Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-09 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes wa urxtyo� ; ._ } Town of Reading TO ` LSIVED o T., c, 3 Meeting Minutes p q WN��Er i K Ifs v^, A. (� '•°' � •�• iuiu"Fie t Q` Board`PCommittee - Commission - Council: f S 10' 0E Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 12-09-2019 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members - Present: John Weston, Chair, Nick Safina, Rachel Hitch,Tony D'An=o Members - Not Present: Pamela Adrian Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Ryan Barry,Yun Zou,Zu Li,John Ferreira, Mans Kleponis,Janice Hart, Suzanne Algen, Pauline Mastonardi, Chuck Castelluccio,Jay Shatto, Johnathan Barnes, Sarah Bmkilacchio Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: John Weston called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Continued Public Hearing. Maior Modification to an Approved Site Plan Review 107 Main Street Fusilli's Restaurant There was no one present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Weston read the Applicant's request for the public hearing to be continued to April 13, 2020. Mr. Salina made a motion to continue the public hearing for the Major Modification to an Approved Site Plan Review at 107 Main Street, Fusilli's Restaurant, to April 13, 2020 st 7:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Arezzo and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Ms. Julie Mercier, Community Development Director, suggested the Commission review the October 7n and November 4n draft minutes as a refresher of what was discussed at previous meetings regarding the proposed amendments to the Table of Uses and Sign Bylaw for a later discussion on the Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for 2020. Mr. Weston informed the members in the audience the next public hearing is not scheduled until 7:45 PM and the Commission will be reviewing the minutes as suggested by Ms. Mercier until then. Mr. Safina asked if Doyon's at 162 Main Street is trying to lease the space as a multi-tenant building, and commented that the Site Plan Approval is for a single-use building. Ms. Mercier replied she is unsure, and said the first floor was approved as single-use commercial with an apartment on the second floor. Mr. Safina asked If Doyon's is still intending to use 1 4 HOfN � , Town of Reading Meeting Minutes the space. Ms. Mercier replied she does not believe Doyon's intention Is to use the space anymore. Mr. Weston said this change is an example for the Table of Uses discussion as currently if there is a change within categories a Site Plan Review is not required. He said the existing categories in the Table of Uses are very broad; and the potential use change to the Doyon's property is a perfect example of why the Table of Uses needs to be reviewed. Ms. Mercier responded that whoever the new tenant is will have to verify they can function within the site and meet parking requirements, but it most likely won't trigger a formal review by this Commission. Mr. Saflna said he wants to make sure the space is not being divided into two spaces. Ms. Mercier said she will confirm this. Mr. Safina said the City of Somerville's Table of Uses Is long and lists very specific uses. Ms. Mercier opined that Somerville is different than Reading and Somerville's Table of Uses is too much. The Commission began reviewing the October 7, 2019 minutes. At 7:45 PM, Mr. Weston said the continued public hearing for 21-23 Village Street can begin. Ms. Mercier said the review of minutes can resume later in the meeting. Continued Public Hearing, Home Occupation Special Permit 21-23 Village Street Mr. Ryan Barry was present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Weston opened the continued public hearing for the Special Home Occupation Special Permit request for the property at 21-23 Village Street. Mr. Weston provided a brief overview and said the Applicant is seeking approval to use space on the second floor of the existing garage, located in the rear of the property, for office space for an electrical business. There will be no signs and no commercial modifications to the building. Mr. Ryan Barry, the owner of 21-23 Village Street, explained the outside repairs to the garage are only to the areas that are falling apart. There will be nothing done to the outside to promote the business. He presented the proposal: • Use the garage as an office for his electrical business; • Use storage area for excess material; • Add walls and bathroom upstairs; • Existing outdoor stairs to be removed and be built Inside of the structure; • His company is a service business, his clients are the public; • The service van will only need to go to the property at the most two times a week between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM; • Commercial vans will not be parked at night at this property, the employees take them home; • He and the part-time bookkeeper are the only personnel in the office; and • He currently leases an office in Wakefield and would like to move his office and storage to this property. Mr. Weston asked if the garage will be used to store the commercial vans. Mr. Barry responded no commercial vans will be parked on-site; the garage will be used for bulk materials and nothing will be left outside. Mr. Safina said it appears the right part of the garage is on a different property. Mr. Barry replied that area is known as"Storage Area A° on the easement and pursuant to the deed from 2005 he has exclusive rights to use it. Mr. Safina commented that the outside stairs on that side are proposed to be removed. Mr. Barry replied the stairs are in disrepair and are 2 �N orx 0 �° Town of Reading 's Meeting Minutes dangerous. He is looking for one permit for roof repairs and renovations to the second floor. Mr. Safina stated he has no issues with the proposed use, and asked if the public hearing was noticed properly due to the fact that one part of the garage is on a different property. Mr. MacNlchol, Staff Planner, replied they will re-advertise the notice to Include both addresses. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the storage area currently has running water or heat. Mr. Barry replied that currently it only has electrical. Mr. D'Arezzo said that sewer and water lines are necessary to install the restroom. Mr. Barry replied provisions have been made during the renovations to be able to tie in to the utilities in case the Special Permit is granted. Mr. Barry confirmed he owns the two-family house, and currently rents out both sides. One tenant has a short-term lease and is aware that if the Special Permit is granted Mr. Barry will be moving in within a year. Mr. Barry said he has four field employees and one part-time bookkeeper. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the field employees will need to pick up equipment or supplies at the garage. Mr. Barry explained that on 90% of projects the material Is shipped right to the job site. He calls into the vendor and it Is delivered to the job site and any overflow Is brought back to the shop. The employees do not come to the shop every day. Mr. Safina asked if this level of traffic is happening now. Mr. Barry replied only at the rental property; the structure is not in good enough condition to utilize yet but the construction has increased activity. Mr. D'Arezzo said he has a concern that this type of business was not designed for the residential accessory use. This looks like a business being run out of a different building entirely. He clarified he is not against the business, he is just trying to figure out how it fits Into the current Special Permit process. Mr. Barry said he currently rents space for an office and is primarily seeking the Special Permit so he can run his office out of property he owns. His employees bring home the commercial vehicles at night and in the morning go right to the job site. Mr. D'Arezzo asked how much storage Mr. Barry envisions he will need. Mr. Barry responded he currently uses about the size of a one-car garage for the overflow material. If he does buy material in advance it is delivered by a small truck or in his personal vehicle. Mr. D'Arezzo pointed out there are four different driveways that lead to the rear of the property and asked what driveway will be exclusively used for the business. Mr. Barry said the left and right side are shared driveways. The part-time bookkeeper comes to the office in the afternoon and will park on the street. Mr. D'Arezzo pointed out on the plan where vehicles could potentially park at 21-23 Village Street. Mr. Barry said the rear of the property is all asphalt and established the parking area that the tenants utilize. He affirmed during the construction it was congested with vehicles but now it is easy to move around. Mr. Weston opened the hearing to public comment. Mr. John Ferreira from 17 Village Street offered the following: • Currently both sides of the property are rented; • The amount of traffic that is currently going on now is significant; • He has a video showing the difficulty getting in and out of his driveway; • Any changes to the portion of the structure on the 15-17 Village Street property will require approval from the Condo Association; he only has exclusive rights to it as a storage area; • Any changes to the structure should have his approval because it could affect the marketability of his property going forward; 3 � orq o Z , a Town of Reading Meeting Minutes • If the use is a business, four employees coming and going from 8:00 AM-4:00 PM is significant; • If an employee has to go to a job earlier than 8:00 AM, he will be at the garage even earlier or late at night; • There are small children in the neighborhood who play in the area; and • Is there a provision that if Mr. Barry does not move Into the property, then the will business won't be allowed? Mr. Safina said the resident has to live at the property. Mr. Ferreira asked if the Special Permit won't be approved until he moves in. Ms. Mercier replied the Special Permit will be null and void if he doesn't live there. Mr. Safina read one of the requirements is that the owner/applicant for the Special Permit has to reside at the property. He said the bookkeeper qualifies as the one other non-resident employee; and explained incidental people can visit the home occupation but cannot work there. This is an example of an employee who is not doing electrical work at the property. Mr. Ferreira asked if a company meeting can be held in the garage or what will happen if a bigger job requires additional employees. He explained that he Is looking at all scenarios, but Mr. Barry only presented the best-case scenario. If the electrical business grows then more employees will be hired and weekends could be impacted. Mr. Ferreira added he wants the business to be successful but wants to protect his property as well. Ms. Mercier suggested adding conditions to the Special Permit to mitigate some of these concerns. She also suggested issuing the Special Permit for a finite amount of time and reevaluating the decision at that time to see if there have been significant complaints, issues or enforcement that had to be taken. Mr. Safina requested the site be brought up on the overhead screen and asked if there are barriers between the properties. Mr. Barry replied it is one big open parking lot and reiterated that during the renovations there was plenty going on in the rear of the property but now the traffic is minimal. Mr. Safina asked if residents can use any driveway to enter and exit their property. Mr. Ferreira clarified that each unit has a 4' easement across the driveways. He said he uses the driveway adjacent to 21-23 Village Street. Mr. Li from 15 Village Street explained his driveway is shared with three families, and that there are six vehicles in total; and his four-year-old plays in the back of his unit. He added on-street parking is allowed on one side of Village Street and the street is full with vehicles during the day. Mr. Ferreria said even prior to Mr. Barry buying the property, he complained to the Town about the existing telephone pole and the overhanging of parked vehicles blocking his driveway entrance. Mr. Weston asked for clarification of this complaint. Mr. Ferreria replied the area to park Is small and more than two vehicles block the driveway. Ms. Yun Zou from 15 Village Street said during the winter there is no place to park on the street. She said the rear of the property Is the only area that children can play and it is used by all the units. Mr. Safina asked if 15 Village Street is a two-unit dwelling. Ms. Zou replied the address is 15-17 Village Street and it is a two-unit condominium. Ms. Mercier pointed out on the screen the three units that use the shared driveway. Mr. Ferreria established that each unit is 3-bedrooms. Mr. Safina said potentially there could be three vehicles per unit and the residential traffic alone is dangerous in itself with all of them using one driveway. Ms. Zou disagreed and said residential traffic is different than commercial traffic. Mr. Safina responded that the Commission does not usually get Involved In single or two-family residential situations, but that this situation - with a parking lot that spans multiple properties - is a bit unique. 