Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-02-26 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes o N�FR�O',. � Town of Reading ^ � Meeting Minutes _C E i E D . . RF TOWN C! I= RK 639+7NCOR4�� 1\E.A D, Z ill G S M A Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning;and Development Commission 2018:APR 10 AM 10: 08 Date: 2018-02-26 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: Chair Nick Safina, John Weston, Dave Tuttle, Karen GoncaIves-Dolan, Rachel' Hitch Tony D'Arezzo, Associate Members - Not Present: Others Present: Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie Mercier, .Planning Assistant Andrew MacNichol, Ann DiCicco, Paige Lewin, Larry Healey, Kelly Cordan, Caroline Gauthier, Leonidas Villaneuva, Stefan Zelich, Jen Driscoll, William Crowely, John Russell, Cynthia Hanson, David Jamieson, Chuck Salemi, Pamela Adrian, Harry Hanna, Beth Mosier, Jonathan Barnes Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:31 p..m. i Sian Permit Application 59 High Street, Tess &Ted Interior Decorating Ann DiCicco and Paige Lewin were present on behalf of the Application. Community Development Director Julie Mercier informed the Commission that the proposed sign at 5.9 High Street meets the regulations. . Ms. Paige Lewin, owner of Tess &Ted Interior Decorating, said she is currently renting space from Our House Design and Build at 59 High Street. She is requesting 'a sign to help people identify the separate entrance to her business. Mr. Tuttle asked about the history of the chain link fence on the side and rear of the property. Ms. Lewin responded that the fence was there when she moved in, and that it might belong to the owner of the parking lot. Mr. Safina stated that the Applicant is proposing one non-illuminated sign. He complimented the sign design and asked if there is an existing light on the side of the building. Ms. Lewin confirmed that there is a light by the entrance of the business. Page 1 1 Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Tess & Ted Interior Decorating at 59 High Street. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Arezzo and approved with a 5-0-0 vote (Ms. Hitch not present). Planning Updates Mr. Tuttle asked the status of the proposed 40B on Lakeview Avenue. Ms. Mercier replied that the Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled to open the hearing on March 7th. Mr. D'Arezzo commented that the abutters will be presenting to the Board of Selectmen on February 27th. Ms. Hitch joined the meeting at 7:36 PM. Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios updated the Commission on her recent conversation with Nelson/Nygaard Consulting regarding downtown parking. Ms. Delios said Town staff will collect the data, and depending on the cost will hire a consultant to help re-think downtown parking. Discussion of 40R Sub-District Guidelines - Initial Thoughts The Commission started a discussion on the 40R Sub-District Design Guidelines.and paused it when the next agenda item was scheduled to be heard. The discussion was continued at the end of the meeting. Mr. Safina gave an overview of the document he prepared with his initial thoughts. The first site he chose to focus on is a large development comprised of three parcels on Green, Washington, High and Ash streets. He noted that his input is not,based on an in-depth investigation but represents the big picture. Mr. Safina pointed out the following characteristics of the Green/Washington/High/Ash area: - There is a grade drop from north to south, which could allow parking under; - There is an opportunity for green space; - The property is 40 units per acre on average, which is about right for the area; and - It is one development with one owner across three parcels. The Commission then discussed ideas for a second area between Green and Gould Streets. Mr. Safina noted that input from the Historical Commission will be needed regarding the implications of any historical regulations in this area. He opined that development along Green Street should be residential only, with'mixed-use along Gould. Ms. Hitch opined that the areas along Washington and High would be perfect for walkable commercial, given the proximity to the MBTA, and that the commercial could potentially extend further down the block. She warned not to limit the area to residential only. Mr. Safina noted that parking would be a challenge. Ms. Mercier agreed with Ms. Hitch, and said that the northern section on Green Street is a more appropriate area to limit to residential. Mr. Tuttle suggested that 3D images that capture changes in the grade and topography would be helpful to the discussion. Mr. Safina commented that it is not known how properties might be combined for redevelopment. He added that there are potential opportunities on High Street for store fronts with outdoor seating. Mr. Tuttle commented that the Rite Aid building could become a supermarket, which would fill,a need downtown. Mr. Weston said he is hesitant to look at this as sub-districts because it will create lines and boundaries, which may or may not reflect the reality of redevelopment. He recommended thinking about the nature of the neighborhoods and what the Commission wants the edges to be. Mr. Safina expressed concern with the mechanics of this under Chapter 