MINUTES

Melrose Planning Board

Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

May 8, 2006

Mayor’s Conference Room

Members Present: Mike Cassavoy, Chair, Edward Cassidy, Gerry Marcus, Anne DeSouza-Ward, John Sadowski, Tom Pawlina, Bob Mercado, Rich Connolly, and Carla Francazio

Members Absent: none

Denise Gaffey, City Planner, and Holly Regan, Assistant City Planner, were present.

The meeting commenced at 7:55pm.

MINUTES

Annual Meeting, March 13, 2006

Mr. Connolly recommended changes to the minutes. Mr. Connolly made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the March 13, 2006 Planning Board meeting as amended. Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the motion as amended. All in favor. None opposed.

BOARD OF APPEALS

Mr. Connolly made a MOTION to take Case 06-010 out of order and discuss it first. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the motion. All in favor. None opposed.

Case 06-010, 15 Maple Grove Street, Hartwell

Will Hartwell, the Petitioner, and David Whitney, the architect, were present.

Mr. Hartwell described his proposal to expand his bungalow style home to create more space for his growing family. He explained that the expansion would not involve increasing the footprint of the house. Mr. Whitney explained that the goal was to provide more living space in a cost effective, humble, and historically appropriate manner. The proposal involves raising the roof over the front porch to make the existing crawl space into livable space. A variance is needed because the house currently encroaches on the front yard setback. Mr. Whitney explained that the addition could be done without raising the roof of the front of the house which encroaches on the front yard setback but doing so would result in a project that does not fit as well with the character of the building and is more expensive.

Mr. Sadowski made a MOTION to write a letter to the Board of Appeals stating that the Planning Board normally does not recommend projects that involve encroachments on the front yard setback; however, this case is distinguishable because the structure already exists. Mr. Sadowski continued that the letter should state that the plans are well conceived and that the Board appreciates the effort made to maintain the character of the home. Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the motion. All in favor. None opposed.

Mr. Cassavoy recussed himself. Mr. Connolly, Vice-Chair, became the acting chair.

Mr. Connolly stated that on tonight’s Planning Board agenda there are two items involving the proposed Walgreen’s Pharmacy: 1) a public hearing regarding the Site Plan Review Application and 2) a review of the Board of Appeals Application. Ms. DeSouza-Ward recommended that the Site Plan Review public hearing regarding Walgreens be held before the Planning Board discusses the Board of Appeals application regarding the same topic. Mr. Connolly stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance if a Petitioner is seeking Site Plan Review as well as zoning relief, the Petitioner may choose in which order to pursue the relief and approval. Mr. Connolly stated that it appears the Petitioner has chosen to pursue the relief and approval simultaneously. Mr. McAvoy concurred. Mr. Connolly asked if the Petitioner had a preference as to the order the Planning Board addressed the two items. Mr. McAvoy suggested that the zoning relief issue would likely be discussed while reviewing the Site Plan Review and pointed out that the Board of Appeals Public Hearing was not scheduled until May 24, 2006 and no recommendation would need to be made until the Planning Board’s May 22 meeting.

SITE PLAN REVIEW

Public Hearing: Site Plan Case 06-001, 897-911 Main Street, Mark Investments

Appearing for the Applicant Mark Investments were Bill Goebel, the engineer from Bohler Engineering, Lee Chizek, the architect from Edwards & Kelcey, Ronald Muller, the traffic consultant from Greenman-Pedersen, and Patrick McAvoy the Attorney from McAvoy and McAvoy.

Mr. Connolly reviewed the purpose of Site Plan Review, as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the public hearing will be opened tonight and may be continued beyond tonight. In order for this Site Plan Review Application to be approved, five of the eight Planning Board members eligible to vote must vote in the affirmative. Mr. Connolly stated that the Building Permit is contingent on the Site Plan Review Decision and any conditions of the decision. Once the public hearing is closed, the Planning Board has 35 days to make a decision. Mr. Connolly described the procedure for the public hearing and then invited the Petitioner to describe the project.

