Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-02 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes1 of R�q�i yc Town of Reading Meeting Minutes J639°INCOAQ- f'EI\.U�l�., EIt1 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Z611 NO—1 A' 11: 42 I Date: 2017-10-02 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, Leonard & Lynn Polonski, Donnie Garrity, Brad Latham, Steve Stapinski, Robert J Kiley III, Donna Morin, Wendy-Christoferio, Jill Mayberry, LJ'Lyman,..Tony D'Arezzo, Pam Adrian, Angela Sciandra, Jonathan Barnes, James Murphy, Paul Hubbard, Wayne Dwyer, John Cain, Tom, Rick Wetzler, Karen' Gillis, Niloo Hinnings; Wade and Lorraine Willwerth, Lenka Nicholls, Walter Michaud, Frank Driscoll, Will Finch, Sue True, Toni True, Ken Muise, Jack Johnston, Kim Honetschlager, Ken Charest, Michele Urann, Kerry Grant, Mary Grant, Virginia Adams, Greg Ryan, Dennis Dorandi, Heather McLean Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Public Hearing, 4011 Plan Review 14 Chapin Avenue, Leonard Polonski Leonard Polonski, Donnie Garrity,'Attorney Brad Latham and Steve Stapinski, PE, were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Weston read the Legal notice into the record. Mr. Tuttle asked for clarification on the zoningL district for 14 Chapin Avenue,. noting that it. appears to be partially within the A40 Zoning District. Mr. Donnie Garrity of O'Sullivan Architects explained that Ryan Percival, Town Engineer, verified that. the official zoning,map shows the property is completely within the Business B Zoning District. Ms. Mercier brought up a map showing the property entirely within the Business B Zoning District, which is now also part of the Downtown Smart Growth District (40R) Overlay. Ms. Kim Honetschlager, Town GIS Administrator, explained that at an earlier Town Meeting the error in the Zoning Map was corrected to show that the property is zoned Business B. Mr. Safina clarified for the audience that the property is located in the Business B Zoning District and the 40R Overlay. Mr. Garrity introduced the Development Team: Attorney, Brad Latham, Steve Stapinski from Merrimack Engineering Services, LLC, and Leonard Polonski, property owner. He gave a Page I 1 brief description of the existing site, which is just off of Main Street between the Mission of Deeds property, which is zoned Business B, and a residential zoning district. The proposed project, which utilizes the 40R zoning guidelines, is a 4=unit townhouse building. It will be set back 6.5' from the Mission of Deeds property, 16.5' from the abutting residence, and 20' from -the rear property line. Each unit will have a small private balcony off the back, with a second -means of egress to a shared path between the .building and the Mission of Deeds property that leads out to Chapin Avenue. The rear area will be landscaped. The unit closest to Chapin Avenue will have a side door, and each unit will have a front door off of the driveway. The garage floor of the building will include two tandem parking spaces for each unit, and interior staircases to each unit. Mr. Garrity explained that at the end of the driveway there is a turn=around area that can also be used for snow storage. He noted that there is a slight grade increase from the street toward the rear of the site, so.the units and driveway step up into the site, and there is a 0- 2' retaining wall supporting the eastern edge of the driveway. Mr. Garrity described the typical layout of the units. The garage level of each unit includes two tandem parking spaces, a mechanical space, a trash area, a storage area, and a staircase to the first living level. The front unit will also have space for a sprinkler room that will be for the whole building. The main living level will have a kitchen, living room, dining room and half bathroom, with access to the private balconies and back staircases. The 2nd living level will have two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a laundry room and closets. The attic level has a bonus room with a full bathroom and additional storage space. Mr. Garrity said that the bonus room can be used as a family room or potential bedroom. Mr. Garrity described the building elevations for each side., He explained that the. roof level incorporates both shed and gable -front dormers to help break down the scale and massing of the building. The proposed materials are brick masonry, cementitious clapboard and lap siding. Each fagade has architectural elements that give it character. The elevation that faces Chapin Avenue will have a lot of windows, while the side that faces Main Street will have more public elements. Mr. Garrity noted that the Applicant is requesting a waiver for the height of the building, which is 34'-4" where 33' is allowed..The height is measured as the distance