Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-12 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.mams Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: March 12, 2007 Location: Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Hall 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: George Zambouras (GZ), Town Engineer; and Michael Schloth. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Mr. Frank DiPietro, PE, VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Secretary Brant Ballantyne took over the Chair's duties in John Sasso's absence. There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.. Public Comments /,Minutes RH moved to accept the minutes of 11/06/06 as amended. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0 JS arrived and tools his seat with the Board. RH moved to accept the minutes of 12/11/06 as amended. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0 RH moved to accept the minutes of 02/12/07 as amended. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0 RH moved to accept the minutes of 12/21/07 as amended. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0 JS asked if there were any general comments from the Public. There were none. Page 1 of 7 BB directed the Board's attention to the information on the Northern Area Greenway Task Force in their packets and said he would be happy to answer any questions the Board might have. RH asked if the town had adopted the procedure described in the newsletter from Brackett & Lucas for what Board Members need to do to qualify legally as having attended a CPDC meeting they might have missed. In brief, the Board Member must listen to or watch a voices or video-recording of the missed.meeting and sign a form attesting to the fact. The consensus of the Board was that the town had adopted the procedure but asked the :recording secretary to double-check with Town Counsel to be sure. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review (continued) 39 Walkers Brook Drive, Newview Investments, LLC The applicant seeks to construct 2 new attached restaurants consisting of 12,340 square feet on a 2.78 acre lot, with site improvements. Action date: March 12, 2007 JS reopened the public hearing. He noted this continuation is based on a formal request for an extension by the applicant and that a draft decision has been prepared. Mr. Frank DiPietro of VHB reminded the Board of the Town Engineer's memo of 2/9/07 in which GZ listed his forty concerns with their site plan. They responded to GZ's memo with their memo of 2/12/07 which was discussed at some length the last time they were before the Board [on 2/12/07]. They have since met with both the Town Engineer and the Conservation Administrator and they have submitted an updated version of their 2/12/07 memo [updated 2/28/07] and they believe they have addressed all of the Town Engineer's issues. JS asked the Town Engineer if the Conservation Commission's concern regarding the project's encroachment upon the riverfront had been addressed. The Town Engineer said to the best of his knowledge it had. The Town Engineer then presented the Board with another memo, dated 3/12/07, containing his comments in response both to the applicant's reply to his original memo and on his review of further information and revised plans submitted by the applicant. Most issues have been addressed by the applicant but there remain a few that need to be conditioned in the decision. Hydraulics & Drainage System The Town Engineer reminded the Board that the hydraulics and proposed drainage system was a prime concern of his and was discussed at length when the applicant was last before the Board [2/12/07]. He and the Conservation Administrator met with Mr. DiPietro on 2/29/07. The Town Engineer said the number of infiltrators in the hydraulic system may change but they won't know for sure until the Spring when a new soil test can be conducted. This soil test is a condition of the draft decision. In the Town Engineer's opinion, the number of infiltrators will have to be increased. Mr. DiPietro said they were fairly confident they will not have to make modifications. The Town Engineer said another condition in the draft decision in regard to the hydraulics and drainage system concerns the Page 2 of 7 submission of the final design of the Stormceptors. He said these devices must be built to fit the site so it is important that he review the final design. Li htin The lighting peer reviewer has a concern with the lighting in the vicinity of the two dumpsters: the Bertucci's dumpsters are too dimly lit; Longhorn's are too brightly lit. The peer reviewer found the Longhorn lights so bright he called them "glare bombs". There was also a general lack of information regarding the decorative lights to be placed on the building. The Board agreed to make it a condition of the decision to have the applicant provide more adequate lighting for both dumpsters and to provide more information on the decorative lighting and to have any and all changes to the lighting plans submitted to both the peer reviewer and Town Engineer for their approval. Newcrossing Sidewalk The applicant pointed out the Board had approved the use of bituminous concrete in their approval of Stop & Shop's site plan. The Town Engineer and Board agreed with the applicant's request to use bituminous concrete. Vertical Granite Curbings The Board agreed with the Town Engineer that the. all site curbing shall be vertical granite. Sinae