Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-12 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.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: February 12, 2007 Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room 7:00 PM Members Present: Brant Ballantyne, (BB), Secretary; Richard Howard (-H), and Jonathan Barnes (JB). Members Absent: John Sasso (JS), Chairman; Neil Sullivan (NS) Associate Members Present: George Katsoufis (GK), David Tuttle (DT) Associate Members Absent: Israel Maykut (IM), and Nicholas Safina (Nick S.). Also Present: George Zambouras (GZ), Town Engineer; and Michael Schloth. Mr. Walter Begonis, 289 South Street Mr. Christopher Brungardt, 324 South Street Mr. Cuffe, 141 Johnson Woods Drive Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Mr. George Danis, Danis Realty Trust Mr. Frank DiPietro, PE, VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Selectman Stephen Goldy, 42 Berkeley Street Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Attorney Chris Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Ms. Jean Latham, 155 Johnson Woods Drive Mr. Ted Moore, Glover Property Management, Inc. 8 Doaks Lane, Marblehead, MA, 01745 Mr. Gus Niewenhous, Esq., Chairman Board of Trustees, Austin Preparatory School Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue Mr. Tony Pimentel, Sasso Construction Co, Inc., 231 Andover Street, Wilmington, MA. Mr. Russell, 142 Johnson Woods Drive Secretary Brant Ballantyne took over the Chair's duties in John Sasso's absence. There being a quorum, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:15 PM. Public Comments / Minutes There were no minutes ready for review. Page 1 of 13 There were no comments from the public. Public Hearing: Zoning Amendments Johnson Woods PUD-R, Phase 2 Acceleration from 7 to 4 Years. Permitting Regulation: Zoning By-Laws Section 4.9. BB opened the public hearing. JB read the legal notice. RH moved to dispense with the reading of the legal notice. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Attorney Brad Latham represented the developer of Johnson Woods, Mr. Ted Moore. Mr. Moore was present also. Mr. Latham said they had originally suggested the acceleration because it made sense for many reasons: • The abutting Woburn development had been rezoned from commercial to residential. • The Town would see more taxes sooner. • Neighboring residents would be relieved to have construction end sooner. But Article 10 as written is not acceptable to his client. They feel the article's specification of an increase in the percentage of affordable units from 15% to 20% is too high. Mr. Ted Moore made the following points. • The increase in affordable units would have a deleterious effect on the Town's Finances. The town sees more taxes from market-rate units then it does from affordable units. Also, Mr. Moore said his data shows families with school-age children tend to purchase affordable units rather than market-rate. Therefore, more affordable units will result not only in less taxes being paid to the town but will put a greater strain on the town's finances (school budget). • In 30 meetings over roughly 15 months, we worked with the Town of Reading to come up with a phased ("layer cake") development plan that we all agreed to and we should not go back on this plan now. • Increased affordability will be inequitable to those residents now living in the Johnson Woods development as they would be paying more of the cost relative to those who purchase affordable units. Mr. Latham said Mr. Moore went through the development process in good faith and it is not right to change it now. Mr. Moore requested Article 10 not be brought before Town Meeting. Mr. Cuffe, 141 Johnson Woods Drive. Mr. Cuffle bought a market-rate unit with the understanding the percentage of affordable units Phases 1 and 2 would be 10% and 15% respectively. Increasing the Phase 2 Page 2 of 13 percentage to 20% is unfair to him. Just because the town has an opportunity to increase the affordability is no reason to do it. Selectman Stephen Goldy, 42 Berkeley Street. The Town has a Housing Plan in place that requires the creation of a certain percentage of affordable units each year to keep on track towards meeting State Requirements. The town needs more affordable units and the Board of Selectmen would rather have had Article 10 specify 25% affordable. Mr. Russell, 142 Johnson Woods Drive. Mr. Russell voiced his support of Mr. Cuffe's points and the originally agreed to 15% affordable units. Ms. Jean Latham, 155 Johnson Woods Drive. Ms. Latham voiced her opposition to the 20% affordable unit specification in Article 10. Mr. Brad Latham said the average affordable unit percentage across Massachusetts is 10%0. By requiring the original 15% we are already 50% higher than average. RH asked Mr. Cuffe to clarify why the Johnson Woods residents are against the 20% rate. Mr. Cuffe said they bought their units at full market