Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-06 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesTown of Reading Ct1 t��: WMeeting Minutes TVN' CLK'. n � U D NG. "l,'ASS Board - Committee -.Commission - Council: Zits JAN -cj P j S5'1 Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2017-11-06 . 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, Paul McGonagle, Drew Garvin, Pam Adrian, Virginia Adams, Sarah Brukilacchio, Dennis and Mary Dora'ndi'Kerry Grant, James and Kristin Bonazoli, James Murphy, Karen Rose -Gillis, Wade and Lorraine Willwerth, Jeanne Gibson Sullivan, Donna Morin, Eileen Twicheil, Jane Wandel, Michelle and Thomas Hennings, Wayne Dwyer, Heather McLean, Lenk Nicholls, John Cain, Rick Wetzler, David Traggorth, Dan .Hubbard Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Topics of Discussion: Chairman Nick Safina called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. - Continued Public Hea'rino, 40111 Plan Review 14 Chapin Avenue, Leonard Polonski There was no one present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Safina read the request from Attorney O.. Bradley Latham, on behalf of the Applicant Leonard Polonski, to continue the 4011 Plan Review for 14 Chapin Avenue to December 11,_ 2017 and to grant the Commission a 35 -day extension of time. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing to Monday, December 11, 2017 at 8:00 PM, and to accept the 357day extension of time. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. . Mr. Safina made a ,general comment that if an Applicant. requests a continuance, then the Applicant may, be required -to, consider their project in relation to.the cumulative impacts of other projects that are approved in -the interim. Page 1 1 Plannina Updates and Other Topics Endorsement of Definitive Subdivision Plan, 48-54 Franklin. Street Mr. Tuttle made a motion to endorse -the Definitive Subdivision Plan for 48-54 Franklin Street." The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. " -.Mr. Safina, Mr. Tuttle and Mr. Weston signed the plans. Release of Surety Performance Bond, Reading Woods The Commission reviewed the request from Reading Woods to release the Surety Performance Bond. Mr. Safina asked if the project is complete, and if the entire Bond is being released. Ms. Mercier replied_ that Town staff raised no concerns with releasing the. Bond, and that the final occupancy for. the project was issued in August. Ms.-Delios confirmed that the project was completed a couple years earlier than anticipated. Mr. Tuttle made a -motion to -approve the release of the Surety Performance Bond for Reading Woods. The motion was seconded' by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a 5-- 0-0 vote. Request for Site Plan Extension, 258-262 Main Street Ms. Mercier informed the Commission that the Site Plan approval for 258-262 Main Street will expire on.January 12, 2018, and the Applicant is requesting a one-year extension. She noted that the Applicant has expressed interest in seeking; aMinor Modification in January for changes to the retaining walls and site drainage. Ms. GoncaIves- Dolan. commented that the Applicant should be required to maintain the site before the extension is granted. Ms. Mercier replied that the owner of the property has been notified many times about the vacant property bylaw, and that it can be discussed when the Applicant comes in for the Minor. -Modification. Ms.Delios stated that the one building being demolished was a positive..step, and added that the Building Commissioner has been in contact with the owner in regasrdto maintaining the property. Mr. Tuttle made a motion'to extend the Site Plan approval -to January 12, 2019. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 15-0=0 vote.. Potential ZBL Amendments: Industrial District reaulations Ms. Mercier presented potential Zoning Bylaw amendments to the Industrial District regulations, which focus mainly on the intensity regulations and setbacks..She said that her guiding principal with regards to the amendments was to help promote more development in what is; currently a fairly restricted industrial area. Ms. Mercier added that the premise was to target the Priority Development Areas to promote future economic development. Mr. Mercier noted that Mr. D'Arezzo provided feedback on the potential amendments, which .are reflected in the track changes. She displayed this document on the screen. . Mr. Weston said he agreed with the premise, and noted that the existing zoning regulations in the Industrial District go a long way to protect residential abutters. However, the existing uses in the Industrial District are barely industrial, as the nature of industry has changed. Ms: Mercier. noted that she did not tackle the Table of Uses this time, but that it probably should be looked at in the near future. She also mentioned that she tried to address the lots off of Ash Street that are landlocked and entirely surrounded by other Industrial lots. The Commission discussed some of the potential amendments and the feedback from Mr. D'Arezzo. Mr. D'Arezzo opined that the Town hastwo areas: the. homes that are built on larger lots outside of downtown, and anything built within'a mile. of downtown. After a brief. discussion, Ms. Mercier recommended a working group to continue the exploration. Mr. D'Areizo volunteered. for the working group, and the Commission agreed. Page 1 2 .Minutes of October 2. 