Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-23 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading RECEIVED 16 Lowell Street TOWN CLERK READING, MAC S. Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 71 2010 AN 1 A 1~ 0S Fax: 781--942942- -90071 '1 Email: jdelios@ci.reading.ma.us Community Planning and Development Commission CPDC MINUTES Meeting Dated: N vem er.23, 2009 ~ r l Location: Selectmen's eetin ,om ~ Mime: 7:3 PM Members Present: Nich las Salina (NS), Chairman, John Weston (JW), Secre ry; Joseph Patterson (JP), a Members Absent: Claire Paradiso (CP) Associate Members Present: George Katsoufis (GK) Also Present: Jean Delios (JD), Town Planner; Abigail McCabe (AM), Staff Planner; and Michael Schloth, Recording Secretary. Gina Snyder, 11 Jadem Terrace Ralph Blunt, 22 Linden. Street Ben Tafoya, 40 Oak Street Meghan Young-Tafoya, 40 Oak Street Phil Terzis, Oaktree Development Russell Graham, 68 Maple Ridge Road Jack Russell, 91 Spruce Road Curtis Barnes, 11 Bancroft Avenue Donnan Barnes, 11 Bancroft Avenue David Talbot, 75 Linden Street John Arena, 26 Francis Drive Attorney Jim Senior, 348 Park St., N: Reading Mark Hall, 2 Haven Street There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Public Comment The Board was asked if the Table of Allowed Uses would be a part of the warrant. The Chair replied it would not but it would be available as a handout. Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan Review Decision: 2 Haven Street, Haven Junction The applicant, Mr. Mark Hall, and his attorney, Mr. Jim Senior, were present. In April 2006, over three and one-half (3.5) years ago, the Board approved a modification to the Site Plan Review decision of 2 Haven Street which waived the loading zone requirement for the site provided a) the original condition of screening the parking space adjacent to Chute Street (parking space #10) would be completed, and b) the need for a loading zone would be reviewed by the Board in five years time. - The applicant told the Board that potential tenants have been reluctant to sign leases that include the use of the parking space/loading zone while its ultimate disposition remained in doubt. The applicant hoped to remove that doubt by requesting the Board reduce the time until the review to 3.5 years. Page 1 of 4 CPDC Minutes of 11/23/2009 The Board had no issue either with reducing the time of the review to 3.5 years or with waiving the loading zone requirement provided the applicant understood that future tenants with uses requiring a loading zone would have to be accommodated by the applicant somehow. There followed an extensive discussion of the screening of parking space #10 from Chute Street. The Board expressed concern that in the three and one-half years since the April 2006 decision so directed the screening of the space, no screening had yet been erected. Mr. Senior suggested the Board modify the April 2006 decision to 3.5 years in which case the review period would be over but the screening requirement would still be in effect and would still be subject to the approval of the Town Planner. DT moved the Board make an administrative change to the original modification of April 2004 reducing the time until the loading zone issue was to be reviewed from five years to three and one- half years. The motion was seconded and approved 4:0:0. Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD): Preparation for Special Town Meeting The public hearing on the language of the DSGD bylaw had been opened and closed at the Board's prior meeting (11/2/2009). At that meeting, the Board had decided to postpone until tonight's meeting its vote on whether or not to recommend to Town Meeting the article containing the DSGD zoning amendment and accompanying zoning map change. The Board so decided to give residents time to consider the comments and concerns voiced at the 11/2/2009 meeting. To that end, the Board had directed that prior to tonight's meeting a list be prepared of the most frequently asked questions (FAQ) about the DSGD and, together with the Board's answers, that this FAQ should both be printed as a handout and posted to the town's web site. The Chair noted it was the Board's intent to craft the best article possible regardless of the State's timeline. The Board proceeded to review of the frequently asked questions (FAQ see attached). Public comment centered on two items: the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) maximum and the per- residential-unit parking space minimum (aka minimum off-street parking for residential units). The consensus of the public comments was that the FAR maximum should be reduced and the per- residential-unit parking minimum should be raised. Selectman Camille Anthony asked why the maximum FAR had to be 3.4 if the Board did not believe any developer would be able to reach 3.4 and if Oaktree's proposal for the former Atlantic Supermarket site would have a FAR of approximately 2.7. The Chair noted that it was not the case that a 3.4 FAR structure could not be built but that a developer would have to be very creative