Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-07 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes Town of Reading 3 r Meeting Minutes „ n= it E sa 1 � LI E R K p� Board - Committee - Commission - Council: .'x13 L` 1 J Phi 2: 02 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 10-07-2019 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members - Present: John Weston, Rachel Hitch, Nick Safina, Pamela Adrian, Associate Tony D'Arezzo Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Economic Development Director Erin Schaeffer, Bill Lumbard, Steve Knight, Mary Ellen O'Neill, Brian McGrail Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Mr. Weston said a resident has requested time for public comment, and then the agenda will proceed out of order. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill from 125 Summer Avenue requested the Commission modify the subdivision regulations and not allow clear cutting of trees. She gave her opinion the town is losing too much tree coverage. Ms. O'Neill also asked the Commission for modification of the 40R Zoning Bylaw to provide for some setback and some green space. She gave her opinion the Town will regret allowing the type of construction at 467 Main Street up and down Main Street, and added there should be a modest strip of green along the sidewalk to help the appearance not look so harsh. Discussion of Potential Zonina Bylaw Amendments for 2020 Community Development Director Julie Mercier introduced Erin Schaeffer, the Town's recently hired Economic Development Director. Ms. Schaeffer provided her professional employment history and said she has a lot of technical experience from working for two other municipalities and from being a member of the Salem Historical Commission. Ms. Schaeffer said her intention is to proceed with implementation of the recommendations in the Economic Development Action Plan and that she is looking forward to working with the Commission on large-scale and small-scale initiatives. Mr. Weston requested Ms. Schaeffer attend the CPDC meetings at least every 4 to 6 months to ensure the Commission has direct communication and interaction with economic development initiatives. Ms. Schaeffer said she is interested in zoning and is looking forward to the discussion on zoning and policy changes that will bring support to existing businesses and result in future investment in the Town. She said the Town is actively Page 1 1 0 0MeetTown of Reading ing Minutes working with a variety of businesses that want to move to Town. It is the responsibility of Town staff to work with the CPDC and Select Board to help them make informed decisions. Mr. Weston agreed the decisions made by the Commission affect economic development; and restated it is important for Ms. Schaeffer to attend the meetings to help them make informed decisions. Ms. Mercier noted that, as discussed at previous meetings, the Table of Uses in the Zoning Bylaw is ripe for a review of the following: the structure and categories, what is allowed and where, and whether new uses should be added to modernize it. Ms. Mercier also suggested surgical fixes to reword a few areas of the Sign Bylaw that create a challenge for both staff and business owners. Ms. Mercier said she has no preference which subject is discussed first and reminded the Commission the discussion is in the early stages. Mr. Weston suggested starting with the Sign Bylaw. • Sign Bylaw Ms. Mercier clarified an earlier statement and said she proposed surgical fixes but also made comments that expand beyond the sections that the staff has on-going problems with. Mr. Weston said the intent of the discussion is not to solve an issue tonight but to gage where the Commission should concentrate. Ms. Hitch asked for examples of where there are challenges. Ms. Mercier gave the following examples: A-frame signs; upper floor signage, window signage, when to encourage a Master Signage Plan, and allowing flexibility when an owner requests a Master Signage Plan. Andrew MacNichol, Staff Planner, said he has received sign applications that request three (3) signs: a free-standing sign, directory sign, and a wall sign. The bylaw prohibits allowing all three but the Town works with the business to get a good product while maintaining the sign regulations. Ms. Mercier pointed out the regulations for window signage and said that it is easy for a business to unwittingly not comply. The Town is not always aware when a business does not comply, and if the Town enforces the violation they have to enforce it for all businesses. She asked the Commission what they want to prevent regarding window signage, and whether some of the items can be eliminated. Mr. Safina said he is concerned about businesses that blatantly disregard the bylaw. Ms. Mercier said there are times that businesses disregard the bylaw and other times that businesses may legitimately not know they are in violation. She cautioned that a bylaw that is too punitive without good cause will be ignored. She urged the Commission to explore different scenarios to allow flexibility. Ms. Mercier noted that there is some confusion about where A-Frame signs are allowed. The Town allows A-frame signs on the sidewalk in Business B with a license from the Select Board, and then ostensibly does not allow them in any other zone. The Town receives complaints about A-Frame signs on private properties all over Town. Ms. Mercier noted that every private property in