Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-14 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: May 14, 2007 Location: Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Hall Time: 7:30 PM Members Present: Brant Ballantyne, (BB), Secretary; Jonathan Barnes (JB); and David Tuttle (DT) Members Absent: John Sasso (JS), Chairman; and Richard Howard (RH) Associate Members Present: George Katsoufis (GK), Nicholas Safma (Nick S.) Associate Members Absent: Israel Maykut (IM) Also Present: Carol Kowalski (CK), Town Planner; George Zambouras (GZ), Town Engineer; and Michael Schloth. Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner; Selectman Chair Ben Tafoya Mr. Jason Benagh, Quannapowitt Players Attorney Andrea Butler, P.O. Box 21, Hamilton MA Mr. Dave Dewing, 7 Gateway Circle Mr. Dick Doherty, Hancock Associates Mr. Jerry Fiore, 11 Gateway Circle Mr. Dale Gienapp, Gienapp Design Mr. Dan McRitchie, Hancock Associates Ms. Mary Ellen Oneill, 125 Summer Avenue Mr. Michael Pacillo, 38 Cross Street Mr. Mark Quental, Store Manager, Home Depot, Walkers Brook Crossing Mr. Harold Withrow, Sign Maker, 575 Fellsway West, Medford MA. As JS could not be attend, BB took over the duties of Chair for tonight's meeting. There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. Public Comments Selectman Chair Ben Tafoya introduced Carol Kowalski, Reading's new Town Planner, to the Board. Page 1 of 8 Subdivision Approval Not Required 38 Cross Street The applicant, Mr. Michael Pacillo, was present. JB moved to have the Board endorse the Plan of Land for 38 Cross Street. DT seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The Board members signed the mylar plan. 29 Shackford Road GZ said he had a problem with this plan. The two lots are non-conforming to begin with: they don't have the required frontage. The proposed plan reconfigures the two lots but keeps the same frontage. GZ said he thought the Board should not endorse the plans as they may be endorsing the creation of non-conforming lots. GZ said he discussed this with Town Counsel and she agreed. The consensus of the Board was to not endorse the plan based on the Town Engineer's opinion of the situation. DT moved to endorse the Plan of Land for 29 Shackford Road. JB seconded. Voted Denied: 0:3:0. Determination of Minor Modification Walkers Brook Crossing, Home Depot Inc. The applicant requests an amendment to their PUD Special Permit and Open Storage Permit to be allowed to place a tent temporarily on their parking lot to house a sales event (Oriental Rugs) Mr. Mark Quental, Store Manager of Home Depot, represented the applicant. Mr. Quental reminded the Board that he was before them last fall for the same request and the Board had granted it [minutes of 9/25/2006]. Mr. Quental added that last year's sales event was not held and the tent not erected on Home Depot's parking lot because it was decided it would be too late in the season. Mr. Quental said this year they are requesting to be allowed to erect a tent on their parking lot for two separate sales events to be held over the summer months: May 22 through June 5, and July 31 through August 21. The second event is three weeks long because they are not sure when in August Massachusetts' Tax Free Weekend would be scheduled. The Board expressed concern over the affect the events would have on traffic flow. Mr Quental said the tent would be located behind Chili's and 128 Ford - out of the way of most traffic. The recording secretary said the Conservation and Health Administrators concerns were addressed by the applicant Page 2 of 8 No food would be sold in or around the tent. • The Tent Company said they would not pierce the surface of the parking lot. JB moved to approve the amendment as a Minor Modification with the following conditions: 1. This modification approval shall be limited to the application and only apply for the dates: May 22, 2007 through June 5, 2007; and July 31, 2007 through August 21, 2007 2. A drawing showing the dimensions of the tent (40' by 80' as indicated in the submitted Certificate of Flame Resistance) and its location on the site shall be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. Said drawing must meet with the approval both of the Conservation Administrator and Health Administrator. 3. The delivery, set-up, and take-down for the event shall adhere to the normal hours for deliveries as contained in the Special Permit. 4. An alternate means for securing the tent other than staking shall be employed, subject to compliance with. the DEP permit for the landfill closure and the approval of the Conservation Administrator. 5. Lighting shall only illuminate the interior of the tent. 6. The retail hours of operation shall be from 9:OOAM to 9:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, and 9:OOAM to 7:00 PM on Sundays. 7. Home Depot, Inc. shall notify the abutters within 300' of the site of this Certificate of Action no later than 4 days prior to each event. Prior to approval, any future requests of this nature shall be made with sufficient notice and adequate information as CPDC may deem necessary for proper review. 8. This permit does not allow the serving of food. 9. Pedestrian access to the tent shall be prevented from the southern, perimeter-road side of the site. DT seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Town Manager P. Hechenbleikner asked the Board's indulgence to take a moment to introduce the new Town Planner, Carol Kowalski. He also thanked the Board and town staff for the fine job they did meeting their responsibilities and keeping the Planning Department functioning without the benefit of a Town Planner since last December. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review (Continued) 55 Hopkins Street, Quannapowitt Players, Inc. The applicant proposes to add an addition to the existing building and make general site improvements. Action date: June 25, 2007 Page 3 of 8 At the request of the Chair, Mr. Gale Gienapp gave a quick review of the applicant's plans: the current small entranceway will be removed; an "U-shaped addition will be added to the parking lot and rear sides of the original building; a small basement will be built under the rear portion; a walkway will run along the parking-lot side of the new addition; toilets for the handicapped will be constructed. Mr. Gienapp concluded his summary saying three key issues arose during the previous meeting's discussion: parking, the rear retaining wall, and drainage. Also, since the last time they were before the Board, the Historical Commission has requested the end of the addition nearest Hopkins Street be pulled back further from the corner of Hopkins Street side of the original structure. Parkin Mr. Gienapp said the parking will not change; they are not increasing the number of seats in the theater. The applicant submitted a letter from Mr. Wally Arsenault of Harrows Restaurant stating in part: "Harrows Restaurant has had a very long relationship with the Quannapowitt Players and has been happy to provide parking for their cast and crew members during their performances for at least the last 30 years. And we will continue to allow QP cast and crew to park in our lot during their performances in the future." The Town Engineer said he had no concerns with the parking lot from a drainage standpoint. The consensus of the Board was they had no problem with the parking lot. It was noted the Fire Department may have an issue with the parking lot. The Town Engineer said the Fire Department has still not signed-off on the project and will not make a final determination until they receive the final plans [this was also in reference to fire suppression requirements within the building]. Drainage Mr. Dick Doherty of Hancock Associates said the soil tests had been redone so they could be witnessed by someone on town staff. The tests showed the soil has a percolation rate of 2 minutes / inch. Mr. Doherty said this was a very fast rate. Mr. Doherty said the parking lot is packed-gravel and very porous. There is minimal runoff towards Hopkins. Street and the rear because most runoff is absorbed by the soil. Regarding the roof runoff, Mr. Doherty said the infiltrators would handle all of the runoff from the addition's roof and half of the runoff from the original building's roof. The Town Engineer said he was satisfied with the site's drainage. Rear Retaining Wall There was much discussion on this issue. Mr. Gienapp said the rear wall is in poor condition and they doubt it would survive the excavation they must perform behind it to install the basement. He said they proposes to leave as much of the wall as possible and place a privacy fence on top of it to the height of the original wall. They are agreeable to adding plantings behind this fence to improve the screening. Page 4 of 8 Mr. Jerry Fiore of 11 Gateway Circle and a abutter to the rear of the site said he was unhappy with the applicant's proposed solution. Mr. Fiore asked why the retaining wall could not be rebuilt to its original height. Mr. Fiore said the wall has been a nice buffer for thirty years and now that they are removing it the light and noise will be closer. He doubted plantings on top would be much use at least in the short term since it will be some years before they grow in. Mr. Dave Dewing of 7 Gateway Circle, also a rear abutter, agreed with Mr. Fiore and added he thought the proposed rear wall would be higher than it appears it is planned to be. The consensus of the Board was to have the applicant rebuild the wall to its current height. Mr. Gienapp said to rebuild a three to four foot thick retaining wall would be very expensive. BB said it would not need to be built so thick since it would no longer have to serve as a retaining wall. Mr. Jason Benagh said the issue with the wall is cost. They are operating on a shoestring- budget and if they build the wall and it collapses they will be strapped. He said the money spent on the analysis of the wall alone almost put off the project. The Board acknowledged that the applicant is operating under a limited budget but the consensus was still to have the wall rebuilt. Shortened Addition Ms. Virginia Adams of the Historical Commission said the Historical Commission had met with the applicant and suggested they pull back the end of the addition from Hopkins Street so as not to have the addition impinge on the architectural style and value of the Hopkins Street frontage. They asked the applicant to pull back 3' from the corner but she has not seen they change reflected in the plans. She added she thought it was a strong trade-off to keep the historical view rather than give it up for an occasional convenience. Mr. Gienapp said the extra length will allow the theater workers ready access to the projection booth. Mr. Benagh said today there is no access during a performance without interrupting the performance. Mr. Gienapp added that providing