Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-09-17 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes '`+ r Town of Reading _ Meeting Minutes r,E. Board - Committee- Commission - Council: Fit! DEC 17 AM 7: 41 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2018-09-17 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, John Weston, Rachel Hitch, Pamela Adrian, Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Steve Zanni, Chris Zanni, Mike Dlbacco, Virginia Adams, Vanessa Alvarado, David Jamieson, Jonathan Barnes Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Chairman Nick Saflna called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Continued Public Nearing. Site Plan Review 292 (aka 2881 Grove Street. Meadow Brook Golf Club There was no one present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina read Into the record the Applicant's request for the hearing to be continued until October 1, 2018. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Site Plan Review for Meadow Brook Golf Club to October 1, 2018 at 7:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Minor Amendment. PUD Special Permit Johnson Woods, O. Bradley Latham on behalf of Ted Moore There was no one present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina read into the record the Applicant's request for the hearing to be continued until October 1, 2018. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Minor Amendment for the PUD Special Permit for Johnson Woods to October 1, 2018 at 8:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Page I 1 Planning Updates and Other Topics Approval Not Required Plan - 18 &23 Family Circle Ms. Mercier, Community Development Director, explained that Family Circle is off of Grove Street and directly abuts Meadow Brook Golf Club. She added that the ANR Is a land-swap between two property owners and does not affect the frontage of either property. Mr. Tuttle said he has no concerns with the ANR, but questioned the intent for the request. Ms. Mercier noted that the Commission does not have to know the Intent for an ANR. Mr. Safina commented that the land being swapped is minimal. Mr. Weston joined the meeting. Mr. Safina mentioned the memo from staff, which indicates that the ANR can be approved as proposed. Mr. D'Ana= asked for further explanation on the ANR. Ms. Mercier pointed out the land that Is being swapped and noted that both properties have frontage on the cul-de-sac. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to endorse the Approval Not Required Plan for 18& 23 Family Circle. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. The Commission endorsed the Plan. Lot Release Request 'Lvle Estates' Definitive Subdivision Mr. Safina read the request from Jamieson Properties LLC to release Lot 1 at'Lyle Estates', 364 Lowell Street, so the applicant can obtain a building permit to renovate the existing dwelling. Ms. Mercier further explained that the request is to release only Lot 1 at this time. The Lot is part of the covenant that covers the whole subdivision, but as it has an existing dwelling with Infrastructure and utilities already in place, it will not be part of the surety for the subdivision. The Commission agreed they have no concerns with the request to release Lot.1. Mr. Salina made a motion to release 'Lyle Estates'Lot 1, 364 Lowell Street. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. CPDC Minutes - August 13. 2018 Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the minutes from August 13, 2018, as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Discussion of 40R Design Guidelines The Commission continued their discussion of the 40R Design Guidelines. Ms. Mercier noted that Mr. D'Arezzo, Ms. Adrian, and Mr. Safina have provided comments to-date, and that the Commission has received comments from Jonathan Barnes, a member of the Historical Commission. Mr. Barnes said the comments he provided were derived from a meeting with Ms. Virginia Adams, another member of the Historical Commission, and should be considered on behalf of the entire Historical Commission. Ms. Mercier explained that all comments received were Incorporated Into a master draft document with credit given to each commenter when possible. Mr. Safina suggested reviewing the comments that are of consequence and to skip the suggestions that make the document read better. Andrew MacNichol, Staff Planner, went through the document. The first suggestion from Mr. D'Are= was to incorporate Ash and Gould streets as'Piimary Commercial Streets'. Ms. Mercier said the 40R Design Guidelines were written when the district was smaller and now that it is bigger other commercial streets could be added; however, It Is unclear whether and how 'Primary Commercial Street' Page 1 2 Is defined. Mr. Tuttle opined that Gould Street should not be considered a 'Primary Commercial Street'as it is primarily residential with a recently-approved mixed-use development. He noted that a commercial development would be reasonable at the end towards the railroad station. Ms. Adrian pointed out areas on Haven and Gould streets that could be considered commercial and added that the Cain Oil property on Gould Street Is commercial. Mr. Weston asked