Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-26 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creiIlyaci.read ing.ma.us Community Planning and CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: September 26, 2005 °a L 'D CLERK Mi\SS. Development Commission Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Reading Town Hall Members Present: John Sasso, Chair (JS), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Neil Sullivan (NS), and Susan DeMatteo (SD). Members Absent: Richard Howard. Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth Ms. Virginia Adams, Madam Chair of the Historical Commission Mr. Tony DeCastro, Architect Mr. Joe Delaney, Town Engineer Attorney Mark Favaloro, Favaloro & Associates, 348 Park Place, - North Reading, MA 01864 Ms. Sally Hoyt; 221 West Street Mr. George Katsoufis, 9 Berkeley Avenue, Reading, MA Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. James Mawn, Northern Bank & Trust Co., 215 Lexington Street, Woburn, MA 01801 Ms. Jessica Pratt, 245 Woburn Street, Reading, MA Ms. Barbara Rawding, 11 Prospect Street, Reading, MA Mr. David Rawding, 11 Prospect Street, Reading, MA Ms. Mary Rinaldi, 151 Woburn Street, Reading, MA Mr. Edward W. Shaw, Vice President, Dickinson Development Corp., 1266 Furnace Brook Parkway, Quincy, MA 02169 Selectman Ben Tafoya Mr. James Velleco, Architect There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30PM. Public Comment Before the Board addressed its first agenda item, Ms. Sally Hoyt asked to speak briefly on the matter of the Archstone development in particular and 40B's in general. JS agreed. She had a prepared statement and JS read it into the minutes (see attached). Page 1 of 12 Public Hearing (continued): Dwight Road Definitive Subdivision Request for continuation. (Action date: October 17, 2005) The Board had received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance and an extension. Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant. Mr. Latham said that the developer is asking for an extension to November. JS moved to continue the Public Hearing on the Dwight Road Definitive Division until the November 1, 2005 meeting and to grant an extension of the Action Date to November 30, 2005. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Public Hearing: 2005 Subsequent Town Meeting Zoning Amendments Downtown Business B Mixed Use Overlay District The Board reviewed the current draft of the Mixed-Use Bylaw. Various grammatical changes were suggested and made. The Board asked the Town Planner if the Town Counsel's questions had been answered? CR said they had. The Board then asked the Town Planner if more background information should be added to the sections the Town Counsel had questioned? CR said he thought it would not be necessary. Mr. George Katsoufis asked if the Dimensional Requirements section might need a paragraph on corner lots? His concern was, as there is no minimum side-yard setback, the geometry of the front yards of the entire street adjacent to the corner lot's side yard might be affected. The Board considered adding more specific language to the section until CR pointed out that there was already language in the bylaws that handled such a case. "5.2.3 Yards" mentions averaging the front-yard setbacks on a street. The consensus of the Board was that they could depend on the language already in the bylaws to handle most cases and anything out of the ordinary could be dealt with through the Mixed Use Bylaw's special permitting authority. JB asked if the wording on curb-cuts limits them to no more than one curb-cut per site? The Town Engineer said that we shouldn't be encouraging the construction of a lot of curb-cuts. He also pointed out that requiring even one curb cut might not be wise. He gave M.F. Charles as an example of a site that has access to parking but no curb cut and no curb cut is necessary. The Board decided to amend the curb-cut language of the bylaw to say that one curb-cut to a public way may be required. Coning lvlap Amendment to Expand Business B District and to adopt Mixed Use This concerns the expansion of the Business B District to include properties between Sanborn Street and Linden Street. The rationale behind the expansion is that half the block is already Business-B and of the half that is not most have business uses (medical). The Page 2of12 possibility of making a parking lot out of the fire-damaged property at 16 Sanborn Street was also mentioned. This expansion would be presented at the upcoming Town Meeting. A letter discussing the possible zoning change had been sent to the residents of the area in question. CR said he has not received any complaints. Ms. Mary Rinaldi, owner of the burned-out building at 16 Sanborn Street, said that she had received the letter about a possible land-use change and its arrival was a shock. She said the Building Inspector told her that she does not have to tear down the building. She asked the Board what she would have to do to rebuild. It was the Board's understanding that she could rebuild but as it was a nonconforming structure she would have to apply to