Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-02 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading RECEIVED 16 Lowell Street TOWN CLERK Reading, MA 01867-2683 READING. MASS. Phone: 751-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 2010 JAN 21 A ~ 01 Email: jdelios@ci.reading.ma.us U S~ a 1 Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: N vember 2, 2009 Location: Great Room, Senior Center Time: 7:3 PM Members Present: Davi Tuttle-(DT), Chainiian; Nicholas Safina (NS.).,._Secret ry John Weston (JW), Clai e Paradiso (CP), and Joseph Patterson (JP). Associate Members Present: George Katsoufis (GK) Also Present: Jean Delios (JD), Town Planner; Abigail McCabe (AM), Staff Planner; and Michael Schloth, Recording Secretary. Virginia Adams, 59 Azalea Circle John Arena, 26 Francis Drive Jody Avtges, 42 Washington Street Hank Bardol, 60 Sanborn Street Curtis Barnes, 11 Bancroft Avenue Donnan Barnes, 11 Bancroft Avenue Lois Bell, 35 Washington Street Angela Binda, 10 Orchard Park Drive Everett Blodgett, 99 Prescott Street Ralph Blunt, 22 Linden Street Bob Carden, 24 Mt. Vernon Street Stephen Crook, 137 Pleasant Street Bill Crowley, 42 Locust Street Dick Curtis, 15 Holly Road Wayne Davis, 18 Tamarack Road Roger D'Entremont, 398 Haverhill Street John Douglass, 45 Bainbridge Road Susan Giacalone, 9 Orchard park Drive Mary Good, 228 Woburn Street Russell Graham, 68 Maple Ridge Road George Hines, 35 Grand Street Janice Jones, 22 Mt. Vernon Street Naomi Kaufman, 64 Woburn Sttreet Jane Kreppen, 15 Pratt Street Christos Kuliopulos, 102 Eaton Christine Lusk, 52 Washington Street Jim Mawn, 275 Mishawum Road, Woburn, MA Mike Monahan, 47 Bancroft Avenue Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue Jim Queeney, 28 Mt. Vernon Street Bill Ryan, 42 John Street Priscilla Ryan, 42 John Street Rick Schaffer, 67 Woburn Street Rick Schubert, 119 Winthrop Avenue Gina Snyder, 11 Jadem Terrace Peter Stroman, 46 Washington Street Ben Tafoya, 40 Oak Street Joyce Taormina, 7 Gould Street Phil Terzis; Oaktree Development H. Unikarmane, 277 Woburn Street Christopher Vaccaro, 57 Woburn Street John Walsh, 25 Woodward Avenue Ann Ward, 14 Bancroft Avenue John Ward, 14 Bancroft Avenue Leslie Ward, 14 Bancroft Avenue Rick Wetzler, 9 Gould Street Meghan Young-Tafoya, 40 Oak Street There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Public Comment There were no comments. Pagel of 8 CPDC Minutes of 11/2/2009 Public Hearing: Bylaw Amendment - Downtown SmartGrowth (40R) District The Chair opened the public hearing. DT read the public notice. The Chair.explained the purpose of the public hearing was to discuss the proposed Downtown SmartGrowth District bylaw and zoning map change. The Board must vote to recommend or not recommend these amendments to Town Meeting. He noted the Board had received a number of emails and letters on the amendments. Selectman Ben Tafoya made a brief presentation on the 40R district as a tool to help Reading create a more vibrant downtown by allowing residential units above retail. Current zoning either does not allow this or is not being used because of other restrictions. The work on the 40R began some 16 months ago and now there is a bylaw including design guidelines ready for Town Meeting. To date, there are two developers interested in this zoning for project at the Atlantic Supermarket site and the M.F. Charles building. The Town Planner presented a slideshow to help explain the SmartGrowth bylaw and why it is right for Reading. ➢ Current plusses and minuses of the downtown: • Plusses: New businesses (Ristorante Pavarotti, Be Gifted, Butcher Shoppe); streetscape improvement project; alleyway project; adopt-an-island; butcher-shop mural; first Fall Street Faire. • Minuses: Housing not allowed by-right; vacant properties; no anchor; lack of foot-traffic ➢ Why SmartGrowth? • Allow housing by-right. Promote housing diversity. Symbiotic relationship with retail. • Design guidelines/standards: the town sets the standards of new development. Examples: no franchise architecture; taller building must step-back from streetline at certain heights. • Preserve open-space by increasing density downtown which is set up to handle it. • Financial incentives ➢ History of SmartGrowth. • Adopted by State in 2004. Brockton and Haverhill also have created 40R downtown districts. ➢ Timeline. • Tonight's public hearing is in advance of the upcoming 11/30 Special Town Meeting. If Town Meeting approves the Downtown SmartGrowth District, the town would receive final approval from the State early in 2010. ➢ Issues and Concerns • Building height would be the same or lower than the 45 feet existing zoning allows and if the structure is residential only it can be no higher than 33 feet. • Front setbacks would be zero feet the same as current zoning. • Building frontage would have a maximum of 300 feet. Atlantic Supermarket's frontage was approx. 