Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-01 Board of Selectmen Minutes O� OF A? . C Town of Reading e I Meeting Minutes e ��o `6�9r INCOPp�Pr� Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Board of Selectmen Date: 2015-04-01 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Pleasant Street Senior Center Location: Great Room Address: 49 Pleasant Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Chairman John Arena, Secretary Daniel Ensminger, Kevin Sexton, Vice Chairman Marsie West, John Halsey Members - Not Present: Others Present: Town Manager Bob LeLacheur, Jenn Erickson, Jean Delios, Jessie Wilson Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Secretary Kevin Sexton Topics of Discussion: Opening remarks were made by the Town Manager, Bob LeLacheur and Ms.Jenn Erickson, Planner with a MAPC provided a brief introductions. There being a quorum, the Economic Development Committee (EDC) and the Board of Selectmen called the meeting to order. Ms. Erickson began the presentation with the overall goal for the project, which is to develop a strategic economic development action plan for the 4 priority development areas in Town and to identify potential redevelopment opportunities based on market analysis and existing land uses. She provided a brief background on the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) noting that they are the regional planning agency for Reading and also serve a total of 101 cities and towns in the region. MAPC provides a number of services to the community, and they are working on a few other projects to streamline permitting efforts in Reading. The Economic Development Action Plan will be focusing on the 4 priority development areas in Town. This includes the expansion of the Downtown Smart Growth District (40R), South Main Street,the New Crossing Road Redevelopment District, and 1 General Way. Over the past several months, MAPC has been working with a working group to examine retail/office/residential opportunities in these 4 areas which will eventually lead to modeling those sites to determine the use and density that can be accommodated. Ms. Erickson said there will be a few different modeling scenarios based on information gathered and ultimately MAPC will provide some visualizations/renderings to serve as a good example on what the potential development may look like. Page 1 1 Board of Selectmen Minutes—April 1 2015—page 2 Ms. Erickson said the advisory committee for the project includes the Town Manager, the Assistant Town Manager, the Community Development Administrator, the Economic Development Committee and the Board of Selectmen. Ms. Erickson then provided a background on how the 4 priority development areas were identified. The Priority Mapping Project, which began in 2011, was a year and half long project that involved 15-20 public meetings (regional and local meetings)to establish the priority and preservation areas in the North Suburban Planning Council (NSPC) region area to help facilitate redevelopment. As part of that project, the Town was asked to identify sites that would be priorities. MAPC then looked at the suitability for the development types using various criteria based on what type of development the town assumed would be suitable for that particular site.The criteria included travel choices, walkable communities, open spaces and healthy watersheds. Based on that analysis, there are 4 areas in Reading that were deemed to be regionally significant.Those include: PDA 1—Expansion of the Downtown 40R Smart Growth District PDA2—South Main Street PDA3—Area behind the current Reading Municipal Light Department, informally called the New Crossing Road Redevelopment District PDA4- 1 General Way A variety of maps were presented of Reading including current land use, current zoning, transportation assets, Floor Area Ratios, Building Value per Square Foot,Tax Revenue Per Parcel, and Improvements to Land Value Ratio. Questions: Does high-tech fall under industrial? MAPC—it would fall under office use. What about Server Farms? MAPC—it would likely fall under light industrial. Will the maps be posted? MAPC—yes everything will be made available after the meeting. MAPC -clarified the 4 priority development areas noting that these come from a larger list of areas.The Priority Mapping report can be made available. Which areas were identified for residential? MAPD—Priority Area 1. Is the goal to increase tax revenue? MAPC—the goal of this project is to look into the quality of life and the goals of the community and to ensure appropriate planning is done to meet those goals. It is not solely about increasing tax revenue, but meant to proactively guide development. MAPC strives to meet the goals identified in their Master Plan, called Metro Future.This includes looking at various opportunities for commercial offerings, creating access to those offerings and address the housing needs of the region. Ms. Delios added that the goal of this meeting is really to talk about density and what works for Reading. Page 1 2 Board of Selectmen Minutes—April 1, 2015—page 3 Market Analysis Presentation Ms.Amanda Chisolm from MAPC presented the market analysis for Reading as it relates to Office and Retail.She noted their initial work included interviewing local businesses. Most reported they are doing well, but a few have noted they were struggling. Rents are competitive and Reading has a low vacancy rate. However, some felt that the parking in the downtown is confusing and that the permitting process could be more business friendly and more streamlined. Other business owner's felt that more residential in the downtown would help boost their sales. Interviews with commercial brokers revealed that there is a potential for small offices and small retail stores downtown.There is strong office competition. Interviews with residential brokers revealed that the single-family home market is strong and there is also a demand for well-located multi-family housing within an amenity rich area. MAPC also looked at the Retail Trade Area and performed a Retail Gap Analysis. Based on the analysis there is a demand for 