Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-03-09 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: PI- Community Planning and Development Commission " H : 26 Date: 2020-03-09 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members: John Weston, Chair; Nick Safina, Heather Clish, Pamela Adrian, Tony D'Arezzo-Associate Members - Not Present: Rachel Hitch Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Joe Peznola, Josh Latham, Jay Finnegan Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: John Weston called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM. Continued Public Hearing Site Plan Review 259-267 Main Street Stoneciate Construction Corporation Joshua Latham, Jay Finnegan, and Joseph Peznola were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Weston opened the continued public hearing for the Site Plan Review at 259-267 Main Street. Mr. Joseph Peznola, Director of Engineering from Hancock Associates, requested a continuance from the Commission, and noted that the development team is just providing an update tonight. He explained that the Conservation Commission requested a third-party peer reviewer get involved. He updated the Commission on the following: • Lighting was incorporated into photometric plan; low level lighting with little impact: • A light fixture outside on each of the units; • Security lighting near the garage door; • Bollards added outback by the pathway and parking lot; • The colored rendering on the front was updated to be more accurate on the landscaping, retaining wall and slope; and • The pathways from the egress doors will be straight out to the sidewalk - it will be done with landscape stones and a small break into the wall in two locations; Mr. D'Arezzo asked if handrails are being proposed on the stairs and sidewalks? Mr. Peznola replied handrails are not being proposed because the stairs and sidewalks are not meant as an entrance but they will be provided if the Building Code requires them. Ms. Clish asked about the slope by the retaining wall. Mr. Peznola replied the slope is 3:1. Page Town of Reading B Meeting Minutes Mr. Peznola commented the Applicant will continue working with staff on comments in the draft decision over the next few weeks, so it is ready once the Conservation Commission is done. He explained that the third-party reviewer was requested by the Conservation Commission to help with concerns from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Mr. D'Arezzo asked about the location of the generator and gas grill. Mr. Peznola pointed out the area for the emergency generator and said the gas grill will be on the landscaped flat patio area at the northeast of the site. Ms. Adrian asked when the Applicant will be requesting signage for the site. Mr. Peznola replied any signage will comply with the sign bylaw, and the proposal is for a monument sign only. Ms. Adrian asked about signage on the building. Mr. Peznola said a real estate sign only and reiterated the signage will comply with the zoning bylaw. Mr. Safina asked how the "no grill" rule on the balconies will be enforced so it is not passed onto the Town to enforce. Mr. Peznola replied that it will be in the Condominium Association documents and the enforcement of the master insurance policy. He explained if there is an incident the insurance company will not cover a loss of that type. Attorney Joshua Latham added that the Condominium Association documents will authorize the management company to escalate fines that can become a lien on a unit. Mr. Finnegan said the restriction on a gas grill has always been in the Condominium Association Documents, and there has never been an enforcement problem at other developments. Mr. Weston said assuming there are no big changes from the Conservation Commission, this Commission's outstanding questions have been addressed. Mr. Safina made a motion to continue the public hearing for 259-267 Main Street to April 13, 2020 at 7.45 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Clish and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing Site Plan Review 258-262 Main Street CRE Ventures LLC There was no one present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Weston said at the request of the Applicant, the public hearing for 258-262 Main Street is continued to April 13, 2020. Mr. Safina made a motion to continue the public hearing for Site Plan Review at 258-262 Main Street to April 13, 2020 at 8:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Topics Julie Mercier, Community Development Director, updated the Commission the "Downtown Smart Growth District - Design Standards and Guidelines" were approved by the State and are available on the Town website. The guidelines were sent to developers for potential development projects for Phase II of the 40R District. She also mentioned that the zoning approved at November Town Meeting has been approved by the Attorney General's Office and will be incorporated into the new Zoning Bylaw shortly. Ms. Mercier explained the zoning has technically been effective since the publication of the first notice of the public hearing for the amendments. Page Town of Reading Meeting Minutes °uq,Ko� Discussion of Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for 2020 Table of Uses & Definitions • Focus on: 'Business and Service Uses' Ms. Mercier said staff originally focused on one area- 'Business and Services Uses' and found that the proposed changes were interrelated with and impacted many other sections, so it was decided that staff would look at the whole table. She asked for feedback from the Commission. Mr. Weston suggested going through the definitions first to make sure the Commission agrees a definition should be changed or added; and then the Table of Dimensional Controls should be reviewed. Ms. Adrian said she forwarded her suggestions on the definitions to the staff. Ms. Mercier reminded the Commission of a previous discussion where it was decided to have broader terms in the Table of Dimensional Controls and definitions that say, "including but not limited to". Then list some of the uses that the Commission has in mind that will ft in that broader definition, rather than having a Table of Uses that has a large number of uses, which would be cumbersome. Mr. Safina said typically codes assume if something is not included it is prohibited; and with the suggested language that says "not limited to" the Commission will have to be specific what they do not want. Ms. Mercier responded staff held a discussion with Town Counsel on this topic, and it was clarified that Reading's bylaw, specifically the Table of Uses for Business and Industrial Districts, does not have a statement "uses that are not expressly permitted are prohibited", rather there is a category under the Table of Uses for uses that are substantially similar to the by-right use'. Mr. Safina asked how the Commission would prohibit a use? Ms. Mercier replied there are uses that are prohibited because they have a "NO" in every zoning district column. Ms. Clish agreed a use could be overlooked on a long list. She asked whether any use that is not specifically addressed will be allowed because it is not prohibited. Ms. Mercier replied she will review the email from Town Counsel on this. Ms. Clish said her concern is removing a category and the implications. Ms. Mercier suggested that if a use was presented by an Applicant and that was not similar to an existing use, and not listed in the bylaw, the staff would say it is not addressed and there is not a process for it. Staff would not say it is necessarily prohibited but would advise the Applicant to seek legal counsel. Mr. Weston said "substantially similar" would help the definitions not be exhaustive. He questioned if a tasting room would be allowed. Ms. Mercier said it is hard for the Commission to know all uses they would not want and suggested adding the language "uses that are not expressly permitted are prohibited unless it can be proven it is substantially similar to a by-right use"to the bylaw. Mr. Safina asked if it is possible to add language to the residential districts and not to the commercial districts. Ms. Mercier opined that the commercial districts are more likely to see uses that are new to the Town. Mr. Safina said he thought there is language in the bylaw that says if the use is not listed the use would be prohibited; and asked if a mix of language is allowed. Ms. Mercier replied she does not believe that specific language is in the bylaw. Mr. Weston said Town Counsel would need to review allowing a mix of language; and he recommended the Commission list the uses that are allowed. Ms. Clish said the Commission can envision what they would want to allow in a residential district. Ms. Mercier replied she did not think it was necessary to list the uses for a residential district. Mr. Weston pointed out that 10 years ago Airbnb rentals was not a use that anyone contemplated. The Commission discussed the ramification if the language"uses Page Town of Reading Meeting Minutes that are not expressly permitted are prohibited unless it can be proven it is substantially similar" was in the bylaw. Ms. Clish requested examples from other towns on the type of uses they allow in a residential district, rather than addressing a new use after it becomes a concern. Ms. Mercier agreed the Town is trying to catch up and modernize the Use Table, and said short-term rentals can be discussed at a future meeting. Ms. Adrian gave an example if the Olympics were in Massachusetts, people could sub-rent their place and gouge the rental fee. Ms. Mercier said she will provide her research to the Commission for a future discussion; and said there are regulations and tax revenue that could be generated from short-term rentals. Mr. Safina questioned if short-term rentals can be monitored. Mr. Weston said the discussion on short-term rentals ought to start with the Select Board. Mr. Safina brought up a recent Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) public hearing for an accessory apartment and said the ZBA did not want to address a concern brought forward by a resident if the residential unit was used as a short-term rental. Ms. Mercier recommended removing short-term rentals at this point from the discussion. Ms. Mercier said the Zoning Workshop that was scheduled for March 30th has been canceled due to the current health situation and because large gatherings are not allowed. Mr. Weston asked if two different definitions are necessary for things that are similar, or whether they can be merged together. He