Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-19 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes-j- Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2014 -05 -19 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Charlie Adams - Chair John Weston Nick Safina David Tuttle Jeff Hansen Members - Not Present: Others Present: Jean Delios - Assistant Town Manager, Community Services Jessie Wilson - Community Development Administrator Zachary Camenker - 85 Batchelder Rd Damien Dell'Anno - 19 Zachary Lane Virginia Adams - 59 Azela Circle Theresa Bresten - 25 Zachary Lane Steve Krudop - 25 Zachary Lane Susan Taylor - 79 Pearl Street Benassi - 98 Sanborn Lane Christin Sullivan- 24 Cory Lane Lee Sullivan - 24 Cory Lane Sue and Niko Stathoulopoulos - 80 Sanborn Lane Chris Latham - 643 Main Street John Arena - 26 Francis John Halsey - 75 Beauar Nancy Twomey - 23 California Road Marsie West - 3 Whitehall Lane Kevin Sexton - 28 Emerson Street Bob LeLacheur - 16 Lowell Street Evan Warner - Gardenside Street Joe Huggins - 16 Lowell Street Paul Viccia - 110 Canal Street Mark Rowe - 64 pearl Street Bill and Debbie Dalton - 91 Pearl Street Karen Herrick - 9 Dividence Road Heather Clish - 51 Deering Street Cherrie Dubois - 9 Meadow Stephen Baumgartner - 285 Summer Street Robert Newton - 82 Linden Street Mary Friel -Sovay - 32 School Street Andy Truman - 20 A Street, Framingham Jim Mawn - 275 Mishawam, Woburn Page 1 1 RECEIVED TOWN CLERK DING. M ASS. --:'I ,Stud 2 S A 0 Town of Reading t . Meeting Minutes Greg Stepler - 77 Mineral Street Kathy and Ed Gill - 16 Deering Street Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Jessie Wilson, Community Development Administrator Topics of Discussion: There being a quorum the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Mr. Adams reminded the public to use the sign -in sheet. Continuance of Public Hearing for Site Plan Review: 306 Main Street Pizza World Ms. Wilson reported that the Applicant has requested a continuance to the next available meeting. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to continue the public hearing for 306 Main Street, Pizza World to May 29, 2014 at 7:45PM. Mr. Hansen seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Subdivision Bond Release and Final Release from Covenant Ms. Wilson said that the Applicant requested a full reduction of the bond, but that the conveyance of the easements for the utilities has not been recorded. Until that issue is resolved the subdivision cannot be released from the covenant. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC reduce the bond for the subdivision at Bethune Avenue to $5,000. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Planning Updates Ms. Delios reported that the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) is meeting weekly. The third public forum was held last week. The big issues they are working on include the Aquifer Protection District, Accessory Apartments and Medical Marijuana. Many people feel medical marijuana facilities should be located right on Main Street to be visible and in sight and not in the Industrial District. Mr. Weston expressed concern that the CPDC may not have any additional comment opportunities related to the update of the bylaw. Ms. Delios said there is a joint meeting scheduled with the ZAC and the ZBA on June 9th. She added that the goal is to have a draft updated bylaw by July 15th, but the revised submittals are still under review by the ZAC. Mr. Adams asked if more Town Meeting members are getting involved after the update at April Town Meeting. She replied that there were some more Town Meeting members in attendance at the Public Forum. In regards to outreach she said the ZAC held a stakeholders breakfast and there is an evening reception scheduled and sponsored by the Reading Co -Op tomorrow evening. She said that the ZAC will continue to update Town Meeting Members via email. Another big project Staff is working on is an Economic Development Action Plan. It started with the Economic Self- Assessment Tool ( EDSAT) hosted and completed by Northeastern University. EDSAT is a survey that was vetted at a Community Meeting which asks questions that relate back to real estate selection criteria. This selection criterion is based on items that developers look for when selecting sites. The next steps include working with MAPC on the Development Action Plan. That will be funded through a few grants from the State. In addition, we received a grant to look at Downtown as a Cultural District. This grant will inventory existing cultural organizations and then look at developing a new organization to Page 1 2 create this district. We are working with the Economic Development Committee and will be working with other local organizations. Mr. Adams asked about the former Bridal Shop. Ms. Delios replied that the owner's attorney said the project will be moving forward, but we have not seen anything. Ms. Delios said that Perfecto's is moving forward, but they are reviewing the floor plans as there is a question regarding the second means of egress for the second floor. The Building Inspector is working with their Architect on getting this issue addressed. Northern Bank, Orange Leaf and D'Amici's will be having their grand opening this week. The Irish pub is under construction. As for the remaining spaces, Ms. Delios has not heard of any future tenants. Public Hearing for Definitive Subdivision Plan: 92 Sanborn Lane, Proposed Mariano Drive Mr. Hansen read the public hearing legal notice. Mr. Adams went over the public hearing procedures. Ms. Delios provided a brief introduction