between the average grade and the midpoint of the roof. He noted that other residential zoning districts in Town allow a height of 35'. Mr. Steve Stapinski-of Merrimac Engineering described the site plan. He noted the 2-3% slope from the front to the rear of the property, and the 0-2' retaining wall to help with the grade transition. He explained that the Engineering Division has reviewed the plans and will allow the units to connect to municipal services. The site is already developed with a building and pavement. The proposal will mitigate runoff with an infiltration system in the rear, and porous pavement along the driveway. To assure that there is no runoff onto abutting properties there will be a swale from the rear of the site out to Chapin Avenue. He said that the area designated for snow storage can accommodate vehicles turning out of the building and can also be used for visitor parking. Mr. Safina questioned if the retaining wall will be visible to the abutters. Mr. Stapinski explained that the existing stockade fence will be replaced with a vinyl fence, and will block the wall from the abutters' view. He added that the low side is on the subject property. Mr. Weston asked about the height of the retaining wall. Mr. Stapinski replied that the existing grade is 98' and the proposed is 96, so the retaining wall will vary from 0-2' due to the grade transition. Mr. Safina asked how runoff toward the street will be captured. Mr. Stapinski noted that the entire driveway will be porous pavement which will allow for on-site capture and infiltration. He referenced design guidelines from UNH. Mr. Safina questioned how roof runoff will be captured and asked what happens when the driveway ices over. Mr. Stapinski replied that Page 1 2 roof runoff from units 1 and 2 will go onto the pavement and into the grass along the side; runoff from units 3 and 4 will go onto the pavement and into the grass at the rear. He' further explained that the porous pavement, can accommodate a lot more runoff than the design is proposing. The ice will melt and be absorbed into the pavement. Mr. Weston noted that there are not too many examples of porous pavement in Town, but explained that it is not a new technology. Mr. Stapinski listed developments in other towns that have successfully utilized porous pavement. He said that maintenance of the pavement is important; specifically vacuuming it to get sand out. Mr. Safina opined that his primary concern is with the size of the building being proposed on the site. He stated that the proposed bonus room is essentially a bedroom. He questioned whether vehicles will have enough room to turn out of the garages. Mr. Weston added that the proposed retaining wall will block the driveway shoulder, which will further restrict turning movements. He asked how the 14.5' wide drive aisle will work. Mr. Safina pointed out that the section of the gable dormer is incorrect. He noted that the building does not meet the height to setback ratio specified in the design guidelines. He opined that the proposal for 3 -bedroom, 3.5 -bathroom units pushes the envelope of what is allowed. Mr. Tuttle and Ms. Goncalves-Dolan agreed that the proposed development is too much for the site. Mr. Garrity agreed that the site is tight, but said that the floor area ratio (FAR) is 1.74 - where an FAR of 2.4 is allowed. The goal.of the development is to have marketable units. Mr. Safina noted that most developments are able to meet the FAR, but it is the density that really matters. The project is over the allowed density, and visually the development pushes the limits of the site. He noted that the gable dormers should be smaller to fit the roofline and the height to setback ratio. Mr. Garrity agreed to rework the gable dormers. Mr. Safina also commented that he is concerned with the overland dumping of the gutters. Mr. Safina opened the meeting to public comment. Ms. Jill Mayberry of.16 Chapin Avenue explained that she documented the concerns of the abutters and the surrounding neighborhood. She commented that a petition was signed across Town opposing the four -level, four -unit structure. Ms. Mayberry summarized the - concerns as follows: • The expansive size of the building requires waivers and is out of place with the . residential neighborhood. • The project will create extra traffic and parking in an already congested area. Chapin Avenue is 28' wide with parking allowed along one side. Currently, businesses park along Chapin Avenue and pedestrians walk in the street because there is no sidewalk. • The proposed tandem garages provide 8 total parking spaces which could result in upwards of 40. tenants in the building. There is a lack of visitor parking, and during the winter snow banks restrict parking on Chapin Avenue. No overnight parking is allowed