Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-01 Community Planning and Development Commission Minuteso,� orxGa i Town of Reading RECEIVED Meeting Minutes TOWN CLERK �(EAC-NG, MA. 911� Board - Committee - commission - council: 2022 JUN 14 PM 2: 04 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2021-11-01 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Location: Address: Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members: Pamela Adrian, Chair; Heather Clish, John Weston, Tony D'Arezzo-Associate Members - Not Present: Nick Safina Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Jamie Gerrity, Jeffrey Olinger, Josh Latham, Mary -Ellen O'Neill, Susan Coppola, Ken Nielson, Heidi Keogan, Carol Healy, Linda Mason, Carlo Bacci, Zoom Attendees Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: MEETING HELD IN SELECT BOARD ROOM $ REMOTELY VIA ZOOM Chair Pamela Adrian called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM. Community Development Director Julie Mercier explained the protocols for tonight's meeting that is being held in-person but also allows remote participation. She presented the Zoom Meeting information to the public for those wishing to join. Ms. Mercier explained how the Zoom features work and how they will be managed. She added that RCN is broadcasting and recording the meeting. Continued Public Hearing. 40R Plan Review 18 Woburn Street. G.0 Podera Contractina, Inc. Ms. Clish read the continuance request from the applicant into the record. Ms. Clish made a motion to continue the hearing for 40R Plan Review at 18 Woburn Street to December 13, 2021 at 8:30 PM. Mr. D'Arezzo seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Public Comment Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue, spoke about Johnson Woods and the promises made to the Town regarding the Decisions from 2004 and 2011 for the project. She noted that 50% of the land was supposed to be maintained as open space and that a trail was supposed to be provided. She noted that some of the buildings are starting to show their age, and that there is a lot of construction noise. She said that It has been disrupting the neighborhood for a long time, and that the developer is working on various parts of the site at the same time. She asked the Commission to follow up on some of these issues and try to get the project completed. Mr. Weston responded that the Commission has spent 8-10 hours per year working on the changes in that development and is well aware of the issues and challenges, and continues to do what they can to get them to provide a clear understanding of what Is happening. Mr. rR „ Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Weston noted that the Commission only has so much power over what happens on private land. Ms. Mercier noted that she will be researching what is supposed to happen with the trail. Discussion of 2onina Bylaw Amendments for April 2022 Town Meeting Ms. Mercier went through the draft Town Meeting presentation on Site Plan Review and Minor Site Plan Review triggers. Mr. Weston noted that the presentation makes it seem simple, which it really Is, though it took a lot of time to get there. He suggested that we emphasize the reason for this amendment Is that some changes to sites were happening in Town and were not getting reviewed at all. Ms. Clish suggested starting with an explanation of Site Plan Review and Minor Site Plan Review. 40R Bylaw: Ms. Mercier alerted the CPDC to the 40R Bylaw Update in the November Town Meeting Warrant Report. She noted that CPDC will not be able to give a presentation at Town Meeting on this topic. Mr. Weston opined that this is a procedural issue, because CPDC is not given much time to respond to Instructional Motions on the floor of Town Meeting. Ms. Clish concurred and asked the reason. Mr. D'Arezzo noted that it could be Zoom related, since Zoom takes more time. Ms. Clish noted that there is a Citizen Petition related to 40R on the Warrant. Ms. Mercier clarified that CPDC members who are Town Meeting Members can respond and participate in the dialogue at Town Meeting related to the Citizen Petition. Mr. Weston noted that the Citizen Petition was not presented to the CPDC, and so the CPDC has not had a chance to discuss the matter in full and respond to such. Mr. Bacci asked who made the decision that CPDC cannot give a presentation at Town Meeting. Ms. Mercier noted that she heard it from the people who make such a decision. Ms. Clish noted that she and Mr. D'Arezzo now have more responsibility in terms of using the Warrant Report to effectively communicate at Town Meeting. Mr. D'Arezzo asked staff to prepare a summary for them to use on the floor of Town Meeting. Mr. Dave Talbot chimed in that citizen petitions can be put forth by Town Meeting Members, which they did as a way to step