Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-01 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 Email: ckowalski@ci.readipg.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: October 01, 2007 Location: Selectmen's Meeting room Time: 7:30 PM Members Present: Brant Ballantyne, (BB), Chairman; David Tuttle (DT), Secretary; Nicholas Safina (NS), and John Sasso (JS). Associate Members Present: George Katsoufis (GK) Associate Members Abscent: Israel Maykut (IM) Also Present: Michael Schloth. Ms. Christine Brungardt, 324 South Street Mr. Alan Cloutier, P.E., Project Engineer, VHB, Inc.; 101 Walnut St., Watertown, MA. Mr. John Connery, Connery Associates; 19 Parker St, Melrose, MA Mr. Jim Doherty, 76 Curtis Street. Ms. Lori Doughty, 348 South Street Mr. Angus Jennings, Concord Square Development;294 Washington St., Boston, MA Ms. Joan Neary, 355 South Street Ms. Theresa Petrillo, 329 South Street Selectman Ben Tafoya, 40 Oak St. Mr. Theodore Tye, Managing Partner, National Development; 2310 Wash. St., Newton, MA 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 There were no comments from the public. Zoning Workshop: Proposed Gateway Smart Growth District & Business C Zoning District Changes Re-Development Overview Mr. Tye and Mr. Scott provided a brief overview of National Developments redevelopment plans and introduced each of the other speakers: Mr. Cloutier discussed the redevelopment's Page 1 of 9 traffic study, and Mr. Connery discussed the fiscal impact the redevelopment would have on Reading. Overview: The public hearing on the bylaw changes (40R and Bus C) is scheduled for 10/22/07; the warrant closes on 11/3/07; and Town Meeting is scheduled for December 10. Town Meeting does not end the process: CPDC still must review the Site Plan, an environmental review must be conducted by the State, and various State permitting bodies must weigh in (Mass Highway, DEP) before a building permit could be applied for. If the redevelopment is approved, construction would be over a year away. The redevelopment calls for a mixed-use which will have much less of an impact on traffic than the current office/hotel use or the recently proposed retail use. Mr. Tye stated National Development is committed to maintaining the existing buffers and setbacks including the 25 foot vegetative buffer and the 100 foot no-build zone but alerted the Board to the possibility of some changes they have drawn up at the request of some abutters which may reduce these setbacks in some places. Traffic Study Mr. Weiss informed the Board the traffic study for the redevelopment is available and shows the traffic from their proposal is significantly less than the retail use proposed by a previous developer. Mr. Weiss said because the study showed traffic would be so much less, National Development questioned whether widening the roadway would be necessary and asked VHB [the engineering firm Nat'l Dev hired to conduct the traffic study] to consider a reduced level of traffic mitigation. Mr. Weiss noted any mitigation would still be subject to Mass Highway review. Mr. Cloutier described VHB's approach towards conducting the traffic study. The study compared traffic counts to other traffic studies recently conducted in the area. Current conditions were analyzed and compared to a future "no-build" condition (projected to 2012) and used to estimate site generated traffic from the proposed redevelopment. SITE TRAFFIC GENERATED Park Square [Lifestyle Mall Current Zoning Office/Hotel Mixed-Use [Nat'l Dev's Proposal] Retail, Office, & Townhomes Office & Hotel Apts., Senior Housing, Townhomes, Office Weekday Morning Peak 465 940 405 Evening Peak 1,720 925 425 Saturda Midday Peak 2,170 370 225 Mr. Cloutier suggested the following improvements to the South and Main Streets intersection. Page 2 of 9 Widen South St. on both sides of Main St. to provide room for two dedicated lanes for exiting onto Main St.(on each side of Main St.: one lane for turning left and one for both turning right or continuing across Main St.). Rather than have South St and Jacob's Way meet at the intersection, turn South St. into Jacob's Way. This suggestion was made in response to neighbors concerns with cut-thru traffic. South St. would no longer be a "straight shot" from Main St. Mr. Cloutier pointed out these changes would have to be approved by Mass Highway Mr. Weiss noted the low level of traffic may not require either improvement. Fiscal Impact Study Mr. Connery's study looked at the redevelopment's cost to the town with regards to both the town's school and municipal services. School: The average cost of a schoolchild was based on an average of high quality school systems in the area. Using Archstone's current ratio of roughly 20 students for 200 units, the applicant's proposal would add 21 students to Reading's school rolls (preschool to grade 12). Mr. Connery said in his study he used the more conservative total of 29 schoolchildren. Municipal (fire, police, etc...): DPW costs would be home by the site for the most part but his study used conservative "what if' numbers. The result of his study was: the project would produce sustainable, positive revenue for the town. Mr. Connery discussed the short and long-term benefits of the redevelopment. Short-term: • About $650,000.00 from building and licensing fees. • About $956,000.00 in 40R payments from Commonwealth of Massachusetts ➢ $350,000.00 upfront when the 40R overlay is adopted by the Town of Reading ➢ Plus $3,000/unit when a unit's building permit is issued. Long-Term: • Net