HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-25 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesiJ
Town of Reading
g
16 Lowell Street
~
l
(1ER1
Reading, MA 01867-2683 f" , r S
Phone: 781-942-6612
Fax: 781-942-9071
Email: creilly@ci.reading.ina.us 26J, l , € A 0j:
Community Planning and Development Commission
CPDC MINUTES
Meeting Dated: July 25, 2005
Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Town Hall
Members Present: John Sasso, Chair (JS), Neil Sullivan (NS), Susan DeMatteo (SD),
Richard Howard (RH), and Jonathan Barnes (JB).
Also Present:
Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth
Mr. Martin Shaffer, 50 Enos Circle
Mr. Ted Moore, Glover Property Management, Inc. 8 Doaks Lane, Marblehead, MA,
01745
Mr. Bob Gargano, Johnson Woods project
Attorney Brad Latham
Ms. Ann Marie Marcellino, Vitality Wellness Spa, 2 Linden Street
Mr. Jim Garebedian, Jimbo's Roast Beef, 454 Main Street
Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
Selectman Ben Tafoya
Mr. James Mawn, Executive V. P. of Northern Bank & Trust Company,
215 Lexington Street, Woburn, MA, 01801
Attorney Mark Favaloro
There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.
Public Comment/Minutes
JB moved to approve. the minutes of June 13, 2005 as amended.
SD seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
Mr. Martin Shaffer of 50 Enos Circle asked to speak. He said that the dust from the
construction at Johnson Woods has been blowing into his yard for some time now. His
tabletops, pool, custom drapes, and yard are filthy with dust. He has contacted the town
about it but no one has yet responded. He said that he doesn't want to be a nag but he wants
some kind, of resolution. He said that Condition #20 of the Johnson Woods PUD-R Special
Permit clearly states that the dust should not impact him.
["Construction activities shall be conducted in a workmanlike manner at all times. Blowing
dust or debris shall be controlled by the Applicant through stabilization, wetting down, and
proper storage and disposal methods. Construction dumpsters shall be not be stored in view
of off-site residential abutters for more than 60 days."]
Page 1 of 11
JS said that the Board doesn't have the authority to enforce this.
CR said that he had an email exchange with Mr. Shaffer and passed it on to the Building
Inspector who would have to make a site inspection. There are compliance issues. CR said
that he had no authority in this situation.
The developer, Mr. Ted Moore, was in attendance and CR asked him if he would like to
respond? Mr. Moore said that he would be glad to. Mr. Moore said as a construction
project proceeds there is usually less dust and dirt as more asphalt and topsoil is laid and
less still after the topsoil is hydro-seeded. To date, about half of the site has been hydro-
seeded. Unfortunately, the weather this summer has been unusually dry and windy so there
has been more dust and it is harder to control. Mr. Moore said that there is a water truck on
site, but that it can only help with the dust on the roads. He suggested to Mr. Shaffer that
he keep his windows closed for the next few weeks.
Mr. Shaffer wasn't didn't think keeping his windows closed in the middle of summer was a
very good idea but he said that he would speak with his neighbors to see how they are
handling it. He said if he had to put up with it, then so be it.
JS said that the Board appreciated both positions but there was little they could. He
suggested to Mr. Shaffer that he try to get in touch with the Building Inspector.
Mr. Shaffer said that he appreciated the Board taking the time to listen to his concerns. He
wanted to get them on record.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan (ANR)
PUD Special Permit Modification Request Determination
Johnson Woods Realty, 468 West Street
(Action Date: August 25, 2005)
Attorney Brad Latham said that the plan submitted for endorsement would add the Peterson
land to the Johnson Woods project.
RE moved that the Board endorse the plan dated June 23, 2005.
NS seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
Mr. Latham next drew the Board's attention to two letters he had submitted describing two
minor modifications that the developer would like to make to improve the appearance of
the entranceway to Johnson Woods. Mr. Moore described the changes:
1. The construction of a granite mailroom with a shingle roof and enough room for 140
mailboxes on the island just inside the entrance to the development. Residents would be
able to pull up, get out, pick up their mail, get back in their cars, and drive off.
2. The use of brick paving stones rather than asphalt in the construction of the sidewalks
near the entranceway
Page 2 of 11
RH moved to endorse the two changes as minor modifications to the Johnson Wood's
PUD.
JB seconded.
Voted approved 5:0:0.
