Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-09 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-9012 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly@ci.reading.ma.us Community Planning and C E 21,>"Js "_1" L P 3: 3 Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: May 9, 2005 Locations: Multi-purpose Room, Parker Middle School, 45 Temple Street; Police Community Room, 15 Union Street Members Present: Neil Sullivan, Chair (NS), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Richard Howard (RH), and John Sasso (JS). Members Absent: Jonathan Barnes (JB) Selectmen Present: Chairman Richard Schubert, Ben Tafoya, Camille Anthony, James Bonazoli, and Joseph Duffy Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth Richard Askin, Project Manager, W/S Development Associates LLC Attorney Mark Favaloro, representing W/S Development Associates LLC Bob Frazier, Vice President of Development, W/S Development Associates LLC Brian Sierra, Vice President of Lifestyle Centers, W/S Development Associates LLC The following people signed the attendance sheet: Mr. Richard Roketenetz, 15 Mile Post Road, Reading, MA Ms. Jean Roketenetz, 15 Mile Post Road, Reading, MA Ms. Mary D. Avery, 277 South Street, Reading, MA Ms. Diane A. Weggel, 277 South Street, Reading, MA Ms. Marianne McLaughlin-Downing, 13 Heather Drive, Reading, MA Mr. Christopher Diemer, 267 South Street, Reading, MA Mr. Brad Fuller, 169 Walnut Street, Reading, MA Ms. Angela Binda, 10 Orchard Park Drive, Reading, MA Ms. Heidi Bonnabeau, 336 South Street, Reading, MA Mr. Joe Westerman, 17 Avon Street, Reading, MA Mr. Frank Touserkani, 21 George Street, Reading, MA Mr. William Pike, 13 George Street, Reading, MA Mr. Bill Webster, 245 Walnut Street, Reading, MA Mr. Rick Rostoff, One Carol Way, #201, Salem, MA 01970 Mr. Michael Giacalone, 9 Orchard Park Drive, Reading, MA L, Page 1 of 11 There being a quorum, Neil Sullivan called the CPDC to order at 7:45 PM. He explained that this meeting was a joint zoning workshop between the CPDC and the Board of Selectmen and then handed the control of the meeting to Selectman Chair Richard Schubert. Joint Zoning Workshop: CPDC and Board of Selectmen Downtown mixed-use zoning amendment Due to a lack of time this item was not visited. Addison-Wesley zoning amendment Selectman Chair Richard Schubert called the Board of Selectmen to order. All members were present. He explained that although this was not a public hearing the public would be given a chance to speak at the end if there was time. Selectmen Chair Schubert asked the public to please refrain from commenting during the developers' presentation and the Selectmen's and CPDC members' discussion. He explained that the CPDC members must leave in time to preside over a public hearing at the Police Community Room at 9:30PM. Developer's Presentation. Mr. Frazier noted that they had been busy gathering traffic data with special attention to the "cut through" problem. He said that due to time constraints his team would be presenting only a summary of their traffic findings tonight. He said that they were still at the start of a process that can't move forward until the site is rezoned and that even then the DRT alone could take 6 months or more to complete. He then handed the presentation over to project manager Richard Askin. Lifestyle Center. Mr. Askin said that the development team had decided to give the project the name "Park Square at Reading". He then began a slideshow about "Lifestyle Centers". This was much like what the developers had shown at other meetings but briefer and with emphasis placed on showing how different their proposal was from malls like the Burlington Mall. Mr. Brian Sierra, Vice President of Lifestyle Centers, then spoke briefly. He too stressed the difference between his team's proposal and the Burlington Mall. He said that the tenant mix would be small companies - not "Big Box" companies and upscale with a focus on service and distinction. He added that their Lifestyle Center will be 1/4 to 1/3 the size of the Burlington Mall and cover an area roughly 10% of what Burlington Mall and its grounds cover. Mr. Askin continued. He said that their largest tenants would be a company along the lines of a Talbots ("junior anchors"). Parking would be convenient to all stores because keep the development intimate and pedestrian-friendly. He suggested the possibility of summer concerts. He concluded by reminding his audience that five years ago the same Page 2 of 11 site was rezoned for use as a 600,000 square foot hotel/office project but the Lifestyle Center would only cover 400,000 square feet. Traffic Studies. Mr. Askin next presented a summary of his team's traffic studies to date. The study focussed on two points: 1. the intersection of Main and South Streets, 2. "cut-through" traffic. Mr. Askin suggested that the first point might be improved by the addition of dedicated lanes turning north and south onto Main Street. He presented two drawings of two different examples of possible "traffic lane geometries". Neither was definitive and others may be considered. He noted that Pearson had also suggested plans for an improved intersection five years ago. Before going into possible solutions to the "cut-through" problem, Mr. Askin presented a handful of charts to explain where the traffic might come from if the Lifestyle Center was built. In short, the charts showed that roughly 80% of the traffic would come from Rt.128. A smaller amount would come from the north up Main Street (Rt. 28). Smaller still would be the amount of "cut-through" traffic coming down South Street. The public wanted to respond to this, but Selectman Chair Schubert reminded them that they would have their chance to respond later. Mr. Askin next presented a chart that rated the "Level of Service" of the roads servicing the Addison/Wesley property. He explained that the Level of Service ratings run from "A" (the best) to "F" (failure) and that in this case the roads were rated based both on the time of day (morning