Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-12-06 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes\yµ orxey Town of Reading RECEIVED ?aa Meeting Minutes TOWN CLERK REAMNG, MA. 'ixconv'"� Board -Committee -Commission -Council: 2022 JUN 14 PH 2: 04 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2021-12-06 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Location: Remote Meeting - Zoom Address: Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members: Pamela Adrian, Chair; Nick Safina (remote), Heather Clish, John Weston, Catrina Meyer (remote), Tony D'Arezzo - Associate (remote) Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Stephan Weynicz, Naomi Kaufman, Dave Talbot, Joe Sima, Carolyn Whiting, Lorraine Willwerth, Sarah Brukilacchio, Carlo Bacci, Barry Gagne, Nancy Twomey, Marry -Ellen O'Neill, Liz Whitelam Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew Machichol Topics of Discussion: MEETING HELD REMOTELY VIA ZOOM Chair Pamela Adrian called the meeting to order at 7:31 PM. Community Development Director Julie Mercier explained the protocols for tonight's meeting that is being held in-person but also allows remote participation. She presented the Zoom Meeting information to the public for those wishing to join. Ms. Mercier explained how the Zoom features work and how they will be managed. She added that RCN is broadcasting and recording the meeting. Public Hearing. Amendments to CPDC Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Regulations Mr. Weston read the legal notice for a public hearing on the amendments of the CPDC Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Regulations into the record. Ms. Mercier summarized that the regulations is a local enforcement that does not need Town Meeting approval to amend. The Stormwater Bylaw is a separate document found within the General Bylaw and amendments to such were approved by Town Meeting in April 2021. Ms. Mercier continued that planning staff met with both Conservation and Engineering Departments to review the proposed changes to the local regulations. Ms. Mercier explained that Stormwater Permits are required to be issued when more than one acre of land is being disturbed. When a development does not include wetland jurisdictional boundaries the CPDC issues the Stormwater Permit; if wetland jurisdictions are present the Conservation Commission is responsible for issuing the Stormwater Permit. The Conservation Commission will follow the same regulations; however, they do have discretion on the number of plans submitted and other administrative and submittal requirements. FN Town of Reading .=1 Meeting Minutes `.rs: i.w<orvoP� Mr. Weston asked If the Conservation Commission were to request substantial changes to the regulations would CPDC need to approve. Ms. Mercier replied in the affirmative. Mr. Weston asked if any department approves the CPDC changes requested. Ms. Mercier replied in the negative as the regulations fall to CPDC. Ms. Mercier screen -shared the regulation language that showed proposed changes. A number of changes are required to comply with the April 2021 General Bylaw update, as well as the MS4 permit requirements set by the State. The regulations do allow the CPDC to contract a third -party consultant if needed. They also detail notification requirements and process. As -built plans must also be submitted to ensure construction was built as designed. Mr. Weston stated that Section 4.5.6 requiring annual certification or documents can be cumbersome for staff. He asked If it is a current practice. Ms. Mercier replied she is unsure if it is current practice but the Town Engineer was okay with this language. Mr. Safina stated that the document must be certified by an Engineer which alleviates some concerns. Mr. Weston agreed with the comment and found that the Applicant ensuring such is a better practice. Ms. Adrian asked what next steps would include. Ms. Mercier stated that the CPDC can open to public comment, close the hearing and vote on the language. She stated that any approved regulations would be posted with the Town Clerk. Mr. MacNichol asked about Section 5.7 which provided language about the expiration of a permit. He stated that expansion of such may be beneficial and could align with existing Site Plan Review language. Mr. Weston questioned if a permit can expire despite structures and work remaining. Mr. Safina asked if the permit expires or if it lapses because work is not completed in a certain amount of time. Mr. Safina felt that any conditions of approval should be applied to a site in perpetuity once construction is complete. Mr. Weston agreed. Ms. Mercier also suggested using the Site Plan lapse language which has the approval itself lapse over a certain amount of time. If approval lapses and the Applicant wishes to use the permit they would need to request a one-year extension or reapply to CPDC. Mr. Saline asked how often the State requirements are updated. Ms. Clish and Mr. Weston felt the State regulations do not change annually. Ms. Meyer found the Site Plan language fitting. Ms. Mercier stated that a three-year term would coincide with an Order of Conditions that would be issued by the Conservation Commission. The language currently states expiration would occur after two -years. Ms. Clish found the two-year expiration appropriate due to construction needs and scheduling and the allowance for a one-year extension. Mr. Weston reminded all that the Conservation Commission may need to approve some extension requests. He agreed with Ms. Clish and stated that the CPDC would not want to extend