Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-23 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes `, EC EIV_ Town of Reading TOWN CLERK Meeting Minutes RE " l­' I '%I ' fA. K "! Jk ! 2 PN I: 30 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2020-11-23 Time: 730 PM Building: Location: Remote Meeting - Zoom Address: Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members: John Weston, Chair; Rachel Hitch, Nick Safina, Pamela Adrian Heather Clish, Tony D'Arezzo-Associate Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Economic Development Director Erin Schaeffer, Select Board Chair Mark Dockser, Select Board Member Carlo Bacci, Select Board Member Karen Gately Herrick, Select Board Member Vanessa Alvarado, Linda Harrison, Karen Cavallo, Anthony Cavallo, Brad Latham, Ugo DiBiase, Bob Holmes, George Kachen Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: MEETING HELD REMOTELY VIA ZOOM Chair John Weston called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Select Board Chair Mark Dockser called the Select Board to order as a quorum was in attendance. Community Development Director Julie Mercier explained the protocols for tonight's meeting that is being held virtually as all hearings throughout the pandemic have been. She presented the Zoom Meeting information to the public for those wishing to join. She explained the features of the Zoom program and how to provide comments for any given application. She added that RCN is broadcasting and recording the meeting. Sian Permit Application, 136 Haven Street The Postmark Mr. Weston asked the applicant team for a summary of the application. Mr. Brad Latham was present on behalf of the Applicant and stated that the free-standing sign would be located along the Sanborn Street fagade of the building where the entrance to the residential condominiums is located. He continued that it will be situated on top of the brick wall at the front of the landscaped courtyard and will be illuminated through halo lettering. The sign will be 12ft in length and 2' in width. The sign faces a commercial use and area and the lighting will help light the sidewalk. Mr. Weston questioned if a Special Permit is required for a free-standing sign in the downtown district. Ms. Mercier stated a Special Permit is required in the Business-B Zoning District but this development was constructed under the Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD) Overlay. Ms. Mercier stated signage for DSGD developments is captured within the DSGD Design Guidelines document but the Zoning Bylaw does not clearly address such. Ms. Adrian questioned if this sign is for the principal use of the building. Ms. Mercier explained that the sign will be for the residential entry way of the building. Ms. Adrian asked 1 r Town of Reading g Meeting Minutes where this entry way is located. Ms. Mercier replied along Sanborn Street and presented an image of the location. Mr. Weston opined that a Special Permit is required for a free-standing sign, and that the discussion should be continued until properly advertised as such. Ms. Mercier answered that a DSGD development is not necessarily subject to the underlying zoning requirements. Mr. Latham agreed and opined that the 40R Bylaw should take precedence. Ms. Clish stated that if the overlay bylaw does not account for signage then the underlying should be used. Mr. Safina recalled the conversation as such and that it defers back to the Business-B signage requirements. He continued that some direction can be given to the Applicant team so that they may revise the application appropriately. Mr. Weston agreed that comments can be provided on the design with the understanding that this application will revisit the board as a Special Permit. Mr. Safina opined that the sign is too large and that the rendering does not depict the true scale correctly. He feared that the nicely landscaped courtyard would be hidden by the large size of the wall and sign. Mr. Safina questioned if the sign could be placed on the wall's fagade. Mr. Weston asked if parking is allowed in front of the courtyard. Mr. Latham replied a loading zone is provided in that area. Mr. Weston stated the sign will be hard to see if traffic is blocking the area. Mr. Safina agreed and stated the sign could be moved off-center and more towards the entry way. Mr. Safina stated that the sign should be brought down to 16sf in area, in compliance with the Downtown Design Guideline requirement. Ms. Clish asked where the address of the building would be located. Mr. Latham stated that they anticipated that the numbering would be installed above the doorway. Ms. Mercier asked if the sign could be moved to the left side of the courtyard. Mr. Safina found that there may be room along the wall on the left side. Mr. Ugo DiBiase of the development team stated that a new stairwell is located to the left and is windowed. He continued that the entry will be addressed as 8 Sanborn Street and the signage for such will indeed be located above the entry way. Mr. DiBiase felt that the sign location could not go on the wall fagade as any lower than proposed would be at knee-height. Mr. Weston stated that the application would not be opened to public comment until the Special Permit requirement is properly noticed. Mr. D'Arezzo felt that the lighting should not be on for the entirety of the night. Mr. Latham stated that the lighting will help provide some illumination for residents and will face outwards. Mr. Safina stated Reading Co-operative Bank has a lot of illumination at night. Ms. Clish asked for additional images of the surrounding area. Mr. Latham agreed and thanked the commission for their input. Potential Zoning Amendments for April 2021 Outdoor Commerce Dining Programming or Storage Mr. Weston asked Ms. Mercier to provide a summary of the discussion the Board has had so far on the proposed amendment. Ms. Mercier summarized that the goal is to present these zoning amendments at April 2021 Annual Town Meeting. The zoning amendments