Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-06 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading �tR Meeting Minutes :f Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2015 -04 -06 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Chairman Jeff Hansen Nick Safina Karen Goncalves -Dolan Dave Tuttle John Weston Members - Not Present: Others Present: Time: 7:30 PM EL'ElVED hwN, CLERK L71�`!�, Mr1J�. fiS JliN 2 3 All: 10 Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Community Development Director Jessie Wilson Administrative Assistant Caitlin Saunders Town Counsel Ray Miyares Ron D'Addario, Reading Climate Advisory Committee Tom Flagan, Representative from JRM George Katsoufis, Associate CPDC Member Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Caitlin Saunders Topics of Discussion: There being a quorum Mr. Hansen called the meeting to order at 7:38 PM Request For Review - Climate Advisory Committee: Proposed Recycling Bin in Public Lot Behind CVS Ms. Wilson explained to CPDC that the Climate Advisory Committee (CAC) is advocating for placement of a recycling bin in the public lot behind CVS. The Climate Advisory Committee worked with Development Review Team (DRT) to review any concerns and comments from Town Staff. The CPDC will provide any recommendation or concerns to the Board of Selectmen who will overall approve or disapprove of the proposal. Mr. D'Addario explained in further detail the proposal for the recycle bin. In 2014 the CAC did a survey with 16 retailers who would be willing to give up a parking space in the lot for a recycling bin. He suggested locating the dumpster along the western edge of the parking lot rather than behind CVS. The dumpster will not be welded down and can be moved if needed. JRM, the trash hauler, will have a signage stating it will only collect paper and cardboard. The dumpster will have two openings on the side (2 feet by 2 feet) which will inhibit the disposal of large waste products. If there is problem with inappropriate waste, JRM will Page I 1 remove the dumpsters. Mr. D'Addario also mentioned residents could also use this dumpster for paper and cardboard recycling. Mr. Tuttle agreed that recycling is very important and the location of the dumpster is accessible to the businesses. As long as it is managed or monitored this proposal should be approved. Mr. Hansen questioned if JRM would take a TV should be left near the bin Mr. Flagen, a representative of JRM stated they will not pick up the TV. The overall goal is to promote recycling the correct way. They will not sustain the service if that happens. Mr. D'Addario mentioned that members of the Climate Advisory Committee will monitor the recycling bin. Also the police will patrol twice at night to see if there is any illegal activity or dumping. Mr. Hansen expressed concern that by providing a public dumpster new businesses and developments will not take the initiative for their own disposals causing them to only use the Town's dumpster. Mr. Tuttle mentioned that many of the businesses only underwent minor site plan review and this issue was not addressed. This new bin would be mostly for businesses that do not have access to a recycling bin. Ms. Wilson asked how often and what time the dumpster would be emptied. Mr. Flagen stated it would be a weekly pickup but if needed could be increased to as many as 4 times a week. The time of pickup will be between 7am to 5pm but JRM will work with the Town for appropriate pickup time if needed. Mr. Tuttle stated it is a good idea and the Town should try it. If it doesn't work then the dumpster will be removed. Review Draft Zoning Amendments for November Town Meetin Aquifer Protection District Ms. Wilson stated that the draft changes to the Aquifer Protection District will eliminate provisions for Lots in Two Districts and Boundary Disputes. In addition, the draft proposes to move relevant definitions into Section 2 of the Zoning Bylaw. Ms. Wilson note that currently it is challenging to determine the infiltration requirements in the aquifer protection district. It is unclear if infiltration is required when only a portion of a residential lot is in the aquifer protection district and the proposed addition is outside of the district line but exceeds the threshold. Mr. Miyares suggested clarifying this portion of the zoning bylaw. There was additional discussion regarding boundary changes, however Mr. Miyares said that the Town is not required to update the Zone II study. Telecommunications Bylaw Mr. Miyares explained, in depth, the different preferences for Personal Wireless Service Facilities that CPDC should consider. He said that the basic structure of the draft bylaw is that the applicant must prove the need for the service and then show it is located in the most preferred location. He noted that the bylaw cannot prohibit any location, but the CPDC certainly can have preferences. He also suggested including language regarding the Page 1 2 different installation types. He stated the town should have provisions in the bylaw to waive requirements if the companies do not meet any of the preferences listed in the bylaw. He noted the Town should not be in a situation of denying a telecommunication service because it will lead to a federal court decision. Mr. Safina questioned if wetlands or aquifer protections requirements trump Personal Wireless Service Facilities. Mr. Miyares stated they must meet federal law requirements applicable for Personal Wireless Service Facilities. . Ms. Dolan also questioned if short wave communications apply to this section of the bylaw. Town council stated no but it is well protected under federal regulations. Mr. Miyares noted CPDC can regulate visual guidelines, height and setbacks. Mr. Hansen suggested that CPDC should review further on May 4th Meeting. PRD and PUD Mr. Katsoufis presented a density chart comparing the existing PRD to the proposed PRD