40R. Ms. Mercier responded that she asked the State about sub-districts versus if-then statements in the Design Guidelines. Creating sub-districts requires Town Meeting approval and there is a Page 1 2 j clear process with the State; having conditional requirements within the Design Guidelines is a more nuanced approach that the State did not seem to have any experience with. Mr. Weston expressed hesitation with locking things in as they are now or creating sub- districts that limit.what a developer can do based on how things are today. He suggested creating Guidelines based on certain parameters. Ms. Mercier agreed and noted that a developer might have difficulty-navigating the regulations for two parcels in different sub- districts. Sub-districts would also require a change to the Zoning Map. Ms. Mercier suggested adding "if-then", conditions to the Guidelines: She commented that the language will have to be precise..Mr._ Weston.noted that if a parcel is adjacent to a historic parcel the.Commission could define what would be allowed. Ms. Hitch added that it could apply even if the historic parcel is not adjacent but is on the same street. Mr. Tuttle commented that the background facts and architecture of the building will.be necessary information to have for any redevelopment. The Commission then discussed the area by Eastern Bank. Mr. Safina commented that it seems unlikely that any other site on Gould Street besides the recently approved 24 Gould Street (former EMARC site) development and the bank can be developed to 40R capacity. He added that the Eastern Bank'site has access off of Haven Street, which could be good for redevelopment depending on the results of a traffic study. Mr. Weston commented that the oil company on Gould Street could be redeveloped under 40R depending on what happens at the bank. Mr. Safina opined that a developer may have trouble sufficiently addressing issues on the oil company site. Mr. Safina noted that the homes to the east of the oil company along Gould Street are small and historic', which may make the area hard to redevelop. He and Ms. Hitch agreed that even though the businesses along High and Green streets are essential and valuable, the storefronts could be improved, and the properties may benefit from more .pedestrian-. oriented businesses in that area. Mr. Tuttle opined that sub-districts likely won't.work in this area, but:that language in the Design Guidelines could. He suggested considering within the Design Guidelines using "absolute elevation" instead of"building height". Ms. Delios reminded the Commission that any changes to the Design Guidelines would-.need DHDC approval. Mr. Safina said that the Commission will hold public hearings and workshops to receive input from the neighbors,, businesses, Historical Commission, Fire Department and other stakeholders. Mr. Weston indicated that utility infrastructure and street width will be key factors of any_ new development. Mr. Safina noted that it will be important to understand the water and sewer capacity in the area..Mr. D'Arezzo asked for clarification on how many new units can be accommodated with the existing water and sewer infrastructure. Mr. Safina noted that the Commission will continue to ask harder questions and take into account the cumulative impacts of developments in the area. He noted that a more detailed traffic analysis will be needed. Mr. Weston commented that a typical traffic analysis,does not work downtown. The discussion on the 40R Sub-Districts was interrupted to proceed with the scheduled agenda. Modifications to an Approved Definitive Subdivision Plan 364 Lowell Street — `Lyle Estates', Jamieson Properties Attorney William Crowley, Thad Berry,, Bob Jamieson and David Jamieson were present on behalf of the Application. Ms. Mercier commented that legally the abutters did not need to be.notified, but that the Town sent them a courtesy notice. Page 1 3 Attorney William Crowley gave an overview of why the Applicant is seeking minor changes to the subdivision plan that was approved last year. As part of the subdivision approval, the Applicant sought and the Commission approved a waiver to allow a 40' wide right-of-way instead of the.:full 60' wide layout. The right-of-way location meant that the existing dwelling at 364 Lowell Street would not meet the required 15' side-yard setback, for which the Applicant would need to seek a Variance from the Zoning Board of`Appeals. Mr. Crowley said that the ZBA was not'favorable to granting the Variance request. Mr. Crowley said that after discussing options with the Town, the Applicant is requesting the 40' wide right-of-way be reduced to 36' which will enable the existing house to meet the side yard setback requirement. No other changes are proposed to the roadway, but the Town Engineer has been clear that the road will not be adopted by the,Town as a public way. The road will remain private and easements will be granted to the Town for water, sewer, drainage, fire and electrical maintenance. Mr. Crowley introduced Mr. Thad Berry, PE and property owner Bob Jamieson and his son David. He reiterated that nothing was changed on the plan except the, location of the right- of-way. Mr. Safina asked for clarification on which setback would be impacted by the shift in the road layout. Mr. Crowley