Town is allowed one temporary sign of a certain size, and this could include an A-Frame. Mr. Safina agreed that A-Frame signs should be allowed on private property. Ms. Mercier said the bylaw could be interpreted two ways and should be clarified. The Commission began to review the proposed amendments. Page 1 2 Town of Reading 0X Meeting Minutes a '�uroxr� The Commission discussed whether murals are considered signs. Mr. Safina asked if a mural on a building wall that indicates what service a business offers is considered signage. He pointed out the former butcher shop had a fish market mural on the side wall of the building. Ms. Mercier replied the Town is not allowed to look at the content of proposed signage. Mr. Weston said the original discussion on murals took place before the Supreme Court Decision, so things have probably changed now. Mr. Safina opined that the Town could have decent art displays if the name of a business is not included in a mural. Mr. Weston asked how "original art display' is defined. Ms. Mercier read the definition from the bylaw and said it states what is not allowed versus what is. The Commission discussed Gold's Gym window signage. Mr. Safina opined that it is easy to say if something is more of a sign than if it isn't, and gave examples of what could be allowed on a mural for the local hockey store. Ms. Mercier commented that the bylaw does not allow signs to completely cover a window in order to still allow people on the street to view the inside of the business. She asked the Commission to clarify their concern with a business having an original art display image that includes what they sell or do. Mr. Safina gave an example of a hockey store mural with branding on the goalie's hockey pads and gave his opinion this would be considered a sign. Mr. Weston commented that it would not be great if a sporting goods store were allowed to have an original art display with hockey branding on all of their windows in addition to a business sign. Ms. Mercier asked if the issue is really about covering a window in branding, labeling or text. She asked if there would not be the same concern if the mural was on the wall of building. Mr. Safina said he would not have a concern with a mural on a window if there was no branding. Mr. Weston said branding creates another way a business can have a sign. Mr. Safina said a sport store could display gear in a window because it shows what the business is selling and it is not viewed as a sign. Ms. Mercier said the language needs to be clearer on what it is trying to prevent. Ms. Schaeffer brought forward her experience in Salem on signage and public art. She said business owners should recognize that public art can be beneficial for the branding or marketing of their company, and opined that a mural or public art is not a sign unless it is brand specific. Ms. Adrian said with this explanation a brewery could have a Clydesdale horse mural which would be specific to that business. Ms. Schaeffer said artists need to be careful that the imagery or icons they use do not create copyright issues. She said public art or murals is a benefit and does not necessarily belong in signage. Ms. Mercier replied that "original art display" is under signage in the zoning bylaw but is authorized in some places. She said the language in the definition should better clarify what is art and what is a sign. Mr. Safina suggested writing out a specific list of what is allowed and not allowed to see what it means for the definition. Mr. Weston agreed the issue is with the definition. Mr. Safina referred to the artwork on the building on Woburn Street which was approved for a yoga studio. Ms. Schaeffer said there is an electrical box in Peabody that has donuts painted on it and said this type of art is not necessarily a bad thing. Mr. Safina agreed it would be interesting to have this type of art that is associated with a business as long as it doesn't scream with branding. Ms. Schaeffer said there is a serious benefit from a business perspective having art correspond with space, place or experiences that isn't necessarily branded with copyrighted material. She said there are many cities and towns that have lots of examples of art boxes that could help define what the Town would want or not want. Mr. Safina opined that art boxes are a creative way for a business to get their message out to the public without branding. Ms. Schaeffer agreed art boxes create space identity for many places. Ms. Mercier asked the number of potential art boxes downtown. Mr. Page 15 Town of Reading 0 Meeting Minutes MacNichol replied he does not have the exact number but there are quite a few. Mr. D'Arezzo asked who owns the electrical boxes. Mr. MacNichol said ownership has to be worked out. Mr. Safina said the art is not limited to electrical boxes and suggested allowing a mural on a building wall. The Commission briefly discussed if a mural would require a Variance. Ms. Mercier noted that it used to in the past, but probably would not anymore. Ms. Mercier reviewed the section on flags and noted that in addition to one government flag, another flag is allowed on every private property and business. She asked the Commission to confirm that they meant to leave this additional flag unregulated. Mr. Safina said that would be a temporary sign and the Commission could not regulate the content. Mr. Weston said a temporary sign size can only be 6-square feet. Mr. D'Arezzo said a business can