HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-17 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading
��,:,�oPwree
I Meeting Minutes
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: 2016 -03 -17 Time: 7:00 PM
Building: Pleasant Street Senior Center Location: Great Room
Address: 49 Pleasant Street Session:
Purpose: Version:
Attendees: Members - Present:
l uACLERK
Robert Redfern, David Traniello, John Jarema, Damase Caouette, Kathleen
Hacket, Nick Pernice
Members - Not Present:
Erik Hagstrom
Others Present:
Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie
Mercier, Town Counsel Chris Heep, 40B Consultant John Gelcich, Russel
Feldman and Sarah Oakes of TBA Architects, Matthew Brassard of Nitsch
Engineering, Jason Sobel of Green International, BOS Member Kevin Sexton,
CPDC Member David Tuttle, Christine Hansen, Khozaima Shakir, Jon See,
Everett & Virginia Blodgett, Diana & Wayne Webber, Lois Bell, Cathy
Capozza, Marianne Downing, Eileen Manning, Julie Aylward, Gina Snyder,
Nick Gagnon, Mark Dockser, Lianne & Paul Stoddard, Tony Capobianco, Josh
LeMaitre, Andy Mykyta, Charlie Adams, Tiffany Freitas, Mona Lew, Ann
Cruickshank, Wayne Dwyer, Alissa & Daniel Liteplo, MaryEllen O'Neill,
Timothy O'Neill, Christine Lusk, Karen & Peter Stroman, Tara Giardina,
Christine Hylan, Gary Hylan, Jenka Nicholls, George McKenna, Karen
Richardson, Bob Manning, Julie Ross, Ed Ross, Amy Hennessy, Stephan
Weynicz, Peter Doucette, Ralph D'Angelis, Joe Barletta, Elizabeth Blew,
Stephanie Salerno, Brian Salerno, Pamela Adrian, Rosemarie De Benedetto,
Barry Berman, Margaret Paquette, Ida Fitzgerald, Nick Aiello, Linda Smith,
Izzy Valihora, Joe Gesmundo, Liz Whitelam, Carl Greenler, Morgan Gager,
Denise Muenzenmayer, Christina Moore, Raymond McHough, Thomas Wise,
Kevin Brown, Stephen Crook, Joan Cotter, Josh Walker, Jean Thomases
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Julie Mercier on behalf of Robert Redfern
Topics of Discussion:
The Board called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
Reading Village 40B — 39 -41 Lincoln Street & 2 -12 Prescott Street
A_nolicant: MKM Reading. LLC
Present on behalf of MKM Reading were: Matt Zuker and Ken Chase. Present on behalf of
the development team were: Geoff Engler of SEB LLC, Peter Bartash of Cube 3 Studio,
James Burke of Decelle Burke & Associates, and Jeffrey Dirk of Vanasse & Associates.
Mr. Redfern gave a short update on the Board process and timeline for the application.
Page 1 1
Mr. Zuker thanked everyone for coming out, and provided a brief overview of progress
made since the hearing opened on February 4, 2016. He explained that the development
team has not had a chance to respond to or prepare design changes based on the feedback
from the peer reviewers, which was just received a few days before the hearing.
The peer reviewers presented their findings.
Russ Feldman and Sarah Oakes were present from TBA Architects. Mr. Feldman showed the
elevations provided by the Applicant. He noted that they are handsomely drawn but do not
accurately represent the project, because they omit large sections of the building, such as
the walkway between Building A and Building B. Furthermore, the elevations do not depict
how the rooflines of the structures will connect. As a result, the structure will actually be
larger than it appears in the elevations.
Mr. Feldman pointed out that the shadow study does not include conditions at sunrise and
sunset, and that the corner parcel (Brown's Automotive) is almost always in shadow. He
noted that the building is right up to the property line on certain sides, and that the roof
actually extends beyond the property line over public sidewalks and private property, which
is not permitted by code. In addition, the 9 -foot parking deck is insufficient to accommodate
emergency vehicles, fire apparatus and trash trucks, so these services would have to occur
on the street, where parking and traffic circulation is already problematic. He suggested that
the proposed curb cut at Prescott Street could be utilized for trash pick -up, but that there is
very little room for both loading /unloading and moving vehicles.