pointed out the new 15.7' side yard setback, 'which complies with the 15' side yard setback requirement. He added that on-street parking will only be allowed on one side of the roadway, and that the Fire Department, DPW and Engineering have approved the 24' wide pavement width and 36' wide roadway layout. Mr. Tuttle opined that the proposed change is a good solution to the problem. Mr. Safina asked if the Town would plow a private roadway. Mr. Berry ,replied that the Town will plow the road and will maintain the water, sewer and electrical utilities. He added that the Town's•stormwater fees will `be used to clean the catch basins, but',noted that all other maintenance of the drainage system will be borne by the Homeowners Association. Ms. Mercier clarified that the drainage easement to the Town will be over the road but will not include the drainage feature on Lot 1. Mr. Berry confirmed this. Mr. Safina asked how the Town can enforce maintenance of the drainage feature on Lot 1. Mr. Berry stated that the Homeowners Association will be responsible. Ms. Mercier noted that the drainage easements on the plan are not adequately-labeled, so it,is not clear to whom the rights therein are being granted. Mr. Berry stated that the drainage easement is intended for the Homeowners Association not for the Town. She noted that this was not clear to the Town Engineer when he reviewed the plans. Ms. Mercier recapped that the Applicant's intention is for the Town to clean the catch basins and the Homeowners Association to manage the drainage features on the private lots. Ms. Goncalves-Dolan asked why the Town would be responsible for maintaining a private way. Mr. Safina explained that the Town still collects taxes from the property but does not want to set a precedent by accepting a road that veers too far from Town standards. Ms. Mercier added that there is very little difference between a private way and a public road, and explained that the main thing the Town will not do is pave a private roadway using Town funds. She explained that Section 8.5.3 of the General Bylaw allows the Town to do ` maintenance on a private roadway, with the cost borne by the abutters. Mr. Safina opened the meeting to public comment. Mr. Chuck Salemi of 374 Lowell Street asked for clarification on which abutters would be responsible for paying for the maintenance of the roadway. Ms. Mercier explained that the direct abutters with rights of access to the roadway would be responsible. Mr. Safina further explained that the abutters are the residents who live on the roadway.', Mr. John Russell of 23 Plymouth Road asked if this is the first time the Town has heard the developer is requesting the roadway to be private. Ms. Mercier replied'that it is the first time Page 1'4 it is being discussed by the Commission. Mr. Russell asked if switching from public to private changes enforcement of the Town's standards and requires new waivers. Mr. Safina replied that the subdivision was already approved with waivers to the Town's standards. Ms. Mercier added that this proposal results in modifications to the waivers that were approved last April, as well as the addition of a couple of new waivers. Mr. Weston suggested reviewing the waivers to help clarify which waivers are changing and which are new. He noted that the two substantive waivers are reducing the right-of-way from 40' to 36', and not providing the 10' tree lawn or easement for such. He explained that the Town will not plant trees on a private way. Mr. Weston explained that the two new waivers relate to details on the.plans for the locus inset and topography. Ms. Mercier noted that these details are standard requirements for subdivision plans and that the prior subdivision approval specified that said details needed to be added to the plans or waived prior to plan endorsement. Mr. Safina asked if the Town Engineer has approved the waivers for the locus inset and topography. Ms. Mercier replied in the affirmative. Mr. Berry explained that the locus would be very difficult to create at the scale specified and that topography on adjacent sites would require access to the MBTA's property. The Commission reviewed the Decision and made changes. Mr. Weston asked how a new owner would know he or she bought a home on a private way and is responsible for paving. Mr. Crowley explained that the seller is required to notify and disclose this information up front to a buyer. Ms. Mercier asked if the Homeowners Association documents will have language about the required maintenance of the drainage features. Mr. Berry confirmed that they will and noted that the Conservation Commission approved similar language requiring this as well. Ms. Goncalves-Dolan asked if the drainage maintenance language that was approved by the Town Engineer should be reviewed by Town Counsel. Mr. Safina and Ms. Mercier agreed that Town Counsel is not required to review language unless it is associated with,an easement, deed or covenant. Mr. Russell asked if a private way would impact the power the Town has to ensure the drainage features will be maintained immediately by the Homeowners Association. Mr. Safina explained that the Conservation Commission has the power to make sure the drainage features are maintained. Mr. Russell questioned whether the Town can demand that maintenance be done if water piles up on Plymouth Road. Mr. Weston replied that the Town has the ability to step in if the Homeowners Association is not addressing the issues. Mr. Berry explained that as part of the Conservation Commission's approval, the developer is going to clean the drainage ditch, pipe and culvert along the property line one time, and that any future maintenance of the said structures will be borne by the Town. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the Modification to the Approved Definitive Subdivision Plan for 364 Lowell Street, as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Minor Amendment, PUD Special Permit Johnson Woods, O. Bradley Latham on behalf of Ted Moore Attorney Brad Latham and Ted Moore were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. D'Arezzo recused himself and left the room. Attorney Bradley Latham introduced the owner of Johnson Woods, Ted Moore. He said that Mr. Moore would like to change the direction and tenor of the previous conversation, and that he acknowledges that certain errors have been.made: the foundation for Building 51 at Page 1 5 r 6-8 White Oaks Lane was not built in the'approved location and the Town issued a Stop Work Order; the parking spaces at the multi-family buildings were not striped as approved and are too narrow. Mr. Moore has agreed to post a $10,000 bond to assure that the parking areas are restriped in accordance with the approved plans by June 1, 2018. Mr. Latham expressed concerns that the building permit for 16 Taylor Drive - the third multi-family building - has been put on hold by the Town until other outstanding issues are addressed. He explained that the contractors,hired for this building will become unavailable if too much more time passes. He asked the"Commission to consider letting construction at 16 Taylor Drive move forward, and he requested that the foundation issue at Building 51 be kept separate issue and discussed at a later date. He explained that Mr. Moore has not been able to work out a solution on the foundation because the interested parties have been out of town. Mr. Latham acknowledged that the Commission requested additional details on the landscaping, which have been provided. The Landscaping Plan submitted provides details of the plants and trees in certain areas on the property, as well as a record of all plants purchased over the past few years. Ms. Mercier interrupted and requested that the Commission not discuss the landscaping materials, as they were only received very late in the day the prior Thursday. She added that she has not had a chance to review them. Mr. Latham commented that at the last meeting he was made aware of a promised garage for 162 Johnson Woods Drive. He was briefed by Mr. Moore and has submitted information regarding the history of the garage and a potential location. He noted,that the information was submitted in the same packet as the landscaping, and agreed to continue discussion to the next meeting to allow time for staff and the Commission to review the materials. Mr. Latham requested that the discussion on the parking spaces proceed tonight. Ms. Mercier informed the Commission she has not had a chance to review the packet since it was submitted late on Thursday, so the draft Decision does not reflect the new information received. Mr. Moore noted that both Ms. Delios and Ms. Mercier have inspected the landscaping at a few different times as the project was developed and were satisfied. Ms. Mercier expressed confusion as to why landscaping is even being discussed. Mr. Weston clarified that the reason the landscaping has become an issue is because outdated plans were submitted that were inconsistent with what was approved, and the Commission asked for comprehensive updated landscaping plan. Mr. Latham agreed that landscaping was never part of the issues at hand. Mr. Weston reiterated that the Commission does not want plans that are outdated. Mr. Safina clarified the correct way to design a landscaping plan, and stated that the Commission does not need to discuss the landscaping. . Mr. Safina requested that the Commission proceed with the parking discussion. Mr. Tuttle asked about the photographs submitted by a resident. Ms. Mercier said they were sent by a resident for consideration after the last meeting, due to a concern that trees might need to be removed and the area regraded to accommodate the two additional parking spaces on the access'road. The Commission reviewed the photos and an aerial and confirmed that trees would not need to be removed to install the parking spaces. Mr.'Weston explained that the plan provided by the project engineer at the last meeting showed less paving than what was actually built, which caused confusion about how much pavement is needed to add two more spaces. In reality only about 4' of additional paving is required to get a total of six parking spaces in that area. Mr. Tuttle said he did a site visit and noted that there is a substantial drop off-if more than 4' is required to add the two parking spaces. Mr. Moore stated that if necessary, pavement can be added to the right side. Mr. Tuttle.commented that keeping up with the old plan versus the as-built is impossible. Mr. Weston agreed and reiterated that the project engineer provided an