Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-09 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes"+ , Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2014 -06 -09 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: John Weston Nick Safina David Tuttle Jeff Hansen Members - Not Present: Charlie Adams Others Present: Time: 7:30 PM - --R €CEIVED -��DING LMASS, 14 Li A II: 14 Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Jean Delios - Assistant Town Manager, Community Services Jessie Wilson - Community Development Administrator Sarah Kruplel Lee - MAPC Planner Zachary Camenker - 85 Batchelder Road Michael Webb - 244 Walnut Street Gina Snyder - 11 laden Terrace Virginia Blodgett - 99 Prescott Street Bruck Mackenzie - 102 Sanborn Lane Virginia Adams - 59 Azaela Circle Everett Blodgett - 99 Prescott Street Nancy Docktor - 371 Pearl Street Tony A'Arezzo - 130 John Street Marsle West - 3 Whitehall Lane Chris Latham - 643 Main Street Rececca Banchard - Beverly Italo Visco - LCB Senior IJving Pual Maloney - The Architectural Team Al Couillard - 5 Marlon Avenue Eric J. Bengston - 29 Sturges Roads Sue Stathoulopoulos - 80 Sanborn Lane George Katsoufis - 9 Berkley Street Joe Correia - Boston Building Wraps Jim Mawn - 600 Main Street Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Jessie Wilson, Community Development Administrator Topics of Discussion: There being a quorum the Mr. Hansen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. rage 1 1 PrSaentation on Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian PI Ms. Delios introduced the project. She said that the department began working with MAPC and was able to develop a scope to create a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the Town that would offer short-term, low cost improvements. Sarah Krupiel Lee from MAPC provided CPDC with a- presentation for the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. She said that the Idea for this meeting Is to gain Input from the CPDC before it goes before the Board of Selectmen (BOS) In July for final adoption. Ms. Krupiel Lee said that Reading has been doing very well with Implementing sidewalk and bicycle improvements. To follow -up on this work, MAPC is also working with the Town to adopt a Complete Streets Policy which was already presented to the CPDC a few months back. Ms. Krupiel Lee said that a few years ago MAPC worked with the Town on the Main Street Plan that was done with Wakefield and Melrose. That plan was to encourage walking and biking on a more high -level approach. This plan for Reading will be more drilled down to provide low cost and short term Improvements. She said that goal for the plan was to create an on- street bicycle network and Identify location for sidewalk Improvements. The plan focuses on the primary roads, access to schools, regional shopping centers, parks, neighborhoods, etc. After an initial kick -off meeting, MAPC collected roadway data including roadway widths, sidewalk locations, bike lanes, etc. That data was then used, along with some initial comments from the Town to develop the draft plan. That plan was then reviewed by Town Staff as well as many stakeholders. In regards to the bicycle Improvements, the plan Identifies areas for proposed exclusive bike lanes, shared lane markings (sharrows) and connections to off- street facilities. All of these proposals are done without changing the curb to curb width, parking or travel lanes. In total, 8.4 miles of new bike lanes are proposed. Ms. Krupiel Lee showed a map that identified the proposed routes for bike lanes and shared bike lanes. As for the pedestrian plan MACP prioritized access to schools, transit, retail areas, Lake Quannapowitt and Walkers Brook Drive. For the recommendations, MAPC suggested Improvements to existing sidewalks (resurfacing), crosswalk striping, constructing ADA accessible crossings, and consideration of pedestrian Islands. Ms. Krupiel Lee showed a map that identified areas to close sidewalk gaps and also identified areas of conflict. As for next steps, Ms. Krupiel Lee said that MAPC will consider the comments made tonight as well as the Open House that was held earlier. The document will be revised and then presented to the Board of Selectmen in about a month. Then after approval the plan could be used for implementation of these Improvements. Mr. Tuttle asked whether MAPC took Into consideration "roadway" hazards such as catch basins or roadways grading issues. Ms. Krupiel Lee replied that they did take that Into consideration in some of the routes, but it Is difficult to Identify every catch basin and /or grades along the entire roadway length. Mr. Hansen said that he feels the report was well written and a great example of cross - departmental coordination. Mr. Hansen asked about enforcement in regards to rules of the road. Ms. Krupiel Lee replied that education is very important. She added that bikes are allowed by law to use the road, and she feels that the bike lane is the visual cue that they could use that. However, bicyclists do not need to follow the bike lane. Mr. Weston agreed that the plan is a great report and he would like to take It even further from capital planning and develop a priority plan for sidewalks in regards to maintenance to ensure the trees are trimmed and other maintenance is continued for those sidewalks that are heavily used. Ms. Krupiel Lee said that it is outside of