Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-21 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutesp�N OFR � Town of Reading fi ; Meeting Minutes c( EIVEU _..,,;!NG, MASS. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission <'•,ia fik.� 10 A & 33 Date: 2016 -03 -21 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: General Business Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Chair Jeff Hansen, Dave Tuttle, John Weston, Nick Saflna, Karen Goncalves- Dolan. Members - Not Present: Others Present: Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Administrative Assistant Caitlin Saunders, Mary Ellen O'Neill, Tony D'Arezzo, George Katsoufls Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Chair Jeff Hansen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Subcommittee Updates The members updated the rest of their committee on the progress of their subcommittees. 40R Subcommittee - Mr. Tuttle Mr. Tuttle explained that the 40R Subcommittee is looking at areas to include within the boundaries of the District. He personally would like to push the boundaries up to Woburn Street and across to the other side of Main Street. The inclusion of residential areas like Green Street and Brande Court will require certain protections that can be accomplished through the creation of sub - districts and design guidelines. Mr. Katsoufis described what he sees as 5 anchors to the June 25, 2007 district map: (1) the A -40 District to the west, (2) the 3 parcels near the Doucette building in the middle, (3) Rite Aid on the bottom right, (4) the Police Station and municipal lot behind Walgreens, and (5) Town Hall. He reminded the Commission that Woburn Street was left out of the District because people felt that the residential character of the street was inappropriate for commercial redevelopment. Mr. Katsoufis opined that the Main Street corridor is the strongest candidate for 40R expansion because the 40R guidelines allow adaptive reuse of existing buildings and it is easy to envision commercial on the 1" floor and residential above. Mr. Saflna stated that he is not convinced about including Woburn Street yet. Main Street is easy and will most likely have the least amount of resistance because people view Main Street as commercial. Page 1 1 Mr. Hansen opined that the east side of Main Street and the A -40 District to the east would probably be the easiest areas to propose for 40R expansion at November Town Meeting because they would not have to include sub - districts. The Commission could tackle the more challenging areas at a later Town Meeting. Mr. Weston noted that unlike with 30 Haven, there is no development proposed to help the Commission understand the vision within the 40R District. He suggested creating a vision for each area and then creating zoning based on that vision. Owners and residents in the area would be essential to establishing the vision. Ms. Delios noted that the Economic Development Plan spawned the vision of expanding to the Priority Development Areas. Mr. Hansen suggested narrowing the scope to the strip along Main Street and Washington Street. Mr. Weston pointed out that there would be an area in the center - along Green Street - that would be surrounded by 40R. Mr. Hansen suggested selecting two areas to focus on for November Town Meeting. Mr. Katsoufis suggested picking two based on the visioning that emerges. He offered to do some street reconnaissance and data gathering as a start. Ms. Delios recommended notifying the owners and neighbors in this area as soon as possible. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue, asked about the vision for the small businesses and more affordable housing units that would be affected along Washington Street. She opined that it is nice to be able to walk to services if you live near the downtown. Mr. Tuttle noted that he would like the small businesses to remain, but that this would give them options for expansion or redevelopment as needed in the future. Ms. O'Neill suggested proactively recruiting businesses rather than just waiting to see who moves in. Mr. Weston suggested being mindful of what could happen if certain businesses were to close or move. Sian Bylaw Subcommittee - Mr. Safina Mr. Safina explained that the Subcommittee made edits to the Town's existing Sign Bylaw. He opined that it would be better to bring the Town's bylaw into compliance and then go back and fix the structure of It later. Mr. Safina also suggested allowing both a wall sign and free - standing sign in Business A and C - rather than just one 50 square foot sign - to reduce the size of signs along Main Street. Mr. Safina noted that there seems to be some disagreement between what Town Counsel advised and how he Interpreted the IMLA to be regulating content. Mr. Tuttle noted there has to be a way to prohibit billboards as a use of property. Ms. Mercier suggested simply putting it under "prohibited uses ". Mr. Katsoufis explained that signs may be regulated as structures under the building code, because they are