have two flags, one small flag promoting the ethnicity of their business and a government flag. The Commission agreed with Mr. D'Arezzo. Mr. Safina suggested changing the language to match the intent. Ms. Mercier reviewed prohibited signs and noted that she removed the acronym 'LED' because it is allowed as a light source. Ms. Mercier said banners as permanent signs and neon signs are prohibited. She said thinking outside of the box, neon is not bad in every instance. Ms. Schaeffer said there could be a space for neon and gave an example of a movie set business in Peabody who installed neon signs downtown that now is public art. Mr. Safina said the Commission would consider installation of a temporary art display on Main Street. Ms. Hitch said a vintage neon sign would fit into the feel of Biltmore and Main Restaurant. Mr. Weston said one business may do a neon sign correctly but another may not. Ms. Mercier said the Commission approves signs in Business B downtown; it is the other areas of town that could be a concern. Mr. Weston gave opined that allowing neon signs is not the biggest priority for the Commission. Ms. Mercier agreed but cautioned prohibiting a type of sign could limit creativity. Mr. Safina said there will be businesses that won't spend the money for a quality neon sign. Mr. Weston gave his opinion there are other ways a business can be creative. Mr. Safina said banners cannot be considered a permanent sign as they will fade and fly away. Ms. Mercier replied she understands the concern, but opined that the Town should have a process to allow banners above the sidewalk. Mr. Weston asked for a scenario where a banner would be requested. Ms. Mercier explained the Town is allowed to install banners but there is currently no process to allow another entity to propose and install banners. Ms. Hitch pointed out the banner comments are in the wrong section; Ms. Mercier agreed. Mr. Weston agreed there should be a future discussion about being flexible for temporary signs. Mr. Safina said he thought banners are allowed on light poles. Ms. Mercier replied she is not sure and will look into if this is allowed. Ms. Hitch said a banner would not be allowed across a roadway. Mr. Safina asked if a banner could be hung across Main Street since the Town does not own the roadway. Ms. Mercier replied it depends what section of Main Street as the Town does own from the railroad tracks to the fire station; nevertheless there is not a good process to allow a banner in a public way. Mr. MacNichol said there is a height limit for signs. Ms. Mercier summarized there have been instances when the request for a banner was denied because the Town does not have a process and, in some instances, it may make sense to allow it. Mr. D'Arezzo said the installation of banners should be subcontracted out to the Town DPW. Mr. Weston said that request could be noted as an item to be discussed at a future meeting. Ms. Mercier said she added language to "off-premises signs" and pointed out a business that would have benefited if allowed. Mr. Safina replied he thought there was language that allows an off-premises sign. Ms. Hitch asked if it would be considered a way-finding sign. Page 1 4 Town of Reading 0 Meeting Minutes Mr. Weston said he thought there is language to allow a sign in a residential zone. Mr. MacNichol said a larger size sign is allowed if the business is setback further from the roadway but it can't be off-premises. Ms. Hitch asked whether an auto dealership would need a variance to put up a wind or feather banner. Ms. Mercier replied in the affirmative. Mr. Safina explained that before feather banners were prohibited businesses were installing them and it was not very appealing. Ms. Mercier said the Town has done a lot of enforcement on feather banners, but she is not proposing changes to that regulation. Mr. Weston returned the discussion to off-premises signs and said there are situations in which it is needed, but the Commission should come up with certain site conditions as a rationale. Ms. Mercier agreed that with the correct authorization there are instances for which it would be helpful to allow these types of signs. Ms. Schaeffer asked for clarification of the proper authorization. Ms. Mercier replied that she will have to think this through, and it might depend on the situation. Mr. D'Arezzo said each proposal could have a different authorization document. Ms. Mercier said allowing off-premises signs could help businesses hidden from the roadway; and mentioned Aine's Boutique, which is located in the rear of a building, as an example of a business that could benefit from a sign on Main Street. Mr. Weston commented the Pilates business in the back of the MF Charles Building has a blade- sign on Main Street. Mr. Safina said he cannot find the language in the current bylaw to allow an off-premises sign but can remember it was in an earlier version. Ms. Mercier returned to the window sign discussion. She questioned why there are so many regulations and asked whether any can be removed. Mr. Safina explained that regulating the material that is applied on the outside of a window versus the inside of a window is important. He said there needs to be some type of order to what is allowed on a window; businesses are wrong to think that more signs means more business. Ms. Mercier agreed and said it is a combination of the right signs and right marketing strategies. Mr. D'Arezzo said the Town is trying