No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-11 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading i• Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2017-12-11 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: TO WN CL fi.F� EriJlN G. F9rASS. 1010 JAN -q P 1;,S5 1 Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Session:, Open Session Version: Chair Nick Safina, Dave Tuttle, John Weston, Karen GoncaIves- Dolan, Rachel Hitch Tony D'Arezzo, Associate Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Mary E Canning, -Anne Gray, Richard McKenna, Tim Doyle, William Bergeron, Donnie Garrity, Frank Driscoll, Brad Latham, Joann Boback, Christine & Derek Dyer, Susan Webb, Hany Hanna, Lenny Polonski, Mary & Herbert Gravlin, Walter Michaud, Barry Berman, Laura Neumeyer, Larry Healey, Kim Honetschlager, Phillip LeBlanc, Will Finch, Jill Mayberry, Michele Urann, Ken Charest, Ken Muise, Wendy Christofero, Susan True Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Minor Amendment, PUD Special Permit Johnson Woods, O. Bradley Latham on behalf of Ted Moore. Ted Moore, Attorney O. Bradley Latham., and William Bergeron, P.E. were present on behalf of the Application. Community Development Director Julie Mercier gave a summary of the issues that led the Applicant to file an application for a Minor Amendment. Ms. Mercier said periodically over the past two years, residents from Johnson Woods have contacted the Town Hall to express concerns with various aspects of the project development, some of which do not comply with the Special Permit., She clarified that a courtesy meeting notice was sent to all owners and abutters, but that it was not legally required to be.published in the paper. Ms.. Mercier explained that there are two major deviations from the approved plans for which the Applicant is seeking approval -after -the -fact: the foundation at 6-8 White Oaks Lane, and the striping of the parking lots for the multi -family buildings. She noted, that given the complexity of both scenarios, she did not feel they qualified for administrative approval. Page 1 1 Ms. Mercier noted that a range of other issues have been brought to her attention since the meeting notice was received by residents, some of which are legal in nature and do not really fall within the Commission's purview. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo recused himself and left the dais. Attorney Brad Latham introduced Ted Moore, the owner of Johnson Woods; and his civil engineer William Bergeron, P.E. Mr. Latham explained that the project at Johnson Woods. has been underway for. 15 years, and has been successful for the residents and generated tax revenue for the Town. He reminded the Commission that in the past, the Applicant used to seek the Commission's approval for every small change, which was inconvenient for all concerned. The Commission previously agreed that small changes could be handled administratively. Mr. Latham noted that the impetus for shifting Buildings 50, 51 and 52 was to save trees, and preserve topography and open space, and that it reduced overall impervious area. Mr. William Bergeron presented an overlay plan showing the 2012 approved plan and the actual foundations for Buildings 51 and 52. He explained'that the shift of Building 50 necessitated the shift, of Building 51, and that the shift of Building 52 was to save some trees. Mr: Bergeron pointed out that the new building locations allow for a reconfiguration of the driveways, which results in reduced impervious area. Mr. Bergeron stated that under the PUD bylaw, buildings can be as close as 15' to each other. He opined that the changes are consistent with the PUD and overall design. Mr. Safina questioned why the plans submitted have different dates. Mr. Bergeron replied that the September 1St plan is the correct one, and that the independent driveway is the only change to the September 1St plan. Mr.'Safina noted that the shared driveway could be problematic as access to the rear unit could be blocked. He asked if there is visitor parking available on the roadway. Mr. Bergeron confirmed that there will be marked visitor parking spaces along the street. Ms. Hitch and Ms. Goncalves-Dolan arrived at 7:42 PM. Mr. Tuttle'asked if the Board of Selectmen had a policy on shared driveways, and whether the Town allows shared driveways. Ms. Mercier stated she is not aware of a specific policy. Mr. Bergeron said residents are notified of the shared driveway situation. Mr. Moore said more than half of the condominium units in the project share a driveway. Mr. Weston commented that Building 52 appears to be different than the other duplexes. He asked where the garage entrance is located. Mr. Bergeron replied that it is the same as Buildings 50 and 51, but the building footprint is flipped, with the garage entrance on the side. Mr. Weston noted that there is.no room for the owner to back out of the driveway, which may impact the other owner. Mr. Moore stated that other buildings on the site are similarly configured. He added that whenever possible windows and clapboard are chosen to be viewed from the roadway. The garage entrance on the side is preferable as the streetscape is not dominated by garage doors. Mr. Safina suggested the driveway entrance be off of White Oaks Lane so that owners can pull straight in and straight out. Mr. Moore replied it