Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-25 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes RECEIVED. TOWN CLERK a Town of Reading rr n f;MnMG MA.Meeting Minutes KPIA , 29 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2021-01-25 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Location: Remote Meeting - Zoom Address: Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members: John Weston, Chair; Nick Safina, Pamela Adrian Heather Clish, Tony D'Arezzo-Associate Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Daniel Sweet, Scott Berger, MaryEllen O'Shea, Select Board Member Carlo Bacci, Sarah Brukilaochio, Nora Flynn, Lorraine Willwerth, Select Board Member Vanessa Alvarado Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: MEETING HELD REMOTELY VIA ZOOM Chairman John Weston called the meeting to order at 7:34 PM. 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. Continued Public Hearina, Site Plan Review 1310-1312 Main Street, Reading Animal Clinic Mr. Weston announced that the Applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review at 1310-1312 Main Street to the February 22, 2021 CPDC meeting date. The hearing will be scheduled for 8:30PM on the February 22, 1021 agenda. Public Hearina, Site Plan Review 323 Main Street. Bagel World Mr. Weston announced that the Applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review at 323 Main Street to the February 8, 2021 CPDC meeting date. The hearing will be scheduled for 9:00PM on the February 8, 2021 agenda. Approval Not Required Plan Endorsement 1261 Main Street, Daniel Sweet Homeowner Daniel Sweet was present on behalf of the application. Mr. MacNichol shared the plan on-screen. Mr. MacNichol summarized that the site Is located at 1261 Main Street and currently maintains over 200,000sf of land; it is located within the S-20 Zoning District. t I s Town of Reading Meeting Minutes AKOAr��V The land is to be split into two separate lots, for a net of one new lot. Both lots will conform to the frontage requirements, lot size requirements, and upland area requirements of the S- 20 Zoning District. The lots front the existing public way in Main Street and qualify for an ANR endorsement. Mr. Weston explained that the CPDC can endorse the plan due to the existing frontage of the site. Ms. MaryEllen O'Neill asked what is existing on the site and what is planned for the new lot in the future. Mr. Sweet replied that there is an existing single-family home on the site and that an additional single-family home will be constructed on the new lot. The homes will be on separate ends of the site and be separated by the large area of wetland. Mr. Safina made a motion to endorse the Approval Not Required Plan for 1261 Main Street. Mr. D'Arezzo seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Other Business Zoning Bylaw Amendment for April 2021 Town Meeting Ms. Mercier shared a document which included Town Counsel's comments on the proposed zoning amendments for April 2021 Town Meeting on-screen. The language for allowing Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming or Storage by Minor Site Plan Review did not present major concerns but a few questions were posed by Town Counsel. The conversation began by asking if outdoor storage would warrant a quantified amount of time applied to it. Mr. Weston answered that the proposed definition was originally built off of the existing definition and use of Outdoor Storage which does not currently Include a timeframe. He felt that a timeframe can be reviewed on an application by application basis. Ms. Mercier agreed and opined that storage can be related to other outdoor uses, or not, which makes It difficult to craft a timeframe that could apply to all. Mr. Safina stated that the outdoor uses must be active and engaging and not simply be to store material outside in order to allow more indoor seating. Mr. Weston agreed. Ms. Clish recommended keeping the language as is in order to allow Flexibility during review and discussion. Ms. Mercier stated that Town Counsel made some wording changes throughout the document. She shared the new language on-screen for all to read. The Board agreed that the proposed changes to the'Permit Compliance'section were favorable. Ms. Mercier continued that Town Counsel proposed replacing the Minor Site Plan Review acronym (MSPR) within the Table of Uses with a 'Yes' in order to be consistent with all other existing by-right uses. She explained that there is currently no acronym for Site Plan Review or Minor Site Plan Review within the table. Ms. Mercier stated she could see either way working and that staff currently informs applicants when an application triggers any type of Site Plan Review. Mr. Safina suggested keeping the language clear and distinguishing the fact that the use requires some sort of formal review. Ms. Clish agreed and stated that she felt comfortable Introducing the new MSPR acronym to the Table of Uses. Mr. Weston asked if the Board is allowing a by-right use with the proposed amendments. He explained that the existing Open Storage use has a Special Permit requirement which is a discretionary approval. Mr. Weston questioned if a Minor Site Plan Review application could be denied. Ms. Mercier replied that Town Counsel commented that Minor Site Plan Review's cannot be outright denied but can be conditioned in a manner fit for approval. Ms. Clish asked if the use is by-right, can the Board or Town Hall rescind a permit. Ms. Mercier replied 2 ��orgrgQ Y Town of Reading Meeting Minutes in the affirmative and stated that the Minor Site Plan Review decision can be revoked if the use Is found to be non-compliant with the approved decision. Mr. Weston asked if it is a decision or a permit that would be issued by the