in and try to do something in the absence of a proposal from staff or CPDC. He noted that 15-20 cars are now parked on Sanborn Street because of Postmark, and he opined that this is an unanticipated consequence of the projects downtown. Mr. Weston said he noticed the same cars when he was out walking his dog and also that there was an event at the Masonic Temple at the same time. He stated that there probably are some cars spilling over from Postmark while they sort out some specific problems with their parking garage. He commented that PARC has been discussing this same issue and that people are welcome to bring parking concerns to those meetings. Mr. Weston noted that government takes time. Mr. Talbot stated that tweaking the zoning may take time but that the 40R projects have been reviewed and approved quickly. He noted that the downtown only transforms every 100-200 years and asked that CPDC move more slowly. � oruE,�o + e , Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Mr. MacNichol briefly went through areas of the 40R Bylaw that are under consideration for amendments. Ms. Mercier noted that this is an overview, the public hearing for zoning amendments will open on Monday, December 6d'. Ms. Adrian asked if we require community space, noting that Ace Flats has provided some. Mr. Weston opined that all the areas staff are looking at encapsulate the discussion and feedback to -date. He asked that we consider the repercussions of making these changes, and noted that development needs to go somewhere in Town. He commented that we can't get anything for nothing, what do these changes mean for the typical downtown parcel, and what will this likely do for the feasibility of development. Ms. Clish said she grapples with what a 10% minimum open space would look like on the average parcel downtown, or the minimum 10 -foot setbacks on two sides, and how that would get pieced together throughout downtown. She said this might result in open space that is not attractive or useful, and asked if there are examples of other communities where this has worked. Mr. MacNichol noted that some towns with minimum open space requirements have not seen much development, but that Chelsea has been a success because they were able to partner with a local non-profit and get grant funding to realize the vision. Mr. Talbot commented that in-kind contributions could be factored in. He noted that 40R is one small part of downtown and that there are plenty of other commercial areas in Town where development can go. He noted that while he is not speaking with the RMLD Board, he is interested in knowing what could happen with the RMLD building on Ash Street, and noted that a few years ago the concept for RMLD was fairly low-density. He wondered why we would want high density downtown and lower density outside of downtown. Mr. Weston clarified that the MAPC plan and Gamble Associates Plan were not CPDC plans, and that the CPDC never really discussed it. Mr. D'Arezzo noted that the plans for RMLD and surrounding were pie -in -the -sky because the concept design is mostly on privately -owned land. He stated that there is little they can do about privately -owned property. Continued Public Hearing. 40R Plan Review 6-16 Chute Street. Plimsoll Company Mr. Gerrity, Mr. Olinger, Mr. Josh Latham, Ms. Tobias and Mr. McCarty were present on behalf of the application. Mr. Latham noted that tonight Is the 3'd hearing before the Commission. Mr. Olinger went through the design changes: • Increased setback to abutting residential • Updated interior program and square footages • Reduced from 33 units to 31 units • Modified parking garage accordingly • Minor tweaks to configuration of building core = better trash access, better stair, better accessibility, better commercial spaces Mr. Olinger noted that the project will activate a longer strip of retail along the sidewalk. At ground floor they added 200 square feet to retail, made it so that the trash room now abuts the garage, designed a larger mall/package room, and provided ADA access to elevator. At the 2nd floor level they created amenity space and access to a retail terrace separate from the residential terrace. Retail or tenant space could be a rotating concept. W FRF,bC Town of Reading a i.x 1 Meeting Minutes Facade changes along Chute Street include inset and rotated balconies to add spatial richness and allow better sunlight Into units. The Applicant summarized that primary retail has gotten larger, allowance for indoor/outdoor event space. A canopy structure and/or sculpture is designed within the front terraced area. Garage clearance is 12' and will allow trucks to load/unload inside. Mr. Olinger showed updated renderings; noted that building still has identity and presence for the Town. Copper patina, bronze and wood tones and materials will be