Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-29 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: creilly@ci.readin2.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: January 29, 2007 Location: Multi-purpose Room, Parker Middle School, 45 Temple Street 7:30 PM Members Present: John Sasso (JS), Chairman; Brant Ballantyne, (BB), Secretary; Richard Howard (RH), and Jonathan Barnes (JB). Members Absent: Neil Sullivan (NS) Associate Members Present: George Katsoufis (GK), David. Tuttle (DT) Associate Members Absent: Israel Maylcut (IM), and Nicholas Safina (Nick S.). Also Present: George Zambouras (GZ), Town Engineer; and Michael Schloth. Ms. Linda Anderson, 9 School St. Mr. Frank Andrews, 75 Dana Rd. Mr. Curtis Barnes, 11 Bancroft Ave. Ms. Dorman Barnes, 11 Bancroft Ave. Mr. Hank Bardol, 60 Sanborn St. Mr. Ernie Bay, 144 Woburn St. Ms. Lois Bell, 35 Washington St. Mr. Everett Blodgett, 99 Prescott St. Mr. Ralph C. Blunt, 22 Linden St. Ms. Adele Blunt, 22 Linden St. Ms. Jean Boyd, 8 Crosby Rd. Mr. Ken Boyd, 8 Crosby Rd. Mr. Nelson Burbank, 24 Juniper Circle Mr. Bill Brown, 28 Martin Rd. Mr. Paul Caggiano, One General Way Mr. Bob Carden, 24 Mt. Vernon St. Ms. Marie Carden, 24 Mt. Vernon St. Mr. Chris Coleman, 53 Zachary Lame Mr. William F. Crowley, 42 Locust St. Mr. Charles Cullinane, 59 Oak Ridge Rd. Mr. Ron D'Addario, 97 Summer Ave. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John St. Ms. Christine Dinardo, 129 High St. Mr. Wayne Dwyer, 61 Ash St. Mr. John Gagnon, 359 Pearl St. Ms. Karen German, 12 Linden St. Mr. Manuel German, 12 Linden St. Mr. Michael Giacalone, 9 Orchard Park Dr Ms. Kathy Greenfield, 192 Woburn St. Mr. George V. Hines, 35 Grand St. Ms. Lynne Johnson, 105 John St. Ms. Naomi Kaufman, 64 Woburn St. Ms. Joan Kingston, 211 Pleasant St. Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main St. Mr. Michael Linnane, 180 Haven St. Mr. Ted Londi, Londi's Roast Beef Ms. Julianne McKenney, 67 Woburn St. Ms. Leslie McGonagle, 140 Pine Ridge Rd. Mr. Gino Molettieri, 115 Lowell St. Ms. Lynn O'Brien, 34 Washington St. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Ave. Mr. Phil Pacino, 5 Washington St., D6 Gregory Prakis, Ayoub Engineering Mr. Jim Queeney, 28 Mt. Vernon St. Mr. Rick Shaffer, 67 Woburn St. Ms. Gina Snyder, 11 Jadem Terrace Mr. Jody Renouf, Motiva Engineering, Providence, R.I. Mr. Gil Rodrigues, 97 Avalon Rd. Mr. Jack Russell, 91 Spruce Rd. Mr. Weston Rutlhven, P.E., VHB, Inc., 101 Walnut St., Watertown, MA 02471 Mr. Bill Ryerson, Reading Chronicle Mr. Robert C. Smith, 53 Woburn St. Ms. Roberta Sullivan, 76 Minot St. Mr. Dave Talbot, 75 Linden St. Ms. Julieann Thurlow, 180 Haven St. Mr. Christopher Vaccaro, 57 Woburn St. Ms. Amt Ward, 14 Bancroft Ave. Page 1 of 17 CPDC Minutes of 1/29/2007 There being a quorum, the Chair called. the meeting to order at 7:40PM. Public Comments There were no comments from the public. Housekeeping Items JS updated the Board on the following. A CPA meeting is scheduled for 3/1/2007. Letters have been mailed requesting information for the CPA from various commissions (Historical, Recreation, Housing Authority...). Any information gathered or comments should be forwarded to associate member Israel Maykut. The 40R grant application has been submitted to the DHCD. JS asked the recording secretary to investigate and report to the Board if the application is available in digital format and, if a letter from Board. of Selectman Chair Ben Tafoya accompanied the application as required. The next CPDC meeting is scheduled for 2/12/2007. The following meeting (the second in February on 2/26/2007) cannot meet because of Town Meeting. JS recommends meeting on Wednesday, 2/21/2007 instead and asked the recording secretary to tentatively schedule the meeting in the Selectmen's Meeting Room on that date. The Board needs to provide an update of their Master Plan Action Items to the Board of Selectmen. It has been almost nine months since they last updated the Selectmen. Public Hearing: Zoning Amendments 16 Sanborn Street, Parking Overlay District The property owner seeks zoning map/text amendments for the establishment of a "Parking Overlay District" at 16 Sanborn Street JS opened the public hearing for the 16 Sanborn Street Employee Parking Overlay District. He said the problem with speakers not being heard by the audience has been addressed: the microphones have been connected to the room's speaker system. He asked everyone to please remember to sign the sign-in sheet. He reminded all present that the CPDC is required by charter to hold such public hearings prior to zoning amendments going before Town Meeting. He said draft wording of the proposed amendment has been provided and the Board would try to put it final form tonight. He added that although changes could be made from the floor at Town Meeting it is much better to have the wording in final form ahead of time. The Board will also vote tonight to recommend or not recommend to Town Meeting the Employee Parking Overlay District bylaw and the zoning map change to place 16 Sanborn St in it. He reminded everyone that Town Meeting would have the final vote on whether the "amenchnents are approved or not. Questions Asked at 1/8/2007 Meeting JS reminded all present that the Board had taken all the questions posed by the public at the previous meeting and posted them to the Planning Webpage. Then the Board asked the relevant parties - Town Coimsel, Town Manager, Historical Commission, the applicant's Page 2 of 17 CPDC Minutes of 1/291/2007 attorney...