Other Lynnfield stories
Selectmen want pond rules and regulations, management plan
-Results of citizen survey reported
Cinderella story: golf course at Colonial reopening soon

Drainage consultant sees no major issues at Meadow Walk

by Robert Curtin

LYNNFIELD – With two weeks to go before the deadline, the Planning Board is working with National Development and the team of consultants hired at the developer’s expense to finish up the conditions of the special permit for the Meadow Walk project at the Colonial site.

Last week, the board heard from William Jones, peer reviewer on stormwater management and wetlands issues to both Lynnfield and Wakefield, on the stormwater management plan for the site.

Jones, who has been working actively with the conservation commissions in both towns, told Planning Board members that his review of the proposed stormwater management plan turned up no major issues.

“Substantially, it’s there,” he said of the developer’s plans.

Jones said his review turned up “a number of administrative items,” some areas for which he is seeking additional information and clarification, and some embellishments that will bring up the operating handbook to changing state standards.

National Development Vice President Edward Marsteiner noted that his company missed by days being grandfathered under the old standards, filing its application after January 2.

Jones is reviewing the several Notice of Intent filings for the project, including those for on-site work in Wakefield and off-site roadway work in Wakefield, two for the same purposes in Lynnfield, and the work for the Lynnfield Initiatives for Elders, Inc. (LIFE) senior housing development in Lynnfield.

Jones said the proposal meets the Lynnfield bylaw where it does not conflict with state standards. He noted that while Lynnfield requires the use of porous pavement “where practical,” state guidelines prohibit its use in high-use areas, such as commercial parking areas.

Jones said the stormwater management designed meets the state requirement that it does not increase peak runoff, as well as the local bylaw’s requirement that it does not increase the volume of runoff.

Jones said that the stormwater system design attempts to mirror existing conditions, and runoff is conveyed to ground infiltration units. The runoff is treated and filtered before it is discharged.

Wetlands and stormwater mitigation plans go “over and above” requirements, he said.

The proposed bridge construction spanning the Saugus River now calls for a concrete span instead of corrugated metal. The plan meets Army Corps of Engineers standards.

“We think we’re down to some minor details,” said Jones.

Planning Board member Alan Dresios asked what low-impact techniques the developer had employed in the stormwater system design.

Jones pointed to bio-retention swales in parking lots as an example. He noted they were not put near roadways due to safety issues, pointing out that the Lynnfield bylaw calls for standard curbing if there are safety concerns.

Jones also noted the use of porous pavement in the residential areas.

Marsteiner noted that the developer has met four or five times with the conservation commissions of both towns, and conducted “a couple of site walks” with each.

“It’s been a thorough four months of review,” he said.

Marsteiner said he expected the Conservation Commission process to be completed “about the same time as the Planning Board” site plan review.

Jones said that he expects to have draft order of conditions for each conservation commission in time for their next meetings; in Lynnfield, that would be May 3.

Planning Board Chairman Richard O’Neil asked Jones how the process of serving as peer reviewer for both communities worked out.

Jones said that it was helpful, although some work had to be duplicated because the conservation commission in each town had its own format for drafting an order of conditions.

Marsteiner said working with a single peer reviewer was “critically important,” as the developer was not trying to meet contradictory recommendations.

O’Neil said that he will ask Conservation Administrator Betty Adelson and Conservation Commission Chair Denise Young to provide the board with an executive summary of their findings.

Signage

The developer’s signage consultant has recommended significant changes to the design standards for signage, but the Planning Board has not raised major substantive objections to this proposal.

The entry sign proposal for the entryway off Walnut Street calls for two signs instead of one; a change to the standards or waiver will be required if this is to be allowed.

The developer is also proposing a change in the height restriction to allow for the Meadow Walk logo to extend above the height restriction.

The gateway sign design was also altered to include a smaller sign on the same entry wall that alerts visitors to the presence of the Sheraton Colonial and the Boston Sports Club at the site, as Planning Board member Donald Harriss had suggested. That second sign may be included on only the gateway sign facing traffic coming off the Route 128 ramp.

Board members seemed to have no objection to the planned two entryway signs. Angus Jennings of Concord Square Planning and Development, the town’s consultant on “smart growth” zoning issues, noted that the design standards allow for a double-faced sign, which contemplated an “island” sign rather than the banked wall design that is proposed.

“I don’t have a problem with it,” said Planning Board member Thomas Hill.

Andrew Barresi, signage consultant for National Development, submitted proposed revisions to the design standards related to signage.

