Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-01 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes Town of Reading j�EUE1VcD Y Meeting Minutes TOlN RE.AP,' CLERK ; ;G IAA. �.,,.ro.. zais JUL — L_6- Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 9 PM 5: Q Community Planning and Development Commission Date:2019-04-01 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session Purpose: General Business Version: Attendees: Members - Present: John Weston, Nick Safina, Dave Tuttle, Pamela Adrian, Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not Present: Rachel Hitch Others Present: Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Vanessa Alvarado Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Chairman John Weston called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Mr. Andrew MacNichol the Staff Planner suggested the Commission concentrate the majority of the zoning amendment discussion to Mixed-Use Structure or Project (Section 2.0 and 5.0). Discussion of Zoning Bylaw Amendments for November Town Meeting • CBD/Hemp — Definition of Marijuana (Section 5.6.5) Mr. MacNichol informed the Commission Town Counsel will be presenting two definition options on the use of CBD/Hemp. He said currently there are businesses that sell this product and enforcement may be required if option two is accepted at Town Meeting. Mr. Weston asked how the two options will be presented at Town Meeting and if each one would require an individual vote? Mrs. Jean Delios the Assistant Town Manager replied there could be two votes or this Commission could select one of the options to be presented. Mr. Weston said unless directed otherwise, the Commission should not be responsible for approving one option over the other. The Town Meeting members will vote on the two options. Mr. MacNichol said he thought both options will be on the warrant. Ms. Delios responded if the Commission has a strong feeling on one of the options then that option will be the only one presented at Town Meeting. Mr. D'Arezzo provided a scenario on how the vote could proceed. Ms. Delios advised the Commission to approve the less complicated option. Mr. Tuttle gave his opinion the wording on the options do not make sense. Mr. MacNichol explained the existing marijuana definition excludes CBD/Hemp and Town Counsel drafted the warrant language. Mr. Tuttle suggested simpler language. Mr. MacNichol said he will follow up with Town Counsel to see if the language could be worded differently but said the main goal is to make sure the Hemp does not exceed the .3% THC requirement. Page 1 of 6 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Ms. Vanessa Alvarado from the Select Board asked if RCASA or the Board of Health provided feedback on the amendment. Mr. MacNichol responded there was an initial discussion on who would be responsible to enforce the change if needed, but further discussion is required. He said Town Counsel said Hemp is regulated but potentially could be protected under 40A Section 3. Mr. Weston asked who attended the meeting. Mr. MacNichol replied a meeting was held with staff to discuss how to proceed. Ms. Adrian clarified the two options and said the product is presently being sold in Town already. Mr. Weston said the public hearing will allow input from stakeholders, RCASA and BOH. Ms. Delios said RCASA and the Health Agent were present at the meeting. Mr. D'Arezzo said the language is confusing and what is covered is not clear. Mr. Tuttle agreed and said the language needs to be obvious or it will cause turmoil at Town Meeting. Mr. Weston responded the Zoning Bylaw should be clear and asked if there is a simpler way to get to the result. He said there is another discussion needed if CBD/Hemp should be permitted in Town. Mr. Safina explained the first option is to permit CBD/Hemp products, and said it may not be clear to determine if a product presented by a business contains CBD/Hemp. He said the two options will allow Town Meeting to decide to allow or to prohibit the product. Mr. MacNichol said he will follow up with Town Counsel to get a clearer definition that mentions THC. Mr. Tuttle said the Town does not want to prohibit rope for example. Mr. Safina said that hemp product was prohibited and commented it difficult to understand what is allowed. Mr. D'Arezzo questioned what would happen if either option is not passed at Town Meeting. Mr. Safina responded the Town Meeting members need to understand there are businesses in Town that are operating against the rules that are currently in place. The Zoning Bylaw as written does not allow the product, the Town is trying to solve before enforcing the violation. Mr. MacNichol said opening the public hearing will allow the businesses to be protected until a decision is made by Town Meeting. • Footnote 1 to the Table of Uses (Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2) The