Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-12 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes p UrR ?. Town of Reading .5CEIVED ? ' Meeting Minutes TOWN CLERK ow READING, MA. Board - Committee - Commission - Council19 SEP 10 PM $ 4 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 08-12-2019 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Nick Safina, Pamela Adrian, Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not Present: John Weston, Rachel Hitch, David Tuttle Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Chris Latham, Carol Chapman, Steve Chapman, Julie Wallace, Jonathan Pollard, James Hickey, Mike Farrell, Janet Davidson-Dee Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kim Saunders Topics of Discussion: Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Sian Permit Application 672 Main Street. ReMax Renaissance John Magazzu and Kevin Chiles were present on behalf of the Application. Kevin Chiles from Madison Design, on behalf of John Magazzu from ReMax Renaissance, said the proposal is to install an all-black Sunbrella awning similar to Cafe Nero and a sign above the door. He said the Cafe Nero sign Is hidden from the street due to an existing tree and he does not want his wall sign to be blocked in the same way. Mr. Safina said he is not in favor of the wall sign because it will be blocked from view for traffic driving north. Ms. Adrian recommended using the awning as a sign for the business. Mr. Magazzu responded that the awning will not be very visible from the street. Mr. Chiles added that he took videos from all directions and this proposal is the simplest way to comply with the signage bylaw. Ms. Julie Mercier, Community Development Director, suggested a blade sign in addition to the wall sign. Mr. Chiles replied the blade sign will be seen from the sidewalk alone. Mr. Safina replied the sign will be seen by both north and southbound traffic; and said the business name can also be on the awning. Mr. D'Arezzo explained the blade sign would be In addition to the wall sign. Ms. Adrian reviewed the proposal and asked if lettering can be added to the door. Mr. D'Arezzo replied lettering is allowed on the door but not enough to be seen from the street. Mr. Safina said he appreciates the proposed awning as it is a continuation of Cafe Nero's awning; and added the awning will block a blade sign. Mr. D'Arezzo suggested a one-sided blade sign. Mr. Safina said he was trying to help make it more visible but the 25' facade will become too busy with four total elements. Pape I 1 N Or Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Mr. Safina pointed out a few businesses in town that have a free-standing sign. Mr. Chiles said the challenge with the site is that the building is set back from the street and there are several trees and street lights. He said the proposal is the most economic for the owner and non-invasive for the town. Mr. Magazzu said the proposal will dress up the front of the building; and clarified the main purpose of the awning Is to keep people dry and the sidewalk clear in the winter. He added there is no good place for signage except on the windows. Mr. Andrew MacNichol, Staff Planner, explained that window signage can cover up to 30% of the glass and cannot exceed 6-square feet. Mr. Chiles said the owner might be interested in window signage in the future and will approach the town for approval if so. Mr. Chiles confirmed the gooseneck lighting Is proposed with the signage. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the awning projection Is 2' from the wall. Mr. Chiles confirmed the awning will project 2' from the wall and will match Cafe Nero's awning. Ms. Adrian asked why there is not an awning proposed over the entrance of the door. Mr. Chiles replied the door is set back 2 feet which will allow coverage from the weather. Mr. Magazzu explained if the awning was extended to the Cafe Nero awning there would be no room for the sign above the door. He said Venetian Moon and Cafe Nero have gooseneck lighting and the proposal will continue the theme. Mr. Safina asked if there is an existing street light. Mr. Magazzu replied there is an existing street light to the left of the building. Ms. Mercier asked about the proposed material for the wall sign. Mr. Chiles replied 1/2" PVC with an overlay of digital graphics. He said there is a specification sheet for the gooseneck lighting. Ms. Mercier passed the Commission a sample of the Sunbrella awning material. Mr. Chiles confirmed there will be no lighting added to the awning. Mr. Safina explained he is not in favor of the proposal; the building is art-dew with symmetrical features but the design is off-set and the awning is blocked on one side. He pointed out a location for a blade sign on the south side of the building that is clear of the tree. Mr. Chiles said he believes a blade sign will be blocked in this area but asked about the procedure if a blade sign is wanted in the future. Ms. Mercier asked if the Commission will allow Administrative Approval of a future blade sign. Mr. Safina agreed Town staff is allowed to issue an Administrative Approval for a blade sign. Mr. Chiles said the Applicant would like the sign installed by the end of the month to allow for an upcoming event. Mr. Magazzu said there will be a grand opening on September 7`h, the day before the Fall Street Falre. Mr. Safina Informed the Applicant a "Grand.Opening" temporary banner is allowed as long as it meets Town approval. Ms. Mercier reviewed the signage size and height requirements. Ms. Adrian asked if the Applicant is restricted on the color and is allowed the red, white and blue theme. Mr. Safina replied that sometimes there are graphic logos that are recognizable. Ms. Mercier said a blade sign can match the wall sign as long as it follows the requirements. Ms. Adrian commented a blade sign is good for foot-traffic. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 672 Main Street ReMax Renaissance as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. rage 1 2 or • Town of Reading 13 Meeting Minutes Ms. Mercier said she will add a condition to the approval that a future blade sign can be granted an Administrative Approval if it meets the specifications for the wall sign. Continued Public Hearing. Maior Modification to an Approved Site Plan 107 Main Street, Fusilli's Restaurant There was no one present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina noted that the Applicant has requested the public hearing to be continued to September 9, 2019. Ms. Adrian made a motion to continue the public hearing for the Major Modification to an Approved She Plan at 107 Main Street, Fusilit's Restaurant to September 9, 2019 at 7.30 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Arezzo and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if all three Commission members who are in attendance would have to vote in the affirmative to constitute an approval. Ms. Mercier responded that all three members are needed for an approval. Continued Public Hearing. Site Plan Review Application Austin Preparatory School. Lower Field Work Chris Latham, James Hickey, Jonathan Pollard, and Chris Huntress were present on behalf of the Application. Attorney Chris Latham provided an overview since the last meeting: • The Applicant has received feedback from the recent site walk with the Conservation Commission; • The Applicant attended a productive meeting with town staff; • Chuck Tirone, the Conservation Administrator, has submitted a memo; • The feedback received is incorporated into the updated plans; • The Applicant is still working with the town In regard to the river front issues; • The height of the light poles and the adjustment of the light fixtures will be reviewed by the Conservation Commission; and • The updated photometric plan reduces the light spillover to the wetlands and keeps the light within the boundaries of the property Chris Huntress from Huntress Associates Landscape Architects and Planners apologized for the late submittal of the revised Photometric Plan and explained at the Conservation site meeting it was asked if there was a better way to improve the glare into the wetlands. He said when initially reviewing the site with the electrical engineer and specialists the concentration was on the MBTA and the neighbors along Causeway Road and the wetlands were not targeted as a sensitive receptor. Mr. Huntress provided the revised Photometric Plan: • The foot-candle values in the wetlands have been reduced by half; • The confusion with the property line has been corrected; • Moved one fixture and re-aimed lights - values in this range dropped in half which is what the Conservation Commission requested; • Taller poles allow for less spillover and improved glare control due to better angles - this is the option the Applicant wants and the Conservation Commission prefers; • The 6-foot solid wood fence is extended to the next adjacent property line; • The wall heights in the tennis courts have been reduced; and • The cutting of trees will be controlled. Page 13 OFRt,� Town of Reading z Meeting Minutes `MOP� Mr. Safina said the lighting change to help minimize the impact to the wetlands does not sacrifice Causeway Road, there is still "0"foot-candle there. Mr. Huntress agreed that protecting the wetlands does not negatively Impact the neighbors. Mr. Huntress said there is a memo from the Town Engineer approving the drainage system. Ms. Mercier confirmed the Town Engineer does not have any major concerns. Mr. D'Arezzo asked for clarification on the Photometric Plan, and said the worst-case scenario of spillover onto Causeway Road is .3 foot-candle. Mr. Huntress pointed out the areas that will be affected by the spillover and added the tree line is not taken into consideration. Mr. Safina said the spillover will be less when there is foliage. Mr. D'Arezzo said the baseball field and soccer field will not be In use when there is less foliage during winter time. Mr. Safina requested a condition be added to the Decision that the Applicant is required to receive approval from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Safina opened the meeting to public comment. Mr. Steve Chapman of 66 Causeway Road asked if there will be security lighting on the field and how people will get on and off the fields safely. Mr. Huntress replied there are pedestrian lights along the field and explained the sports lights are programmed to dim for 15-minutes before fully going off. Mr. Chapman said Finding #1 in the Decision references two baseball fields and two soccer fields which implies four fields but the fields are shared use. Mr. Chapman said he is disappointed that the hours of operation start at 6:00 AM, and commented the Town bylaw requires construction hours start at 7:00 AM and trash pickup at 6:30AM - at the last meeting 6:30AM was discussed. Mr. Latham mentioned the Dover Amendment and responded 6:30AM Is fine for athletic events. Mr. Chapman replied in his opinion 6:30AM Is still too early and will disrupt the neighbors. Mr. Chapman said the conditions do not mention the Conservation Order of Conditions. Ms. Mercier said she will add a condition for the Order of Conditions with standard language. Mr. Latham confirmed he had no objection to the language and changing the hours of operation to 6:30AM. Mr. Safina asked for confirmation on the number of sports lights proposed. Ms. Mercier said she will verify the number and suggested a change to the Decision language on the light pole heights. Mr. Safina asked if there were any other public comments and when there were none asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. D Arezzo made a motion to close the public hearing for the Site Plan Review for 101 Willow Street, Austin Preparatory School. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. The Commission went through the Decision and minor changes were suggested. Mr. D'Arezzo confirmed that no restroom facilities are proposed. Mr. MacNichol reminded the Commission to vote on the waiver for the Traffic Study. Page 14 OFq Town of Reading 0Meeting Minutes •'�MOFr" Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to approve the waiver for the Traffic Study for 101 Willow Street Austin Preparatory School. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to approve the Site Plan Decision for 101 Willow Street, Austin Preparatory School as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing, Definitive Subdivision Plan 135. 139 & 149R Howard Street. Infrastructure Holdings LLC There was no one present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina noted that the Applicant requested the public hearing to be continued to September 9, 2019. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to continue the public hearing for 135, 139 & 149R Howard Street to September 9, 2019 at 7:45 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing. Site Plan Review 258-262 Main Street. Reading CRE Ventures LLC There was no one present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina noted that the Applicant has requested the public hearing to be continued to September 9, 2019. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to continue the public hearing for 258-262 Main Street, Reading CRE Ventures LLC to September 9, 2019 at 8:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing Zoning Bylaw Amendments for November Town Meeting Mr. Safina opened the continued public hearing for the Zoning Bylaw Amendments for November Town Meeting, Mixed-Use Regulations - Sections 2.0, 5.0 & 6.0 and Footnote One to Table 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. Ms. Mercier suggested discussing the Mixed-Use Regulations first because they impact the Business A and Business C Districts along Main Street. Mixed-Use Regulations - Sections 2.0. 5.0 and 6.0 Ms. Mercier said she made changes to the proposed bylaw amendments based on the feedback she received from the Commission at the last meeting and from the Select Board meeting on July 9, 2019. She asked if the Commission had time to review the changes prior to the meeting. Mr. Safina requested Ms. Mercier characterize the changes in order to help the residents in the audience understand. Ms. Mercier provided an overview of the proposed amendments and explained why the Commission is proposing such changes: • Business A zones exist on both sides of Main Street, primarily in the southern portion of Town; • The proposal is to add a definition for mixed-use that has both a residential and a commercial component, to create a process for mixed-use projects, and to establish regulation for mixed-use projects; • Would establish a Special Permit process with the Community Planning and Development Commission, which will require notification to abutters within 300' of any proposed project and a public hearing; and • There will be regulations for different aspects of the projects that incentivize or prioritize planning principles the Commission is in favor of. Page 1 5 I orq Town of Reading Meeting Minutes rnmxv�� Ms. Mercier said the Commission started the discussion in December 2018 and the official public hearing started in June. She invited the residents to come to the Public Services Department for further explanation of these changes if needed. Ms. Mercier went through the document and gave an overview of each section. Mr. Safina explained the Town is trying to get a little more commercial In the commercial corridor and the only way to do this is offer mixed-use to developers. Ms. Mercier said housing is driving the real estate market right now and if developers are allowed a housing component in their project the Town might see better development on south Main Street. Ms. Mercier explained the south Main Street Best Practices and Design Guidelines and why the document was referenced In the amendment. A resident asked for clarification of some of the language. Ms. Mercier replied this is to encourage commercial properties that are next to each other to share parking between them. She said If a mixed-use project can establish a permanent shared parking arrangement there could be flexibility on another measure of the project. Ms. Mercier discussed the commercial component of a mixed-use project and said the Commission feels strongly it does not want the commercial to be less than 25% of the gross floor area of the structure because this is the primary commercial district in town. Mr. Safina commented the Commission could receive resistance from a developer on this requirement. Ms. Mercier said housing is