Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-11 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes OFq h-t Town of Readings i a ; ' Sr Meeting. Minutes - > r ; t - .S MAI.{ r •r. Co - .. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: AFS 8::07 Community.Planning and Development Commission Date: .2018-06-11 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: Chairman Nick Safina, Dave Tuttle, Rachel Hitch Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not-Present:.. John Weston- Others Present: Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Plann.ing.Assistant Andrew MacNichol, Virginia Adams, Jonathan Barnes, Marc Mazzarelli; Gerry Sullivan; John Weber, Shawn Willett, James Hickey, Vanessa Alvarado, Brad Latham Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kim Saunders 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 Attorney O: Bradley Latham was present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to.continue the Minor Amendment.for the PUD Special.Permit for Johnson Woods to July 9, 2018. The motion was seconded.by Ms. Hitch and approved with. a 4-0-0 vote. Public Hearing, Site Plan Review 1.01 Willow Street, Austin Preparatory School Attorney O. Bradley Latham, James Hickey, John Weber, Shaw_ n Willet, Gerry Sullivan, and Marc Mazzarelli were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Andrew MacNichol, the Planning Assistant; said the proposal:is to renovate Austin Prep School_dining hall and front patio area. He informed the Commission that the Applicant attended a final DRT meeting. At the meeting, the Engineering Department.pointed out a few concerns that the Applicant will address. Attorney Bradly Latham introduced the team: Head Master James Hickey; Chief Financial Officer John Weber;Gerry Sullivan and Shawn Willett from Sullivan, Buckingham Architects;. and Landscape Architect Marc Mazzarelli: He-said the intent of the proposal is to make the property more attractive and useable for the faculty and students. Page 1.1 Mr.-Hickey said the interior work to the dining hall and kitchen renovations has been permitted and work has commenced. He reviewed the current proposal which includes: Exterior work to the patio and dining area to expand the space for faculty and students; Opening of the front entry way to improve the appearance and make it user friendly; and • Improvements to safety at the front of the building, which will be closed off to vehicles. Mr. Safina asked Mr. Hickey if he meant the area will be protected - not closed off. Mr. Hickey clarified that the driveway will be curbed on both sides to prevent any vehicles from entering. He said it is a thoroughfare for students leaving that building and going to other areas. Mr. Tuttle said the proposal is to change the circulation. Mr. Safina suggested the foundation on the proposed seating wall be reinforced to prevent accidental vehicle or plow damage. Mr. Mazzarelli from Mazzarelli Associates responded there is an existing curb and walk way before the wall, but will add reinforcement if required by the Town. Mr. Safina asked if there was an accessible path from the wall to the front entrance which Mr. Mazzarelli replied it is not intended to be an accessible route. Mr. Safina said the handicap students would have to go through the dining hall. Mr. Mazzarelli replied this concern has been noted. , Mr. Safina complimented the proposal and added it is a good use for the space. Mr. Tuttle said he did a site visit and the school property is in excellent shape. He added the proposal is a good plan. Mr. Safina said he does not have a concern with the proposal since emergencyvehicles will be able access the perimeter of the building. Ms. Hitch said she is not familiar with the property and was not able to do a site visit, but the proposal looks good. Mr. D'Arezzo said the proposal nets the loss of three parking spaces. He questioned the current parking availability for students and faculty. Mr. Latham responded the Town does not have parking requirements for churches or schools, but the parking does not meet the current zoning requirements. -He said the school is anticipating adding-additional parking in the future. Mr. Safina said the school must be managing the parking, as he does not notice vehicles spilling out onto Willow Street and Fire did not express concern. Mr. Safina asked if the Engineering Department still had open issues. Mr. MacNichol responded he did not have an official memo from Engineering, but the concerns expressed at the DRT are addressed on the plans. Mr. Safina opened the meeting to the public and then closed with no comment. Mr._Latham requested the Commission approve the signage that is in Latin on the entrance. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to dispense of the reading of the public notice. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Arezzo and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Latham said he had no other changes to the Decision.. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. The Commission reviewed the Decision. Page 12 Mr. MacNichol said he will update the Findings and add the Latin words above the entrance to be included. Mr. Latham said the existing school sign will be the relocated but.should be considered the same signage. Mr. Hickey stated as modifications are being done, the existing signs will be updated. He explained the Latin words.are the.school motto and will be added to the building to be visible to vehicles entering onto the property. Mr. Latham explained the meaning behind the school motto: truth, charity and unity. Mr. MacNichol asked if the Commission would require cut-sheets. Mr. Safina responded he did not think it was necessary. Ms. Delios the Assistant Town Manager said a sign permit would still be required and suggested the Applicant speak to the Building Inspector. Mr. Safina asked if the words on the glass would require a sign permit. Ms. Delios responded the words on the glass would not need a permit as long as it meets the sign bylaw. She reiterated the Applicant should clarify with the Building Inspector what zoning allows. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if there was a lighting design. Mr. Mazzarelli responded there is no proposed sign lighting. Mr. Safina asked the Commission if they had any additional comments on the Decision other than the language for the sign. Mr. Tuttle read the bylaw and gave his opinion permission is not required for the sign. Ms. Delios explained any sign that is proposed to be constructed on the building triggers a sign permit. The Applicant clarified the design would be in the masonry. Mr. Safina suggested adding language about the signage to the Findings. He said if the sign can be viewed from the street it could warrant a review. Mr. Safina read the waivers requested by the Applicant. He asked if Engineering is satisfied with what was proposed. Mr. MacNichol replied Engineering has approved the swap from pervious to impervious surface. The Commission agreed they did not have a concern with the requested waivers. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the requested waivers.as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review for 101 Willow Street, inclusive of the waivers, and as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Updates Lot Release = Sunset Rock Lane Mr. MacNichol explained a resident is trying to sell their property on Sunset Rock Lane and is having difficulty because Lot 5A has not been released. There is an original affidavit from 1999 that states Lot 5A and Lot 6A were released but the document was not satisfactory with the lawyer. Mr. Safina and Mr. Tuttle explained the process of a subdivision lot release. Mr. Tuttle questioned if a lot was missed or the two lots were added after the subdivision. The Commission reviewed the lots on the screen. After a discussion, the Commission agreed to release Lot 5A to allow the real estate sale. They asked Mr. MacNichol to investigate further the background of Lot 5A and Lot 6A. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to release for sale Lot 5A of Sunset Rock Lane, according to the Definitive Plan dated July 1997. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. The Commission signed the release. Mr. MacNichol commented the Applicant will file the document at the Registry of Deeds. - Discussion of 40R Design Guidelines - Page 1 3 Mr. MacNichol said as requested at the last meeting, he reviewed urban areas that have ` Design Guidelines for Smart Growth Districts. At the suggestion of Ms. Delios, he reviewed Danvers and found they have recently approved their Design Guidelines. Danvers included a map in the Design Guidelines that points out a Residential Transitional Frontage Zone. He said the Residential Transitional Frontage Zone is similar to the discussions the Commission has held on Green Street and the other areas that are in the middle of the downtown. Mr. MacNichol said Danvers added the Residential Transitional Frontage Zone to their zoning map which may require Town Meeting approval if the Commission decides to go in a similar route. He added there is language Reading could use to help draft the 40R Design Guidelines. Mr. Safina asked what enforcement mechanism Danvers used to create such zones. Mr. MacNichol said the Residential Frontage Zones are an official part of the Danvers Zoning Bylaw and which again, requires approval at Town Meeting if Reading were to do the same. Mr. Safina said they are not sub-districts and are part of the zoning map. The zoning map identifies the areas and the Design Guidelines enforces them. Mr. MacNichol confirmed both the Design Guidelines and the Zoning Bylaw enforce the district. Mr. Tuttle said sub- districts are indicated on the map. Mr. Tuttle said the concept of a frontage zone is useful for the downtown area. Mr. Safina asked what happens beyond the frontage, and are they allowed to step up? Mr. MacNichol stated he was unsure and said he will look into it. Mr. Safina opened the discussion for public comment. Mr. Safina agreed the Residential Transitional Frontage Zone is a document that the Town could reference. Ms. Delios named a few streets in Danvers that is