the ZBA for a pen-nit. The Board noted that the structure is non-conforining even without the zone expansion plans. More on the Mixed-Use Overlay District Mr. George Katsoufis thought it better to leave "2005" out of the title of the Master Plan. He also suggested capping the F.A.R (Floor Area Ratio) of Mixed-Use buildings at 1.0. Mr. James Mawn, referring to 4.6.2 of the draft bylaw, asked the Board members to consider expanding their "discretion" in varying the requirements (e.g. dimensional, parking) as appropriate. He understood that one could apply to the ZBA for relief if necessary but, noting that variances can be complicated, he wondered if keeping the process as much under the CPDC's control as possible might not be beneficial for all concerned. Mr. Mawn also drew the Board's attention to section 4.6. 10 (Existing Structures) saying that it was more restrictive than it should be. In particular, he suggested the word "changed" in 4.6.10.2 (referring to a building's footprint) should be removed and replaced with "not enlarged". His point was that his company had plans to change but not to enlarge the footprint of the M.F. Charles building to gain parking spaces. Under the current wording, this could be problematic. Selectman Ben Tafoya thought the current maximum size of the residential units was too restrictive. He suggested increasing them from 1000 square feet to 1200 square feet. He noted that other members of the Board of Selectmen felt the same. Ms. Virginia Adams asked the Board to please bear in mind that the ramifications of this bylaw could be enormous. She noted that the M. F. Charles building is listed on the National Register of Historical Places and any developmental changes must be sensitive to its historical significance. Regarding dropping "2005" from the title of the Master Plan, the consensus of the Board was to leave it in for historical reasons. Regarding capping the F.A.R. at 1.0, the consensus of the Board was-to add --a linestating the same to the bylaw. JB wanted it noted that not capping the F.A.R would not preclude _ the Board from denying an application. Page 3of12 Regarding Mr. Mawn's comments it was the opinion of the Board that although they felt uncomfortable expanding their authority as much as Mr. Mawn suggested they did feel that - his point about the language of 4.6. 10 was well taken. It was the consensus of the Board to change the language of 4.6. 10 to allow for cases where footprints may be changed but not enlarged. It was also the consensus of the Board to give themselves the authority to review the F.A.R and Lot Coverage requirements of existing buildings. Regarding Selectman Tafoya's suggestion to increase the maximum size of residential units to 1200 square feet, it was the consensus of the Board to leave the maximum size at 1000 square feet. The Board was uncomfortable increasing the size because Richard Howard, the board member who both proposed the 1000 square foot maximum and provided its rationale, was not in attendance. The Board also thought it best to move forward with what they had to get the bylaw on the books and leave any tweaking to future amendments. Aquifer Protection District Amendment This amendment would allow the underground storage of liquid-propane tanks. The Selectmen would sponsor it at Town Meeting. CR said the Town Counsel has approved the amendment's language. JB, although not against the amendment, was uncomfortable being asked to recommend an amendment the Board had not discussed JS asked for comments from the public. There being none, JB moved to close the Public Hearing. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. JB moved to recommend the Downtown Business-B Mixed Use Overlay district as amended. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. JB moved to recommend the Zoning Map amendment to expand the Business-B district. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. JB moved to recommend the Aquifer Protection District amendment. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Administrative Review Master Plan Presentation This item was dropped from the agenda Lot Release Request: Back Bay Court The applicant was looking for the release of lots #4 and #S of Back Bay Court. Page 4 of 12 The Town Engineer and Town Planner together had inspected the site the previous week. The only remaining work is the installation of a storm water leeching system between lots #4 and #5. Because that work has not yet been completed, the Town Engineer is recommending that only lot #4 be released now and the other only after the leeching system is installed. JB moved to approve the release of lot #4 on Back Bay Court per the recommendation of the Town Engineer. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Request for Determination of Minor Modification - Walkers Brook Crossing, Phase 1 This is a request to amend the original special permit to allow the construction of a driveway between 128 Ford and the Home Depot's parking lot. Mr. Ed Shaw spoke for Walkers Brook Crossing. The Town Engineer said that this agreement is from the result of the settlement of a lawsuit between 128 Ford and Dickinson Development. 