beyond the three -years that Conservation permits. Ms. Mercier shared the proposed language on-screen. The Commission agreed that the language is appropriate. Ms. Adrian opened the hearing to public comment. Seeing none Ms. Adrian closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Weston made a motion to close the public hearing on amendments to the CPDC Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Regulations. Ms. Clish seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Mr. Weston made a motion to approve the amended language on the CPDC Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Regulations. Ms. Clish seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. e'� OF Town of Reading :e� i., .y Meeting Minutes T�'�rconvae D Public Hearing. Zoning Bylaw Amendment for April 2022 Town Meetina Section 10.1 Floodplain Overlay District Ms. Clish read the legal notice for a public hearing on Zoning Bylaw Amendments to Section 10.1 Floodplain Overlay District into the record. Ms. Mercier screen -shared the document highlighting proposed changes. She stated that a number of changes are needed in order to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements. New floodplain maps are expected to be released in 2023. Ms. Mercier summarized that some definitions are to be removed due to new synonymous definitions or conflicting definitions. Mr. Weston questioned why CPDC would complete this process now, and then repeat it in a year when new maps are released. He stated there seem to be no ramifications on not updating the language. Ms. Meyer asked what language would need to be changed when new maps are released. She questioned if it is the dates listed alone. Ms. Mercier answered it would be date changes. She continued that there is no guarantee that new maps are released on time which may warrant changing the language now. Mr. Weston found the clarity of the required language lacking. He stated that some sections of the Bylaw can be amended on the floor of Town Meeting and other sections seemingly cannot. He pointed to the language requiring a Recreational Vehicle to be elevated and anchored as one that Town Meeting may not agree with. Mr. Weston continued that if a homeowner were found non-compliant for such and were not covered by insurance that could be problematic. He stated he would prefer the State to determine if the language is required or not; and felt the same on other portions of the Bylaw. Ms. Clish felt that being non-compliant with NFIP requirements can also be problematic. Ms. Mercier agreed and stated waiting another year would require a new hearing and refreshing on the material. Mr. Weston stated that getting the language to a comfortable and consistent point so that the language and maps could be updated at the same time may be preferred. Ms. Clish and Ms. Adrian agreed. Ms. Mercier reviewed the changes to the definitions section of the bylaw. There are definitions that may not directly apply to Reading but have been recommended to keep regardless as they are within the building code. Ms. Mercier pointed to Functionally Dependent Uses and Historic Structure as examples. Mr. Weston stated that the State process and exemptions should be handled through them and not the local zoning regulations. Removing it does not preclude the public from. qualifying for the exemption through the State. Mr. Safina agreed and stated that Historic Structure is not referenced again in the Floodplain bylaw. Ms. Meyer agreed and stated the process of exemption is not referenced In the Floodplain Bylaw either. Mr. Safina found none of the Functionally Dependent Uses feasible in Reading. Mr. Weston agreed. The Board agreed to remove the Historic Structure and the Functionally Dependent Use definitions. Ms. Mercier stated a number of dates within the Floodplain Bylaw were updated. New language also requires the Town to designate a Floodplain Administrator. The Town's Building Commissioner has prior experience with floodplain bylaws/development and is to be designated as the Administrator. Ms. Mercier stated that local amendments that are not required by the State are also being proposed. The language would allow uses that are allowed In the underlying Industrial District and Planned Unit Development -Industrial District by Special Permit. Any applications o�y OFNrq� °.� Town of Reading 3'= Meeting Minutes would also require review by the Engineering Department and Conservation Commission. All development would need to comply with the local Wetland Regulations, the Wetland Protections Act and the State Building Code. Mr. Weston felt the language appropriate as It was very targeted. Ms. Clish asked if there are additional requirements outside of Wetland Regulations and State Building Code to be aware of. Ms. Mercier answered that compensatory Flood storage can be determined locally and third -party consultant services can be requested. She continued that she can run the proposed language by the NFIP. Mr. Weston stated that such language is not unusual in other municipalities. Ms. Mercier added that local procedures still need to be worked out for efficiency purposes. Language may require the Conservation Commission to provide written recommendation of development. This could help the CPDC better understand concerns and impacts of a proposed use. Ms. Clish asked why language of containing sewerage and other utilities was removed. Ms. Mercier answered that she is unsure and can ask for more detail on why such was proposed for removal. Additional language requiring the submittal of new data pertinent to the change of base Flood