HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-27 Community Planning and Development Commission MintuesIV
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2683 C1 - r
Phone: 781-942-9012 k.. ~ 9
Fax: 781-942-9071
Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us #
Community Planning and Development ` oniss~on
CPDC MINUTES
Meeting Dated: June 27, 2005
Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Town Hall
Members Present: Neil Sullivan, Chair (NS), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Richard Howard
(RH), Jonathan Barnes (JB), and John Sasso (JS).
Also Present:
Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth
Attorney Brad Latham
Mr. Fred Alexander, 172 Wakefield Street.
Mr. Robert Nordstrand, Reading Open Trust
Mr. Jim Garebedian
Mr. John Spencer
Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street, Reading, MA
Mr. Roland E. Spofford, Jr, Project Manager, Bank of America
Mr. Lester Lloyd, Lloyd Architects
There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan (ANR)
Mark and Lori O'Neill, 30 Apple Gate Lane
(Action Date: June 27, 2005)
Attorney Brad Latham appeared for the O'Neills to request a withdrawal.
This was granted. No motion was required.
Public Comment/Minutes
RH moved to approve the minutes of May 23, 2005 as amended.
SD seconded.
Voted Approved: 5:0:0.
The Board expressed their appreciation of the quality and level of detail of the minutes.
JB noted that the "Cottage Faire" is closing.
- CR said that it was and that he had recently received a call from a potential new occupant
who would like to add an awning.
Page 1 of 11
Public Hearing: Definitive Subdivision (continued)
Deer Run Developers, Inc., 160-166 Wakefield Street
Proposed definitive subdivision for 5 lots in the 5-20 zoning district.
(Action Date: August 8, 2005)
Attorney Brad Latham appeared for "Deer Run Developers" to request a continuance
until the CPDC's last meeting in July (7/25/05). His client needs time to address the
DRT's concerns. There is also a possibility that his client will come into possession of
adjoining land in which case the plans may be expanded.
Mr. Fred Alexander of 172 Wakefield St. asked what this meant for the project? Will the
process have to start over?
CR explained that the developer has two options:
1. Withdraw and resubmit, or
2. Re-notice and re-advertise after submitting a new plan.
The Town Council recommends the second and that is what Brad Latham said that his
client would be doing.
RE said that the developer would have to send a new letter to the abutters and place a
new legal notice in the newspaper announcing the July 25 meeting. CR added that this
also depends on whether the DRT receives any new plans in time to review it before July
25.
Mr. Alexander expressed concern over being able to comment on any new plan before it
is approved. He asked if he might be able to talk to the Town Engineer about it?
CR said that he could of course speak to the Town Engineer if he liked. He assured Mr.
Alexander that there would be a public hearing for any new plan. CR also said that he
would request that the developer submit his plan in digital format so that it could be
uploaded to the town's webpage.
JB expressed his appreciation to Brad Latham for extending the action date from August
8 to August 30. Someone asked what would be a good time. CR said 8:45 PM.
JB made a motion to continue the public hearing of the definitive subdivision of 160 -
166 Wakefield Street until 8:45 PM at the CPDC's July 25 meeting in accordance with a
letter received from the applicant.
SD seconded the motion.
5:0:0 voted approved.
It was before time for Jimbo's Roast Beef s site plan waiver request so the board
proceeded to the Administrative Review agenda items.
Page 2 of 11
Administrative Review
➢ Request for Design Review Modification (part 1)
Bank of America Signage, Phase 2-Walkers Brook Crossing
The representatives of Bank of America had not yet arrived.
CR said that, as he expected, Bank of America has come back with a request for a larger
sign. On the other hand, it is in a more appropriate place on the building and it looks
better than their original sign. CR added that he preferred that the board put off
discussing the sign's approval until the Bank of America's representatives arrived
because there is a "Coming Soon" sign on the building that shouldn't be there and he'd
like to discuss it with them.
The Board discussed the signage of Bank of America's other building located on the
corner of Haven and Main.
JS said that we approved only two signs for the downtown bank but they still have four.
We asked them to remove the one in the window but rather than removing it they simply
stopped illuminating it.
RH said that the Board could condition the approval of the Walkers Brook sign on the
fixing of the signs at their downtown bank.
