Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-24 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes4, Town of Reading �I Meeting Minutes 9'l Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2014 -02 -24 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Charlie Adams - Chair John Weston Nick Safina David Tuttle Jeff Hansen Members - Not Present: Others Present: hECEIVE0 OWN CLERK 1DING, M ;SS. i014 MAR 18 P 4: 45 Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Jean Delios - Assistant Town Manager, Community Services Jessie Wilson - Community Development Administrator Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Jessie Wilson Topics of Discussion: There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. 1090 -1100 Main Street: Request for ANR Endorsement Ms. Delios reminded the CPDC that this item was tabled from the last meeting as there were only three CPDC members present. Based on a previous opinion from Town Counsel, the CPDC had been advised that ANR Endorsements required 4 CPDC members. As such, the item was tabled and Mr. Latham granted an extension for the CPDC to act. Ms. Delios reported that based on an updated decision from Town Counsel, only 3 members are needed to endorse an ANR Plan. The only requirement for 4 CPDC members is statutory Special Permit applications. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to endorse the ANR Plan for 1090 -1100 Main Street. Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Review Table of Uses from Zonina Bylaw Ms. Delios told the CPDC that the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) has met a total of 12 times to date. The second public forum is on Monday, March 3rd and the Stakeholder Breakfast is Wednesday, March 5th. The ZAC has reviewed Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Table of Uses is still under review based on the recommendations from the Planning Consultant. The ZAC requested the CPDC review the draft table and make recommendations /comments in regards to the proposed new uses. Mr. Tuttle has also provided a revision which breaks the table into two tables - 1) for Residential Uses and 2) for Business /Industrial Uses. Page 1 1 Mr. Adams asked why Mr. Tuttle split the table. Mr. Tuttle replied that it can be confusing to have both uses on one table. Mr. Hansen said that the two tables made it very clear for him to understand. Mr. Safina expressed concern over using a double -dash to indicate that the use is not permitted. He felt it was confusing and that some may not know what it means. Mr. Weston reviewed the table and questioned why the consultant used the term "Licensed" for daycare facilities. He also questioned the term "non- profit" for museum uses and whether it mattered from a land use perspective. Mr. Adams agreed and added that noting all the different types of schools seemed confusing. It was also asked how these uses fit under the Dover Amendment regulations. Mr. Safina pointed out that town -owned schools are exempt from zoning and that the land use regulations do not apply to those facilities. He suggested noting that in the zoning bylaw. Mr. Weston asked what a Community Center was. It was agreed that it was unclear as to what this referred to. Mr. Hansen said that each use needs to correspond back to a definition. He also said there are many uses the CPDC mentioned that were not included in the table such as tattoo parlor, body art, medical marijuana, etc. Ms. Delios replied that many of those services may be covered under the Personal Service Establishment use. Mr. Weston pointed out that the PRD and PUD listed in the table does not seem appropriate, but it was agreed to leave them in the table. The CPDC agreed to make comments on the Table of Uses and provide them back to the ZAC and /or the Planning Consultant. In regards to Public and Institutional Uses, the CPDC questioned the term "licensed" for daycares and "non- profit" for museums. Mr. Weston felt the impact would be the same for each use regardless if one is licensed and one is non - profit. Mr. Katsoufis asked whether a non - profit museum would qualify for the Dover Amendment exemption. Ms. Delios replied they would have to meet the criteria under the Dover Amendment for non - profit educational uses. It was agreed to ask the ZAC /Planning Consultant whether the term "licensed" and "non- profit" are necessary for these uses. The CPDC reviewed the term Home Occupation and the new definition for this use. There was a question as to what the term "incidental" means. The CPDC continued the discussion and agreed that the ZAC will need to work out the details for this use. The CPDC discussed Carriage- House - Stable -Barn. It was agreed that this was a structure and not a use. Ms. Delios said that the purpose of this bylaw was to preserve the structure to provide flexibility for housing. It was agreed that the use was Preservation of Carriage - House- Stable Barn and agreed to recommend the change as such. Mr. Katoufis asked if enclosed storage was necessary to have in the table. It was agreed that a definition for enclosed storage is needed. Mr. Adams asked why the Residential Uses table did not include Multi - Family Age Restricted Units as did the Business /Industrial Use Table. Mr. Tuttle said the current table does not allow it. Mr. Weston felt that it should be included in the Residential Table. Ms. Delios reminded the CPDC that if a use is not identified in the Table it is assumed not allowed. It was agreed to recommend Multi - Family Age Restricted Units be included in the Residential Use Table. In regards to other Public and Institutional Uses, Mr. Weston expressed concern regarding the terms Nursing Home and Assisted Living Facilities. He wanted to ensure that these terms would cover all the other types of elderly care. Mr. Tuttle suggested re- wording the terms to Skilled Nursing Facility and Assisted Living Facility. This is because Skilled Nursing Facility is a legal definition and Assisted Living Facility is the next level below this type of facility and can be used more broadly. Page 1 2 Mr. Weston reviewed the terms Club or Lodge. There is no definition for this use. Ms. Wilson said that the ZAC reviewed the definition for Combined Service Use and changed that term to Civic or Private Club. The original definition excluded the sale of alcoholic beverages and operation of games of change. The new definition for Civic or Private Club does not include that provision. Mr. Weston