gave the example of fast food and casual dining; and said if the difference is the drive-through, then the drive-through should be vetted. Mr. Safina said it is not necessarily just the drive-through, it is the amount of time someone would spend at a facility. The orders placed in the drive-through would generate more traffic than if someone dines inside a restaurant. Ms. Clish brought up fast casual dining. The Commission discussed how different types of casual dining facilities can be defined, and the potential traffic they could generate. Ms. Mercier said the direction of this discussion is an example of how a discussion can balloon and asked how the Commission wants to proceed. Mr. Weston asked how we would encourage one type of business and not allow a similar business. Mr. Safina said the biggest impact from a fast food business is traffic, and determining how much parking and seating will be needed. Ms. Clish said another way to control impacts is through elements and required design. Ms. Mercier said an application for a 40R project has to comply with the Design Standards and Guidelines. Ms. Mercier said that Andrew MacNichol, Staff Planner, grouped together similar categories to help with the discussion. She asked the Commission if they recall the mason "bar/tavern" use is not allowed anywhere in Town. The Commission discussed and concluded the Select Board would not issue a liquor license without food being served or if it wasn't a club. Ms. Mercier said she will research to see if this is still a requirement. Mr. Safina said in the past, if an Applicant didn't have a liquor license approval from the Select Board the Commission would not approve the Site Plan Review for a restaurant or bar. Ms. Mercier pointed out staff tried to rework the definitions. Mr. Weston complimented the approach taken by staff, and asked how you can define food or meal. Mr. MacNichol replied the intent was to get away from having only snacks available. Mr. Safina asked about the language in the liquor license application and recommended using similar language. Ms. Adrian asked if there was a separate category for a liquor store. Mr. MacNichol said per M.G.L. liquor stores is a whole different permit; and said breweries, wineries and distilleries are only allowed to sell the product(s) produced on site. Ms. Mercier explained there are a lot of regulations at the State level. Mr. Safina asked if this use would be allowed by the Town Liquor Licensing Regulations? Ms. Mercier said she will research and follow up with the Commission. Mr. D'Arezzo opined these types of uses are not typically in small buildings. The Commission disagreed and mentioned different businesses in surrounding towns. Ms. Mercier said Erin Schaeffer, Economic Development Director, has experience with these types of businesses because she helped permit them in Salem. Mr. Weston opined the Page Town of Reading 3 Meeting Minutes Town should have a discussion on allowing these types of uses. Ms. Mercier said the Town received a lot of positive feedback from the ReImagine Reading Survey on the brewery and distillery use. Mr. Safina explained the building code is strict with distilleries on the requirements on storing of the barrels. Ms. Clish opined it would be terrible for an Applicant to present a proposal and get halted from another board or commission. Ms. Mercier confirmed she will look at the Liquor License regulations. She asked the Commission for feedback on the way the definitions are broken down. Mr. MacNichol added it would be rare that a brewery or distillery would not have a tasting room, but in case there is one focusing on wholesale and manufacturing it is listed differently in the use table and only allowed in the industrial area. Ms. Mercier added that in the Use Table it is under light industry. Mr. Safina asked if there should be definitions that reference back to other definitions. Ms. Mercier said the Use Table will match the definition so referencing might not be necessary. She said she would like to receive general feedback from the Commission and what they would like the staff to research for the next meeting. Mr. Safina asked about goals and the presentation at Town Meeting. Ms. Mercier responded that the goals would be: • Separate the uses into additional use categories to assure the threshold for Site Plan Review is triggered for commercial spaces before new tenants move in, which would allow more control for the Commission and a public process; • Consolidate uses and definitions when needed and expand them when needed; and • Modernize by adding some new uses to allow the Town to be more competitive. Ms. Mercier asked the Commission for other goals: • Ms. Clish suggested reviewing other uses mentioned in the feedback received from the ReImagine Reading Survey; • Mr. MacNichol added removing duplicates; and • Mr. D'Arezzo said keep the process simple when a space is changing ownership, but the use remains the same. Ms. Clish asked for clarification on why creative arts would need to be defined if allowed everywhere in Town; and if the Town should be thinking about a streamlined bylaw. Ms. Mercier replied the definition captures a lot, but it is nice for an Applicant to known when a Site Plan Review process is required. Mr. D'Arezzo clarified creative