Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-11 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutestr LP- Town of Readin - j g 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 2605 WJ 3 Phone: 781-942-9012 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creiIly@ci.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: April 11, 2005 Location: Selectmen's Room, Reading Town Hall Members Present: Neil Sullivan, Chair (NS), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Susan DeMatteo (SD), and John Sasso (JS). Absent: Richard Howard (RH) Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth Virginia Adams, Madam Chair, Historical Commission Roberta Sullivan, Treasurer, Historical Commission Attorney Brad Latham Edward Moore, Glover Property Management, Inc. 8 Doaks Lane, Marblehead, MA, 01745 Janet Allen, salesperson for the Johnson Woods condominiums and MPAC member George Katsoufis, 9 Berkeley Street, Reading, MA, MPAC member The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Administrative Review Site Plan Review Design Standards Joint review with the Historical Commission Virginia Adams and Roberta Sullivan (who arrived late) appeared for the Historical Commission. CR scheduled this joint review because he was under the impression that the Historical Commission was upset by the recently concluded and approved design review of the Walgreens project at 1 Hamden Street. Roberta Sullivan in particular had voiced designs [Public Comments of the minutes of February 15, 20051. v Page 1 of 7 Consensus of the Board was that the windows were adequately discussed. Virginia Adams said that there was a general concern that the responsibilities of the Historical Commission and those of the CPDC need to be better integrated during site plan reviews. In particular, she mentioned that it is difficult to coordinate demolition delays with the CPDC. SD said that the CPDC is constrained by the requirement that it must act within 60 days of receiving a site plan review application. CR said that when an applicant hands in a site plan review request the first thing he does is to distribute a memo to all relevant departments, including the Historical Commission, stating the fact and asking for comments. In the three years that he has been here no one has ever offered a comment. Virginia Adams appreciated both these points but said that the Historical Commission is a volunteer organization that meets once a month. It can be difficult to keep up with events. Depending upon when the informing memo is distributed, it can sit in their inbox for close to a month before it is read. Mr. George Katsoufis suggested that perhaps design controls specific to the downtown might be the answer. Virginia Adams replied that this was not a problem specific to the downtown area. CR replied that you would have to change the bylaws to have one kind of review for downtown sites and another for all other sites. CR added that the bylaw currently allows for input from the Historical Commission so rather that making a change to the site plan review procedures we should try to involve the Historical Commission earlier in the process. He offered two suggestions. 1. Invite the Historical Commission members to the Design Review Team (DRT) meetings. 2. When a new Site Plan Review request arrives, he could inform the Historical Commission members directly by email. Everyone thought that these were excellent suggestions. Roberta Sullivan joined the meeting and spoke further about the demolition delay bylaw. She said that the Historical Commission sometimes has a hard time reacting to demolitions because the applicant does not have to declare their intention to demolish at the time they make their application for a site plan review. Sometimes the Walgreens review for instance the CPDC has concluded the review before the Historical Commission has had a chance to invoke the demolition delay. She added that developers Page 2 of 7 JB suggested that perhaps the "Demo Delay" bylaw should be changed to force the applicant to start their site plan review over - restart the clock - if they declare their desire to demolish after their review starts. JS suggested that perhaps George Katsoufis is correct and special controls are needed. We have them for signage. CR said that maybe we should condition it in the decision itself. Brad Latham asked to speak. He said that, speaking from a developer's point of view, the earlier all parties are heard from the earlier they can come to an agreement. The town should not "bifurcate" the process more than necessary. Consistency is the key. Ted Moore asked to speak. He said that he had been well advised to apply for a demolition permit for the Johnson farmhouse well ahead of time. He had no desire to run into a six-month demolition delay. He took care of that up-front. Time is money. Why risk a delay? CR agreed. He said that "Time is money" is the incentive for all applicants to mention their demolition plans earlier rather than later. It is up to the applicants to show due diligence. Because it is up to the applicants, he suggested that no changes be made to the site plan review procedures until we see if the two suggestions mentioned earlier help the situation. The Board agreed. CR said that he would both invite the members of the Historical Commission to future DRTs and inform them by email when a site plan review application is received. PUD: Request for Determination of Minor Amendment Johnson Woods LLC, 468 West Street Request to allow minor changes in building orientation and placement to provide for tree preservation, etc. Mr. Ted Moore prefaced his request with a brief progress report of the Johnson Woods project. Everything is going well. Most of the retention basins are completed. Most of the blasting has been completed. Phase 1 of the utilities should be completed this summer and it is possible that Phase 2 may start soon after. Eighteen homes have been constructed since 10/2004. Janet Allen reported that she has not able to keep up with demand. She said that we could see the first occupancy as early as July and may see one home per month occupied thereafter. Mr. Moore explained that he was requesting this amendment to save trees that may allowed to make these small shifts in the buildings' locations as the situation demands. He would rather not have to come back before the CPDC every time he has to adjust a home's locations to save a tree. Page 3 of 7 Attorney Brad Latham, representing Mr. Moore, quoted bylaw 4.9.3.13 which says that a slight move of a building is a "minor modification". He said that these shifts would be 10 feet or less and could be overseen by the Town Planner. Mr. Moore said that it is hard to miss all of the roots but if he's allowed to make these small shifts he'll save more trees than he'll lose. The consensus of the Board was that this was a fine idea. They asked that the Town Planner be kept apprised of any house relocations. CR said that both the Building Inspector and the Town Engineer like this proposal and think that it is a reasonable request. SD noted that that Mr. Latham asked for a shift of 10 feet or less but CR's memo specifies 6 feet or less. CR said that 10 feet or less is fine with him. JB wanted it noted that granting this minor