Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-22 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesoNoFRF: �C Town of Reading e Meeting Minutes RK TOWN CLE nos39trnrcon4°� i t � i"� %,i ! i`�a � . �'�� �a . Bard - Committee - Commission - Council: Community.Planning and Development Commission 2016 MAR 14 PM 1-: 48 Date: 2018-01-22 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Read ing.Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session Purpose: General Business Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Chair Nick Safina, John Weston, Dave Tuttle, Rachel Hitch Tony D'Arezzo, Associate Members - Not Present: Karen Goncalves-Dolan Others Present:. Assistant Town. Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie, Mercier, Ed Sartell, Donnie Garrity, Lenny Polonski, Brad Latham, Jill Mayberry, Walter Michaud, Ken Muise, Ken Charest, Michele Urann Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Public Hearing, Zoning Bylaw Amendments for April 2018 Town Meetina Section 6.0: Intensity Regulations Mr. Weston read the legal notice into the record. Community Development Director Julie Mercier pointed out the changes that were made since the last meeting. The suggestions from the Commission members were incorporated including modifying Section 6.2.3.1 to be less specific. Mr. Tuttle commented on Sections 6.4.1.2, 6.4.1.3 and 6.4.1.4 of the Zoning Bylaw. He gave his opinion the language wasrepetitive and asked if there was an editorial way to state it once and have the conditions as subtitles. Ms. Mercier asked if the redundancy was in the opening paragraph. After a brief discussion, a minor grammatical change was made. Mr. Weston questioned the buffer requirement for lots across the street from a residential property. He explained that the .wording requires a 12' deep buffer with a 6' tall fence and a 3' high evergreen hedge onthe industrial side of the fence, and pointed out that it would block sight lines. He questioned whether this is what the Commission really intends. Mr. Safina clarified that it would apply to any use within the Industrial District. Ms. Mercier agreed that the wording does not make sense. Mr. Tuttle asked where the Intensity Regulation change originated. Ms. Mercier explained that the setback requirements in the Industrial District are limiting the ability for new or Page i 1 expanded growth in that area. Originally, the Commission suggested looking at the whole bylaw rather than just the height and setback requirements. She suggested further review of the buffer requirements. Mr: Weston pointed out language that needs editing. Mr. Tuttle suggested using this section to define transitional areas and adding language requiring Site Plan Review. Mr. Safina proposed adding "a buffer is required at the discretion of,CPDC". Mr. Tuttle suggested having a bulleted listed of potential requirements for the Commission to .review. Ms. Hitch recommended that the buffer strip have a minimum depth and visual screen. Mr. Safina added "with landscaping, fencing and other structures as determined by the CPDC". Ms. Delios pointed to the Landscape Standards Section. Mr. Safina responded that landscaping does not necessarily result.in a buffer. Ms. Mercier requested feedback on Section 6.4.1.3. Mr: Weston said the way the language reads a building that is adjacent to residential would require all sides to be stepped back. Ms. Hitch commented this would create pyramidal buildings. Mr. Weston proposed adding stepping back the side that is adjacent to the residential district. Mr. Safina pointed out that an industrial building could have a 25' tall first story with no setback requirements, and Ms. Mercier agreed that the term "story" would need to be defined if used. Ms. Hitch suggested not using the word "story"'. Mr. Safina suggested that a building could have an angle or envelope it would have to meet similar to what is required by the DSGD Design Guidelines. Ms. Mercier agreed the section is not as clear as it should be. She clarified that the prior 150' setback is now proposed as a 50' setback, and asked If a 50' setback is enough when sharing a lot line with a residential abutter. She asked if requiring the building to be stepped back to reduce the massing is a good strategy. Mr. Weston opined that the angle line as used in the DSGD Design Guidelines will help minimize the massing that is imposed on a residential property. Ms. Mercier asked for feedback on the angle required for this area. Mr. D'Arezzo suggested having a minimum distance away from the property line. He gave an example to clarify his suggestion. Mr. Safina pointed out that this suggestion is similar to requiring the building to be angled. Mr. Weston commented that the Commission is trying to allow flexibility to fill in an area without encroaching further than -what is allowed today. Ms. Mercier agreed that the ratio would end up the same. Mr. Tuttle asked if the Commission is creating a problem because of conflicts with PUD -I constraints. He suggested making everything subject to Site Plan Review to allow flexibility. Mr. Weston said that the specific regulation under discussion only applies to an industrial area that is adjacent to residential. Mr. Safina said some regulations will need to remain so the Commission has some regulatory authority to protect abutting properties. Mr. Safina opened the hearing to public comment. Mr. Ed Sartell of Sartell Electrical, 236 Ash Street, noted that his industrial property abuts other industrial properties. He. clarified that the setback can be as little as zero feet from the property linea Ms. Mercier replied in the affirmative as long as certain conditions are met. Mr. Tuttle noted that the word "except" should be removed from the paragraph in the Table. Mr. Sartell asked about the process going forward. Mr. Tuttle requested to review the changes that were made tonight. Ms. Delios and Ms. Mercier explained the process. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Public Hearing for the Zoning Bylaw Amendments to February 12, 2018 at 7:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Ms. Delios explained due to time constraints, staff will forward the draft Zoning Bylaw Amendments to.Town Counsel for feedback before the next CPDC meeting. Page 1 2 Minor Amendment, PUD Special Permit . Johnson Woods, O. Bradley Latham on behalf of Ted Moore Attorney Brad Latham was present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina read the request from Attorney Brad Latham, on behalf of the Applicant Ted Moore, to continue the Minor Amendment to the PUD Special Permit for Johnson Woods to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Minor Amendment to the PUD Special Permit for Johnson Woods to February 12, 2018 at 8:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote (Mr. D'Arezzo recused himself). Continued Public Hearing, 40111 Plan Review 14 Chapin Avenue, Leonard Polonski Leonard Polonski, Donnie Garrity and Brad Latham were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Garrity of O'Sullivan Architects described the changes to the proposed. plans: • Reduced unit count from 4 to 3 with favorable opinion from the State as the proposal still meets the minimum density requirement under Chapter 40R; • Density is now —21 units per acre; Building footprint reduced by 7' in width, and overall square footage_ reduced by 1,800 square feet; • FAR for project reduced to 1.44; • Tandem parking has been eliminated and each unit has two side-by-side spaces; • Driveway widened to improve maneuverability; • Building shifted to 24' from the residential side property line; • Two visitor parking spaces provided at the end of driveway; • Parking ratio increased to 2.67 per unit; • Private balconies provided on west and north sides of building; • Building fagade treatment broken up as 2/3 / 1/3 rather than repetitious townhouse arrangement; • Dormers removed from side of building facing residential; and • Brick masonry proposed on Chapin Ave side and at ground level, with a mix of fiber cement, lap siding, shingles and trim details on the sides and rear of the building. Mr. Tuttle opined that the proposal is an excellent alternative. Mr. D'Arezzo asked how the height of the building was calculated. Mr. Garrity replied that it was based on the average grade of the lot. Mr. D'Arezzo clarified that it is supposed to start from the average grade around the building perimeter. 'Mr. Garrity agreed to confirm this. He added that the roof pitch can be reduced if needed to meet the height requirement. Mr. D'Arezzo questioned why the height measurements donot include the mid -point of the dormers. Mr. Safina replied that the Bylaw does not require dormers to be included in the height calculation. He added that perhaps a full shed dormer would be included, but not individual dormers as proposed. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that the dormers change the building height if you look at their midpoints. Ms. Mercier read the Zoning Bylaw definition of height. Mr. Safina reiterated that it does not include the dormers. Mr. Safina noted the challenges in applying the Design Standards to the proposal. He questioned the Architect's use of brick on the Chapin Street fagade, noting that the end of the building needs to address the street and the surrounding residential neighborhood. He asked what happened to the wrap-around porch that was shown on earlier plans. He pointed out that the entrance leads into the mechanical space, and noted the opportunity for this unit to have a Chapin Avenue address, street entrance and farmer's porch. Mr. Safina also questioned whether the exclusive porch off the back end unit would alienate other residents from using the common backyard. He stated that the snow storage should Page 1 3 be proposed on a. grassed area, such as the exclusive use area at the back of the lot. He commented that the proposal essentially allows for 3 -bedroom units. Mr. Weston pointed out that there are only 6' between the building fagade and western property line, and that the stairs will restrict the width of the walkway so it might not really be usable. He asked whether the walkway is necessary as a second means of egress. Mr. ,Garrity explained the location of the second means of egress from each unit. Mr. Safina suggested that the stairs off the back end unit be relocated so they do not lead people into the snow storage area. Mr. Safina asked if the whole building could be moved to the north to maintain a larger landscape area at the front along Chapin Avenue. Mr. Garrity confirmed that the