rate and they don't want to see their investment jeopardized. Mr. Moore added that the increase in affordable units shifts more of the burden of associated costs to the full market buyers. RH said: 0 Anyone who bought in Phase 1 did not know what the Phase 2 could be. It could have been a commercial development - that is the reason for the seven year delay in the first place. • Asking for more affordable units is a benefit to all town residents. It puts the town closer to the town's affordable unit threshold percentage of 10% which when reached will increase the town's eligibility for grants and loans. JB said the acceleration from 7 to 4 years was a request from the developer not the town at this point, and it is a matter that needs to go to Town Meeting. Mr. Moore said he had made it clear from the beginning that if a quid pro quo was involved he would withdraw his request. The Board agreed Mr. Moore had a valid point but the consensus was they were compelled by the process to let it play out before Town Meeting. Mr. Latham said the request was not to have it be put on as an article. He agreed Town Meeting had to act on the. article but the CPDC's report to Town Meeting could refer the article back to the CPDC or recommend it be tabled. RH moved to close the public hearing. JB seconded. Page 3 of 13 Voted Approved: 3:0:0. RH moved the CPDC recommend to Town Meeting that Article 10 be tabled. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The consensus of the Board was to submit the following to Town Meeting as the Board's recommendation of Article 10. As the original proponent of the article does not wish to pursue it as currently written, on February 12, 2007, the CPDC voted 3-0-0 to recommend to Town Meeting that Article 10 be tabled. Discussion of the Language of the CPDC's Recommendation to Special Town Meeting of Articles 6 & 7. This item was neither a public hearing nor on the agenda. JB and JH both presented suggested changes and additions to the language of the draft recommendation JS had presented to the Board in an email dated 2/3/07. It was the consensus of the Board to apply JB's and RH's changes and additions to JS's draft and to submit this to Town Meeting as the Board's recommendation of Articles 6 & 7. This recommendation is attached to the end of these minutes. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review 101 Willow Street, Austin Preparatory School The application seeks to renovate the existing structure for offices and construct a canopy, with related site improvements. Action Date: March 12, 2007 BB opened the public hearing. JB read the public notice. Attorney Chris Latham represented the applicant. Also appearing for the applicant was Mr. Gus Niewenhous, Esq., Chairman Board of Trustees, Austin Preparatory School; and Tony Pimentel of Sasso Construction Co, Inc. Mr. Latham provided an overview of the project and what they are requesting from the Board: • The proposed renovations will allow the school to reduces class sizes, add more liberal arts programs, expand the library, provide an improved function room and office space, improve the entrance with a canopy, and add general site improvements not the least of which will bring the school more in line with the Disabilities Act. Page 4 of 13 The school is not intending to increase the student population and there should be only two employees added to full-time staff. There will be no increase in traffic so no need for additional parking. However, through a reconfiguration of the parking lots, the school has added ten parking spaces to what exists today. They originally planned to apply for a Site Plan Review Waiver but thought it best for the Board to review the plans. With that in mind, they are requesting the Board waive the application fee and traffic study. Mr. Pimentel took the Board through the construction plans. The Town Engineer read his comments from his memo of 2/8/07: • He said his first two comments regarding further modifications to address the addition of more students and staff should be ignored. He misunderstood the applicant's intention. He thought the addition of new classrooms was to increase enrollment. He now understands the new classrooms are be added to decrease class size and there will not be a significant increase in staff. • His third comment regarding requiring a limited traffic study can also be ignored in light of his learning there will not be a significant increase in students or staff. • His fourth comment regarding a lack of parking can also be ignored for similar reasons. He noted the project will in fact create in an additional 10 parking spaces. • His fifth and sixth comments still apply. He requests the applicant replace the sewer connection from the manhole to the building with PVC pipe and that the applicant provide details on what precautions will be taken to prevent contamination of utilities during construction. The applicant agreed to both requests. Mr. Latham