to make Business B friendly and walkable and blocking an entire window would prevent this, but the industrial area doesn't have pedestrian traffic. He questioned if there should be a different regulation for businesses in the industrial area than for businesses downtown. Ms. Mercier said the current bylaw has the same window regulations no matter the location of the business and agreed that perhaps the location should be considered. Ms. Mercier explained an error in the numbering of the sections that needs to be corrected. Ms. Mercier asked if any provisions could be eliminated, and asked for specifics about the concern with the letters being larger than B" in height. Ms. Hitch said she cannot picture what is good to keep or eliminate and is having difficulty giving feedback. Mr. Weston explained the size of the letters is covered elsewhere in the bylaw. He said in the past the town has had difficulty enforcing the 30% window requirement. Ms. Mercier said window signage is tricky in general and agreed the 30% requirement is problematic. Mr. Safina said the Applicant is supposed to measure the window. Ms. Mercier said the Applicant does not always apply for approval. Mr. MacNichol said window signs do not require approval from the Town. Mr. Safina said the Commission cannot write zoning based on the fact someone might ignore it. Mr. Weston said zoning should be written based on the capability to enforce it. Mr. Safina said all the regulations can be enforced and are not subjective. Mr. Weston said there are violations because Town staff does not have time to measure a window to make sure it meets the 30% requirement. Mr. Safina suggested requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness for every sign. He said he understands the enforcement issue but it doesn't mean the zoning should be written so the Town doesn't have to worry about enforcing. Ms. Mercier replied that Mr. Safina's statement was not the intention of bringing Page 1 5 Town of Reading 0� Meeting Minutes ^a�„Ro up the potential for change; however, zoning should be written so someone can easily interpret it and so it is enforceable. The Commission discussed the window sign on the MF Charles Building. Mr. Safina said he is in favor of eliminating the height requirement and suggested requiring the material be mostly transparent. Ms. Mercier opined that the sign bylaw should reflect what the Commission would like to realistically regulate. Mr. D'Arezzo said limiting the regulation to the 30% requirement will cover most conditions and assures that you can see into most windows. Ms. Hitch read language that requires the sign to be neat and professional in appearance and be maintained at all times. Mr. Safina responded the language is to assure the Applicant is buying quality material. The Commission discussed the language. Ms. Hitch asked about enforcement and if the hockey store sign complies with the bylaw. Mr. Safina replied the hockey store previously had a mural that was not in compliance. Ms. Hitch asked if the condemned building next door to the hockey store complies, as the lettering is faded and half off. Mr. Safina explained the hockey store mural was enforced under former regulations. Mr. Weston expressed concern that not all businesses will do a mural in good taste and the Town cannot regulate for content. Ms. Mercier suggested there could be more Flexibility in the signage that's allowed but that there could be a process for approval of signs in all areas of Town. She said that staff would prefer to help a business go through the process to get a Certificate of Appropriateness, have a nice discussion and a positive experience, versus doing enforcement and being nit-picky. Ms. Adrian said there have been signs that have not been acceptable and suggested more examples that will be helpful to the Applicant to understand what is allowed. Ms. Schaeffer suggested the scale in relation to the square footage of the fagade. Mr. Safina replied the main sign is based on this scale. Ms. Mercier asked the Commission if they have seen signs in other towns that they like. Mr. Safina replied he has seen other towns that allow too many window signs. Ms. Schaeffer suggested a public process to help staff with enforcement and to understand the public; she urged the Commission to think about what matters to them. Mr. Safina agreed on a public process that the Commission has the authority to waive anything. Ms. Mercier asked if the process would include all business signs. Mr. Safina agreed the process can be similar to what is currently done for Business B in all zoning districts, and said there should be another process for window signs that allows the requirements to be waived if the proposal is creative. Mr. D'Arezzo gave his opinion requiring Certificate of Appropriateness for signs in all zones should not be necessary. Mr. Safina said the Certificate of Appropriateness can be approved by the staff. Ms. Mercier responded currently the staff does sign off on signs in Business A; and said it would be beneficial if the Commission approves. She explained she would like to spend time helping Applicants prepare to meet with the Commission than spend time enforcing sign violations. Mr. Safina questioned the comment made about enforcement. Ms. Mercier clarified that one strategy is to make the sign regulations more Flexible but require signs in all zoning districts to be approved by the Commission. Ms. Schaeffer said it could be burdensome