Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-15 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesOF Town of Readin t,i-,,~D "p, g in A cLEP 16 Lowell Street 1 vMASS. Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-9012 LUG ti§ A' 1 P 2: 5 0 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly&i.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: February 15, 2005 Location: Great Room, Reading Senior Center, 49 Pleasant Street Members Present: Neil Sullivan, Chair (NS), Jonathan Barnes (JB), Susan DeMatteo (SD), Richard Howard (RH). Members Absent: John Sasso Also Present: Chris Reilly, Town Planner (CR); Michael Schloth Kim Honetschlager, GIS Technician Roberta Sullivan, Historical Commission - Richard Askin, Project Manager, W/S Development Associates LLC Bill Brooks, VP of Pearson Jim D'Amico, owner of the Coffee Depot, 32 Lincoln Street, Reading, MA Attorney Mark Favaloro, representing W/S Development Associates LLC Bob Frazier, Vice President of Development, W/S Development Associates LLC Attorney Mark Gallant, 462 Boston Street, Topsfield, MA State Representative Patrick Natale, Boston Joe Reis of Batten Bros. Sign Advertising, 893 Main Street, Wakefield, MA. Brian Sierra, Vice President of Lifestyle Centers, W/S Development Associates LLC Ms. Jeanine Balboni, 11 Mile Post Road, Reading, MA Mr. Walter Begonis, 289 South Street, Reading, MA Ms. Angela Binda, 10 Orchard Park Drive, Reading, MA Ms. Ilene Bornsteine, 80 Haystack Road, Reading, MA Mr. Christopher Brungardt, 324 South Street, Reading, MA Mr. Bradley Fuller, 169 Walnut Street, Reading, MA Mr. Stan Karandanis, 197 South Street, Reading, MA Mr. George Katsoufis, 9 Berkeley Street, Reading, MA Mr. John Lukens, 148 Walnut Street, Reading, MA Mr. Richard Roketenetz, 15 Mile Post Road, Reading, MA Mr. Cromwell Schubarth, 17 Sturges Road, Reading, MA Mr. David Tuttle, 27 Heather Drive, Reading, MA The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. Page 1 of 12 Administrative Review GIS Standards for Site Plan Review and Subdivision Regulations Kim Honetschlager, Reading's GIS Technician, spoke to the board regarding the benefits of establishing standards for the submission of digital documents for Site and Subdivision plans. First, she noted two major benefits of digital submissions: • The time and cost of updating GIS layers (e.g. parcels) will be reduced. • The integrity of the data will be far easier to maintain (files can be directly loaded into the GIS). She then said that the State GIS office is currently drafting a set of standards for digital submissions. She explained that a town's level of compliance with these standards will depend upon how many of these standards the town adopts as well as how accurately submitted plans will reference real-world features in the town's GIS. The standards in brief are: • A plan shall be submitted as one drawing file rather than as multiple drawings • The file format will be DFX (AutoCAD file format). • Standard CADD (Computer Automated Design & Drafting) naming conventions will be required. After explaining the standards, she said that her major concern was both how best to add the standards to the current regulations and how best to administer the standards to make sure that a digital document is submitted with the appropriate applications. CR said that currently the Site Plan Review regulations require, digital plans but the regulations are not always consistently enforced. He suggested asking the Town Engineer to amend the Subdivision regulations to require digital plans too. RH noted that such a change to the Subdivision regs would require a public hearing. He suggested keeping the Digital Submission Standards language general in the regs and specific in the applications on a case by case basis. This would allow the board both to customize the level of standards compliance and to avoid having to hold a public hearing each time the standards change. This suggestion met with general approval. JB asked if the board must accept the State's Digital Submission Standards in toto to have the legal authority to deny plans. If so, he wants to be sure that the board does accept the standards in toto. RH didn't think total acceptance would be necessary if the specifics were kept in the applications and offered two examples: 1. For Site Plan Reviews we could require digital plans prior to permitting occupancy. 2. For Subdivisions we could include the requirement for digital plans as an item in the calculation of the bond amount and not release the bond until we had the digital plans in hand. Page 2 of 12 Kim Honetschlager noted that other towns also had questions about how to avoid legal issues in applying the standards (she mentioned Weymouth). She thought that RH's idea - ' of keeping the standards language general in the regulations and specific in the applications might be a good solution. RH suggested that the requirement of digital plans be immediately enforced in the case of Site Plan Reviews. He also suggested that the Town Engineer, Joe Delaney, be asked to add the same requirement to subdivision applications. Site Plan Review Extension Request: 87 Walkers Brook Drive (Shell) Attorney Mark Gallant, speaking for Motiva Enterprises, requested an extension on the Site Plan Review for the Shell station at 87 Walkers Brook Drive. He noted that the board had approved previous requests for extensions (in 2001 and 2003) and that another board, the Conservation Commission, had already