Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-11-04 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes or Town of Reading Meeting Minutes T0V, M CLi-'KK V111. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2020 FEB I i AM 10: 07 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 11-04-2019 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Rcom Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members- Present: Nick Safina, Pamela Adrian, Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not Present: John Weston, Rachel Hitch Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Mr. Safina opened the meeting at 7:31 PM Public Hearing, special Home Occupation Special Permit 21-23 Village Street. Ryan Barry There was no one present for the Application Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol informed the Commission he received a verbal agreement from the Applicant to continue the public hearing. Mr. Safina read the public hearing notice into the record. Mr. MacNichol explained the town is requiring additional information from the Applicant concerning the garage In the rear of the property. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to continue the public hearing for 21-23 Village Street to December 9, 2019 at 7:45 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing. Definitive Subdivision Plan 135. 139 & 149R Howard Street, Infrastructure Holdinas LLC There was no one present for the Application Mr. Safina read the Applicant requested the public hearing be continued to December 9, 2019. Mr. D'Arezzo asked for a point of order and if the continuance request should be heard at 8:00 PM as scheduled on the agenda. Community Development Director Julie Mercier responded that the request can be re-announced at 8:00 PM, Page I r ,O��10rN O. Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Ms. Adrian made a motion to continue the public hearing for 135, 139 & 149R Howard Street to December 9, 2019 at 8:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Arezzo and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing. Site Plan Review 258-262 Main Street. Reading CRE Ventures LLC There was no one present for the Application Mr. Safina read the Applicant has requested the public hearing be continued to December 9, 2019. Ms. Adrian made a motion to continue the public hearing for 258-262 Main Street Reading CRE Ventures LLC to December 9, 2019 ai 8:15 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Arezzo and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Topics Review of Presentations for November Town Meeting Ms. Mercier provided a review of the presentations for November Town Meeting; and explained the first presentation is Article 13, Definitions on Marijuana and Hemp; she explained that this article will be presented by Town Counsel. Mr. Safina asked about the recent Department of Agriculture rules on hemp products. Ms. Mercier said her understanding on the policy initiative is that hemp products are divided into two categories which authorize what can be sold. She said right now in Town, products from any part of the marijuana plant are not allowed to be sold, including hemp derived products. Separating the definitions of marijuana and hemp will enable them to be regulated in zoning separately. If approved then the Board of Health will have to decide on how to proceed with regulating hemp products. Mr. D'Arezzo asked for further clarification on the zoning amendment. Ms. Mercier replied the definition of marijuana is removed and replaced with the reference to the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 94G definition, which includes the different types of the cannabis plant. The change will align with the State definition and make it easier to adopt any State changes in the future. The definition of hemp will be added which enables the Town to regulate hemp in zoning differently than how marijuana is regulated. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the Town will have their own definition or If the State Chapter 94G be referenced again. Ms. Mercier responded that the Intent Is to reference Massachusetts General Law Chapter 94G for the definitions. She explained If the article is adopted the current marijuana regulations in zoning do not change. The Town does not have any proposed hemp regulations, which will need to be addressed by the Board of Health. If this is not adopted, all parts of the cannabis plant are prohibited and zoning enforcement will be required on all CBD products. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the owner of the CBD store was approached to present at Town Meeting. Ms. Mercier replied that she has not contacted the owner about Town Meeting and that the store has made no contact with the Town. She added she will bring this suggestion to Town Counsel. Ms. Adrian asked if Natural Food Exchange should be contacted. Ms. Mercier said there are a number of stores in Town that sell products with CBD. Mr. Safina commented there are stores that claim the products have CBD which are not regulated. Ms. Mercier said she has seen stores selling products regardless of the recent MA Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) policy statement. She reiterated Town Counsel is presenting the amendment. After a discussion, it was agreed Mr. D'Arezzo will read the report from the Community Planning and Development Commission at Town Meeting. Ms. Mercier presented Article 14, Footnote-One to the Table of Uses. Ms. Mercier said that Footnote-One allows single-family homes to be converted to a two-family by-right as long Page 12 �y Oiq� w: ° Town of Reading ��W. ,. „ Meeting Minutes as certain conditions are met. The proposal that Town Meeting will be entertaining is to allow the conversion by Special Permit granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals and to add clarity to the parameters for the conversion. She explained the reason for the change is because the interpretation and the