Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-13 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesN Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street ` i CQ Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612, Fax: 781-942-9071~'u ` Email: creilly@c i. read ing.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: March 13, 2006 Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Town Hall 7:00 PM Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Neil Sullivan (NS) and Susan DeMatteo (SD). Members Absent: Richard Howard (RH) Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth Selectman Chair Camille Anthony Selectman James Bonazoli Selectman Joe Duffy Selectman Richard Schubert Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner Mr. Anthony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Attorney Gary Brackett of Brackett & Lucas, 165 Washington Street, Winchester, MA 01890 Attorney Robert Buckley of Riemer & Braunstein, LLP, 7 New England Executive Park, 7th Floor, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 Mr. Robert Scott Kajander, 2 Center Avenue Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Ted Moore, Glover Property Management, Inc. 8 Doaks Lane, Marblehead, MA, 01745 Venetian Moon Team: Mr. Pat Hogan Mr. Ron Ranere, Architect, 74 Edgemont Avenue Mr. Anthony Cavallo 1801 Founders Way, Saugus Mr. Carmen Cavallo 76 Orvis Road, Revere There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting of the CPDC to order at 7:05 PM. Public Comment There were no comments from the public. Page 1 of 11 Joint Zoning Workshop with Selectmen Johnson Woods PUD-R Zoning By-Laws Amendment Request to change Section 4.9.6.2. h from 7 to 4 years Attorney Brad Latham and Mr. Ted Moore appeared for Johnson Woods. CR said the Board members have Mr. Latham's letter requesting that the Board endorse the applicant's request to accelerate the time until the land in question [a 300' wide strip of land - roughly 11 acres bordering Woburn MA and Johnson Woods] could be developed. Mr. Moore said the delay made sense back when Inwood was zoned for office development and there was a chance that developing the land as commercial property, but Inwood is now zoned for residential - over 450 rental units are planned - and the developer has already broken ground. Why not tie it into the PUD and develop the land as residential too? Mr. Moore spoke of the benefits of developing the strip sooner: • The project would end sooner and therefore be less of a disruption to the abutters. • The town would get more taxes and get them sooner. NS asked about the impact such a development would have on traffic. Mr. Moore said that if it was "legal and feasible" the traffic from their residential proposal would travel in and out along Inwood Drive. Also, now that Inwood would be residential, the traffic from [Johnson Woods] Phase Two could travel on Inwood Drive too and Inwood Drive is not in Reading. JB asked: if the strip was developed as a commercial property, would it be legal for traffic from it to travel on Inwood Drive? Neither Mr. Moore nor Mr. Latham knew. Mr. Latham said he would try to get an answer. JB said he was strongly in favor of a commercial use for the property. He read aloud from the PUD-R bylaw that listed all of the possible commercial uses of the property. JB said he was not averse to developing the strip as residential but expressed concern that by reducing the time until this land can be developed the Board would be surrendering the possibility of commercial development. Mr. Latham said that commercial or office use is not necessarily precluded by shortening the delay to four years. Selectman Richard Schubert said there was talk at one time of putting certain businesses there that would meet local residents' daily needs (convenient store, dry cleaner,...) thereby reducing the number of trips down West Street into Reading. Mr. Moore said the Inwood traffic study shows 90% of Inwood traffic would turn left towards the highway and Wilmington. Page 2of11 Mr. Latham said that the property in question has an easement right to go through Inwood, but Inwood does not have the same right to go through Johnson Woods. The Town Manager noted that originally the Town of Reading had denied Inwood access. This led to litigation. which the town lost. The court ruled that Reading provided Inwood with the "only practical access". The Town Manager said that the project's percentage of affordable units will have to be over 10% to make progress on meeting the town's affordable housing requirement. In return for approving the change, JB wanted to discuss the possibility of increasing the percentage of affordable units to 20%. Mr. Latham said 20% was "problematic" and very high for the density. JB said Mr. Latham's letter notes that one of the benefits of Mr. Moore's request is the fact that the bylaw says 15% of the housing in the strip must be affordable and this will help Reading better hold off adversarial projects. JB asked the Town Planner how close the Town is to meeting its affordable housing goal. CR said the town is at about 7.2% of its goal and still open to 40B developers. The