Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-10 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes °� °rR Town of Reading c�� c is=�a` iL�L L� TowN CLERK MeetingMinutes REA01P'� �� ' v v, IAA. 'Q��'µ[4P>O0 2111 AUG 14 AH 10: 38 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date:2019-06-10 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session Purpose: General Business Version: Attendees: Members - Present: John Weston, Nick Safina, Dave Tuttle, Rachel Hitch, Pamela Adrian, Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Reed Hayes, Gerard Sevigny, James Hickey, Jonathan Pollard, Barbara Flaherty, Connie and James Brescia, Sue Stevens, Carol &Steve Chapman, Peter Anastasi, Julie Wallace, David Jamieson, Chris Latham, John Weber, Nancy Twomey, Praveen Limbachiya Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Chairman John Weston called the meeting to order at 7:38 PM. Mr. Weston announced that the Applicants for 258-262 Main Street, 107 Main Street, and 135, 139 & 149R Howard Street have all requested a continuation to the next meeting. Sian Permit Agolication 35 Lincoln Street. The Met at Reading Station Reed Hayes and Matt Zuker were present for the Application. Mr. MacNichol explained the signage for the project at 35 Lincoln Street was not addressed in the Decision Issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Reed Hayes from Archetype Sign Works said the Applicant is proposing a wall sign and two separate canopy signs. Mr. Weston asked if lighting is proposed with the signs. Mr. Hayes replied that the proposal Includes three gooseneck lamps above the wall sign and no lighting on canopies. Mr. Weston asked for clarification on the color. Mr. Hayes replied the color will be a form of brown and will match the dark bronze canopies and trim of the building. Mr. D'Arezzo said that the zoning does not allow signs to be installed above the lower sill of the second floor windows. Mr. Hayes replied that he Is aware of the regulation, and said if the Commission approves a Certificate of Appropriateness for the sign the Applicant will seek a Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Mr. D'Arezzo said the Commission cannot approve a sign that requires a Variance. Mr. Weston agreed the 1 c rx� Town of Reading e Meeting Minutes e Applicant would need approval from the ZBA for the location of the sign. Ms. Mercier, the Community Development Director, suggested the Commission approve the other signs and the Applicant can seek approval from the ZBA for this sign. The Commission discussed other businesses that requested signs and what process they had to follow. Mr. Weston said any signs that had to receive approval from the ZBA did not have to come back to the Commission for an additional approval. Mr. D'Arezzo said it is his understanding the proposed sign is a two-step process, ZBA needs to approve the location of the sign and the Commission needs to approve the design of the sign. Mr. Safina gave his opinion a Certificate of Appropriateness is required for a sign in Business B. Ms. Adrian commented the property is not in Business B. Mr. Safina explained that the Business B sign regulations apply to a business in a residential zoning district. Mr. MacNichol informed the Commission the Decision notes the property falls under Business B regulations. Mr. D'Arezzo said the Applicant is only allowed awall sign and one canopy sign. Ms. Mercier suggested the Applicant seek approval for a Master Signage Plan. Mr. MacNichol said awnings and canopies do not have a set restricted amount. Mr. D'Arezzo pointed out Table 8.6 of the Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Matthew Zuker from MKM Development said the signs were designed as tastefully as possible and the size could be even greater under zoning regulations. He said he is willing to go to ZBA for approval but would like approval from the Commission ahead of time. Mr. Weston said the Commission has never approved a sign that appears similar to a billboard. The purpose of a sign, especially for residential use, is to help a resident identify the building just before entering the property. He opined that he would not want to view the sign from all locations in Reading. Mr. Zuker said from a business standpoint, he wants to make sure the property is recognized by people not familiar with the rental units. Mr. Safina said most rental places have a pedestal sign on the ground. Mr. Zuker explained that the project is downtown and that is the reason the sign faces Lincoln Street and not Prescott Street. He said the sign will add architectural value to the front brick facade. Mr. Safina agreed with Mr. Weston and said the sign is too big. Mr. Tuttle commented that practically speaking the sign will not be visible to people on the train. Mr. D'Arezzo said the Decision issued allowed additional lighting on the building for egress and safety. Mr. Zuker replied he thought there is a plan that shows signage lighting. Mr. D'Arezzo said the Photometric Plan does not list any lighting for signage. Mr. Zuker replied the proposed signage is appropriate for the size of the building and agreed to seek approval from the ZBA. Mr. Weston opened the meeting to public