Board. Ms. Mercier clarified that a permit and a decision are synonyms in this case and the decision issued can be used for enforcement. Ms. Clish asked how a by-right use can be stopped. Ms. Mercier answered that the decisions are very specific as to what is allowed and any variation from such could be seen as a violation. Mr. Weston asked if the language within the proposed amendments could be changed from 'permit'to'decision'. Ms. Mercier affirmed that she will review the language throughout the document and provide updates. Mr. D'Arezzo asked what the differences between a Special Permit and a Site Plan Review are. Ms. Mercier stated that Special Permits are discretionary and Site Plan Review applications are typically related to by-right uses. Special Permits are subject to statutory law under Massachusetts General taw Chapter 40A. They require a specific degree of notification and certain timeframes are applied to them. Site Plan Reviews and Minor Site Plan Reviews are crafted at the local (town) level and can differ from town to town. They are not subject to state requirements. She explained that here in Reading, Site Plan Reviews follow a very similar process to that of Special Permits in order for consistency and to provide notification to abutters. Conditions can be placed on both types of applications in order to provide enforcement and to mitigate impacts. Mr. D'Arezzo opined keeping the MSPR acronym for the amendment. Mr. Weston and Ms. Clish agreed and felt that it provided better clarity. Mr. Weston stated keeping the language as proposed is beneficial because outdoor uses may not require additional permitting (i.e. Building Permit, signage, etc.) so there will be limited ways to find out about them beforehand. Mr. Weston asked if the changes discussed can be made after the public hearing closed in February. Ms. Mercier replied in the affirmative as long as the changes do not substantially alter the proposal. She stated that town staff can work on updating the language discussed tonight. Ms. Clish asked how the notification process worked. Ms. Mercier stated that the Applicant will request a Certified Abutters List from the Assessing Department. The list will include ready made labels for the Applicant to print and apply directly to a set of envelopes. Town Staff will then take the stamped and labeled envelopes and provide the Town Hall return address. Staff will then mall the notifications to the abutters and also provide an email blast to business contacts. Ms. Clish appreciated knowing that there was a process in place. Other Business Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for November 2021 ME Ms. Mercier stated that a number of topics were discussed at the last CPDC hearing regarding potential zoning amendments for November 2021 Town Meeting and beyond. Potential amendments include updates to the Floodplaln Overlay District language, the DSGD 40R Overlay language and the Table of Uses. Ms. Mercier stated that she has reached out to the State regarding the Floodplain bylaw. She has been in contact with a representative from the National Floodplain Insurance Program who will help review and update the bylaw. Study on new engineering practices that could allow additional uses in the area will also be done. Ms. Mercier recommended starting by reviewing the DSGD 40R bylaw comments. Mr. Weston agreed it would be helpful for the Board to discuss the data and information needed that would inform future discussions on the language itself. The 40R bylaw contains a 3 rq� Town of Reading 4. � 1 Meeting Minutes number of subsections that can all impact one another and a wholistic review of the needs will help determine the needs for such. Ms. Mercier begun by stating that an instructional motion was made at November Town Meeting that asked the CPDC to review the lot coverage requirements of the 40R district in hopes to increase open space in the downtown area. Ms. Mercier stated a definition for lot coverage can be drafted specifically for the 40R district in order to clarify what features will count towards lot coverage and what features of a development will not. There is an existing lot coverage definition within the Zoning Bylaw Section 2.0 but a different definition may be warranted for the 40R district. Ms. Mercier informed the Board and public that any future changes to the bylaw cannot be'unduly restrictive' or the state may deny the changes. She added that uses allowed in the district could be expanded for clarification if desired. Ms. Mercier reviewed the dimensional requirements of the district. Currently lot coverage requirements have no maximum but providing one may not result in the type of open space desired by the public. Data can be gathered and maps can be created to showcase what different number of lot coverage requirements would look like on lots downtown. She questioned how development can make private open spaces feel public or if they could even be used by the public. She stated hardscape areas such as patios and dining areas may be viewed as open space. In order to avoid blocky chunks of unusable space language should be drafted to require connectivity to nearby sites and open areas. Mr. Weston cautioned staff providing massing diagrams for this practice as they could set false expectations. He opined that dimensional requirements and limits do not directly relate to functionality of a site. Mr. Weston asked if other forms of public rights of access can or should be mapped, such as easements or trails. Ms. Mercier answered that the information is available and that easements and other connections can be shown within a map. Ms. Adrian asked if the setback requirements and other dimensional aspects are mandated by the State or if the Town can adjust