Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-28 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading Meeting Minutes -RECEIVED TOWN CLERK _C „DING. MASS. Board - Committee - Commission - council: 2011 AUG 19 A il� 2$ Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2014 -07 -28 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Nick Safina John Weston David Tuttle Jeff Hansen Members - Not Present: Others Present: Jean Delios - Assistant Town Manager, Community Services Jessie Wilson - Community Development Administrator Virgina Adams - 39 Azalea Circle Tony D'Arezzo - 130 John Street Joe Huggins - Assistant DPW Director Bob LeLacheur- Town Manager Jody Heyward - Danis Properties Jamie Shaw - Danis Properties Evan Warner - STV Inc. Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Jessie Wilson, Community Development Administrator Topics of Discussion: There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM Minor Site Plan Review — Temooram Soace for the Reading auhl Ms. Dellos said that this project falls under Minor Site Plan review which Includes noticing the abutters. Although a public hearing is not required Staff felt It was prudent to inform people that the library will be relocating to this space on a temporary basis. She said that when the property owner came to CPDC about a year ago, the CPDC did want to see the fit - outs of the larger retail spaces under Minor Site Plan Review. Ms. Dellos said that the plan is to have the Library Staff park in the rear of the site and that is also where the dumpster will be located. It is anticipated that patrons will use the 50 spaces out front of the storefront. Mr. Evan Warner, Project Manager, said that he has prepared a floor plan schematic for the library space for 1 General Way. There will be two doors at the storefront, both of which currently exist. There will likely be an entry vestibule for the entrance to help with the airlock. We are taking about 1/3 of the library collection to this space as well as some of the Page I i furniture. It is an open floor concept with high ceilings. They will also construct the restroom facilities and whatever is necessary for life safety. There will be two interior rooms construction for a conference space and office space. At the rear of the space, there will be about 5,500 square feet for storage of the collection. There will be an egress corridor to provide exit to the rear of the property. The site locus Identifies the book drop to be just outside of one of the entry doors. There will be a curb cut and handicap spaces near the drop box. Mr. Tuttle asked about the flooring. Mr. Warner replied that it is slab concrete so they do not need to worry about any issues with loading. Mr. Tuttle asked if there are any ceiling supports throughout the space. Mr. Warner replied yes, there are a few columns which are identified on the floor plan. Mr. Tuttle also asked about the "tech serv" space. He said that is a term for the staff that receives other transfers from other library and other "behind the scenes spaces ". Mr. Hansen asked if the plan will change some. Mr. Warner replied yes, it could change some based on the requirements from the Building Inspector. Mr. Warner clarifled that the rear storage area will not be used for public access. He said during this transition staff will begin tracking books with the RFD chips and some of that work will occur In that space. Mr. Hansen asked how changes would be handled if the plan changes are necessary. Ms. Delios said that could be written in the decision to be handled by staff. Mr. Weston said that the Inside of the space is not really a Site Plan issue so long as the changes would not affect or impact the site. Mr. Weston expressed concern regarding the placement of the book drop and that the need for 4 -ft clearance is left for safe passage. Mr. Warner agreed. Mr. Hansen read some concerns from Staff. Ms. Heyward said that after occupancy they are required to submit an affidavit stating the current occupancy and she said they are not even close to the 200,000 square feet of occupation of non - retail space. She also noted that she has provided an as -built plan retainer once the site is completed. Ms. Heyward also provided a rendering for the proposed signage. Mr. Weston reminded Ms. Heyward there is a Master Slgnage Plan for the site and as long as the sign complies with that, they would just need a permit from Glen. Ms. Wilson reminded the CPDC of the requirement for an updated Site Plan per the decision for Sola Salon. The CPDC reviewed the draft decision and made minor changes. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to approve Minor Site Plan Review decision for Temporary Library Space at 1 general way as amended. Mr. Weston seconded and motion carried 3 -0 -0. ..mss mr rr �ianaae ac z Hay n tr t Hit Nina Post Ms. Leahy said that because her sign has different font and a logo that does not conform to the Master Signage Plan she is required to obtain approval from the CPDC. Mr. Weston clarified that we did not necessarily want to prohibit them, but we wanted to review them on an individual basis to make sure it was in -line with other signs. Page 1 2 Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Hitching Post at 2 Haven Street as presented. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 3 -0 -0. nd Discussion on Comurehensiv Mr. Hansen said he coordinated with Staff on this agenda Item, but the topics we want to discuss Include parking, signs and Site Plan Review. However, since Mr. Safina Is not here he recommended the CPDC hold off on review of signs until he is available. Mr. Weston agreed that the CPDC should review Site Plan Review. Timeline Ms. Dellos said that the plan Is to move forward with Medical Marijuana at the Special Town Meeting In September and the rest will move forward in November for Subsequent Town Meeting. She also said that September Town Meeting will be another opportunity to involve Town Meeting Members and get them updated on the progress. She said the hope is to use the electronic polling technology to get feedback on the accessory apartment bylaw. Ms. Dellos said that the timeline Identifies CPDC putting for Medical Marijuana on the warrant at the August 11, 2014 CPDC Meeting. The public hearing for that article would be held on September 15, 2014. She noted that the Board of Selectmen will close the warrant on September 2, 2014 not and not on August 19, 2014 as the schedule shows. Mr. Tuttle questioned the public hearing date. Ms. Dellos said that the public hearing can be held after the close of the warrant. Mr. Weston noted that we could address any Issues from the public hearing in the warrant report. Mr. Tuttle expressed concern in that the changes need to be tracked meticulously as to not miss anything between September Town Meeting and November Town Meeting. Ms. Wilson said that a few more items need to be addressed by VHB but then the draft will be nearly finished. In review of the proposed medical marijuana bylaw language, Mr. Weston asked what the concern was for locating a dispensary in a medical office where a practitioner is licensed to prescribe. Mr. Tuttle said that the concern may be over the "one -stop shopping" for this type of use. He added that the ZAC did review this at their last meeting and agreed it could further limit the areas in which these uses locate. It was agreed that Staff will circle back with the Consultant on whether that provision can be deleted. If so, It Is the consensus of the CPDC Is to eliminate it. The CPDC reviewed the schedule for November Town Meeting. Ms. Dellos said the public hearing is scheduled for October 20, 2014. Mr. Tuttle asked what the warrant article would state specifically. Ms. Dellos replied that is something Town Counsel would have to weigh In on and provide guidance. Ms. Delos said her thought would be that it would be a complete deletion and insertion of a new bylaw. She said that more detail and information regarding the changes would be provided in warrant background and report. Mr. Tuttle expressed concern that the draft bylaw is not in the outline /table of contents order recommended by the CPDC. Mr. Tuttle suggested having the old table of contents with notes on where that section is "moved to" or what other changes were made. Mr. Weston expressed concern about presenting the zoning change in one article. Mr. Tuttle said that because of the nature of the remdl0cation It seems to make the most sense to do It that way. Mr. Weston feels it would be hard to pass especially if one person gets hung up on one Issue. Page 1 3 Mr. Hansen expressed concern over the Aquifer Protection District regulations. Mr. Tuttle agreed, and said also the Accessory Apartment and Nonconforming sections will be difficult as well. However, he feels that Staff has pulled together some good Information on that Section. Mr. Tuttle said that the proposed change is to modify the definition of impervious surface which relaxes some of the requirements under the district. He said it is also Important to note that we are required to have the district per DEP. Mr. Weston again expressed concern about proposing this to Town Meeting in one article. He said there are a lot of changes proposed and that many people have Issues with a lot of change. Ms. Delios is hoping that the update at September Town Meeting will reveal some good feedback on how to take the best approach. Review of Sians Parkina and Site clan Review The CPDC reviewed the document prepared by Staff that Includes some Initial comments on the Sign Section. Mr. Weston asked if the Consultant has addressed those