elevation to FEMA and DCR was added by the regional coordinator. Mr. Weston asked if specific addresses are required to be listed. He felt reference to the agencies may be enough as addresses can change. The Commission agreed. Mr. Weston found the proposed Uses Prohibited language to conflict with potential development. He stated that site redevelopment may require filling and/or earth transfer which would not be allowed under the proposed language. Ms. Mercier agreed to look further into such. Ms. Adrian opened the hearing to public comment. None were raised. Mr. Weston asked to determine the likelihood of new maps being released in 2023. He stated if the date is pushed further than 2023 it may impact the CPDC's desire to amend the bylaw. The Board discussed an ideal date to continue the hearing to. Ms. Clish made a motion to continue the public hearing for Zoning Bylaw Amendments to Section 10.1 Floodplain Overlay District to January 24th, 2021 at 8:30PM. Mr. Weston seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Public Hearing, Zoning Bylaw Amendment for Aoril 2022 Town Meeting Section 10.5 Downtown Smart Growth District Overlay (The 'DSGD') Ms. Clish read the legal notice for a public hearing on proposed Zoning Bylaw amendments to Section 10.5 Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD) Overlay into the record. Ms. Mercier summarized the proposed changes to the DSGD Bylaw. She stated that there are a number of ideas to present and discuss. Ms. Mercier stated that Lot Coverage should be defined in Section 10.5. She stated that a discussion should ensue on what to include in the Lot Coverage definition. In Section 2 of the Bylaw, Lot Coverage is defined as Principal and Accessory structures on a lot. a,�n orxr�e Town of Reading Meeting Minutes F '•xcox•°���� Ms. Mercier continued that Open Space should also be defined so it is clear what the CPDC is looking for when it comes to such. Two sub -categories have been proposed under Open Space - Public Space and Green Space. A definition of Recreational Uses is also proposed. She read the proposed definitions aloud. Ms. Mercier informed all that some Open Space created does account towards Lot Coverage calculations based on the grade and location of such. Ms. Mercier reviewed the definition of Unreasonably Impaired. She stated that the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) may not allow bylaw changes that impair developments from reaching the minimum of 20 units per acre. Any changes that do may result in the requirement to pay DHCD some of the Zoning Incentive Payment received back. Ms. Mercier stated that a number of Dimensional Controls could look to be amended. Requirements of Lot Coverage maximums and Open Space percentages can be considered. Additional requirements could require some Open Space at grade and additional space elsewhere on the site (i.e. upper level private terrace(s) for residents). Also, for consideration is a minimum lot size requirement of 4,000 square -feet. This may help protect some of the smaller sized lots from overdevelopment. It was noted that a number of the smaller sized lots do not meet minimum frontage requirements for re -development, thus an existing built-in protection exists. Language can also be provided to allow for Applicants to determine where setbacks can be placed to allow for creative development. A minimum of 20' combined setbacks would need to be met. Ms. Mercier continued that developer notes include the 45' height requirement to be a bit limiting when it comes to commercial space height. A small increase can allow for increased ceiling height which may help garage clearance, loading zone management, and commercial space needs. Ms. Mercier stated that the CPDC may also wish to reword the existing language limiting office and Institutional uses to 33% of the ground floor. New developments see parking areas located at grade and/or variable levels of commercial area. If the intent is to incentivize highly visible and active retail storefronts rewording of the existing language may be needed. Ms. Mercier reviewed the language provided on Open Space requirements. If Open Space is to be public it should be marketed as such; if it is to be private then proper management of such must be conditioned. Mr. MacNichol explained that some municipalities include design language within their zoning bylaw, Reading does not. The CPDC may wish to expand the zoning language on Open Space as well as adding to the Downtown Design Guidelines in the future. Ms. Mercier stated that waiver justification can be an alternative to dimensional controls. Based on community input there are a number of needs and desires in the downtown including increased open space, parking, setbacks, etc. She continued that developments looking for a density waiver can be asked to provide additional public benefits. Proposed are three tiers based on differing density levels. A developer looking for a Tler 3 density would need to provide items from all three tiers. Public benefits for developers to look to include in projects could be additional guest parking, increased setbacks than required, minimum open space, higher energy efficiency, renewable energy, or increased affordability. Determining what benefit is in each tier warrants discussion as well as requests for waivers not related to density. J� nrR o r Town of Reading I. a� �c Meeting Minutes Mr. Weston asked to clarify the overall goals of the proposed changes. It seems that developing green space is a desire by the community, as well as frontage connectivity. Mr. Weston stated that balancing such