Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-07 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes FR '� Town of Reading . E E 1,V _ir Meeting Minutes f �� € a 1- . . N! ER,K REIN e;A. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: :�ll Q $: 0.1 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: .2018-05-07 Time: 7:30 P. M. 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, John. Weston, Dave Tuttle, Rachel Hitch Associate Tony. D'Arezzo Members- Not Present: Others Present: Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios; Planning Assistant Andrew MacNichol, Vanessa Alverado; Virginia Adams, Jonathan Barnes; Sarah Brukilacchio, . Jack Sullivan, Alison Hammer Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kim Saunders Topics of Discussion: - Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:32 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 made a motion.to continue the Minor Amendment for the.PUD Special Permit for . Johnson. Woods to June 11, 2018 at 7:30 PM, The motion was seconded by Mr. Tuttle and _ . approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Maior Modification to an Approved Site Plan 306 Main Street, Tower Home Loans- Alison Hammer, Jean Machado,Jack Sullivan and Victor Andrade were present on behalf of the Application. Ms. Alison Hammer from Hammer Design and Development LLC-.presented the revised plans. She pointed out the architectural changes that improved curb appeal, functionality and.compliance of the.building: • A small bump-out was added to the front of the building;: - Revised the shape and size of dormer; and • Added awnings and other.architectural details to improvethe look and presence.of the building Page 1 1 Ms.'Hammer apologized for the Architect not being able to attend the meeting. She pointed out that the site lighting was removed from the proposal. Mr. Safina asked about the memo from Glen Redmond, the Commissioner of Buildings, regarding the square footage requiring additional parking. Ms. Hammer replied she met with. the Planning Assistant Andrew MacNichol, the Building Inspector Paul Kolodziej and Glen Redmond via phone regarding the additional parking. She said it was determined 5100sf would require 17 parking spaces. The.additional parking space was for a loading- zone, but the loading zone was waived in the previous Decision. The Applicant is requesting- to..continue the waiver and be.allowed the 17 parking spaces that are on the approved Conservation.Commission plan. Mr. Safina asked about the comment made by Mr. Redmond regarding the areas that are deemed attic'which cannot have full stair access. Ms. Hammer explained it was her understanding the full stairs could remain if the door to the unfinished area is removed. Ms. Hitch asked about an area on the plan that appears to be a "T". .Ms. Hammer explained the"T" area is unfinished rafter space. Mr. Safina said that area could be accessed by a. removable panel. Ms..Hammer agreed the area could be used for the HVAC unit but there is no room to stand. Mr. Safina said the area shouldnotbe used for storage. Ms. Hammer confirmed the area is not for storage and commented on the rigorous rules the Applicant has,to follow to protect the paperwork and files. She said the Applicant is installing a fire alarm system-even though it is not a requirement. Mr. Tuttle said plan A4 should say '13rd. Floor Storage Space". He added the door and attic hatch should be removed. Mr. Safina explained why the plan shows an attic hatch. Ms. Hammer confirmed the door will be removed. Ms. Hammer then confirmed that the area's that say"attic" are not included in the 5100sf. Mr. Safina stated that the suggestions he made at'the previous meeting were,transposed incorrectly onto the plans and requested the plans to be updated. Mr. Safina said the proposed narrow access band should be widened.and be continuous around the building. The band can be integrated into the wide band. He asked that halo lighting be considered_or applying the sign letters directly onto the band. . Mr. Tuttle asked if.the bump-out would cause.the band not to be all on the same plane. Mr. Safina said the corner trim boards will support the wide-band. He pointed out the elevation on plan A5 and said the proposed-sign is applied and not integrated. Ms. Jean Delios, the Assistant Town Manager, asked for a color selection board. Ms. Hammer replied that she sent Mr.