Town Manager asked if the town still enjoyed a moratorium due to recent 40B projects. CR said the Archstone development had given the Town some time but that time is up. Selectman Richard Schubert asked to see some numbers on the affordability component of this request. JS thanked Mr. Moore and Mr. Latham and said the discussion would be continued at a Zoning Workshop some time after the Town Meeting. Administrative Review: CPDC Memo on Compliance/Enforcement Master Plan Implementation The Board had intended to discuss both items with the attending Selectmen and the Town Manager. Unfortunately, neither item was addressed in any detail while they were in attendance. Instead, the Selectmen and Town Manager joined the Board in a discussion of both the Addison/Wesley Rezoning Article and Mr. Bob Frazier's request (in a letter to the BoS dated 3/7/06) for the creation of a "working group to review and craft the appropriate zoning language". Selectman Chair Camille Anthony expressed concern that forming a working group could be a waste of everyone's time if you don't know what you're going to do with it. Selectman Richard Schubert questioned what a working group could accomplish in such a short time before Town Meeting with something already on the warrant. JS said the CPDC meeting of 3/27 will be a public hearing on the rezoning petition and will be dedicated to discussing the current rezoning proposal only. He asked if the applicant could withdraw the petition given this new request and what the legal ramifications of withdrawing would be. Page 3ofII Attorney Gary Brackett said the CPDC should have time to give a considered opinion and cautioned against making zoning changes if not ready. On the other hand, he said a Working Group could be used to provide further negotiations with the developer over the merits of their zoning application. The working group and rezoning proposal could move forward on parallel tracks. The Public Hearing must take place as scheduled but the CPDC need not present its recommendation and report until the night of May 4 when the article is presented to Town Meeting. Mr. Brackett said the working group would fall under the requirements of the Open Meeting Law and its meetings would have to be posted. Selectman Chair Anthony said if the article was voted down at Town Meeting it could not come back for two years. The Town Manager said an article for rezoning the property to a different zoning could come back sooner - but the same rezoning could not come back for two years. Mr. Latham said the same rezoning could come back sooner if the CPDC voted for it and it passed by at least 4:1. It was noted that the only amendments that could be made to the current proposal are amendments that make the requirements of the proposal more stringent or restrictive. The Town Manager said and Mr. Brackett agreed that this meant a residential component could not now be added to the proposal. Selectman Chair Anthony asked what could be done if the BoS wanted to see a Mixed-Use Component and the Town Manager said the article could be tabled at Town Meeting. The Town Manager emphasized that a vote to table is not a negative vote. The same article could be brought up at a later time. JS said he supports forming a working group but agreed with Selectman Chair Anthony that if all the developer offers is a minimal reduction in square footage then it is a waste of time. Selectman Schubert said the Boards need adequate time to review the impact of this rezoning petition on all possible developments and not just the one at hand. If Town Meeting votes to rezone, and this developer goes away, we'll have no control over the next developer to come along. JS said that even with the working group they'll be hard-pressed to get anything done in time for Town Meeting but the working group will give the CPDC additional opportunities to have workshops with the public, the BoS, etc...and those discussions will help when it comes time for us to give our report and recommendation to Town Meeting. Mr. Brackett said the benefit of the working group is that it shows the CPDC is willing to consider further discussion and it could lead to their proposing amendments to the article along with their report and recommendation. It was the general consensus that making amendments to the zoning bylaw from the floor of Town Meeting should be avoided. Page 4 of 11 NS asked if approving the bylaw also meant approving the project. JS said it did not. NS said we should let them bring in what they want and we'll vote on it at Town Meeting. JS said the developer could present something different but he would be happy to work with them to the extent we can - whatever they present will still come back to the CPDC. Selectman Schubert said the working group should consider scheduling evening meetings to make it convenient for the public to attend. Selectman Chair Anthony said Selectman Ben Tafoya and Selectman James Bonazoli have agreed to represent the Board of Selectmen in the working group. JS and NS said they would represent the CPDC unless RH wants to attend instead of JS. The developer and volunteers from the abutting residents will comprise the remaining members of the working group. Regarding the Master Plan Implementation spreadsheet, Selectman Chair Anthony asked if it could be listed by completion date. JS said the CPDC now has an associate member. His name is Brant Ballantyne. JS thanked the Board of Selectmen for approving the CPDC's request for associate members. No one was sure if Mr. Ballantyne had been sworn in yet. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review (continued) 25 Walkers Brook Drive, Stop & Shop Application to demolish existing structure and redevelop site in entirety for a 63,000 sq. ft. Stop & Shop, with related utility, drainage, screening, and other site improvements. (Action Date: March 13, 2006) JS re-opened the Site Plan Review and summarized how it would proceed. The Lighting Consultant was here and would make his presentation first. Next, the Traffic Consultant would update his previous (last meeting) presentation. Then the applicant will make their presentation. Next, the Board will hear any Town Staff reports, ask questions, and make comments. Next, the public will be asked for their questions and comments. A Draft Decision is ready and the Board may get to it if there is time. Before the Lighting Consultant made his presentation, the applicant's attorney, Mr. Robert Buckley asked to address the Board. Mr. Buckley said they were disappointed by the Draft Decision. He said it supports a plan not before the Board and calls for the reorientation of the building. He said the public has been given no notice on this new plan and we feel we are on strong legal ground with regards to our own plan. Mr. Buckley said, we propose a one month extension of the review and perhaps the creation of a working group to discuss the matter during that month. At the end of the month we all can come back to this review with "eyes wide open" The consensus of the Board was that they were comfortable with the Draft Decision as written but were willing to discuss the matter further. Page 5of11 CR said if the review is going to be put off one month it would not be productive to review the Draft, but it might be helpful to discuss the details of it that have led to the current impasse. Mr. Buckley pointed out that one of the CPDC's members was absent and if testimony is taken tonight that member would not be allowed to vote on the matter later. Mr. Brackett agreed. The Board noted that the meeting was being recorded and asked if the absent member could review the tape later. Mr. Buckley said under current law that would not matter. Mr. Brackett Agreed. Mr. Brackett said he thought there was something in the works to change the law to allow the review of a tape recording of a meeting to count as being at the meeting, but he did not believe it was part of the law today. The Board said they would require a written request for an extension in hand tonight. Mr. Buckley asked if there was a form and CR said he could write request longhand. Mr. Buckley did so. The Board thanked the Lighting and Traffic Consultants (Mr. Lemons and Mr. Diaz respectively) for coming and apologized for not being able to their testimony tonight. JB moved to continue the Site Plan Review until 4/10/06 at 8:00PM. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. No additional notice will be mailed to abutters. Regarding Mr. Buckley's suggestion to discuss the Draft Decision further in the intervening month, it was the consensus of the Board to tentatively schedule a meeting with the applicant for Thursday, March 16 at 9:OOAM. No abutters will be noticed but the meeting will be posted. Minutes JB moved to accept the minutes of 02/27/06 as amended. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Signage Certificate of Appropriateness 78 Haven Street, Atlantic Framing Co. (Action Date: April 10, 2006) Mr. Robert Scott Kajander is the owner of Atlantic Framing Co. and represented himself. He has operated in Reading for the past six years and he is moving his business across the street. His design calls for a sign with gold lettering against a black background. Ann DeCicco, who made signs with a similar style on that street, will make his new sign. CR confirmed that the sign's dimensions are consistent with bylaw requirements. Page 6of11 The Board liked the design and appreciated the applicant's effort to snake its style consistent with the style of neighboring signs. The Board discussed whether or not to require a scalloped (beveled) edge and, if they did ask for a scalloped edge, whether or not it should be highlighted in the same gold paint used for the lettering. JB moved to approve the sign as submitted and to give the applicant the option to modifying the sign by adding a beveled edge and if the applicant decides to add the edge to give the applicant the option to highlight it in the same gold paint used for the lettering or not to highlight the edge at all. SD seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Site Plan Review Waiver Request 680 Main Street, Venetian Moon Restaurant (Action Date: April 10, 2006) JS recused himself and asked JB to Chair the meeting in his absence. Representing the Venetian Moon were