4 rH Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Mr. Safna asked If there is a common Condominium Association across all the units. Mr. Ferreira replied there is not a Condominium Association only easements. Ms. Mercier said there is a Condominium Association on 15-17 Village Street that granted the easement rights to 21-23 Village Street for the"Storage Area A". Mr. Ferreira clarified that the easement is for just a sliver of the building and if the building is modified (i.e. the exterior stairs are removed), then the land underneath it will revert back to 15-17 Village Street because that portion of the storage area would no longer be there. Mr. Safina asked for further clarity on what happens once the exterior stair is removed. Mr. Barry said those stairs are dilapidated and no matter what happens with this approval the structure needs to be repaired and made weathertight. Mr. Safina asked if the northwest wall of the building on the abutting property is to remain. Mr. Ferreira said his concern is anything that happens to the structure and the traffic that goes with it; and questioned if Mr. Barry is proposing to remove the stairs to create additional parking for his employees. Mr. Weston asked if there are additional questions. Mr. Safina asked how the properties are snow plowed. Mr. Barry said he hires someone to plow and shovel his area. Mr. Ferreira said he maintains his own property. Mr. Safina said the old plan shows a garage in the rear of 15-17 Village Street. Mr. Ferreira said the garage is no longer there, he parks there and has a small area for the children to play. Mr. Barry confirmed his tenants park in front of the garage. Mr. Ferreira explained why it is difficult getting in and out of the driveway on a normal basis and said he has a video refiecting this. Mr. Safina opined the whole development should have been handled together, and since the easement is necessary for access to the storage area, a fence cannot be installed to keep traffic and cars from moving across the backs of the properties. He pointed out on the plan how the traffic could move in a safer way. The residents discussed their concern with the potential business traffic. Mr. Barry said the video appears to have been taken during construction. Mr. Safina said that the common requirement to cross other residents' property when entering/exiting and parking does not appear to be contemplated or written Into any Condominium Association documents. Mr. Weston asked if former residents for 21-23 Village Street were parking either on the street or in the lot, with no one parking in the garage. Mr. Barry said the garage Is not In a usable state. Mr. Weston asked If the proposed renovations will make the garage usable by the tenants. Ms. Hitch asked If when the renovations are completed the parking that is currently happening in front of the garage could take place inside of the garage. Mr. Weston reiterated that Mr. Barry has to move into the property to make the Special Permit valid, and with parking inside the garage becoming available it should minimize the abutters concerns. Mr. Barry said he has not presented the tenants the option to use the garage; each has one vehicle. He agreed once the renovations are completed, the tenants could potentially use the garage. Mr. Safina asked Mr. Barry if he reviewed his proposed use of the structure with the Building Inspector. Mr. Barry replied that he started the conversation with the Building Inspector and was Informed he needed to seek approval from this Commission. Mr. Safina showed on the screen what would happen if the renovations are approved and pointed out the land space that will go back to 15-17 Village Street property which will open up more space for vehicular movement. He brought up the idea of a fence again. Mr. Barry responded that a fence will limit crossing over into the other property, which will make it more difficult for him to plow the left side abutter and for the abutter to store snow next to the garage in exchange for the plowing. 5 orx o ' Town of Reading Meeting Minutes e iT Mr. Ferreira opined that in the worst-case scenario once Mr. Barry moves in there could be six residential vehicles and commercial vehicles parking by the garage. Mr. Barry reiterated that commercial vehicles will not be parked at 21-23 Village Street; his employees take them home at night. Mr. Ferreira expressed concern that nothing can be done once the Special Permit Is Issued. Ms. Mercier said the Special Permit can be granted for one year and if things are functioning smoothly it can be granted for another decided amount of time. She noted that conditions can be added to the Special Permit that allow the Town to take enforcement if needed. Mr. Safina said this is done with larger commercial projects as well. Ms. Zou said the residents would like to keep this area residential. Mr. LI asked who is responsible If something happens within the first year. Mr. Safina said the Commission is not responsible for mitigating hypothetical concerns. Mr. Ferreira said when 5-7 Village Street was under renovation he had the same concerns. Mr. Safina said construction is disruptive to residents, this is a messy residential development that did not come to the Commission for Site Plan Review. Ms. Zou reiterated she is concerned with this business. Mr. Safina pointed out the residents at 31-33 Village Street are not in attendance to express concerns. Mr. Safina asked what would happen if the Applicant was only allowed to use one driveway as part of the Special Permit. Ms. Mercier replied the Applicant has easement rights across the abutter's property. Mr. Safina noted that the Applicant is asking for special permission and that there are potential concerns, and again suggested the business be limited to use of one driveway. Ms. Mercier cautioned that it would