modification in this instance does not preclude the developer from coming back before the CPDC in all future instances if any other kinds of minor modifications were needed. Mr. Moore said that most everything else roads and utilities have been OK. Only the placement of the homes has been "iffy". JB moved that the CPDC adopt the language proposed by the Town Planner and amended tonight and grant the determination of minor modification. SD seconded. Voted approved 4:0:0. Public Comment/Minutes JB moved to adopt the February 15, 2005 minutes as amended. SD seconded. Voted approved 4:0:0. JB moved to adopt the March 14, 2005 minutes as amended. SD seconded. CR noted that at the next meeting there will be an administrative review of the signage application requirements. Page 4 of 7 JB said that we'd want to have RH's comments when we discuss that. Master Plan Advisory Committee Workshop Ongoing review of draft master plan, including Services and Facilities and Character and Identity sections is suggested that they simply put all comments tonight in bullet points. The narrative flow can be worked on later. That was agreeable to all. CR was able to use the projector to put the current drafts of the chapters on the screen so that where everyone could see them and suggest changes. Services and Facilities. This was a chapter that JS agreed to write. He noted that in previous Master Plan (1991) there had already been some things written about Reading's Services and Facilities. He suggested that they start with that. All agreed. Many suggestions followed as to what Town Departments and Facilities should be listed and under what categories. For instance, School Buildings are part of the Capital Plant. Some items listed in the old plan for instance, public lands were dropped from this chapter and would be moved to another section of the Master Plan. There was a long discussion on what to include of the town's infrastructure. Many things were mentioned Mr. George Katsoufis spoke of Verizon's upcoming fiber optics network for example but some felt that some items were not specific enough. For instance, CR asked if the MWRA water buy-in should be included? It is not a service or a facility, but it will have a dramatic impact on services and facilities. He said that it is true that the town provides facilities for the public's use, but added that we shouldn't include here what is beyond our control. This section should be about the Capitol Plan and some of things being suggested are more along the lines of Goals & Objectives. Most seemed to agree with this but some felt that you couldn't avoid discussing goals & objectives in a Master Plan. As JS put it, looked at one way, the Capital Plan as a whole could be considered a goal and objective; and looked at another way, the subtotal items of the Capital Plan could each be considered goals and objectives. JS gave another example. Reading has a public access TV channel courtesy of Comcast. Will Comcast still sponsor that channel once Verizon starts to make inroads into their market? Should we approach Verizon and ask for something similar? In addition to a changing streetscape, Reading also has a changing technological landscape. JS said that our objective should be to find a way to manage the changes without losing our current level of service. JB agreed saying that we ought to be looking to maximize the availability of services rather than the administrative details. Page 5 of 7 CR asked if the town wants to welcome telecommunications and what it entails: relays, towers. He said that generally speaking you want competition. That's why we welcomed Verizon in the first place. What's the long view? JS thanked everyone for their help adding that he'll email everyone his next draft of the chapter when he has sorted through all of their suggestions and comments. Character and Identity. This is Mr. George Katsoufis' chapter. Describing Reading, Mr. Katsoufis had four main points: 1. Reading is a traditional NE village with a town center, neighborhoods, natural lands, and a non-residential corridor. 2. Reading has a balance between the size of its buildings, the size of its lots, and the landscape. 3. Reading is primarily a single-family ownership town. 4. Reading has distinctive non-residential uses. He next listed what Reading is up against: 1. Housing Pressure (market prices and regulatory forces) 2. Developments are not required to blend in or adapt to Reading's character 3. Difficulties in developing cooperative relationships with adjacent communities Janet Allen, referring to housing pressures, said that if the market prices are consumer- driven they're good. If they're investor-driven, they're bad. CR asked rhetorically why people come to Reading? Ted Moore for example. Why are people willing to spend so much to live here? Why do they know that it is a safe investment? His answer: the school system. He said that that is the number one determinant of where people will buy a home. We have to deal with the market and regulatory forces like 40B because people know a good thing when they see it. Reading is in the most expensive housing market in the nation. George said that developers have saturated Reading's perimeter: Addison/Wesley and Johnson Woods. JS added that we're also already seeing small developments crop up and added that developers will throw down a cul-de-sac where they can. CR said that Reading has itself to blame. The town had a chance to buy both Johnson Woods and Spence Farm but passed. In a town-wide election, Reading's citizens voted down the Community Preservation Act. George said that we must use what zoning tools we have at our disposal (PUDs and PRDs) to keep developers under control. He posed the hypothetical situation of a Page 6 of 7 developer buying up whole neighborhoods even residential neighborhoods - to have the land on which to build a new development. CR said that he thought that this was unlikely. Any profits from such a scheme would be quickly eaten up by the huge up-front costs associated with buying out the residents. You can't make windfall profits through 40Bs. JB said that it was still a cautionary tale and that we should heed the warning. George said that today now the 40B rate is 10%. Who's to say that a new government wouldn't raise it to 12% or higher? Janet Allen said that Reading needs new ideas like the recently approved Carriage House bylaw that look at housing in a different way. She also spoke of "cluster zoning" which is something Andover and North Andover have implemented and is similar to Reading's Planned Residential Development (PRD) zoning bylaw (4.10). CR liked the idea of beating the 40B developers to the punch. He said that we'll probably never get to 10%, but if we reach the "build out", we're done. Rather than snob zoning, going to larger lot requirements, offer a variety of housing options instead like Andover to reach "build out". Virginia Adams asked if this would be reported at the Town Meeting? CR doubted it. It is a very busy Town Meeting. JB said it would be better to look at it in the fall. He then presented a motion to adjourn. JS seconded. Voted approved 4:0:0. The meeting ended at 10:15PM 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. Signed as approved, Sasso, Secretary Date Page 7 of 7