Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-08 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesV Town of Reading -1. c, ~ `7 D 16 Lowell Street,E' ~.,L~ERK Reading, MA 01867-2683 MASS. Phone: 781-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 0 Email: creilly@ci.readiug,ma.us <cuJ } a -C Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: August 8, 2005 Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Reading Town Hall Members Present: John Sasso, Chair (JS), Richard Howard (RH), Neil Sullivan (NS), and Susan DeMatteo (SD). Members Absent: Jonathan Barnes Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth Mr. John Johnston, owner of "K-9 Performance Plus Training Center, Inc.", 304 Main Street, North Reading, MA 01864. Mr. George Katsoufis, 9 Berkely St., Reading, MA Ms. Virginia Adams, Madam Chair of the Historical Commission There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30PM. Site Plan Review Waiver (continued) K-9 Performance Plus Training Center, Inc., 335 Main St. JS said that this waiver application is continued from the May 23, 2005 meeting at which the Board voted 4:0:0 to grant the request for a site plan review waiver subject to conditions subsequent to the ZBA's approval. The ZBA has since given Mr. Johnston their approval and he is back before the CPDC tonight seeking his waiver from site plan review. RH noted that the ZBA's decision requires that a fence be built along the site's southern (Avon Street side) property line. RH said that there was much discussion regarding the storm drains of the parking lots of other Main Street properties but no discussion about this property's storm drains. Why not? CR said that this property is not a redevelopment and so does not fall under the new storm drainage regulations. _The. Board asked about Mr. Johnson's dumpster. _CR said that he would _like to see _a consolidation of the site's multiple dumpsters. He would discuss the matter with the three property owners. CR added that the layout of the site is strange and it would be tough to Page 1 of 6 place the dumpster but he would like to see it situated near the woodworking shop and as far back as possible. RH asked the applicant if he had any comment on the draft decision? Mr. Johnson said that he had not yet seen the draft. CR said that it was sent to Mr. Johnson's address. Mr. Johnson was handed a copy of the draft. Mr. Johnson asked for more information regarding the re-striping of the parking lot. CR said that the parking spaces are a little shorter than regulation and need to be re-striped i.e. the lines need to be repainted. Mr. Johnson asked for more information regarding the draft's specification of the hours of operation. CR said that the concern there is that the dogs' barking will disturb the neighbors. Mr. Johnson said that the dogs will not be trained outdoors and they will be walked outdoors only between 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. CR said that he put in the language about when the windows should be kept closed because the applicant had said that once in a while he opens the windows to provide ventilation. Mr. Johnson said that there are no windows but the building does have "open ventilation". JS said that that is not considered an open window. RH moved to approve the Site Plan Review Waiver of the K-9 Performance Plus Training Center, Inc. at 335 Main Street subject to the findings and conditions in the draft. NS seconded. Voted approved, 4:0:0. Zoning Workshop Downtown Mixed-Use Rezoning CR said that he provided a lot of information in the Board members' packets including draft language for the bylaw and a copy of Mr. George Katsoufis' draft. The Board noted that they have not yet received input from the Selectmen as requested. Mr. Katsoufis led a discussion of F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio). He noted that the F.A.R. is a development tool that has a direct monetary value to developers as opposed to the PtM-R, which requires many discussions and meetings between the concerned parties and is subject to many regulations. Mr. Katsoufis once thought that a F.A.R. of 1.2 was good but now believes that is too abrupt a change for Reading. He noted that Cambridge, MA has a F.A.R. of 1.2. The Board asked Mr. Katsoufis to walk them through the example of F.A.R found in their information packet. He did so. Mr. Katsoufis and the Board felt that they could use F.A.R. to help in their estimation of the number of parking spaces various downtown buildings (the M F. Charles building for one) would require if they were converted to mixed use. " - Turning to the issue of parking, Mr. Katsoufis said parking should not drive what we want to do for Reading's downtown. Page 2 of 6 RH said Sally Hoyt was looking for some kind of Grandfather Clause for offices in the M. F. Charles building. Ms. Hoyt said her family has had an office there for 20 years and the office units there now have no parking for employees because CVS limits parking to two hours. JS expanded on where employees can park. Reading residents can buy stickers and park at the depot. Very few businesses have on-site parking. Employees either park their cars down side streets or they move their cars around from space to space to avoid tickets. Because of this, it is not unreasonable to assume that a garage would be a draw to employers. SD said tickets have become part of the cost of doing business JS warned that development could be a two-edged sword. There are some places we would like to revitalize but we also may be opening the door to changes we don't want to see. Mr. Katsoufis agreed and said the right balance needs to be struck between what to encourage and what to restrict. CR said we could have our way if we require that developers apply for a Special Permit and make the granting of the permit subject to our conditions. Mr. Katsoufis said that too many conditions could lead to lawsuits. CR agreed and noted that is why the Board should require Special Permits rather than Site Plan Reviews, which are harder to deny. CR also noted that Special Permit applications that don't meet the specifications of the Master Plan would give us a compelling reason to deny them. Returning to the parking issue, JS said the Selectmen want to see a bylaw and to know its impact on parking. We must be able to say to them whether or not the bylaw will be feasible. We must balance parking and development. JS then drew the Board's attention to the map the Town Planner put in their packets that had the most probable areas of development highlighted. RH said JS was talking about a full build-out, something