Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-22 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutese� orx�o, I^ �. Town of Reading Meeting Minutes RECEIVED fir° TOWN CLERK a•'° i?EADING. MASS. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission 1016 MAR -8 Q I# 58 1 Date: 2016 -02 -22 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Pleasant Street Senior Center Location: Address: 49 Pleasant Street Session: Open Session Purpose: General Business Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Chair Jeff Hansen, David Tuttle, Nick Safina and John Weston Members - Not Present: Karen Goncalves -Dolan Others Present: Town Manager Bob LeLacheur, Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Administrative Assistant Caltlin Saunders, Mary Ellen O'Neill, Tony D'Arezzo, George Katsoufis, Stephen Crook, Karen Herrick, Carolyn Whiting, Tom Bergendahl, Jonathan Barnes. Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Julie Mercier on behalf of Jeff Hansen Topics of Discussion: Chair Jeff Hansen called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM. Zonina Workshop Mr. Hansen explained that the purpose of the zoning workshop is to share the CPDC's opinion on priorities for 2016 and to obtain public comment. The goal of the workshop is to determine the zoning priorities for the November Subsequent Town Meeting. Mr. Hansen briefed the audience on the history of zoning updates since 2013, and explained the reasons underpinning the list of priorities currently being considered. He pointed out that while the CPDC's priorities at the end of 2015 were PRO, PUD, Signs and Parking, the CPDC is now proposing to undertake Signs, expansion of the Downtown Smart Growth 40R District (DSGD), Site Plan Review and Minor Modifications. He explained that updating the Sign Bylaw has become critical due to a recent Supreme Court ruling, and that expanding the 40R District was one of the key recommendations of the Economic Development Action Plan. Site Plan Review modifications need to be made to fine -tune the thresholds for what gets reviewed. The minor amendments are proposed in order to clarify some of the more difficult -to -apply bylaw sections, including the lot shape calculation and regulations regarding accessory structures. He concluded by noting that the CPDC will continue to refine PUD and PRO for a future Town Meeting, and that addressing Parking Issues will require a bigger discussion to be had at another time with a combination of boards. He asked for public input on the list of proposed priorities. Page 1 1 Public Input Jonathan Barnes, 41 Pratt Street, asked if the modifications to the Site Plan Review would be for the actual Bylaw or for the internal process. Ms. Mercier noted it would essentially be for both, as changes to the Bylaw would change the guidelines and procedures as well. Mr. Weston added that the Commission will also consider what applications should be reviewed by staff. MaryEllen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue, commented that the schedule for amending the Sign Bylaw appears very aggressive considering the amount of work it will take. She also expressed her concerns for expanding the DSGD because it would affect a lot of residences. She suggested the Commission reach out to homeowners sooner rather than later to explain what the changes will mean. She expressed some dismay with how the changes to the non- conforming section of the Bylaw were handled at Town Meeting. Mr. Hansen agreed that the Sign Bylaw update will have an aggressive schedule, but that Town Counsel will give a presentation on March 7e to educate the Commission further on the implications of the Supreme Court ruling and appropriate next steps to be considered. He also agreed that the Commission needs to reach out to people who live in the area that may be rezoned. Mr. Hansen pointed out that many people are concerned with unintended consequences that arise from zoning bylaw amendments, and that sometimes language gets added to bylaws on the floor of Town Meeting which makes fully vetting and discussing it extremely difficult. Mr. Tuttle pointed out that the non - conforming bylaw amendment primarily aligned the Town's Bylaw with State law, which In theory should minimize legal challenges. Mr. Tuttle stated that he believes the Supreme Court ruling on signage could result in a much simpler Sign Bylaw. So, while it may be an aggressive schedule, the work to fix it may be pretty straightforward. Mr. Weston opined that the Commission has to be aggressive about the Sign Bylaw update so that the Town can have an enforceable Bylaw that works in the way the Town Intends It to. Mr. LeLacheur explained that the reason people may not have heard about the potential DSGD expansion is because the Board of Selectmen (BOS) will be discussing It for the first time at a public meeting tomorrow night. The CPDC will be In attendance. Mr. Tuttle said people need to understand that the DSGD Is only an overlay district and that the underlying zoning will still be an option for owners to utilize. It may not have any impact to the existing properties for many years. Mr. Barnes asked if expanding the DSGD would have any Impact on the Reading Village 40B project and Ms. Delios answered