250 feet. • All retail parking in the district would fall under existing zoning's within-300-feet-of-a- public-parking-facility off-street parking exemption (Section 6.1.1.1) • Encourage use of shared parking and creation of walkable downtown (park once and walk to all destinations). Page 2 of 8 CPDC Minutes of 11/2/2009 • If SmartGrowth passes November 30's Special Town Meeting, all projects would still have to abide by current procedures (Site Plan Review, notification of abutters), and all State and Town codes and regulations. Public Comment Mr. Mike Monahan, 47 Bancroft Avenue, expressed concern over the number of multifamily projects built since he moved to Reading ten years ago and how they are a drain on services e.g. schools. He did not want Reading to be modeled after Haverhill or Brockton. Someone from the audience asked if a cost analysis had been made of the impact on Reading's infrastructure. Mr. Jim Queeney, 28 Mt. Vernon Street, said he preferred two or three story buildings to four story buildings. He asked why the density had to be 20 units/acre - why not 10 units or 15? DT noted the 40R allows three types of density: • Single-family at 8 units/acre • Two or Three family at 12 units/acre. • Multifamily (four or more) at 20 units/acre. Regarding the increased pressure on schools from 40Rs, DT noted a sister program - 40S - was created by the State to indemnify against additional schooling costs 40Rs might cause. Mr. John Arena, 26 Francis Drive, said he was in favor of a more vibrant downtown but not at the risk of four-story buildings. If the town must give up financial incentives to maintain its character so be' it - he was tired of the State telling the town what to do. JW noted the only thing the State forced on the Board was the definition of a multifamily unit. He added that no one on the Board believes the zoning change will lead to 300 ft long, 45 ft high buildings being built throughout the downtown because the market will not bear it. The Board worked hard on the design guidelines so there would not be massive blocks of buildings. Mr. Rick Wetzler, 9 Gould Street, submitted a memo to the Board titled "Creating Smarter Growth by Improving Reading's 40R Overlay Plan" containing three points: • For new construction, at least 15% of plot area should be retained as buffers along property edges. • Building heights in the overlay district should not exceed 3 stories. • The parking space requirement of 1.0-space/unit should be changed to 1.5-spaces/unit. Mr. Stephen Hagan, 68 Woburn Street, lives behind the site of the prior Atlantic Supermarket and he expressed concern over the size of Oaktree Development's proposed structure and its affect on his property's value. Ms. Virginia Adams, 59 Azalea Circle, asks if increased residential units are supposed to make the downtown more vibrant, then why haven't all the residential units that already exist in the downtown done this already. Ms. Joyce Taormina, 7 Gould Street, noted that when the Atlantic was in operation there was terrible traffic and parking problems. Allowing only one parking space per unit is a mistake. There is already Page 3 of 8 CPDC Minutes of 11/2/2009 train-users parking everywhere and new development will add large buildings with people looking for still more parking. Ms. Gina Snyder, 11 Jadem Terrace, expressed concern over the scale of the project especially if built out: 300 ft long, 45 ft high buildings bad. Ms. Angela Binda, 10 Orchard Park Drive, is a member of Town Meeting and the Historical Commission. She said she was speaking both for herself and Historical Commission Chair Ms. Kathy Greenfield. They support both the Oaktree and Mawn (M.F. Charles Bldg) projects but not all aspects of the proposed Downtown 40R bylaw - heights and the scope of the district in particular. Adaptive reuse of historical properties - such as what is planned for M.F.Charles - is good, but other properties in the district could be added to the historic inventory in the future. The Historical Commission's position is Reading's downtown is the result of some 240 years of cultural changes and existing buildings should be respected. Concern is not only for historical preservation but also for what the World Cafe wanted: an individual scale should be maintained. A balance of old and new required. Ms. Binda continued with questions and comments: • How can the CPDC deny projects if projects built under it are by-right? The Town Planner noted the 40R bylaw itself lists criteria for denying plans the most important being that if the project submitted under the 40R cannot mitigate its impact on nearby properties the project can be denied. JW noted this is different from the CPDC's site plan review