- MacNichol a colored rendering. Ms. Delios stated a.' colored rendering is not acceptable,the Town-requires a sample board: Mr. Safina said the colored rendering is acceptable to show the intent, but color samples are required to be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. Ms. Hammer agreed to submit the color samples when:final selection is finished. She-said the pre-color selections are light - blue, green or seafoam. Ms. Delios explained that the different shades of green are why a color sample is required. Mr. Safina suggested a dark awning then be considered. Ms..Hitch opined that she does not favor awnings. The Commission.discussed the different types of.awnings on a few businesses. .. Ms. Hitch pointed out the other buildings that,also.have the wide-band. Mr. Safina' suggested changing the rhaterial.of the wide-band to help with the cost. He said there is a lot of building height and the band looked tiny. Ms. Hammer gave her opinion of why the Architect.chose not to wrap the band around the..whole-building.. .Mr. Safina said the third floor will appear top heavy because it has the same material as the bottom. Page.l 2 Mr. Tuttle asked about the rendering on plan Al that shows a small awning under the sign. Mr. Safina said it appears to be shadows. Ms. Hammer said the rendering will be updated and the appearance of the plastic awnings will be removed. Mr. MacNichol affirmed the plan reflects the correct height of the building. Ms. Delios asked about the site lighting and how the property will be lit if there are no pole fixtures. Ms. Hammer said after the discussion with the Town and to help alleviate lighting pollution it was decided to remove the poles. She said the business is the 9AM - 513M type and lighting is not necessary to operate the business. Ms. Delios expressed concern that there was no illumination for the employees exiting the building during winter months. She, questioned if this was allowed by building code. Ms. Hammer responded they will look into building mounted lights that are motion activated. She said it will be a safe environment but at a minimum level. Ms. Hitch asked about lights in the front of the building. The owner, Jean Machado, replied the sign will provide light. Ms. Hammer asked for guidance on what type of lighting the Commission would recommend for the project. She said .the Applicant will provide what is required by life-safety and building code but would like it to blend. Mr. Safina said life-safety would require lights by the entrance door and that the lights should not have a lot of glare and be faced downward. Mr. Safina asked if there is a residential neighborhood behind the property. Ms. Hammer said there are no direct abutters but there are residents to the left. She said there is no proposed lighting in the back of the building; the lighting is focused around the building and parking area. Mr. Sullivan said there will be a 6' high fence to deflect the glare from the neighbors. Ms. Hammer said if a flag pole is acceptable they will add it to the site plan. Mr. Safina said the flag pole would be required to be lit or taken down every night. Ms. Hitch asked if the building will be modified as a multi-tenant building. Ms. Hammer said the building and sign will be designed as a single-tenant building. She said the entrances were reconfigured to enhance the exterior; and reiterated the Applicant is not pursuing a multi-tenant building. Ms. Delios asked about the snow storage location. Mr. Sullivan from Sullivan Engineering explained there is a limited amount of grass area behind the dumpster and recycle area, and that the snow will be removed from the site as needed. This was approved on the original Decision. He explained there are three rain gardens and snow cannot be placed in these areas because plants will die. Ms. Dellos asked about the size.of the snow storage area. Mr. Sullivan replied it is very small. Mr. Sullivan said if there is more than an inch of snow it will have to be removed. Mr. Tuttle said the snow will be removed or the tandem parking spaces will be used. Mr. Sullivan confirmed the wetland is not near the tandem parking spaces, but said the parking spaces are important and must remain active to meet Zoning. Mr. Machado suggested using the dumpster area for.snow storage since his business is an office and does not require a big dumpster. Mr. Safina asked if the dumpster pad and.the enclosure are being built. Ms. Delios said the landscape could be ruined by the plow when trying to maneuver the snow into the enclosed area. Mr. Safina suggested keeping the trash barrels inside the building and remove the dumpster pad with an enclosure. Ms. Delios asked about the landscape in the front of the building. She read the proposed landscape plan and said the arborvitaes along the back will provide a vegetated screening. Mr. Sullivan confirmed the screening and said the plants will. stay green year round. Ms. Delios asked about the proposed fence in the rear of the building. Mr. Sullivan replied that a Conservation Commission member requested the fence to help reduce the glare onto the neighbor's property. He explained the fence is inthe back only and not on the side of the property. The fence was requested during the time the pizza shop was designed to stop trash from blowing into the wetlands. Ms. Delios asked why a fence is necessary and questioned if the plantings would be enough. Mr. Sullivan said the fence was proposed Page 1 3 when an abutter sent a letter to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Safina requested the , fence to be PVC material and brown in color to help blend back_into the wetlands. Ms. Delios requested the fence color to be reviewed along with the color palette. Mr. Weston said the 11 arborvitaes would not provide enough screening. Mr. Safina