Mr. Moore thanked the Board and asked if he could speak to the members on another issue.
Mr. Moore said that aside from Mr. Schaffer's complaints about the dust, there have been
about fifteen complaints from the same source - an abutter - concerning such issues as
construction times of operation, noise, what constitutes "heavy equipment", and when
supplies can be delivered to the site. Mr. Moore said that some of the complaints have been
justified but he would like the Board's guidance on the others.
As an example, Mr. Moore asked if the police were justified in stopping the operation of a
compressor at 5:05 PM? He granted that the bylaws say that no heavy equipment may be
operated after 5:00 PM, but is a compressor "heavy equipment"?
JS asked if the bylaws define "heavy equipment"? They don't.
RH said that the issue is the neighbors' quiet enjoyment of their homes.
Mr. Bob Gargano added that the bylaw, which is attached to all permits, says that deliveries
are allowed between 7:OOAM and 8:OOPM and that no heavy equipment may be operated
before 8:OOAM or after 5:OOPM. He said that he had met with the Police Chief about
deliveries and heavy equipment and that the Police Chief told him that anything larger than
a cube van is heavy equipment. Mr. Gargano said that if this is so then technically he can't
show up at the site before 8:00 AM in his pickup truck.
NS said delivery trucks can be noisy and the drivers they leave the engines running during
deliveries.
JB said that the Board understands your concerns but you are mixing specific and general
issues and we can help you only with specifics. JB said that the bottom line is that it is a
question of reasonableness. What could be acceptable on Walkers Brook is not on West
Street. There is nothing this Board can do.
JS said that the Board would like to help but the Board has to consider the neighbors too.
Mr. Moore appreciated the Board's position. He brought the matter up to explain what is
going on and to let the Board know that he is trying to be reasonable.
The Board members signed the ANR they just endorsed.
Public Hearing (continued): Definitive Subdivision
Richard Merrill Trustees, 175 Franklin Street
Request for continuation pending ZBA case
(Action Date: August 30, 2005)
CR said Brad Latham has submitted a letter requesting a continuation.
Page 3 of 11
Mr. Latham said the ZBA has allowed the site greater imperviousness (22%) and we are
asking the Board for a fourth continuance to have time to change our plans.
RH moved to continue until August 22, 2005 at 7:30PM.
JB seconded.
Voted approved 5:0:0.
Signage Certificate of Appropriateness
Vitality Wellness Spa, 2 Linden Street
(Action Date: August 22, 2005)
Ms. Anne Marie Marcellino appeared as owner of the Vitality Wellness Spa, 2 Linden
Street, Reading, second floor.
RH said: when the Board is presented with a sign that is to be placed on a building with
multiple signs on it already, we try to maintain some harmony of design, color, and
placement. You want to place your sign over the front door and it seems to me that such a
placement doesn't give much consideration to the other signs.
RH proposed the following:
1. Move the sign over the existing chiropractor's sign.
2. The size of the sign should be the same size as the chiropractor's sign.
3. He would prefer if the sign were made of the same material as the chiropractor's sign.
Ms. Marcellino said that the chiropractor's sign is metal. It has been there for six years and
the Board at the time wanted a metal sign. She said that she had planned on a wooden sign.
She also said that she had asked if she-could put her sign over the chiropractor's sign but
was told that she could not.
CR said that he had no problem with the location of the sign but the Building Inspector
thought that it needed CPDC approval. The issue is frontage. Signs can take only so much
of the fronting wall's area. Strong Insurance is behind the wall on which the chiropractor's
sign hangs and Strong's and the chiropractor's signs may already use up the area allotted
for signs on that wall. CR added that the Building Inspector said that if the CPDC approves
the Spa's sign he'll consider it a conforming sign.
JB said that he thought that the Spa's sign was compatible to what was there already and he
noted that the applicant did try to meet the Board's requirements.
SD noted that the location is a difficult building to work with.
JB asked the applicant what her objection would be to placing her sign above the
chiropractor's sign? Ms. Marcellino said that the trees would obscure the sign and no one
would be able to see it until they were right in front of it.
Ms. Marcellino asked if the letter "V" in her sign could extend above the sign. The Board
said that there was nothing in the bylaws against it.
Page 4 of 11
JB moved to grant the Signage Certificate of Appropriateness for Vitality Wellness Spa as
depicted on page four of the application.
SD seconded.
RH said that he was not "swayed by the trees" and voted against approving the application.
