Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-08-13 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 &i.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: August 13, 2007 Location: Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Hall Time. 7:30 PM Members Present: Brant Ballantyne, (BB), Chairman; David Tuttle (DT), Secretary; Nicholas Safina (NS), and John Sasso (JS). Associate Members Absent: George Katsoufis (GK), and Israel Maykut (IM) Also Present: Carol Kowalski, Town Planner; and Michael Schloth. Tom Chiudina, Architect, DRL Associates, 2 West Street, Weymouth, MA Mr. Angus Jennings, Concord Square Development;294 Washington St., Boston, MA Attorney Brad Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Attorney Josh Latham of Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C., 643 Main Street Jack McQuilkin, Engineer, JM Associates, North Reading Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Sununer Avenue Mr. Scott Weiss, VP Development, National Development; 2310 Washington St., Newton, MA There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Public Comments/ Minutes There were no comments from the public. DT moved to approve the minutes of 7/9/2007 as amended. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 3:0:0. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review 16 Sanborn Street, Reading Cooperative Bank's Employee Parking Lot BB opened the Public Hearing. DT read the Legal Notice. Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicant. Also present were the applicant's architect and engineer: Mr. Tom Chiudina and Mr. Jack McQuilkin respectively. Mr. Latham said changes had been made to the plans in response to the suggestions of the DRT. The applicant's architect, Mr. Chiudina, made a brief presentation: Page 1 of 7 CPDC Minutes of 8/13/2007 • Entire lot has been shifted closer to the Post Office to provide more room for buffering elsewhere. There would still be landscaping along the Post-Office side of the lot. • Existing tree along street would be removed and replaced with three. Mr. Latham noted that if the existing tree is saved three extra trees would not be planted. • Trees are to be added along the right (North) property line. • New sidewalks will be constructed. They will match the pavers used in the sidewalks downtown. • A decorative brick wall will be constructed along the frontage. • The separate exit and entrance would each be gated (access to employees only through a system similar to Fastpass). • A retaining wall would be built along the rear property line between lot and residential abutter with space left for landscaping. • A hedge would be added along the right [North] side to provide screening of headlights. • No site lighting. The lights from the Post Office would provide enough illumination. • Handicapped Space: Applicant was not sure if the regulations apply in this case given that it would be a private lot. If required, the bank would probably place the handicapped space(s) at another location nearer the bank. The applicant's engineer, Mr. McQuilkin, made a brief presentation: • Drainage: Site pitches to the North. A catch basin would be added with a stone filter to remove most of the solids before passing into the infiltration system. Overflow pipe would be added too. • Rear retaining wall would be 5-foot high dry-block masonry wall with an apprx. 2-foot wide area for plantings. • Guardrail and fencing. Mr. Latham addressed some outstanding issues: • Traffic: little traffic would be generated by the site: the lot is gated and Sanborn Street is one-way. • No Granite: given the lot will be private and have less turnover than most parking lots, the applicant feels pre-cast curbing is more appropriate. • Invasive vegetation: the Conservation Administrator's memo on the site states she has no conservation issues with the site aside from the use of the plant known as "Burning Bush" which she says is invasive. The applicant is amenable to substituting different vegetation. • Maintenance: The applicant is amenable to sweeping the lot semi-annually. • Inspection Ports: Mr. McQuilkin said the drainage would be inspected four times a year. He said two additional inspection ports could be added at the end of the detention field as suggested by both the Town Engineer and the Conservation Administrator. The Board asked if the applicant cared to respond to the Town Engineer's memo to the CPDC dated 8/13/2007. The applicant was agreeable to all in the memo but the comments on requiring handicapped spaces and granite curbing (see above). Public Comments Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Ave. Page 2 of 7 CPDC Minutes of 8/13/2007 • Would there be any landscaping the fear abutter?Mr. McQuilkin said space has been left along the rear for landscaping. They have met with the abutter and the abutter likes the idea of the retaining wall. • The Bradford Pear tree is susceptible to storm damage. • Will anyone be maintaining the parking lot (e.g.. picking up litter) more frequently than the annual sweepings? Mr. Latham said they would be agreeable to adding as a condition the lot is to be swept semi-annually. • The, fence at the Atlantic parking lot is broken and an eyesore and the same should not be allowed to happen here. The Town Planner said if the fence is in the site plan decision it must be replaced or repaired. Otherwise, it could lead to fines. Comments of the Board DT was concerned cars waiting to enter the lot might stack-up and some could be hit by the gate coming down. Mr. Chiudina said he believed the time the gate stays up could be adjusted and the sensor has a range of 20 to 25 feet so cars should not have to wait at the gate long. JS asked if there was a need for low-level lighting for safety. Mr. Chiudina said they