Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-12-13 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesRECEIVED ' Town of Reading TOWN CLERK Meeting Minutes READING, MA. �r 2022 JUL 12 AMB 25 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2021-12-13 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Location: Remote Meeting - Zoom Address: Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members: In -Person: Pamela Adrian, Chair; Heather Clish, Catrina Meyer, Tony D'Arezzo (Associate), John Weston Remote: Nick Safina Members - Not Present: Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, William Crowley, Jack Sullivan, Jamie Gerrity, Josh Latham, Giovanni Fodera, John Seger, Patrick McCarty Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew Machlichol Topics of Discussion MEETING HELD REMOTELY VIA ZOOM Chairwoman Pamela Adrian called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM. Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol explained the protocols for tonight's meeting that is being held in-person but also allows remote participation. He presented the Zoom Meeting information to the public for those wishing to join. Mr. MacNichol explained how the Zoom features work and how they will be managed. He added that RCTV is broadcasting and recording the meeting. Approval Not Required (ANR) Plan Endorsement, 89 King Street / 90 Prospect Street lack Sullivan, engineer, was present on behalf of the Application. He explained that the properties are under one ownership, and that 89 King Street consists of two parcels of land, one of which is landlocked. He noted that the landlocked parcel will be divided and split between the parcel at 89 King Street and the parcel at 90 Prospect Street. He stated that zoning requirements will be met and that the conveyance does not impact frontage. Mr. Safina asked Mr. Sullivan to explain why he used both terms "lot" and "parcel." Mr. Sullivan noted that the landlocked pieces are "parcels" until they are conveyed and then they become part of the existing "lots." Mr. Safina moved to endorse the Approval Not Required Plan for 89 King Street and 90 Prospect Street. Ms. Clish seconded the motion, and it was approved 5-0-0. Continued Public Hearino, 3 -Lot Definitive Subdivision and Stormwater Permit 103 Sanborn Lane. Chimney Hill RE, LLC Attorney Bill Crowley, Mark Hall, Cody Hall, property owner Erik Kaloyanides, and lack Sullivan were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Crowley noted this is their V or 4'" meeting with the CPDC. Town of Reading "e Meeting Minutes Mr. Crowley gave a summary of the proposal for a 3 -lot subdivision on Sanborn Lane. He noted that there is a house and shed at 103 Sanborn Lane, which will be removed as part of the redevelopment. He noted that there are no wetlands on the property, and went through the logic behind the requested waivers: wetland delineation, environmental impact statement, street lighting, road width, cul-de-sac island, and a sidewalk on one side. Mr. Crowley asked that the project be completely vetted and approved. He noted the condition that the applicant become the owner of record prior to plan endorsement, and said this might be tricky because they can only take title of the property after approval. Ms. Mercier explained how there is a window of time between approval and endorsement during which any final changes, ownership, and other details can hopefully be worked out. Mr. Sullivan made one correction regarding the street lighting, noting that the Town has requested an additional streetlight at the end of the cul-de-sac, in addition to the existing utility pole at the entrance to the subdivision road. He noted that Sheet 4 shows existing trees that will remain to the right of the entrance and at the rear of the property. He continued that stockpile areas and a temporary construction entrance are now shown on the plans. Mr. Sullivan said he met with the owners of 23 Thomas Drive regarding the development of Lot 2, which included a house with a side -entry garage close to the lot line. Mr. Sullivan changed the house style to have a front -entrance garage based on the conversation. He noted that the drainage system did not change and is still sized appropriately. The Applicant agreed to plant 5 hemlock trees at the property line. Mr. Sullivan noted that he added a fieldstone wall to the right of the roadway in order to help preserve the trees along that side, and explained some of the stormwater design features. He explained there will be a 40% reduction in peak rate of runoff. He mentioned that he submitted a Stormwater Permit Application, which will be the first time CPDC has dealt with this, but requires basically the same information that is always provided for stormwater design. Mr. Sullivan noted that he provided turning movements for the largest fire truck the Town owns. Ms. Adrian asked about the driveway on Lot 1 and whether it's proximity to the lot line would be a problem for the abutting property owner. The abutting property owner is also the owner of 103 Sanborn Lane, Erik Kaloyanides, and he said this is not a problem for him. Mr. Weston asked about the temporary soil stockpile area at the back of Lot 1. Mr. Sullivan explained that it is required for the Stormwater Permit, and that there aren't a lot of other areas on site where the stockpile can go due to preservation of trees and not