depending on market forces we may not see that for 20 years, if ever. JS said that the Selectmen and the Town Manager want some kind of plan. If we assume a growth rate of 5% per year, when would we need to build a garage? That's the kind of information the Selectmen and the Town Manager need when they go looking for grants. RH noted the same plan could be presented to prospective developers to show when their contribution of an Impact Fee would pay off. Mr. Katsoufis suggested a phased implementation of mixed-use allowing the development of only a portion of the Business-B district at the start: roughly 17 of the district's 25 acres. RH said many issues have been raised and he doesn't see how we can get mixed-use onto the Fall Town Meeting warrant in time unless we schedule extra Saturday meetings to hammer out the details. CR_said, as he_sees -it, there are two critical issues: • The Town Manager wants a mixed-use bylaw presented at the Fall Town Meeting. Page 3 of 6 • The Selectmen have said they want mixed-use in the Downtown. They have the authority over the parking regulations and so should be providing their input - but they F { `haven't yet. CR added: no matter how you crunch the numbers, I believe that part of the solution is going to have to include amendments to the parking regulations and that will require the Board of Selectmen's input. RH said that he does not see the Selectmen as being proactive but rather as reactive. RH said the Board needs to present the Selectmen with a trial balloon that they can react to. CR said that we have presented the Selectmen with a number, 1.5 parking spaces per unit. It's the number Bedford uses; it seems to work for theirs; and until the Selectmen say otherwise, that's the number we should use. CR added he believes the Board should let the developers figure out their own solutions because parking pays for itself. JS said that you can only put this onto the developers in one of two ways: 1. Either they must find the space, or 2. If you're non-conforming and don't have the space, then you must pay an Impact Fee. CR asked, do we allow a developer to build a project without suitable parking as long as they pay money towards a garage that may be built some time in the future? JS agreed that it is problematical, but the Board is in a position where it needs to put together something that makes sense. CR agreed but thought that it would take them more time than they had before the warrant closes to review all the possible scenarios and their ramifications properly. With this in mind, CR asked the Board to write a letter to the Selectmen to inform them of this fact. The consensus of the Board was to schedule a Saturday to work further on the draft for the Mixed-Use Bylaw. Mr. Katsoufis said that to make such a meeting worthwhile we should have information on the number of employers and employees per block; the square footage of the buildings in question; the number of office spaces; the number of residential spaces, etc... Ms. Virginia Adams said that lots of that kind of information may have already been collected from the community back in 2000 by the Downtown Steering Committee. At the Saturday meeting, the Board will work the numbers for three possible multi-use scenarios: 1. developing existing buildings (example: upper floors of M.F. Charles), 2. adding to existing buildings (example: the Atlantic and the single-story section of M.F. Charles), 3. constructing new buildings. Once that's done, and using the Bedford Bylaw's 1.5 parking spaces per unit, the Board will figure out how many extra parking spaces will be needed and from that estimate when the Town would need to build a garage. Page 4 of 6 It was the consensus of the Board to meet at 9:OOAM on Saturday, August 13 in the Town Hall's Conference Room to work on the draft and develop the scenarios mentioned above. CR asked if the Board planned on limiting the bylaw to a subset of the Business-B district as suggested by Mr. Katsoufis? It was the consensus of the Board to limit the bylaw to a subset of Business-B. The Board felt that the bylaw could always be expanded at a later date but for now they needed to put together something for the Selectmen to review. Administrative Review Subdivision Rules and Regulations Amendments CR was expecting but did not receive a memo form the Town Engineer on this item. No action was taken on this item as the Town Engineer was not in attendance and the Board decided they needed his input to help them review the regulations knowledgeably. CR will try to schedule the Town Engineer to appear at the August 22 meeting. RH suggested that the Board members look over the regulations for possible issues beforehand. The Board thought this was a good idea and pointed out that based on recent discussions concerning the Johnson Woods project there were already more than a few issues that need to be discussed and clarified. "Dust" and "noise" were mentioned as were the clarification of the definitions of such terms as "heavy equipment" and "hours of operation". Site Plan Review Fees CR said that the Board will be addressing more and more Site Plan Review Waivers applications and he felt that there should be a fee attached. To be safe, this change should be put in the form of a motion from the Board. CR explained that the fee will be based on the cost of construction just as it is for a Site Plan Review application. NS asked if this means that an applicant runs the risk of paying twice if the waiver is denied and he or she must apply for a Site Plan Review? CR said, no, the fee will cover both applications. JS moved to approve the Site Plan Review Waiver fee as presented by the Town Planner. SD seconded. Voted approved 4:0:0. t Page 5 of 6 Haven Junction Site Plan Modification CR said he had asked for a copy of the plan as the Board had requested at a previous meeting (July 25, 2005), but as of yet he has received nothing so this item must be continued again. Public Comment/Minutes The Board proposed to write a letter to the Town Manager commending Michael Schloth on the job he is doing taking minutes and helping the Board to observe the Open Meeting Law. RH moved to accept the minutes of June 27, 2005 as amended. NS seconded. Voted Approved 4:0:0. Town Planner Evaluation CR recused himself The Board discussed the Town Planner's review. JS agreed to document the information on the "Town Planner Review Form". These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on October 17, 2005; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on October 17, 2005. Signed as approved, D. Howar , Secre ry Date Page 6 of 6