approved an extension to 2007 of their separate review. Attorney Gallant said that the project was taking such a long time because the tragedy of 9/11 had put all of Motiva's projects into slow-down but he assured the board that Motiva was still interested in completing the project. He added that the project involves a very detailed relocation and as the Conservation Commission's extension is to no later than 04/2007 all construction will have to be completed by the end of 2006. RH said he would agree to an extension concurrent with the Conservation Commission's extension but emphasized that any further extensions would not be granted. Instead, the applicant would have to apply for a new Site Plan Review. RH moved to approve the request for the extension to 03/2007. JB amended the motion to add the condition that there will be no further extension granted after 03/2007. RH accepted the amendment. JB seconded the amended motion. Voted approved 4:0:0. Zoning Workshop The following, written by CR, was read into the minutes by RH. "As part of Reading's zoning enactment process, the zoning workshop is designed to allow public input on proposed zoning amendments. The CPDC will consider public comments in advance of recommending zoning amendment language to the Selectmen, _ who will then review, in _a public hearing and approve or-amend -according _to policies they have adopted as elected officials. There will be a final CPDC public hearing for further public comment before any proposed zoning language is recommended to Town Meeting. Town Meeting is the ultimate municipal authority on zoning amendments, requiring a Page 3 of 12 two-thirds majority in the affirmative for adoption of zoning warrant articles into the zoning by-laws. The zoning workshop is not a permitting approval process. Assuming Town Meeting approval of the recommended language, as currently proposed the petitioner will need to submit an application under Zoning By-Laws Section 4.3.3. Site Plan Review, which will require a noticed, advertised public hearing, technical review by staff, boards, committees and commissions and further public review. In addition to adherence to Town standards and widely adopted planning principles that have undergone legal scrutiny, the Site Plan Review process is specifically intended address abutter and neighborhood concerns. The CPDC has substantial experience reviewing development proposals of all kinds, and their ongoing policy is to be as inclusive and attentive to legitimate and reasonable concerns, particularly regarding residential neighborhoods. In order for everyone to get an opportunity to comment individuals will be allowed approximately two minutes to present their views or questions. Questions should be relevant to the proceedings and directed through the Chair, who will ask whether the petitioner has any comment. The Selectmen as Road Commissioners are responsible for public review of proposed changes to the right of way so that process should be separate from the zoning workshop. The CPDC requests that all participants in the zoning workshop conduct themselves in a civil manner and with respect toward others. Comments of a personal nature are an inappropriate disruption and the Chair may seek to curtail as such. Participants should sign in on the sheet provided. Additional zoning workshops will be conducted on this matter and subsequent information on scheduling and the proposed zoning amendments will be provided on the internet at www.ci.reading_ma.us/planning and at Community Services in Town Hall." Addison-Wesley/Business C District zoning amendment Developer's Presentation. Mr. Bob Frazier and his team made their presentation. It was essentially the same as their previous presentations to the board but Mr. Frazier did have one new piece of news: his company would not be pushing for a decision from the town at the next Town Meeting. He said that Mr. Bill Brooks of Pearson had decided to extend their contract to give W/S Development Associates more time to address the concerns of the community. Mr. Frazier seemed sure that those concerns would be addressed by the Fall Town Meeting and held out the hope that the Town Manager might call for a Special Town Meeting sometime sooner. The Public's Response. Mr. Walter Begonis, 289 South Street Mr. Begonis said that he had been to three meetings with the developers and had ` yet to hear how the traffic problems would be addressed. Page 4 of 12 He is concerned that traffic has been steadily increasing in the area in spite of the fact that the Addison Wesley campus has been closed for some time. Mr. Begonis said that when the campus was full from 9 to 5 the car count was roughly 2000 per day and South Street was known as a "cut-through" street. Today, according to the 93/128 Task Force, the car count is up to 3500 per day. Mr. Begonias is also concerned with any solutions to the traffic problem that may involve changes to South Street. He reminded the board that South Street was voted a scenic road under the Scenic Road Bylaw, a bylaw created by the CPDC itself. The bylaw was created in response to both the Historical Commission's declaration of South Street as an "ancient road" (built 1875), and to the petition circulated by South Street residents when there were plans to have South Street widened and edged with sidewalks. That petition asked that South Street be left undisturbed. Mr. Begonis also reminded the board of the terrible traffic problems that resulted