Mr. McAvoy stated that the proposal is to build a 12,645 square foot Walgreens with a 4,380 sq. ft. mezzanine which includes office and storage space. Mr. McAvoy stated that the proposal will be a benefit to the City in many ways, including the following: 1) the proposal provides protection to the neighborhood from the potential developments that could be built on the site; 2) the proposal preserves the site as commercial tax base; 3) the proposal includes the relocation and replacement of the drainage and sewage pipes that run underneath the land, which are 70-80 years old and would need attention from the City soon; 4) the proposal involves several site improvements; 5) the developer has hired reputable consultants to ensure high quality work; 6) the developer is not proposing the maximum as-of-right project, which could be something with office space on the first floor and roughly 57 residential units above or even denser housing with a special permit; and 7) the proposal protects Holbert Court by shutting off a possible connect to that street through this site. Mr. McAvoy noted that the site is in a very permissive zoning district, which has minimal setback requirements and allows uses such as casual restaurants, which would include restaurants such as McDonalds. Mr. McAvoy stated that the proposal meets all zoning requirements except the width of the curb cuts, which will require a variance. Mr. McAvoy stated that he is not describing what type of development could be built as a threat but rather feels it is important to understand what could be built.

Mr. Gobel described the existing conditions of the site and pointed to the sheet of the plans which shows existing conditions of the site. He stated that the site currently has three existing buildings, some frontage on Holbert Court, little to no green space, including none in the front of the property, and two curb cuts. Mr. Gobel showed where the drainage and sewer pipes currently exist and to where they will be relocated. Mr. Gobel then replaced the sheet showing the existing conditions with one showing the proposed site plan and proceeded to describe the proposed site. He explained that the building will have an associated drive-through which is only available for prescription drop-offs and pick-ups and any over the counter products related to the prescription. He explained that the proposed site has two access points, both providing access and egress. He stated that the curb cuts needed to be increased to 30 feet in order to allow a WB50 (tractor-trailer) to turn into the property without encroaching on the pathway of on-coming vehicles. Mr. Gobel explained that the property has a unique shape and that Walgreen’s stretched their standards in order to locate on this site. Mr. Gobel stated that in response to the Department Head comments green space with a wrought iron fence and brick pilasters will be installed in the front of the property. Period lighting will also be installed. Mr. Gobel added that the drive through will have one lane, will have no menu or speaker boards and the only person that will be able to hear the customer will be the person serving the window. He explained that the assumption is that no more than 1 to 3 cars will queue up at a time. Mr. Gobel explained that the paving and building on Holbert Court will be replaced with green space and a few trees. An eight foot wood fence will be installed around the property as a buffer. Mr. Gobel explained that the northern existing retaining wall will be replaced. Mr. Gobel explained that the site is located within a flood plain and the Petitioner has filed a notice of intent with the conservation commission, has had two nights of hearings to date and has made changes to their plans, including adding onsite drainage infrastructure to recharge roof top drainage on site and the installation of a water quality system. He stated that the proposed site improvements will result in a reduction in the amount of run-off.

Mr. Chizek explained that while Walgreens is a national retailer, they look at each new site with the intention of leasing it for 75 years. He added that while they have a prototype, they are very willing to bend the design to fit the character of the area. Mr. Chizek described the design of the building, as shown on the plans. He explained that the design was intended to match the grocery market across the street. Mr. Chizek explained that from 30 inches above the sidewalk to 7 feet above the sidewalk, the windows will open to a display case, which will show posters, similar to those advertising movies, and not pharmaceuticals. Above that set of windows will be windows open to the store.

Mr. Gobel explained that the I.D. sign at the entrance will be located at the southern curb cut and will have plantings around it. He added that the monument sign complies with zoning. He said there will be an electronic reader board but no scrolling message.

