Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-11-17 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes,. I ; Comm. Planning & Dev. Comm. Meeting November 17, 1986 Page 1 A meeting of the Community Planning and Development Commission convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7:30 P.M. Present were Chairman Howard, Secretary Goodemote, Board Members Ensminger, Griset and Jenks and Asst. Superintendent for Engineering - William A. Redford. It was moved, seconded and voted S:0 to accept the minutes of October 20, 1986 as amended. The next item of discussion was the input received by Commission members from the informal breakfast meeting held at the Reading Public Library with the Reading business community. Mr. Griset asked what was the turnout? Chairman Howard replied approximately 36 business people. a Ms. Jenks stated I met mostly people from the "strip ". I received many comments about the lack of organization of the business community and the need to find a forum for creating solutions to their own problems vs. meeting when there is something to react to. Apparently, the business association tends to meet when there is a crisis. She added that certain business people are anxious to work with US. Mr. Goodemote stated the people he talked to were from the strip also. After some discussions, he thought they realized that we were looking to the future. One discussion he had was with someone representing property in the Central Business District area, regarding parking. We talked about the lack of space for parking and the concept of structured parking. He added that he suspects a lot of people have that same concern in the downtown area. I Chairman Howard stated he spoke to three separate people whose major concern was parking as well. The person on the "strip" he talked to Comm. Planning & Dev. Comm. Meeting November 17, 1986 Page 2 ' had a problem with speeding. This person said they didn't expect it to be the taken care of by the Town, and realized the State was responsible for speed limits on Main Street. Mr. Ensminger stated he spoke to one business owner and one well -known developer who both had similar comments regarding the Site Plan Review process. Mr. Goodemote stated he received comments that this was a good way to exchange information. Ms. Jenks suggested they schedule another forum in January. Mr. Griset stated we should first think about holding one for a broader base than just the business community. We should attempt to attract members of the public at large. Ms. Jenks stated we should probably try a variety of forums. ' Mr. Goodemote stated he was struck by the apparent lack of concern about aesthetics. The people he talked to were very much interested in the rules and regulations regarding traffic and parking. Ms. Jenks stated she got a different sense from two people she spoke with. She asked them which Town would you want our Town to most look like and the answer was Lexington. The Commission next discussed the "Town Planner" position. Chairman Howard read a letter proposed to be sent to Amy S. Anthony of the Executive Office of Communities and Development and it was the concensus of the Board that it be sent as modified (copy attached). The Commission next discussed the screening and final interview process for the proposed planner. Chairman Howard felt the Commission Mr. Ensminger agreed that there is a real problem with open session interviews. should confine the interviews by the Commission to the final five candidates. Mr. Ensminger agreed that there is a real problem with open session interviews. Comm. Planning & Dev. Comm. Meeting November 17, 1986 Page 3 [ {` Mr. Goodemote stated perhaps representation from DPW and others would be appropriate. Mr. Redford pointed out that under the new Charter, the Town Manager will make the final appointment. Mr. Griset stated he would like to see the CPDC make the final recommendation. A Ms. Jenks stated this person will be working directly for us, but she would not want our input to be diluted by other Departments. Perhaps we should ask for assistance from a planner of another Town. The other thing she felt strongly about is how best to interview for both written and oral communication. Chairman Howard stated we could designate two of our Commission members to offer assistance to the Town Manager in screening of the applications. Ms. Jenks stated I think it makes sense to do some marketing and see if we can put together something about the Town. Chairman Howard stated at some point in time we should talk about evaluation criteria. Mr. Redford stated you may want to do that in conjunction with a local planner or MMR representative. Mr. Griset stated there is no question in his mind that if Town Meeting does not see a return for its investment, this planner will go the same way as the old planner did. Chairman Howard stated perhaps every six months a performance j appraisal should be done with input from this Commission. [' It was the concensus of the Commission that Messrs. Ensminger and Goodemote, with the assistance of Mr. Redford, will draft an outline of a � expected performance for formal presentation to the Town Manager. Comm. Planning & Dev. Comm. Meeting November 17, 1956 Page 4 Mr. Ensminger next updated the Commission with a progress report on the landfill and Homart Development. Co. Mr. Ensminger stated we met with the Selectmen last Wednesday night. Some of the issues discussed included the widening of John Street, i the issue of a bus stop and a shelter, future extension on to adjacent � lands, pedestrian and vehicular movement, location of the access points on i John Street which needs to be coordinated with TRSC and DPW roads, aesthetics of the roadway, location of shade trees and issues relating to traffic flow, as well as land use and cafeteria facilities. Chairman Howard added that the Town Manager thought the TRSC development has set the theme for future development and it might be well to try and build on that. He added that the Board of Selectmen would: 1. Set a date for another meeting. 