driving the real estate market right now and there are commercial vacancies in the area that are having difficulty getting tenants. She added even though the feedback received from the developers that 25% Is a high requirement, the Commission is determined to maintain the percentage to make sure the corridor does not turn completely into housing. Ms. Mercier discussed a clause that could allow the Commission to give favorable consideration on the request for waivers on other aspects of the design if the developer brings back existing commercial tenants once the development is completed. Mr. Safina said the benefit of the Special Permit process is that it gives the Town a better negotiation tool, the Design Guidelines are not enforceable they are recommended. Ms. Mercier reiterated the abutters are notified with the Special Permit process which gives them the opportunity to hear the negotiation and a chance to weigh in on a proposed project. Ms. Mercier said the residential component is required to be located in the rear of a building or on upper floors only, the first Floor fronting Main Street is meant for commercial space. Ms. Mercier explained Inclusionary Zoning is zoning that requires a certain number of units be eligible to families who qualify for affordable housing. A resident asked how high a building can be constructed. Ms. Mercier replied this is addressed in the Table of Dimensional Controls and is later in the bylaw. Mr. Safina asked how age restriction housing is addressed. Ms. Mercier responded there Is a mechanism for this but that she does not want to misspeak, she will get back to them with a response. Ms. Mercier pointed out there Is a provision that the Commission can grant a waiver on other aspects of a project if a developer proposes more than 10% affordable units or proposed units at a deeper level of affordability which will add breadth to the housing stock. Page 16 Town of Reading } „ Meeting Minutes Fo I 'e A resident from Greystone Way asked about the language about HUD. He said the development he lives at has three affordable units and asked if the current regulations require the units to remain affordable even when the units are sold. Ms. Mercier explained that each development Is different depending on how the Deed'Rider and Affordability Restriction were written. She said currently affordable housing requires the Deed Rider be in perpetuity so the unit Is not lost 30 years from now, but it is common that older affordable units have limits on them and can expire in a certain number of years. The same resident asked for clarification on a deed. Ms. Mercier explained the overall project has a Regulatory Agreement and a Deed Rider, and each unit has their own Deed Restriction. She added the proposal is not modifying any State or Federal parameters. Ms. Mercier discussed parking requirements on residential units &commercial uses and said shared spaces between businesses are encouraged. Ms. Mercier said she added a provision for bicycle parking to be included in developments. Ms. Mercier said she added language that projects that have electric vehicle charging stations, accommodations for car sharing or one or more drop off/pickup spaces for"app" rides can be given favorable consideration on requests for waivers. She explained the Select Board Chair requested provisions for electric vehicles. Ms. Mercier said there is a regulation that all loading Is to be managed on the site and not on Main Street or any side street. There is a provision the Commission can approve not requiring a loading space if an Applicant can make a strong case that one is not needed. She encouraged the Commission to consider that the number and types of deliveries is increasing, for example Uber & Lyft drop-offs, and Amazon and grocery deliveries that occur regularly. Mr. Safina agreed there are more deliveries and added a lot of deliveries are being done with smaller vehicles. The project could have two smaller spaces. Ms. Mercier said a development might not need a traditional loading space but there should be consideration made for other types of deliveries. Mr. Safina replied a loading space cannot be waived but the Commission can be Flexible. Ms. Mercier said she will work on the language. Ms. Mercier discussed curb cuts and driveways connecting adjacent lots. The intent is to encourage developers to have the curb cut off of a side street rather than on Main Street where feasible; as well as an internal connection between properties that will help prevent people from needing to go back onto Main Street to get to another business. Ms. Janet Davidson from Mile Post Road asked for clarity on the meaning of feasible. She explained she lives off of Hopkins Street and there is a possibility that Harrows, 126 Main Street, could sell, and from her view having an entrance other than that the one on Main Street will Increase the traffic by her home. Ms. Mercier replied Ms. Davidson had a good point and that a different word instead of feasible should be used. Mr. Safina said that property is a large site and there is Flexibility; he presented a scenario that the residential vehicles enter/exit off of the side street and all commercial on Main Street — whatever is the safest, least impactful route. Ms. Mercier said most commercial sites are accessed on Main Street and it could be easier to use the existing curb cut than deal with the State. Ms. Davidson said residents will think of locations that are closest to their homes and she is trying to understand the amendments