for some businesses to come before the Commission versus than staff having very clear criteria to come to a decision. Mr. Safina suggested more flexibility for the staff to approve and if too complex the Commission will review. Ms. Hitch said right now the bylaw is onerous for businesses and they don't know what to do. The language should be clear and flexible but she expressed concern adding another process. Mr. Safina responded the bylaw criteria could be cleared up if it is too vague. Ms. Mercier brought back the discussion to window signs and said window signs currently do not have a process. The staff does review and approve signs in Business A, but others fall through the cracks because there is no process. The Commission briefly discussed the signs Page 1 6 Town of Reading 00 Meeting Minutes IJIV INfYF they have recently reviewed. Mr. Weston agreed window signs that follow the criteria can be done by-right, but the ones that are different would require a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Hitch asked about the mechanism for enforcement if a window sign is non-conforming. Ms. Mercier replied the challenge is many businesses do not know window sign regulations exist and become aware after-the-fact. She suggested requiring window signage in Business B be looped-in with the sign application process. Ms. Hitch responded that enforcement and compliance after-the-fact is strenuous for businesses. Ms. Mercier suggested requiring all businesses fill out a sign application for the window sign so the design can be reviewed in advance of installation. Mr. D'Arezzo gave an example of a store that promotes weekly sales in the window, and asked if they are required to apply every week for text changes. Mr. Safina reiterated the town cannot regulate the content. Ms. Mercier explained her intent for the suggestions is to start dialogue. Ms. Schaeffer suggested streamlining the process so it is not confusing for businesses which sign requires town approval. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if a business is given the sign bylaw when they fill out a sign application. Ms. Mercier replied that practice is not currently done, but it could be started. Mr. Weston said the problem is that it is not obvious window signs are regulated; and suggested keeping the 30% requirement and have guidelines. Ms. Hitch asked if the Town would enforce the removal of posters that are in windows. Ms. Mercier said the Town has enforced such in the past, but the Town is trying to be more business friendly. Mr. Weston requested moving on from the discussion on window signs. Mr. Weston recommended discussing A-Frame signs. Mr. D'Arezzo commented that A-Frame signs are designed for slow moving traffic and pedestrians, and it makes no sense for a large shopping center to be allowed an A-Frame sign. Ms. Hitch asked where the A-Frame issues are. Ms. Mercier replied there are a number of businesses that put them up along south Main Street, and that they are often displayed on residential or institutional properties around Town. She said she mentioned this concern earlier because the A-frame sign is on private property and the bylaw is not clear if allowed. There is a process through the Select Board for Business B and the bylaw says they are not allowed anywhere else. Mr. Safina gave his opinion that A-Frame signs are not that offensive and as long as they are not in the public way and count as a temporary sign it should be acceptable. Ms. Mercier said it should be clarified that A-Frame signs are temporary. Mr. Weston said the Commission universally agrees an A-Frame is allowed if on private property. Ms. Mercier clarified if there is no room on the private property the business will be required to go through Town approval. Ms. Mercier discussed adding language and tying in the removal of a defunct sign to the installation of another sign to prevent a gap on a building facade. She also asked if a defunct sign should be allowed to remain for a short time. Mr. D'Arezzo said the only problem is allowing a defunct non-conforming sign to remain on a building. Mr. Safina said the language specifies that the sign conforms. Ms. Schaeffer discussed grandfathering and allowing a non-conforming defunct sign to remain. Mr. Weston said there are a lot of signs that are grandfathered that the Commission would like to be removed. Ms. Mercier asked for an example of a non-conforming sign. Mr. Safina suggested adding language to allow the staff to approve defunct signs to remain in place until a new one is installed. He added if possible a panel on a defunct sign can be turned around. Ms. Adrian said if the removal of the sign makes the site unsightly the sign should remain in place. Mr. Safina said most sign makers know the Town has sign regulations. Mr. D'Arezzo said the discussion will be long on two-story structures. Ms. Mercier said it is an important discussion especially with the potential redevelopment and taller buildings. Page 1 Town of Reading 0 Meeting Minutes Mr. D'Arezzo said his problem is the taller the sign, the more visibility it gets which is good for businesses but not for residents. Mr. Safina said the real estate sign on the Reading Cooperative building is not appealing and dominates Haven Street. Mr. D'Arezzo said the higher the sign it should be a smaller sign. He discussed the sign at The Met on Lincoln Street. Mr. Weston asked what view is a business trying to capture if a sign is above