language. He felt that the new regulations are more restrictive and questioned why Town Meeting needed to approve the PRD if the density is the same as the underlying district. Mr. Miyares said that if the requirement for Town Meeting review was eliminated that would be okay. The language would need to be revised to establish requirements for the standards and review. Ms. Katsoufis said that he wants to review the language a bit more and test the new density. He said the way it is written, we will lose the possibility of development of 3 or 4 acre lots in the preferred method. Mr. Miyares said that this language appears to be extremely complicated and suggested streamlining as much as possible. Mr. Safina expressed concern that the design may change the character of the neighborhoods especially along the street line. Mr. Katsoufis said that issue would be addressed with the design criteria. Mr. Weston liked the idea of eliminating Town Meeting approval if the language proposes the same density, and the rest is more of a site plan issue to make sure the density works. Mr. Safina said that it is not just about the density, but the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Weston said that if a proposal does break up the continuity of a neighborhood, the CPDC would have control as the development would be by Special Permit. Mr. Safina expressed concern about when Town Meeting should be involved. If an entire neighborhood is proposed for redevelopment, he believes Town Meeting should have some say. Mr. Tuttle said the 40% FAR would allow for more flexible development for land that would have never been developable. Mr. Katsoufis said he does not think the development would ever be more than 3 units /acre because the math would not support it. Mr. Miyares said that Town Meeting should be involved in the review of the process, not individual projects. Mr. Tuttle suggesting eliminating the PRD from the bylaw altogether. Mr. Weston said he believes it is useful as it can promote development in alternative patterns. Ms. Wilson added that some communities have regulations for pork chop lots or 'backland lots' and maybe that is something the CPDC wants to consider. Page 1 3 Mr. Safina asked whether the CPDC wants every lot to be buildable. He again expressed concern over loss of neighborhood character. Mr. Katsoufis summarized the differences between the PRD and the PUD: Definitions are similar Dimensional Requirements are different PUD uses have been put into the Table of Uses Development Standards - they could be condensed and moved to the front of the section with the purpose to describe the goal of the bylaw. He suggested that the PUD and PRD should be revised at the same time. Mr. Tuttle agreed that it makes sense to deal with the two sections at the same time. He felt that the PRD could be changed to not require Town Meeting approval, but that the PUD would still require a map change therefore requiring Town Meeting approval. Mr. Weston suggested starting with the PRD, but keeping in mind those differences with the PUD. There is a chance that it could become overwhelming and confusing. The CPDC continued to discuss the PRD. It was agreed that a day -work meeting is required. Purpose The CPDC reviewed the updated draft and was okay with the changes. The CPDC recalled that Town meeting was a concerned with how pro - development the previous changes had been. Public Forum Ms. Wilson will have copies available for the Aquifer Protection District and the Purpose Section. She would also provide the draft Telecommunications Bylaw, but the CPDC did need to further revise that section. It was agreed that the presentation for the forum will include an overview of where the zoning stands and what is planned for changes in the future. Site Plan Review Guidelines -_ Update Mr. Safina provided some feedback and changes to the document to provide clear direction for applicants making changes to Site Plan Review documents. He would like the Applicant to make notations on the plans or call out the changes using line work. Ms. Wilson said there will be a hearing on these guidelines at the next meeting. Plannina Updates & Other Business Streamlined Permitting - Staff is working with MAPC on developing an updated Permitting Guide, Project Scoping Guide and Flow Chart. Family Dental - The awnings are not metal as approved, they are fabric. Mr. Weston said that they already look discolored. Mr. Safina said there is a difference in the pitch of the awning over the entrance is awkward now that there are only two awnings. It was also noted that the signage was proposed on the wall and not on the awning. Mr. Weston said he preferred the other design. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to authorize Administrative Approval for Minor Modification to Family Dental at 632 Main Street. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Approval of Minutes Page 1 4 The CPDC reviewed the minutes of January 12, 2015 and suggested minor edits. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to approve the minutes of January 12, 2015 as amended. Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 4 -0 -1 The CPDC reviewed minutes of March 9, 2015 and suggested minor edits. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to approve the minutes of March 9, 2015 as amended. Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 4 -0 -1 The CPDC reviewed minutes of March 23, 2015 and suggested minor edits. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to approve minutes of March 23, 2015 as amended. Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 3 -0 -2. Ms. Wilson said that Pizza World will be coming in for Site Plan Review at the next meeting. She also reminded the CPDC of the Economic Development Action Plan Public Forum for April 1St Adiournment Mr. Tuttle moved to adjourn at 10:44 PM Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Page 1 5