to figure out if they will impact her personally. Mr. Safina said a traffic study will be required from developers and a project will not be approved if the sight-line is affected. Ms. Mercier explained there are driveway regulations that are required to be met or a waiver is needed from the Select Board. Ms. Mercier discussed the current project at 467 Main Street and pointed out the curb cut is now on Page 17 o�y orq� Town of Reading Meeting Minutes r`Iry�OP� Green Street. Ms. Davidson asked about the impact to the residents on Green Street. Ms. Mercier said a limited traffic study was conducted for the project; and there were some abutters who attended the meeting. Mr. D'Arezzo said exiting from Green Street was changed to"Right Turn Only". Ms. Mercier said the Commission tries to consider as many trickle-down impacts as they can. Mr. Safina discussed the Special Permit process. A resident expressed concern that the development at 467 Main Street is very close to the abutting property, 128 Tire. Ms. Adrian said there were negotiations between those two property owners. The Commission took a little time and answered questions about the development. Ms. Adrian complimented Ms. Mercier on the amendments and said they were very thoughtful. Ms. Mercier went through and explained the amendments to Section 6.0 and the Table of Dimensional Controls. She said it is important to note the dimensional controls that are proposed for mixed-use are not supposed to be more impactful than what already exists in the Business A Zoning District. The one exception is the front-yard setback that allows a building to be right up on Main Street. Ms. Mercier discussed the side-yard setback and how the amendments could impact the residential abutters. She said through the Special Permit process with the Commission almost anything can be negotiated. Ms. Mercier said the Intensity Regulations have changed since the last meeting but not since the Select Board meeting. A resident thanked Ms. Mercier for her thoughtful explanations. Ms. Mercier said out of the 984 courtesy notices that were mailed to the abutters of south Main Street, 13 inquiries were received, and 5 abutters attended this meeting. Mr. Safina complimented Ms. Mercier on her explanations and said the document presented is now clearer. Ms. Mercier asked the Commission if they had any comments on the language she added to the mixed-use regulations on bicycle parking and electric vehicle parking requirements. Mr. MacNichol asked If language should be added that at least one loading space should be provided. Ms. Mercier suggested different dimensions of a loading space. Mr. Safina replied a Loading Management Plan is required regardless of the business to see what size space is required. Mr. D'Arezzo said the requirement is one loading space per project. The Commission made changes to the loading space language. Ms. Mercier asked if the word "feasible" under curb cuts and driveways should be changed. Mr. Safina suggested a change to the language. Ms. Mercier said she Is trying to have strong language to get developers to think about alternative access points from side streets. Mr. Safina gave his opinion developers would like to have access on side streets. Ms. Mercier replied a developer could use both Main Street and the side street. Mr. Safina suggested for safety concerns separating residential access from commercial access. Mr. Safina said not many of the properties have side street access. The Commission discussed changes to the language. Ms. Mercier asked if the Commission would like any changes to the Intensity Regulations. Mr. D'Arezzo asked how some of the wording in Section 6.0 relates to a recent Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan the Commission endorsed. Ms. Mercier explained ANR Plans are Page I a OrR �� Town of Reading .y Meeting Minutes ��'IMOA� protected for three years from zoning changes. Mr. D'Arezzo brought forward a recent approval that allowed a lot to be divided for a buildable lot in the future. He asked for clarity on the more non-conforming. Ms. Mercier explained that endorsing an ANR is not a statement that the plan complies with zoning. She said Town Counsel still needs to review the language and it will be changed if needed. Footnote One to Table 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 Mr. D'Arezzo clarified that Footnote One will be removed from the Table of Uses in Business Zones. Ms. Mercier presented the feedback received from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). They suggested subtracting out the additions that came after 1942. She said staff believes this will add complexity for the Building Inspector, and If a dwelling qualifies for the zoning the square footage will be what it exists as of January 1, 2020. Mr. Safina said it could cause owners to come in and try to claim more square footage. Ms. Mercier said that would be another"can of worms" and would require additional digging through files. Mr. D'Arezzo said he likes the language as presented. Mr. Safina agreed. Ms. Mercier said the ZBA Chair requested parameters similar to the performance standards for accessory apartments - standards of means of egress and design for maintaining single- family appearance. Mr. MacNichol agreed the ZBA has difficulty with the requirement that the proposal must maintain a single-family appearance. Mr. Safina suggested a change to the language to maintain single-family character. He said it is not difficult to do and a good residential architect