HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-27 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading
I_ 'J t/
t t, r~ lY
16 Lowell Street > ~ t l
Reading, MA 01867-2683
Phone: 781-942-6612
Fax: 781-942-9071
Email: creilly@6reading.ma.us
Community Planning and Development Commission
CPDC MINUTES
Meeting Dated: March 27, 2006
Location: Reading High School Auditorium 7:00 PM
Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Jonathan Barnes (JB), and Neil Sullivan (NS).
Members Absent: Richard Howard (RH), and Susan DeMatteo (SD).
Also Present:
Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth
Selectman Ben Tafoya
Selectman James Bonazoli
Mr. Brant Ballantyne, 52 Blueberry Lane
Ms. Angela Binda, 10 Orchard Park Drive.
Chapin, 15 Boyce Street.
Mr. Dennis Collins, 12 Beech Street.
Mr. Anthony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street
Mr. Richard Dennis, 9 Macintosh Road.
Mr. Luke DeStefano, Bohler Engineering, 352 Turnpike Road, Southborough, MA 01772
Ms. Susan DiGiovanni, 34 Chute Street.
Mr. James Doherty, 76 Curtis Street.
Ms. Mary Ann Downing, 13 Heather Drive.
Mr. Jeffrey Everson, 21 Pine Ridge Circle.
Mr. Russell Graham; 68 Maple Ridge Road.
Ms. Michelle Hopkinson, 21 Sherwood Lane.
Mr. Peter Lattanzi, 15 Ash Hill Road.
Mr. Jarnes Lenox, 10 Sylvan Road.
Mr. Tom Loughlin, 24 Oak Street.
Mr. Terence McDonald, 190 Main Street
Mr. Paul Millet, 25 Fairview Avenue.
Ms. Nancy O'Keefe, 140 Eastway.
Ms. Phyllis Sachar, 42 Summer Avenue.
Mr. Nick Safina, 221 South Street.
Mr. Michael Slezak, 149 Prospect Street.
Mr. Dave Tuttle, 27 Heather Drive.
Mr. Frank Touserkani, 21 George Street
Page 1 of 10
W/S Development Team
Richard Askin, Project Manager, W/S Development Associates LLC
Attorney Mark Favaloro, representing W/S Development Associates LLC
Bob Frazier, Vice President of Development, W/S Development Associates LLC
Brian Sierra, Vice President of Lifestyle Centers, W/S Development Associates LLC
Rod Emery, Traffic Engineer, Edwards & Kelsey
There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 7:05 PM.
Minutes/ Public Comment
There were no minutes to approve and no comments from the public.
Public Hearing: Site Plan Review
178 Main Street, Mobil
Application to upgrade the canopy favade and signage
(Action Date: April 10, 2006)
Mr. Luke DeStafano of Bohler Engineering appeared for the applicant.
Mr. DeStefano said this was a simple, canopy upgrade. Today, the canopy is plain white.
The applicant proposes to change this to a 3-D, blue, illuminated band on three sides: the
side facing Main Street and the two sides adjacent to this side. The rear side, the side
nearest the residents, will be non-illuminated and 2-D. Also, they propose to move the logo
to the far right on the side facing Main Street.
CR said a Draft Decision had been prepared but it was not in the Board's packets because it
was not ready until late this afternoon. CR suggested that the Board
• ask for more landscaping - at least three shade trees for the landscape island and
streetscape
• Restrict the illumination of the canopy band to business hours.
The Board expressed concern over the wattage of the illuminated band and the possibility
of glare. Mr. DeStefano said there should be no glare. It is a simple florescent band; there
should be no "light trespass". CR said the proposed wattage was from 15 - 30 watts. He
said he had recommended 15 watts to the applicant and the applicant had agreed.
The Board expressed concern that showing the logo on each side of the canopy would
constitute multiple signs. Mr. DeStefano said he meant that the logo would appear only on
the front side of the canopy the side facing Main Street.
Regarding the hours of operation, Mr. DeStefano said they are open until 11:00 PM. He
saw no problem with specifying when the canopy could be illuminated. JS said he would
rather put a limit on the hours of illumination now. CR suggested adding language
specifying that the canopy would be illuminated no later than 11:00 PM. The Board agreed.