said they have already gone before the ZBA for a special permit and the ZBA told them parking is not an issue. Mr. Latham said they are also looking for a waiver for any drainage report. RH asked the Town Engineer is the present drainage was a concern. The Town Engineer said he had not looked into it. The applicant said underground storage was added in 2001. The Town Engineer said he would review the site's drainage but said the amount of impervious surface the project will add is insignificant and he felt confident there will be little to no additional runoff from this project. Mr. Latham said they are outside the aquifer district. RH asked how the students get to school. Mr. Niewenhous said freshmen and sophomores are dropped off by parents or older students. Some seniors have their own cars and must obtain parking permits from the school. Buses are used only to transport teams. There has been no organized bussing of students for almost twenty years. JB said the only issue is the possible increase in staff size. Everything is predicated on the representation of no great increase in staff or students. He suggested adding language to the decision saying there will be no greater increase than two staff employees or "x" number of Page 5 of 13 students, and if there are more than two staff or "x" students the applicant will have to come back before the Board, or words to that effect. The Board agreed. RH moved to continue the public hearing to the 2/21/07 meeting at 8:45 PM. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The Board noted the 2/21/07 meeting will be held in the Great Room of the Reading Senior Center at 49 Pleasant Street. Public Hearing: Zoning Amendments 80-100 Main Street, Expansion of PUD-B Overlay District to include 370 South Street. Permitting Regulation: Zoning By-Laws Section 4.9. BB opened both public hearings for Articles 8 & 9. JB read the legal notice. RH moved to dispense with the reading of the legal notice. BB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Attorney Brad Latham appeared on behalf of the owner of the property. Mr. Latham said there are three matters being addressed in the two articles before the Board. 1. Expand the PUD-B to include a 10,000 sq. ft lot on South Street. 2. Amend zoning bylaw 4.9 to require parking behind the building and not along Main Street 3. Add a subsection to the same bylaw to allow some signage behind the building facing the parking there. Mr. Latham said the expansion is needed to put parking spaces closer to the proposed one- story retail building. This expansion will be properly landscaped to provide a buffer to abutting residents. He emphasized there will be no access to South Street. The only access to the site will be from Main Street at the northerly side of the lot. Public Comments Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue Ms. O'Neill asked what other areas in Reading would be affected by the changes to the bylaw. Mr. Latham said only areas under the PUD-B zoning would be affected and this area 80-100 Main Street is the only PUD-B zone in Reading. Ms. O'Neill asked how the dimensions for the signage would be determined. BB said the signage would be at the discretion of the CPDC and the CPDC would lean on the existing signage bylaws for guidance. Ms. O'Neil said she was against this encroachment on the abutting residents for the creation of parking spaces. She reminded the Board South Street is a scenic road. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo,130 John Street Mr. D'Arezzo said current bylaws would allow signage to face South Street too and asked how the Board could prevent it since the Board must give the applicant what is allowed. Page 6 of 13 RH said the applicant has not indicated they want signage at that end of the building, in fact, they have stated they would provide screening at that end. However, since rear signage would be at the discretion of the Board, if the applicant wanted South St signage there would be a negotiation. Mr. Chris Brungardt, 324 South Street Mr. Brungardt asked what the applicant's contingency plan was if the zoning change was not passed and what would prevent access to South Street. RH said if the article does not pass then the parking will be placed further back from the building and closer to the residents behind the lot. Mr. Walter Begonis, 289 South Street Mr. Begonis said the South Street property the applicant wants to use for parking and landscaping is a historical property. Mr. Latham said the Historical Commission has determined the home on the South Street property is not a historical home. Mr. Dave Tuttle, 27 Heather Drive. Mr. Tuttle said the current Tambone building seems very close to the lot line. He asked if there was a drawing showing the location of the Business "A" zone boundary. Mr. Latham said you are allowed to go up to 30 feet into a less restrictive zone fora more restrictive use. RH said the only thing before the Board is the incorporation of the lot. What is put on it is down the road. RH moved to close both public hearings. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. RH moved CPDC vote to recommend Article 8 to Town Meeting. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. RH moved CPDC vote to recommend Article 9 to Town Meeting. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. 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 site improvements. Permitting Regulation: Zoning By-Laws Section 4.3.3 Action Date: February 12, 2007 As there was still some time before the posted start of the 39 Walkers Brook Drive public hearing, the Board decided to discuss the draft decision. The Town Engineer had submitted a memo bullet-pointing his many issues with the applicant's site plan for 39 Walkers Brook Drive. It was the consensus of the Board to Page 7 of 13 group the bullet-points under the Board's standard section headings for decisions ["Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit", "During Construction" etc..] and to number every bullet-point for easier reference. It was also the consensus of the Board: • to change all references to the Town Planner to "Town Planner or designee" • to see the site's signage plans, lighting plans, and the lighting consultant's report • to reference both the Building Inspector's and the Conservation Administrator's memos. The Board noted the Conservation Administrator's last item in her memo is a recommendation the applicant extend the action date of the site plan review. Apparently she felt there are still many issues left to resolve. The Town Engineer said he agreed with this recommendation. He said he had concerns with drainage and backflow that could require the applicant to increase the site's grade by 6 inches. Mr. George Danis, Danis Realty Trust, said he came to the public hearing to hear if there is any progress on the matter of the easement for a right-of-way from One General Way to New Crossing Road. BB re-opened the continued public hearing. He noted the action date is tonight and a draft decision is ready. He also noted three memos have been submitted by the Building Inspector (dated 2/9/07), the Town Engineer (2/9/07) and the Conservation Administrator (2/12/07). BB asked if the applicant had received copies of these memos. Mr. Latham said they had. Mr. Latham said they had met with the Building Inspector over the matter of signage and they find what the Building Inspector has said (and written in his memo) acceptable to them. Regarding signage, Mr. Latham requested they be permitted to come back before the Board or have the Board refer the matter to the Building Inspector. The consensus of the Board was they would prefer to see the final signage plans. BB said there are over 40 points in the Town Engineer's memo and both he and the Board are concerned many issues are still outstanding. Mr. Latham said they are prepared to go through the Town Engineer's memo point by point. He said they had a memo from VHB which addressed Town Engineer's points. He distributed VHB's memo to the Board. The Board's review of VHB's answers to the Town Engineer's memo: Before beginning, the bulleted-points in the VHB memo were numbered to match the Town Engineer's memo. Mr. DiPietro read VHB's responses. The list numbers following do not refer to the numbers in the original memo. Page 8 of 13 1. Snow Removal: Applicant agreed to lower the number of parking spaces set aside for snow storage. GZ said the designated spaces should be relocated. Snow piles could block drivers' vision. 2. Intersection of Newcrossing Road and Walkers Brook Drive: In one year after occupancy a traffic study will be performed. Optimization the traffic lights as required (by re-timing, new equipment, etc...) shall be done at applicant's cost up to $15,000. If the study determines a traffic lane is needed, the applicant will agree to provide an easement to the town. This was agreeable to the applicant. 3. Insufficient information provided to town's lighting consultant: Applicant agreed to work with town's peer reviewer to design a lighting plan acceptable to the town. The Board asked to see all lighting plans. 4. Easement to connect General Way/Newcrossing: Applicant said a final easement plan will be available once utilities have been installed. 5. Newcrossing Road sidewalk should be concrete: the applicant referred the Board to the Stop & Shop decision which approved bituminous sidewalks. They asked the same material be used for consistency's sake. GZ agreed. 