building could be shifted. Mr. Safina opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Jill Mayberry of 16 Chapin Avenue submitted the latest letter from the neighbors. They acknowledge that some positive changes have been made but are still opposed to a 4 -story 3 -unit structure and have the following comments: • Structure should be reduced to three floors and 2 -units; • Elimination of the fourth floor will help alleviate parking issues; • Units have potential for 10 residents each. Mr. Safina stated that this calculation is exaggerated and that the units could potentially hold six people each. • Visitor parking spaces are far from the units, which poses safety and visibility concerns for residents who are carrying things, for elders or for disabled people; • Proposed 24' driveway width will be difficult for last unit especially if there is snow in the snow storage area. Mr. Safina replied that the snow will be plowed onto the grassed area, and he asked the Applicant to reflect this change on the next plan revision. Ms. Mayberry asked how.the snow will be removed so the visitor parking spaces remain open. Mr. Latham explained how the snow will be removed from the visitor parking spaces. She noted that an updated drainage plan was not provided. and expressed concern about the slope of the driveway and the flow of melting snow. She stated that a bond is needed from the builder to cover root system damage, and noted that her arborist recommended seven growing seasons. Mr. Safina asked if this request . could be enforced by the Town. Mr. Latham stated that the Applicant is an arborist and any damage between properties is a civil liability not an issue that falls under CPDC purview. Ms. Mercier agreed to remove the condition from the Decision. Ms. Mayberry asked whether there will be a property manager to ensure the pervious pavement is maintained per the specifications. Mr. Latham replied that the condominium documents will have language regarding the management of the pervious pavement. The owners have a reason to maintain their property. Ms. Mercier noted that such language is required per a condition in the Decision. Ms. Hitch read the condition out loud. She expressed concern that the garages do not show a drainage system for water dripping from the HVAC systems. Mr. Safina asked if the water she refers to is condensation. She said yes. He explained that the building is not commercial or a laboratory, and that a small drip of water is more likely than a heavy flow. Mr. Garrity said the proposal is for mini -split AC. Mr. Safina explained that these plans are not construction documents, but that all . mechanical systems will have to meet Building Code requirements for a Building Permit. She noted that there is no information on light spillover and no photometric plan. Mr. Garrity explained that the proposal is for exterior recessed fixtures and down -lights. There will be no spotlights, only surface -mounted fixtures where required for safety. Mr. Safina Page 14 stated that there will be no spillover from the: recessed can lights, which shine straight down. If a light is over a door, a shielded fixture will be required. Mr. Weston said there is language in the Decision regarding lighting. Mr. Safina commented that since lighting is not being proposed above the first level, a photometric plan is not really necessary. Ms. Mayberry opined that. parking garages should be used for parking and not storage, and asked for language requiring this. Mr. Safina responded that this is not something the Commission can control, but noted that tenants will have extra parking parallel to their garage doors if the site is managed well. Ms. Mayberry asked whether hours of trash pickup could be restricted. She noted that the businesses on Main Street have their trash picked up at 5:00 AM. Mr. Safina agreed there are businesses that have trash removed earlier than allowed. Ms. Hitch asked why a 3 -unit development would need a private hauler rather than utilizing the Town system.. Mr. Garrity replied that he thought the Town requested a private trash hauler during a DRT meeting. Ms. Mercier reviewed her notes and stated that no staff preference was indicated. Mr. Weston said that this same issue was discussed during the Pierce Street development. Mr. D'Arezzo said that he thought the Town covers trash pickups from condominiums. Mr. Tuttle opined that 3 units will not be a burden for the Town. Mr. Weston commented that trash removal for 3 units would be similar to what happens allover Town. Mr. D'Arezzo said the 4 -unit condominium on the corner of Green and Elliott streets has trash picked up by the Town. A resident opined that there will be 2 trash barrels with a recycle bin for each unit. Ms. Mayberry said there will be space on the sidewalk for the trash barrels. Mr. Latham said the Applicant will find out the Town's policy. Ms. Mercier_ said the Applicant can verify this with the Town and the Decision can be updated. Ms. Mayberry asked where the construction vehicles will park during construction. She noted that Ordway Terrace is a private way. Mr. Delios replied that the Town requires a pre - construction meeting during which this concern will be discussed. Ms. Mayberry noted that she would like the fence between her property and the project to be