128 Ford would like access through the Home Depot's parking to give their employees safer access to Walkers Brook Drive. They'll be able to use the traffic light at the entrance to Walkers Brook rather than having to cross over lanes of traffic without a traffic light. The Town Engineer added that this driveway will be part of 128 Ford's site plan review so the Board will see it again. CR said that the DRT thought that the accompanying stairway should be moved forward to the frontage on Walkers Brook Crossing. The DRT also thought that the driveway should be gated at the Home Depot end because 128 Ford gates their end and we don't want shoppers taking a wrong turn and getting lost. CR added that none of these suggestions had been presented to Walkers Brook yet. Mr. Ed Shaw said the plans are 128 Ford's but Walkers Brook was fine with the staircase as long as it does not interfere with access to Chili's parking lot. Regarding the access gate, his only concern was who would control it? The Town Engineer asked if these could be conditioned on 128 Ford's future site plan review? CR said it could. The Board was uncomfortable approving modifications for Walkers Brook that also would affect 128 Ford. It was the consensus of the Board to continue this request for a minor modification until the next meeting of the CPDC on October 17, 2005. The Board asked CR to present the changes suggested tonight, including the DRT's suggestions, to 128 Ford for their consideration before the next meeting. Continued to October 17, 2005. No motion necessary. Page 5 of 12 Public Hearing (continued): Site Plan Review Unitarian Universalist Church, 239 Woburn Street Addition and renovation to allow for meeting space. (Action date: September 26, 2005) JS opened the public hearing and explained how it would proceed. He noted that the applicant has submitted modified plans and that a draft decision has been written and posted to the Planning Board's website and provided to the applicant. Attorney Mark Favaloro spoke for the applicant. Mr. Favaloro said that since the last meeting (9/12/05) the following revisions have been made: • The dumpster has been eliminated and replaced by a utility shed attached to the church. • The parking spaces in the rear of the church have been cut from seven to three. • The horseshoe driveway on the Summer Ave. side of the property has been preserved and two parking spaces added to the area in front of Loring House. Mr. Favaloro said these changes are the best his client can do. He said the Church has been open to the concerns and suggestions both of their neighbors and of the Board and he asked the Board to approve his client's application tonight. JS reminded all present that the overriding issue of this review has been parking spaces. The Board had asked the applicant to reduce the number of parking spaces and the applicant had done so, but then the Board questioned whether they had the authority to ask for less spaces than the zoning regulations require. CR had said that the Board had the authority because the site has a religious use and that gives the Board the authority to apply reasonable regulations and it is at the Board's discretion to determine what is reasonable. The Board was not so sure and therefore had previously asked the Town Planner to put the case to the Town Counsel. CR replied. He said he had put the case to the Town Counsel. In her opinion, as the use of the site is not specifically mentioned in Reading's bylaws, the Board does have the authority to impose reasonable parking regulations but Reading's zoning bylaws don't necessarily require the Board to do so. CR continued: if the use was specifically mentioned then the applicant would have had to apply for relief from the ZBA The Board asked if the Town Counsel had an opinion on the use of the site as a Day Care? CR said Town Counsel said the Day Care was a separate use and no specific parking regulation covers it. The Town Engineer noted a similar case in Haverhill where a Day Care was determined to be a school and schools are exempt from zoning regulations. CR emphasized that the use is exempt but you can put reasonable conditions on it. The Board discussed the proposed lighting. Their particular concern was that the lights not be too bright and not shine into the second-floor windows of abutters. Mr. Favaloro said that they have submitted a Lighting Plan. The architect, Mi. DeCastro said the lighting will be indirect. Sconces in the back of the building will shine down not up. The wattage of the bulbs is 250 cut down from 400. SD thought this was still too bright. JS asked if this could be conditioned? CR said the Town Manager feels the Board should deal with lighting at the Page 6of12 time of approval. The Town Manager recommends that light poles should be no higher than the poles downtown: That's 14 feet. Mr. Favaloro said 14 feet would be fine. JS pointed out that the lighting plan lacks the specifications and details they usually contain and mention should be made of this fact in the decision. JS asked if the public