Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-01-15 ad Hoc - Zoning Advisory Committee Minutest Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Advisory Committee Date: 2014 -01 -15 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: David Tuttle David Traniello Marsie West Eric Bergstrom Jeff Hansen Erin Calvo -Bacci George Katsoufis Members - Not Present: Others Present: Time: 7:30 PM OWN CLERK iu �pN 2-1 P Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Session: Jean Delios- Assistant Town Manager - Community Services Jessie Wilson - Community Development Administrator Jacquie Carson - Executive Director, Peter Sanborn Place Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Jessie Wilson, Community Development Administrator Topics of Discussion: There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Ms. Wilson introduced Jacquie Carson, Executive Director of Peter Sanborn Place. Ms. Wilson had reached out to her input on Assisted Living Facilities including the definition and how to address this type of use. Ms. Carson said that her recommendation is to define supportive housing services independent of the state regulation. That is because there are certain regulatory implications under the state for nursing homes and assisted living facilities. She also said that more recently these types of services have taken other forms such as medical model homes, smart homes, and heart homes. She said that when you think of assisted living, it may be in forms other than your typical assisted living facility such as Peter Sanborn Place or Longwood. Mr. Hansen asked if there are specific traits associated with these newer smaller facilities. Ms. Carson replied yes, and that her primary concern is that there could be a discrepancy between how the state permits assisted living facilities and how we should be defining assisted living facilities. Ms. West said the solution may be just to preface the term noting that it relates only to the context of Reading and not a state regulatory term. Page 1 1 Town of Reading - Meeting Minutes The ZAC continued to have a discussion on assisted living facilities with Ms. Carson. As for whether we should begin to define and separate those newer types of facilities, Mr. Tuttle said it may be easier and more suited to list them within the regulation. Continue Review of Revised Section 2 Definitions The ZAC reviewed the revised Section 2 - Definitions. Daycare Center - The ZAC agreed that the definition is very difficult to understand and that VHB should take another look at it. It was recommended to not have the exclusions be longer than the definition. Daycare Adult - Mr. Hansen asked how this was different than assisted living facility. Ms. Calvo -Bacci said that it is strictly day and not overnight. The ZAC agreed the existing definition is okay. Department - The ZAC agreed this term was awkward, but will defer to the Consultant as to whether or not it can be eliminated. Design Standards - Mr. Hansen had recommended changing the term "recommendations" to requirements. Mr. Katsoufis replied that design standards imply requirements for applicants, are required so he was okay with the change. There was additional discussion on this and it was agreed to revise the language "Set of recommendations and /or requirements regarding..." Developable Land - Although this definition comes from the Smart Growth District the ZAC discussed it in light of the term "building area ". Ms. Wilson said she spoke with the Building Inspector on the term Building Line and he was very confused by the term. He believed it would be more appropriate to have a term for building area. Mr. Tuttle said that is essentially developable land. Ms. Delios clarified that the term Developable Land is used in the Smart Growth District to establish the density allotment. Mr. Tuttle said that if possible the definition should be modified so that it "For the purposes of..." The ZAC continued to discuss the idea of Building Line and Yards and how the current language is not clear enough to address certain structures and whether they are allowed in a required yard. Currently there are specific exemptions such as steps, eaves, building cornices, etc. Mr. Katsoufis said those are all considered to be architectural projections and are required in several code standards. He recommended that a new definition be developed with regulatory language to exclude architectural projections from being subject to the required yard. This would then allow elements such as step platforms, bay windows, bulkheads to be exempt from the required yard setback. Ms. Wilson said that the definition of Yard needs to be examined so that there is no conflict with the term Open Space. The Consultant proposed a definition of open space that does not include parking areas. The question was then asked whether you can park a car on your grass within the yard and not in a driveway. Those are just some of the questions brought up by the Building Inspector. Ms. Delios reviewed the proposed project schedule revisions with the ZAC. In light of the next public forum, she recommended it be pushed back until March 3rd which would give more time to review Sections 3 and 4 - which are essentially the meat of the bylaw. She also said we are going to ask the Consultant to provide more tailored comments to guide the conversation on those Sections. The ZAC continued review of Section 2 - Definitions Dwelling Unit - Mr. Traniello suggested including the various types of dwelling units such as single - family, multi - family, duplex, etc. The ZAC said that the current proposed language is sufficient to cover that and there is a proposed definition for Multi - Family. Page 1 2 Town of Reading - Meeting Minutes Fagade - Mr. Katsoufis was not in favor of the current definition because a building has more than one fagade. Ms. Delios said that this definition relates to signs and when you think of the fagade for signage you primarily think of the main fagade facing the street. Mr. Traniello agreed saying from a zoning perspective we are regulating the front of a building. The ZAC agreed on the proposed language. Family - The ZAC agreed the proposed language is okay. They will keep the definition of Family for the Smart Growth District in that Section and keep a general definition for Family up front. Originally it was agreed to pull all the definitions up front but that may be too confusing as some definitions relate only to a specific section. The ZAC agreed to keep specific section definitions in that section, but add to the preface of the Definitions to inform users that additional definitions may be within the regulatory section in the bylaw. Farm - The ZAC is okay with the proposed language. Mr. Traniello suggested including a definition for Fence and Floodplain. The ZAC also discussed whether the definition of Fast Food should be included. It was agreed that Drive - Thru establishment would cover fast food restaurants. Floor Area Gross - There are two definitions for this term, one of which is for the Smart Growth District. It was agreed to change