used. Ms. Adrian commented that the building is growing on her. Mr. D'Arezzo asked how much retail is currently in the existing building. Mr. Gerrity noted that there is 4,800 on the first floor and 4,800 in the basement, which is mostly not retail space. He said that the assessor's information is 8,500 between the two floors. Ms. Clish asked if there is a rendering from the abutters' viewpoint on Woburn Street. Mr. Olinger explained the rendering and noted that there is now a 26' setback from the structure to the property line, which will partly be taken up by parking. Ms. Clish opined that she is not a fan of the canopy sculpture since it will be on the owner of the commercial space to maintain It. She preferred when there was a tree because that area needs shade. She said the structure is challenging because it impedes people from the street because they have to walk around it or through it, and it conveys a feeling that the public is not allowed to sit there. Mr. Gerrity noted that the Town has a plan for this square and it may include extending the triangle/sidewalk out. He said he would rather wait to see what the Town ends up doing and then propose something congruous with the plan. He noted that he is flexible with what the Town and CPDC thinks makes the most sense. Mr. Olinger said they want this to be a productive and active area and will Incorporate part of the civic design for this streetscape. Ms. Mercier clarified the streetscape conceptual designs for this area, which were presented at the Economic Development Summit in October, and offered to share them with CPDC. She opined that it probably makes sense for the developer to wait and coordinate with the Town. Ms. Adrian chimed in that saving trees is her preference. Ms. Clish thanked the applicant for providing the Portsmouth example of the living wall. Mr. Gerrity noted that he needs to educate himself a bit more about how this type of wall is constructed and maintained, but that he is aware it is possible. He noted that the designs are conceptual at this point and that he would like to design the building more from a structural perspective before providing more details on how the wall will work. Ms. Clish stated her intention is that it looks as good as it is envisioned. Ms. Clish noted that the owner mentioned LEED In an earlier presentation, and asked whether that is still on the table and what is being considered for energy efficiency and standards. Mr. Olinger noted that MA has good energy codes to begin with, with a base standard that enables them to meet LEED standards. Beyond that, they have to have heat recovery ventilation and energy recovery ventilation to ensure air quality, and that they will fine tune all their mechanicals. On-site solar is almost part of a standard MA development, and this development will be solar -ready. LEED is more about material tracking these days with regards to health safety for materials and products. He said they will meet the most current standards they have to, and will also provide EV charging infrastructure & conduit in the garage up front. w` nrxega . + � , Town of Reading a�e Meeting Minutes Ms. Adrian asked about ventilation for restaurants. Mr. Gerrity noted that exhaust has to go up to the highest point and that a chase has been provided next to the elevator shaft. Mr. Weston asked to understand what the neighbor will experience at the rear of the property. He noted that there will be a wall at the property line; Mr. Gerrity said that the current neighbor has a T fence. Mr. Gerrity explained the grade increases from Chute to Woburn Street and that the garage is below grade with a retaining wall. He said that the abutter will not see the parking lot. Ken Nielson, 14 Grand Street, asked where the mechanical equipment, exhaust/make-up air vents will be. He opined that the new building will have a lot of mechanicals that will be very loud and very near to existing homes. Mr. Gerrity answered that mechanical equipment will go on the roof, exhaust vents through a louver. He noted that the existing building has loud mechanicals currently. Ms. Adrian asked for more details about the mechanicals - placement, decibels, shielding, views from the street, impacts on abutters, etc. Ms. Sue Coppola, Ipswich resident, prior resident of 128 Woburn Street, and now representing 100 Woburn Street, asked a few questions starting with what do we want Reading to look like. She opined that the project does not fit with downtown. She asked about the tree being referenced by the developer. She noted that the homes abutting the property all have fieldstone foundations which have a high propensity to be impacted by drilling or construction. She asked to better understand what lighting will look like and what the impacts will be. Ms. Coppola reiterated Ms. Clish's comment regarding the