Mr. Carmen Cavallo, Mr. Anthony Cavallo, Mr. Ron Ranere, and Mr. Pat Hogan. CR said the applicant proposes to expand their interior space and upgrade the facade. Mr. Hogan said the restaurant capacity is currently 102 seats and uses the street and lower levels. The lower level has storage space they would like to convert to more seating. On weekend nights, they need to "flip" tables faster than they like. He explained that "flip" refers to the amount of time the customer sits at a table. More seats will make for a more relaxed atmosphere. Customers can sit longer and not feel rushed. The owners (the Cavallos) said that they are busy on weekends and must turn away many customers. Sometimes, the wait can be two hours for a table. More seats will allow them to seat more customers and will reduce the wait. Mr. Hogan said the expansion will include making the balance of the restaurant handicap accessible. The sprinkler system too will be expanded to include the entire restaurant. He emphasized that the restaurant is currently in compliance with the safety code - this will be extra protection. Mr. Hogan said they believe the waiver should be granted because their proposed changes fall under the reasons allowed for granting a waiver as spelled out under 4.3.3 of the bylaws. They believe there will be no adverse impact because: • The business is existing and operates off-peak • Not seeking to add square footage - only to use more of what they have, Page 7 of 11 • As their primary business is conducted off-peak, there is plenty of parking for more customers. • There will be safety improvements. • There will be better handicap accessibility. • The fagade will be made more consistent with neighboring businesses. Regarding the fagade, Mr. Hogan said the existing windows leak and need to be replaced. Also, the door will be moved to the left side of the fagade. Ms. Virginia Adams expressed concern over the impact a change to the facade would have on the rest of the block specifically as the plan specifies removing the concrete base the windows rest upon. Mr. Hogan said some of the concrete needs repair. Their intent is to replace it with a panel. Mr. Hogan noted that the Wine Shop's fagade also consists of panel and the Chinese Restaurant still has its concrete base - so it's a mix of styles. CR said there was no DRT and one would probably not add much. Code issues would be handled by the Building and Health Inspectors. He said the applicant's proposal was consistent with the bylaws. Parking could be an issue but is offset somewhat by the fact that their peak business hours coincide with non-peak parking. Also, they have the Municipal Lot Exemption to parking. CR's listed his concerns: • More employee parking • More deliveries • Need for landscaping on the long, blank wall facing Woburn Street. • Need for a bigger dumpster • Mechanicals on roof need to be screened from view Regarding employee and customer parking, the Board agreed that the off-peak nature of the business should make parking less of an issue than it might otherwise be. Regarding deliveries, it was the consensus of the Board that trucks should use the municipal lot in the rear to snake deliveries and that neither Main. Street nor Woburn Street should be used for deliveries. The Board agreed to review this decision after six months if requested by the applicant. Regarding landscaping, the applicant said any plantings on that stretch of sidewalk - along Woburn St. - would interfere with snow plowing. CR said there should be enough room for a shallow planter. The consensus of the Board was to require landscaping planters on the Woburn Street elevation subject to the approval of both the DPW (snow plowing) and the Town Planner. Regarding the dumpster, the applicant pointed out that a bigger dumpster would not be necessary as it was their intention to schedule more frequent pick-ups. The consensus of the Board was that the dumpster should be screened with planters subject to the approval of the Town Planner. Page 8of11 Regarding the mechanicals on the roof, it was the consensus of the Board that they should be screened to the satisfaction of the Town Planner. It was the consensus of the Board that the color of the Venetian Moon's awning should be terra-cotta. JB moved to approve the waiver with the above listed conditions on deliveries, screening of the dumpster and roof mechanicals, awning, and landscaping along the Woburn Street elevation. SD seconded. Voted approved: 3:0:0. JS returned and retook the chairmanship of the meeting. Administrative Review: CPDC Memo on Compliance/Enforcement The Board revisited the Administrative Review items. Neither the Selectmen nor the Town Manager were in attendance at this time. The Board appreciated and found helpful the Town Manager's memo in reply to the Board's request for guidance on the compliance and enforcement issues. In response to the Town Manager's request for a list of existing compliance/enforcement issues, JS provided the following list and suggested it be sent to the Town Manager. The Board agreed. 1. Final Landscaping Plan at Walkers Brook Phase 2. 