Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-10 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesV Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612' Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: July 10, 2006 Location: Police Community Room, 15 Union Street 7:30 PM Members Present: Richard Howard (RH), Neil Sullivan (NS), Jonathan Barnes (JB), and Brant Ballantyne (BB). Members Absent: John Sasso (JS). Associate Members Present: Nicholas Safina (Nick S.), David Tuttle (DT), George Katsoufis (GK), and Israel Maykut (IM) Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth King Complete Auto, 550 Main Street Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 7:35 PM. Public Comments / Minutes There were no comments from the public. RH moved to accept the minutes of 05/08/06 as amended. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0 JB moved to accept the minutes of 05/22/06 as amended. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0 Administrative Review CPDC Reorganization Because the full Board was not present, this item was deferred. The Board welcomed Associate Member Mr. Israel Maykut to the CPDC. CPDC Venues The meeting of 7/24/06 will be in the Police Community Room. Page 1 of 7 Beginning with the following meeting on 8/14/06, CPDC meetings will be scheduled to meet in the Selectmen's Meeting Room. Subdivision Regulations RH asked if the new Town Engineer has had time to review the proposed changes to the Subdivision Regulations. CR said he has not yet heard from the new Town Engineer. The Board reviewed the changes. 7.1.5(e) Cul-de-sacs. RH pointed out that the change states: "If an island..." but the Board of Selectmen said they wanted all cul-de-sacs to contain landscape islands. JB said he would not want to preclude the CPDC's ability to decide on the addition of islands to cul-de-sacs. RH said it is under the CPDC purview to waive certain requirements so he would prefer islands be made a requirement of all cul-de-sacs and then the CPDC could consider granting a waiver case-by-case. It was the consensus of the Board to add the following to 7.1.5(e): "If an island is not proposed the applicant shall provide an adequate explanation why not". RH asked when the public hearing for the changes could be scheduled. CR said no earlier than the 8/14/06 meeting. Certificate of Appropriateness 550 Main Street, King Complete Auto Action Date: July 10, 2006 CR distributed revised material to the Board. The applicant said the letters on the sign are now raised and the phone number has been removed. The Board noted that the plans did not specify the height of the letters. BB moved to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness for 550 Main Street. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Certificate of Appropriateness 587 Main Street, Magic Tailor & Cleaners Action Date: July 24, 2006 No one appeared for the applicant. The consensus of the Board was to defer their decision and to inform the applicant the Board requires: • Raised letters, and • The specific color gold for the sign's letters. Page 2 of 7 The Board requested the applicant inform them if the sign's border will be raised. McDonald's This was not an item on the agenda. JB said he thought he saw a new sign at the McDonald's on Main Street. He said it did not look like a wooden sign, but it does look better than the original. CR said he would investigate and report by the next meeting. Zoning Workshop Impervious/Lot Coverage Definition The Board reviewed BB's first draft of definitions for Building Accessory, Garage Accessory, and Open Space. BB said the dimensions he specified should not be considered final RH asked if a deck could be considered a Building Accessory. BB said the intent was to try to address sheds and similar structures. So not pools but perhaps pool houses. DT said the "within 10 feet" language could allow a string of sheds to be built as "Building Accessories" as long as each is within 10 feet of another and the first is within 10 feet of the principle building. Attorney Brad Latham asked if anything in these definitions would preclude the construction of a parking structure in commercial zoning. BB said the accessory definitions are meant to apply to residential zones only. RH drew the Board's attention to the "registered vehicles" language in the "Garage Accessory" definition. He reminded the Board that the "Junk Bylaw" was defeated at Town Meeting because Town Meeting did not want to prohibit un-registered vehicles. He suggested deleting the word "registered". The Board agreed. GK said both density and use must be considered and he asked how the town should handle garages in higher density zones. BB said the intention is to tighten up the language for residential zones and this review of the language was triggered by very large structures being built within 5 feet of property lines. CR said the Board was directed by Town Meeting to look into the matter. NS said the intention was not to prohibit sheds. BB agreed but added the intention was not to allow very large sheds. BB said he took the language for the Open Space definition directly from PUD language and the intent of the definition is to restrict applicants from paving their entire lot. BB said the Open Space definition would not apply strictly to residential properties. Attorney Brad Latham said he was worried about making commercial properties non- conforming through Open Space requirements. He thought it could have a negative effect Page 3 of 7 on commercial properties and he suggested the Board address Open Space issues case-by- case. GK said we want to be able to minimize impervious cover. Mr. Latham replied, if the concern is with water there are many drainage requirements already in place. GK said there is currently no real measure in place on how much a property could be built up and Open Space could be a real control. The consensus of the Board was that the definitions should all focus on residential properties. The consensus of the Board was BB's definitions were a good first draft but need to be sent back to committee for further work. CR said he would add the definitions to the Planning Subcommittee's 07/31/06 agenda. IM said he would like to work with BB, GK and JS on the definitions. Major/Minor Amendments RH said Town Counsel thought the language "large" vs. "small"-- was too subjective. RH suggested basing the distinction on what was "material" or "not material". BB thought those terms were also too subjective and suggested basing the distinction on cost. RH said the impact on abutters is an important factor in making the distinction and that impact is not always a matter of cost. CR said he is still waiting for more suggestions from Town Counsel. CR said the language the Town of Burlington, MA uses may be of help to the Board and if the Board wanted he could send it to them. The Board agreed. Review of Amendments to Zoning By-Laws Sections 4.4.3 and 4.9 Section 4.4.3 - Uses Permitted in a Flood Plain - was not discussed. Section 4.9 - Planned Unit Development (PUD). This actually is more about Section 4.10 - Planned Residential Development (PRD). Regarding the affordability component of the amendment, RH said he used a method