should be able to achieve this requirement. Ms. Mercier said the Commission previously decided not to include performance standards for Footnote One and to keep it simple. Mr. Safina agreed that performance standards have value but the Commission is trying to keep it Flexible and simple. Ms. Mercier said the ZBA, in an informal way, can pick and choose from the Performance Standards for Accessory Apartments to get their own checklist. Mr. MacNichol said not all of those standards will apply to Footnote One. Mr. Safina asked if there is a reason why the ZBA can't create their own checklist. Ms. Mercier replied there is no reason, but It is tricky if the Applicant does not know about the checklist up front and if the ZBA Is not consistent. Mr. Safina mentioned a recent ZBA meeting he attended, during which the ZBA said they look at each proposal individually. Ms. Mercier agreed there is no precedent in zoning, but there could be some consistency in their process if there was a checklist. Mr. Safina replied he does not have an issue with them using performance standards but if it Is formalized the Commission would need to really look at it make sure it is usable. Ms. Mercier suggested leaving the language as is, and revisiting Footnote One and accessory apartments in a year to allow some time to see what evolves. Ms. Mercier said Town Counsel had a question on the last paragraph regarding whether there should be a cap on the number of Special Permits or square footage allowed and if an owner can do the rest without a Special Permit if the maximum is not reached the first time. Mr. D'Arezzo replied that if a Special Permit is issued any changes would require an additional Special Permit. Mr. D'Arezzo opined that most people will get the fully allowable square footage the first time. Mr. Safina agreed, and said a developer would not leave square footage on the table. Ms. Mercier asked whether, if a proposal maxes out what is allowed the first time, a future owner could come back for an addition. Mr. D'Arezzo replied an Applicant is limited to 25% coverage and ZBA would have to approve if over the coverage. Ms. Mercier noted that theoretically the Variance threshold is harder to meet than the Special Permit criteria. Mr. Safina said the small Increase in square footage allows an accessory apartment that will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. Page 19 grkF e Town of Reading e Meeting Minutes �c ''arena>°`es The Commission discussed what could happen if an owner proposed an addition onto the two-family after it was converted under Footnote One. The language was changed to say no future additions will be allowed. Ms. Mercier said the goal is for the public hearing to be closed tonight in order to send the draft language to Town Counsel for review in time for the Warrant. Mr. Safina agreed that, even though everyone is not at the meeting, the process needs to proceed. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to close the public hearing for Footnote One - Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to close the public hearing for Mixed-Use and Intensity Regulations - Sections 2.0, 5.0 & 6.0. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to recommend the amendments to Footnote One - Sections 5.3.1 nd 5.3.2 to Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to recommend the amendments to Mixed-Use and Intensity Regulations - Sections 1.0, 5.0 and 6.0 to Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Topics Minutes of May 13, 2109 Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to approve the minutes for May 13, 2019 as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Minutes of June 10. 2019 Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to approve the minutes for June 10, 2019 as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Minutes of July S. 2019 Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to approve the minutes for July 8, 2019 as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. . Updates Ms. Mercier said the developer for the Met at 35 Lincoln Street has not applied to the ZBA for the Variance for the sign. The Commission discussed if the Applicant would have to come back to the CPDC for approval. Ms. Mercier said the Town Is continuing to work with the Dollar Store on the problems with truck-turning and circulation. Ms. Mercier asked for input on starting the conversation on zoning for next year at the next meeting, which could include a review and modernization of the Table of Uses. She said this could be an opportunity to meet Erin Schaeffer, the Town's new Economic Development Director. Mr. MacNichol noted that the Downtown Smart Growth District Design Guidelines also need to be discussed. Ms. Mercier said the meeting that was tentatively scheduled for August 21� Is not needed; the next meeting will be on September 9, 2019. Page 1 10 OWN nrg�i § Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10;30 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Documents Reviewed at Meeting: 8/12/19 Agenda 5/13/19,6/10/19,7/8/19 CPDC Minutes 107 Main Street Continuance Request 258-262 Main Street Continuance Request 135-249R Howard St Continuance Request ReMax Renaissance Sign Permit • Sign Permit Application • Draft Certificate of Appropriateness Austin Prep • Revised Site Plans dated 8/6/19 • Draft Decision,dated 8/12/19 • Memos from Town Engineer and Conservation Agent Zoning Amendments • Footnote 1 amendments—Revised Draft • Mixed Use and Intensity Regulations—Revised Draft Page 1 11