canopy, and noted it might Impact handicap accessibility. She suggested that the developer contribute to the streetscape redesign. She noted that she would like to see the renderings more clearly from an abutter's view. Mr. Olinger showed a view with the tree, noting that it is on the property at 100 Woburn Street, and that the picture was provided by the prior owner. He stated the design approach was to absorb comments and set the building back from abutters. Ms. Coppola noted that the proposed parking is at ground level, not underground. She asked if it is for the retail as well as the residential, and opined that it is not enough parking for the building. Mr. Gerrity explained that there is a lot of public parking in the area and that there is a lot of vacancy currently at the MBTA lot. Mr. Olinger noted that closing the curb cut enables them to add 2 street parking spaces which will assist the retail spaces. He said that headlights will be lower than backyards and blocked by 1-2 layers of fencing. Ms. Coppola noted that she pays for a residential sticker to park in front of her own house at 128 Woburn Street, and that she does not want to deal with cars blocking her driveway. Mr. Weston clarified the height of the building is about 45' with a 2' parapet, which will help screen mechanicals from view, as well as block a lot of the noise. He said mechanicals will produce noise but it won't be the same noise as existing, and more noise could come from cars, etc. Ms. Coppola disagreed and said that at 100 Woburn, they do not experience noise from the existing building, because it is not operating at night. She said her only issue with the existing site is the dumpster. Mr. Weston pointed out that she lives steps from a commuter rail lot yet has a parking lot with a laundromat as her neighbor, which doesn't create a lot of activity or nuisance for her. He noted how such can change over time. Ms. Coppola said she is looking for another good neighbor. She noted that the new buildings downtown are driving up rental prices and are hard to compete with. OCH Ork�Q' Town of Reading o� Meeting Minutes Naomi Kaufman, 64 Woburn Street, asked what the developer sees as the increased parking Impact or requirement as a result of the new building. Mr. Gerrity noted that trip generation for the proposed versus the existing is a good way to determine this. He explained that replacing retail/office with retail/residential creates a minimal Increase. Ms. Kaufman asked if parking is factored into this. Mr. Gerrity noted that parking for residential is 100% contained within the garage, and that utilization of parking In existing buildings is around 70% of what has been built. Ms. Kaufman clarified that she wants to know what the on - street parking demand will be, and whether it will be attributed to residents who don't park In the garage or increased retail demand. She would like the Commission to ask developers for this information. Ms. Kaufman asked about sound mitigation and what Is being done to ensure that sound is being deflected away from the neighborhood. Mr. Gerrity noted that the building massing is blocking the entire neighborhood from the train noise, so that is a benefit. Mr. Olinger noted that a general principal about sound diffusion is that the more texture and softness a surface has, the better it is at breaking it up or absorbing it. He said that the angled articulations, step -backs and materials along the facade make this project a sound diffuser. Ms. Kaufman asked if there is a way to determine what the current sound deflecting capacity is versus what is proposed. Mr. Olinger noted that the current building is brick, flat, long, and low - so it doesn't really absorb, diffuse or deflect sound. Mr. Weston noted that it will mitigate the noise levels for the neighbors on Woburn Street. He expressed concern that the building is totally reflective and the angled cornice will reflect the noise of the idling locomotive at the train depot back towards Lincoln Street. He noted that this might have the biggest Impact on residents of their own building and that he hopes the windows have high STC (Sound Transmission Class) levels so that people want to live there. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 12S Summer Avenue, stated shock at the building, and opined that this does not reflect what Reading is. She said she is open to something new but wants a New England style building instead of a messy cluttered eyesore. She suggested they change the ocean blue to a warmer blue and get rid of the cornice. She noted that 10-15 years ago the Town took the tree down on the corner and that the corner really needs a tree because of urban heat Island effect. She asked for benches, chairs, and gathering places. Linda Mason, grew up in Reading and is in low-income housing and trying to get back Into Reading. She stated Reading is where she considers home, but the rents are too high in this area and everything is being turned into luxury apartments. She asked if the new development will include low-income housing with a lottery. She stated that she is here on behalf of the Pavlidis family and that everyone in Town loves them because they are good people who help the community. She asked if the new building will have restaurants and whether the Last Corner can go back Into this building. Mr. Latham noted that the project will include 8 affordable units and there will be a lottery. He also mentioned that this project is not a referendum on the Last Corner restaurant. It will be redeveloped and new leases will be signed. Ms. Lorraine Willwerth, Green Street, asked where the mechanicals will be located, including the massive 6' fan that vents carbon monoxide from the garage. She also asked who ensures that the sound and echo won't happen, noting that her neighborhood does have an echo from the 4011 building behind them. Mr. Olinger mentioned that the Ace Flats garage fan is a unique case because the 69 -car garage is fully enclosed and needs to vent, and the 6 Mork Town of Reading �I Meeting Minutes vent is in the courtyard directly in the line of sight of Lorralne's house. He noted that it was discussed and is visually screened and that the property owner is working to mitigate the situation by adding a 2nd vent so that the one facing Lorraine's house is used less. Mr. Olinger noted that this parking garage, unlike Ace Flats, is partly open and will have a ventilated screen wall, and likely a small fan on the roof. He noted that the balconies on this building will also help mitigate sound, contrasted with the fact that balconies were not allowed on Ace Flats facing the neighborhood behind, so the Ace Flats walls are flatter. He noted that Ace Flats now has planters with soil and landscaping to help buffer the sound. Ms. Willwerth noted music from Tread bounced off the walls of Ace Flats and into her yard last summer. Ms. Kaufman asked If sound will be monitored after occupancy. Mr. Olinger said that sound can be monitored post -occupancy to make sure the building is functioning as designed. Mr. Weston explained that adherence to sound standards can only apply to mechanicals and things related to their building, not community noise or ambient noise that happens to bounce off their building. Ms. Val Pavlidis pointed out that she may not sleep in Reading but that she "lives" in Reading, and loves Reading people who have been good to them. Ms. Brukilacchio asked about the affordable housing and how the 80% Area Median Income is determined. Additional questions were asked regarding 40B and Section 8. Ms. Mercier and Mr. Latham explained how affordability is calculated and monitored, and added that residents with Section 8 vouchers can occupy units in a building like this if the building owner is willing and complies with State requirements. Ms. Brukilacchio asked about parking and how much more retail the Brande Court parking lot could support. She reiterated some of Mary Ellen's comments and Ms. Coppola's comments. Mr. Weston brought up the Dunkin/Jimbo's property to illustrate a point on parking utilization in Town; specifically, that those two uses create spillover parking in Town. He then went back to when Kabloom was there and had very little parking demand. He noted that different businesses have very different parking demand and turnover, and that there is a lot of guesswork involved in figuring out how many parkingspaceswill be needed for certain uses. Ms. Coppola reiterated that the current retail areas on the site have a dedicated parking lot. Mr. Latham said that demand for parking downtown is a good thing, because it means people want to be downtown and success for local businesses. He pointed out a number of commercial uses that would not exist downtown without the 300' exception. Ms. Brukilacchio explained that she wants to help the downtown, and thinks it's important that the 4011 mixed-use buildings aren't taking a bigger bite than what is there now. She suggested requiring a certain percentage amount of extra parking for overflow, and commented that there must be data out there somewhere for how to calculate this. Mr. Latham commented that as -of -right this site could contain a 4 -story commercial building with no parking. He opined that 4011 is a smart way to allow for symbiotic development downtown. Mr. Latham explained that they will follow all general construction standards N OFR�Q Town of Reading a� ie Meeting Minutes Mr. Weston asked staff where things stand. Mr. MacNichol reminded the Commission that the Town Engineer would like to connect with the applicant on the drainage design. Mr. Weston reminded the development team of