Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-16 Community Planning and Development Commission MinuteswH OFq�O �° Town of Reading 70;�CEIVED e Meeting Minutes CLERK �; REA.DI�t,^, MA. 'n oxF° P, 23 AN Board -Committee -Commission -Council: 2022 HA8: I eK Q Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2021-08-16 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Location: Remote Meeting - Zoom Address: Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members: Pamela Adrian, Chair; Heather Clish (remote), John Weston, Tony D'Arezzo-Associate Members - Not Present: Nick Safina Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier (remote), Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Town Engineer Ryan Percival, Cassandra Albrecht, Lance Watson, Anne Manna, Chris Markarian, Brandon Barlo, Ben Rollins, Linda X, Jill Mayberry Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: MEETING HELD REMOTELY VIA ZOOM Chairwoman Pamela Adrian called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM. Community Development Director Julie Mercier explained the protocols for tonight's meeting that is being held in-person but also allows remote participation. She presented the Zoom Meeting Information to the public for those wishing to join. Ms. Mercier explained how the Zoom features work and how they will be managed. She added that RCN is broadcasting and recording the meeting. Sian Permit Application, 470 Main Street Metro Credit Union Mr. Brandon Barlo, sign mechanic, was present on behalf of the application. He began by stating that Metro Credit Union has purchased the site which was previously used as a bank. The Applicant is seeking a halo -lit wall sign on the Main Street facing facade, as well as a halo -lit blade sign projecting from the same facade. Mr. Barlo stated that lighting will not project outwards and the blade sign will be hung so that its top is lower than the roof. He continued that the blade signs had been adjusted upward and Its width has been increased from 3" to 6" for mounting purposes. Mr. D'Arezzo asked how the halo lighting will work. Mr. Barlo answered that lighting projects backwards onto the facade. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the lighting would shine through the background of the signage. Mr. Barlo replied in the negative as the backgrounds and sides of the signage will be opaque material. Mr. D'Arezzo and Mr. Weston questioned how the halo lighting would work for the blade sign. Mr. Barlo stated that the blue and yellow coloring will be opaque material and lighting will shine through the acrylic letters edge only. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that lighting through the edge of the sign would be deemed an internally Illuminated sign, which is not allowed in the downtown. He continued that there is no facade for the light to shine back on. Ms. Adrian asked if there is another example of how the blade sign Illumination works. Mr. Barlo replied in the negative. lOFNFq� Town of Reading Meeting Minutes "us,xcoxo° Mr. D'Arezzo stated that the lighting of the blade sign's edge would not be allowed as shown in the rendering. Mr. Barlo replied that the rendering will be updated to light the edge of the letter logo only and not the edge of the sign. He stated the white edge will be opaque. He asked if the letter were to be a channel letter to project light back onto the sign box would that be better. Mr. D'Arezzo and Mr. Weston replied in the affirmative. Ms. Clish asked how the logo of the wall signage would work in respect to this. Mr. Barlo stated that the wall sign logo can be changed in the same way as the blade sign, the letter can be channelized and project backwards. Mr. Weston asked if the 'credit union' wording would be visible at night. Mr. Barlo stated if the letters are channelized as well they would be, but as proposed it will not. Ms. Adrian asked if any signage were to be proposed on the rear side of the bank. Mr. Barlo replied in the negative. Mr. D'Arezzo asked how tall and wide the wall signage is. Mr. Barlo answered that the sign will be 3' by 11'4". Mr. D'Arezzo stated that the total square footage is 34sf and not 32sf as indicated in the application. Mr. MacNichol stated that the 34sf was captured in the renderings and within the certificate. An updated sign application was requested. Ms. Clish asked why the rectangle around the 'credit union' signage needs illumination. Mr. Barlo stated that the lettering is too small to illuminate itself. Mr. D'Arezzo asked what time of night the lighting is shut off. Mr. Barlo stated he found no requirements for such under the sign bylaw. He continued that a 24/7 ATM is available on the site as well and the Illumination helps for such. Mr. Weston stated conditions of the original site plan must be upheld. Ms. Mercier shared the draft certificate on-screen. The Board revised the language to reflect the change of material discussed. Ms. Clish made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the signage at 470 Main Street. Mr. D'Arezzo seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Sian Permit Application, 143 Washington