Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-07-08 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes N orq ° Town of Reading 9 ' = Meeting Minutes o xeoxeodk° Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2019-07-08 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Chair John Weston, Rachel Hitch, Nick Safina, David Tuttle, Pamela Adrian, Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Chris Latham, James Castellano, Anthony Castellano, Ingrid Gresekat, Charles Houghton, James Andella, Dan Ryan, Carol &Steve Chapman, Julie Wallace, John Barrows, John Weber, Jonathan Pollard, James Hickey, Nancy Twomey, Steve Marisolo Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Chairman John Weston called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Continued Public Hearing Maior Modification to an Aooroved Site Plan Review 107 Main Street. Fusilli's Restaurant No one was present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Weston noted that the Applicant requested the public hearing be continued to August 12, 2019. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing for the Major Modification to an Approved Site Plan at 107 Main Street, Fusiiii's Restaurant, to August 12, 2019 at 7.45 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 5- 0-0 vote. Ms. Mercier suggested the Commission take the agenda out of order and endorse the Definitive Plans and ANR Plans first. Definitive Subdivision Endorsement, 116 West Street Ms. Mercier said the subdivision for 116 West Street netted one new lot. The Applicant has complied with what was requested for the Final Plan. Dan Ryan from 17 Wentworth Road asked if there Is a Landscape Plan available for 116 West Street. He said the site work has started and trees were removed. Page 1 1 Mr. Safina asked if the Engineering Department has signed off on the drainage plan. Ms. Mercier asked for clarification on what the concern was with drainage. She read the Decision and confirmed prior to the building permit the Engineering Department will approve the drainage system. Mr. Safina emphasized he wanted the Engineering Department to make sure the proposed drainage system is efficient. Mr. Safina said the proposed Landscape Plan shows the intent is to create a border but does not list the type of plants. Mr. Ryan asked if the Applicant has submitted a defined Landscape Plan and gave his opinion the type of plants should not be determined by the Applicant. He said trees were removed last week and would like to know the next step. Ms. Mercier replied she will review and will contact Mr. Ryan. Mr. Weston said the clouded area on the plan shows the area that should not be removed and agreed the Town should follow up. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to endorse the Definitive Subdivision Plan for 116 West Street as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Approval Not Required Plan, 1503 & 1505 Main Street Ms. Mercier explained the ANR plan will allow the lot lines between 1503 and 1505 Main Street to be adjusted but there is no net loss of frontage. Mr. Weston said there is a memo from Ms. Mercier that states the proposal qualifies for an Approval Not Required Plan. Ms. Mercier explained what would happen if in the future a subdivision Is proposed on the two lots that are in different zoning districts. Ms. Mercier said endorsement of the Commission is not a statement of compliance with zoning. Mr. Weston said the approval is for the frontage on a right-of-way that is adequate. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to endorse the Approval Not Required Plan submitted by IHG investment Trust for 1503 & 1505 Main Street. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Approval Not Required Plan, 355 & 361 Franklin Street Ms. Mercier said there is a memo regarding the Approval Not Required Plan for 355 & 361 Franklin Street. Mr. Safina asked about a memo from the Town Engineer. Ms. Mercier replied the Town Engineer did not submit a memo and added ANR's are by-right. Mr. Safina asked if the prior proposed plan from 2007 and the current proposed plan are the same. Ms. Mercier responded the frontage did not change on the two non-conforming lots. Mr. Safina asked if these endorsements are creating more challenges for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Mercier replied the Commission is required to endorse the Plan; it is up to an Applicant to seek relief from the ZBA. Mr. D'Arezzo said he thought zoning did not allow an Applicant to create a more non-conforming lot. Ms. Mercier said the ANR Handbook could help clarify questions. Mr. D'Arezzo brought forward the history of the two lots. Ms. Mercier explained the prior plan was endorsed under MGL Ch.41 Section 81L. The property owner James Andella explained the ANR Plan will allow two new symmetrical structures to be constructed on the non-conforming lots without having to go to the ZBA for a Variance. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to endorse the Approval Not Required Pian submitted by 1D6 Realty Trust for 355& 361 Franklin Street. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Continued Public Nearina. Site Plan Review Austin Preparatory School. Lower Field Work Chris Latham, James Hickey, John Webber, Jonathan Pollard, Chris Huntress and John Barrows were present for the Application. Page 1 2 Attorney Chris Latham introduced the members who are in attendance on behalf of Austin Prep and said since the first hearing the Applicant has met with the Town Engineer and has revised the plans and provided alternative data. Chris Huntress from Huntress Associates Landscape Architects and Planners provided an overview since the last meeting: • Reviewed the sports lighting and submitted photometric; • Original design goal was 0 foot-candles at the property lines; • Lowered pole heights from 90' to 80' and from 50' to 40'; • The lowered pole heights increased spillover and glare because fixtures have to be angled - would recommend leaving the poles at original heights and respecting property boundaries; • Added 6' solid board fence along MBTA; • Added 6' privacy fence along tennis courts; • Minimal trees will be cut to install the fence along the MBTA right-of-way; • The sloping was adjusted to allow the wall on the bottom side of tennis courts to be reduced to 6-1/2'; • The detail of the wall was changed; • The sound system was reviewed and locations provided; • The speaker control will be in the press box area and the speakers will be controlled in pairs; • The speakers will be pointed away from the neighbors and towards the field; • The system will allow the speakers on the pole to be turned off entirely if necessary; and • The speakers can be controlled by the dugout if the press box is not in use Mr. Huntress said John Barrows, Professional Engineer, met with the Town Engineer regarding the grading and stormwater design. He said the Town Engineer had positive feedback but he made no promises to draft a memo before this meeting. Mr. Andrew MacNichol, Staff Planner, confirmed the Town Engineer was not able to provide a memo. Mr. Safina asked for clarification on the photometrics and if the spillover was from the opposite side of the field. He asked what a .8 foot-candle is. Mr. Huntress explained 1 foot- candle is required by Building Code for an exit door at night and will shed some light. He said spillover accounts for terrain and grading but not vertical structures or trees. Mr. Safina asked if it is worth accepting theoretical spillover which is nominal in exchange for height. Mr. Huntress said it Is all about the angling of the lights and assured the lights will work for the players. He said the target is to achieve 50 foot-candles on the player surface and still respect the abutters. Mr. Safina stated the higher poles will be seen from further away. Mr. Safina and Mr. Weston both questioned if the Commission is allowed to approve the lower poles and the theoretical spillover. Mr. Safina explained that the gas stations in Town are required to be 0 foot-candles at the lot line. Mr. Weston pointed out an error on Diagram B. Mr. Safina said he would prefer lower light poles if safe for the players. Mr. Weston questioned the grandstand elevation and if the fence will cover the structure. Mr. Huntress replied the grandstand will be protected from the railroad tracks. Mr. John Barrows from Marchionda and Associates presented the Drainage and Grading Plan: • Required to file Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission so obliged to meet DEP Stormwater Management Standards; • Two main standards - peak rate attenuation and groundwater recharge; • Pointed out three main areas on the property; • To meet peak rate attenuation, three main stormwater management systems; • 1.5 acres of impervious will run toward swale and infiltration basin; • An emergency spillway for more than 100-year event; • Smaller area of impervious surface for walkways and synthetic fields • Explained how synthetic fields are very efficient; Page 1 3 • Drainage throughout; • The soils underneath are good gravel and sand and will absorb anything that falls from the synthetic field (did not take credit for the good soils); • The other part of the site upstream from Causeway Road is a natural grass field going to a rain garden; and • All three main components are infiltration based BMPs Mr. Tuttle asked about the portion abutting the right-of-way and the drainage. Mr. Barrows explained the swale by the tennis courts will go to infiltration basin. Mr. Weston asked the status of the Conservation Commission process. Mr. Latham replied the Applicant will be filing this week and the hearing will be on July 24, 2019. Mr. Safina asked for the hours of operation when used by the school and if they differ from anticipated rental use. Mr. Latham replied the proposal is what the school is currently doing - 6:30 AM to 9:30 PM. He said the fields will be used for athletic, non-educational and non- religious use. Mr. Safina said he has no problem with school use; his concern is the private entity use should be limited and not exceed the school use hours. Mr. Latham said the Applicant is not opposed to this limitation and agrees the Dover Amendment should not apply to that particular instance. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if there is a contact number if the lights are left on. Mr. Latham replied the Applicant will provide a number to the police, Town or whoever is required. Mr. Weston said the Commission reviewed the plans and there is a draft Decision that addresses the operation but that part is still open and will not be solved tonight. Mr. Weston opened the public hearing to public comment. Mr. Steve Chapman of 66 Causeway Road said at the last meeting he expressed several concerns. He has had the chance to review the updated plans and most of his concerns have been addressed, but has new comments: • The drainage calculations had mislabeled the wrong town; • The adequacy of the proposed drainage system and groundwater is unclear; • The borings do not provide groundwater elevations; • Hard to accept water 4-S' below grade if wetland there; • To keep with the limits of disturbance, the fence should be extended to the left of the property line; • If the rain gardens have an overflow, where will the water Flow; • The rain gardens require quarterly maintenance, where is the means of access; • Findings - requests no parking on abutting roadways in the Decision as a Finding or Condition; and Ms. Mercier explained the Select Board is the 'roadway commissioners' who set the rules and regulations for public roads. As such, the CPDC cannot implement parking restrictions. Mr. Chapman asked that his request be noted in the minutes. • Finding or Condition - the wording of the fence should be changed from proposed to "a solid wood fence shall be installed". He does not want to see a picket fence. Mr. Weston explained the detail of the fence that is included within the plan the Commission approves is the fence that will have to be installed. Mr. Chapman expressed concern If funding becomes an issue the fence material could be changed and the Applicant could request a Minor Plan Change. He would like it noted a solid wood fence is required and will be owned and maintained from the Applicant. Mr. Safina asked if the material would be wood or vinyl and asked what would be easier to maintain. Mr. Chapman commented white vinyl could get stained. Mr. Chapman objected to the lighting and said 6:30 AM is early, the Town bylaw does not allow construction until 7:00 AM so why would the Commission allow recreation that early. Page 14 Mr. Steve Mirasolo of 3 Pilgrim Road agreed with Mr. Chapman about the lighting and early hours of operation on the fields. He said Saturday morning at 6:30AM is too early and 9:30PM on Sunday night is too late. Mr. Chapman said he expressed concern at the last meeting with the statement that the proposed use of the field is consistent with the current use. He understands it is a multi-use field, but the tennis courts are a new use in that location. Mr. Mirasolo said he is concerned about the rental aspect; the plan is not lined out for lacrosse or field hockey and should be limited to soccer and baseball. He said the plans say multi-purpose field. Mr. Latham said the field lines are not limited and can be altered as needed. Mr. Weston re-stated the follow-up needed: • A revised photometric plan showing the accurate property line shall be submitted; • The hearing will need to stay open until the Conservation Commission process starts and Engineering signs off on the stormwater design; and • Comments will be incorporated Into the Site Plan Review Decision. Mr. Safina requested that the Applicant bring both options for photometrics to the next meeting, and that they be ok with either option. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing for the Site Plan Review at Austin Preparatory School to August 11, 2019 at 8:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing, Definitive Subdivision Plan 135. 139 & 149R Howard Street. Infrastructure Holdings LLC No one was present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Weston noted that the Applicant requested the public hearing be continued to August 12, 2019. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing for 135, 139 & 149R Howard Street to August 12, 2019 at 8:15 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing, Site Plan Review 258-262 Main Street, Reading CRE Ventures LLC No one was present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Weston noted that the Applicant requested the public hearing be continued to August 12, 2019. Mr. D'Arezzo asked for point of clarification, how long ago the application was submitted. Ms. Mercier replied that the application was submitted last fall and reminded the Commission that there is no statutory timeframe for Site Plan Review. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing for 258-262 Main Street, Reading LRE Ventures LLC to August 12, 2019 at 8:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing, Zoning Bylaw Amendments for November Town Meeting Footnote One to Tables 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 Ms. Mercier asked the Commission for feedback on the proposed changes to Footnote One. Mr. Safina thanked Ms. Nancy Twomey from Twomey Architects for her feedback at the last Page 1 5 meeting; and he acknowledged the changes make more sense and meet the intent of the original bylaw to keep the residential units small. Ms. Mercier said there was a paragraph added in regard to when the structure is converted and when the rights to the two-family cease to exist. Mr. Safina said Town Counsel might have an opinion. Ms. Twomey agreed it could be tricky and asked about the original two- family dwellings that are being converted to condexes. Ms. Mercier clarified that she wanted feedback on the paragraph regarding when the dwelling is demolished. Mr. Safina suggested language. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if It matters how the building is demolished. Ms. Adrian suggested adding language regarding unintended demolition. Ms. Mercier said involuntary demolition is protected under Massachusetts General Law. Ms. Twomey asked if a condex is a two-family or is it a single-family unit. Ms. Mercier replied zoning does not deal with style of ownership, only the number of units on one lot. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if"cease to exist" includes a building taken down to the foundation or leaving one wall. Mr. Weston said the zoning bylaw defines structure and a foundation would fall into structure. Mr. Tuttle suggested a change to the language. Ms. Mercier cautioned using the word "alteration". Ms. Twomey said now that the size Is defined does it matter if it exists or doesn't exist down the road. Ms. Mercier said it does matter and explained her reasoning based on Town Counsel's feedback. Ms. Twomey suggested adding a percentage of the dwelling if it doesn't exist. Ms. Mercier read her proposed language regarding the original 1942 single-family dwelling. Ms. Mercier pointed out Footnote One will be aligned with accessory apartments in some ways but not entirely; and suggested there be some Performance Standards that should apply. Mr. Safina informed the Commission at a recent ZBA meeting, Mark Dupell the Building Inspector said there is some accessory apartment language that is vague. Ms. Twomey agreed with this statement and provided a scenario where there has been confusion on what should be counted in the square footage. Mr. Safina said the intent is there should never be more than 1,000sf added. Ms. Mercier added less than 1,OOOsf is fine. Mr. Safina said every house should not get a 1,000sf. Ms. Twomey said getting to that number can be complicated. Ms. Twomey informed the Commission that the Zoning Board of Appeals would like a bylaw that requires certification that what is approved is what Is actually built. Ms. Mercier asked Ms. Twomey if an as-built is required by the Building Official before occupancy. Ms. Twomey said the renovation has to comply with the plans but there is not a requirement to have an As-Built Plan. She added that the Special Permits that are issued by the ZBA require an as-built before the building final. Mr. Safina said all conditions for a Special Permit are waivable and asked what conditions should be included. He suggested the appearance of a single-family must be retained. Ms. Mercier advised referencing some of the requirements for accessory apartment in Footnote One to maintain the neighborhood character. Mr. Weston asked for clarification. Ms. Mercier explained some Performance Standards for an accessory apartment should apply to single-family dwellings that qualify to be renovated to a two-family under Footnote One. Mr. Weston cautioned it should not be too complicated. He said the Zoning Board of Appeals should be able to make sure a proposal's external appearance looks like a single-family dwelling without the bylaw dictating this requirement. Ms. Mercier said there are some Performance Standards that should be relevant