Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-07 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesO p'9C Town of Reading al. Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2021-06-07 Building: Address: Purpose: Meeting Members: John Weston, Chair; Nick Safina, Heather Clish, Pamela Adrian, Tony D'Arezzo-Associate RECEIVED TOWN CLERK READING, MAp� 2021 SEP 16 AM 7: 441v Time: 7:30 PM Loation: Remote Meeting - Zoom Session: version: Attendees: Members - Not Present: Linda Harrison Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNlchol, Kevin Ye Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: MEETING HELD REMOTELY VIA ZOOM Chairman John Weston called the meeting to order at 7:33 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 expained the fetures of the appiliat on. Shea add d that RZCN is broad ast ng and recording the meeting. oom Prgram and how to Provide comments for any given Public Meetin Minor Site Plan Review for Outdoor Commerce Dining, Pro rammin or S ora e: 26 W Ikers Brook Drive O e's Restaurant Ms. Mercier shared the plan depicting the proposed outdoor dining arrangement on -screen - She clarified that the plan is drawn over an exiting site plan and that the railings do not currently exit on-site. Business owner Kevin Ye was present on behalf of the application. He began by Informing the Board that he is seeking approval to place a total of twelve (12) seats, between six (6) tables, outside and in front of his wtrght. All tables and seats bles would be placed to twill be left of the business entry and two (2) would be placed to the located within the site's sidewalk and off of the roadwayby pots . chain. Mr. Ye stated that the outdoor dining rea will be continued that outdoor dining infra trlucture osed will behted metal andrwilll be locked bycha r. n at the end of thell night. Mr. Weston asked for clarification on the weighted planter locations and if they were to be where the railing is marked on the plan. Mr. Ye replied In the affirmative. Mr. Weston questioned what the two hashed rectangles drawn to the right of the door were. Mr. Ye stated that the hashed rectangles are also weighted planters to be Installed. R I,: �, Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Mr. Weston asked if Public Safety departments have reviewed the plan and if they have provided input. Ms. Mercier confirmed that representatives from both the Fire and Police Departments were present at the staff meeting and did not raise major concerns. Mr. Weston asked if the Select Board will need to approve the request to serve alcohol outdoors. Mr. Ye replied in the affirmative and stated that he has been in contact with the Select Board's office to begin the process. Ms. Mercier added that this topic was discussed at the staff meeting and changes have been made to the policy. Oye's Restaurant will need to comply with the latest regulations. Ms. Adrian asked if the door shown Is the only entryway. She commented that the door will be quite busy between customers coming in and out and waiters serving/cleaning the tables. Mr. Ye answered in the affirmative, the double -door is the only primary entrance. He stated that he will work with his staff to manage the Flow of foot -traffic. Ms. Adrian asked if the outdoor dining infrastructure will be brought in daily. Mr. Ye replied in the negative and stated that his intent is to lock the tables and chairs by chain overnight. Mr. Safina asked how large and heavy the proposed weighted planters are. He stated that the minimum clearance for the rest of the sidewalk, beyond the dining area, must be maintained. Mr. Ye answered that each planter is approximately 3' x 3'. He added that they are approximately 30" In height. He stated that he would like them as heavy as possible in order for customers to feel safe. Mr. Safina replied that he is concerned with an approval on an arbitrary number of planters and questioned if the approval will be complied with on a long-term basis. Mr. Ye stated that he is hopeful to bring a more permanent solution to the Board in the future when he can provide the monetary resources needed for such. Mr. Weston opined that the Applicant can measure and mark out the minimum required clearance on-site. Mr. Safina added that the existing Starbucks fence should be used as the baseline. He requested that planters have a minimum height and weight requirement. Mr. Weston agreed. Mr. Weston stated that a more distinct delineation must be made between the outdoor dining area and the sidewalk. He added that safety Is a concern but it is unclear what the Board should require when the area Is outside of a traveled way. He gave the example of the Starbucks aluminum fence which would not safely stop a car. Ms. Mercier stated that she is comfortable wording conditions requiring the Applicant to maintain clearance. The Fire Department will likely review and approve as well. Mr. Safina added that the Select Board may require additional barriers and the condition should reflect such so that the Applicant does not need to come back before CPDC. Mr. Safina questioned why the approval would be temporary and asked if the plan would be reviewed and approved by Staff in future years. Ms. Mercier replied that the Applicant has indicated that they may modify this plan in the next year to something more permanent and is not seeking recurring approval. Ms. Mercier shared the Draft Decision on-screen. She presented the language developed on additional barrier requirements that may be requested during the Liquor License process. Also presented was the language requiring a minimum of 5'6" clearance on the sidewalk to be maintained at all times. Mr. Weston asked if a condition on the minimum size and weight for the planters is needed. Mr. Ye stated he could come back to the Board with more specifics if needed. Mr. Weston clarified the language would be to ensure that he does not need to come back to CPDC and Staff could review once installed. Mr. Weston opined any barrier be at least thirty -Inches Pq Town of Reading Meeting Minutes i� (30") high. Mr. Safina agreed with Mr. Weston's previous comment that the limits of the outdoor seating area should be marked on the sidewalk for future use. Ms. Mercier shared the proposed language on-screen. The Board confirmed that they were okay with the language throughout the Draft Decision, Ms. Clish made a motion to approve the Minor Site Plan Review for Outdoor Dining use at 26 Walkers Brook Drive as presented. Mr. Safina seconded the motion and it was approved 4-1-0. Ms. Mercier explained that the Board has previously expressed the desire to modify and