HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-28 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesOFR��O'y
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes �� l
if
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Community Planning and Development Commission 2S
u2b
Date: 2017-08-28 Time: 7:30 PM
Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room
Address: .16 Lowell Street Session: Open Session
Purpose: General Business Version:
Attendees: Members - Present:
Chair Nick Safina, Dave Tuttle, John Weston, Karen Goncalves-Dolan
Members - Not Present:
Others Present: '
Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie
Mercier, Economic Development Director Andrew Corona, Tom Connery,
Kelley Sheridan, Paul DiBiase, Diandra DiBiase, Hugo DiBiase, Brad Latham,
David O'Sullivan, Scott Cameron, Virginia Adams, Tony D'Arezzo, Barbara
Melanson, Will Finch, Barry Berman, John Halsey, Bill Lumbard; Rich Stuart,
Phil Christiansen, Nancy Kohl
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By:
Topics of Discussion:
Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Endorsement of Definitive Subdivision Plans, 1260-1264 Main Street
The Commission endorsed the Definitive Subdivision Plans for 1260-1264 Main Street.
The Commission also endorsed the Form H: Covenant Agreement for the subdivision.
Continued Public Hearing, 40R Plan Review
136 Haven Street LLC, 136 Haven Street & 0 Sanborn Street
Tom Connery, Kelley Sheridan, Paul DiBiase, Diandra DiBiase, Hugo DiBiase, Attorney Brad
Latham, Architect David O'Sullivan, and Scott Cameron, P.E., were present on behalf of the
Application.
Mr. Weston read the legal notice into the record.
Attorney Brad Latham introduced the development team and gave an overview of the '
project. He said the intent of the proposal is to preserve the historic structure of the or
Post Office building including the exterior fagade, curved stairways, flag pole and landscape.
The entrance off of Sanborn Street will be closed, and all site traffic will enter/exit through
the existing Haven Street driveway opening, which, in conjunction with the series of one-
way streets, will result in better traffic.control. The driveway provides access toa 22 -space
surface parking• lot and a secure parking garage with 50 spaces dedicated to the residential
building occupants. There will be a total of 72 on-site parking spaces, which exceeds the
parking. requirement. A total of one surface and two garage handicap parking spaces will be
provided in accordance with MAAB. Bicycle parking will also be provided. The existing rear
.Page 1 1
parking lot will be redeveloped with a new 50 -unit condominium building that will extend
partially over the 1969 addition, but will not impact the original 1918 building. The project
includes. new commercial spaces with cafe -style outside seating. There will be 15 1 -bedroom
and 35 2 -bedroom units, including 10 units that will be designated as affordable and deed
restricted as such. The Applicant is proposing that up to 70% of the affordable units can be
reserved for local preference, if the Commission so desires.
Mr. Latham said the proposal provides transportation choices, and is a perfect example of a
Downtown Smart Growth District project. The project supports the Walkable Reading goals
by encouraging residents to walk. The proposal will create commercial opportunities which
will attract consumers, businesses and employees to the downtown. The project has been
designed to comply with the Massachusetts DEP stormwater management regulations.
Mr. Latham commented that the project will bring economic benefits to the Town, such as
one-time fees and annual tax revenue, and additional consumers to support downtown
businesses. The project will promote short and long-term employment, and will have a
positive impact on the Town. The location and number of bedrooms in each unit are not
likely to generate school age children. He acknowledged Andrew Corona, Economic
Development Director, for his assistance with moving the project forward.
Mr. Latham identified and gave a -brief history of each participant's experience: Mr. Tom
Connery of Matrix Group, Paul DiBiase of DiBiase Homes, LLC, David O'Sullivan of O'Sullivan
Architects and Scott Cameron of the Morin -Cameron Group, Inc.
Mr. Latham provided an aerial view of the property. He pinpointed the building and
surrounding streets. He said the building location has excellent traffic control, and the
impact on the abutters will be very little.
Mr. Latham noted the historical front portion of the building that faces Haven Street, and
the 1969 addition at the rear. When the Federal government sold the land, a Historic
Protective Covenant was imposed on the historic Post Office structure and the property. He
explained that a Historic Covenant establishes a high level of control and requirements that
can be tough to meet. The Applicant worked with the Massachusetts Historical Commission
(MHC) and Reading Historical Commission (RHC) for the last six months to come up with a
design that they could support. As a result, changes were made to the original design. The
residential unit count was reduced from 55 to 50 and the overall building reduced by 7,500
square feet to.allow it to be stepped back at each level, and moved off of the historic 1918
structure. He added that if you stand on Haven Street, the -addition is hard to see and feel.
