MELROSE PLANNING BOARD

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, May 22, 2006

7:45 P.M.

Mayor’s Conference Room

 

 

PRESENT:            Mike Cassavoy, Chair; Rich Connolly; Ed Cassidy; Anne DeSouza-Ward; John Sadowski; Gerry Marcus; Bob Mercado, Tom Pawlina and Carla Francazio

 

ABSENT:              None                                                                                                                                                     

 

Assistant City Planner, Holly Regan and Janet Graf, Secretary, were present.

 

MINUTES

The minutes from the Regular Meeting on April 10, 2006 and the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing on May 8, 2006 were read by the Planning Board members.  Mr. Connolly and Mr. Mercado recommended changes to the minutes.  Mr. Mercado MADE a MOTION to approve the minutes as amended.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION as amended. All in favor.  None opposed.

 

ASSENT CALENDAR

Case 06-12, 65 Cottage Street, Tindall

Petitioner Tindall was present.  Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to send standard letter to the Board of Appeals.  Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION.  All in Favor.  None opposed.

 

BOARD OF APPEALS

Case 06-11, 204 Upham Street, Dechoretz and Bedell

Attorney Bell and Petitioners Dechoretz and Bedell were present.

 

Mr. Bell stated that due to a severe fire in their home, the Petitioners propose to renovate their home.  He described the house situated on a corner lot – two front yards and two rear yards.  The Petitioner intends to build a new garage, which would be further from the northern property line than the existing garage.  Mr. Bell referred the members to drawings presented.  The home will be renovated in the craftsman-style architecture. 

 

Mr. Pawlina MADE a MOTION to write a letter to the Board of Appeals stating that the Planning Board reviewed the materials presented and found them fairly complete and well done.  He continued that the letter should state that the Petitioner is rebuilding on the existing footprint, a minor encroachment exists on the east side, and that the space over the garage is intended to be used as artist space, not a separate apartment.  He added that the Planning Board noticed that the front porch was not shown on the plot plan and should be added and that the garage is proposed to be attached to the house, is no longer an auxiliary use, and thus may have different setback requirements.  He concluded the letter stating that the Planning Board takes no exception to this request.  Mr. Connolly SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed. 

 

Case 06-13, 171 Tremont Street, Greene

Attorney Patrick McAvoy, representing the Petitioner, was present.

 

Mr. McAvoy explained the history of this site and the previous zoning relief received in order to allow for the current split of uses.  The original relief had allowed for roughly 2/3rd light industrial and 1/3rd office space.  The Petitioner is now seeking to change how the space is divided, namely to have 87% office space and 13% light industrial.  The Petitioner initially was seeking a Special Permit for a specific business; however, that business is no longer interested in renting the space.  Mr. McAvoy explained that the Petitioner is now looking for a special permit for general office use, not a specific business.  Mr. McAvoy also explained that work had begun in converting the light industrial to office space and that the Building Inspector stopped the work because a building permit and special permit are required.  The Planning Board noted that normally a special permit for use is associated with a particular use, not just a general category.

 

Mr. Sadowski MADE a MOTION to write a letter to the Board of Appeals stating  that the Planning Board reviewed the application and was informed by the Petitioner’s representative that the proposed ratio of general office space to light industrial was incorrect on the application and that general office is planed to be 87% of the floor area with the remaining 13% light industrial.  He continued that the Petitioner’s representative circulated drawings, which had not been included with the original application and that the only exterior construction proposed is several new windows and a handicap ramp located where a concrete sidewalk exists today.  Mr. Sadowski added that the Planning Board assumes the handicap ramp will not affect vehicular movement on the lot.  Mr. Sadowski concluded the letter by stating that the Planning Board takes no objection to the request for a special permit.  

 

Ms. DeSouza-Ward recommended an AMENDMENT to the MOTION to refer to the specific type of use requested as described in the Zoning Ordinance.  Mr. Pawlina SECONDED the MOTION as AMENDED.   All in favor.  None opposed.

 

Mr. Connolly MADE a MOTION to discuss the Board of Appeals Case 06-09 regarding the proposed Walgreen’s Pharmacy during the public hearing for Site Plan Review Case 06-001.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed. 