-- to provide answers. All answers received to date have also been posted. to the Planning Webpage. JB pointed out the amendments were not discussed at the previous meeting (01/17/2007) but at the meeting before that (01/08/2007). JS felt the answers to a few of the questions required further discussion: • Tax Appraisal of 16 Sanborn Street: How much tax revenue would the lot provide if it kept its multi fainily use versus if it was used as parking lot? There was no official answer from town staff but the applicant's attorney, Brad Latham, submitted a letter to the Town Manager addressing this point. JS read the letter. In brief, the letter stated that although Reading Cooperative Bank is not in a position to provide appraisals of the property if used. as a parking lot or a multi-family residential, the applicant notes the assessed value placed on 16 Sanborn St in Fiscal Year 2005, with its multi-family building, was $399,500.00. The applicant also notes the assessed value of the apprx. 8,200 sq. ft of land abutting the Co-op Bank, which is used by the bank for parking, is $367,800.00. It is true the parking lot use is assessed at a lesser amount (about $3,200.00. less) but the applicant points out the residential use would have a greater cost to the town in services such as police, fire, trash, schooling.... • Spot Zoning: There were two legal opinions submitted - one from Town Counsel and one from Attorney Brad Latham addressing the legal issues of spot zoning and if it applies in this case. Town Counsel's letter has been posted to the webpage. • Information on Parking Lot Overlay Districts in Other Towns: No information was found. This question remains unanswered. • Possible Use of 16 Sanborn St by the Post Office: There is no answer to this because neither the town nor the CPDC is in a position to speak for the Post Office. • Could someone buy a house in the proposed overlay district to turn around and build a parking lot? Technically, yes. You. could buy a lot with a house and then tear down the house but then Town Meeting would have to approve your request to have your property placed within the district. JS noted the Board had received a letter from the Historic Commission on the issue of the Employee Parking Lot Overlay District. [See attached]. In response to a question from Mr. Latham, JS explained the public hearing tonight is concerned. with two concurrent amendment articles: one which would create the Employee Parking Overlay District, and the second which would place the lot in question, 16 Sanborn Street, within that overlay district. Mr. Latham asked to make a brief presentation on behalf of the applicant. The Board agreed. Mr. Latham said his client is well aware of the issues associated with parking in Reading and it was with those issues in mind his client had asked him to prepare zoning that would protect both the town and neighborhood. In preparing the zoning, he saw three possibilities: 1. Extend the Business-B zone to include 16 Sanborn St. The problem with this is there would be no assurance the property would be used as a parking lot. 2. Create a Special Permit process. Provides some protection as applicants would have to go before the CPDC but would not have to seek Town Meeting approval. Page 3 of 17 CPDC MnZutes of 1/29/2007 3. The Employee Parking Overlay District. This adds the extra protection of requiring Town Meeting's approval for a property to be placed in the overlay district. Mr. Latham said the third option is what is before the Board tonight and only the property at 16 Sanborn St is being presented to Town Meeting for placement in this overlay district. Mr. Latham next suggested the following changes be made to the Employee Parking Overlay District amendment. 1. Not changing the zoning map. Language in the introduction of the parking overlay article suggests the overlay district itself would change the zoning map. This is not truce and should be deleted. Only when specific properties are placed in the overlay district would the zoning map change. 2. Public benefit. In section 4.11.1, the purpose of the overlay district is to provide a public benefit by mitigating a shortage of parking spaces in the town. 3. Only Downtown Business-B. In section 4.11.2 replace the reference to "Business-B" with "Mixed-Use Overlay District" instead. Because the Mixed-Use Overlay District is exactly congruent with the Downtown Business-B zoning district, this change would eliminate the possibility of having the overlay district apply to another Business-B zone (e.g. off Salem St. by RE.I). 4. Separated by Street or Railway. Add a new sentence which states: "Land that is separated from the Mixed.-Use Overlay District boundary by a portion of a street or a railroad right-of-way shall not be considered to directly abut the Mixed-Use Overlay District for the purpose of this provision." The purpose of this change is also to further narrow the areas qualified for inclusion under the overlay. Public Comments Mr. Bill Brown, 28 Martin Road. The parking problem began long ago and if not for private donations the Town would have no parking spaces. He is in favor of the Bank's plan. Mr. William Crowley, 42 Locust Street. Mr. Crowley has an office at 626 Main Street and very much aware of the parking problem in the Town. The Bank's plan will help both the Bank and the Town: the employees will have spaces off the street which will allow others to use the spaces those employees no longer need. He is in favor of the Bank's plan. Mr. Jack Russell, 91 Spruce Street. Mr. Russell is a member of the Econonuc Development Committee, the Downtown Parking Task Force, and Town Meeting. He is in favor of the articles. He made the following points. 1. The Bank is a big part of Reading's economy and with the expanded parking it would. not have to move elsewhere. 2. Parking is a known problem and employee parking is a big part of this problem. This plan addresses the employee parking problem directly. 