JB said that he would be uncomfortable doing that. SD and RH both said that they would
not be. JB said that he would go along with it but added that the town has more direct
remedies.
RE asked what condition the Board should put on the "Coming Soon" sign?
CR suggested: "all non-conforming signs now on display shall be removed".
JS asked what they should allow?
CR said that the Board should allow them only a temporary, fabric banner.
➢ Zoning Workshop agendas and scheduling
In his narrative, CR said that the Addison-Wesley project has pushed the discussion of
other zoning issues onto the backburner. The Town Manager wants to schedule another
joint meeting between the Board of Selectmen and the CPDC to discuss the developer's
exhaustive traffic study. CR said that he had told the Town Manager that he doesn't see
why the CPDC needs to be involved in this part of the process at this time. Traffic falls
under the purview of the Selectmen and the CPDC has other items on its agenda that it
needs to address- like Mixed-Use.
Regarding Mixed-Use, RH said that he liked CR's suggestion that the Board should draft
a warrant article about Mixed-Use and send it to the Selectmen._ E said that the draft
article should be based on Bedford, MA's implementation of Mixed-Use. He added that
once the Selectmen have had a chance to read the draft, we should ask the Selectmen to
schedule a joint meeting with us to discuss it.
Page 3 of 11
CR said that he could tweak the language of Bedford's plan to suit Reading's particulars.
RH asked if the plan should be presented as an Overlay or a Special Permit or a matter of
right? CR said that it would be better to make it a Special Permit because that would give
the Board the extra protection of being able to deny applications. That's something you
can't do with site plan reviews.
JB asked why would Reading not want to make it a Special Permit? Is this contrary to the
direction the Town Manager or Board of Selectmen feels we should take?
RH said, no. He was watching the broadcast of a recent Board of Selectmen meeting and
it seemed to him that the Selectmen were unanimous in their support of Mixed-Use in
Reading's Downtown.
CR said that the Town Manager wants Chapter 40R because he sees the opportunity to
get the government funds. The opportunity is there, but it also may be a pot of gold at the
end of a rainbow.
JB: But the Selectmen and we seem to be more comfortable with the Bedford Plan?
CR: Yes.
JB said that all concerned parties - the Town Manager included - should be invited to
attend the joint meeting no matter which Board hosts it. He wants to be able to say that
that the CPDC didn't do this under the cover of darkness. All agreed.
RH asked if there were any other zoning issues that the Board wants to push for the Fall
Town Meeting? No one could think of anything. RH then said that he had some
suggestions for the Spring Town Meeting:
• PRD or "Cluster Zoning": make it more appealing to developers.
• Accessory Apartments: eliminate the 1982 exclusion.
The PRD or "Cluster Zoning". RH called the PRD "defunct" because developers don't
make use of it, and they don't make use of it because they don't want to have to go to
Town Meeting for every parcel. He suggested changing the PRD to overlay all of zones
S-15 and 5-20 with a proviso that the developer would include some kind of affordable
housing. The affordable component is there to entice the Selectmen to support the
change.
JS asked if that would be enough to get it through Town Meeting?
RH said that it has always been a goal of the CPDC, the Selectmen, the Town Manager,
and the Master Plan to be responsive to developers. Here we have some zoning that was
working well until it was made so unattractive to developers that it just wasn't worth their
while to take advantage of it.
JB_said that_something similar was put before Town Meeting some time ago and it was
voted down because it was thought best to have the developers come back to the Town
each time they wanted to build.
Page 4 of 11
RE said that perhaps after seeing the number of 40Bs that have been built in Reading in
recent years the Town Meeting members might think differently now.
Accessory Apartments. RH said that he would like to see the 1982 exclusion eliminated
from the Accessory Apartment bylaw for residential properties in an area peripheral to
the depot provided that there is adequate parking. "4.3.2.8.2.a.: The dwelling in which
the accessory apartment is to be located was legally occupied prior to August 1, 1982".
RH said that he believes that this too is in keeping with the Master Plan i.e. to make
smaller housing units available. They could be starter homes.
JB was not opposed to the idea and suggested applying the same idea to other areas. RH
agreed that there might be other areas where it might work South Main Street, for
instance.