He commented that the civil drawing shows 78 parking spaces whereas the proposal says
there will be 83. He pointed out that the drawings show 2 handicap spaces, but that the
building will contain 4 handicap accessible units. Neither the architectural nor the civil
drawings indicate how the structure will interface with the ground; assuming that a series of
columns will be needed on the interior to support the building's upper floors, additional
parking spaces within the parking deck will be lost. Furthermore, if the curb cut is extended
as proposed, street parking will be drastically reduced.
Mr. Feldman noted that emergency egress points from the building have to be at least 10
feet from the property line, so they will need to be moved to meet code. If the Applicant
wishes to have two separate buildings, Building B will need two means of egress as well. He
commented that one elevator for 4 Floors and 77 units does not meet common engineering
standards of speed and wait times. He asked about the penthouse.
He stated that the lack of open space on -site leaves no room for snow storage, and provides
no functional common areas - besides the courtyard - for tenants. He opined that the
courtyard is ill- designed because it enables people to see into the neighbors' yards, and that
the main entrance to the building is very small. Further, though the renderings depict a
well- treated, expensive- looking building, typical builders today use cheaper imitation
materials to cut down on costs.
Mr. Feldman concluded his presentation by pointing out the discrepancy in affordable units:
19 units only equals 24.6 %, not 25 %, and rounding up is not allowed.
Matthew Brassard was present from Nitsch Engineering. He explained that the general lack
of information made a full engineering review difficult. He noted that there is a loading
space requirement in the Zoning Bylaw, but no loading space is shown on the drawings and
no waiver has been requested from providing it. He questioned the amount/type of plants
and screening that will be provided to buffer the neighboring lots, and the site lighting.
Mr. Brassard commented that the roof extension will create safety issues in the event that
snow and ice fall onto the public sidewalk. He noted the absence of a transformer on the
site and wondered where it will be located if it is required. He asked about the project
impact on the Town's sanitary sewer. He noted the lack of information on utility connections
and questioned the runoff direction and collection methods.
Page 1 2
Jason Sobel was present from Green International. He opined that the 3 intersections
included in the traffic study area seem appropriate for the project. He cited Reading census
data, which shows that 6% of commuters use public transit. Based on this, he commented
that the data presented could be viewed as a worst -case scenario, because it assumes that
no one uses transit.
He pointed out that the Ingress /egress off of Prescott Street - which is proposed for two -
way traffic - is only depicted as 20 -feet wide on the plans. He suggested that the internal
site sidewalks should connect to existing sidewalks. He stated that he counted 80 spaces on
the plan, but noted that the first parking space when entering the garage is too small and
should be removed. He suggested that the Applicant conduct an off -site parking study and
provide data from a comparable project to justify the sufficiency of the proposed parking.
He noted the lack of parking spaces for guests, as well as the need for additional sidewalks,
handicap ramps, and better placed crosswalks for pedestrians.
Mr. Caouette stated that the most concerning thing to him is the density. He asked if the
Applicant ever considered a smaller project for this property.
Ms. Hackett agreed with Mr. Caouette and commented that reducing the size of the project
could solve a lot of the other problems.
Mr. Jarema opined that the peer review reports were informative and insightful. He noted
that seeing the true elevations and parking deck plan would be helpful. He reiterated some
of the peer review comments. He asked about stormwater runoff, plantings, the safety of
the structure, visibility entering and exiting the site, and whether additional intersections -
such as the train crossings - should be included in the traffic study.
Mr. Pernice stated that he looks forward to seeing how the Applicant responds.
Mr. Traniello stated agreement with the other board members' comments and concerns
regarding the scope of the project and parking. He noted that there are many things for the
Applicant to address, many of which relate to code and statutory issues. He questioned at
what point - given the issues with overhangs, encroachments, drainage, parking, etc. - the
project is considered a nuisance to abutters. He also noted that the plans should show 20
units.
Mr. Redfern reiterated the density concern and asked what is driving the size of the project.
He noted that without adequate parking, people will park wherever, which is a safety issue.
The lack of pedestrian walkways in the garage is dangerous as well. He inquired about the
monitoring wells on -site, and asked the Applicant to consider removing a floor from the
building.
Mr. Zuker responded that the development team anticipates making design changes after
the meeting, but wanted to wait for feedback from the peer reviewers in order to make
changes that would have a real impact. He stated that they considered similar projects in
similar locations when deciding how many units to propose, and they also considered that
this project is downtown and near a commuter rail station. He noted that density, height
and parking are major concerns and that the peer review comments tonight were helpful.