Street Avery Auto Care Mr. Chris Markarian of Markarian Signs was present on behalf of the application. Mr. Markarian stated that the business is looking for a new non -illuminated wall sign on the front facade of the building. He continued that the sign is made of an aluminum panel with raised panel letters. A white vinyl background will be utilized and the sign will replace an existing banner on the site. Ms. Adrian asked if the sign is to be Illuminated or for day -time only. Mr. Markarian replied that because the business closes around S:OOpm and for the fact that they do not front a major street, no illumination is proposed. Ms. Adrian asked if a blade sign is to be proposed. Mr. Markarian replied in the negative. Mr. Weston stated that he had no questions on the application. Ms. Adrian asked if a black edge Is provided all the way around. Mr. Markarian replied in the affirmative, as the edging helps protect view of fasteners and infrastructure. He added that w Town of Reading „• Meeting Minutes the signage will be placed one block on -top of the garage, and not level with the top of the garage so as to protect the sign from any damage. Ms. Clish made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 143 Washington Street as proposed. Mr. D'Arezzo seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Continued Public Hearing, 160 Hopkins Street Gazebo Circle Pump Station, Site Plan Review Town Engineer Ryan Percival, Cassandra Albrecht of Weston and Sampson, and Ben Rollins of Weston and Sampson were present on behalf of the application. Mr. Percival began by informing the Board that the drive access to the site has been relocated from Cedar Street to Gazebo Circle. This was done based on previous public comment and neighborhood requests. The Gazebo Circle trustees have approved the easement request, which must also be accepted at Town Meeting. Town Counsel has provided input on the original Special Permit conditions. Mr. Percival stated that three to four stakes have been put out at the site to depict the building location. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the stakes represented the building, the foundation or the lot itself. Mr. Percival clarified that the stakes represent the buildings layout. Ms. Albrecht shared site images on the screen. Ms. Clish asked what the dimensions of the building are. Ms. Albrecht replied that the building will be 16'x 26'. Ms. Adrian asked what trees require removal due to the driveway relocation. Ms. Albrecht replied that no additional trees will require removal. Mr. Percival stated that the number of trees being removed has decreased due to the modification. Ms. Albrecht added that three (3) trees are now to be removed. Mr. Percival stated that concerns of stormwater flowing down Cedar Street have now been alleviated as well. Mr. Weston asked if noise mitigation is proposed. He also questioned if the door should be parallel with the driveway and not perpendicular. Ms. Albrecht answered that the pumps within the building require electrical infrastructure and if the door were to be on the south it would not provide enough room. Mr. Weston questioned if the door needed to be as wide as proposed if it serves for people only. Ms. Adrian echoed the comments. Mr. Percival stated that it was proposed to allow for three-point motions for easy entry and exit. Ms. Clish asked what sound impacts can be expected and which fagade will house infrastructure. Ms. Albrecht answered that HVAC equipment will be on eastern facade, and a louver will also be placed on the southern fagade. The louver provides airflow for the AC units and is located as far as possible from the neighbors. Ms. Clish asked if neighbors would hear the AC unit on a quiet night. Ms. Albrecht replied that the sound will be no more than a residential AC. She added that while the unit on the eastern facade appears fairly large, it is mostly boxed in. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if a generator is proposed. Mr. Percival replied that no permanent generator is proposed; however, an outlet Is provided on the exterior that would allow a short-term generator to be plugged in. Mr. Weston asked if that connection would be on the southern fagade as well. Mr. Percival replied in the affirmative. c'�N rx�oi Town of Reading =e .. . �rl Meeting Minutes f ,- a�'axcoxvoe^� Mr. Weston asked the Applicant what next steps are required on their end. Mr. Percival answered that if approval is granted mechanical drawings will be advanced and the project would need to go out to bid. A bid schedule will be developed in hopes to start construction in later winter or early spring. He stated he does not anticipate starting in the fall. Mr. Percival continued that an easement document will need to be finalized with Gazebo Circle trustees and be accepted at Town Meeting. Mr. Weston found that the letter from Town Counsel, which summarized the site's history, concluded that the recreation development was not required to finalize the project. Ms. Adrian opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Anne Manna of 156 Hopkins Street stated that the 12" tree to the