2. Submit policy statements on transportation and land use; and 3. Set a date for a joint public meeting with the Wakefield Board of Selectmen for discussion of mutual problems. Ms. Jenks asked what is the developer interested in doing for the Town of i Reading? Is that also part of your discussion, i.e., contributions of space or land? Mr. Ensminger replied this is certainly an issue we can raise. Mr. Goodemote stated I suggest as a minimum condition there i should be money available to us to hire expertise for the reviews on traffic, cost impacts, wetlands on -site, air pollution reviews, etc.. He added there is a no requirement by the State that the applicant fund any of this review. Ms. Jenks stated perhaps we should allow a forum for the public to let them know we are interested in what they have for input on these issues and that in fart there is a forum for discussion. Comm. Planning & Dev. Comm. Meeting November 17, 1786 Page 5 to be dealt with. Mr. Goodemote stated it would seem to me to be in their best interests to have the Site Plan Review before the closing. charges. The Commission next discussed the review of existing fees and Chairman Howard stated we did make a commitment to the Finance Committee that we would review our fees and charges structure on an enterprise basis. Mr. Redford reported that he went through all of our rules and regulations and basically we have three general areas where we can generate income: 1 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW - You have the authority to set a filing fee. You can charge what you felt was a reasonable fee for review. Currently, the Town is not charging for this. After public notice, you could adopt those regulations without Town Meeting approval. 2. SUBDIVISION CONTROL - We do have a filing fee and we also have security for submission of an as- built. These are fees you can adopt and change as long as it goes through the public notification process. These are: a. $65.00 filing fee per lot; b. $2.00 per foot of proposed road with a minimum of $300.00. The other area he is concerned with is inspection fees, that can be a very high dollar amount. An inspection lasts two years in most cases. Also, the filing fee is probably a lot smaller than can be justified. 3. ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT REVIEW AND FILINGS - currently, the Town picks up the full cost of public hearings and public notification. Mr. Ensminger stated once the Purchase and Sale Agreement is signed, there will be a period of time in which rezoning issues will have to be dealt with. Mr. Goodemote stated it would seem to me to be in their best interests to have the Site Plan Review before the closing. charges. The Commission next discussed the review of existing fees and Chairman Howard stated we did make a commitment to the Finance Committee that we would review our fees and charges structure on an enterprise basis. Mr. Redford reported that he went through all of our rules and regulations and basically we have three general areas where we can generate income: 1 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW - You have the authority to set a filing fee. You can charge what you felt was a reasonable fee for review. Currently, the Town is not charging for this. After public notice, you could adopt those regulations without Town Meeting approval. 2. SUBDIVISION CONTROL - We do have a filing fee and we also have security for submission of an as- built. These are fees you can adopt and change as long as it goes through the public notification process. These are: a. $65.00 filing fee per lot; b. $2.00 per foot of proposed road with a minimum of $300.00. The other area he is concerned with is inspection fees, that can be a very high dollar amount. An inspection lasts two years in most cases. Also, the filing fee is probably a lot smaller than can be justified. 3. ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT REVIEW AND FILINGS - currently, the Town picks up the full cost of public hearings and public notification. I' Comm. Planning & Dev. Comm. Meeting November 17, 1986 Page 6 Mr. Redford replied the reason I did not do that is that I don't know what you want to recoup. My reaction is that the problem is the reviewing staff is not on your Commission's payroll. Chairman Howard stated if this Commission has the power to increase fees then that fee should cover all of that inspection. Mr. Goodemote stated the biggest revenues generated would be from Subdivision Control, in terms of hours expended for inspection time. Also, a Planner would have little or no involvement with Subdivision Control. Ms. Jenks stated the process of the application and review is a function of the money coming