be difficult to distinguish if the Applicant is using his own vehicle or a commercial vehicle. Mr. Barry suggested allowing a 30-minute time limit for commercial vehicles to be parked on the property. Ms. Mercier asked if the employees are required to come to the property dally. Mr. Barry said the employees drop off bulk materials but not daily. Mr. Safina opined that tradesman will avoid dropping off material on a dally basis and do it when it is convenient. Mr. Ferreira said an employee could come and go when their job is done on off hours. Mr. Safina questioned why an employee would go to the garage if not necessary. Ms. Zou responded she goes to her company if she needs to pick up a document. Mr. Ferreira presented scenarios why an employee would go to the garage off hours. Mr. Barry said a person could be at the property off hours for another reason. Mr. Weston asked if this use is any more intensive than a residential use. He opined this use would not generate more traffic than teenagers living in the residential use. Ms. Hitch agreed this use would create the same traffic as a residential use. Mr. Ferreira disagreed and said a business in a residential area is not controllable. Ms. Hitch reminded the abutters that the Commission can put conditions in the Special Permit so there is an enforcement mechanism. Ms. Mercier agreed and said the conditions for the Special Permit can mitigate the concerns and give town staff enforcement capabilities if something becomes a concern. Mr. Safina asked the residents how they use the property and if there is any green space. Mr. Li pointed out where the vehicles park. Mr. Safina asked if there is a way to install any type of safety measurements in the parking area. Ms. Zou said the traffic is already heavy and the commercial use will add to the traffic. Mr. Ferreira said each unit has either a pet or a child, including the unit that is rented at 21-23 Village Street. Mr. D'Arezzo said there is a parking plan in the Condominium Document for 15-17 Village Street and asked If there was one for 21-23 Village Street. Mr. Barry replied his property Is not a condominium and does not have need a parking plan, but that he will provide one if required. Mr. D'Arezzo agreed a parking plan will be useful to see where the tenants are allowed to park and see the vehicle movements. 6 /Wq drxao Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Mr. Weston noted that the stairs are proposed to be removed, and asked if two vehicles can fit in this area when done. Mr. Ferreira said Mr. Barry cannot ft a vehicle in this area because the land goes back to 15-17 Village Street once the stairs are removed. Mr. Weston clarified that 15-17 Village Street would have more space. Mr. Ferreira said there is not enough room to park a vehicle. Ms. Zou suggested the Commission go to the property to view the parking area. Mr. Weston said once the garage is rehabbed there will be 8-parking spots available. Mr. Barry said he can fit three vehicles on his property. Mr. U said the residents do not want the garage to be used commercially. The deed is very specific about storage use only and any other use would have to be approved by the owners - of 15-17 Village Street. Ms. Mercier asked Mr. Barry if he is going to reside on the property and said she believes he would need approval from the Condominium Association to make modifications to the area that is within the easement. Mr. Barry confirmed he Is moving to the property. Ms. Mercier said she would want some type of assurance that approval is received from the Condominium Association if needed. Mr. Barry said he spoke to the Building Division and the repairs in that area are required. Ms. Mercier clarified she is referencing the use and the addition of the bathroom which is partly within the easement area. Mr. Barry said he will shift the location of the bathroom. Ms. Mercier said anything that modifies the structure that is on their property, Including anything Internally, may require approval from the Condo Association. She said she read the documents on the property and will be surprised If the renovation can be done without the approval of the Condo Association. Ms. Hitch suggested demolishing a part of the structure to get it off of the property. Mr. Barry replied it would be too expensive. Mr. Safina suggested paving the gravel area located at 15-17 Village Street to make room for additional parking. Mr. Ferreira responded he intends to grass that area in the summer. Mr. Barry asked if the owners of 15-17 Village Street are responsible for the repair of "Storage Area A" if he has to ask to utilize storage area. Ms. Mercier said an attorney can help answer questions about the easement. Ms. Zou said she Is a Real Estate Attorney and any changes to"Storage Area A"will need Condo Association approval. Mr. Safina opined that based on the deed the proposed plan should be flipped to keep the storage area in the same location. Mr. Barry said he is willing to move the bathroom and keep the area in the easement for storage. During the discussion, it was affirmed the Applicant would not have to seek approval for this use from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Mercier suggested the Commission add conditions to the Special Permit or continue the public hearing and have the Applicant figure out answers to the key questions asked. Mr. Safina opined the Condominium Association does not control if an owner can apply for a Home Occupation. Ms. Mercier agreed and commented the Applicant did apply. Mr. Saflna said the Condominium Association can control the use of"Storage Area A". Mr. Weston added It is referred In the deed as storage area and one can deduce that is the intended use. Ms. Mercier said the Applicant can modify his plan. Mr. Safina requested additional detail on the plot plan - driveways, building edges and traffic movements. He would like to see if there is a way to limit traffic movement through the property. Mr. Ferreira said his easement is exclusively for one side; technically he is only supposed to use the right side of the property and Ms. Zou the left side. Mr. Safina said this restriction makes a vehicle movement difficult. Mr. Ferreira agreed and said he sometimes has to back out of his driveway. Mr. Safina asked if it would be easier if everyone did the same movement, entering on the north and exiting on the south