on Chapin Avenue from November to April. • The entering/exiting of cars'via the 14.5' wide driveway -will be hazardous and tight, especially if the turn -around area is also used for snow storage. The dual snow storage and turn -around area will be hard for an average car of 15-17' in length to maneuver within. • There is no indication of the slope of the driveway. The snow will melt and overflow onto the abutter's property, which could damage the existing Hemlock trees. Page 1 3 • The proposed garages have no drainage system for the HVAC units..The trash could attract animals and generate smells. The automatic garage doors will result in a constant stream of noise. There is no place for a tenant to park temporarily. • Excavation of the retaining walls could potentially damage the roots of the Hemlock trees and result in .leaching to the abutting property. A bond should be required to ensure protection of the trees for two growing seasons. • The height of the building will cast a shadow onto abutting properties that will result in increased fuel costs for heating. • Maintenance and management of the porous pavement; plants, snow removal, etc. should be documented. She suggested that only organic snowmelt be allowed. Ms. Mayberry explained that when she and her husband bought their property they were told the adjacent property was residential, but it turned out to be commercial. She noted that she has no personal issues with Mr. Polonski; they have always been able to resolve issues that have come up with -his business. She commented that she wants to preserve the residential neighborhood.. Ms. Laura Lyman of 15 Chapin Avenue commented that her. entire property will be shaded. She pointed out that there are existing drainage problems on Chapin Avenue, 'and at the corner of Chapin and Ordway, and that she often has to push water into the drains. She commented that the Town's snow removal on Chapin Avenue is terrible. Mr. Safina explained that the Engineering Division has to approve the drainage design and ensure that the project does not make the existing drainage situation worse. Mr. Ken Muise of 28 Chapin Avenue asked if it is feasible that absolutely.no water will runoff the site. Mr. Tuttle explained that engineers can design the infiltration system to direct water into the ground. Ms. Lyman commented that the water will seep into their basements. Mr. Safina explained that pervious pavement allows water to infiltrate at a rate that is acceptable for stormwater standards. A resident asked for examples of other properties in Town that have successfully utilized pervious pavement. Mr. Safina replied that many properties located in the Aquifer Protection District utilize_ pervious pavement. Mr. Weston noted that pervious pavement is new for Reading, but is not a new technology. He offered that a condition can be added to the Decision requiring maintenance of the pavement. Mr. Safina clarified that in the past, pervious pavement could be used by a developer; but could not be credited toward the drainage calculations. Mr. Frank Driscoll of 7 Ordway Terrace asked for a guarantee that there will be no runoff onto Chapin Avenue. Mr. Safina replied that the project engineer and Town Engineer will confirm the drainage design. Mr. Tuttle said that the State prohibits runoff onto adjacent properties. Mr. Safina stated that snow storage should not be proposed in the turn -around area. Mr. Ken Charest of 17 Elliott Street questioned whether the infiltration system design will work. He noted that the system will need to carry. 360 square feet of roof runoff. He asked if the sidewalk on the west side will be pervious pavement. Mr. Stapinski said the proposed sidewalk can be pavers or grass; the runoff will work the same either way. He suggested the audience and Commission google the .UNH porous pavement design to see how it works. Mr. Charest asked how often the infiltration system will be inspected. Mr. Stapinski said it should be cleaned and inspected semi-annually. Mr. Safina said that maintenance can be a condition in the Decision and included in the condominium documents. Mr. Charest questioned whether the soil is good enough for infiltration. Mr. Safina replied that the Town Engineer has requested that test pits be performed. Page 1 4 Mr. Charest stated that there is a difference between residences and housing, and that this proposal is housing shoe -horned into a residential neighborhood. He opined that safety and congestion are big concerns. Mr. Driscoll questioned if the lot conforms to zoning. Ms. Mercier, Community Development Director, replied that Business B zoning does not have a minimum lot size, so the lot does conform. Mr. Safina reiterated that the whole property is in the Business B Zoning District. Mr. Driscoll clarified that a business