had any comments. Ms. Virginia Adams, Madame Chair of the Historical Commission. Ms Adams was pleased the church had asked for the Historical Commission's opinion on their proposed changes. Ms. Adams said the Commission is pleased overall with the amount of green space left intact and asked if "turf pavers" might be used so that.grass could grow up through the drainage holes. Ms. Barbara Rawding of 11 Prospect Street asked why the church is going to all the trouble of moving three parking spaces to the rear of the church when they are already in place in front of the church? Mr. Favaloro said the plan has changed to allow more green space out front so the spaces had to be put around back. Mr. DeCastro said to keep the green space and the parking spaces where Ms. Rawding suggested was "not possible" because the curb-cut is in the wrong place. The driveway had to be moved to accommodate the expansion of the building. Ms. Jessica Pratt of 245 Woburn Street, Ms. Barbara Rawding and Mr. David Rawding of 11 Prospect Street, all were skeptical of the architect's description of such a change as "impossible". Ms. Pratt proposed placing the three parking spaces straight back - following the line of the building's side wall against the rear property line. This would leave the rear of the church unpaved since you no longer would have to turn the corner to park. The Rawdings thought this was a very good idea. Mr. DeCastro gave various reasons why this was impractical. He claimed it would it require a large curb-cut. He also said that for safety reasons the Fire Department would require the pavement continue around the rear corner of the building. Mr. Rawding asked if this was a legal requirement of the Fire Department.: The Town Planner did not know. The Town Engineer said the Fire Chief does prefer to have his trucks on pavement. JS told the Rawdings and Ms. Pratt that their proposal may not save as much pavement as they think since a turnaround would probably still be needed. Ms. Pratt asked what would stop the church from putting more than three cars behind the church using the grass as a parking lot? Mr. Favaloro said it was possible the grassy area could occasionally be used for parking if there was a special event or a parking overflow situation at the church. Mr. Rawding said he was not sure he was getting the furthest cooperation from the church. property. Page 7 of 12 JS said that over the past three meetings the Board, with the help of the applicant and the applicant's neighbors, has tried to balance the right of the applicant to develop the church - property against the impact of the development on the neighbors. There has been significant effort on both sides to make concessions and to come to a resolution and significant changes have been made to the plan. He thanked all parties for their help. He said the Board now has a very clear understanding of the issues and unless there are any other specific comments it is time to move forward with the decision. JB moved to close the Public Hearing. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The Board reviewed the Draft Decision. Various amendments were made: • Wheel-stops and the space between the stops and the building should be impervious. • Vertical granite curbing. • Language for the placement of a dumpster added in case a dumpster appears later. • The two parking spaces next to Loring House should be constructed with turf pavers. • A final lighting plan must be submitted indicating all details and specifications and showing that lights will be shielded with cut-offs to reduce glare. Also, the light pole must be no more than 14 feet in height. JB moved to approve the Site Plan Review of the Unitarian Universalist Church as amended. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Request for Consideration of Minor Modification - Johnson Woods. This item did not make it into the Board members' packets. Brad Latham asked for time to discuss a possible change in the configuration of two groups of larger buildings at Johnson Woods. JS agreed to let him speak to the Board. Mr. James Velleco, project architect, said that currently there is a triplex (three connected units) and a quad (four connected units) they would like to change into two duplexes and a triplex. The total unit count would remain the same (seven). Also, there is a three-story building of affordable flats with two connecting buildings that they have decided is too long for the location. They would like to break it up by dropping two units from the flat and putting them elsewhere as a town house. Again, the total unit count would be the same but this change would add another affordable town house, add more end units (they're better sellers), and save trees. Mr. Velleco asked the Board if they would approve this change "conceptually". The Town Engineer said the drainage and grading involved did not appear to be a minor change to him. JB liked the suggested modifications but also thought they were not minor. Page 8of12 The Town Planner was concerned that some street parking would be lost. The architect said that the same number of