Mr. Muller distributed a memorandum to serve as an addendum to the originally submitted traffic study, which responds to Department Head comments. Mr. Muller stated that the traffic study complies with national and state standards. He explained that the study identifies the existing conditions, predicts what the traffic will be like in five years with a no-build scenario (assuming the use does not change from the car dealership it was), and predicts what the traffic will be like in five years if this proposal is built. The memorandum further evaluates Main Street and evaluates the interplay between the curb cuts on Main Street. Mr. Muller explained that in order to write the traffic study traffic counts were recorded and seasonal adjustments were made, accident information was collected, a speed study was conducted and sight distances were evaluated. He added that the sight distances met all the standards. In order to predict what the traffic will be like for the no-build scenario, Mass highway standards were used to determine the estimated amount of increase per year, which was 1%, and then additional research was conducted to add to the traffic scenario the effects of any proposed developments around the site, including in surrounding communities. Mr. Muller explained that he used assumptions prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers to determine the amount of traffic generated by commercial businesses during the peak hours of afternoon rush hour during the weekday and midday on Saturdays and determined that one car per minute will be added during peak times. He stated that the study shows that increases in traffic will have minimal impact in queue and in Level of Service. Mr. Muller stated that the “build” scenario shows an improvement in traffic at Towers Plaza. He explained some of the traffic which currently travels along Main Street will exit Main at the southern entrance of the proposed Walgreens site and will leave at the northern egress which in turn will result in less traffic on Main Street in the area where cars enter and exit the Towers Plaza. He qualified that the decrease in traffic along Main Street would be small.

Mr. Muller reiterated that the variance for a 30 foot curb cut is necessary in order for a tractor trailer to make the turn onto the site without entering on-coming traffic. He stated that all signage and plantings must be located back beyond the area needed to ensure the sight distance is not compromised. Mr. Muller referenced the staff report which recommends eliminating the on-street parking in front of the building in order to improve the sight distance and reduce traffic congestion. Mr. Muller stated that they certainly would not be opposed to this.

Mr. Connolly invited the Planning Board to ask questions.

Mr. Cassidy asked why both curb cuts are intended for entering and exiting, particularly since making a left turn from the site onto Main Street would be so bad. Mr. Muller stated that the egress and entrance at both curb cuts results in the reduction of traffic on Main Street, minimizes the amount of driving that occurs on the site and improves the maneuvering of trucks. Mr. Cassidy stated that he believes the traffic circulation would be improved if the entrance for the site was located at the southern curb cut and the exit for the site was located at the northern curb cut. He added that the site looks over-engineered, particularly at the exit of the drive-through and the northern exit of the site. Mr. Cassidy noted that the number of parking spaces provided on the site is probably double what is needed.

Mr. Pawlina stated that he understands the point that the current design helps improve traffic maneuvering exiting Towers Plaza. However, he agrees that the north curb cut should be an exit only. He added that general traffic theory recommends aligning curb cuts. Ms. DeSouza-Ward stated that although she’s not a traffic engineer it appears to her that not aligning the curb cuts is a good thing. Mr. Muller stated that it is true that general traffic theory recommends aligning curb cuts; however, this is for situations where traffic lights will be installed. He added that he did not feel that the Walgreens will generate enough traffic to justify a traffic light. Ms. Marcus asked for clarification that there are two curb cuts for Tower Plaza and asked for the traffic engineer to point out their location.

Mr. Sadowski expressed concern for the first and possibly second parking space located on the southern side of the lot. Mr. Gobel stated that this concern came up during the Departmental review and that the first parking space is actually 40 feet from the entrance, which is enough space for two cars to line up.

Mr. Sadowski referred to the letter from an abutter and asked about the two-tier retaining wall and questioned where the improvements were intended to begin. Referencing the letter, Mr. Connolly stated that the resident was concerned that the proposed retaining wall will disturb the foundation of the existing wall.

Mr. Gobel stated that they will need to provide a fully engineered wall, which they normally prepare for the Building Permit. Mr. Gobel explained that the existing retaining wall will be used as a base. Mr. Gobel presented the grading plan and showed where the proposed retaining walls will be installed.

Mr. Mercado stated that he would like to hear from the public. Mr. Connolly invited the public to speak. Mr. Connolly asked each of the speakers to state their name and address and direct all comments and questions to the Board.

Attorney John Cinella, representing Mr. LeSaffre, stated that he is in favor of the proposal and will defer to Mr. LeSaffre to say a few words. Mr. LeSaffre, the owner of the site of the proposed Walgreen’s, stated that he liked the proposal. He jokingly stated that he was not aware that he owned such a bad piece of land and buildings. He believes the proposal will be an improvement to Melrose and that it is the best option for Melrose, particularly in comparison to the other proposals he received. He mentioned that he grew up in Melrose.

