Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-12 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes ,. Town of Reading Meeting Minutes9- C E I V F r T0VVN CLERK �9+1HCOR4�� S S E A D I I Lt 9 N4!t. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2018 APR 10 AN (0: 08 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2018-03-12 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 Tony D'Arezzo, Associate. Members - Not Present: Karen GoncaIves-Dolan, Rachel Hitch Others Present: Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Planning Assistant Andrew MacNichol, Sarah and Tom Brukilacchio, Pamela Adrian, Johnathan Barnes Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 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. Safina read the continuance request into the record. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Minor Amendment for the PUD Special Permit for Johnson Woods to March 26, 2018 at 8:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Community Development Director'Julie Mercier said the vote is procedural and it is her understanding that Mr. D'Arezzo can choose if he would like to participate. Plannina.Updates and Other Topics Discussion of 40R Design Guidelines Ms�. Mercier suggested different items that could guide the discussion on the 40R Design Guidelines: the feedback received by email from Mr. D'Arezzo; maps prepared by Planning Assistant Andrew MacNichol; and members of the public interested in providing a history of the area and feedback on the neighborhood. Mr. Safina said that his focus was on how the Design Guidelines would need to change in -any particular neighborhood in regards.to scale. The length of a building could be required to be limited in a particular area to allow for light and views. Page 1 Mr. D'Arezzo reviewed the feedback he submitted on the Design Guidelines: • The Design Guidelines are meant for large buildings; • In the Downtown Smart Growth District, every small lot can be multi-family provided the regulations are met; • The only items that would limit a multi-family development are rooflines, siding materials, parking, trees, and above-ground electrical lines and utilities. Mr. D'Arezzo.stated that based on the Design Guidelines the single-family homes on Green Street could all be converted into a two-family. He asked whether this is this the result the Town was seekin. Ms. Mercier clarified that the State would have to approve a.waiver to allow for a multi-family building to have less than 4 units, as they did,for 14 Chapin Avenue. She said she would not assume that simply because they allowed it for one project they would allow it for others, and that it would depend on the merits of each individual site, and whether the development on that site would still exceed the density thresholds. Mr. Weston suggested the Commission consider other sites with conditions similar to 14 Chapin Avenue.There are parcels on which it would make sense to allow a 3 or 4-unit building, built to address the abutting residential edge. He agreed that the Design Guidelines focus on large residential and commercial buildings. Ms. Mercier clarified that the State's 40R statute and the Town's Downtown Smart Growth District definition of`multi-family' match. She explained why the State agreed to the waiver to allow 14 Chapin Avenue to be a 3-unit multi-family dwelling. Mr. Safina opened the discussion for public comment. Ms. Pamela Adrian of 87 Ash Street asked for clarification of whether a builder would be required to build a multi-family dwelling on a property within the Downtown Smart Growth 'District. Ms. Mercier explained the options a builder would have under the different zoning that.exists, and in consideration of the current use. Mr. Safina further explained there are lots in Town that would not function properly for a large multi-unit building. Ms. Sarah Brukilacchio of 48 Maple Ridge Road introduced her husband Tom and said they own 28 Green Street. Mrs. Brukilacchio presented some of the lower`h' history' of the downtown, including a detailed history of a woman named Martha Greenwood who bought property in downtown Reading in the 1860s. Until then, Ms. Greenwood resided in Newton with her husband and successfully ran two stores. She moved to Reading with her husband and lived on Linden Street. They built small cookie cutter homes on Green Street and two large.tenement buildings at the end of High Street. At the time of her death, Ms. Greenwood was the largest property owner in Reading. Ms. Greenwood is buried at Laurel Hill Cemetery with her family. Ms. Brukilacchio discovered the people who owned the homes on Green Street had interesting parallel stories. Many owned more than one home and had formed trusts in the 1900's: She noted that people who rented the properties represented a cross-section of immigrants. Ms.,Brukilacchio provided pictures of"Blacks Block" built by Thomas Block at the end of Haven Street. The pictures showed what the building looked like when built and what it currently looks like. Ms. Brukilacchio gave a brief history of Mr. Black and his connection to the Greenwood family. She noted that Mr. Black moved a number of homes around Town. Ms. Brukilacchio said that when Martha Greenwood died her land was either sold or gifted. One of the tenement houses was bought by a gentleman named Nathan and he formed the Reading Preserving Company. Ms. Brukilacchio concluded that there are many interesting stories about the historic neighborhood and people who lived there. Page 1 2 Ms. Adrian summarized all the houses on Green Street were built by Martha Greenwood and were "cookie cutter" style homes. Mr. Weston commented that the Green Street area would not have been a very pleasant place to live with the rail yard on the other side of the tracks on Lincoln