annual revenue of about $400,000`.00 ➢ $1,059,000.00 gross annual revenue MINUS $582,000 annual cost. Alternative Building Layouts Mr. Tye said their design meets both the original zoning's 25 foot vegetative buffer and the 100 foot "no build" setback. This design places parking spaces within the 100 foot setback. Some abutters have expressed their desire to have all parking placed as far from their properties as possible - citing car noise and headlights even if this means having the proposed buildings moved closer. With these abutters concern in mind, alternative layouts were drawn up. Jacob Way Townhomes: Instead of placing the townhouses parallel to Jacob's Way and the parking spaces in the rear (toward's South St.), the alternative shows the townhomes turned perpendicular to Jacob's Way and the parking located between pairs of townhomes. Page 3 of 9 Senior Housing (Northwest Corner): The building is shown shifted further into the northwest corner and the parking spaces once along the north and west sides have been moved to the south and east sides. A gated fire lane would run around the north and west sides of the shifted building connecting the east and south parking areas. Apartments (Southwest Corner): The building is shown shifted towards the west property line and the west-side parking spaces moved to the southern side closer to Rte. 128. The site's center green would have to be slightly smaller. A walking path would be added along the west side of the building. Gateway Smart Growth District: Bylaw and Design Standards Mr. Jennings said his goal was to have the proposed bylaw on file with the Town Clerk by the end of business this Friday [10/05/07]. To achieve this, he'll need the Board to tell him the draft is adequate and if not to suggest changes he can add by Friday. He emphasized the bylaw can still be changed - the public can send suggestions to the Town Planner or make them at the upcoming public hearing - but the draft should be in as close to a final condition as possible before it reaches Town Meeting. The Board decided to withhold their questions and comments on the bylaw until after all presentations had been made but asked Mr. Jennings to provide a brief overview of the bylaw up to the section on Design Standards. Business C Zoning District: Proposed Changes Mr. Weiss said changes needed to be made to the Business C zoning bylaws to allow for the construction of senior housing and townhomes within the district. All existing dimensional controls for the Business C district would be kept. Current allowed uses - office and hotel - would be maintained. Changes: 1. New Definition: "Senior Independent Living" would be living units for those 55 or older. 2. Table of Uses: 0 Change Apartment "NO" to "NO" with a footnote allowing townhouses. • Change Nursing Home "NO" to "YES" with a footnote allowing Senior Independent Living. 3. Maximum Allowable Development: add a subsection "d." to Section 5.3.1.4. This subsection would divide the site into two portions: north of Jacob's Way and south of Jacob's Way. The northern portion would allow no more than 160 senior independent living units and 16 townhouses. The southern portion would allow no more than 150 senior independent living and/or nursing home units and no townhouses. 4. Internal Setbacks: add a subsection "e." to Section 5.3.1.4 clarifying that the existing setbacks and building height limits will be measured from the boundaries of the underlying zoning (Bus C) and not the boundaries of the 40R overlay district. 5. Off-street parking and loading: to Section 6.1.1.3 add "Senior Independent Living" to the Principle Use column of the "Lodging Houses, Hotels, Motels, Tourist Homes" row. Also, add "Townhouse" to the Principle Use column of the "Townhouse Development" row. 6. Site Plan Review: Amend Section 4.3.3 Site Plan Review by adding a new section giving the CPDC authority to waive or reduce the parking or loading space requirements in the Bus Page 4 of 9 C district provided doing so results in no adverse impacts with bylaws on Site Plan Approval. Questions and Comments Business C Zoning Changes: Chanze # 3: North/South Division of Uses: JS questioned the rationale behind specifying use based on whether the location was north or south of Jacob's Way. Mr. Weiss said that came about after informal discussions with the Town Manager and Town Planner as to what future may be made of the land south of Jacob's Way. The possibility of adding more senior housing there instead of an office park was discussed. The amendment was worded so because: north of Jacob's Way had already been specified so making a specification for south seemed appropriate, and wanted to provided flexibility for alternative uses compatible with those uses allowed. JS noted the overall purpose was to create a mixed use site and was concerned the language may restrict future use of the site to certain uses. He wanted to be sure not to disincentivize other uses in the future. Mr. Jim Doherty of 76 Curtis Street expressed his concern with the possibility of the site being built over with nothing but senior housing. Selectman Ben Tafoya said the bylaw should explicitly lay out what is allowed and not rely on density controls of the underlying zoning. GK agreed with JS and added mixed-use should be maintained throughout the site; uses should not be restricted to North/South portions which could deprive the town of leverage in looking for other uses in the future. Mr. Tye said what is being read into the language is not their intent. They do not disagree