is not possible due to grade issues. Mr. Latham listed other projects with garage doors on the side. Mr. Safina stated that the main concern with Building 52 is that the foundation was poured in a different location than what was approved. Mr. Moore replied that the Commission approved the location for Building 50 in 2015, which triggered the need to shift Buildings 51 and 52. Mr. Safina responded that the change to Building 52 was not presented or made clear to the Building Inspector, and that it is more than a small shift and impacts other buildings and natural areas on the site. Mr. Moore agreed. Mr. Bergeron confirmed that Page 1 2 there are no wetlands in the vicinity of Building 52. Mr. Safina reiterated that the approved plans should have been followed. Mr. Safina opened the meeting for public comments pertaining to the Building 52 issues. Ms. Joann Boback, the potential buyer of Unit 52R, read a personal statement expressing her anger with the outcome of negotiations with Ted Moore over her unit. She stated that despite many warnings from other residents, she negotiated in good faith with Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore made her believe that Building 52 was the only building proposed in the general vicinity, but she later learned of a second duplex building (Building 51). She went ahead with the P&S regardless. Time passed and her unit was not being built on schedule. She found out from the Town that a Stop Work Order was issued, thus preventing construction from proceeding. Ms.' Boback stated that she should have been contacted by Mr. Moore or his lawyer informing her of the current status of the duplex. She disagreed that the building location was changed to save trees. Mr. Safina asked how the lots are broken up on the property. Mr. Latham replied that the entire property is considered one lot. Ms. Boback stated that Building 51 was not shown.on the plan she was provided. Mr. Moore replied that the 2015 plan in his office is shown to all potential buyers and is attached to the P&S document. Ms. Boback disagreed. Mr. Derek Dyer of 26 Johnson Woods Drive stated that he had difficulty maneuvering in his shared driveway, so Mr.'Moore widened it. He opined that the proposed shared driveway is not wide enough. He commented that Mr. Moore talks a lot, and requested that he be held accountable and be required to follow the approved plans. Mr. Tim Doyle, an attorney representing the owners of a unit in Buildin'40 (next to Building 52), said -his clients have lived at the property for 3+ years. _ Mr. Doyle stated that the tree - line along the rear of his clients' property was removed for the Building 52 foundation, so his clients no longer`have rear -yard privacy. Mr. Doyle said that his clients were aware of the approved plans and renderings when they chose their unit, but that the foundation does. not match the plans. He noted that. case law demonstrates that people who purchase based on approved plans have reasonable right to believe that is what will be constructed. He opined that the proposed change is a major modification and that it compromises his clients' use and enjoyment of their property.'Mr. Doyle opined that the Commission would have reviewed these impacts if they had been made aware of the change before the foundation was poured. He passed out his statement along with pictures to the Commission. Mr. Latham responded that the condominium documents allow changes to the locations and. designs of buildings..He stated that the tree line-on.ly changed in a small area. Mr. Larry Healey of 16 Green Meadow Drive opined that the change is minor and should be considered a betterment for the whole community. Mr. Jeff Howard of 113 Johnson Woods Drive said that during his 10 -year term as a member of the Governance Committee he has had to interface with Mr. Moore. He opined that Mr. Moore has integrity and speaks the truth. He noted that Mr. Moore has worked out several altercations over tree removal throughout the property. Ms. Mary E. Canning of 162 Johnson Woods Drive noted that her 2011 P&S included a 2"d one-story garage, but that Mr. Moore has never constructed it and that they do not agree on where it should be located. Though she agrees with Mr. Moore's earlier statements about tree preservation and avoiding garage -front units, in her case, he is proposing to put the garage right in front of her house, which will require the removal of trees. She does not want the garage in this location, and believes there is room for it off.to the side. She noted comments Mr. Moore has made over the years about the neighborhood not wanting her to have a garage, and stated that she feels like he -set her up for failure when she bought her unit. Mr. Moore approached the dais and drew the proposed location for her garage on the plans. Ms. Canning was surprised, and noted that the location he drew on the plans differs Page 1 3 from the location he has staked out in her front yard. Mr. Moore commented that the garage has always been proposed in this location, and that the stakes reflect this. Ms. Canning agreed with the location drawn on the plan by Mr. Moore. Ms. Mercier agreed to follow up with Ms. Canning on this after the meeting. Mr. Safina expressed his anger at the developer for not building what was approved. He stated that this discussion is a colossal waste of the Commission's time, and