Street. Ms. Brukilacchio said she would like the Design Guidelines to preserve the downtown's historic.element and neighborhood feel. She suggested adding sidewalks and installing all- weather signs acknowledging the history of the neighborhood. Ms. Adrian distributed her draft guidelines to the Commission. She said she reviewed all the notes and concerns provided previously by the Gould and Green Street Neighborhood Alliance and drilled. into the important items that should be addressed by the Design Guidelines. Ms. Adrian presented the items and the Commission and public commented: • Setbacks - should be a 15' setback from the residential property lines; • Exterior Design Lines - the building front should be broken up to lessen the mass of the building; • Height - the building height on a new development should not be more than 15% taller than the surrounding dwellings; • Elevation - as applied to height, if the new structure's site topography is lower than the abutting property it could be designed with more floors. Height could also depend on a building's relationship to adjacent structures, and be a percentage of such. o Mr. Safina responded that"stories" is never a deciding factor in height as it is not a fixed'dimension. For example, the MF Charles Building is only 3-stories but.is 45' tall. • Parking - commercial spaces should be required to have parking. o Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios noted that the residential tenants at 30 Haven Street do not utilize all the parking spaces that were provided, and so the owner has made the extra spaces available to the commercial tenants. Ms.' Delios cautioned requiring commercial parking spaces in the zoning and said this may be best determined by the market. o Mr. Jonathan Barnes of 41 Pratt Street opined that the Design Guidelines should have language that would allow the CPDC to discuss the adequacy of the proposed parking. Mr. Weston agreed that the current wording may make it hard for the Commission to get more parking without a fight. o Mr. Safina said that structured parking is very costly and would impact a project's bottom line; in the alternative, requiring surface parking is wasteful and not good use of real estate. He added that the Town needs to understand the current parking supply and implement restrictions that are not too strict. o Ms. Adrian noted that a UPS store with a minimum of three parking spaces would not succeed due to lack of parking. Mr. Safina added that UPS has- evolved and now uses smaller trucks in more urban areas, which can often fit within the parking podiums of multi-story buildings. o Mr. Weston commented that the former vacuum repair business on Main Street did not have convenient parking spaces, which made it hard for patrons to bring in their vacuums. He stated that business owners need to make wise decisions and that all retail spaces have limitations. o Mr. Barnes said the Design Guidelines should 'include a commercial parking requirement and make the developer.responsible for mitigating impacts to residential abutters. The Commission needs to be able to succeed in the fight with developers over. parking. • Sight Lines • Design and Final Approvals - Fire and Public Safety should be considered. Ms. Adrian expressed concerns that the Fire Chief did not have a chance to review the plans for 24 Gould Street. She commented that the Town should ensure there is adequate water and access for the fire equipment. o Mr. Safina noted that the Building and Fire Codes dictate fire separation and access requirements, and that the Fire Chief has to review and sign off on plans prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Ms. Mercier corrected the Page 1 3 misunderstanding that the Fire Department did not review the 24 Gould Street plans. She noted that multiple members of the Department attended at least two Development Review Team (DRT) meetings for the project and provided comments, which were incorporated into the draft documents provided to the Commission throughout'the hearing process. o Ms. Adrian opined that an occupancy permit should not,be issued until all designs are-inspected and approved by the Town. She referenced the pink color of the building at 30 Haven Street, which is not what was shown on the approved plans. Ms. Mercier responded that current Decisions now include a condition that requires applicants to come back to the Commission with samples of the building materials they are hoping to use. Ms. Delios added that it is very tricky to shut down a project after the.Building Permit is issued, especially for a discrepancy over building color. Mr. Safina said a court would not side with the Town if there was a disagreement in color choice. • Landscaping - to soften the appearance of a new development, landscaping should be required, especially in proximity to a residential neighborhood. o Mr. Safina commented that developments are trending towards green options and sustainable energy systems, so'landscaping will continue to feature more prominently in designs. • Maintaining and Respecting Neighborhoods - developers should research and take into consideration the neighborhood when designing the development. Ms. Adrian complimented Mr. Traggorth of the 24 Gould Street development for his meetings with the neighborhood and for how accommodating he was to the abutters. She added that she hopes developers in the future are just as considerate. • Apply Guidelines Uniformly - the Design Guidelines should be uniformly applied across the Town. o Mr. Safina disagreed and said the Design Guidelines should be applied fairly but neighborhoods need to be looked at differently. o Mr. Barnes said that his understanding was that the discussion would lead to the creation of specific guidelines for the Downtown Smart Growth District - where it abuts