2017 & October.16, 2017 Mr. Tuttle made a motion to accept the October 2, 2017 minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Ms. Goncalves-Dolan and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to accept the October 16, .2017 minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a. 5 -0 -Or vote. Mr. Safina asked why the date isnot reflected at the bottom of the draft minutes document. Ms. Mercier explained that the minutes are formatted according to the Town Clerk's template. Other Tooics Ms: Mercier noted that there has been no recent communication from Perfecto's Cafe - regarding a final building, inspection and occupancy. Ms.. Hitch confirmed that renovations at Burger King have commenced. Public Hearing, Site Plan Review 230 (aka 218) Ash'Street, Reading Municival Light Department Paul McGonagle and Drew Garvin were present on behalf of the Application Mr. Weston read the legal notice into the record. Mr. Drew Garvin of Meridian Associates introduced Paul McGonagle, Facilities Manager of the RMLD. He informed the Commission that since the original submission and meeting with the Town's Development Review Team; the scope of the.project and the plans have changed. He noted that Ms.- Mercier suggested he discuss the proposed changes with the Commission to get feedback before submitting an entirely redesigned plan. He handed out copies of the revised layout to the Commission members. Mr. Garvin gave a brief overview of the property, which includes the main office located at 230 Ash Street, parking for employees and customers, and an abandoned old substation. He said the main goal of the project is to add electric vehicle charging stations, which will'be available -to the public. In addition, angled parking 'is proposed to improve the flow of'traffic through the site, and stormwater runoff for the entire parking lot will be mitigated through drainage improvements. The project will include native grasses along the site frontage, and removable bollards in front of the unused loading area. One charging station will be installed immediately and two additional. will be installed in the future. Each station will accommodate two parking spaces. He explained that there are light poles along Ash Street that illuminate the property; and that the charging stations will have lit screens, but that no new lighting proposed. He noted that.the charging stations will be available to the public,.and can be used at night. Mr. Tuttle asked for clarification on the infiltration system'. Mr. Weston explained that the drainage system does not exist currently, and that the current proposal is different than what was originally proposed. Mr. Garvin noted that the Town Engineer has not reviewed the revised stormwater design. Mr. Safina requested that. a couple of street trees be planted along Ash Street. Ms. Delios suggested trees similar to the ones planted at the Linear property at 355 Main Street. Mr. Weston opined that the recent submission is an improvement over the original, but he pointed"out that headlights will aim directly at the residences across Ash Street. He asked the Applicant to plant low shrubs to block headlights. Mr. Tuttle commented that the grade is slightly raised on the other side of Ash Street. Ms. Delios asked how the removable bollards will function. Mr. Garvin replied that the bollards can be removed if the loading dock becomes operable, or if the area needs to be used for'some-other purpose. The type of bollard has not been finalized. Page 13 Ms. Delios questioned whether there would be a water source for the plantings. Mr. Garvin replied that there is an existing underground irrigation system that,will be extended. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that the proposed Level II charging station is a prior generation, and asked why DC Fast Charge is not proposed. Mr. McGonagle explained that the grant award only allows for specific stations, due to cost.. Mr. Safina requested that appropriate conduit be installed so it can be adapted to new technologies. Mr. McGonagle agreed to submit details on the charging stations, and to prepare the conduit for future technologies. Mr. Safina opened the meeting to public comment. Ms. Virginia Adams of 59 Azalea Circle said she is a member of the Historical Commission but is not speaking on behalf of the Commission. She stated that the abandoned substation building is -on the National Register of Historic Places. She opined that the proposed angled parking in front of the building could lead to building damage if someone drives a car into