Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-08-13 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes Town of Reading �.:G L, V Meeting Minutes I O'•i4'lb C LE °K 3 R c `..71 '^ ' . 4 'A,. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 211 SEP 18 PM 2: 08 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2018-08-13 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: Nick Safina, Dave Tuttle, Pamela Adrian, Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not Present: John Weston and Rachel Hitch Others Present: Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Timothy Doyle, Hany Hanna, Susan Webb, Kathleen & Richard Hahn, Maribeth &John Canning, Jim V. Barry Berman Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Site Plan Review Application Meadowbrook Golf Club There was no one present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina, taking the agenda out of order, stated that the Applicant has requested the hearing be continued until the next meeting. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Site Plan Review for Meadowbrook Golf Club to September 17, 2018 at 7:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Arezzo and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Minor Amendment PUD Special Permit Johnson woods O Bradley Latham on behalf of Ted Moore O. Bradley Latham, Ted Moore and William Bergeron were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. D'Arezzo recused himself and left the dais. Mr. Safina asked if there is a quorum given that Mr. D'Arezzo recused himself. Community Development Director Julie Mercier noted that the application is for a Minor Amendment and was not posted as a public hearing; three members of the Commission is technically a quorum. She deferred to the Applicant's attorney on whether to proceed. Attorney O. Bradley Latham said that an amendment to a Special Permit requires a super majority vote by the Commission. After a discussion with the Applicant, Mr. Latham requested the Minor Amendment to be continued to September 17, 2018. Gage I 1 Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Minor Amendment for the PUD Special Permit for Johnson Woods to September 17, 2018 at 8:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Mr. Deric Dyer of 26 Johnson Woods Drive submitted a letter to the Commission. Ms. Mercier said it will become part of the record, and be distributed to the Commission. The Commission briefed Ms. Adrian on the history of the ongoing project at Johnson Woods. The Commission updated Mr. Barry Berman, a member of the Select Board, on the reason why Johnson Woods was continued to the September meeting. Planning Updates and Other Topics Discussion of 40R Design • idelin Mr. Safina mentioned the memo from Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios that proposes adding a Section "Guiding Principles"to the beginning of the Design Guidelines. Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol explained adding the section to the DSGD Guidelines will provide the Commission with guidance throughout the document rather than adding specifics to each section. Ms. Adrian opined that the proposed Guiding Principles provide a better way to enforce regulations than what was previously discussed by the Commission. Ms. Mercier suggested holding off the discussion on the 40R Design Guidelines until the scheduled time to ensure that members of the public who wish to participate in the discussion are present. Review of 2019 CPDC Schedule Mr. Safina asked if one meeting a month is the standard going forward. Ms. Mercier replied it is, and explained a meeting can be added if necessary. Mr. Tuttle asked if the proposed schedule allows the Commission time to draft and review zoning bylaw amendments before a Town Meeting. Ms. Mercier replied that additional meetings can be scheduled if the Commission decides to propose zoning amendments. Mr. Safina expressed concern there is only one meeting scheduled before April Town Meeting. Ms. Mercier responded in the past years, there was only one meeting scheduled in April due to Town Meeting. She reminded the Commission that the warrant closes in February for April Town Meeting, and in September for November Town Meeting. Mr. Safina noted that the Town website should be updated to reflect that the meetings only occur once a month. Mr. Tuttle suggested adding a blurb to the schedule reminding people the meetings can be viewed on RCN. The Commission discussed if the meetings on the RCN YouTube videos can be heard by the viewer. Mr. Berman said the Town is considering adding a microphone to be used by the audience. Approval of CPDC Minutes Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the minutes from May 7, 2018, as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the minutes from June 11, 2018, as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the minutes from July 9, 2018, as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Ms. Adrian asked if there was a follow-up action required by Perfecto's Cafe to inform the Commission when the retaining wall is repaired and the plants maintained. Mr. MacNichol Page 1 2 replied the repair of the retaining wall was added as a condition to the Decision and Town staff will follow up with a site visit. Discussion of Master Plan Potential Updates Ms. Mercier asked if there was a specific reason why the Master Plan discussion is an item on the agenda. Mr. MacNichol replied it was in response to a discussion at a Select Board meeting. Mr. Berman responded that a member of the Select Board wanted to discuss the Master Plan as a Select Board goal, but nothing specific was requested. Mr. MacNichol said that the Commission discussed being