incomplete plan, which is why the Commission continues to have a problem. Mr. Moore responded that little changes have been made all over the site in response to actual site conditions; he does not Page 16 ' t build from a two dimensional plan. He agreed that the original Hayes plan is not accurate, which could cause minor differences in foundation location. Mr. Safina asked if the Applicant has reviewed the draft Decision. Ms. Hitch questioned Condition 1 of the Decision, which links the building permit for 16 Taylor Drive to the rest of the issues on the site. Ms. Mercier opined that de-linking the issues could result in a loss of leverage for the Commission. She confirmed that the Minor Modification application was for both the parking at the multi-family buildings and the foundation at 6-8.White Oaks Lane. She commented that her notes from the last meeting indicate the Commission wanted to keep the issues linked. Mr. Latham.expressed his concern with Condition 1 of the Decision. He noted that the Applicant is trying to address the parking and has acknowledged the problem with the foundation. He added.that the Commission has leverage on the foundation issue because the building permit for that building will not be issued until the situation is rectified. He opined that the permit for 16 Taylor Drive does not have anything to do.with 6-8 White Oaks Lane. Ms. Mercier said her notes from the last meeting say to withhold all building permits for 16 Taylor Drive until the Minor Modification is closed out. Ms. Delios agreed with this statement. Mr. Weston confirmed Ms. Mercier captured this correctly. Mr. Safina asked if construction is on-going elsewhere on the site, or being concentrated at 16 Taylor Drive. Mr. Moore said the foundation is complete for 16 Taylor Drive. The building permit fee-was submitted in December but installation of the steel has been on hold for two -months. He mentioned an email received in August from the Planning Division with a couple of requests that have been addressed. Ms. Delios clarified the timeframe with the August email and said it was several months before the Applicant submitted the Landscaping Plan. Mr. Weston asked about other construction at the site. Mr. Moore replied that a handful of other buildings on the site are under construction. Mr. Safina questioned why the Commission would need the building permit.at 16 Taylor Drive as leverage, to get other issues on the site rectified; as there are several other buildings under construction that will-eventually need occupancies. He added that construction at 6-8 White Oaks.Lane cannot go forward until a resolution is agreed to on-the foundation. Ms. Mercier explained that she is hesitant to separate the outstanding issues, as she does not-have confidence that the Applicant will address the foundation at 6-8 White Oaks Lane. Mr. Weston opined that these are'separate issues, in separate areas of the site. Mr. Tuttle said that construction at 16 Taylor Drive should continue because of the scale of work involved. Ms. Mercier noted that at the last meeting the Commission agreed to withhold the building permit. She added that she does not want to hold up a productive development, but her concern is the remainder of the issues will not be solved, and she is not certain that the developer cares if he aggrieves people who live at the property. Mr. Safina requested a plan showing all the proposed.modifications in the area by 6-8 White Oaks Lane, including all ripple effects of adjustments to building locations. Mr. Safina asked about the accessory building that was supposed to be demolished but is still on the site. Mr. Moore agreed that removal of the accessory building was part of the original approval. 'After discussion, the Commission agreed to delete Condition 1 of the Decision about the parking at the multi-family buildings. Mr. Safina asked about the contract to restripe the parking lot. Mr. Latham mentioned the bond and said it needs to be approved. Mr. Moore asked about the release of the bond when the parking lot is finished. Ms. Mercier replied that after the parking lot is inspected and is satisfactory, the bond will be released. Mr. Safina opened the meeting for public comment on the parking issue. - Page 7 Ms. Mosher of 30 Taylor Drive expressed her gratitude to the Commission for separating the issues. She agreed that all items need to be addressed, but noted.that the foundation at 16 Taylor Drive is an eyesore. Ms. Mosher asked where the two new parking spaces will be located. Ms. Mercier clarified that the spaces are located by the access road, and that all of the spaces will be restriped to the correct width. Mr. Weston further explained that two surface spaces will be lost when the parking lot is restriped with the correct parking space width. Ms. Mercier explained that all of the documentation under review by the Commission is on the Town website. Mr. Safina asked that the Decisions reference the building number and the address number so that it is easier to match the plans to the documents. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the Minor Amendment for the PUD Special Permit- for the parking issue at the multi-family buildings - for Johnson Woods as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Mr. Latham agreed that the discussion of the foundation at 6-8 White Oaks Lane be held on March 12, 2018 at 7:30 PM. Ms. Maribeth Canning of 162 Johnson Woods Drive, in reference to the draft Decision for the foundation, asked for clarification on the word "feasible" in regards to the location of the promised garage. She noted that the Commission stated at the last meeting that the garage location has to be mutually agreed upon. Mr. Safina explained that the Commission asked the project-engineer to propose options for the Commission to review,' and cautioned that he give consideration to the site grading. He added that the Commission did not tell him to locate it in the front yard. Modification to 40R Plan Approval, Waiver from Section 10.5.7 50 Haven Street, Reading Foot & Ankle Specialists, PC Caroline Gauthier, Jennifer Driscoll, Stefan Zelich and Leo Villaneuva were present on behalf of the Application. Ms. Caroline Gauthier, owner of Reading Foot &Ankle Specialists, PC, introduced members of her team in attendance: Office Manager Jennifer Driscoll, Broker Stefan Zelich, and Leonardis Villanueva of Mansard RE. Ms. Gauthier explained that she is requesting a waiver that would allow office use on the ground floor of the building to exceed 33% of the,total gross floor area of the ground floor. Ms. Gauthier provided a history of the business. The business has been located on Ash Street for over 40 years. She took over the business three years ago and has outgrown the current space. There are currently 5 employees, but she would like to employ two additional people. The space on Ash Street cannot be expanded. Ms. Gauthier said she has been looking for a space that meets the following criteria: ground level,_handicap access, and commuter access. The tenant space at 50 Haven Street meets the criteria. She reiterated that in order to locate in the space, the building needs a waiver to exceed the 33% allowance for office use under Section 10.5.7 of the Zoning Bylaw. Ms. Hitch asked why the tenant is seeking the waiver and not the property owner: Ms. Mercier replied that the owner has given authorization for the application. Mr. Safina added that this kind of request is common for a tenant, and noted that the property owner has a representative at the meeting. Mr. D'Arezzo said the plan provided appears to show the net floor area and not the gross floor area. Mr. Weston said that the Decision reflects the correct calculations. Ms. Mercier commented that the Applicant provided calculations for the common spaces that are not labeled on the plans, and noted that she advised them to provide this information as using the gross floor area would be to their, benefit. Page 1 8 Ms. Hitch asked the Applicant why the door on Haven Street door would not be a front door. Ms. Gauthier replied that her assumption is that most patients will park in the parking lot at the rear of the property, which will minimize the distance they have to walk after surgery. Patients who come in off of Haven Street can use the main door to the common hallway and then enter through an interior door. This will limit foot traffic and be easier for admittance. The Haven Street door will maintain the open glass appearance to allow light, but be used as an emergency exit only. Ms. Hitch expressed concern with allowing entrances at the rear of the property. The Design Guidelines promote activity on the street. She opined that the site used to be active, but the dentist's office entrance at the rear has caused a reduction in street and foot traffic. She noted that allowing another business to do the same thing would essentially create a dead block, which could be detrimental to businesses further down on Haven Street. Ms. Hitch commented that Ms. Gauthier's business is perfect for the space, but that she has major concerns with the proposal. Mr. Tuttle said he has similar concerns, and asked for clarification on the location of,the primary_entrance door. Ms. Gauthier explained that the primary building entrance is on Haven Street and that an interior door to the tenant space will be added along the corridor. She verified that unless a patient walks to their appointment, they would probably park in the rear of the building because of the limited parking on Haven Street. Ms. Mercier asked if there are parking restrictions on Haven Street. Ms. Delios stated that usually the default is two hours, but she is not sure if it is posted. Mr. Safina,asked the Applicant if she has an interior layout plan for the space. Ms. Gauthier replied that plans were in process, but were halted when the zoning issue arose. She described the proposed layout for the space. Mr. Weston agreed with the concerns,expressed, but noted that the reality is the Town has difficulty attracting retail tenants. He added that it is important to keep the street front active. Mr. Safina illustrated on the screen an option including two proposed entrances. Mr. Weston opined that he does not have a concern with the increase in gross floor area used for office . as long as the front door is kept open and active. Ms. Gauthier said one of her concerns is the need to have a handicap bathroom in the space because the building's bathroom is too far of a walk for her patients. She wants the front of the space.to be user-friendly and the back to be.more