Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-12-10 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes .. Town of Reading s v ;v i; ' Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - council: Pl19 28 AM 11: 38 - Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2018-12-10 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session Purpose: General Business Version: Attendees: Members - Present: John Weston, Dave Tuttle, Rachel Hitch, Pamela Adrian, Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not Present: Nick Safina Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNlchol, Attorney Brad Latham Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: John Weston called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Continued Public Hearing, Site Plan Review 258-262 Main Street, Reading CRE Ventures LLC There was no one present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Weston read into the record that the Applicant has requested the hearing be continued until January 14, 2019. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Site Plan Review for 258-262 Main Street to January 14, 2019 at 8:15 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Minor Amendment. PUD Special Permit Johnson Woods. O. Bradley Latham on behalf of Ted Moore Attorney Brad Latham was present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Weston read Into the record that the Applicant has requested the hearing be continued until January 14, 2019. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the Minor Amendment for the PUD Special Permit for Johnson Woods to January 14, 2019 at 8:45 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Gage I I Planning Updates and Other Updates Request for Release of Surety Amount. Randall Road Extension Ms. Julie Mercier, Community Development Director, explained that at the approval of the Town Engineer, the developer of the Randall Road Extension subdivision Is requesting the surety amount be reduced because he has completed some work. Mr. Weston read the amounts the developer and Town Engineer agreed upon. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if it is common that a development would take almost two years to complete. Ms. Mercier replied the plan was approved In 2017 and it Is not uncommon for it to take a couple of years or more. She said the Town Engineer has calculated the amount that would be required to finish the project. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the Form M: Request for Release of Surety for the Randall Road Extension as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Ms. Hitch asked for a copy of the original estimate on future bond release requests. Ms. Mercier agreed to provide it for the next one, and said she will sign the Form M on behalf of the Commission. Approval Not Required Plan. 15 & 23 Family Circle and 400 Grove Street Attorney Brad Latham explained that the Zanni family owns the lots on Family Circle and that one lot's driveway encroaches on the adjacent lot. The family is in the process of selling the home and is Interested In rectifying the situation so the driveway Is entirely on one lot. The proposed ANR would shift the lot lines and allow the driveway to be entirely on one lot. Ms. Mercier confirmed there is not a side setback requirement for driveways. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to endorse the Approval Not Required Plan for 15& 23 Family Circle and 400 Grove Street. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. The Commission members signed the Plan. Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for 2019 Ms. Mercier presented an update on recent Zoning Bylaw amendments and potential amendments for 2019. She noted that at this point, any amendments next year would have to be for November Town Meeting. Ms. Mercier went through the list of potential amendments. Ms. Mercier explained that Footnote 1 Is a footnote to the Table of Uses that has been challenging for Town staff to interpret. She noted that Town Counsel has been Involved in almost every application, and has recommended that the Town consider abolishing it. She enumerated some of the challenges with it, and noted that many creative proposals have been presented but that the feeling is many deviate from the Intent of the Footnote. Ms. Mercier clarified that the Zoning Board of Appeals does not review these applications. The Footnote allows for a by-right two-family conversion if certain conditions are met. She commented that"maintaining the appearance of a single-family home" Is subjective and staff spend significant time at the counter negotiating it with developers. The Commission members discussed their Interpretations of the bylaw. Ms. Mercier said that she believes one Intent of the bylaw was to preserve old large structures in Town, but asked whether any Commission members recall the origin of the Footnote. No one remembered or seemed familiar with it. Mr. Weston agreed that better clarity would be good and that it is not the Building Inspector's role to make subjective determinations on aesthetics. Mr. Tuttle read Footnote 1 aloud and opined that interpreting it should be straightforward. Page 1 2 Ms. Mercier offered to present all the challenges and feedback from Town Counsel for the next meeting. Mr. Weston brought forward the following thoughts: • Should Footnote 1 exist; • Does the Commission have concerns; • What are the repercussions if it is eliminated; and • Would the Commission prefer the accessory apartment option. Ms. Mercier stated that the Lot Shape bylaw needs to be amended due to an omission noted during the Public Hearing for the 40 Grove Street subdivision. She noted that the accessory apartment bylaw was amended two years ago, and may need to be amended again based on feedback from local architects, homeowners and the ZBA. Ms. Mercier noted a few challenges with the New Crossing Road / Walkers Brook Drive area, which is considered one of the Town's Priority Development Areas but practically speaking is hard to develop given zoning restrictions. A review of allowed uses in the PUD-I overlay may be warranted. In addition, the floodplain covers a large portion of this area and the regulations are extremely restrictive. Ms. Hitch Inquired about the difference between wetlands and flood plain. Ms. Mercier explained that wetlands are regulated by the State Wetlands Protection Act, which is fairly stringent, but floodplain regulations vary from town to town. Often there is some jurisdictional overlap. Mr. Weston reiterated that each town has their own floodplain regulations. Mr. Tuttle said the Wetlands Protection Act is to protect habitat. Mr. Weston opined that the Town should not get rid of the floodplain bylaw but that It should be flexible. Ms. Mercier said right now the Floodplain bylaw essentiallydoes not allow development in that area. The businesses are very limited with what they can do with their properties. Mr. Weston said the Commission has reviewed the sign bylaw at length and gave his opinion that it should not be a priority. He mentioned a business on Main Street that installed a sign that is not opaque. Mr. Tuttle agreed the Commission has spent time on