similar to that used in the Mixed Use Overlay bylaw: developers would build a number of affordable units based on a percentage of the total units or pay a compensating fee. The suggested increment was $50,000. RH suggested placing the actual construction cost of units at $300,000. Some thought it might be better not to name fixed amounts. CR said the Board had discussed adding an escalator and reviewing the costs every four years. NS said the Board would prefer to have the affordable units rather than the fee, so why not r - ' require the units? The consensus of the Board was that without the option to pay a compensating fee developers may not bother with this at all. Page 4of7 JB was concerned that the Board may be doing a lot of work for something that • Town Meeting may not pass anyway. Town Meeting will not want to loosen their control over a bylaw that may lead to increased density. • Developers could do as easily through a 40B. Regarding the first point, RH emphasized this amendment would not increase density. He said the original bylaw gave developers a "density bonus" if they added affordable units. This amendment removes the density bonus but retains the affordability component. Regarding the second point, CR said all developers find the current bylaw more trouble than it is worth but there are some who would prefer to use the PRD if it was less burdensome and others who would just as soon build a 40B anyway. This amendment should attract more of the former. The Board agreed. RH asked what steps the Board should take next. CR said the changes need to be vetted by Town Counsel. JB suggested trying to broaden support for the amendment by sending drafts to local developers. The Board agreed. CR said he would try to solicit local developers' opinions in time for the 8/14/06 meeting. Review of the Planning Subcommittee's Agenda for 7/31/06 This item was not on the agenda. RH pointed out that any of these agenda items could be taken up at any of the Board's meetings but the subcommittee's focus will be planning issues only. General Comments. GK said he would like to see "Proactive Planning" moved higher in the agenda and made more of a priority. RH agreed and added he thought that "underutilized" properties may be a greater challenge than "unused" properties. DT said he would like these "at risk" properties inventoried. GK said having the town's GIS accessible during meetings would be very helpful. CR agreed but he did not know if the GIS software license would allow that. Housing Production Plan. CR said this is a plan every town submits to the State to qualify for a "cooling off period" with regards to the building of 40Bs. The goals of the plans could be anything but it is best to have them grounded in some kind of analysis. Most towns hire consultants to help write their plans. RH asked CR to email all Board members a copy of Reading's Housing Plan. He asked the Board Members to review the Housing Plan and send any comments to CR. Community Preservation Act (CPA). RH said JS is looking for a volunteer to contact previous members of the committee that had reviewed and presented this act to Town Meeting and ask them if they were still Page 5 of 7 interested in seeing such an act passed and if they had any comments or suggestions to make. IM said he would do it. Design Standards and Guidelines. It was the consensus of the Board that the standards and guidelines document written by the Harvard Graduate School intern would serve as a starting point for the Board's own document on the subject. CR said he would email a copy of the intern's document to every Board Member for their review. Jordan's Furniture: Special Permit for Temporary Tent. This item was not on the agenda. CR said the Town Manager had asked him to put this to the Board: Jordan's wants to erect a temporary tent in their parking lot on Sunday 7/23/06. The tent must be set-up very early that Sunday morning. It is a condition of their original Special Permit on deliveries that they must come before the Board for a permit to do this. RH asked if it could be a Temporary Minor Modification for the one day. CR thought it could be. JB did not like the fact that the Board has once again been put in the position to consider and grant a modification with no formal application, no advanced notice, and not enough information. CR said Jordan's spoke directly with the Town Manager on the matter. CR agreed the proper way to handle it would have been to have the applicant come before the CPDC. He said we want to accommodate Jordan's but this will set a precedent. JB moved to grant the Minor Modification to Special Permit Condition 931 to allow deliveries to Jordan's on Sunday, 07/23/06, provided that: 1. It is for Sunday, July 23, 2006 only. 2. The deliveries will not be made prior to 5:00 AM. 3. All deliveries will arrive via Route 128, Exit 39 only. 4. All abutters within 300 feet of the event will be notified no later than four days in advance of the event. 5. Powered equipment cannot be used until after 6:00 AM. 6. This approval is limited to this one instance only and future permit requests will have to be applied for formally. 7. All items delivered will be removed and gone by Midnight, Sunday, July 23, 2006. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Technical Expertise of Committees, Working Groups, etc... f This item was not on the agenda. GK expressed his concern that the more technical aspects of the Addison/Wesley development proposal may not be receiving the attention they deserve now that discussion Page 6 of 7 of the proposal - including suggestions for changes - has been taken out of the CPDC's hands and given to the Addison/Wesley Working Group. Specifically, GK wondered if the Working Group had enough technical expertise to suggest an appropriate density for the project. RH said he did not know if the technical side of the issues were well represented or not but the Board's own associate member Nick S. is a member of the Working Group and brings his own level of technical expertise to the discussion. RH added that not all the issues surrounding the Addison-Wesley project are technical and they need to be addressed in different forums. Nick S. said there has been no agreement among the members of the Working Group on a density for the project and the tendency of the group was to ignore the technical aspects. The range of densities submitted and supported by the members of the Working Group runs from 150,000 [sq ft] to 300, 000 [sq ft]. CR said whatever the Working Group comes up with has to come back before the CPDC and his impression at the time the Working Group was created was that the Board wanted the parameters of any proposal well-defined before it carne back before you. GK asked what the next step would be and how does the Working Group work with the: • CPDC • Master Plan Goals • Local and Regional technical issues RH said when the matter comes back before the CPDC, we'll have the Working Group's bullet points to guide us. BB moved to adjourn. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting ended at 10:30 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on August 14, 2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on August 14, 2006. Page 7 of 7