no. Mr. Barnes asked if the Town has ever reached the amount of affordable housing that is required by the State. Mr. Tuttle responded In the negative; however, the State gave the Town some breathing room at one point because the Town was aggressively adding units. George Katsoufis opined that the Commission should not simply include properties in the DGSD just for planning sake, but should investigate both sides of the railroad tracks more thoroughly. He noted that the lots on Green Street may be a good place to start. Mr. Weston clarified that even if the parcels on Lincoln and Prescott (PDA 1B) had been included In the original DSGD a handful of years ago, a developer could still be proposing a 40B there, as the 40B legislation trumps the 4011 legislation. Mr. Barnes opined against putting energy into rezoning a parcel with a current proposal pending. He agreed that while the 40R is just an overlay and will not require owners to sell their residential lots, owners will still be impacted by their mere adjacency to redeveloped sites. Mr. Tuttle responded that 40R is a process that provides protections to neighbors. Page 12 Mr. Tuttle pointed out areas that are not currently included in the DSGD that should be, and noted an earlier discussion about having the DSGD coincide with the Business B District. He mentioned that the last zoning update had a large impact on residential properties in the Business B District. Mr. Katsoufis specifically inquired about the east side of Main Street. He pointed out that the DSGD allows for sub - districts and design guidelines, and asked the Commission to consider different types of development patterns in the area. Mr. Weston stated that the Commission is not in the business of promoting commercial redevelopment of residential properties and cautioned that they be cognizant of the undertaking. He agreed that the area will probably transition Into a mixed -use, mixed -scale area before it's completely redeveloped and suggested that design guidelines will be needed to manage the mix. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street, asked if the Town would be in a chicken and egg situation concerning businesses and residential density. He suggested that the Town allow for higher than normal residential density to attract businesses. He opined that property values will hopefully increase enough that people who are pressured to sell can still afford to live in Reading. He stated that In 15 -20 years when the population has aged, older people who cannot drive will ideally be able to live in downtown Reading. Ms. O'Neill asked how the DSGD became a priority over improvements to South Main Street Mr. LeLacheur noted that nothing has been decided yet and that the topic as a whole, including South Main Street, will be talked about at the joint BOS /CPDC meeting. Mr. Tuttle responded that the topography and current uses along South Main Street present some challenges. Mr. Safina added that it is difficult to configure the lots along South Main Street to allow them to have adequate parking and shared access. Mr. Tuttle pointed out that other measures were taken along South Main Street, such as reducing the setbacks, but that it Is likely to redevelop in a piecemeal fashion. Mr. D'Arezzo commented that it is nearly impossible for a big development to locate In Reading, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Mr. Weston continued the discussion of priorities. He asked if the list of items to clean up was complete or if there were other items that could be on it. Ms. Delios responded that the list is updated as the building inspector notices new issues, but that it is fairly complete for the time being. Mr. Tuttle asked how the need to define and account for a contractor's yard came about. Ms. Delios explained that someone came In wanting one and that the building inspector noticed that the Bylaw does not allow for them anywhere in Town. Mr. Weston commented that in amending the regulations for accessory structures, the Commission should be intentional regarding klosk -like structures and collection boxes. Karen Herrick, 9 Dividence Road, asked how the Commission would change the calculation for lot shape. She opined that it is currently too complex for the average homeowner who does not have a square lot. Mr. Hansen responded that is an ongoing discussion. Stephen Crook, 137 Pleasant Street, opined that determining lot shape is complex but that the calculation Itself is not that difficult. Mr. Tuttle noted that the deed for a lot should include a certified plot plan with metes and bounds. Ms. Herrick asked if the changes would be for April Town Meeting. Mr. Hansen clarified that the amendments would be for November Town Meeting but that the Commission would give an update at April Town Meeting. Page 1 3 Mr. Tuttle noted that the Commission still has to hold public hearings and finalize wording Mr. Weston asked the Commission if the priorities should be re- ordered. Mr. Hansen opined that signage should be the top priority, and the rest would follow In order. Mr. Weston suggested that minor amendments that are important be moved up the list. Mr. LeLacheur commented that it is important to get more public participation at meetings. Ms. Herrick suggested