this scope but that maybe the Page 1 2 Town could use the data to do a spin off for that. Mr. Safina suggested looking Into the Pavement management system and see If that would be useful. Mr. Weston added that Birch Meadow Drive seems to be a gap on the bike priorities. Ms. Gina Snyder said that she appreciates the work MAPC has done and hopes the plan will be adopted as well as the complete street policy. Ms. Kurpiel Lee added that the state has planned to set aside some money ($50Mi1) for communities that have adopted Complete Streets Policies. That money could be used to Implement pedestrian and bicycle Improvements. Mr. Bruce Mackenzie said there is a gap near the Wood End School. He also asked about private vs public ways. Ms. Krupiel Lee replied that this study did not look Into the private ways. Mr. Hansen asked about bike racks and whether they were considered. Ms. Kruplel said that it should be in the report and in the past MAPC offered a bike rack program for cities and towns. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to encourage the BOS to adopt a bike and pedestrian plan for the Town of Reading using the MAPC as a strong beginning. Mr. Weston seconded and motion carried 4 -0 -0. h the Zoning Advisory Corn There being a quorum, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) called to order. There being a quorum, the Zoning Advisory (ZAC) Committee called to order. Ms. Dellos provided an update on the Comprehensive update to the Zoning Bylaw. There have been a number of meetings including a stakeholder breakfast, public forums and an evening business meeting. With the assistance of a Consultant Ms. Dellos said the ZAC has been working through various drafts of new language. The goal is to develop a bylaw that makes sense and Is tailored to Reading. We want It to be easy to understand, easy to Interpret and use. She said that a draft bylaw Is due to the BOS by July 15". She pointed out that the ZAC has been working on the definitions section and we have received a clean draft from the Consultant. The definitions are very Important because It sets the stage for the rest of the bylaw. In regards to the districts, Ms. Dellos said they are not proposing to change any of the boundaries, but we hope to clarify the Intent of the districts. Ms. Dellos said that the ZAC wanted to make sure the ZBA is clued Into the process because they use the bylaw as much as the CPDC. The topics to be discussed tonight Include parking, signs and non - conforming. Mr. Hansen read some of the considerations for this evening. They Include: land use categories for the table of parking requirements, clarification of parking bylaw Interpretation and location of parking areas within required yards, driveways. Mr. Katsoufis pointed out that something to consider may be a different parking requirement for the downtown area versus the other commercial areas In town. He feels these areas differ in use and may need different requirements. Mr. Weston pointed out that currently there is an exemption for parking in the downtown and should that be re- considered. Mr. Safina said that It would just make it easier for a project to be permitted but would not address the parking problem. Ms. West said that the BOS will be looking at the downtown parking more in -depth and that the focus from the zoning standpoint is to make the regulations as simple and easy to follow as possible. Mr. Tuttle said the challenge will be coming up with a draft recommendation for this Issue. He suggested maybe that for Business B, there should be a different influence, and not use Page 1 3 a set formula. Mr. Weston said he Is not sure there is a difference between office uses located in Business A and Business B. He added that currently the bylaw allows for off - street parking to be provided by shared parking arrangements or by different locations off -site. Mr. Tuttle said the bylaw would be well served by distinguishing between employee and customer parking. This is because employees are there all day and customers are not. Mr. Weston agreed, but said that may be difficult as the CPDC would be tying land use to how they operate their business. The CPDC discussed the downtown parking and the study that was performed a few years ago. It was said that maybe a different approach Is needed such as a parking buy -in as recommended by that report. Mr. Katsoufls asked about the comment regarding the parking areas are they relate to being within required yards. Ms. Delos said that sometimes there is difficulty in Interpretation of what is allowed in the required yard. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo asked what the definition of the side yard would be and how would that Impact the parking of cars on properties. Mr. Tuttle clarified that the definition would relate back to the dimensional requirements related to setbacks. Mr. Glen Redmond, Building Inspector said his Interpretation is that nothing should be located within the required side yard. He said that driveways in many cases cross the front yard and there should be some exemptions in regards to these types of Issues. Mr. John Jarema, ZBA said that it is important to coordinate the different uses and that it is Important to have property owners understand what they can or cannot do with their property. He said that the zoning will be more restrictive and asked how it will be perceived by potential property owners In