that.they have a packed agenda. Mr. Moore commented that everything built has been approved. Mr. Weston disagreed and noted that Mr. Moore allegedly had a plan in his office since 2015 showing building locations that were never approved. He questioned why the changes were not submitted to the Town for approval, and stated that it did not have to get to this point. Mr. Moore opined that the changes were minor adjustments. Mr. Bergeron agreed that only a couple of buildings were shifted. Mr. Weston, pointed out that the Commission has had a discussion about all prior proposed changes, and that even the most minor adjustments were discussed by the Commission before they were approved. Ms. Mercier reminded the Commission that there are also concerns with the widths of parking spaces for the multi -unit buildings at 30 & 39 Taylor Drive. She summarized that all parking spaces were approved at 9'x18', but that many are much narrower. There are unit owners who do not realize they were deeded a.compact parking space, and do not drive a compact vehicle. She added that although the Commission approved a 2+ parking space per unit ratio, which includes visitor parking, some people have complained that there is not enough parking on the site. Mr. Moore stated that all the parking spaces are different sizes because.`people don't wear the same shoes and don't drive the same size cars.' Mr. Latham explained that Mr. Moore is trying to maximize the number of parking spaces within the existing paved area so as not to add more impervious area to the site. He stated that the on-site parking meets the required number of parking spaces approved, and he noted that the bylaw requirements for parking vary depending on. what type of development is proposed. Mr. Weston pointed out that the specific project approval is what matters. Ms. Mercier noted that the total number of parking spaces is irrelevant if the spaces are not able to be used by their owners. She added that all parking spaces under a certain size should be marked as compact spaces. Mr. Safina stated that the smart growth district caters to a different clientele. Mr. Safina asked for the delta between the width approved and the widths of spaces striped on site. Mr. Moore explained that the residents wanted more spaces, and so the parking space widths were adjusted to get a certain number of spaces in a particular paved area. He stated that at 39 Taylor Drive the Commission required 76 parking spaces and there are 87 parking spaces available. Mr. Moore said he has the right as the condominium developer to reassign spaces as the development changes, depending on what future buyers need. Mr. Safina requested additional time to review the plans and documents, since the actual unit addresses and the building numbers do not correspond. Ms. Goncalves-Dolan requested an as -built plan. Ms. Mercier noted that an as -built plan was requested by staff months ago but never received. Mr. Dyer questioned whether additional parking spaces are proposed.for the rest of the site as it is developed. Mr. Moore said the remainder of the project consists of townhouses and carriage houses. He noted that for the last 4-5 years, he has provided 4 spaces per unit via 2 -car garages and 2 -space driveways. Ms. Laura Neumeyer of 30 Taylor Drive explained that she and her husband have two parking spaces. Their outdoor space is 8' wide and they drive a Prius. The two neighboring spaces are taken by crossover SUVs, and no one can get out of their cars. She questioned how a resident who drives an SUV would be able to exit the vehicle safely with groceries or children. She said that the stand alone garage spaces are not deeded with the units but cost $49,500 per space. Mr. Safina asked if a resident could buy three garage spaces. Mr. Moore gave a convoluted answer; every situation is different. Ms. Neumeyer said she was allotted Page 14 one surface space and purchased one surface.space. Mr. Moore clarified that everyone gets two parking spaces at no additional cost unless they have a one -bedroom unit. A resident of 39 Taylor Drive gave his opinion that there is not enough visitor parking throughout the complex. Mr. Safina requested that the parking plan include visitor parking spaces. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the application to January Sth at'8:3O PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Mr. Safina requested the parking plan in advance of the January 81h meeting. Ms: Hitch requested a copy of 2015.approved plan. Mr. Bergeron agreed to send Ms. Mercier electronic copies of the 2013 and 2015 approved plans. Continued Public Hearing, 4011 Plan Review . 