meeting during which this new plan [Article 5] was presented and he was not able to provide this explanation of it and there was some concern that it was not properly vetted. The Board of Selectmen voted 3:2 to add the article to the warrant the only concern being should this article be presented at the upcoming Special Town Meeting or held back for Annual Town Meeting. The Town Manager said the hope is that with all the articles on 16 Sanborn Street before it, Town Meeting will be able to consider all options: a parking overlay, a rezoning to Business B, or nothing. The Town Manager noted that only one of the parcels comprising 16 Sanborn St - the larger parcel - is mentioned in Article 5 because the other parcel - roughly a 10 foot wide strip along one side of the larger parcel - is already within the Business B district. The Town Manager added that, as the deadline for doing so was nearing, the Bank has gone to the ZBA to ask to be allowed to build a three-family home at 16 Sanborn Street. JS thanked the Town Manager and asked if he would stay to answer questions the Board may not have answers for. The Town Manager said he would stay and added that with regard to the earlier comment about Article 5 being spot zoning Town Counsel had presented her opinion that this was not spot zoning in a letter to the Board. JS asked if that opinion was based on the Parking Overlay article. The -Town Manager said Town Counsel's opinion applies to rezoning this property in general. Mr. Russ Graham, 68 Maple Ridge Rd, Chairman of the Economic Development Committee (EDC). Mr. Graham said the EDC has voted to support Article 5. The number one issue is parking. All developers, businessmen and women they speak to always mention parking as their top concern. Page 3 of 15 The EDC supports the long-term solutions suggested by others (car pools etc...) but this is an issue affecting the town now. He would love to see a parking garage built but given how long it took the comparatively simple Streetscape Project to get off the ground he did not see how a parking garage could be built any sooner. Article 5 answers the serious concerns raised by the Parking Overlay plan and answers them well. The Reading Cooperative Bank is the kind of business we want in Reading. Ms. Marv Vincent, 17 Indiana Avenue. Ms. Vincent is an employee of the Reading Cooperative Bank and has been for thirty years. Ms. Vincent said the bank is trying to reach a reasonable solution. She said parking has been a problem in Reading for years and recalled in the 1960s, when she lived across from Parker Tavern, commuters would park along her street. Mr. Clayton Jones, 16 Mount Vernon Street, Member of the Historical Commission. Mr. Jones was asked by the Chair of the Historical Commission, Ms. Kathryn Greenfield, who couldn't be here tonight, to add to the commissions concerns with Article 5 to those stated in their letter to the Board of 1/12/07. [http://www.ci.reading.ma.us/planning/hcletter.pdfl Arguments against Article 5: 1. The site is better served by a house. 2. Another parking lot makes a void ("gap tooth") in the downtown. 3. Fear nearby historical homes will lose value. 4. Fear ripple-effect of owners of historical homes selling to avoid encroaching parking lots. Mr. Christopher Vaccaro, 57 Woburn Street. Mr. Vaccaro owns and lives in one of the nearby historical homes. Mr. Graham's points regarding the parking issue are well taken but to change zoning under these conditions is not right. Article 5 expands the business district and this needs to be considered under the language of the Master Plan. Also, the town should consider the possibility of this being done with other lots around town. Why should it be restricted to 16 Sanborn Street? If this lot is included in Business B, there is no guarantee as to its use. Anything now allowed in Business B could be built there. This will exacerbate the parking problem. Businesses have been allowed to build without concern for providing parking because of the bylaw that grants a parking exemption to businesses within 300 feet of a municipal lot. This bylaw needs to be reviewed. Mr. Vaccaro urged the Board to vote against recommending Article 5 to Town Meeting. Page 4 of 15 Mr. Jack Russell, 91 Spruce Road Mr. Russell is in favor of Article 5 and agrees with the points raised by Mr. Graham. He noted the Bylaw Committee has voted to recommend Article 5 to Town Meeting. Mr. Russell said the possibility of the Post Office expanding onto 16 Sanborn Street if the opportunity presents is not, as some opponents to the parking lot have claimed, a red herring but a real possibility. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue. Ms. O'Neill said there was some confusion as regards the inclusion of this lot under Mixed-Use zoning. She wanted to clarify Article 5 would not allow a housing/parking hybrid. Mixed-Use makes it sound as though it could be a residential property. JS said including the lot in Business-B would automatically place it in the Mixed-Use zoning too and that the intention of Mixed-Use was to allow the first floor or front of the first floor of a building to have a business use and the rest of the building could be residential so any residential use would have to have a business component. Ms. O'Neill expressed her absolute opposition to Article 5. She considered the proposed use of the lot a low-value use of the land and spoke in favor of a more community-oriented approach. She did not see the proposed parking lot alleviating the parking problem much. Mr. Jeff Struble, 4 Tower Road. Mr. Struble is a Town Meeting member and was looking for clarification of points on all of the articles affecting 16 Sanborn Street before voting on them. He asked, where did Article 6 [Parking Overlay] come from? JS said Article 6 came out of discussions between the town and the Bank to come up with a plan that allowed a parking lot without putting 16 Sanborn Street into the Business B district. RH added that the plan was the most restrictive use the applicant could come up with. Mr. Struble said Article 5 is not as restrictive and does not address the concerns of abutters regarding the possibility of someone establishing a business there. RH explained Article 6 was more restrictive but could potentially have an effect on a broader scale - it could affect more properties; Article 5 is not as restrictive as to use but affects 16 Sanborn Street only. Mr. George Rio, 11 Estate Lane. Mr. Rio said he is in favor of Article 5. Parking is needed downtown and the bank is using its own capital to create new parking spaces. He runs a family business downtown and understands the problem of finding parking for employees. He has walked Sanborn Street and it does not seem to him that a parking lot would be inconsistent with the area. Page 5 of 15 Mr. Dave Tuttle, 27 Heather Lane, Associate Member of the CPDC. Mr. Tuttle said he would be more in favor of allowing the parking lot as a non-conforming use. He believes if the bank is allowed to put a parking lot at 16 Sanborn Street they will put a parking lot there, but there is no guarantee what would be built there in ten years. No decision of the Board is future-proof. Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner. The Town Manager said the Downtown Parking Committee has not taken a position on this Article but it has determined that today in the downtown there is a lack of roughly 280 employee and 120 customer parking spaces. The Parking Committee has recommended to the Board of Selectmen the construction of a parking structure to address the parking need. The most likely location would be behind CVS but unless you built a ten-story structure you will address only some not the entire parking shortfall. Realistically, as Mr. Graham pointed out, this will take time to build. It took ten years before the Downtown redesign was put out to bid. Having the Reading Cooperative Bank in downtown and able to expand downtown is smart growth. The alternative for the bank is to build their corporate headquarters in a neighboring town and that will not be helpful to Reading. Mr. Dave Talbot, 75 Linden Street. Mr. Talbot said this is the first time he has heard mention of the bank's plans to expand. If there is an expansion plan it would be nice to hear it. The CPDC has made its views of Articles 6 & 7 known, their vote was split 2:2 which is construed as a negative vote. Then the Town Officials come back with Article 5 which they say is better. But it is not better. It would open the door to the owners of other residential lots to do the same using the same mechanism. In that regard it is the same as Article 6; it provides a mechanism for the lot-by-lot rezoning of the area to business use. The abutters do support the development of the lot but as a residential property. Residential properties provide customers. The parking problem has been around for decades because businesses have relied on the municipal lot exemption in the bylaws rather than having to provide their own parking spaces for employees. Why not move forward with a central parking structure? Everyone is in favor of it. Attorney Brad Latham, attorney for the Reading Cooperative Bank. Regarding the concern that Article 5 could lead to a further expansion of the business district, Mr. Latham said anyone who has followed this process to date would see it is not easy to rezone a lot with Town Meeting and the CPDC acting as watchdogs over the process. Regarding the claim made by some that Article 5 is something new and has not been adequately considered, Mr. Latham said Article 5 in a broader form (i.e. rezoning all of Page 6 of 15 Sanborn St. between Woburn and Haven Streets to Business B) was considered over a year ago. Mr. Latham said if you looked at the map you would see this expansion of Business B is logical since the lot is already bounded on three sides by the Business B district and one of the parcels 16 Sanborn Street is made up of is already in Business B. The suggestion the bank should wait for the construction of a building structure is not practical. Planning and construction would not be a fast process and the bank needs the parking today. Mr. Latham said it is a