driveway. Mr. Ferreira said this suggestion does not benefit the property down the street, as they would have to enter two driveways down from their unit. Ms. Hitch asked if there is a way to 7 rq Town of Reading Meeting Minutes make the parking lot function a bit more orderly by requiring a one-way entrance and exit. Ms. Zou responded the deeds have a restriction that gives each property exclusive use to a driveway. Mr. Safina said the current vehicle movement requires a three-point turn on another person's property. Mr. Weston opined that the vehicle circulation is haywire no matter if it is caused by residential or commercial use; and said the question is if the home occupation use in the garage would create a heavier use of the property than the residential use. He opined that it Is possible that additional vehicles coming, going and parking on-site may result in a heavier use of the property. The Commission does not fully understand the existing use and what kinds of limitations the Applicant is proposing in order to not create more traffic and conflict on site. Ms. Hitch asked for clarity on what is required from the Applicant. Mr. Weston replied the Applicant should show how the vehicles from his property will circulate and park. Ms. Hitch said that the Applicant can have six vehicles parked in the driveway and the proposal should show how six vehicles will circulate and park. Mr. Safina clarified six vehicles is not as of right. Ms. Mercier said the standard parking requirement is 1.5 parking spaces per unit but there is no upper limit on how many cars occupants of a residential unit may have. Mr. Safina said he was looking at the trend with the surrounding units; and requested a full site plan that shows all driveways delineated, a parking plan, a traffic plan and a storage plan. He said the plan will have to be flipped to comply with the easement and to allow"Storage Area A"to remain. Mr. Barry said he will make"Storage Area A" a big closet and move the bathroom. Mr. Li said besides the traffic, he is concerned about safety and of the strangers who will be at the property for the business. Mr. Weston said that even today a Fed-Ex driver could make a delivery at the property. Mr. Ferreira replied a Fed-Ex driver would not be In the back of the property walking around. Mr. LI asked If the Applicant does a background check on his employees. Mr. Weston said you do not have control over who lives beside you. Ms. Zou said the whole area is residential and expressed concern about adding a business. Mr. Weston acknowledged the concern, and said the Commission has asked for material regarding parking and circulation. Mr. Barry said he is concerned about the condition of the property, and that he would like a permit to fix the roof and remove the stairs without waiting for approval of the Special Permit. Mr. Safina said it can likely be repaired by-right. Mr. Barry clarified the renovations are part of"Storage Area A". Ms. Mercier replied the repairs are not necessarily related to the Home Occupation request, but the Condominium Association will need to approve. Ms. Mercier asked the Applicant when he will be able to have the materials that are requested by the Commission. Mr. Bary said he will review and have it ready by the next meeting. Ms. Mercier said the public hearing can be continued to January 13, 2020 at 8:15 PM. Mr. Safina made a motion to continue the public hearing for 21-23 Village to January 13, 2020 at 8:15 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Ar o and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Ms. Mercier declared that 15-17 Village Street property should have been in the original public hearing notice and the Town will re-notice the public hearing correctly. The abutters will be notified of the January 13th public hearing. 8 iwo Town of Reading IMeeting Minutes Continued Public Hearing, Definitive Subdivision Plan 135. 139 & 149R Howard Street, Infrastructure Holdings LLC Andy Street and Kevin Greenwood were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Weston opened the continued public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision Plan, 135, 139 & 149R Howard Street. Mr. Andy Street, PE from Civil Design Consultants, on behalf of the Applicant Kevin Greenwood, Infrastructure Holdings LLC, said he will be providing a brief update on the proposed subdivision plan; and stated there is no expectation for action tonight considering it has been 10 months since the last meeting. Mr. Street provided the following: • This Is the first revision to the plan set since the last meeting; • Applicant will be attending a DRT meeting with Town staff on December 18th; • Proposal is within the Single-family, S-15 Zoning District; • Applicant attended Conservation Commission meetings and is continuing to work through Conservation issues; • Applicant has reached an agreement with Conservation on wetlands delineation; • The parcel is 4 acres, with 110' frontage on Howard Street with bordering vegetating wetland and pocket wetlands; • Proposal is for 350' long road with 6-lots - the geometry, pavement, cul-de-sac, and property lines are the same as presented in February; • 60' radius cul-de-sac with 24' wide pavement; • All driveways will tie into the new roadway; • Vertical Granite Curb with trees; • Adequate sight distance and minimal traffic Impact as they are increasing density with four new single-family dwellings and two existing; • Geometry is the same; • Received feedback about water and drainage from Town Engineer and throughout the Conservation process; • Concerns from Conservation and abutters about the proposed pond being too close to property lines and the run-off that could exasperate flooding in the neighborhood; • Another pocket of wetlands was identified and added to the plan; • Switched the house location on Lot-4 with an infiltration basin to help with flooding concerns; • Catch basin will be piped Into the pond and then north Into the wetland; • Cul-de-sac bulb is super-elevated; • In the defined low area, the infiltration basin will catch runoff and be piped back to the wetland; • Utilities will be connected to Howard Street; • Roofs will be Infiltrated Into the ground to minimize amount of runoff into the road; • No memo from Engineering Division, but they seem satisfied with the model; • Feedback received from Planning, Fire and Engineering last