it. She requested stronger bollards or devices be considered along the front of the building. Mr. Safina replied that the angled parking is approximately 20' from the,building, and the bollards are designed tostop a vehicle. Mr. Weston agreed that her concern should be kept in mind and suggested the Applicant install curb or wheel stops with a graded buffer. Mr. Tuttle made a motion to continue the public hearing to January 8, 2017 at 7:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Continued Public Hearing, 40111 Plan Review 20-24 Gould Street, Traaaorth Comnanies LLC David Traggorth, Andrew Consigli, James Murphy, Dan Hubbard and Jeff Olinger were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Traggorth presented updates since the last meeting: the building design was modified to include a mansard roof on the 4th floor with chamfering; the corner on Gould Street was softened; the parking ratio was increased to 1.25 spaces per unit or 69 garage parking spaces for 55 units; the compact parking space size was enlarged and the compact space ratio reduced to 30%; and the rear setback on the 4th floor was increased an additional 5'. He showed the Commission revised perspectives from the abutting properties on Green Street. Mr. Safina asked whether the abutters had seen the revised perspectives. Many of. them had.not. Mr. Traggorth noted that his team has done a lot of outreach during the process, and that they have tried to balance the needs of the residents, the Town, staff, and the feasibility of the project. He' noted that the building has changed a lot, and that many concessions have been made to the neighbors. He urged the Commission to approve the 40R Plan tonight to, allow the project to move forward: Mr. Tuttle commended the revised plan and stated that he had no questions or comments. Mr. Weston asked for clarification on the changes to the ground floor spaces. Mr. Traggorth explained that the spaces have been condensed, but that the ground floor building setbacks. have not changed. He explained the changes.to the mechanical, management, trash and retail spaces, and pointed out an exit only area at the retail level. Mr. Safina asked if the corner of the retail facade will be glass, and suggested they salvage brick and tile from the existing building and incorporate .it into the exhibit.space. Mr. Traggorth confirmed the -use of glass for the retail space, and said they will continue refining the exhibit space with the Historical Commission. Mr. Consigli explained the materials that will be used on the facades of the building. Brick will be used on the upper levels with sandstone on the ground level along Gould Street. The mansard level will be composite slate to resemble historic/traditional materials. Cast stone spandrel and different types of brick will be used to emphasize building transitions. These Page 14 materials will be carried around the sides of the building. At the rear, facing Green Street, HardiePlank will be used on the top level to give the building more of a residential feel. Mr. Tuttle suggested the white art deco band on the existing EMARC building be mimicked in the signage design for the new building. Mr. Consigli agreed to use the detail, but withnew materials. Mr. Safina noted that based on the elevations, a waiver will be needed for the portion of the fagade that does not meet the design standards. He asked about the angle of the mansard. Mr. Consigli replied that it will be consistent with traditional New England mansard design. Mr. Olinger explained that it will be stepped back 2', and that the cornice line at the 4th floor should help with the transition. Mr. Safina cautioned the Applicant to beware of creating a 'heavy hat' look, and to make sure that the actual building details, once constructed, look like what has been presented, especially on the 4th floor. Ms. Hitch said she had no comments. Mr. Safina read an email recently received by the Fire Chief, noting concerns with the width of Gould Street and the ability for. the Fire Department to set up apparatus if both sides of the road have vehicles parked along them. Mr. Safina noted that the proposed plan does not change the width of Gould Street, and stated that these concerns can be addressed -through the Town's internal PTTTF process, with final approval of any changes in the right-of-way by the Board of Selectmen. Ms. Mercier explained the Parking Traffic Transportation Task Force (PTTTF) and the BOS process for matters like this. Mr. Safina informed the Applicant that approval of a Master Signage Plan will be needed at some point prior to the installation of any signage. Mr. Safina asked if an agreement has been reached with the abutters on the material of the rear wall. Mr. Traggorth replied that no agreement has been reached yet, but they are happy to defer to what the neighbors want. He stated that the abutters can -use the space between the wall and their properties. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the wall can be maintained without going onto adjacent properties. Mr. Traggorth explained that any plantings will be low maintenance, and that they will come to an agreement with the neighbors about how to maintain the area. Mr. Safina noted that past hearings have gotten a bit out of hand, and he read the CPDC's Ground Rules for public input during public hearings. Ms. Pam Adrian of 87 Ash Street, spokesperson for the Green Gould Neighborhood Alliance, stated that the original concerns presented by the Alliance were reviewed, and that it has been noted that the CPDC has failed to meet the smart growth bylaw criteria for approving this project in its current state. She opined that the following concerns have not been resolved: parking, height,density, setbacks, trees, quality of life, traffic, pollution, safety and fire. Ms. Adrian said the project in its current state should be denied. She concluded by stating that CPDC powers should not trump the will of the people. Mr. Safina questioned where in .the guidelines it says a 45' high building is not allowed. Ms. Adrian said it does not fit in with the surrounding structures. Ms. Mercier said the 45'. height provision is in the Zoning Bylaw. Ms. Adrian said -the height is the major issue with the abutters, everything else has been improved. Mr. Weston expressed that a number of the members have been on the Commission fora long time, and that they do not review projects in comparison to what is existing, but rather, in comparison to what is possible. He stated that what is there will most certainly change; the existing building will be demolished and a new building will be erected. He said the Commission has to consider what is likely to be proposed if they deny this project. He noted that housing is hot right now, so it's likely to be another housing development, Page 1 5 potentially even a 40B. Housing developments are happening allaover the area because the land is very valuable. He concluded by saying that property in downtown Reading is half an hour from Kendall Square, which has the most expensive land in the country right now. Mr. Safina said he has given thought to the ground -level rear yard setback. He commented that if the historic building had to remain, the existing wall would remain on the property line. He noted that the existing wall predates all'abutters. Mr....Safina also noted that the Applicant.can install a fence right up to the property line, but that a fence will not provide noise privacy. The proposed ,wall will be. set back, will be lower than the existing wall, will be better quality, and will provide privacy at grade level. He reviewed the setback percentages: 34% of the rear of the building is more than 15' from abutters; 65% is 40' from abutters;- and. 47% is 60' from abutters. He noted. that from the back, with a view of the courtyard, the building replicates,the development pattern in the neighborhood: building - open yard building. Mr. Safina mentioned Ms.. Adrian's "will of the people" comment,. and asked who the people are - the abutters, or the whole town. He noted that each neighborhood takes an impact from development -.nearby, and that the Commission is not ignoring what the Town wants. Mr. Safina commented that the issue with tree removal was discussed and resolved at the last hearing. Mr. Traggorth agreed _that an arborist will be hired to get an opinion on what trees:can be saved. Mr.. Safina addressedthecomment about density. He explained that.20 units per acre is the State minimum for a 40R District, and that keeping our regulation at the minimum means that all projects that exceed it have.to seek approval: The 40R District was put in place as a development alternative in an effort to protect neighborhoods from unwanted and largely uncontrollable 40B.projects, such as the 40B project on Lincoln Street by the Depot. Under. Chapter 40R, towns have a lot more control over projects. Mr. Safina said concerns with safety and fire will be 'reviewed by Town staff, as described earlier.. Mr. James Bonazoli of 100 Grove Street complimented the design and development. He'said that when he was on the board of Selectmen the 40R was discussed as ;a way to combat 40B developments..The intent of the 40R is to create housing downtown by the commuter rail. He. said the density of the project is a concern; the character of a neighborhood needs to be maintained. The Commission needs to consider whether a waiver for density should be granted: Mr. Bonazo.li also opined that the.parking appears to be too much in'too little of a space. He added that a 3 -story.. building with 45-50 units will.improve the parking ratio in the. garage. Mr. Tuttle noted that parking issues always -come up. He. said that the aisle width on the plan appears fine, and that 69 parking spaces are sufficient to meet the bylaw.. requirement. He opined that the Arive aisles are designed appropriately. He pointed out that the MF - Charles. building on Haven and Main appears larger because of the grade; and that the