Mr. Terence McDonald, 190 Main Street
Mr. McDonald said he was against the change. He made two points:
Page 2of10
1. The real residential side is the front, Main-Street side. That side faces the residents on
the opposite side of Main Street where he lives. The side the Board is calling the
residential side, the backside, is blocked from the canopy by a building in the rear
of the gas station.
2. What is the purpose of adding an illuminated sign? The town has had nothing but
trouble with signs. They [businesses] always want theirs bigger and brighter.
CR said the location of the gas station is in the Business "A" zone. Businesses in that zone
are allowed illuminated signs.
Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street.
Mr. D'Arezzo asked if it wasn't true that the bylaw prevents "shine through" canopies. The
proposed change violates the spirit of the bylaw. If allowed, we'll see more gas stations
applying for more illumination. Illumination should be kept to a minimum.
Zoning bylaw 6.2.3.2.b was read aloud. The sentence relevant to Mr. D'Arezzo's point is:
"No awning or canopy shall be illuminated in such a way that the light from such
illumination is visible through the canopy or awning."
JB said it was hard to read that any other way than that the lighting is not allowed if visible.
Zoning bylaw 6.2.3.2.1 was read aloud. JS emphasized the following sentence:
"All internally illuminated signs shall have an opaque background or signboard
such that illumination shows through only the lettering or graphics."
JS said his interpretation would be that the only part of the canopy that could be
illuminated is the logo itself. JB agreed.
Mr. DeStefano said the applicant has a "Plan B". If a variance is required, the applicant
would rather put the non-illuminated, 2-D band on all four sides.
Considering the two zoning bylaw references together, the consensus of the Board was to
eliminate the illumination from all bands.
JB moved to close the public hearing.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
JB moved to approve the canopy changes with the following conditions
• No illumination after 11:00 PM.
• No illuminated band on any side of the canopy.
NS seconded
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
Page 3 of 10
Public Hearing: Zoning By-Laws Amendment
Business C Zone (Addison-Wesley), W/S Development
To conduct as required by MGL Chapter 40 A, Sec 5 the CPDC public hearing in advance of the Annual
Town Meeting on the zoning by-laws amendment petition by W/S Development Associates, LLC, to change
the Business C zoning at Addison-Wesley to allow retail as a permitted use, with associated changes as
applicable.
(Action Date: April 10, 2006)
JB asked for a point of privilege and JS agreed.
JB said he had placed handouts about the I-95/I-128 Interchange Study at the entrance to
the auditorium. He encouraged everyone to attend an informational meeting on the
Interchange Study to be held at Stoneham Town Hall on April 5, 2006 between 6:00 PM
and 9:OOPM.
JB read aloud the legal notice for the public hearing.
JS said the Board is required to present our recommendation on this petition to Town
Meeting. Tonight, we could close or continue the public hearing but if we continue the
Board has a limited number of meeting dates before Town Meeting.
JS outlined how the hearing would proceed. First, the applicant will speak; next, the Board
will present their questions and comments. There may also be comments from the working
group. Following that the public will have a chance to present questions and comments.
Attorney Mark Favaloro represented W/S Development Associates.
Mr. Favaloro presented a brief history of the site.
• 2000: Office/Hotel zoning approved for the site but the market for office and hotel
space falls off.
• Fall 2004: Developer believes a change of use to retail is necessary for the site.
• January 2005: Developer presents plan for Lifestyle Center to CPDC.
• February 2005: Developer meets with Board of Selectmen (BoS). BoS expresses
concern over increased traffic. Later in month, at first Zoning Workshop, the public
also expresses concern over traffic.
• June 2005: At a joint meeting of CPDC and BoS, it was made clear the developer needs
to present a detailed traffic study.
• August 2005: Developer submits their traffic study. The town hires a peer reviewer (at
developer's expense) to review the traffic study.
• November 2005: Peer reviewer reports to BoS that the proposed intersection would
work.
• At later BoS meetings, the BoS questioned the methodology of the traffic report and
expressed concerns over the project's impact on the Town's identity.
• March 2006: Developer proposes creation of a working group with the goal of putting
together a "consensus model" of how their proposal could work. The developer has
heard that their proposal is "too big" and "needs a buffer". The developer is looking to
address these concerns. The working group could come up with a revised plan.