fix the language regarding 'change of uses' within the Zoning Bylaw. She stated the definition of Change of Use within Section Two of the Bylaw is defined as a change from one line -item to another line -item in the Table of Uses. However, the Site Plan Review triggers in Section 4.6 state the requirement for review Is a change of use in one category to another category, thus limiting change of uses that the Board sees. She gave an example of a recent business changing to a restaurant use that did not require Site Plan Review as the Board would have liked. Ms. Mercier stated that one solution could be to have a change of use from one line -item to another line -item trigger Minor Site Plan Review. This would capture by -right uses changing to other by -right uses within the same category. It would also give the Board Flexibility to allow Administrative Approval and potential waivers. Mr. Safina asked to clarify if the existing language causes too many reviews or too few. Ms. Mercier replied the existing language may not be capturing enough for review. Mr. Safina questioned why change of use would be Minor Site Plan Review over full Site Plan Review. Ms. Mercier answered that a number of requirements for full Site Plan Review are waived when a use is changing within an existing site. Full Site Plan Review also does not Include the ability of Administrative Approval. Ms. Mercier asked what is gained from full Site Plan Review with a number of waivers versus a Minor Site Plan Review. Mr. Weston stated that a public process is needed that allows for updated conditions to be placed on a new business as the previously made conditions may not be warranted or capture all the needs for the change. He acknowledged that construction is not always needed for these change of uses and thus Minor Site Plan Review would give the Board some review without being overburdensome to businesses. Mr. Safina stated that he would be interested in allowing more parking changes if it made for a site improvement. He stated that a number of businesses do not alter parking due to parking modifications typically triggering a full Site Plan Review. Mr. Safina questioned if parking layout changes could be approved administratively, while additions to parking come for review. Ms. Clish agreed that the threshold of two (2) parking space modifications triggering full Site Plan Review is low. Ms. Clish found that the proposed language triggering full Site Plan Review for a use changing to a use that requires a Special Permit may not capture all changes. She stated that under such language a retail use could change to a hotel without Site Plan Review. Ms. Mercier replied that would be the case only if the other two triggers were not met, which Is unlikely. She agreed more study on such an example is warranted. Mr. Weston opined that zoning cannot capture every change of use. Echoing Mr. Safina's previous comments, Mr. 49rR �. Town of Reading ,..�'s�� Meeting Minutes fir° ~e'JD�IIR Weston questioned If minor changes to site circulation and safety could be approved administratively. Mr. D'Arezzo recollected that the two (2) parking space trigger requirement was based on the 500 -square -foot trigger, which typically requires the addition of two (2) spaces. Mr. Safina agreed. Mr. Safina suggested removing the word minor from Section 4.6.2.3. Ms. Clish stated that if there is a known problem on a site, such as circulation, and it changes use it should come before the Board. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that any change to parking requirements should require some form of review. He continued that if a use change does not require additional parking it could be reviewed under Minor Site Plan Review, but if parking is to be increased It should be a full Site Plan Review. Mr. D'Arezzo felt that more parking coincided with an increase of intensity. Mr. Saflna agreed that language on intensity of use should be considered. Ms. Mercier stated that the parking bylaw does not rapture every use clearly. Mr. Safina clarified that an applicant may not be required to add parking based on the existing exemption language but they should still come before the Board for review based on the intensity of the site increasing. Mr. Weston stated that the two (2) parking space trigger should be combined with an additional trigger and not stand alone. Ms. Mercier replied it was originally proposed In conjunction with more language but was separated on the floor of Town Meeting. Mr. Weston asked if there are other concerns that are not related to parking. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the 500 -square -toot trigger was related to expansion within an existing site or new construction only. Mr. Safina interpreted It as expanding anywhere into a site. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if a restaurant were to expand into an adjacent open space would that trigger review. Ms. Clish opined it would not because it is not new construction. Mr. Safina disagreed. Ms. Mercier stated it has been interpreted as new construction being done. Mr. Weston agreed that the language does not mention 'expansion'of use. He stated that if the wording 'principal use' were added to the language it would require review for expansion of an existing use Into vacant areas. Mr. Weston found that this would be a helpful change to the language. Mr. Safina and Ms. Clish agreed. Mr. Weston questioned the scheduling requirements to make it to Subsequent Town Meeting. Ms. Mercier stated that the public hearing could be scheduled to open in July but the Board will likely be unable to discuss again beforehand. The hearing could potentially be continued to August as well, if needed. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if change of by -right uses would be reviewed. Mr. Weston answered that such change of uses would trigger a Minor Site Plan Review and not full. Ms. Mercier confirmed that she will update the proposed language to reflect the discussion on parking and intensity of use. Mr. Weston stated that getting the amendment to 2021 Subsequent Town Meeting would be ideal. Adjournment Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents Reviewed at the Meeting: • CPDC Agenda 6/721 • Minor Site Plan Review, 26 Walkers Brook Drive o Outdoor Commerce, Dining, Programming or Storage Application o Proposed Outdoor Dining Plan 0 26 Walkers Brook Drive Site Images o Draft Decision, dated 6/721 � 0 q VIOW°, Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes nI'o,,,� Potential Zoning Amendment, Change of Use o Option One, Track Changes Version o Option Two, Track Changes Version