Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-27 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of February 27, 2003 Members Present: . John Jarema Robert Redfern Susan Miller Donna Boggs Edmund Balboni A tr ' uJ~ f`s~i ~.v A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts at 7:00 P.M. Also in attendance were Chris Reilly, Town Planner and Anne Reitmayer, Consultant. #02-24 Continuance of a Public Hearing on the petition of Archstone-Smith who seeks a Comprehensive Permit under MGL Chapter 40B to place a 232-unit apartment community on the property located at 40-42 & 70 West Street. This session's intention was to review the proforma. Anne Reitmayer summarized the findings that she made in her report for the town. Her summary was based on her review of the Comprehensive Permit application; the Applicant's explanation of the extent of change between the preliminary site plan in the application and the adjusted site plan with the response to staff comments dated 01/15/03; the letter of interest from Citizen's Bank dated 06/27/02; the revised proforma dated 01/23/03 and "Description of Significant Changes to Archstone-Reading proforma"; the preliminary site development plans prepared by Daylor Consulting Group Inc. dated 11/22/02 and notes on adjusted Comprehensive Permit preliminary site plan; and the marketing study dated 06/10/02 and the operating proforma dated 08/01/02 submitted under cover of letter of 08/01 /02 to the Town of Reading by Brian Blaesser, Esquire. Anne Reitmayer's review was also informed by the working session on the proforma held at Reading Town Hall on 02/12/03 in which Archstone-Smith Operating Trust provided her with information she had requested: an updated unit count showing unit type and square footages; construction budget breakdown dated 10/0/02; and an analysis of the fee schedule for the permits and impact fees dated 02/12/03. She identified the following areas as those needing concern: acquisition price; construction costs, permit and other impact fees; construction period interest; soft cost contingency; overhead and fees; market rent levels; and the affordable rents/utility allowances. There was a discussion among the Board members regarding the purchase price and whether it was an arms length transaction. The Town Counsel said it was a contract entered into by two separate parties and the fact of the number of units and the 40B contingencies does not make it not an arms length project. The acquisition price is what can be looked at and that number will - -f go in determining what the profit will be. The applicants have agreed to give the Town Counsel the Purchase and Sale Agreement to review. There was a discussion regarding the valuation. The applicants said they are not exceeding the 10%. They gave costs and a complete breakout including permit and other impact fees. This was their best estimate and subject to negotiation in the working group. Joanne Metzger, a resident of County Road, asked if there been any comparisons of other similar parcels that have sold in the last six to eight months in the area and the applicant said there were. She also asked what is going to be provided for community services. The applicants said there will be a pool and a conference room Maureen Arakelian, a resident of Whitehall Lane, stated the applicant was getting an advantage now but what will happen when things change. The Board members stated that no one knows what will happen but if there is excess profit it will go towards affordable housing. Mary Fuller, a resident of County Road, asked if the Archstone community in Woburn was presently being built. The applicant stated that they hope to start within the next 12 months. Joanne Metzger also asked if there was going to be a signal at West and South streets and the applicant said they have deferred to the town what the traffic improvements will be. There then followed a discussion between the Board members and the applicant regarding the rough drafts of the conditions which were still being considered in working sessions. Sandy Vance of Archstone-Smith discussed how the site plan could be improved and that one of the items under discussion has been the parking areas. Putting parking underneath a unit would gain about another 28 parking spaces. This would take cars off the street and give more open space and convenience for the people in that unit and would reduce the walk to the building. Robert McCullough of Archstone-Smith discussed that they did a parking distribution analysis. This particular building would have to walk farther if they did not have underneath parking. He also said it might be a way to address concerns about bringing more cars off the external areas. Some members of the Board felt this would be a plus provided the site line of that building does not increase beyond what is shown on the original plan. They also discussed the fact that there is not a lot of vacant and green space so where would they put the snow since there does not appear to be a lot of snow storage space. The applicant said they have looked at snow storage areas and would do offsite if necessary. The Chairman asked if there were any other comments on this issue. There will be another public hearing and all the conditions will be mapped out one last time. Joanne Metzger asked if there will be specific times for when construction is allowed and was told the rules will be the same as for subdivisions. The rubbish locations were discussed. The applicant said normally Archstone likes each unit to have a compactor unit but here they have elected to put it at the back of the site against the low retaining wall. It would be a covered three sided enclosure with landscaping that is typically emptied one to two times per week and is very different than having dumpsters around the site. They also stated they are responsible for bulky items and will call for special pickups. The Chainnan said the intention was to meet one more time and then come back to go over the conditions of the final draft and get comments from both board members and citizens. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Donna Boggs, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the hearing on the petition for, the Comprehensive Permit for Archstone-Smith to March 13, 2003. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. On a motion by Edmund Balboni, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Minutes of 02-20-03 were accepted. The motion was approved 3-0-0. The members of the Board had a discussion regarding the valuation of the Longwood project. The Chairman stated that he did not see any interest in getting another appraisal. The Town Counsel said the applicants are allowed to make more profit than 20% but they have to give the excess to the town. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Donna Boggs, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to adjourn at 9:40 P.M. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Maureen M. Knight / Recording Secreta4