Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-22 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes x Town of Reading rttGEIVtu TOWN CLERK Meeting Minutes RE,r.,ri ;,; 0; Pu1A ' iFe 2021 MAY 25 AMT 22 Board - committee - commission - council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2021-03-22 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Location: Remote Meeting - Zoom Address: Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members: John Weston, Chair; Nick Safina, Pamela Adrian Heather Clish, Tony D'Arezzo-Associate, Linda Harrison Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Town Engineer Ryan Percival, Select Board Member Carlo Bacci, Select Board Member Vanessa Alvarado, Mike Warner, Anna Dillaway, David Dillaway, Mike Lacey, Tony R., Kathy Devine, Lebatique,A. Scicchitani, Jackie McCarthy, Carolyn Whiting, Bob Connor, Kathy Devine, J. Finocchio, John Magazzu Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: MEETING HELD REMOTELY VIA ZOOM Chairman John Weston called the meeting to order at 7:33 PM. Community Development Director Julie Mercier explained the protocols for tonight's meeting that is being held virtually as all hearings throughout the pandemic have been. She presented the Zoom Meeting information to the public for those wishing to join. She explained the features of the Zoom program and how to provide comments for any given application. She added that RCN is broadcasting and recording the meeting. Continued Public Hearing Site Plan Review 0 Auburn Street Water Tank Replacement Mr. Weston opened the continued public hearing for a Site Plan Review at 0 Auburn Street. Town Engineer Ryan Percival was present on behalf of the application, he was joined by Mr. Mike Warner of Weston and Sampson Engineering. Mr. Percival acknowledged that some items that will be presented tonight were not submitted on time for CPDC to review in advance of the meeting. He continued that soils on the site have been studied further and have different mitigation techniques that can be applied. Mr. Percival stated that the fence line for the project is continuing to be explored. Mr. Percival informed the Board that the soil mitigation area has grown to cover the maximum amount of the site plausible. He added that soil sampling in the northeast corner will need still to be conducted. Mr. Percival stated that the fence line has not been adjusted yet due to further study on impacts being needed. He stated that if the use of that eastern portion of the site were to change, it may trigger additional review by the State. Mr. Percival added that funding for further study of on-site uses has not yet been approved and will require Town Meeting approval. Mr. Percival stated that the bituminous concrete driveway along Auburn Street will be removed in order to reduce impervious areas and the drive t OrR 3y� Town of Reading Yet Meeting Minutes Y,I"COP�P apron will be relocated to better align with the existing garage towards the west. This will help increase open area and potentially add further space to outdoor uses. Mr. Percival shared the information on trees gathered so far. He begun with the fact that a 14" Elm Tree, that is located along the western boundary, is rotting and must be removed. He stated that testing with a resistograph found that a number of trees are weak and/or rotting. A large amount of Red Oaks were found to be hollow which is common among the species according to the on-site arborist. An Ash Tree along the northern boundary may need to be removed but it is unclear if it is on the Town property. The trees depicted on the plans have been deemed hazardous and must be removed according to the Tree Warden. Mr. Percival was unsure if the numerous hazardous trees were due to poor maintenance or other factors such as close growth to one another. Mr. Percival stated the area to the east which is being discussed as a potential pocket park was further studied. A lot of trees within this area are damaged or rotting and about six (6) trees could remain, a number which fits nicely in the area. If contaminated soil is found in this area it will also reduce impact to healthy trees due to the number of unhealthy trees that need to be removed regardless. He continued that further soil study will be required especially if the use of the site is changing. If the use of the site does change, MassDEP will also need to review. Mr. Percival shared the findings of the resistograph on-screen. Mr. Percival reviewed the trussing detail which depicts the band that will encircle the top of the water tank in order to hold cell carrier infrastructure. Cell carriers will attach to this band and not the water tank itself. Mr. Warner explained the detail further. Each horizontal seam along the tank will be provided 'stiffeners' in order for the cell infrastructure to attach to. The tank manufacturer will be responsible for designing the stiffeners so that the tank can withstand the load of the infrastructure. Mr. Percival stated that the concrete base that the new water tank will sit on was also reviewed for alternatives. He