comment. Mr. Gerard Sevigny of 503 West Street said the proposed large sign could be distracting and cause accidents. He opined that a smaller sign is more residential and tasteful. Mr. Sevigny said he has previously trained people In public safety and is interested in the safety of people. Mr. Weston asked the Applicant how he wants to proceed and if the discussion should be continued after ZBA reviews the proposal. Mr. D'Arezzo said that only one canopy sign is allowed. Ms. Mercier asked Mr. D'Arezzo to clarify his statement. After Mr. D'Arezzo read the bylaw, Ms. Mercier said the regulations only regard the size of the letters on the awning. Mr. MacNichol said there is no restriction on the number of awnings. Mr. Safina said Prescott Street should not count towards the 2 o °rR� Town of Reading � c �yl Meeting Minutes i � fir° V�. facade length or building area. Mr. D'Arezzo corrected his statement and agreed the Applicant can have multiple awnings. Mr. MacNichol explained how he Interpreted the proposed signage. Mr. Weston suggested the Commission focus on the two canopy signs that meet zoning and not the wall sign or gooseneck lighting. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the modified Certificate of Appropriateness for the sign permit at 35 Lincoln Street as discussed. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Public Hearing. Maior Modification to an Approved Site Plan 107 Main Street. Fusilli's Restaurant There was no one present for the Application Ms. Hitch read the legal notice Into the record. Mr. Weston opened the public hearing. Mr. Tuttle noted the Applicant's request for the public hearing to be continued to July 8, 2019. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing for the Major Modification to an Approved Site Plan at 107 Main Street, Fusliff's Restaurant to July 8r 2019 at 7.30 PM. Mr. D'Arezzo stated a point of order. Mr. Weston explained that the public hearing is to be opened then continued with no public comment. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Public Hearing, Site Plan Review Application Austin Preparatory School. Field Work Chris Latham, James Hickey, John Webber, Jonathan Pollard and Chris Huntress were present on behalf of the Application. Ms. Hitch read the legal notice Into the record. Mr. MacNichol said the Applicant is seeking approval to improve the lower sports fields at Austin Preparatory School. Attorney Chris Latham introduced the other attendees: Head Master James Hickey, CFO John Webber, Athletic Director Jonathan Pollard and Project Landscape Architect Chris Huntress. Mr. Latham provided an overview: • The 40-acre property is in the S20 Zoning District, the Aquifer Protection District (AQP) and the Flood Plain; • The Applicant will need approval from the Community Planning and Development Commission, Conservation Commission and the Health Department; • The school is in the process of raising funds for the lower fields along the railroad track; and • If funds become available in the future there will be additional physical education Improvements at other parts of the campus. Mr. Latham presented the proposed project: • To improve the existing baseball field and all-purpose sports field; • Proposed Improvements to the lower fields in the AQP include a subsurface recharge system to be covered with a synthetic turf; 3 o•` �'R Town of Reading I'sa Meeting Minutes . „ Proposal also includes bleachers, dugouts, bull pen, scoreboard, lighting, turf in-field for practice, and 6 tennis courts with storage facility and lighting. Mr. Latham concluded by stating that: the school has met with a few of the abutters and has held discussions with the Town; the school has been and will in the future work with the Town sports organizations relative to using some sports athletic facilities; and the project is consistent with the 2012 Reading Recreation Plan and the 2015 Master Plan. Mr. Chris Huntress from Huntress Associates presented the existing conditions: • The lower fields encompass two baseball fields; • The outfields are used for soccer; • The ancillary area holds a discus cage; • Tree covering in the woods has a sudden change in grade; • The META railroad is north of the property and to the south is Causeway Road; • The wetlands were delineated in the spring and touch a portion of existing fields; and • The Base Flood Elevation in this area Is 83'. Mr. Huntress presented the proposed conditions: • The majority of the design revolves around a full-size development of a baseball field with synthetic turf and a multipurpose field that will overlay the baseball field; • There will be a separate baseball infield of natural clay and grass, to be used for practice; • A 10' walkway will bring access to the tennis courts and tennis court pavilion; • A baseball grandstand and press box system; • A discussion was held with the Town relating to structures and setbacks, the location of the storage shed, dugouts, bullpens and batting cages; • Both facilities will have lighting - 7 sports light poles with Musco LED System; and • Tennis courts will have 6 light poles. Mr. Weston explained how the public hearing will proceed. Mr. Tuttle said since the last approval it appears there