proposed building is large but is not out of scale. He complimented the project.and said it is a good project.in a good place. Ms. Mercier commented that the Town Engineer reviewed the revised .parking layout and said that the turning movements are acceptable. Mr..Bonazoli asked if the 19' aisle width is less than the requirement. Ms. Mercier said it is allowed because the.circulation is one-way. Mr.. Tuttle said that 26'. is for two-way circulation-.. Mr. Weston noted that 4 -story residential buildings are common .on constrained sites where the parking has to be located on the ground levet. He said that 3 -story buildings are not.,, viable in. urban environments close to.the commuter rail due to land costs. To get a, return on investment, a certain level of density is necessary. He said that whether a developer Page 1 6 makes money is not ultimately a concern of the Commission. but.the Commission does want projects to be viable so that 40B developments are not proposed as an alternative. Mr. Wade Willwerth of 26 Green Street commented that parking is driving the size. of the project. He noted that the Green Gould Neighborhood Alliance has done a lot of research, and he made the following points: • The bylaw requires an 8'-6"x17'.parking space with a 26' aisle width. Itis difficult to park a vehicle in 19' aisle width; • The garage. entrance is 22' wide, not the required 26'; • There are only two handicap. spaces proposed, three are required per MAAB; • If a 26' aisle width is required, theremili be less parking spaces overall; • 'The developer and Town should come up with a plan that works for everyone; and • The exhibit room will require a bathroom on both floors. Mr. Willwerth stated that he understands that something will be built on the property, but it has to, be built legally, at the scale of the neighborhood, and.with:enough functional parking spaces. He questioned the statement that the 26' aisle width is for two-way circulation only, which isnot specified in the bylaw; Mr. Safina looked at the referenced section.of the bylaw; and noted that the dimensions are for an 'enclosed accessory structure.' Mr. Safina disagreed that the proposed parking garage is considered an enclosed accessory structure, because itis attached to the. building. Ms. Mercier added that parts of the -bylaw can be hard to interpret and are not always clear; but that the Town tries to improve the bylaws every year at Town Meeting. She said the Town Engineer has agreed on other Town projects that a 26' aisle.width is meant,for two-way circulation. Mr. Weston noted that even 26'• is wider than needed; 24' or 22' can suffice for two-way travel. He also noted that a typical one-way aisle is 18' wide. Mr. Olinger said that a one-way aisle width. often is defined by the angle of the parking spaces.. He added that if three handicap spaces are required, one can be added without a problem. Mr. Safina pointed out that the" Building Inspector will enforce the code. He also noted that reducing the number of residential units will not•necessarily ensure a smaller building. He agreed with Ms. Mercier's comment that zoning bylaws can be difficult to write and interpret. Mr. Bonazoli stated that the project is 20% too large. He said the Postmark project was required to maintain a 26' aisle width. Mr. Tuttle- pointed out that many streets in Town are less -than 26' wide. Mr. Safina reiterated his opinion that according to the definition, the parking garage should not be considered an enclosed accessory structure. Mr. John Arena of 26 Francis Drive, Chair of the Board of Selectmen, asked if markings on the plan in the'' parking garage are structural columns. Mr. Traggorth explained the, plan to Mr. Arena, Mr. Arena asked if there is a single point of failure in the garage, or if there is a second way for vehicles to exit the garage if a vehicle breaks down in front of the entrance. Mr. Olinger said that the entrance allows for two vehicles to simultaneously enter and. exit. Mr. Safina noted that the on-site manager will handle such situations. Mr. Arena commented that the proposal.would'be a better fit on Haven Street. He asked for the. unit count to be reduced to 50 in order to create the illusion of a 3 -story building. Mr. Traggorth replied that the prior design gave the illusion of a'3 -story building, but that the Commission and the neighbors asked for a redesign. Mr: Arena asked if the Fire Chief has reviewed the project and whether the Fire Department can access all sides of the building. Mr. Traggorth replied that the F'i're Chief attended. earlier staff meetings and made no comments. He noted that the building will have to meet NFPA requirements. Mr. Weston noted that this is the fourth public meeting for the project, and if the Fire Department has not had a chance to comment, there is a definite.communication breakdown_ . Ms. Mercier explained the Town process when a new development is proposed. She noted that three members of the Fire Department attend Development