would create a path for businesses to utilize 2 Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes � •nr< their private outdoor spaces more flexibly. She added that the Select Board has an Outdoor Dining Polity which is used for applications for use of public spaces like sidewalks and municipal parking areas. She mentioned that there is an option on the table for Select Board consideration of whether the private and public applications should be combined into one process with the CPDC, pending approval of the zoning amendment. In any case, she stated that discussion tonight should be focused on the merits of the zoning amendment and how it will apply to private land, which is the CPDC's jurisdiction. She noted that when the official public hearing is scheduled outreach will be conducted to over 300 business contacts in Town, to Town Meeting members and to other boards and commissions. Ms. Mercier shared the proposed language on screen. Ms. Mercier explained that there is an existing definition within the bylaw for'Open Storage' which is somewhat related to the desired outcome, but needs a lot of work. As such, the definition has been upgraded to Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming, or Storage' in order to capture additional outside uses. She continued that the use would trigger a Minor Site Plan Review by the CPDC which also allows for some flexibility by staff in terms of advertising the application, timing of a hearing, and required review materials. This is because Minor Site Plan Reviews are not subject to any statutory requirements. She added that Reading has and will continue to provide notification for such applications, even though not required by statute. Minor Site Plan Review Applications under Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming, or Storage would result in notice to neighboring tenants, businesses and abutters. Town Staff has begun working on updating the Minor Site Plan Review Application to account for applications of this type. Ms. Mercier reviewed the required material for submission. Ms. Mercier stated that the CPDC already has the flexibility to waive parking and loading requirements in Minor Site Plan Reviews and that will be extremely helpful when it comes to outdoor applications wishing to utilize parking areas. Ms. Mercier explained the criteria for approval that would be included in the zoning and given to applicants in order to help them prepare for their conversations with the Commission. Ms. Mercier expressed the desire to leave the criteria parameters flexible in order to allow applicants to propose creative ideas for their businesses which the CPDC can discuss. Criteria for Approval include: • Duration of Use • Site Circulation and Access • Parking availability • Health and safety • Structures and furnishings • Materials and products to be displayed or sold • Lighting, heating and sound • Setbacks of structures • Screening of the outdoor use • Coordination with abutters and competing uses • Permit Compliance Ms. Mercier continued to explain that a line item would be added to the Accessory Use Table for the 'Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming, or Storage' Use and the table would note a Minor Site Plan Review requirement. An acronym has been created for the Minor Site Plan Review (MSPR) requirement. She added that the existing `Open Storage' criteria in Section 5.6.1 would be removed as the language will be used in Section 4.6.3.4. It is expected that some applicants will require outdoor storage for materials. Ms. Mercier informed the board that applications would also go through the Expedited Approval Team (EAT) comprised of a number of staff departments. This will allow for staff input and ensure compliance with all 3 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes needs. A draft decision incorporating all feedback would then be prepared prior to the CPDC hearing. Mr. Weston first opened the discussion to comment or questions from the audience. He asked the Board to keep the discussion to the larger goals and theory and hold off on wordsmithing until later. Ms. Clish found the Minor Site Plan Review process to be a beneficial way forward due to the flexibility allowed. Mr. Safina found the mechanism to be beneficial as it allows businesses to create their own ideas and plans without being too limited. Mr. Dockser, Select Board Chair, asked how frequently Minor Site Plan Reviews are applied for. Ms. Mercier answered that currently it is used as needed, and not super frequently, but the proposed 2021 schedule for CPDC includes additional meetings in order to get ahead of the demand that is expected to come in the next year. With the addition of Outdoor Commerce, Dining, and Programming applications Minor Site Plan Review applications will increase, so additional CPDC hearings have been scheduled for 2021. She added that help can be provided to businesses looking to apply before the spring season and that the Minor Site Plan Review process allows staff to expedite these types of applications if needed. Mr. Dockser questioned how the Town could allow such applications before the April Town Meeting vote. Mr. Weston replied that the thought is valid and has been discussed by the CPDC. He opined that April would be a tough month for Outdoor Dining as it is still relatively cold in New England. Alternative processes outside of the Zoning Bylaw (i.e., BOH orders, administrative rules, etc.) were considered but were found to be problematic for various reasons. Mr. Dockser felt businesses wishing to take advantage of this would need to start planning and gathering materials now. Economic Development Director Erin Schaeffer stated that a memo has been drafted for the Select Board in order to expand the existing Outdoor Dining Policy in the interim which will be presented at an upcoming Select Board meeting. This will be critical in order to allow businesses to apply for use of public space before April Town Meeting. Mr. Dockser stated it would