He mentioned that a digital 3D model of the site and a landscape plan will be prepared after
the design changes are made. He explained that they unsuccessfully tried to acquire the
Brown's Automotive parcel, and that the monitoring wells were put in as part of their
environmental study, which surprisingly revealed that the site is clean.
Mr. Jarema asked the applicant to please update the list of waivers.
Ms. Delios clarified that the Town is in favor of housing - preferably mixed -use - on this
site, but not at this density. She noted that the parking provided for 30 Haven Street was
1.38 spaces per unit.
Page 1 3
Public Comment
Lois Bell of 35 Washington Street commented that the parking is insufficient and does not
account for couples who each work in different towns or for the fact that people need a car
to go grocery shopping. She stated that while some people may commute using the train,
others may have more than one car. She also felt that one elevator is not enough.
David Tuttle of 27 Heather Drive noted that parking and density have been discussed
extensively and opined that it would be helpful to see what the building will actually look
like when standing on the street or at the depot.
Mary Ellen O'Neil of 125 Summer Avenue commented that the peer review reports call into
question the competence of the developers. She stated, from the perspective of someone
who may consider downsizing, that the units seem claustrophobic, impractical and not user -
friendly. She pointed out that people rely on Prescott Street for commuter parking and
asked how the project will handle or mitigate that.
Nick Gagnon of 76 Washington Street opined that the site is not really downtown, but is
proximate to downtown. He asked what kind of sound attenuation or noise dampening
would be provided to shield neighbors from the noise of vehicles entering /exiting the site.
Joan Cotter of 49 Riverside Drive expressed her feeling that the Applicant has made no
progress and repeatedly says the same things at each hearing. She noted that the site does
not provide open space or bike racks.
Mr. Engler, the Applicant's 40B Consultant, explained that the process did not really start
until the feedback was received from the peer reviewers. He commented that the Town has
hired three capable professionals, and that they will consider all their feedback and start
making plan changes. He noted mixed -use would add to the parking problem even more.
Josh LeMaitre of 83 Prescott Street noted that parking is already a nightmare for
commuters, and that the problem extends along Washington Street and Sunnyside Avenue.
He opined that this project will increase traffic spillover into nearby neighborhoods. He
asked if the Applicant considered making this a `green' building, and inquired about the
anticipated impact on the schools.
Eileen Manning of 78 Riverside Drive noted that the 30 Haven project added 12 students to
the school system. She asked how the Applicant would address the missing information
noted by Nitsch Engineering in their peer review letter.
Mr. Redfern responded that as information is received, it will be posted to the Town's
website.
Joe Barletta of 1 -3 Fulton Street noted that he has rented both of his buildings since 2000
and has never had a tenant that used the commuter rail.
Mona Lew of 64 Riverside Drive noted that she does not drive, but that she takes the last
commuter train at night to get home from work. She opined that the project will make the
area less safe for commuters, and noted that she left downtown Boston to get away from
density and traffic.
Josh Walker of 128 Woburn Street noted that Arlington Street is already used as a high-
speed cut - through for vehicles. He opined that the project site is a spectacular piece of
property that could be developed with something really magnificent. He commented that
without the Brown's Automotive parcel, the project just does not work.
Christine Lusk of 52 Washington Street asked if the intersections at Woburn Street/Lincoln
Street and Main Street /Washington Street could be considered in the traffic study. She said
that a walking study would be helpful to understand the area from a pedestrian standpoint.
Page 14
She noted that the quickest way to get to the grocery store is via the train tracks, and that
the crossing in front of McDonald's is very dangerous. She asked if the project can still be
considered a 40B if it is developed as two buildings.
lean Thomases of 21 Arlington Street commented that Minot Street is in poor condition and
that residents of the new project will avoid it, and will use Arlington Street instead. She
expressed concerns about dust from demolition and noise from machinery during the
building process. She opined that CO, emissions will be significant, and asked the Applicant
to mitigate impacts to the drainage basin near Haven Street. She inquired why the two -way
site access is not off of Lincoln Street, and noted that the building should be set back from
Prescott Street.
Marianne Downing of 13 Heather Drive pointed out that two of the projects cited by the
Applicant in other towns - Depot Square and Enterprise - do not abut single - family homes.
Christine Hansen of 30 Haven Street asked about the location of the handicap accessible
units and about whether there will be a 2nd egress in case of emergency. She opined that
one elevator and 2 handicap spaces are not enough. She noted that there is no place for the
elderly to get picked up along Prescott Street if they use The Ride.
Stephan Weynicz of 38 Minot Street opined that there is great potential for the project to
improve and bring life into Reading's downtown.