what repercussions might occur if Gould Street Is pegged as a commercial street. Mr. Safina gave his opinion that Gould Street should not be labeled as a commercial street. Ms. Mercier commented that neither Ash Street nor Gould Street really qualifies as a commercial street. Ms. Mercier brought forward a suggestion from Mr. Barnes to add language respecting single, two-family and three-family residential uses without unduly encroaching upon them. Mr. MacNichol pointed out a comment from Mr. D'Arezzo that a three-family residential acts more like a business. He questioned If residential uses should be grouped together or be treated uniquely. Mr. Safina and Ms. Mercier agreed that a three-family is a different type of building and a different use In the Zoning Bylaw than a single or two-family. Mr. Safina sald that the language from Mr. Barnes should be considered, and questioned whether an owner- occupied property should be respected more than a rental property, or if the properties should be viewed as a 'residential neighborhood'. Mr. Safina asked if the concern with existing residential is really about scale and patterning of building language. Mr. Saflna asked Mr. Barnes to clarify his comments on character, and commented that every house does not have architectural value, but that another type of structure could be just as valuable if providing the neighborhood with the same essence. Mr. Barnes replied that his objective Is to preserve the character and Identity of the residential historic neighborhood downtown and not just an individual house. It is important for the developers to know how the Town would like the development to appear. He said the language in the 40R Design Guidelines and bylaw should allow the CPDC to reject a development If it does not conform to the language in the Design Guidelines. Mr. Safina suggested changing the language to"character of the neighborhood". He gave an example of a few historic homes on Green Street that have value In their patterning along the street front, and opined that whatever happens to the area should be mindful of this. Ms. Mercier asked Mr. Safina If he means that the use can change but the style and essence should remain. Mr. Safina agreed that the character should remain, but the use can change. Ms. Adams said vernacular architecture is very Important for the community because the housing was built for workers. Mr. Saflna agreed with the statement by Ms. Adams. Mr. Tuttle suggested Including language that prevents homes with vinyl siding from being built adjacent to historic homes that have character. He said it should be characterized as harmonious with the existing and abutting properties and uses. Ms. Hitch cautioned the Commission to be careful with wording. She opined that the language should be vague because It is a Design Guideline and not a rule, and agreed with the language suggested by Mr. Tuttle that new development be"harmonious". Ms. Mercier referred to Section 7.1, side setbacks. Mr. Safina said the comments on the screen were discussed at a previous meeting. He referenced the setbacks that were approved on the building at the former Sunoco Station and the development on Gould Street. Mr. Safina opined that if a developer proposes a great public space design the Commission should have the flexibility to approve It via the waivers. Mr. MacNichol asked if the Commission should state that waivers can be granted. Ms. Mercier opined that it is Important to note specific instances for waivers in order to encourage creative design and flexibility. Mr. D'Arezzo commented It was his understanding the Commission had the ability to waive anything in the Guidelines. Mr. Safina opined that the first floor of a building is what engages the public. Mr. Weston cautioned drafting guidelines based on the existing adjacent uses. For example, a developer could purchase an existing residential use and build something commercial to Gage 1 3 eliminate the residential abutter to the property next door. Mr. Safina said the opposite has recently happened on a couple of properties downtown which are now residential. Ms. Mercier asked if the language should specify setbacks regardless of uses. Mr. Weston said he Is not sure; he understands what the Commission is trying to accomplish but reiterated he has concerns with the language. Mr. Tuttle pointed out that you can erect a business anywhere in the Business B Zoning District. Ms. Adrian said a property can have both a residential and a commercial use. Mr. Safina said the Commission can address the abutting properties at the time of the application from a developer, which will create variety. Mr. Tuttle cautioned that the Commission be cognizant of the realization of the first generation of 40R developments, and the Impacts they might have on future developments. Mr. Tuttle commented that setbacks and guidelines should apply even when mixed-use Is proposed adjacent to mixed-use. Ms. Mercier asked if the Commission would want more general language to deal with the abutting lots, and opined that different setbacks, step backs and treatments based on adjacent uses may be more appropriate at the District edge than within the District. Ms. Hitch referenced a building in Stoneham that