prepared for the next wave of development. Ms. Mercier noted an article that Ms. Adrian forwarded regarding development in the Boston Area. She also mentioned a link to an APA policy document that Mr. MacNichol sent to the Commission. Mr. MacNichol noted that after reviewing the policy document, it is more relevant to design review and the design guidelines than to the Master Plan discussion. Mr. MacNichol noted that since the Housing Production Plan and Economic Development components of the Master Plan were updated in the last couple of years, the Commission should decide if they would like to proceed with the remainder of the Master Plan. He also noted that an earlier discussion of the Commission seemed to indicate holding off on updating the Master Plan until the projects that have been approved have been constructed. Ms. Mercier clarified that the Master Plan is under the CPDC's jurisdiction, and asked the Commission for their opinion on the undertaking of updating the Master Plan. Mr. Safina asked if a consultant would be utilized. Ms. Mercier asked for feedback either way. Mr. Safina opined that consultants are often more valuable for projects with a specific technical focus, and suggested that a local volunteer group review the Master Plan to see what areas need updating. Ms. Mercier suggested that staff could prepare an initial review of the Master Plan sections for further discussion at an upcoming meeting. Mr. D'Arezzo asked what enforcement ability the Master Plan allows over the Zoning Bylaw. Ms. Mercier replied that the Master Plan is an overarching document of community values and goals, but that the Zoning Bylaw is where regulations are codified and enforced. She noted that changes to zoning may be needed as action items to achieving certain Master Plan goals, but that any changes to zoning would require Town Meeting approval. The Commission discussed how the Master Plan could be used as a guide when reviewing an application. Ms. Mercier clarified that the Master Plan does not allow the Commission to prohibit something unless it is also prohibited in zoning. Mr. Tuttle commented that things are happening near the boundaries of Reading that could impact the Town. He mentioned a discussion at an MAPC meeting regarding a possible new transit connection in Woburn. Mr. Tuttle said the industrial area behind RMLD and the area on New Crossing Road currently used by the Town garage should be reviewed for future impacts if developed. Mr. MacNichol noted that the New Crossing Road area is labeled as a "Potential Development Area" (PDA) in the Economic Development Plan. He mentioned that the Town has applied for a $50,000 Housing Choice Grant to be used for a feasibility study for development of that area. The Town will work with a consultant on design guidelines and hold workshops with the residents before the area would be developed. Mr. Berman asked if a town has ever created a 40R Zoning District and then discontinued it. Ms. Mercier replied that she does not know of a town that has done that, and noted that Town Meeting and DHCD would have to be involved. Mr. Tuttle said that the zoning map would need to be changed and that all State procedures would apply. Mr. Berman said the 40R Zoning District was created to encourage development but If it meets a tipping-point it might need to be removed or directed somewhere else. Mr. Safina said other zoning could cause the same burden but the Town would have less control over the development. He said there is more control over a development in a 40R Zoning District, and that waivers can be granted to developers whose projects are more beneficial than detrimental to the Town. He Page 1 3 noted that as an area gets more developed, standards of review for projects will likely become more stringent, and future developments might not be able to justify the need for waivers. Ms. Mercier explained that additional studies on the infrastructure, traffic and parking, or other aspects of a project or an area, could be required. Mr. Berman asked when the Town will find out if it was awarded the Housing Choice Grant. Mr. MacNichol replied that the grant was fled at the end of July and the Town is hoping to hear back In the fall. Mr. Berman asked about the competition. Mr. MacNichol said there are only 30 Housing Choice Communities and he is not sure who applied. The Town requested $50,000, but that the grant request could have been up to $250,000. Ms. Mercier said if it isn't approved this year, the Town can apply next year. Mr. MacNichol concurred the Town can apply next year if not successful this year. He said the State allowed only a month to gather the necessary informatlon. Mr. Tuttle said according to talks at MAPC and APA the Town of Reading has a good reputation, and other Towns look to Reading for guidance. Dl�cussion of 40R D Sion Guidelines The Commission continued the discussion on the 40R Design Guidelines. Mr. Safina reiterated the proposed 'Guiding Principles'could be applied throughout the Design Guidelines. Mr. MacNichol said most of the language in the Guiding Principles is from the Town of Danvers, and he suggested the wording be amended to fit the needs of Reading. Mr. Tuttle asked for clarification on the practical meaning of"sustainable development". Mr. MacNichol explained that sustainable means meeting the needs of today without compromising the needs of the future. He said the Town does not require LEED but some towns request that developments be LEED Silver or Gold. Mr. Safina said Boston requires LEED developments, but that the same principles can be achieved without the cost of the LEER designation. He suggested changes to the language regarding the energy saving requirements. Ms. Mercier