 

 

SUBDIVISION

Continued Public Hearing: Definitive Subdivision Plan Submission, Indian Rock Road

Attorney McAvoy, Mr. Knowles, Engineer from Meridian Associates, and Mr. Gianquitto, the Developer, were present. 

 

Mr. Cassavoy handed out satellite pictures of the area showing the grades.  Mr. Cassavoy invited Mr. McAvoy to discuss the case.  Mr. McAvoy introduced Mr. Knowles, the Engineer, and Mr. Gianquitto, the Developer.  Mr. McAvoy stated the Petitioner is seeking final approval for Indian Rock Road, which is now known as Blueberry Hill Lane.  He stated the subdivision approval is for the right to build a road.  He stated that the Applicant will need to return to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review approval to build on the lots created during the subdivision review process.  Mr. McAvoy stated that Mr. Knowles has addressed the issues raised by Public Works as well as those listed in the Planning Staff’s letter.  Mr. Knowles went over the plan changes point by point. 

 

  • Mr. Knowles stated the plans have been revised and now use city datum.  The first waiver request has been removed.
  • Mr. Knowles explained that Mr. Beshara had misunderstood the waiver request and thought it involved the cul-de-sac.  The waiver request is for the first curve in the road.  Mr. Knowles stated that a fire truck can easily maneuver the curve. 
  • Mr. Knowles stated that the City of Malden has stated in a letter to Holly Regan that the City has no objection to the drainage plan for the subdivision and the tie‑in to Malden’s system. 
  • The Planning Board and the abutters had concerns about construction debris falling on the properties below the proposed subdivision.  Mr. Knowles explained that a buffer exists between the abutters’ properties and the construction area.  A four-foot construction fence will also protect abutters from falling construction debris. 
  • Per the Department of Public Work’s request, the hydrant was relocated from Lot 1 to Lot 4.  
  • Mr. Pawlina had requested at the last meeting that the Petitioner consider raising the inverts to increase the amount of water held by the buried infiltration system.  Mr. Knowles explained that he increased the height of the invert until he reached a location that any additional height would “blow-out” the invert and thus cause an increase in the peak rate.  Mr. Pawlina requested that the Petitioner provide background data to show why the inverts cannot be raised. 
  • There was discussion about relocating a catch basin to the low spot to correct the flooding problem occurring on Forest Street in front of an abutter’s property.  The Petitioner mentioned that the issue of flooding for the abutter on Forest Street could be resolved by regrading the roadway.  The Planning Board concurred that this might be a good option.  Mr. Pawlina mentioned the possibility of an I/I contribution trade off to the City to mitigate flow issue.  The Petitioner’s representative stated that there was no connection between the subdivision and the low spot.  Mr. Pawlina stated that the subdivision is going to contribute to the flow to the area. 
  • The Chairman had a question regarding Mr. Beshara’s requirement that the water flow equal 1,200 GPM.  The Petitioner stated that the flow test would be conducted as part of the Site Plan Review process.  The Planning Board discussed that the GPM requirement could be made a condition of the Site Plan decision if it is not performed before the decision is made.  The Planning Board discussed that the Fire Department may require sprinklers, and the Planning Board recommended that the flow test be done sooner rather than later.

 

Mr. Sadowski and others stated that the issues regarding site work (including retaining walls and blasting), drainage and the effects of the subdivision relating to the number of people expected to live there are related to the waiver requests for the subdivision and should be reviewed during the subdivision review process.  The Petitioner statesdthat these issues will be reviewed during the site plan review.  The Planning Board discussed whether the subdivision review and the site plan review could be done simultaneously in order to address Planning Board concerns regarding these issues.  Mr. McAvoy reiterated the Petitioner’s intent to build townhouses which would require a special permit and site plan review.  The Planning Board decided they would think about the issue.

 

Mr. Mercado asked if the Director of the pre-school program at the old Ripley School has seen the plans.  Ms. Regan stated she has a meeting scheduled with the Director to show her the plans of the subdivision tomorrow. 

 

The Planning Board discussed the effect of the subdivision’s drainage plan on the cemetery and noted the cemetery is not a direct abutter and, if anything, drainage should improve.