time; comments were addressed and discussion will continue at upcoming DRT meeting; and • Waivers requested: • Limited traffic study; • Right-of-way width 60' to 50' - proof plan submitted showing compliance; • Pavement width 30' to 24'; • No sidewalk, consistent with Howard Street; • No landscaped cul-de-sac island, requested by DPW due to plowing and maintenance concerns; 9 *'Veli Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Not looping water main because no viable option - asking for force mains; No street lighting, consistent with Howard Street; Cover over drainage - doesn't meet Town Regulations but does meet manufacturers guidelines; and The type of pipe to be used. Mr. Street concluded the overview and requested feedback from the Commission to help move the approval forward. Mr. Safina asked If the force main pipe inverts would work on Lots 2 and 3 with the drainage pipe crossings. Mr. Street explained it is a small 2" pipe that will come down to a manhole and he provided detail on how it will work. He stated he will highlight it on the plan with additional detail for the next meeting. Ms. Hitch said at the last meeting it was discussed how the Applicant was going to mitigate the impacts of the construction and asked if the proposed plan actually helps with the overall drainage concerns in this area. Mr. Street said three areas - the wetland, off-site and down Howard Street - were analyzed to see how the water performs today and how It will perform after the improvements and pointed out: • They are either meeting or reducing peak flow; • Moving the infiltration pond results in better design and now the outlet pipe will go to the middle of the site rather than toward an abutter; • Emergency overflow will flow to an existing wetland; and • Roof runoff will infiltrate into the ground. Mr. D'Arezzo asked about the additional infiltration basins proposed In the right-of-way on Howard Street. Mr. Street replied that there is a small portion of the road that slopes down toward Howard Street, and that the Infiltration basin will help capture the runoff and pipe it into the town system rather than allowing it to go right onto Howard Street. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the Fire Department looked at the plan and if there was any feedback about the proposed Lot in the rear of the site and If a fire vehicle can reach it. Mr. Street replied he has not received feedback from the Fire Department and is sure it will be discussed at the Town DRT meeting. Ms. Mercier confirmed that the length of the driveway will be part of the discussion at the Town DRT meeting. Mr. Weston said he was surprised by proposed reduction In the right-of-way width. The Commission typically asks for less pavement but does not recall approving a narrower right- of-way and asked where this came from. Mr. Street responded there is a second waiver letter that talks about this, but he is not certain where this was first discussed. He said the proposal works with a 60' roadway layout, but the lots work better with the smaller width. Mr. Weston reiterated he does not recall the Commission having a discussion of allowing reduced layout width, and there may be a reason in the future the Town needs it for sidewalks. Mr. Street said he has recollection of the discussion but is not sure where it began and will look through his notes. Mr. Weston opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Suzanne Algeri from 149 Howard Street said on a prior Site Plan Review, the Fire Department had concerns with the right-of-way width. Mr. Street replied the Fire Department may have concerns with the pavement width if parking on-street is allowed. Mr. Weston said on another subdivision the same Issue was brought up, and the pavement was reduced but the shoulders were built to support a fire vehicle if needed. Ms. Mercier said staff hasn't had a chance to review the updated plans so there Is no real feedback yet; this 10 rq Town of Reading 1= Meeting Minutes waiver request will be discussed at the Town DRT meeting. Mr. Weston said the Commission is interested in keeping the pavement width down but emergency services are interested in keeping it open, so often compromises are made. Ms. Algeri said vehicles will park on the cul-de-sac but she wants to make sure emergency vehicles can have access If needed. Mr. Chuck Castelluccio from 62 Wescroft Road said that the responsibility to maintain the catch basins will fall onto the Town and wants to make sure there is a budget to assure the neighboring properties do not get Flooded. Mr. Weston replied the Commission does not have all the details but the maintenance concern is common across all other developments and the Town Engineer will review the proposal. Ms. Marie Kleponis from 56 Wescroft Road asked if the proposal is to raise the height of the property in one section. Mr. Street explained some FlII will be required in order to construct the road and some of the lots because the groundwater Is high. Ms. Kleponis asked the height of the property. Mr. Street explained it depends on where you are but the edge of the property will be the existing grade level. Ms. Kleponis mentioned the Fiasco on Randall Road where the abutters had to pump out water from their basements, and opined that she doesn't want the same to happen to this neighborhood if the property is raised too high. Mr. Street explained the design Includes considerations for this concern and water will now around the house and not off the property. Ms. Janice Hart from 70 Wescroft Road asked if retaining walls will be necessary to hold the earth back. Mr. Street said there are no retaining walls proposed. Ms. Hart asked what will stop the earth from sliding. Mr. Street said there are no retaining walls, but the FlII will be stable and compacted, and it will be fully landscaped. Mr. Street said the Conservation Commission has this concern and he provided examples on what can be installed to help stabilize the FlII. Ms. Hart explained she lives in the back of that area and that is why she is concerned. Ms. Alger! asked about the elevation of Lot 2 in relation to her property. Mr. Street explained the design and how the water flows. Ms. Algerl said she wanted to make sure that the water will flow away from her house. She questioned why that area needs to be raised and it is not a wetland. Mr. Street said there is only 2-3' before