actually a use with a footprint and a height. If you regulate them as a structure, then there would have to be give and take between the allowed area of a sign as well as the building on the site. Ms. Mercier explained that revisions to the Sign Bylaw should not lose sight of ease of enforcement and permitting. Ms. O'Neill expressed that her preference would be to ask Town Counsel to take the IMLA format and put the Town's bylaw Information into it. She opined that it is time to simplify Page 1 2 the Town's bylaw to make it workable. She opined that the IMIA makes sense and appeals because it is logical. Mr. Safina agreed that the Subcommittee could take the edits to our bylaw and try to put them into the IMIA template. Mr. Hansen commented that he thinks the Subcommittee should continue editing the Town's bylaw and then later consider handing it off to Town Counsel to put into an IMIA format. Minor Amendments Subcommittee - Mr. Hansen Definitions Mr. Hansen explained that moving all the definitions to Section 2 of the bylaw, and adding definitions as needed Is a lot of work and should probably wait until next year. Associate Members He opined that renumbering the section on Associate Members should be straightforward. Lot Shape Ms. Mercier noted that she found a document with information about how low shape is defined and calculated for every town in Massachusetts. She said that as she went through it she began to wonder what the Town's definition was trying to regulate - the creation of new lots or the buildability of existing lots. Mr. Safina asked if this was a real problem in Town and Ms. Mercier noted that the calculation is onerous if you have an irregularly shaped lot. Ms. Mercier agreed to follow up with the Building Commissioner to understand the intent of the definition. Animal Kennel / Pet Grooming Mr. Hansen noted the need to distinguish between animal kennel and pet grooming uses. Accessory Structures / Uses Mr. Hansen explained that the language for accessory structures needs to be reduced and clarified, and that use categories need to be added due to recent feedback from the Building Commissioner. Mr. Safina stated that the height of a garage should be determined based on whether it is in the required setback area or not. Mr. Tuttle noted that the Bylaw needs to clearly distinguish between attached and dettached structures. Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street, suggested making it clear to Town Meeting whether an amendment is changing the language or modifying the intent of the Bylaw. Site Plan Review Subcommittee - Mr. Weston Mr. Weston explained that updates to the parameters and triggers for Site Plan Review are needed. He noted that this has been an ongoing process for many years. It is difficult to strike the balance between what requires a full Commission review and what can be handled by staff. Mr. Arezzo pointed out that one of the suggested revisions refers to site plans after they are developed. Ms. Mercier explained that it is nearly Impossible to know in advance if a project is going to end up creating a nuisance - and there are recent examples of such in Town - so having a mechanism in place could be helpful, and the CPDC is likely the best board in town to adjudicate such matters. Page 1 3 Planning updates Ms. Delios updated the committee on the ZBA meeting last week. Mr. Tuttle moved that the CPDC adjourn at 9:35 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5 -0 -0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meetina: CPDC Agenda 3/21/16 Zoning Bylaw Amendment Subcommittee Timeline for November Town Meeting, dated March 1, 2016 Status Update memo from 40R Expansion Subcommittee to CPDC, dated 3/21/16 Status Update memo from Sign Bylaw Subcommittee to CPDC, dated 3/21/16 Status Update memo from Minor Amendments Subcommittee to CPDC, dated 3/21/16 DSGD documentation: a) Proposed Downtown Smart Growth District Expansion Map - including existing DSGD and Priority Development Areas LA 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. Sign Bylaw documentation: a) Letter from Miyares and Harrington, LLP to Jeffrey Hansen re: Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert and implicatlons for the Town of Reading Sign Bylaw, dated 2/4116. b) International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA) Model Sign Code - P Rough Draft. c) Testa, Bridget Mintz. "Sign of the Times." Planning Magazine Feb. 2016: 19 -23. Print. d) Email from Town Counsel to Nick Safina, dated 3/9/16. e) Edits to Town's existing Sign Bylaw, prepared by Tony D'Arezzo, modified by Nick Safina and Julie Mercier. Minor Amendments documentation: a) Definitions - draft revisions prepared by Planning staff. b) Lot Shape - data gathered by Planning staff. c) Animal Kennel / Pet Grooming - draft revisions prepared by Planning staff. d) Accessory Structures - draft revisions prepared by Planning staff. e) Accessory Uses - data gathered by Planning staff. Site Plan Review documentation: a) Draft revisions prepared by Planning staff. Page 14