HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-12 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading
16 Lowell Street ' i
Reading, MA 01867-2683 $ CLERK
Phone: 781-942-6612 -.;-!G. MASS.
Fax: 781-942-9071
Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us zoos i;~
Community Planning and Development Commission
~ o v
4
c(A
CPDC MINUTES
Meeting Dated: September 12, 2005
Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Reading Town Hall
Members Present: John Sasso, Chair (JS), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Neil Sullivan (NS), and
Susan DeMatteo (SD), Richard Howard (RH).
Also Present:
Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth
Ms. Virginia Adams, Madam Chair of the Historical Commission
Selectman Chair Camille Anthony
Mr. Jim Boland, Fuddruckers, P.O. Box 559, Gloucester, MA 01930
Mr. Tony DeCastro, Architect
Attorney Mark Favaloro, Favaloro & Associates, 348 Park Place,
North Reading, MA 01864
Mr. George Katsoufis, 9 Berkeley Avenue, Reading, MA
Mr. Robert Keegan, 38 Back Bay Court, Reading, MA
Attorney Brad Latham, Latham, Latham Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street
Mr. Jim Ogren, Project Coordinator, Hayes Engineering, 603 Salem Street,
Wakefield, MA 01880
Ms. Jessica Pratt, 245 Woburn Street, Reading, MA
Ms. Barbara Rawding, 11 Prospect Street, Reading, MA
Mr. David Rawding, 11 Prospect Street, Reading, MA
Mr. David Snow, 31 Longview Road, Reading, MA
Selectman Ben Tafoya
There being a'quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30PM..
Public Hearing (continued): Definitive Subdivision
Deer Run Developers, Inc., 150-166 Wakefield Street
Proposed definitive subdivision for 8 lots in the 5-20 zoning district.
(Action date: September 30, 2005)
JS opened the public hearing and explained how it would proceed. He said that this is a
- new package with new plans. He noted that a Draft Decision had been provided to the
applicant and posted to the Planning Board's website. Attorney Brad Latham represented
the applicant. Architect John Ogren explained the technical details of the applicant's plan.
Page 1 of 9
RH read the Town Engineer's memo containing his comments and concerns.
All had been addressed except for four:
1. Sidewalk easement
2. Electrical plans have not been submitted
3. Inflow
4. Sewer connection.
CR said that the language is in the draft decision to address these points as conditions.
Architect John Ogren said that the reason they had not yet submitted the electrical plans
was because they were waiting for the RMLD to review the changes.
RH noted that the list of waivers in the Draft Decision does not match those requested by
the applicant in the letter from Hayes Engineering. Mr. Latham said the first two of their
requested waivers must go hand in hand. Their first is a request to reduce the Tree Lawn on
the cul-de-sac to 6' from 10'. Their second is a request for an outside pavement radius of 44'
as the Fire Chief prefers rather than 40'. CR agreed that this was consistent with the Board's
understanding of the matter. CR added that the Draft does not reflect the Hayes
Engineering letter because the letter was submitted late last week.
Regarding the third waiver request in the Hayes letter (concerning drainage), CR said that
he hasn't heard back from the Town Engineer on it yet but the Board could make it a
condition.
RH asked why the draft's first granted waiver (concerning the preservation of 6" caliper or
greater trees) was added when the applicant did not request it? CR said he added it because
the applicant was not in compliance. Mr. Ogren disagreed; he said he believes that they are
in compliance with the draft's first waiver.
NS asked if connecting Kylie Drive with Baker Road was ever considered? Mr. Ogren said
it was considered but dropped because it would require filling in wetlands.
RH asked, in regard to the wetlands, if the Board should consider adding a pedestrian
easement to access them? CR said it could be done and noted that the Master Plan calls for
more such connections. Mr. Latham said that there are two drawbacks to such an easement.
First, it would have to be made between two of the lots. Second, it would encourage
loitering. Both would compromise the privacy of the lots owners. CR said that people from
Wakefield Street may like the access; on the other hand, Wakefield Street is not pedestrian-
friendly and does the Board want to encourage pedestrian traffic there?
The Board asked what the applicant planned to do with the back lot? Mr. Latham said that
the applicant was considering making it conservation land or deeding it to the Town.
JS asked for comments from the Public. There were none.
RH moved to close the Public Hearing. NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
Page 2 of 9
Next, the Board went through the Draft Decision making amendments where necessary.
In particular:
• The Draft was amended to reflect-the fact that the original plan was not denied but the
applicant had been asked to resubmit.
• The Board noted that the individual comments in the Town Engineer's memo needed to
be inserted into their proper places in the draft. This was done.