6. Vertical granite curbing: the applicant said the main entrance would be vertical granite but for the interior would prefer concrete. GZ asked the interior curbing be pre-cast because sloped-granite curbing will not last. 7. Hydraulic Report: GZ said more information was needed to prove the proposed equipment adequate to deal with "constant surcharge and backwater conditions". Mr. DiPietro said he would provide the proof. GZ said the capacity of the drainage system and detention basin has not been adequately modeled. Mr. DiPietro said they do have a methodology which they will review with GZ. GZ said his concern with these issues was there is a possibility it could all backup and not reduce runoff. GZ suggested raising the site by a foot to get the system out of a constant surcharge condition. This led to a long and technical discussion between the Town Engineer and Mr. DiPietro at the conclusion of which Mr. DiPietro said they would not be making the situation any worse than it is now. GZ disagreed. 8. Lighting: GZ said the plans provided were very general regarding the lighting and it was unclear what is what, especially on the Longhorn plans. GZ said all he needs to see are the light styles highlighted in the cut-sheets and keyed to locations on the plans. 9. Neon: GZ emphasized neon signs are not permitted. 10. Catch Basin along Walkers Brook Drive: the applicant said they intend for this catch basin to remain and the lawn will be graded to drain into it. 11. Dumpster drains: the applicant said the plans will be revised to show the dumpster pads will be graded to drain. 12. Sewer connection to Newcrossing Road: the applicant would rather test this connection first and if it is not suitable they will replace it. Nick S asked if Bertucci's would have an accessory building on the site to store wood for their wood-stove. A representative of Bertucci's said this restaurant would not have a wood-burning oven and there would not be an accessory building. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Page 9 of 13 Mr. D'Arezzo asked where the signage would be placed. Mr. Latham said they still need to talk with the tenants. BB asked how people on Walkers Brook Drive would know where to go; there is nothing to catch the eye of a driver on Walkers Brook to show how to get to the restaurants' parking lot. Mr. Latham said they had no plans for a pylon sign at the moment. GZ asked if there would be screening around the dumpsters. The applicant said the dumpsters would be totally screened and the enclosures would match the material of the buildings. Mr. D'Arezzo asked for the height of the enclosures. The applicant said each is an eight-foot high wall. It was the consensus of the Board not to proceed with a review of the draft decision language given the many outstanding variables including the possibility the site may be re- graded and raised. The Board was inclined to agree with the recommendation of the Conservation Administrator to ask for an extension. Mr. Latham said they would be going before the Conservation Commission this week. The Board said they would expect a report on the applicant's meeting with the Conservation Commission. The Board requested the applicant ask for an extension to the meeting of March 12, 2007 at 7:45 PM. Mr. Latham wrote out a request for an extension to March 12. 2007. RH moved to continue the public hearing to March 12, 2007 at 7:45 PM. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. RH moved to adjourn. JB seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. The meeting ended at 10:55 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on March 12, 2007; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on March 12, 2007. Signed as approved, Brant Ballantyne, Secretary Date Page 10 of 13 CPDC Recommendation to Special Town Meeting Articles 6 & 7 - February 26, 2007 Formal Vote: On January 29, 2007, the CPDC voted 2-2-0 to recommend Article 6 to Town Meeting. On January 29, 2007, the CPDC voted 2-2-0 to recommend Article 7 to Town Meeting. ni,civccion Although sponsored by the CPDC, this article was initiated by the Reading Co-operative Bank (RCB) and has undergone significant public scrutiny, discussion and revision, starting with a meeting with the Board of Selectman a year ago. The CPDC held a number of zoning workshops which culminated in a public hearing held on January 29, 2007. In support of that public hearing, a number of questions had been raised through the process, the questions were researched and answers were provided by Town Staff, Town Counsel, the Board of Selectmen, Atty. Brad Latham (representing RCB), the Historical Commission, and the CPDC. That information has been available on the town's website. The CPDC was split on its recommendation of these two by-laws. The following is a brief summary of the CPDC views, both positive and negative, on the subject. CPDC votes in favor of the article because the CPDC felt that the article limited the use of the Sanborn Street lot to only employee parking. The lot would remain in the residential Zone and require a Special Permit if used for employee parking. Buffering, lighting, and limited access would be obvious Special Permit conditions. CPDC votes in objection to the article because it was an inefficient use of the land or because the zoning was too broad a vehicle and had the potential to include