could be proposed on the lot. He asked whether the proposed building could extend all the way to rear property line, as the lot abuts a business zoning district. Ms. Mercier replied that the proposed building could extend to the property line, but that is not proposed. Mr. Safina noted that it does not always work from a design standpoint for buildings to extend to the property lines. Ms. Susan True of 22 Chapin Avenue said that the proposed 40' high building is huge . compared to the surrounding 20' high homes. She stated that the neighbors will have to live with this huge building. Mr. Safina explained how building height is measured.. Ms. Lyman noted that the road is lined with beautiful shade trees. She opined that the bungalow there now will essentially be replaced with 4-5 more bungalows, and that the, proposed building will block the sun: She reiterated that Chapin Avenue homes flood regularly. Mr. Safina stated that the existing flooding is not caused by this project, and he suggested talking to the Engineering Division or DPW about the flooding issue. Ms. Kim Honetschlager of 51 Mill Street expressed concerns that the project does not meet any of the five criteria required in order for waivers to be granted. She read the five criteria and noted that the development team has not presented a single reason to justify the waivers. Ms ''Lyman commented that some days there are eight vehicles parked in front ofher home on Chapin Avenue. Mr. Will Finch of 51 Mill Street noted that he previously resided on Pleasant Street, so he is familiar with the area. He stated the following: the proposal is too high and does not meet the ratio requirement; while a compact car may be able to maneuver in a 15' driveway, a regular vehicle probably cannot; tandem parking is impractical; pervious pavement does not work if the water table is too high, which he believes it is in this area. He noted that he is generally in favor of porous pavement but not if there is an existing drainage problem. Mr. Safina noted- that the Town Engineer has requested test pits, and if the results are not favorable then the infiltration system will have to be redesigned. Mr. Finch added that the Applicant should propose point -of -use hot water heaters, which generate less wasted water. Ms. True commented that the existing fence is not on the Applicant's property. Mr. Safina stated that the Applicant can work out the fence detail with the adjacent abutter. Ms. Lyman opined that vinyl fencing cracks easily. Mr. Garrity stated that he will take all of the feedback into consideration, and requested'a continuance of the public hearing. Mr. Tuttle reiterated the following comments: the building height should be reduced, the bonus room should be removed, and the project should be reduced to 3 -units. Mr. Safina addressed Ms. Honetschlager's concern about the waivers, specifically the density waiver. He noted that if the units were half the size, the density may be okay. He pointed out that a one-story building with four units would still require a density.waiver. Ms. Honetschlager noted that the existing homes on Chapin Avenue are single-family. She gave an example of a multi -Unit building on a lot twice the size of 14 Chapin Avenue. She urged the Commission to read the Table of Dimensions in the Zoning Bylaw, as this project is far denser than what is allowed in the abutting A40 district. She noted that the project is not designed to be transitional, and she commented that if it is approved and no criteria for Page 1 5 waivers have been met, it will set a precedent for future applicants. Mr. Weston clarified that the property is in the Business B district not the A40 district, and he commented that the use there now will likely. not be there much longer. He reminded the public to consider what could be proposed on this lot, which is zoned Business B. Mr. Safina pointed out that the Commission can deny any waiver request at any time. Ms. Mayberry asked for clarification on the next steps for the development. Mr. Safina explained that the Applicant can provide updated plans, withdraw the application or ask the Commission to vote on the plans that were submitted for tonight. Ms. Mercier said she will contact Ms. Mayberry if,new plans are submitted. Ms. Mercier explained the abutters.will not be notified again, but that all information will be posted to the Town website. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing to November 6, 2017. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing, 40111 Plan Review 20-24 Gould Street, Traggorth Companies LLC Dave Traggorth, Andrew Consigli and Jeff Olinger were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. David Traggorth, of Traggorth Companies, LLC, acknowledged the feedback received from the Town and abutters, and provided a brief summary of the plan changes since the September 11th meeting: • Reduction from 65,000 to 60,000 gross square feet, or an 8% building reduction. • Total residential units reduced from 60 to 58. Moved the rear setback +/- 3' off the property line, which will provide breathing room for construction. This area could be a planted garden, or used by the abutters via an easement. • Parking spaces immediately adjacent to property increased from 65 to 73, or an 11% increase. There are 64 garage parking spaces for the 58 units, as well as 4 parallel spaces and 5 angled spaces along Gould Street. An easement will. be granted to the Town'for the portion of the angled spaces that lies on private property. The Town will determine how the angled spaces can be used (short-term retail, deliveries, drop- offs, etc.) . Mr. Traggorth reviewed the current configuration of the existing property, with the EMARC building massing along the rear of the site directly on the abutting property line. He noted that the site currently has two parking lots and three curb cuts off of Gould Street. The proposal will move the density to Gould Street away from the Green Street residents. As a reference, Mr. Traggorth went through the plans as submitted, as revised for September 11th, and as revised again for October 2nd Mr. Traggorth described the changes to each building level. On the ground level, the wall at the rear of the building will be moved N3' from the property line. The building was pulled back off of Gould Street to allow for a 7.5' setback and sidewalk, which improves the sight lines for vehicles pulling out of the garage. The setback change also makes room for the 5 angled parking spaces along Gould Street. The handicap spaces in the garage were moved closer to the building entrance, which enabled additional parking spaces to fit in the garage. Mr. Traggorth provided,a plan showing vehicle turning movements.in the garage. On the second level, the common area was relocated above the first floor lobby, which enables vertical interaction within the.space. Direct access to the courtyard is provided through every unit, and from the common hallway. The courtyard was pulled back further from the rear building edge, and there will be an inaccessible planted strip acting as a buffer between the edge of the courtyard and the building edge. Mr. Traggorth noted that the setbacks were pulled back on every level. Mr. Traggorth stated that the building provides flat level living that is appealing for all age groups. The current building is an industrial/manufacturing building. At the request of the Page 1 6 Reading Historical Commission, some of the window and brick details in the existing building will be incorporated in the proposed building. Mr. Traggorth provided information on construction responsibility. He noted that the project is a $13 million investment, and that there will be bonded and insured contractors who are familiar with zero lot line construction. Third party entities will oversee the .geotechnical, hazmat, inspection, and safety aspects of the construction. Pre -construction surveys of the surrounding buildings will be done to protect against damages. Community meetings and website updates will occur throughout the duration of the construction. Mr. Traggorth summarized the project to date: decreased gross square footage, reduced number of residential units, increased parking and access to parking along Gould Street, increased setbacks beyond what is currently in place and required, complies with height and FAR, in talks with a small food market interested in the retaij space, provides a type of housing in a key location that Reading's own strategies and plan say is needed. . Mr. Tuttle stated that he had no further questions; the .developer has done a good job. Ms. Goncalves-Dolan questioned how.the second floor courtyard will be programmed and managed to mitigate any impacts of sound on abutters. Mr. Traggorth replied that the common areas will be managed by the property management company, will require FOB access, and will only be available during certain hours. He said that the management company will schedule regular events such as after work gatherings, coffee hours, etc. Any private resident gathering will have to be scheduled with management in advance. Mr. Safina noted that the courtyard will be setback from thebuilding edge so that people will not be able to look down on the neighbors. He commented that the setbacks look good on the building sections. Mr: Jeff Olinger of Olinger Architects explained that the courtyard is setback 15' from the property line. Mr. Traggorth added that a stand of trees will be planted at the courtyard edge as a buffer. Mr. Weston stated that it is hard to .visualize what the residents from Green Street will view. Mr. Traggorth