Voted approved 4:1:0; Richard Howard dissenting.
Ms. Marcellino asked if her sign must be made of wood?
JB noted that the Board has approved other non-natural materials. For example, the sign
approved for "The Cottage Faire" is made of Sign Foam.
CR said that the Board could move to amend the approval to allow a previously approved
material.
JB so moved.
SD seconded.
Voted approved 4:1:0; Richard Howard dissenting.
Signage Certificate of Appropriateness
Jimbo's Roast Beef and Seafood, 454 Main Street
(Action Date: August 22, 2005)
CR said that the Board had granted the applicant's Site Plan Review Waiver with
conditions. This application for a Signage Certificate of Appropriateness is a follow-up to
some of those conditions.
Mr. Garebedian, owner of Jimbo's Roast Beef, said that he was just changing the face of
the already approved Kabloom sign.
RH moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted.
NS seconded.
JB said that the dimensions on the application are wrong. Mr. Garebedian said that it was a
misprint. CR said that the applicant will have to submit a new application.
SD noted the sign as submitted is comprised of four colors and asked if the signage bylaws
limit a sign to only three colors? JS said that the three-color limit is not in the bylaws but it
is in the guidelines. Mr. Garebedian asked what the fourth color was? He could see only
three on the letters. The Board explained that the background color was the fourth color.
RH moved to grant the Signage Certificate of Appropriateness for Jimbo's Roast Beef and
Seafood with the condition that the yellow is removed from the word "Famous" and the
trim is removed from the words "Roast beef and Seafood".
NS seconded.
Voted approved 5:0:0.
Page 5 of 11
Public Hearing (continued): Definitive Subdivision
Deer Run Developers, Inc., 160-166 Wakefield Street
Proposed definitive subdivision for 5 lots in the S-20 zoning district.
Request for continuation.
(Action Date: August 22, 2005)
RH moved to continue the Public Hearing until the August 22, 2005 meeting at 8:15PM.
NS seconded.
Voted approved 5:0:0.
Zoning Workshop: Mixed Use in Downtown
CR said that this workshop was continued to tonight to allow the Board of Selectmen time
to comment on the Bedford Mixed-Use Bylaw. Members of the Board of Selectmen are
here tonight.
JS asked if the Selectmen had seen the draft bylaw the CPDC put together? CR said that he
had provided copies of it to the Selectmen. He added that he expects the CPDC will receive
a formal reply on it sometime in the future.
RH summarized the CPDC's suggestions:
The bylaw will have general applicability throughout Reading, but we are proposing
that we focus on the Downtown district.
• The bylaw should give the Planning Board "Special Permit" granting authority.
• Regarding the Bedford Bylaw's "Permitted Uses" the CPDC likes what it has to say
about "Multifamily Dwellings" but might make changes to the language to suit
Reading's needs and goals. The section on Retail Use would also be changed and
expanded upon.
s An "Impact Fee" to finance construction of parking spaces.
Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, referring to the section of the Draft Bylaw that
prohibits mixed-use on the same floor, asked why we should care? We should provide as
much flexibility as possible.
RH said that such "same floor" uses would be fine provided appropriate soundproofing was
used. The Town Manager agreed and said that of course the building codes for such use
should be adhered to.
The Town Manager then noted that some mixed uses take place in the same unit an artist
working out of his or her apartment, or a psychiatrist practicing from his or her home and
suggested that Reading's bylaw should be flexible enough to allow such uses as well.
RH asked the Town_Manager if he would like to -see any limitsplaced on what could - -
occupy the first floors? The Town Manager said that he would like to see first floors
limited to retail uses.
Page 6 of 11
The Town Manager then touched upon the issue of Reuse and Redevelopment of
properties. He said that we don't want to stand in the way of reuse or redevelopment of
properties that can benefit from it and you don't want to build anything into the bylaw that
would discourage that. He gave as an example the possible reuse of the upper stories of the
M. F. Charles building, and/or the possible addition of new floors to the one-story section
of the same building.
The Town Manager said the big issue with mixed-use will be parking. The Board agreed.
The Town Manager noted possible opportunities to improve parking in Reading.
➢ He said that the lot behind M. F. Charles and CVS is not efficiently used. Many
businesses and the Town own their own separate parts of the lot. He offered three
solutions:
• Work with the various owners to devise a more efficient layout
• Start tearing things down - which he doesn't recommend as it is opposed to
what we are trying to do with this bylaw in the first place.
