Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-11 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: ckowalski@ci.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: A Location: Selectmen's Members Present: David Weston (JW). t 11, 2008 ng Room, Town Hall, Tim e-(-DT-), Chairman; Brant Btiilant~ n,c, tBB); John Members Absent: Nicholas Safina (NS), Secretary. 7:30 PM (JS), and John Also Present: Carol Kowalski (CK), Town Plamler; Abigail McCabe (AM), Staff Planner; and Michael Schloth, Recording Secretary. Attorney Chris Latham of Latham, Latham, & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Mr. Jack Russell, member of the EDC, 91 Spruce Road Mr. Tom Hurley There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Public Comment` There were no comments from the public. Site Plan Review (Continued from 7/28/08) 287 Lowell Street Mr. Buonarosa, the applicant and owner, was not able to attend. Attorney Chris Latham appeared for the applicant. A draft decision had been prepared by the Planning Department staff and distributed to both the Board and the applicant prior to the meeting. Mr. Latham's comments on the draft had also been distributed to the Board prior to the meeting. Review of the Draft Decision. The Board directed the following changes be made to the draft decision. • Materials: Add memo of 7/28/2008 from Conservation Administrator Fran Fink. Findings #6: Materials and Colors. Add to or modify the language to state the Board recommends different paint or cladding on the trim band only and not the entire fascia. Findings #5: Building Height. As per Mr. Latham's comment, the height will be increased from 24 ft. to 33.5 ft. Page 1 of 5 CPDC Minutes of 8/11/08 • Finding #8: Parking. Add language stating the existing parking is located in a right-of-way owned by the Town of Reading and although the Town agrees to this use the applicant uses the land at his own risk. • Condition #2: Lighting. Change language to state the existing exterior fluorescent lighting must be removed and the applicant must come back before the Board for approval of any future lighting changes. Mr. Latham asked if this approval request would be in the form of a minor modification. The consensus of the Board was it probably would. JS arrived during the review and took his seat with the Board. BB moved the Board approve the draft Site Plan Review decision as amended. JW seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:1 (JS abstained). BB moved the Board close the Public Hearing for the Site Plan Review of 287 Lowell Street. DT seconded. Voted Closed: 4:0:0. Lot Release Kylie Drive, Lot 8 Appearing for the applicant was Mr. Tom Hurley. Although listed as part of the Kylie Drive subdivision, this lot is on Wakefield Street and has no access to Kylie Drive. The Town Planner said the Engineering Department has no problem with the release of Lot 8. Mr. Hurley said he was also looking for Lot #7 to be released sometime soon. The Town Planner suggested if Mr. Hurley provide the Board with a construction schedule of the subdivision no later than 8/20/08 - the Wednesday before the Board's next meeting - then the release of Lot#7 could be considered at the 8/25/08 meeting. The consensus of the Board was Mr. Hurley discuss the details of the schedule with the Town Engineer as they would be looking for the Town Engineer's approval to release Lot #7. DT asked the Town Planner if there was any reason not to execute the release of Lot #8. She said there was not. The Board signed the release. No other action was necessary. Zoning Bylaw Errata This concerns the Errata Page of the Zoning Bylaws. The Board was under some confusion over what the page represented, if the changes had in fact been made, and if all of the changes should be made. The Town Planner said she would provide the Board with an explanation of what each item of the Errata Page means. Page 2 of 5 CPDC Minutes of 8/11/08 Downtown 40R Overlay Follow-up to discussion of August 4, 2008 Planning Subcommittee meeting General: The Board was not sure what could be done through design guidelines and what would require zoning changes. Subsections: At the prior meeting, a suggestion was made to make the Ash, Gould, and Green Streets section of the downtown its own "lesser commercial" subsection of the 40R overlay. The concern was the larger multistory streetscape proposed for Main, Haven, and High Streets would be too much for the narrower streets of the Ash/Gould/Green area. Although the consensus of the Board was some differentiation may be worthwhile between the two areas within the downtown, the point was made the design differences between subsections should not be as great as suggested in the 8/4/08 meeting. E.g. If a four-story limit is proposed for Main, Haven, and High Streets, then perhaps a three-story limit should exist in the Ash/Gould/Green area but not a single-family structure limit. Today there is no continuity between the Ash/Gould/Green area and the rest of the Downtown. In