Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-02 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes Town of Reading `�I l Cu: Fzlll Meeting Minutes o- • PX 2: Ge Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2020-11-02 Time: 730 PM Building: Location: Remote Meeting - Zoom Address: Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members: John Weston, Chair; Nick Safina, Rachel Hitch, Pamela Adrian Heather Clish, Tony D'Arezzo-Associate Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol,Town Engineer Ryan Percival, Brad Latham, Chris Latham, Aaron Mackey, Demetra Tseckares, Saverio Fulciniti, Charlie Cochran, Rob Paccione, Jack Sullivan, Kathy*, Nelson Lau, Beth Shurland, Deb*, Katherine Submerski*, Art Triglione, ]on Barnes, Jill Mayberry, Ann DiCicco, Bob Weggel, Mark*, Jack Fagan *ran name�a o—med a zoom ne.,, Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: MEETING HELD REMOTELY VIA ZOOM Chair John Weston called the meeting to order at 7:34 PM. Community Development Director Julie Mercier explained the protocols for tonight's meeting that is being held virtually as all hearings throughout the pandemic have been. She presented the Zoom Meeting information to the public for those wishing to join. She explained the features of the Zoom program and how to provide comments for any given application. She added that RCN is broadcasting and recording the meeting. Continued Public Hearing, Site Plan Review 1310-1312 Main Street Reading Animal Clinic Mr. Weston opened the continued public hearing and asked the Applicants for a summary of findings and changes. Mr, Jack Sullivan, project engineer, was present on behalf of the application team. He described an area in the southeast of the parking lot that was determined to need further review by the Conservation Commission. He continued that if the area is determined to be wet it would likely result in further plan changes. Mr. Weston asked if any other requests were made by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Sullivan replied that the Conservation Commission asked for an increase in snow storage area, additional screening, and for the proposed rain garden to be relocated. Mr. Sullivan stated that an Operations and Maintenance Plan will be drafted for the rain garden. Attorney Brad Latham asked to present further updates. He stated that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was performed for the site and that a shared parking agreement was drafted in order for the two sites to share the entrance and associated parking. Mr. Latham also noted that there is a 10' wide strip of Town-owned land between Main Street and the property, and stated that an access easement, which was reviewed by Town Counsel, has 1 Town of Reading s' Meeting Minutes been approved by the Reading Select Board. He summarized that the easement includes language for: • utility connections that would cross the 10'wide strip of land located between the property and Main Street; • for driveway access through the same strip of land; and • for the sidewalk connections Mr. Latham continued that the proposed wall signage has been removed from the building at this time, and that if the Applicant wishes to go forward with it, a variance will be sought. The business will maintain the existing free-standing sign and some directional signage. A Traffic Impact Assessment was submitted which described the Level of Service for the site as adequate. One finding of the TIA is that a stop sign should be installed at the site exit and another was to remove existing vegetation at the site exit in order to allow better visibility. He added that as requested the site will now include an animal relief area for pets to use. Mr. Latham stated it is their intent to continue the CPDC hearing until the review by the Conservation Commission is completed. Mr. Sullivan stated that the Conservation Commission expressed concern for the amount of pavement being added. Mr. Sullivan continued that the pavement is due to the number of parking spaces required under zoning and that the site is proposing just two excess parking spaces. Mr. Weston asked if the zoning requirement were lowered would the applicant still want the same number of parking spaces proposed. Mr. Sullivan replied in the affirmative and that the owners feel that their practice justifies the number of parking spaces. He opined that the two parking stalls proposed in front of the rain garden may be able to be replaced with a vegetative strip. Mr. D'Arezzo questioned the intended future use for the existing building as an office space. He asked what would happen if a retail or any other differing use occupied the building, and whether that would impact the proposed plans and required parking. Mr. Latham responded that it would not as it currently meets the retail use requirements but that a Change of Use could require review by CPDC. Mr. D'Arezzo asked that the relocation of the free-standing sign be depicted on the plans. Mr. Latham agreed to this. Mr. Weston asked if the TIA was prepared since the last hearing. Mr. Latham stated it was done after the last hearing in September and major impacts included the need for a stop sign and the line of sight