when the Addison Wesley campus was used as a polling place in the 2004 presidential election. Even opening the access road to the campus had little effect. Mr. Begonis said he believed that Reading's boards should be working to reduce the traffic in town and that there must be something else that could go into the Addison Wesley property besides a retail mall. Mr. Begonis concluded by saying the property should not be rezoned. Pearson bought the property and it is not up to the town to make it profitable for them. Ms. Ilene Bornsteine, 80 Haystack Road Ms. Bornsteine questions if a retail center is the best use of the Addison Wesley property. She notes that the businesses the developers say will be in the "lifestyle center" are already within easy travel distance elsewhere. She concludes that if the development is built she doubts that it will be successful. Ms. Angela Binda, 10 Orchard Park Drive Ms. Binda provided a brief background of "lifestyle centers": • They started in the south and west. 64% of them can be found there. There are few in the northeast because of the cold and snow there. • She notes that the top ten businesses in lifestyle centers are already found 10 minutes from Reading. • They are riskier ventures than strip malls because of their higher real estate and maintenance costs. • She says that there are no anchor stores and she wonders what will happen to the property - what stores will replace the high-end stores - when lifestyle centers are no longer popular. • She says that restaurants make up about 12% of the businesses in a lifestyle center. She asks if the zoning will be the same? And what about garbage collection and liquor licenses? Page 5 of 12 She likes the "New England style" design of the lifestyle center but notes that we already have real New England style designs in our downtown. And speaking of the downtown, she wonders what would happen to our downtown businesses if the lifestyle center were built. Will they lose customers? She concluded by asking the CPDC to think through their decision carefully. Mr. Christopher Brungardt, 324 South Street Mr. Brungardt told the board that he had visited the developer's Hingham Lifestyle Center and saw many dumpsters there. He said that the Addison Wesley developer is also "rearranging" the Redstone Shopping Center in Stoneham, and that the Woburn Mall too is slated for redevelopment. He asked the board to keep both of these projects in mind during their deliberations over the development of the Addison Wesley property. Mr. David Tuttle, 27 Heather Drive Mr. Tuttle is also concerned with the rising traffic and is skeptical that the developers can do anything to keep it from becoming worse. He reminded the board of the two housing developments currently under construction on West Street (Longwood and Spence Farms) and pointed out that they can only add to the traffic load in the area. Why add a shopping center on top of that? He said that the Woburn Mall is struggling and asks is it wise to open another mall just up the street? Mr. John Lukens, 148 Walnut Street Mr. Lukens said that rezoning the Addison Wesley property for retail use is in direct violation of the stated goals of Reading's Master Plan. He directed the board's attention to page 87 of the Master Plan where it is written that the zoning bylaw should be rewritten to prohibit re-zoning. He also notes that the Master Plan shows a concern over Reading's traffic. Mr. Lukens then related a story of a rezoning that took place in Salem, NH and ended badly for that city. He said that a developer wanted to make a retail center out of a parcel of land near 128 in Salem, NH but the parcel was not zoned for such development. Salem's zoning board voted to rezone the parcel to allow retail. The developer submitted a plan but Salem rejected it saying that the developer's plan was not in the best interests of Salem's future as outlined in their Master Plan. The developer sued. The-court's-decision was in two parts:- first, the court upheld the city's decision to - follow their Master Plan; but, in the second part, the court reversed itself and said that as the city did vote to rezone the parcel to allow retail the developer should be allowed to build. Page 6 of 12 Mr. Lukens warned that the same could happen here. Reading could lose its right to decide its own future once we start rezoning to suit developers. Mr. George Katsoufis, 9 Berkeley Street Mr. Katsoufis, an architect and a member of Reading's Master Plan Committee, said that the Lifestyle Center will have a big impact not just on Reading's traffic but on Reading's character as well. He said the true buffer of the project will not be landscaping but the project's neighbors and added that the same was true of the Jordan/ Home Depot development. He would like to see more open public space: not buffers and fences. Mr. Katsoufis said that so much retail in Reading is turning Reading into a "single-use" town. He added that this was alien to Reading's character. He said that Reading is more of a "mixed-use" town: office, retail, and manufacturing. He noted that there are plans in the works to rezone more parts of Reading for multi- use. He displayed a map of Route 128 to show that few areas along 128 were single-use. He warned that developers want single-use and Reading must stand against them. Mr. Cromwell Schubarth, 17 Sturges Road Mr. Schubarth spoke of the time when Addison Wesley owned the property and was open for business. He said that it