Commission discussed the change to the language of Footnote 1 in the Table of Uses: • The square footage on an existing home will be limited to a 10% increase; • The proposed date of January 2020; and • When the amendment will become effective Mr. Safina said approximately 900 properties will qualify for this zoning. Mr. Weston clarified the amendment is necessary to get back to the original intent of the zoning bylaw; some alterations are necessary to convert to a two-family and the 10% increase will not change the characteristics of the existing home. Mr. D'Arezzo said the date will motivate owners to move forward. The Commission made minor changes to the language and to the Table of Uses. They agreed the amendment will not apply to an existing residential unit in Business Zones and Footnote 1 should be removed from section 5.3.1. Mr. Safina reminded the Commission Town Counsel wanted to remove Footnote 1 entirely from the Zoning Bylaw. Lots in Two Districts (Section 3.4) Mr. MacNichol explained Ms. Julie Mercier, the former Community Development Director, recommended removing the last sentence that is proposed in the Lots in Two Districts zoning amendment. He presented the zoning language of the Town of Weymouth and asked if the Commission would like to use similar language. Mr. D'Arezzo said his concern is the overlay district should not be forced on top of the rest of a Lot unless a property Page 2 of 6 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes owner approves. Mr. Weston clarified the language says "may extend" not"will extend" over the Lot. Mr. MacNichol asked if the sentence should be kept that states "that it shall not apply to the Aquifer Protection District". Mr. Safina provided his interpretation on the language. Mr. MacNichol said he interprets it to mean the Aquifer Protection District (AQP) cannot be extended. The Commission vetted what would happen if the sentence was removed. Mr. Safina said he understands why the sentence is needed for the AQP; and the Commission discussed why it applies to multi-family housing. Mr. Weston pointed out the two properties that could potentially be impacted. Mr. Tuttle suggested a change to the language. Mr. MacNichol said multi-families are allowed in Business A but the provision did not allow them to be extended 30' back. Mr. Weston said it is a new mixed-use and said the Commission does not want multi-families to become more prevalent in this District. Mr. Safina said the back edges on the Lots are the main focus. Mr. Weston summarized why the sentence should remain. Mr. Safina said the amendment will apply anywhere in Town. Mr. MacNichol agreed and said the rest of the Town will be protected; and pointed out a property that could not be developed unless the 30' is extended. The Commission reviewed properties on Main Street and Ms. Delios asked if 107 Main Street benefitted from this zoning. Mr. Safina said Sams Bistro, 107 Main Street was approved before the 15' setback was an option. Mr. Weston suggested tabling the discussion until the purpose is clarified. He questioned if the purpose is to tie into what is allowed for mixed-use. Mr. Safina said multi-family housing and mixed-use are two different things; and agreed the discussion should be considered later. He said this amendment will allow mixed-use to take advantage of the 30' extension. Mr. Weston said multi-families should not benefit from the 30' extension. Mr. Tuttle suggested a simpler language. Mr. Safina reiterated a multi-family should not benefit from this zoning. Mixed-Use Structure or Project (Sections 2.0 and 5.0) Mr. MacNichol suggested going through each line of the proposed changes to the Mixed-Use Structure or Project (Sections 2.0 and 5.0). Mr. Weston said he does not believe the zoning bylaw references "projects" - it should be uses, structures or buildings; and said "project" could be suggested if more than one structure on a Lot was proposed, but questioned where in Business A or Business C this type of development could be permitted. He expressed concern a developer could propose two buildings, build a residential during the first phase and not build the commercial. The Commission discussed if a developer would want two different uses on one property. Mr. Safina asked about multiple structures. Mr. Tuttle suggested creating a definition for mixed-use. Mr. MacNichol asked what should be allowed for mixed-use. Mr. Safina said commercial includes service businesses. He said the Commission should not be particular what the commercial is on the first level in Business A and the downtown should have more lively businesses to increase foot traffic. Mr. Tuttle suggested language for the definition of mixed-use. The Commission discussed what can be accepted for a mixed-use. Mr. D'Arezzo commented the residential is an enticement to require commercial. Mr. Weston said mixed-use should