 

Mr. Pawlina had a drainage question for Mr. Knowles.  He said on Page 5 of Mr. Knowles’ letter dated May 18th, there was a new table showing existing flow different from a previous report.  He had concerns with Meridian’s hydraulics.  Mr. Knowles stated that the flows should be the same number and did not know why they were different.  Discussion ensued as to what would happen in the peak of a storm. 

 

Mr. Cassavoy invited the public to speak.

 

Ralph Moore, member of the Cemetery Commission, expressed concerns about the effect of this subdivision on the neighborhood downstream.  He stated that after the recent storm, water and mud flowing downstream created “quite a mess” in the cemetery.  It took three days to clean. 

 

Mr. Cassavoy stated that the major issues to be discussed further appear to be drainage, cuts, slopes, and waivers and he asked if the Planning Board has enough information to close the public hearing.  The Board feels they need additional information. 

 

Mr. Pawlina said that the error in the drainage calculations needs to be fixed.  He added that because new information will be submitted, the Board should keep the public hearing open.  Mr. Cassidy MADE a MOTION to continue the hearing until June 12th.  Ms. Marcus SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed. 

 

SITE PLAN REVIEW—PUBLIC HEARING

Case SP06-001, 897-911 Main Street, Mark Investments—continued Public Hearing

Appearing for the Petitioner, Mark Investments, were Mr. Swerling the engineer from Bohler Engineering, Mr. Chizek, the architect from Edwards & Kelcey, Mr. Winn, the traffic consultant from Greenman-Pedersen, and Mr. McAvoy the Attorney from McAvoy and McAvoy.

 

Mr. Cassavoy recused himself.  Mr. Connolly, the Vice Chair, acted as Chair for this item of the agenda.  Mr. Swerling responded to a list of issues in a Staff Report dated May 19, 2006. 

 

1.       Northern curb should be an exit only.  Mr. Swerling stated that the primary change is changing the northern driveway of the site to an exit-only.  Mr. Sadowski requested DO NOT ENTER signs be posted at the northern entrance.

2.       Submit retaining wall details.  Mr. Swerling discussed that the material for the retaining wall would be reinforced concrete – the average height is 2 ½ feet to 4 feet.  The height will be reduced because of the increase in the grade in that area.  Mr. Cassidy asked about excavation and its effect on the abutters.  Mr. Swerling stated that there would be no effect on the abutters.  Mr. Mercado stated no detail was provided.  Mr. Swerling stated the detail is normally provided with the building permit application.  The Planning Board stated that they want to see the detail of the retaining wall during the site plan review process.  Mr. Swerling stated that he would submit the detail for the Board to review.  Mr. Swerling stated that there would be a fence. 

3.       Submit revised drainage plans.  The Petitioner stated that they had received the Conservation Commission’s approval for the drainage system.  Mr. Pawlina stated that the drainage system is not satisfactory and he has concerns about contamination from the parking lot and he believes more parking lot surface water should be addressed on site.  The Petitioner feels that the plan exceeds what is required by law.  Mr. Pawlina reiterated the Planning Board’s request made at the last meeting for the most recent drainage plans.    

4.        Lights should be period fixtures, which are shorter and more respectful of the character of Melrose.  Mr. Chizek stated the Planning Board requested that period fixtures be used.  The size of the light poles in the parking lot were reduced from 32 feet to 24 feet.  The Planning Board discussed the type of lighting fixture in the parking lot and ultimately determined that the shoe box fixture is appropriate.  The Planning Board requested a detail of the shoe box light.  The Planning Board discussed the appropriate source of lighting and ultimately determined that all site lighting should be HID metal haylights in a warm option.  Mr. Chizek passed around the cut sheet of the gooseneck lighting which will be used above the signage in response to the Planning Board’s request for such lighting.  The Planning Board stated that the acorn lighting along the street should match the lighting on Main Street.  Ms. Regan stated that she would get the specs. 

 

The hearing was then opened up to the public for their comments. 

 

Mr. Ralph Moore of 39 Dexter Road stated he is very much against the drive-through for Walgreen’s.  He stated that he feels Main Street is already congested.  He mentioned Dunkin Donuts on the Parkway and how busy that is without the drive-through which was not allowed in that location. 