the 21 -page letter provided by the former owner of 100 Woburn Street, and asked the developer to provide responses to the concerns. The Commission discussed conditioning that the Applicant come back with materials when they get further along with design development. Mr. Olinger mentioned that landscape and horticulture experts will give advice on the living wall, and they can bring more information back to CPDC at a later time as well. Ms. Clish chimed in about the feasibility of the wall in this climate, and that the Portsmouth example Included planters in the ground, which would impact the building design if the building has a zero setback. Mr. Olinger noted that the podium wall is deeper and thicker because of the podium structure which is 16" deep, so they have all that room for planters if needed, or use the soil that's existing for a deeper root system. Ms. Wiliwerth suggested that the screening not be wood pallets, and that the end result should be something of substance and exactly match what is represented. She asked for more on the back of the building. She said it will be noisy and stressful for abutters. Ms. Coppola noted that she will lose Income if she loses tenants because of this project Mr. D'Arezzo noted that he would like to discuss waivers required to justify density. He brought up the citizen petition for November Town Meeting, and though it may not be legally enforceable, the CPDC should still consider revising waiver parameters. He went through the current justifications for waivers in the zoning, and asked whether any other members are concerned with granting a waiver for 4x the allowed density. Mr. MacNichol read through the waivers requested for this project. Mr. Weston commented that the big waiver request is for density (80 units per acre), but noted that to meet the 20 unit per acre density allowed by right, the project would only include —10 units. He opined that from a planning perspective, this is 1 of 2 properties in Town where a high density makes sense (the other one being where the Met is now). He said that 20 units per acre is not the right density around the depot. Ms. Adrian agreed. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that Town Meeting should know that density is something CPDC is looking at. The Commission discussed the parking space dimensions and aisle widths. The regular spaces meet Reading standards, and the one-way drive aisle is 16' which is sufficient for angled parking. Mr. Talbot noted that the Commission has a lot more discretion than he realized, and that it seems Town Meeting wants them to use it between the 20 units per acre and 80 units per acre. He stated that the Commission could solve everything neighbors want while still allowing transit -oriented development. Mr. Latham spoke to the density question and all the factors Involved in the decision. He noted that the 20 units per acre is at the discretion of the Commission to grant a waiver to allow for smart development. He stated that this project utilizes smart growth development efficiently. Meeting Minutes Mr. Gerrity mentioned the Economic Development Summit and the push-pull of creating a nice building with affordable units, which have an effect on the pro -forma of any project. Ms. Pavlidis commented that the Met and 30 Haven are not fully rented. Mr. Weston made a motion to continue the public hearing for a 40R Plan Review at 6-16 Chute Street to December 13th at 9:30PM. Mr. D'Arezzo seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Public Meetina. Minor Amendment to Approved PUD -R Johnson Woods Development Ms. Clish read the withdrawal without prejudice request into the record. Ms. Clish made a motion to accept the request for withdrawal without prejudice for the Minor Amendment to an Approved PUD -R. Mr. D Arezzo seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Adiournment Mr. Weston made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. DArezzo and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Documents Reviewed at the Meeting: • CPDC Agenda 11/01/21 • 40R Plan Review, 18 Woburn Street o Continuance Request to 12/13/21 • 40R Plan Review, 6-16 Chute Street 0 6-16 Chute Street, Civil and Architectural Plan Set, dated 10/15/21 o Applicant Response to Engineering and Revised Drainage Report, dated 10/15/21 o Summary of Changes, dated 10/18/21 o Existing First -Floor and Basement Commercial Square Footage, received 10/26/21 o Memo from Engineering Department, dated 10/28/21 o Draft Decision, dated 11/1/21 • Minor Amendment to Approved PUD -R, Johnson Woods Development o Request to Withdraw Without Prejudice, dated 11/1/21 • Discussion on Zoning Bylaw Amendments forApril 2022 o Floodplain Bylaw, Track Changes Version, dated 11/1/21 o Update to November Town Meeting on 40R Bylaw • CPDC Meeting Minutes of 7/12/21 and 8/16/21