improvements by clearing some vegetation at the site entry. Mr. MacNichol stated these findings were also included in the Draft Decision. Mr. Weston opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Katherine Saverski, of 44 Chapel Hill Drive, informed the Board that she is new to this process and is recently looking to be caught up to the application. She asked what jurisdiction the CPDC has over the project and what they are evaluating. Mr. Weston stated that the CPDC is performing a Site Plan Review in order to help determine the impacts of the project to abutters and to the town. Items such as building siting, associated parking, traffic impacts and safety access are reviewed as a part of the process but wetlands and environmental impacts are reviewed by the Conservation Commission. The CPDC also ensures compliance with the Town's Zoning Bylaw. Ms. Saverski asked if the Conservation Commission hearings allow public participation. Ms. Mercier replied in the affirmative. Ms. Saverski stated that this plan is a small step that would allow for further development in the rear of the site. She continued that outdoor areas for the project are limited which is not helpful for an animal clinic and asked how many animals are expected to be on-site at once. Mr, Latham responded that the site is a 2 Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes veterinary service and not an animal kennel and that over-night stays by pets are not very common. He stated that if overnight stays are needed the animals are sent to a special and separate facility. Ms. Beth Shurland stated they are looking to only develop their site and the Reading Animal Clinic is separate from any residential development in the rear. Ms. Saverski expressed concern about the utility connections that are proposed within this plan. Mr. Weston stated the concerns are valid and that the Board can review what is in front of them. Mr. Sullivan addressed the utility services being provided to the rear of the site. He stated that there is currently a gravel driveway at the eastern border of the site which is used to access the residential home on the lot. The lot is completely separate from the Animal Clinic site and is under different ownership. An easement exists to allow water and sewer service and site access to the lot through the Reading Animal Clinic site. The Animal Clinic is required to maintain these services until any future development is done. Mr. Sullivan stated that a discussion between the adjacent property owner and the Animal Clinic led to an agreement by the Animal Clinic to allow a larger water and sewer service through their land but for the drainage for both sites to remain separate. All drainage for the Animal Clinic site is maintained on their property as required. Ms. Saverski asked if piping is being extended into the residential lot. Mr. Sullivan stated that at this time, they are only providing an easement, so if a future development does not ensue before the Animal Clinic construction and occupancy, the rear portion of the site would maintain their own utilities to Main Street and an 8" pipe will not be put in. Ms. Saverski asked how many parking spaces the vet clinic needs alone. Mr. Sullivan stated that 44 parking spaces are required by zoning and 45 standard spaces and 2 ADA compliant spaces are proposed for a total of 47 spaces. Ms. Saverski asked if the Conservation Commission is asking them to reduce the parking. Mr. Sullivan stated that the minimum parking number is not desirable and the drainage system is designed to manage the amount of impervious area proposed. Ms. Shurland stated the number of patients the Animal Clinic serves at a time is not expected to increase, but the doctors and practitioners need more space to perform their duties more safely than they can within the existing 2200sf building. Ms. Saverski asked how she can find and access the CPDC webpage. Ms. Mercier shared the website on screen and showed where the webpage is located. Mr. Sullivan stated the next Conservation Commission meeting date is scheduled for Wednesday, November lith. Ms. Mercier stated that is Veterans Day, so there will be no Conservation Commission meeting that night. Mr. Latham asked for the next CPDC meeting date. Ms. Mercier stated the next meeting date is Monday, December 14th and the 7:30 timeslot is available. Mr. Saffna made a motion to continue the public hearing for 1310-1312 Main Street to December 14, 2020. Ms. Hitch seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Continued Public Hearing. 