east to be removed is fairly large and provides screening. She asked if replacement trees will be planted. Mr. Percival stated that if it is found that the existing screening is not enough he will look to plant arborvitaes in the area. He stated that based on conversations with the Tree Warden it is unlikely that he would recommend new plantings. Ms. Manna stated that pervious conversations stated that trees would be replaced. Mr. Percival replied that the building was pushed as far to the east as possible and the fence line must be maintained. Ms. Manna found that the louver on the southern facade of the building is a concern. She appreciated that any temporary generator would be towards the front of the building. Mr. Percival stated that the HVAC infrastructure will blow fans away from the 156 Hopkins Street site. Ms. Albrecht added that at similar buildings she has not heard noise from the louvers while being in close proximity. Mr. Percival stated that the louver Is required for dehumidification and corrosion purposes. He found the new layout to be less impactful. Mr. Weston agreed that the length of the building helped. Mr. Percival reiterated that he will continue to look to plant additional natural buffers. Ms. Manna asked if abutters will be notified when construction is to ensue. She stated that large vehicles were on-site today digging up the land and cutting branches. Mr. Percival replied in the affirmative. Notification will be given either hand delivered or in the mail, and a reverse 9-1-1 will be done when construction is to start. Mr. Percival stated the only work done today had been for test pits in order to best design the drainage. Ms. Manna stated that she appreciated the Town Counsel input; however, her concern was less with the construction of the playground and more of if the Town could construct anything at all on the site. She asked what is to happen with the lower portion of the site and if it is to remain as is. Mr. Percival answered that the lower portion will remain as it exists today, though the municipal light department will need to run some underground infrastructure. A flush manhole will be provided in the area. Ms. Manna asked if a new utility pole is still proposed and if so, where. Mr. Percival answered that the sketch has yet to be provided from the light department. Mr. Rollins stated that it will be provided on Hopkins Street, closest to Gazebo Circle. Ms. Manna asked If the tree in the area will need to be removed. Mr. Rollins replied in the negative. Mr. Percival clarified that trenching will be done In the lower portion of the site but it will be restored to existing conditions, with the exception of the new manhole. Ms. Manna asked who will be responsible for maintenance. Mr. Percival answered that the Department of Public Works (DPW) will maintain the land. Ms. Manna asked if it will be maintained more so than today. Mr. Percival replied in the affirmative as the site would maintain a structure. Ms. Linda Antinoro of Gazebo Circle asked when the trustees can expect the easement language. Mr. Percival replied Counsel is working on the language which will be shared. He NK rN � e Town of Reading ^'Meeting Minutes a:INCOPPOP'P continued that Town Meeting would vote on such and then the easement will need to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. Ms. Adrian asked that a revised planting plan be submitted showing additional plantings within three-feet of the building. Mr. Rollins answered that the fence line must remain cleared for access. Ms. Clish asked the Applicant to work with the abutter to fill screening needs. Mr. Percival agreed and stated that locations can be shown on the plan, but final location will need to be field determined. Mr. Weston agreed as tree spacing is important to proper growth. Mr. Percival clarified that a 12" tree cannot be re-planted but buffering can be provided that will mature nicely. Mr. D'Arezzo replied that re-plantings can be conditioned. Ms. Adrian agreed. Mr. Weston asked if porous pavement is to be used. Mr. Percival replied porous pavement is proposed but drainage Is also provided within the river rock buffer around the building. This will allow infiltration if the porous pavement does not work for some reason. Ms. Adrian asked if exterior lighting is proposed. Mr. Rollins replied that a motion detecting light is provided at the door on the eastern facade. Mr. Percival informed the Board that these stations require less maintenance than sewer pump stations. Ms. Clish asked if conditions can be placed requiring the lower portion of the site be maintained as open space in perpetuity, in order to honor the intent of the past conditions on the site. She stated that the wording `natural state' also be added to the maintenance condition language. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that the CPDC cannot impose limits on the use of town-owned land alone. Mr. Weston agreed with Mr. D'Arezzo but found it important to condition the site's maintenance so that it Is useable for neighborhood recreation and play. Ms. Mercier shared the draft decision on-screen and added the language. Mr. Percival recommended the wording that the site be'routinely maintained'. Ms. Mercier asked if the condition on porous pavement was worded appropriately. Mr. Percival replied In the affirmative and added that an Operations and Maintenance Plan for such can be submitted. Mr. Weston proposed changes to the wording on maintenance as it may not always be done by the DPW. Mr. Percival agreed. Ms. Mercier stated that plan modifications shall include the depiction of the easement area. Ms. Adrian stated that the number of trees to be removed should be clearly worded in the Decision. Mr. Percival stated that he will look to confirm the number of trees to be removed. Ms. Albrecht stated that curbing will be provided along the roadway to help direct drainage. Mr. Percival stated that this can be clarified on the plans. Ms. Mercier asked to confirm the proposed construction hours. Mr. Percival confirmed 7:OOAM-5:OOPM is proposed, however, site preparation may begin at 6:30AM which Is allowed. Ms. Antinoro asked about the abutter input from the resident at Gazebo Circle. Mr. MacNichol stated that Ms. Betty Ward wrote in support of the application. The Board elected to review the Decision in its entirety before closing public comment 4N nr eW �� Town of Reading 1 Meeting Minutes Ms. Manna asked if drains will be provided in the roadway. Mr. Percival replied in the negative as Low Impact Design (LID) of porous pavement and river stone will be utilized. Mr. Percival asked to remove the language'in perpetuity' within the condition for land maintenance. Ms. Adrian closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to close the public hearing for Site Plan Review at 160 Hopkins Street. Mr. Weston seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Mr. Weston made a motion to approve the requested waivers for the Site Plan Review application at 160 Hopkins Street. Mr. D'Arezzo seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Mr. Weston made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review application submitted by the Department of Public Works for 160 Hopkins Street. Mr. D'Arezzo seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Continued Public Hearina, Zoning Bylaw Amendment for STM November 2021 Site Plan Review and Minor Site Plan Review Applicability Ms. Mercier shared the proposed language on the screen. She informed the Board that the language was revised shortly after the last discussion. She added that the proposed language includes attempts to capture all applications that the Board desires to review. This includes change of uses, additions to parking, new construction, and expansion/intensification of existing uses. Ms. Mercier stated that new construction was separated from expansion and would trigger a full Site Plan Review If additional parking is needed in conjunction with the addition. If additional parking is not needed, the application for new construction would trigger Minor Site Plan Review. Changes or additions to parking only would trigger Minor Site Plan Review. This language would help by not allowing applications to go without Board review. She continued that change of uses would also trigger Minor Site Plan Review, but if the use requires a Special Permit full Site Plan Review is triggered. Mr. Weston stated that while it is tough to explain he feels the language captures the needs desired by the Board. He questioned if new construction needs to be defined further. Ms. Clish stated that the language is more straight forward than before though she had a similar reaction as Mr. Weston but to expansion of use. She asked if this needs to be defined further. Mr. Weston asked if it were new construction within an existing structure would it trigger review. Mr. D'Arezzo echoed the comments and asked if a strip mall expansion should require review. He opined that it should. Ms. Clish added that change of uses in an existing site would also trigger a review. Mr. Weston recommended the language'within an existing structure' be added to Section 4.6.2.3(a). He opined keeping the rest of the language so that it cannot be misinterpreted. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if a restaurant were to expand into an existing restaurant space, would it require review. The Board found that the language would capture such due to the mention of 'expansion of an existing principal use or business'. Mr. Weston found this language needed. Ms. Clish agreed as expansion to allow music shows could be an intensification. J,Nn Of NEgO Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Ms. Mercier reminded the Board that Minor Site Plan Review also allows the Chair to give town staff the authorization to approve such applications administratively if warranted. Ms. Mercier asked if the language captured existing businesses expanding into separate buildings or areas. Mr. D'Arezzo stated it does not, but it does not necessarily need to as existing businesses should not be held to more stringent requirements than new businesses coming to Town. Mr. Weston stated that a change of use may trigger review, however, if the use is the same as the previous