wanting to compact the soil. Mr. Weston asked how long that stockpile would be there and if it would be used for clearing and rough grading only. Mr. Sullivan noted that it would be a loam stockpile that could be stabilized with seed or a plastic tarp to prevent erosion. Ms. Adrian asked what a "staked mulch soxx" is. Mr. Sullivan said it's a mulch sock (spelled soxx), which is a 12" diameter biodegradable sock that can be filled with whatever type of material is needed, and works as an erosion control barrier. Ms. Adrian opened the hearing to public comment. Mr. Bruce Mackenzie, of 102 Sanborn Lane, across the street, asked for clarification of a prior comment. He said that for the property at 107 Sanborn Lane, about 1,000 SF should Oen oPNfgO Town of Reading 'as= Meeting Minutes �Wy SJD'IN[OPP°PP be reserved in order to ensure that the remaining lot can still meet zoning if/when the Sanborn Lane roadway is widened in the future. He noted safety concerns with kids walking to school, and opined that Sanborn Lane should be widened to match the rest of the street. He noted that Lot 1 has excess land that could be given back to 107 Sanborn Lane. Ms. Adrian and Mr. Weston noted that this has come up before. Ms. Adrian suggested Mr Mackenzie bring this to the attention of DPW. Mr. Weston noted that in the past owners along that stretch were not in favor of expanding the road. Mr. Mackenzie commented that a number of the owners have changed recently, and suggested that more people are interested in widening the road for safety reasons. Ms. Clish asked for clarification of what is meant by land being taken from 107 Sanborn Lane. Ms. Mercier reminded the Commission that the properties at 107 and 105 Sanborn Lane used to extend back, but that the CPDC endorsed an ANR plan a year ago that modified lot lines to create the hammerhead shaped lot under consideration for subdivision now. Mr. Weston commented that the width of Sanborn Lane is variable Ms. Clish noted that the locus map on the Cover Sheet of the Plans does not match the tract boundary. Mr. Sullivan agreed and said he will fix it. Ms. Leah Barton of 23 Thomas Drive, thanked Mark Hall and Jack Sullivan for working with them through the project. She asked for clarification of who maintains the drainage system. Mr. Sullivan noted that if the road remains private, then a homeowner's association will maintain it; if the road becomes public, then the Town will manage it. Mr. Crowley noted that their initial intention was to have the road accepted by the Town. Ms. Mercier noted that initial feedback from staff is that the road should remain private, which is stated in the Draft Decision. Mr. D'Arezzo asked how the Town and homeowners will know who is responsible. Mr. Crowley said there is an acknowledgement in the deed that the stormwater is managed via a Homeowners Association, and the documents for such typically get reviewed by the Conservation Commission. Ms. Mercier explained that documents related to the Stormwater Permit, operations, maintenance, etc. will be submitted to her and she will share them with the Conservation Administrator and Town Engineer. Mr. Claude Grosso, of 15 Thomas Drive, noted concern with a very large infiltration chamber right behind his property and asked who will maintain it. He said he asked various DPW staff who will be responsible for cleaning it, and on what schedule - but has not heard back. He asked about filters, leaves, mulch, sand, etc., and noted that one of the Engineering staff expressed similar concern that everything would be dumped right in his backyard. Mr. Sullivan explained that deep sump catch basins (with a 4' sump) allow water to sink down, go through manholes, and stormceptors which remove grit, hydro -freeze, and 60% of TSS (this one will remove 92%), before the water gets to the infiltration field. He said they know the water table, soil type, etc. and that the system is designed for the 9" rain storm. He also said that this development will result in 40% less stormwater runoff. He said there are 50-60 infiltration fields like this throughout Town. Ms. Clish asked where the snow stockpile area, which is mentioned in the Stormwater Maintenance Plan, is on the plans. Mr. Sullivan noted that it was originally proposed on the OFq Town of Reading Meeting Minutes re TJsr righthand side, but now they are preserving the trees and lining the subdivision road with vertical granite curbing, which will make snow plowing infeasible. Mr. Weston noted that another note says it will be plowed onto grass areas, which encourages infiltration. Mr. Sullivan said he will clarify the note. Mr. Weston noted that the question of who to go to regarding stormwater wasn't really answered, and that it depends on whether the road remains private or becomes public. He clarified that staff departments would like this to be private, and therefore the Homeowners Association will be responsible for maintaining It and reporting to the Town. Abutters can come to Town Hall if there are any problems and the Town can look into it. Mr. Grosso asked if the infiltration chamber has any safety measures. Mr. Weston said It's underground, and will be covered. Mr. Sullivan noted that it is not a pit, it will have 2' of cover and look like the ground. There will be inspection ports to ensure the system is functioning correctly. Mr. Grosso asked how the people responsible for maintaining