40R Plan Review 531 Main Street. ACG RE Reading LLC Mr. Weston opened the continued public hearing for a 40R Application Review at 531 Main Street. He asked the applicants to provide an update. Mr. Chris Latham began the summary by informing the Commission that the building height above the average grade has been reduced from 58'8" to 47'8"and that the Floor Area Ratio has also been reduced to 2.73 and is in compliance with the bylaw. The commercial space has been reduced to 606sf and residential units remain at twelve (12). After 3 Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes discussion with the Town's Parking Traffic Transportation Task Force (PTTTF) a 6'sidewalk is proposed along the Chapin avenue fagade. The applicant feels a loading zone is not necessary for the site due to the size of the commercial area. Gas meters have been relocated to the outside of the building for easier access. Mr. Latham stated that two (2) Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Spaces will be provided within the CityLift parking system. The garage entrance has been increased to 24' in width so that it conforms and relief is no longer needed. The Applicant team continues to work with the Historical Commission to provide reference to the historic building and use. Mr. Rob Paccione, project architect, shared the architectural plans on the screen. He stated that gas meters were moved to the rear of the building to provide access for public safety. The unit count remains at twelve (12) even though the fourth floor was removed from the proposal. The 5' step-back at the third Floor remains despite the fourth-floor reduction. The building material is also the same but additional step-backs have been provided on the Chapin Avenue fagade to help reduce the massing effect to the residential abutters on the street. The front of the building saw the glass windows pulled down a bit and pushed inward at request of the CPDC and should help activate the commercial area more. Visual aesthetics such as plant boxes and more can be added to the windows. Mr. Paccione stated that renderings were developed from afar and from up close to get a full perspective of the massing. Mr. Aaron Mackey, project engineer, stated that the most significant change came in the drainage system. The system was increased and allows for much more infiltration now and was found appropriate by the Town Engineer. He continued that a 6'formal sidewalk is proposed along Chapin Avenue at the request of the Town. Mr. Safina asked if code clearance is being met for the gas meter area. Mr. Paccione stated the gas company stated it needed 30" off of the property line. Mr. Safina stated an additional 6" may be needed between that and the proposed wall. Mr. Paccione stated the team will look at it as they do have room to move the wall back. Mr. Latham presented the plan sheet on-screen. Mr. Mackey summarized the plan and measurements of the proposed building in relation to the adjacent and existing buildings. Ms. Hitch expressed concern that no street parking is being provided for the commercial area. Mr. Latham stated that the concept plan showing street parking and a loading area has been changed due to the PTTTF request that a formal sidewalk be provided instead. He stated that EV charging will be provided in the CityLift system instead of the surface garage spaces, which may open up garage spaces for employees of the commercial area. Mr. Weston asked Ms. Mercier to explain the input from PTTTF. Ms. Mercier stated that the Town is always looking for opportunities to enhance pedestrian amenities within the downtown. She stated the road would be quite tight if street parking were to be provided and that public safety officials do not feel that using public streets for private loading zones is appropriate. She continued that PTTTF agreed on a sidewalk for now, and that the traffic patterns in the area would undergo future study which may result in future changes such as Chapin Avenue becoming one-way. Town Engineer Ryan Percival agreed and stated Haven Street underwent a similar process in the past. Mr. Safina asked if parking would still be allowed on the Chapin Avenue frontage if a sidewalk was constructed. Ms. Mercier stated that there may not be room for both, but that it is hard to lose any parking, even informal spaces, near the downtown, and that this could be explored further. Ms. Hitch responded that if parking is allowed with the sidewalk than a one-way direction should be considered for the street. Mr. Percival stated any no parking enforcement and signage would need to be approved by the Select Board. He stated Chapin Avenue is unlikely to become a one-way any time soon and recommended that No Parking 4 Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes signage be installed with the sidewalk. Mr. Weston was concerned with the limited amount of parking provided and the fact that the CityLift system was not ideal for quick in and out visits, which could result in residents wanting to park on the street. He also had a concern with the fact that commercial users will be forced to cross Main Street as they park in municipal lots due to the lack of commercial parking provided on-site. Mr. Latham stated the parking required by zoning is being met. He stated the traffic study found that most commercial visitors would be walking pedestrians and that is the goal of 40R development. Mr. Safina stated that each development must account for less and less resources being available. He stated that visitor spaces should be expected at a 12-unit development. Mr. Saverio Fulciniti, project developer, asked how the 475 Main Street development located down the street managed their parking. Mr. Weston stated that their parking was not lift- based and allowed for residents to have quick access. He added that three (3) on-street parking spaces were developed in front of the site for the commercial use. Mr. Fulciniti opined that the loading situation at 475 Main Street is not ideal. He stated that a 20-30 second delay for the CityLift system is not ideal but there are 3 surface spaces within the garage. He continued that they would be happy to include 3 spaces along Chapin Avenue, equal to the spaces the 475 Main Street provided on street, but the PTTTF requested a sidewalk instead of the parking. Ms. Hitch requested that the PTTTF reconsider their options. Mr. D'Arezzo asked how many parking spaces the CityLift System holds. Mr. Latham stated it will include 13 spaces. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if each CityLift System must contain an empty space. Mr. Latham responded in the affirmative. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if access to the gas meters is provided via the adjacent site. Mr. Paccione stated there is access from the other site but the proposed wall can be moved back a bit to provide additional space. Mr. D'Arezzo asked for a new shadow study. Mr. Paccione replied one was included in the updated architectural plans, he shared them on the screen. With the 4'h Floor being removed the shadow impact has lessened. Ms. Clish appreciated the softening provided on the Main Street fagade. She asked if the infrastructure for food equipment is still being installed. Mr. Paccione replied in the affirmative. Ms. Clish stated even with removal of the fourth-floor, the building dominates the Chapin Avenue streetscape. Mr. Paccione stated different materials would be used to help mitigate the massing affect. Mr. Safina stated darkening some elements such as the recessed balconies would help. He stated the floors felt like one long band and it could be broken up by colors. Mr. Weston asked about the height and elevations of the building. He asked that the elevations be updated to the correct information. Mr. Paccione stated he can do so. Mr. Weston asked how the average grade of the site was calculated. Mr. Paccione replied the average grade was calculated from the four corners of the building. Mr. Weston continued that the parapets should be included in the building height calculation. Mr. Paccione stated all step-back requirements have been addressed and that the elevator and stairwell shaft are step-backed as well. Mr, Safina recommended the Applicant provide the darker colored siding on the bottom Floors and the lighter color on the top floors in an effort to help reduce the impact of massing. He felt that the front of the building had the correct massing but the Chapin Avenue fagade needed further breaks. Mr. Safina opined that if the commercial area could 5 Town of Reading B r Meeting Minutes better wrap around to Chapin Avenue it.would help. He continued that it is not the developer's fault that Chapin Avenue is less active than Haven Street but it should be designed as if it is an active streetscape. Ms. Adrian stated the commercial door should be level with the adjacent windows. Mr. Paccione replied that can be done. Mr. Weston opened the hearing to public comment. Mr. Art Triglione, owner of the Mission of Deeds building, stated that the concern of available parking was still prevalent. He did not want future residents and commercial visitors utilizing his private parking lot across Chapin Avenue. He also feared that a fire truck may not have enough room to make the turning movement onto Chapin Avenue. Mr. Mackey stated the turning radii were looked at. Mr. Safina said the building itself will not impact the turning radii but any decision on the sidewalk will. Mr. Mackey showed the turning plan on-screen and stated with the sidewalk being rebuilt as it is the fire truck can turn onto Chapin Avenue with no issues. Mr. Weston opined that the Town Bylaws were drafted to not be overly restrictive but they should not be used to gauge demand for the development. Mr. Fulciniti replied that the density was reduced and no greater than two-bedroom units are provided. He stated that the expectation is that most tenants would utilize the train and walk. Ms. Clish stated that is an ideal to strive for but cars are still needed by most residents because the downtown area does not yet capture all errands that a resident needs for daily life. Ms. Jill Mayberry of 16 Chapin Avenue commented that the Mission of Deeds is typically very busy during the weekends in terms of loading and unloading goods. She asked to clarify the labeled 'study' rooms within the architectural plans, asking if they could be used as additional bedrooms. Mr. Fulciniti claimed that the unit designs are to reflect the needs of the future and that office amenities are being provided for tenants. Ms. Mayberry expressed concern that one of the study rooms could be turned into a second bedroom which would increase the density of the project. Mr. Paccione replied that there are no windows within the study rooms and that it would be illegal to turn it into an additional bedroom. Ms. Mayberry was also concerned with balconies looking over the neighboring homes and what items may be placed on them. Mr. Fulciniti replied that the leases would include language forbidding the storing of items on the balconies. Ms. Mayberry asked if