residential neighborhoods. He agreed with Ms. Adrian that the Design Guidelines should be applied uniformly. o Mr. Safina explained that the Commission will develop a'list of items for specific areas and determine where and how broadly to apply them. Mr. Barnes, speaking for the Reading Historical Commission, stated that a 15' setback should be applied uniformly based on the existing historical neighborhood and use of the site, not on the district boundaries, regardless of what was there before. He said his understanding is that the Design Guidelines need to better address where the DSGD abuts residential 'neighborhoods. He noted that he reviewed the Design Guidelines, Zoning Bylaw, 40R Statute and DHCD Design Standards and that he found various concepts that should be supported at the local level in the Design Guidelines. Mr. Tuttle reminded Mr. Barnes that there are technically no "residential neighborhoods" in the DSGD because the whole area is zoned for business. He commented that the Town has "residential districts" and "residential properties." He pointed out that if a critical mass of residential properties is redeveloped, at some point the area ceases to be a residential neighborhood. Mr. Barnes disagreed. Technically there are no "residential zones" in the downtown area but there are existing "residential neighborhoods." Ms. Brukilacchio said her understanding is that the Design Guidelines should require that any new development blend with and respect the historic neighborhood. Mr. Safina replied that not everything should look the same; and explained that the Town' is responsible for the streets, sidewalks and lights, not the developer. Mr. Barnes said that when a development abuts residential properties, DHCD allows the Commission to include concepts that will be complimentary to nearby buildings, and that will address compatibility and relationship of massing and scale. Mr. Safina noted that when Page 1 4 , he wrote the original Design Guidelines he referenced the DHCD Guidelines and that now the DHCD references the Town of Reading's Design Guidelines as a good example: Mr. Barnes cited a provision in the DHCD Guidelines requiring'that 40R standards and plans avoid having two different land uses or densities that are adjacent to each other. He said if those concepts are incorporated in the Design Guidelines, the Commission would have more control over the outcome of the design of a building. Mr. Barnes offered to help with the specific written statements in the Design Guidelines. Mr. Safina commented that the Commission needs to focus on scale, density and vehicular circulation. Mr. Barnes stated that the Commission members often say they do not have the latitude or capacity to dictate design based on their regulations. Mr. Safina replied that the Commission does a good job negotiating the design of projects with developers and pointed out that many recently approved projects have been changed based on comments and feedback from the Commission. Ms. Adrian agreed with Mr. Safina that conversations on the building at 24 Gould Street resulted in a nicer design, and that it was a successful application. Mr. Weston cautioned that the Commission has less control over developments that are not in the DSGD. Mr. Safina noted that if the Commission ,denies an application based on design or architecture the DHCD would reject the denial. Mr. Tuttle said the Commission has to be careful not to prevent redevelopment. Mr. Weston said there is a balance that has to be struck because it is important for people to invest in the Town. Mr. Tuttle expressed his concern that there are commercial spaces,that allocate a generous amount of handicap parking spaces that are never used. Mr. Safina thanked Ms. Adrian for presenting her thoughts, and commented that the Design Guidelines can probably address many of them. He noted that his main concern is with the suggestion that the height be based on a percentage of what it is adjacent to.. Mr. Safina asked for clarification on the Reading Historical Commission's (RHC) purview over historic homes. Mr. Barnes replied that the RHC can only instate a 6-month demolition delay on properties that are listed-on the Historic Inventory. Mr. Safina referenced Green Street and said the Design Guidelines could allow repetition of patterns: solid=void-solid-void etc. which would keep the feel of a smaller village. Ms. Adrian reminded the Commission that the height,of the 24 Gould Street project was an ongoing concern. Mr. Barnes stated that step-backs are very important, and should remain in the Design Guidelines. He also acknowledged that if the Design Guidelines are too restrictive, developers will propose 40B projects instead. Ms. Brukilacchio commented on a development in Wakefield that casts shadows on adjacent buildings. Mr. Safina commented on a development in Stoneham that,did not require the top floors to.be stepped back, and as a result the three buildings feel really imposing. Ms. Brukilacchio said that the neighborhood is not opposed to change; they just want projects that improve and maintain the community. She opined that after losing the Atlantic Supermarket at 30 Haven Street, the downtown feels tenuous. Mr. Weston stated that the three aspects of the Design Guidelines that needspecific focus are height, setbacks and access/parking. He added the following: o However the Commission refers to it, we are not talking about a residential district. We are talking about"other" property that has a residential structure; o It's not really feasible or sensible to restrict someone's private property based on what the neighbor does to their property; o It will be important to define "residential neighborhood" and the set of rights the neighborhood has; and o Context is important but context changes. Page 1 5 Mr. Safina