• The Draft was amended to show that lots #1 and #8 are not subject to the covenant.
• The Board added a third item under the "General Conditions" section stating that the
applicant expressed a willingness either to impose conservation restrictions or to deed
to the Town for Open Space purposes Lot "A".
• The Board wanted the waiver requests from the Hayes letter reflected in the draft and
the first waiver in the draft ("6.1.1(b).13 6" caliper trees... deleted.
RH moved to approve the Draft Decision as amended.
JB seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
Public Hearing: Site Plan Review
Unitarian Universalist Church, 239 Woburn Street
Addition and renovation to allow for meeting space
(Action date: September 26, 2005)
JS opened the public hearing and explained how it would proceed. The applicant has made
changes and will explain theirs. A Draft Decision had been provided to the applicant and
posted to the Planning Board's website.
Attorney Mark Favaloro represented the applicant. Architect Tony DeCastro explained the
technical details of the applicant's plan.
Mr. Favaloro said that at the last meeting the Board had asked his client to reduce the
number of spaces in the back of the church while at the same time placing as few parking
spaces in front of Loring House as possible. This has been done. There are now a total of
twelve parking spaces. Six parking spaces are in the rear of the church and six are in front
of Loring House. He said that this is their best effort both to get traffic off of the street and
to lessen the impact of the rear parking lot on the abutters. Mr. Favaloro added that they
have also submitted a landscape plan as requested.
CR read the Town Engineer's memo on the project. The Town Engineer had concerns
regarding the excavation area, the material the driveway apron would be made of, and the
capping of the main when Sawyer House is demolished.
CR said he thought that the applicant's compromise substantially meets the Board's request
to reduce the parking spaces and the applicant's landscaping plan is adequate.
RH said he had not been at the first Public Hearing and asked how, if CR originally had
calculated the parking space requirement as 42 spaces, it is now 12 spaces? He asked: do
` we have the authority to go against the zoning requirements?
Page 3 of 9
CR replied that he believed the Board did have the authority.
RH said that the law says no ordinance can restrict use of land for religious purposes, but
such land may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning parking requirements. He
then asked, are we saying that we don't have "reasonable regulations" in our own bylaws?
JS asked if the zoning regulations apply or not? CR said that you do have a similar use but
the religious use makes it a gray area. RH asked if it might be an issue to put to Town
Counsel? JB thought the compromise was reasonable but agreed it might be best to ask
Town Counsel's opinion.
Mr. Favaloro said that their original proposal was to have 40 spaces but given the argument
that the site would see its heaviest use only on Sundays, and the tradition of on-street
parking in the area, plus the desire to be good neighbors, we agreed to reduce the number
of parking spaces.
Mr. Favaloro suggested making it a condition that the parking on the site shall be subject to
the Town Counsel's approval. If the Town Counsel says that the Board has gone beyond
their authority, then we must modify our plans or go before the ZBA.
CR said he had no problem with the current parking compromise. He noted that there is a
benefit to the abutters.
- JS asked for comments from the Public.
Mr. David Snow, 31 Longview Road.
Mr. Snow owns the property on 21 Prospect Street. He is concerned with the location of the
dumpster and asks if it could be moved closer towards the church. Mr. Favaloro said that
the dumpster would be in an enclosure made of material consistent with the church.
Mr. David Rawding of 11 Prospect.
M. Rawdings said they met with the church's representatives over the weekend where they
presented to us this new plan and our comment was that we would still be looking at a
parking lot. Mr. Rawdings suggested moving the parking from the back to the front with
the Loring House parking. He knows that the Historical Commission is against this, and
asks if the Historical Commission has the authority to force the parking away from the
front of Loring House?
Mr. Rawding also did not want to see any light poles in the back lot. Mr. DeCastro said that
the only lighting back there would be under the eaves of the building no poles.
SD noted that the current plans show a pole in the turnaround.
NS asked if the 6' fence is still in the plans? Mr. DeCastro said, no. Now they are proposing
screen plantings. Eight to ten foot holly trees that will be 15 to 20 feet tall when mature.
Ms. Barbara Rawding of 11 Prospect.
She said she had sent a letter to the Town Planner about how drivers will still drive into the
back lot even when it is full because they won't know it is full until they drive back there.
Page 4of9
More cars will be driving onto the property to drop off and pick up churchgoers, students,
day care attendees, etc... She said that the buffer the church is proposing would make the
area too closed-in. Mr. Rawding added that it would shade their garden.
The Rawdings feel that although there are fewer spots the effect is the same as before. They
still feel that the rear lot will decrease their property's value. Mr. Rawding suggested that
the Board not reach a decision tonight.