was recently constructed that matches the existing buildings and appears like it has always been there. Mr. Safina commented that the scale of the building Is oppressive. Ms. Hitch said there should be harmony and balance between buildings. Mr. Saflna said the requirement for transparency at the store front should be reviewed to account for the increase in medical and service uses. Mr. Weston commented that the retail / business uses could change once the street traffic Increases. Mr. Tuttle said the District population will Increase once the developments are built and occupied. Ms. Hitch said the goal of the Commission should be elevating street level activity and connecting uses. Mr. Safina pointed out that the Commission discussed having the podiatrist at 50 Haven Street change her proposed plans to allow the front door to be utilized. Ms. Hitch expressed concern that the parking guidelines apply to residential units and not commercial - loading, employees or patrons. She asked if parking should be addressed in this section, especially for mixed-use buildings. Ms. Mercier said employee parking is an ongoing problem that needs be addressed, potentially through Increasing the number of permits and encouraging on-street parking. A recent parking study shows that the Town's on-street parking is underutilized. Ms. Adrian agreed that employees park where they can. Ms. Alvarado, a member of the Select Board, informed the Commission that she has had discussions with business owners and employee parking is a huge concern. The two-hour parking limits and lack of employee parking results in a lot of parking tickets for patrons and employees. Mr. Tuttle noted that there is no requirement for parking for commercial within a 40R project, and that commercial uses within 300'of a Town-owned lot are exempt from providing parking. He said that many businesses cannot buy an employee parking permit at the police department; and added there could be a gap in the guidelines for parking management. Mr. D'Arezzo said businesses can lease spaces in Town. Mr. Weston noted two different issues with commercial parking: (1) the need for all day '. employee parking, and (2) the overflow parking needed for a thriving business. He said the Commission needs to recognize that the exemption for commercial parking was great 20 years ago but downtown has changed and the uses now need more parking. He noted that businesses are becoming successful, but the Commission knows that parking cannot be and should not be accommodated on site. Mr. Tuttle asked if the Town had a task force for downtown parking. Ms. Mercier explained that the Town is currently working with Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. on a study of downtown parking utilization, and that there is an Internal staff Parking, Traffic, and Transportation Task Force (PTTTF) that deals with safety issues, capital projects and resident requests. Ms. Mercier said employee parking has been discussed by the PTTTF, and noted that the recent study by Nelson/Nygaard has recommendations on how to better manage the downtown parking. Page 14 Mr. Tuttle suggested adding language to the Design Guidelines to make applicants aware of the parking challenges downtown. Ms. Mercier said Design Guidelines offer suggestions and options for how developments should be designed, but that actual requirements need to be in the Zoning Bylaw. Ms. Adrian said the type of business changes the amount of parking spaces that should be required. Ms. Mercier noted that Section 9 of the Zoning Bylaw addresses parking requirements based on the type of use, but is not very specific. Ms. Adrian stated that people should not be parking Illegally. Mr. Safina responded that no matter what the Commission requires for parking, businesses will always have a need for additional parking. Mr. D'Arezzo said one goal would be to have businesses participate in shared parking. Mr. Weston said the Design Guidelines do not ask for specific plans to address employee parking and the parking needs of a proposed business. He said the next development proposal should provide a plan for patron and employee parking. Ms. Mercier suggested increasing the parking ratio to 1.5 per unit, which would create additional spaces that could be allocated to the commercial square footage. Ms. Hitch suggested requiring parking based on square footage of commercial space. Mr. Safina stated parking and traffic studies need to be enhanced. Ms. Hitch agreed future developers need to be prepared. Mr. Tuttle said a parking analysis and plan needs to be addressed in zoning, with a note in the Design Guidelines. Ms. Mercier mentioned that it can be added to the list of documents required with a complete application. Mr. Safina said that the locations of mechanicals and dumpsters needs to be reviewed. A site with residential abutters may have a hard time locating mechanicals and dumpsters. Ms. Hitch opined that awnings should be harmonious with abutting businesses, and that signs should be uniform. She noted the Town of Winchester as an example. Ms. Hitch pointed out some language submitted by Mr. Barnes and commented it could work In earlier places In the Design Guidelines. Mr. Weston said he would like to see