Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-16 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesOFIJ ,. Town of Reading Ix �'` L4,1 Meeting Minutes r. n�?4o T04` N Ci F <<K READING, M Board - Committee - Commission -Council: 101 1017 1 A 1'1:;-42 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2017-10-16 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 GoncaIves- Dolan, Rachel Hitch . Tony D'Arezzo, Associate Members - Not Present: Others Present: Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Economic Development Director Andrew Corona, Barry Berman, Ed Sartell, Robert Kiley, Niloo Hennings, Donna Morin, Wayne Dwyer, Lenka Nicholls, Jonathan Barnes, Dave Tragg.orth, James Murphy, Virginia Adams, Dan Hubbard, Charlie Adams, John Cain, Bill.& Jeanne Sullivan, Rick Wetzler, Lucia Corbett, Lorraine & Wade Willwerth, Kerry Grant, Pam Adrian, Dawn & Barry Greenwood Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Chairman Nick Safina. called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Mr. Safina introduced Ms. Rachel 'Hitch as a new Commission Member, and Mr. Tony D'Arezzo' as the new Associate Member. Ms. Hitch and Mr. D'Arezzo each gave a brief history of their work experience and interest in Town government. Continued Public Hearing, Site Plan Review& Special Permit 292 (aka 288) Grove Street, Meadowbrook Golf Club No one was present on -behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina read a request from Attorney Brian McGrail, on behalf of Meadowbrook Golf Club, to withdraw the Site Plan and Special Permit Application for 292 (aka 288) Grove Street without prejudice. Mr, Tuttle made a motion to accept the request to withdraw :without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Page i 1 d Discussion of Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for 2018 Section 5.5 Accessory Buildings or Structures Community Development Director Julie Mercier gave an overview of the potential draft amendment of. Section 5.5 of the Zoning Bylaw. The bylaw pertains primarily to residential structures, with some exceptions. One section pertains to any accessory structure within the side or rear setback, and limits the height to 12'. Ms. Mercier explained that this height limit is applied to accessory structures in industrial or business districts, which does not always makes sense. She opined that it was probably an oversight that the Zoning Bylaw does not address accessory structures in non-residential districts. While looking for guidance on what other towns do, she found that many Towns regulate non-residential accessory uses, but not the dimensions of non-residential accessorystructures. Mr. Safina read Section 5.5..1.4 of the Zoning Bylaw. Ms. Mercier noted that Section 5.5.1.4 does not specifically state that it applies only to residential districts. Mr. Weston commented that perhaps there is no specific regulation because accessory structures are supposed to meet setbacks. Ms. Mercier pointed out that the setbacks in industrial districts are pretty large, and questioned if an overhaul of all the regulations should be considered. Mr. Safina asked if industrial uses should be revisited as well. Mr. Tuttle questioned why the words `residence' and residential' are both used in the amendment. Ms. Mercier clarified that she just fixed the document to be consistent. Mr. Tuttle opined that the language is correct; it is 'residential' use and `residence' district. Mr. Weston commented that there is a reason the Town has setback requirements, and that the building will have the same impact to an abutter whether it is principal or accessory. He suggested considering different rules depending on abutting districts, and perhaps changing the setbacks for all structures in the industrial district. Ms. Mercier said the earliest Town Meeting for a proposed amendment would be April 2018: She said the impetus for this change was a recent application to the Zoning Board for an accessory structure in the industrial district that does not meet setbacks, but has to be taller than 12' in order to accommodate the garage doors. Ms. Mercier noted that this may be the only time this comes up, or it may come up a lot given that the Town is considering ways to eredevelop the industrial area. She noted that Mr. Ed Sartell of Sartell Electrical was in the audience and could speak more about the issue if desired. Mr. Safina agreed that this section of the Zoning Bylaw should be addressed, along with the language residential district vs. residence use. Ms. Hitch questioned if the height restriction should be for all industrial areas or just those that abut residential neighborhoods. Ms. Mercier replied that the Commission will have to discuss that question. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that the setback in the industrial district is 50' in the front. Mr. Weston questioned whether such a large setback really makes sense or is necessary. Ms. Mercier agreed that the 50' setback requirement really constraints a lot. Mr. Safina opined that if an accessory structure abuts a residential district then there should be a limit on either the setback or the height. Mr. Tuttle agreed that varying the height limit for an accessory structure based on the abutting district is reasonable, and noted that accessory structures cannot encroach on the front yard. After discussion, the Commission agreed that the industrial regulations within the Zoning Bylaw should be reviewed holistically. Other Potential Amendments The Commission reviewed the Zoning priorities for 2018. Mr. Safina opined that Sub -district Design Guidelines for the Downtown Smart Growth District need to be addressed this year. He suggested scheduling planning sessions where concerns. and ideas will be solicited. Then the ideas can be brought to a workshop and the details hashed out. Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios clarified that sub -district boundaries have to be voted on by Town Meeting, but that the Sub -district Design Guidelines just go through a public hearing process, with final approval by the State. Mr. Weston suggested that rather than creating sub -districts, the Page 1 2 Commission could draft performance standards within the Design Guidelines, so that if certain site Commission, exist, then certain requirements must be met. Mr. Safina asked if there is a limit to the number of sub -districts that can be created. Ms. Mercier offered to verify this, and to inquire about the State process related to Mr. Weston's suggestion. Mr. Safina opened the discussion to public comment. Mr. Wade Willwerth of 26 Green Street asked what a sub -district is. Mr. Safina explained that. the downtown 40R overlay is just one district with one set of rules. Sub -districts would allow different regulations for specific neighborhoods. Mr. Willwerth stated that all residential neighborhoods abutting the 40R overlay district will be impacted. Mr. Safina explained that Green Street has residential uses but is within the . Business B district; and,that the 24 Gould Street project does address the transition with some of its features. Mr. Willwerth noted that the Sunoco property on Main Street abuts a residential neighborhood, and opined that the same concerns will come up if that property is redeveloped. Mr. Weston replied that the vast majority of commercial lots in Town abut residential areas. He noted that -the majority of developments presented to theCommission impact residential abutters, not.just projects in the 40R overlay district. Mr. Safina pointed out that the Commission worked.with restaurant owners on Main Street to mitigate impacts to residential abutters. Ms. Lorraine Willwerth of 26 Green Street asked the Commission if they agree that Green Street is a special circumstance because the proposed project abuts a residential area. She asked if sub -districts are being considered, and requested that the developer maintain the setbacks since Gould Street was not supposed to be part of the 40R expansion area. Ms. Willwerth commented: on the BOS meeting before the 40R overlay district was expanded, and said the abutters were not present because they were not aware Gould Street was part of the expansion. She asked if future Design Guidelines will apply to this Application. Mr. Safina said that the sub -district regulations will not be finalized in time, but reminded Ms. Willwerth that the Commission is still working out details with the developer for the Gould Street project. Ms. Willwerth mentioned a comment made at a previous BOS meeting that developers could buy residential homes in the downtown and demolish them to redevelop the properties. Mr. Safina clarified that he personally does not believe that a lot of residential properties in the downtown will be demolished and rebuilt all at'once. Ms. Willwerth opined that existing properties should be refurbished or renovated and not torn down. Ms. Lucia Corbett of 376 Pearl Street stated that she is concerned about the changing character of the Town. The downtown is being overrun with enormous buildings; the heights and footprints should be limited. Mr. Tuttle replied that in� reality the area is zoned business, and that the 40R Overlay was approved by Town Meeting. Ms. Corbett clarified that the Town should not allow enormous structures to replace what is there. Mr. Safina commented that there will be .upcoming planning sessions, research and a workshop before sub_district guidelines are drafted. He requested that the information that was drafted by the Green Street neighbors be submitted for the planning sessions. Mr. Safina commented that the Commission is limited by the Open Meeting Law, and that all discussions happen in the 2-3 hours during public meetings. The process will not happen overnight. Ms. Pamela Adrian of 87 Ash Street requested to be included in the process. Mr. Safina suggested residents get involved before changes impact their neighborhoods. He noted that the CPDC had an open seat for two years, and that Precinct 5 has Town Meeting member positions open. Mr. Weston commented that it is better to have residents in attendance at meetings because it enables a dialogue. Ms. Mercier suggested that residents subscribe to the CPDC agenda through the Town website. Page 1 3 Ms. Hitch clarified an earlier comment made by Mr. Weston, in which he stated that almost all commercial properties in Town abut residential areas. She noted that the abutters did not hear his statement correctly. Their neighborhood is not unique in that it abuts (and is within) a commercial district. Mr. Wayne Dwyer of 61 Ash Street questioned if the 40R overlay allows the commercial district to become residential. Mr. Safina clarified that the 40R overlay allows for. mixed-use, or just residential, but that developers can also use the underlying commercial zoning if they wish. Ms. Delios added that if a building is entirely residential there is a 33' height limit. Ms. Willwerth commented that a building with a height limit would be ideal. Mr. Safina said the Town is trying to preserve the downtown as commercial, so the ground