to make a FAR of 3.4 work: Regarding Oaktree, the Chair noted that was a special case and the FAR maximum should not be based on any one particular property within the district. JW noted that the point is to have a mixed use - retail and residential but developers would prefer residential-only as residential is more profitable to them. A larger FAR would be an incentive to developers to make the mix work. Page 2 of 4 CPDC Minutes of 11/23/2009 Mr. Arena suggested the Board would have a difficult time explaining these concepts to Town Meeting members who would be concerned the FAR would lead to four-story structures being built up and down Main Street. The Chair replied that the scenario Mr. Arena presented was a misconception and the Board neither wants nor believes it would happen under the proposed bylaw. Mr. Arena replied that the Board's challenge at Town Meeting would be to show that such a scenario would not happen under the proposed bylaw. He suggested that a reduction of the FAR would help the article pass Town Meeting. Mr. Talbot agreed that a FAR of 3.4 would be hard to pass at Town Meeting and suggested that if Oaktree wants a FAR of 2.7 the Board should consider using that as a maximum instead. He noted both that a FAR of 2.0 to 2.5 had been considered as late as June and that the existing Mixed-Use Overlay requires a much smaller FAR of 0.8. The Board replied that it had been told by its consultant that those FARs were unrealistically low from the point of view of developers who would have a hard time putting together a profitable development under such FARs: The Board reminded all present that the Mixed-Use bylaw had yet to be used by any developer. GK calculated that Oaktree would be looking for a FAR of approximately 2.8. He distributed a table and graph (see attached) showing there was limited opportunities in the district to build four-story buildings. Only eight properties are 20,000 square feet or greater in area. Regarding parking, Mr. Talbot expressed concern that 1.0 parking space per residential unit was too low and suggested increasing it to 1.5 spaces per unit. He noted that no parking study had ever been made of the area reminded the Board that two years ago parking in the downtown was considered to be a crisis. JW noted that, realistically, at least 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit is what developers would have to provide to sell units anyway at least until parking management programs are in place and although he would not be opposed to raising the minimum slightly he emphasized it would be a lost opportunity not to keep the minimum at 1.0 per unit as an incentive to developers to put parking management programs in place as soon as possible. The Chair noted that increasing the minimum to 1.5 would cut into a site's FAR. Mr. Talbot replied that would not be the case with Oaktree's project because its parking would be underground. The Chair replied the Board had begun the work on the DSGD before Oaktree presented its proposal and in any case Oaktree is only one site in the district. Selectman Camille Anthony noted that on-street parking is not allowed from November through April and asked where guests would park if hosts are allowed only one parking space per unit. JW agreed this could be a concern but wondered if it was wise to legislate that additional parking must be on-site. GK noted that if the issue is reducing massive buildings the only solutions are to increase parking or to reduce FAR and in his opinion parking should not be increased. The Board agreed. The Chair said we should be building buildings not parking spaces. DT said the design guidelines and not the FAR should; be the limiting factor. Selectman Ben Tafoya remarked that he had not yet seen a perfect zoning bylaw and the DSGD is no different but it does address the goal of making the downtown more vibrant through allowing the construction of residential units by right. He noted the only projects currently proposed for the district are Oaktree's and the redevelopment of M. F. Charles building and together they would amount to no Page 3 of 4 CPDC Minutes of 11/23/2009 more that sixty units or so. Regarding the possibility of massive buildings, he noted such buildings could be constructed today under existing zoning and noted the design guidelines written into the DSDG bylaw would offer developers great flexibility with regards to the mass of structures. Also, the CPDC could reject designs that do not meet the guidelines. The consensus of the Board was the commercial FAR could be reduced. The Chair moved the maximum commercial FAR be reduced to 2.8. DT seconded and the motion was carried 4:0:0. Regarding parking spaces, the Chair suggested that as market forces would drive the demand for more parking spaces per residential unit upward anyway he had no issue with increasing the minimum parking spaces per residential unit to 1.5; and he so moved. DT seconded. JW suggested a smaller increase: 1.25 parking spaces. This met with general agreement from both the Board and public. JW made a friendly amendment: he moved the Board amend the minimum off-street parking for residential units (in Section 4.12.8.1) to 1.25. JP seconded and the motion was carried 3:1:0 with DT opposed. DT moved the Board recommend to Town Meeting that it adopt Article #5 of the Town Warrant containing both the DSGD zoning amendment as amended tonight and its accompanying zoning map change. JW seconded and the motion was carried 4:0:0. Other Business Minutes The Chair moved the Board approve the minutes of 3/9/2009 [March 9, 2009] as presented. DT seconded and the motion was carried 4:0:0. The Chair moved the Board approve the minutes of 11/2/2009 as amended. DT seconded and the motion was carried 4:0:0. JW moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and carried 4:0:0. