The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-07-09 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: ckowalski@ci.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: July 09, 2007 Location: Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Hall Time: 7:30 PM Members Present: Brant Ballantyne, (BB), Chairman; David Tuttle (DT), Secretary; John Sasso (JS), and Nicholas Safina (NS). Associate Members Absent: Israel Maykut (IM) and George Katsoufis (GK) Also Present: Carol Kowalski (CK), Town Planner; Michael Schloth. Ms. Virginia Adams, 59 Azalea Circle Ms. Leah Barton, 336 South St. Mr. Ken Cram, Vanasse Asssociates Mr. Joe DiMambro, 5 Milepost Road Mr. Jay Doughty, 348 South Street Ms. Lori Doughty, 348 South Street Ms. Kathy Greenfield, Chair of Historical Commission, 192 Woburn Street Ms. Dena Hayden Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Attorney Josh Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Ms. Joan Neary, 355 South Street Mr. Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering Mr. Richard Roketenetz, 15 Mile Post Road Ed Shaw, Dickenson Selectman Ben Tafoya Mr. Anthony Tambone, Ms. Nancy Twomey, Architect Mr. Joe Zimbone, 22 Mile Post Road There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Public Comments There were no comments from the public. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review & Special Permit for PUD-B Overlay 80-100 Main Street, Reading Crossing Page 1 of 10 The Applicant proposes to remove four buildings and replace with one building for commercial use with related site improvements Action Date: September 24, 2007 BB opened the public hearing. DT read the public notice. As there was only three members of the Board present, Mr. Latham said the hearing would have to be continued because the bylaws state the Board has authority to grant Special Permits for PUDs only on the vote of at least four of the five members. [Section 4.9.3]. DT said new law allows Board members to view recordings of meetings and have it could as if they had attended as long as they sign a document saying they had viewed the recording. Mr. Latham thought a continuance would be the safest course but the applicant, Mr. Tambone, was inclined to go forward. The Board agreed to continue and proceeded to do so when JS arrived and rendered moot the issue of too few members present. Mr. Latham summarized the proposal: • Four buildings will be removed and replaced with one retail-use building • They expect one tenant will be a restaurant. • The existing four driveways will be replaced by one located at the property's farthest North edge. • The PUD-B bylaw has been changed [no parking along Main St.; signage allowed on rear of building facing parking lot] and a lot [370 South St] has been added to the PUD-B overlay. • There are no issues with either the Conservation or Historical Commissions. • They are asking for a waiver of the number of required loading spaces from seven to three. • Aside from two architectural towers on either end, the building will be no taller than a typical single-family home. • They understand this project will be a Gateway to Reading and they have included much landscaping in an extra effort to make the project attractive. Mr. Peter Ogren, Site Engineer, continued: • The project will be close to the Business A and Residential zones but the town's bylaws state they can extend 30 feet into the more restrictive zone. • 29,000 sq. ft. total commercial space. 6,500 sq ft of this set aside for a 230 seat restaurant. The location of the restaurant has not yet been determined. • Parking Spaces: require 75 for the retail use and another 70 for the restaurant. Four handicap spaces near entrances: two each towards the Northern and Southern ends. • Don't need seven loading areas since most uses will require small deliveries only. Three loading areas are plenty: two near the Southern end, one towards the Northern end. • Utilities: • Sewer: Existing sewer will be used from Main St. Not sure of the number of connection the building will use as it will depend on the restaurant and number of tenants. Page 2 of 10 • Water: More water is needed for the sprinkling system [fire]. Propose to run 8-inch pipe from thel2-inch water pipe that runs along east Main St into the building's utility room and meter use from there. • Electrical: Underground connections run in from the rear of the site to the utility room. • Drainage: Currently there is little to nothing by way of drainage and runoff from the parking lot has been an ongoing problem for abutters. They propose to build a system of catch basins - two towards the front of the site, three towards the rear - to direct flow into a detention pond behind the parking lot and from there to the drainage system of Haystack Road. To make the connection with the Haystack Road system a drainage easement has been negotiated with a rear abutter. This should solve the abutters' problems with runoff from this site as all storms should show significant reductions. Also, runoff into Main St. will be reduced as well which is something Mass Hiway will require. • Design Review Team (DRT) Issues: we have a letter stating which of the suggestions of the DRT meeting we can commit too. These changes have not yet been made to the plans but if agreed to they could be added and the plans resubmitted. Mr. Latham submits this letter to the Board. Mr. Ken Cram, Traffic Engineer, continued: • His study assumed a 230-seat restaurant which would maximize the site's traffic and included a 1% annual growth rate for the properties in the area to cover future traffic. • He prefers the standard Mass Hiway driveway design of one entrance lane and one exit lane. There was general agreement this was a safer design. • Recommends setting the monument /pylon sign back from Main Street and away from the entrance to maximize sight