Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-19 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown 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: June 19, 2006 Location: Police Community Room, 15 Union Street 7:30 PM Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Richard Howard (RH), Neil Sullivan (NS). Members Absent: Susan DeMatteo (SD), Jonathan Barnes (JB) Associate Members Present: Brant Ballantyne (BB). Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street, Reading, MA Mr. George Katsoufis, 9 Berkeley Street Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Alan Micale, PE, Ayoub Engineering, Inc., 414 Benefit Street, Pawtucket, R.I. 02861 Mr. Ted Moore, Glover Property Management, Inc. 8 Doaks Lane, Marblehead, MA, 01745 Mr. Nicholas Safina, 221 South Street Mr. David B. Tuttle, 27 Heather Drive Economic Development Committee: Ms. Shelia Clarke, Secretary, 536 Haverhill Street Mr. Russell Graham, Chair, 68 Maple Ridge Road Ms. Meghan Young-Tafoya, 40 Oak Street There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 7:35 PM. Introductions: New CPDC Members In July, Ms. Susan DeMatteo will leave the Board and her position will be filled by Mr. Brant Ballantyne. Also in July, three Associate Members will join the Board. They are Mr. George Katsoufis, Mr. Nicholas Safina, and Mr. David Tuttle. The Board is still looking for a fourth Associate Member. Page 1 of 9 CR said all Board positions, full and associate, will be made official on July 10. JS said the Board of Selectmen will appoint a subcommittee on June 27 for the implementation of the Downtown Parking Task Force. JS recommended having one of the Board's associate members on that committee. The Board agreed. CR said he would inform the Town Manager of this decision. Public Comments / Minutes There were neither public comments nor minutes to review. Joint Workshop Economic Development Commission (EDC) Mr. Russell Graham, Ms. Shelia Clark, and Ms. Meghan Young-Tafoya of the EDC were present. Mr. Graham said the committee will attempt to reach out to those businesses and developers they think would fit well with the goals specified in Reading's Master Plan. JS suggested the EDC review the list of Master Plan priority actions and make their own priority list from it. JS said the CPDC would like to work closely with the EDC so they might want to focus on action items that involve the CPDC and Town Planner. The Board and EDC briefly discussed some of the issues in which they have a mutual interest and in which the Board can provide information and guidance: • Mixed-Use - e.g. Charles Building Development • Signage The EDC may be in a position to better communicate to businesses what the town considers appropriate signage. Ms. Tafoya-Young said the EDC wants to make it easier for businesses to find the information they need about signs, permits, etc... • 40R (Smart Growth Initiative) and 40B's RH said a recurring theme is how to make Reading "business friendly". To become so, the town will have to become proactive in its response to inquiries from businesses and developers and the EDC could be a great help in this regard. The upcoming Streetscape project and the plans for similar improvements to the South Main business zone were mentioned as points the EDC should present to businesses and developers when promoting Reading. Mr. Russell asked when the EDC could tell people the Streetscape project would finish. CR said it is essentially fully funded and should begin this autumn and may finish in two years. Ms. Young-Tafoya asked the Board if they had any knowledge of towns that completed a similar project. The consensus of the Board was that Melrose and Winchester were two towns which had attractively redone their downtown districts. The Board suggested the EDC use other communities as examples and ask: Do we want Reading to be like this? Page 2 of 9 Mr. Russell asked what procedure the EDC should follow when they report to or have questions for the CPDC. JS said the Board would like an EDC member to be a CPDC liaison. Mr. George Katsoufis thought a priority of the town should be to try to retain local businesses. Mr. Russell said the EDC hopes to speak with owners of the downtown businesses on this and other issues. He noted that it is tough to find someone who is both a local business owner and a Reading resident. Mr. Russell said it may be difficult to squeeze more businesses into Reading's ten square miles after accounting for 23,000 residents and conservation land. The Board asked Mr. Graham to look upon them as a resource. Zoning Workshop Amendment to Zoning By-Laws Section 4.9.6.2.h to accelerate allowable residential development from 2009 to 2007 Attorney Brad Latham and Mr. Ted Moore represented Johnson Woods. Mr. Latham had the information the Board had previously requested regarding possible commercial traffic access. Mr. Latham said a Woburn Zoning Ordinance changed the Inwood development from Industrial to "S2" which is a mixed-use, special permit zone that only allows for residential properties. Mr. Latham said the underlying S2 zone does not allow Retail Use even if the access is in another zone. He said S2 does permit Office Building Use but such use would have to be approved by the Woburn City Council. Mr. Latham said he had submitted a memo in which he stated certain commercial uses may be allowed in Woburn's S2 zone but such uses would also have to be reviewed and approved by Woburn. He distributed the memo to the Board. Mr. Latham noted that the Town of Reading could restrict access in a similar manner. As the development would require a special permit, the Board could preclude any heavy- traffic access from Inwood. The consensus of the Board was that a commercial use of the 300' strip would not be viable. The Board addressed the possibility of increasing the percentage of affordable units on the 300' strip from 15% to 20%. This was brought up at a previous meeting attended by the Town Manager and some members of the Board of Selectmen. The rationale given was that ' the acceleration