Review Team Page 1 7 (DRT) meetings, and provide comments both at the meetings and over email. She added that all plans and°draft decisions are forwarded to al.l DRT staff throughout the process. Mr. Safina stated that regardless the Applicant will be required to meet,code. Ms. Donna Morin of 10 Gould Street asked where visitors will park. Mr. Traggorth explained the 1.25 parking ratio will allow for visitor parking, and additional angled parking spaces are available along Gould Street. Mr. Barry Berman of 54 Longview Avenue, and a Selectman, suggested the Applicant charge lower rent if a tenant does not require a parking space. He asked the Applicant to reach out to nearby property owners to work on a shared..parking agreement. Mr. Traggorth replied that they are happy to decouple parking spaces from residential units, and that they have contacted nearby landlords already. He noted that most of his other.properties have ride share arrangements, Zip Car, EV charging stations, etc. Mr. Safina opined that residents of projects similar to this one, but without shared parking agreements, should not be allowed to .purchase parking stickers from the Town. Mr. Safina asked the.Applicant whether the renderings or elevations are more developed for approval. 'Mr.. Olinger replied. that the renderings are more complete at this time. Mr. Wayne Dwyer of 61 Ash Street stated that affordable housing is important to the. Town, and that more than 10% should be required. Ms: Mercier explained that 25% is the 40R minimum for a rental project, and stated that the project has the potential for up to 45% affordable units, and that all 55 residential units. will count toward the Subsidized Housing Inventory. Mr. Bonazoli asked for clarification on the difference between low income and affordable units. Ms. Delios explained that typically affordable housing means 80% of area median income, which is high in this area. Tenants have to be income qualified to ensure they make enough to pay the rent. Ms. Lorraine Willwerth of 26 Green Street asked if the wall will have windows or doors. Mr. Safina said that no intakes, exhaust or openings are allowed to penetrate the wall. Mr. Traggorth verified that the wall will not have louvers or doors. Ms. Willwerth suggested removing a level off the building to improve the parking ratio. Mr. Tuttle replied that doing that would render the project unviable. Mr. Rick Wetzler of 9 Gould Street complimented the changes made to the building since the original submission. He said there are still .outstanding concerns presented by the Alliance that should be addressed. He suggested removing some units on the top floor to keep a residential neighborhood scale. He stated that Reading should remain a town,' not a city. Mr. Traggorth responded that there has been a respectful dialogue, and. that his'team has worked in good faith with the abutters. He said the project has to balance all demands of smart -growth, the design guidelines, the conditions, and financial feasibility. He reminded everyone that the proposal does not require waivers for height or massing, and he stated that if the 4th floor is removed, the project will not happen. Mr. Willwerth opined that waivers are being requested because the proposal does not meet the specified criteria. He presented four reasons why the Commission 'd oes not have. to approve the project: density, handicap parking requirement, off-street loading, and tree removal.. Mr. Safina explained that waivers are an option so that projects can be balanced, and so that certain things, such as a high quality fagade, can be achieved. He noted that the Design Guidelines are expensive to follow, and the 40R waiver process allows control as well as negotiation. Mr. Weston said that the process is more flexible, and allows waivers for non -conformities rather than variances. Page 1 8 Mr. Willwerth said that if approved, the project will set a precedent. Mr. Safina disagreed, and explained the difference between a variance and a waiver. Under Chapter 40R, every project stands on its own merits. He explained that the Postmark site had more room, so a waiver was not required for.the parking layout: Mr. Weston pointed out that the Commission often grants relief for loading because they do not feel that every site needs its own loading area. He noted that the handicap space can be added, and that the on-site manager will be responsible for scheduling move -ins and deliveries. Mr. Arena noted that the loading zone at Reading Village was a major concern. He asked how tenants will be able to move in and out of the building. Mr. Traggorth explained that no trucks will be allowed to block Gould Street; the on-site manager will be responsible to make sure move -ins are conducted safely. The five angled parking spaces will be utilized for box trucks, and moving vans can easily fit into the garage. Ms. Mercier pointed out that the Reading Village 40B was reviewed 'by the Zoning Board, not the CPDC.