administration of the current bylaw is presenting challenges for staff and Applicants; there are a few outcomes if adopted but the main outcome is the ZBA will make decisions on Footnote-One cases. Mr. D'Arezzo commented that staff is currently making the decisions and the Applicants have been filing with the ZBA when they don't like the decision made by the Building Commissioner. Mr. Safina asked about the other outcomes if adopted. Mr. MacNichol replied the Speclal Permit process is another change that will impact the Applicant. Ms. Mercier added the Special Permit process is the easiest to summarize, the other outcomes are little more complicated. She suggested Mr. D'Arezzo lead off with this outcome at Town Meeting. The Commission reviewed the PowerPoint Presentation and made suggestions. Ms. Mercier explained Footnote-One will be removed entirely from Table 5.3.1 and be moved to a more appropriate place In Table 5.3.2. Mr. D'Arezzo gave his opinion that the presentation is suitable, It should be simple and questions can be asked if needed. The Commission reviewed the language on the paragraph that was added. Ms. Mercier said she will also be available at Town Meeting to answer questions. Mr. D'Arezzo said the objective is not to keep Town Meeting members in the dark, but too many details will complicate the discussion. Ms. Mercier presented Article 15, Mixed-Use which includes changes to Section 2 and Section S. The amendment has three components: defining Mixed-Use and clarifying when it is applicable, adding Mixed-Use to the Table of Uses and identifying a process, and establishing Mixed-Use regulations. She explained Mixed-Use would only be allowed In the Business A and Business C Zoning Districts by a Special Permit from the CPDC. The Special Permit process is most appropriate because it requires public notification and a public hearing. The Commission reviewed the zoning district locations on the map. Ms. Mercier said she will confirm all locations of Business C are shown on the map. The Commission spent time vetting the proposed regulations. Ms. Mercier said she will confirm whether super clerical errors on an Article can be fixed without a friendly amendment. Ms. Mercier presented Article 16, Intensity Regulations, and explained the amendment has three components: adding Mixed-Use to the Table of Dimensional Controls and establishing the Controls, aligning the language of Section 6 with the proposed language of Section 5, and clarification to other language in Section 6. The Commission discussed setback requirements and landscaping. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if Article 15 does not pass at Town Meeting should Article 16 be tabled. Ms. Mercier agreed it could be messy to try to present Article 16 if Article 15 does not pass. She said she will incorporate the feedback received and then submit the presentations to the Town Manager. Mr. Safina asked for feedback on the Form-Based Codes seminar that staff recently attended. Ms. Mercier replied the seminar focused on towns that have a lot of land. Mr. MacNichol asked what areas in town the Commission was considering for form-based codes. Mr. Safina replied a former Commission member thought it was up-and-coming, but said he does not have a complete understanding and doesn't know how uses can be separated. Ms. Mercier explained form-based codes is basically form over function, it priorltizes a building form over what the use is. She agreed it would be difficult to get residents to approve a form over a use, and opined that it might make more sense on a large undeveloped tract of land. Mr. Saflna said the Commission has been working towards modernizing the zoning bylaw but this change would be significant. Ms. Mercier said the primary concept for the redevelopment strategy for the Eastern Gateway is to utilize and capitalize on the existing Page 13 y Orq Town of Reading Meeting Minutes buildings. The Intent is not to raze the existing buildings, but work with the existing viable businesses and make incremental changes over time • Discussion of Downtown Smart Growth District Design Guidelines Ms. Mercier said at the last meeting Ms. Hitch asked if the Commission could review the Downtown Smart Growth District Design Guidelines for the final time and provide feedback. Mr. D'Arezzo said everything looks good. Ms. Adrian said she would want more setback requirements and more trees throughout the town; and added there needs to be a concerted effort. Ms. Mercier said this discussion can be continued to the next meeting; and requested the Commission consider voting on the guidelines to send to the DHCD to review. • Discussion of Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for 2020 Ms. Mercier went through the documents on the Table of Uses and Definitions that were provided in the packet. Table of Uses, Definitions Ms. Mercier said after exploring surrounding towns primarily to see how they categorized their uses, staff preferred the Town of Arlington as an example; their document was more up-to-date and had the most correlation to Reading. She explained that she fit the existing uses into the Town of Arlington's framework. Mr. Safina said the Town of Arlington recodified in 2018 and asked if there was evidence that it was successful. Ms. Mercier replied the success would depend on the regulations they have, such as Special Permit and Site Plan Review. Mr. Safina asked If this proposed format was Implemented, what would constitute a change of use. Mr. MacNichol explained the definition of change of use is one line to another, but to trigger a Site Plan Review is to change to the use category. Ms. Mercier agreed currently change of use is defined as switching one line to another line even in the same category. There is a trigger for Site Plan Review when there is a change of use from one use category to another and the proposed amendments create more categories. She said based on a previous discussion, the Commission wants to break uses out