• Build a garage adding parking levels above or below the existing lot. The Town
Manager thought this could work both in this lot and in the Brande Court lot
behind the Atlantic.
➢ He suggested expanding the business district about a half of a block between Sanborn
and Linden Streets and out to Woburn Street to include the burned out building next to
the Post Office. That building could be torn down to provide 25 to 30 parking spaces.
For this to work one of three things would have to happen: the town would have to buy
the land, the town would have to grant the owner a variance, or the property would
have to be rezoned. The first two options are unlikely so we are looking at rezoning.
RH asked if the use of "eminent domain" is out of the question?
The Town Manager said that he wouldn't say so but he would prefer to use other means.
As an example he mentioned how the town and the owners of the Atlantic worked together
to add fourteen more parking spaces to Brande Court. A three-story house near Brande
Court came on the market and the Atlantic bought it and the Town tore it down and built
parking spaces on it. The Town Manager noted that this was a result somewhat similar to
what we would hope to achieve through Impact Fees or some comparable idea that would
require developers to work with the town to develop the kind of parking Reading needs.
Selectman Ben Tafoya said that the Selectmen had just received the CPDC's Draft Bylaw
in their informational packets and he would be sure to draw the attention of the Selectmen
to it and express to them the CPDC's need for the Selectmen's feedback.
Selectman Tafoya said that he agrees that parking is a major issue. It is obvious that we
can't expect people conveniently to vacate the area with their cars between 9AM and 5PM
so we are going to have to think creatively on how we can improve parking.
Selectman Tafoya said that overall the Selectmen are enthusiastic about mixed-use.
He added that he feels that the community is first owed some plan as to how the parking - - - -
issues may be resolved even if the resolution is not concurrent with moving ahead with
mixed-use.
Page 7 of 11
Selectman Tafoya "is not wild" about using eminent domain. He feels that, as it is to
everyone's best interests to improve the downtown, parking spaces can be created through
other means.
Selectman Tafoya concluded by saying that he has always thought that Reading's greatest
underutilized resource is its downtown.
The Town Manager pointed out that the Downtown Improvement Plan is scheduled to start
next Spring offering us an ideal opportunity to move our plans for mixed-use forward.
JB wanted to underscore the point that the critical issue is having the Board of Selectmen
commit to addressing the parking situation. Standing on its own, the proposed bylaw is a
great idea. But once the bylaw is in place developers will have a "use of right". JB said
that he fears that the CPDC may be stuck with having to say "no" to a developer who
comes before the town with an idea that everyone loves, that is approved by zoning, but
that lacks a plan for parking.
The Town Manager replied: but if you do this as a Special Permit then you create a
partnership between the Town and the permittee to address parking issues. He expanded on
this point: today parking in Reading is not too bad but we're just making the best use of
what we have. There's still some room to build a few more spaces and our part-time Traffic
Enforcement Officer keeps the spaces we do have turning over. If you want a parking lot,
you'll never get anyone to one without a specific plan for what the parking is for. The
CPDC could make it a requirement of the Special Permit that the applicant must provide
property or money towards building more parking spaces an Impact Fee of some kind.
The Town Manager said that there is a little known source of funding from the State called
the "Off-street Parking Fund" but the State is not going to provide those funds unless there
is something to build the off-street parking for.
The Town Manager said he believed that creating mixed-use zoning will identify the
interest and demand for it and create partners for us to work with as we move forward.
RH asked if, given an existing building, Haven Junction for example, would there really be
any different impact on parking whether the upper floors were used for offices, residential
units, or a mix? The same goes for the M. F. Charles building.
JB said that there is a difference: you're going to have the daytime question of where office
and retail will park coupled with the nighttime question of where residents will put there
cars and there is no answer now.
RH answered that if you make the change to the existing space you're not really changing
the parking needs. JB agreed.
Selectman Tafoya_said whenthe Selectmenasked the merchants in the downtown district - -
what was the best thing the Selectmen could do to improve the business climate they all
said: add more parking.
Page 8 of 11
The Town Manager said that today we do not allow overnight parking in municipal lots
except for two on the east side of Main Street that serve the residential neighborhood
around them so whatever we do we're going to have to somehow allow overnight parking.
Maybe by permit or sticker. This is a regulatory issue and should be no problem to
implement.