the groundwater and everything has to come up to allow required separation. Ms. Pauline Mastonardi from 144 Howard Street asked if the subdivision road will be elevated. Mr. Street explained why it is necessary that the property is higher in the back and slopes toward Howard Street. Ms. Mastonardi asked if the roof runoff will go underground. Mr. Street said each house will have a system where the roof runoff will be collected and funneled Into the ground. Ms. Mastonardi asked what happens when the ground is saturated. Mr. Street replied the systems are designed to maintain a certain distance from where the groundwater was measured. There should always be availability for water to go Into the ground. Ms. Mastonardi asked If there is additional drainage at the end of the road to help with the water. Mr. Street explained that there are two smaller infiltration areas that will collect and infiltrate water and if they FlII up It will be piped into the Town drainage system. Mr. Weston asked how much of the cul-de-sac will drain towards Howard Street. Mr. Street replied that the cut off is about 80-100' from the drive apron and the rest of the water drains towards the rear of the site. 11 O� Town of Reading Y Meeting Minutes a ,• � �:,fid: Ms. Mastonardi asked about the incline from Howard Street to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Street explained there will be a small incline that a wheel chair could navigate. The road Itself is not sloped very much and it is being heightened because of the groundwater concerns. Ms. Mastonardi asked about proposed plantings. Mr. Street replied the Applicant is working with the Tree Warden on the type of trees that will be planted down the road and Conservation will require their own plantings. Ms. Mercier asked if Conservation is requiring an inventory of trees that will be planted around the site and not just in the wetland resource area. Mr. Street replied: • There are 25 trees within the 100' buffer zone that are proposed to be removed and 28 in total; • Conservation will probably require more than 25 be planted in the buffer zone; • Conservation noted that trees along the roadway do not count towards replacement trees in the buffer zone; and • Ownership of the trees for a few years will be required for warranty and replacement if necessary. A resident asked how long the construction will disrupt the neighborhood. Mr. Greenwood replied that once started it could be completed within 6 months. Mr. Weston said the neighborhood should count on it taking at least two construction seasons to fully complete the development. Ms. Mercier said even the fastest development took two years to finish, Ms. Mastonardi said that is two years of trucks and construction noise. Mr. Weston said it could take two years but not all of that time is active construction noise. Ms. Mastonardi expressed concern the construction vehicles will park in front of her house for that period of time. Mr. Greenwood explained there are different types of construction vehicles and not all are heavy equipment. Mr. Safina said construction can happen anytime, and the Applicant will have to follow construction rules. Ms. Mercier explained the Applicant is required to attend a Pre-Construction Meeting where the staff will go over the rules. Mr. Weston said in the second year, when the construction is focused on the homes, there should be less impacts to abutters. Mr. Street said there are one to two minor concerns left with Conservation that they are working out. Mr. Salina made a motion to continue the public hearing for Definitive Subdivision Plan, 135r 139 & 149R Howard Street to January 13, 2020 at 8:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Arezzo and approved with a 4-0-0 vote. Ms. Hitch left the meeting at 9:45 PM. Planning Updates and Other Topics VOTE on Downtown Smart Growth District Design Guidelines Ms. Mercier said there are 5-6 items that are still outstanding on the draft amendments to the Downtown Smart Growth District Design Guidelines and hopes the Commission can review and vote on them tonight. Ms. Mercier said Section 7.6.2 needs an image fixed and there is another Image for consideration that needs to be talked about. The Commission vetted "the step back from residential use"and made changes to the proposed diagram. Jonathan Barnes from 41 Pratt Street suggested changing the word"abutting"to "adjacent". He asked for clarification on how"adjacent" is being defined. Mr. Weston 12 r taa Town of Reading 0a Meeting Minutes ��M replied 'adjacent" is abutting; and said there are no more than 12 properties within the DSGD that are not adjacent to an existing residential use - single-family, two-family or three-family residential use. Mr. Barnes expressed concern those 12 properties would not be covered. The Commission discussed the location of the properties. Mr. Weston said the whole district is being restricted except those 12 properties. Ms. Mercier said the proposed changes to the Design Guidelines will expand the protection. Mr. Barnes opined the proposed changes are for the good of the neighborhood. Mr. Weston opined the Design Guidelines are being drastically changed. Ms. Mercler summarized that the diagram will remain and the language wlll change to reflect the conversation. Ms. Mercier suggested Section 8.5.1 Loading Space, be reviewed, and read the proposed language from Mr. Barnes. She opined that the current language could be tricky to accommodate if a residential use abuts all sides of a property and suggested the Commission prioritize what they want to accomplish. The Commisslon vetted the loading space language and made changes. Mr. Safina said the Design Guidelines are to give direction to the Applicant and the Commission can review during the Site Plan Review process. Ms. Sarah Brukilacchlo from 48 Maple Ridge Road asked when her comments she forwarded to staff on trees and windows will be discussed. Ms. Mercier apologized and said the Commission will go back to discuss. Mr. Safina said the reflective coating on windows is not typically on a residential scale window. Ms. Brukilacchio listed a few towns that allow the coating on residential windows - Peabody, Newburyport and Salem. She said the older vinyl siding tend to ripple due to the higher temperatures and the windows have a coating on them for energy savings. Mr. Safina explained the coating on the