Addison-Wesley again. CR said that had heard that the developers have finalized their
all-encompassing traffic report and he is sure that the Selectmen will invite the CPDC to
attend the discussion of the report in another joint meeting. CR said that if the Board has
no problem with attending another joint meeting to talk about traffic, then neither does
he, but he reminded the Board that they have many other issues to attend to and a limited
number of meeting dates.
JB appreciated CR's point but said that if it is just one more meeting then he doesn't
think it would be too disruptive to their schedule. This was the consensus of the Board.
CR said that he would be surprised if it was just one more meeting. The joint meeting
precedent has been set and he thinks that if we agree to another, the discussions could go
on for two or more meetings. If the Addison-Wesley discussion hinged on an issue under
the CPDC's authority, then he would be more inclined to agree that they need to attend,
but the main issue with Addison-Wesley now is traffic and traffic falls under the
authority of the Board of Selectmen. The CPDC has plenty of items to attend to that fall
under its authority. The CPDC should be wary of allowing Addison-Wesley to dictate
their agenda.
CR added that he thinks future joint meetings should be scheduled on the Board of
Selectmen's agenda.
This met with general agreement. JS noted that the CPDC has hosted the last two; the
Selectmen should host a couple. SD added that we couldn't add another meeting date if
we wanted to anyway because of the Master Plan meetings.
JB said that there are two issues here. First: the commitment of time. Second: which is
the proper public entity to confront and answer the questions raised by Addison-Wesley?
The Boardacknowledged that _they _must be-apart of the ongoing discussion. They__also
acknowledged that, if and when the project was put before Town Meeting, it would
probably be done so under their authority. But the Board also wanted it to be understood
Page 5 of 11
that the responsibility of any decision should be shared between the CPDC and the Board
of Selectmen.
- It was the consensus of the Board that a letter should be drafted and sent to the
Selectmen. The letter should express the CPDC's continued support of the Selectmen in
their deliberations over Addison-Wesley but it would also ask the Selectmen to please
schedule any future joint-meetings on their own agenda.
Mr. Tony D'Arezzo of 130 John Street asked: if it comes to it, what would be the
procedure for putting the Addison-Wesley project before the Town Meeting?
CR said that the Board of Selectmen decides what goes on the warrant.
JB added that, although whatever bylaw comes out of it will probably be ours, we are
asking the Board of Selectmen to endorse it.
RH added that the whole point of the ongoing meetings about Addison-Wesley's traffic
issues is to get direction and guidance from the Selectmen.
The Chair closed the Administrative Review to address Jimbo's Roast Beef s site plan
review waiver request.
Site Plan Review Waiver Request
Jimbo's Roast Beef and Seafood, 454 Main Street
Mr. Jim Garebedian and Mr. John Spencer appeared for Jimbo's.
Mr. Garebedian said that they are taking over the building recently vacated by the
- Kabloom flower shop on the corner of Washington and Main and next to Dunkin Donuts.
Mr. Garebedian said that they have been in the business for 20 years and have
establishments in Burlington and Billerica. Roughly 65% of their business will be take-
out. Aside from a new sign, they do not plan on making any exterior changes to the
building. They understand that there is some concern with the parking, but they claim that
there should be enough parking spaces for both Jimbo's and Dunkin Donuts because
when Dunkin Donuts is busy, Jimbo's will be slow and vice versa.
RE explained to the applicants that if the waiver were granted, then the abutters to the
site would not have a chance to express their concerns before the Board in a public
forum. That being the case, tonight 2the Board will try to consider what the abutters'
concerns might be. The residents behind the site would probably be concerned that they'd
have to deal with more traffic and noise. The bank next to the site would probably be
concerned with the possibility of your customers parking in their spaces. Both would
probably be concerned with how you would dispose of your trash and garbage.
The Board took up the question of parking spaces.
Mr. Garebedian said that they expected to be able to provide seating for 40 customers.
CR said that the applicants' proposal does not appear to have adequate parking under the
bylaws.
Page 6 of 11
Mr. Garebedian said that he might be able to reach an agreement with the management of
the Sunoco gas station to provide parking for his employees. He also noted that the train
depot's municipal parking was just down the street.
CR said that under the town's bylaws the train depot would need to be within 300 feet of
the site to help the situation and it is not.