14 Chapin Avenue.Leonard Polonski Leonard Polonski, Donnie Garrity, Attorney Brad- Latham and Steve Stapinski, P.. E. were . present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Donnie Garrity of O'Sullivan" -Architects. summarized the proposed changes to the design of the 4 -unit townhouse development. The building will be shifted 3' towards the abutting . business on the west side -and away from the residence on the east side of the property. The 3' shift will allow the driveway width to be widened so it is more functional. Mr. Garrity explained that the proposed building is sequentially stacked to match the grade change from the front'of the property to ,the rear. He stated that the layout of the townhouses is similar to'what was presented at the last meeting: tandem garages on the ground floor with an entry vestibule leading to the first living level; the second living level will have two-. bedrooms and two baths with a finished bonus- space in -the attic level. He noted that some .of the floor -to -floor height was removed, and the pitch of -the building. was made shallower, so the building now meets the height requirement. The gable dormers were removed and the building complies with the,2:1 setback ratio. The majority of the architectural details and elements will remain to help break up the massing of the building: Mr. Garrity presented an elevation diagram showing'the proposed building. in the context of the existing. neighborhood:- as proposed, as allowed under. Chapter 40R; and" as a by -right Business B project. He explained that the building is somewhat transitional — it will be taller than the building across`Chapin Avenue, but shorter than the house at the rear, of the site. Mr. Garrity opined that the proposal •is. not fully taking advantage of what is a_Ilowed under the 40R bylaw and design guidelines. Mr. Safina commented that his issue is with the townhouse form; which does not quite work on the site. He.opined-that the plan could work if the units were staggered at an angle, with visitor parking on the right side, and room for tenant vehicles to swing into the garages. He noted that moving -the buildingto improve the driveway width, leaves the alley on the left side relatively useless. Furthermore, if a resident has to run inside; realistically he/she will either parkin the drive aisle or on the street. Mr. Weston said the tandem spaces and narrow driveway will not allow for functional circulation. Residents will have to jockey the,vehicles around, or find parking on the street. .Mr. Safina agreed, and suggested that they aim to fit four parallel parking spaces on the right side of the drive aisle with.angled units and an adequate turn radius. He noted -'that -it might be possible to achieve the same number of units and bedrooms with a different layout. Mr. Garrity noted that the trick will be backing out of the angled unit, -and asked if . two-way traffic is necessary. Mr. Latham asked if two parking.spaces could be. provided on the right rather than four. --This would aIlow'_turn-around for two units.- Mr. Garrity, said the. feedback received last time was to increase the -driveway width. Mr. Weston responded that the original .14' driveway did not work. The minimum for one- way.is'typically 18', and the proposal is now at 11.5' which could potentially work. Mr. Page 1 5 Garrity said the project is not intended for large vehicles. Mr.. Safina noted -that depending on tenants, there is the potential for 3 vehicles per..unit. Parking on the side would.allow residents to run into their units without blocking other vehicles. 'He. reiterated that the proposed townhouse proportions do not work on the site. Mr. Tuttle agreed that the proposed development is too tight, and that the site does not support four large 3 -.bedroom units with 3-1/2 bathrooms. Mr. Safina questioned why the Applicant is not proposing three 3 -bedroom units. Mr. D'Arezzo pointed out that Chapter 40R requires a minimum project size of 4 -units. Ms. Mercier said she would look into. whether a waiver could be granted to allow 3 units. Mr. Weston and Mr: Tuttle suggested . decreasing the square footage per unit. Mr. Garrity explained why he went with the design he proposed. Mr. Safina opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Frank Driscoll of 7 Ordway Terrace questioned who would buy a three story townhouse. He said the proposed townhouse, layout would not entice an elderly couple.. Mr. Will Finch of 51 Mill Street asked why the Applicant was not given this guidance at the previous meeting. He asked why the Applicant presented similar plans to last time. Ms. Kim Honetschlager of 51 Mill Street asked for clarification of whether a density waiver would be required or not. Mr.Weston explained the- DSGD bylaw requirements. Ms. Jill Mayberry of 16 Chapin. Avenue stated that the neighborhood has similar concerns as the Commission. She recapped the neighborhood's comments: Appreciate and accept the changes tothe new plan, but still oppose 4 -units; A 2 -unit structure would be more appropriate and help with the parking concern; • Concerned with traffic on the narrow street; • 8 parking spaces are not enough for the number of proposed. bedrooms; • A singleperson would not need a large unit; • The proposal should support multiple types of.residents; • The .driveway width of 17.5' does not allow room for backing out or turn -around; • Snow storage`in turn -around does not make sense; • Drainage design should account for snow melt and grading; • A bond for the hemlock trees on her property should be required; = • There are no HVAC drains in the garages; • Maintenance to .the porous driveway will be needed; • Construction vehicle parking should be worked out; • Request that construction hours start at 9:00 AM on'Saturdays; and • An 8' wooden fence would be desired over vinyl. Mr. Safina replied .that the fence can be worked out between the abutters, and he suggested that a vinyl fence made to look like,wood, such as at Calareso's, might be better. Mr. Ken Muise of 28 Chapin Avenue asked what will happen if a resident uses their