windows are inside and are not reflective they are diffusive. He said if a proposal came in for a four-story all glass building the Commission would review. Ms. Mercier presented language on the screen and asked the Commission for their opinion. The members vetted and made changes. Mr. Safina stated the Commission has the ability to grant walvers. Ms. Brukilacchio pointed out the language on Section 8.3.6 Trees has not been changed; and asked how the Commission can enforce preserving trees if everyone is going to their property lines. Ms. Mercier commented PostMark and Reading Village are roughly 1 acre lots. Mr. Weston asked if those properties had existing 4-6"caliper trees and if 24 Gould Street had trees that size. Ms. Mercier replied there were trees of that caliper at 24 Gould Street but the root system was in the foundation and the trees could not preserved. Mr. Safina said those trees grew by neglect and were damaging the existing building. Ms. Brukilacchlo asked why the language is even in the Design Guidelines if you cannot ask a developer to preserve trees. Ms. Mercier suggested changing the language from "shall"to "If possible". Mr. Safina asked about the lots on the east side of Main Street and if there are existing trees this size caliper; and said the intent of the language is to preserve trees if they exist. Ms. Brukilacchio advocated for requiring window boxes for buildings right up to the sidewalk. Mr. Safina opined a building cannot be stepped back far enough to get decent landscaping. Ms. Mercier referenced a section that would allow a window box to overhang a sidewalk. Mr. Safina commented the Commission is not going to spec window boxes to ensure the quality. Mr. Weston read the landscape language that encourages open space. Mr. Safina said PostMark took advantage and is creating open space; and said the smaller lots can have a nice facade and plant street trees. Ms. Mercier presented the updated changes to Section 8.3.6. Ms. Brukilacchio asked if language can be added to encourage window boxes. Ms. Mercier recommended adding the language and the Commission can 13 /o;�e orN�o Town of Reading Meeting Minutes have the discussion during the Site Plan Review regarding what type of window boxes are acceptable. Mr. Safina said there should be effort by a developer regarding landscaping; and added he preferred planters at the ground level over window boxes. Ms. Brukilacchio responded planters could be a tripping hazard, and opined window boxes add charm and could create a friendly competition between businesses. Mr. Safina said a window box that projects Into the right-of-way probably does not meet ADA and gave an example of a person who is blind cannot find a window box. He said he does not mind language that talks about things but does not want a window box called out per se. Ms. Mercier clarified there should be a list that mentions different options to landscaping, such as window boxes. Ms. Brukllacchio referenced Section 6.1, Design Elements and said if read between the lines it mentions window boxes. The Commission read Section 10.3 and after a brief discussion agreed to keep the language. The Commission reviewed Section 10.4.1 height regulations, and agreed height was addressed in another Section of the Design Guidelines; and this Section will address the elevation/grade of a site. Ms. Mercier said this Section will work in tandem with the Zoning Bylaw. The Commission vetted the proposed language and made changes. Mr. Weston asked about the language in Section 10.5.2 and asked if this requirement would work for the parcels in downtown Reading; and questioned if this is creating another restriction when you read through the Design Guidelines. Mr. Barnes responded it is not a restriction, it is for consideration. Mr. Weston said requiring the building massing to be at the front is already referenced In the Design Guidelines. Mr. Barnes said the developer for 24 Gould Street proposal did more than keep the building massing at the front of the property, he kept the bulk of the design away from the residentlal use that abuts the property. Mr. Weston opined Section 10 is already covered In the Design Guidelines except for shadows. Mr. Safina explained the depth of 24 Gould Street required that style of architecture. After a discussion, the language was changed. Ms. Mercler Informed the Commission when the State reviews the Design Guidelines It will be determined if the changes unduly restrict development. Mr. Weston recommended removing language in Section 10.5.3, 10.5.4, 10.5.5 and 10.5.6 about small scale and large mixed-use projects and said the Impacts should apply to anything developed. Ms. Mercier said the Zoning Bylaw defines 3-family as multi-family and the State defines 4-family or more. The Commission agreed to the suggested language from Mr. Weston. Mr. Weston read Section 10.4.5 and recommended moving it to Section 8.2, Driveway and Parking. Ms. Mercier said she will review the document to assure the change from "abutting"to "adjacent" is through the entire document. Mr. Safina made a motion for the Community Planning and Development Commission to approve revisions to the Downtown Smart Growth Dlstrlct Design Guidelines as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. D'Areuo and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. • Discussion of Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for 2020 • Table of Uses • Definitions 14 Town of Reading 0 Meeting Minutes • Sign Bylaw The Commission did not discuss Potential Zoning Bylaw Amendments for 2020. • Approval of CPDC Minutes of 10/07/2019 and 11/04/2019 October 7. 2019 Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to approve the minutes for October 7, 2019 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. November 4. 2019 The Commission did not review the November 4, 2019 draft minutes. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11.18 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 3-0-0 vote. Documents reviewed at the meeting: CPDC Agenda for 12/9/19 258-262 Main Street Continuance Request 107 Main Street Continuance Request 21-23 Village Street: o Property deeds 0 21-23 Village Street Plot Plan 0 21-23 As-Built and Proposed Floor Plans 0 21-23 Village St Draft Decision 135-149R Howard Street: o Definitive Subdivision plans Downtown Smart Growth Design Guidelines 10/7/19 CPDC Minutes 15