has been work done to the fields and asked for a summary. Mr. Weston added that the baseball fields are difficult to see from the school and have been there for a period of time. Mr. Tuttle said the information received stated there were 5 tennis courts. Mr. Huntress clarified that 6 tennis courts are proposed. Mr. Safina clarified the proposed lighting and abutting areas: • There is a 10' grade change from the bottom to top of the retaining wall, and the lighting will have a 90' mast; • The tennis court lighting will have a 50' mast with 10' grade change near Causeway Road; and • The baseball field lighting will have an 80' mast with 10' grade change. Mr. Huntress explained the abutters will be able to see the lights but the lights won't shine into their property. Mr. Safina said the baseball field is artificial and asked about the mound. Mr. Huntress replied that the portable mound is synthetic and will be removed. Ms. Hitch said she has no concerns at this time. 4 49°r"cy Town of Reading c i �.V Meeting Minutes Mr. Weston questioned the impact to the neighbors: • The neighbors to the football field have concerns with sound system at night; • The top of the baseball grandstand will be even with the abutters across the railroad tracks, where right now the baseball activity is sheltered by the railroad embankment; and • The addition of tennis courts will increase activity on the site. Mr. Huntress replied that there are not a lot of alternative uses to tennis courts. Mr. Weston urged the Applicant to think about the noise, especially if a PA system is desired in the future. Mr. Huntress explained that the proposed PA system can be controlled more easily; there are 8 speakers controlled in pairs rather than one large speaker on the grandstand. He suggested the Commission approve the hours of operation of the sound system. Mr. Weston requested an 8' fence between the grandstand and railroad tracks to help with the noise. Mr. Huntress replied there is an existing chain link fence but also agreed to install a solid wood fence. Mr. Weston pointed out the area by the grandstand needs protection from the noise. Mr. Weston asked for additional information on the softball fields. Mr. Latham replied the softball field is not included in this proposal but hopefully will be in a future proposal. Mr. Tuttle asked if the Commission would want to add a condition that the speakers do not face the railroad tracks. Mr. Safina commented he is unsure of adding this condition as the grandstand faces the railroad tracks. Mr. Latham explained that the Conservation Commission needs to review the project, and that this Commission will have an additional chance to review the proposal as well. Mr. Weston requested that feedback provided by the Conservation Commission be incorporated when the plan evolves. Mr. Weston opened the public hearing for public comment. Mr. Gerard Sevigny of 503 West Street expressed his belief that the MBTA's goal Is to add another line to the track. He added that the swampy area should be addressed and that we need to be more careful with wetlands and tree removal Impacts on Flooding. Mr. Weston replied the proposal is moving further away from the railroad right-of-way which leaves the MBTA plenty of space. He explained that concurrently with this process, the Conservation Commission will review the wetlands and tree removal. Mr. Steve Marisolo of 3 Pilgrim Road, a physical education and athletic trainer by profession, said he lives on the other side of the tracks. He Is not opposed to the turf field, but is opposed to the lights and asked the following: • How many lights are proposed? • In the fall the lights will shine further due to lack of leaves on trees; • Noise from the band and cheering will be more audible without natural boundary; • How many scoreboards are proposed and which way will they face?; • What is the need for so many tennis courts?; • The soccer field will probably be lined for lacrosse and field hockey; • Is there a proposal to add trees and shrubs to help with foul balls?; • The lights at night will attract kids - are the lights on a timer?; • Who will be in charge of making sure the PA system is shut off?; and • Little kids are attracted to the railroad tracks and he is concerned for their safety. 5 o 0" Town of Reading c Meeting Minutes i0 Mr. Steve Chapman of 66 Causeway Road introduced his wife and neighbor and said the following: • The school invited the neighborhood over to the property and the abutters also met as a neighborhood group. He is a representative for the neighborhood group; • Causeway Road residents are direct abutters and most impacted by the project; • Application letter states there will be no expected negative impact from lights; • How is the proposed field use not changing?; • The school is considering renting fields out which is an inconsistent use; • The proposal states minimal tree impacts, the trees will have to be removed for the foundation of the wall - interested to know about tree removal; • Concerned with lighting and visual impacts if trees are removed by Causeway Road; • Would like to see a profile of the proposed wall, surface treatment at the rear of the wall and limited work at the clearing