3. Two parking lots already exist on that side of Sanborn Street. The new parking lot would be located between them. The only residential abutter has no objection. Page 4 of 17 CPDC Minutes of 1/29!2007 4. If the property became available again, the Post Office would. pursue its purchase for as additional parking. [This is the summary of an email from Reading's Postmaster Mr. Russell read. to the Board]. 5. Parking is an issue that affects the whole Town and these articles should be allowed to be voted on by Town Meeting. Mr. Nelson Burbank, 24 Juniper Circle. Mr. Burbank feels the Bank is being held hostage to a controversy about the Town's parking problems. The lot is relatively small and would be landscaped and maintained. He is in favor of the Bank's plan. Attorney Chris Coleman, 53 Zachary Lane. Mr. Colman also agrees the Bank's plan would help both the Bank and the Town by making parking spaces once taken by bank. employees available to others. He sees the Bank's plan as a good, small, controlled, step towards improving parking in Town. Mr. Dave Talbot, 75 Linden Street. Mr. Talbot is a member of the Downtown Parking Task Force. Mr. Talbot appreciates the efforts of the Bank and Mr. Latham to craft zoning with safeguards for the Town but he points out no one here tonight can know how the amendment would be interpreted 10 or 20 years in the future. He said what we do know is that the amendment establishes a mechanism to transform residential areas into parking lots. Mr. Talbot made further points: • The Historical Commission's letter on this issue is powerful and he urged everyone to read it. • The Town's Master Plan speaks against surface parking because it deadens the downtown. Creating a parking lot at 16 Sanborn Street, between two existing parking lots, would create one long parking lot on that side of Sanborn Street. • The Post Office threat is a red herring. The lot was too expensive for the Post Office to purchase when they went after it in 1999. It is much more expensive today. • There are other alternatives (e.g. car pools) and the Parking Task Force has yet to present its report on these alternatives. • A large part of the parking problem is caused by the exemption to the parking regulations the Town's bylaws provide to businesses located within 300 feet of a municipal parking lot. Mr. Talbot concluded by saying the Parking Overlay District is a failure of planning and should be voted down. Mr. Ron D'Addario, 97 Summer Ave. Mr. D'Addario is a member of Reading's Climate Control Commission. Mr. D'Addario advised waiting for the Parking Task Force's report. He noted 60% of emissions contributing to Global Warming come from means of transportation. The Climate Control Commission has proposed car-pooling as one solution and its members have volunteered to help anyone interested in car-pooling to create or find a car-pool. Mr. John Gagnon, 359 Pearl Street. Page 5 of 17 CPDC Minutes of 1/29/2007 Mr. Ganon said in his opinion car-pools do not work. A parking garage might be a solution but would. cost too much and take too long to build. The Batik's plan is a good first step. Mr. Gino Molettieri, 115 Lowell Street. Mr. Molettierri said. he was in favor of the Bank creating a parking lot at 16 Sanborn Street. He said the Bank would be using their own money to maintain a property that has not been maintained for years. Mr. George Hines, 35 Grand Street. Mr. Hines is a former member of both the CPDC and the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Hines said he was well acquainted with Reading's parking problems and he applauded the Bank's efforts and initiative in putting forward this plan. He said the protections the amendment provides would make it very difficult for anyone to use it other than as it has been put forward. He expressed his support for the amendment. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue. Ms. O'Neill said she was opposed to the amendment. She noted that zoning is for the future as well as the present and this amendment would set a bad precedent: the bank paid so much for the property it would encourage others to sell their property for parking lots too. Ms. O'Neill said when some of the train depot's parking spaces were placed in a lottery for business owners, the Bank chose not to participate. She said the comments about how the amendment sets up Town Meeting as the final guardian against misuse of the overlay may be exaggerated: she is a member of Town Meeting and she does not see how Town Meeting could refiise a property becoming a parking lot if it met the amendment's requirements. Mr. Phil Pacino, 5 Washington Street. Mr. Pacino is a member of Reading's Bylaw Committee. Mr. Pacino expressed concern over how the amendment might affect future expansion in the downtown. He would like to see the town develop a comprehensive parking plan. Mr. Bob Carden, 24 Mt. Vernon Street. Mr. Carden said the solution was not more parking because with the oil shortages and global warming there will be a call for fewer cars and more efficient means of transportation. Ms. Gina Snyder, 11 Jad.em Terrace. Ms. Snyder agreed in spirit with Mi. Carden adding the town needs to consider the bigger picture - environmental issues will force us to rely less on our cars. She said, if the general consensus is the Parking Overlay District is a good idea, why not add a provision to it for car pooling or the creation of greenspace, or something similar? JS said the Board could make amendments to the language and the public is able to offer suggestions for such amendments. Mr. Everett Blodgett, 99 Prescott Street. Mr. Blodgett is a member of the citizen's group "Walkable Reading". Mr. Blodgett spoke against the amendment: • More parking lots in the