garage for storage instead of parking. Mr. Safina replied that living arrangements in a single-family home are different than condominium living. The condominium documents could address this concern. . Mr. Safina added that the condominium documents will also address who is responsible for maintaining the porous pavement, with the Town Engineer's approval. Mr. Latham agreed. Mr. Phil Leblanc of 14 Gardner Road stated that the plan erroneously shows Chapin Avenue as 40' wide. Mr. Safina explained that the right-of-way width includes.the sidewalk and tree lawn, as well as the paved area. Mr. Garrity asked if the Commission,is.requiring two. or more parking spaces per unit..Mr. Weston said.the requirement is technically 1.25 parking spaces per unit, but that it really Page 1 6 depends on what they think the market will support. He noted that visitor parking spaces will be important. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public meeting to January 22nd at 8:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Public Hearing, 4O111 Plan Review 467 Main Street (former Sunoco station), Boghos Properties LLC Attorney Brian McGrail, Ray;Boghos, Rob Del Savio, Sarah Rinehart, Dave Giangrande and Tom Bertulis were present on behalf of the Application. Mr.'Weston read the legal notice into the record. Attorney Brian McGrail introduced the. Development Team: Ray Boghos, developer; David Giangrande and Tom Bertulis of Design Consultants Inc.;. and Rob Del Savio and Sarah Rinehart of EMBARC Studio. Mr. McGrail gave an overview of the project. The Applicant is proposing a 4 -story mixed-use building under the Downtown Smart Growth 40R Overlay District zoning. The project will include 30 residential units and approximately 2,500 square feet of commercial space. Eight of the units will be affordable, with a percentage that will be local preference. Mr. McGrail explained that the 18,063 square foot property currently contains a one-story gas station and automobile repair shop. The development team has met with the Town on more than one occasion, and held a neighborhood meeting on the site to obtain feedback on the project. He noted that the original plans have changed slightly due to feedback from the Town. He concluded that the proposed project is an improvement to the existing site and that the change of use will be a positive for residents and the Town. Mr. Ray Boghos provided an overview of how his team approached the development. They contacted town staff, reviewed the zoning, and read through minutes and decisions from other approved 40R developments. Mr. Boghos'described the changes made to the plans based on feedback received from the Town and abutters: • Building was stepped back at the rear property line; • Rear and side balconies were removed; • Residential unit count was reduced by 12%; • Parking,entrance/exit was moved from Main Street to Green Street; • Retail frontage was extended along Main Street and increased to create a more prominent downtown presence; and • Garage clearance was increased to accommodate delivery and moving vehicles inside the garage rather than on the street. Mr. Rob Del Savio of EMBARC Studio oriented the Commission to the site, and presented. . street level views of the property. He described the layout of the building. The ground floor' will include 2,500 square feet of retail space facing. Main Street, with a small residential entryway at the southernmost corner. The parking garage will be behind the retail, and at grade level. Most of it will be covered by upper stories of the building, but some of it will be open. There is two-way access to the garage off of Green Street, and a one-way circulation loop throughout the garage which will ensure that vehicles do not.have to back out onto Green Street. There will be a total of 37. parking spaces which includes 15 compact spaces and 22 standard spaces. Mr.. Del Savio noted that a 15' rear yard setback will -be maintained to foster privacy for the abutting residential use, even though the abutting property is commercially zoned. The typical residential level will consist of a double loaded corridor. There will be a total of 30 residential units with 20 2 -bedroom units and 10 1 -bedroom units. Mr. Del Savio presented the fourth floor plan,'and noted the 5' step, back off of Main Street and the. 23.5' setback from the _rear property line. The fourth floor layout includes a community space along with residential units: - Page 1 7 Mr. Del Savio described the roof plan, which will include a roof deck, elevator and egress stairs, and mechanical units. The equipment will be screened from abutters by a'4' wall. The roof deck will be at the front of the roof towards Main Street and will be available via FOB access to residents. Mr. Del Savio presented two sections through the building to demonstrate building step backs. On the Main Street facade, the required step backs will be at the 2nd and 4th levels. On the rear fagade, the 3rd level is stepped back substantially so that the building meets the 2:1 ratio in the Design Guidelines. Mr. Del Savio provided renderings and perspectives. The brick building material and detail along MainStreet was inspired by the MF Charles Building. Depending on the market and leasing, the retail entrances along Main Street can be for one business or three. The rhythm of the three sections helps break up the