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. These minutes were prepared by Michael Schloth and submitted to the CPDC on January 11, 2010; these minutes were approved as amended by the CPDC on January 11, 2010. Signed as approved, Page 4 of 4 Frequently Asked Questions 40R Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD) • Why develop a 40R zoning overlay district and not revise the Mixed Use zone or develop a new mixed use zone through the 40A zoning enabling legislation? What are the benefits to the Town to using the 40R statute? The 40R zoning overlay provides the town the following benefits: • Allows design guidelines to be incorporated into the zoning by-law (and therefore more control over what is built) • Will provide a payment to the Town from the Commonwealth • Will provide for payment to the Town from the Commonwealth for the. support of any additional school enrollment resulting from development using the overlay district The existing Mixed-Use overlay district includes parameters that are prohibitive for property owners to use (i.e. average 800 s.f. residential unit, 25% landscaping coverage) and covers all of the Business B district (which includes the Green & Gould St. neighborhood). 40A enabling legislation permits mixed use zoning. However design guidelines could not be included. This would result in less control over the "look and feel" of the district than is possible by using the 40R statute. • Density: Why encourage growth in the downtown area? The latest projections from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council are for Reading to grow by 800-1,000 additional households in the next 20+ years. Adopting the DSGD will encourage some of that growth into the downtown thereby providing the following benefits: • Encourage a more vibrant downtown area (more people living in downtown will create more customers and attract more businesses) • Fiscal responsibility thorough the encouragement of growth where infrastructure is already in place (i.e fewer roads to maintain and plow, fewer street lights, less stormwater management requirements) • More environmentally sustainable by providing housing where residents have the potential to walk to the train • Less impact on areas of the community where growth is not appropriate. • What is Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and how did the 40R parameters get defined. What are some existing FAR examples in the downtown? Floor Area Ratio is defined as the amount of floor (square footage) divided by the area (parcel size) Consultants to the town and CPDC explained that any project that included non-luxury residential development which would require structured parking (as would be needed in Reading due to the small lot sizes in downtown) would need to be at least 3 stories. It is understood that any limitations to the FAR would result in a loss of the first floor commercial space not the third floor of residential. Losing additional first floor commercial space would be detrimental to some of the purpose of the district. Special Town Meeting Warrant Article 5 November 30, 2009 Prepared by the Reading Community Planning & Development Commission 1 The illustration shows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0. This simply means that, if the area of the parcel is 10,000 square feet, then 10,000 square feet of gross floor area has been built on the parcel. The illustration to the right shows a 4-story building covering 1/4 of the site, giving a FAR of 1.0. Four floors of 2,500 square feet each are built on a site of 10,000 square feet. As an example, below are some ways (calculations) to get to a FAR of 1.5: • Build a 2-story building on 756/o of the site (2 x 0.75 = 1.5) • Build a 3-story building on 50% of the site (3 x 0.5 = 1.5) • Build a 4-story building on 37.5% of the site (4 x 0.375 = 1.5) Existing FAR Examples (the following are estimates & not exact figures): • MF Charles = 1.1 • Washington Arms =.8 • 2 Haven St = 2.1 Proposed FAR Projects: • Atlantic Site (Oaktree Development's proposal) = 2.75 • MF Charles = 1.1 • 18-20 Woburn St = 2.4 • Building height: Why 45 ft max? How do the guidelines address this? FAR = 1.0 A 45 foot maximum building height was established to be consistent with the underlying zoning (Business B). This is the same height as the existing