downtown would make it less pedestrian-friendly, walkable. Page 6 of 17 CPDC Minutes of 1/29/2007 • This amendment is not a SmartGrowth solution since there is no residential component. • This is another example of the piecemeal expansion of downtown parking into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Ms. Julianne McKenney, 67 Woburn Street. Ms. McKenney said the CPDC meeting of 1/08/2007 has not yet aired on RCTV. She said the public had been told at that meeting the tape recording would be shown on television. The Board was not aware the 1/08/2007 meeting had not aired. Ms. Julie Thurlow, President of Reading Co-operative Bank, said the meeting has not been aired because the tape feed was poor and not of broadcast quality. Ms. McKenney made the following points. • Why is the Bank expanding when it knows there is no room for parking? • The parking problem has been discussed by the town for over 18 years. The Bank's plan is no more than a band-aid; it does not address the real problem. • There has been talk lately of finally building a parking structure in the downtown. Is the Bank involved in helping this structure be built'? Mr. Wayne Dwyer, 61 Ash Street. Mr. Dwyer suggested adding language to the Parking Overlay amendment which would place a cap on the total number of parking spaces allowed in each lot and/or the total number of parking spaces allowed in the entire overlay district. Ms. Kathy Greenfield, 192 Woburn Street Ms. Greenfield is the Chair of the Historical Commission. Ms. Greenfield said the purpose of the Historical Commission is not to stop change, and they are not against finding solutions to Reading's parking problem, but the Parking Overlay District Amendment goes too far and is in direct opposition to the Historical Commission's stated purpose of protecting the Town's dwindling historic resources: • The overlay district would put at least five properties listed on the Historic Register at risk of conversion to a parking lot. • It is against the goals of Reading's Master Plan. • There would be an intrusion of signs and gates needed to properly manage parking lots. • It starts us on a slippery slope towards changing the character of Reading's downtown. Ms. Leslie McGonagle, 140 Pine Ridge Road. Ms. McGonagle is a business owner, a member of the Board of Directors of the Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce, a member of Reading's Economic Development Commmittee, and was a founding member of the CPDC. Ms. McGonagle expressed her support for the Bank's plan: • Not everyone in Reading lives within walking distance of the downtown. Some must travel there in cars. • Car-pooling is a great idea but Reading's businesses are too small too make it worthwhile. • The Economic Development Committee has voted unanimously to approve the Employee Parking Overlay District because parking is the number-one issue businesses ask about when they are considering whether or not to open up in Reading. Page 7 of 17 CPDC Minutes of 1/29/2007 Ms. Naomi Kaufman, 64 Woburn Street. Ms. Kaufinan expressed. concern that once the issue of 16 Sanborn Street is decided the passion to find a more comprehensive, longer-term solution to Reading's parking problem may dissipate. She said this is not only a matter of concern for downtown businesses and residential abutters to the downtown, but for everyone who works or lives in Reading and the whole Town needs to stay committed to finding a long-term solution to the parking problem. Mr. Michael Giacalone, 9 Orchard Park Drive. Mr. Giacalone is a business owner and the current President of the North Reading/ Reading Chamber of Commerce. He approves the Bank's plan. • The two major resources of any business are its customers and its employees and the parking situation in Reading hinders each. A shortage of spaces forces customers and employees to compete with each other for spaces. Two-hour parking limits force customers to shop quickly and employees to move their cars to new spaces throughout the day. • To attract more qualified employees, a business has to offer certain basic amenities such as a parking place reasonably close to where they will work. • Residents want businesses downtown which will create a nice streetscape and give them interesting places to shop, but the businesses won't come and can't stay if the Town does not allow them the resources they need to operate. • Alternatives to parking lots are either far in the future (parking garage) or have not been accepted (car-pooling). Ms. Donnan Barnes, 11 Bancroft Avenue. Ms. Barnes noted the discussion was focusing on 16 Sanborn Street but there are other places in the overlay district which could. become parking lots and she asked if anyone who supports the Parking Overlay would like to live across from one of them. She urged the Town to get serious about building a parking garage. Ms. Lynne Johnson, 105 John Street. Ms. Johnson has worked for the Reading Co-operative Bank for the past 20 years. She takes exception to other residents suggesting she should have to carpool or take a shuttle to work. Ms. Julie Thurlow, 180 Haven Street_ Ms. Thurlow is President of the Reading Co-operative Bank. She made the following comments and clarifications. The Downtown Parking Task Force was created at the request of the Reading Co-op Bank after the Bank had come forward with our plans to purchase 16 Sanborn St for the purpose of creating an employee parking lot there. Depot Parking Space Rental: The spaces are not available until 8:30 AM and the Bank's employees are required to be at work at 8:00 AM. The Bank applauds the many suggestions for improving parking but asks when they would be put into effect. The Bank cannot wait for a parking garage to be built. The spaces are