The parking ratio went from 1.3 to 1.44 parking spaces per unit. Attorney Latham opined
that the project meets the standards of the Historic Covenant.
Mr. Latham said in closing that a Transportation Impact Assessment demonstrates that the
proposal will reduce traffic by 82% from when the site was an active post office. The Post
Office produced approximately 2,000 vehicle trips per day, ,while the project is estimated to
generate approximately 300 trips per day. In addition, the building location will encourage
residents to take advantage of local transportation options. There is a California study that
demonstrates that transit oriented developments produce significantly less traffic.
David O'Sullivan, project architect, provided a chart summarizing the proposal:there will be
50 residential units, with an FAR of 1.86, 6,600 square feet of commercial space, 1,800
square feet of commercial support space in the basement, 15 1 -bedroom units and 35 2 -
bedroom units across four floors with a partial penthouse level, 1.44 parking spaces per
unit, and 29% open space not including decks and balconies.
Mr. O'Sullivan presented the Basement Level Floor., Plan. He pointed out the vehicle entrance
off of Haven Street, and noted that the parking lot will be redeveloped to permit entrance
into the lower level garage at the, rear. The garage will contain 50 parking spaces, bicycle
parking, storage and a trash/recycle room for the residential use. The lower level of the
original building will include support spaces for the commercial uses, including indoor trash
Page 1 2
and recycle areas, utility spaces and commercial use storage spaces. Commercial deliveries
will be through the basement level, while residential move-ins can take place along Sanborn
Street: A 1,600 square foot addition will be added to the front for commercial space, which
will assist in reviving that part of Haven Street.
Mr. O'Sullivan presented the Upper Level Floor Plan. The existing steps will remain, and will
be landscaped, but the existing handicap ramp will be rebuilt. There will be a large
commercial space and a separate smaller commercial space. The walkway will connect the
entrances to allow for continuous pedestrian flow from Haven Street. Along Sanborn Street,
the building will be interrupted with a courtyard, which will break up the fagade. On the
main level there will be 12 residential units, amenity spaces, stairs and an elevator. Along
the exterior there will be a green buffer around the building, where it used to be paved up
to the property line. He described the building step backs and heights at each level from the
Sanborn Street fagade. He explained the challenges and consequences of working with the
existing building, which is approximately 1.5 stories, and noted that to allow for the garage
under, the base building had'to be raised. He commented that the building does not appear
as tall is it is on paper due to changes in grade and the proposed step backs.
Mr. O'Sullivan said the 2nd floor will include 9-residential units with no construction over the
original post office. The 3rd floor will have 12-residential units. Several of the units will have
outside balconies that will help break up the fagade. The 4th floor will mimic the 3rd floor
but will have different step backs at the corners. The penthouse level will include 5 units,
and is stepped back from all sides of the building. During the historic review process, the
size of the penthouse was reduced, so it is now about 40% of the overall building .footprint.
The top floor will be less visible from the street and thus will have little to no impact on
pedestrians. He opined that.the penthouse level contributes to and enhances the luxury
living aspect of the proposal, and that itis important to the building and economic viability
of the project.
Mr. O'Sullivan provided an architectural site plan and renderings of the proposed building
from different vantage points. He showed the original and proposed buildings, and
commented that the addition is not imposing from Haven Street. He noted that the old
loading dock at the rear of the building will be removed,, and that the roof of the one story
commercial space could be utilized for outdoor seating for a restaurant. Mr. O'Sullivan
explained that the addition needs to be distinguishable from the original historic building. As
such, the windows will be similar in character to the original Post Office but with a, modern
interpretation, and the materials used on the building facades will be different. The building
will be masonry on the bottom, with brick accents and will be capped with a strong cornice.
Mr. O'Sullivan presented a plan showing the existing granite retaining wall. He said that the
wall will need to be cut into to allow access to the retail spaces and handicap ramp. He
stated that landscaping will be planted at the corner of Sanborn and Haven.Streets, and
that the landscaped courtyard off of Sanborn Street can be utilized by all Town residents. .