the Floor Area Gross (general) to "The sum of the areas on the several floors of a building or buildings ". The remaining portion of the definition should be deleted. The definition used in the Smart Growth District will remain the same. Floor Area Net - Mr. Katsoufis said that the state building code references occupied areas and this is different than floor area net. The ZAC recommends that VHB evaluate this term as well as Floor Area Gross and see how they relate to the regulations within the ZBL. Is there a possibility that one can be deleted? Discuss Site Plan Review Ms. Delios told the ZAC they were provided with background material on Site Plan Review. The last document provided to them was a synopsis on how Site Plan Review fits into the Zoning Act under MGL Chapter 40A. In fact, she noted that the Zoning Act does not reference Site Plan Review at all, and that it was created by cities and towns to evaluate projects for impacts and see how well it fits within the community. One thing the Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC) reviews projects for is proposed lighting. They try to ensure the impact of lighting is minimized through the use of cut -off shields and through the review of photometric plans and data. Though this update, the Site Plan Review process including thresholds should be reviewed. She noted that in the past few years the CPDC added a Minor Site Plan Review process which seems to work very well for those smaller projects that may exceed the threshold but have no significant impact. Mr. Katsoufis noted that is it very important for potential developers or business owners to have that first contact with someone at Town Hall. He said that human to human contact can really help guide a project through the permitting process and can effectively change the project based on what would be required for permitting. However, he said that many people are unable to make that human to human contact at Town Hall so it is even more important to have a flow chart, or diagram that clearly lays out a permitting process based on the type of project. Ms. Wilson said that is always the goal and we do try to do that through various documents such as the "Site Plan Review" basics, but that many times it will not be applicable to complicated or large scale projects. Ms. West suggested the idea of an online form in which someone could enter information and it would identify the Page 1 3 Town of Reading - Meeting Minutes permitting path for their particular project or proposed business. Ms. Delios felt that was a great idea. She did note that currently anyone can comment or ask questions via the website. Ms. Wilson summarized the discussion of the CPDC in regards to site plan review. In general the CPDC felt the current thresholds are appropriate. In addition, they felt that with the addition of Minor Site Plan Review, they are reviewing projects which really need review and not reviewing projects that have limited impact that can be handled administratively. Mr. Katsoufis added that zoning was historically used to protect different uses and keep them separate, but today it should be also used to allow difference uses to exist together. Ms. Delios agreed that the protection between zones is a big point. She referenced the lighting plan from the proposed Perfecto's Caffe. According to the photometric plan, light spilled over to the adjacent eCars property and onto Main Street. Although it is less of an issue on Main Street, the CPDC does not allow light spillage onto other properties. Even though eCars is another commercial property, Ms. Wilson said it is important because future uses can change. It is easier to have the light contained on the property from the beginning, rather than try and minimize it in the future. Ms. Delios also noted that the tenants at 30 Haven Street were not informed about the Site Plan Review requirements with the Town. Their landlord did not inform them. It was said that the tenant should also do their research on what is required. Ms. Calvo -Bacci said that many times people are just completely unaware of the Site Plan Review process and would not even know to ask. In regards to Site Plan Review, Mr. Katsoufis asked if the Town was any closer to eliminating hard copy submittals. Ms. Wilson said the CPDC still requires hard copies because many times it is just not practicable to review a plan sheet on a computer screen. However, she noted that the CPDC agrees that not all the material needs to be submitted to the CPDC. For example the Stormwater Report does not necessarily need to be provided to the CPDC, but they would like an indication that it has been received and under review by the Town Engineer. Mr. Katsoufis asked if there are an average number of meetings it takes for applicants to get through the Site Plan Review process with the CPDC. Ms. Delios said that the CPDC could make a decision that evening if all the material is there and there are not outstanding issues. Ms. Wilson said that many times, the larger projects require the Applicant to revise plans or provide additional material. Also, the CPDC needs time to review the draft decision and include any additional Conditions. Mr. Katsoufis asked if Site Plan Review mentioned anything about obtaining a Building Permit. Ms. Delios replied no, but it would be a good idea. Ms. Wilson also told the ZAC that the CPDC had a discussion regarding their jurisdiction over design aesthetics such as color or architectural details. The CPDC agreed it was in their purview to comment on aesthetic elements, but that it should be clarified within the zoning language. There is existing language which requires the CPDC to evaluate whether the project is a departure from existing character, but that it should be further clarified. Ms. Calvo -Bacci said that many times comments on aesthetic design elements are too subjective. Since there are no specifics in the bylaw about color, design, or details, it could be misconstrued as opinion and not a requirement. Ms. Delios agreed and said that maybe the zoning should afford for a design review process. Mr. Tuttle expressed concern with that because then the CPDC is considered not business friendly. Ms. Wilson said that when the Artis Senior Living Center came before the Design Review Team (DRT), the architectural design was very modern and something that you would expect to see out west. The Town Manager asked if it could be changed to be more New England in character. The Applicant had no problems with changing the design and the project resulted in a building more in character with the neighborhood. Page 1 4 Town of Reading - Meeting Minutes Approval of Minutes On a motion by Mr. Tuttle, seconded by Mr. Hansen, the ZAC moved to approve the December 16, 2013 minutes as amended. Motion carried 7 -0 -0. On a motion by Mr. Tuttle, seconded by Ms. Calvo - Bacci, the ZAC moved to approve the 3anuary 6, 2014 minutes as amended. Motion carried 6 -0 -1. Adiournment On a motion by Mr. Tuttle, seconded by Mr. Hansen the ZAC moved to adjourn at 10:35PM. Motion carried 7 -0 -0. Page 1 5