being more brief and clear in the outreach emails. Mr. Weston noted that people tend to show up only if they are affected or interested. Mr. LeLacheur suggested that Town Meeting members and business owners could help get the word out, especially with regards to the Sign Bylaw. Mr. Weston mentioned that the Economic Development Committee (EDC) had been fantastic in garnering support for the Sign Bylaw. Mr. Hansen suggested having each Precinct's Chair ask their precinct to spread the word. Mr. Katsoufis asked for a list of active Town Meeting and EDC members. Mr. LeLacheur suggested the Commission utilize April Town Meeting to mention that the current Sign Bylaw cannot be enforced, in the hope of garnering Interest in the issue. Tom Bergendahl noted he owns property on Green Street. He has experience overturning political sign regulations. Political speech has a high level of support. Mr. Barnes Inquired into what other towns are doing with their Sign Bylaws. Mr. Tuttle Indicated that some towns have okay bylaws and some do not. The Reading Sign Bylaw has a lot of references to content, and needs to be more concise and easy to understand. Ms. O'Neill suggested using the BI- Weekly update and the Chronicle to get the word out. She suggested that April Town Meeting is a good time to announce zoning changes. Mr. Hansen commented that the Commission needs to determine the timeline for public hearings and finalized language before the Warrant closes in September. He asked the audience to continue coming out to meetings. Mr. LeLacheur noted that the Town will have a better idea regarding the DSGD expansion priorities after tomorrow night's Board of Selectmen meeting. CPDC Meeting Minutes — January 11, 2016 Mr. Tuttle moved to accept the January 11"', 2016 minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 3 -0 -1 vote with Mr. Hansen abstaining. CPDC Meetina Minutes — January 25, 2016 Mr. Tuttle moved to accept the January 2r, 2016 minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 4 -0 -0 vote. Planning Updates Ms. Delios noted that Town staff had a second Development Review Team meeting with the Reading Village 40B applicants. The Town sent almost 400 notices to neighbors within 1,000 feet of the site for tomorrow night's meeting with the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Weston suggested the Commission find a way to engage the community electronically. He thinks we would get a better response that way. Mr. Hansen pointed out that it will allow people to engage at their own convenience. Mr. Hansen suggested that the Commisslon members begin forming subcommittees for the zoning priorities. Ms. Mercier suggested that the subcommittees could be comprised of not more than two Commission members and a community member. Page 14 Each subcommittee would be responsible for Its own timeline, but they all would have a common end date. Mr. Saflna will captain the Sign Bylaw subcommittee. Mr. Tuttle will lead the 40R expansion subcommittee. Mr. Weston will captain the Site Plan Review subcommittee, and Mr. Hansen will work on the Minor Modifications and Cleanup items. The members will work on forming their subcommittees and report back at the March 7`h meeting. It was suggested that Ms. Goncalves -Dolan could be in charge of outreach. Mr. Tuttle moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:57 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4 -0 -0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda 2/22/16 CPDC Minutes 1/11/16 CPDC Minutes 1/25/16 Memo from Jeff Hansen to Town of Reading Boards, Committees and Commissions re: Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for 2016, dated 1/21/16 and revised 2/10/16, including attached Zoning Update Project Summary dated 10/27/15. Sign Bylaw documentation: a) Letter from Miyares and Harrington, LLP to Jeffrey Hansen re: Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert and Implications for the Town of Reading Sign Bylaw, dated 2/4/16. b) International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMIA) Model Sign Code - V Rough Draft. c) Testa, Bridget Mintz. "Sign of the Times." Planning Magazine Feb. 2016: 19 -23. Print. DSGD documentation: a) Proposed Downtown Smart Growth District Expansion Map - including existing DSGD and Priority Development Areas 3A and 1B as identified within the Economic Development Action Plan, dated 2/9/16. b) 40R Smart Growth District Proposed Boundary Map, dated 7/14/09. c) PDA #1: Downtown Reading: 40R Expansion Area Map and Parcel Characteristics, excerpted from the Reading Economic Development Action Plan, 2016 -2022, dated December 2015. Site Plan Review documentation: a) Draft revisions prepared by Planning staff. PRO documentation: a) Draft revisions prepared by Planning staff. PUD documentation: a) Draft revisions prepared by Planning staff - Concept 1 and Concept 2. Minor Amendments documentation: a) Deflnitions - draft revisions prepared by Planning staff. b) Accessory Structures - draft revisions prepared by Planning staff. c) Dog Day Care / Kennel - draft revisions prepared by Planning staff. Feedback Received as of 5:30 PM 2/22/16: a) Email from MaryEllen O'Neill to Town staff, dated 2/12/16. b) Email from Andy Friedman to Town staff, dated 2/16/16. Page 1 5