needed now. Page 8 of 17 RH moved to close the public hearing. JB seconded. CPDC Minutes of 1/29/2007 At a suggestion from the public that the Board was rushing, JS reminded all present that there had. been meetings on this issue going back over the past year including three Zoning Workshops. He said it was now time to end public input and give the Board time to fulfill their responsibilities: to discuss the amendments, to provide final wording for the amendments, and to vote whether or not to recommend the amendments to Town Meeting On a vote of 4:0:0 the public hearing was closed. The Board Deliberates. Re: Mr. Latham's changes to the language of the Employee Parking Overlay: Because Mixed- Use zoning may in the future be used elsewhere in Reading, the consensus of the Board was to change all references to "Business-B" to the more specific "Downtown Business-B" and to add language stating this is the area traversed primarily by Main and. Haven Streets. For the purpose of discussion, RH moved the CPDC recommend to the Board of Selectmen and to Town Meeting the subject matter of the Employee Parking Overlay District. JB seconded. RH's Comments RH said the points the Historical Commission make are good: it is true there is a potential of some historical properties becoming parking lots, but this amendment was crafted to provide such potential to 16 Sanborn Street so that it could be approved as a parking lot and not be considered Spot Zoning. Strong arguments can be made against allowing an historic property to become a parking lot and if at some future time someone tries to do so those arguments could be made at that time. RH continued: when the Parking Task Force's report is submitted in a few months it will provide the Town with many good suggestions on how to improve Reading's parking, but finding funding for studying and then implementing these suggestions will take time - probably years and the Bank needs the spaces today. RH concluded: this amendment is an initiative the Bank has presented using its own money to solve its own problems; it is a good plan and he would. vote to recommend it. JB's Comments JB said he fully supports placing both amendments on the warrant for Town Meeting because he believes they represent an issue of great importance to the entire Town and should be deliberated over and voted on by the elected officials of the entire town at Town Meeting. He sees the merit in allowing the Bank to have an employee parking lot at 16 Sanborn Street, but he doubts the wisdom of doing so through the creation of this Employee Parking Overlay. He called the overlay a poor planning tool and. said he would. be uncomfortable placing so many other properties under it. He said he was inclined to vote against recommending the amendment. BB's Comments Page 9 of 17 CPDC Minutes of 1/29/2007 BB said he agrees with JB but in his mind the issue comes down to one of land use and the creation of a parking lot at 16 Sanborn Street is not a wise use of the land. He said. he cannot support recommending the amendment. JS's Comments JS said as one of the authors of the Master Plan he agrees this amendment is not strictly in keeping with its goals but he noted the Master Plan is meant to be a guide not a Bible and that it also calls for balance. The Master Plan goal of Mixed-Use zoning has been achieved in the downtown, but no developer has yet taken advantage of it because of the zoning's parking regulations. Rather than force the Bank to move elsewhere, he said he agrees with RH that the Board has to provide a solution in the short-term. He supports recommending the amendment. Further Discussion GK made the following suggestions: • Some provision should be made to allow others to use the parking lot after business hours. The Board agreed and added language to condition "f": "additional hours of use to be determined by the CPDC during the Special Permit process". • Add a condition requiring businesses applying for offsite parking under this bylaw to demonstrate active participation in the Town's non-profit transit programs. The Board agreed and made this condition "1". • Add a condition capping the number of parking spaces in the created lots at 90% of what current zoning allows. The Board. agreed. and. made this condition "m". RH suggested adding an additional paragraph stating the total number of parking spaces created in the Employee Parking Overlay District shall not exceed 100. The Board agreed. The consensus of the Board was to amend the language of the amendments to reflect both the changes suggested by Mr. Latharn (as amended by the Board) and the changes made by the Board tonight. RH asked to change his motion. He moved the CPDC recommend to the Board of Selectmen that the Employee Parking District Overlay language, as amended this evening, be placed on the warrant for Town Meeting. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. RH moved the CPDC recommend. to the Board. of Selectmen that the Zoning Map changes specific to placing 16 Sanborn Street in the Employee Parking Overlay District be placed on the warrant for Town Meeting. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. RH moved the CPDC vote to recommend to Town Meeting the passage of the Employee Parking Overlay District bylaw. JB seconded. The motion failed: 2:2:0. JB and BB were opposed. Page 10 of 17 CPDC Minutes of 1/29/2007 RH moved the CPDC vote to recommend to Town Meeting the passage of the Zoning Map changes placing 16 Sanborn Street in the Employee Parking Overlay District. JB seconded. The motion failed: 2:2:0. JB and BB were opposed. It was the consensus of the Board to write a letter to Town Meeting presenting the various opinions of the Board Members and elaborating on the points brought up tonight and in previous meetings. JS volunteered to write this letter. He asked the Board members to forward their comments to him. Hh Public Hearing: Site Plan Review (continued) 39 Walkers Brook Drive, Newview Investments, LLC The application seeks to construct 2 new attached restaurants consisting of 12,340 square feet on a 2.78 acre lot, with associated site improvements. Permitting Regulation: Zoning Bylaws Section 4.3.3. Action Date: February 12, 2007 JS opened the public hearing of 39 Walkers Brook Drive, Newview Investments continued from the meeting of 1/08/2007. BB read the legal notice. (The Board had voted to dispense with the reading of the legal notice at the meeting of 1/08/2007 because a copy was not available). Mr. Weston Ruthven clarified a few points of, and surnmarized the applicant's modifications to, the site plan since the 1/08/2007 meeting. • Bertucci's will not be as bright yellow as shown in the plans. That is an anomaly of the scanning and printing process. • They met with the Conservation Commission (ConCom) last week and ConsCom. voted. its approval of the changes made to the plans. Namely, the building has been moved a little further from the river and the restorations asked for have been made. • As requested by the Board at the last meeting, the center sidewalk in the parking lot has been removed and replaced with some plantings. • Planting Plan: the large trees along Newcrossing Road and Walkers Brook Drive will stay and plantings will be placed near the building to soften its appearance. • Pedestrian Access Plan: shows pedestrian circulation on the site and access to adjacent sites. Mr. Ruthven said representatives of both restaurants to be built on the site, Bertucci's and Longhorn Steak House, were present to answer the Board's questions. JS noted the Board had received a memo from the Conservation Administrator. The Town Engineer (GZ) said he had noting yet in writing for the Board. His main issue with the site is the drainage analysis: the way the applicant has presented. the analysis does not give him a good indication of how the runoff would. be handled by the detention basin. He did. Page 11 of 17 CPDC Minutes of 1/291/2007 deliver the applicant's lighting plan to the Lighting Consultant but the consultant would. not be able to present his report to the town for another two weeks at least. The consultant has enough information on the parking lot lighting to provide a review but if the Board wants him to review the building's lighting too, the applicant would have to supply more specifics. JS directed the applicant to provide GZ with the necessary information on the building's lighting for GZ to forward to the Lighting Consultant to review. GZ said there was decorative lamp at the entrance of the site. The recommendation for it was in the conditions of approval of the Hallmark Health site plan review because it is part of Hallmark's entrance too and was also shown on Hallmark's site plans (although it is on this site's property). JS asked if the parking calculations had been updated. Mr. Ruthven said they lost two spaces reducing them from 194 spaces to 192 spaces. Mr. Ruthven said. updated site plans showing this and any other changes requested tonight would be submitted as soon as possible. JS noted the Board had asked for a rendering showing the proposed buildings as seen from the comer of Newcrossing and Walkers Brook Drive (with your back towards Home Depot). The applicant said this was not yet ready. Traffic GZ said the traffic study for this site had been conducted as part of the traffic study for the Hallmark Health Site Plan Review. The study showed the only time there was a problem with traffic (taking the left turn onto Newcrossing from Walkers Brook Drive) would. be on Saturdays if both Hallmark Health and the restaurants on this site were open. Hallmark Health said at their Site Plan Review they would not be open on Saturdays so traffic should not be a problem then, but GZ added retiming of the traffic lights at the Newcrossing/WalkersBrook Drive intersection alight be necessary. Signage The renderings showed two signs on Bertucci's restaurant and three on Longhorn's. The bylaws say a business may have one wall side on each of its walls that faces a roadway. The Board was certain Longhorn would not be allowed three signs, but there was some question if both restaurants could have two wall signs. The plans showed the restaurants would be built directly adjacent to each other on the site - they would essentially be one building. The question the Board. wrestled with was whether to allow both restaurants two wall signs because the building faces on two streets or to allow the restaurant in the corner location (Longhorn) only to have two wall signs and restrict the other (Bertucci's) to one. The consensus of the Board was to ask the Building Inspector to review the applicant's signage plans and give his opinion if they conformed to the town's bylaws. The Board directed the recording secretary to so ask the Building Inspector. The applicants said some of the signage would be internally illuminated. The Board explained internal illumination of signs is not allowed under the signage bylaws. The signs could be externally illuminated or illuminated through or halo lighting Page 12 of 17 CPDC Minutes of 1/29/2007 Mr. Tony D'Arezzo of 130 John Street asked the following questions. 1. How many parking lot lights are planned and how high will they be? He would prefer more of lower height rather than fewer of higher height. 2. What kind of lights will be on the building's windows? 3. Is the red-light L.E.D. piping around Longhorn's sign allowed under the town's bylaws? 