in that it is difficult to deny a plan outright through site plan review. • March 9,2009 Slideshow of full build-out. Although she agreed with some of the goals of the SmartGrowth district, the March 9, 2009 discussion had a slideshow showing rows of four story buildings and she did not want that. The Board assured her it did not want that either and since then both the map of the proposed district and the design guidelines have changed to the point that such a build-out is no longer possible. • Review of other 40R projects. Ms. Binda had investigated how other Massachusetts communities had made use of SmartGrowth/40R and she discovered only four 40R projects had been approved in areas of concentrated development -like Reading's downtown - and that all others (27 projects) had been approved for properties more like Reading's ex-Addison-Wesley property: unused properties off to the side of a community and designed for a specific number of units e.g. mill towns with one-building 40R districts. • What is the Board's vision of the Downtown 40R. DT said the vision is to allow ongoing development. The Board does not expect developers to bundle many lots in to one large lot. Individual properties will be developed as the opportunity arises. Oaktree is interested in the Atlantic property because it is available. Ms. Binda replied that the SmartGrowth bylaw does allow for the possibility of multiple properties to be bundled together. Mr. George Hines, 35 Grand Street, is the Chair of the Reading Finance Committee. Mr. Hines welcomed a proposal that brings in more housing stock; increases opportunities for handicap accessible properties; gives young people the opportunity to buy housing property. He noted an unintended consequence of downtown zoning to date is the zoning-out of residential properties. Approved procedures would allow the town to work with developers - developers know what is and what is not marketable. He agrees there are opportunities to tweak the bylaw to make it the best it can be. Page 4 of 8 CPDC Minutes of 11/2/2009 Mr. John Douglass, 46 Bainbridge Road, president of the Chamber of Commerce, noted parking is an issue for both customers and employees. He agreed with the others who did not want four-story buildings; three-story is tall enough. Mr. Dave Talbot, 75 Woburn Street, said he and a neighbor wrote an article for the Reading Chronicle on the Downtown SmartGrowth. His major objection to it is that it allows four-story buildings: the Oaktree project would be four-stories and fill 100% of the ex-Atlantic-Supermarket lot. He suggested the floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of that particular project be tweaked to keep it at three- stories. He said the height of the Haven Street corridor was set 100 years ago and asked why build above it? Traffic in the area is bad enough - Linden Street is an exit ramp to the depot. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue, had two questions: • What does it mean that lot coverage is not applicable? DT said it means there is no limit - lot coverage could be 100% if all other criteria are met. Examples: MY Charles project will provide on-site, off-street parking and have no need for municipal lots. Oaktree's project would provide space underground for parking so in spite of 100% lot coverage there would be no parking requirement. • Why is the Board promoting SmartGrowth instead of improving the existing Mixed-Use zoning? JW replied the Board had reviewed the Mixed-Use bylaw and determined any worthwhile changes would require a complete rewrite. Also, SmartGrowth gives the town the control of design guidelinesMs. O'Neill said she was unconvinced SmartGrowth would not lead to a full build-out. The Chair noted the design guidelines were written for Reading and Reading's scale and not simply taken from Haverhill's or Brockton's 40R. In a discussion of making changes to the existing Mixed-Use zoning, the Town Planner noted that some projects could be in jeopardy if the SmartGrowth timeline is not followed. Mr. Rick Schaffer, 67 Woburn Street, Town Meeting member, said he took exception to that response: the town should not be making zoning for developers. He continued: the town should make the best possible zoning for the town to use over the next 100 years not just the nest few years; if the town does a good job more developers will come. JW noted the Board did not consider only what was on the table today but what is economically feasible. For example: no one to date has made use of the Mixed-Use zoning. Mr. Schaffer said he understood the zoning had to be made more workable but expressed concern SmartGrowth has swung the pendulum too far in the other direction. Mr. Talbot suggested using the 2 Haven Street building as an example of what can be done with three-stories. Regarding