such. Ms. Mercier replied that it is a bit of both in that the State would need to approve any changes the Town is considering before the changes can go to Town Meeting. Ms. Sarah Brukilacchio of 48 Maple Ridge Road asked what level of detail the discussion tonight will entail. Mr. Weston responded that tonight's discussion should revolve around what kind of data is needed to push this conversation forward in the future. Ms. Brudlacchlo felt that the items discussed by Ms. Mercier are favorable and will help provide further discussion. Ms. Brukilacchio opined creating language and Imagery that shows developers what material and amenity features are acceptable to the Board. She continued that developers should work to provide 3D modeling whilst undergoing plan review in order to show the scale of the development. Mr. Weston replied that massing diagrams for this exercise would be flat/square (I.e. no stepbacks, architectural design, etc.) but would show the maximum height and area allowed on any given site. He again cautioned the false expectations such massing diagrams could provide. Ms. Clish opined that diagrams should be reviewed on a block basis in order to capture what full development would look like in a neighborhood. She suggested reviewing how development impacts the streetscape and sidewalks in the area as these features play vital public roles. Mr. Weston agreed that right-of-way data should be reviewed as some ways are larger or wider than others. He questioned if existing right-of-way's could be used differently than they are today. Ms. Mercier agreed and provided an example of the recent discussion on Chapin Avenue which was found to be larger than needed thus allowing both a sidewalk to be created and formal street parking to be added. Mr. Weston suggested looking 4 0 ° Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes at infrastructure within right-of-way's as well as it could impact what changes are practicable. Ms. Clish stated there is a fine line between activating a street and closing it In so that it is unpleasant to live in. Mr. Weston asked if GIS data on public street trees existed. Ms. Mercier replied that there very well may be some data available and that she will look for such. Ms. MaryEllen O'Neill stated that more street trees should be required as urban heat Island effect increases. She added that the train depot is an area of need for such. Ms. O'Neill asked if examples and language from other communities could be reviewed for creative resolutions. Ms. Mercier confirmed this will be done. Mr. Weston agreed that reviewing other municipality 4011 district language and design guidelines as it relates to green scope would be beneficial. Ms. O'Neill stated the Walgreens located on Bolton Street Is a good example of a development with ample greenspace and trees. Mr. Safina agreed and opined that abundant space is needed in order for trees to thrive. He questioned where this amount of space will come from. Ms. Brukilacchio asked if the Town could ask existing commercial uses to plant additional street trees; she gave an example of a business removing trees in the past. Mr. Safina replied some trees may be removed due to traffic safety concerns. Mr. Weston stated that during plan review street trees are asked for where appropriate and that it is possible to ask for such. Ms. Mercier informed all that minimum density is mandated by the State and cannot be changed. She stated that lot consolidation should be favored in order to reduce the block effect. Ms. Mercier stated that the 4011 bylaw includes language maximizing the percentage of commercial gross Floor area (GFA) In a development to 50%. Office and Institutional uses are allowed to occupy up to 33% of this commercial area as they are not necessarily vibrant active uses. She asked if the Board favored this language or if they wished to provide a minimum amount of commercial as well. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if smart growth development favored commercial development or housing development. He continued that it was the Town's Initial goal to Increase commercial development by allowing residential portions to off set the cost. Ms. Mercier replied that one of the State's goal of 40R development is Inclusionary housing. Mr. Weston opined that the goal was to incentivize Investment in Reading but also not to lose the limited commercial space available. Mr. Safina recalled that the 50% commercial allowed was based on the maximum height. It was anticipated that developments could build up to 4-stories and the goal was to incentivize commercial on the first two Floors. He added that office space was limited to 33% due to it not being an active pedestrian use and would mostly be located on second-Floors or above. Mr. Safina stated no development reaches the 50% threshold and less and less commercial is being provided with each application. Mr. Weston asked that data be provided on the percentage of commercial area in each 40R development. Ms. Clish asked for other municipalities data on commercial requirements as well. Mr. Weston followed by asking that commercial requirement data also be provided. He wondered what the minimum square footage desired is for a number of different uses. Ms. Mercier replied she can look Into the request. Ms. Mercier reviewed the existing parking requirement language for 40R developments. 