4. In zoning bylaw Table 6.23 "Signs Permitted According to Zoning District", note (A) refers to how a sign shall not extend higher than certain features of the building it is attached to and it looks as though at least one of the signs may be in violation of this control. The Board replied that the applicant has submitted a lighting plan and it has been delivered to our Lighting Consultant for review. The applicant said they would get specifications of the building's lighting to the consultant for review too. The Board has asked that the Building Inspector review the signage for conformance with the bylaws. Mr. Ruthven said. the parking lot lights would be 25 feet high. The Board believed the lights in Stop & Shop's parking lot were restricted to 15 feet high near the residential abutters and 20 feet high everywhere else. The Board directed that the Lighting Consultant be asked to first check if the height restriction on Stop & Shop's lights is 20 feet and if so would restricting this site's parking lot lights to 20 feet require a reconfiguration of the lighting of the site's parking lot lighting. RH moved to continue the Public Hearing for 39 Walkers Brook Drive, Newview Investments, Inc., to the meeting of 2/12/2007, 10:00PM, in the Selectmen's meeting Room. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. No additional notice would be given. Site Plan Review Waiver (continued) 87 Walkers Brook Drive, Motiva Enterprises, Inc The application proposes exterior construction of a canopy over gas station pump islands Action Date: February 26, 2007 JS opened the continued Site Plan Review waiver request for 87 Walkers Brook Drive, Motiva Enterprises, Inc. The applicant said what the Board had requested has been done: • Details of the lighting are now shown on the plans. • The height of the canopy has been added. • Signage has been removed from the canopy. • Drainage will be directed into the detention basin. • The bottom of the canopy is flush with the underside lights. GZ had no additional comments except to ask the applicant to please forward. any further correspondence with Mass Highway to him. The applicant agreed. Page 13 of 17 CPDC Minutes of 1/29/2007 RH moved the CPDC approve the Site Plan Review Waiver for 87 Walkers Brook Drive based on the drawings revised 1/22/2007 and 1/23/2007 subject to the following conditions: Any correspondence with Mass Highway shall be forwarded to the Town Engineer. JB seconded. BB asked what would happen if Mass Highway did. not grant their permissions? RH modified the motion to add the condition: Should Mass Highway refuse permission as to proposed drainage and right-of-way, the applicant must start the site plan review process again meeting with both the Conservation Commission and the CPDC. JB seconded the modification. JS asked for public comment. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo of 130 John Street asked if the outdoor speakers had been shut off. He said when they were on they would broadcast music and advertisements. The applicant said the speakers had been shut off. RH modified the motion to add the condition: No audible sound shall come from the outside speakers except in the case of emergencies. JB seconded. Voted approved.: 3:0: 1. RH abstained.. Site Plan Review Waiver (continued) 214 Main Street, Londi's Pizza and Roast Beef The application seeks a change of use from retail to restaurant Action Date: February 26, 2007 JS opened the continued Site Plan Review waiver request for 214 Main Street, Londi's Pizza and Roast Beef. The owner of the building, Mr. Patel, and the owner of Londi's Pizza, Mr. Thodori Londi, were both in attendance. JS reminded the Board why this waiver request had been continued: • The Town Engineer (GZ) needed time to review the site plan, • The Board wanted to see more details on proposed landscaping and signage • The Board wanted to know if the dumpster would be enclosed • The Board wanted to address the issue of reported construction in the rear of the site • There were parking space issues: Are.there enough? Is a loading space required? GZ said he had no additional review to present to the Board. He said he had only received a landscaping plan and never received a copy of the submitted site plans. GZ had a comment concerning the light pole at the west-side of the property. He said it is on the property line but he believes the light is directed towards the abutting property. If that is true, then the only parking-lot light is the light at the eastern side of the site. Mr. Patel said he owns the west-side light but he was not sure which way the light fell and he would have to investigate who pays for its electricity. Page 14 of 17 CPDC Minutes of 1/29/2007 JS asked the Recording Secretary if the other future tenant of the site had submitted their plans yet. The Recording Secretary said that applicant - proposing a Hair Salon had submitted. plans just today and would be submitting envelopes for their abutters list later this week. He said he had told the Hair Salon applicant that he did not know yet when they would be going before the Board. He noted to the Board that both applicants have the same issues. The consensus of the Board was they still did not have enough information to reach a decision on Mr. Londi's waiver request and it would have to be continued again. It was also the consensus of the Board to have the Hair Salon applicant appear before the Board the same night and time of Mr. Londi's next continuation. The Board directed that both applicants should present in one package the following to the Town Engineer for review. • A site plan. • Signage: both on the building and. the pylon sign • Site Lighting and parking plans (including loading zone • Dumpster enclosure RH had to leave the meeting. The Board informed the owner of the site