changes to the Mixed-Use zoning, he said he was confused because he saw on television a recent CPDC meeting where the Board discussed changes to the Mixed-Use zoning. JW said the Board had been asked to look into changes to the Mixed-Use and if Mr. Talbot had watched the entire meeting he would have seen the Board was against making such changes. Someone from the audience said the current rendering of Oaktree's proposal for the Atlantic site is on Oaktree's webpage and it does not look anything like what was presented originally. The Chair said he had seen the new rendering and it was still early in development. The person in the audience asked: but if that was the final design, could the town say, "No, that is too ugly"? Page 5 of 8 CPDC Minutes of 11/2/2009 Mr. Phil Terzis of Oaktree Development spoke next on the economics and aesthetics of the Oaktree proposal. It is difficult to make three stories work when 20% of the residential units must be affordable. Regarding the design, he said it was still in early development and it was not Oaktree's intent to build an ugly building. He asked everyone to look at Oaktree projects in other towns. Ms. Jody Avtges, 42 Washington Street, asked how close the town was to the affordable housing threshold of 10%. In the ensuing discussion, it was noted the town needs over 800 affordable units and has approximately 600 to date. The apartments national Development had proposed at the Gateway 40R in the former Addison-Wesley site would have supplied 200 affordable units and future construction at Peter Sanborn Place would add another 45. Unfortunately, the Gateway apartments have yet to be built. DT noted the State takes into account a town's continued progress towards the threshold. GK noted that typically progress is considered the construction of projects with more than 10% affordable units. It was also noted that all current calculations of affordable units in Reading and shortfall from the threshold are based on census data long out of date. The Town Planner and GK warned that when the next census is tabulated, the town's shortfall may be greater than expected. Ms. Janice Jones, 22 Mt. Vernon Street, asked if the units had to be condominiums or apartments. The Board said that is up to the developer. The State has formulae for both. Mr. Roger D'Entremont, 398 Haverhill Street, suggested the town forgo the incentive payments and allow Oaktree to build three-stories at 10% affordable. DT noted the 40R gives the town more than incentive payments: it gives the town control over the design of buildings through design guidelines. If the town does not meet the minimum density and affordability requirements it loses the control over design. Mr. Christopher Vaccaro, 57 Woburn Street, said it sounded as if the town is proposing to sell away its zoning to meet the State's requirements. He suggested divorcing the town from the 20% density requirement all together. A gentleman in the audience commented on the use of the work "smart" in SmartGrowth. He objected to the implication that the town would not be smart if it did not vote approval of SmartGrowth. Ms. Avtges asked if the Board were to change the map of the district now would the process have to start over again. The Town Planner said it would. DT said there is no attempt at railroading this through. If the town does not like what has been proposed, it can turn it down and try again later. Ms. Naomi Kaufman, 64 Woburn Street, asked if our bylaws require impact studies on traffic or schools and have any been done for the proposed or possible projects. The Board replied that in site plan reviews the Board has asked for traffic studies, safety reviews, etc... For projects under the 40R they would be required. No traffic studies have been done on anything proposed for the downtown 40R district because nothing can be analyzed until actual plans are submitted. Ms. Kaufman said it seems substantial details of future construction has already been provided for the Atlantic and M.F. Charles projects. JW, speaking in his capacity as a traffic engineer, said supermarkets probably generate higher traffic than most uses. Residential units generate the least. With the Atlantic, the town has probably seen the worst possible traffic for the area. Page 6 of 8 CPDC Minutes of 11/2/2009 Ms. O'Neill asked: Why wasn't a public hearing held before the application for the SmartGrowth district was submitted to the State? Also, could the CPDC still make changes to the bylaw before t is voted on at Town Meeting? JW noted it was a quirk of the process that comments must be given to the State before Town Meeting. GK noted that the Board had discussed the 40R bylaw and zoning map changes over many meetings and considered also what the State would accept and approve. Selectman Tafoya noted the