Edward Rossi, resident of Franklin Manor Condominiums, explained that he was the author of the letter referenced previously. He stated that he is pleased to see the Planning Board’s concern regarding the integrity of the wall and noted his concern for the existing wall’s role in supporting the building. He reiterated that he is pleased the members have earmarked this issue. He added his concern for lights shining onto the first and second floor of his building. He stated that he is concerned with trucks making deliveries at all hours of the night and leaving their engines on. He added that he had noticed that Shaws and Johnnies have signs that say trucks must adhere to the City’s noise ordinance. He wondered if such signs should be added at the Walgreens site.

Rita Coye, resident of 8 Linden, asked about the fence to be installed. Mr. Gobel stated that an 8 foot stockade fence will be installed. Ms. Coye asked if behind the fence there would be parking. Mr. Gobel stated that the proposed plan would have 8 to 9 feet of green space between the fence and the first parking space. He added that this parking area would be the least used spaces. Ms. Coye stated that only part of her yard abuts this property; the other part of her yard abuts Lucy’s. Mr. Gobel stated that the fence the Walgreen’s developer proposes to install would only extend to the end of this site.

Mr. Connolly asked if any other members of the public would like to speak. There were no additional comments from the public. He then asked the Planning Board if they had any additional comments or questions.

Mr. Pawlina asked that the curb cuts on the other side of Main Street be drawn. Mr. Gobel drew the curb cuts for the Melrose Towers and Towers Plaza. Mr. Mercado asked how cars at Towers Plaza will get to the proposed Walgreens site. Mr. Muller stated that a car would need to take a right and then a quick left. Mr. Cassidy asked for the distance of the southern entrance of the site to the Linden Street entrance. Mr. Muller stated it is 220 feet.

Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked what lighting will be illuminated for 24 hours. Mr. Gobel stated the site lighting will consist of 32 foot shoe box design light fixtures that have no spillage beyond the property as well as acorn light fixtures. Mr. Gobel stated that Walgreens receives roughly one tractor trailer a week, unlike grocery stores which receive several a day. He added that no large refrigerator trucks will be delivering to the site. He stated that there is no loading dock and thus there will be no loud noises from trucks backing up and hitting the loading docks. Mr. Gobel stated that the trucks will avoid peak hours. He stated that Walgreens is understanding of the sensitivity towards delieveries and has no problem with posting signage.

Mr. Pawlina raised the topic of drainage. He stated that the original submission only had catch basins and understood that the Conservation Commission required some changes. He requested that the engineer describe the best practices intended to be used. Mr. Gobel stated that they added an infiltration system, designed to catch and hold roof top run-off for up to two year storms with a emergency overflow drain to the storm water system. He stated that water quality systems have also been added to the plans. Mr. Gobel stated that DEP recognizes this site as a redevelopment site and thus has lower standards. The Conservation Commission required that the site meet the standards of a new site. Mr. Pawlina asked why the driveway flow is not being directed to the infiltration system. Mr. Gobel stated that he believes the contribution of the new pipes and the meeting and exceeding of state and local requirements is a reasonable balance. Mr. Pawlina stated that additional onsite infiltration would be very beneficial. Mr. Pawlina asked about the results of the test borings and asked the type of soils. Mr. Gobel stated that he did not have the results with him but he believes the ground water is located 5 to 6 feet below ground.

Mr. Cassidy stated that the lighting on the site is very important. He stated that he understands the security concerns and the desire for a bright retail area but a 32 foot poles with a shoe-box style fixture on all night is not consistent with the character of the City. He stated that the lights should be period fixtures, which are shorter and closer together and more respectful of the style of Melrose. He added that they should be at a human scale with the light shinning down. He recommended instead of keeping the parking lot bright at night, to keep the actual building bright.

Mr. Cassidy also asked about any plans to install a cross walk in the middle of the block on Main Street. He stated that it will be important to encourage pedestrian traffic from one side of Main Street to the other but that the main intersections with crosswalks are too inconvenient. Ms. DeSouza-Ward noted that a cross walk exists at the intersection with Linden.

Mr. Mercado asked whether a new easement was needed for the new location of the drainage pipes. Mr. Gobel responded “yes” and explained that one has already been established with the Board of Aldermen. Mr. Mercado asked for clarification that only half of the drainage line is being relocated. Mr. Gobel stated that the Petitioner is not modifying the line from the main system to Holbrook Court.

Mr. Sadowski discussed curbing. He stated that the Board general finds that sloped granite is a good compromise, albeit not as good of a wheel stop, between the more economical cement concrete and vertical granite.