floor retail in a mixed-use project is important. Ms. Willwerth commented on the. downtown commercial buildings that have space available. ' Mr. Willwerth asked why the downtown commercial zone has mostly residential homes. Ms. Mercier replied that many of the structures existed prior to the Town's adoption of zoning in 1942. Mr. Safina added that the neighborhood has historically had commercial buildings as well. Mr. Weston explained that in the 1940s and 1950s, a lot of zones were created that did not necessarily reflect what had already been built. He noted that this is the case all over New England, and that Reading is not unique in this regard. Mr. Safina asked if there are any other items that should .be addressed in 2018. Ms. Mercier noted that she has met with staff about updating the subdivision regulations. She requested one or more Commission members be available to be part of this update, and pointed out that it does not have to go to Town Meeting, so does not have the same time constraints as other priorities. Mr. Weston agreed that both the sub -district regulations and subdivision regulations are important. Ms. Delios suggested that downtown parking should be looked at. Mr. Tuttle said studies show parking is not an issue. Mr. Safina clarified that the amount of parking is not an issue, but the management and use of it is. Mr. Weston suggested that parking management be addressed by a working group that includes economic development professionals and other resources. Ms. Delios added that a major issue with taking on all of this is staff capacity. . Continued Public Hearing, 40111 Plan Review 20-24 Gould Street, Traggorth Companies LLC David Traggorth, Andrew Consigli, Jim Murphy, Dan Hubbard, Tom Bertulis and Jeff Olinger were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. David Traggorth introduced Traffic Engineer Tom Bertulis from DCI, gave an overview of how his presentation would proceed, and noted that his team appreciates all the feedback. Mr. Traggorth presented the changes: 3' setback expanded to 7' along a portion of the rear yard; head -in parking added along left side of garage for a maximum of 69 spaces (which is a 1.25 ratio); floors 2-4 pulled back -off rear property line by at least 15'; balconies removed from rear of building; rear wall height reduced from 15' to 11'; 58 units reduced to 55 units with 29 1 -bedroom, 21 2 -bedroom and 5 3 -bedroom units; and the number of windows on the rear facade reduced. ' Mr.. Traggorth provided perspectives and renderings of the building. He pointed out the 15' setback in relation to the back yards and rear setbacks. along Green Street. He described the proposed setback conditions from 20, 26 and 28 Green Street. He said an agreement can be signed with the neighbors which will allow them access to the planted buffer. Mr. Bertulis went through the Traffic Study. He noted that it follows MassDOT guidelines, and includes peak hour counts, 48 hour counts at certain intersections, existing.signalized and un -signalized intersections, and a -safety analysis that showed no fatalities. A majority of the crashes were due to geometric problems and resulted in few injuries. Page 14 Mr. Bertulis presented the..Trip Generation analysis. He explained it'is.conservative and based. upon 100% vehicle usage from the proposed location. -Mr. Bertulis said the counts were done in person. There were 38 AM net and 50 PM net vehicle trips per hour; which is less than 1 additional vehicle trip per minute. Mr. Bertulis noted .that the intersections chosen for the analysis go above and beyond MassDOT guidelines and include'some additional intersections requested by theTown. He presented the site -generated trips, and showed how they would be distributed through the traffic network. He explained that -the analysis takes into -account build -out seven years into the future. Mr. Bertulis presented .the Level of Service (LOS) Summary. He explained how each intersection is graded A through F depending on capacity and delays. The Traffic Study .:compares no build and build -out conditions. He said that other developments downtown were accounted for, with the exception of the'Postmark Square project, -which will generate fewer trips than when it was, -an active post office. He summarized his findings that the built condition results in no movements that degrade the Level of Service at any of the studied intersections, and-no`large increases in'delay. Mr. Traggorth provided data on parking ratios for nearby projects and for other. Traggorth Company projects. He noted that`in his experience, the number of affordable -units is closely related to the number of vehicles on a. property. The 53 residential units at 30 Haven Street are at capacity; out of the 63 parking spaces only 61 are being utilized, which is a 1.15 space per unit parking utilization ratio. Mr. D'Arezzo asked forclarification on the breakdown of the units.by, bedroom count: Mr. Traggorth verified 29 1 -bedroom; 21 2 -bedroom, and -5 3 -bedroom units. Mr. D'Arezzo asked which floor only has one 3 -bedroom unit. Mr. Traggorth replied that level'two is currently proposed to have -just one 3 -bedroom unit. - Ms. Goncalves-Dolan asked .how the trash 'will operate given the 11' garage clearance. Mr., Traggorth explained that there will be chutes on every level which lead to a'compactor in the basement. The compactor will'.be rolled out to the street and loaded onto trash trucks. The trash removal process will happen twice a week, :for about twenty minutes each time. Ms. GoncaIves- Dolan questioned how resident move -in and move-outwill be managed. Mr. Traggorth explained that the five angled spaces off of Gould .Street can be used for short- term deliveries. The move-.ins,will take place inside the parking garage; will be scheduled at. times when the parking garage is'mostly empty and when the elevator can be locked down, and will be, managed by the on-site property manager.. Ms.'