to the project. The proposal is for a 3 lot subdivision off of Sanborn Lane. Mr. Al Couillard, Applicant for the proposed subdivision introduced the project. He noted that his Project Engineer has submitted revised plans to address the Town Engineer and Planning Staff comments. Mr. Zambouras added that most of his comments were related to plan items in terms of notations and labels, nothing major to change with the project design. Mr. Couillard described the project in more detail. The current site contains 3 acres and the project will involve the razing the existing home and constructing a new 300 -foot roadway. The property will then be subdivided into three lots. He has filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Conservation Commission for the proposed lots and they have voted to close the hearing on lots 2 and 3 as well as the roadway. Due to the wetlands on -site he is proposing some additional landscaping and tree plantings. In addition he is saving the 40" oak tree that is proposed in the center of the landscaped island. The original plans that were presented to CPDC only had one sidewalk, but he indicated he revised the plans to include a sidewalk all the way around the roadway. In addition, he will be widening Sanborn Lane by 3 -4 feet and extending the sidewalk to meet to the existing sidewalk at Lilah Lane. Mr. Adams asked why the proposed roadway is wider than the Sanborn Lane. Mr. Couillard replied that Sanborn Lane is an existing roadway and that the proposed roadway must comply with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations for new roadway standards. Mr. Zambouras added that the Fire Chief and Police Chief would recommend "no parking" on one -side if the roadway was narrowed. Mr. Couillard did not want to have that, so he provided the required width. Mr. Adams expressed concern about the two driveways for lot 2 and 3 being so close together. Mr. Couillard replied that is it based on the topography of the site and the constraints. Mr. Tuttle said he did review the plans and does not have any major concerns. Mr. Adams opened the public hearing for comment. Theresa Bresten, 25 Zachary Lane - She reported she lives directly in back from the proposed site. She wanted to know how many trees will remain between her lot and the proposed development. Mr. Tuttle said there is about 240 -feet between the proposed homes Page 1 3 and her home. She said that there is a vernal pool and an endangered species habitat in that area. She also indicated that she would be appealing the Conservation Commission's decision as she believes that neither the vernal pool nor the spotted salamander habitat were considered. She also expressed concern that abutters were not properly notified. Mr. Couillard replied that notices are based on the abutters list generated from the Town's Assessor Department. Joe Benassi, 98 Sanborn Lane - He felt that the survey for the site was incorrect because he has three sheds and the plan only shows two. He expressed concern over the tree removal. Mr. Couillard replied that 11 trees will be removed in that area. Sue Stathoulopoulos, 80 Sanborn Lane - She asked whether any additional trees will be removed in addition to the 11 trees on the other side of the lot. Mr. Couillard replied there are a few large trees on the site that will have to be removed. The lighter grey shade on the tree plan depicts what will be removed and the darker grey depicts what will be retained. Niko Stathoulopoulos, 80 Sanborn Lane - He also expressed concern with tree removal. He asked whether future homeowners could do additional tree removals. Mr. Zambouras said yes. He asked where the house would be located in relation to the property line. Mr. Zambouras confirmed it would be 16 -feet from the property line. Mr. Couillard said that the plan identifies max size of the home but that could change and be less based on the potential buyers. Ms. Stathoulopoulos wanted to know where the trees will be replanted. Mr. Couillard replied that the plantings are depicted on the plan. Mr. Stathoulopoulos expressed concern that there would be no buffer. Mr. Safina added that the only way to guarantee a buffer is to do it on your own property. Lee Sullivan, 24 Cory Lane - His property is located south of the site and also wraps around to the east. He also is concerned with tree removal. As for Lot 2, Mr. Couillard said that there will be minimal tree removal as the lot is pretty clear already. Ms. Christine Sullivan expressed concern over stormwater and drainage. Mr. Couillard replied that he cannot create more stormwater discharge than what is currently generated on -site. He added that the Town Engineer reviews the plans to ensure that is the case. He further described the stormwater management system. Mr. Stathoulopoulos asked if Sanborn Lane will be a public way. Mr. Zambouras replied no, not at this time. He also asked what the impact will be on traffic. Mr. Couillard replied that there will be no additional traffic improvements. Mr. Stathoulopoulos is concerned with the safety and feels this project will create added safety issues. Damian Dell'Anno, 19 Zachary Lane - He reported that he was told there was a vernal pool located in the conservation area near the site. He was limited to what he could do for his home construction project. He feels there are some discrepancies now that there is no mention of a vernal pool. Mr. Weston added that vernal pools are evolving and they come and go with the seasons, so that could affect the status. Brad Hardne, Sanborn Lane Resident - He asked about the Aquifer Protection Zone and whether the