2 health and personal care stores, 1 food & beverage store, 2 small retailers and 1 food services&drinking place.There is an opportunity to capture this gap by filling the existing vacancies and concentrating the majority of new retail in downtown and the northern end of south Main Street. Office Outlook Rents were slightly below the 128/MassPike region, but were on par with rents in the suburbs.There is a 17%vacancy rate which is a decrease from previous areas.According to industry projections,there is a 14%growth, but that is within the region, which Reading is certainly positioned to capture some of that growth by leveraging some of the community's assets. Residential Analysis Mr. Matt Smith with MAPC presented the Residential Market Analysis. Overall, household growth will drive residential demand. An analysis of the population projections identified 1,900 additional households over the next 10-20 years and an increase of senior households by 75%.There will also be an increase in the 20-34 year olds also known as the millennials. Mr.Smith noted that the senior population and the millennials have similar preferences on housing choices.They are both leaning towards smaller housing units which are within walking distance to various amenities. The residential analysis also looked at recent trends.Traditionally, Reading has been an owner-occupied community, but in the past 10-15 years there has been an increase in rental housing. In addition,there has been an increase in condo units.As for home sales,they are at an all-time high for Reading.Single- Family homes are in the highest demand as the schools are a big draw. However, he noted that the student population is projected to decline.The Condo market is also strong with a big desire in upscale two-bedroom units.They are finding that people want to stay in Reading, but the options are limited for empty-nesters. Many of the units are located on the outskirts of Town and are not walkable. Other trends indicate that there is little new single-family home construction.This is likely due to the little developable land in Reading. He also found that rentals come and go quickly.There is opportunity for more residential as there is a demand for 950 potential units over the next 5-10 years. Most of that development will be infill/redevelopment, but that there is a strong demand for housing near the downtown. Half of that demand could be supported by alternative housing units in the downtown with a more modest amount of single-family home development. MAPC Review of PDAs in the Residential Market Opportunities Page 1 3 Board of Selectmen Minutes—April 1, 2015—page 4 Area 1: Expansion of the Downtown 40R District - Focus retail development by filling vacancies with a mix of restaurants and residential. - This area could support small professional offices (lawyer or accountant) Area 2: South Main Street - Focus retail in the northern section of this area and phase in new commercial as residential units are added. - Residential opportunities in the northern section as infill development which could also support the downtown. - There is opportunity for small professional offices. Area 3: New Crossing Road Redevelopment District - Due to its proximity to Downtown, additional residential opportunities may exist in this area - Office—creative mix space or flex space Area 4: 1 General Way - Best use for office or build to suit - Residential could be supported in this area to blend in with the existing surrounding residential - Mixed Use - live-work-play to accommodate current workforce Questions Will this take into account impact on town services? MAPC—Yes,they will take into account relevant impacts such as stormwater and wastewater. Question—What is the impact on the schools and where did the data come from on the population projections? MAPC— The data comes from MAPCs demographic projections for the region and very detailed modeling.There is a slight increase in school-aged children,then it begins to decline. Question—What is the market for 2-bedrooms and what demographic does that attract? MAPC—Two-bedroom units will likely not attract families with young children, but will likely attract empty-nesters and young-professionals. Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios—The data from the Smart Growth Districts has a total of 15 children residing in the two smart growth districts. Question—What about the boundary of PDA 1? MAPC—It is based on the existing 40R district and expansion upon that. Question—What about the impact of development on traffic from New Crossing Road and the south Main Street area? MAPC—That would be considered when additional detail is developed around a particular project. Question—What about the empty buildings in the 1B area?They would be great for mixed use. MAPC—This analysis is to see whether certain mix of uses could be supported in the area and to identify those uses to bring in potential redevelopment. Question—Some parcels in 1A and some on South Main Street are small parcels and difficult to develop. It is difficult to assemble parcels. MAPC—That is common in downtown environments and there are different strategies or incentives a community could offer to encourage development and we will be looking at strategies. Visual Preference Survey MAPC presented a number of visual images to gauge preferences of the audience. Below is a summary of comments based on the ID of the visual. Page 1 4 Board of Selectmen Minutes—April 1, 2015—page 5 Example: 2 Haven Street - Like the brick - Like the dormers - Not too high - Good quality of materials - Lots of windows - Walking and parking - Building located on north side of the street - Good mix of uses - Good size of sidewalk - Parking next to the building, windows PDA1 Visual#10 - Doesn't look like there is much of a sidewalk, no trees - Not nice signage - Too many windows, the scale is bad - Don't like the bars - Poor signage - Good mix of use 63%did not like this image Visual#11 - Like the trees - Better window to wall ratio - Offset of building is good - Nice arches - Don't like the mail boxes inside 77% liked this image Visual #12 - Too modern - Too high - Recessed upper floor is good - White parts look like don't look like good quality - Too much brick - Does not fit character of town 79%did not like this image Visual #13 - Too tall for downtown - Doesn't fit the area - Too dense - No place in the district could fit this development - This could be good in the 1b area Page 1 5 Board of Selectmen Minutes—April 1, 2015—page 6 64%did not like this image Visual #14 - Overhangs are good - Lots of windows which is good - Too high - Like the buildings - Good variation in the fagade - Don't love the yellow color - Like the hidden parking - Don't like the flat roof 58%did not like this image Visual#15 - Looks cheap - Looks like a housing project - Height is good - Like the greenspace - Don't like colors - Too monolithic 87%did not like this image Visual#16 - Look like a hotel - Dislike the open parking and up on a podium - Balconies—good and bad - Dislike the flat fagade 76%did not like this image PDA 2 Visual#18 - Good greenspace - Too much of a setback - Lampposts are nice - Like the bench - Contours on the building are good - Some don't like setback - Differentiate the scale on south Main Street - Articulated roofline is good - Seems to be consistent with neighboring structures 88%liked this image Visual #19 - Too tall - No landscaping - It looks more like an urban street corner or city block Page 1 6 Board of Selectmen Minutes—April 1, 2015—page 7 - On the north side of south Main Street could be okay - The width of the sidewalk and street crossing is good - Signage issue maybe too far south 57%did not like this image Visual#20 - Too boxy - Too top heavy - May not be suitable for aging population, need elevator - like that parking is not visible - Nice that is a tree lawn 82%did not like this image Visual#21 - More appropriate for south main street - Concern that the height with several developments may change the character - Too close to the street - Not safe - Good for window panes are crossed 67%did not like this image Visual#22 - Too tall - Needs more landscaping - Too urban looking - Three stories would be better - Too sterile - Not fan of flat roof - Not fan of big overhangs - Need more setback area - 4th floor does not seem to fit - Like the brick detail 50%like the image Visual#23 - Too massive - Better for downtown - Like the curve on the corner - Scale is scary and very lifestyle center like - Likes that it would provide for retail opportunity - Like the social aspect of the building for south main street 61%did not like this image PDA3 Visual#25 - Seems sterile - Has an artsy feel Page 1 7 Board of Selectmen Minutes—April 1, 2015—page 8 - Like the variety of elements in the facade - Not monolithic - Looks like there is some social space and like that - More appropriate for the Market Basket area 53% liked this image Visual#26 - Little too tall - Too boxy - Not enough windows - Lot of concrete on first floor for the retail and don't like that - Like the trees and parking access - Sidewalk lights - Too modern 83%did not like this image Visual#27 Does not have the architectural appeal - Feel like it is not a good fit for the area and perception for safety issues Would like it if there was more brick 63%did not like this image Visual#28 - Seems like offices are better use for this spot - Would have to improve access to that area for residential - Better use for offices 68%liked this image Visual#29 - Great for south Main Street - This may not appeal to the growing demographic 52%did not like this image for South Main Street PDA Visual#30 - Concern about the uses around this area may not be good fit for more housing - Seem large for the tiny lots - Haven't seen any light office or manufacturing only residential - Need to look at the street width to see what it can handle - Feels that most of these photos should be on south Main Street, not for this location - Theses should be more near the train for the young families who want to be near the train Visual#31 - Concerned this is not a good development for this location - Good for south Main Street - There is not a good access of ash street - So little commercial in this area 72%did not like this image Page 1 8 Board of Selectmen Minutes—April 1, 2015—pape 9 PDA 4 Visual#33 - Very square - Too tall - Ugly - Like the two different materials in the fa4ade - Seems like it is getting a lot of use 52% liked this image Visual#34 - Like the windows - Like the reuse of the historic structure - Like the blend of traditional modern elements - Needs more greenspace - Taking note of the environmental constraints - Likes solar on roofs 98%liked this image Visual#35 - Good place for seniors close to seniors - Not enough space for this development 81%did not like this image Skipped Visuals 36,37,38,39, Visual#40 - Too tall, but like the design - Like it - Like the contemporary design - Like the building articulation of the front - Good scale nice use of the space - Like to see it energy efficient 95%liked this image Public Realm Amenities Visual#43 - Watering issue - Worried about the pavers and snow and the seniors 97%liked this image Visual#44 - Concept for outdoor seating is nice - More privacy needed Page 1 9 Board of Selectmen Minutes—April 1, 2015—page 10 Visual #45 - Like the flowers - Awnings good - Outdoor seating - Open windows in restaurant - Like the blade sings - Streetlights are good - Scale is good 100% liked this image Visual#46 - Seating is good - Variations of the facade - Flowers are nice - Benches are nice - Sidewalk need to be wider Visual #47 - Good for open space and entertainment - Good for areas 1A and 1B 72%did not like this image Visual#48 - No stone pillars 94% liked this image �-- Visual #49 - Like the idea - Engaging the students and young students is good - Welcoming MAPC We will use this information we have gathered to get a good idea on what modeling we will do for each site. We will share the findings on June 3'd to see about action items.They will send out information from this meeting as well as a save the date for the next meeting. MEETING CONCLUDED. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Page 1 10