Mr. Mercado asked the Petitioner to resubmit the revised drainage plan and the details for the retaining wall. Mr. Mercado reiterated that the developer will not be able to get into Main Street once it is complete and wondered if this project is in coordination with the Main Street project. Mr. Gobel stated that they are cognizant of the timing constraints and are aware that this project will be neck and neck with the Main Street project.

Mr. Sadowski asked about the sidewalk, since the sidewalk will be replaced with the Main Street Reconstruction Project. Mr. Gobel stated that a contribution will be made to the sidewalk fund.

Mr. Sadowski asked about the landscaping in the front of the yard. Mr. Gobel stated that they plan to plant evergreen shrubberies in the middle of the planting area with lilies on either end. Mr. Gobel stated a stamped concrete sidewalk is intended for pedestrian walkway from the sidewalk to the store.

Ms. DeSouza-Ward asked how the developer intends to address the public health issue regarding rodents. Mr. Gobel stated that only pallets and totes are stored in the rear of the lot, no food. The pallets and totes will be picked-up on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.

Ms. Francazio asked why the fence and planting areas were included. Was it to scale down and connect the building to the street? Mr. Gobel stated that that was the intention. Ms. Francazio stated that she agrees it would be attractive but wondered if street trees had been considered. She added that installing street trees at this site may start the momentum for street trees in the area. The Board wondered if street trees would be a part of the Main Street Reconstruction Plan. Ms. Regan stated that she and Mr. Cassidy had looked into this issue previously and believes that street trees were not a part of the project. Ms. Gaffey stated that she would look into the issue.

Ms. Gaffey discussed the issue regarding on-street parking, noting that the proposal involves sufficient parking and removing the on-street parking would improve sight distances and traffic congestion. Mr. Connolly stated that he believed the parking north of the proposed Walgreens site was intended to be removed as part of the Main Street reconstruction plan. Ms. Gaffey stated that removing those parking spaces was taken out of the plans because it was too controversial.

Mr. Sadowski asked if the rendering of the building had changed from what they had seen before. Mr. Chizek stated that the renderings are the same and confirmed that the signage conforms to the City’s ordinance. Mr. Cassidy asked what type of lighting the signs will have. Mr. Chizek stated that the sign will be illuminated with fluorescent lighting from above. Mr. Cassidy stated that fluorescent lighting should be avoided and the Petitioner should consider gooseneck lighting, similar to the ones seem in front of Turner’s as an option.

Mr. Cassidy asked if the material described as limestone is a simulation of limestone. Mr. Chasick stated that the material is limestone but it is not minded rather it is manufactured. Mr. Cassidy asked what color the limestone will be. Mr. Chasick stated that it will be a light buff.

Mr. Connolly made reference to the staff report, which was the result of a meeting of Department Heads. Mr. Connolly listed the Department Heads present at the meeting. Mr. Connolly noted that most of the comments have been discussed tonight but wondered if any information was gathered about the informal easement mentioned in the report. Mr. McAvoy stated that they cannot find any evidence that an easement was ever officially established. He stated that the engineering consultants attempted to contact the owner of the land who currently accesses his property via the proposed Walgreens site and stated that said owner was unwilling to talk to the engineer. Mr. Connolly asked about the fire chief’s concern regarding access to the northeastern corner of the lot. Mr. McAvoy stated that if a delivery truck is parked in the unloading area, the area left for a fire truck to get by would be tight. Mr. Gobel added that the building will be fully sprinklered.

The Planning Board discussed whether to continue the Public Hearing. Ms. DeSouza-Ward made a MOTION to continue the Public Hearing to May 22^nd. Mr. Mercado SECONDED the motion. All in favor. None opposed.

The Planning Board decided to continue the discussion regarding the variance sought regarding the width of the driveway to the next Planning Board meeting. Ms. DeSouza-Ward made a MOTION to consider Board of Appeals Case 06-09 at the next Planning Board meeting scheduled for May 22, 2006. Ms. Marcus SECONDED the motion. All in favor. None opposed.

Ms. Marcus made a MOTION to adjourn. Ms. DeSouza-Ward SECONDED the motion. All in favor. None opposed.

Meeting adjourned at 10:15pm.