Mr. Favaloro said the original plans are likely to change to something with a smaller scope.
Page 4of10
Mr. Favaloro said there is a lot going on in Reading Archstone, Johnson Woods, Stop &
Shop, Danis, Walgreens... and we suggest the proposed retail use is the best available
and that it does fit with the character of the town.
The W/S Development & Associates team made their presentation. Much of it was the
same presentation they had made to the Board in previous meetings.
Mr. Sierra said they want to emphasize the "outdoor pedestrian experience" with site
appropriate scale, design, architecture and landscaping. A brief, animated video "fly
through" of the proposed "lifestyle center" was shown.
Mr. Frasier said this site underwent a very intensive traffic study. They even worked with
the town's traffic consultant at their own expense. Areas of concern are South Street and its
intersection with Main Street. They have acquired additional land from the Eastern
Middlesex Association of Realtors [70 Main Street]. If allowed to go forward, they would
have a lot more work to do. A plan of changes to Main Street was shown. Coming from
Stoneham, four lanes were proposed with the two leftmost lanes turning left, the third
continuing straight (North), and the fourth lane turning right. Heading towards Stoneham,
three lanes are proposed, one - the leftmost goes straight (South), the middle lane is for
traffic heading both straight and turning right onto the Rt. 128 on-ramp, the third lane is for
turning right onto the on-ramp only. Mr. Frasier said the peer reviewer said this was
"feasible".
Mr. Emery went into more detail about the traffic study: trip generation, traffic counting,
traffic calming techniques, and queue storing in the proposed four-lane section of Main
Street [see above].
Mr. Askin presented screen-shots of 3D, digital models of the proposed development as it
would appear from five different viewpoints in the abutting properties. He said that
although the elevation and cross-section drawings show the buildings of the Lifestyle
Center extending into the 100' setback, the working group is discussing moving the project
back to the 100' setback.
Mr. Favaloro said the rezoning would bring a great increase of tax money to the town. The
permit fees would be substantial too.
Working Group.
JS said the working group on the project met last Thursday. He asked if anyone who
attended it would like to comment. Selectmen Ben Tafoya and James Bonazoli represent
the BoS in the working group. Selectman Tafoya said the developer has committed to
coming back with a revised proposal in early April. Selectman Bonazoli said the working
group discussions have been positive. He noted that the working group operates on a
separate and distinct track from the CPDC. JS explained to the audience that the working
group meetings are ongoing.
Page 5of10
Public Comment.
Mr. Richard Dennis, 9 Macintosh Road.
Mr. Dennis said that calling the development a "pedestrian experience" doesn't change the
fact that it is a mall. Also, to think that traffic will not come down South Street is not
realistic.
Ms. Mary Ann Downing, 13 Heather Drive.
Ms. Downing asked what is the definition of "Consumer Service Establishment"? CR said
it was defined under 2.2.8 of the bylaws.
She asked about the height restriction - could other buildings be taller? JS said the old
zoning applies and the maximum height is 55' for all buildings on the site.
She said her research shows that retailers look for "co-tenancy agreements". She asked
what would happen if one of the stores in the agreement moves out. Could the whole thing
fall like a "house of cards"?
Ms. Susan DiGiovanni, 34 Chute Street.
Ms. DiGiovanni supports the project and is impressed with the attention the developer has
shown towards the concerns of the town. She has worked with the developer before and
says the town is lucky to have them. She said the property will not sit unused and we don't
want a 40B there. If there are issues with the project the town should put conditions on
their approval. She asked: can conditions be added to the zoning change? JS said the
limitations are in the zoning itself, so yes.
Mr. Jeffrey Everson, 21 Pine Ridge Circle.
Mr. Everson said he has background in transportation systems. He presented a detailed
report countering the applicant's traffic report in three areas: trip generation, demographics
( the number of customers and where they will come from), and safety.
Trip Generation: Mr. Everson said trip generation calculations based on the fonnulas
provided by the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) handbook can produce totals
50% lower than actual counts. He cited a Sioux City, S. Dakota report as an example.