distance. • Traffic Generation: • Now: roughly 364 daily trips • After Retail and Restaurant build-out: roughly 1000 cars in and out of the site. Not all will be direct trips. About 25% will be pass-by trips. • Level of Service: "A" or "B" for the Main and South Street intersection, on peak weekday evenings and Saturday midday. Public Comments Ms. Lori Doughty of 348 South Street asked how this project will affect the flow of cut- through traffic on other nearby streets like Walnut. Mr. Cram said he did not take traffic counts on Walnut or further along South St although he did look at the intersection of Hopkins and Main streets. Mr. Joe Zimbone of 22 Milepost Road said it is already difficult to take a left onto Hopkins St with against current traffic from the Shell station, Hopkins St., and northbound Main St traffic. Traffic to and from this site will add to the problem and then there will be the traffic from whatever goes into the Addison-Wesley site. Mr. Cram said his study did not include speculation on what traffic Addison-Wesley's site might add to the area. Page 3 of 10 The new owner of 11 Milepost Road expressed concern over the grading of the parking lots and runoff from same into his abutting backyard. Mr. Ogren said the parking lot will be all one grade and all runoff will be caught in the detention pond. Mr. X asked if the area above the detention pond would remain wooded. Mr. Ogren said it was their intention to leave as much of that area wooded as possible. A resident of 102 Main Street said she lives next door to the site [North side] and wants to be sure the larger trees are kept to block the lights from the site especially from the parking lot. Mr. Tambone said the parking lot lights will have boxed tops and the light will be directed down onto the parking lot. Mr. Ogren said the parking lot light poles would be about 25 feet high. The applicant did not know how tall the decorative lights would be. BB asked if the applicant proposes any landscape features to mitigate lighting issues on that side of the site. Mr. Tambone side a six-foot, solid, vinyl fence will be constructed along that boundary. Mr. Ogren pointed out this fence will block light from headlights. Mr. Latham said he had information about the lights on the building itself and distributed lighting cut-sheets to the Board. Mr. Joe DiMambro of 5 Milepost Road directed the Board to the letter he had submitted outlining his reasons for being opposed to the proposed drainage detention pond and new drain system [see attached]. His letter states that for the past three years runoff from the applicant's site has cause flooding problems in his yard and basement, that he has spent over $3,000.00 trying to prevent this runoff from entering his property, and that he feels the proposed detention pond could: 1. Drain underground onto his property (which is lower than the detention pond) and 2. Exacerbate an existing mosquito problem. Mr. DiMambro also requests the proposed fence be eight-feet high to prevent people from cutting through his yard to get to the applicant's site, and adequate landscaping be provided to block the view of the parking lot from his yard. Mr. Ogren said water on the surface of the detention pond would not be around long enough to serve as a breeding ground for mosquitoes. BB asked if this was because of a low-flow channel. Mr. Ogren said, no, it was because any puddles would dry up within three days. Mr. Ogren added that a drainage design incorporating Water Quality was not required. BB said it was his opinion that minor puddling in the detention pond could be an issue and would be close enough to abutters to warrant a low-flow channel - perhaps a stone channel underdrain. It would not hurt the overall design. Ms. Leah Barton of 336 South Street asked how long the applicant expected construction would take and could they identify any of the tenants. Mr. Ogren said once they started he expected construction to take about six months. Mr. Tambone said they are still talking with potential tenants. Ms. Joan Neary of 355 South Street, after noting the house at 370 South St was razed to make a parking lot for this site, asked what assurance the town would have no vehicular Page 4 of 10 access would be allowed to South Street. Mr. Latham assured her this would not happen. Mr. Ogren added that the grading of the site would not allow it; a retaining wall will be there. In response to questions on where fences would be erected and if pedestrian access would be possible from Milepost Road, Mr. Tambone said a six-foot, vinyl fence would run along the rear and side property lines. The Board's Questions and Comments DT pointed out that negotiating traffic in the area of Hopkins and Main Streets can be challenging and he asked if the traffic study had any data on the site's affect on this area. Mr. Cram said he was currently completing the Hopkins Street report but the Level of Service there today is "17". BB said he doubted this project will help the situation. Mr. Cram said it does not. BB asked if there had been traffic accidents in the area. Mr. Cram said in the past three years: • 14 accidents (no fatalities) at the South and Main intersection • None at the South and Jacob Way intersection. • None at the site itself. JS asked what the maximum queue would be for cars leaving the site's parking lot to turn left heading North on Main St. Mr. Cram said the queue would be 14 feet or one car. JS asked how far the site's entrance and exit lanes would be from the South and Main intersection. Mr. Cram said they would be as far from the intersection as possible; at the Northern boundary; about 350 feet from the intersection. BB said the I% annual growth added to the Traffic Study to account for future traffic from area businesses is too low to account for traffic from whatever goes into Addison-Wesley's large site. Mr. Cram agreed