it will access it. Mr. Sullivan noted that there is an easement that can be granted for access if the Town required access or a third-party contractor can provide maintenance. Mr. MacNichol asked how a future homeowner will know not to build a pool or similar structures in that area. Mr. Sullivan explained that Mr. Crowley will specify such things in the HOA docs. Ms. Adrian asked to review the waivers. Mr. Sullivan went through and explained a justification for each waiver request. He noted the intention is to underground the electrical service. Mr. MacNichol went through the Draft Decision for the Commission, noting some open items and some updates. Mr. Crowley said that providing a sidewalk connection from the development tract to the sidewalk at 147 Sanborn Lane is not viable at this time. Mr. MacNichol noted that the Fire Department has requested "No Parking" signs on the cul- de-sac because the turning movements are tight. He noted that enforcement of parking on a private way is difficult, but that the signs may encourage self-policing. Mr. MacNichol noted that the Town Engineer would like all the Stormwater Permit conditions included, especially since this is the first time the CPDC is going through this process. Mr. Crowley asked for a condition to be added that the Town will maintain the water and sewer infrastructure, via an easement, and will plow the road and do trash pick-up. Mr. D'Arezzo said his understanding is that the homeowners may be responsible for the sewer lines. The Commission went back and forth about responsibility for road maintenance, trash pickup, utilities, etc., and decided to keep the language simple in that the road will be treated like other private roads in Town. Ms. Sirna, 104 Sanborn Lane, mentioned that snowplows pushing all snow to the end of the road will exacerbate Flooding in front of her property. She noted that during a prior discussion, Mr. Sullivan said that plows would not push snow out that way. Mr. Sullivan responded that he still does not see snow plowing as an issue bemuse the drainage system is sized appropriately and no drainage will go across Sanborn Lane. He said the snow will be pushed to the back of Farmhouse Lane, which will slope down from Sanborn Lane. Mr. Weston clarified that snow plows will push snow to the back of the cul-de-sac, not out the end of the subdivision road toward Ms. Sirna's house. �; OFq O Town of Reading 6;y= Meeting Minutes Ms. Clish moved to close the public hearing for the 3 -lot Definitive Subdivision Application at 103 Sanborn Lane. Mr. Weston seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Ms. Clish moved to approve the requested waivers, as amended, hearing for the 3 - lot Definitive Subdivision Application at 103 Sanborn Lane. Mr. Weston seconded the motion, and it was approved 5-0-0. Ms. Clish moved to approve the Definitive Subdivision and Stormwater Permit for the 3 -Lot Definitive Subdivision Application at 103 Sanborn Lane. Mr. Weston seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Master Signaae Plan Application. Postmark Ms. Mercier noted that some of the signage is proposed on a historic stone wall and on a historic facade, and so the application has been deferred to the Reading Historical Commission and will come back to CPDC at some point in the future. Continued Public Hearina, 40R Plan Review 18 Woburn Street. GC Fodera Contracting. Inc Attorney Josh Latham, Giovanni Fodera, Guiseppe Fodera, John Seger, and Sam Gregorio of TEC were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Giovanni Fodera, project engineer, introduced himself and went through some of the changes requested by the Engineering Division, emphasizing the request for a traffic engineer's opinion on the grading of the garage. He noted that Sheet C-3 shows more detail on this, and explained how the grade works within the garage. He explained the shaded area shows grades greater than 10%. Mr. Sam Gregorio, Senior Traffic Engineer at TEC, noted that he ran an analysis of vehicles entering the garage at two different locations/conditions. He said they looked at 5 generic top -five models (length, width, ground clearance, wheel base). He explained the ground clearance for each vehicle going uphill and then downhill as they enter, noting that they all have enough ground clearance. He summarized that pretty much every car out there will be able to get Into and out of the garage, with one exception - the sports car. He pointed out that a car that can't get into the garage, will also have trouble on the right -of way from Woburn Street into the CVS Parking Lot. Ms. Adrian asked if the analysis included Fiats or Mini Coopers. Mr. Gregorio listed the 5 cars analyzed, noting that it would be difficult to study them all. Mr. D'Arezzo commented on Mr. Gregorio's letter from November W, which states that parking Issues can be mitigated by appropriate tenant management. Mr. Gregorio explained that a tenant can test the garage before entering into a lease. Mr. Latham noted that they will disclose the concern up -front and put up proper signage to mitigate any issues. Mr. Weston said he is still concerned about the standard being used for vehicle turning movements. He noted that to some degree there will be self-selection, but that 17' is not necessarily capturing all vehicles. He asked about the height clearance at the location of the northerly end of the entrance, and