not be restricted to residential. He said any commercial business fits into a mixed-use condition if it is a multi- tenant building. The Commission made changes to the proposed amendment which included the title. Mr. Weston said any Lot or structure within a business district that does contain multiple principle uses is considered mixed-use; and summarized the result is the Commission is Page 3 of 6 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes defining any multiple tenant building as a mixed-use development. Mr. Tuttle asked if this would cause a problem. Mr. D'Arezzo said a Special Permit for mixed-use will be required for every development. Mr. Safina clarified it has to be multiple principal uses in a multi- tenant building. He pointed out the Fantasia building is all offices. The Commission gave their opinion on how they interpret principal use and change of use. After the discussion, it was recommended Town Counsel provide an interpretation. Mr. Tuttle suggested adding a definition for a use category. Mr. MacNichol agreed with Mr. Safina's comment and mentioned accessory uses do allow some uses that principal uses do not. He recommended keeping it strictly principle uses. Mr. Weston gave his opinion this section points out that all uses are allowed accessory uses by right. He questioned why the accessory use sentence is needed. Mr. Safina provided a couple of scenarios to make sure the language makes sense. The Commission discussed authorizing a different type of business in a mixed-use development to allow more business opportunities in Business A. Mr. MacNichol agreed to research what is allowed in the City of Woburn. He advised requiring approval by a Special Permit for these types of businesses rather than an outright approval. Mr. Weston suggested a future discussion on expanding the category of uses with limitations. The Commission discussed what properties are in Business C. Mr. Tuttle asked why computer services would be prohibited in Business A. Mr. Safina agreed a future discussion on expanding category of uses is needed. After a discussion, the Commission agreed Note 7 should be removed. The Commission discussed shared parking and requiring shared parking to be a permanent arrangement. Mr. Weston questioned if shared parking needs to be with the abutting property and asked if the parking could be off site or a few parcels over? Mr. Tuttle clarified the dimensional requirements only applies if the permanent shared parking is with the abutting property. Mr. MacNichol said there is language about shared shuttle service. The Commission agreed shared parking requirement applies only with the abutting property. Mr. MacNichol explained section 5.6.8.2 was changed to 30% to keep it primarily commercial. Mr. Weston said 30% will limit a building to a 3-story building. Ms. Delios asked what is the goal by requiring a percentage. Mr. Safina replied to make sure there is a real commercial component. He said the 40R developments required a waiver for the commercial. Ms. Delios replied it could be for a reason and questioned if requiring commercial space creates difficulty for a developer. She asked if there was another way of qualifying without specifying. Mr. Safina discussed structured parking; and suggested the Commission evaluate different uses and approve less strict guidelines. Mr. MacNichol said a waiver can be granted for the right type of development. Mr. Safina agreed waivers can be granted, and commented the percentage should not fall below 25%. Mr. Tuttle said 25% is a reasonable number to start with because there is a waiver alternative. Ms. Delios asked if this section is to focus on Business A. Mr. Tuttle affirmed the goal is to attract more development in Business A. Mr. D'Arezzo asked why a developer would choose to do a mix- use in Business A if a multi-family is allowed. Mr. MacNichol explained the Lots in Business A do not meet the zoning requirements to construct a multi-family dwelling. Mr. D'Arezzo agreed with the 30% requirement and allowing waivers. He discussed a scenario where the developer changed the type of business proposed to a business that would not increase the foot traffic. Mr. Tuttle agreed with the 30% requirement. Mr. MacNichol said other Towns set limits and asked the Commission if that is how they wanted to proceed. Mr. Weston Page 4 of 6 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes gave his opinion the Lots are small and the Commission should not restrict density. He said the Commission should ensure the Applicant is proposing a decent development and not just using it as a tool to get a multi-family dwelling. Ms. Delios said as long as the developer meets the standard they can propose any type of business. Mr. MacNichol asked how the Commission can get the type of uses desired to increase the activity. Mr. Safina replied during the Special Permit