cautioned that certain parameters should be encouraged but not required so as not to deter sensible development. Mr. Safina listed examples of how the Town could encourage applicants to follow sustainable strategies. Mr. Safina commented that the Commission has been granting waivers to encourage more low-Impact developments: reducing curbing, reducing the roadway width and Improving stormwater management. Ms. Mercier noted that many of the waivers Mr. Safina referred to have been for subdivision projects, and said that updating the Subdivision Regulations is still needed. The Commission handles some outdated items with waivers they grant. Mr. Berman asked for clarification on wording in the'Guiding Principles' and said he does not recall requiring open space in recently approved projects. Mr. Tuttle responded that the Commission has not been able to request open space due to the small size of most recent redevelopment sites. Ms. Adrian agreed that green space has not been discussed much on the recently approved developments. Mr. Tuttle said open space could be requested at the proposed 40B on Lakeview Avenue. Mr. Berman asked if the design guidelines are specifically for the 40R Zoning District. Ms. Mercier replied in the affirmative. Mr. Berman suggested requiring developers to contribute to downtown open space even if it is not on their property. Mr. Safina said he believes developers have contributed and gave a few examples of how this Is achieved. Mr. Berman said he has asked the developers of PostMark Square to open up their property to allow the public to use their open space. Mr. Safina said it is private property and they have the right to deny access, but said the open courtyard will improve the appearance of the area. Ms. Mercier said she remembers the Applicant being in agreement with allowing the public to use the area, but that practically speaking the courtyard area feels private so the public may not realize they can use it or feel comfortable using it. Mr. Tuttle said the Commission takes advantage of suggesting outdoor space if the opportunity is present; both Bunratty Tavern and Biltmore & Main have outside seating. Mr. Berman said the Commission should encourage developers to create open space. Mr. Tuttle responded that the Town does not have a lot of opportunities to suggest open space. Page 14 ' Mr. Safna said the district edge was previously discussed by the Commission. Mr. MacNichol said he was not sure of the outcome of incorporating the residential frontage zones that are referenced in the Danvers zoning map. Ms. Mercier asked about the intent of the residential frontage zone. Mr. MacNlchol replied that the goal is to limit development that will overwhelm a neighborhood. Ms. Mercier asked if it is for development that abuts any residential property or for development that abuts a residential district. Mr. MacNichol said it is to limit development in the residential area in the downtown. Mr. Safina said those streets were reviewed and there was no street edge. Ms. Mercier said she thought from a previous discussion the Commission did not want to draw lines or create zones. Mr. Safna suggested language on how to limit development that abuts a residential property. Mr. Safna asked if a public hearing would be needed for the Design Guidelines. Ms. Mercier opined that the public hearing should be after the document Is more concrete. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if Town Meeting approval would be required. Ms. Mercier responded Town Meeting would not need to approve the changes to the Design Guidelines, but a public hearing and DHCD approval would be required. Mr. Safna said the Commission would like residents to be involved in the process and give their opinion. Mr. Berman said the residents do care about the character of the Town, but agreed they would care more if the change abuts their property. He stated the discussion should be a town-wide discussion. Mr. D'Arezzo said residents care when there Is less parking in the downtown. He commented that there are some residents who want to be involved but the process frightens them. Mr. D'Arezzo asked what the next step is in the process. Mr. Safina said the document needs to be updated. Ms. Mercier said there is a month until the next meeting and asked if the Commission could go through both the 40R Design Guidelines and the Guiding Principles and make edits and comments. The Commission agreed to do this. Mr. Berman asked what the Town currently distributes to Applicants if they request information on the 40R Zoning District. Ms. Mercier replied that the Design Guidelines were adopted in 2009 and are still being utilized as they are. Mr. D'Arezzo noted that even though there are four approved developments, no projects have commenced construction. Mr. Tuttle said the 40B projects on Lincoln Street and Woburn Street have commenced. Ms. Mercier said the School House Condominiums at 52 Sanborn Street has also started but the reconstruction is complicated. Ms. Mercier said the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for the Eaton Lakeview 40B is on September 5t", and the next workshop between the development team and abutters is tomorrow morning. Mr. Berman briefly discussed the status of the development. Ms. Mercier noted that the neighborhood has provided some very good feedback and the process has so far been a good one. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Amzzo and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda 8/13/2018 CPDC Minutes 5/7/2018 CPDC Minutes 6/11/2018 CPDC Minutes 7/9/2018 CPDC Schedule 2019 Meadowbrook Golf Club Continuance Request Draft Guiding Principles and DSGD Design Guidelines Page 1 5