said the wetlands will grow and fill in. Ms. Hammer said the Conservation Commission conditioned the Applicant to submit a planting plan provided by a Landscape Architect. Mr. Sullivan agreed to forward the Commission the planting plan. Mr. Safina said the Applicant will need approval for a sign. He added the Commission prefers Halo lighting. Mr. Tuttle complimented the architectural changes made to the building. Ms. Hammer thanked Mr. Safina for his suggestions. Ms. Hammer said the.Applicant would like to commence construction soon after Town approval. Ms. Delios suggested contacting the Town Hall Tuesday-Thursday. She said the Town Hall is closed on Friday and on Monday it might not be fully staffed. Mr. Safina opened the meeting to the public and closed with no comment. The draft Decision was reviewed. The Commission agreed adding site lighting as a condition. Mr. Safina requested fixture cut sheets be provided to the Planning Department for approval. Mr. MacNichol said the waiver for a loading dock will be maintained. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the Major Modification to an Approve Site Plan for 306 Main Street as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Updates The Commission briefly discussed the Burger King project and how the appearances of the . properties on Main and Ash Street have improved. Mr. Safina informed the Commission Ms. Karen Goncalves-Dolan has resigned from'the position. He said the Commission has an open seat and welcomed the public to apply for the position. - Discussion of 40R Sub-District Guidelines - Mr. MacNichol presented the 40R Sub-District Guidelines on the screen. Mr. Safina stated his comments and corrections are reflected in the document. He said the Community Development Director Julie Mercier requested the Guiding Principles be reviewed. Mr. MacNichol said unfortunately he did not have a chance to discuss Ms. Mercier's intentions before she left on maternity leave. Mr. Safina suggested an interactive discussion with the public. Mr. Weston gave his opinion there is not much to change. Mr. Johnathan Barnes from Reading Historical Commission thanked Ms. Mercier for drafting the document but said he did not have chance to review. He said he would like the' opportunity to provide additional comments and asked to receive the document in a format Which he could edit. Mr. D'Arezzo explained how to add comments to a .pdf file. Mr. Barnes suggested a change to the second sentence and explained why he prefers"unduly encroaching". Ms. Delios asked if the intent is for residential-use or residential scale..Mr. Barnes said he prefers residential neighborhoods. Mr. Safina explained Mr. Barnes concern is a mixed-use project not being burdensome to the residential-use. The commercial use cannot be prohibited, but it was questioned how the residential and commercial coincide. Page 14 Ms. Hitch pointed out Section 6.6 and suggested a section on balance and unity, and the relationship with residential. Mr. Safina suggested another paragraph that addresses other issues of encroachment. He recommended a compatibility paragraph and added that if it becomes redundant it can be parsed. Mr. Safina said the Design Guidelines are not just for the Commission they are being drafted for everyone. Ms. Sarah Brukilacchio from 48 Maple Ridge Road asked if there was a section protecting residential properties from having a shadow cast on the properties. Mr. Safina replied the Town did request a shadow study from the Developer of Reading Village, and it resulted in proving the building will cast a shadow. He added the Commission will take it in consideration, but a 35' building will always cast a shadow. Ms. Brukilacchio said shadows , should be addressed because right now there is not a shadow being cast on the residential properties on Green Street. Mr. Safina disagreed. He said he understands the issue, but it is difficult to be particular on the hour and month of the sun location. Mr. Tuttle and Mr. Weston explained the in-depth shadow discussion that was held at a recent Town Meeting. Mr. Safina questioned if the approved shadow language should be incorporated in this section. Ms. Hitch pointed out a section in the back that Ms. Mercier started drafting that . could address the shadow concerns. Mr.. Safina suggested adding the language from Town Meeting to the back of the Design Guidelines. Ms. Pamela Adrian from Gould and Green Street Alliance presented a concern to residential homes that have installed solar panels that could be blocked from a commercial building. Mr. Safina said a residential dwelling could be built next to an existing home on Green Street that could be potentially 35' high. He agreed to add the language to be reviewed to see if it can be enforceable. Mr. Safina said Ms. Mercier made a note to see if the Commission would consider a smaller minimum setback. He explained that if the building-keeps getting moved to the front of the property it limits the street-side activity. Mr. MacNichol presented an illustration of a "box" to further explain the setback. .Mr. Safina said if