 

Mr. Joe Arcadipane of 42 Dexter Road spoke briefly about not being in favor of the drive-through.  He stated that he believed this proposal is appropriate for the site.

 

Mr. LeSaffre, current owner of the property, spoke in favor of the drive-through.  He feels it would be helpful to wheelchair bound people to easily pick up prescriptions.

 

Mr. Connolly closed the public comment period and invited the Planning Board to speak.  The Planning Board discussed the Petitioner’s application to the Board of Appeals. 

 

Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to write a letter to the Board of Appeals recommending the Petitioner’s request for a variance be granted.  Mr. Sadowski suggested an AMENDMENT to the MOTION to mention in the letter to the Board of Appeals the Fire Chief’s letter in support of the wider curb cuts.  Mr. Cassidy recommended a further AMENDMENT to the letter to commend the Petitioner for their cooperative approach in presenting the design and their willingness to revise the plans by making the northern curb cut an exit-only as requested by the Planning Board.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the MOTION as amended.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

The Petitioner requested the Planning Board discuss a draft decision at the next meeting.  There was then discussion of how to address the outstanding drainage issue.  The Planning Board stated that they felt ready to discuss a draft decision at the next meeting while continuing to discuss the drainage issue.  Mr. Mercado asked Attorney McAvoy if the drive-through is crucial to the Petitioner.  Mr. McAvoy replied that it is.  He stated that it is a good layout and a “docile” drive-through.  Mr. Connolly asked if the Planning Board feels the hearing should be closed.  Mr. McAvoy stated the public should be able to comment on this decision.  The Planning Board stated that because additional information shall be submitted, the Public Hearing should remain open.  Ms. DeSouza-Ward MADE a MOTION to continue the public hearing until June 12, 2006.  Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

Definition of Fast Food as it relates to Oak Grove Village

 

Mr. Bell stated his support for the recommendations provided by the Planning Staff in their memo dated May 4, 2006.  He stated that the Petitioner has reduced the retail space from 20,000 to 17,000 square feet which will have less of an impact on traffic.  Additionally, the traffic report provided during the permit review process of Oak Grove Village estimates traffic generation for the site commercial uses that generate more traffic than the uses actually intended for the site.  Mr. Cassidy recommended that the internal and external fluorescent lighting visible from the street be prohibited in residential buildings.  Mr. Cassidy MADE the following MOTION: 

 

Recognizing the unclear nature of the definition of “fast food” as stated in Condition 14 of the Planning Board’s decision regarding Oak Grove Village, the Planning Board has reviewed the purpose of the prohibition of fast food establishments at Oak Grove Village.  The Planning Board intended to ensure that the storefronts of the retail establishments in Oak Grove Village matched the character of the four established commercial nodes in Melrose and that the traffic generated by the retail establishments at Oak Grove Village would not become burdensome to the surrounding communities.  Consequently, in order to meet the Planning Board’s intention, the Planning Board hereby clarifies Condition 14 in the following manner:  the prohibition of “fast food” does not mean that commercial establishments which sell food intended to be consumed off the premise, prepackaged food, or food prepared quickly are prohibited; rather, the prohibition of “fast food” means that no commercial establishment may have internal or external lighting (fluorescent visible from the street), facade design, signage or window displays which mimic the storefronts of national or regional chains if such storefronts do not match the character of Oak Grove Village and Melrose.  Rather all commercial establishments must meet standards for internal or external lighting (fluorescent visible from the street), façade design, signage and window displays approved by the Planning Board to ensure they match with the local character of Melrose’s commercial nodes.  Furthermore, the prohibition of “fast food” means that no commercial establishment shall exceed the amount of traffic generation and parking demands described in the traffic report provided and peer reviewed during the permitting process and therefore, Pembroke shall provide a traffic analysis proving that the proposed commercial establishments will not exceed the assumption regarding traffic generation and parking demands stated in said report.

 

Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

Ms. Marcus MADE a MOTION to adjourn.  Mr. Mercado SECONDED the MOTION.  All in favor.  None opposed.

 

Meeting adjourned at 11:20 pm.