comments. Ms. Wilson said that the Consultant is still working on responding to staff comments. In regards to signs, Mr. Weston feels there are two different areas of towns which call for different regulations. Ms. Wilson added that there has also been question as to whether to allow additional signage for single tenanted businesses in the Business A district. Ms. Delios added that some people think It does not make sense to have different regulations for the same business types that are in different districts. Mr. Weston said that maybe the boundary line needs to be re- evaluated. Mr. Tuttle pointed out that It may be worth looking at the signage in Business A. He does agree that Mr. Safina should be Involved in that discussion. Mr. Tuttle said that maybe more context sensitive requirements would be more appropriate along Main Street, based on specific site conditions such as setbacks and building heights. Mr. Weston asked what is the question we are trying to solve. Is It because businesses want more signs? Or is it more about making the bylaw easier to understand? Are there any Issues about consistency, or flexibility? Mr. Tuttle replied that he has heard that business tenants in Business A feel punished if they own and occupy the building. If the building is multi- tenanted then they effectively get more signage. Mr. Weston said maybe It is a size limit requirement and they decide what they want within that limit. It was agreed to add this to the August 11, 2014 CPDC agenda. Site Plan Review Mr. Hansen asked why we had a long version and a short version when it was a difference of two pages. Mr. Weston said that if unless the CPDC has a rule book, he would suggest having it all together in the zoning. Mr. Tuttle said that Section 1.4 seems intimidating. Mr. Weston does feel that this level of detail in the zoning bylaw is too much. He would suggest that a checklist be developed to supplement the bylaw and eliminate all the details in Section 1.4. He would suggest having the zoning to reference the Site Plan Application Checklist. Mr. Tuttle also suggesting having the number of hard copies be included in the checklist as needed because it could change based on the project. Mr. Hansen still expressed concern about distinguishing between Site Plan Review and Minor Site Plan Review. Mr. Weston suggested reversing the language to build up from Minor Site Plan Review to Site Plan Review. Mr. Hansen agreed and suggested putting in a Table to identify when each would qualify. Mr. Weston questioned the reasoning behind proposed Section 1.1.2. In addition, he would stress there are other reasons other than managing the juxtaposition between commercial and residential properties. He would also suggest having an "exemption section" to better call attention to what is exempt and would recommend revising the language to be clearer. Mr. Weston said that Section 1.7 should be clarified in regards to CPDC failure to act. He also suggested streamlining Section 1.7 and 1.10. Page 14 Parkino Mr. Weston expressed concern about setting maximum parking spaces. Speciflcally he is concerned that setting the same minimum as maximum would require a variance should anyone want to deviate from that. He said that most businesses owners know what they need in terms of parking that Site Plan Review creates that avenue for control over creating too much parking. Mr. Tuttle agreed, saying It may be too much to ask for. Mr. Weston added that he feels having a maximum parking requirement does not flt in Reading because we do not have big box stores. He would not want to limit a business from constructing the amount of spaces they believe they need. CPDC could then review whether there are unnecessary impacts created from excess parking under Site Plan Review. Ms. Wilson pointed out that the language should be sure to Include the CPDCs authority to waive loading spaces as It is currently written in the bylaw. Mr. Weston feels that the table does a good job by defining the parking requirements by each specific use. He does believe that the maximums should be eliminated. He also suggested refining the loading space requirements because It seems like the requirement for loading spaces could be pulled out Into a separate table. Mr. Weston said it may be worth further clarifying that when the term "per employee" is used that It means employee on the largest shift and should be clarified either by a note or something, but not necessarily clogging up the Table. Mr. Weston also questioned the parking requirements for restaurants and expressed concern using gross floor area. Ms. Delios said that excludes storage or basement area. He expressed concern with this formula If there is a large kitchen because then you would need more parking. Ms. Delios said currently the requirement is based on seating and employees on