"6.1.1.1. No land shall be used and no building shall be erected, enlarged or
used unless offstreet parking areas, and off-street loading and unloading areas,
conforming in amount and type to that described herein, are provided except that
retail stores, offices and consumer service establishments located within three
hundred (300) feet of a public off-street parking facility shall be exempted from
off-street parking requirements."
RH said that it seems that there are two possibilities:
1. Limit the number of seats in Jimbo's or Dunkin Donuts or a combination of each.
2. Have the owner of the site provide off-site parking.
Mr. Garebedian said that he did not want to go through a site plan review if he could
avoid it. He was amenable to reducing the number of seats in his restaurant to as few as it
would take to meet the requirements of the bylaw.
CR said that the parking lot could be reconfigured such that they'd get closer to the
required number of spaces.
JB asked if the Board had the authority to condition the waiver on what the other tenant
might do with their seating?
RE said that the Board is putting the limitation on the site not a particular tenant.
JS began to ask about dumpsters when RH asked to interrupt to pass out copies of a list of
conditions that he had drafted beforehand. He assured the applicants that these conditions
were not directed against Jimbo's specifically but would be imposed on any tenant of the
site.
The main points of RH's conditions are:
• Jimbo's sign should show some "uniformity" (of style, materials) with Dunkin
Donuts' sign.
• A dumpster must be on-site.
• Dunkin Donuts' freestanding sign would have to come down because will be in
violation of the signage bylaws as of July 1.
The applicants said that they were sure that they could come up with a satisfactory sign.
They said that they planned on putting a fenced-in dumpster on the site and in fact hoped
to share a dumpster with Dunkin Donuts. They didn't know what they could do about the
freestanding sign, The Board told theapplicants that they would have to talk with the
landlord about it. RH said that this condition was a "lever" to get the non-conforming
sign removed.
Page 7 of 11
JS asked if there were any safety issues with the intersection that should be noted? He
said that backing out of the lot could be dangerous since you had to back directly into the
intersection.
CR said that that situation was a major issue and that the curb cut closest to the
intersection should be closed. JS agreed and added that doing so should provide the
possibility of more parking.
CR said that any such parking would be tight and he repeated his previous observation
that there are many ways to make the parking more efficient, especially in the rear.
Mr. Garebedian said that he might be adding a back door to the building so that his
customers would be able to enter from the rear parking lot. That should relieve some of
the traffic.
Mr. Garebedian asked that if he agreed to all of these conditions, could the Board grant
his waiver request tonight?
CR reminded the Board that they could not grant a waiver from the zoning bylaws. The
current proposal does not meet parking regulations. Offsite parking might help if Sunoco
grants their permission, but even if they do, the applicants would first have to get the
Board of Selectmen's approval to use Sunoco's spaces.
Mr. Garebedian asked if the Board could grant the waiver tonight conditioned on the
Board of Selectmen approval of his offsite-parking plan?
CR said that the Town Manager has said in a memo that Boards and Commissions should
have prior approvals in hand before granting approval under their own authority.
Mr. Garebedian offered to drop the offsite parking and to reduce his restaurant's seating
even further.
After some calculating, the Board determined that Mr. Garebedian's restaurant would
have to provide no seating to have a chance at meeting the parking regulations. CR
disagreed pointing out that even if Jimbo's provided no seating, the bylaws require that
Jimbo's provide a minimum of ten parking spaces.
CR noted that the conditions of the draft should add language stating that Jimbo's use of
Sunoco's parking spaces must not place Sunoco in nonconformance with the parking
regulations.
It was the consensus of the Board that Jimbo's Site Plan Review waiver request should be
continued until July 11 at 8:00 PM.
CR said that he would combine the draft decision he had worked up earlier with RH's
conditions and that he would provide a copy to the applicants tomorrow.
Page 8 of 11
The Board advised the applicants to take the draft with them when they talk to the owner
of the building about the conditions concerning the curb-cut, Dunkin Donuts free-
standing sign, etc; and to the Board of Selectmen when they talk to them about offsite
parking.
Administrative Review (continued)
➢ Request for Design Review Modification (part 2)
Bank of America Signage, Phase 2-Walkers Brook Crossing
Mr. Roland E. Spofford, Jr. and Mr. Lester Lloyd appeared for Bank of America.
Mr. Lloyd said that as the Board had denied all but one of Bank of America's signs, we
come before you tonight to ask for permission to exchange that sign for a larger sign and
to place it on the brick fagade that faces Walkers Brook Drive.
