Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-20 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes'+ Town of Reading l Meeting Minutes Board - committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2014 -30 -20 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Nick Safina David Tuttle Jeff Hansen Members - Not Present: John Weston Others Present: RECEIVED TOWN CLERK ,-,,DING. MASS. 2314 NOV -b P 1: 53 Time: 7:30 PM Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Jessie Wilson - Community Development Administrator lean Delios, Assistant Town Manager, Community Services Ray Mlyares, Town Counsel Stephen Crook, 137 Pleasant Street Robyn Parker, 9 Berkeley Street Meghan Young - Tafoya, 40 Oak Street Michal and LeeAnne Webb, 224 Walnut Street Eric Bergstrom, 29 Sturges Road Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Angenla Binda, 10 Orchard Park Drive Susan A Churchill, 83 Highland Street Marsie West, 3 Whitehall Lane Ann Godwin, 189 Summer Avenue Thomas Wise, 181 South Street Matt Muse, 166 Prescott Street Nancy Graham, 26 Holly Road Georgk Katsoufls, 9 Berkeley Street Meghan Young - Tafoya, 40 Oak Street Nancy Twomey Doug Webb Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Jessie Wilson Topics of Discussion: There being a quorum Mr. Hansen called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM. n Review. 632 Main Street, Famil Ms. Robyn Parker provided a summary of the proposed project changes. She said the previous approval was based upon utilizing the existing storefront and framing out the windows with wood columns. She said that the property owner really liked the way the MF Charles Building turned out and they wanted to adjust the design by putting in new wood windows. In addition, the second story windows were redesigned to have a slight arch rather than a more half -moon design. The new wood windows will be accompanied with a Page I 1 new wood door. In addition they will be using brick on the columns instead of wood. To be clear there are three major changes - upper story windows, new storefront wood windows /door and addition of all brick fagade. She also included details on how the fagade will be cordoned off during construction. She said the property owner also has some space at the rear of the property for lay -down space. Mr. Safina said he likes the proposed drawings. Mr. Tuttle agreed. Ms. Delios wanted some clarification on the color of the awning. Ms. Parker said It will be a blue that is similar to the existing awning. She said they are considering putting the blue on the knee walls as well, however, they may go with all wood there. Mr. Hansen suggested getting some pantone samples for the color as a condition of the modification approval as well as finalizing the decision for the knee wall. Ms Wilson asked if they had considered fabric awnings. Ms. Parker replied no, they focused more on the design of the windows. They are not proposing any additional awnings. It was also clarified that the awnings are galvanized metal. Ms. Delios asked what the plan was for the second level. Ms. Parker replied that the property owner will be looking into that after this project is complete. She would like to consider doing residential above, but at this time, nothing is planned. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC approve the minor modification request for Family Dental as amended. Ms. Safina seconded and the motion carried 3 -0 -0. There being a quorum of the Zoning Advisory Committee Ms. West called the meeting to order at 7:45PM. is Hearina. Article 8 - Comprehensive Update to the Zon Mr. Safina read the public hearing notice for Article 8 of the Subsequent Town Meeting, Zoning Update. Ms. Delios began the presentation pointing out that one of the major goals of the zoning update project is to Improve customer service for the Town and town services. It was agreed that the rules needed to be reviewed to see if they could be improved to ease administration of the land use regulations. Work began last year with the CPDC and with the creation of the Zoning Advisory Committee. Since last November the CPDC and ZAC have been meeting regularly to create new language to Improve the bylaw. They sought Input from other Boards Including the Historical Commission, Conservation Commission, Board of Selectmen and Zoning Board of Appeals. She continued with the presentation. The goals of the zoning update Is to correct Inconsistencies, include new language for new uses, ensure compliance with applicable statutory case law and reflect land use goals. Due to the complexity of this project, only a few sections will be put forward In November. The remainder will be put before Town Meeting in April of 2015. Some of the key changes Include revisions to Definitions, the Administration Section, updating of the Use Regulations Including the Table of Uses and reorganization of the Intensity Regulations. She provided a summary of the changes to Accessory Apartments saying they are allowed in Single Family Districts or preexisting Single Family Dwellings in business districts. Ms. Nancy Twomey, Town Meeting Member, said she is a local architect and noted a few things that could impact her clients. She expressed concern over Section 5.5.1a and b dealing with Accessory Structures. She said that currently, provision A and B do not exist in the current bylaw. "A" proposes to limit the height of the accessory building and she felt that Is severely restrictive. She added that based on this provision, it would cause the design of the buildings to have a very low pitched roof, which is not typical of New England design. Also it would limit owners from creating additional living space above the garage Page 1 2 such as a studio or working room. Proposed "B" would limit the size of the accessory structures to be no larger than 25% of the floor area. She said there is no specification as to whether this is gross floor