the impact of the proposed definition of'Residential Neighborhood'on the District. Ms. Mercier noted that she and Andrew prepared a map of this in the spring. Mr. MacNichol mentioned Mr. D'Arezzo's question about whether the absolute elevation restriction would penalize a building on a hill. Mr. Safina opined that building height should be relative to the site and that a structure on a hill should not be penalized. He gave an example of how the language should be crafted. Ms. Mercier asked if the proposed language - which is vague and based on conditions at the time - would cause a lot of concept plan reviews. Mr. Barnes agreed it should be site specific. Mr. Tuttle pointed out the building at 52 Sanborn Street. Mr. Weston said the discussion on height is misguided; the Commission really cares about massing and the perception from adjacent buildings. Ms. Mercier added that shadows are also Important. Mr. Barnes agreed that massing is very Important, but commented that a 4-story building has a significant adverse Impact to a residential neighborhood. Mr. MacNichol pointed out some proposed language in section 10.4.5 that could address aforementioned parking issues. Mr. Safina said section 10.4.6 shadows needs to be reviewed. Ms. Mercier pointed out section 10.5 was never edited, but contains some if-then statements. The Commission discussed using if-then statements throughout the document. Ms. Hitch suggested permission statements rather than restriction statements. She said the goal is to enliven the streets, and suggested allowing a use along a 'Primary Commercial Street'to have a light on later In the evening. Page 1 5 Ms. Adrian said a developer should respect the character of the Town, and she asked for an update on the paint Job at 30 Haven Street. Ms. Mercier said they are sticking with the dark blue they originally proposed. Ms. Adrian opined that the building will be very dark. Mr. Weston disagreed, and noted that not all the faces that are currently pink will be painted over with blue; some of them will be painted over with a tan color. Mr. MacNichol summarized the remaining comments that were not reviewed. Ms. Mercier said she will Incorporate the comments Into another draft of the Design Guidelines for review by the Commission. She offered to email Mr. Barnes when the next draft is available. Discussion of Master Plan Potential Updates Ms. Adrian asked Mr. MacNichol if he was able to find the original Master Plan document so it can be edited. Mr. MacNlchol responded he was not able to find the document. Ms. Mercier said Master Planning is a community process and cautioned against editing the original document. Ms. Adrian asked for a PDF of the document to make comments on. Ms. Mercier agreed to look for the original word version in order to create an accessible PDF. Ms. Mercier Informed the Commission that Burger King has received a final building Inspection and was issued an occupancy permit. Mr. Saflna commented he recently saw activity at the restaurant asked If there was a soft-opening. Mr. MacNichol responded that the activity could have been training for employees only. Ms. Hitch asked for updates on the former Sunoco and Post Office properties. Ms. Mercier responded that the 3id party code reviews have been finalized on the proposed development at the Post Office but a building permit application has not been filed. She noted that the developer of the Sunoco property has hired a new design engineer and that they are working on their building permit application. Ms. Adrian asked for an update on 24 Gould Street. Ms. Mercier replied that she heard the developer of 24 Gould Street also changed engineers, but that she does not know anything else at this time. Ms. Hitch asked If an engineered plan Is required before a building can be demolished. Ms. Mercier responded there is some level of detail required before a building can be demolished. Ms. Adrian said the rear of the property Is staked-off. Ms. Mercier replied a building permit application has not been filed. Ms. Mercier said that the 14 Chapin Avenue development has commenced. Ms. Hitch mentioned the "urban myth"that the Increase in rodent sightings In Town Is due to all the construction. She said she read an article which said the Increase in the rat population is seasonal and has more to do with frost and weather than construction. Ms. Mercier said rats like food, people and shelter. Mr. Weston said the bunny population has increased as well. Ms. Alvarado, a member of the Select Board, informed the Commission the Board of Health Is holding a meeting on Tuesday night at Parker Middle School regarding the rodent situation around town. Ms. Adrian said she noticed for the first time a hawk circling around Lincoln Street. Mr. Weston said hawks are not unusual and he has seen them around his property. Mr. Tuttle said he has seen an Increase in rabbits and mice on his property. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda 09/17/2018 CPDC Minutes 08/13/2018 Johnson Woods-Continuance Request Meadowbrook Golf Club-Continuance Request Approval Not Required Plan- 18 a 23 Family Circle/ Memo from Community Development Director 'Lyle Estates'-Lot Release Request Design Guidelines - Master Draft Page 16