arts is allowed in the industrial districts but is prohibited in the residential districts. Ms. Adrian asked whether abutters would be notified if someone proposed a mural on a building in the Downtown Smart Growth District that faces a residential neighborhood. Mr. Weston said a mural is not a use. Ms. Mercier replied it would be considered an original art display and be reviewed under the sign bylaw. Ms. Adrian explained a property owner previously considered a mural and the abutting residential neighbors were not pleased. Mr. Weston reiterated a mural is not a use, approval would be within the sign bylaw. Mr. Safina explained in the past a business could not have a mural on a building; and opined it should be allowed as long as it is not promoting the specific business. Mr. MacNichol said the difference between creative arts and makerspace is makerspace is more technological. He said makerspace is a group that shares technology and tools to build; and asked if the smaller items should be removed from the makerspace definition? Mr. Safina suggested to keep working on the definition and make changes later if needed. Ms. Clish said makerspace is used in the food industry. Ms. Mercier explained the reason why staff separated makerspace from creative arts: a makerspace may require a larger footprint to accommodate equipment, or the big industrial kitchen etc.; and the creative arts is for small gatherings with people who have similar interests. Mr. Safina asked if the ftge Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes goal of the makerspace is the end-product is commercial and can be marketed; and what happens when creative arts people go to paint or build something. Mr. Weston opined the difference is the makerspace would require trucks, more industrial. Ms. Mercier added makerspace would be noisier. Mr. D'Arezzo said the key difference is automation, but it should not be in an automated facility. Mr. Weston pointed out Mary Rose's Quilt, a sewing business on Brande Court; and said a makerspace would have heavy equipment and heavy deliveries. The Commission agreed with makerspace there is noise, traffic, hours and safety aspects. Ms. Mercier said the proposal is for it to go under Science and Technology, but it could go under Light Industry. Mr. Weston asked the Commission if they would want to allow makerspace. Ms. Mercier said creative arts and makerspace is not in the same category; makerspace is a different scale. Mr. Weston commented the makerspace definition needs a little work but should be in the list. Mr. Safina recommended being specific if the product will be marketed. Ms. Mercier responded a product made sewing could be sold on Etsy. Mr. Safina said the volume of the product could move it from makerspace to manufacturing. Ms. Clish said makerspace used to be associated with specialized equipment - lab equipment, 3D printers, industrial kitchen equipment etc. and asked the reasoning behind prohibiting it in a zoning district. Mr. Safina clarified industrial equipment does not belong in the same place as creative arts. Mr. MacNichol said the definitions for"place of assembly", "commercial amusements" and "Indoor recreation" were combined into two commercial amusements - outdoor and indoor. Ms. Mercier added that "place of assembly" was in the use table two times and allowed differently, the Building Commissioner recommended removing because assembly'is defined differently in the Building Code. Ms. Clish asked about the "function space" definition. Mr. MacNichol clarified it wasn't expressly said, but it could be considered "including but not limited to". Ms. Mercier recommended adding "function hall"to the list. Mr. MacNichol added "civic or private club" is under recreation. Mr. Weston discussed allowing a non-profit club versus another type of club and where it is allowed. Mr. Safina added non-profit clubs allow liquor to be served without requiring food. Ms. Mercier suggested leaving the definition alone because for-profit organizations are covered under commercial space. After the discussion, changes were made to the definition and the location where it is located. Mr. Safina recommended the International Zoning Codes be reviewed. Mr. D'Arezzo asked the reasoning behind adding in the long-term basis. Mr. MacNichol replied with an example, staff did not want a pop-up theater to be restricted and have to go through a Special Permit process to do a limited event. Ms. Mercier agreed an Applicant should not have to go through a 90-day process for a 30-day event. Mr. Weston cautioned someone could use this and say they will be there for two-years. He asked if there is a process for someone to do something on a short-term basis, so they don't have to go through a review process. Ms. Mercier replied on public land there is a Civic Function process that allows events to receive approval from town departments. She said on private property it is vague. The Commission discussed commercial properties who previously wanted to do one-day event and the process. Ms. Mercier pointed out the approval from the Select Board is a SPS permit; and asked if the Commission wants to review events proposed by commercial properties. Mr. Safina opined the Commission should review to make sure the proposal is realistic and can be