area or net floor area. Additionally, for a property owner to propose a typical two car garage, they would need a very large home to meet the 25% floor area limit. She felt that one Idea is to consider the size of the structure; the larger It gets the more It has to be outside of the setback. Mr. Safina pointed out that structures within 10 -feet of the principal are considered part of the principal structure and therefore subject to the dimensional controls for the principal structure. The issue to avoid is having accessory structures constructed larger than the principal building. Ms. Twomey felt that the 10 -foot provision did not apply in Reading. It was agreed that needs to be clarified. Mr. Ray Mlyares, Town Counsel, pointed out that the current bylaw does have a sentence in the definition of Accessory Building in the smart growth district that speaks to that requirement regarding the 10 -feet. Mr. Steven Crook suggested putting in an actual quantitative number including the percentage to help clarify the restriction related to 5.5.1.b. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo said that provisions c, d, and a say these structures cannot be In the front yard, side yard and rear yard. He asked where they would go. It was clarified those provisions related to the required yard which is the setbacks. Ms. Twomey pointed out the swimming pools and game courts are accessory structures that and regulated by building code. However, we should put a limit/restriction on them. Under our bylaw they would be allowed within 5 -feet of the property line. We should consider putting a larger setback than that. Also as it relates to f, for fences anything higher than 6 feet Is not allowed within 6 feet of the property line. She expressed concern that this would make many fences nonconforming if they have lattices on top of the 6 -feet. She also pointed out that for "a" accessory structures cannot be habitable except for Accessory Apartments. This would eliminate pool house, rec rooms, etc. The state defines habitable similar to being occupied. Mr. Miyares agreed that habitable does not necessarily mean residential, but occupled by people. Mr. Doug Webb, Town Meeting member, expressed concern with the size restriction on garages. He has built many In Town and does not know where the concern is coming from. Mr. Safna said that the setbacks are there to protect abutters, so If you are trying to build something that Is larger than the house and, closer to the property line It goes against the idea of setback. Mr. Webb said that he would not be in favor of the new restrictions to accessory apartments as it relates to height or size. Mr. Traniello said that the ZBA has received a number of applications for variances to setbacks and height for accessory structures. Mr. D'Arezzo said the provision "I" would allow a special permit for truck trailers, stand alone shipping or storage containers or steel storage unit. He would recommend limiting that special permit for a year. The CPDC considered various options for re- writing Section 5.5.1 to accommodate concerns related to height and size. The CPDC worked through the definition and restriction related to the word habitable. Mr. Wise suggested Including the definition of required yard and then developing a graphic for required yard. Page 13 Ms. Young - Tafoya asked if there was a definition of setback. Mr. Miyares replied that he did include a definition of setback. Mr. D'Arezzo said that there are no dimensional controls for accessory uses /structures. He would recommend that be clear. Mr. Doug Webb pointed out the graphic was incorrect for yard. Mr. Mlyares replied yes, it has been corrected. It was clarified that there is a difference between yard and required yard. It was agreed that definitions need to be Included for required yard. The CPDC discussed options for modifying the size requirements under provision "b ". It was agreed to modify the size limit to allow an accessory structure no larger than 600 square feet In footprint or 25% of the principal structure. Mr. Crook agreed that footprint makes sense to use for a unit of measurement. Mr. Mlyares said that the definition includes the term subordinate which would not seem to allow a very large garage and a tiny house. Ms. Twomey said there may be question on how subordinate it would be. Mr. Katsoufis suggested the CPDC move along to Accessory Apartments. Ms. West pointed out that the CPDC should try and make the changes to accessory apartments here as opposed on the floor of Town Meeting. Ms. Angela Binda, Town Meeting Member, suggested a change to the purpose section of accessory apartments. She expressed concern over the following: - Lack of Information over the detached dwelling. - Lack of criteria used by BOS for additional driveway approval. - Concern that the waivers may be granted to facilitate access for mobility for disabled persons and lack of criteria for evaluating that situation. Mr. Hansen asked if we would be eliminating the purpose in each section of the bylaw. Mr. Mlyares replied no, but that they are revised to tie them back to Section 1 - Purpose Section of the bylaw. Ms. Binda also said it was not clear whether an accessory apartment in an accessory detached structure was allowed. She felt that the Lexington Bylaw was very clear on how it was written. Ms. Young - Tafoya suggested putting the Accessory Apartments Section a higher level up In terms of numbering so that it was Its own section (5.5). She also agreed that the purpose should be modified some. Ms. Twomey said that 5.4.8.3.b limits the size of an accessory apartment to 1/3 of the gross floor area, but then excludes certain things from the definition of gross floor area. She asked if she could increase the size of the house to meet this requirement. It was agreed that she, could but that it would be by special permit. Mr. Mlyares said that the Purpose Section of Accessory