confirmed that the residents will see an 11' high wall, but will not experience most of the building massing as the two upper stories are pulled back. To enable residents to understand the perspectives from Green Street, Ms. Delios passed her set of plans (which were just submitted at the meeting) around to the audience. Mr. Traggorth explained the . angles and views from 20, 26 and 28 Green Street. Mr. Weston commented on the circulation in the garage. He opined that it is better than before, but that he is still concerned about the width of the drive aisle and movements with 60 degree angled spaces. Parking a mid-size SUV could be challenging. Mr. Traggorth stated that he is trying to address the building setback concerns and to accommodate the parking needs. He said that from his experience at other properties, the parking design will work. The gray areas on the parking layout are open spaces that can be used for maneuvering. Mr. Traggorth agreed that the parking spaces can be allocated to specific tenants. Mr. Safina opened the meeting to,public comment. Ms. Pam Adrian of 37 Ash Street, spokesperson for the Green Gould Alliance, described the neighborhood for the Commission's benefit. It is one of the oldest neighborhoods in Town and is filled with single-family and multi -family dwellings. She encouraged the Commission to make an informed decision. Ms. Adrian went through a presentation she prepared to reinforcing the major concerns of the neighborhood: privacy for the abutters, proximity to the property line, dropping property values, destruction of the neighborhood, traffic,, aesthetics of the building, height of the building, safety concerns, density, parking, water, Board of Health and trash issues, and the impact of the four recent downtown development projects on downtown infrastructure. Page 1 7 Ms. Adrian presented a.list of requests from the abutters: reduce height to two stories, modify setback to 15' on all sides and rear, reduce number of units to 20, eliminate the back row of units, add planted tree line buffer to property line, provide an appearance more befitting to the historical neighborhood, and acknowledge the history of Ace Art Company. Ms. Adrian added that there is room for negotiation and that the abutters are trying to be reasonable. She said that four residents would be speaking on density, proximity, history and 40R. Mr. Safina asked what side of the building should be 15' from the property line. Ms. Adrian clarified all sides, except the front. Ms. Lorraine Willwerth of 26 Green Street read from the Table of Dimensions. She stated that there should be a 15' setback from the rear because it abuts a residential zone. Mr. Safina quickly clarified that the Green Street properties are not in a residential zone. Mr. Tuttle stated that the area is zoned commercial. Mr. Wade Willwerth of 26 Green Street asked why he filled out a residential building application to renovate his home. Ms. Mercier explained that under the Building Code, his house is considered residential construction, but that the Building Code and Zoning Bylaw are two separate documents. Ms. Willwerth said she lives on the 2nd and 3rd floor of her home and that she will be able to see the balconies and hear the noise, from the project. She noted that she currently can see the sunset from her deck. She asked how much denser the area can get, and commented that her house will be sandwiched between an existing apartment building and the proposed building. Ms. Willwerth urged the Commission to take the neighbors and their lifestyles into consideration when approving the project. Mr. Willwerth noted that.many Green Street residents have lived in the neighborhood for decades..He opined that the proposal is for an urban building in a suburb. Mr. Willwerth said that Green, Ash and Gould streets were not originally part of the 40R district zoning change, and that this has been thrown at the neighborhood. He commented that the Town and the developer only care about revenue, but that the neighborhood is going to lose value. Ms. Heather McLean of 20 Green Street read through a prepared history of 40R as it relates to the neighborhood. She highlighted statements made at various times by members of the Board of Selectmen, CPDC, and staff. She commented that the 40R expansion happened and the neighborhood now has to deal with it. She thanked Traggorth Companies for listening to the neighbors, but stated that the building is too big. Mr. Wayne Dwyer of 61 Ash Street stated that what was approved at April Town Meeting is. not consistent with the feedback received from the.zoning forum held by the Town. The majority of residents in attendance said they did not want to be in the 40R zoning district. Ms. Lenka Nicholls of 104 Ash Street stated that her main concern