Mr. O'Sullivan discussed the proposed landscaping. He said that the plantings and trees are
designed to provide seasonal color, streetscape enhancements, and to require minimal
maintenance. The courtyard plantings are designed to withstand shade and limited soil
depth. The courtyard design provides a gathering space while maintaining privacy for the
adjacent units by placing the seating area away from the building. The trees located within
the landscaped islands in the parking area will provide shade over the paved surfaces. The
shrub plantings along the front fagade streetscape will provide color and eliminate the need
for lawn mowing in an elevated space. The Applicant will work with the Town to determine
the location of any street trees.
Mr. O'Sullivan presented a proposed Lighting Plan. He said the lighting will not be intrusive
to adjacent properties. The handicap ramp and signage will have lighting.. The lighting will
be energy efficient, and will be' soft. The lighting will be building and pole-mounted,. with
some unique strip lighting for the terrace. The lights will be dark sky compliant and will not
contribute to light pollution.
Page 1 3
Mr. O'Sullivan concluded his presentation by showing the Commission a short walk-through
video of the proposed property and. project.
Mr. Scott Cameron, project engineer, presented the Existing Conditions Plan. He explained
that the existing property is 42,160 square feet and is located in the Business B Zoning
District and Downtown Smart Growth District. He noted that there is about a 10' grade
differential from Haven Street up to Sanborn Street, and that the site contains sand, gravel
and bedrock. He noted that interior and exterior inspections of the drainage pipes show that
a lot of the collected water flows to Haven Street. There is a series of small drywells in the
rear parking lot that collect runoff from the 1969 addition, and there is currently no runoff
to abutting properties.
Mr. Cameron presented the Demolition and Erosion Control Plan. He detailed the work that
will be involved to prepare the site for demolition. The rear loading area will be demolished,
and the Sanborn Street curb'cut will be removed. He pointed out where the utilities will be
located. He said that the portion of the property with zero setbacks will require temporary
shutdown of portions of the Sanborn Street and Haven Street sidewalks,.and rerouting of
pedestrians. The empty tree -wells will be filled in to have an accessible pedestrian route
around the building. There will be a secure construction fence, as well as silt protection over
existing catch basins.
Mr. Cameron presented the Site Layout Plan. The proposal intends to maximize parking
while minimizing pavement and asphalt. In the garage, there are 50 parking spaces with
two handicap spaces. There are 22 surface parking spaces on the side of the building, which
will be partly pervious pavement and will allow bumpers to overhang a grass strip. The drive
aisle width will be 23'. Shade -trees are proposed in the landscape islands in the parking lot
to provide relief within the paved area. He explained that the parking lot will be excavated
down to get into the garage, so vehicle lights will be below grade and will not impact the
adjacent properties. The usable open space and landscaping will extend up and around the
perimeter of the building. A series of green spaces and patios are proposed. The courtyard
will be above the garage, and pedestrian access will be off of Sanborn Street.
Mr. Cameron presented the Grading and Drainage Plan. The project is a slight reduction in
impervious surface, and roof runoff is cleaner than pavement runoff. The proposal includes
pre-treatment hydrodynamic separator and subsurface infiltration with larger drywells to
capture more runoff which allows for wider and flatter recharge. The system will improve
sheet flow onto Haven Street and icing conditions. There will be a grease trap in the center
of the surface parking lot, and the granite retaining wall will help to screen the utilitarian
and commercial loading areas from the street.
Mr. Cameron presented the Utility Plan. He stated that a full mechanical plan has not been
designed yet, but he summarized what is being proposed. There will be a grease trap for a
potential restaurant. A sand, grit and oil separator will be installed in the garage. All the
utilities will be new, and the proposed building will be serviced by water, sewer, gas and
electric. Electrical and communications will go through a new transformer that will not be
visible to the general public.
Mr. Safina acknowledged the.work the project team put into .the presentation. He asked if
the Town Engineer had commented on the project. Julie Mercier, Community Development
Director, replied that the revised.site plan was just received on Thursday and that Town
staff has not had a chance to comment. She noted that many of the comments received at
the February Development Review Team (DRT) meeting are likely still relevant given that
the site plan has not changed that much.
Mr. Tuttle and Mr. Weston complimented the proposed project.
Mr. Safina said that he appreciates the architectural changes, which make the building more
visually interesting, and requested that the building details not be value engineered out of .
Page 1 4
the project as they contribute to the scale, feel and quality of the building. He asked about
the stone material on the Sanborn Street facade. Mr. O'Sullivan said that it will likely be
sandstone masonry, and that it will be a man-made product.