prior meetings the Board had discussed the possibility of a developer buying a string of adjacent lots in the Ash/Gould/Green area and building something more walkable and accessible. This was in response to residents having told the Board they want a more vital, vibrant downtown. If it is made a subsection we should try not give up the possibility of such a redevelopment. The Board touched upon the possibility of making the Ash/Gould/Green area its own subsection based on its historical value. The Board noted any possible subsections would be a part of the same 40R and since anything done in the 40R would be by-right, the question was raised as to how something done in one subsection could be restricted to that subsection. Max. Building Height: Currently the max height is 35 ft. Increasing it to 40ft would not be too overwhelming and would allow for some flexibility. Limits of 40 ft or four stories were suggested for Main, Haven, and High Streets. The Board noted too tall buildings on each side of the Main and Haven Streets could create a canyon effect. The possibility of using the guidelines to vary the heights of buildings was discussed as was the necessity of addressing the downtown's parking problems no matter the height decided upon. Follow-Up Actions: The Town Planner asked the Board to review the consultants' draft design guidelines and forward any comments to her. She in turn would pass them on to the consultants. The Board noted they were still waiting on what the consultants propose for dimensional controls. JS asked if the consultant's were responsible for the bylaw language of the 40R and if there was a timeline on when the language would be ready. The Town Planner said the language is the Page 3 of 5 CPDC Minutes of 8/11/08 responsibility of other consultants (`Housing Partners" and "Concord Square") and there was not yet a fixed timeline on when the language would be ready because of the many different property owners in the downtown (as opposed to the 40R created in the Addison-Wesley site). The Board agreed to submit their comments to the Town Planner by 8/20/08. South Main Street Design Guidelines Review EDC Survey Questions The Board thought the survey was a great idea and asked if it could be expanded to include questions soliciting feedback from South Main businesses on ideas proposed by the Board during their discussions on their South Main Street design guidelines project. Mr. Jack Russell said the current survey was designed specifically for the downtown but questions on other areas could be added. JS offered to write up questions specific to South Main and the design guidelines project. Mr. Russell said the EDC has been meeting with individual owners of downtown businesses and suggested the Board do the same with South Main business owners. The Board thought this was a good idea. The Town Planner suggested possible on-site meetings with business owners might be arranged. Review Vision Statement and other actions in preparation for Town Meeting JS had written a draft of the Board's vision statement to Town Meeting. BB suggested changing all references to shared parking, shared access etc... to "shared resources". The Board agreed to this change. The Board then agreed to send their individual contributions and any updates and comments to NS, who holds the master document, by 8/20/08. Minutes BB moved the Board approve the minutes of 7/28/2008 as amended. JS seconded. Motion Approved: 4:0:0. Other Business. "Lot Coverage" definition The Board was both impressed and encouraged by the data gathered and tabulated by GIS Administrator Kim Honetschlager on the effect the new Lot Coverage definition would have on a property's conformity or nonconformity to zoning. The effect did not appear to be as onerous as first suspected and the consensus was it may be a good idea to increase the percentage of lot coverage allowed to 30% or 35% to further reduce the number of nonconformities. JW expressed concern over the idea of the Board proposing a bylaw change that would increase the number of nonconforming properties especially as the Board does not know how many properties were close to the current coverage maximum. Page 4 of 5 CPDC Minutes of 8/11/08 The Board agreed the data needed further review and asked the Town Planner to ask the GIS administrator: • How confident she is of the data? • How many lots are close to maximum lot coverage already? • Could she provide data based on possible lot coverage percentages of 30% and 35%? • Could she list some of the outliers of the data? • Could she provide the addresses of the four S-20 lots that become nonconforming under the proposed definition? The Board expressed their thanks to Kim Honetschlager for her.efforts on their behalf. BB moved to adjourn. JS seconded. Motion Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on August 25, 2008; these minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on August 25, 2008. Signed as approved, Nicholas Safina, Date Page 5 of 5