CPDC and Board of Selectmen had met together on more than one occasion to discuss the 40R bylaw including one meeting in which the size of the district was reduced to better control the impact of the change and another in which the district was reduced in size again by dropping all properties west of the depot. Ms Avteges asked if the parking requirements could be changed to increase the required number of spaces per unit without resubmitting to the State. The Board replied it would probably have to be resubmitted in that event. JW noted that the parking requirements are a minimum only and developers would probably have to offer more parking spaces to tenants to sell units. Ms. Donnan Barnes, 11 Bancroft Avenue, asked if we would not be setting a precedent we would regret if we passed the bylaw as is and Oaktree built its four stories. A member of the audience said the height restriction measures only to the roofline and non-flat-roofed buildings could be taller still. The Board noted this was not so. DT pointed out the design guidelines specify the height of a building is determined by the highest point of its roof. The Chair added that a restriction was added on how much roof (e.g. a hip roof) could be seen from the street. Ms. Barnes noted that Oaktree's rendering of what it proposed for the site did not fit what the Board just spoke to on roofs. Mr. Russell Graham of the Economic Development Committee pointed out that Oaktree could build today what was shown in the rendering without design guidelines. Mr. Talbot requested the Board provide a rendering of both the Oaktree proposal and the building at 2 Haven Street together and shown straight on to see the relative sizes. Mr. Terzis of Oaktree said the challenge is to show that a four story building can fit in the area. He believes Oaktree can do it. In the ensuing discussion, the Chair put a question to the public: is the issue of buildings in the district with height or the number of stories? Is the issue a matter of height or density? He used the M.F. Charles building as an example. The consensus of the audience was the issue was density. One gentleman said more density means more traffic and more problems. Mr. Vaccaro noted that the district had been shrunk twice but the underlying issue of density has not been addressed. He suggested the Board look at the 40A zoning and add its residential use to the Business-13 zoning. JW noted this was considered but the Board discovered once you begin to make changes to existing zoning the changes ripple into other areas. The Board decided it was less cumbersome to create a 40R district than to fix the Mixed-Use or Business-B zoning. Ms. Kaufinan agreed that density was the underlying and unaddressed issue and noted Oaktree is a doubling of the length of M.F. Charles. Mr. Schaffer added that as a Town Meeting member he wants a proposal he would be comfortable approving but he feels the people have not been listened to. DT noted both he and the Chair are Town Meeting members as well and in the context of the 40R provisions what the Board has created is about the best it could do. Page 7 of 8 CPDC Minutes of 11/2/2009 Mr. Hank Bardol, 60 Sanborn Street, asked why the Board could not write up its own bylaw using what the town likes about 40R: design guidelines, housing by right. GK noted that it is his understanding that it is illegal to add design guidelines to zoning except under a 40R. Ms. Adams noted that both the M.F. Charles and Washington Arms buildings are the same height but M.F. Charles has a better scale with taller windows. The Board noted it has two architects as members and is sensitive to such matters. The Chair noted that the base zoning allows the construction of buildings like the Washington Arms but the 40R design guidelines would not. He agreed 40R has issues with density but believes the design guidelines address issues of height. The consensus of the Board was to not take further action tonight but to vote on whether or not to recommend the Downtown SmartGrowth zoning amendment and zoning map change to Town Meeting at the Board's next meeting on 11/23/2009. DT moved the Board close the public hearing. JW seconded. The motion was carried 5:0:0. Request for Waiver from Site Plan Review 55 Walkers Brook Drive, Keurig Coffee The applicant proposes to fit-out a number of floors in the building. There is no change of use: it was office space and Keurig will use it as office space. The Chair moved the Board grant the request for a waiver from Site Plan Review. DT seconded and the motion was carried 5:0:0. JW moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and carried 5:0:0. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on November 23, 2009; these minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on November 23, 2009. Page 8 of 8