was a fine outfit and that it was always willing to work with the community. He said that Addison Wesley, in their day, had: • placed a stop sign at the end of Jacob Way • instructed employees to never turn left onto South Street • brought the police in to direct traffic during peak traffic hours He questioned whether the new owners would be as accommodating, but he did thank them from backing off from pushing for a quick decision on their plan. He is not happy with the thought of rezoning the parcel to suit the developers and with tongue in cheek asked if he could have his lot rezoned to make a buck. Mr. Schubarth is dismayed by the amount of redevelopment going on in Reading. He hopes that not all the woods will be lost to development. He concluded by saying that we have a duty to maintain our woods and environment. Mr. Stan Karandanis, 197 South Street Mr. Karandanis had one question: How much revenue per auto was necessary to sustain the development? He said that there must be a minimal amount of traffic needed to keep the development alive, noted that there must be statistical studies based on other similar developments, and asked if it was possible to learn from such studies what Page 7 of 12 that minimal amount must be for this development. Then we'll have a good idea how much traffic we're talking about. He concluded by saying that they'll shut it down as soon as they don't get the minimum traffic. Mr. Bradley Fuller, 169 Walnut Street Mr. Fuller says his lot is 60 feet below the Addison Wesley parking lot and he would like to know how the proposed development would affect the water table. He asks where will the water go? Mr. Fuller then spoke of the Mashpee Commons development on Cape Cod. He said that 15 years ago or so it was "the place to go" much like the developer's Lifestyle Center in Hingham is today. But, as times changed, the small stores left Mashpee and the "Big Box" stores moved in. He warns that the same could happen in Reading. Mr. Richard Roketenetz, 15 Mile Post Road With an eye on the aging population, Mr. Roketenetz said that he would prefer that the Addison Wesley property be converted into an Adult Community. He said that such a community would blend in with the surroundings nicely and have little impact on traffic. The Developer Responds. Mr. Frazier attempted to address the public's concerns. He repeated that they have no solution to the traffic as of yet but that it is a top priority with his team. He added that land has been acquired - the Tambone Property for widening Main Street. He further added that cul-de-sacs have been successful in dealing with traffic problems in other developments and suggested that it might be a solution in Reading too. He said that mixed-use is a nice idea and that they are open to it. Regarding Redstone, Mr. Frazser said that his company manages and leases but does not own the property. The redevelopment consists of adding a Shaws and a CVS. Regarding the comments about identical stores being found 10 minutes away, Mr. Frazier said that his team looks at this project as being part of the Route 128 network and he assured his audience that shoppers will come. He added that shoppers don't want to make 20 minute round trips to particular stores. Drainage: Mr. Frazier said that the Hingham property had major drainage problems before his development company took it over. His company undertook a massive renovation of the drainage system to bring it up to the state-of-the-art. He added that his _company tries to, bring all systems in their_developments -up tothe state-of -the-art, RH asks Mr. Frazier to explain what the Mass. EPA (MEPA) process entails. Page 8 of 12 Mr. Frazier says that first there is an Environment Impact Review. The local boards are notified. We make our proposal and the MEPA circulates this plan. All neighbors are invited to comment on the proposal. The community is always involved in the process. At this point, State Representative Patrick Natale asked to speak. Rep. Natale said that although Mr. Frazier's company has impeccable credentials and that he did not question their integrity, he doubted that the developers could do much about the traffic and he warned Reading that once the permit is issued they run the risk of losing control. As an example, he said that Woburn has severe traffic problems from developments built there [Mr. Fraiser's company was not mentioned] but he can't get anyone to return his calls about it and he's a State Representative. Why would neighbors have any better luck? He added that he still gets calls from neighbors of the Jordan/Home Depot project. Representative Natale shared the community's concerns over traffic and warned that the entire 128/98 interchange could be thrown into turmoil by the yet to be resolved 128 interchange proposal. He said that the current proposal is the object of much political infighting that has left the future of that traffic corridor in a state of flux. Mr. Schubarth of 17 Sturges Road. Mr. Schubarth called Mr. Frazier's suggestion of a cul-de-sac unacceptable as it would unfairly penalize residents by increasing travel time to and from their homes perhaps critically in the case of ambulances and fire trucks. Jeanine Balboni, 11 Mile Post Road. Ms. Balboni warned that traffic would come from not only 128 but up 28 from North Reading and Andover too. She asked the board to think of the traffic this would cause for Reading's downtown. She asked how 50 stores placed in the Addison