desires with affordability requirements and not overly restricting development is needed. He found that all components cannot be required on one development as it would be too restrictive. Ms. Adrian agreed and stated that trade-offs would be needed in order to get the desired results. Ms. Adrian commented that changes to commercial parking requirements may wish to be considered. Mr. Safina clarified that all 4011 developments comply with existing required parking amounts. Ms. Meyer stated that more distinction between Green Space and Public Space should be made. She questioned if one is preferred more than the other. Ms. Clish agreed and stated she has heard a desire for connections to publicly usable space. She continued that not all Open Space may be publicly accessible and wished to ensure residents of the private developments have some sort of Open Space available. Ms. Clish stated another goal may be to explicitly require increased energy efficiency and design. Mr. D'Arezzo found desires to include commercial space, open space and parking. He found that commercial space is being provided less and less and only because of the residential densities allowed so far. He found that If denslties are not allowed at the current rate we may see multi -family development only. He found this idea not desirable in the downtown area. Mr. Weston agreed as across Town are large tracts of Open Space but limited commercial development area. He stated that the Town's Bylaw is worded to ask for mixed- use and that a number of differing municipal 40R districts are residential only. Mr. Safina agreed and stated that commercial space is being lost to parking requirements for the number of residential units. He stated that he is less inclined for density waivers because the residential parking takes away potential commercial space. He continued that more work is needed by developers to achieve shared parking agreements. Mr. Weston questioned if energy efficiency is as desirable as other potential public benefits. If the State requirements on such are getting stronger can the Town rely on such in order to promote other public benefits. Ms. Clish responded that it is a valid point but found other municipalities to have increased requirements that go beyond the State. She continued that saving on energy costs can be a benefit to residents of the developments. The requirement of increased energy efficiency may not be overburdensome and a benefit to the developers themselves. Mr. Safina added that some developers do seek energy rebates. He continued that Passive House Design or other initiatives such as Net Zero could be required on residential only developments. Ms. Mercier asked why such couldn't be feasible on mixed- use projects. Mr. Safina found energy efficiency requirements to be a benefit to residential development while commercial needs are tougher and agreed that other benefits related to commercial development may be more desirable and impactful to the Town's needs. Mr. Weston asked to be wary of impairing the affordability requirements of developments. Ms. Clish agreed. Ms. Mercier stated that at least 13 units are required in order for affordability requirements to kick -in. Ms. Mercier asked if there is a preference to the potential paths for amendments - one being strictly dimensional control based and the other being a tiered waiver schedule approach. Ms. Clish stated that she felt the tiered approach was a benefit but needed to be explored further for commercial requirements and more. Mr. Weston also liked the tiered N orxr� Town of Reading Meeting Minutes `NP IN[OP approach but cautioned that developers may meet the requirements for such in undesirable ways. Ms. Mercier stated a waiver must still be granted and the projects who meet the schedule would not be considered by -right. She agreed with the concerns and found more specificity needed in the language. Mr. Weston asked if guidelines on the requests can be given. Ms. Clish suggested that the tiers be worded as recommendations instead of requirements. Mr. Safina asked if a minimum number of units is expected on residential only developments. Ms. Mercier answered that multi -family is defined by the State as four units or more. There are no requirements for minimum number of units on mixed-use projects. The minimum density of 20 units per acre applies to both mixed-use and residential only developments. Ms. Mercier opined that more commercial square -footage can be asked for on projects looking for Increased density. Ms. Clish asked if commercial space can be required out right. Ms. Mercier answered that multi -family only projects cannot be precluded but expanding language on mixed-use developments can be reviewed. Ms. Clish asked if open space requirements for Tier One of the waiver schedule should be considered so that multi -family only projects look to include such. Ms. Meyer felt that amenity space is naturally provided in larger projects but it may be helpful for lower density projects. Ms. Clish suggested balconies be provided at a minimum so residents can have access to clean air. Ms. Mercier stated such can be added to the definition of Open Space. Mr. Weston asked if increased height Is needed for projects to provide public benefits. He stated that buildings dramatically higher than 45' would not fit in the area. He continued that four floors seems to be economically viable across the State. Ms. Clish agreed. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that developers should look for creative design to allow increased ceiling heights. If three -floors with higher ceilings is economically feasible it would be considered. Ms. Adrian opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Mary -Ellen O'Neill asked how the Board will receive a mix of the public benefits desired. She stated that each site should look to provide one or more of the benefits in order to reduce the urban feel of the designs. Mr. Dave Talbot stated that looking at specific locations for open space development would be beneficial. He added that a downtown master plan may also be a benefit to the Town and developers. Determining locations preemptively may help reduce the angst on granted waivers as notevery site is fit for open space development. Doing such may also reduce the need to amend the zoning language. He found the requests of Tier 3 within the waiver schedule proposed to not be strong enough to justify the density of the tier. Mr. Weston stated that the Town has done some master planning efforts related to streetscape design in the downtown. This is public space that the Town has control over. Mr. Weston suggested exploring the Community Preservation Act (CPA) as planning for use of privately -owned land is not always beneficial. The CPA would provide additional opportunity for land acquisition and open space development. Ms. Clish added that it can also be used for historic preservation. Mr. Safina stated that the Board does have some control on the right of way and how such can be developed and expanded. Ms. Mercier agreed and stated that the Lower Haven streetscape design is shared with private developers. Mr. Weston provided an example at the Chronicle development where the Commission reworked the right of way for additional useable outdoor space. �� orq� Town of Reading I, e� �= Meeting Minutes Ms. Sarah Brukilacchio stated that the shift to looking to provide more open space is appreciated. She continued that she is also in favor of the CPA and felt the Town could benefit from such. Ms. Brukilacchio felt that addressing the weaknesses of Reading development will result in better public opinion. She stated that the tiered approach may fit better in Design Guidelines than in zoning. She also stated that a minimum lot size of 6,OOOsf or more should be considered as Reading development feels more dense than other municipalities due to the small lot sizes existing. Ms. Brukilacchio stated that the commercial parking exemption has been over used and should be considered for removal. She found that other municipalities require parking per bedroom instead of unit and this may warrant discussion. She asked if research can be conducted on other municipalities developments and parking requirements. She agreed that at -grade level parking has reduced the ability for other competing uses. Ms. Naomi Kaufman of 64 Woburn Street suggested that increased height requirements not be allowed for waiver considerations. She stated that other municipal bylaws include stronger language for such. Ms. Mercier asked Ms. Kaufman if she could share examples to build off of. Mr. Weston found comparing municipalities is tough to do as downtown Reading's proximity to residential areas is tight. He continued that developable land is not abundant in Reading and that other 40R's may not deal with such a small area. Ms. Kaufman agreed and found such to also be a reason to not allow developers to do the same as they did in other areas. The Board agreed to explore the waiver justification and tiered schedule language further in order to address the multiple community needs. The Board found that fitting all of the public benefits desired into the dimensional requirements difficult. The combination of the two may be required. Ms. Meyer stated that language on Open Space should still be provided beyond the tiered approach. Ms. Clish stated that a menu of energy efficiency options could also be explored. Ms. Clish asked if increased setbacks to residential properties should be considered further or not. Mr. Weston answered that those within the same zoning should not be held to higher standards than their abutters. Ms. Brukilacchio informed all that there are 34 residential properties within the downtown zone. There is a mix of single-, two- and three-family uses, some of which are historic properties. Mr. Weston stated that regulations would apply to all residential properties including large multi -family in order to be considered equitable. He stated that he would not be in favor of treating multi -family uses differently than single-, two- or three- family dwellings. Ms. Brukilacchio disagreed and felt protections are needed and language for such should be provided. Ms. Clish made a motion to continue the public hearing for Zoning Bylaw Amendments to Section 10.5 Downtown Smart Growth District to January 10, 2021 at 7.30PM. Mr. Weston seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Adfournment Mr. Weston made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10.52 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Clish and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents Reviewed at the Meeting: • CPDC Agenda 12/06/21 � OFR Town of Reading a = Meeting Minutes �'J•�INCO r • Stormwater Regulation Amendments o Legal Notice, posted with Town Clerk on 11/17/21 o CPDC Stormwater Regulations, Track Changes Version, dated 11/10/21 • Floodplain Overlay Distnct Zoning Amendments o Legal Notice, posted with Town Clerk on 11/17/21 o ZBL Section 10.1, Track Changes Version, dated 11/121 • Downtown Smart Growth Distnct Zoning Amendments o Legal Notice, posted with Town Clerk on 11/1721 o ZBL Section 10.5, Track Changes Version, dated 1123/21