found that a change in material was not common and that translucent panels are not as structurally sound to support the tank. Mr. Warner opined that such panels would also have greater visible impacts to the neighborhood. Mr. Warner clarified that the limit of work was reduced from the original plan but it may need to be expanded again dependent on the findings of the study within the eastern area. Mr. Percival reiterated that further monetary contributions will be required to study and clean the eastern area; the monetary contributions will need approval from Town Meeting. Mr. Percival stated that he met with a number of neighbors in order to discuss the findings on the trees as he was surprised about the poor health of the trees. Mr. Weston stated it was unclear where the project was going in terms of remediation. Mr. Warner stated that the limit of work was originally further to the east but has been reduced in order to clarify that the eastern area is not to be touched by the contractor. Mr. Warner continued that the fence line has not been reduced as they could not commit to such without knowing the level of contaminated soil. Mr. Percival stated the project has evolved daily and that If the eastern area is able to be cleaned up it will lead to further mitigation extensions which in turn could reduce the fence line. Ms. Clish asked to clarify if the unhealthy trees being removed will be replaced. Mr. Percival replied in the affirmative but acknowledged that it may not be a one to one ratio in order to provide proper space between each tree. Mr. Percival suggested planting pines and firs in order to reduce health problems ten years from now. Shade and ornamental trees will be prioritized as well where appropriate. An alternative option is leaving the area completely open, with no trees, in order to allow for a pocket park or other options. 2 � OFR r Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Ms. Clish asked if the health of the trees will be studied more often due to these findings. Mr. Percival replied in the affirmative and felt it was an important acknowledgement to continue. Mr. Safina asked if the Water Department informs the Tree Warden of any potential issues on trees. Mr. Percival stated that is the typical process but not all trees can be determined to be unhealthy without specific study. Ms. Harrison asked if invasive species will also be kept out in the future. Mr. Percival stated that details on the project going out to bid are still ongoing but that is the goal for all projects. Ms. Harrison questioned who would be responsible for maintaining any future pocket park. Mr. Percival replied he cannot answer that question at this time as these types of questions are the ones that must be reviewed at Town Meeting when determining future use of the site. Ms. Harrison asked if lattice fencing with landscape features requires additional budget. Mr. Percival replied that it was not included in the original budget and that the design was created to limit the amount of maintenance required on the site. Mr. Safina agreed that ivy or other landscape could Impact the tank pedestal by infiltrating cracks on the concrete. Ms. Harrison asked if a separate structure could be installed. Mr. Percival stated it was unlikely but can be looked at further. He stated MassDEP requires specific types of fencing. Mr. Weston asked if the stiffeners will be cobalt blue to match the tank. Mr. Warner replied they will not be colored to match the tank. He added that the carrier equipment can be matched but not the stiffeners themselves. Mr. Weston stated that the rendering depicted stiffeners that were dark in color and opined that if they are steel colored instead it will dramatically impact the expected aesthetic. Mr. Warner opined that they could potentially be coated but that would require maintenance. Mr. Warner shared an image depicting a tank with uncoated steel stiffeners as proposed herein. Mr. Safina questioned if a different form liner could be installed along the concrete base of the tank. Mr. Percival stated that he has not seen such used on a tank but can ask for more information on the idea. Ms. Harrison asked if the blue coloring will be reflective as it would be more appealing. Mr. Percival replied it would be more reflective than the rendering shows. Ms. Clish opined that the idea of utilizing a different form liner was a great addition and suggested looking more into this. Mr. Percival agreed. Mr. Weston asked if there are any trees eligible to be preserved. Mr. Percival stated not every tree will need to be removed and they will prioritize keeping smaller trees that are healthier over the larger ones in order for future growth. About six (6) trees on the eastern portion of the site can be maintained and a few along the northern boundary as well. Mr. Weston opined that the plan was still a work in progress and that before any vote ensues more information will be needed. He stated more confidence on the fence line location is needed and expectations must be better set. Mr. Weston acknowledged some items, such