JS said he echoes JB's concern of what support the CPDC will get from the Board of
Selectmen? JB agreed that we want to create partnerships with developers but added that
we need some detailed guidance from the Selectmen on how to handle the parking issues.
When developers come before us, we don't want to be put in the position of agreeing to the
creation of everything and letting parking fend for itself.
The Town Manager said that as this is going to be in the form of a Special Permit what you
do is make it a condition of the Special Permit that the developer must show, either offite
or offsite, that they can adequately address their parking needs. That starts the negotiation
with the developer and then you discuss Impact Fees etc...
JS said the Board will continue to make adjustments to the draft and welcomes all
suggestions and comments from the Selectmen and Town Manager.
The Town Manager suggested that the focus of the bylaw be kept on the downtown district
for now. Perhaps we could expand it to include South Main Street later.
Mr. Jim Mawn asked to say a few words. His company recently purchased the M.F.
Charles building. He thanked CR and the Town Manager for their proactive approach in
speaking to him about the town's plans for the downtown and inviting him to this meeting.
Mr. Mawn said he thought an Impact Fee was a good idea. If you get a benefit you should
chip in for it. He would be happy to contribute to a solution for Reading's parking problem
but he asked the Board to please keep in mind that one site alone will not be able to address
all the problems. He added that office properties are not the best of investments today and
that mixed-use is the way to go. He thanked the Board for their time.
The Town Manager said that the Board should attempt to address broadly how much
parking is needed. For example: if the upper stories of M. F. Charles were to be used, how
many more parking spaces would be needed to accommodate the occupants?
CR said he has such an analysis and we can review it at the next meeting. CR said that the
Bedford Bylaw uses 1.5 parking spaces per occupant and if we use that as an assumption
we can put together some different scenarios to review. CR added that he would also
research how other towns use Impact Fees.
CR said the main issue as always is parking and he requested that the Selectmen provide
their input at their earliest convenience. That would be a great help to the CPDC in its
deliberations..
Page 9 of 11
The Town Manager reminded the Board that the warrant for the Town Meeting closes at
the end of September. He also asked the Board to please consider the half-block rezoning
of the Sanborn Street neighborhood.
Administrative Review
505-519 Main Street, Site Plan Modification Request Determination
CR asked if the Board would mind taking an item out of order as the applicants are here
and have been waiting. The Board agreed.
Attorney Mark Favaloro appeared for the owners. He said they have come before the Board
with what they hope the Board will see as a Minor Modification. The owners would like to
change the buildings to make them look more uniform. There is also an arch in the original
plans that the owners would like to eliminate.
The Board noted that the original plans described the materials but this revision does not.
CR said that we could handle that through conditions.
SD asked if there would be any dimensional changes? The applicants said that the building
might now be a little lower.
RH moved to grant the Minor Modification Request subject to the following conditions:
1. The materials used in the facade will be the same as those used in the original plans.
2. This revision does not address changes of use.
JB seconded.
Voted approved 5:0:0.
CR said that he would need three copies of the revised plans for the records.
Haven Junction, Site Plan Modification Request Determination
CR said that the Town Manager asked to have this placed on the agenda. There are no
plans submitted with it. The Town Manager wanted it run by the CPDC for their approval.
This is a modification of the on-street parking per the Board of Selectmen's and the Town
Engineer's approval.
JB said he didn't like doing this. He said it was unacceptable to approve something for
which the Board has not seen plans.
CR said that he would convey that to the Town Manager.
JS said we would be treating people differently and that is not good.
RH said that the sense of the commission is that we want to see the plans.
CR suggested waiting until the next meeting when he can ask the Town Engineer to come
by and comment on the change and show us the plans.
Page 10 of 11
Review of Master Plan, Update Action Items
CR said the new Master Plan webpage is up. The Master Plan meeting minutes are all there
as well as links and updated drafts. CR said he asked Kim Honetschlager about the maps
but she said that she has no record of map requests from us.
JS said he is trying to put together a list of names of clubs and organizations to which we
can make presentations of the Master Plan.
Town Planner Evaluation
JS said he'd type up the comments he has received so far and pass them out to the Board
members for their review.
NS moved to adjourn.
JB seconded.
Voted approved 5:0:0.
The meeting adjourned at 10:35PM.
These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on
September 12, 2005; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on September
12, 2005.
Signed as approved,
D. Howard, Secretary
Page 11 of 11