2. Signage at Walkers Brook Phase 2. • Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John St. said Starbucks and Jordans both have external speakers; Bank of America has a running "stock ticker" sign; Chili's has three wall signs • Size of the letters on Staples' sign needs to be revisited 3. Bank of America, Downtown, signage - RESOLVED 4. Jimbos Roast Beef. • CR said that a number of signs have been removed but they are not yet in full compliance • The Board noted that the curb-cut nearest the intersection was still there 5. Jordan's Lighting • CR said that Lighting Consultant Tom Lemons had provided recommendations and Jordans implemented them. 6. 159 Ash Street - Sign installed without Certificate of Appropriateness. 7. 505 519 Main Street • CR said they're coming back for a Site Plan Review for Quiznos. They may be applying to the ZBA for a waiver. 8. Pondview Drive CR said this was "closed-out". Page 9of11 9. DanversBank - The consensus of the Board was that this looks very nice. 10. Walgreens, Hamden Street. 11. GIS Standards • CR noted these need to be added to the Subdivision Regulations. • Important to have digital plans for As-Builts 12. Depot Coffee - RESOLVED 13. Chief's Barber Shop RESOLVED 14. General Goods - Moved out. 15. Quaterly Subdivision Report. • CR noted that the ex-Town Engeneer, Joe Delaney, used to provide this information. • Good way to keep track of outstanding bonds. 16. Baldwin Lane - waiting on a memo from Engineering to release bond. 17. 2 Linden Street - Vitality Wellness sign is up. RESOLVED 18. Johnson Woods - ongoing ~ne Outstanding ANR: CR said it doesn't meet setbacks 19. General Way; ABC Flea Market - Open Storage issues. 20. 15 Pierce Street • CR said we have the landscaping plan but should keep it on the list until trees are planted. 21. Canine Training School 22. Fuddruckers awnings and directional sign • Mr. D'Arezzo asks if their awning's logo constitutes a second sign? • Board noted they need to review Walkers Brook Phase ONE signs. 23. Sofia Brina, Woburn Street - Consensus of the Board was it looks good. 24. Wakefield Street subdivision :39 CR said the tree inventory is done and everything seems to be on track. 25. Woburn Street, Unitarian Church • CR said they will phase the project over two years; classroom first and the rest later. 26. Walkers Brook Crossing and 128 Ford - status unknown. 27. 10 Brande Courte • Consensus of the Board: looks good. • CR said the Building Inspector had a problem with the logo on the sign. 28. 2 Haven Street • Consensus of the Board: looks good. • CR said they want to get rid of the dumpster in back and add another parking space. He is waiting for a plan. It was the consensus of the Board that although this list was a good "first cut" the Board should try to review this list at least once a month adding and subtracting from it as enforcement/compliance issues are discovered and resolved. The Board expressed their thanks to the Board of Selectmen for their help and guidance on the compliance and enforcement issues. Page 10 of 11 New Associate Member. JS announced that the CPDC has its first associate member: Mr. Brant Ballentyne of 52 Blueberry Lane. Mr. Ballentyne is a registered PE and the Board agreed he would prove to be a great addition to the CPDC. Addison Wesley Public Hearing: 3/27/06 JS said he was open to suggestions on how to approach the upcoming public hearing. He said even if a working group is formed, the Board still has a responsibility to present our report and recommendation to Town Meeting. CR said the Board should expect a lot of talk about the possibility of the site becoming a 40B if the rezoning does not pass. The Board discussed implementing "Planned Production". JS explained that this is a 40B regulation that allows a town to slow 40B creation as long as the town can show steady progress towards its affordable housing goals. The DHCD certifies a town's compliance with Planned Production. CR did not think Planned Production would help with the Addison Wesley project even if the town had it on the books today. JS said it was still a good idea to implement it. He said the danger is that you can have your certification dropped if you don't meet the milestones. He noted that this happened to Lincoln, MA. CR said once you have your certification dropped, developers can bypass the town completely and go straight to DHCD for approval. JB asked if the only two alternatives are a Lifestyle Center or a 40B. JS said that's why we need to go through with the working group. CR said he was not saying that the Board should accept what the developer is giving just because a 40B is a possibility, but a 40B is an alternative use for the site and should be considered. NS didn't think a 40B would be built there. He suggested delaying the process because prices will drop and then a 40B will be unprofitable. The other Board members did not believe prices would drop so far to make a 40B unprofitable. NS said he would vote against the rezoning petition. JB moved to adjourn. SD seconded.Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The meeting ended at 11:45 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, ~ x D. Howard, Secretary Date Page 11 of 11