Mr. Fulciniti would be the landlord to which he replied in the affirmative. Ms. Mayberry further asked how construction would be handled. Ms. Mercier stated a pre- construction meeting would be held with the Applicants and Town Staff to review the logistics of the construction process, staging and management plan. Mr. Paccione stated the construction process is a main focus as soon as a contractor is brought on board and that the neighborhood would be notified and involved in the process. Mr. Fulciniti offered that he could explore the potential for construction workers to park in his other privately-owned lots and could also provide shuttling services for the workers. Ms. Mayberry asked where concrete pouring trucks would sit. Mr. Paccione replied most likely Chapin Avenue due to how busy Main Street is and that traffic calming and safety measures would be provided. Ms. Mayberry emphasized the concern of wear and tear on Chapin Avenue, Mr. Mackey stated a typical note is provided on the plan stating that damage to the street shall be paid for by the developer. Mr. Jonathan Barnes, Chair of the Reading Historical Commission, stated that the RHC was happy with the discussions so far. He asked if a condition could be added to the decision 6 Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes that captures the placement of historical features in the residential lobby and commercial area. Ms. Mayberry asked about dust control and asbestos. Mr. Fulciniti replied that no asbestos was found on-site and that when they apply for a demolition permit dust control measures will need to be provided. Mr. Weston summarized that the on-street parking issue will be brought back to the PTTTF, the renderings and building facades can be updated, the gas meter area must be addressed and conform to code, and that the height of the building must be better defined. Ms. Adrian made a motion to continue the public hearing of 531 Main Street to December 14, 2020 at 8:00PM. Mr. Safina seconded the motion and It was approved 5-0-0. Scenic Road Application South Street Utility Pole and Sturges Park Pump Station Ms. Adrian read the published legal notice for the application into the record. Town Engineer Ryan Percival was present for the application. He stated that a design is being done for upgrades to the Sturges Park Pump Station and that a new utility pole needs to be installed on South Street within the public way to power the pump station; this pole triggered the Scenic Road application. Mr. Weston asked where the pole was in location to the playground area. Mr. Percival showed the pole location at the corner of South Street and Pine Ridge Road. He added that any trees to be removed and replaced will be approved by the Town Tree Warden. Mr. Percival stated that the existing pump station at Sturges Park, built in 1964, needs upgrades. Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) will now be used which is much more energy and cost efficient but will result in electrical cabinets above ground. The pump is the second largest in Town and serves over 500 homes. A backup generator will also be provided. Impervious area is being reduced by —400sf and the driveway to the pump will not be altered. He stated that this portion of the project technically does not require review or approval by the CPDC but he wanted to present the plans to the public and receive feedback from the Commission. Mr. Percival stated the pole location was determined by Verizon and RMLD; he disclosed that in the last 24 hours the pole was accidentally installed before approval but has since been removed. Mr. Weston asked what kind of pole is being installed. Mr. Percival replied that it is a standard telephone pole that will match the other poles in the area. Mr. Percival informed the Commission that turf would be installed so that it appears as grass and that any plantings will be approved by the Tree Warden. Mr. Percival shared some renderings of the proposal on the screen. He stated that additional screening may be required for the electrical transformers if they need.an AC unit but they are hoping to avoid the requirement in order to maintain some visibility of the park. Mr. Safina asked if bollards are being provided in the parking area. Mr. Percival stated bollards should be provided and can be added to the renderings. Mr. Safina asked how much noise the infrastructure will generate. Mr. Percival replied that everything will run underground which will help limit any sound but the fans may result in 7 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes some additional noise. He continued that the generator will be natural gas and not diesel, it will be exercised once a week. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the existing pole in the area is to remain. Mr. Percival replied in the affirmative. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if parking is being reduced. Mr. Percival stated that the pump station area is not formalized parking and they would prefer that residents do not park in the area as the Town must access the pump daily. Mr. Safina stated it is not clear that this is not to be used as a parking area. Mr. Percival agreed that it is not signed or designated as No Parking but they have not run into major issues as of yet. He continued that as long as they can access the pump it is okay. Mr. Barnes informed the Board that the sewer pump plans and renderings have not been reviewed by the Reading Historical Commission. He stated that the pole was expected but the amount of change going into the pump station is surprising. He opined that these changes have a dramatic and adverse impact to the Scenic Way and disrupt scenic views of the area. Mr. Barnes asked that any support for the pole and pump station be provided underground. He stated that existing White Pine trees in the area were of significant value. Mr. Weston opined that the existing pine trees in the area screened scenic views of the park as well. Mr. Safina felt the existing trees provided ample shading for the park. He asked if the access and door was a final location. Mr. Percival replied that changes to the door location can be further reviewed but that he will defer to safety and operational requirements. Ms. Clish agreed with Mr. Barnes on the presence of the pine trees being beneficial. She asked if the current pump has an emergency generator. Mr. Percival stated that the existing pump does not have a backup generator in place but there is an existing practice to provide a pull behind generator, though this is not a preferred option. Ms. Clish asked who will maintain the proposed trees and landscape. Mr. Percival stated low maintenance and hardy plantings are being provided but opined Park Services will maintain the landscaping once complete. Ms. Clish asked if there is an alternative to the impacts being presented and the infrastructure that is needed. Mr. Percival responded in the negative as the generator is required to be above ground and that they do not want to encroach on the park area or the nearby riverfront area. He stated that a few iterations were reviewed but the application proposed is the most practical. Mr. Safina asked if the plans and renderings are aligned. Mr. Percival showed the landscaping plan on-screen which more accurately depicted the fencing location. Mr. Barnes reflected that the corner of South Street and Pine Ridge Road is currently very quaint and natural; he opined that areas such as this are what the scenic road bylaw is meant to address and not just the roadway. He felt the impact of the pole installation is not as dramatic as the proposed fencing. Mr. Weston agreed the area feels very natural even with the existing pump. Mr. Weston stated that the CPDC's jurisdiction is limited to the scenic road, which only the proposed utility pole is impacting. Mr. Weston opined that the pump station area can be softened a bit further and further plantings may help. Mr. Percival agreed and stated that he will look to see if the door can be modified to allow for more plantings. He added that the project is beneficial to the Town by reducing its carbon footprint and bringing the pump to modern standards. 8 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Ms. Clish asked if putting more utilities underground was feasible in order to provide room for additional plantings. Mr. Percival replied that it can be reviewed but plantings also have to account for sight lines for drivers. Mr. Barnes reviewed the language of the scenic road bylaw and regulations. He stated criteria for a scenic road provides language to provide natural features that can be seen from the roadway not just for work within the road itself. Mr. Bob Weggel of 277 South Street stated he was present when the scenic road bylaw was created. He asked if a walkway would ever be installed along the eastern side of the existing stream. He informed the Commission that a gravel roadway is provided but it ends abruptly. Mr. Percival stated that a bank stabilization project was done last year which allowed the access. He added that the idea should be brought to the Trail Committee and/or the Conservation Commission. Mr. Weggel stated maintenance for the trail could be provided by the neighborhood. Mr. Percival further added that a Master Plan is being developed for the area and this would be a welcome idea. Ms. Clish informed Mr. Weggel of the ongoing Open Space and Recreation Plan updates and ongoing survey where that idea can also be submitted. Mr. Weggel asked about the infrastructure specifics. Mr. Percival informed the participants that the VFDs are an enormous benefit to the Town. Mr. Weggel asked how access to the underground pump will be provided. Mr. Percival replied that within the concrete pad there will be a steel hatch to lead underground but keeping employees and workers above ground is the goal. Mr. Weggel asked if power is being provided from the power line. Mr. Percival replied in the affirmative and that the generator is provided for emergency use. Mr. Weggel found the infrastructure to be very beneficial and asked that native species be planted. Mr. Percival confirmed only native species will be planted. Mr, Weston asked if there were any additional comments or questions. Seeing none the Commission reviewed the Draft Decision for the project. Mr. Safina made a motion to approve the Scenic Road application for the Installation of a utility pole within the