the second floor. Ms. Mercier said the industrial area should be thought of differently than Main Street. • Table of Uses Ms. Mercier said at this time there are no proposed changes to Section 2.0 Definitions. She said she went through the Table of Uses and highlighted uses with no definitions, uses that are listed multiple times, and uses that might need clarification. She noted that there are a lot of uses that are not listed, but said she does not believe there is a clause in the zoning bylaw that says if a use is not permitted it is prohibited. Mr. D'Arezzo said he believes the State statute interprets It that way. Ms. Mercier said she will double check her statement with Town Counsel and the zoning statute to make sure it is accurate. Ms. Adrian asked if a laundromat is included in the definitions. Ms. Mercier replied it is not, but it could be added. Mr. Weston mentioned the language that changing from one use category to another in an existing structure is a trigger for a review. Ms. Mercier asked if in the past the Commission had to review any change of use even if there were not necessarily planning implications. Mr. Weston responded that if a retail business changed to a bank the Commission had to review. He said that changes within the Business and Service category don't necessarily need a Site Plan Review, but the use change could have significant impacts depending on externalities. Ms. Mercier cautioned that the Commission will have to be careful about requiring a Site Plan Review for a use change, as it can create a chilling effect on businesses that want to locate in Town and have to go through a whole process. Mr. Weston said the language is too loose; and suggested eliminating the clause or trying to create categories of uses that have similar impacts and externalities, where it could be reasonable to allow a change of use without requiring a full Site Plan Review. Ms. Mercier suggested a Minor Site Plan Review might be appropriate in some cases, so the process is less demanding for the business. Ms. Schaeffer asked for clarification on when the Commission would need to review a change of use. Mr. Weston explained that currently the Commission does not need to review it if a use is the same, and there are no changes to the site or building. However, he said that a restaurant that changes to a fast-food restaurant should be reviewed because of its potential impact to the community. Ms. Hitch asked for clarification on why the Commission would have to review an allowable use in the same zoning district. Mr. Weston explained a Site Plan Review allows the review of the impacts on the community. Ms. Mercier said it is the change of use. Ms. Hitch gave her opinion on why the Table of Uses should be changed and the Special Permit Process (SPP) should be added to some uses. Mr. Weston said the Commission looks at the site plan and the impact of the use to the community. He said he is surprised to see some changes of businesses and the Commission was not aware; and gave an example of a restaurant use that could change to an animal hospital and there is nothing in the bylaw that requires a process. Ms. Schaeffer said the Commission should assume a level of activity and parking around the service uses; and requiring a Site Plan Review could deter a business from coming to the town. She recommended the Commission to restructure the uses and have like uses. Mr. Weston agreed and said similar uses should be listed together. Ms. Hitch commented the Commission is on the same page, there are uses that are similar Page 1 8 Town of Reading 0 Meeting Minutes enough that it does not trigger a Site Plan Review and there are ones that do not have the same type of traffic that should be reviewed. Mr. Weston said the industrial zone discussion should be put on hold until it is understood what the vision is for that district. Ms. Hitch said the industrial use list is outdated and should be reviewed. Ms. Mercier informed the Commission there was a presentation at the Select Board by Gamble Associates on a redesign concept of the Eastern Gateway. Ms. Schaeffer said Gamble Associates will be presenting again at the Economic Development Summit scheduled for October 23, 2019 from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM and there will be other forums available. Ms. Hitch asked if the event can be added to the Town website. Ms. Schaeffer said the Boards/Commissions will be notified and the event uploaded to the Town website. Ms. Mercier said Green International will also be presenting at the Summit on the results of the Corridor Analysis, traffic impact and concepts on redesigning some intersections. Ms. Schaeffer provided where on the website the information on Economic Development is located. Ms. Mercier said that, given all these efforts, it makes sense to discuss the industrial area in the near future with regards to what should be allowed and different uses that should be considered. Mr. Weston asked if Ms. Mercier believes that definitions should be added for all uses. Ms. Mercier replied at some point the Commission should review the uses and their respective definitions to make sure they make sense today. Ms. Schaeffer said some terms are outdated. Ms. Hitch asked if the uses that are 'No' in all districts need to be listed in the chart or can it say such uses are not permitted. Ms. Mercier replied she needs to review if the uses that are not permitted are prohibited. Ms. Hitch said indoor