done. Ms. Mercier responded that one-day events are reviewed and approved by Town departments. Ms. Clish clarified her concern is commercial amusements was taken out and is very broad. Mr. MacNichol replied most zoning is typically on a long-term basis. Mr. Weston asked what would occur if a commercial space that was previously a pharmacy is leased to a holiday store for 30-days. He asked if there is a way to allow the new use without having to go Page Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes sre„ through a full Site Plan Review; and added this is something that Economic Development would want. Mr. Safina explained in the existing building code (ICC) every use has a hazard category and if you increase the hazard different requirements are triggered. He suggested adding a code to see if there is an increase in the impact and if a Site Plan Review is required. Ms. Mercier agreed to review. She clarified Home Depot has to comply with their Outside Storage Plan. Ms. Adrian asked about the farmers market at the depot. Ms. Mercier said if the farmers market were on the sidewalk, Select Board approval via the Civic Function Permit is required. She said there is ongoing internal discussions on how to accommodate events on private land and streamline events on public land. Mr. Safina clarified staff can enforce the rules that are already established for commercial properties and not require the Applicant to come to the Commission. Mr. Safina said if the Commission can establish in the Table of Uses the impact in advance it would help the Applicant understand the approval process. Ms. Clish asked if there is something the Commission can flag so a full process review won't be necessary and cause a chilling effect on the Applicant. Mr. Weston recommended removing "long-term basis" from the definition. Mr. D'Arezzo suggested adding language "these rules do not apply if there is an event permit issued by the Town". Mr. MacNichol said the "commercial parking facility" definition was added. Mr. Weston asked for clarity on this definition. Ms. Mercier said the language will be reviewed to simplify. Mr. Weston opined if the parking facility requires a payment then the lot is considered commercial. The Commission discussed when it qualifies for a commercial parking facility. Ms. Mercier warned the Commission they do not want to create regulations that will work against other Town initiatives. Mr. Weston said a privately-owned lot should not be allowed to put a gate and charge admittance for public parking; but it could be leased by a commercial business for their employees or residents. Mr. MacNichol said he changed "consumer services retail establishments" to"personal services". Ms. Mercier explained "consumer services" is too vague. Mr. MacNichol said the reason for this change is to capture a personal need, and not just buying a good. Mr. Safina asked if"personal services" is just terminology. Ms. Mercier opined the number of words that overlap in "consumer services retail establishments" is overwhelming. Mr. Safina asked how moving those words to"personal services" helps to clarify. Ms. Mercier clarified this change will help distinguish it from a retail store. Mr. MacNichol said most bylaws have personal services listed. Mr. Weston recommended the definition be changed to "retail establishment, personal services; retail establishment, etc." so it will be listed together. Ms. Mercier said it would depend how the Commission wants to group the definitions. Ms. Clish asked if there is a difference between a retail store and a convenience store. Mr. MacNichol replied the convenience store has a lot of in and out traffic, but that he's not sure if retail store and convenience store need to be separate. Ms. Clish opined the difference is the hours, the convenience stores hours tend to open earlier and stay open later than retail. Mr. D'Arezzo said the retail store could have more traffic, like Market Basket; and added convenience stores have a minimal amount of parking spaces. Mr. Clish pointed out grocery stores are included in retail. Mr. MacNichol suggested providing a separate definition for grocery stores; and he asked if the Commission wants to keep retail stores that have more than 35,000 SF. Ms. Mercier asked the Commission the history behind the 35,000 SF threshold. Mr. MacNichol pointed out Home Goods on Main Street is approximately 23,OOOsf. Mr. Weston replied the number was generated during the time period Danis Properties and Home Depot Page Town of Reading i Meeting Minutes were being developed. Mr. MacNichol asked why the number needs to be distinguished in the use table, as typically such a development would trigger a Site Plan Review no matter the size. Ms. Mercier said the size of the parcel in the zoning district will largely determine the parking and access; and added the number may not have to be called out specifically. Mr. D'Arezzo said the traffic would be huge if there is a mini-mall development that has a couple 25,000 SF spaces. Mr. Safina responded the setbacks and parking would limit the footprint of the building. Mr. MacNichol said the intent is to call out what is prohibited downtown. Ms. Mercier opined that 35,000 SF seems unlikely downtown, but probably not impossible. Ms. Mercier asked if a use is not captured