Wesley could not be the cause major traffic problems when Redstone, with fewer stores and better access, has traffic all of the time? Conclusion. As it was obvious that the overriding concern of the public was how to handle the traffic, the board thought the next step for the CPDC to take would be to present this concern to the Town Selectmen in their capacity as the Road Commissioners as soon as possible. CR suggested scheduling a joint Zoning Workshop with the Selectmen and added that the CPDC would like to see some traffic studies. Mr. Frazier said that in the coming weeks his team will be studying the situation with traffic engineers, taking traffic counts, and looking into the current status of the 93/128 Interchange Proposal. The board noted that all input received would be put into the minutes and presented to the Selectmen. When a date for the joint Zoning Workshop is decided on, the abutters will be notified. Page 9 of 12 Carriage House Bylaw CR said that the Town Counsel had made two changes to the wording of the proposed bylaw. CR then distributed the revised version and said that it is now consistent with the zoning bylaw regarding accessory apartments. Roberta Sullivan, speaking for the Historical Commission, approved the revised version. RH suggested two amendments: 1. Change both "ZBA" and "Board of Appeals" to "special permit granting authority" There is no reason to give the same entity three different names. 2. On page 2, part "G", place a period after the word "parking" and delete everything after it. The board agreed with RH's amendments. RH moved to accept the Carriage House Bylaw as amended and to recommend that it be presented to the Board of Selectmen for their review. JB seconded. Voted approved 4:0:0. Downtown Mixed-Use Bylaw Continued to the next meeting - February 28, 2005. Certificate of Appropriateness (continued) Reading Station Coffee Depot, 32 Lincoln St. (Action Date: February 15, 2005) CR reminded the board that this application was continued to allow the Historical Commission time to visit the site and review the design and placement of the sign. Roberta Sullivan, speaking for the Historical Commission, said that she had no comment on the design itself but said the sign must fit, "appropriately sized", flat against the wall in the 30 inch space to the right of the entrance. RH moved to recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the sign as submitted provided that it is mounted flat on the wall and that it is no more than 22 inches wide and 3 feet high. JB seconded-and asked when the sign on the depot's roof would be finished. CR said it was supposed to be trimmed in red. The owner, Mr. Jim D'Amico, said that he - was planning a general cleaning in the spring and would look at it then. RH moved to amend the motion to add the requirement that the roof-sign be finished. Page 10 of 12 JB seconded the amendment. Voted approved 4:0:0. Certificate of Appropriateness The Cottage Faire, 12 Woburn St. (Action Date: April 11, 2005) RH recused himself. Joe Reis of Batten Bros. Sign Advertising, 893 Main Street, Wakefield, MA. presented a drawing of the proposed sign to the board. His points: • The subtitle was changed from "Home Furnishings and Accents" to "Goods for the Home" • The sign is made of "Sign Foam" not wood. He explained that Sign Foam is better than wood because it neither rots nor laminates. • The letters will be raised, painted gold with a green trim, and set upon a background of red "smaltz". Smaltz was described as an old-time look with a fine, shimmery appearance like asphalt shingles but in this case red not black. • Carved scrollwork will finish the left and right ends of the sign. The board liked the style and appearance of the sign in general (except JB who thought ` the sign was too Victorian) but had two concerns: 1. Sign Foam: the board did not want to rule on the application until a sample of this material is presented to them. Mr. Reis agreed to supply the board with a sample of Sign Foam. 2. Sign Size: CR pointed out and the board agreed that the sign is too large for the building. Mr. Reis said that a larger sign would not look out of proportion on such a long, blank wall and that it would be easier to see from Main Street. JB made a motion to continue until the next meeting, February 28, 2005. SD seconded. Voted approved 3:0:0. RH returned. Public Comment/Minutes Roberta Sullivan asked the CPDC if they would consider revisiting the subject of Walgreen's windows. She told the board that the Historical Commission believes that the windows in the current plan are too big and blank. She said that she had spoken to Walgreen's architect Page 11 of 12 about the windows and he seemed receptive to making changes. She asked if it was too late to make changes. The board said it is not too late but explained that since they had declared the Site Plan Review of the Walgreens project completed and approved, any request for modifications to the plan must come from Walgreens. Roberta Sullivan asked if the Historical Commission could ask Walgreens to make such a request. The board said the Commission could and added their assurance that if Walgreens did come to them with a request to modify the windows the board would entertain it. The meeting ended at 11:15 These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on April 11, 2005; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on April 11, 2005. Signed as approved, fi J ~Sasso, Secretary Date Page 12 of 12