valid to suggest some other use could be made of this lot if Article 5 passes, but sometimes it comes down to trust. You can trust Reading Cooperative Bank to build a parking lot on the site. Mr. Gil Rodrigues, 97 Avalon Road. Mr. Rodrigues said he drives down Sanborn Street to go to the Post Office or Reading Cooperative Bank and he believes it is reasonable to put a parking lot on the site. He is in favor of Article 5. Ms. Naomi Kaufman, 64 Woburn Street. Ms. Kaufman asked the Board to vote against recommending Article 5. Ms. Kaufinan said it was unfair to look at the lot as it exists today and say a parking lot is a reasonable use. The Board should keep in mind a residence once stood on the site. She agrees with the Historical Commission's fear of a ripple-effect of property-owners selling out. Mr. Richard Schubert, 119 Winthrop Avenue, Member of the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Schubert supports Article 5. He understands this support is at odds with his vote as a Board of Selectman against Article 5, but he said that vote was more against the process that brought the article before the Selectmen. Parking has been an issue in Reading for some time. It seems to him it has become even more of an issue over the last couple of years and he feels it is time to take action. If the parking problem is to be resolved, it will not happen overnight and it will not be because of any one solution. It will be the result of a combination of many things and he feels Article 5 is one of those things. He encouraged the CPDC to vote to recommend Article 5. Mr. Ken Rossetti, 2 Haven Street, Suite 204, Mr. Rossetti and his wife are both attorneys with an office in Reading. They are also residents of Reading. Mr. Rossetti is in favor of the creation of a parking lot at 16 Sanborn Street either under Article 5 or Article 6. It makes sense to allow the bank to build the lot and open up to others parking spaces the bank's employees once occupied. Page 7 of 15 Mr. Michael Giacalone, 9 Orchard Park Drive, President of the Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Giacalone supports the Article 5. He said he knows of one business leaving Reading because of parking problems. He said if the lack of parking in Reading causes businesses to leave town this will not help the value of residential properties. He urged the Board to support Article 5. Mr. Curt E. Nitzsche, 453 Haverhill Street. Mr. Nitzsche supports Article 5. Mr. Nitzsche said Reading Cooperative Bank keeps its property clean, and well maintained and landscaped; he is sure they would do the same for the parking lot at 16 Sanborn Street if Article 5 is passed. Ms. Julieann Thurlow, 180 Haven Street, President of Reading Coperative Bank. Ms. Thurlow said the bank has tried to accommodate the concerns of the abutters. She said if Article 5 is passed they will ask to have Articles 6 and 7 tabled. She said the bank would maintain and landscape the parking lot with care. She said the town would not want to see the same building on the site that was there before. Ms. Julianne McKenney, 67 Woburn Street. Ms. McKenney has lived 18 years on Woburn Street. She would not want to walk down Sanborn Street if this parking lot was there. She said this is not about the Reading Cooperative Bank. Rather, it is about what is at stake in the Town Center and what will be here in the years ahead. She has opposed the expansion of the Business B zoning since the start. This article is a stepping stone to making the entire street a part of Business B and is an even greater threat in this regard than Article 6. This is a band-aid on the town's parking problem. RH moved to close the public hearing. BB seconded. Voted approved: 4:0:0. RH moved to have the CPDC recommend Article 5 to Town Meeting. BB seconded. The Board Deliberates JB said he voted at a previous meeting not to recommend Articles 6 and 7 not because he was against the development of 16 Sanborn Street but because he believes Article 6 is a bad planning tool since it could open other properties along Woburn Street to the possibility of being redeveloped as parking lots. Regarding Article 5, given that the lot is partially within Business B now and that it is bordered by other Business B lots, he can support recommending Article 5 to Town Meeting. Page 8of15 JB noted he was unhappy with the process that brought Article 5 before the Board. He feels the town had not given enough thought to putting this lot within Business B. He agreed a similar proposal was before the Board in 2005, but reminded the Board that that article too was brought to them summarily and was subsequently tabled at Town Meeting for being improperly vetted. BB said he thinks it is appropriate for 16 Sanborn Street to have a business use but not as a parking lot. He called a parking lot a poor, and inefficient use of the land and therefore could not support recommending Article 5 to Town Meeting. RH said Article 5 addresses now what is a problem today. Any other solution must be long term. He too was concerned with the process that brought Article 5 before the Board