to Footnote One to give guidance to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Weston said the ZBA should have latitude to figure out if they can approve a proposed plan; and added there Is a difference between a Board deciding over Town staff. Ms. Mercier said she is hesitant because the Zoning Board of Appeals could question why there is no guidance to make sure the dwelling qualifies to be renovated to a two-family by a Special Permit. She questioned If leaving things out will create more questions than answers. Mr. Tuttle asked if the result of this conversation is that Footnote Page 16 One should be removed from the bylaw. Mr. Weston said he likes the language the way it is proposed and with no Performance Standards. Ms. Mercier said she will reword the language for Footnote One and the Commission can review it at the next meeting. Mixed-Use Reaulations — 2.0. 5.0 and 6.0 Ms. Mercier suggested discussing Mixed-Use and Intensity Regulations at the same time. She said she took the feedback that was proposed at the last meeting and accepted some of the changes. Mr. Weston asked If the Town can reference the South Main Street Design Best Practices in the Zoning Bylaw and under MGL Chapter 40A. Ms. Mercier said she can follow up with Town Counsel unless the Commission wants the language removed. Mr. Weston said he likes referencing the South Main Street Design Best Practices but wants to make sure it is allowed. Mr. Tuttle said in section 5.6.8.3 it explicitly says Main Street and asked whether other streets should be included. Ms. Mercier inferred that he was referring to the streets noted in the Downtown Smart Growth Design Guidelines, and reminded him that Business A is on Main Street. Ms. Mercier discussed the floor area percentage required for commercial use. Mr. Weston explained the goal is to make sure the first floor in a 4-story rectangular building is commercial and does not become dedicated to residential. Ms. Mercier said she understood the goal is to have 20-25% commercial and asked for clarification if the commercial includes common areas and mechanicals. Mr. Safina said in a 4-story building the first floor will have common areas and stairs and the rest of the area should be entirely commercial. Ms. Hitch presented a scenario in a 4-story building to help clarify the calculations. Mr. Safina asked what would happen if there is a mechanical or mailroom that is only on one floor. He suggested adding a requirement that the first floor must be commercial with no percentage requirement. Mr. Tuttle said the residential units above could cut into the commercial space on the first floor due to safety requirements. Mr. Safina said the developer should be forced to figure out how to meet the percentage requirement. Ms. Mercier reminded the Commission that the feedback received from developers is that 18% is feasible. Mr. Weston said If the goal is requiring the first floor to be commercial, then the 18% is reasonable and the stairs, common areas and mechanicals will not be counted. Ms. Hitch expressed her frustration the percentage for commercial is reduced. Mr. Safina said the number should be feasible and the 18% commercial space does not include support space. Ms. Mercier said if it is netted out first it could result in huge amenities for the residential as a way to reduce the commercial burden and make the residential more attractive. Mr. D'Arezzo suggested language to make sure the first floor is dedicated to commercial space. Mr. Weston said the developer could have parking on the first floor. Mr. D'Arezzo said parking and mechanicals should be eliminated. He asked what would happen when if a two-story building is proposed and 25% is required. Mr. Tuttle pointed out a few streets in other towns that have had success with commercial on the bottom and residential on the upper floors. Ms. Mercier questioned what would be required in a mixed-use project with multiple structures; would the building that faces Main Street be all commercial and a building not facing Main Street be allowed to be all residential. Mr. Weston commented he is having a hard time visualizing where this could occur. Ms. Hitch said the point is to create a mixed- use opportunity that would not be allowable If the developer did not provide commercial. She said the Commission wants 25% of a new building to be commercial. Mr. Weston said if the 25% is required, the commercial space could be on the second floor. Mr. Safina said commercial should be all on the first floor. Mr. Weston said the right language is required to prevent future complications with the commercial space. He said the proposed language from Mr. D'Arezzo sounds correct, it will be all commercial except for residential access and residential mechanicals. The Commission discussed what