Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-26 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes Town of Reading Meeting Minutes g°�. W N . - : R K P, A A. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2018 MAY —S AM 7. 3 d Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2018703726 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: -Selectmen-Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session Purpose: General Business Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Acting Chair Dave Tuttle, Rachel Hitch, Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not Present: Nick Safina, John Weston, Karen Goncalves-Dolan Others Present: Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Planning Assistant Andrew'.MacNichol, Stefan Zelich, Caroline Gauthier, Virginia Adams, Pamela Adrian, Jonathan Barnes Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Acting Chairman David Tuttle called the meeting to order'at 7:34 p.m. Modification to 4011 Plan Approval, Waiver from Section,10.5.7 26 Haven Street (30 Haven), Reading Foot & Ankle Specialists, PC Caroline Gauthier and Stephen Zelich were present on behalf of the Application. Ms. Caroline.Gauthier, owner of Reading Foot & Ankle Specialists, PC, explained that she is seeking a waiver for 26 Haven Street that would allow office uses to occupy more than 33% of the total gross floor area of the ground-floor of the building. She is specifically interested in moving into Suite 50. At her last meeting with the Commission, she was asked to prepare. a floor plan showing the design of the suite and the locations of the doors.. Ms. Gauthier - presented the floor plan and said she anticipates that her patrons.will park on Haven-Street or in the parking lot at the-rear of the building. If they park in the rear, there is an entrance with ADA access that leads to a common hallway with an access door to the suite. If they park on Haven Street, they have a choice between utilizing a door that enters directly into the suite, or a door that leads to the common hallway. Ms. Gauthier noted that she would prefer for the door that goes directly, into the suite from Haven Street to be 'exit only' and used just for emergencies. If it is used as an entrance, she will have to add'a half wall in the waiting area to block the draft; which will eat.into the space she has for seating. The intent is to have 4 treatment rooms and 16 chairs; the half- wall will.result in three fewer chairs. Ms. Gauthier pointed out the office, storage, utility area and ADA restroom that will be designed within the suite. Mr. Tuttle asked if her preference is to have the main entrance into the suite off of the common hallway. Ms. Gauthier responded in the affirmative, and noted that it will help Page 1 1 control the flow as well as the draft. Her patients are primarily younger and older people who need to be driven to their appointments; the waiting.area has the potential to,get full. Mr. D'Arezzo asked about the proposed window treatments. Ms.,Gauthier replied that the waiting area does not need to be HIPAA compliant and can remain visible: The billing office needs to be obscured and is proposed to have a dark band across the windows..She-added that the window treatments will also help block heat from coming through the glass, as the building faces south and gets hot. M's..Hitch noted that the dark band is similar to what the Karate Studio at 46 Haven Street installed on their windows. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the Applicant would be held to this specific floor plan. Community Development Director Julie Mercier explained that the Commission will approve specifics regarding the doors and window treatments, but that the layout can be modified if required. Ms. Hitch asked about signage. Ms. Gauthier said the existing Zinga sign will be changed. Ms. Mercier noted that there is a Master Signage Plan for the building. Ms. Hitch asked how .people will know what door to utilize if the sign is over the door the Applicant is requesting to be.dedicated for emergency use only. Ms. Gauthier stated that they will install a small sign directing people to use the other door. Ms. Gauthier.confirmed that the door at the rear of the suite will be used by staff only. Mr. Tuttle noted the placeholders in-the Decision for conditions regarding the front door and window treatments. He suggested allowing the billing office windows to be covered the minimum amount required to meet HIPAA requirements. Ms. Hitch.agreed as long as the window treatment is not fully opaque. Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios suggested that the plan be reviewed by the Community Development Director. After a discussion about the front door; the Commission agreed that that it can be used as an emergency exit only as long as the interior hallway entrance door is closer to Haven Street than to the rear in order to activate the front of the building as much as possible. Ms. Mercier confirmed that the waiver is for the whole building. Ms. Hitch asked if the Commission can do anything about the Pediatric Dental Associates window treatment since the waiver request is for the whole building. Ms. Mercier explained that PDA did not trip the waiver requirements, and that the Commission reviewed the window treatments before they were installed. , The Commission reviewed the draft Decision. Mr. Tuttle suggested rounding the percentage allowed for office use up to 40% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to approve the Modification-to the 40R Plan Approval for 26 Haven Street(30 Haven). The motion.was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 3-0- 0 vote. Minor Amendment. PUD Special Permit Johnson Woods, O. Bradley Latham on behalf of Ted_Moore No one was present on behalf of the Application. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to continue the Minor Amendment for the PUD Special Permit for Johnson Woods to May 7, 2018. at 7:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Topics Discussion of 40R Design Guidelines Ms. Mercier explained that based on comments from the Commission at the last meeting the maps have been modified but are not finalized. Planning Assistant Andrew MacNichol went through the map updates. He informed the Commission there is not a lot of data on heights of existing buildings, but he is working on getting the,correct_heights. Ms. Mercier said the heights in recent Decisions are,based on how the bylaw defines height. Mr. Tuttle requested that buildings recently approved be indicated on the map as approved, but not yet built. Page 1 2 • v Mr. Tuttle suggested the discussion-be continued when more of the Commission is present. Mr. D'Arezzo asked what the goal of modifying the guidelines is. Ms. Mercier replied that it is her understanding one goal is to address adjacencies within the district and where the district abuts neighborhoods of different character. Mr. Tuttle added that it is to consider guidelines that are more sensitive to non-conforming properties. Ms. Hitch commented that the guidelines will put protections in place for residents without being overly restrictive of development