Ida Fitzgerald of 35 Sunnyside Avenue stated concerns about parking and about abutting
property values.
The Board discussed whether or not more peer reviews would be appropriate at this time.
Mr. Jarema commented that additional peer reviews may not be helpful at this time, as the
Applicant has mentioned that the plans are going to change. He said that he was not happy
with the traffic study and believes that other Important intersections should be included.
Mr. Chase stated that according to the traffic peer review, the traffic scope is acceptable.
Mr. Engler suggested that the Board authorize the Applicant to communicate directly with
the peer review consultants to address issues off -line. Mr. Jarema replied that the Applicant
should work with the peer review consultants as well as with Town staff. He said that the
Board acts through staff because staff represent the Town's interests.
Mr. Zuker indicated that staff would be copied on all communication. Ms. Delios noted that
she would feel more comfortable if staff were present during conversations between the
Applicant and peer reviewers.
Mr. Traniello commented that some additional peer review studies would be helpful
regardless of the size of the project and any potential plan changes.
Town Counsel suggested that the Board ask for a 30 to 45 -day extension to the
Comprehensive Permit timeline. Mr. Zuker noted that they are not against an extension;
however, now is not the time for it. Mr. Jarema clarified with the Applicant that an extension
of time is not out of the question.
Mr. Caouette moved to authorize the Town to engage consultants (or use existing
consultants) for the following 6 peer review studies:
• Feasibility Study for project with inclusion of gas station parcel
• Phase 1 Environmental Study of groundwater and soils
• Town of Reading's Water and Sewer Capacity Analysis - to determine if existing
pump station and piping infrastructure can handle added flows
• Traffic /Parking Study with scope expanded beyond the 3 study intersections
Page 1 5
Off -site Parking Utilization Study -
• Fire and Public Safety Study
The motion was seconded by Mr. Traniello.
The Board discussed which additional studies were needed.
Mr. Caouette noted the importance of the water /sewer study.
Mr. Zuker stated the following: that including the gas station parcel is off the table and thus
a Feasibility Study is not appropriate; that they have done their own Phase I Environmental
Study, which they will provide to the Town; that the Town Engineer has indicated that prior
studies of the water /sewer system in that area have been done - they will continue working
with the Town to get this information; that the traffic /parking issues are an ongoing
conversation; and that the building will be required to meet all codes prior to obtaining a
building permit.
Ms. Delios noted her concerns that the Town may not be able to find or provide the prior
water /sewer studies, and that, regardless, the information may be out -of -date.
Mr. Caouette withdrew his motion.
Mr. Caouette moved to authorize the Town to procure a scope and estimate from Nitsch
Engineering for a water /sewer capacity study, to be paid for by the Applicant.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Traniello and approved with a 6 -0 -0 vote.
Mr. Traniello moved to continue the hearing to May 12, 2016 at 7:00 PM. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Jarema and approved with a 6 -0 -0 vote.
Mr. Traniello moved to approve the minutes from February 18, 2016. The motion was
seconded by Mr. ]arema and approved with a 6 -0 -0 vote.
Mr. Traniello moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Hackett and approved with a 6 -0 -0 vote.
Documents reviewed at the meetina:
ZBA Agenda 3/17/16
ZBA Minutes 2/18/16
a) Information from Staff
a. Community Development Director Memo to Applicant, dated 2/9/16.
It. Historical Commission feedback, dated 2/13/16.
c. 1.5% Land Area Calculation Memo, dated 2/16/16.
d. Development Review Team notes of 2/17/16.
e. Minutes of the joint CPDC /BOS meeting re: Reading Village on 2/23/16.
f. Community Development Director Memo to ZBA, dated 3/14/16.
g. Emails & Letters from Abutters, received from 2/4/16 to 3/17/16.
b) Information from the Applicant
a. Application Package & Plans, received 1/7/16.
b. Code Letter from Cube 3 Studio, dated 2/17/16.
c. Response to CDD Memo of 2/9/16, dated 3/10/16.
d. Response to Green International Peer Review Letter of 3/10/16, dated 3/16/16.
c) Reports from the Peer Reviewers
a. TBA Architects, Inc. - Architectural Peer Review Letter, dated 3/10/16.
b. Nitsch Engineering - Civil Engineering Peer Review Letter, dated 3/10/16.
c. Green International Affiliates Inc. - Traffic /Parking Peer Review Letter, dated 3/10/16.
Page 1 6