considered their downtown. She said she knows the area very well. Mr. Safina asked what areas are least similar to Reading. Ms. Delios said this section of Danvers is more urbanized. She said the discussion of our Commission was to leave the existing zoning and have the transitional areas in the Design Guidelines so Town Meeting would not be required. If changing the zoning is desired, it would require Town Meeting and being prepared for November Town Meeting is unrealistic. Mr. Safina said the same language could be drafted in the Design Guidelines. Ms. Delios commented it is more manageable for the transitional areas to be in the Design Guidelines. She reminded the Commission, the DHDC is required to approve changes to the Design Guidelines. Ms. Hitch summarized the concept of the sub-districts will not be done due to the regulatory process but the aspects of the frontage zone can be built into the Design Guidelines. She said Danvers does not appear to have a walkable downtown. She said looking at the residential transitional area there are no sidewalks and it abuts an industrial area. Mr. Safina said Danvers targeted the area to clean it up. Ms. Hitch said the concept and language is right but some of the Design Guidelines are not useable. Danvers has a different type of development. Mr. MacNichol read a part of the language from the Residential Transitional Frontage Zone that could be similar for Reading. The Commission reviewed the Danvers map. Mr. Safina suggested looking through the Danvers language and see how it can relate to Reading. Mr. Johnathan Barnes, a member of the Reading Historical Commission (RHC), said he has made comments to the document, but the RHC has not had an opportunity to vet the comments. He said it is a difficult process to be involved in because he cannot make edits directly to the document. Mr. MacNichol said he moved the comments made by Mr. Safina to the document to have one working document.. He suggested sending the document to Mr. Barnes. Mr. Barnes said he will share the document with the RHC and will forward any Page 1 4 s feedback. Mr. Safina said all comments should be added to the document to have one master document. Mr. Barnes mentioned Ms. Pamela Adrian, from the Gould and Green Street Alliance, also has comments but was not able to attend. Mr. Barnes requested the Danvers document to be forwarded to him. Mr. Safina said the Master Plan should be updated, but the themes and objectives should be referenced more often. Ms. Delios said the Town has discussed updating the Master Plan but it is very costly. Ms. Adams said the original was done by residents. Ms. Delios said there are updated components to the Master Plan: Housing was done twice; Economic Development; and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Ms. Hitch asked about a Traffic and Parking Study. Ms. Delios responded the Town is working on updating the traffic count from Nelson/Nygaard 2009 Traffic Study. Ms. Hitch commented that,she thought there was a discussion of a more comprehensive planning study. Ms. Dellos said the concern is the cost; there was end-of-the-year money that was able to be used for this traffic count. The Economic Development Director started pursuing the traffic and parking concern before he resigned. Ms. Hitch opined that there is,an appetite for a parking and traffic study and suggested wrapping the cost into updating the Master Plan. Mr. Safina said the Master Plan still reads well but the one thing that would change would be the focus of what areas to develop. Ms. Delios said the Economic Development Plan did include priority development areas. Ms. Hitch asked for clarification on the process and timeline. Mr. Tuttle said right now there are a substantial number of projects in process and if we are going to make reasonable changes then the Design Guideline should be approved before the next wave of developments. The Commission gave their opinion on areas by the railroad that could be developed and what type of businesses could potentially thrive in the area. Ms. Hitch asked if the Commission could use the spring Town Meeting as a goal to potentially do a presentation on the 40R Design Guidelines. Mr. MacNichol asked for short term goals. Mr. Safina suggested Mr. MacNichol review the Danvers Design Guidelines and asked Mr. Barnes to forward comments before the July meeting. .After a discussion, Ms. Hitch suggested the comments from the RHC and CPDC to be collected and merged into one working document to be reviewed at the next meeting. Mr. Safina said the Commission should review the Danvers-documents and forward any comments. Ms. Vanessa Alvarado, a member of the Select Board, questioned if the Conservation Commission should be involved in this discussion. Mr. Tuttle explained Conservation gets involved once it is site specific and a development is proposed. Mr. Safina asked Ms. Alvarado if she is asking for Conservation input for the 40R Design Guidelines specifically or CPDC in general. Ms. Alvarado responded her concern is development on South Main Street. Ms. Delios clarified the Design Guidelines