the existing conditions should be sufficient. He found the proposed language to apply to adjacent spaces. Ms. Mercier added the language. Ms. Mercier stated that the Change of Use definition relates to the Table of Uses within the Bylaw. The Table does not capture the Downtown Smart Growth 4011 District (DSGD). She continued that change of uses in 4011 developments may not be captured within this language; however, the 40R Bylaw allows its own uses which each include different parking requirements. if a business in a 40R District were to change to one that requires more parking that would still be enforced. Uses not defined in the 40R Bylaw are not allowed in the developments. Mr. D'Arezzo suggested that the definitions within Section 10.5 of the Bylaw match the definitions of the uses within the Table. Mr. Weston stated that mixing Section 2.0 and 10.5 of the Bylaw is not preferred and the 40R Bylaw should be addressed separately. He found that 40R properties work more cohesively together than with existing structures downtown. Ms. Clish agreed as businesses are not specified upon review and changes can be hard to capture. Mr. Weston stated that change of uses occur in an existing 40R development. Mr. MacNichol asked if the language of 'regardless of exemptions or waivers' could be removed. Mr. Weston suggested that it remain due to the change of demand that may happen at a site. Ms. Mercier clarified that changes to parking and/or a change of use triggers a minimum of Minor Site Plan Review. If a new business were to move downtown it would be reviewed and parking impacts could be discussed, regardless of additions or not. Ms. Adrian asked for next steps. Ms. Mercier stated that the Board could close the public hearing in order to get the amendments to November Town Meeting. Or, they could elect to continue this effort to bring to April 2022 Town Meeting. Mr. Weston stated that this meeting was scheduled in efforts to bring this to November Town Meeting. Mr. Weston stated that the concern with removing the exemption language was that large new construction projects downtown that don't add parking would only trigger Minor Site Plan Review. Mr. D'Arezzo agreed and found the inclusion of waivers helpful as it relates to expanding businesses. Ms. Clish suggested adding 'parking related'to the exemption language so that it is more clear. The Board agreed. Mr. Weston asked again if there are concerns on the wording of new construction. Ms. Clish found new construction to mean the creation of additions, buildings or structures that did not previously exist. Mr. D'Arezzo questioned if a storage area were converted into a new commercial space would review be required. Mr. MacNichol found that this would trigger an 'expansion of use'. The Board reviewed a number of scenarios to determine if all would trigger review. After such they elected to keep the language. Ms. Clish made a motion to close the public hearing for a Zoning Bylaw Amendment to Section 4.6.2 and 4.6.3 — Site Plan Review Applicability, Minor Site Plan Review Applicability and Minor Site Plan Review. Mr. D'Arezzo seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. �K inGa Town of Reading ^e� X Meeting Minutes The Board elected to review the final language to be drafted before recommending the changes to November 2021 Town Meeting. Mr. Weston asked If Town Counsel should review the language prior to recommendation. Ms. Mercier confirmed that she will send the draft to Town Counsel. She added that substantive changes may not be possible. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that friendly amendments can be made on the floor of Town Meeting. 3/29/21 40R Zoning Workshop Debrief Ms. Mercier reminded the Board that the zoning workshop held in March 2021 lead to helpful findings to use going forward if the 4011 Bylaw is to be updated. Topics of the workshop included discussion on future visioning, lot coverage and dimensional requirements, open space requirements, and parking requirements. Discussions ensued on the wants and needs of the public related to each topic. Key takeaways include: • Further education needed on 40R and what it is; • Education on the lot coverage definition and what applies to the calculation; • Clarification on the waiver process and how it works; • Definitions of Lot Coverage and Open Space needed in the 40R Bylaw • Address Lot Coverage and Open Space in the Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD) Design Guidelines; • Step-backs at ground floor desired; and, • Useable, public open space desired; Ms. Mercier asked if it could be clarified on what is meant from "need to decide setbacks and guidelines and not use existing buildings for future regulations". Mr. D'Arezzo found it related to not using existing structures to demand the same for new. He gave an example of the MF Charles Building, which covers the full lot and provides no parking. He opined that just because It exists today, this would not be the case for every new development. Ms. Clish agreed. Ms. Mercier reiterated the questions asked at the workshop and provided a summary of the answers received. Mr. D'Arezzo