project conforms to those regulations. Mr. Tuttle replied yes the project is located in the overlay. As to conformance, Mr. Zambouras said the site as a whole does conform. Mr. Zambouras added that they review the entire project and each lot individually. This is because the Town will have to accept the roadway and we need to ensure the individual lots are comply. For example lot 1 as is exceeds the requirement so he recommended that Mr. Couillard consider infiltration, which they have provided. The development not meets the requirements it as a whole and individual lots. Mr. Weston reported that staff still has some outstanding items including proof of access, confirmation of compliance with the aquifer protection district and the draft performance Page 1 4 guarantee. Ms. Wilson said she has not received the draft guarantee. Mr. Couillard replied that he will be submitting a letter of credit similar to Bethune Avenue. In regards to proof of access, Mr. Zambouras said that case law has indicated that each homeowner has rights to the center of the roadway and has the ability to make improvements along his frontage. Mr. Couillard submitted a letter from his attorney including copies of case law. Mr. Benassi expressed concern over the proposed radii of the roadway. Mr. Zambouras replied that it is the standard radius but Mr. Benassi still feels it is unsafe. Mr. Stathoulopoulos asked whether the utilities would be above ground or underground. Mr. Tuttle said there are utility poles on the plan that will remain. Mr. Zambouras clarified that the utilities will be underground into the development. Existing poles on Sanborn Lane will be relocated as proposed where the roadway is to be located. Mr. Benassi asked about the proposed lighting. Mr. Couillard replied the project proposes two streetlights, but that they are subject to approval by RMLD. Mr. Zambouras said that lighting is reviewed by Public Safety and Fire Department and if additional lighting is needed they will request it. Mr. Benassi also asked about the square footage of the dwellings. Mr. Couillard replied about 3,500 square feet. Ms. Stathoulopoulos noted that Conservation did not close the hearings but the next meeting is on the 28tH Ms. Bresten noted that the Conservation Administrator contacted DEP. She added that the Conservation Commission did vote but the order still needs to be signed. Mr. Adams asked if the driveways are a concern. Mr. Zambouras said it actually makes it easier to store snow and he does not see that being a problem. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to close the public hearing for the proposed Definitive Subdivision Plan at 92 Sanborn Lane. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Mr. Tuttle said from a zoning side, it appears everything is squared away. Conservation sounds like they may have some things to take care of but he did not see anything outstanding from a CPDC standpoint. Mr. Weston suggested reviewing the decision at the next meeting. Ms. Wilson added that we should get Town Counsel to review the access and also a copy of the draft performance guarantee. Mr. Adams agreed. He also noted that he is still concerned over the amount of pavement for three lots. He suggested the ZAC look into this. Mr. Weston said that it is more a conversation for the public safety staff, and DPW and Engineering to review. Public Hearing for Site Plan Review: 75 Pearl Street, Longwood Place Mr. Hansen read the public hearing notice. Mr. Adams described the public hearing process. Ms. Delios gave a brief introduction of the project. The new owner of the property is looking to restore the "front" entrance as the main entrance that will be accessed by a new driveway cul -de -sac. She also added that Planning Staff issued a Minor Site Plan Review for cosmetic work such as painting for some of the interior units. The project is located in the Municipal Reuse District and was issued a Special Permit in 1995. A total of 30% of open space is required and 10% of the units must be affordable. Mr. Italo Visco, Applicant said most of the project is to provide updates to the existing building. In regards to the entrance he said the current entrance is in the back and can be confusing from a user standpoint. There are also 8 risers on the inside that make it challenging to residents. He said he wants to make an accessible entrance on the front of Page 1 5 the building facing Pearl Street. The back entrance will be retained as service entrance and for staff. In addition they would also refinish and upgrade the units. The project is an overall upgrade. One of the biggest challenges is related to the design of the entrance. When it was first permitted back in 1995 there was a historic tax credit deal, and therefore required Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act. That review resulted in a rear entrance as there was some concern over modifying the primary entrance. The current proposal is to revive that proposal to relocate the primary entrance facing Pearl Street. Mr. Adams asked about the soccer fields. Mr. Visco replied that the fields will be retained. He noted that the design is meant to be simple and not compete with the building. He said he was on his Town's Historical Commission and conferred with a consultant to ensure there are no restrictions left on the property. Mr. Adams opened the hearing to public comment. John Arena, Reading Selectmen, 26 Francis Drive - He asked if the soccer field was drawn to scale and whether it took into account home and away games. Mr. Visco said that it is not a full sized field and is used as a youth field. This