an Applicant presented something different than the"box"sketch the Commission has the right to waive anything on a proposed development. He listed other suggested changes. Mr. Weston asked if the Commission requires a development to be closer to the front of the. property,in a residential-use neighborhood would it force a change in the feel of the street. Mr. D'Arezzo said in this scenario the residential properties would be on one side of the street and the development on the other side. Mr. Weston said the intention of the discussion is not to change the Design Guidelines but to see how the developments fit into the transition areas. Mr. Safina said the Main Street buildings are upfront. The intention is to hold the street-line to allow room for the development. Mr. Weston agreed right now all existing buildings are up to the street-line. Mr. Barnes asked if the second sentence addresses this concern. Mr. Safina said the Commission does not have to worry about being too restrictive because a waiver can be approved on any specific development. The intent is to create an edge to make you feel like you are in a specific area. Ms. Hitch said in New York buildings are built up to the street-side, with not too much setback. Mr. Weston opined that the front fagade setback is not detrimental to residential-use neighborhoods. Ms. Hitch opined the recently approved parking in the front of the former EMARC Building on Gould Street was not the right thing to do to match the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Safina presented his suggested changes to building setbacks. If a proposed building that is maximum two stories and abuts a single or two-family then a setback would not be required. Mr. Tuttle asked if the required 15' setback is sufficient. He referenced the historic homes on Green Street. Mr. Safina said he is referring to rear and side-yard setbacks that abut something different than the existing structure. He suggested a two story maximum and then required setback; but he questioned if this would provide a steeper angle. Mr. Weston said this 2-to- 1 angle will provide less massing further away from the abutters than what is currently allowed in zoning. Ms. Hitch mentioned the Gould Street development was able to go further than the required 15-feet. Mr. Safina said the goal is to see if there should be language provided for a third scenario. Mr. Barnes said he Page 5 did not have a chance to review and requested the comments be made available on the Town website. Mr. Safina agreed Mr. MacNichol can make the document available as long as it is titled correctly as his comments only. Mr. Weston said there is a 2-to-1 ratio when abutting a residential district. Ms. Delios agreed that is a problem. Mr. Weston opined that it is the right massing abutting a residential-use, but it is restricted to side-yard for a residential district which is a small condition. He said the appropriate language needs to be agreed upon and not applied to only residential districts. Mr. Safina asked if the abutter across the street is entitled to these setbacks. Ms. Hitch said residential district is a common use throughout the document. Mr. Safina asked if residential-use has a different meaning. Mr. Weston cautioned a 4-story residential use was recently approved by the Town. Mr. Tuttle suggested adding language if the development abuts a single or two-family residential property. Ms. Brukilacchio brought forward her concern with developments on a one-way street. If a .development was allowed to be built up to the property line on Green Street the emergency vehicles could have difficulty parking. She said right now the emergency vehicles park on the existing dirt area in front of the apartment buildings. Mr. Safina responded that the back of the sidewalk is not necessary the property line. Ms. Brukilacchio said people do not respect curb lines in terms of parking and will continue to park above. Ms. Adrian said there is a curb but not a sidewalk. Ms. Hitch confirmed currently there is no sidewalk on one side of the street. Mr. Safina said a development would have sidewalks. Mr. Brukilacchio gave her opinion that this is an isolated case and wanted the Commission to be aware of the situation. Mr. Weston said the right-of-way is not wide enough to accommodate a dense use. Mr. Safina said the street should not be widened because the speed of the vehicles will increase. He agreed the area has a special consideration. Mr. Tuttle said emergency vehicles will interrupt whatever is near-by. Mr. Weston said his street is not wide enough for an emergency vehicle but the concern is if the design of a multi-tenant building has the space to accommodate such activity. Ms. Hitch said her neighborhood has a different character than this neighborhood. She added the Commission has to think about tight quarters. Mr. Safina opined that this area should be residential only and not mixed-use. The property on Washington and High Street could be a walkable area. Ms. Hitch said the maps reflect what the Commission is working towards but the Design Guidelines do not reflect what