-GoncaIves- Dolan clarified that there is only one elevator proposed, at the property. She asked how ].8 -wheelers will, maneuver for commercial deliveries. Mr.- Traggorth said there is only about 3,700 square feet dedicated for retail, and noted -that any retailer- requiring deliveries by -an 18 -wheeler will not locate in the proposed space: All deliveries will be made by a box -truck or -van. He said the lease can restrict delivery times and truck size, which is-: in their best interest as they do not want their residents competing with large trucks that block the road. Mr. Tuttle sa.id he.had no new questions. Mr. Safina asked how many compact parking spaces are proposed. Mr. Traggorth replied that 37 out -of 69 will .be compact spaces. Mr. Safina stated that :the 1.25 space per unit ._ parking ratio is an important number to control the density of projects, and noted that the State Smart Growth Guidelines recommend a maximum of 30%compact spaces`in a parking lot. He also noted that the proposed compact spaces are smaller than the size the State recommends. He opined that creating tiny spaces to achieve the 1.25 parking ratio in orderto maximize the number of units, does not really hew to the intent of the Bylaw. The Page 1 5 . J number of residential units might have to be reduced to accommodate the required parking ratio. Mr. Traggorth replied that the project is well. belowthe required FAR. Mr. Safina commended the developer for scaling back the building,.at-the rear, but opined that FAR is not really a good metric. He suggested reducing the -number of units so the fourth level could be stepped back even more. Mr. Traggorth said he will look at the economics of reducing the unit count, but commented he could make larger units rather than scaling back. Mr. -Safina noted that reducing the density of the overall unit count would result.in fewer people•and fewer cars. The undersized compact spaces should not be used as a; justification for additional units. Mr. Traggorth noted that they are- providing five angled parking spaces along Gould Street which have not been factored into the parking ratio. He commented that additional_ parking spaces will have a cost to the project, and that his team thinks `hard about parking on every project and tracks it continuously. Mr. Weston opined that the`five spaces along Gould Street should be included in the parking ratio, so everyone is using the same calculation.` He.stated that it is understood that not everyone needs two parking spaces, but that visitor parking spaces should be provided. Ms. Mercier clarified that -the 5 angled spaces along Gould Street are only partially on private property, and are going to be public with an easement to the Town, so technically they will not be dedicated to any residential unit or retail; use in the proposed project. Mr. Weston asked who will police the parking spaces. Mr. Traggorth replied that the Town will police the spaces similar to other parking spaces in Town. He added that the parking on Gould Street is important to the retail, and that the management company will manage, move -ins so they will happen at non -peak times. Mr. Weston recanted his prior comment that the five. parking spaces should be included in. the.parking ratio. Mr. Safina questioned why Green Street is not included in the traffic analysis.. Mr. Bertulis explained that, the developer is allowed to pick and choose the intersections to be studied, and that the seven intersections that were included went above and beyond requirements. He said the traffic flow shows some vehicles will turn down.Green Street, but not enough to have a noticeable impact. Mr. Safina -stated that impacts to LOS do not tell the whole story., He asked what the impact would be if all people turned_ down Green.Street. Mr. Bertulis said with 50 AM trips entering and exiting, only 17 will go south down Ash Street, and only 8 of those will turn down Green Street. This analysis is based on existing trip distribution. Mr. Safina stated that in the morning, a maximum of, 17 cars -would potentially turndown Green Street, which is not in -and -of -itself too concerning. Mr. Weston noted that.with vehicles parked on both sides of Green Street, -the traffic flow on Washington Street is easier. He agreed for the ease of driving, vehicles will drive down Ash Street to Washington Street. Mr. Tuttle stated that in 30 years living in Town, he has never turned down Green Street from Ash Street. Mr. Weston said he agrees with the numbers presented in the traffic analysis, which show that only 26 cars will exit the site in the morning. Though_ this project will only add 26 cars, given the projected build -out condition in 2024 there will be 160 cars using the intersection during the peak hour. He. commented that people in the neighborhood will notice a change, but only -a small portion of it will be due to this project. He noted that people will figure out different routes when there is traffic. Mr. Bertulis reminded the Commission that the traffic analysis assumes 100% of the,project's residents will be driving, but it likely that some residents will use the commuter rail or