layout is based on DPW's design. It was noted that the field depicted on the plan is the same plan that was originally approved. Mr. Arena would like the plan revised to reflect the current state of the property and what is really there. Mr. Visco added that the lease agreement is also being worked on because it does not identify bounds, but just a plan. Mr. Weston suggested working with Reading United Soccer Club (RUSC) to work out the lines of the fields. He felt that the proposed grading of the new driveway would work well for kids sitting on the sideline. Susan Taylor, 76 Pearl Street - She expressed concern in regards to the new entrance and how the windows and front doors will be addressed. Mr. Visco replied that the windows will be behind the retaining walls due to the new higher finished grade. The existing door will be modified and moved up into the existing transom. A new floor will be constructed over the stairs on the inside. The portico will not be attached to the building, but will be separated by about a foot. He pointed out that it is not a ramp, but that fill would be brought in to accommodate accessibility. Virginia Adams, 59 Azela Circle - She said the CPDC does have a letter from the Historical Commission stating the importance of the building. She pointed out the detached canopy is preferred because it does not impact details on the building. However, the detail cannot be seen based on the proposed design. She also feels the rendering does not depict the proposed site very well. In addition, she expressed concern regarding the required fence that will be on top of the retaining wall. She pointed out that there is a similar project in Woburn where many of the utilities are located in the depressed area including the mechanical units. She would recommend the mechanical units not be located in that area. She also pointed out that the rendering does not depict a fence on the left side of the portico ramp but there is one proposed on the right. She would like to work with the developer to minimize the amount of volume there. There are criteria from the Secretary of the Interior, several of which this project does not adhere to. She cites the criteria and the Historical Commission concerns. She would like to help refine the proposal. Mark Rowe, 64 Pearl Street - He expressed concern about the front entrance and wanted to know if the ambulances and fire staff would use the rear entrance. He would prefer that to be the case and only have the front used by visitors and residents. He pointed out there is a large volume of traffic especially with the dance school. Ms. Taylor asked about the trees and the flagpole. Mr. Visco said that the trees will be saved where possible. Where the grade change is too dramatic, trees will be removed. Page 1 6 Mr. Adams asked if all Planning Staff comments had been addressed. Mr. Visco said he had provided some responses tonight and would provide the rest prior to the building permit. Mr. Adams said the CPDC does like to see written responses. Ms. Delios added that her memo was clear on the outstanding items as well as issues from the Engineering Division. Mr. John Paulson, Project Engineer replied that he has prepared the drainage report in the plan set. He just needs to translate the O & M Plan into a separate report. Mr. Adams said that the rendering is different than what is shown on the plan. What about the handicap spaces? Mr. Visco replied it is just not shown at that perspective. Mr. Adams asked if the transformer is screened. Mr. Visco replied that yes, a fence is provided on two sides. Mr. Visco said that the permitting process is much more time consuming than anticipated for what they felt was a simple project. Mr. Weston noted that there is a lot of detail included in the plan set and they do want to focus on the site plan. Ms. Delios pointed out that the Building Inspector will look at the building as part of the building permit application. Mr. Adams suggested the Applicant review the memo and provide responses to these items, including Engineering Comments. He also suggested to continue working with the Historical Commission on their concerns. Mr. Visco replied that he did provide a lot of information. Mr. Safina asked about the memory care section of the property. Mr. Paul Maloney, Architect said they will be moving memory care patients to a specific area. Mr. Weston added that the size of the cul -de -sac may be an issue and cause more pavement if it is changed. Ms. Wilson said she did speak with the fire chief in regards to the cul -de -sac design. Although it does not meet their preferred radii, the trucks will continue to service the building via back entrance. Ms. Taylor expressed concern over the field and whether the increase in the cul -de -sac would impact that. Mr. Weston replied that there is a 30% open space requirement. Mr. Safina asked about the sign. Mr. Visco said they will be resubmitting the sign design because that was their temporary sign. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to continue the Public Hearing for the Site Plan Review Application for 75 Pearl Street to June 9 at 8:15 PM. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Public Hearing for Site Plan Review: 101 Willow Street Austin Preparatory School Mr. Hansen read the public hearing notice. Ms. Delios summarized the proposed project. She noted the project is a track and field improvement project which includes construction of an amenities building, new lighting, new score board and new drainage system. The site is located in the Aquifer Protection District and therefore the Applicant needs to ensure they meet the requirements. In addition to more information regarding the amenities building, Staff requested more information on the schedule of uses, conformance with the Aquifer Protection District, trash and recycling. Mr. Chris Latham provided the CPDC with the Articles of Organization and IRS Documentation proving non - profit status as an educational use. He added that the project proposes to reconstruct the track, field and bleachers. The new synthetic turf system will provide drainage. A new concession stand is proposed. The renovation for the track is necessary to comply with the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) standards (400 meters). He said that the project has received an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission. The project will improve ADA compliance, reduce water usage, improve student safety, and is compliant with the Master Plan and Open Space and Page 1 7 Recreation Plan. The school does not anticipate an increase in the use of the field and feels they have sufficient parking. The Applicant has requested a waiver of the Site Plan Review Fee because it is a non - profit project. Mr. Sean Boyd, Project Engineer said that he has a list of response to Staff Comments. Aquifer Protection District - The track is located on one parcel but the site contains 3 parcels. The site is at the 15% threshold and the project will increase the impervious areas by 3 %. In order to comply with the requirements, they are proposing an infiltration system within the new synthetic field. A total of 31,000 cf of storage will be provided with the infiltration system and feels this meets the requirements of the Aquifer Protection District. The infiltration system consists of a 10 -inch stone base that will store a lot of the rain water. Mr. Zambouras said he is comfortable with the proposal and is just waiting on their memo. In regards to the retaining walls, Mr. Boyd said that they will be providing stamped structural drawings as required. In regards to tree removals, a wetland replication area is proposed, but a landscape plan has not been prepared. The Applicant added they will be submitting one. In regards to trash removal, Mr. Boyd said that currently receptacles are located throughout the facilities and that will stay the same. Maintenance staff collects those receptacles and empties them in the dumpsters on the school property. In regards to the scoreboard, Mr. Boyd presented cut sheets of the proposed sign. It will be located on the northern side of the field to provide viewing for both sides of the field. As for the wetland replication area, the Conservation Commission wanted to see an educational area where students could view the wetland and could become part of the biology curriculum. The platform identified on the plan is an area where they could view the wetland. It is not a structure, just an area on the slope. In regards to the proposed lighting, the stadium lights do not meet dark skies standards. However, the light drop -offs have received certification from the IDA. In regards to parking, there are about 285 spaces for current parking which is just shy of what is required under the current bylaw. It is anticipated the usage of the fields will be after hours and there will be no conflicts with parking. Mr. Charles Cochran, of Cornerstone Architects described the proposed concessions building. He said there are actually three functions for this building; concessions, toilets and storage. The top level will be accessible by grade and will house the concessions and restrooms. Below that will be storage. The track and field is classified as an A -5 Assembly Use Group which has an occupancy of 1100 occupants. As such, 18 female and 9 male restroom fixtures will be required. However, because there are facilities within the existing field house, they will be seeking a waiver from the state plumbing board. The building will be split -face masonry and will match the existing multi - purpose building. Mr. Adams opened the hearing for Public Comment. No comments were received. Mr. Zambouras said there was no information on the amenities building, there will be an I/I fee for the increase in flow calculated at twice the flow times $4. Mr. Tuttle said he feels it is a good use of the site. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to close the Public Hearing for 101 Willow Street, Austin Preparatory School. Mr. Hansen seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Page 1 8 The CPDC reviewed the draft decision and suggested minor changes. It was agreed to modify the bond requirement for the as -built plans such that if the bond for Conservation is at least $6,000 the as -built plans will be tied to that. It was also agreed to include a condition for the Applicant to provide a landscape plan, confirmation the project is in compliance with the Aquifer Protection District regulations and then final sewer and drainage calculations to be approved by the Town Engineer. Mr. Tuttle move the CPDC to approve the Site Plan Decision for 101 Willow Street, Austin Preparatory School as amended. Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Public hearing for Site Plan Review: 64 Middlesex Avenue. Reading Public Library Mr. Adams summarized the public hearing process. He noted that this project is not subject to zoning as it is a municipal project. Mr. Hansen read the public hearing notice. Ms. Delios said the purpose of the project coming to CPDC is to have an open public vetting process for this project even though it is not subject to the zoning bylaw. She said that the goal is to try and minimize conflict especially since this project is located in a residential area. Mr. Chris Coios, Architect with CBT Architects introduced the project team. He went through the presentation. He described the existing circulation and noted there are currently 49 parking spaces. The original building entrance is used for exit only currently and the primary entrance is from the rear of the building from the parking lot. The proposal calls for the new entry to still be from the rear of the building from the parking lot, but will be from grade. The current entrance requires a number of steps and handicap ramp to reach the doors. The interior of the building will be completely renovated and reorganized. The new addition to the building will house a community room that can accommodate 150 people and a 30 person meeting room. The 3'6 floor is where the new children's library will be located. The proposed site plan calls for a change in circulation with a singular driveway for both entering and exiting traffic. The parking lot is being modified and will provide for 48 parking spaces. In addition, the book drop area has been redesigned so that it is connected to the building. The north side and west side of the site are to remain a landscape zones. The memorial trees will be relocated to new area. New pedestrian paths are proposed around the building and there are accessible paths from Deering Street to the building entrance and also from Middlesex Avenue to the building. The sidewalks around the building will be maintained and are in reasonably good condition. Trash collection will be from the enclosed dumpster which at the rear of the parking lot. A fence is proposed on the south and west side of the property. A transformer is located on the west side of the building and landscaping will be provided around the transformer as well as bollards. For lighting, the project proposes two poles in the parking lot lighting with two heads (4- lights each). A pole on the east side and two on the west side are also proposed. They all have cut off shields. There are a series of pole lights along the pedestrian paths and canopy lighting is proposed under the overhang by the building entrance. The pole lights for the pedestrian paths were proposed to be 14 -feet high with 4 -foot illuminated element. Mr. Coios said they have redesigned them to 12 -foot with 3 -foot illuminated element. The fixtures could be dimmed and controlled. Mr. Coios said the project will retain several of the trees on -site. Page 1 9 Mr. Coios presented the Photometric Plan. There is zero spillover at the rear of the side. There is some overflow at the edges of the site. There is a 0.2 or 0.3 spillover near the corner of the dumpster. There is 0.9 spillover on the eastern side of the site. A new drainage system is proposed. Currently, the system exits the site through the abutter's property. This will be reconstructed so that it is re- directed to the line in the street and not through the abutter's property. Ms. Shauna Gilles- Smith, Landscape Architect with Ground, Inc said she received some suggestions from the tree warden in regards to the species of maple. She said that she agrees to change the species as per his recommendation. Mr. Adams requested some information regarding the parking options in the Howard Stein - Hudson (HSH) study. Mr. Coios replied that the east side of the site beyond the addition poses some challenges because of the grade. He said they looked into providing a 90 degree parking off of Middlesex and School Street. However, the assessment found that it is not typical of a residential neighborhood to have that type of parking, and it is not consider safe (children play in the street). Mr. Tuttle asked about the recommendation for the "T" like intersection for Deering and Middlesex. Mr. Coios replied that HSH did look at that alternative but it is prohibitive from a grading standpoint. They also looked at an entrance from Middlesex Avenue, but that presented some safety issues as well. Mr. Adams said that the concern from the Chief was the single access point for entering and exiting. What about providing another entrance /exit around the addition portion of the building? Mr. Coios replied that it would reduce the number of parking spaces plus there are significant grading issues on that side of the site. Mr. Weston feels there are two issues. 1) This plan creates a 5- legged intersection. He said this is a concern from staff. In addition, the HSH reports this is not a safe condition. 2) Parking - seems there is not enough to accommodate 150 people for the community room. Where are all of them going to park? Mr. Weston expressed concern that the neighborhood feel of the area will dissolve once that room is periodically used. He also expressed concern regarding more parking on Middlesex Ave. Mr. Coios replied that the consultant did not indicate that it was an unsafe intersection, but that they would recommend making it a four way intersection with stop signs. He said that filtering out throughout the neighborhood would even it out. It has been suggested that the Town limit the parking on Middlesex Avenue to 2 -hours to get more turnover. Mr. Weston said that yes, there will be parking throughout the neighborhood, but when considering uses like this, it is best to try and keep the parking on -site. They require this for any commercial property. Mr. Tuttle said that it will be inevitable for large meetings. The plan does include better pedestrian access from the streets which he felt was important. Mr. Safina expressed concern in regards to fire truck access, especially from