private. Mr. Safina agreed that he does not have a concern with the waiver request, but stated, that the front entrance cannot be blocked. He asked if the HIPAA regulations would be violated if the waiting area is kept visible to the public. Ms. Hitch commented that if the practice is really as busy as indicated, then the activity should be oriented to the street. Mr. Tuttle added that since the dentist office has created a dead area, the Commission is sensitive to keeping the streetscape active. Mr. Safina asked if the Commission is okay with the entrance into the space being from the corridor. He noted that retail establishments would have to be entered from the street door. Ms. Hitch opined that a mainly professional building is okay as long as there is good retail use as well. She expressed concern that allowing this business could alienate Pamplemousse and create two islands along Haven Street. Mr. Safina asked Ms. Gauthier if anything the Commission suggested would be a deal breaker for her business. Ms. Gauthier agreed to rethink,the design to incorporate suggestions made by the Commission. Page 1 9 Mr. Safina asked if the application should be continued or approved tonight. Ms. Mercier asked if the Commission would feel comfortable issuing a Decision without the benefit of reviewing a floor plan. Mr. D'Arezzo asked about the required parking spaces for institutional use. Ms. Mercier clarified that the use is office not institutional, and she verified that one of the front parking spaces on Haven Street is posted for handicap only. Ms. Gauthier commented that not all of her patients have the handicap placard. Mr. Weston noted that it might be hard for the Commission to craft a Decision in a way that -works for the Applicant without being able to review a plan. He suggested that the Applicant come back to the Commission with a floor layout plan showing the locations of the doors. Ms. Hitch asked if this could -be an opportunity for the Commission to address the dentist space activation concern. Mr. Safina replied that the dentist did not need a waiver to locate in the space and that the window treatments were reviewed by the Commission. He added that the Commission knew there was a.chance multiple spaces would 'become office use. Ms. Mercier asked the Applicant when the floor plan would be ready. The Applicant asked to come back to the Commission as soon as possible. Ms. Delios advised the Applicant that the Building Inspector will want a design that shows handicap accessibility for the plumbing code. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Modification to the 40R Plan Approval for 50 Haven Street to March 26, 2018 at 7:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Topics The Commission members endorsed the Definitive Subdivision Plans for 364 Lowell Street - `Lyle Estates', Jamieson Properties. These plans included the Modifications approved earlier in the.meeting. Discussion of 40R Sub-District Guidelines - Initial Thoughts Mr. Safina recapped the earlier discussion of the 40R Sub-District Guidelines. Mr. Jonathan Barnes of 41 Pratt Street thanked the Commission for moving forward with the discussion on sub-districts as previously promised. He asked for clarification of the areas that are under consideration. Mr. Barnes said that the Historical Commission is interested in the homes on the Historical inventory; but he is concerned with the broader picture of how the Downtown Smart Growth District interfaces with the residential zoning districts and historic neighborhoods that it abuts. Mr. Weston agreed with Mr. Barnes that the historic neighborhoods and edges should be considered. He referenced the feedback received from the State on sub-districts and added that the Commission can do better than drawing lines on a map. Mr. Weston explained that specific language outlining a set of conditions in the Design Guidelines would capture a given parcel at a given time, which allows neighborhoods to change and provides flexibility for developments to adapt to the changes. Ms. Mercier confirmed that sub-districts will need approval by Town Meeting. She noted that the maps online are in the process of being updated and will reflect the expansion of the Downtown Smart Growth District. Mr. Barnes stated that he reviewed the DHCD Guidelines and 40R statute, and expressed concerns that the Design Guidelines cannot unduly restrict development. He opined that development should be restricted in residential neighborhoods within the 40R District. Mr. Safina clarified that the homes within the 40R District are not technically zoned residential. Mr. Barnes said developments that abut residential historic neighborhoods should be Page 1 10 required to be smaller in scale. Ms. Mercier read the definition of"unduly restrict" from the statute. Mr. Safina noted that the only pushback received from developers has been on density, height and affordability. Ms. Pamela Adrian of 87 Ash Street commented on the.zoning workshop held in April 2016. She said that residents were concerned that the Green and Gould Street neighborhoods were being targeted. Ms. Adrian added there is little possibility the homes on those streets will be turned over, because that neighborhood is affordable-and close to downtown. If a' development is allowed, it would change