with what JS and others have said; it is only a matter or how to write it. He said he would discuss the matter with their attorney. Change #S: ParkinkRguirements: BB questioned the necessity of "Townhouse and" before the exiting Principle Use of "Townhouse Development". Mr. Weiss agreed it may be an unnecessary precaution but the bylaw already contains a definition for "Townhouse Development' 'so they wanted to make the bylaw as clear as possible. DT pointed out the definition for "Townhouse Development" refers to a use specific within a zoning districts no longer used by Reading (the S-10 district). Ake Restrictions: Mr. Jim Doherty of 76 Curtis Street asked if it was legal to exclude people based on their age. Mr. Tye said it was common in zoning with a component for seniors. BB noted the amendments would have to pass legal review by both Town Counsel and the Attorney General. Future Discussion: Ms. Theresa Petrillo of 329 South Street asked if there would be other times the Board would be gong over these bylaws. BB said the official public hearing for these zoning changes will be held at the CPDC's meeting of 10/22/07. At that meeting the Board will vote whether or not to recommend the zoning changes to Town Meeting. Public comment will be taken. Selectman Tafoya pointed out it was not necessary to wait until the public hearing on 10/22/07 to comment on the zoning changes; suggestions and comments could be sent to the Board through the Town Planner. ;Page 5 of 9 The 40R District Zoning Amendment (Gateway Smart Growth District) DT said referencing the location as "former Addison Wesley site" should be avoided. New Definitions for Accessory Buildings etc... NS said the Board's new definitions for Accessory Buildings, Accessory Garages, Lot Coverage etc... should be added to the bylaw. The Board agreed. The Attorney for National Development asked if these definitions would be going before Town Meeting for approval as zoning amendments too. BB said they would. Mr. Jennings said he would add the definitions and references to same as needed. Sustainable Design: NS suggested added language stating sustainable design principles shall be considered not only for all buildings but for all site design elements too. The Board agreed. Lighting Tvpes: NS noted neon lights should be prohibited. NS questioned why any lighting should be exempted since any of exempted light sources may cause a problem if used in excess. Bu f erin Adiacent Properties: The Board felt something about landscaped berms should be added to help block lights. Location of Design Standards: NS asked if the some things mentioned in the design standards section should not be moved to the bylaw section. Mr. Jennings said that as written the design standards are already a part of the bylaw; they are each part of the same document. If by the end of tonight's meeting the Board feels there are enough outstanding questions on items within the design standard sections that the Board is not comfortable advertising it as part of the bylaw, then a decision could be made to put the design standards in a separate document. Prohibition of access to Curtis Street: DT asked why there was such a firm prohibition was added. Mr. Weiss said they had comments from Curtis St. residents not wanting the access. DT doubted if such a connection was even feasible without the approval of the Curtis St. landowners. The consensus of the Board was they would not want the language to be strictly prohibitive. Dunipsters: Mr. Jennings pointed out there was already a placeholder referring to the screening of service areas. Pedestrian Ways: JS asked if sidewalks will have tree lawns. Mr. Jennings said he was looking for direction from the Board. BB noted many of the sidewalks look like they abut the roadway for car access. JS agreed but felt some sidewalks could use a tree lawn. The consensus was to have something added allowing for tree lawns or suitable landscaping. Wav indin Signs: The consensus of the Board was to specify the square footage as not to exceed 2 sq. ft. Noncommercial Flags: Mr. Jennings said the intent was to be specific that flags would not be regulated as commercial signs. He added the Board may want to modify this if there is a concern with too many flags. Page 6 of 9 Affordable Units: BB asked for clarification on where in the bylaw it states 25% of the units will be priced at 80% of median income. He noted that at a previous workshop it was decided since the town already has a project (Archstone) where 20% of the units are at 50% of median income it would be preferable for diversity's sake to have this project use the 25% at 80% formula. Mr. Tye interrupted to say that could be a problem. Although they could acknowledge the town's preference for 25% at 80% they would not want to be pinned down to that formula as it may restrain the fiscal feasibility of the project. Mr. Jennings said the statutory minimum is 20% of units at 80% of median income and anything more restrictive than that places the burden on the town to show their formula is not unduly restrictive. He pointed out that the town's preference for 25% of units at 80% is more restrictive. He noted the other option of 20% at 50% is also more restrictive than the statutory minimum. He said the town could try for the more restrictive formula but the State will tend to look to what the landowner is willing to agree to. If National Development agrees to the more restrictive formula then the State would probably be agreeable too, but if National Development objects the State could