Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-01-13 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutesr a,�fr�i Town of Reading Meeting Minutes RECEIVED TOWN CLERK +DING. M, SS. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 20I4 FEB -3 P 3 =1 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2014 -01 -13 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room 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: 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. Approval of Minutes Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to approve the minutes from the December 9, 2013 CPDC meeting as amended. Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 4 -0 -0. Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) Update: Ms. Delios told the CPDC that the ZAC has met a total of 7 times since work began on the Comprehensive Update to the Zoning Bylaw, including holding the first public forum in November. The Consultant has continued to reach out to stakeholders to gain valuable input, however has had some challenges getting in touch with many of them. She said that stakeholder input is extremely important, especially from the business community because zoning can truly affect those individuals. Regardless, Ms. Delios has been working with the Chamber on putting together a breakfast meeting to bring out business owners to talk about the Zoning Update. Mr. Weston said that the topic of zoning is very dry and unless you are faced with a zoning issue or come before the CPDC for Site Plan Review, business owners are not thinking about zoning. Mr. Tuttle suggested collecting projects which had an impact and reaching out to those developers. Consider projects such as Calareso's, the smaller fit -outs downtown, south Main Street. Ms. Delios said that is a good idea, but that many of the folks who were part of the Site Plan Review process may not be the current owner. Mr. Weston added that many times it is the Owner's engineering team or architect who participates through the process. He suggested reaching out to those folks as well. Page 1 1 Ms. Delios said the next Public Forum was to be on February 3, 2014, but that she is considering pushing it back until March 3, 2014. February 3rd is the day after the Super Bowl and it may be difficult to get folks out to a meeting the following night. In addition it would give the ZAC some additional review time prior to the meeting. She is going to talk to the ZAC at their meeting this week. The ZAC has been reviewing the definition section (Section 2) and it is an onerous task. They are also looking at the Site Plan Review process and trying to evaluate ways to better outline the permitting process. The Consultant also prepared an updated Zoning Diagnostic which will be sent out to the CPDC. 1 Haven Street — Request for Revised Master Signage Plan Ms. Wilson told the CPDC that 1 Haven Street is at the corner of Haven and High Street. The owner currently has an Approved Master Signage Plan for the building, but would like to modify it so that tenants may select the fagade of the building to locate their sign. The current Master Signage Plan is specific on where the signs are to be placed. The owner feels there should be additional space approved on the Haven Street, High Street and Green Street fagades and she would like to offer flexibility on the size of the sign. Mr. Weston said in her request, the owner is allowing varying sizes and it may look odd if there are different size signs on the same fagade. Mr. Safina said there is a current sign on the Haven Street side which also does not appear to be a 2x8 sign. The request would allow the tenant to select either a 2x4 sign or a 2x8 sign, which the CPDC agreed could get challenging in regards to sign placement and location. Mr. Adams asked why she could not have her tenants select a space they want to place their sign and have the Master Signage Plan reflect that. Ms. Wilson said that she does not want to do that because if a future tenant comes in and wants a sign on a different fagade than what is approved, she does not want to have to send them back to the CPDC. The CPDC continued to discuss the proposal. Mr. Weston said he would like to see a Master Signage Plan that affords the tenant other options than the black and gold. Mr. Safina said that the CPDC does not have to be prescriptive on type face which can be selected by the tenants or the owner. Again, the CPDC discussed the proposal agreeing that allowing varying sign sizes could be challenging as tenants begin to use up the space available on the fagade for signage. The signs may not look uniform if there are multiple sizes on the fagade. Mr. Hansen suggested the owner return to the CPDC to discuss the proposal. Mr. Tuttle said they would like to see location constraints which would outline /identify where the signs would go based on the selected size. Discussion on Site Plan review and Section 4.3.3 of the Zoning Bylaw Ms. Delios said the ZAC would like to get some feedback from the CPDC in regards to Site Plan Review in light of the Comprehensive Update to the Zoning Bylaw. The ZAC will be reviewing this at their meeting this week as well as a more broad discussion about the goals under Site Plan Review. She reminded the CPDC that Site Plan Review was modified a few years ago with the addition of Minor Site Plan Review. No fees are associated with that review and it is something to think about. In addition, she said that the CPDC should think about whether the thresholds for Site Plan Review need to be modified as well as the review process for signage. Mr. Weston said that since the change a few years ago, he believes the CPDC is reviewing the projects he felt are worthy of CPDC review and those projects which are minor are being approved through the Minor Site Plan Review process which he feels has met his expectation. As such, Mr. Weston feels that the thresholds appear to be suitable for the Page 1 2 CPDC at this time. In regards to signage, he feels that can be discussed in a separate conversation. Mr. Adams agreed, but asked why the project in the RMV space came before CPDC for demo under Site Plan Review. He felt that project was so minor that it should have qualified for Minor Site Plan Review with administrative approval by Town Planner. Ms. Delios replied that they were doing a number of things outside of the "demo" scope of work, including installing mechanical equipment on the roof. Mr. Safina asked why tree removal of a few trees along a Scenic Route cannot be handled administratively. Mr. Weston said it is likely not about the review aspect of the action, but more about public notice to abutters. Ms. Delios said yes, and that is why Minor Site Plan Review also includes abutter notification. She used Planet Fitness as an example. Staff determined that project qualified for Minor Site Plan review and notified abutters. There was a lot of public input for that project even though it fell under the requirements of Minor Site Plan Review. Mr. Weston said that Reading is very unique in that almost all of the commercial property in town abuts a residential district. There are a few exceptions such as the property behind RMLD. Towns such as Andover and Burlingtonhave massive areas of commercial properties that are not abutting