Mr. Latham directed the Board to the Building Inspector's memo of 2/9/07 regarding what he would approve, specifically: Bertucci's could have one wall sign and Longhorn two wall signs. The applicant also presented plans for a monument sign. It would be two feet off the ground and double-sided. When BB asked if the sign's background would be opaque Mr. Latham said that could be made a condition. There was a brief discussion on whether or not the Longhorn's logo on the chimney should be considered a sign or not. Mr. Latham said they would still have to satisfy the Building Inspector on that point. Mr. Latham also pointed out the same issue arose regarding Walgreen's mortar and pestle and that was allowed. RH said in that case as in the case of Stop & Shop's red and green dots, the Board was approving the logo as art of a sign, but in this case the logo stands alone on the chimney. The Board liked the look of the logo but could not reach a consensus on whether or not the logo should be considered a sign. Another signage issue was the height of the letters and the font of Bertucci's "Carry Out" sign. The applicant pointed out that like the chimney logo the carry-out sign would be halo lit. Mr. Latham said they would agree to a condition stating the height of the letters would not be greater than land 1/4 inches and the font would match the font used elsewhere on the restaurant. The Board agreed. JS asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street. Page 3 of 7 Mr. D'Arezzo had three points to make: 1. Someone from town staff should approve the site's lighting; it should not be left to the lighting consultant. 2. When deciding the wattage of the site's lighting the applicant should start with a lower wattage and work upwards rather than start with a high wattage and work downward. . 3. Will the red, LED piping around the Longhorn sign be allowed? JS said the Town Engineer will also review and approve all lighting changes. The other two points would be addressed during the Board's review of the draft decision. Review of the Draft Decision Conditions discussed above were added to the decision. Also: • Any lighting changes would have to be shown on an updated lighting plan. • The condition requiring the applicant to submit document establishing access and utility easements was moved to the section "Prior to the Issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy". • The Board added a new condition (#12) stating vertical granite curbing shall be installed as per the zoning by-laws. • The Board moved to the "During Construction" section the condition stating any changes to the utility design shall be submitted'to the Town Engineer for review and approval. Daring Construction • The Board emphasized the importance of specifying the Hours of Construction. • #4: Storage of building materials etc. The applicant agreed with the condition in general but pointed out the possibility of trailers entering the site and not being able to off-load immediately. It was the consensus of the Board that the applicant could use Lot Al for storage and parking of trailers etc... if they have the permission of the owner of Lot Al to do so. And if they do obtain permission, condition #5 (concerning proper site maintenance) shall apply to Lot lA as well. Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy • #2: Fagade. Mr. D'Arezzo of 130 John St asked if this would be the place to specify the roof mechanicals should be shielded from view. JS pointed out the submitted color renderings show the screening on the roof and it was the consensus of the Board the applicant had adequately addressed the issue. • #3: No illumination of the fascia etc. The Town Engineer said the purpose of this condition was to address Longhorn's red band. Mr. Latham asked the Board to please narrow the focus of this condition. The Board decided to add "except as approved on the site lighting plan" to the condition. • #5: Site Lighting. The Town Engineer said 25 feet is the same height of the light poles on Hallmark Health's site. After Occupancy Page 4 of 7 • #4: Route delivery/trash vehicles should take. JS noted the Conservation Administrator had asked if the connection to the Danis property would change this condition. The consensus of the Board was it would not. • #5: Hours for deliveries and trash imp. The applicant said the specified pickup and delivery times were too restrictive. The Board agreed and changed the hours to match the hours specified in their Hallmark Health decision: 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday; none on Sundays or legal holidays. • #6: Traffic mitigation. BB asked why a particular engineering firm (VHB) should be specified to perform the study. The Board agreed with his point and directed the reference to a particular firm be deleted. • #8: As-built plan submission. The Board directed the language be changed to specify the as-built should be submitted within 90 days of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. BB moved to close the public hearing. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. BB moved to approve the Site Plan Review Decision as amended tonight. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:1. Chairman John Sasso abstained. Zoning Workshop JS listed the items the Board must revisit in the coming months. • 40R regulations • Update of Reading's Design Standards. • Accessory Structures and Lot Coverage • Impervious Cover • Definitions of Minor and Major Modifications. JS said all that may remain is for the Board to come up with specific examples of each as requested by Town Counsel. • PRD Cluster Zoning. • Canopy Illumination • Flood Insurance. • Accessory Apartments. • Development of the Addison-Wesley site. JS said the top three the Board should tackle first should be the Accessory Structures, the Minor/Major Modification definitions, and the Cluster Zoning. Regarding Addison-Wesley, JS said there is a new developer, National Development, and the Board of Selectmen have proposed to draft a process whereby community leaders will meet with the developer to discuss possible uses etc for the site. The developer is proposing a very aggressive timetable: they hope to have something ready by May to put before Fall Town Meeting. The first meeting is scheduled for March 20 at 7:30 AM.' JS asked for a volunteer from the Board to represent them on this new committee Page 5 of 7 DT said he would volunteer to be the Board's representative. DT said he would know soon if he is to be appointed to the Board [to replace recently retired member Neil Sullivan]. The Board agreed. Articles 24 & 25 For the upcoming Spring Town Meeting, the Board must report to the Board of Selectmen on both of these zoning amendments and vote for or against recommending them to Town Meeting. Town Meeting opens on April 23 so the Board must schedule a public hearing on both articles sometime during the next two CPDC meetings [March 26 and April 91. It was the consensus of the Board to: • Schedule a Zoning Workshop on March 26 devoted to the public discussion of both articles (but Article 25 primarily); • Schedule a public hearing on both articles on April 9; and • Send notices to all residents and businesses. within and at least 300 feet beyond the Downtown Business B. This notice will include the language of Article 25 and announce both the public hearing on April 9 and the zoning workshop on March 26. The Board directed that the notices be mailed as soon as possible so that those receiving them can plan to attend the March 26 Zoning Workshop. The Board spent the rest of the meeting discussing Article 25 and how they should approach it. JB said Town Counsel had said Article 25's fee makes it problematic. JS noted a similar fee an impact fee was established in the Board's Mixed-Use Special Permit language and asked why the impact fee should be acceptable as a component of the Mixed-Use Special Permit but problematic in Article 25. The consensus of the Board was the Mixed- Use impact fee addressed affordability issues and not parking spaces. GK said the Downtown Parking Task Force discussed this issue in depth. The Task Force feels Reading should be using its municipal lot parking in more diverse ways. GK's opinion was, yes, some parking spaces are not used during the day but the town does not have anything in place to make full use of these spaces. GK pointed out that car usage has grown considerably in recent years and even if we find a way to accommodate employee parking a dramatic increase in customer car-trips is forecasted and general purpose car-trips are going to increase at the same pace too. So, indirectly, employees may not be allowed to park in the municipal lots and they will have a legitimate claim to on-street parking. JS asked what the Board should be doing. Should the Board wait for the Downtown Parking Committee to present their ideas? We have 40R- is there anything else the Board can do? GK said many cities are trying Parking Maximums (for example: 0.7/unit or 1.511000 sq. ft.) but Reading may not be large enough to make that work. The Board briefly discussed Page 6 of 7 Demand Parking, Peak-Hour charges, and Smart Meters. The consensus was such solutions were probably not appropriate for a town of Reading's size. DT suggested making the "300 foot exemption" less of a blanket exemption. Perhaps add a quota or limit, of some kind. JS said the issue with the municipal lot exemption is complicated by the issue of employee parking in general. The municipal lots are meant to provide customer parking. It is true the exemption now takes the employee parking issue off the table, but it does not address the need of employees having to park somewhere all day. RH suggested applying it to new developments only but admitted it could be difficult to decide how to apply the designation "new". There was general agreement to DT's suggestion that a distinction should be made between employee and customer parking. RH pointed out that currently only restaurants are required to provide parking space calculations based on that distinction. GK said the Downtown Parking Committee's term is up in June. Another Board must take the next steps. He suggested asking members of the Parking Committee to speak with the Board. JS said the Parking Committee's interim report says, in short, the town needs to build a parking garage on the lot behind CVS. JB said a parking garage and other future solutions are not relevant to what is in Article 25 The Board agreed. In summing up, JS said JB had put the situation best at an earlier meeting when he said it would be a shame to lose the energy the town has generated towards finding a solution to the parking problem. JS added we don't want lose energy firing at the wrong targets. 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 26, 2007; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on April 17, 2007. Signed as approved, Brant. Ballantyne, S Date Page 7 of 7