had originally planned on lights in bollards but it made no sense since parked cars would block them. If necessary, they could add light poles with shielded and directed lights later by extending the wiring from the gates. JS asked if landscaping had been considered within the lot and not just around the edges. Mr. Chiudina said a small area could be added but it would probably not survive. Also it would be a hazard to drivers. The Board asked about signage. Mr. Chiudina said there would be one-way signs [the entrance and exit are each one-way] and a sign noting the lot is private. A separate application would be made for the sign oA the brick wall. Snow removal? Mr. McQuilkan said snow would have to be tricked away. The Town Planner said the Town Warden has recommended saving the tree the DRT suggested. removing to make way for the new sidewalk. The Board asked how the lot would be maintained between sweepings. Mr. Latham said a fiill- time employee would maintain the lot. The consensus of the Board was to continue the Public Hearing to the meeting of 9/10/2007. The Board provided the applicant with the following directives. • Review the proposed one-foot groundwater separation with the Town Engineer. • Discuss with Town Planner suitable substitutes for the "Burning Bush" and "Bradford Pear" • Move the gates back so they are aligned with the proposed brick wall. • The Town Planner will review the bylaws as regards the requirements for handicapped parking and determine if they apply here. Page 3 of 7 CPDC Minutes of 8/13/2007 • The Board was inclined. to allow the pre-cast curbing. • The Town Planner should provide guidance on what the DRT meant with regards to their suggestion that the new sidewalk should meet "Downtown Standards" Regarding the sidewalk improvements, Mr. Latham suggested it was overkill to have the applicant make changes to the sidewalk all they way to Haven Street. JS moved to continue the Public Hearing to the meeting of 9/10/2007 at 7:30 PM. DT seconded. Voted approved: 4:0:0. Continuance: Determination of Minor Modification 143 Main Street, Ciano Realty Trust Attorney Josh Latham represented the applicant who was unable to attend tonight's meeting. The Board expressed its desire to bring closure to the long-standing enforcement issues of the site. Mr. Latham said they had met with the Town Engineer to discuss the issues raised in his memo to the CPDC dated 3/2/2007. As a result of that meeting, the Town Engineer issued a second memo to the CPDC dated 8/8/2007 in which he notes all but one of his concerns had been addressed. The one outstanding issue is the removal of the fence along the eastern property line and the rear half of the northerly property line. The Town Engineer does note in his memo that he sees no need for the removal of the fence (item #7) or the installation of the retaining wall in its place (item 96). Mr. Latham said the two owners of the properties abutting the fence have each signed letters stating they want the fence to remain. NS asked if the number of modifications taken together constitute a major modification. The Board agreed NS made a good point and noted it was one the Board had struggled with before. The consensus of the Board was none of the individual modifications were minor and taken together they were minor as well. JS noted as the original site plan called for the removal of the fence now that it is being kept language should be added to require it be properly maintained. The Board agreed. JS moved the CPDC determine the proposed modifications to the existing Site Plan Review Decision of 143 Main Street dated 10/11/2002 are Minor. DT seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. JS moved the CPDC approve the modifications to the existing Site Plan Decision of 143 Main Street dated 10/11/2002 as reviewed by the Town Engineer and documented. in the Town Engineer's memo to the CPDC dated 8/8/2007 with the following condition. Page 4 of 7 CPDC Minutes of 8/13/2007 The fence originally directed to be removed in the original Site Plan Decision and through this Minor Modification will not be removed will be properly maintained by the applicant. DT seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. Zoning Workshop: Zoning Definitions: Lot Coverage etc... The Board discussed basing the setbacks and heights for accessory garages and buildings based on a sliding scale based on floor area square footage. BB proposed adding to Table 5.2.3.7 --Garage Accessory and. Building Accessory Dimensional Controls - a new entry for structures 650 sq. ft. or over. they should not be allowed. JS noted the Board is trying to balance the following. 1. If the applicant has enough setback, they can build what they want if they meet the lot coverage requirements; but 2. If the accessory structure is greater than ten (10) feet from the Principal Building, and the applicant wants to encroach on the property line, then there are constraints. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill asked if'the building on Linden Sheet would be allowed under this proposal. JS said no more than 25% of the rear yard could be covered by an accessory building. DT added a garage for more than three cars would not be allowed. Ms. O'Neill asked if the Building Inspector had reviewed the Board's zoning language changes. BB said the Board had not yet presented them to him. That would be the next step after adding the new entry to the accessory stricture table of dimensional controls (see above). Ms. O'Neill asked if the Board was still going to consider reviewing the Impervious' Surface and Open Space language in the bylaw. When Town Meeting had originally asked the Board to look into the bylaw language of various zoning issues, the Board deliberately decided to break-up their review into manageable bites. Accessory structures and lot coverage were going to be the issues they focused. on first. BB noted "Lot Coverage" concerns buildings whereas "Open Space" concerns impervious cover. The Board decided to tentatively schedule another Zoning Workshop on these zoning definitions for the meeting of 9/10/2007. Other Items Minor and Major Modifications The Town Planner asked the Board for some clarification on the procedural differences between the two. JS said if a change is determined to be major, it could require re-opening the site plan review. He noted the Board had not yet done this. The Town Planner asked if it was necessary to have a process for major modifications since if it is more than a minor modification a site plan review must follow. JS said there may be matters of differences in the fee schedules between minor and major modifications. Page 5 of 7 CPDC Minutes of 8/13/2007 Discussion: Draft of Smart Growth Zoning Overlay District within Addison-Wesley site The Town Planner introduced Mr. Angus Jennings of Concord Square Development. Concord Square had been retained by the town to help put together the town's 40R application. Also present was Mr. Scott Weiss of National Development. Mr. Jennings said the Board of Selectmen will decide at a public hearing on 8/28/2007 whether or not to submit the application to the State. Part of the application is the 40R bylaw language. If the Board of Selectmen approves the submission of the application to the State, the DHCD will review the bylaw's language. Also, the CPDC would have to schedule a Public Hearing to review and snake final the language and to vote on whether or not to recommend the bylaw to Town Meeting. Mr. Jennings made a presentation on the review process and the bylaw's language. • Location: The 40R district would overlay only the southwestern quadrant of the Addison- Wesley site adjacent to Curtis Street and Route 128. This is where National Development has proposed the 200-plus unit apartment complex. • 40R Only: The DHCD is interested in the 40R district only and will not review adjacent zones. • Incentive payment: The State will look closely at any application proposing a development of close to 200 units because that is the threshold beyond which the applicant would be entitled to a higher incentive payment: $200,000 vs. $350,000. He said a placeholder has been left in the draft allowing for 202 units. He felt this number should entitle the town to the larger payment. • Changes are allowed: The State does not require the bylaw language be in its final form when it is first submitted. Some of the 40R-bylaw's language will replicate the town's existing bylaws. Other language can be added specific to this overlay (e.g. design standards). • 40S: Any approved 40R is automatically eligible for the 40S benefit [available if the 40R leads to increased. school costs]. • Design Standards: r These can be incorporated within the bylaw or made a separate, standalone document. • Within bylaw: cleaner from a process point-of-view; one document • Standalone: requires cross-referencing from the 40R bylaw; does not require approval from Town Meeting only the CPDC; located in one place and not spread across bylaws. No subjective or vague conditions (e.g. "development must be pedestrian friendly" is not an acceptable design standard) The State wants to make sure the standards do not make development of the district infeasible. Mr. Weiss said the language of the bylaw itself had to be self-contained but he was not sure if the design standards had to be as well. GK made the following suggestions regarding Design Standards. • Use shared parking. Page 6 of 7 CPDC Minutes of 8/13/2007 • Place parking maximums rather than minimums. • Preserve Open Space. • Observe human scales: avoid massive, mono-block solutions. • Maintain a New England appearance. • Consider alternatives to impervious surfaces. • Sustainability: Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill agreed and suggested the design of the buildings be more energy efficient (Green Building Design). Regarding Sustainability: Mr. Jennings said language referring to sustainable or energy-efficient designs can be included but as guidelines only not requirements. Educating Residents BB noted that because the 40R is a new concept and because a developer is pushing it many will resist it. Ms. O'Neill said the town's citizens are familiar with 40Bs but not 40Rs and before Town Meeting the Board should try to educate residents on the effect this 40R would have on the town. The Board agreed and noted the main effects of the 40R would be: • Providing revenue through the State's economic incentives and future tax revenue. • Placing the town much closer to its affordable housing threshold. • Giving the town some control over what can be built (i.e. design standards) JS said if the Board of Selectmen approves the application the CPDC would have to review the draft and approve the final wording in time for the Special Town Meeting scheduled for the second week in December. The legal notice must be posted 30 days prior so the Board would have to schedule the public hearing on the 40R bylaw no later than the second week of November 2007. The Board. agreed. It was the consensus of the Board to schedule a Zoning Workshop on the 40R bylaw during the meeting of 9/10/2007 and to invite Town Meeting members. The Board also decided to relocate the meeting of 9/10/2007 to the Senior Center's Great Room. DT moved to adjourn. JS seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting ended at 10:30 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on December 3, 2007; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on December 3, 2007. Signed as approved, David Tuttle, 'Secretary Date Page 7 of 7