the sign bylaw and commented the results appear to work. He requested a list of sign issues. Ms. Mercier said that staff have discussed dramatically simplifying the sign bylaw. Mr. Weston did not agree. Ms. Hitch said items that are time sensitive should be a priority, specifically the issues that will Impact development along Walkers Brook Drive and South Main Street. She opined that the accessory apartment bylaw was recently updated and should be given more time to play out before it is amended again. Mr. Weston said a parking discussion is premature and should be postponed for a year until the recent approved developments are established. Ms. Mercier gave a presentation on zoning challenges along south Main Street. She noted that in the Economic Development Action Plan mixed-use and multi-family housing were supported by the community for south Main Street. Mr. Weston commented that the EDAP was Interested In what the market could bear, and added that residential development should not be the focus along the commercial corridor. Ms. Hitch suggested mixed-use. Ms. Mercier summarized the existing conditions, constraints and opportunities along south Main Street. She said she believes the road will be repaved In spring 2019 but that the Road Diet has been postponed. The Commission discussed the potential of the Road Diet. Ms. Mercier then pointed out specific sections of the bylaw that constrain development potential along south Main Street. She noted that while multi-family is allowed in Business A, the dimensional requirements make it very difficult to realize. For example, the minimum lot size required for multi-family exceeds the average lot size of lots along the corridor. Moreover, the lots are split zoned and the zone extension provision excludes multi-family. She suggested that the Commission could take a surgical approach and fix the zoning Page 1 3 section-by-section, or take a more holistic approach and create an overlay district, or perhaps some of each. Ms. Hitch suggested shared parking behind the buildings. Mr. Weston said the Commission has reviewed shared parking and that there Is not much room on the lots. Mr. D'Arezzo suggested extending the zone line into the residential area to allow parking. Mr. Weston said there are buffer issues and agreed each section that does not work in this area should be reviewed. Mr. Tuttle said the Issue Is creating zoning that allows successful development but protects the residential behind the corridor. Mr. Weston said the development there today Is a result of the previous 50'front yard setback requirement. Ms. Mercier noted that the 40R Statute prioritizes housing and is probably not applicable to south Main Street where the focus should be commercial with provisions for residential units on upper Floors. She said she has been reviewing commercial overlay regulations in other towns to find an example of a commercial corridor that Is characterized by shallow lots and mid-scale development. Mr. Weston said that if multi-family were possible at 258-262 Main Street, the commercial opportunity would be minimized. Ms. Mercier said allowing some residential would be beneficial to lower Floor commercial. Ms. Adrian said parking would need to be reviewed. Mr. Weston pointed out the new storage unit building in North Reading said he does not want Reading to become North Reading Main Street. Ms. Mercier asked how the Commission would define the scale of commercial along south Main Street. Ms. Hitch asked about the development of Calareso's Farm and Garden Stand and noted that some elements that should be replicated. Mr. Weston said that Calareso's came before the South Main Street Design Best Practices were in place, but that the deep lot allows for parking. Ms. Hitch said each section of Main Street is different but recommended an overall approach and game plan. She opined that Main Street currently is awful for pedestrian activity and asked if there is a way to combine new streetscape with new development. Mr. Weston said the Commission discussed this when they established the Design Best Practices. He noted that the building at 306 Main Street Is being built at the street which will encourage pedestrian activity. Mr. Tuttle opined that a tree lawn should be encouraged. Ms. Hitch suggested tax increment financing as a way to Improve the streetscape. Ms. Mercier said she will follow up with the Town Engineer on the Road Safety Audit and Curb Cut Study. Ms. Hitch commented that the West Street sidewalk improvements are nice. The Commission discussed expanding the Business A zone and/or creating an overlay that matches the lot lines. Mr. D'Arezzo said one Issue is the properties behind the businesses on Main Street that an expansion will affect. He suggested creating a transitional area for buffer protection. Ms. Hitch suggested assembling the lots"sideways"and not front to back. Mr. Tuttle said it is a challenge to find a business that would thrive. Mr. Weston said one reason south Main Street Is not successful is because only narrow buildings can be built. He asked if there are other ways to have a functional buffer that allows for better development. Ms. Mercier suggested an overlay that matches lot lines and has language about buffers. Mr. Tuttle pointed out Moody Street in Waltham which has parking behind the buildings; he said the Design Guidelines address this Issue. Mr. D'Arezzo opined that development today Is all big buildings. Mr. Weston inquired how much the wetlands really restrict the lots along south Main Street. Ms. Mercier pulled up the map online to show the wetland areas. The Commission agreed to take both a surgical and holistic approach to updating the zoning. Mr. Tuttle said it appears the zoning map might have to be changed. Ms. Adrian said she would like to see more trees on south Main Street. Mr. Weston said trees are in the Design Best Practices. He pointed out the existing trees at the Linear Properties. Ms. Hitch said the State should require a tree lawn. Page 14 Ms. Mercier recapped that zoning along south Main Street and the floodplain bylaw are priorities. She will bring Information on Footnote 1 and lot shape to the next meeting. Ms. Mercier mentioned the Housing Choice Grant and the feasibility study for New Crossing Road. Ms. Mercier asked for additional feedback on the 40R Design Guidelines, and agreed to prepare another document for the Commission to review at their next meeting. Approval of CPDC Minutes - September 17. 2018 Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the September 17, 2018 minutes. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Approval of CPDC Minutes - November 5, 2018 Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the November 5, 2018 minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9.25 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. oowmeMs raare at me media CPDC Agrnde 12/10/2018 CPDC Mirubs 9/17/2018 CPDC Minutes 11/5/2018 258-262 Mein Street Continuance Request Johnson Wool Continuance Request Form M: Request for Release M Surely, Randall Road Emneon Aparmel Not Required Plan, 15 & 23 Family Circle and 400 Grow Street zoning Presentation on polai Zoning Bylaw amendments for 2019 Page 1 5