Mr. Safina commented that street trees are not always good for commercial spaces, and -
suggested not putting the trees back in the same holes if it will occlude the retail frontages.
Mr. Tuttle acknowledged the.view from the First Baptist Church, which is important to
understanding how the neighborhood will view the addition. Mr. Safina discussed the view
from'the residential homes on Linden Street. Attorney Latham replied that the addition is
not able to be seen from many perspectives, and that they are showing views from where it-
is visible. Mr. O'Sullivan said the addition peeks out from the CVS parking lot. Mr. Safina
stated that seeing the building is okay but the shadow it casts on the residential lots on
Linden Street may be problematic. Mr. O'Sullivan noted that the Town's zoning is quirky in
that area as there is a strip of S-15 zoned land along Sanborn Street while most of the
surrounding lots are not residentially zoned.
Mr. Safina expressed a concern with the property entrance off of Haven Street. He asked
the Applicant to ensure that landscaping and retaining walls do not block sight lines. Mr.
O'Sullivan said he has been parking on the property, and exiting and entering the property
is not difficult. Mr. Cameron noted that the parking spaces along Haven Street create an
additional 8-9' of sight distance from the curb line.
Mr. Safina questioned if the view from the Masonic Temple building on Haven Street is
critical to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Mr. O'Sullivan said if the Masonic
Temple building is removed, the left side of the existing Post Office,
ill be more visible. In
his estimation, a new development on that site will have more of an impact on the historic
building than the proposed addition.
Mr. Safina questioned the location of the loading area. Mr. O'Sullivan said it will be located
next to the garage entrance, and trash area. Mr. Safina asked if one elevator is sufficient.
Mr. O'Sullivan replied that 50 condominium units is the break-even for one elevator, but the
12 units on the ground level will likely not use it much. He added that the units are condos
so the turnover will not be as often as with a rental property. A moving truck will have to
park in the parallel parking spaces along Sanborn Street.. Any restaurant and business
deliveries will enter off of Haven Street and use of the commercial loading area.
Mr. Safina asked for additional information on closing the sidewalk during construction. He
asked if the street will need to be closed in addition to the sidewalk. Mr. Cameron replied
that a 1-2' of the street may need to closed, but that a 24' width will be maintained for fire
access.
Mr. Safina warned the Applicant to prepare for the existing bedrock on the property, and
added that the building height cannot be increased. Mr. O'Sullivan said the constraints of
the existing Post Office building will not allow the overall building height to increase. Mr.
Cameron stated that the bedrock is about 13' down, and that there used to be residential
foundations on the rear of the property.
Ms. Goncalves-Dolan requested that the handicap parking space be relocated to another
area during construction. She questioned where the contractors will park their personal
vehicles, and how the flow of contractor' traffic coming and going from the site be controlled.
Mr. Cameron explained that the handicap parking space will be relocated around the corner
on Haven Street, and noted that staging and stockpiling areas on-site will be small due to
the lack of room. He said that the majority of the earthwork will take place at the beginning
of the project, and that once the foundation is in, Haven Street will be the only way to enter
the site. He stated that construction vehicles will be staggered, and not stacked up along
Haven Street. Ms. Jean Delios, Assistant Town Manager, stated that the Town holds pre -
construction, meetings with applicants to work out these types of details.
Page 1 5
Mr. Weston questioned how the commercial businesses will receive deliveries, and what size
truck will be able to maneuver in the space. Mr. O'Sullivan replied that tractor trailers will
not be able to utilize the loading area, only small box trucks. He said the size of the vehicle
that will be allowed to make deliveries will be specified in the lease, and that deliveries will
be scheduled for off-peak times. Mr. Weston opined that the loading area is constrained.
Attorney Latham clarified that preserving the historic building created some site challenges.
Mr..O'Sullivan suggested seeking Board of Selectmen approval for a secondary 30' loading
area along Sanborn Street, which will not impact the number of parking spaces downtown,
as it is a curb cut today. Mr. Tuttle said the tractor trailers will be a problem. Mr. Weston
suggested the Applicant work with the Selectmen on a more functional loading design.
Mr. Weston opined that the small storage areas behind each. parking space are helpful, and
suggested the Applicant think more substantially about bicycle parking. Mr. O'Sullivan
pinpointed areas that can be used for long and short-term bicycle storage for the residents
and patrons of the businesses.