other alternate modes. Mr. Safina asked if the, abutters, had a chance to review the changes to the setbacks. Mr. Traggorth replied that he has not discussed the newest changes with the abutters yet. Mr. Safina opened the meeting to public comment. Page 1 6 Ms. Willwerth asked if the parking study includes other commercial development in the area, and the number of people going in and out all.day. Mr. Bertulis replied that generally commercial and residential uses utilize parking at complementary times of day, and that commercial development has been included in the study. Ms. Willwerth asked for Green Street to be included in the traffic analysis. Mr. Bertulis said he could add Green Street to the model, but it will not change the analysis as the intersections directly, adjacent to it are already included. Mr. Safina added that in the worst case scenario, if all cars leaving the site in the morning were to turn right.on Gould Street, and then right on Green Street, it would still only'be an additional 26 vehicles. Mrs. Willwerth commented that the parking and traffic studies should analyze the entire day, not just peak hours. Mr. Traggorth further explained that all other times of the day have less traffic than the peak hours. Ms. Lenka Nicholls of 104 Ash Street stated that the changes in Town keep -impacting her. She noted that the corner of Ash Street and Green Street will .be impacted by all the cars that turn right on Ash Street, and that the added traffic flow will decrease her quality of life. There will be additional trash pick-ups during the week, and the trash trucks will have to drive by her house. Mr. Safina replied that the traffic study accounts for the trash trucks. Ms. Nicholls said traffic has increased in the past five. years, and it is dangerous for her as her house has no front setback, and there is no sidewalk. Ms. Kerry Grant of 32 Green Street asked why Green Street was excluded from the traffic report. She stated that vehicles drive down Ash Street to avoid the lights on Main Street, and go right past Green Street. Mr. Bertulis reiterated that generally traffic studies analyze 2 or 3 intersections, but in this case they analyzed seven. He pointed out that Green Street is very small, and is captured in the data for the Gould Street/Ash Street intersection and the Ash Street/Washington Street intersection. Ms. Grant added that vehicles speed down Green Street. Mr. Traggorth replied that the study shows the proposed project's vehicle impacts, which are 8 vehicles on Green Street at the. peak hour. Mr. Weston clarified that the Commission reviews the traffic study to ensure that the added vehicles will not cause the intersection to fail, not just to find out if there will be an increase in traffic. He reiterated that there will be an increase in traffic from now to 2024, and reminded the audience that the Commission cannot solve existing traffic problems in the area. Ms. Pamela Adrian of 87 Ash Street asked if the trash trucks will block the road for the 20 minutes it takes them to pick up the trash. Mr. Traggorth replied that the trash truck will pull over along the property frontage and not block traffic. Mr. Wayne Dwyer of 61 Ash Street stated that delivery vehicles to the former Atlantic Supermarket at 30 Haven Street used to damage the Stop Sign. He asked the Commission to restrict the size of trucks that can make deliveries to the project. He expressed concerns for the children and pedestrians walking in the area, and asked if there will be a sidewalk. Mr. Traggorth replied that they are granting the Town an easement to make the sidewalk along their Gould Street property frontage wider than is typical. Mr. Safina added that the sidewalk will be continuous as two of the existing curb cuts will be closed. He requested a bollard be installed to prevent vehicles from driving up on the sidewalk. Mr. Robert .Kiley of 34 GouldStreet questioned if the right side of the building will be up to the property line. Mr. Traggorth replied that the sides of the building will be 1' off the property line, and assured Mr. Kiley there will be no construction activity on his property. Mr. Kiley commented that the large air handling unitswill be running continuously. He asked if there will be a pedestrian sidewalk available during construction. Mr. Traggorth replied that they will work with the Town to maintain pedestrian access. Mr. Jeff Olinger of Olinger Architects said the construction can be phased, and will be coordinated with the Town. Mr. Andrew Consigli of Civico Development stated that a Construction Management Plan will be submitted. Mr. Willwerth opined that the setbacks at the rear are deceiving. He_questioned how parking has been increased while the building footprint has been reduced. Mr. Olinger replied that Page 1 7 the lobby was compressed and the elevator moved, which freed up some additional space for parking. Mr. Willwerth asked about the width. of the parking spaces, and noted that the spaces at Town Hall are tight. He asked what the Town Engineer thinks. Ms. Mercier said she spoke with the Town Engineer and he said the turning movements in the new layout are better. Mr. Willwerth stated that the five parking spaces out front cannot be used overnight during the winter months. Mr. Safina reiterated that the five parking spaces are not included in the total parking count or parking ratio. Mr. Willwerth said that the Town regulations allow 20 .units per acre, and asked why the developer would propose 300% beyond what the Town allows. Mr. Weston explained that 