and evening) and on the use of the Addison/Wesley site (current, office/hotel, and retail). Currently, in both the morning and the evening, the roads are rated "F". If Addison/Wesley became an office park or hotel, the morning and evening ratings both would be "D". If "Park Square at Reading" were to be built, the morning rating would be "C" and the evening rating would be "D". Saturdays would rate worse since midday traffic on Saturdays would be as great or greater than peak office park hours. He then offered a few "traffic calming" suggestions for the cut-through traffic. Speed Table: a raised section of road used to cut traffic speed and volume. Gateway: the "strategic placement" of various features usually found in a gated community to discourage through traffic. Mr. Askin summed up the traffic study by saying that their proposal would make the cut- Page 3 of 11 Buffer. Before ending his presentation, Mr. Askin said that the plans for the buffer between "Park Place at Reading" and the 26 or so homes that would border it should be ready by early June. Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager, spoke first. He said that five years ago Addison/Wesley was rezoned (Business C) to allow a hotel or office park to be built there. The market for hotels and office parks turned sour and has not improved in the meantime. On the other hand, there is a market for retail and residential properties. This developer wants to build a retail center. The developer has completed a traffic study and the data will be studied and discussed in future meetings. The data will be available for review on the planning website. The developer now requests that we rezone the property for retail. The project can't move forward until the property is rezoned. What do we want to see there? Town Planner Chris Reilly said that the developer had made three presentations to the CPDC to date. The last, on February 15th' was open to the public. It was made very clear at that meeting that the public's #1 concern is traffic. Traffic is one of the responsibilities of the Selectmen in their capacity as Road Commissioners so he advised the CPDC to meet with the Selectmen in a joint zoning workshop to discuss the matter. The developers made a promise at the February 15th meeting to make a study of the traffic. They are here to show that they have fulfilled that promise. Selectwoman Camille Anthony was confused as to why rezoning was even being discussed before the matter of access to the property is resolved. She reminded everyone that the traffic at the site when it was used as a polling place during the presidential election was a nightmare. She asked if traffic from this project would back up onto Rt.128? Peter H. replied that the reality of the situation is that there is only one way to access the property. The site is what it is. This developer may be able to improve that access. Selectman Chair Schubert said that we must be aware of the limitations of the access to the site and of our opportunities to improve it. No matter what is built on the site access will be a problem. Do we not rezone and accept the access as it is, or do we rezone and work with the developer to improve the access? Selectman Tafoya expressed his disappointment that after four meetings with the developer we still have not had a thorough discussion of the traffic. He also asked how the developers had designed their traffic study? What assumptions had they made? He also has questions regarding the access of the site from Rt.128. He asked if the town has made any effort to actively seek developers who may want to build something other than a retail center? studies, discussions of intersection reconfigurations, public meetings, etc...and when it was all worked out, and we were on the verge of proceeding, the market tanked. He said Page 4 of 11 that we still have the data from that project. He noted that that project had a different traffic dynamic but asked if the data might not help us today? Attorney Mark Favaloro said that the developers are prepared to present their traffic study data in full but it would take at least three hours to do it properly and it was their understanding that tonight's meeting would be a more high-level discussion of the project. He also said that all of the traffic issues were fleshed out in 2000 during the Pearson project. Today - because it is a retail project - we do have to look at weekend and weeknight traffic scenarios too, but the access problem is not a new issue. Selectwoman Anthony agreed that plenty of work had been done regarding the access problem back in 2000 but emphasized that this is a different situation. She said that today we're dealing with a retail center and not an office park. Office parks have only two bad traffic times: the morning and evening rush hours. Attorney Favaloro agreed and added that the traffic studies will show that most of the traffic will come from Rt. 128 and not down South Street as "cut-through" traffic. The Town Manager again reminded the selectmen that there is no market for hotels or office parks and that there is a market for retail and residential properties. Regarding the accuracy of the traffic study, he said that it would be peer reviewed by an expert of the town's choosing hired at the developer's expense. Selectwoman Anthony said that according to an article she had recently read, the hotel industry is up to pre-9/11 levels. Hotels could be coming back. She also noted that Walkers Brook Drive was supposed to have very good access but when it opened traffic was a "morass". Selectman Chair Schubert said we could wait for the market for hotels to improve but we still owe it to ourselves and to the public to review the traffic study's data. He said that the site isn't perfect but it's what we have to work with. Walkers Brook was a different situation. The town owned the landfill it was built on. The town does not own the Addison/Wesley site. We don't have the same control over the situation. It's up to us to signal the direction the town