Mr. Weston asked for further explanation on the drainage and why there is a note on the
plan "connection to municipal drain by others." Mr. Cameron replied that he is meeting with
the Town Engineer to discuss how to extend the drainage onto Haven Street. Mr. Safina
questioned if Haven Street can be cut into for the drainage. Ms. Delios responded that it
should not be a concern.
Mr. Weston questioned if there will be lighting at the residential entrances or on the back
side of the building. Mr. O'Sullivan explained that the residential entrances and balconies
will have down lighting, and that there will be low level lighting in the wall by the handicap
ramp.
Mr. Safina opened the meeting to the public.
Mr. Barry Berman, a member of the Board of Selectmen, commended the presentation and
updatedplan, which in his opinion is an improvement. He stated that the project coincides
with the BOS goal to create life downtown. Mr. Berman added that with the guidance of Ms.
Delios and Ms. Mercier, the 40R District has been expanded and the Town has received a
grant for wayfinding and branding downtown. He said he is looking forward to the upcoming
changes to the Haven Street area.
Mr. Berman asked if the courtyard on Sanborn .Street will be a public amenity. Mr. Latham
replied that the Applicant is open to suggestions.. The public will be welcome to use the
courtyard if they wish. Mr. Berman encouraged the Applicant to see how the space can be
used by the public, so it is more than just a benefit for the residents. Mr. Tuttle noted that
reactivating the stairs and fagade of the historic building will help bring the property back to
the neighborhood. Mr. O'Sullivan agreed that allowing access to the space ,is important.
Ms. Virginia Adams, associate member of the Reading Historical Commission, confirmed that
the RHC submitted a letter to the Commission in support of the project. She stated her
personal opinion that the granite retaining wall should not be interrupted in two places as
proposed. The retaining wall enhances the importance of the historic building. Mr. O'Sullivan
said the wall details still need to be worked out. Mr. Safina said the sight lines are important
for pedestrian safety.
Mr. John Halsey, a member of the Board of Selectmen, complimented the proposal and the
presentation. He said the proposal is a spectacular example of what the Town envisioned for
economic development in the area. He acknowledged the positive impact the project will
have on the Town, and the direct revenues, which will help offset the residential tax burden.
He concluded by noting that the implications for Haven Street are great and that this project
unlocks opportunities for the downtown and encourages other activities that follow. .
Mr. Safina closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Page 1 6
Mr. Safina questioned if the roof of the old Post Office could be utilized as a deck or open
space. Mr. O'Sullivan said the deck will impact the development, and that he does not think
MHC or RHC would be in favor of altering that portion of the structure. Mr. Safina opined
that the courtyard off of Sanborn Street is not really a public space. Mr. O'Sullivan said the
courtyard serves as a public amenity because it breaks up the facade and massing of the
structure. It will be improvement for residents who walk down Sanborn Street.
Mr. Safina commented that the Town Engineer still needs to approve the project, and that
the waivers need to `be addressed. He said the perceived height on Sanborn Street is really
only 5' higher than what is allowed. He opined that the Applicant's process with the two
historical commissions resulted in a much better building.
The Commission discussed the building height waiver. Mr. Weston asked for a rendering
that puts the massing in perspective from the -Linden Street / Sanborn Street residences.
Mr. Safina expressed his surprise that no abutters were present at the meeting.
Mr. Safina asked Jf the Town wants the 70% local preference. Ms. Delios replied in the
affirmative, and noted that a 70% local preference justification was submitted for the
Reading Village 40B project.
Mr. Weston brought up the loading area. Mr. Safina suggested that there is room along
Sanborn- Street for on -street loading and parking. Ms. Delios said that Town staff will work
with the Applicant on this, and submit feedback to the Board of Selectmen as needed.
Mr. O'Sullivan explained that the front yard setback waiver is due to the existing building.
After briefly reviewing the waiver requests, Mr. Safina commented that they seem fine.
After a discussion, Mr. O'Sullivan requested the public hearing be continued to September
11, 2017.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to accept the request to continue the public hearing to September
11, 2017. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote.
Public Hearing, Rules & Regulations
Site Plan Review & Minor Site Plan Review
Stormwater Management & Erosion Control
Ms. Mercier explained that the documents have not changed since the Commission `adopted'
them in April, but that the General Bylaw requires a public hearing for changes to Rules and
Regulations. She noted that Town Counsel did not submit any comments.
