Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-28 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 Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: February 28, 2005 Members Present: Neil Sullivan, Chair (NS), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Richard Howard (RH), and John Sasso (JS). Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth Roberta Sullivan of the Historical Commission In Attendance: Joe Reis of Batten Bros. Sign Advertising, 893 Main Street, Wakefield Alex Leventhal, owner of "General Goods", 587 Main Street, Reading Mr. Garrison, 11 Jadem Terrace, Reading. Carolyn Boviard, 42 Chute Street, Reading The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:45 PM. Administrative Review Guide to CPDC Site Plan Review Procedures The board reviewed and suggested amendments to John Sasso's paper "General Guidance on Site Plan Review - CPDC Hearing Process". • RH suggested that the word "consultant" be used instead of "vendor" in steps 6 & 7 of the CPDC hearing process to keep the guide inline with the bylaws. JB suggested adding the phrase "if available" to step 10. This step states that the Town Planner may make the draft decision available to the applicant and the public for review. RH asked if it was necessary to use the words "will" and "shall". CR pointed out that he is not supposed to give out copies of the decision but rather copies should be requested in person from the Town Clerk, JS spoke highly of a document, authored by Professor of Law, Mark _Bobrowski,-that he found helpful as an explanation of the site plan review process. He suggested adding it to ' the Town's website. CR said that he would try to provide a link to it. \ \ Serverl \ elderser\ Schloth\ CPDC\ Final Minutes\2005\ Feb28_2005_FINAL.doc JS moved to approve the "General Guidance on Site Plan Review - CPDC Hearing Process" as amended and to place it on the town's WebPages and in the CPDC's papers. JB seconded. Voted approved 5:0:0. The board thanked JS for his efforts. CR said that hereafter he would add it to all site plan review applications. Certificate of Appropriateness (continued) The Cottage Faire, 12 Woburn Street (Action Date: March 28, 2005) RH recused himself. Joe Reis of Batten Bros. Sign Advertising, 893 Main Street, Wakefield, appeared for the applicant. As requested by the board at the February 14 meeting, Mr. Reis brought with him samples of the "Sign Foam" material from which the sign is made and even gave some of the samples to the Town Planner to keep for future reference. Mr. Reis once again described the benefits of using Sign Foam. He says it looks like wood but neither laminates nor rots. He claims that he has never even seen mold on a sign made of sign foam. The Sign Foam material met with the general approval of the board. At the previous meeting, the board had expressed concern over the size of the proposed sign and Mr. Reis was now able to tell the board that the dimensions of the sign had been reduced. The board was very happy to hear this but when specifics on the size of the letters were asked for a discussion ensued about "scaled" vs. "actual" specifications and the shortcomings of the current sign approval process. JB wanted to see written specifications so that they may be checked against the finished sign. CR agreed and added that the lack of written specifications had led to trouble with other signs. He also said that the board should require a precise number because that is what the Building Inspector always asks for. JB also stated that he would also like to see expressed in writing whether or not a sign's lettersare "individually mounted". The discussion turned towards the lighting of the sign and/or storefront. \\Serverl\elderser\Schloth\CPDC\Final Minutes\2005\ Feb28_2005_FINAL.doc Mr. Reis's plans contained nothing about the lighting of the sign. CR noted that lighting has always been treated as part of the requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness and added that the owner will have to come back before the board to have her store's lighting approved. JB moved to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness based upon the submission of 2/28/05 with the stipulation that the height of the letters do not exceed 9" in the store name and 4" in the tagline and conditional upon the Town Planner's approval of the lighting. SD seconded. Voted approved 4:0.0. RH returned. PUBLIC HEARING: Definitive Subdivision (continued) Richard Merrill Trust, 175 Franklin Street (Action Date: March 1, 2005) NS opened the Public Hearing. CR read from Attorney Brad Latham's letter, which stated that his client could not meet the "Aquifer Protection" for the lot. Apparently the applicant requires more time than is normal for this kind of action and he'll either have to ask for a variance to move forward as planned, or he'll have to consider a two-lot alternative. CR added that Brad Latham offered to meet with the CPDC to explain the situation. RH made a motion to continue this action to the last meeting in May [05/23/05] based on a letter received today from Brad Latham containing an executed extension to June 10, 2005. SD seconded Voted approved 5:0:0. JB wanted it noted that although this continuation gives the applicant more time it reduces the amount of time the CPDC will have to consider his request as the CPDC will not now hear his case until the end of May but still must respond by June 10. Zoning Workshop Downtown Mixed-Use Bylaw CR began the workshop by saying that the CPDC needs to ask the Board of Selectmen to communicate in writing their current position regarding the Mixed-Use Bylaw. \ \Server1\elderser\Schloth\ CPDC\ Final Minutes\2005\Feb28_2005_FINAL.doc 3 At the end of the long discussion that followed, the members of the CPDC found themselves in general agreement on three points: 1. The Board of Selectmen is not as enthusiastic about implementing mixed-use zoning as the Board was when the Board first asked the CPDC to look into it last summer. 2. The State's own mixed-use implementation initiative - Smart Growth (40R) - is also not inspiring much enthusiasm lately. CR says that it is "languishing" and that it has been the subject of much negative feedback from other towns. 3. The CPDC's investigation into the implementation of mixed-use zoning in Reading has revealed that mixed-use would have its greatest impact on parking and traffic, both of which fall under the purview of the Board of Selectmen. With these points in mind, the CPDC decided to postpone further action on the mixed-use bylaw until such time as they could meet and discuss the issue with the Board of Selectmen. The time and place of this meeting would be determined at a later date. Before moving to the next item on the agenda, RH proposed that the CPDC prepare for the Board of Selectmen a one-page, bulleted, summary of the CPDC's concerns about the impact of mixed-use in Reading. Everyone agreed that this was a good idea and CR volunteered to write it. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Amendment Carriage House-Stable-Barn Zoning By-Law This zoning by-law amendment would allow for accessory residential conversion of existing carriage houses, stables and barns by special permit from the ZBA. JS made a motion to dispense with the reading of the bylaw. SD seconded. Voted approved 5:0:0. RH had two comments on the language: 1. Item "g": should delete everything after the word "street" in the second line. 2. Item "a": the phrase "habitable gross floor area" should be changed to "net floor area" The other members of the board agreed with these amendments. NS asked if there were any comments from the public. Mr. Garrison of 11 Jadem Terrace asked to be heard. His property abuts the rear of 42 Chute Street, which is a property with a carriage house. The owner of that carriage house, Carolyn Boviard, plans to convert it into a dwelling if the bylaw passes. \ \ Serverl\ elderser\ Schloth\ CPDC\ Final Minutes\2005\Feb28_2005_FINAL.doc 4 Mr. Garrison is in favor of the bylaw generally and is happy to see the carriage house at 42 Chute Street rebuilt rather than torn down, but he is concerned that the conversion might expand the structure towards his property. What if they add a porch? Or a garage? Roberta Sullivan, of the Historical Commission, assured Mr. Garrison that the intention of the bylaw is not to allow such expansions. The intention is to preserve the structure as it stands. CR can't see this scenario ever being allowed to occur. First, it would require a special permit from the ZBA; and second, it would be against the intention of the bylaw. Mr. Garrison would rather that the bylaw explicitly states that the footprint of the carriage house would not be allowed to expand, rather than have to rely on future zoning boards' interpretations of the bylaw's intent. Carolyn Boviard of 42 Chute Street asked to be heard and told the board that in fact she did have plans to expand the footprint to add a 6' x 9' porch alcove to block the weather. The consensus of the board was that this was a reasonable addition and that perhaps they should consider allowing minor, reasonable expansions of the footprint. Mr. Garrison was not against such minor expansions but he would like to see a maximum limit to such expansions explicitly stated in the bylaw. After due deliberation, the board decided to amend the bylaw to allow a maximum expansion of 10% of the original footprint. RH moved to close the Public Hearing. JB seconded. Voted approved 5:0:0. RH made a motion to have the CPDC recommend to the Town Meeting the Carriage House Bylaw as presented and amended tonight, 02/28/05. SD seconded. Voted approved 5:0:0. Certificate of Appropriateness General Goods, 587 Main Street. (Action Date: March 28, 2005) Alex Leventhal, the owner, appeared for General Goods. RH points out that there is no signboard. The whole fascia panel above the door is the sign - not something the board is used to seeing. The letters don't fill the entire panel but RH feels the entire fascia panel should be considered the sign. \ \ Serverl\ elderser\ Schloth\ CPDC\ Final Minutes\2005\ Feb28_2005_FINAL.doc JB disagrees and directs the board's attention to 6.2.1.3 k of the Zoning Bylaws: "Sign Area: The area contained entirely within the signboard (the flat surface of durable material upon which letters or other graphic content of a sign is displayed) or if no sign board is present the area contained entirely within the smallest square, circle, triangle, or rectangle which completely encloses the outer extremities of all graphic material of a sign." JB concluded from this that the letters themselves could be considered the sign. Mr. Leventhal said that he wants loose letters unconstrained by a signboard because he is trying to achieve a whimsical look. The consensus of the board is that the design is fine but the letters are too big. Mr. Leventhal was amenable to reducing the size of the letters. RH suggested a 75% reduction of the height of the letters. This would reduce the large letters to 18" and the small letters to 9.5". It would also reduce the length of the sign [the length of the "smallest square" as per 6.2.1.31 of the Zoning Bylaws] to 99". JB again pointed out, and the board agreed with him, that here again was a case where the specific numbers were not submitted with the application. RH moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the sign in question as presented in applications dated 12/30/04 and 02/01/05 subject to a 75% reduction in the height of the letters and the length of the sign. JB seconded. Voted approved 5:0:0. The board then briefly discussed General Goods' use of a flag sign with the word "OPEN" on it. There were two issues: 1. Do the bylaws allow it? and 2. Does it obstruct the sidewalk? CR said that temporary "OPEN" flags are allowed and suggested that the board forget that issue for now. As for whether the flag obstructs the sidewalk, Mr. Leventhal admitted that his employee had originally set the flag too low but that he has since raised it - it is adjustable - and the flag is no longer an obstruction. Certificate of Appropriateness Chiefs Barber Shop, 84 Haven Street. (Action Date: March 28, 2005) The board had no complaints about the design of the sign but was disappointed that this was yet another application that provided no actual measurements to describe the size of the letters. \ \Serverl\ elderser\Schloth\ CPDC\ Final Minutes\2005\Feb28_2005_FINAL.dOc JS suggested that the board prepare a checklist for the Building Inspector's guidance consisting of the top five things the CPDC want to know about a sign under their consideration for approval. Everyone agreed that this was a very good idea. RH moved to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the "Chief's Barber Shop" sign as submitted. SD seconded. Voted approved 5:0:0. Public Comment/Minutes RH moved to accept as amended the minutes of January 10, 2005. JB seconded. Voted approved 5:0:0. Next, RH moved to accept as amended the minutes of January 24, 2005. JB seconded. Voted approved 5:0:0. There being no further business, RH moved to adjourn. JB seconded. Voted approved 5:0:0. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on March 28, 2005; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on March 28, 2005. Sasso, Secretary Date \ \ Serverl \ elderser\ Schloth\ CPDC\ Final Minutes\2005\Feb28_2005_FINAL.doc 7