should take with the Addison/Wesley project. Selectman Tafoya said that we need a thorough discussion of the direction of Reading's economic development. We need to develop our own options for both publicly and privately owned properties. He said that he is willing to head a task force to look for developers who may have projects that would fit Reading better. Richard Howard had a question for the developers. Could they look at the feasibility and impact of adding a residential component to the project? It could help us to evaluate the best use of the site. would cover and asked if someone from the CPDC could speak on the Master Plan briefly. Page 5 of 11 John Sasso said that he and other members of the Master Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) have been working on the Master Plan for over a year now and it is still difficult to say what direction we'd like to see Reading take. We have many ideas. An economic development task force is something we'd like to see. Reading has few remaining open lots and developers will target them. We need a guide to their best use. We hope the Master Plan will be the framework to provide such guidance. Selectman Chair Schubert said that Richard Howard's suggestion raises the issue of "mixed-use". He said that we have traffic data from the hotel project in 2000, and traffic data from the current retail center proposal. He asked if the developer could provide us with traffic data on a possible mixed-use of the site? Does the developer have any experience with mixed-use? Mr. Frazier said that he did have experience with mixed-use projects and he was certainly willing to have his team look into adding some kind of residential component to the Addison/Wesley project, but: • Most people don't like them because of 40B. • There are potential problems with parking. In the evening, the people who live there and the visiting shoppers both are trying to find places to park. • Most communities seem to like the retail component but not so much the residential because of the impact more residents could have on their schools, etc. • Usually with such projects we build a retail center next door to residential properties so that the residential developer can present the retail center as an amenity to the buyers of residential units. The Town Manager summarized the discussion so far. • We want access to the complete traffic study. • We want to have the traffic study vetted by an expert of our choosing. • We would like to know what business plan drove the study • We would like to see alternatives modeled mixed-use alternatives in particular. At this time, the CPDC adjourned and moved to the Police Community Room at 15 Union Street. Public Hearing: Open Storage Special Permit A.B.C. Flea Mart, 1 General Way Application to allow open storage for the purpose of a seasonal, weekend flea market with approximately 40 stalls. (Action date: June 27, 2005) NS called the CPDC to order at the Police Community Room. Jonathan Barnes was not present. JS read the legal notice. Mr. Gordon Lane, owner of A.B.C. Flea Mart, said that his flea market has always been located indoors (where Frugal Fannies used to be), which is fine during the winter Page 6 of 11 months, but in the summer people like to go to outdoor flea markets. He wants to place booths on the grounds outside his building during the summer to attract those summer customers. He believes that it will take at least 40 booths to persuade the summer customers that his is now a true indoor/outdoor flea market. He emphasized that he has no plans to expand beyond 40 booths. His motto is "Not the biggest just the best." RH pointed out that although Mr. Lane wants 40 booths the draft of the special permit specifies only 15 booths. CR explained that part of grounds on which Mr. Lane wants to place some of his booths is a flagged wetland and the planning commission has no authority to allow the use of a wetland. CR said that 15 of the booths can be placed without disturbing the wetland or its buffer and that's what he allowed for in the draft. Mr. Lane will have to go before the Conservation Commission if he wants permission to place booths on the wetland. JS suggested that Mr. Lane might want to consider using the paved area outside his building. He could place a number of booths there. Mr. Lane said that he would consider it. There were only two members of the public present and both expressed their support for Mr. Lane's proposal. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo of 130 John Street, an abutter, was one. The draft permit allowed Mr. Lane to place booths outside from May through October. He asked the board if that might be extended one month on both ends: from April through November. The board agreed. The draft permit also allowed Mr. Lane to operate his outdoor booths from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Mr. Lane didn't like the opening or closing times as written. He said that the market will not stay open that late and he offered 4:00 PM as more likely closing time. On the other hand, he would rather open at 7:00 AM to give his vendors time to set up. The board did not agree to the earlier opening time citing concern for the neighbors. They did however take Mr. Lane's advice to push back the closing time. The board changed the closing time from 8:00 PM to 6:00 PM. RH moved to approve the special permit as amended. JS seconded. CR noted that to grant a special permit four out of five of the board members must vote to approve. Voted approved 4:0:0. Site Plan Review Waiver Request The Cottage Faire 12 Woburn Street SD noted that no one representing "The Cottage Faire" was there. Page 7 of 11 CR said that he thought he saw the owner when they were at the Parker School. She might not have realized that we were moving the meeting across town. RH said that that the applicant does not have to be in attendance. The board read to themselves a letter that the applicant had sent to the Town Planner in which she requested the waiver. CR said that there were no