potential. She asked if the Commission had a vision for the end result. Mr. Tuttle opined that the vision should be to hold off or delay,additional development at least in the short term to see how the recently approved projects change the Town. He added that additional projects need to be slow rolled,-so that the Commission can understand what is there, what is approved, and what is in the works. Mr. D'Arezzo responded that the Design Guidelines should not slow roll projects, but instead mitigate - their negative impacts. Ms. Mercier added that the Town cannot control the pace of private land transfer or development but can control what development looks like. Ms. Delios said that the.goal is to balance economic development and manage growth in the downtown area. Ms. Hitch agreed with Mr. D'Arezzo that developments should not have negative impacts on existing neighborhoods. Mr. Tuttle opened the discussion to public comment. Mr. Jonathan Barnes of 41 Pratt Street said that one reason more specific guidelines were proposed is because the abutters to the 24 Gould Street project expressed concerns with how the project impacted them. He pointed out Section 10.5 of the Zoning Bylaw where it states the criteria for plan approval and denial, and suggested that the Commission define the term "adverse potential impacts" in a way that is legally defensible. Ms. Hitch responded that the Commission needs something to point to that helps define what is allowedand what the limits are. She mentioned the Chapin Avenue project.. Mr. Tuttle commented that he struggles when a proposed development takes advantage of an opportunity that is within the bounds of what is allowed, but that might not be the best fit for the neighborhood. Mr. Barnes commented that it depends on who/what the neighbor is, but that a new project that is different.in kind and substance gives the Commission leverage to push back. Mr. Tuttle replied that the Commission does this when appropriate. Mr. Barnes agreed, but urged the Commission to add substance to the guidelines.so that they are legally.sufficient. He added that the current bylaw is too broad. Mr. Tuttle suggested that the proposed 'transitional areas' language for April 2018 Town Meeting may work in the Downtown Smart Growth District. Mr. D'Arezzo disagreed and.said the transitional areas are between different zones, but that the Design Guidelines need to address adjacencies within the same zone. Ms. Mercier noted that some of the `transitional areas'.ideas might have merit and work on the edges of the DSGD. Ms. Mercier reminded the Commission of their,original discussion about a "standard"site. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that there are many parameters to consider. Ms. Delios reminded the Commission not to forget theunderlying Business B zoning. Ms. Hitch stated the factors are daunting, and asked if the Commission can begin to break it downinto smaller sections for consideration. Mr. D'Arezzo asked the audience what regulations they would want if a "box"were proposed next to their home, in order to mitigate impacts. Ms. Pamela Adrian of 87 Ash Street listed the following: the setback would be important if the abutter is.a dwelling; the mass should be proportionate to the area;and a collaborative effort should be encouraged - similar to how the 24 Gould Street developer worked with the. neighborhood. She noted that it is hard to codify exactly what the''box"should look like. Mr. Barnes agreed that setbacks, mass and height.are important, but disagreed with Ms. Adrian's-comment that the Design Guidelines do not allow the Town to dictate architectural Page i 3 style. He cited DHCD's Exterior Building Appearance section about limiting architectural styles - which is relevant to historic buildings, and suggested that municipalities do have a little bit of latitude to direct architectural styles that abut a neighborhood. Ms. Hitch said the style and design should fit into the neighborhood, but cautioned not to constrain the architecture because there is no way of knowing what trends will remain. Mr. Barnes agreed with Ms. Hitch. He suggested that the existing Business B zoning could be changed to add constraints in this area. Ms. Delios noted that none of the zoning work that has been done by the Town over recent years has changed the underlying zoning district boundaries; the language was updated but changing the zoning boundaries would be a big challenge. Ms. Adams of 59 Azalea Circle noted that the conversation on Design Guidelines has been on the Commission's agenda three times, and asked why there has been nothing drafted that can be reviewed. She added that guidelines are a living document and can be changed. Mr. Tuttle responded that the discussion has been on amending or expanding the Design Guidelines document; the document is established and being followed. Ms. Mercier noted that the thinking has evolved over the past few discussions - from the idea of sub-districts to working within the existing Design Guidelines with 'if-then'statements. She said that the Commission should start looking at the language, but that it has been difficult to know where or how to start. Mr. Barnes suggested looking at other communities with Downtown Smart Growth Districts. Mr. MacNichol responded that looked at other communities, but found nothing comparable. Ms. Hitch suggested looking back further to other communities that have evolved nicely. She pointed out Natick as an example of a walkable town that has become commercial, but has kept its historic character. Mr. Tuttle noted that Chapter 40R is fairly new and Reading is on the forefront. He agreed that other communities should be explored. Ms. Mercier commented that she reached out to DHCD for feedback on the `if-then' concept, and was given the impression that it is new territory for them. It seems that most towns either adopt sub-districts or have one set of guidelines. Ms. Delios noted there are only a handful of communities with a Chapter 40R district in the downtown. Mr. MacNichol commented there are few communities with sub-districts. Ms. Adams said she is anxious to see progress. Ms. Mercier said she will start drafting language with visuals. The discussion will be on the agenda on April 9th and May 7th. Ms.'Hitch suggested delegating work to Commission members at an upcoming meeting. CPDC Minutes 2/12/18 Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to approve the February 12, 2018 minutes. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Other Topics Ms. Hitch asked for clarification on the Perfecto's sign issue that was mentioned in previous minutes. Ms. Delios explained that the sign was nailed to a light pole, and that the Building Inspector asked for it to be removed. The "grand opening" banners were removed as well. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:39 PM, The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda 3/26/18 CPDC Minutes 2/12/18 Johnson Woods — Continuance Request 30 Haven Street- Waiver Request a) Letter of Request b) Floor Layout c) First Floor Plan —Tenant Fit-out d) Draft Decision - 3/26/18 40R Design Guidelines - Revised.Maps Page 1 4