wood and not the vinyl wood -like finish. She stated that the wood fence Mr. Polonski installed 30 years ago is still standing and in good condition. She also asked whether a fence would be required at the rear of the property. Mr. Garrity said a fence is not currently' proposed. Mr. Safina said the abutters and developer can work out the fencing along each property line. He suggested the Applicant take the initiative and contact the owners who abut the rear of the property. Mr.. Ken Charest of 17 Elliott Street said the plan proposes snow storage and not snow removal. Mr. Tuttle said that if the snow is stored on site, th,e snow will be on the grassed area. If there is a substantial amount of snow, it would need to be removed. Mr. Ken Muise of 28 Chapin Avenue commented that if there are three licensed adults in each unit, there could be the potential for nine vehicles on the property, yet there are. only 8 parking spaces. The residents will .be able to buy Town stickers and park on Chapin Avenue. The employees from Mission of Deeds and the Chronicle currently park on Chapin Avenue.. His issue is with congestion and safety. Ms. Mayberry added that parking is difficult and is exacerbated when there are snow piles. She provided a recent scenario in which a fire truck. had to back up the street. Mr. Safina said the condominium document language should address this concern.'Mr. Weston added that people will have to live within their parking needs. Mr. Tuttle recommended the residents attend the upcoming Board of Selectmen meeting on downtown parking. Ms. Mayberry asked if there will be a property manager. Mr. Latham responded this is still under discussion, but that there probably will be until the units are sold and then the Page 1 5 owners will decide how to manage their own property. Mr. Latham noted that typically 4 units is the trigger for a property manager. Mr. D'Arezzo further explained that future owners will decide who will plow and maintain the property. Ms. Mayberry expressed concern about who will maintain the pervious pavement. Mr. Safina said pervious pavement has been utilized in Town on other developments. Mr. Charest asked why the proposal cannot be for a 2 -unit dwelling. Mr. Safina explained that a 2 -units building is not allowed under 40R zoning; the Applicant had to receive approval from the State. to propose the'3-unit building because the definition of multi -family is 4 units or more. Ms. Mercier and Mr. Weston further explained that redevelopment of the property is more or less limited to commercial under Business B or multi -family under 40R. Ms. Mayberry asked why the building needs to be so high. Mr. Safina replied that the building is not as high as is allowed under single-family zoning. He noted that her property is zoned for A-40 which is peculiar as it allows for a larger development given the limited lot sizes in the area. The Commission discussed when the A-40 zoning was adopted. Ms. Delios said it could have been adopted in 1978. Mr. D'Arezzo said that he believes the goal was to encourage consolidation of the smaller lots. A resident asked if there could be a waiver granted to go from 3 -units to 2 -units. Ms. Mercier and Mr. Weston explained that the State would- likely not approve such a waiver as it would reduce the overall project density to less than the required 20 units per acre. Mr. Tuttle made,a motion to continue the public hearing to February 12, 2018 at 9:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing, 40R Plan Review 467 Main Street (former Sunoco station), Boghos Properties LLC There was no one present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina read the continuance request into the record. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing for the 40R Plan Review for 467 Main. Street to February 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with. a 5-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Topics Ms. Mercier said Perfecto's is planning to open in February. -Mr. Tuttle said he has noticed ongoing safety enforcement at Bagel World. S Ms. Mercier reminded the Commission that the Board of Selectmen will be hearing a presentation on the Housing Production Plan, Wayfinding/Branding and Downtown Parking at their January 23, 2018 meeting. Mr: Safina opined that 40B and 40R developments should not be allowed to purchase residential parking stickers from the Town if they do not provide enough parking on-site or provide overflow parking. Ms: Mercier added that none of the approved 40R developments to date have needed a waiver for parking. The Commission discussed whether -Mr. Safina's restriction could be enforced. Mr. Tuttle asked if the compost and depot parking sticker is still purchased as one sticker. Mr. Safina said the stickers can be purchased separately. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda 1/22/18 Page 1 6 Johnson Woods - Continuance Request 467 Main Street - Continuance Request Public Hearing, ZBL Amendments for April 2018 Town Meeting a) Legal Notice b) Section 6.0: Intensity Regulations 14 Chapin Avenue 40R Plan Review a) Memo to Community Development Director b) Waiver Request - 1/9/18 c) Revised Plans - 1/8/18 d) Email from Town Engineer - 1/11/18 e) Letter from Residents - 1/18/18 f) Draft Decision - 1/22/18 Page 1 7