massing of the 175' long building.facade. The space could be utilized by a restaurant or cafe with outside seating on the sidewalk. The front residential entrance is proposed at the southern end of the building, and is differentiated visually from the commercial spaces by changes in materials and detailing. Along the front, the whole building is setback 5' from the brick plane. Mr. Del Savio concluded by presenting views of how the proposed building will appear from Main Street, and from the sides and rear. Mr. David Giangrande, P.E. of Design Consultants Inc. described the existing and proposed water, sewer, gas, electrical, telephone and drainage utilities on the site. He stated that the existing site drains towards Main Street. The proposed drainage design will funnel runoff within the building envelope into catch basins, and filter it through an oil/gas separator before it flows into the sewer pipes. The building itself will have roof drains that will direct flow to the aquifer via an infiltration. system. Runoff from the portion of the parking lot.that extends beyond the building will collect in a catch basin with a particle separator. Studies of the 5, 10, 25, and 100 -year storms. demonstrated a reduction in the rate and volume of runoff from the proposed design. Mr. Giangrande explained that domestic Water, fire service and communications will be off of Green Street. Gas, sewer and drainage will be tied into Main Street. He stated that the team has discussed the transformer pad location with the RMLD. Mr. Giangrande noted that the"existing curb cut along Main Street will be closed, which will enable a continuous sidewalk. The sidewalk is proposed to be widened so that it goes right up to the building edge. A street pole and tree will likely need to be relocated to allow the two on -street parking spaces proposed. on Main Street. He opined that on -street parking helps patrons identify that they are approaching a downtown area. The State-owned portion of Main Street ends at the railroad tracks, and on -street parking has been allowed along the Town -owned portion in other locations by the Town. Mr. Tom Bertulis, Traffic Engineer of Design Consultants Inc., presented the results of the Traffic Study. He noted that he used a similar format to the recently approved Gould Street 40R project, specifically that the MassDOT Guidelines were followed for the traffic analysis but that at the request of the Town the model is conservative. The intersections studied were Main/Green, Main/Washington and Green/Elliott. The Trip Generation analysis does not take credit for the existing trips generated by the gas station and assumes no one is using public transit. He assumed a 1% annual growth rate, and did not adjust the model for the season. The results revealed 36 AM and 34 PM peak hour trips, which is equivalent to 1 trip every 2 minutes. Mr. Bertulis opined that the development will not have a significant impact on existing traffic conditions in the area. Mr. Weston commented that the split distribution does not feel right to him given that it shows a high percentage of vehicles turning right onto Green Street instead of going out to Main Street. He expressed concerns with the turning movements in and out of Green Street, Page 1 8 which currently are very difficult. Mr. Bertullis replied that the MassDOT Guidelines were followed for the model, and that the split distribution was based on existing data. Turns and congestion were looked at and no changes to the Level of Service (LOS) were found. Mr. Weston opined that 80% of the vehicles will turn towards MainStreet and 20% will go right. Ms. Hitch added that the left off of Green Street onto Main Street is very challenging. Mr. Bertulis said that people will wait, but the LOS will not be degraded. Mr. Weston described how different sections of Main Street are impacted by the traffic at peak hours. Ms. Mercier commented that people will naturally seek an alternative route if traffic is backed up. Mr. Tuttle commented.that the traffic is hard to deal with in this area. . Mr. Safina asked the Commission what other information should be requested.to help them understand the traffic impacts. Mr. Weston requested that the analysis assume 100% of vehicles will turn left out of the exit onto Green Street to reveal the sensitivity of the Green/. Main intersection. He also requested that the model assume vehicles will try to turn left onto Main Street in the AM, and left off of Main Street onto Green Street in the PM. Mr. Tuttle suggested a "No Left Turn"sign at the development exit onto. Green Street during certain times of the day. Ms. Hitch questioned whether the report accounts for how much the retail space will impact the traffic condition. Mr. Bertulis pointed out the location in the report that is dedicated to the retail trips. Mr. D'Arezzo asked what the distance is from Main Street to the .Green Street garage door, noting that cars will Likely be stacked. Ms. Mercier replied that it is 46', which will require approval from the Board of Selectmen, as it is less than the required 50'. Ms. Hitch asked if more parking spaces can be added along MainStreet. Mr. Giangrande noted that three spaces would be desirable but the location of the existing transformer vault may preclude this. Mr. Weston asked whether MassDOT would have to get involved, as the proposed parking spaces