based on the potential impact to abutting uses and property owners; and pointed out there are some overlapping uses and some uses that are not mentioned. Mr. MacNichol said under Definitions there are a lot that are similar. Ms. Mercier made a few suggestions on how the bylaw can be changed; and said right now the bylaw is leaning towards broad use categories, for example office and professional services. Mr. D'Arezzo opined that the Table of Uses should have broad categories and the definitions can be amended to include examples. The advantage is that broad categories can be more inclusive, and absorb unanticipated future uses. Ms. Mercier said that when a new type of business Is proposed, staff spend time figuring out if/how it fits into the existing uses in the bylaw. She said to help guide the staff, It is Important not to have definitlons that overlap each other. Ms. Adrian said the Table of Uses should not be modified every six months when a new type of business evolves. Ms. Mercier agreed and said she is of the opinion that the categories should be broad and the definitions should be refined. Mr. MacNichol pointed out a town that had 60 pages for the Table of Uses that listed different size commercial spaces. Ms. Mercier said the town does not have enough commercial areas to justify breaking it down to that extent. Mr. D'Arezzo said he agrees with sizing for at least small versus large. Mr. MacNichol said the smaller commercial spaces were done by- right and a larger required a Site Plan Review. Ms. Mercier said requiring an approval doesn't have to be done by size of commercial space, it can be achieved with the zoning district. Mr. Safina suggested the footnote for a Special Permit have something about size because the impact is different. Ms. Mercier asked what the Commission is really concerned Page 14 Town of Reading i Meeting Minutes about and is trying to protect against. Mr. D'Arezzo said at the recent presentation by Gamble Associates interesting businesses were revealed that aren't even allowed under zoning. He is looking for a certain Flexibility within reason, such as allowing a small store in a neighborhood but not a chain. Ms. Mercier said it sounds like neighborhood commercial. Mr. Safina commented a small bakery in the Gould Street development versus a wholesale business who is baking for other locations. Ms. Mercier opined that the land use patterns dictate where certain types and sizes of businesses are located. For example, the commercial space at Gould Street is likely not big enough for a wholesale bakery. Mr. Safina said he is open to any of the changes, but each one would need to be vetted to see if a Special Permit or a Plan Review should be required. Ms. Mercier said when it is broken down further into more categories, a change of use from one category to another would require a Site Plan Review. She cautioned the change could result in the Commission reviewing more applications than they need to. Mr. Safina opined that more review that moves quickly is not necessarily bad, as long as the Commission does not get bogged down with simple store front changes. Ms. Mercier suggested the Commission consider a Minor Site Plan Review, to make sure the process doesn't have a chilling effect on potential businesses. Mr. Safina reiterated he has no concerns with the proposed changes, but wants to review each category to see if a Site Plan Review or a Minor Site Plan Review is required and the limit for such. Ms. Mercier asked the Commission if there are any examples of changes of use in the past that should have been reviewed, and added If there aren't then perhaps only a few changes are required. Mr. D'Arezzo said an example would be ReMax at 672 Main Street, the former use was a restaurant. Ms. Mercier said that property really does not have a site and asked if the Commission wanted to know about this change. Mr. Safina said the real estate business has less impact than the restaurant, but the restaurant was a better use to have downtown. Ms. Mercier said changes like that should not trigger a Site Plan Review as that could be conceived as a waste of time for the Commission and Applicant. Mr. Safina suggested having the review be waived when applicable so that the staff can present to the Commission. He said the example of ReMax would not require a review because it was less impact all around. Ms. Mercier said the location that changed from Raspberry Beret to Your CBD Store currently would not require the Commission to approve. She said some changes of use that have happened around town might not have had to come to the Commission and some that could be required might not have been a concern. Mr. Safina said the Commission allowed the change from restaurant to medical uses at 30 Haven Street; and gave his opinion a Site Plan trigger might deter an owner simply giving the space away. Ms. Mercier said she is not sure property owners and brokers are aware there are zoning rules. Mr. D'Arezzo said retail to restaurant has more of an Impact to a property owner. Ms. Mercier asked the Commission to review the documents and discuss at a future meeting when everyone Is present. Sign Bylaw Mr. D'Arezzo said the purpose for an underlying zoning district Is to start a conversation about properties, the PUD-I Is whatever the Commission approves. Ms. Mercier explained this comment: under the Master Signage Plan she added a provision to allow a property that was developed prior to the existence of an overlay district, be allowed to apply for a Master Signage Plan to use the sign provisions that are allowed in the overlay district. This will help bring the building a little bit more into conformity with what is allowed in the area. Mr. Safina said the overlay districts are a bit more thoughtful. Mr. D'Arezzo said in general a PUD-I development can do a little bit more in exchange for better landscaping and traffic; and a benefit is that they can have additional signage that is not allowed in the Industrial Zoning