- Mr. Greg Ryan of 594 Pearl Street asked if the tenants in the affordable units will be' allocated a parking space. Ms. Delios, Ms. Mercier and Mr. Safina all stated that none of the units will be automatically allocated a space, per an earlier statement by the Applicant. Mr. Weston further explained that'all tenants will be encouraged to utilize the MBTA, bus, or a shared car service. Ms. Dawn Greenwood of 142 Wakefield Street stated that Uber and Lyft will add additional Vehicles and bring strangers into Town. She added that Reading should not be considered urban. Ms. Jeanne Sullivan of 44 Blueberry Lane stated that Manhattan is urban. Ms. Willwerth questioned a statement made by Mr. John Halsey at a joint meeting held by the CPDC and BOS in January 2017. She asked for clarification of his statement that '40R can go away if it does not work.' Mr. Safina explained that the reality of housing laws in Massachusetts is very tough. He said that 40B developments are always looming, and can go anywhere. The Town's Housing Production Plan allows some reprieve from these types of developments. Ms. Willwerth asked about a plan for downtown that was recently posted on Facebook. Ms. Delios said that the Town has communicated with the entity to remove the post, as it was never endorsed by the Town. Mr. Willwerth stated he understands why 4 stories are needed, but asked that the Business B setback of 15' be required around the perimeter of the building. Mr. Safina explained that zoning district requirements cannot be mixed, Business B does not allow new residential. Mr. Traggorth added that under the 40R zoning, the 15' setback is only required where the lot abuts a residential zone, and that technically no setbacks are required for this project. He explained that at a neighborhood meeting, the abutters expressed concerns with noise from snow plowing and commercial trucks. The enclosed garage was proposed to mitigate this concern. Mr. Traggorth said a lot of changes were made to satisfy the neighborhood. Mr. Safina opined that Gould Street is downtown and the proposal is appropriate for the area. _ Mr. Dwyer stated that most tenants will use U -Hauls to move. Mr. Traggorth explained the short-term parking out front. Mr. Weston said the deliveries from a furniture store will not be able to be controlled. Mr. Safina said it is up to the PTTTF to determine how to mark the angled parking spaces along Gould Street. Ms. Jane Wandel of 71 Putnam Drive said there have been a number of comments about density, and wanted to assure all options have been considered. Ms. Adams of the Reading Historical Commission requested the most recent copy of the plans for an upcoming meeting. Ms. Mercier gave- her an extra copy. Page 1 9 Ms. Greenwood commented that increasing diversity is a positive for the Town; she clarified her earlier comment by saying that the project will not decrease vehicles because shared driving companies will replace resident vehicles. She said it is difficult for citizens to do their homework before a public hearing due to the Zoning Bylaws: not being easy to interpret. Mr. Weston opined that transportation trends are always changing, and that there is a good possibility that residents will not -require a parking space and'will utilize public transit instead of individual vehicles. Mr. Tuttle made a -motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved -with a 4-0-0 vote. The Decision and waivers were reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Traggorth said he had no concerns with the most recent Decision. Ms. Goncalves-Dolan questioned who should be responsible for removing snow from the sidewalk. Mr. Traggorth said that they will comply with Town policy. Ms. Mercier reminded Mr. Traggorth that the building materials still need to. be approved by the Commission, Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the Decision. ,The motion was seconded by Mr. Weston and approved with a 4-0-1 vote (Ms. Hitch abstained due to ineligibility to vote). Mr. Tuttle made a motion_ to adjourn the meeting at 11:45 PM. The motion was seconded.by Mr. Weston and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda 11/06/17 CPDC Minutes 10/02%17 CPDC Minutes 10/16/17 Continuance Request and Extension of Time, 14 Chapin Avenue Definitive Subdivision Plans, 48-54 Franklin Street Request for Release of Surety Performance Bond, Reading Woods Request for Site Plan Extension,. 258-262 Main Street Potential ZBL Amendments: Industrial District regulations Ground Rules for Public Hearings 230 (aka 218)'Ash Street, RMLD, Site Plan Review: a) Legal Notice b) Site Plan Application c) Site Plans - 10/25/17 d) Waiver List e) Stormwater Report f) 25 -year Storm Calcs g) Email from Town Engineer h) Draft Decision - 11/6/17 24 Gould Street 40R Plan Review: a) Revised Plans & Renderings — 10/30/17 b) Revised Green Street Perspectives - 11/6/17 c) Vehicle Turning Movements d) Dimensioned Elevations e) Revised Draft Decision - 11/6/17 f) Further Revised Draft Decision - 11/6/17 Page 1 10 J