has been discussed. Mr. Safina explained the original intent was to create sub- districts and after a discussion it was agreed to have Design Guidelines. Ms. Hitch asked if the maps and the Design Guidelines could be presented together to prove Green Street does not support density. Mr. Safina stated there are"historic" homes on the street, but not"Historic" homes to help control development on the street. Ms. Adams from Reading Historical Commission suggested creating a Historic District. She added a single structure can be deemed as a Historic District. Mr. Safina asked what would be the benefit in creating a Historic District. Ms. Adams replied it would offer a review process of a development. Mr. Safina said a review would occur if the structure is in the Historic District but not across the street. Ms. Hitch said the whole street has a similar character and should be maintained. Mr. Safina said the existing apartment buildings would not be included in a Historic District. Ms. Adams said there is an identity to more contemporary structures. Mr. Safina said these apartments are the most affordable housing in Town but do not have Historic value. Mr. Barnes asked the zoning of the apartment buildings. Mr. Tuttle responded it is Downtown Smart Growth and Business B Zoning. Mr. Barnes asked if the Commission is comfortable stating the development should be residential. Mr. Safina said the Commission can clearly show commercial will not work on Green Street and same on the eastern side of Gould Street. Mr. Tuttle said since this area is in the Downtown Smart Growth District the Design Guidelines should be drafted to point out specific areas to include existing conditions and what should be preserved. Ms. Hitch warned to be careful that the language does not include property owners who want to renovate their own properties. She added there needs to be protection with flexibility. Mr. Tuttle said on a certain extent the protection is already built into zoning. Page 1 6 Ms. Delios said the section on the"Transitional Areas"should be discussed. Ms. Hitch asked if this is the section where specific neighborhoods are addressed. Mr. Safina asked specific type of neighborhoods or specific neighborhoods. Mr. D'Arezzo cautioned pointing a specific street would create a sub-district. Ms. Delios reminded the Commission the DHCD would have to sanction the Design Guidelines. Ms. Hitch said the definitions are unique enough to exclude other areas. Mr. D'Arezzo asked Mr. MacNichol if he was able to review other Towns 40R Districts. Mr. MacNichol replied a lot of the language came from other Towns, but when reviewed with Ms. Mercier they didn't specifically apply to these Design Guidelines. He read the Town of Swampscott and Plymouth's Design Guidelines. Mr. Safina asked for urban areas to be reviewed. Mr. Safina asked Mr. Barnes to draft language on how to protect the "historic" homes in the Green Street area. Mr. Barnes asked about Section 10.0. If the district edge area and transitional areas should be separated so the transitional area can be more specific to accommodate residential areas. Mr. MacNichol said the district edge is basically residential. Mr. Weston said the definition of district edge needs to be revised to exclude commercial. He questioned'if the residential edges should be treated the same as the transitional areas. Mr. Barnes made a suggestion to the transitional area by removing "directly adjacent" and replace with "adjacent". The Commission briefly discussed this suggestion. Mr. MacNichol said the discussion will be on the June agenda under"Other Topics" but the agenda is already full. There is no guarantee there will be enough time to continue the discussion. Mr. Safina said the public could forward comments to the Commission. Mr. Barnes thanked the Commission for their time discussing the Design Guidelines. Approval of CPDC Minutes of March 26, 2018 &April 9. 2018. March 26, 2018 Minutes Mr. Weston commented since-the former pizza restaurant at 54 Haven Street closed there is no street furniture located on Haven Street and asked if there was grant money available to provide table and chairs. Ms. Delios responded Pamplemousse does have a few tables, but agreed it would be good idea to approach the businesses to see if they would be interested in investing in outside seating. She added this would have to be tabled until the Planning Department is fully staffed. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the March 26, 2018 minutes. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. April 9, 2019 Minutes Ms.'Hitch referenced the Major Modification to an Approved Site Plan at 306 Main Street on the April 9, 2019 draft minutes. She said trees have recently been cleared at the site and asked if this is what is referenced in the minutes. Mr. MacNichol explained the Applicant was given approval at the last meeting to install hay bales to prevent the approval from expiring in May. Mr. Safina confirmed the discussion and agreed any site work would trigger active work. He questioned the statement made by the Architect at the last meeting that the building height for the former Pizza World is the same as what is reflected on the proposed plan for Tower Home Mortgage. Mr. MacNichol responded the plan has been revised and the building height is now the same as the former Pizza World. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the April 9, 2018 minutes. The motion was seconded . by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Ms. Delios informed the Commission the property at 259-267,Main Street is for sale. She said she has received inquiries about the property and has encouraged the caller to review Page 17 the South Main Street Design Practices and to contact the Conservation Administrator. Mr. Safina commented the property abuts Walkers Brook. Mr. Tuttle questioned the status of the building at 165 Main Street that is next to Dynamic Sports. Ms. Delios responded the Town has sent enforcement orders and is working with the owners to remove the building without causing a financial burden. Mr. Tuttle asked about the status of the project at 258 Main Street. Ms. Dellos responded the Applicant has'not been in contact with the Town. Ms. Hitch said it was her understanding the Applicant was waiting for curb cut approval from the State. Mr. Tuttle commented on the progress of the project at 162 Main Street that is owned by Doyon's Appliance. Mr. Safina complimented the updated fagade on the Burger King building at 357 Main Street. Mr. Weston said the new fagade makes the McDonald's fagade appear even older. Ms. Hitch said it appears the cleanup on the property at the former Sunoco at 467 Main Street has commenced. Ms. Delios informed the Commission she spoke at a 40R Conference at Bentley College on Affordable Housing through Production and the presentation is available on the CHAPA website. She said Mr. MacNichol also attended the conference and the Public Engagement discussion. Ms. Delios added she is invited back by MassHousing to be on the Affordable Housing panel discussion sponsored by CHAPA this Thursday and will forward the information to the Commission. Ms. Hitch asked Ms. Delios for further explanation on the zoning for the property at 35 Lincoln Street. If the property was in the 40R Smart Growth District would the developer still had to file a Chapter 40B for a Comprehensive Permit. Ms. Delios responded the property was in the original/proposed 40R Smart Growth District but the zoning was removed. She explained the developer could still apply under Chapter 40B even if the 40R Smart Growth District was an option. Mr. Safina commented if the property was in the 40R Smart Growth District it would have been less problematic, less money and less time for the Applicant. Mr. Weston agreed the developer would have filed under the 40R Smart Growth District because it would have been less of a cost. Mr. Tuttle commented the developer needed time to assemble the property and acquire the former Brown Automotive business. Mr. Safina said there is no way to know what would have happened if the project was "friendly" and the neighbors didn't oppose. Ms. Delios informed the Commission she recently attended a Select Board meeting where a resident expressed concern with the soils on the property at 35 Lincoln Street and the resident's comments turned inflammatory: She explained the Board of Health Chairman is working closely with the DEP officials before the project can proceed. The developer missed some DEP filing deadlines but there are no issues. Ms..Hitch said it does appear there was a communication snafus. Ms. Delios said at an earlier Town meeting the developer nixed the suggestion for a website to help keep the neighborhood updated; but the developer recently agreed to one when it was requested by the Select Board. Ms. Delios said the developer has realized lack of communication is a burden. They are now moving in the right direction by holding neighborhood meetings and with the website. Ms. Vanessa Alvarado, a Select Board member,.said it is her understanding there was an enforcement conference with the DEP, which is not an insignificant request. Ms. Dellos said there was an enforcement hearing held last Thursday solely because the developer failed to file within the required timeframe. Ms. Delios informed the Commission an Environmental Engineer, the Licensed Site Professional, works with the DEP and is obligated to monitor the activity. She added the information is on the DEP website and is completely transparent. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Page 1 8 1 � Documents Reviewed at the Meeting: CPDC Agenda 05/07/2018 Johnson Woods Minor Amendment, PUD Special Permit • Letter of Continuance 306 Main St - Major Modification to Approved Site Plan • List of changes - 4/30/1.8 • Architectural Plans revised 4/30/18 • Civil Engineering Plans revised 4/30/18 • Draft Decision 5/7/18 40R Design Guidelines • Design Standards and Guidelines - Food for thought from Staff - 5/7/18 • Specific Building Heights • Downtown Area • Maps of Ground and Building Elevations • Initial Graphics for Discussion Purposes DSGD Design Standards and Guidelines - 10/2/09 Page 9