Reading. Mr. Weston feels that that zoning is not necessarily being more restrictive, but that It will be clearer for the owners to understand the requirements. Mr. Katsoufls said that Reading has changed a lot in the last 20 years and that we do not want to use the term restrictive. F11'. Ms. Delios pointed out that when it comes to signage, there is always the concern for sign proliferation. She said that the goal is to give the business the signage they need, but not for each business to be covered In signage. Another question to consider is whether the CPDC's role in issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness should be extended to Business A. Then another question to consider is how much signage. For example Calareso's has a free- standing sign and they would like add another panel for their seasonal items. Currently we do not allow that, but should the bylaw allow for things like that? Another consideration is to move the sign bylaw into the general bylaw and to Include graphics to help convey the meaning of signs. Meghan Young, 30 Oak Street, Member of EDC - pointed out that the retail consultant for Calareso's recommended that the sign be located near the roofllne. However, the bylaw prevents the sign being located in the roofline. She asked if the ZAC has reviewed any issues related to unique situations. Mr. Hansen said that the ZAC will be looking into some of those Issues. Mr. Tuttle said that ZAC has not reviewed the signage bylaw as re- written to date. However, the current bylaw stipulates the requirements by districts. Mr. Weston asked whether the revised language would Include examples of signage Into the bylaw or whether It would be prohibited under Chapter 40A. Ms. Wilson said that the ZAC did want graphics to be Included. Mr. Katsoufls said that the ZAC needed to define the dimensional controls. They do need Input from the community to make the regulations "smart" as It relates to the signage and all other regulations. Page 14 Mr. Traniello said that in terms of feedback the ZAC has had a heavy focus in getting out to the business community. They do hope to have a meeting for the South Main Street Businesses to get their Input for this topic. Mr. Cy Caouette, Member of ZBA - said that in the future many signs will be electronic. He feels the ZAC will need to look at electronic signage and how to address that. Also businesses that are franchises many times have challenges meeting the zoning requirements in Reading. As for seasonal temporary signs he would not be against that. Mr. Safina pointed out that there will always be sign proliferation and with every sign that is permitted the more illegal signs there will installed. He expressed concern with how many signs business signs are allowed and that the ZAC should consider that. He also feels that electronic signs will be more common, but Reading can still regulate what types of signs they want. Mr. Tuttle referenced a science fiction story that is based on the premises on how much advertisement people focus on. There Is a limit to what people actually pay attention to and at some point signage may not do much for advertisers, but start to cause a safety Issues. He did say that the zoning should take into consideration abutters so that one businesses don't block each other's signs. Mr. Weston asked if here has been any more discussion about window signs. Mr. Tuttle said not yet. Mr. D'Arezzo asked about the window signs and how that could impact walkability. He said that blocking the windows may not create the pedestrian friendly atmosphere. Ms. Delios said that is considered during Site Plan Review. She noted that In some cases there is no getting away from placing the back of the shelf in front of a window to accommodate the sales design, and In that case we recommend spandrel glass. As for window signs being an Impediment to walkability, she does not necessarily think that would be the case, but we do want to ensure that the downtown maintains the character of the New England village feel. Mr. Hansen said that many of the offensive signs are the older signs that have been in existence for a while, so perhaps the bylaw is working with the current language. Mr. Weston added that the goal is to come up with a bylaw that allows what businesses feel they need, Including temporary/seasonal sign, and then writing it In a way that It is used as Intended. Mr. Safna asked who would be responsible for signage if the bylaws would be moved to the general bylaw. Ms. Delios said they would still fall under site plan review, but no variances would be allowed. Mr. Weston added that they could likely add more graphics, and the ability to change the general bylaw may be easier. Non - Conforming Ms. Dellos said that non - conforming Is a use, structure or lot that is pre- existing to zoning and the Section on non - conforming details how to deal with it under today's standards. She said an example of non - conforming uses would be a single family home in the downtown since that area is zoned for business. That use, under the current bylaw would be subject to a Special Permit should they wish to put a deck on, even if It conforms to the zoning regulations. She said it would be useful to determine what the ZBA should be looking at and what staff could handle administratively. Mr. Weston said that a few years ago Town Counsel helped re -write the zoning bylaw for non - conforming and suggested