line; • Interested what can be put on the top of the wall to lessen the sound and visual impact; • All audio systems are on volume control, but the residents can hear and feel the sound from the football stadium; • The project is remote from the campus and the activity could increase due to the ballfields and lighted tennis courts - concerned that people will park on Causeway Road and cross over his lawn; Mr. Sevigny repeated his comment about the trees. Mr. Chapman said there is no information on borings or groundwater and asked for clarification on how the system will work. Mr. Weston said the Applicant is in the initial stages of developing the system. Ms. Mercier said the Applicant has not filed with the Conservation Commission yet. Mr. Tuttle pointed out the contour lines by the tennis courts. Mr. Safina asked if a fence is proposed on top of the retaining wall to protect the edge. Mr. Latham replied the building code requires a fence to be installed and confirmed there is not a fence proposed at the property line. Mr. Safina said regular use from a school should not be offensive, but there should be some understanding of the rental hours. Ms. Hitch said the parking issue is important and asked who should residents from Causeway Road contact if they are impacted by parking. Mr. Weston questioned if people park on Causeway Road on a regular basis or only on occasion. Mr. Chapman replied it is not on a regular basis. Mr. Safina said he did a site visit and looked towards 101 Willow Street from Causeway Road and even though there is a drop off, a deterrent could be added. Mr. Safina commented that if the lights are left on at the fields the residents should call the police. Ms. Hitch said the Applicant should take in the ideas provided to deter people from parking on Causeway Road. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if lower poles with more lights could be an alternative. Mr. Huntress explalned lower poles would require a greater number of poles for light to reach the middle of the field. Ms. Adrian asked if reaching the middle of the field is for safety reasons. Mr. Huntress said balls have a better chance of hitting the lower poles and said he will work with Musty and look Into ways to be more efficient on the lighting. He said the lighting allows 6 o �orxco Town of Reading Is� Meeting Minutes programming one year in advance. Mr. Jim Hickey the Head Master said currently the stadium lights go off at 9:30 PM. Mr. Marisola responded the football games sometimes go later than 9:30 PM and said there have been times the lights have been left on. Mr. Weston said the public hearing will be continued; the Applicant has work to do with the Conservation Commission and the next set of plans should incorporate feedback from this Commission. Mr. Latham said the Applicant does not have a date with the Conservation Commission yet. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing for the Site Plan Review at Austin Preparatory School to July 8, 2019 at 8:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Mr. MacNichol informed the public that any updated plans will be on the website before the next meeting. Continued Public Hearing, Definitive Subdivision Plan 135, 139 & 149R Howard Street, Infrastructure Holdinas LLC No one was present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Weston noted that the Applicant requested the public hearing be continued to July 8, 2019. Mr. Safina made a motion to continue the public hearing for 135, 139 & 149R Howard Street to July 8, 2019 at 8:15 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tuttle and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing. Site Plan Review 258-262 Main Street. Reading CRE Ventures LLC Praveen Limbachiya was present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Weston noted that the Applicant has requested the public hearing be continued to July 8, 2019. Mr. Safina made a motion to continue the public hearing for 258-262 Main Street, Reading CRE Ventures LLC to July 8, 2019 at 8:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Public Hearing, Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments Discussion CBD/Mariivana Ms. Hitch read the public hearing notice into the record. Ms. Mercier said that Town.Counsel is suggesting the Town adopt the M.G.L Chapter 94G definitions of Marijuana and Hemp. Mr. Tuttle pointed out 94G section 1 implies hemp is a marijuana product and questioned if that is accurate. Ms. Mercier said Town Counsel will be available at Town Meeting to answer questions of this nature. She said the Zoning Bylaw contains a definition of marijuana but not hemp. Mr. Weston said the definitions align with State law. Ms. Mercier explained Town Meeting members will need to decide if they want to adopt the definitions and if not, the Town will have to figure out how to enforce a prohibition on all CBD products. 7 ra Town of Reading �e I. ' ,, �; Meeting Minutes i� ' `,6J1., Ms. Mercier clarified the two options that will be presented at Town Meeting and the potential impacts of the votes. Ms. Hitch made a motion to close the public hearing for Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments CBD/Marijuana. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tuttle and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to recommend the CBD/Marijuana Definition article to Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Public Hearing. Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments Discussion Footnote One Ms. Hitch read the public hearing notice Into the record. Mr. MacNichol summarized the results of previous discussions that were held on Footnote 1. Mr. Weston said the purpose is to help clarify what Is allowable on constructing additions on a dwelling. Ms. Nancy Twomey from Twomey Architects said she has no concern with Footnote 1 being removed from the zoning bylaw or having the Zoning Board of Appeals approve applications for use of the Footnote. She made the following comments: • There are a lot of homes that are on small, tight lots already; and • Each house is very different, so the 10% cap is arbitrary. Mr. Weston explained that one requirement is that the proposal has to maintain the appearance of a single-family home and fit into a neighborhood. He noted that staff have had challenges in determining appropriate thresholds for this, but that the Town does not want to say adding square footage is not allowed when converting to a two-family dwelling. Ms. Mercier explained that it can be challenging for developers to design extra square footage into a home and to retain the appearance of a single-family dwelling, so the conversations were becoming subjective. Ms. Twomey replied that the ZBA would assure the proposal looks like a single-family. The accessory apartment bylaw allows 1000sf and can be added on with ZBA approval. She said one benefit for owning a two-family is one side could be sold. Ms. Mercier said there are on the order of 900 properties in Town that could meet the criteria of Footnote 1. Ms. Twomey reiterated that 10% is arbitrary. Mr. Safina explained in the past there has been abuse of the original intent of the conversion and this is a way to allow modest two-family units. Ms. Twomey asked if there is a way to align the regulation with the accessory apartment bylaw. Mr. Safina discussed a recently approved accessory apartment that proposed two driveways and said It now It will operate as a two-family. Ms. Mercier said the driveway approval is under the jurisdiction of the Select Board. Mr. Safina said the ZBA approved it as proposed with two driveways. Ms. Twomey asked what is included in the 10%; would a secondary stair be Included, and does it mean they could never add on to that 10% at a future date. Mr. Weston said the regulation does not restrict future additions. Mr. D'Arezzo gave his opinion on the original Intent of the bylaw. He said there are a lot of examples in other towns where an interior is rehabbed for two condominiums and the 8 IsTown of Reading 0 c I ..�a Meeting Minutes exterior appearance remains a single-family. Ms. Mercier opined that the housing stock needs smaller units. Ms. Twomey suggested not using a percentage, but suggested using specific square footage to level the playing field. Mr. Safina proposed language for egress stairs. He said the intent is to create a modest reasonable housing stock. Ms. Hitch pointed out the 8-room requirement. Ms. Twomey said limiting may have consequences and asked for clarification on what the 10% Includes. Ms. Mercier said anything that contributes to the gross Floor area. She said there were developers who approached the Town and the staff had difficulty _ interpreting the bylaw. Mr. Safina read the proposed language and how it should be interpreted. Ms. Mercier gave her opinion it will continue to be a challenge at the counter. Ms. Twomey said that if the goal is to keep a dwelling small, then an addition in the future should not be allowed. She asked if this bylaw is necessary since the accessory apartment bylaw allows a two-family. Mr. Safina said Footnote 1 is already in the bylaw. Mr. Weston said the Town does not want to get rid of Footnote 1 since it applies to some properties, but the Commission does not want someone to try to go around the intent. Ms. Mercier said the language should be clear, and the Special Permit process will help. Mr. Safina said he is fine with the way the language is written. Ms. Twomey repeated there is nothing in the language that does not limit future additions. After a discussion, the Commission agreed Footnote 1 should not be removed from the bylaw to assure there is history on why a dwelling was allowed to be converted to a two- family. Mr. Weston presented four different requirements that evolved from the discussion. Mr. D'Arezzo read his suggestion. Mr. Weston asked Ms. Mercier to wordsmith the language suggested by Mr. D'Arezzo. Mr. Weston suggested tabling Footnote 1 until after the discussion of Mixed-Use Regulation and at that time the Commission will decide if another meeting is required. Public Hearing, Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments Discussion Mixed Use Regulations Ms. Hitch read the public hearing notice into the record. Ms. Mercier brought forward her concerns with the changes the Commission previously suggested to the potential amendment. Mr. Weston said if a commercial property is