Mr. Lloyd noted that the new sign would still be still much smaller than the other
businesses' signs at Walkers Brook Crossing. The original sign was roughly nine inches
tall by seven feet long. The new sign is roughly eighteen inches tall and eighteen feet
long or about twice the size of the original sign.
Mr. Lloyd distributed pictures to show the proposed location and said that in his opinion
the new sign against the brick looks much more attractive than the original sign. The
Board agreed.
NS asked if the sign would be internally illuminated. Mr. Lloyd said that it would.
RE moved to approve the new sign and its new location subject to the following
conditions:
1. This decision supercedes the Board's previous approval.
2. This approval is for the one sign on the Bank of America building at Walkers Brook
Drive.
3. All non-conforming signage at the Walkers Brook site shall be removed (e.g. the
"Coming Soon" banner)
4. A permit will not be issued for this sign until the signage on the "Bank of America"
building at the corner of Main and Haven is in compliance with Reading's bylaws.
Mr. Spofford said that he had not been involved in the Main and Haven building's
signage. He'll have to report back to his office on that point.
Mr. Tony D'Arezzo of 130 John Street said that he was concerned that the illumination of
the sign that would face the residents near Walkers Brook would be a nuisance. The
Board said that that sign is no longer in the plans.
JS seconded RH's motion.
Voted approved 5:0:0.
Page 9 of 11
➢ Site Plan Review determinations/compliance issues
CR asked the Board for their support when he feels that a Site Plan Review is required.
CR said that the Building Inspector says that the decision comes down to me, but CR said
that he feels that he does not have the authority to force the issue if the applicant fights
him.
CR said that the word is out that if things don't go your way you can complain and try to
undermine compliance and the Town Planner's authority.
RH said that the Building Inspector is not the last resort. We'll just bounce a few site plan
review waivers back. This was the consensus of the Board.
JS said that waivers circumvent the public's input and he'd rather hear what the public
has to say. He added that the Board tries to be business friendly, but if an applicant does
not satisfy our conditions then he would have no problem with denying the waiver and
requiring the full site plan review.
The consensus of the Board was that whenever it is decided that an applicant must submit
to a site plan review, the Board would support the Town Planner in his efforts to enforce
that decision.
The Board members noted that they are all volunteers who believe that they are doing
important work and they find it disheartening to hear that their decisions may be
disregarded. They wouldn't want to think that they are wasting their time.
CR said that most of the applicants are very good. It's the people who are trying to get
away with something who badmouth Reading and call the town anti-business.
JS added that the Board should pick and choose their battles carefully.
RH noted that the Board had passed decisions on two enforcement issues tonight.
The first was the freestanding Dunkin Donut sign. The second was the signage on the
"Bank of America" building on the corner of Main and Haven.
More Addison-Wesley. CR said that he had received a series of emails concerning an
informal meeting the developers had held at the Aroma Cafe for some of the neighbors of
the Addison-Wesley site. Apparently the developers discussed their plans for Addison-
Wesley and this has upset some people. Some called it a "sales pitch".
RH said that the Board of Selectmen had discussed the matter.
CR said that the other side of the story is being peddled too.
__CR said that he responded to the emails because he felt that he needed to stop the rumors
and set the record straight.
Page 10 of 11
The consensus of the Board was that the developers have as much of a constitutional
right as anyone else to speak their piece. In fact, the Board encouraged their efforts to
meet and speak with the community.
➢ CPDC Reorganization
RH nominated John Sasso for Chairman of the CPDC. RH said that JS will be the best
Chair the CPDC ever had.
SD seconded the nomination.
RH moved that the nominations be closed.
SD seconded.
By a vote of 4:0:1, John Sasso was voted the new Chairman of the CPDC.
JB nominated Richard Howard for Secretary of the CPDC.
SD seconded.
JS moved that the nominations be closed.
SD seconded.
By a vote of 5:0:0, Richard Howard was voted the new Secretary of the CPDC.
The members of the Commission expressed their heartfelt thanks to Neil Sullivan for his
leadership during his tenure as Chair of the CPDC.
The meeting adj ourned at 10:00 PM.
These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on August
8, 2005; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on August 8, 2005.
Sinned as annroved.
Page 11 of 11