the ZAC could have some of that material that was created with that review. Mr. Katsoufls said there are many situations that could be evaluated, but feels they need look Into the future. He said the underlying Issue is that there are non- conforming lots and that It should be easier to allow structures to be put on non - conforming lots. Mr. Weston said the discussion a few years ago relates to what could and could not be grandfathered. Non - conforming was defined as non - conforming structure, non - conforming lot, and non - conforming use. He felt there was some case law that limited the ability to regulate non - conforming uses. Gage 1 5 Mr. Jarema said there are three areas to consider 1) non - conforming use which is the most difficult 2) non - conforming structures because they are not on the lot correctly 3) non- conforming lots because of frontage or size. He recalled that when the Town created the S- 15 zone and eliminated the 5 -10 zone many of the lots became non - conforming as they were too small. Now when a homeowner wants to do something with their property they are like non - conforming In some respect. Most of the cases that come to the ZBA relate to the Issue of non - conforming structure or lots. Mr. Weston asked Mr. Jarema whether the regulations are clear or If they are having a difficult time understanding the language since the changes a few years back. Mr. Traniello said that the ZBA will always see the typical cases, but there is some language that could be clarified. We do see several appeals from the Building Inspector's denial of a building permit and the ZBA sees many cases for lots In the 5 -15 district. Mr. Weston said that in the past, CPDC modified the Site Plan Review regulations to ensure they were reviewing what they felt was most important. In addition, they allowed for Staff review of certain projects. Mr. Weston suggested that maybe it may be worth considering allowing those cases you see repetitively that could be by right. Mr. Traniello the ZAC will be considering that and maybe have the routine applications reviewed by Staff. But regardless Mr. Traniello said the regulations need to give the Building Inspector some more clarification in interpretation. He did point out that requiring a Special Permit does allow for abutter notification and the ability for the public to comment. Mr. Mackenzie, Town Meeting Member - said that maybe there should be exclusions for those situations regards to the 5 -15. He said that one of his neighbors tried to reconstruct a non - conforming structure outside the existing footprint and was told they could not do it. Mr. Traniello said that the language needs to be clear so that there are not an overwhelming amount of applications to the ZBA that are not worthwhile. Mr. Katsoufis asked Ms. Adams whether or not changing from the 5 -10 to the 5 -15 acted as a preservation tool. Ms. Adams replied that she does not think it has worked as a preservation tool. Mr. Caouette feels that a tear down of a conforming structure and construction of a new conforming structure, should not be an Issue. Mr. Redmond said that for non - conforming lots, the owner could do an addition that conforms by right, but if they demolish it, they could be required to get a special permit. Mr. Weston said that if an owner knows that provision is there, they may not go the special permit route and go with the option that Is by right. Mr. Tuttle said that the language needs to be clarified. He would suspect that in some cases applicants likely sought a special permit and did not necessarily need to. Mr. Jarema said the language does give the board some leeway the way it Is written. Again, he said the ZAC needs to determine what the Town wants in order to understand how to address the non - conformity Issues. Continuance of the Public Hearin: Site Plan Review, 75 Pearl Street Longwood Place Ms. Wilson told the CPDC that Planning Staff has reviewed the revised submittals and issued a memo related back to their responses. Mr. Italo Visco said that they met with the Historical Commission and tried to address some of their concerns. One of the concerns was related to the grading on the exterior of the site. They suggested trying to address the grade change In the Interior of the building to minimize the Impact from the outside. He said the architect did look at that design and they will be submitting something to that extent. The Historical Commission also recommended reusing the existing stairs in part of the design so they are also looking Into that. In addition, the Historical Commission had concerns over the canopy and would like to have it Page 16 be more transparent to see the building better and to get more light into the walkway. The architect is working on it and they hope to have a re- design that will Include skylights. Ms. Wilson asked about the update on the Affordability Component of the project. They said the regulatory agency does not Issue certificate of compliance but as part of their closing they had to be In compliance with the requirement. Ms. Wilson asked how this fits with the changing of some rooms from 1 -bed to 2 -bed. Mr. Visco replied that they cannot have two non - related Individuals in one room as required under the affordable requirements. Ms. Dellos suggested that the monitoring agent Issue a compliance letter stating they are in compliance with the requirements. Mr. Visco said that here was an inspection report submitted. Ms. Wilson said that report was not that clear and did not address the Issue. Ms. Adams stated that simply adding skylights to the canopy would not meet their concerns about Its Impact on the building facade. The plan reviewed by the Historical Commission at their meeting with Mr. Vlsco did not address their concerns. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to continue the Public Hearing for Site Plan Review of 75 Pearl Street to June 23, 2014 at 9PM. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion 4 -0- 0. Continuance of Public Hearina for Site Plan Review: 64 Middlesex Avenue. Reading Public Library Ms. Dellos reported the library would like a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to continue the Public Hearing for the Site Plan Review of 64 Middlesex Avenue, Reading Public Library to June 23, 2014 at 8:30PM. Bond Reduction Reauest Sailor Toms Way Subdivision Ms. Wilson reported that the developer has completed all the Improvements for the subdivision. However, Staff is working with Counsel on the Issue of the conveyance of easement for the utilities to the Town. Therefore the recommendation is to retain $5,000 in the surety. Mt. Tuttle moved the CPDC to approve the reduction in the surety for Sailor Toms Way to $5,000. Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 4 -0 -0. Review Decision for Proposed Subdivision 92 Sanborn Lane - Pro Ms. Wilson said that Town Counsel has provided an opinion related to the Issue of access and a copy of the easement has been provided by Mr. Couillard. He does have the right to access the property via Sanborn Lane and the Town Engineer has reviewed the opinion and easement. Town Counsel said that the right of passage does not necessarily entitle the owner to make the Improvements, but based on the Town Engineer's experience with this topic, the applicant would have the right to make the Improvements. Mr. Weston expressed some concerns with Town Counsel's opinion as it relates to the improvements proposed to Sanborn Lane. Mr. Hansen asked if there were any comments from the public even though this is not a public hearing. Ms. Sue Stathoulopoulos asked about the access and whether the new property owners had the right to access. Page 17 Mr. Weston asked in a more general sense how someone would pave a private way. Mr, Mackenzie said in his experience residents have chipped in money for repairs and even speed bumps. Mr. Saflna asked about the conservation land in the back of the property and whether it was a vernal pool. Mr. Couillard replied that the vernal pool was Identified on the DEP maps but it was 600 -ft away. A salamander habitat (endangered species) was located 1300 -feet away. It was determined that the location of these two resources would not be impacted by the project. Mr. Mackenzie said that he feels there should have been better notification for this project within the community. He also suggested some other Improvements for sidewalks other than what was proposed. Mr. Weston said that some of his concerns may be moot in that the CPDC may not have the ability for the developer to make the Improvements he suggested. The fact that it is a private road complicates the situation. The CPDC reviewed the draft decision and suggested minor edits including updating the list of materials with all the revised submittals. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC approve the decision for proposed Mariano Drive as amended Mr. Weston seconded and the motion 4 -0 -0. [- fTiiltfT=- a . - - - . • - .. , - , : , �, Mr. Joe Correia, sign designer, said he has handled the installation for the other signs on the Northern Bank tenant space. He said that the new design on the canopy calls for halo - illumination and the faces will not be lit and will be opaque. Mr. Tuttle asked about the depth of the letter. Mr. Correia said they do not exceed 2- Inches. He also clarified that the letters will be steel and not white. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Northern Bank B Trust at 600 Main Street on the north fagade. Mr. Saflna feels the sign is too big. He feels that the designer could create a shadow with the lettering. Mr. Weston seconded the motion. Mr. D'Arezzo asked about the sign size. It was clarified that a box was made around the sign which equaled 50- square feet. Motion carried 3 -1 -0 Reading Woods - Ms. Wilson said the sequencing plan for Reading Woods has changed and Pulte Homes has submitted the updated plans. Ms. Wilson said that these changes could be approved administratively through Town Planner. She also added that the Town Engineer has Issued a memo approving the proposed changes. The CPDC agreed the changes qualified for Town Planner Approval. Page 18 Mr. Hansen asked for an update on the proposed St. Agnes Commons project. Ms. Delios said that Mr. Moore is out of the country, but his Attorney has requested to be taken off the BOS agenda for the LIP application. Mr. Hansen asked about outdoor dining for Portland Pie Company. Ms. Delios replied that she thinks they will not move forward on it this year. Mr. Hansen asked about Bunratty. Ms. Delios replied that the tenant Flt -out is on -going but they are just moving slowly. Mr. Hansen tabled the minutes tabled to next meeting. Adiournment On a motion by Mr. Tuttle, seconded by Mr. Weston, the CPDC voted to adjourn at 11:OSPM PM by a vote of 4 -0 -0. Gage 19