decide the town's preference is unduly restrictive. Mr. Jennings said using 20% at 80%, even if the units are rentals, not all of them would count. Using 25% at 80% all units would count but, again, as this is more restrictive than the statutory minimum the State would be looking for the developer to agree the more restrictive formula is not unduly restrictive. Mr. Tye said National Development would like the town's preference to match one of the State's options. Mr. Jennings noted that although the developer has stated they intend to construct rental units the State will not allow the developer to put that in writing because it would render the 40R ineligible. Mr. Jennings said a number of other towns have been caught by this and it comes down to a matter of good faith between the developer and the town. BB asked what happens if in 10 years a different developer wants to sell the units. Mr. Jennings said there is a statute requiring any new construction affordable units must remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years. NS asked if the town would have to pay back the incentive bonus if they pass the 40R zoning but condominiums are built instead. Mr. Jennings said the bonus would not have to be paid back because the zoning - whether regular or 40R - cannot prescribe the form of ownership (i.e. rental or owned). Therefore, whether the units are condos or rentals, the town will receive both the incentive payment and the bonus per-unit payments. Alternate Building Layouts: BB noted these alternatives would intrude upon the 100 foot "no build" setback. Mr. Tye agreed but suggested the landscape buffer could be increased to compensate. DT noted the town s trying to discourage placing parking in front of buildings. Ms. Theresa Petrillo of 329 South Street asked if the setback and buffer changes to allow for the alternate layouts would have to be integrated into the dimensional controls. The Board said they Page 7 of 9 would: the Business C dimensional controls would have to be amended. The alternate layouts are for buildings in both the 40R and non-40R zones but the setbacks and buffers are based on the underlying Business C zoning. Public Comments Mr. Jim Doherty of 76 Curtis St. Mr. Doherty asked: • Why that particular shape for the 40R zone. It looks gerrymandered. ➢ Mr. Weiss said that is how they could make 10 acres fit. Some of the land is wetlands and can't be used. If another 40R was proposed elsewhere in town, would it use this bylaw? BB said no, it would have to go through its own 40R process. Mr. Tye added the State would have to approve the application ahead of time. Does the State have enough money for this program? He heard it did not. ➢ Mr. Connery said the $350,000.00 incentive payment is fairly secure but he agreed the later bonus payments of $3,000.00 per unit built may not be. Mr. Jennings said that as of tonight, there is not enough money available for the State to pay both the incentive payment and the unit bonuses. However, back in July a letter was presented to the State Legislature asking that $15 Million be transferred from another program to the 40R program and the State Legislature has said they are behind the transfer - but Legislature has not approved the transfer yet. Mr. Connery pointed out that the money from the State is a one-time bonus only and the project itself will generate about $400,000.00 on its own for the town each year. Mr. Doherty commented that he prefers the buildings pushed far from the property line as in the original proposal. He did not want them closer. Ms.Theresa Petrillo of 329 South Street. Ms. Petrillo said the notice for tonight's zoning workshop did not specify public comment would be taken so she had told many who prefer the alternate layouts not to bother to come to tonight's meeting. The Board apologized for any confusion but there was no intention to restrict public comment. Zoning Workshops are held to openly discuss zoning matters. The Board assured Ms. Petrillo that public comment would be taken at the public hearing on 10/22/07 for the zoning changes discussed tonight. Mr. George Katsoufis of 9 Berkely Street (CPDC Associate Member). Why doesn't the bylaw use FAR [Floor Area Ratio]? Mr. Jennings said because the OR application refers to number of units per acre the F.A.R. would have to be set high enough so as not to impinge on this number and that may be higher than the town might like to see. Mr. Katsoufis added: • Reducing the parking requirements or indexing them to the number of bedrooms rather than units. Page 8 of 9 • Allowing no uninterrupted length of any fagade to exceed either a) 40% of the fagade's total length, or b) a to be determined number of living-unit lengths along the facade. The consensus of the Board was the bylaws as written were substantial enough for the process to continue. Mr. Jennings said he would update the bylaws with the changes discussed tonight and have a completed copy ready to be submitted to the Town Clerk by this Friday, October 5, 2007. JS noted the Board would be addressing public hearings for three zoning bylaws at the 10/22/07 meeting: • 40R Smart Growth District • Business C changes • Definitions for Accessory Buildings, Accessory Garages, and Lot Coverage. JS moved to adjourn. DT seconded. Voted Approved: 4:0:0. The meeting ended at 10:10 PM. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on October 15, 2007; the minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on October 15, 2007. Signed as approved, u off--X0 David Tuttle, Secretary Date Page 9 of 9