asked how long it took Martha Greenwood to develop her properties. Mr. Weston asked about the context surrounding the Greenwood row homes, and noted that there was likely always something looming over them - the tenements, Black Block, etc. He opined that it is not prudent to just pick one decade to preserve. Mr. MacNichol presented the maps he created. He said the maps represent actual building elevation versus height. Mr. Safina clarified that the Commission wants to understand grade changes in order to understand building heights. Ms. Mercier asked what other data the Commission would want to be displayed or analyzed. Mr.. Safina replied that a solid/void map would give a feel for existing patterns which could inform the Design Guidelines'. Ms. Mercier pointed out that a solid/void map has been created. Mr. Weston said it would be good to understand the heights of buildings right outside the district. He opined that the height issues are mainly limited to the southern area. Mr. Safina asked for verification of some of the building elevations shown on the map, specifically the. Christopher's Restaurant building and the MF Charles Building. Mr. Tuttle asked for the heights of recently approved projects to be added to the maps. Ms. Mercier said 52.Sanborn Street and Washington Arms will also be added to the maps. Ms. Delios stated that a map was created for Town Meeting back in 2009 that shows building heights downtown. Mr. Barnes'suggested that the Commission should be thinking about all sides, not just the southern 'side, as there is potential to develop the other sides in the future. Mr. Tuttle said that Woburn Street is populated with historic homes. n Mr. Safina asked about next steps, and suggested that the Commission come up with concrete information .to review. Mr. Safina said that he the liked the feedback he received from his proposed maps, which focused on the apartments on Washington, Green and High streets. The area has the potential and capacity to do more than what is on Green Street. Ms. Mercier suggested the Commission start by figuring out what would work on parcels that are more likely to be redeveloped, and then see if mixed-use and multi-family guidelines should be the same. Ms. Delios said the Town has a list from 2009 of properties that were "likely to be redeveloped." Mr. Tuttle suggested looking at Design Guidelines for multi-family development rather than mixed-use. Ms. Mercier noted that'the setback is the same regardless of whether the project is mixed-use or multi-family. Mr. Tuttle commented that one of the current Rite Aid parcels might become available because of the corporate takeover. Mr. Weston suggested testing any proposed changes to the Design Guidelines on the Rite Aid property downtown because it,abuts residential. Ms,. Adrian commented that the Washington Street apartments are being rehabbed and it is not likely the property will be sold. She pointed out recent examples of,residential parcels that have been sold and improved without a change of use or redevelopment. Mr. Safina agreed that rehabbing units is one way to increase rents without a major investment. Mr. Barnes noted that the Rite Aid property on Haven Street is on the Historic Inventory. There was discussion about what happens when a property is also on the National Register. The parameters for review are different if a property is on the National Register and also is subject to a protective covenant, like the Post Office. The Commission agreed to continue the discussion of the Design Guidelines on March 26tH Minutes - January 8, 2018 Ms. Mercier went through the changes submitted by Mr. Safina. Page 1 6 Mr., Tuttle made a motion to approve the minutes of January 8, 2018 as amended. The motion was'seconded by Mr. Weston and appt*oved with a 4-0-0 vote. Minutes - January 22, 2018 Ms. Mercier reviewed the changes submitted by Mr. Safina. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the minutes of January 22, 2018 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Ms. Mercier updated the Commission on the Eaton Lakeview 40B hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals. She noted that the next public hearing is scheduled on March 21St in the Great Room-at the Pleasant Street Center. Mr. Weston expressed concerns with the parking at'Perfecto's Caffe at 285 Main Street. He said he witnessed thefollowing two scenarios when parking was not available at Perfecto's: 1) a patron had to park on the other side of Main Street and walk across Main Street; and 2) a vehicle backed out into the roadway. Ms. Mercier replied that the Town is aware of the parking problems; Bagel World has similar problems. Mr. Safina said Bagel World has parking spaces available but the drive-thru traffic hinders,patrons from entering onto the property to park. Mr. Weston said that Perfecto's Caffe is'limited due to the adjacent brook. Mr. Tuttle asked if the Town could revoke Bagel World's drive-through privileges. Ms. Mercier explained that there is a provision under Site Plan Review that can compel an Applicant to review and fix problems on their site, but it is only triggered if and when an Applicant proposed construction, site alteration, or a change to the original Site Plari approval. Ms. Mercier said that the Police Department has spent hours trying to figure out a solution with the owner of Bagel World. Mr. Weston asked about a pedestrian crossing. Ms. Mercier replied that curb cuts and pedestrian crossings will be reviewed by the State as part of their repaving project on Main Street. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda 3/12/18 CPDC Minutes 1/8/18 CPDC Minutes 1/22/18 Johnson Woods - Continuance Request 40R Design Guidelines a) Maps &Visuals b) Feedback from Nick &Tony c) Old photos displayed at meeting by Sarah Brukilacchio Page 1 7