M. F. Charles building (46') on the corner of - Haven and Main Streets. Presently any property owner can build a 45' high commercial building in the Business B district. The guidelines were carefully developed to enhance the architectural detail and minimize the mass of any building built using the overlay district. This includes but is not limited to: • Building step-backs SfEE7 M... • . SBEEt ASIr ~ ~SQ.O;', ~ryJ r pmpertl f Liens J f $hYNmfi[atE-,r. .:p 4.fL s-twnaiea sw,. uk- i d~Fant bap na.k nhn, n~buifad, {IeaMtiwbs{XNaul Fignrc 9.2.2 - Facade Step Back • Building appearance and composition • Different treatments for commercial vs. residential uses within building Special Town Meeting Warrant Article 5 November 30, 2009 Prepared by the Reading Community Planning & Development Commission, 2 " - - F-.r. -i,a KA AY 93; S70iil&.~. BUILDING "AA-5-5 C RNi:ECDtAPLF,iE:S SJ LD NG COMPOSITION _ JqS F ORCE'. . r e ~fi I. F ~r__S v ;ALUPPPRSTQR* . " -0::IRAVT"r;.nl I. i, Nrp SI ,VI - CI4AN iN';:.TERI.-1 rs CHP s .r I -P - irCi rLOOR REINFORCES AL RE LL .,]r a1`RHZi' W: a„A4.E 71 I2 t'1 ISCNRIII ' - AfPE97RkAN. WNE Figure 7.2.3 " MTKANC: AKVICULA AND Oil ,.......'.A Figure 7.4.1 • Setbacks and Lot Coverage: Why 0-ft front yard setback or 100% lot coverage? Many of the buildings in the downtown currently have 0 ft. front and side setbacks. The lack of setbacks creates a walkable commercial district, where nearby storefronts provide interest to shoppers. Side and rear setbacks of 15 feet have been included for properties that abut a residential zone. This is the typical side yard setback for residential districts. These setbacks, along with the required building step-backs are believed to provide similar or greater buffers than now exist between the commercial district and the residential districts. • Parking: Why the proposed number of spaces per unit or square foot? How does one make the leap from this to "taxpayer funded parking garages" Currently, parking requirements in the district are waived for retail stores, offices and consumer service establishments if within 300 feet of a public off-street parking facility, a parameter which all properties within the DSGD meet. Therefore, for most uses parking requirements within the district are waived. The DSGD will generally require: Office and Institutional 2 spaces per 1,000 ft Residential Units 1.25 space per unit These on-site parking requirements are generally greater than what would be required under the Business B zoning due to the waiver identified above, but less than what is required without the waiver or in other districts. Special Town Meeting Warrant Article 5 November 30, 2009 Prepared by the Reading Community Planning & Development Commission -3- The requirements for the DSGD were established with the following approaches: • Establish requirements at a level that will encourage shared use of parking, • Provide some level of requirement so that parking will not be the obligation of the town, • Include a requirement for land uses that include long-term parking needs. Parking requirements were included in the DSGD for the uses that would typically inhabit upper floors of buildings (residential and office). Since these parking requirements can not be waived, the additional development within the downtown will most likely not result in substantial additional parking demand within the downtown area. Parking issues associated with commercial businesses downtown will not be solved through enacting the DSGD but they should not be increased either since the DSGD will not increase the square footage of commercial property downtown. Parking is an issue that will need to be managed by the town with or without adopting the DSGD, an activity the town is undertaking with the recent completion of a parking study, and work on implementation of some of the key short term recommendations. The following initiatives are underway as part of the implementation of the recommendations of the parking study: • Expand Employee Parking - The "Blue Zone" has been expanded on Gould Street (through the recent reconstruction project there) and on a temporary basis in the Brande Court parking lot behind the former Atlantic. • Improve Parking Directional Signs - A consultant has been hired through a State funded "Peer-to-Peer" grant to develop recommendations on way-finding. • Sharing of Private Parking Spaces - A pilot program will be developed in the area bounded by Main, Haven, Sanborn, and Woburn Streets • Valet Parking - in response to a previous initiative from a local business owner, the Town is exploring how this might work. • Expanded Parking Supply - Reverse angled parking is being explored for High Street. • Bike Racks - Four new bike racks have been installed downtown. More are being planned. • Bus Shelters - With the MBTA developing concepts for attractive bus shelters in some key locations. Finally, the recently completed parking study in downtown has observed through detailed analysis that at a maximum, only 60% of the off street parking supply in downtown Reading was being