Demographics: Mr. Everson said there are about 340,000 people in the customer base
located in a 10 minute ride from Reading. But both the Burlington and North Shore Mall
draw from the same customer base. Also, there is no reason to believe the 80-15 split
because it is not addressed in the report.
Safety: There is no mention of safety in the traffic study or the peer-reviewer's report.
There are no grounds to believe the development will be safe. He said the Massachusetts
Highway Department (MHD) has been using accident data known by the MHD to be
worthless so there is no baseline.
Mr. James Doherty, 76 Curtis Street.
Mr. Doherty asked what the working group's alternative plan was. JS said the working
group was requested by the developer and consists of representatives from the BoS, the
CPDC, the developer, and abutters. The group discusses how they may come up with an
alternative. That possibility is not before the Board tonight we are hear to focus on what
is before us. Mr. Doherty then asked if the alternative plan was a "red herring". JS said he
would not define it that way. Mr. Doherty said the developers are not committed to what
Page 6 of 10
they've shown us the working group demonstrates that. He added that the changes seem
to be negative changes. He asked if the new plan will eliminate the 95' height limit. JS said
the proposal before the Board drops the footnote that mentions the 95' limit.
Mr. Russell Graham, 68 Maple Ridge Road.
Mr. Graham is opposed to the rezoning. It will adversely affect many neighborhoods and
has already set neighbor against neighbor. It is against the Master Plan and goes against
Reading's character. The Master Plan has to be a living, working document and the CPDC
is the caretaker of that document. Let's keep Reading, Reading.
Mr. Tom Loughlin, 24 Oak Street.
Mr. Loughlin suggested that the Board ask Town Counsel to go over this amendment
proposal very carefully. We don't want the developer to be able to build something more
expansive if the amendment is passed. As it stands, the developer would be getting both the
old and new zoning. Example: a hotel is still allowed.
Mr. Dave Tuttle, 27 Heather Drive.
Mr. Tuttle said the development was being shoehorned into a residential area. JS asked the
Town Planner how many abutters there are to the site. CR said there are about 80 abutters.
Mr. Frasier said their Hingham development is surrounded by an industrial park and Route
3 and their Canton development is next to two residential areas. He said retailers like to be
near residential properties.
Ms. Angela Binda, 10 Orchard Park Drive.
Ms. Binda said she would caution against rezoning to suit a specific use. This is zoning to
suit a developer. Also, she questioned the developer's assumption (citing the minutes of
June 13, 2005) that a residential development at the site would have to be as large as
"nineteen Archstones" [about 3800 units] to generate equivalent traffic.
Mr. James Lenox, 10 Sylvan Road.
Mr. Lenox said he has been in email contact with residents of Canton [the location of
another of the developer's lifestyle centers] who are not happy with the development.
Correspondents say Canton was promised one thing and got another.
Mr. Nick Safina, 221 South Street.
Mr. Safina said it seems irresponsible to make piecemeal zoning changes. The developer is
taking too much "wiggle room" and they will be back to expand.
Chapin, 15 Boyce Street.
Thinks the development would be a great amenity to the community and believes the silent
majority in Reading feel the same way.
Mr. Peter Lattanzi, 15 Ash Hill Road.
Mr. Lattanzi said this proposal affects all of Reading. He figures that traffic will increase
by 16,000 to 20,000 additional cars each day and roughly 4,000 of it will be from cars
driving through Reading. Also, more trucks will drive through downtown Reading to avoid
the increased traffic.
Page 7of10
Mr. Michael Slezak, 149 Prospect Street.
Mr. Slezak said the amendment needs to be carefully considered and worded but he urged
the Board to support it. He said for years people have wanted to see in Reading the kind of
shops this development will bring.
Unknown [missed his name and address]
He said he was a CEO and there were basic math mistakes in the fiscal impact of the of
developer's proposal. He said no worse-case scenarios have been presented or discussed.
Everything is based on the developer's assumptions. .
Mr. Paul Millet, 25 Fairview Avenue.
Mr. Millet said he is a Civil Engineer and the traffic report is riddled with engineering
flaws. Also, he said there are many unresolved engineering issues in the site plan too.
Example: the water supply issue is a "sleeping giant". The increase in demand for water
will be great and will require larger pipes. He believes it would be premature and reckless
to approve a zoning change.
