Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-07-18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes "0 Town of Reading _ Meeting Minutes l;E: iV, ioard - Committee - Commission - Council: 2011 NOV -8 AM 10: 50 Zoning Board of Appeals - Date: 2018-07-18 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Public Library Location: Community Room Address: 64 Middlesex Avenue Session: Purpose: Public Hearing Version: Attendees: Members - Present: John Jarema Robert Redfern Cy Caouette Nick Pernice Erik Hagstrom Members - Not Present: Others Present: Kyle Tornow, Gail Toomajian, Barj Berman, Ken Toomajian, Penny LaShue, Paula Pelusl, Tony D'Arezzo, Kevin Cignetti, Tim Foley, Madly Foley, Ngawang Sandup, Jeff Palmer, Helen Le, Jeanne Snotgrass, David Griffin, Eleana Griffin, Ceilee Russe, Josh Pritz, Gina Dulong, Joyce Gould, Marilyn Powers, Susan Vlegas, Boriana Milenova, Brad Rhodes, ]is Krashenick, Deb Farnham, Sarah Lord, Jon Freeman, Edward Power, Cheryl Power, Chris Skeper, Paula Rocheleau, Lary Rocheleau, David Cannon, Roberta Moore, Diana LaVoucher, Christopher Vlullopoles Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover Topics of Discussion: Case 8 18-01—Eaton Lakeview 40B The Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a continuance of a Public Hearing in the Community Rooms at the Reading Public Library,64 Middlesex Avenue in Reading,Massachusetts on Wednesday July 18,2018 at 7:00 PM on the petition of Eaton Lakeview Development,LLC,who seeks a Comprehensive Permit to develop 120 units of rental housing on 4.33 acres of land that is partially in a residential zone and partially in an industrial zone under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B Sections 20-23,with waivers from zoning requirements,on the property comprising six tax parcels known as: 0 Lakeview Avenue(Map 17,Lot 131),0 Lakeview Avenue(Map 18,Lot 2),23-25 Lakeview Avenue(Map 18,Lot 1),0 Eaton Street(Map 17,Lot 274)9 0 Eaton Street(Map 17,Lot 275),and 128 Eaton Street(Map 17,Lot 276)in Reading,Massachusetts. Mr. Jarema called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Mr. Jarema read the continuance of the case into record. He then asked the Public how many of them attended the 5/2/18 meeting, and those that did raised their hands. Mr. Jarema explained the usual hearing procedure and how this evening it would be different in order to allow time for the major issues that need to be discussed to be heard and put on the record—the design changes and peer review in particular. The Board agreed to hear Public comment first this evening. Page 1 1 Ms. Milenova of Eaton Street addressed the collaboration efforts of the Applicants, staff and neighborhood. She noted how the previous meetings went well and thanked everyone for the patience and participation in shaping the project and commented on how pleased they are with the attention to their concerns and the consideration given. She stated they were pleased with the process regarding the traffic study and hopes that going forward it will continue to be a positive experience. Mr. Jarema explained that there was a lot of presentation to cover and although the library closes at 9,a slight extension was granted for the meeting and the Board needed to set up the date for the next meeting. He further explained the seriousness of the time limits to get all information into record and manage the calendar to accommodate time restraints for year end. Mr. Regnante-Attorney for the project-thanked Ms. Milenova and acknowledged her work and effort on behalf of the neighborhood. He noted the meetings were extremely productive and the suggestions from the neighborhood were excellent. He mentioned it has been a win/win for everyone and they look forward to working together to the end. Mr. Regnante elaborated on the changes made to the design of the project. He noted the breakdown of units and now townhouses and explained the reduction in number of units, mass, and height of the original design. He further explained what will remain as green space and the percentage of affordable units and ownership units. He commented that the traffic survey indicated the entrance was not a problem but they will make the entrance an"entrance only"and eliminate the exit from that area to avoid possible problems and to meet the cancems of the neighborhood. Mr. Sparages—Civil Engineer-discussed the site plan changes and details. He commented on the gradual transition in the neighborhood from single family homes to the proposed townhouses, then the low-rise building, followed by the mid-rise building. He commented on the traffic pattern changes and how they were a direct response to neighborhood comments,and although the traffic study indicated it was safe to exit at this location, they decided to limit access to make it an entrance only. He noted another change to the plan from neighborhood feedback pertaining to the location of the dumpster. He summarized the reduced number of units, reduction in height of the buildings, maintaining a 25fl no disturb for conservation standards and a 50ft setback for local conservation commission bylaws. He discussed stormwater and noted it was the same as the previous plan,water lines, sewer service, and updated landscaping, snow storage and lighting. He further discussed circular traffic patterns,the different parking layout—noting all spaces are on the surface to cut down on the height of the structures. He commented on the green space and how it can be used for additional parking if the Town deems it necessary in the future. Mr.Griven—Architect—reiterated the changes to the plan, highlighting the gradual increase from single family homes to the mid-rise building and the reduction in units and size. He noted the how the common area was placed in the middle of the building to keep residents pulled inward away from the street. Mr. Regnante stated what was discussed was basically the engineering and architectural review of the new plans. Mr. Jarema asked if the Applicants have gotten as far as determining which waivers they will be requesting. Mr. Regnante informed the Board they had not and could have that available for the next meeting. Mr. Redfern commented on