in any definition and is removed, will it raise a red flag for people. Mr. Weston cautioned the changes to the Table should have a reason why the change is recommended. Ms. Clish agreed there should be a well understood reason for each change. Mr. D'Arezzo researched and found the 35,000 SF number was added at November 2015 Town Meeting. Mr. Safina said it could have been because of the Walker's Brook Drive development; and suggested not changing the number until it is determined why the number was added. Ms. Clish concurred and said removing the number could cause a reaction at Town Meeting. Mr. D'Arezzo said more than 35,000 SF would require a major Site Plan Review process. Mr. Weston asked why "coworking facility" was called out and not just integrated into "professional office". Ms. Mercier responded there could be a difference in traffic, but that doesn't mean "coworking facility"cannot fit into another category. Ms. Clish asked where in the definitions a professional office with no customers would fall. Mr. Weston answered her question. Ms. Mercier said staff will review the definitions and polish the grammar and language. Mr. Weston asked if a coworking facility would be allowed in a space that is not a typically an office. After the discussion, the Commission agreed to integrate "coworking facility" into "professional office" because they tend to have the same needs. Mr. Safina asked what would happen if the uses are not normally compatible. Ms. Mercier replied there would be parameters. She suggested a broader definition of"professional office". Mr. Safina asked if the coworking facility is for an office use only or whether it could also be a small assembly use. Mr. MacNichol replied an assembly would be considered a makerspace. The Commission briefly discussed "religious & educational use"and agreed the title itself explains the definition. Mr. MacNichol brought forward "facility for skilled trade" and asked for clarification of whether it is intended to mean contractor's garage. Ms. Mercier said it is under"business and service uses" and it is allowed with a footnote. Mr. Weston said the "facility for skilled trade" is for inside not for outside storage; and explained if a contractor has everything inside a garage the only impact is the traffic coming and going, there is no outside storage. Mr. MacNichol gave an example of a tree service that has trucks and machinery stored in a lot. Mr. Safina pointed out a residential lot on Washington Street, behind the gas station on Main Street is full of trucks and open storage. Ms. Mercier asked if the vehicles are registered, and if the lot is joined with the business on Main Street. Mr. Weston said the house on the lot was razed. Ms. Adrian asked if a skilled trade would be someone who customizes old vehicles or a worker who installs stereos in vehicles. Ms. Mercier clarified the definition exists basically for the indoor version of a contractors outside yard, and said the staff will make a list of businesses that may use these types of facilities. Mr. Weston said one type of business might not be allowed in one zoning district or another. Mr. Safina said there was a footnote on the requirement. Mr. MacNichol said "financial institution" was not defined in the past and asked if it should be separate from "office, professional" and "professional services". Mr. Safina said in the Page Town of Reading Meeting Minutes 4 past it meant a lot of customers, but times have changed. Mr. Weston agreed it should be defined but cautioned removing items completely might create questions at Town Meeting. Mr. D'Arezzo said there is value in excluding an ATM. Mr. MacNichol said a definition was provided for"funeral establishments". The Commission agreed that"height" of a building needs to be vetted in the future. Ms. Mercier commented that height is addressed differently in the DSDG Design Guidelines than in the zoning bylaw. Mr. Safina said it should be based on other guidelines or IZC Definition. He added it is used a lot in the signage section. Mr. MacNichol said most towns distinguish between light and heavy manufacturing. Mr. Weston explained his reason why commercial recycling facility should be defined. Mr. Safina added redemption center for cans should be defined. Ms. Clish agreed the redemption center should be considered. Mr. Safina said a redemption center can have a lot of issues; it can attract rodents and insects and creates a lot of traffic. Mr. Weston said the "life science facility" has been discussed previously and is not sure this language matches the discussion. Ms. Mercier suggested a change to the definition. Ms. Clish asked why the "natural product pharmaceuticals" is limited? Mr. Safina said the definition should be worked on and it should be as general as possible to keep up with new developments. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if there should be a limit on what is being worked on. Mr. Safina recommended reaching out to the Health Division to see if there is a Biosafety Level (BSL). Mr. Weston said, "research and development facility" definition excludes "life science facility"and wants to make sure the two definitions work together. The Commission discussed the different laboratories. The Commission discussed light versus heavy manufacturing. Mr. Safina listed storage, noise, traffic, trash, odors and Flood lights. Mr. Weston read the language on light manufacturing and asked about the exclusion. It was suggested this be reviewed to make sure nothing is being boxed out. Mr. MacNichol explained "medical institution" is separated from "medical office". Ms. Clish asked if the definition is limited to the facilities accredited as a hospital. Mr. Safina asked where an urgent care center would fall. Ms. Mercier replied the urgent care is under"office clinical". She opined the definition of"medical institution" should not be limited to only an accredited hospital. Ms. Clish explained she is thinking of rehab facilities. Ms. Mercier said this definition is for larger facilities than clinical offices. Mr. MacNichol said "mixed-use" was approved by Attorney General's Office in Business A and Business C District; and it is proposed to be allowed in the industrial area by Special Permit. Ms. Mercier added mixed-use is allowed in Business B via the DSGD Overlay. The Commission briefly discussed the PUD-B Overlay and where it is allowed. Mr. MacNichol asked for comments on the"office, clinical". Mr. D'Arezzo read the language for "office, professional" and suggested a change. Ms. Mercier said it will be clarified. Page Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes Mr. Weston said "remote parking facility" needs to be reviewed in conjunction with commercial parking. Mr. Safina explained why they are mutually exclusive. The Commission discussed and agreed to what type of parking facility would require a Site Plan Review. The Commission discussed "mining". The Commission reviewed the changes that were discussed during the meeting. The Commission discussed "publishing and printing" and combined it with light industry. The Commission discussed prohibiting drive-through windows downtown. Mr. Weston said drive-through windows should have a definition and not be allowed. Ms. Mercier said prohibiting a drive-through window would limit the type of businesses. Mr. Weston said any business that wants a drive-through window should go through a Special Permit process. Mr. Safina provided the history of drive-through windows: • Always a no in a residential district; • A Special Permit for a restaurant in Business A and Industrial, and not anywhere else; and • A Special Permit for retail in Business A, Industrial and PUD-B Ms. Mercier said PUD-B was existing before Calareso's Farm Stand was built. She recommended a Special Permit process for a drive-through across the board, and not allowed at all in Business B or residential districts. Ms. Clish asked if drive-through windows includes ATM's? Mr. Safina said he agreed with Mr. D'Arezzo, an accessory to an approved primary use and the Special Permit gives you the control. He said the downtown should be walkable, and the Commission needs to decide where they don't want a drive-through window. Ms. Mercier said the staff will fine tune the Table of Uses so it can be discussed at the next available meeting. • Mr. D'Arezzo asked to change section 9.1.1. of the Zoning Bylaw from "shall"to "may". Mr. Weston said it is a good suggestion, but that change is a long discussion. The Commission briefly discussed how future developments will be responsible for parking. • Mr. Safina pointed out "Cupcake City' has a feather banner. Ms. Mercier said the Town is aware, and said she had difficulty finding the business after the owner came into the office to discuss the violation letter received. Mr. Safina replied there is a pink van parked beside the banner. • Ms. Adrian said the ReMax business has a paper sign in the window and asked if this was approved. Mr. MacNichol said the Town does not approve window signs, but there are parameters a business needs to follow. Ms. Mercier said the Town will review it. • Mr. MacNichol said the public workshop for the MVP Award is scheduled on March 31" from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM. He said a formal invite will be sent out. Ms. Clish and Ms. Adrian said they can go for a portion of the meeting. • Ms. Mercier said the Town is applying to be re-designated a Housing Choice Community. She said the Town qualifies for the 3% and would then be eligible for future grants. Page Town of Reading x Meeting Minutes • Ms. Mercier said on March 17, 2020 she will be continuing the discussion with the Select Board on the downtown parking system. , Ms. Mercier said the Road DIET meeting that was held recently by MassDot was for the businesses to provide feedback. There is an all-day open meeting scheduled for March 240 in the new"Spotlight' room at Staples. March W Zoning Workshop — cancelled Ms. Mercier informed the Commission the Zoning Workshop has been cancelled due to the evolving COVID-19 situation. Discussion of South Main Street Design Best Practices The South Main Street Design Best Practices were not discussed. Approval of CPDC Minutes of 02/10/2020 Discussion of minutes was tabled. Mr. Safina made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Adrian and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents r=te d at the meetioa: CPDC Agenda 3/9/20 259-267 Main Street Site Plan - revised plans 258-262 Main Street - Continuance Request Draft Zoning Bylaw Amendments prepared by staff Page