District. He pointed out the Commission granted Jordan's Furniture a billboard. Mr. Safina said the billboard is on the highway side, and he believes a billboard is now restricted. He said a Master Signage Plan would be a better approach to signage. Ms. Mercier said there is a gap between what you can do for signage under base zoning and Page 15 urN<Ao '+ Town of Reading Meeting Minutes what you can do in an overlay development. She said she is trying to marry the two, but said there should be a process. Mr. Safina said there will be limits on what is allowed. Ms. Mercier suggested strengthening the language to help a future Commission interpret the Intention of the bylaw. Mr. Safina said he is concerned about what the Zoning Board of Appeals would allow. Ms. Mercier said the Applicant would only have to go to the ZBA for a Variance If they exceeded regulations. She then read a section in the bylaw that the Decision on a Certificate of Appropriateness can be appealed to the Select Board. Mr. D'Arezzo questioned if the Select Board would want the responsibility to review a Decision for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Mercier asked if the Commission has additional thoughts on the proposed changes. Mr. D'Arezzo said he would consider allowing a sign higher up on buildings under certain conditions. He said the signs at 560 Main Street are not offensive. Mr. Safina said there is a Master Signage Plan for that property and those businesses received approval from the Commission. Mr. D'Arezzo said his concern is that signs that are allowed higher up on the buildings will be large and illuminated. Ms. Mercier replied there Is language In the signage requirements for PUD-I, and illumination is allowed only during certain hours. Through the Master Signage Plan process these concerns will be worked out as conditions. The PUD-I signage regulations do allow a sign to extend to the lowest point of the main roof line, but not above the roof. She said it Is flexible but there are limits. Ms. Adrian asked about flag regulations. Ms. Mercier replied other than a governmental flag one additional flag per business is allowed. She said it is considered a temporary sign, no permit is required and it cannot be regulated for content. Ms. Mercier requested another review of the sign bylaw when the other members are present. Ms. Adrian said she won't be available for the next meeting but will review and provide feedback. Other Updates • Ms. Mercier said the Commission should consider adding a zoning workshop in late March or early April 2020 and suggested March 30, 2020 as a potential date. • Ms. Mercier said the staff is still going through the feedback received from the Economic Development Summit. She said she will send the Gamble Associates presentation to the members who were not able to attend. Mr. D'Arezzo mentioned a comment Mr. Weston made to him, that once you allow residential use of a Lot, it is nearly impossible to return It to commercial. • Ms. Mercier said Town Meeting is opening on November 12, 2019 and the zoning articles are anticipated to be heard on November 14, 2019. She asked the Commission to let her know If they will attend. • Ms. Mercier gave a quick overview on 5G Small Cell Distributed Antenna Systems. The FCC is allowing these types of cellular facilities to be located on utility poles and regulated as a public utility. They can be located in a right-of-way and are outside of zoning. The FCC allowed a certain time to create design regulations; and the Town Manager was advised and regulations were established. The Town received the first application and permitting process cannot take more than 150 days. The Applicant is proposing three sites for their poles: in front of the Fantasia Building, by the Ash and Main Street and by the train depot. She said staff is working with the Applicant for the location and to determine if the system can be installed in one of the light fixtures. The Commission discussed the size of the system and the reason why it is Page I a �y OrR O Town of Reading i= Meeting Minutes necessary. Ms. Mercier said RMLD is not amendable to the systems being installed on their poles and said the Applicant is looking into installing their own poles. • Mr. D'Arezzo said the town should take into consideration residents that are impacted by the South Main Street Corridor and allow denser zoning if abutting the mixed-use development. • Mr. D'Arezzo asked for an update on the Main Street repaving and the Road Diet. Ms. Mercier replied staff has been meeting with representatives from MassDOT, and a trial period is being considered, which will allow MassDOT to gather real time data to evaluate how the Road Diet functions. Minutes of September 9. 2019 Mr. Safina made a motion to approve the minutes of September 9, 2019 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Areuo and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Minutes of October 7. 2019 The October 7, 2019 minutes were not discussed. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Uamnments ani sad a ]be meN nn a 11/4/19 Agenda a 21-23 Vilepe street Legal Ac.maiment e 258-259 Mein Sanest condmence Regum • Town Mai Adkles 13-16 Presentatlons • Pm,madl Zoning Amendments for 2020 as amended by Staff • September 9, 2019 Minuses Page 17 Rodger, Julia From: Saunders, Kim Sent: Tuesday, February 11,2020 8:33 AM To: Gemme, Laura; Rodger,Julia Cc: Saunders, Kim Subject: Approved CPDC Minutes Attachments: CPDC Approved Minutes 11-04-2019 AMJM.pdf;CPDC Approved Minutes 12-09-2019 AMeditsJM.pdf;CPDC Approved Minutes 01-13-2020JM.pdf Good morning The CPDC approved 3 sets of minutes last night—November 4th, December 9th and January 13th Thank you X. Permits Coordinator Public Services Department Town of Reading 781.942.6620 My hours—Monday&Wednesday 7:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Tuesday: 7:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m.and Thursday 7:00-5:30 PM Town Hall is closed on Friday 1