1.25 parking spaces per residential units is currently required but commercial parking is not always required. She opined that the residential requirements not be adjusted and that residential parking utilization data can be gathered from the existing 40R developments. This data can then be compared to their number of bedrooms to determine'right-size' parking amounts. She stated the larger question revolves around the commercial 5 Town of Reading p, Meeting Minutes requirement as well as visitor parking. Both Mr. Weston and Mr. D'Arezzo questioned if parking should be required per bedroom instead of per unit. This may increase required parking and allow for guest parking. Mr. Safina acknowledged the goal of shifting to multi modal transit, but the reality is that there will always a number of cars that impact the surrounding areas. He opined requiring additional commercial parking if the Town is at capacity of public spaces. Mr. D'Arezzo found that commercial and residential parking can be mixed and matched based on their differing times of use. Commercial businesses closed at night will allow visitor spaces to open up and residents going to work during the day should open spaces for the commercial use. Reading resident Ms. Lorraine Willworth opined that most developments are not yet occupied and parking Issues will be a future concern as well. She agreed that parking should be required per bedroom. Ms. Adrian felt that retail uses require specific and designated parking spots in order for utilization. Mr. Weston questioned if data can be gathered on commercial spaces utilizing public street parking or lots. He wondered how much demand is being put on public spaces over private and how this demand changes for each use. He additionally questioned if total commercial space in the downtown is being increased due to the revolving number of openings and closings. He stated that the ITE traffic data used during development review is not the most reliable and suggested looking for more localized data to utilize in this process. Mr. Weston was unsure what data could be used regarding loading space size needs. Ms. Mercier agreed that trucks may be smaller in size nowadays but are more frequent than ever. Mr. Safina questioned if street spaces can be designated for such. Ms. Mercier stated a study was done In the past to determine If Reading had the'critical mass'that warranted using street spaces for such. It was found that at the time Reading did not meet the requirement but it can be reviewed again for a new determination. Select Board member Carlo Bacci questioned if loading and delivery times could be conditioned in the bylaw to ensure deliveries are not ensuing very late in the evening or very early in the morning. This would help reduce impact on residential abutters. Mr. Weston replied that it is an area of discussion during Site Plan Reviews and the language is provided and conditioned within the decisions for any given project. He stated this does have flaws in real time as delivery drivers may be unaware of the conditions and opined it should be brought to a different area or bylaw so that the police may be able to enforce such. Ms. Mercier informed all that approval is needed from the Select Board in order for a business to operate at certain hours and this may be a mechanism to help. Mr. Bacci appreciated the idea and agreed It Is a difficult thing to enforce. He stated that he does not want the police called on a local business but there is a need to limit timing of loading and deliveries. Ms. Brukllacchio asked if 40R residents can receive downtown resident parking permits. Ms. Mercier replied in the affirmative. Ms. Brukllacchio opined this could lead to further stress on public parking In the downtown area. Ms. Mercier stated it is difficult to restrict some residents and not others but the downtown parking regulations are under further review. Mr. Safina opined that the 1.25 space requirement is working well but if someone were to provide lower than the minimum it would be a different discussion. Ms. Brukilacchio questioned how this can be mitigated if it does become an issue in the future. Ms. Mercier replied that they ask developers to'unbundle'the parking so that it is open to all its residents in case there are those that need less parking and those that need more. Ms. Brukilacchlo asked if overnight parking is allowed in Reading. Mr. Weston stated over-night parking may be allowed on-street but Is no longer allowed within public lots. Restricting on- street parking would have Impacts on a number of other areas. He added that other communities do restrict overnight parking on the street and their regulations could be reviewed if this were to be under consideration. 6 Town of Reading ? Meeting Minutes ,w Ms. Brukilacchio asked when the parking regulation discussion will ensue again. Ms. Mercier stated a recent discussion occurred at a Select Board hearing where the Select Board was favorable to the idea of forming a parking advisory committee which would look to Include members from the business and residential portions of downtown, local volunteer boards and others. The committee would work with the Town's Parking Traffic Transportation Task Force (PTTTF) to discuss the parking regulations and present proposed changes to the Select Board. Ms. Mercier reviewed the waiver language of the 40R bylaw. She asked if additional criteria for justification should be added to the bylaw. This could help incentivize other wants such as more affordable housing, green space or commercial parking area. Ms. Brukilacchio asked if 4011 requires greenspace. Ms. Mercier replied in the negative. Ms. Clish responded that the Board can ask for such but it would most likely result in additional waivers being needed. Mr. Weston opined a combination of zoning language and design guidelines will be needed in order to get the type of open space that the Town desires. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if waivers must be approved in order for a project to be economically feasible. Ms. Mercier stated that there are criteria to justify waivers outside of economic viability. Existing criteria for waivers include providing high performance energy efficient design, accessible open space, street level commercial uses, shared parking sites or the preservation of historical elements. Ms. Adrian asked if language should be drafted requiring tree preservation. Mr. Weston stated that the requested data on such will be informative to a future discussion. Mr. Weston suggested gathering data on how much growth has occurred in the 4011 district to date and how this has been managed by the Town. This data could be compared to expected future growth in order to determine if the downtown is an appropriate location to accommodate such. Mr. Weston asked when this discussion could continue. Ms. Mercier replied that it is the goal to have data available for the March 29th Zoning Workshop that is already scheduled. The CPDC can continue to discuss at future hearing dates until the workshop. manna of uaa Mr. MacNichol presented the ideas for capturing change of uses within Town. Mr. Weston summarized that this was asked to be reviewed as past wants to streamline business development has resulted in unintentional impacts to certain areas. Mr. Weston provided an example that under current regulations a change from an office use to a restaurant use in a building does not require formal review despite the change in impacts. Mr. MacNichol stated that similar to the Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming or Storage uses that have been discussed recently a trigger can be added to Minor Site Plan Review to better capture these'change of uses'. Mr. MacNichol clarified that full Site Plan Review is triggered by a change of use category but because the existing categories are so broad the trigger does not capture a lot. A trigger to capture use changes from one-Ilne item to another within the Table of Uses would be much more beneficial. This trigger can be installed for Minor Site Plan Review which allows great flexibility. The Minor Site Plan Review bylaw includes language that could allow the waiving of parking and loading requirements if a new business is to be located within an existing building and it was determined sufficient parking is available in the area. The language also allows for staff and the CPDC to determine if the proposal can be approved administratively or if it should be reviewed by the CPDC in a public meeting. Standard 7 ora� Town of Reading Meeting Minutes practice of noticing abutters would be conducted if an application were to be brought to the CPDC. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if Minor Site Plan Review can be raised to a full Site Plan Review. Mr. MacNichol replied that typically for a change of use a number of waivers are requested from full Site Plan Review requirements as an existing site would not typically need items such as a new grading plan, utility plan, etc. Mr. MacNichol added that the existing trigger of a Change of Use category can remain for Site Plan Review. Ms. Mercier agreed and clarified that uses allowed would need to be by-right. If a use requires a Special Permit that requirement would still be maintained. Mr. D'Arezzo liked the thought of getting as many of these'change of uses' in front of Staff and in Town Hall to decide on requirements for such. He was in favor of the proposed changes. Mr. Weston asked what the additional triggers are for Site Plan Review. Mr. MacNichol presented the triggers on screen which Include: • An increase in gross floor area of 500sf or more; • A change of use category; or • The addition or relocation of two (2) or more parking spaces on-site, or an Increase of pavement by 300sf Mr. MacNichol stated that the Building Department frequently checks in and asks if an application requires planning approval. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if there was an exception that allows for no site plan review if the Select Board approves a liquor license. Ms. Mercier stated she was unaware of such an exemption. Mr. D'Arezzo opined that the addition of the'Charles at Bunratty' space at the MF Charles building may have triggered a Site Plan Review due to the increased area. Ms. Mercier stated that the prior use of the site was also a restaurant and the trigger of additional gross Floor area is in terms of building additions. Mr. MacNichol agreed with Ms. Mercier. Mr. Weston stated that this proposal provides the desired review wanted by the Board. He liked the concept and flexibility provided within. Mr. MacNichol stated that this can be reviewed further to determine potential impacts to other sections of the bylaw. Minutes The Board elected to review the meeting minutes at a future meeting date due to the documents needing further review. Other Business Mr. MacNichol stated that the Open Space and Recreation Plan update will hold their first public workshop on February 1'r, 2021 through Zoom. He encouraged the CPDC and members of the public to attend if available. Adiournment Ms. Clish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:01PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Arezzo and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents Reviewed at the Meeting: • CPDC Agenda 1/25/21 • CPDC Minutes of 11220, 1/11/21 1281 Main Street,Approval Not Required Plan Endorsement 8 � OrR Town of Reading . = Meeting Minutes �r o Application Form A o Approval Not Required Plan,dated 1/12/21 o Memo from Community Development Director and Town Engineer,dated 1/25/21 o ANR Certificate,dated 125/21 • 2021 Annual Town Meeting Zoning Bylaw Amendments o Outdoor Commerce,Dining,Programming or Storage—Town Counsel comments • Potential Zoning Amendments for November 2021 Subsequent Town Meeting o Downtown Smart Growth District(DSGD)40R,Initial Thoughts o Change of Use/Site Plan Review 9