appear too close to the corner and may require that vehicles pull into the intersection in order to park. Mr. Giangrande reiterated that this section of Main Street is Town -owned, but agreed that a 20' clearance from the crosswalk would be required. He noted that all the parking spaces may need to be moved southward to create a safe crossing environment. Mr. Safina suggested adding that the Applicant shall provide `up. to three on -street parking spaces' to the Decision. Ms. Mercier agreed and noted that the PTTTF and BOS would need to review and approve the proposal. Mr. Tuttle inquired about the environmental remediation needed to convert a gas station with underground storage tanks to residential use. Mr. McGrail replied that they have hired a Licensed Site Professional (LSP), and that extensive environmental studies have been performed to -date for the site. He said that all underground tanks will be removed and. replaced with fill, and that he is comfortable there are no issues. Mr. Boghos added that Sunoco was required to put in double vault tanks about 7 years ago, and that a certain amount of remediation was required at that time. Mr. McGrail noted that it is the seller's obligation to remove the tanks. Mr. Safina opined that the proposed architectural details help soften the. building, and commented that the rendering is well done. He requested that the articulated coping be extended to the sides and rear.of the building. He noted that smooth face CMU is not acceptable. Mr. Del Savio clarified that ground face CMU is actually. proposed. Mr. Safina asked how snow will be removed from the open parking areas. Mr. Boghos replied that there are two on-site areas where snow can. be stored, and that snow will be removed by the management company in the event of a substantial storm. Mr. Weston requested a snow management plan with specific details. . Mr. Weston stated that a parking ratio.of 1.25 spaces per unit will need to be achieved, and that the percentage of compact spaces should be reduced to closer to 30%. Page 1 9 Mr. Safina noted that balconies were required to be removed on the Gould Street project of the direct residential abutters. For this project, he suggested adding balconies back to the. south fagade, and to the recessed portions of the front and rear fagades. He noted that amenities add to the value of units which enhances marketability. Mr. Boghos agreed that outdoor space is important. Mr. Safina pointed out where the balconies will be acceptable and will not impact the residential neighbors. Mr. Safina suggested that the top story be of a slightly darker color in order to break up the massing and appearance, and that brick be added to the projecting bay on the north facade. Mr. Tuttle pointed out that the remote control garage door will constrain the timing of the residents entering and exiting the building. Mr. Del Savio explained that the controlled door isfor safety reasons, and that the transponders in the residents' vehicles will be triggered automatically from some distance away, similar to an EZ Pass. Mr. Weston said this will need to be monitored as it could lead to cars stacking along Green Street onto Main Street. Mr. Weston pointed out that most people will not actually view the building from Main Street, but rather from the north side as they drive south on Main Street. Ms. Goncalves-Dolan asked about the height of the garage door. Mr. Del Savio replied that there is a 10' clearance. Mr. Weston asked if, at only 20' deep, the retail space will be useful. He questioned what type of retailer would lease a space with no storage or back room space. Mr. Boghos replied that for many retailers 15' is the minimum depth requirement, and opined that many retail spaces are smaller than they appear. -He noted that coffee shops, package delivery stores, wireless stores, and some fast food chains such as Chipotle can utilize this size space. Mr. Weston stated that given the location, potential retailers will not be able to rely on foot or vehicular traffic. Mr.. Boghos clarified that his team is looking at retail or restaurant tenants, and is not interested in office tenants, but he noted the difficulty in attracting tenants prior, to gaining project approval. Mr..D'Arezzo asked if venting would be available for a restaurant use. Mr. Boghos said the garage was raised to allow for venting through the roof so the space will not be limited to a certain type of business. Mr. Weston said that the mechanical chase should be indicated on the plans. Mr. Weston asked where the trash facilities were relocated, since they were removed from the garage. Mr. Del Savio indicated the location on the 2nd floor, and explained that the property management company will be responsible for taking it down and out to the street the morning of pick up. Ms. Goncalves-Dolan asked if management would be on-site. Mr. Boghos replied that this still needs to be worked out, but that management will be on-site or nearby. Ms. Goncalves- Dolan asked how the roof deck will be managed. Mr. Boghos replied that a FOB system will be used. Mr. Safina opened the meeting to public comment. Ms. Patty Cushing of 59 Green Street asked if the development was going to include the property she currently rents with her family. Mr. Boghos responded in the negative. Ms. Cushing stated that in her experience Green Street can back up 6-8 car