Middlesex Avenue. Mr. Coios said he cannot speak to how they fight fires. Mr. Safina said maybe the walkway is something the trucks could drive on. Mr. Coios said they have discussed that with the Fire Department. Mr. Safina asked where snow would be stored. Mr. Coios said that it would be removed off - site. Mr. Safina asked if the photometric plan takes into account the slope of the site. The neighbors would be looking up at the light from a lower elevation. Mr. Coios said the design of the lighting plan does contain it to the site. Mr. Safina suggested looking at the existing lighting conditions and providing an existing condition photometric so that the change could then be compared with a proposed photometric plan. Page 1 10 Mr. Weston asked about the windows potential window treatments such as films to control light. Mr. Coios replied the plan calls for motorized curtains for screening. He added that the lighting consultant said there would be no glare from the fixtures. Mr. Weston said that it is more than just the glare but the ambient light to consider. Mr. Adams opened the hearing for Public Comment. Heather Clish, 51 Deering Street - She is concerned with the traffic flow and that the project will increase traffic on Deering Street. She said that cars drive very fast on this road. It would be great to get some information in regards to the traffic increases based on the proposed uses. Police Chief Cormier said that the Fire Chief and he met a few weeks ago about the concerns related to parking, site circulation and traffic. One area of concern is the entrance and exit of the driveway. Increased traffic to a single driveway is not a preferred alternative. It does limit access and eliminates secondary access. Some of the Fire Chief's concerns were that the plan did not accommodate the fire trucks. It may not be always about fighting a fire, but also accommodating ambulances as well. He said the other area of concern is parking. He expressed concern about increasing the program space and not addressing the need for parking. He said that he does believe it will be a beautiful building and that if you build it they will come. However, he said that the project should not impact the neighborhood negatively. If it does, the Police Department and he will have to deal with it. With increased programs and decreased parking he believes parking will overflow to the neighborhoods. He also said there is a lot to consider with the idea of parking on- street and providing a 4 -way stop. As for the angled parking he feels it is not as dangerous as it was stated and he feels that it could work. Mr. Adams asked how many angled parking could be provided on Middlesex Avenue. Mr. Coios said currently there are 10 spaces and they could probably provide 20. Mr. Zambouras agreed with the Police Chief's comments. He said that the driveway entrance is creating a hazard and a parking and traffic analysis should be done for this project. They could also consider reversed angled parking on the side streets. Mr. David Hutchinson, Chairman of the Library Committee stated that the addition portion of the building needs to stay because that is the basis for the state grant. He said that to create a driveway around the addition it would be very cost prohibitive and we would need to address the grading challenges. In regards to the meeting rooms he said that currently there is a room that can accommodate 110 people, but that most of the meetings average 35 people. The new community room is not meant to be auditorium style meetings. There are only about 5 big events about per year and the intent is to use the room for those events. Ms. Mary Sousa suggested an alternative driveway directly out to Middlesex or near where the current driveway is now. Mr. Coios said it that would be challenging and would not improve the number of parking spaces. If the driveway were to be located somewhere in between the block, it could cause two driveways to be very close to each other which can cause other safety implications. Ms. Clish said she would still like to see a traffic study because there are currently problems going on with the existing configuration on Deering Street and it really should be evaluated. Mr. Paul Viccia, Principal Architect with CBT Architects said that adding an intersection at Middlesex with a right turn only may be an option. Ms. Anette Hanlin said that she feels it is a dangerous spot and the proposed driveway will be an issue. Page 1 11 The project manager for the project said that having a right turn only would address some concerns. In regards to parking he said any other alternatives would come in at a high cost and not provide any real benefit to the project. He did agree that some changes to the 4- way stop and speed control measures should be implemented on Middlesex Avenue. Mr. Mike Marchetti said that he would prefer less parking at the library site rather than have the site contain large retaining walls to support more parking. Ms. Kathleen Leary suggested the Town consider installing curbing on Deering Street as she feels it is a safety issue. Mr. John Greichen, 22 Dudley said he feels that the addition would serve more like a community center. He expressed concerns with the parking and traffic safety implications and suggested they be evaluated. Mr. John Arena, Board of Selectmen said that the removal of the second egress is an issue and asked why it was removed. Mr. Coios replied that they are introducing emergency egresses to the building which we currently do not have. Mr. Arena still expressed concern that the secondary drive is being eliminated. Mr. Viccia