Mr. Safina opened the meeting to the public and then closed it with no comment.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adopt all the documents (procedures, guidelines, regulations)
as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote.
Continued Public Hearing, Definitive Subdivision Plan —'Barton Estates'
48-54 Franklin Street, S&L Homes LLC
Bill Lumbard, Rich Stuart, and Phil Christiansen, P.E. were present on behalf of the
Application.
Ms. Mercier informed the Commission that the updated plans were received today for the
property located at 48-54 Franklin Street, so no comments have been provided by staff.
She mentioned that the purpose of this meeting is to get an update from the Applicant.
Mr. Christiansen, project engineer, said that the Applicant is seeking approval for a 6 -lot
subdivision with a low impact development design. He gave a brief update of progress and
changes since the last meeting. After a discussion with the Conservation Administrator,
Community Development Director and Town Engineer and in consideration of comments
Page 1 7
made by Mr. Safina regarding the curbing, the proposal has been updated. The Applicant is
now proposing a hybrid approach with a more conventional design on one side and low
impact design features on the other side. Specifically, the proposal now includes a 26'
pavement width with full curbing and a 5' sidewalk along the eastern side of the proposed
road, and on the western side curbing with openings every 20' to allow runoff to flow into
infiltration chambers and swales. He pointed out catch basins and a detention area at the
end of the cul-de-sac bulb. He explained that smaller storms will go into the swales, while
larger storms will overflow into the drainage system in Franklin Street at the suggestion of
the Town Engineer. Mr. Christiansen said the changes have been approved by Engineering.
He asked the Commission for feedback before they submit a more fully engineered plan. .
Mr. Tuttle stated that the stormwater management is well designed. He questioned how
pedestrian access will work across the properties with swales. Mr. Christiansen replied that
the swale will be very shallow and gradual. The builder confirmed that once graded, it will
look like a front yard, and confirmed there will be a culvert under the driveway on lot 6.
Mr. Christiansen stated that the property is all sand so this type of stormwater design is
appropriate.
Mr. Weston suggested extending the sidewalk around the roadway apron so it will not be
right where vehicles are turning. Mr. Christiansen agreed to the suggestion. The contractor
asked if the Town will allow the tree lawn to be altered. Ms. Mercier suggested discussing
that with the Town Engineer.. Mr. Weston agreed that from a longevity standpoint, a 4' wide
lawn with trees on the other side of the sidewalk would be better. Mr. Safina agreed but
said that the Town Engineer will need to approve it.
Mr. Safina questioned if the overflow of the smaller infiltration chamber is below grade. Mr.
Christiansen explained that the water will not flow onto Franklin Street.
Ms: Goncalves-Dolan asked if the location of the snow storage has been determined. Mr.
Christiansen replied that at the request of the Fire Department, the proposed cul-de-sac
island has been removed. He is waiting for guidance from the Town Engineer on where the
snow can be stored. Mr. Safina suggested it might be better to say where the snow cannot
be stored. Mr. Christiansen agreed to update the plan. Mr. Safina opined that a center island
breaks up the appearance of a sheet of asphalt.
Ms. Nancy Kohl of 607 Pearl Street stated that she has concerns about additional traffic on
Franklin Street. She said the Police Department report shows that from 2016 to 2017 there
have been 14 accidents on the stretch of Franklin Street between Haverhill Street and Main
Street. She said it seems high but that she has been unable to locate a similar road in Town
to get data as a comparison. She said that many pedestrians, bicyclists, runner's, etc. use
Franklin Street and she is concerned for their safety. She mentioned that large trucks use
Franklin Street as a cut through to Main Street, which makes the situation worse. She asked
the Applicant and Commission to pay close attention to sight lines, especially with regards
to snow storage.
Mr. Will Finch of 51 Mill Street acknowledged the Applicant's attempt to integrate low impact
features into the development. He said that the breaks in the curbing will also allow critters
to scurry. He questioned if the snow can be pushed into the swales. Mr. Christiansen stated
that snow melts from the bottom up, so frozen snow should not block infiltration. He opined
that he wants to put snow in the swales, but it has to be approved by the Town Engineer.
Mr. Finch asked about the trail connection to Eastway. Ms. Mercier replied that a portion of
the trail will have to cross private property, and the owners of it are not interested in the
connection.
Mr. Safina closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Page 1 8
Ms. Mercier reminded the Commission that the Conservation Commission still needs to issue
an Order of Conditions.