as budget constraints, are out of the Boards hand. But if data is still being collected, waiting to vote would be favored. Mr. Percival agreed that more sampling is needed before anything can be confirmed. Ms. Clish asked if estimates of these requests will be presented to Town Meeting. Mr. Percival replied in the affirmative and stated that the intent is to have this piece estimated. Mr. Weston opened the hearing to public comment. Select Board Member Vanessa Alvarado stated that the Select Board will discuss the project at their March 2V hearing. She asked about the timing needed for further soil study and if 3 4p,nrx� e Town of Reading = Meeting Minutes a'INCOP this is something that can happen fairly quickly. Mr. Percival answered that due to the warmer weather coming, sampling can be scoped out in the short term. He stated borings and deep test pits are not required for this project and he would also like the information as soon as possible. He continued that this was discussed today and would likely be included in the budget request. Ms. Alvarado asked that this hearing be continued so that the Select Board can discuss further and provide further input and guidance. Mr. Weston agreed. Mr. Mark Delaney of 26 Beacon Street stated that he met with the Town Engineer and felt he was very informative. He stated that his concern was that there were no commitments to the mitigation methods discussed within the plans. He expressed concern with some of the language included in the Draft Decision, such as`If feasible', and that the timeline stated mitigation would be after construction was complete. He opined that the open space ideas discussed is the most proper mitigation to the neighborhood and a full commitment from the Town would provide security. Mr. Weston agreed and stated further study will help amend the language within the decision. Mr. Safina asked if the concern was related to the soil contamination or construction impacts. Mr. Delaney replied the construction impacts will be much greater to the neighborhood and mitigation to the neighborhood should be required. Ms. Clish asked if the goal is for an active use at the site or something more visually pleasing. Mr. Delaney replied that opportunity to enhance the open space is the desire and then any specific further improvements from there can be discussed. Ms. Scicchitani stated that she is a long-term Reading resident and was concerned with the lack of communication on this project by the Town. She asked how tall the new tank is compared to the existing. She expressed further concerns of the visibility of the tank during winter seasons and the removal of cell infrastructure. Mr. Weston replied that this is the third hearing on the application and that the height of the new tank will be approximately the same of the existing tank. The tank will also be placed in the same area as the existing but because the bottom of the tank will be enclosed it will feel larger. He added that discussions on the color have ensued and changing the color would likely increase the price of the tank; the cobalt blue is the standard color. Pricing increases is an Item that the Select Board will have to discuss. Mr. Safina explained that the industry drives the choices which can be somewhat limiting. Mr. Percival agreed and stated discussions are ongoing at both the CPDC, the Permanent Building Committee and the Select Board. Any changes to the color will be a Town agreement. Mr. Safina asked if the color is related to performance of the tank. Mr. Warner replied in the negative. Ms. Mercier explained the outreach conducted for the hearing. She stated notice for Site Plan Review is not required by the State but the Town takes it upon itself to notify abutters. Ms. Mercier stated typical notice is to abutters within a 300' radius but in this case, notice was provided to abutters within a 600' radius. Two notices were also published in the Reading Chronicle and the website informs the dates of the next hearing. Mr. Warner stated that a future use should be confirmed as soon as possible as different uses require different mitigation techniques. Ms. Adrian opined that mitigation is needed regardless of use and should be done for public health and safety. Mr. Warner clarified that the level of required remediation could Increase if it is to be a public use. Mr. Bob Connor of 7 Beacon Street asked if the idea of swales and water retention ponds are being considered, especially if runoff will increase due to tree removal. Mr. Percival opined that erosion is unlikely in the wooded area due to the amount of pervious area and that the impervious driveway is to be removed. Mr. Connor opined that runoff in the area 4 � OiR O Town of Reading i Meeting Minutes O,aJ➢:IN[OPOO�Fn does occur and should be reviewed. Mr. Percival replied that it could be street run-off but he will look into it. Ms. Ann Dillaway of 32 Beacon stated that during substantial rainfall events a huge amount of water Flows from the water tower area through the adjacent neighbor and all the way into her property. She acknowledged that she was