20 units per acre is the State minimum to qualify for a 40R district. The Town.could not.go any lower than the 20 units, but also did not want to allow higher by -right which would enable developers to avoid the waiver process. Mr. Safina commented that density is hard to visualize, and unit counts can be deceiving. He gave an example of a nearby 3 -unit property that is 40 units per acre. The average person would not experience this or realize this walking past the property. Mr. Willwerth asked about the density of the apartment buildings on Green Street. Ms. Mercier pointed out .that they existed before the expansion of the 40R district. Mr. Willwerth noted that the project has reduced the number of units but hardly decreased the overall density. Mr. Dwyer opined that the project will overcrowd the area, and ruin the character of the Town. There are big buildings being built next to commuter trails in every town. Ms. Jeanne Sullivan of 44 Blueberry Lane expressed a high level of concern, and added that it is insulting to compare a 3 -unit building to a 55 -unit building. She asked about the traffic from the retail establishment, and noted that her business is located in Wakefield because of the lack of parking in Reading. Mr. Bertulis reiterated that vehicle trips from the retail are included in the traffic analysis. Ms. Nicholls asked if the Commission members would want 17 additional vehicles driving by their homes. Mr. Rick Wetzler of 9 Gould Street stated that the project will have a lasting impact. He opined that the project will reduce property values and increase traffic in the area. He said the proposed building should be less daunting and more in harmony with a residential neighborhood. He commented that the project will make the Town feel like a city. He concluded by saying that the multiplicative effects of all the.projects at once will result in a quality of life issue downtown. Mr. Traggorth responded that the aesthetic sensibility is driven by a couple of factors: the desire to incorporate elements of the existing building on the site, and the DSGD Design Guidelines, which are very detailed. He said. they are working to comply with the Design Guidelines and that they.are well-written and make sense. Mr. Traggorth reiterated that the existing use is commercial, and that it was originally a manufacturing building. He noted that the proposed plans have been modified, in direct response to requests of the abutters, and stated that they will continue to work with the neighbors on the fagade elements, treatments and plantings. Mr. Wetzler opined that the existing building is small, warm, inviting, and not industrial feeling. In contrast, the proposed building feels cold, large and industrial. Mr. Traggorth explained that the brickwork and windows are based on other buildings in the area, and commented that sandstone is actually pretty warm, but the rendering does not convey this very well. He noted that there is texture and variegation in the brick. Mr. Consigli stated Page 1 8 that the details are still being worked on, and noted that the proposed building is based on traditional architecture with a base, middle and top. Mr. Wetzler asked the Applicant to use characteristics of nearby homes so that the building does not feel industrial and echo the noise from the train. Mr. Traggorth clarified the proposed building is mixed-use not industrial. Mr. Olinger said this site in particular is challenging because the massing faces the commercial downtown area. They have tried to scale the fagade elements and introduce pedestrian elements on the street. Specifically, the proposal includes town house elements, the retail on the ground level is stepped back, and they have lightened the upper levels where the rear interfaces with residential. Every opportunity was taken to maintain the residential feel at the rear. Ms. Willwerth pointed out that the perspective of Gould Street makes the proposed 4 -story building look like the same height as the Flatiron building on the corner. She asked to see a scaled model of the proposed building. Mr. Safina said he never asked for a physical model, but he would like to see a computer model. Mr. Olinger noted that Ms: Willwerth is reading the perspective correctly, that is what perspectives do, but it is just a perspective. Mr. Barry Greenwood of 142 Wakefield Street said he was concerned about the scale of the building. He commented that he would hate to see the Town change at such an alarming rate. He also stated the following: Green Street should have been included in the traffic study; there are no snow storage locations on site; and that vehicles will have difficulty parking in the 7.5' wide compact spaces. Ms. Mercier said that 8.5' x 17' is the standard size for a parking space in an enclosed garage, per the Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Olinger replied that some of the compact parking spaces can be changed to regular parking spaces or increased -in width. He added that the management company will verify the type of vehicle that.is driven by a resident before finalizing a lease agreement. He noted the data Mr.. Traggorth presented earlier -on the amount of parking spaces utilized at other developments. Mr. Traggorth said that the roof will catch the snow and it will melt into the recharge area; there is no unenclosed area. Mr. Willwerth commented that the building is 200' long along the street, and that it looks like the back of the 30 Haven'Street building. Mr. Safina did not agree and explained that the rear fagade