would provide a benefit to the developer. Page 3 of 9 Mr. Latham agreed there would be a benefit to the developer but said there would be benefits to the Town too: • Construction will be wrapped-up sooner reducing annoyances to abutters. • Tax revenue. • Construction fees. • The design of the proposed residential units would not attract many families with school-aged children. JS said asking for a higher percentage may not be unreasonable but noted that the bylaw specifies 15% [4.9.6.10]. NS asked what percentage of the Inwood units would be affordable. Mr. Latham replied: 10%. RH said he could not see any reason why the amendment should not be put to Town Meeting. The Board agreed. CR said the notice of the change to the bylaw must be quite specific. He said he will prepare a draft of the legal notice and asked the Board to review it "down to the punctuation". CR suggested scheduling the Public Hearing for the bylaw change for the Board's second meeting in July 2006. The Board agreed. The Board interrupted the Zoning Workshop to address the 178 & 1330 Main Street Site Plan Waiver Requests. Site Plan Review Waiver Request 178 & 1330 Main Street, Mobil on the Run JS said this was not a noticed request. CR said the DRT did not meet on this request. 1330 Main Street. Mr. Micale described the changes. Some things inside the existing Food Mart will be changed. The brick and yellow fascia will be kept. Two signs: one sign with illuminated channel letters will be over the front door and a freestanding, I.D. sign. The Board asked Mr. Micale to lower the height of the I.D. sign from 20' to 15'. Mr. Micale agreed. CR said there was adequate parking and Mr. Micale said the canopy will have only security and safety lighting. The Board expressed how much they liked the site's landscaping and dumpster enclosure and called them both models of what they like to see on a site. RH moved to grant the Site Plan Review Waiver for 1330 Main Street subject to the following conditions: Page 4 of 9 1. The standalone sign will be no higher than 15 feet. 2. The design of the sign will provide for an opaque background, meet the bylaw requirements, and meet with the Building Inspector's approval. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. 178 Main Street. Mr. Micale described the changes. They would be much like 1330 Main. There will only be internal changes and, as at the other site, he will not be touching the canopy. The brick will be kept. The white fascia will be painted yellow. The Board asked Mr. Micale to lower the height of the I.D. sign from 20' to 15'. Mr. Micale agreed. Regarding signage, Mr. Micale said there are now five signs and two will be removed leaving three: a freestanding sign, a wall sign, and the canopy sign. Mr. Micale said he thought he could leave the wall sign since it is much smaller than the original. The site has adequate parking and an enclosed dumpster. CR said there are compliance issues: • Three shade trees were cut down and the town wants them back • Non-conforming signs on the site today must be removed. Mr. Micale agreed to replace the trees and to remove the offending signs. Mr. George Katsoufis expressed his concern regarding signage on South Main Street and asked the Board to flag it as an issue for further review. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo asked the Board to please take extra time to review the bylaw on canopies because he believes the bylaw restricts the height of letters on a canopy sign to four inches. JS said the four inch restriction applies to awnings. Mr. Micale repeated that he was not going to change the existing canopy. JS explained to Mr. Micale that the Board has an issue with the current wording of the canopy bylaw and has written to the ZBA for their interpretation. RH moved to grant the Site Plan Review Waiver for 178 Main Street subject to the following conditions: 1. There will be full compliance with previous Site Plan Reviews, in particular: • all offending signs will be removed • the three cut-down shade trees will be replaced 2. The standalone sign will be no higher than 15 feet. 3. The design of the sign will provide for an opaque background, meet the bylaw requirements, and meet with the Building Inspector's approval. `o Page 5 of 9 NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Ad-hoc Downtown Parking Committee This item was not on the agenda. JS asked for a volunteer - a full or associate member to represent the Board on the Ad- hoc Downtown Parking Committee. He said the downtown will be the focus but the we want it to also consider actions towards a town-wide parking plan. CR said the committee grew out of the 16 Sanborn Street issue and the Reading Co-op Bank wanting more parking. Mr. George Katsoufis volunteered to serve on the committee. JS said the construction work that will be ongoing throughout the downtown when the streetscape modifications start in the Fall should allow the town to try some interesting things with parking that few would like to try otherwise. The town will be forced to try new ideas. Administrative Review Sailor Tom's Way and Benjamin Lane Definitive Covenant Endorsements Attorney Brad Latham said the Board had approved both months ago. RH asked why the two endorsement forms are different. CR said the Sailor Tom's Way endorsement form is the town's standard form. The other one Mr. Latham downloaded from the internet. JS moved to endorse the Sailor Tom's Way Covenant. RH seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. JS moved to endorse the Benjamin Lane Covenant. RH seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Official Zoning Map Adoption RH moved to have the CPDC adopt the Zoning Map dated 04/07/06. NS seconded. Voted Approved and Adopted: 3:0:0. Response to Sally Hoyt's Memo on Zoning By-Laws Amendments to Establish Design Guidelines JS asked if all the Board members had had a chance to read the response BB had written to Sally Hoyt. All said they had and all agreed it was well written. Page 6 of 9 RH noted that the response is addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Hoyt but he thought it was originally from Mrs. Hoyt alone. The Board agreed and asked the Town Planner to address the letter to Mrs. Hoyt only and to mail it Letter to ZBA on Canopy Illumination JS suggested sending the letter to Chair of the ZBA Ms. Susan Miller. The letter sets forth the CPDC's position that canopy illumination is signage. RH asked if the letter represents an appeal of the Building Inspector's decision in the matter of the canopy illumination at 178 Main Street. The consensus of the Board was that it was not an appeal but an inquiry. The Board asked the Town Planner to address the letter to Ms. Susan Miller and to mail it. Subdivision Regulations CR said he would like to give the new Town Engineer a chance to review the regulations and the proposed changes and to provide his opinion if any. The Board agreed. The Board asked CR to pencil in the Board's second meeting in July 2006 as the date for the Public hearing on the proposed changes to the Subdivision Regulations. Planning Subcommitte The consensus of the Board was to pencil in 7/31/06 as the date of the meeting of the Planning Subcommittee. Zoning Workshop (Continued) Section 4.3.3 Site Plan Review: Minor/Major Amendment CR said this will require a Public Hearing because we are adding it to the Zoning Bylaws. JS said there is an error in the numbering of the sections on page 20 of the Zoning Bylaws. Section 4.3.3.11 "Exemptions" is followed directly by Sub-section 4.3.3.12.1 "Waiver of Site Plan". A new section, Section 4.3.3.12 "Waivers", needs to be added. JS said "Major Amendment" and "Minor Amendment" will be specifically defined in the bylaws. CR said he would like to review the wording of the definitions with Town Counsel. JS said he would like the Board to have the official wording in time for the next meeting (June 26, 2006). JS asked the Town Planner to pencil in a Public Hearing for the amendment at the Board's second meeting in July 2006. ,r Page 7of9 Design Standards and Guidelines JS said the Board has an Action Item to look at Design Standards and a White Paper on Design Standards and Guidelines had been written some time ago by an intern from the Harvard School of Design. He asked the Board what they should do with this White Paper in particular and Design Standards in general. CR said the Historical Commission had expressed an interest in this issue. He suggested sending a copy of the White Paper to them and asking for their opinion. The Board agreed. JS said it would also make a great topic of discussion for the Planning Subcommittee. Mr. George Katsoufis said there may be a danger in following the Historical Commission's point-of-view alone. JS suggested the Board should table this item and not presenting the White Paper to the Historical Commission until they have had a chance to review it more fully themselves. The Board agreed. Amendment to Accessory Apartment (ZBL Section 4.3.2.8) RH said he had nothing to show the Board on this at the moment. Amendment to Planned Residential Development RH said the amendment would change the current process. Today, Town Meeting must review every development. The process is too cumbersome and developers don't want to go through it. The amendment would put an overlay over the entire town and add an affordable housing component to make it attractive to Town Meeting members. RH then went through the current bylaw and highlighted his proposed changes. Under "Inclusionary Housing" (4.10.4.2.1) he used language from the mixed-use bylaw as a placeholder and inserted "12.5%" as the affordable percentage. Under "Standards" (4.10.4.2.2) he made use of the PUD-R standards but still needs to come up with the minimal size of the units. RH said the key points to resolve are: 1. To package the benefits, 2. To determine the minimum size of the units, and 3. To determine what percentage of the units should be affordable. JS said he was not happy giving developers the option to "pay out" a sum of money rather than provide the required number of affordable units. RH said he understood his point but was trying to address the possibility of developers being required to supply fractional units. JS said he thought an affordable unit percentage of 12.5% was too low and asked RH if he would consider a higher density for a higher percentage. RE said he did not think a "Density Bonus" would be saleable to Town Meeting. Page 8 of 9 The consensus of the Board was that this amendment will require a lot of consensus building to pass Town Meeting but it was a good first cut. JS suggested scheduling this amendment for the 7/10/06 meeting's Zoning Workshop. The Board agreed. Lot Coverage BB reported on his review of the bylaws as they pertain to Lot Coverage and Impervious Cover. Problems may include: • Accessory structures encroach upon offsets. • No definitions for "Garage Accessory" or "Building Accessory". A garage could be attached to a house - located under the family room for example - and a separate, freestanding structure could be built for cars. Standalone decks are considered "accessory" as well. • Lot Coverage is determined by the principle building only i.e. the primary building's footprint. • In residential zones, there is no accounting for impervious surface separate from the principle building. The consensus of the Board was that their first order of business should be to determine what needs to be defined and to define it. Section 4.3.3 Site Plan Review: Waiver Notice JS moved to amend the Site Plan Review Waiver Regulations to require notice be sent to all abutters within 300 feet of the site in question. RH seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Section 4.3.3 Site Plan Review: Site Plan Review Waiver - Change of Use Category This was not addressed. RH moved to adjourn. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The meeting ended at 10:50 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on July 24, 2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on July 24, 2005. Signed Ri and ; . Howard, Secretary Date Page 9 of 9