unsure of where it was exactly coming from or why it is happening more recently than ever before but an issue does exist nonetheless. Ms. Dillaway expressed concern of tree removal due to the haybales not being permanent. Mr. Weston summarized that additional information is needed on the: Select Board decisions; form liner design; fence location and soil testing, and; stormwater impacts. He asked If the Tree Warden will provide more information or if it all has been presented. Mr. Percival stated more technical information will be provided. Mr. Weston asked to keep the idea of a different color open. Ms. Adrian asked for a phased schedule that depicts when certain aspects will happen. Mr. Percival replied that sequencing is a hard item to navigate due to mitigation practices but he can look to provide a date that the project will go out to bid. Ms. Harrison asked if a physical sample of the water tanks materials can be submitted as it may help mitigate concerns. Mr. Warner replied that he will ask the manufacturer if they have such. Ms. Clish made a motion to continue the Site Plan Review Application for 0 Auburn Street to Monday April 12, 2021 at 8:30PM. Ms. Adrian seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan Endorsement 144 Salem Street Homeowner Kevin Chiles was present on behalf of the application. He stated the abutting neighbor approached him to purchase some land and that idea is moving forward through the ANR process. Mr. Weston asked to clarify which portion of land is being transferred. Mr. Chiles replied that the northern portion of the 144 Salem Street lot will be conveyed to his neighbor. Mr. Weston asked to confirm that frontage on the lot is not affected. Mr. MacNichol replied in the affirmative. He continued that the existing frontage Is non-conforming but because the application does not affect such it qualifies for ANR endorsement. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if Lot B should be labeled a non-buildable lot. Mr. Quitti replied the note is provided on the plan sheet for such. Mr. Safina made a motion to endorse the ANR Plan for 144 Salem Street. Ms. Clish seconded the motion and It was approved 5-0-0. Preview of Material for Zoning Workshop Scheduled for 3/29/21 Ms. Mercier stated that a draft presentation was sent to the Board over the weekend. She stated that the presentation is 45 slides long but they do not need a lot of detail and can be run through quickly. Ms. Mercier stated that she would like to discuss the thoughts of how the workshop will be run and be managed. She felt that by beginning with a question to the audience it will immediately engage them. She can then provide an overview of what 40R zoning is and why it is Important to the Town. The three main areas of focus will be lot coverage and dimensional requirements, open space requirements and parking requirements. 5 O� OFRI. O Town of Reading o c Meeting Minutes J9'INCOPpPP She stated Zoom break out groups can be made and attendees can select which of the three topics they would like to be a part of. The topics can very much overlap and so all material will be given to each group leader in case they need information to jump back to. Each group will then report back out to the entirety so that overarching takeaways can be gathered and developed. She stated that each Board member should think about which group they would like to manage and what questions should be asked to the audience. Ms. Mercier presented an anticipated schedule of each portion of the workshop. Ms. Clish opined it will be tough to get through the presentation in 30 minutes. She stated if the presentation can end with an understanding of 40R requirements it would be most beneficial. Ms. Clish found that the overall approach was very good. Mr. Safina asked how the Zoom features will be managed. Ms. Mercier stated that the protocols of a normal hearing will be used but it will be tougher if there is a large audience. Mr. MacNichol stated that staff is exploring utilizing Google Jamboard. This would allow members of the virtual workshop to place sticky notes for comments on each question slide. He continued that it could be used in many ways such as opening it to the public to allow all attendees the ability to make notes or they could keep it in staff control to take notes as the discussions ensue. Mr. Safina felt that such interactive input would result in the best outcome. He asked if multiple Jamboards can be open at the same time. Mr. MacNichol replied in the affirmative. Mr. Safina asked if the Jamboard would be left open after the workshop. Mr. MacNichol answered that while it could, it may not be best to leave it open and unattended. Ms. Clish recommended that a designated note taker in each breakout group be assigned to run the Jamboard(s). She felt if the Jamboards were open to the public it may slow things down as not everyone is familiar with the program. Ms. Mercier agreed. Mr. Bacci asked if each of the three major topics should be discussed on separate nights. He also questioned the opening question of what does downtown look like