said that that there should be a definition then for Club or Lodge to address the possibility for the sale of alcohol. This is important to understand as the Community may not want these uses in residential zones. The CPDC discussed restaurant uses. Mr. Weston said he was not sure there was much of a difference in terms of land use impacts between sit -in restaurants or take -out restaurants. However, he did point out that there are differences between restaurants and a restaurant with a drive -thru. He felt that drive -thru restaurants should not be allowed downtown. It was agreed to consolidate the restaurant uses to Restaurant and Drive -Thru Restaurants. The CPDC also agreed to recommend eliminating the use of Bar or other establishments where alcoholic beverages are consumed because they felt it would fall under the use for Restaurant. The CPDC discussed Bars and whether that use needed to be included in the Table. The CPDC agreed that if it were just a Bar with no food being served that it should be included in the table, but prohibited from all districts. The CPDC discussed retail uses. It was agreed to include a use for retail stores more than 50,000 square feet. It was also agreed to recommend another term for uses that are retail stores selling alcoholic beverages. Personal Service Establishments were reviewed by the CPDC. Mr. Weston said that uses in this category involve services that are provided on -site and are not related to the sale of goods. Mr. Tuttle agreed stating that this would include body art, tattoo parlors, etc. The CPDC agreed there are three categories of service uses - Professional, Consumer and Personal. The ZAC and the Consultant should think more about separating it as such. Mr. Adams asked about the use Mixed Use. Mr. Tuttle felt that this did not belong in the table, but if it is referring to allowing commercial and residential uses together then the definition needs to be updating and the table clarified. The CPDC discussed Office & /or Shop Facility for Skilled Trades. Mr. Weston suggested this be split out to better categorize the uses to those which may involve storing material and items outdoors such as trailers, equipment, etc. and those uses which can be entirely contained inside, such as an office. He said that these could be two different uses with very different impacts. Ms. Delios asked about Animal Kennel. The CPDC agreed this term needs to be included. Mr. Safina suggested including a category for Home Kennel which would address owners who have 10 or more dogs outdoors in kennels. The CPDC discussed the use Live /Work. Mr. Katsoufis said this is different than home occupation in that the primary use is commercial with a secondary residential use. In regards to the use Carwash, Mr. Tuttle said there is a difference between automated carwashes like the existing one on Main Street. He suggested that there are two different categories in the Table because he believed the self- serve /manual carwash was less intense. It was agreed to recommend moving the automated carwash use to the automotive section of the Table. Mr. Weston asked if there should be a different term for gas station as he felt service station may not cover operations involved at gas stations. It was agreed to have the ZAC review the Automotive Use to ensure all uses are addressed. In regards to Industrial Uses, Mr. Safina asked why Laboratories and Life Sciences are different. He felt that a different types of labs pose different hazards. It was agreed that definitions for these uses are needed to evaluate the impacts. Page 1 3 As for Energy Production through renewable resources, Mr. Safina said that additional information should be provided as to what uses would fall under this category. For example, does this include Wind Turbines? He felt that there are certain impacts associated with wind turbines that could affect where these uses are permitted. The CPDC reviewed Recreational Uses. Mr. Adams said that definitions are needed for Commercial Amusements and Indoor Recreation. Mr. Adams requested clarification on the use Substantially Similar to Permitted. Ms. Wilson said that in situations where an applicant proposes a use which is not identified in the Table but the applicant believes is similar to another permitted use, they may seek a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the proposed use. Mr. Adams expressed concern that this category may provide developers with a way to seek approval for certain uses not allowed in the existing table. Mr. Weston said that the applicant has to meet the Special Permit criteria. If there is still some concern about this category, Mr. Weston suggested clarifying this in the regulatory language including the process to seek the Special Permit. The CPDC then discussed the Municipal Building Reuse. Mr. Weston clarified that this provision is to allow for the reuse of municipal buildings which may have not conformed to zoning in terms of use and dimensions and allows the developer to re- develop the property using the same non - conforming footprint. It was agreed to keep it in the Table. In regards to Home Occupation, the CPDC discussed the use and whether or not to allow it in Business B. Ms. Delios said there are many non - conforming residential uses in the Downtown area as well as new residential uses such as the 30 Haven Street building which could benefit from having the option for Home Occupation. The CPDC agreed to recommend allowing Home Occupation in Business B District. Plannina Updates & Other Business Ms. Delios told the CPDC that staff is still waiting on the building permit application for Perfecto's. She also told the CPDC that the owner of Pizza World is preparing to submit for the proposed development at 306 Main Street. There are also two small subdivision projects which will be moving forward soon. Ms. Wilson told the CPDC about the Priority Mapping Forum on February 25`h. Ms. Delios said that same evening she will be providing an update to the Board of Selectmen(BOS) on some Community Services activities including the Economic Development Action Plan. She also said that the Regional Housing Services Agreement is also on the BOS Agenda for approval. Aoaroval of Minutes Mr. Tuttle tabled the approval of the minutes from January 27, 2014 and February 10, 2014 to the next meeting. Adiournment On a motion by Mr. Hansen, seconded by Mr. Tuttle, the CPDC voted to adjourn at 10:40PM PM by a vote of 5 -0 -0. Page 1 4