the parking layout and commented on the absence of loading zones in particular for the larger buildings. Mr. Sparages stated they don't have a designated loading area because of reducing the plan and putting parking on the surface level instead of underneath. Mr. Redfern asked about aisle widths and if they could support 2-way traffic. Mr. Sparages answered yes. Mr. Redfern questioned maintenance of the townhouses, if there will be a condo association,and if there will be a generator. Mr. Sparages said he will note those concerns. Mr. Redfern commented on the location of the dumpsters and asked if the residents of the low-rise building will have to walk all the way to the back of the building to throw out their trash. Mr. Sparages answered yes. Mr. Redfern questioned the improvements to Lakeview Ave to Town standards. Mr. Regnante commented that it was accepted as a Town road. Mr. Caouette commented that there were substantive changes in a positive way. He noted the needs of the elderly,disabled or special needs residents haven't been addressed, Mr. Sparages stated the buildings have to be handicap and ADA accessible by MA standards. He elaborated that the townhouses being more residential takes care of themselves but for the low-rise buildings there are no elevators because the t"floor is Page 1 2 dedicated for ADA and in the mid-rise building will have an elevator and all have handicap entrances. Mr. Caouette commented on the design being downsized by about 28%of liveable units and how that will have an interesting effect on other things like traffic that are concerning people. He stated it will be interesting to see the impact. Mr. Regnante stated the change came mostly from neighborhood comments as well as Mr. Caouette's comment that the project was too dense. He told Mr. Caouette he was heard loud and clear. Mr. Hegstrom opined that he thought there should be a designated loading area. He also inquired about a draft of an operating manual and said he will defer further comment until after the peer review. Mr. Regnante asked if Mr. Hegstrom wanted to see and operation manual for trash and snow removal. Mr. Hegstrom said yes, so that all the finer details can be considered. Mr. Regnante stated that would not be a problem,that they do this for other developments also. Mr. Pernice said he liked the plan, parking and height changes and he appreciated the opportunity to create homeownership opportunities. He said he would like to see some plan in writing for loading and unloading trucks. He also asked about parking management and triggers for consideration. Mr. Jarema questioned how the regulatory agreements will work. Mr. Regnante said they will work with Town Council and there will be 2 regulatory agreements—one for ownership and one for rentals and also a separate condo association. He said the details will be worked out. Mr. Jarema stated he was somewhat disappointed that he didn't see the community center that was on lot B. He mentioned he liked the idea of a place for people to go and that in the townhouse section is wasn't as important as the apartment section. He questioned the possibility of the inclusion of a community center as well as if the green space will stay green, if there was no intention of building on it. Mr. Regnante stated the green space will stay green space, there is no intention to build, and it will only be used for parking if needed. He informed the Board there is a community room. Mr. Griven described that before there was a bump out for the community space and now it is brought inside the building, before it was more visually separate and now it is more visually green space having brought that community space indoors. He explained there will be meeting rooms, rooms for rent for events such as super bowl parties, etc. He noted the management company will have to manage those situations. Mr. Regnante mentioned another added feature is the rental office concierge for package pickups. Mr.Jarema commented that in other 40B projects there were designated moving areas and with 3 buildings, there will be a lot of people moving in and out. He questioned ownership of the paper lot. Mr. Redfern interjected that if Lakeview is a private street, the Town has no ownership rights. Mr. Jarema asked Ms. Delios for her input. She commented that the snow storage appeared limited on the plan and suggested more focus on snow removal. She also commented making corrections to the parking tabulations on the plan, operations plans,softening the dumpster area, addressing concerns with overflow parking and guest parking as well as handicap parking, making sure light fixtures are dark sky compliant, and potentially adding more landscaping. She asked why there were no elevators in the 3 story building. Mr. Griven stated there wasn't a need for an elevator and noted the way the building code reads,and that the ADA units are on the 1"floor, eliminating the need for an elevator. Ms. Delios stated he was referencing the building code and she was speaking to the handicap code. Mr. Griven agreed and said they go together,that as long as the number of units is provided per building and on the 1°floor, an elevator is not required. Mr. Regnante stated that they will address all Ms. Delois's comments in greater detail. Mr. Jarema stated there are a lot of topics to cover. Mr. Redfern asked if the Town will get credit for the 3 units in the townhouses. Mr. Heep and Ms. Delios said yes. Mr. Jarema discussed the architectural review and using outside consultants. Mr. Sparages suggested using Town staff to save the client money. Ms. Delios stated that what was done in the past should be for the future and with no disrespect to staff, outside consultants should be used. Mr. Jarema commented that the in past 40B projects the Town found a procedure that works well and as much as they would like to save the client money,they should stay with the procedure. He asked for an outline and bid unless the Board felt differently. The Board agreed. On a motion made by Mr.Redhem,seconded by Mr. Caouefte, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to authorize staff to hips peer review for architecture. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Redfern, Caouette, Hegstrom, Penrice) Page 1 3 Mr. Regante stated they would like to have some say in the scope of the architect review. He mentioned they don't want an architect that will redesign the plan they worked so hard to revise with the neighborhood and staff if they didn't like the design. Mr. Jarema assured Mr. Regnante that has not been the case. Mr.Caouette stated they have never run into that. Mr. Regnante said he would like to look at the scope. Mr.Jamma explained the intention is to move forward. Mr.Jarema raised the subject of the traffic peer review from June. He noted that there was still a sizeable impact and the review from Green International Affiliates needed to get on record tonight. Wing Wong and Jonathan Freeman of Green International Affiliates discussed their review was based on plans from January not the revised plans shown tonight. They discussed the study area and expanded study areas and stated the overall traffic performance is not significantly impacted,that relative to existing conditions it did not change much. They noted the site distance evaluation was found to be adequate and that if one fence section was moved back slightly it would be an improved change. They discussed the trip generation manual used to project traffic generated from different types of development, using the latest and current edition, comparing the 9'"and 10"editions,and how the traffic volumes are essentially the same with the increase being a Saturday. Further discussion involved more evaluations for safely aspects to Lakeview and Walkers Brook. Possible solutions offered included a signal at Lakeview, restricting left turns out of Lakeview onto Walkers Brook; evaluate feasibility regarding Lakeview and John Street. Minor recommendations included using the 100 edition of the ITE trip generator manual, using current software,adding stop signs at the driveway, identify the school and bus drop off and pick up areas. It was noted that not having reviewed the latest sited plan,some of these recommendations may not be applicable. Discussion was opened up to the Board. Mr. Pernice stated he would like an explanation in layman's terms as to why something that is expected to increase by 3 times is not having more of an impact Mr. Hegstrom said he has no questions at this moment. Mr. Caouette noted his cencems for the General Way and Lakeview,and Salem Street and Eaton intersections. He mentioned the letter to the Board written by neighbors on John Street and the heavy traffic due to people using John Street to avoid down town. He commented that he feels this major access route hasn't been adequately addressed and needs to be. Mr. Redfem discussed the Town bringing Lakeview to town standards,the time to bring in signals and exclusive lett turn lanes. Mr.Wong said this was something to look at. He discussed traffic volumes, left turns being warranted or not, and that results depend on the time of analysis. Mr. Jarema mentioned he had cencems. He explained there are 4 major access routes into town, noting Salem, Main, (28),Walkers Brook Drive and off(93)and that all have multiplied many times over over the years. He noted 2 of those 4 will be impacted by this project. He stated signalizing that intersection needs to be a major portion of this discussion. Ms. Delios stated she looked at all the information over and over. She offered topics for conversation including the residents methods of transportation, potential for connectivity to adjacent parking areas, the possibility of a pedestrian bridge-namely the parking lot for Jordan's Furniture as an opportunity to consider other ways for the residents to access the adjacent commercial areas, she mentioned considering bus routes and other forms of public transportation. She noted that even though it may be a longshot, she didn't want the concept to be overlooked. Mr. Jarema advised everyone that normally after the peer review the developer is given the opportunity to address concerns. Mr. Hazavartian stated that the 9th edition of the ITE trip generator manual was used for the peer review while the 10"edition was coming out. He stated the review was recalculated using the Ir edition and the results didn't change significantly, including crashes that are still below the state average. He noted Lakeview Ave is a challenge and an existing challenge that the development did not create,and adds little to it. He opined signalizing Lakeview would add significant cost to the developer. Mr. Jarema and Mr. Regnante encouraged the two experts to work together to narrow things down and suggested a workshop as with the design. They suggested inviting Town staff and only one member of the ZBA in order to not violate Open Meeting Law. Page 1 4 Mr.Jarema discussed dates for continuing the meeting and that the details needed to be in public record before moving forward. He reiterated that time is of the essence. The Board agreed that all parties would be available on September 5, 2018. Mr. Jarema and Mr. Heep summarized authorizing the peer review and that the Applicant needs to deposit funds into the account,as well as sharing scopes from the consultant with Mr. Regnante. Mr. Regnante asked if the peer review will be ready by September 5". Mr. Heep said he wasn't sure if it would be ready but it would be well on its way. Mr. Regnante commented on working with staff to narrow down traffic issues and both Ms. Delios and Mr. MacNichol agreed. Mr.Jarema addressed members of the public that wanted to speak. He advised them that he had reservations because several members of the public have already left and to send their concerns in writing to town staff. Ms. Delios assured the public that anything that comes up will go on the website. On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.Redfem,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue Case#18.01 to September 5,201& Vote was"-0(Jarema,Redfem, Caouette, Hagstrom, Pemice) Minutes No minutes were reviewed. Adlournment On a motion made Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.Redfem, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:21 p.m. Vote was 5.0.0(Jarema, Redfem, Caouette,Hagstrom, Pernice). Page 1 5