is quality of life. She noted that when Ash Street was changed to a two-way street, she lost the sidewalk in front of her house, and the traffic increased dramatically. Ms. Nicholls said that all the recent projects are troublesome to her, and asked whether the Town will take any protective measures like adding sidewalks, crosswalks, or modifying the speed limits. Mr. Safina stated that her concerns are not entirely related to the project under discussion. Ms. Mercier noted that she could talk to Engineering, DPW, and the Police Department, about her concerns. Mr. Safina asked Mr. Traggorth when the traffic study will be available. Mr. Traggorth replied that it will be submitted late this week or early next week. Mr. Safina stated that if the traffic study shows this project will have a major impact, then the developer will need to address the issue. Ms. Mercier added that typically traffic studies include recently approved projects in the vicinity. Mr. Dennis Dorandi of 32 Green Street expressed concerns that the trash storage in an enclosed .room will create health problems. He presented a calculation, based on his own Page 1 8 household, of how much trash the property will generate. Mr. Traggorth replied that an enclosed trash room is generally seen as a benefit, explained that an extractor fan will vent the room. Larger bulk items will be stored in the basement and management will schedule removal. He also noted that the 1 -bedroom units will generate less trash than single-family homes. He stated that the trash will be picked up 2-3 times per week; and that additional pick-ups can be scheduled if needed. Mr. Willwerth asked about noise from the rooftop mechanicals. Mr. Safina pointed out that the roof of the Biltmore and Main restaurant is at level with Ash Street. Ms. Willwerth stated that her living space above street level, and that she will hear the noise. Mr. Safina asked if there will be lights on the rear of the building. Mr. Traggorth replied that lights by the doors are required for safety. Simple up/down lights are proposed. He said that there are no longer balconies on the back of the property. Ms. Willwerth added that her 3rd and 4th level will be eye -to -eye with the proposed building. Mr. Jonathan Barnes of 41 Pratt Street stated he is not an abutter, but a member of the RHC and a Town Meeting member. He said he is speaking for himself and as a Precinct 5 member. He urged the Commission and developer to consider what the abutters have requested. He stated that when the zoning change was presented to Town Meeting, he asked everyone to consider the impact of expansion on residential areas. There are many people who live in `historic' homes in this neighborhood. He added that the Town must consider the impact of every decision on a neighborhood. Mr. Rick Wessler of 9 Gould Street stated that he is privileged to live in an old.house on Gould- Street. He noted that the proposed building has some wonderful features, but that it would be more appropriate in Malden. He questioned certain categories of assumption being. made: the existing EMARC building is more of a residential building than an industrial building, as it does not reflect the noise of the train; and the four recent downtown projects will create spillover effects on all nearby nodes and create gridlock. He noted the many kids in the neighborhood and asked how many additional vehicles will be in the area. Mr. Traggorth stated that EMARC currently has 38 parking spaces and that the proposal will add 31 additional parking spaces.' He reminded everyone that the property is not going from no -use to the proposed use. Mr. Weston said that it is important to get the traffic study. He reminded the abutters that when 30 Haven Street was developed residents were concerned that the 4 -story building would generate four times as much traffic than the Atlantic Supermarket. He noted that this has not been the case at all. Mr. Weston said the traffic study will show the number of trips, how they will be distributed, and impacts to intersections in comparison to existing traffic. He added that the data is needed before any conclusions are drawn. Mr. Willwerth added that there are multiple exits from 30 Haven Street, but that this site will only have one curb cut. Mr. Traggorth reiterated that they are trying to strike a balance between the feasibility of the project, setbacks, parking, and the number of units. He noted that the entire area is in an underlying business district. He stated that a planted buffer will be provided. Mr. Dwyer requested a traffic study that includes all current projects and intersections. Mr. Traggorth agreed that the traffic study will include current and expected build -outs and nearby intersections. Mr. Paul Murphy of 69 Ash Street suggested removing the'retail