recreation is not permitted and asked the process on how to recommend the use. Mr. Weston said the Commission decides on the rules, Town Meeting approves and the Zoning Board of Appeals enforces the bylaw. Mr. Weston said the Commission should not concentrate on industrial uses. Ms. Hitch said some of the uses in the industrial area can be allowed in other areas of Town. Mr. Weston said the topics need to be prioritized and the discussion on industrial uses won't be finalized tonight. Mr. Safina said he disagrees with waiting on the discussion of industrial uses; other towns already allow these types of uses. After listening to Ms. Hitch and Mr. Safina, Mr. Weston responded perhaps the discussion should happen sooner to see what the Commission would allow for uses, but he prefers waiting for the Town to come to a decision first on the Eastern Gateway. Mr. Safina said he does not understand why computer services is not an allowed use; and life science services are small laboratories that need a small area. Mr. Weston said he thought former discussions resulted in lack of agreement on how those type of uses are defined. Ms. Mercier gave her opinion those type of uses should not necessarily be considered industrial or only limited to industrial areas. Ms. Schaeffer said the presentation by Gamble and Associates does not definitively come to a decision on a type of use, but requires you to think broadly and keep an open mind on the mix of uses while working with the existing businesses and residents during a course of time. Ms. Adrian said publishing and printing is currently done at Staples, so the use cannot be prohibited. Ms. Mercier recommended the following steps on reviewing the uses: defining, recategorizing, and evaluating where they will be allowed. Mr. Safina said there are some uses in the industrial zone that can be redefined and changed to another location. Ms. Mercier discussed different ways for how to proceed with the feedback received. Mr. Weston suggested the staff take the lead and the Commission will review. Ms. Schaeffer agreed and said staff can reach out to the other communities and contacts to collect information. Ms. Hitch said the Commission can do their own review and determine what to redefine or remove. Ms. Mercier said the staff will look at definitions and do some research. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if intensity should be considered when looking at the uses. Ms. Page 19 Town of Reading 0k Meeting Minutes �+uto Schaeffer suggested refraining from looking at the intensity, a Special Permit Process might be required. Ms. Mercier said if the bylaw is too prescriptive, it can limit creativity and flexibility for something that could be good for the Town. Mr. D'Arezzo said he was thinking about different uses in residential. Continued Public Hearing Definitive Subdivision Plan 135 139 & 149R Howard Street Infrastructure Holdinas LLC There was no one present for the Application. Mr. Weston noted that the Applicant requested the public hearing be continued to November 4, 2019. Mr. Safina made a motion to continue the public hearing for 135, 139 & 149R Howard Street to November 4, 2019 at 8:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing, Site Plan Review 258-262 Main Street, Reading CRE Ventures LLC There was no one present for the Application. Mr. Weston noted that the Applicant requested the public hearing be continued to November 4, 2019. Mr. Weston made a motion to continue the public hearing for 258-262 Main Street, Reading CRE Ventures LLC to November 4, 2019 at 8:15 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Arezzo and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Topics Lenetta Lane Subdivision Ms. Mercier said Lenetta Lane is off of Franklin Street and is a 6-lot subdivision. The subdivision was approved in the Fall of 2017 and the construction is on-going; both the original developer, Bill Lumbard, and the new developer, Steve Knight, who is hoping to purchase the remainder of the project, are available to answer any questions. She explained the Commission will need to establish a new Covenant Agreement (Form H) and Tri-Party Agreement (Form K) for the new developer, and then release the old Covenant Agreement and Tri-Party Agreement for the original developer. Mr. Safina asked if there was a band reduction. Ms. Mercier affirmed there was a band reduction; Engineering reviewed what is left to do at the site and calculated a new number that everyone approved. Mr. Weston wanted assurance the new agreement covers the same things as the last agreement. Ms. Mercier suggested the Commission vote first on the new Form H and Form K, and then to release the original Form H and Form K. Ms. Hitch made a motion to endorse Form H and Form K for the Lenetta Lane Subdivision. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Ms. Hitch made a motion to release the Covenant and bond for the original developer S&L Homes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Page 110 0 0MeetTown of Reading ing Minutes • Approval Not Required, 104 Salem Street Attorney Brian McGrail was present for the Application. Ms. Mercier said the Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan for 104 Salem Street meets the Town's requirements and the Engineering Division has no concerns with it. Ms. Mercier noted a memo that she wrote explaining that the Applicant is looking to have the ANR endorsed to obtain a zoning freeze to protect his lot from the proposed changes to Footnote 1 to the Table of Uses at November Town Meeting. She clarified that the reason for the ANR is interesting but that the Commission needs to focus on frontage and adequacy of the way. Mr. Weston pointed out the property is located on the corner of Salem and Pearl Street and asked if the Commission had any questions. Mr. Safina commented that zoning is in place for a reason, and noted that residents attend meetings when there is a 40B proposed but not when there is a subtle attempt by a developer to manipulate the bylaw. Ms. Mercier commented that the 40B statute and process is very different from the ANR process. Mr. D'Arezzo asked for clarification on the State ANR handbook and asked if the freeze for three years is on the use and not on Dimensional Controls. Ms. Mercier replied she believes it pertains to all aspects of zoning, and deferred to Attorney Brian McGrail. Mr. McGrail explained it depends on the dimensional controls and their effect, but it does freeze all uses. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the intention of the Applicant is to convert the single-family home to a two-family under the existing Footnote 1 of the Zoning Bylaw in preparation for the changes that may come at the next Town Meeting. He said the changes proposed to Footnote 1 are a clarification of the rules and intent. Mr. Safina opined that endorsement would allow the owner to raze the existing dwelling and build on the two new nonconforming lots. Ms. Mercier noted that in order to build on the non-conforming lots, the Applicant would need to seek Variances for a hardship he created. Mr. McGrail disclosed the intention is not to build two new dwellings; the owner is caught in the middle of the bylaw change. The owner has been working with the Town and the objective is to save a good part of the existing dwelling under the current language of Footnote 1. Mr. Safina asked why an ANR is needed. Ms. Mercier replied it is to freeze the zoning so the Applicant can continue with his proposal under the current language of Footnote 1. Mr. Safina said the property is in the S-15 Zoning District and is a 21,000 +/- square foot Lot, and again questioned the need for an ANR. Mr. McGrail replied that the proposed Footnote 1 language will require a Special Permit process while the current language does not. The ANR Plan does not have to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds to obtain the zoning freeze; the endorsement of the Commission will freeze the entire Lot as it exists today. Ms. Mercier said the Applicant likes the current bylaw and wants to freeze it in place; a future proposal to build on the Lots would require multiple Variances after the fact. Ms. Hitch made a motion to endorse the Approval Not Required Plan for 104 Salem Street. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Arezzo and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Discussion of Downtown Smart Growth District Design Guidelines Ms. Mercier said the Design Guidelines are close to be being completed. The Commission provided feedback. Ms. Hitch brought up her concern with the language for abutting residential districts. Mr. Weston said even though the language is added, in the past the Commission considered the impact of a development that abuts residential-use. Ms. Schaeffer said it is beneficial for staff and developers to have in writing the expectations. She said the Commission can ask for additional information or studies if necessary. Page 1 11 Town of Reading 0Meeting Minutes Ms. Mercier went through the updated draft Design Guidelines. Mr. D'Arezzo recommended the language for one, two and three families be consistent. Ms. Hitch asked for feedback from the private sector to see if the Design Guidelines are reasonable. Ms. Schaeffer said it makes sense to put expectations in writing and she will work with Ms. Mercier and look at the language to make sure it is clear. Ms. Hitch asked if the concerns that were brought up earlier by Ms. O'Neill on greenspace should be considered. Ms. Mercier said there is language about streetscape and public amenities. Mr. Weston said the sub-division regulations do need to be reviewed. Ms. Mercier agreed but opined that this Commission and the Conservation Commission do a good job limiting the work area and tree clearing. Ms. Schaeffer said the Town of Danvers was thinking about changing the subdivision regulations to include multi and two-families to use less land. Ms. Mercier reminded the Commission to review the Use Table to provide feedback Ms. Mercier asked if the Commission submitted the Economic Development Survey and how to access the survey if they have not. Ms. Schaeffer said she will send out the information on the Economic Development Summit • Approval of CPDC Minutes of 09/09/2019 September 9. 2019 The September 9, 2019 minutes were not discussed. Ms. Hitch made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:39 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents Reviewed at Meeting 10/7/19 Agenda 258-262 Main Street Continuance Request 135-149R Howard St Continuance Request ANR Plan,104 Salem Street Downtown Smart Growth District Design Guidelines—October 2019 Zoning Bylaw Section 2.0 Definitions Zoning Bylaw Section 5.0 Uses—annotated by staff,October 2019 Zoning Bylaw Section 8.0 Signs—annotated by staff,October 2019 Lenetta Lane Subdivision • Form H Covenant Agreement • Form K TO Party Agreement Page 1 12