Among the proposed changes is allowing signs with internal illumination for only signs with cut-out lettering. Other proposals include allowing several supplemental signs for buildings, such as canopy signs, a “shop-within-a-shop” sign for stores such as a bookstore containing a coffee bar; projecting signs and banners, and tag lines to the major storefront sign.

A new section has been added on signs for office buildings. That section was overlooked, according to the developer. The proposed section allows for office building address and identification signs, and office tenant sign for single-tenant buildings.

The section on internal identification signs has been retitled “wayfinding signs.” The revisions would allow a height of ten feet instead of eight feet above grade. An error allowing wayfaring signs to be 200 square feet was found, and changed to 50 square feet.

The section also would, as revised, allow for pedestrian directories, street name signs, and “portal banners,” which would be color-coded banners over pedestrian passageways intended to help identify sections of the development.

The proposed revisions would allow neon signs if the neon was not exposed, and used for internal illumination only.

A new section was developed regarding exterior building lighting and sign, canopy, gateway and wayfinding sign lighting. This new section addresses concerns raised by Planning Board members that the lighting plan review did not address storefront or signage lighting.

The section exempts lighting in fountains and other water features, exit signs and others required by building codes, holiday and temporary lighting, and low-voltage landscaping lighting.

Dresios said that revisions to the bylaw included an expansion of the number as well as type of allowed signs. “We’ve gone from singular to plural,” he said.

“This ‘one or more’ language is pretty open-ended,” agreed Jennings.

Marsteiner noted that the signs would still have to meet a total square footage limitation. He also said that the developer and the town wanted to encourage as many of the stores as possible to be “back to front,” with entrances on the street and on the parking lot side. These stores will need signage at both entrances, he said.

Harriss said he believes that the developer will exert more control over signage than the bylaw could.

Marsteiner said National Development has the right to reject any sign proposed by tenants. He said the proposed revisions to the signage bylaw are meant to allow his company the ability to “bring in the best tenants that the town wants…We regulate it more strictly than anything in any zoning document.”

Dresios once again said he found the proposed design of a wayfaring sign in the retail district to be too reminiscent of an industrial park style. But other board members said the objection was too subjective. Harriss joked that he did not want the Planning Board to become the Lynnfield Taste Committee.

In further discussion of the types of store signs to be allowed, Planning Board members were generally positive.

“This is what you find in [upscale] retail centers,” said Richard Dalton.

O’Neil said the allowed signs, which include signs with illuminated letters but not an illuminated “box-style” sign, are “far more tasteful than what you see traditionally in Lynnfield” commercial areas. “It’s a change for the positive,” he said.

Dresios said that he was concerned about the open-ended approach to holiday signage.

“I don’t want Christmas displays before the day after Thanksgiving,” he said.

But retailers traditionally start trumpeting the Christmas season much sooner.

“It’s a big season,” said Marsteiner.

Jennings said the same concern was raised when he was in Cohasset. “Then the building inspector said I’m not going to enforce” limitations on temporary signs, said Jennings.

O’Neil urged board members to “think about practicality and enforceability” regarding temporary signage regulations.

Dresios said he was uncomfortable placing no limitations on temporary signage.

Lighting

Lighting issues seem to be nearing consensus. Marsteiner indicated that his lighting consultant, James Stockman, “fully addressed” six issues raised by the town’s lighting peer review consultant, Larry Bartlett.

In response to issue raised in the peer review, the developer has coordinated the lighting a tree-planting plans to ensure no tree is within 12 feet of a light pole. A light timing protocol is under design. The step-down illumination lighting plan for after-hours periods was checked and meets the uniformity criteria in the design standards.

In addition, extended house shields will be used on light poles along the perimeter road, and along Walnut Street from the roundabout at the entryway to the LIFE entrance. In other areas, Marsteiner said, the additional lighting provided without the extended shields is sought for safety reasons. He said none of these encroach on wetlands areas, where lighting is limited due to concerns about habitats.

The only area of complete non-conformity with the lighting design standards is the use of light poles rather than reflectors along the loop road. Marsteiner said the developer’s consultant and the peer reviewer agreed that the light poles could be preferable due to safety concerns.

Other issues

Marsteiner had brought to the meeting a representation of the landscaping plans near the entryway on Walnut Street on the Route 128 ramps side. O’Neil asked him to hold off on presenting it until Alexandra Road resident Joe DeMaina, who has been in attendance at many meetings but could not attend this session, is present. DeMaina had raised concerns bout the issue previously.

Marsteiner also unveiled a new look for the “corner building” near the Whole Foods store. Planning Board members had questioned the look of that building previously, and had been told that the building was being redesigned in light of the changes to the Whole Foods building.