permitted for retail use and not institutional use the Commission should have to approve the new use. He added uses in the categories have changed over time and if buildings change categories the use should be reviewed. Ms. Hitch read the language from Ms. Mercier. Ms. Mercier asked if the Commission wants to talk with every business owner who is going into a building that has a different use than the existing tenants. Mr. Weston suggested reviewing the categories, and said when someone changes use categories they are changing the function of the building use which has various impacts to the area such as design. Ms. Mercier commented that any new development that changes the exterior or the parking triggers Site Plan Review by the Commission; she asked if the Commission wants to add a layer of oversight to every different mixed-use situation on south Main Street. Mr. Weston said an institutional business should not be required to get a Special Permit If going into a retail space. 9 -rRc, Town of Reading i5 - o z Meeting Minutes no Q''1:11R0? Ms. Mercier explained why she suggested defining mixed-use. Mr. Weston said a change of use should require the Commission's approval, but a Special Permit should not always be required. Mr. Tuttle suggested a definition for mixed-use that includes non-residential. Mr. Weston said a building could have uses in multiple categories. He said he is in favor of adding the residential use as suggested by Ms. Mercier. Ms. Mercier suggested adding a footnote to the Downtown Smart Growth District. The Commission discussed and agreed a footnote should not be added. Ms. Mercier pointed out Mr. Safina's comment under section 5.6.8. Mr. Tuttle asked if section 5.6.8.5 is for loading and delivery and stated deliveries could overload the loading spaces. Ms. Mercier suggested language to make sure the deliveries do not take place on Main Street. The Commission discussed why (a) and (b) are both. required. Mr. Safina brought the discussion back to section 5.6.8 and suggested changes to the language. Mr. Weston invited the public to add to the discussion. Ms. Hitch said feedback received from residents in general is no more residential. If it is a mixed-use development then commercial is required or it is not mixed-use. She said if the Commission does not think mixed-use on south Main Street is viable then this discussion is not necessary. Ms. Mercier suggested rewording the language to help clarify the net percentage. The Commission discussed the language on how to calculate the net percentage. Mr. Safina agreed the wording is not correct. The Commission discussed inclusionary zoning and parking requirements. Mr. Weston said the intent of the inclusionary zoning is to keep on pace with our affordable housing requirement. Ms. Mercier confirmed an all commercial development is still allowed. Ms. Mercier suggested having a maximum on parking for the south Main Street properties. Mr. Weston brought forward two businesses that have parking spill out onto residential streets. Ms. Mercier said the sites are already tight and asked if the commercial businesses should have to account for employee parking. Mr. D'Arezzo suggested a parking plan between the residential and commercial. He said businesses cannot be forced to share but they could be required to have access to the other businesses. Ms. Mercier pointed out a section of the Intensity Regulations that is unclear. Mr. Weston said It is an existing table. Ms. Mercier suggested removing a section under Business A to help with what the Commission is trying to achieve. After the discussion, Mr. Weston said he does not believe a second meeting is necessary and recommended the public hearing be continued until July 8, 2019. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing for Footnote 1 and Mixed- Use Potential Zoning Amendment until July 8, 2019. The motion was seconded by Ms. Nftch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. 10 °re Town of Reading , Meeting Minutes Ms. Mercier informed the Commission the Potential Zoning Amendments will be discussed at the Select Board meeting on July 9, 2019. Plannina Updates and Other Topics • Lot Release for Lyle Estates The Commission endorsed the Lot Release for Lyle Estates. • Approval of CPDC Minutes of 01/14/2019, 02/11/2019, 04/01/2019, 04/08/2019 &05/13/2019 The CPDC Minutes were continued until the next meeting. Ms. Hitch made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents Reviewed at the Meeting: CPDC Agenda 6/10/19 Continuance Request, 107 Main Street Major Modification to Approved Site Plan Continuance Request, Howard Street Subdivision Continuance Request, 258-262 Main Street Site Plan Review Lot Release, Lyle Estates Sign Permit Application, 35 Lincoln Street (a) Sign Permit Application (b) Elevations and Renderings (c) Draft Certificate of Appropriateness, dated 6/10/19 Site Plan Review, Austin Preparatory School (a) Application &Summary (b) Site Plans (c) Photometric Plans Zoning Bylaw Amendments (a) Legal Notices for CBD/Marijuana, Footnote 1, Mixed Use/Intensity Regs (b) CBD/Marijuana - Definitions per MGL Ch. 94G (c) Footnote 1 - Staff Revisions (d) Mixed Use/Intensity Regulations - Staff Revisions 11