other lots adjacent to the Business B district in the future. Many of the comments and questions raised during our hearings had to do with the recently adopted Master Plan (MP) and how these articles reconciled with our Master Plan. In reviewing that document, at a high level, the plan recognizes the need for balance (between growth and use), but it also emphasizes a vision for the town, one based on character and identity. The MP is to be used as a guide, not as a hard and fast code. But it also states that within the boundaries of what is realistic, we must understand that there are limits to the community's infrastructure. The Mixed Use Zone is an example where we wanted to encourage residential development in the downtown, however one aspect of that by-law required that parking for additional uses (residential) be addressed on site. To date, not one application for a mixed use special permit has been submitted. We heard testimony from numerous business owners, employees and residents that adequate parking in the downtown business district, including availability of employee parking, is an infrastructure limitation to growth. As such, these speakers were Page 11 of 13 fundamentally in support of using the proposed articles as a means to resolve the issue. While many asked that we hold off until the downtown parking ad hoe task force provides its recommendations, some of these recommendations will likely require additional funding and may not be able to be implemented until a few years from now and others are more a matter of coordination within the business community. There is clearly a need for a more immediate solution. A number of individuals, including the Cities for Climate Protection, used this article as a platform for emphasizing the need to address the environmental issues, and offered a number of solutions, such as car-pooling, a local transit authority, and other environmentally friendly alternatives. There are a few conditions of this by-law that require any recipient of a special permit to actively participate in these endeavors. Many of the goals of the MP point toward providing a comprehensive parking solution in Downtown. The CPDC understands that these articles are not that solution. However, how do we reconcile the short and long term needs without allowing interim solutions such as are presented in these articles to keep the downtown business environment vibrant? We further support the idea of having these articles vetted on town meeting floor, since it is an important issue critical to the entire town and will set the tone for future business development. Many opinions point to the view that Reading does not support this development and the desire is to maintain a "small village character." But should that philosophy prevail here, where it will deter a highly valued business with a long history in the community from trying to provide for its employees and at the same time making a number of additional parking spaces available for all who wish to visit downtown businesses? While the CPDC has been an advocate of mixed use in the downtown, and we are actively pursuing a 40R district as well, none of this will work without a parking solution. To the credit of RCB, which has demonstrated good citizenship throughout its history in Reading, they are trying here to work with the community to come up with an acceptable solution which will enable them both to stay in the community and to serve a longstanding need of the Town. The 2 votes to recommend these articles directly support the position that this is a positive interim solution to a compelling town-wide need. One vote to not recommend these articles was based on the following explanation. This vote did not turn on whether or not employee parking is a proper use on the specific property sought by RCB. Rather, it was based on the question whether the broader parking overlay district, as a necessary component of this initiative, is a sound planning tool to be recommended. The establishment of a broader parking overlay district with potential application to a number of properties rather than with just application to the single site sought by the RCB, is necessary because it would be impermissible "spot zoning" to establish such an overlay over just one property. The RCB seeks a parking overlay on just the one residential property. No one seeks, envisions, or expects a future request for a parking overlay on any of the other potential residential sites within the proposed district. It was simply that in order to provide today for the right to place such a parking overlay on the property sought by the Bank, it was also necessary to craft the bylaw as a broader overlay district affecting other potential properties. A broader overlay district which no one wants other than on a single site, appears to this CPDC member to be an unsound planning policy, warranting this vote as a CPDC member to not recommend from a Page 12 of 13