utilized. That was when the Atlantic supermarket was still in full operation. • Affordable housing: Why 20%? As identified above, Reading is projected to continue to grow slightly. Reading does not currently meet the State mandated affordable housing goal of 10%, and therefore the entire community is vulnerable to developer initiated 40B applications. By including a 20% affordable housing requirement in this zone, Reading will continue to make progress towards the 10% goal required by the Commonwealth. Once the 10% goal is achieved, the 40B developments that have been constructed or planned in town will not be possible. By including a percentage that is higher than the goal, any new development will assist the town in meeting this goal and being able to plan development where it makes sense for the town not a developer. Special Town Meeting Warrant Article 5 November 30, 2009 Prepared by the Reading Community Planning & Development Commission 4 • Will there be more traffic in the downtown or adjacent residential streets as a result of the DSGD? Most traffic is generated by commercial uses. As stated above, the total amount (sq. ft.) of commercial use, as a result of the enactment of the DSGD, will not increase significantly from what is now permitted. It is unknown what the exact impact any development in the downtown will have on traffic in the area, but an increase in traffic would be most associated with a change in use of the existing commercial properties not with the addition of residential uses. An example of this can be seen by using the traffic generated at the former Atlantic Grocery site and hypothetical development scenarios for the property: Use Quantity Peak # of Trips 5PM-6PM On-site Parking Required Former Atlantic Market 21,000 s q. ft. 210 trips 0 spaces Hypothetical DSGD Redevelopment Plan - 1 s floor Market 10,000 s q. ft. 100 trips 0 spaces 9S floor Restaurant 10,000 s q. ft. 70 trips 0 spaces 2-4 floor Residential 50 units 25 tri s 62 s aces 195 tri s* 62 spaces Hypothetical Business B Redevelopment Plan I s floor Market 10,000 s q. ft. 100 trips 0 spaces 1 S floor Restaurant 10,000 s q. ft. 70 trips 0 spaces 2 floor Office 17,000 s q. ft. 25 tri s 0 s aces 195 tri s* 0 spaces The same number of trips is generated from the 2nd - 4th floor residential as the second floor office because the office use accounts for more peak hour traffic. • How many housing units are possible under this DSGD? The projection of 256 residential units was determined by applying the State 40R multi-family density (20 units per acre) to all of the parcels in the district. It is highly unlikely that this projection will be reached because it includes properties such as the Post Office, the Masonic Lodge building, the historic buildings and other properties that are unlikely to be redeveloped into residential use. When the unlikely parcels are removed, the estimated number of units drops to 172. When we removed historic properties and the Masonic Lodge from the list of suitable properties for development the estimated number of residential units was reduced to 156. Presently, only two property owners have expressed, interest in the DSGD which would result in a maximum of 64 residential units. Any additional housing units would most likely be phased in over a significant period of time. • What is the application and review process for projects under this DSGD zoning? Applicants proposing projects under this zoning would be the same as with the current zoning. The application would submit a site plan review application to the Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC). The CPDC would notify abutters and hold a public hearing process just as with any other non-residential project today. Special Town Meeting Warrant Article 5 November 30, 2009 Prepared by the Reading Community Planning & Development Commission -5- • What is the State (DHCD) review process after Town Meeting; what happens if there are changes to the by-law voted on by Town Meeting? Reading's DSGD has received its Letter of Eligibility. DHCD has the final approval and their approval will be dependent on the level of changes made. Any changes made subsequently must still comply with the requirements of the statute, including the affordability requirements'and minimum densities. If there are minor changes, DHCD will follow an amendment process as stipulated in the statute which could take up to 60 days. There may be other constraints outside of 40R such as 40A which govern the degree to which any proposed zoning bylaw can change at Town Meeting relative to what was approved by the CPDC following a public hearing. Special Town Meeting Warrant Article 5 November 30, 2009 Prepared by the Reading Community Planning & Development Commission 6 0) (D CY) ~ ciCSr,~c~o c- - 0 C) CD C) C) O Z) C9 Q O C) C) oc>caoo '"1 Cis N ' 0 't iii ~r LO 't C> C7 C) C? (D C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 - C15 r-~ Ct$ r ' ° r C\J in C c,I - - - r C7 f ~ n CQ CSI CD rl. C r- cis ~ y. _ c, C) (D C~ 0 t~ 0 0 c 0 ~ CD Cy am u7 w e N C7 ck C C CC7 C C7 Cs o c) C c) c)