but he feels it is best that Town Meeting discuss all options. RH said he supports recommending Article 5 to Town Meeting. JS also expressed concern over the process that brought Article 5 before the Board but he agreed it should be reviewed at Town Meeting. JS asked: if the lot is rezoned as Business B, would the bank still have to come back before the CPDC for a Site Plan Review? The Town Manager said the bank would have to come back for a Site Plan Review. JS summarized and addressed concerns raised during the public hearing: • Mixed-Use is not residential-only zoning. It requires a business component. He noted that to date there have been no applications for a mixed-use development in the downtown and the reason for that is probably because the CPDC added a parking requirement to the mixed-use. • The bylaw that grants a parking exemption to businesses within 300 feet of a municipal lot should be reviewed. JB agreed but warned it could not be eliminated without a solution to the parking problem in place or we'll only create bigger problems for town businesses. • The Parking Task Force has many good ideas but none area solution today. JB said a positive outcome of these discussions has been the enthusiasm it has generated in everyone for finally coming to grips with Reading's parking needs. He expressed the hope this enthusiasm would not end once the 16 Sanborn Street issue is resolved and said the town must not let this opportunity to address our parking problems go by. GK said the issue of what use to make of 16 Sanborn Street is one of land use and it is not about the community fabric. GK said if a parking lot is created at 16 Sanborn Street the Board should require it be used at night by too rather than shut down after the bank's employees have left for the day. JS reminded the Board the motion to recommend to Town Meeting or not was still on the table. Voted Approved: 3:1:0. The CPDC recommends Article 5 to Town Meeting. Secretary Brant Ballantyne voted against recommending Article 5. Page 9 of 15 JS asked if the Board should add language to their recommendation. The consensus of the Board was not to add language to the recommendation but perhaps add something on Article 5 in the Board's report to Town Meeting. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review (continued) 101 Willow Street, Austin Preparatory School The application seeks to renovate the existing structure for offices and construct a canopy, with related site improvements. Action Date: March 12, 2007 JS reopened the public hearing. He noted a draft decision had been prepared. Attorney Chris Latham represented the applicant. Mr. Latham said he had received the draft decision earlier today and he has a few changes to request: 1. In the preamble, change "Augustinian High School of Reading" to "Austin Preparatory School". 2. In Findings #1, the blanks for the number of students and full-time faculty should be filled in with the numbers "750" and "105" respectively. The Board agreed to incorporate both changes and also directed that the language "and authorization of the CPDC" be inserted after "without provision of additional parking". The final language of Findings #1 reads: CPDC expects and the Applicant has agreed that the Applicant shall comply with Section 6.1 of the Zoning By-Laws and provide required on-site parking of at least 248 spaces as depicted in the aforementioned Benchmark Survey plan revised as of December 15, 2006, and that no modification to this Decision increasing the buildings floor area, student population in excess of 750 students or full time faculty in excess of 105 shall be granted without provision of additional parking and authorization from CPDC. This decision does not and can not approve any nonconformity either on or off-site with respect to the Zoning By-Laws requirements contained in Section 6.1. Mr. Latham said the applicant requests the Site Plan Review application fee be waived. The applicant feels the money would be better spent buying books, etc... RH said waiving the fee could set a precedent for any church, school, or non-profit organization. The Board agreed. The Town Engineer said he had no concerns with the revised plans. The two issues he had have been addressed: 1. Pipe-sleeving and pipe type change for the sewer connection 2. Protection of utilities during construction The Town Engineer said he received the requested drainage calculations of the earlier Site Plan Review of another project on the site from Mr. Latham and he is confident the net runoff from the proposed construction would be very close to the same. Page 10 of 15 Based on the Town Engineer's report, the consensus of the Board was to change Findings #3 to: "The CPDC determined that the building improvements will not have a significant change in the drainage on and from the site, based on the previous drainage calculations and waive the requirements of providing a drainage study." The Town Engineer said the previous calculations were based on a report dated 12/15/1999 and he would add this report to the Materials section. The Board agreed. DT asked if an As-built should be required. The Town Engineer said in his opinion an as- built would not be required. JS asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. The Board reviewed the draft decision and rearranged the conditions under the following four headings: 1. Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit, 2. During Construction, 3. Prior to the Issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, and 4. After Occupancy. The following two requirements have been standard with past decisions of the Board and the Board asked they be added to this decision. 1. In the section, "Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy", the applicant shall schedule a meeting with the Building Inspector and Town Planner 30 days before requesting a Certificate of Occupancy. 2. In the section "After Occupancy", the definitions of Minor and Major Modifications shall be added in the event modifications must be made to the plans or decision. RH moved to close the public hearing. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. RH moved to approve the Site Plan Review for 101 Willow Street, Austin Preparatory School based on the decision revised tonight. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:1. Chairman John Sasso abstained. JS moved to have a formal vote on approving the waiving of the Site Plan Review application fee. BB seconded. Voted Denied: 0:4:0. All opposed. Site Plan Review Waiver (continued) 214 Main Street, Londi's Pizza and Roast Beef The application seeks change of use from retail to restaurant. Action date: February 26, 2007 Page 11 of 15 The applicant, Mr. Londi, and the property owner, Mr. Patel, were both present. The last time the applicant was before the Board was on 1/29/07 at which time the Board had asked the applicant to meet with the Town Engineer to discuss matters concerning the parking spaces, dumpster, signage, and lighting. A draft decision has been presented to the Board.. JS reopened the discussion on the waiver and noted updated plans had been submitted. The Town Engineer's Report • The Town Engineer said he had met with Mr. Londi and Mr. Patel as requested by the Board. At that meeting, he requested the parking spaces be re-striped both to fit an additional space and to accommodate the handicap parking space. Also, a space has been designated as a loading space. The updated plans show these changes. • Regarding lighting, the Town Engineer said although there is a light pole at the street-side corner next to the abutting bank, that light does not shine's on the bank's lot and not this lot. However, there are lights under the overhanging roof in front of Mr. Londi's location and they should provide adequate lighting. • A chain-link fence with vinyl slats will enclose the dumpster. • Mr. Patel did clear some trees in the rear but he has said he has no plans to asphalt the area. The Conservation Administrator will require some restoration be made to the cleared area. • New illustrations and plans for the signage have been submitted. Mr. Londi will now take up only half of the second signboard on the pylon sign to allow room for a future third tenant to add his or her sign. The pylon sign meets town regulations. The Board asked if the small ATM sign had been removed from the pylon-sign support as per the request of the Building Inspector. Mr. Patel said it had. The consensus of the Board was: 1. To add another condition [#7] to the decision which states the dumpster enclosure shall be made of concrete blocks and have a metal gate. The Board explained to the applicant that asking for a dumpster enclosure made from substantial materials has been a standard requirement consistently made by the Board of businesses before them in recent years. 2. To strike the "within 60 days" requirement from condition #4 and add language to the same condition stating the proposed landscaping shall be installed or a bond provided as approved by the Town Engineer. 3. To strike any reference to a particular bylaw in the signage condition [#6] and instead add language stating the site's signage shall meet zoning bylaw Page 12 of 15 requirements as determined by the Building Inspector. Also the follow sentence will be added to the condition. "The ATM sign shall be removed." RH moved to approve the Site Plan Review Waiver subject to the conditions in the draft decision as modified tonight. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness 583 Main Street, Pizza World Action date: March 26, 2007 The applicant, Mr. Brandon Simpson, appeared for Pizza World. The applicant explained although the two awnings show different addresses the sign "Louisa's" on one awning and "Pizza World & More!" on the other, referred to one business: "Louisa's Pizza World". The Board asked if the lighting shown in the submitted photoshopped illustration were there now. The applicant said they were not and added the lights would extend over the top of and beyond the awnings and shine down. The applicant pointed out he had provided the Board with photographs of local businesses to show how what he planned for Pizza World would fit in. He noted that his awnings would be similar in style, color, and material to the awning at "J. & B. Crosby & Co." at 175 Haven Street. The lights would be somewhat like those above the "Savory Tastes" awnings. RH noted the awnings will meet the requirements for height above the sidewalk. The applicant said the sidewalk slopes down left to right and the bottom of the awning will be 9 feet above the sidewalk on the low end (left), 10 feet above on the high end (right). The Board appreciated the addition of the address numbers to the awnings. RH moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 583 Main Street, Pizza World based on the submitted application and pictures. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness 580 Main Street, Comically Speaking Action date: March 26, 2007 The applicant, Mr. Patrick Jammal, appeared for Comically Speaking. Mr. Jammal said he was looking to put up a longer sign, one that would extend over the front of the adjacent space which he has expanded into. The style and appearance - font, coloring of the new sign would be the same as the old. He provided photographs of the Page 13 of 15 sign of the business on the other side "Julianna's" and said his would be similar: vinyl letters on a 3/4 inch aluminum signboard. The Board asked if the sign has a profile. Mr. Jammal said the thickness of the letters were no thicker than vinyl adhesive. Mr. Jammal said his current sign is actually the faceplate to what was a lighted box. He had to take the light and box down because it did not conform to town standards. RH asked if the Board should agree to match what is there now or establish a new vision. Mr. Jammal said he has been at that location for roughly 15 years. RE said he would prefer this sign show some consistency with other signs in the area but recognized the need to allow businesses their own distinctive approaches. The Board asked Mr. Jammal what the dimensions of the letters were. Mr. Jammal said the sign itself is 24 inches tall and the letters are about 20 inches tall. JS said he had no issue with the style of the sign but to be somewhat consistent with other signs he would like to see raised lettering. The applicant said he had not priced raised letters and it may not be easy to get the same fading-out look of the letters if they were raised. The Board appreciated that the style, font, and coloring of the sign fit well with his business - a comic book store - but suggested looking into changing the letters to 1/4 inch raised letters and toning the style down a little. The Board suggested making the letters a little smaller and perhaps removing the pink outline. The applicant said he needs larger letters because 1. Two trees block his sign somewhat, 2. His store is about 100 feet back from the street, and 3. When he was told he had to take down the lighted box of his original sign, he was told he had to remove all signs from his windows too. It was the consensus of the Board to ask Mr. Jammal to come back before them at a future meeting to present a new design. The Board suggested Mr. Jammal meet with his sign maker to discuss a design without the pink trim, with 1/4 inch raised letters. The Board had no objection to the font or the coloring of the font but the letters themselves should be no taller than 16 inches and raised 1/4 inch. The Board scheduled Mr. Jammal to come back before them at 7:30P PM on Monday, March 12, 2007 at the Selectmen's Meeting Room in the Town Hall. The Board advised Mr. Jammal to bring with him pictures and dimensional specifications (sign size, letter size) of his new design. Other Items. Page 14 of 15 Neil Sullivan resigns. The Board formally recognized the resignation of Board member Neil Sullivan and thanked him for his many years of service. Bright lights at 110 Main St. In an email to the Board, Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill said the lights at 110 Main Street, Shell Food Mart look very bright. The Board said they would look into it. Some thought the canopy lights there might not be flush with the bottom of the canopy and instead extend beyond it. DT said the bylaws state lights must be flush with the bottom of the canopy but said if the edge of the canopy hangs down that could determines the plane of the canopy's bottom. The Town Engineer suggested borrowing a light-meter from RMLD to check brightness at sites. The Board liked this idea. Also in Ms. O'Neill's email was a question regarding the status of the Board's review of zoning bylaws regarding garages and accessory buildings and the any possible amendments to the same. JS said the Board will soon be taking up again those and other zoning issues that were temporarily set aside to give the Board time to deal the pressing matters of the upcoming Town Meeting. RH moved to adjourn. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting ended at 10:30 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on March 12, 2007; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on March 12, 2007. Signed as approved, Brant Ballantyne, Secretary Date Page 15 of 15