site plan issues with this request rather there were enforcement issues regarding open storage. The owner has been fined more than once because of open storage violations. NS said it sounds like the "Corner Closet". SD said that the ZBA recently allowed "Corner Closet" their open storage by grandfathering it in. CR said that the ZBA opened a can of worms when they did that. But in that case the ZBA gave their approval. That's not the case here and there is a clear violation of the bylaws concerning open storage and constitutes a safety hazard. It's a busy street. There's a bus stop a few feet from the front door. Also, people pull up in their cars and stop in the traffic lane - a designated right hand turn to see what has been placed on the sidewalk. JS asked what can the board do? The request is for a waiver of a site plan review based on a new use and, as there used to be a karate studio there, the applicant's store is a new use. CR said that the bylaw as written allows the board to grant the waiver with or without conditions. The CPDC is granting "The Cottage Faire" a waiver on a public hearing. You can still put requirements and conditions on the waiver. RH moved that the board grant the waiver subject to the conditions set forth in the draft. SD seconded. JS asked if the building has a designated loading zone. CR said that they are exempt due to their size. There is a rear entrance off the driveway to the municipal parking lot. We don't want loading and unloading done in the front. JS moved to amend the waiver to add the condition that deliveries be permitted between 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM only through the rear entrance and emphasizing that the front or the side of the building should not be used for deliveries. Voted approved 4:0:0. Page 8 of 11 Administrative Review: Certificate of Appropriateness (signage) application requirements CR said that this item was continued to this meeting to give RH a chance to review the particulars. JS said that it is great, but he was expecting something more along the lines of a checklist for the Building Inspector to use to see at a glance if a sign application is complete and ready to be submitted to the CPDC. CR said that a checklist is a good idea but the Building Inspector would not use it. CR said that when the Building Inspector gets a sign application in Business B he drops it on my chair. The inspector doesn't look at it. CR said that his approach is to have two separate applications. The planning commission must approve signs in Business B so when an applicant wants to hang a sign in Business B they'll be handed this certificate of appropriateness application. We'll get the information we need without waiting for the Building Inspector to act. If we decide that the sign is appropriate then the applicant would then fill out and submit the usual sign permit application. There was some confusion as to whether or not this meant that sign applicants must now fill out two applications. CR said that only those who apply for signs in the downtown district - business B - will have to fill out this additional application and that's because only signs in the downtown district need to be approved by the CPDC. It's more work for the applicant but the current process doesn't do the job and has to be changed. JS said that he'd put together a checklist for the CPDC to use. The board thought the new application was great. They suggested some minor changes and the Town Manager, Peter Hechenbleikner, had submitted in writing a few comments of his own. JS made a motion to approve the signage certificate of appropriateness application as amended and with the Town Manager's comments. SD seconded. Voted approved 4:0:0. CR noted that as of June 1St the sign approval amortization period is over and we can expect enforcement battles. Site Plan Review Waiver application requirements CR said that this waiver _application is a modified version Waiver application and it needs to be formally approved. Page 9 of 11 The board made the general comment that if the applicant wants a variance the applicant should go to the ZBA first. CR replied that that would be fought tooth and nail. They'll go to the Town Manager who'll come straight to me. JS asked what information do we want the applicant to cover? RH noted that it is not possible to cover all possible issues. We want to simplify where we can. JS suggested keeping the waiver application "as is" and deal with the cases as they come. CR said that he could try to ask for more information from the applicant, but they'll fight if I press it. CR then said that JB never liked the waiver request because the abutters never know ahead of time what the applicant wants to do. Maybe we could make it a requirement of the waiver application that the applicant must notify the direct abutters. We'd then have something to hang a site plan review on. RH liked this idea. He said that it would make the applicant think twice about asking for a waiver because if we deny the waiver it stretches out the process. It'll be a risk to them. CR said that he'd make it a point to tell applicants that the CPDC retains the authority to request a site plan review so be prepared. The consensus was that the direct abutters should be notified in the event of a Site Plan Review waiver request. The applicant must supply the necessary stamped and addressed envelopes. RH added that he'd like to see item "E" ("A copy of all completed permit applications submitted for this project.") deleted from the waiver request. All agreed. RH moved to accept the site plan review waiver request checklist as amended. SD seconded. Voted approved 4:0:0. Public Comment/Minutes JS moved to approve as amended the minutes of March 28, 2005. RH seconded. . RH moved to adjourn. Page 10 of 11 SD seconded. Voted approved 4:0:0. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on June 13, 2005; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on June 13, 2005. Sign.5 s approved, CIDR C Sasso, Secretary Date Page 11 of 11