but pointed out if he inflated the affect of Addison-Wesley's potential traffic it would dilute the impact of the traffic from this site. Mr. Cram noted that Mr. Tambone has offered to give land he owns at the intersection of South and Main to the developer of Addison-Wesley to be used towards mitigating the impact of traffic from that site. DT asked if the applicant had any plans showing how this land would be used. Mr. Latham said Mr. Tambone has given the right to use that land for traffic mitigation to whoever develops the Addison -Wesley site and any plans for its use would be a part of the Addison-Wesley site plan. The Town Planner asked if the Hopkins Street traffic data would be available soon. Mr. Cram said it would. BB pointed out the applicant is asking for a waiver to reduce the number of required loading spaces form seven to three but they have no tenants signed. Mr. Tambone said they feel seven is excessive given the size of the site. Deliveries will be from van-trucks not Page 5 of 10 tractor trailers. DT asked if they have extra parking spaces. Mr. Ogren said if the restaurant contains fewer than the planned 230 seats they could have extra parking spaces. The consensus of the Board was to continue the public hearing to a future meeting. Outstanding issues include: • The applicant's letter stating which of the DRT's suggestions they could commit to needs to be reviewed. • The Hopkins Street traffic data needs to be finished and submitted to the Board. • Signage. • Location of the restaurant. The applicant prefers it located close to the South/Main intersection and the Board prefers it located far from the intersection. • Within 21 days the Board must come to a decision on whether or not to allow the request for a Special Permit for the PUD-B overlay to move forward. JS moved to continue the public hearing to the meeting of July 23, 2007 at 8:30 PM. DT seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. No further notice would be sent to abutters. Site Plan Review Waiver 156 Main Street, Cafe Bella The applicant proposes to establish a coffee shop. The applicant, Ms. Dena Hayden, and her architect, Ms. Nancy Twomey, were present. Ms. Twomey argued there would be no change of use because another coffee shop had once been located at this site. Ms. Twomey summarized the details of the renovation: • One of the two existing bathrooms would be refitted with handicapped access. The signage would simply be a re-facing of the existing signage. • At a later time the applicant would like to expand the use from a coffee shop to an 18-seat restaurant. • Parking: they need 38 spaces on the site to meet regulations and they believe the spaces of there but Ms. Twomey said she had made errors on the parking counts using the submitted site plan and she has corrected them on a new plan. She distributed this new site plan to the Board Members. Ms. Hayden said the signs would show dark, vinyl letters on an ivory background. She would also use one of the spaces on the site's pylon sign. In response to the Board's question on dumpsters, Ms. Hayden said the site has one enclosed dumpster which she would share with the other tenants. If required, it would the dumpster would be emptied more frequently. The consensus of the Board was to continue the review to a future meeting. Outstanding issues are: Page 6of10 • Questions concerning the accuracy of the parking-space counts. The Board emphasized they could not grant their approval if the site does not comply with the parking regulations. • The Board would like to see renderings of the proposed signage. JS moved to continue the Site Plan Review Waiver Request for 156 Main St to the meeting of July 23, 2007 at 9:30 PM. DT seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. No further notice would be sent to abutters. Determination of Minor Modification 25 Walkers Brook Drive, Stop & Shop 'The applicant would like to remove a condition from their Site Plan Review Decision: construction of a walkway to the abutting property at One General Way. Mr. Ed Shaw represented 25 Walkers Brook Drive, LLC. Mr. Shaw said the condition to connect the Danis property with a bridge will not meet ADA compliant grades; the grade will be much steeper than the required 1:12 grade. Other ways to make the bridge fit were considered but between the 4-foot high retaining wall and the proximity of the flood storage area no easy way to do it could be found. Selectman Ben Tafoya told the Board the condition in question was a compromise reached after much heated discussion between the town, Dickenson, and abutters, and it is a matter of some disappointment to him that part of the agreement - the walkway is not to be fulfilled. NS said the walkway is not required to be ADA compliant and read aloud the applicable regulation. Mr. Shaw said he was told by his engineers the property would not be ADA compliant if the proposed walkway was installed. JS seconded Selectman Tafoya's point and added the walkway was never intended to be ADA compliant. All that was asked for was a walkway connecting the properties. BB said in his opinion there were several ways the walkway could be constructed but you may need to work with the abutter to get it done. Mr. Shaw asked if he should come back before the Board if the abutter does not give permission to goon their property. The Board said he should. The consensus of the Board was to deny the request. The Board noted that Selectman Tafoya's presence tonight speaks to the importance the town places on seeing this walkway constructed. JS moved to approve the requested Minor Modification. DT seconded. Voted Denied: 0:4:0. The vote to deny was unanimous. Mr. Shaw had other three other brief items for the Board: Page 7of10 1. He has not received a reply on his request to make a tree substitution. The originally specified species is in short supply. 