the largest shift. Ms. Dellos said that using a formula based on square footage eliminates any questions on providing Information of employees on the largest shift. She said there is also question related to delivery drivers. Mr. Weston said the goal is to determine what the true need is and if there Is a difference between 10 and 12 spaces it should not be the issue. The Issue is when restaurant patrons will end up parking on residential streets in the neighborhood. Mr. Tuttle said one of his concerns is the occupancy of customer vs employees. The employees need long term parking and in the downtown the 2 hour parking is not sufficient. He would prefer to have language in the bylaw requiring off street parking for businesses' employees. Mr. Weston said that solving downtown parking issues will not be solved by any one business. And that a downtown with parking Issues shows a healthy downtown. Ms. Delios said that the Board of Selectmen will begin to have that discussion on Downtown parking as downtown continues to be occupied over the next year or so. Mr. Weston asked whether the parking regulations should be specific for downtown based on use. Mr. Tuttle feels that may be a good approach with the assumption that residential use requires the off street parking. Mr. D'Arrezo expressed concern about businesses such as Dunkin Donuts and Jumbos using "public off street" lot such as the triangle area near their locations. Mr. Weston agreed there are a few spots in Business B district that are not within the 300 feet for a public off street parking facility and therefore would in fact have to provide off - street parking. Mr. Hansen suggested taking the comments back to the ZAC. To summarize - eliminate the maximum parking spaces - move loading spaces to different table - clarify employee parking spaces vage 1 5 minimum spaces for gross floor area for restaurants and review whether that makes sense consider different regulations for downtown Business B for specific uses Ms. Delios pointed out the at the 1 space per 4 customers for restaurants was maybe developed for the family of 4 that would all drive together and that may have changed since then. Mr. Weston said the question is where to set that limit. Ms. Delios expressed concern of a spillover of restaurants onto residential streets. Mr. Hansen suggested including this topic on the CPDC agenda for the 25`h of August. Plannim Updates and Other Business 186 Summer Avenue - Demolition Delay Bylaw was Imposed by the Reading Historical Commission (RHC) for the property at 186 Summer Avenue on August 24, 2014. She said the neighborhood is very concerned about the proposed use which is a 10,000 sf building for educational /social service use for children with disabilities. Mr. Weston pointed out that the School Department was looking for early childhood education center and that could be a site they consider. Ms. Delios said that the School Department may be looking at other alternatives that would not involve purchasing more property. She said the neighborhood Is moving forward with a meeting and will likely take some action against the owner of 186 Summer Avenue as well as the proponent for the proposed use. St. Agnes - Ms. Delios said she has received a lot of letters from people who are concerned with what will happen with the building. The parishioners would like to move forward with the proposal from the Johnson Woods Developer. She said that other communities do allow for off -site affordable units, but with the stipulation that they are comparable. Site Plan Review Decision for the Library - Ms. Delios said there are a few discrepancies that were in the final decision. She wanted to inform the CPDC of these changes. Move the CPDC confirm the updated Site Plan Decision for 64 Middlesex Avenue, the Reading Public Library as amended. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 3 -0 -0. EDSAT - The Economic Development Self- Assessment Tool ( EDSAT) was presented to BOS few weeks ago. This was the beginning of the planning process to develop an economic development action plan. To prepare that Plan Reading applied for and received funding under the Priority Development Fund. Work will begin soon on that. Bike and Ped Plan - The plan will be presented to the BOS on July 29, 2014 for final adoption. Reading 20/20 - The Board of Selectmen is working on goals and visioning for the Town which they are calling Reading 20/20. She said that we may use MAPC to help us with the visioning for the Town and we will also be looking at all the services the Town provides and whether anything could be combined or eliminated. The Chair tabled approval of the minutes to the next meeting. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to adjourn at 10:30PM. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 3 -0 -0. 1.,16