of the 30 Haven Street building is flat and that it faces a parking lot. Mr. Safina pointed out that the Design Guidelines dictate that the front building fagade needs to be articulated, and that it will not be perceived the same as 30 Haven Street. Ms. Grant expressed her doubts about this. Mr. Safina explained the 30 Haven Street perspective, and said it is his professional opinion that the back of the 30 Haven Street building is not the same as the front of this proposed building. Ms. Sullivan said that the 30 Haven Street building is in a more isolated area and towers over a parking lot, whereas the proposed building will tower over residences rather'than a parking lot. Ms. Corbett noted that there is space on all sides of 30 Haven Street, and asked why there is not a cap on density. Ms. Hitch replied that capping density does not make economic sense. The developer has to buy the property and recoup their purchase price via the redevelopment, which requires a certain number of units. She added the alternative is that the building will remain vacant and not be maintained. Ms. Willwerth stated that an HVAC contractor is interested in renting the building. Ms. Dawn Greenwood of 142 Wakefield Street opined that the Town should not prioritize economics at the cost of residents. Mr. Charlie Adams of 13 Riverside Drive said he was in favor of the development. The Town wanted Smart Growth to encourage economic development in that area. The project has positive benefits and will not drain resources. He added that if there -is not enough parking available, it will be the developer's concern. Mr. Andrew Corona, Economic Development Director, provided some context. He stated that the Town Js having budgetary issues. The residents do not want to pay higher taxes, but Page 1 9 J, want the same level of services: He noted that dealing with Mr. Traggorth.has been friendly and. collaborative, and that the proposed development is a lot nicer than the existing site. He urged the Commission and audience to think about the best.interests of all of Reading's residents. He concluded by encouraging the CPDC to approve the development. Mr. Jonathan Barnes of 41 Pratt Street questioned the process and design elements. He asked the Commission for their input with respect to the incremental changes. Mr. Tuttle explained that the process is happening now: the developer has modified the plans based on the feedback from the last two meetings. Mr. Weston stated that in general, the building meets the Design Guidelines. Mr. Traggorth said that they are not seeking waivers from the Design Guidelines. Mr. Barnes asked if the approved design will actually get built. Mr. Safina explained the Decision will reference `final plans,' and the developer will have to come back for approval of the final materials selected. Mr. Barnes acknowledged the modifications that were made to the original plans based on feedback received. He asked ifupdated plans will be presented at the next meeting,. and if the Commission is requesting any changes. Mr. Traggorth summarized the process to date: started with guidelines, attended meetings, spoke to neighbors, and incorporated feedback into the plans a few times. He said he does not want to seek waivers, but rather to comply. The concessions have been more than incremental. Mr. Traggorth agreed to bring the final building materials to the neighbors and CPDC for approval. He concluded by saying the project needs to move forward; and asked the Commission for a vote. Mr. Safina pointed out that beyond the tower on the corner of the building, the 4th floor is stepped back, and there are large recesses between the townhouse elements. He asked the Applicant to soften the corner and suggested different materials might help. Mr. Tuttle said he likes the strong corner. Mr. Consigli pointed out that the design of the fagad'e varies between the two options in the Design Guidelines. Mr. Wetzler said the trees on the north side of the building will not grow. Mr. Traggorth said they will work with the Town to pick the correct species of tree. Ms. Niloo Hennings of 38 Belmont Street asked about the economics and impacts from all" the developments on the schools. Ms. Adrian stated that the need for more fire and police personnel is a real concern that was discussed at the last Board of Selectmen (BOS) meeting. She said there has been a spike in calls for emergency services. Mr. Safina questioned if the calls were at the 55+ residential units. He noted that more people in Town will generate more calls, but in general, economic analyses show a net positive for multi- family projects. Mr. Barry Berman, a member of the BOS, presented the rationale behind why the Town wants this type of development. In comparison to the Town's peer communities, the Town of Reading is bringing in $12 million less tax revenue because of the lack -of commercial or industrial properties. The Town looked at different options and decided to maximize the impact where it can. He mentioned the Town's recent Economic Development Action Plan, which shows that 80% of residents work out of.Town. He noted the -importance of having people live and work downtown. The 40R development is a better opportunity than a 40B development, because.the Town can negotiate with the developer. He noted talks with Wakefield about joining and relocating the Department of Public Works in order to free up some space in the industrial area for redevelopment. The other options the Town has are another override request or cuts to services. Mr. Berman stated