in twenty years. He asked why twenty years was used over a number such as ten years. Mr. Weston replied that twenty years is a typical visioning plan as ten years is not a lot of time for a lot of development to occur. He continued that additional meetings and discussions will likely be held after the opening workshop. Mr. Bacci asked if the business community was reached out to. Ms. Mercier replied in the affirmative. Ms. Mercier stated that she will try to narrow the presentation down throughout the upcoming week. She asked the Board what targeted questions they would like to see for each major topic. She asked if open ended questions, such as what is being done well, what could be done better and what new ideas are there, were preferred over more specific questioning. Ms. Mercier continued that the former were used during the Open Space and Recreation Plan public update. Mr. D'Arezzo stated he would prefer more specific questioning. Mr. Safina agreed as the open-ended questions could derail the goal of the conversations. Mr. Safina recommended simplifying the graphics of the presentation. He stated that most people are not as familiar with plan specifics as the Board and staff are. Ms. Mercier agreed and appreciated the helpful feedback. Ms. Clish suggested making the questions to the public more specific to the major topics. Ms. Mercier stated that she will develop such line of questioning. 6 OrNr�Q e Town of Reading r Meeting Minutes 9`IN[OP Mr. Safina stated context of Reading's downtown should be given. He stated that lots are small and lot coverage heavily relates to setbacks and more. Mr. Weston agreed that the public has a want of more open space but would like more input from them on what type of space they are looking for. Mr. Safina concurred that there are potential for off-lot open spaces that may be better than small areas on each individual lot. He stated that adjacent uses are very impactful. Ms. Mercier stated that staff has found examples from other municipalities related to zoning language on connecting adjacent open spaces. Ms. Mercier found that the requirements for open space and massing can have a large impact on the economic feasibility of a development. Mr. Weston agreed. Ms. Clish opined that there are specific opportunity lots and lots that are more constrained when it comes to open space development. Acknowledging these constraints will be important for the public to learn. Mr. D'Arezzo opined that the pathway adjacent to Bunratty Tavern is an example of a good development connection. The path is adjacent to an active outdoor dining area and leads to the heavily utilized municipal lot. He continued that these types of connections are the goal of updating the zoning. Ms. Adrian stated that knowing who will maintain open spaces after development is an important consideration. Ms. Mercier replied that study into best practices of making private spaces feel public is ongoing. Ms. Mercier Informed the Board that any changes to the 40R zoning and/or design guidelines will need approval by the State. Ms. Mercier opined that there are a number of open spaces surrounding downtown and the connections to such may need improvement. Mr. Weston felt that the topic of parking will need to be kept to zoning requirements and control and not so much Town regulations. Ms. Mercier agreed and felt that explanation of requirements vs demand/utilization will be needed. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that the public tends to envision the most impactful scenarios and not the everyday needs, this will need to be balanced in the discussion. Mr. Weston asked if loading should be included within the parking discussion. Ms. Mercier replied that it should. Ms. Clish asked if the Town should be developing in a way to reduce driving demand. Mr. Weston stated that this is a great thought but the discussion on such is hard to have during the ongoing developments affecting the demand for a large amount of businesses. He gave an example that laundromats will be used more by residents living above the new developments who will be able to walk instead of driving. He stated that more will be known on the demand for parking in the near future. Ms. Mercier confirmed that she will send supplemental and updated information throughout the week for the Board to review before the workshop. Minutes 1111121 Mr. Safina made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of 1111121 as amended. Ms. Adrian seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. 7 � FR Town of Reading 3 Meeting Minutes Due to the late time of evening the Board elected to review the meeting minutes 1/25/21 and 2/8/21 at a future meeting date. Adiournment Ms. Clish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10.48 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents Reviewed at the Meeting: CPDC Agenda 312221 • CPDC Minutes of 111121 • 0 Auburn Street, Site Plan Review o Complete Permit Set, dated 02121 o Draft Decision, dated 322121 • Preview of Material for Zoning Workshop Scheduled on 32821 o Draft Presentation, DSGD Overview 8