2. The original decision called for banners on the light poles but the town now wants them eliminated. The Town Planner said the town's regulations do not allow such banners and she said she would write a letter to the project's file stating so. 3. The Conservation Administrator had asked if the Newcrossing Road sidewalk could take a different route but the restaurants have yet to start construction on their part and it is unlikely we'll all be able to work together to get the sidewalk done all at once. The Town Planners said she would discuss the matter with the Conservation Administrator. Determination of Minor Modification 143 Main Street The applicant would like to make changes to the conditions of the 2002 Site Plan Review Decision of 143 Main Street. Attorney Josh Latham represented the applicant. There are four conditions of the Site Plan Review in question. Three have not been done and one was a change to the landscaping of the site. Mr. Latham said the two retaining walls were not built because they were not needed as there is nothing to retain. The fence was supposed to be removed but was not because the abutters preferred the privacy it provided. He noted that the drainage has been improved beyond what was originally proposed and had a report from their engineer stating this. The Parking layout is different but they have the required nine spaces and they are willing to re- stripe the spaces if need be. The consensus of the Board was that the modifications were minor but there were other issues outlined in a memo from the Town Engineer dated March 2, 2007 that would need to be addressed before the Board could render a decision. Mr. Latham said the plan before the Board tonight addresses the Town Engineer's memo. BB asked if the Town Engineer has seen the plan. The Board felt that before they could render a decision on the applicant's request they would need to hear from the Town Engineer as to whether or not the items in his memo have been addressed. It was the consensus of the Board to continue the discussion until a future meeting. BB directed the applicant to meet with the Town Engineer to review his list and to request from him a memo stating that all of his concerns have been addressed. If the Board receives such a memo, then the Board would be inclined to consider the modifications presented tonight as minor. JS pointed out that some of the modifications to the site (e.g. the fence) are close to the site's property line and he suggested the Board require the applicant apply for an abutters Page 8of10 list to notice the site's abutters as to the date and time of the meeting to which the discussion will be continued. The Board agreed. JS moved to continue until the meeting of August 13, 2007 at 7:30 PM. NS seconded. Voted approved: 4:0:0. The Board asked the Town Planner to ask the Town Engineer to make this a priority. Minutes JS moved to accept the minutes of 04/09/2007 as amended. DT seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0 JS moved to accept the minutes of 05/14/2007 as amended. DT seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0 Determination of Minor Modification 345 Main Street, Busa Liquor The applicant would like to amend conditions to the location's Site Plan Review Decision. No one appeared for the applicant. The Board decided to reschedule to a future meeting. Other Business Downtown 40R The Town Planner asked for a member of the Board to look at two proposals and participate in interviews for a 40R consultant. NS volunteered. NS said GK had emailed all members of the Board a list of all the 40R design standards to be considered. JS suggested scheduling time to discuss a few standards on August 8, 2007. Downtown Parking Task Force On 5/29 the Task Force submitted their final report to the Board of Selectmen and was dissolved as a subcommittee. The Board decided they needed to commit an agenda item to the review of the Task Force's report and to compose a letter to the Board of Selectmen on same. Community Preservation Act (CPA) JS said it is important everyone is one the same page as to what it is the CPA can provide for the town. He felt the town in the past never properly articulated how the funds would be allocated so people shied from it. Joint Meeting with Board of Selectmen 7/24 on Addison-Wesley NS asked if the Board needed to take some kind of action on this. The Town Planner said, no; the meeting will be an update on the site. Page 9 of 10 Joseph and Susan DiMambro 5 Milepost Road Reading, MA 01867 July 9, 2007 Town of Reading Community Planning and Development Commission 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Attn: Mr. John Sasso Re: PUD-B Special Permit For 80-100 Main. Street Atlantic Tambone Inc. In reference to the above special permit request as a direct abutter of this property I am against the proposed drainage detention pond and the new drain system. I have experienced continuous problems in the last three (3) years because of drainage from the above parking lots draining on to my property especially in.the spring and fall causing flooding in my backyard and entering my basement. I have had to spend over $3,000.00 to try and prevent this water from continuously draining on to my property. The proposed detention pond is-being placed right behind my property and will cause an increase in a mosquito problem and water could drain underground thru the pond to, my property, which is a lower grade then the pond. I suggest that the drainage system should be addressed by a series of catch basins and piping directly under ground and adjusting grades or placing a barrier to prevent water from entering my property- Also it is requested that the new fencing be 8' high to prevent people from cutting thru my property to access the Mall from Milepost Road and be landscaped in order not to view the parking lot. Sincerely, Joseph DiMambro