parking spaces is there but four spaces have been moved to the back of the buildings. Brad Latham emphasized that they were not looking for a vote but for the Board's opinion on this suggested change. They were not trying to lock the Board into anything. If the Board likes the. idea, then they would put the work into a crunching the numbers and come back with a proper request. The Town Planner cautioned the Board that they must be careful what they say. He believed the applicant was acting with the best of intentions but how the Board replies might be construed as approving a minor modification. He thought the Town Counsel should be consulted. It was the consensus of the Board that they were favorably disposed toward the modifications but they would not comment on whether the modifications were minor or not. Request for the release of four units Johnson Woods. Brad Latham asked the Board if they would delegate the Town Planner to issue Certificates of Occupancy for four units. CR said, first he would have to check if the units meet the requirements of the permits. He added that the Board could authorize him to release those units that meet the requirements. Mr. Latham said there was a certain urgency to the matter. The four units are closing this Friday. CR and the Board both felt that it was unfair for the applicant to expect them to be driven by Johnson Wood's closing schedule. Mr. Latham asked if he could put the request differently. He asked the Board if they must come back to the CPDC every time a Certificate of Occupancy is needed? CR said that generally it his responsibility to look at the permit, to make sure the unit meets its requirements, and to release it or not based on meeting those requirements. JB said it sounds like this doesn't have to come before the CPDC at all. The Town Engineer agreed saying that he had never heard of anyone coming before the CPDC for a Certificate of Occupancy before. He asked if the permit specifies the applicant must come before the CPDC? Mr. Latham said it did not. Mr. Latham said what he has been asking appears to be a moot question. He would deal directly with the Town Planner. Public Comment/Minutes No minutes were presented for review. Page 9 of 12 JS noted that the next meeting is scheduled on October, 17, 2005 at 7:00pm. The early start is necessary to have the time to discuss the Master Plan. JB moved to adjourn. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting ended at 11:20 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on November 28, 2005; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on November 28, 2005. as approved, D. Howard, Secretary Date Page 10 of 12 September 26, 2005 TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING BYLAWS TO PROTECT THE TOWN FROM FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS ESPECIALLY 40B AND OTHERS I attended the presentation of the Ad Hoc Committee's Master Plan before the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, September 20, 2005, and commended its members for their excellent presentation. Perhaps we should consider incorporating my recommendations into the Master Plan. Following my discussions with the Board of Selectmen, and the Town Manager, I am recommending amendments to Reading's zoning bylaws to protect the Town, its abutters, and neighbors from future 40B projects like the Archstone development. The developer had plenty of acreage to work with, but he chose to position the structures on the roadway. The Town should have stronger regulations that would prohibit the placing of structures so close to the roadway. We should require 50 ft. frontage, as well as a 50 ft, setback from abutters' property line. Future developers should position the lower structures by the roadway, and the taller structures at the rear of the development. The design of future structures must be in keeping with the town's neighborhood. We must initiate amendments to zoning bylaws that would mandate the approval of the design, prior to the granting of permits. The Archstone development on West St. was a disaster, and it violated the property rights of abutters and neighbors. We must do everything in our power to amend zoning bylaws, and initiate .stronger safeguards. THANK YOU SALLY M. HOYT September 26, 2005 TO: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS TO ZONING BYLAWS I AM FULLY AWARE THAT 40B DEVELOPMENTS CAN OVERRIDE THE TOWN'S REGULATIONS AND ZONING BYLAWS HOWEVER I STRONGLY FEEL THAT WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE WE WOULD BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO NEGOTIATE WITH DEVELOPERS TO GET WHAT WE WANT; NAMELY: r: 3 I. TO ALLOW THE TOWN TO APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT; Page 11 of 12 2. TO ENCOURAGE THE NUMBER OF FEET THEY MUST BUILD FROM THE ROADWAY; 3. TO CONTROL WHERE THE TALLER STRUCTURES MAY BE POSITIONED ON THE SITE; 4. TO ENCOURAGE A FAVORABLE SETBACK FROM ABUTTERS' PROPERTY LINE; AND 5. TO RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF STORIES IN A DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU SALLY M. HOYT Page 12 of 12