residential districts. Mr. Safina noted that the "Site Plan Review Basics" document did not mention the Master Plan and that it should. He also suggested the thresholds be moved to the beginning of the document. As for Site Plan Review, he said one of the first things he considers is how much the project will impact the residential abutters. He said that should also be added to the list for what the CPDC looks for when reviewing projects. Mr. Tuttle said that the exemptions do not mention 2,000 square feet of interior renovations to single family homes and felt that clarification is needed. Mr. Safina and Ms. Delios said that it is exempted under MGL Chapter 40A. Mr. Tuttle said it should be clarified in the Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Adams feels there is a perception that the CPDC is overstepping their authority when it comes to architectural design and aesthetics of a development project. In the past when the CPDC requests certain architectural details or elements even as simple as a paint color, it can be misconstrued as being business unfriendly. Mr. Safina felt that the CPDC does not push a particular aesthetic view, but that they offer suggestions on basic planning principals which will make the project better. He said he feels that is a collaborative process and well within their right under Site Plan Review. Mr. Weston agreed stating that the bylaw indicates the CPDC reviews a project to ensure the character, materials and scale of the building are not an "unreasonable departure" from the area. Mr. Adams asked if the CPDC should modify the language in the bylaw so that is clearly identifies the CPDC authority when it comes to design requirements or elements. Mr. Tuttle said that it is also important to rely on experts and available resources such as the Historical Commission when it comes to design details on historic properties and the Downtown Smart Growth District Design Guidelines for projects in the Smart Growth Districts. Mr. Weston asked the Town Planner if, from a staff perspective, there are certain aspects of Site Plan Review that should be different. Ms. Delios said that staff has learned to ask for additional details at Site Plan Review which may not be typically reviewed at that stage. In addition, staff requires a copy of the Building Permit Plans to be reviewed for consistency with the approved Site Plans. Many times the plan does change from the time the project is approved at Site Plan Review and until the Building Permit is issued. Or there may be certain details left out at Site Plan Review but can impact the project from a Site Plan Review perspective. Ms. Wilson said that the smaller projects can be more challenging as the applicant may not have the resources to prepare architectural renderings, or drawings to submit under Site Plan Review. In response to that, Mr. Safina said the CPDC tries to work with the Applicants to gain enough information to make a decision on the proposal. Page 1 3 On the topic of Minor Site Plan Review, Mr. Weston feels that is has streamlined the process and that it works. Mr. Adams agreed that it appears the thresholds for full Site Plan Review and Minor Site Plan Review seem to be working. He did recommend modifying the language so that it is easier to convey to the applicant. It was agreed that the CPDC believes the current thresholds and process works for projects that should be reviewed under Site Plan Review. It was agreed to look at the existing language in Site Plan Review and include an exemption for accessibility and modify the language for Site Plan Review Lapse. Mr. Weston added that within Site Plan Review there should also be some consideration for bike /pedestrian access and not just related to safety as it currently reads. This should also be included in the "Site Plan Review Basics" document. Mr. Weston also suggested that the Consultant look at what is required for submissions under Site Plan Review. Currently, the CPDC will receive all the required information, which at times can include an extensive Stormwater Report. He feels that the CPDC relies on the Town Engineer for his review on that aspect of the Plan and it may not be necessary to provides copies to the CPDC. Ms. Delios asked the CPDC about the fees. Ms. Adams suggested that be discussed with the Board of Selectmen (BOS). He also said the ZAC should look at other incentives to encourage or discourage certain types of developments. Mr. Weston agreed, but that topic should be put on hold until the Economic Development Action Plan is developed so they clearly know what type of development they want to attract. Mr. Weston said that in some instances there is an issue in the order that projects get reviewed by the various boards. Typically it is better for a project to receive Conservation Commission approval prior to submitting to CPDC. The process with the Zoning Board of Appeals is not always clear and should be evaluated to see if it can be streamlined. Planning Updates & Other Business Snap Fitness: Construction is underway and they hope to open soon. Orange Leaf: Now open and the signage is up and looks great. The Fire Department is working with the property owner on an issue with the fire suppression system related to the base building. The Fire Department will not issue any more permits until the issue is resolved. Mr. Weston asked about Northern Bank. Ms. Delios said that the Site Plan Review Decision covered the bank fit -out. They are preparing to file for their building permit soon. Ms. Wilson presented the rendering of their proposed window signs during construction. She is unsure of how the Zoning Enforcement Officer would treat this as it appears to not be allowed under the window sign regulations. Ms. Delios said that there is no distinction in the bylaw as to whether window signs are temporary or permanent. Mr. Safina said he was okay with the design so long as it does not contain marketing messages and they take it down when the project is complete. Mr. Weston said the idea about window signs is not to cover them so you have the ability to see inside. If they are going to be covered, then they may as well be something of interest. Ms. Delios and Ms. Wilson will defer to the Zoning Enforcement Office and also bring the issue of window signs to the ZAC. Ms. Delios said she has received some interest from developers for the Woburn Street School. Artis Senior Living: They are working on filing for their demo permit and hope to begin in January. Roadway Projects: There are several transportation projects in the pipeline including the West Street project. In addition, south Main Street was evaluated by the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) for a roadway diet. It was determined that it may be Page 1 4 possible to reduce the number of travel lanes in some locations on south Main Street. The MassDOT District Office indicated they would be able to re -strip it as part of a pavement project. However, a lot of planning work would need to be completed before that happened. Mr. Weston noted that he did not see any money on the State's transportation list for the 93/95 interchange project, so that may be off the table. Adjournment On a motion by Mr. Tuttle, seconded by Mr. Safina, the CPDC voted to adjourn at 9:30PM PM by a vote of 5 -0 -0. Page 1 5