the complexion of Reading. Ms. Hitch said the challenge of assembling parcels to have viable development is not one that developers like to take on; developers will likely be more interested in larger sites along Washington Street. The market has to be white hot and it is not. Ms. Hitch stated that currently the economics of Reading make tear-downs an attractive option. Ms. Adrian referred to a home on Green Street that the new owner chose to rehab and not demolish. Ms. Adrian said other than the development at 24 Gould Street the neighborhood .does not foresee this kind of rampant growth. She stated the properties on Green Street are being renovated not demolished. Ms. Hitch said one advantage of Green Street is that it is a walkable area. Ms. Hitch noted that the buildings along Washington and High Street make more sense for redevelopment because they have established parking and are on an active street. Ms. Adrian said the existing apartments on those parcels are affordable. Mr. Safina noted that. those apartments are some of the most affordable housing in Town and seem to be just fine as they are. Ms. Adrian gave her opinion those apartments have very little turnover. Mr. Safina explained those parcels were:chosen to start the discussion on guidelines that are .specific to neighborhoods. Mr. Tuttle explained that the original discussion on expanding the Downtown Smart Growth District was about creating opportunity and not about targeting particular neighborhoods. Mr. Safina said Green Street was included in the original discussion because it is part of Business B and in the middle of downtown. Ms. Adrian replied that residents realize the value of the neighborhood. Mr. Weston commented that if downtown Reading becomes a more active place the Green Street neighborhood is a gold mine of cute little homes a two minute walk from a train station that is 30 minutes from downtown Boston. He added that this neighborhood condition is found only in a handful of towns, and the Commission would like to keep it from being swallowed up. Ms. Adrian commented that she supports the Historical Commission's stance that the Town needs to be mindful of historic neighborhoods with new development. Mr. Weston said that the next discussion should address the potential development sites downtown that are adjacent to a residential use. The Commission needs to come up with the right way to allow downtown Reading to continue to thrive without infringing on the abutters. Mr. Barnes asked how the language about developments adjacent to residential properties would be articulated in the Design Guidelines. Mr. Safina spid they will be similar to sub- districts but will not be called sub-districts. Ms. Mercier further explained that"if, then" statements will be crafted. Mr. Safina asked if there are any historical restrictions on the last few houses on Green Street towards High Street..Mr. Barnes replied that there are very few homes on the Historic Inventory, and even if a home is on the list there limited restrictions beyond a 6- month demolition delay. Ms. Adrian noted two homes that have been renovated that have really improved their properties. Mr. Safina said going forward there are additional areas that need to be discussed. Page 1 11 Ms. Adrian listed the recently approved 40R developments and asked if there are any more in the works. Ms. Mercier replied that currently there no new applications on file with the Town. Mr. Weston explained how 14 Chapin Avenue benefitted from having the 40R District available as an option. He opined that the approved project provides a better buffer between the commercial and residential zones. Mr. Weston suggested that the next discussion be on setbacks at the edges, view line regulations, and different ways to define street edges and zones. 'Mr. Safina suggested that the Commission draft rough guidelines, concepts and parameters. After the discussion, Ms. Mercier requested that the Commission and public forward their ideas to the Planning Division. Mr. Weston added that topography should be taken into consideration. Ms. Mercier suggested the discussion be continued to March 12th at 8:30 PM. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:37 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a'5-0-0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda 2/26/18 Design Guidelines _Initial Thoughts 364 Lowell Street Mylars & Form H Johnson Woods - Continuance Request for White Oaks Lane Foundation discussion 59 High Street- Sign Permit Application a) Sign Permit Application b) Photos & Elevations c) Layout d) Draft Certificate of Appropriateness - 2/26/18 364 Lowell Street -Modification to an Approved Definitive Subdivision Plan a) Courtesy Meeting Notice b) Form B - Modification c) Memo from Project Attorney d) Memo from Project Engineer e) Revised Plans - Sheets 1-5/ Sheets 6-11 f) Memo from Town Engineer - 12/20/17 g) Draft Decision - 2/26/18 Johnson Woods - Minor Amendment, PUD Special Permit a) Draft Decision - Parking - 2/26/18 b) Draft Decision - Foundation - 2/26/18 c) Resident Feedback d) New Information .- Packet of landscape documents for next meeting 50 Haven Street - Modification to 40R Plan Approval a) Narrative/ Letter of Request b) Owner Authorization c) Floor Layout d.) Draft Decision - 2/26/18 Page 112