lengths when vehicles are unable to make a left onto Main Street. She noted that such a condition will mean that cars will block the garage exit and prevent people from pulling out. She added that turning left onto Green Street is very difficult. Mr. Weston asked Ms. Cushing how she manages_to make the left turn. Ms. Cushing responded that she just goes for it, and that Page 1 10 the whole intersection is very dangerous for both cars and pedestrians. She opined that a traffic light would improve the situation. Mr. Phil LeBlanc of 14 Gardner Road asked if the traffic study accounts for a majority of people using the train or bus. Mr. Safina explained that the Town requested the analysis be conservative and assume all people are driving in order to understand the impacts of the maximum amount of stress on the system. Mr. Weston cited that approximately 12% of residents will ride the commuter rail or use public transit. Mr. Boghos noted that Reading Station has the highest boarding percentage along the Haverhill Line. He also stated that - the split between northbound and southbound riders is almost even. Mr. Bertulis clarified that the Traffic Study assumes 65% of cars turn left onto Green Street. Ms. Mercier asked what the current Level of Service is. Mr. Bertulis said the LOS letter grade is currently an "F"; so running the study assuming 100% left turns will not reveal anything. Mr. Weston stated that there is no easy fix that this project can make to rectify an existing broken system. He noted his concerns are more about safety than fixing the traffic flow. Mr. Barry Berman, a member of the Board of Selectmen, asked whether any of the 37 parking spaces will be dedicated to the retail use. Mr. Boghos responded that no spaces are currently dedicated to the retail use, but that his team may propose allowing some to be used for retail when residents are at work during the day.- a 'reverse commute' scenario. Mr. Berman asked what would happen with parking on the weekend, and stated that if the Applicant is seeking active retail that some residential units should be removed and parking spaces added. Mr. Boghos said he was under the impression that the Town wanted retail or restaurant uses, which do not require parking under the.bylaw. Mr. Weston stated that the Applicant should determine the quantity of parking.spaces that the business uses will require and try to make it work on the site. The primary message is that the Town does not want an empty storefront. Ms. Mercier reminded the Applicant that the bylaw limits the amount of square footage dedicated to office use on the ground floor. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public meeting to January 8th at 9:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Ms. Hitch and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Ms. Hitch left the meeting. Planning Updates and Other Tonics Ms. Mercier requested the Commission to endorse forms for the "Barton Estates" and "Randall Road Extension" subdivisions. Form H: Covenant, Form K• Three Party Agreement, and Lot Release - 'Barton Estates' subdivision Mr. Tuttle made a motion to endorse the Form H, Form K and Lot Release request for the 'Barton Estates'subdivision. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina- and approved with a 5- 0-0 vote. Form K: Three Party Agreement, and Lot Release - `Randall Road Extension' subdivision Mr. Tuttle made a motion to endorse the Form K and Lot Release request for the -'Randall Road Extension'subdivision. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. 2018 Meeting Schedule Ms. Mercier reviewed the 2018 Meeting Schedule. She informed the Commission she will be out of the office during the summer. There will be one scheduled meeting a month, a second meeting can be added if required. Page 1 11 Mr. D'Arezzo questioned if staff will have the capacity to meet state mandated timelines for applications. Ms. Mercier indicated that it has never been a- problem when the office. has been short-staffed in the past. Potential ZBL Amendments: Industrial District regulations Discussion of the potential ZBL Amendments was tabled until the next meeting. Minutes of November 6, 2017 Approval of the CPDC Minutes of November 6, 2017 was tabled until the next meeting. Minutes of September 11, 2017 - Revision The revision to the CPDC Minutes of September 11, 2017 was tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote, Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda 12/11/17 2018 Meeting Schedule Form H, Form K & Lot Release - 'Barton Estates' Subdivision Form K & Lot. Release - 'Randall Road Extension' Subdivision Johnson Woods - Minor Amendment a) Meeting Notice b) Application Package for White Oaks Lane c) Parking Memo d) Key Plan from 2015. e) -Aerial of 39 Taylor Parking Lot f) Draft Decision - 12/11/17 14 Chapin Avenue - 40R Development a) Revised Civil & Architectural Plans - 10/13/17 and 11/28/17 b) Summary of Changes c) Test Pit Logs d) Memo from Town Engineer - 12/5/17 e) Letter from' Residents - 12/6/17 f) Site Sections - submitted 12/11/17 g) Draft Decision - 12/11/17 467 Main Street - 40R Development a) Legal Notice b) Application c) Architectural Plans d) Development Plans e) Landscape Plans . f) Traffic Study g) Stormwater Report h) Memo from Town Engineer - 12/6/17 i) Draft Decision - 12/11/17 j) Presentation at 12/11/17 Meeting Page 1 12