Mr. Safina said he is in favor of the low impact design, but wants to make sure the road
does not deteriorate.
Mr. Weston questioned if the easement should be provided by the builder even though no
connection is possible at this time. Mr. Stuart responded that nearby residents do not want
people hanging out in their woods. Mr. Weston asked if something can be done in case a
future owner on Eastway would approve the connection. Mr. Stuart said he will contact his
lawyer to see if an easement can be drafted in such. a manner that it is not exercised until a
certain time.
Ms. Gonvales-Dolan asked if the property can be landscaped and kept clean until the site is
redeveloped.
After discussion, Mr. Christiansen requested that the public hearing be continued until
September 25, 2017.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to accept the request to continue the public hearing to September
25, 2017. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a, 4-0-0 vote.
Planning Updates and Other Topics
Ms. Mercier reminded the Commission of a scheduled site visit to 24 Gould Street (EMARC)
with the Reading Historical Commission.
Ms. Mercier mentioned that an application has been submitted for a 4 -unit development at
14 Chapin Avenue. Mr. Safina questioned if the increase in development is due to the
changes in the zoning.
Mr. Safina expressed a concern with the unprotected test pit hole at the Reading Village
property. He asked if the Reading Village Decision mentions Jackie's Law. Ms. Mercier
replied that the Engineering Division did not issue a trench permit for this property, and that
she has .been in contact with the developer for Reading Village about this concern.
Mr. Tony D'Arezzo of 130 John Street asked what is the Town standing with the State in
regards to accepting 40B applications. Ms. Mercier replied that the Town currently has a
safe harbor until February 2018. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the Board who decides if a
40B application will be heard. She added that.the Town is closely monitoring the affordable
housing situation and may apply for an extension to the safe harbor if enough new units are
created in 2017.
Mr. Weston questioned if any Town staff, specifically planners, are addressing the downtown
parking situation, especially as there are a number of developments proposed. Ms. Mercier
replied that 10 years ago the Town hired a consultant, but that the recommendations of the
consultant's study require capital to implement, and need to be updated to keep pace with
current parking technologies. Mr. Weston clarified that he thinks the Town should begin
addressing the downtown parking situation without hiring a consultant.
Mr. Tuttle asked for an update from Ms. Mercier on the signalized crosswalk from Minot
Street across Main Street, and on pedestrian access from Washington to Ash Street. This
concern was brought up when Pizza World was proposing to move to 306 Main Street. Ms.
Mercier commented that she has never heard of this proposal, but that the'306 Main Street
project might come back to the Commission for a modification, at which time the discussion
could be rekindled.
Ms. Goncalves-Dolan asked if developers are contributing towards Town improvements. Ms.
Mercier replied that negotiations happen with developers when they have proposals before
the Town, not randomly, and that requested improvements should be reasonably related to
Page 1 9
the project scope. Mr. Safina explained that the Town works on having projects integrated
into the community.
Mr. D'Arezzo noted that all the recently approved subdivisions will push the Town's market
rate housing count up, and the Town will fall behind with regards to the 10% affordable
housing goal. He mentioned that developers should have to provide affordable units or an
in-kind payment to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Mr. Safina said this suggestion is
worth thinking about. Mr. Weston agreed the rules should be reviewed. Ms. Mercier noted
that she is meeting with other Town staff later this week to discuss revisions to the Town's
Subdivision Regulations, but that a bigger effort is not likely until 2018 as Town staff are,at
capacity for the time being..
Mr. Tuttle asked if there has been any movement on the proposed affordable housing on
Lakeview Avenue. Ms. Mercier replied that the Applicant is waiting for State approval.
Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the .meeting at 10:00 PM. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote.
Documents reviewed at the meeting:
CPDC Agenda 8/28/2017
.1260-1264 Main Street Mylar plans and Form H for endorsement
Rules & Regulations:
a) Legal Notice
b) Site Plan Procedures
c) Minor Site Plan Procedures
d) Stormwater Management & Erosion Control Regulations
e) Stormwater Management & Erosion Control Procedures
Postmark Square 40R Development:
a) Original Submission — Application Package & Plan Set
b) Revised Site Plans
c) Drainage Report
d) Supplement to Original Submission
e) Letter from RHC to MHC
f) Letter from RHC
g) D.RT Notes
h) Draft Decision dated 8/28/17
48-54 Franklin Street Definitive Subdivision:
a) Conceptual Drainage Plan
Page 1 10