that commercial development will bring in more revenue than it will cost. He summarized that Town Meeting changed the zoning, and now the Town has to work with the process. The Town's job is to make this the best project it can be. Mr. Safina asked if anyone from Green Street was present and had reviewed the rear modifications. Ms. Willwerth asked about the balconies, .lighting at the rear of the property, and the private functions held in the courtyard.. -Ms. Willwerth asked if discussion of the Page 1 10 details can continue after the project gets approved. Mr. Traggorth explained the 2nd floor Walk -outs to the courtyard. The courtyard will be divided up between private spaces directly off of units, and a public space at the center that all building residents can use. He stated that balconies are no longer proposed at the rear of the building. Ms. Adrian asked about the waiver for the trees. She requested that the 8 shade trees that will be removed be replaced with shade trees instead of arbor vitae. Mr. Traggorth explained. that -some of the trees that have grown up against the rear wall might actually survive, and that they will work to save as many as they can. They are nice trees and the team has every intention of saving them if possible, but they asked for a blanket waiver just in case they do not survive. He suggested that the Commission add a condition requiring that an arborist provide an opinion of which trees should be removed, and which trees should stay. . Mr. Safina asked if there is a tree in the easement. Ms. Willwerth replied in the affirmative. Mr. Weston pointed out that noise and views of the courtyard will be obscured by the wall. He added that the proposed use of hardiplank or cementitious clapboard will help absorb the sound. Mr. Olinger added that the plantings will also be a buffer and absorb noise. Ms. Mercier stated that the Applicant would like a'vote tonight, if the Commission is ready. Mr. Weston said the parking spaces still need to be addressed. Mr. Consigli stated that he is confident they can get 69 parking spaces with only 30%-35% compact. Mr. Safina clarified that the issue is that larger compact spaces are needed, and suggested 65 parking spaces for 52 units.. A majority of the spaces should be at least 8' wide. Mr. Traggorth said that the parking ratio will be 1.25, so a waiver will. not be required, and that they will reduce the # of compact spaces, and provide no more than 55 total units. He asked the Commission not to hold up the Decision for small tweaks. Ms. GoncaIves- Dolan_agreed with Mr. Safina that the 4th floor should be set back more by removing some units, and that the aesthetics should be softened. She opined that"she is not happy.the building looks similar to buildings in Cambridge. Ms. Adrian suggested tweaking the architecture and injecting historical architectural elements from around Town. Mr: Safina stated that the Commission does not want the Applicant to construct.a turn -of -the -century building. Mr. Consigli said it is hard to discuss aesthetics because they are subjective.. Mr. Weston opined that the corner of the building is too bold, too square and too blocky Mr. Traggorth summarized the feedback received: the number of units should be reduced to 52; compact parking spaces reduced in number and increased in size; and the 4th floor should be stepped back further on the Green Street side. Mr. Olinger agreed to look into softening the corner, but does not want the building to lose its clear identity. Ms. Corbett opined that Town Meeting members did not know what they were voting for when the 40R District expansion was approved. Mr. Willwerth said that the volume is too much. Mr. Safina reiterated that 20 units per acre is a minimum. Mr. Willwerth said this project will not solve all of the Town's budget issues. Mr. Safina asked the Applicant whether removing the retail component would result in a 3 - story residential building. Mr. Barnes stated that he is a Town Meeting member who was opposed to the expansion of the 40R District. He said that the developer and Town received letters from the Reading Historical Commission, and he summarized what the comments requested. Mr. Weston said he is not comfortable voting on the Decision tonight. Mr. Safina would like to see the units reduced and the corner of the building modified. Page 1 11 Ms. Hitch stated that retail is an essential element to reactivating the downtown, and that it should not be removed from the project as removing it will not accomplish the Town's economic goals. Mr. Traggorth said there is a retailer interested in the location. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing to November 6th at 9:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Planning Updates and Other Topics Minutes - October 2, 2017 Approval of the minutes was tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting CPDC Agenda 10/16/2017 Request for Withdrawal Without Prejudice, Meadowbrook Golf Club Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments a) Section 5.5 Accessory Buildings or Structures - draft language prepared by staff b) Updated Zoning Chart w/Future Priorities 24 Gould Street 40R Development a) Traffic Impact.Study b) Memo from DCI re: Gould Street Angled Parking c) Parking Memo d) Parking Response from Applicant e) Rear Yard Renderings & Views f) Updated Floor Plans g) Photometric & Lighting Specs h) Emails/Letters from residents i) Building Height Documentation, prepared by Reading Historical Commission j) Revised Draft Decision - 10/16/17 Page 1 12