The Board noted that this is a classic case of competing desires. The Board must try to
balance the rights of a property owner to make improvements against the rights of abutters
not to be adversely affected by those improvements. It was the consensus of the Board to
take the advice of Mr. Rawding to consider the matter further.
Ms. Virginia Adams, Madam Chair of the Historical Commission.
Ms. Adams said that the Historical Commission is charged by the Town to protect
historical properties. Loring House is on the inventory of Historical Properties and we
stand by our request to reduce the number of parking spaces in front of Loring House to
preserve the historic streetscape of the property.
Ms. Jessica Pratt of 245 Woburn Street presented a brief Powerpoint slide show of the area
where her and the Rawdings' properties abut the church's property and what would be
removed to make room for the proposed rear parking lot.
RH moved to continue the Public Hearing until the next meeting, 9/26/05, at 9:OOPM.
JB seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
The Board asked the Town Planner to ask for Town Counsel's opinion regarding the
parking issue. He said he would.
Signage Certificate of Appropriateness
Sofia Brina, 12 Woburn Street
(Action date: October 24, 2005)
The owner would like to place an awning over the length of the storefront.
The owner of the awning company, Mr. Alan Young, was there as well.
The Board liked the awning. They asked if there was any lighting associated with it? Mr.
Young said that the awning would not be internally illuminated.
RH moved to grant the Signage Certificate of Appropriateness.
JB seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
Zoning Workshop:
Downtown Mixed-Use Rezoning
Page 5 of 9
Representing the Board of Selectmen was Selectman Chair Camille Anthony and
Selectman Ben Tafoya.
CR noted that the latest draft of the bylaw is the one from last Saturday's meeting with
RH's comments added.
JS said that the Board's intent was to address the issues of affordability and parking. They
attempted to determine which lots would be affected, how many parking spaces would be
required per unit, and how the bylaw should address both new and existing structures.
The Board reviewed the draft making some amendments and answering questions the
Town Counsel had put to certain points. Most questions seemed to be answered in the draft
already and the points in question only needed clarification.
For instance, there was a question as to why the residential units created would be limited
to a maximum of 1,000 square feet. RH said the reason behind this was to provide a more
economical unit in the Downtown.
Another question concerned how many affordable units the developer must provide if the
developer provides more or less than five (if five exactly, the developer must provide one
affordable unit). This question was answered in the accompanying tables. JS added that for
less than five units, it may be worthwhile to consider giving the developer the option of
providing a single affordable unit or of making a dollar contribution of some kind.
Mr. George Katsoufis said that inflation should be accounted for somehow anywhere the
bylaw notes a dollar value. The Board agreed and suggested the dollar amounts could be
adjusted off of a Housing Cost Index of some kind or, if such an index could not be found,
perhaps they could write it into the bylaw that the dollar amounts would be reviewed every
few years. CR said he would look into this and work out some scenarios.
Selectman Chair Camille Anthony asked how the Board arrived at $20,000 for a parking
space? The Board explained that is the amount Haven Junction pays for a deeded space.
Selectman Chair Anthony suggested that there should be mention made of the rationale
behind this cost and not simply refer to it as an "impact fee". She also suggested the Board
put together a scenario of how a developer would go about putting units into, for example,
the M.F. Charles building. Her concern was that the Board was asking too much of
developers regarding having them provide onfite or offsite parking. She added that M.F.
Charles can't find places for their employees today so where are developers going to find
them? The bylaw says that they must find them. Her feeling was that such a requirement
would make developers walk away from Reading's mixed-use zoning.
The Board pointed out that although new buildings must meet the requirements, a change-
in-use, like M.F. Charles, would be looking at only the residential requirements. The retail
use would be based on the underlying zoning.
Selectman Tafoya was concerned that the size restriction on the proposed residential units
may keep them from selling. The Board disagreed. CR said that they'd go for $300,000.
Page 6 of 9
Selectman Chair Anthony said that the Board will have to provide some kind of model for
"existing use" and note how if the parking would change too. She also asked for cost
estimates for underground parking.
CR said that underground parking is roughly two times the cost of aboveground parking.
He added that the topography of the present lot (behind CVS) lends itself to a two-level
parking garage.
Selectman Chair Anthony still had concerns over where the parking would come from and
if the bylaw addressed this adequately. CR replied that there are two schools of thought on
how to approach the parking problem.
1. There is a need for analysis of the different scenarios (new buildings, existing
buildings with new use, existing buildings added to, etc...) to provide a legally
satisfying rationale for an "impact fee" which would be used to finance parking
spaces, garages, shuttle services, etc... Unfortunately, there is not enough time to
do a thorough job before Town Meeting.