so the building height can be reduced. He also asked why the Applicant did not proposed retail along the whole Gould Street frontage. Page 1 9 Mr. Weston asked about overall parking situation. He said that the parking spaces have been increased, but the ratio is still not 1.25 parking spaces per unit. He said that when the zoning was written, 1.25 was a pretty hard line. He said' he will need good evidence for why the parking waiver should be granted. A resident asked where the existing parallel parking spaces are located, and where will they be relocated. Mr. Traggorth explained they will be proposed where the existing two curb cuts are now. The parking on Gould Street will increase by five angled parking spaces. Mr. Weston reminded the Applicantto include turning movements for the angled spaces in the traffic study. Ms. McLean asked the Commission why they are not concerned about units per acre on this project, but were concerned about the density of the 14 Chapin Avenue project.. Mr. Safina explained that in his opinion the proposed building at 14 Chapin Avenue is a big box on a narrow lot that constrains parking and driving movements. He added that while he is not concerned with the front of this proposed building, he is still a little concerned with the massing at the rear of the property -and the repetitive building elements. Mr. Traggorth explained that he has not had a chance to finish the renderings of the rear of the building, due to the ongoing plan changes that have being made. He stated that he has been trying to be responsive to the feedback received at each meeting, and that he will try to do a 3D model as well. Mr. Safina acknowledged the timeline Ms. McLean provided regarding 40R and the Green Street neighborhood. Ms. Adrian reiterated that.the timeline is a compilation of what the neighbors heard at the various zoning meetings. held by the Town. She said that the zoning on Green, Gould and Ash streets was not going to be changed. Mr. Tuttle explained that the Commission talked about creating sub -districts, but that the Board of Selectmen overrode this.idea in favor of expanding.the'Downtown Smart Growth District more expeditiously. Mr. Weston explained that having this neighborhood in the DSGD enables the CPDC to put together a set of sub -district design guidelines. He noted that this project came along as soon as the DSGD was expanded, and the Commission has not had time to create design guidelines. He added that without the DSGD, the abutters would be'subjected to 40Bs or commercial developments. He noted that things are happening fast. Ms. Willwerth reminded the Commission that when she came in for a sign for her home business, the Commission requested the sign be similar to the blade signs in Lexington.,A resident spoke up and said they remembered that request. She asked the Commission to request the design of this building be similar to buildings in Lexington. She opined that the 30 Haven Street project is ugly. Mr. Safina asked why Ms. Willwerth would want Reading to look like the Town of Lexington. Mr. Safina requested the abutters provide additional comments to the Town as soon as they can, so they can be taken into consideration before the next meeting. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing to October 16, 2017. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Topics . Minutes — 9/11/17 Mr. Tuttle made a motion to accept the September 11, 2017 minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Page 1 10 Minutes - 9/25/17 Mr. Tuttle made.a motion to accept the September 25, 2017 minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 3-0-1 vote (Ms. Goncalves-Dolan abstained). Ms. Delios reminded the Commission of the Economic Development Summit being held on October 4, 2017 at the library. Mr. Tuttle made. a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:37 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda 10/2/17 CPDC Site Visit Agenda 10/2/17 CPDC Minutes.9/11/17 CPDC Minutes 9/25/17 14 Chapin Avenue - 40R Plan Review: a) Legal Notice b) DSGD Application c). Site Plan Application d) _Plan Set e) Supplemental Memo to Community Development Director, including: a. Photographs of abutting properties b. Landscape Plan C. Stormwater Management Plan f) Memo from Town Engineer - 9/26/17 g) .Letter from Abutters h) Draft Decision - 10/2/17 20-24 Gould Street - 40R Plan Review: a) Revised Plans b) Drainage Narrative c) Letter from RHC to MHC d) Letter from RHC to CPDC e) Schematic Parking Layout f) Vehicle Turning Movements g) Fire Flow Test Results h) Memo from PTTTF to CPDC - 9/27/17 i) Revised Draft Decision - 10/2/17 j)' Memo from Town Engineer - 10/2/17 k) Emails from Neighbors 1) Presentation by Neighborhood Alliance m) Revised Plans submitted by Applicant at hearing Page 1 11