said they may be able to increase the width of one of the pedestrian pathways to accommodate a fire truck. Mr. Andrew Grimes pointed out that the pathway is wheelchair accessible and you could roll a stretcher to the door. Mr. John Halsey said he feels the meeting room is a great addition and the public would agree because they voted on this. Public safety is important, and the increase in traffic is likely and we need to manage the impacts and possibly sacrifice the trees and the green space to protect the public safety. He said that it would be worth looking at other alternatives. Mr. Lamberto Almeida, 37 School Street said he does not mind the parallel parking. He would not want to see a retaining wall in front of his house. He also pointed out that by constructing a retaining wall to accommodate another driveway it would prevent access to the building from School Street. Mr. Coios said that in regards to the angled parking they do not prefer the 90 degree parking, but even with the reversed angled parking there is concern with headlights shining into the neighbor's house. Mr. Coios presented the architectural elevation drawings of the exterior of the building. Mr. Adams asked about the book drop. It was clarified it is not a drive -up book drop. Mr. Coios replied that there is a 5 min temporary parking spot. Mr. Adams asked why the "front" entrance facing Middlesex Avenue was not to be restored as a front entrance. Mr. Coios replied that the rear entrance had to be used as a primary entrance to ensure it was fully accessible. Mr. Safina asked what the elevation difference is between the lower doors and School Street. It was clarified it was about 10 -ft. In regards to the public hearing process, Mr. Weston said that typically when there are some open issues the CPDC would not close the hearing. They would continue the meeting and then continue the discussion on the outstanding items. Ms. Delios said there was a decision drafted. Mr. Tuttle said that he feels it is a challenging site, but that it seems to be the best that we could do. Without doing some substantial regrading, he feels there are limited options. Mr. Page 1 12 Safina and Mr. Weston believe there are some issues that should be addressed and can be improved upon. Mr. Weston suggested the Applicant review the HSH report and look into the intersection more closely as well as the parking. Mr. Adams said that for projects that undergo Site Plan Review it is typical for the public hearing to be continued if there are outstanding items. Mr. Bob LeLacheur, Town Manager said that the Library Trustees were receptive to coming to the CPDC. He said that he wanted to make sure that the Town is not treated differently and wanted to make sure that we are following the same rules with the understanding that the CPDC decision is not binding but that the process is followed. Ms. Delios added that she believes one of the biggest impacts will be the lighting from the new addition and feels there should be some guidelines on how to mitigate impacts. Mr. Viccia replied that the blinds proposed for the windows in the addition could be programmed for automatic opening /closing at specific times. In regards to the retaining wall, they did look at the realities of the site and there is only so much space to provide for parking. To provide more parking, it would come at a high cost and impact the visual aspect to the neighborhood. In regards to the angled parking he would not recommend that, and would prefer to have a limit of liability before they made that recommendation. Mr. Weston said that they should provide more information on the intersection, and the circulation issue. Mr. Adams also asked to address the comments formally as well. Mr. Safina said they should look at moving the entrance to the middle of Middlesex Avenue. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to continue the Public Hearing to June 9, 2014 at 8:30PM. Mr. Safina seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. MF Charles Building — Mechanical Unit Screenin Ms. Delios said this as part of the Site Plan Review decision, the Applicant is required to provide screening of the mechanical units visible from the street. The Applicant proposed a system of screening and went before the Historical Commission for their recommendation. The design included the installation of iron fencing that would be placed in front of the units which would also be painted black. However, the Historical Commission suggested foregoing the fencing and just painting the mechanical units black. Mr. Weston asked if they could be painted. Mr. Shaun Briere, Attorney replied yes, and they would be willing to paint them black or green as the Historical Commission Recommended. Mr. Safina recommended a dark green moss paint color across all. Ms. Adams is happy with either. Mr. Mawn said he is happy with that. Mr. Adams said typically we do usually ask for a screening, but due to the historical nature of the building we are willing to think about alternatives. Ms. Virginia Adams, member of the Historical Commission suggested a condition be included in the decision that the paint be maintained. Mr. Tuttle moved the CPDC to determine the proposed treatment for rooftop mechanical is adequate to meet the requirements of the Site Plan Review Decision for 600 -622 Main Street. Mr. Weston seconded and the motion carried 5 -0 -0. Mr. Adams tabled the remaining agenda items to the following meeting on June 9, 2014. Page 1 13 Adjournment On a motion by Mr. Tuttle, seconded by Mr. Hansen, the CPDC voted to adjourn at 12:45AM by a vote of 5 -0 -0. Page 1 14