that the site work being done behind the building must be address. The Building Inspector and. Conservation Commission have both put the owner of the site on notice because of this work and the Board would be compelled to add. a condition referring to it unless it is addressed.. The Board. suggested to the owner that it may be best to address the listed issues from a site perspective rather than from the perspective of the two, individual applicants. BB moved to continue the Site Plan Review waiver of 214 Main Street, Londi's Pizza and Roast Beef, to Wednesday, 2/21/2007 at 8:OOPM. JB seconded. Voted approved, 3:0:0. BB moved to adjourn. JB seconded. Voted approved, 3:0:0. The meeting ended at 12:15 AM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on November 5, 2007; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on November 5, 2007. Signed as David Tuttle, 3-1,,- Date Page 15 of 17 CPDC Minutes of 1/29/2007 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 HISTORICAL COMMISSION (781) 942-6661 historical @ci.reading.ma.us January 12, 2007 Community Planning and Development Commission Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Re: Proposed Overlay Parking District Zoning Amendment Dear Members of the CPDC: At its meeting of January 9, 2007, the Historical Commission discussed the proposed Overlay Parking District Zoning Amendment, following a report given by two of its members who were in attendance at the CPDC Zoning Workshop held on January 8, 2007. Without benefit of the actual wording of the bylaw the Commission took an overview of the concept and reached the following consensus. An Overlay District that encompasses such a vast area of residential properties surrounding "Business B" zoning areas, in general, and the downtown locale in particular, is deemed by the Historical Commission as a major threat to the very character of Reading. The loss of homes, even one at a time, will ultimately change the tenor of our community that is well1nown for its residential character and makeup. Many of the homes surrounding the business district are of older building stock and portray a sense of community and stability. They echo the past and become part of our collective memory of the Town. A great number of these residences are on the Historical and Architectural Inventory of the Town of Reading and several are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. All are potentially threatened. by enactment of the proposed Overlay Bylaw, via loss or visual intrusion to the setting of these significant buildings.. If this Overlay District is approved, and the demand for more and more parking grows, it is inevitable that these most vulnerable and treasured properties will be lost to accommodate the demand. Losing one or two structures might be tolerable to some, in the name of progress, z:l but as planners and visionaries of the community, we all are responsible for protecting the built Page 16 of 17 CPDC Mfi-lutes of 1/29 ' /2007 enviromnent that represents Reading. The history of Reading's downtown has always been one of "mixed use" and included both stately residences and the businesses that were the economic foundation of this Town. Preserving the residential fiber in the fabric of the Downtown (and all of Business "B") is important, as neighborhood conservation and cohesiveness maintains a healthy community. Intrusions, such as parking lots into a neighborhood, will cause degradation to the area. If allowed, asphalt parking lots are likely to: 1. Interrupt the continuum of residences, 2. Cause a disruption of neighborhood safety by allowing unknown vehicles continuous access to the area, 3. Create a visual void in the streetscape, 4. Yield to the dominance of vehicular traffic vs. creating a more walkable community. While the Commission applauds the efforts of the Reading Co-operative Bank and the business community to seek creative parking alternatives, it is strongly opposed to the broad reach of this proposed amendment. Understandably, parking is a prominent issue for the business community. At the workshop, numerous alternatives were suggested - even to the point that some residents would, consider a controlled on street parking program. The current divisive proposal that would allow such intrusion into residential neighborhoods and areas should not be adopted. Instead, it should serve as a catalyst to seek and implement a less invasive and more palatable solution that will maintain the essence of a New England village while protecting the residential aspects. With proper planning, it is likely that the citizenry will be more supportive. It is the Historical Commission's belief that the proposed amendment goes too far in eroding the fabric of our community. It is in direct opposition to our stated purpose of protecting the Town's dwindling historic resources. The newly adopted Master Plan reminds us, "The Town of Reading contains a rich stock of natural, historic and cultural resources that contribute to the community's character, health, and quality of life. Preservation and enhancement of these resources is critical to the community." As a community, we have a duty to act on behalf of our remaining historic structures in order to preserve them and continue to build that memory of place that becomes our culture. Reading is more than its physical boundaries and the land upon which our structures are built, and it is important that we continue to work to preserve its history and not work to destroy it. When we continue to allow properties to be destroyed, we lose an irreplaceable part of our heritage. Thank you for your serious consideration of this Amendment and of this Commission's view. Very truly yours, Kathryn M. Greenfield Chairman Page17 of 17