Ms. Phyllis Sachar, 42 Summer Avenue.
She expressed her support for the development.
Ms. Nancy O'Keefe, 140 Eastway.
Ms. O'Keefe said Reading needs the jobs and the tax revenue this development will bring.
Mr. Dennis Collins, 12 Beech Street.
Mr. Collins expressed concern over the increase in crime this mall will bring and worries
that five years from now we could have a completely different mall from what the
developers have proposed. Also, Mr. Collins does not believe enough attention has been
paid to the impact the changes to the 128/93 Interchange will have on the area.
Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street.
Mr. D'Arezzo said there is no change in the amendment to the footnote concerning the 95'
height of structures within 400' of Route 28. He urged the Board not to approve the
amendment because it is poorly written and filled with exceptions. JS said what is needed
is a clean copy of the bylaw with all the changes redlined.
Mr. Frank Touserkani, 21 George Street
Mr. Touserkam said the possibility of a 40B is being used as a scare tactic. Recent changes
in the 40B law allow towns to put off 4013s. Also, we have recently increased our stock of
affordable housing. He said the market for office space will bounce back.
CR said we are still open to 4013s. We are now at 7.2% affordable housing. We need
another 275 or so affordable units to reach 10%.
Selectman Ben Tafoya said that according to information he found at the State's website,
he calculates Reading's affordable housing at 8.2%. The correct method for calculating the
percentage needs to be clarified.
Page 8of10
Ms. Michelle Hopkinson, 21 Sherwood Lane.
Ms. Hopkinson said that Mr. Favaloro stated in his opening remarks that the working group
is discussing changes that will make the development smaller. She asked if Mr. Favaloro
could elaborate. Isn't it true that it would not be profitable to reduce it in size beyond a
certain point?
Mr. Favaloro said they were looking at pushing the buildings back to the 100' setback. The
working group was making progress, but we know there is opposition to the amendment
and we would listen to a request from the CPDC to table the amendment.
Ms. Hopkinson asked Mr. Favaloro why they do not withdraw the petition. Mr. Favloro
said legally they can't withdraw.
Ms Hopkinson said she was looking for the CPDC to approve the tabling of the
amendment. JS said the Board could approve, approve with changes, or disapprove the
proposal. How the administrative details are handled afterwards is beyond the Board's
purview.
Someone from the audience asked for a commitment from the CPDC that they would not
let their decision go down to the wire. JS said the CPDC has one more meeting before
Town Meeting (April 10).
JS read a letter from Representative Brad Jones. In short, Representative Jones is
concerned there is not enough protection to residents from increased traffic and he believes
it is premature to approve rezoning the site.
JS said it is late and the Board needs to determine whether to continue or close the public
hearing. If we close tonight, the Board can accept the amendment; accept it with changes;
or reject it.
NS said if the Board recommends rejecting the amendment, it still goes to Town Meeting
so what's the point? JB said the Board is obligated by town bylaw to hold a public hearing
and to give Town Meeting our recommendation.
JB said he thought tonight's meeting was very.helpful and he would like to discuss the
matter further. He suggested the Board continue the public hearing to their next meeting on
4/10/06. JS agreed.
Both JB and JS expressed their support for the continuing efforts of the working group.
JS assured the audience that whatever goes before Town Meeting will be appropriately
vetted by the Board.
JB moved to continue the public hearing until 4/10/06.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
* It was later determined that the 95' height would still be applicable by table 5.1.2
(Table of Uses)
Page 9of10
Johnson Woods ANR.
CR said there was one ANR for the Board to sign. The footprint of a relocated building in
Johnson Woods is changing. An earlier version of the plan did not meet the setbacks but
I'm comfortable with this latest plan.
JB moved to endorse the ANR.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
The Board signed the ANR.
Extra Meeting
JS suggested the Board may need to add an extra meting before April 24 - first day of
Town Meeting. The Board agreed and will discuss it again at the 4/10 meeting.
Associate Member.
New Associate Member Brant Ballantyne introduced himself to the Board.
JS moved to adjourn.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 3:0:0.
The meeting ended at 11:30 PM.
These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on May 8,
2006; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on May 8, 2006.
Signed as approved,
D. Howard, Secretary
Date
Page 10 of 10