public Right of Way and Scenic Way of South Street as amended. Ms. Hitch seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Sign Permit Application 85 Haven Street, RG Salon Ms. Ann DiCicco, sign developer, was present on behalf of the application. Ms. DiCicco summarized the storefront which will utilize wooden shiplap. The business owner developed the logo herself and does not want to utilize a blade sign for the business at the moment. Ms. DiCicco informed the Board that she added some additional features to the sign to help it stand out a bit more, but that she did not alter the design. Mr. Safina opined that the logo would ft the characteristics of a blade sign perfectly. Ms. DiCicco stated the business owner could apply for such in the future. Mr. MacNichol shared the draft Certificate of Appropriateness on the screen. He informed the board that there is no illumination proposed. Ms. DiCicco asked if window signage could be provided. Mr. MacNichol replied in the affirmative. Mr. Saffna made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 85 Haven Street RG Salon. Ms. Adrian seconded the motion;it was approved 5-0-0. 9 Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan Endorsement 102 Haverhill street Mr. MacNichol shared the plan on-screen and summarized the application. He stated the application is to adjust the lot lines at 0 Haverhill Street in order to create a conforming lot to the 5-20 Zoning District requirements, which would allow for the development of one single-family dwelling. The remainder would be left for conservation. Mr. MacNichol added that the plan is also undergoing review by the Conservation Commission and Administrator. The plan conforms to what was discussed at the Conservation hearings. Mr. Weston asked if the Town Engineer has reviewed the plan and if he was okay with it. Ms. Mercier replied in the affirmative and added that the Town Engineer reviews the memo that was provided to the CPDC. Mr. Weston asked if Lot 2 requires frontage. Mr. MacNichol stated Lot 2 is considered non- buildable under the proposed plan. Mr. Safina asked if the language of'Not considered a building lot' utilized the correct terminology; he asked if`buildable' was a preferred word. Ms. Mercier replied the language used is the norm but either would work for its purpose. She added that the lot will be deeded to the Town under the care and control of the Conservation Commission. Ms. Mercier stated the frontage for both lots is remaining unchanged. Mr. Safina found the plan conforming. Mr. Safina made a motion to endorse the Approval Not Required Plan for 102 Haverhill Street. Ms. C/ish seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Minutes: 10/19/2020 The CPDC determined that due to the time, the 10/19/20 minutes would be reviewed at a future hearing date. Other Business Ms. Mercier provided an update on instructional motions that are being presented to November Subsequent Town Meeting. She stated the motions can be found on the Town website and showcased how to access such on the screen. She informed the Commission that a simple majority vote is needed at Town Meeting to pass the motions, and that two instructional motions may have an impact on the CDPC if approved. One is a request for the CPDC to review the 40R Bylaw lot coverage and open space requirements; the second is asking for the CPDC, in conjunction with others, to develop rules and regulations related to Short Term Rentals. Mr. Weston asked for input on how these motions could affect ongoing applications. Ms. Mercier opined that the 40R bylaw may warrant a larger review by the CPDC. She stated that she will get clarification on whether the motions are binding and whether that means the CPDC would need to take action on them for April 2021 Town Meeting. Adiournment Mr. Safina made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11.00 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Clish and was approved with a 5-0-0 vote. 10 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Documents reviewed at the meeting: • CPDC meeting agenda 11/2/20 • 1310-1312 Main Street,Site Plan Review o Architectural Plan Set,dated 10/28/20 o Site Plan Set,dated 7/27/20 o Traffic Impact Assessment,dated 9/2820 o Draft Decision,dated 11220 531 Main Street,40R Plan Review o Summary of changes,dated 10/1420 o Architectural Plan Set,dated 10/1420 o Site Plan Set,dated 10/14/20 o Drainage Summary, dated 10/12/20 o Sewer Generation Spreadsheet,dated 10/8/20 o Response to Town Engineer Memo,dated 10/1220 o CityLift System—Service Overview and Electric Vehicle Charging Information o Memo from Town Engineer,dated 102820 o Draft Decision,dated 11220 • South Street Utility Pole,Scenic Road Application o Sturges Park Site Plan Set,dated October 2020 o Draft Decision,dated 112/20 85 Haven Street,Sign Permit Application o Sign Permit Application,dated 102620 o RG Storefront Image o RG wall sign layout o RG wall sign installation specifics o Draft Certificate of Appropriateness,dated 11/220 102 Haverhill Street,Approval Not Required(ANR)Plan Endorsement o Application Form A,dated 11220 o ANR Plan of Land,dated 1029/20 o ANR Planning-Engineering Memo,dated 11/2/20 o ANR Certificate,dated 11220 11