should be included in the Page 1 language. Ms. Hitch said the incentive of it works; a developer will not reduce the commercial because the residential space will be required to be reduced. Ms. Mercier said at the request of the Commission, she changed the parking requirements for the residential and commercial components. Ms. Mercier said she added under section 5.6.8.6 language to the curb cut and driveways, and redevelopment sites should be able to go to the next lot without going onto Main Street. The Commission reviewed the language and agreed it should be included. The Commission discussed the changes to the Intensity Regulations. Mr. Weston said the categories mean something and they are not defined anywhere. Ms. Mercier suggested keeping the same language but capitalizing multi-family dwelling to distinguish from mixed- use. Mr. MacNichol cautioned the change will have to be done throughout the entire bylaw. Mr. Weston explained he was not in favor of the comment made by Ms. Mercier on section 6.2.6. Ms. Mercier replied she added the comment in case it comes up at Town Meeting. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the intent was to have mixed-use as a separate entity of the Table of Dimensional Controls. Ms. Mercier further explained why she added the comment, to keep Business A and mixed-use together in all places. Ms. Adrian asked why multi-family is not in Business B. Ms. Mercier explained the table is imperfect in some ways. Ms. Hitch left the meeting for the night. Mr. Weston said the comments on the special cases were discussed previously; and said it should be revisited but not with mixed-uses. He said he does not understand the whole table and said it is an issue that needs to be reviewed at another time. Mr. Weston said he would like to see the final language before voting to recommend for Town Meeting. Ms. Mercier replied she will make the changes and have the Commission review at the next meeting. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing for Zoning Bylaw Amendments - Footnote 1, Mixed Use & Intensity Regulations - to August 12, 2019 at 8:45 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Saffna and approved with a 4- 2-0 vote. Plannina Updates and Other Topics Approval of CPDC Minutes of 01/14/2019, 02/11/2019, 04/01/2019, 04/08/2019, 05/13/2019 & 06/10/2019 January 14, 2019 Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the minutes for January 14, 2019 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. J February 11, 2019 Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the minutes for February 11, 2019 as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. April 1. 2019 Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the minutes for April 1, 2019 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. April S. 2019 Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the minutes for April 8, 2019 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Page 1 8 May 13, 2019 and June 10, 2019 minutes were not reviewed by the Commission. • Updates ➢ Ms. Mercier gave an update on the paving on Main Street. ➢ The Commission discussed an upcoming Road Diet. Ms. Mercier said she will be attending the Select Board meeting to give an overview of the proposed zoning amendments and invited the Commission to attend. ➢ Mr. D'Arezzo said the Select Board is looking for feedback from the Commission to see how they can help the members do their job better. D The Commission discussed the Haverhill Street speed limit. Ms. Mercier said there is an appeal from the Building Inspector denial on Footnote One that will be heard at the ZBA meeting on July 17`h. Ms. Mercier said she has not received an update on the Meadow Brook Golf Club project. ➢ Ms. Mercier said the on-going projects seem to be going well. Ms. Mercier said the Applicant for Gould Street has held a meeting with the Town and will be coming in for a demolition permit soon. ➢ Ms. Mercier gave an update on the Lakeview-Eaton project. ➢ Mr. MacNichol said Weston and Sampson asked for a continuance from the ZBA on the proposed sign. ➢ Ms. Adrian said the Austin Prep scoreboard has a place for advertisement. Ms. Mercier said the topic should not be discussed outside of the public hearing. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:51 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents Reviewed at Meeting 7/8/19 Agenda 1/4/19 CPDC Minutes 2/11/19 CPDC Minutes 4/1/19 CPDC Minutes 4/8/19 CPDC Minutes 107 Main Street Continuance Request 258-262 Main Street Continuance Request 135-149R Howard St Continuance Request Austin Prep • Site Plans dated 6/26/19 • Sound System Location Plan,dated 7/3/19 • Photometric Plan,dated 6/26/19 Zoning Amendments • Footnote 1 amendments • Mixed Use and Intensity Regulations Page 1 9