2. Let the market drive the solution. The developer will pay for parking because
parking will pay for itself.
The Board commented that it was inappropriate to put forth this bylaw without providing a
plan to address the parking issue and this bylaw in fact does include provisions to address
the parking issue.
- RH said that there is still another CPDC meeting before Town Meeting and the analysis is
part of the presentation at Town Meeting anyway. CR replied, we need more time for
analysis.
CR reminded the Board and Selectmen that the Town Manager wants the exact language of
the bylaw in place by 9/26, which is the date of our next meeting. There is a perception that
we will lose opportunities if this bylaw is not passed at Town Meeting. For instance, Haven
Junction's office space is at 50% capacity and they can't move beyond that because of the
lack of parking.
RE suggested presenting a copy of the draft to Mr. Hall (Haven Junction) and Mr. Mawn
(M.F. Charles) for their feedback.
CR said he could have the next draft ready this week.
JS said the numbers need to be reworked to provide models for different scenarios.
Aquifer Protection District amendment
Review of proposed amendment to allow for underground propane storage
CR said that Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws says that there can be no
underground tanks. Wecan be more stringent thanState Lawbut not less.
RE didn't think it was against State Law. He said the Fire Chief has no problem with
underground tanks.
Page 7 of 9
CR said the Town Counsel also saw no problem with allowing underground tanks. CR
added that an amendment allowing underground tanks would be a zoning change to the
Aquifer District and therefore would need to go through the CPDC. He noted that the Town
Manager wants this on the Town Warrant.
Selectman Chair Anthony asked CR to send the Selectmen a memo with his reservations.
CR said that he would speak to Town Counsel on the matter. Selectman Chair Anthony
asked him to please also speak with Ms. Karen Herrick. She said that Ms. Herrick has
spoken to quite a few people in the State government on the matter.
Selectman Tafoya said we must go by the opinion of professionals we work with.
CR said he has placed the issue on the 9/26 agenda.
Administrative Review:
Lot Release Request: Back Bay Court
Mr. Robert Keegan requested the release of lots #4 and #5 in the Back Bay Court
subdivision. Mr. Keegan represented himself.
CR said that the Town Engineer had no issues with the request. The subdivision was
approved as a PRD and there is nothing the Board can do to ensure that the unfinished
work would be completed aside from holding back the release of the lots.
NS asked if the only work left is to hook up the water? Mr. Keegan said, yes. Mr. Keegan
added that the project is complete except for these last two lots.
CR said that apparently some curbing had not been done to Town standards. The Board
asked CR for options. CR suggested holding the lots until the Town Engineer performs a
complete review of the property.
Mr. Keegan said that it was his understanding that the PRD did not require curbing. He
asked the Board if they would release the lots with conditions?
RH recommended that the applicant meet with the Town Engineer. If the Town Engineer
has no issues, he should send us a memo saying he recommends the release of the lots.
JB said that in fairness the Board should hear what the Town Engineer has to say.
Mr. Keegan said that he would speak with the Town Engineer.
Request for Determination of Minor Modification - Walkers Brook Crossing, Phase 1
Design Review
After Johnny's Luncheonette closed its doors, Mr. Jim Boland of Fuddruckers signed the
- leaseand took it over. Mr. Boland and his lawyer, Attorney Brad Latham, have come - -
before the Board to ask their approval to add awnings to the storefront. The awnings have
the Fuddruckers logo printed on them.
Page 8 of 9
Mr. Latham presented the Board with copies of a full-color illustration of the proposed
awnings. He added that the awnings are backlit with 85-watt bulbs but added that he and
his client are well aware of the lighting controversy in the neighborhood and 60-watt bulbs
could be substituted.
RH liked the awnings - both their color and backlighting but proposed disallowing the
logo and lettering from the two side-awnings as they could be considered extra signs.
There was some concern with the backlighting but RH pointed out that the awnings are
opaque and the zoning is not Business B.
JS asked if there were any other signs, directional signs, for instance? Mr. Latham said that
all directional signs will be changed from "Johnny's" to "Fuddruckers".
RH moved to grant the Minor Amendment to allow Fuddruckers their awnings as shown in
the illustration with the exception that only the larger, middle awning will have the logo
and lettering on it. A single, 60-watt bulb will light each side awning and four 60-watt
bulbs will light the larger awning.
JB asked that the elevation drawing be referenced too.
JB seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
Public Comment/Minutes
RH moved to accept the minutes of July 25, 2005 as amended.
JB seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
RH moved to adjourn.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on
November 1, 2005; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on November 1,
2005.
Signed as approved,
-Richard D. iiow'arcf, Secretary
Date
Page 9 of 9