questioned if the Brande Court parking lot is truly utilized less than when Atlantic Supermarket existed. Mr. Weston opined that the turnover and rotations are now totally different than when Atlantic was there. He found that turnover was greater in the past, but demand may have been more. Ms. Mercier informed the Board that the Town has contracted with the Metro Area Planning Council (MAPC) to help with community engagement related to the 40R Bylaw and its potential amendments. The goal is to find the true community wants and concerns as it relates to downtown development. She continued that the community meetings are an effort to advance the feedback already received by providing proposed changes and language to review and comment on. Ms. Mercier stated that the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) has also been reached out to in order to determine if there are parameters to work within when it comes to changes. Ms. Adrian found the summary extremely helpful to use going forward. Ms. Sarah Brukilacchio asked if the Instructional Motions made at Town Meeting are being Incorporated into future changes. Ms. Mercier answered that the motions are being considered but setting 85% lot coverage and setback requirements alone will not result in the changes wanted by the community. She found that the 40R Bylaw needed a holistic Town of Reading a Meeting Minutes review. Mr. Weston agreed as there is desire to improve connections around the entire Town and outside of it. He felt that MAPC would be a help to this regard and help envision how open space can be enhanced around Town. This vision could then be applied to zoning. He continued that this was done with the South Main Street Design Guidelines in the past; parcel by parcel was reviewed and was very constructive to determine the feasibility of the desired developments. Mr. Weston found this could be applied to the downtown to help find pathway connections and more. By Increasing setbacks alone, you place demand for development elsewhere on the parcel, thus limiting potential greenspace or other wants. Ms. Clish opined that mapping and visioning projects would be beneficial to this public engagement. She added that zoning itself may not be enough to get the style of development wanted. Ms. Brukllacchio expressed that the current development is wrong and too impactful to the downtown residents. She stated that the massing, density and parking are not meeting the wants of the Town. She continued that Town Meeting members were not aware of limited setbacks to protect existing residents. Ms. Clish opined that future visioning activities can help not just find new pathways but also needed changes to dimensional requirements. Mr. Weston stated that the goal Is to have useable, meaningful space and not just unusable splits of land. Ms. Brukllacchio stated that addressing the needs is more pressing than visioning, as by the time visioning is done more development will ensue. Mr. Weston replied that the initiative is to develop language that results in beneficial changes and not move forward with language that doesn't result in the goals truly desired by the public. Ms. Brukllacchio stated that OR developments should summarize how they meet the design guidelines and not just check a box on the application. She stated that the first review should be much closer to the wants of the Town than they have been. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that more should be asked for by the Town when an application requires waivers. Ms. Mercier stated waiver justifications do exist in the Bylaw but they could be added to or changed. She added that one waiver justification is simply providing commercial on the first -floor. Mr. Weston stated that residential only developments are allowed under 40R which is a concern. Mr. D'Arezzo found recent developments are not including as much commercial as desired nor are they providing the green infrastructure wanted. More discussion on waiver justification will continue. Ms. Adrian stated public input is extremely important to any future changes and asked for more continued involvement from residents. Adiournment Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:06 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Documents Reviewed at the Meeting: • CPDC Agenda 8/16/21 • Sign Permit Application, 470 Main Street o Sign Renderings, dated 8/10/21 o Draft Certificate of Appropriateness, dated 8/16/21 • Sign Permit Application, 143 Washington Street o Sign Renderings, dated 7/2821 o Draft Certificate of Appropriateness, dated 8/1621 • Public Hearing for Site Plan Review, 160 Hopkins Street o Site Plan Set, dated 8/421 o Draft Decision, dated 8/16/21 • Public Hearing for Zoning Bylaw Amendment, Site Plan and Minor Site Plan Review Applicability FHS/ Qy�N Town of Reading � , Meeting Minutes •J9:INC0 o Bylaw Section 4.6.2 and 4.6.3 — Track Changes Version, dated 7113/21 • 40R Zoning Workshop Debrief o Lot Coverage and Dimensional Requirements Jamboard o Open Space Requirements Jamboard o Parking Requirements Jamboard o Zoning Workshop Debrief, Takeaways and Ideas, dated 7/21/21 10