be beneficial to align both the CPDC and Select Board processes so that they are similar in requirements. Mr. Carlo Bacci of the Select Board asked how many meetings would be expected for any given application. He gave an example of an application missing some information and asked if this would require a second hearing. Mr. Weston stated that it is a common practice by the CPDC to condition Site Plan Approvals with further submittals of materials when appropriate. Mr. Bacci appreciated the CPDC diligence in such, Select Board Member Vanessa Alvarado echoed concerns on the timing of applications between now and spring 2021. She asked if the assumption is that the Select Board would review applications until the zoning language is approved. Ms. Mercier stated that is not assumed until there is further discussion with the Select Board on their Outdoor Dining Policy. Mr. Safina asked if the language is usable only after the Attorney General approves the zoning amendment. Ms. Mercier stated that the zoning amendment language can be used from the date of the official public hearing notice but it is used at risk of further changes by Town Meeting and/or the Attorney General. Ms. Alvarado asked to clarify that if a business wishes to apply in March how that will differ from applying in May. Ms. Mercier replied that, for public land applications, it will depend on the Select Board policy discussion. If no interim policy is put in place, staff will work with businesses as best we can to find solutions. For private land, staff will work with businesses 4 r Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes over the winter to queue the applications up for CPDC hearings if the zoning amendment is passed at Town Meeting. Depending on the site, there may be other interim options available as well (i.e., one site already has an approved patio for outdoor dining.) Ms. Alvarado asked about the notification process and what such would entail. Ms. Mercier replied that she envisioned both the standard mailing and newspaper notice that is typically done as well as an email blast to a compiled list of business contacts within Town. She continued that'block groups' have been created in order to streamline the determination of who should be noticed for any given application. At a minimum, notification would go to stakeholders within the standard 300' radius from the site. Ms. Karen Herrick of the Select Board stated that the use will be a long term need and found the zoning bylaw to be an appropriate location for a regulation. She found that extending the length of the outdoor dining season is a need for Reading. She stated seasonality is hard to gauge in New England and appreciated the flexibility that the language provided. She was in favor of the Select Board revisiting their policy in the interim. Ms. Herrick asked how the 'nuisance' aspect triggers a Minor Site Plan Review. Ms. Mercier stated that if a site is in violation of their approval it will trigger enforcement. She also stated that complaints are a way to track ongoing issues. Ms. Herrick asked if that is a change to the bylaw or if the clause is already in place. Ms. Mercier replied that there is currently a nuisance clause in the bylaw, but that another paragraph specific to applications for Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming, or Storage, has been proposed, and can be added as a standard condition to any approvals. Mr, Dockser asked to confirm that Applicants can apply in the interim. Mr. Weston responded that will be at the discretion of the Select Board and felt it would be a viable option. Mr. Dockser agreed. Mr. Dockser asked how an application that proposes to use public lands would be reviewed. Ms. Mercier stated that is within the Select Board's jurisdiction; CPDC addresses uses on private land. Mr. Weston opined that if the Select Board delegated the review for such, CPDC could discuss and vote on those applications. Ms. Alvarado asked for clarification on whether building owners or tenants would be notified. Ms. Mercier responded that both would be notified. Ms. Lisa Egan, Director of the Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce, stated that this approach would be very helpful to a number of businesses. The long-term applicability is very friendly to businesses. Mr. Weston thanked her for the comments and agreed that these uses could extend past the Covid-19 Pandemic. Mr. Weston asked to review the proposed language in more detail. Mr. Safina asked whether these applications would result in an increase in intensity of uses at any given site. He gave an example of a restaurant increasing seating counts versus one relocating existing seating. Mr. Weston agreed it is not the goal to increase intensity. Ms. Clish asked if language to limit such should be added to the Criteria for Approval section. Ms. Mercier agreed to include language for such. Mr. Weston stated that the clause 'subject to limitations imposed by the CPDC as part of Minor Site Plan Review' is not needed within the proposed definition of Outdoor Commerce, Dinging, Recreation, or Programming. Ms. Mercier questioned if'extension' is a viable word 5 Town of Reading r Meeting Minutes to use within the definition. Both Ms. Clish and Mr. Weston agreed it was useful as it provides flexibility. Ms. Adrian asked if the word 'event' should be used over'programming' in the definition. Ms. Mercier opined that'event' evokes a more ephemeral use than envisioned. Ms. Clish agreed with Ms. Mercier that programming would capture a variety of uses. Mr. Weston opined that'reasonably related geographic area' is not a specific enough term to use for notification requirements within Section 4.6.3.2. Ms. Mercier agreed and stated she will explore further options. Mr. Weston opined that language for a minimum radius should be provided which can then be expanded as seen fit by staff. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the waiving of parking requirements applies to all Minor Site Plan Reviews. Ms. Mercier replied in the affirmative and stated that the section currently exists within the Bylaw. She continued that waivers are discretionary and are not necessarily approved by-right. Mr. Weston asked to explore why the existing parking waiver was directly related to Business Districts; he expressed concern of omitting this language from the bylaw because the loading zone waiver language is not applicable to the same zoning districts. Ms. Mercier agreed to look into the reasoning for such. Ms. Mercier asked if seasonality is the proper term to use within Section 4.6.3.4. Mr. D'Arezzo and Mr. Weston felt it was appropriate. Ms. Mercier explained that she did not include language for parking requirements to be on- site or off-site in order to allow applicants to be creative and flexible in their applications. She stated if public parking is available nearby it may suffice. Mr. Safina stated as long as parking is available to 'serve the use' it would be viable. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if language should be provided to include adjacent business parking. Ms. Hitch opined that the language 'availability of parking'would cover both on and off-site parking. She continued that the overarching language of Section 4.6.3.4 would guide the discussion of limitations. Mr. Safna asked to include language for'impact to' parking in order to capture surrounding parking areas. Ms. Mercier stated she added general criteria for lighting and sound. She also added criteria relating to setbacks. Mr. MacNichol stated that setbacks for accessory uses are not expressly defined in the zoning bylaw and asked if the language provided met the intent. Mr. Safina opined that the language of'proximity to the property line' was justifiable. He provided an example that a trellis could be placed on a property line but a speaker would not be allowed; Mr. MacNichol agreed. Mr. Weston expressed concern with the language of'meeting code requirements' as the CPDC does not have jurisdiction of life safety codes. Ms. Mercier opined staff departments such as the Fire Department may ask the Board to impose conditions related to such in the Decisions, as the CPDC does currently. Mr. D'Arezzo stated it is out of CPDC control. Mr. Safina stated that code issues should be discussed with Applicants. The Commission agreed to remove the language. Mr. Weston asked for modifications to the language relating to screening. Ms. Clish opined that the language should not force every Applicant to entirely block the area. Mr. Safina agreed screening should be 'addressed' in certain areas over others. Ms. Mercier opined that certain uses need to be visible to be viable, and that the word 'impact' is pejorative. She asked if anyone could propose a better term. Mr. Weston felt impact does not necessarily need to be interpreted as negative. 6 Town of Reading r Meeting Minutes �.row Mr. Bacci made a motion to adjourn the Select Board meeting. Ms. Herrick seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0 (Bacci, Herrick,Alvarado, Dockser). Ms. Hitch opined the term abutters should be used consistently throughout Section 4.6.3.4. Ms. Mercier agreed but felt it is a tricky word to use in zoning as per statute it has a specific meaning, which includes more than just direct abutters. Ms. Clish asked if the language implies direct abutters or not. Ms. Mercier opined that the intent would be to capture more than just direct abutters. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if an Applicant`shall' be brought back to CPDC if they are in violation of a permit instead of'may'. Mr. Weston opined that Staff should handle administratively when appropriate. Ms. Mercier asked about signage for these uses. Ms. Clish asked if the interpretation is that signage cannot be used as screening, Mr. Safina and Mr. Weston agreed with the interpretation. Mr. D'Arezzo felt the language could be stronger. Ms. Mercier offered to create a separate line item for signage. Mr. Safina agreed and provided some potential language asking the applicants to show desired signage. Mr. Weston questioned if temporary signage can be approved as part of the process and if signage that does not conform to the Sign Bylaw could be approved. Mr. MacNichol questioned if A-Frame signage could be allowed for such uses. Ms. Schaeffer opined that excluding artwork and artistic lighting from the restrictions would be good. Mr. Safina felt lighting has impacts beyond the property line. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that the General Bylaw prohibits outdoor sound and speakers for these types of uses. Ms. Mercier stated she will look for clarification on such. Mr. Weston asked if the Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming, or Storage use would apply to Residential Zoning Districts which do contain business uses. Ms. Mercier stated she will look into this more, as there are businesses in residential zones. Mr. Weston opined that it may not be appropriate but it is worth looking into. Mr. Weston asked about the process going forward for this. Ms. Mercier stated a public hearing will be scheduled for January 11th but the CPDC is welcome to discuss it further at meetings in the interim, if time allows. Minutes: 10/19/2020 Ms. Hitch made a motion to approve the 10/19/2020 minutes as amended. Ms. Clish seconded the motion and it was approved with a S-O-O vote. Adiournment Ms. Hitch made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:SS PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a S-O-O vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda 11/23/20 CPDC Minutes 10/19/20 Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment for Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming, or Storage Email Outreach to businesses re:discussion of zoning amendment 7 Town of Reading r Meeting Minutes The Postmark, Sign Application, 130 Haven Street: • Sign Permit Application • Sign Summary • Sign Details 8 Rendering • Landscape Wall Detail • Draft Decision,dated 112320 8