process the staff can discuss with the Applicant what type of business the Town prefers. The Commission discussed where the Business A districts are located and discussed the business at 4 West Street that was developed as mixed-use. Mr. MacNichol summarized what was discussed and changed to the amendment. Mr. Weston cautioned limiting the number of bedrooms would restrict size, percentages and unit mix. Ms. Delios agreed with Mr. Weston the residential units should not be a limited to one and two-bedroom. She said requiring three-bedroom units is only for 40B developments. Mr. Tuttle asked why the residential units should only be located on the upper floor of a mixed-use building. Mr. Safina clarified the requirement is only if the residential units are on Main Street. Ms. Delios said the Commission is requiring 30% of the gross floor to be commercial. Mr. MacNichol said he thought the sentence was to reiterate no residential on the first floor. Mr. Safina explained his reasoning; there could be Lots that have multiple buildings. Mr. Tuttle said this would require buildings to have elevators for accessibility. Mr. Weston said there are some Lots that have a lot of elevation and said the upper floor could be at ground level on the backside of the building. He said the restriction is limited to the front of the building. Mr. Tuttle commented language should be added that requires residential units facing Main Street cannot be on the first floor. Ms. Delios suggested adding language to the commercial paragraph. The Commission discussed and agreed on language to add to the commercial paragraph to assure mixed-use developments propose commercial on the first floor unless a waiver is granted. The Commission determined there should be a list on what will not be waived. Mr. Safina pointed out why parking should be maxed out. Mr. Weston said he cannot envision a development along this corridor that is not essentially automobile oriented. Mr. Safina said the local residents might walk to the businesses, but this corridor has through- traffic which will require parking. Mr. Weston said requiring 1.25 parking per unit as a minimum is difficult to reach. Ms. Delios agreed the Lots are too tight. Mr. D'Arezzo said it is difficult for a resident to cross Main Street. Ms. Delios said the paving on Main Street will be an 18-month process and cautioned once the paving is completed it will increase the speed of traffic. Mr. Weston expressed frustration the contractors repair to the roadway appears shoddy and asked if the Town can have more control over this process. Mr. Tuttle said the quality goes down once the contractor knows there is repaving in the future. Ms. Delios said the Town Engineer addresses this concern with contractors. Mr. Safina said he believes the town bylaw requires the repair to be sidewalk to sidewalk and not just a patch. After a discussion, the Commission determined a maximum amount of parking per residential unit and the commercial space should not be required. Mr. D'Arezzo said the residents parking spaces will become "shared" once they leave for the day. Mr. Weston and Ms. Delios agreed and said the Applicant will be required to submit a parking plan. The Commission discussed loading zoning requirements and agreed there could be businesses that can have front door deliveries. Intensity Regulations (Section 6.0) The Commission briefly discussed the proposed amendments to the Intensity Regulations (Section 6.0). Mr. Weston agreed with section 6.2.5.3 but said the words should be Page 5 of 6 Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes changed. Mr. Tuttle suggested removing the word "robust". Mr. Weston asked if the Main Street Design Guidelines could be referenced in the Zoning Bylaw. Ms. Delios pointed out there is a section on landscaping in zoning. Mr. Weston recommended including mixed-use in section 6.5.1 and remove section 6.2.5 entirely. Mr. Safina asked if section 6.5 covers the buffers. Mr. MacNichol read section 6.1.4 and proposed adding this to Business A. Mr. Safina disagreed adding the section to Business A and suggested leaving 6.2.5.3. Mr. D'Arezzo proposed requiring a 6' minimum buffer. Mr. Weston said he would like to hold off on this discussion until a future meeting. Mr. Tuttle gave his opinion section 6.5.1 is appropriate and sustainable and clarified the section will require the Applicant make sure the landscape won't die instantly. Mr. Weston said the discussion on the Lots in two Districts was tabled earlier in the meeting, and questioned if this is amendment is less applicable. Mr. D'Arezzo said his concern is to make sure there is a buffer between properties. Mr. MacNichol said this will be addressed during the rear-yard setback discussion. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tuttle and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Dd at tm m tit Page 6 of 6