in. Whose time goes i.nto those processes is an internal issue. Chairman Howard asked do you track your time at all? Mr. Redford replied to some extent, but it is not really on a fee type basis. Mr. Griset stated we are trying to find a way to throw some money back into the Town for things that have been free of charge for years, and felt that we should charge for what we can legitimately get away with. Chairman Howard asked can you calculate how much revenue is presently being generated? Mr. Redford replied yes, we have to submit that information every year to Finance Committee. Chairman Howard asked can we set a date to talk about this again? Mr. Goodemote suggested on subdivisions that the Department take a look at typical submissions and how much time you have spent on initial i review, review of the definiti.ve filing, and outside work on inspection $ time, and divide this by the number of lots, and get an across - the -board Ms. Jenks asked do we have a number of proposals we could do some financial projections on? Mr. Redford replied the reason I did not do that is that I don't know what you want to recoup. My reaction is that the problem is the reviewing staff is not on your Commission's payroll. Chairman Howard stated if this Commission has the power to increase fees then that fee should cover all of that inspection. Mr. Goodemote stated the biggest revenues generated would be from Subdivision Control, in terms of hours expended for inspection time. Also, a Planner would have little or no involvement with Subdivision Control. Ms. Jenks stated the process of the application and review is a function of the money coming in. Whose time goes i.nto those processes is an internal issue. Chairman Howard asked do you track your time at all? Mr. Redford replied to some extent, but it is not really on a fee type basis. Mr. Griset stated we are trying to find a way to throw some money back into the Town for things that have been free of charge for years, and felt that we should charge for what we can legitimately get away with. Chairman Howard asked can you calculate how much revenue is presently being generated? Mr. Redford replied yes, we have to submit that information every year to Finance Committee. Chairman Howard asked can we set a date to talk about this again? Mr. Goodemote suggested on subdivisions that the Department take a look at typical submissions and how much time you have spent on initial i review, review of the definiti.ve filing, and outside work on inspection $ time, and divide this by the number of lots, and get an across - the -board 1. Comm. Planning & Dev. Comm. Meeting November 17, 1986 Page 7 number of hours for engineering and survey and see if that is reasonable. Mr. Redford reported that the Citizen Questionnaire regarding future development in Reading would be sent out tomorrow, November 18th. The Commission next discussed the liaison with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Howard stated the importance of our linkage with the Board of Appeals and the Planner is vital. He suggested that each of us go to one meeting to get the flavor and at some time down the road we could discuss how important it might be for us to appoint a permanent liaison. Mr. Griset stated he does not feel that the planner is dedicated to splitting his time 50/50 between CPDC and the Appeals Board. It is his understanding that the Planner will work directly with us and will provide support where requested to other Boards and Committees within the Town. Mr. Goodemote added the current make up of the Board of Appeals may not want the Planner to get involved, what they need is more legal help. Mr. Redford stated part of the problem is that they don't have daytime staff. They ask for assistance on an as- needed basis and they ask for Town Counsel advice with the same methodology. It was the consensus of the Commission to get back to this issue in the future. The Commission next discussed the on -going discussions with the Building Inspector. Mr. Redford reported there has been a filing on the Laschi property. Regarding the Sarman's Building, he has contacted the Electrical Inspector to see if we can determine that they have gone over the $30,000 figure. Regarding the Ace Art Building, it is well above the $30,000 figure and curently there is only one lessee in that location. ~ Comm. Planning & Dev. Comm. Meeting November 17, 1986 Page B impact would be substantial. Mr. Redford stated certainly any change in appearance should be a trigger for site plan review. It was the consensus of the Commission to invite Mr. Rivers to a meeting on December 15 to discuss the Ace Art Building and the Barman's building. After further discussion of various types of construction in town, it was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. Z Re tf ally ubmitt ed, Sec ret Regarding the Central Business District and the proposed use of the Sarman's Building as an ice cream shop, Ms. Jenks felt the traffic impact would be substantial. Mr. Redford stated certainly any change in appearance should be a trigger for site plan review. It was the consensus of the Commission to invite Mr. Rivers to a meeting on December 15 to discuss the Ace Art Building and the Barman's building. After further discussion of various types of construction in town, it was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. Z Re tf ally ubmitt ed, Sec ret