are just in the downtown area. She explained the Planning Department works closely with the Conservation Department. There is always coordination and dialogue with all Town staff on proposed developments. Mr. Safina said one of the guiding principles is to promote sustainable development. If a project comes to the Commission to review for the downtown the Commission always looks for energy efficiency, green scape and water management. Ms. Dellos said the larger projects are code reviewed and one review is on the energy code. Ms. Hitch said the next wave of development could be south Main Street and it is important to get the design right on the urban core. She would like to take what we have learned so far and apply it to South Main Street. Mr. Safina discussed when the South Main Street Page 1 5 Y � Design Best Practices were drafted he did a FAR exercise up and down Main Street. Ms. Delios informed the Commission Perfecto's Cafe at 285 Main Street is proposing to expand their parking. She said the residents on Avon Street have emailed to express their concern about the impact of the overflow of employee parking. She cautioned a development on south Main Street could have an impact to the residential neighborhoods. Ms. Hitch stated Conservation will be impacted. Ms. Delios replied Conservation is clearer to understand the impact, but when a Site Plan is approved there could be an added impact. Ms. Hitch said any proposal on south Main Street should be reviewed to improve the parking and signage. Ms. Delios said the area by the railroad was targeted as an area to be developed because it is walkable to the downtown. Ms. Hitch said if the larger developments thrive a developer could propose to spruce up the apartments on Washington, Green and Ash Street. Mr. Safina pointed out the property at 400 Main Street and the recent renovation. Ms. Hitch said a developer could "flip"the apartments rather than demolishing and rebuilding. Mr. Tuttle pointed out the area on Minot Street could be an area to be developed. Ms. Hitch urged the Commission to be proactive. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the downtown infrastructure is close to the maximum for units. Ms. Delios responded the town is reviewing the infrastructure improvements and if the current is expanded additional units is possible. Mr. Safina said parking and traffic is part of the infrastructure. He added you can't improve items such as water service as easily. Ms. Delios discussed the utilization studies that will compare now versus 2009. She said another aspect that should be considered is"right size parking'% The development at 30 Haven Street does not use the required 78 parking spaces. The 1.25 parking ratio is a little high based on the use. Ms. Delios stated it will be interesting to see what the demand for parking will be for the developments that are mostly one-bedroom units. Mr. Safina commented when a development makes available residential parking under the building the extra parking spaces can be used for commercial. Ms. Delios informed the Commission the medical business at Haven Street bought parking off-site for the employees. She added if the business was retail it might not have been necessary. Mr. Safina said the discussion will be continued to the July meeting.- Other Updates Mr. MacNichol informed the Commission he did a site visit at Johnson Woods to verify the restriping of the parking lot was completed. He explained there are a few small items outstanding before the Bond can be released. Ms. Hitch asked if there has been contact from the developer of 258 Main Street. Ms. Delios responded the developer has had no contact with the Town. Ms. Hitch expressed concern about the time period from when a developer receives approval from the Town and when work commences. . Ms. Delios explained some sites are harder to develop and some developers don't take in consideration all approvals required to develop the site. Mr. Safina said the Town does not want undeveloped land. Mr. MacNichol informed the Commission he has been contacted about potentially developing 259 Main Street. Mr. Tuttle commented the property will be a Conservation challenge. - . Approval of CPDC Minutes of May 7, 2018 Mr. Safina suggested tabling the May 7, 2018 minutes until the next meeting. He requested the Commission review the draft minutes to ensure the minutes reflect the intent of the 40R Design Guidelines discussion. Ms. Delios requested the draft minutes be posted with the Town Clerk. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Page 1 6 Documents Reviewed at the Meeting: CPDC Agenda 06/11/2018 Johnson Woods—Minor Amendment,PUD Special Permit • Letter to Continue Austin Prep School—Site Plan Review • Site Plans—Submitted 6/6/18 • Application Overview • Draft Decision—dated 6/11/18 4011 Design Guidelines • Design Standards and Guidelines—Food for Thought from Staff—6/6/18 o Personal Comments from NS • Specific Building Heights • Downtown Area • Maps of Ground and Building Elevations • Initial Graphics for Discussion Purposes • DSGD Design Standards and Guidelines—10/2/2009 Page 7