Apartment would serve as a guide for the ZBA when making decisions. They should be In the bylaw, not by regulation. Ms. Katsoufs asked if the Purpose Is enough for them to use to deliberate on applications. Mr. Miyares said that the performance standards are the standards and the purpose would help to guide. But the performance standards are the criteria. Ms. Binda said that is okay, but then how would they consider an application for someone proposing a front door because of limited physical mobility. Mr. Mlyares replied that we cannot discriminate against handicapped people in zoning under state law. However, the proposed provision does allow some flexibility. Page 14 Mr. Michael Webb wanted some clarification on the second driveway option. He pointed out that the ZBA is the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) and they are responsible for enforcement. Mr. Miyares replied no, they are charged with issuing the permit and the Building Inspector Is the enforcement officer. Mr. Webb was not clear on how the process overlapped and who had jurisdiction. Ms. Elaine Webb said that the graphics are a helpful and felt that flow charts and diagrams should be Implemented to help guide applicants through the permitting process. Mr. Hansen replied that they are working on those and they will be available at the Counter of the Town Planner's Office. She asked If they would be referenced In the bylaw. Ms. Dellos pointed out that the CPDC has been working on that as well as staff. There are a number of things that we will be working on over the next few years. Mr. Tuttle said that the zoning bylaw has a rigid statutory process that is approved by the Attorney General's Office. We do not want a procedural guide to be stuck in the process. It would be controlled by the state regulated Process. Mr. Doug Webb expressed concern with 5.4.8.3.1b and how that would apply to projects for which a family room addition is proposed and the proposed location of the accessory apartment is located In the existing house. There was some discussion regarding the term "pre - existing" and what It refers to. There was some confusion over the terms and how that relates to attached apartments or apartments within the existing dwelling. It was clarified that the attached pre - existing by- right option would be for apartments within the existing home within the house. The CPDC agreed to modify the Table to make it clearer. Mr. Wise said that in his experience he had to go to 4 different boards for approvals and if one board required a small change, he would need to go back to all boards for approval. He recommends there be one meeting in which each board would attend. Ms. Delios said that Is a great point and idea. She said that there are some unique challenges with that. You do need a quorum. Another point is that the specific review of the particular board may be very limited and only a few minutes so it may not be time efficient for the board. Mr. Wise replied that Is understandable and In that case maybe there needs to be a provision for reasonable modification. Mr. Miyares said that one way to do that is to Include provisions in the Special Permit decision to allow for minor modification by the Building Permit. Mr. Katsoufis replied that there is a document the state developed called "Lean Government ". This is based on the idea to streamline the government and that is something that we should think about. Mr. Tuttle said that in some cases we have held joint meetings, but that many times it is awkward because the procedural and statutory requirements are different for each board. Mr. D'Arezzo asked when the Development Review Team (DRT) meets on projects. Ms. Delios replied that they meet on projects that would likely have an Impact. Projects such as a single - family house typically do not rise to that level because they do not have to go through Site Plan Review. Ms. Twomey asked for clarification for the proposed 7.8 which would allow new construction without having to go the Board of Appeals. Mr. D'Arezzo asked about the new definition of Abandonment and the term "intent ". Town Counsel replied that the term reflects case law and we should leave It In the definition. He said that once It is abandoned you cannot continue the use. However, case law specifies that it must be Intentional. Mr. Katsoufis said the State Building Code states that a building Is not considered an existing building if It is not occupied for more than 2 or 5 years. Not sure which It Is. Page 1 5 Mr. D'Arezzo asked what a three - family would be considered. Mr. Miyares said that it is defined as a multi - family dwelling. Mr. D'Arezzo asked how Section 1 can be brought back to Town Meeting if it failed the 2/3 vote. The Planning Board can recommend it be brought back to Town Meeting if the original article was not citizen sponsored petition. In this case it was not. Mr. Miyares pointed out that Reading has a very old bylaw related to cellular towers. These uses are regulated by the federal government. Providers are entitled to fill gaps in service if they can demonstrate the need. Our bylaw restricts these uses to certain geographical areas which are contradictory to the federal requirements. He said they have used the federal standards to create new bylaws so they are sound and not subject to litigation. Under current regulations they would be required to get a variance for the use. He recommends that new language be proposed at April Town Meeting as a stand -alone article. Mt. Tuttle moved to continue the CPDC public hearing to October 23, 2014 at 7:30PM. Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 3 -0 -0. Mr. Traniello moved the ZAC to adjourn at 10:45PM. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion carried 4 -0 -0. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to adjourn at 10:45PM. Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 3 -0 -0. Page 1 6