the same access to the booth without the extra length of the addition would cost the loss of two theater seats. The consensus of the Board was agreement with the Historical Commission's position that the addition should be pulled back from the Hopkins street corner of the original building. The applicant requested the Board review the draft decision and reach their decision tonight. They expressed willingness to make any outstanding issues conditions to the decision. The applicant's counsel, Ms. Andrea Butler, Esq., said they wish to finish the project as soon as possible so as to have to cancel as few performances as possible. The consensus of the Board was there was too much in the way of outstanding issues to reach a decision tonight. The Board noted the applicant still must meet with the Conservation Commission on 5/23/2007 so continuing to the CPDC's next meeting on Page 5 of 8 6/11/07 should not cause too great an interruption to their construction schedule. BB also noted the town had just hired a new Town Planner and it would be a good idea to have her look at the project. DT moved to continue the Site Plan Review of 55 Hopkins Street to the meeting of 6/11/2007 at 8:00 PM. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. BB asked the applicant to please provide draft language for their plans both for the rear retaining wall and for moving the addition back from Hopkins Street. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness 159 Ash Street, Just Rite Alterations Mr. Harold Withrow, the sign maker, represented Just Rite Alterations. After due deliberation, the Board decided to grant the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions: • The signboard will be constructed of aluminum and colored white. • The address "159 Ash St." will be removed from the sign. • The letters of "Just Right Alterations" will be green plastic raised at least 1/4 • The letters of "Wedding Gowns Suits Etc." will be made of black vinyl: • The sign's boarder will be made of raised black aluminum. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill of 1.25 Summer Ave said she thought the sign looked too cramped between the windows of the building on Ash Street. The Board agreed and since the address would be removed decided to add an additional condition reducing the height of the sign from 48" to 42". JB moved to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness to the signage submitted for 159 Ash Street with the conditions listed above. DT seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Zoning Workshop The Board discussed the language of definitions for "accessory buildings" and "lot coverage" to be added to the town's zoning bylaws. In particular, they discussed the definitions prepared by BB on "garage accessory" and "building accessory". BB said he got the draft language for his definitions from Chelmsford's bylaws. BB said it was his understanding Town Counsel advised not to include dimensions in the definition itself but in the Table of Dimensional Controls. The advantage of the table is dimensions can be varied from zone to zone easier. Garage Accessory Page 6 of 8 The consensus was to remove "non-commercial" from the definition of Garage Accessory. BB suggested including accessory buildings in the equation for determining lot coverage. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill reminded the Board that Town Meeting had directed them to look into the issue of impervious cover on lots too. The Town Engineer cautioned the Board on what how they word their definitions because you can be sure any loopholes will be found. As an example, he used the phrase "within 10 feet at ground level" in the draft definition. He said someone could still build a very tall structure. He said it would be better to leave out the specification of "at ground level" because when there is no specification most will assume you are referring to the foundation. Better may be to phrase it "within 10 feet open to the sky". BB asked if the definition should require garages to be fully enclosed i.e. no detached carports? The discussion turned to the height of garages. BB said he added a height restriction to disallow second-floors on garages. GZ said it would be better to simply state: no garage can have a second floor. JB suggested the possibility of allowing a second story but only if the building [garage] is built further from the property line i.e. increase the setback for garages built with second floors. GK pointed out the Board is considering accessory apartments as a way to increase affordable units. BB said in that case the homeowner should pull a permit for an accessory apartment and not for a garage. DT felt this restriction should be in the bylaw itself and not in the definition. For example: a single story could be in the setback, otherwise, no. Regarding the number of cars in a garage, the Town Engineer suggested requiring a site plan review for anything over a two-car garage. DT pointed out that the Building Inspector uses a limit of three car-spaces per lot. The Board decided to schedule a Zoning Workshop for the next meeting, 6/11/2007, to continue the discussion. Minutes DT moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of 1/08/2007 as amended tonight. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. DT moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of 1/17/2007 as amended tonight. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Page 7 of 8