noted that this will be self-selecting to some degree as well. He also mentioned that people are not always that aware though, as evidenced by some recent occurrences at other properties. He stated concern with the column at the edge of the entrance/exit, at the corner of the building, and opined that it will get hit at least a Off, f 9Cg0 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes few times a year due to the slope of the entrance and inclement weather. He suggested that they make sure the design of that particular column be able to withstand such an impact. Mr. Giovanni Fodera noted that the existing conditions plan shows 3 parking spaces located along the right-of-way, that take a similar right turn to park. Ms. Mercier screen -shared an aerial photo. Ms. Clish pointed out that on an icy day, someone may not park there, which is different from needing to turn into the garage to park because you live there. Mr. Weston said that as a traffic engineer he is always surprised by how people drive, and suggested they strengthen the column or put up safety measures to shore up that end of the building. Ms. Mercier suggested they ask the architect to weigh in on how modifications to the column may change the entrance width and structure. Mr. John Seger, project architect, commented that the corner is not a column, it's a wall, and that it will include structural framing and be a continuous load-bearing wall. He said that he has not done the structural design yet, but that there are a couple of ways he can strengthen it, and add support to the first floor as well. He opined it would be great to put a bollard in front of it. Mr. Safina noted a couple of issues with how the structure is shown: (1) the structure is weak In the wrong direction (to the south), and (2) it will need to be clad which will make it wider. If the wall is beefed up and/or a bollard is added, that will impact the turning radius out of the garage. He inquired as to whether an exiting car could still make the turn out of the garage, slightly further north than currently shown. Mr. Safina asked if the turning radius' shown on the plans match the analysis that was done by the traffic engineer. The development team responded in the affirmative. Mr. Fodera suggested a steel I-beam Instead of a concrete column or wall. Mr. Safina noted that it won't be left naked, it will be wrapped and clad, and it will likely be 10" or 12". He said he doesn't doubt it can be engineered, but asked whether the vehicular movements could still be made if the opening were 2" narrower. Mr. Gregorio said that all the turning movements can be modified to accommodate modifications to make the wall/corner more structurally sound. Ms. Adrian said she would like to see the turning radius, the signage, etc. Mr. Weston asked for the vertical clearance. Mr. Fodera said it is 8'-3" at the north wall of the entrance to 10'-2" at the back. Mr. Safina commented that the beam is going up into the brick wall, which can be deeper if needed, which is good. Mr. Weston said he is ok after looking at the auto -turn movements, because there is definitely room to maneuver. He reiterated that there are limitations on what types of vehicles can effectively utilize the garage - small or average but not large. Ms. Clish said she is concerned when everything fits just barely, because that means people might be hesitant to use the garage. Mr. Safina opined that people are lazy and want to park as close to their destination as possible. Mr. Seger confirmed that the column will be wrapped in pre -cast concrete similar to the rest of the structure. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the Engineering Division has seen all the correspondence. Ms. Mercier confirmed that they have. �. Orq�O' Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Ken Neilson, Grand Street, asked if there will be electrical hookups for electric vehicles. Mr Latham responded that the garage will be electric -ready, but that they won't be pre- installed. Ms. Adrian stated her assumption that the spaces won't be allocated. Ms. Karen Gately -Herrick, member of the Select Board, noted that when the project came to the Select Board the electric chargers were mentioned. She noted the new legally mandated ✓3< binding climate law which requires that Towns move towards greener technologies. She noted that we should not install new gas lines, and asked how the developer plans to heat and cool the building. Mr. Seger said the design can be a split system with either electric or gas, and that he doesn't want to limit the Decision because they have not investigated this In great detail yet. Mr. Seger opined that she makes a good point and they will look Into It. Mr. Gregorio returned to Ms. Adrian's inquiry about the Mini Cooper, noting that it will work just fine in the garage. Mr. MacNichol went through the Draft Decision for the Commission, noting some things that need to be confirmed, and some items that need to be discussed. He noted the western sidewalk and a request for the stairs. Mr. Latham said it is a narrow alley intended as a second means for Fire egress, and that a stairway would be a bigger undertaking requiring coordination with the building next door. Mr. MacNichol asked about ADA access from the parking areas. Mr. Latham said this project does not change the condition for someone parking in the CVS Lot to get to Woburn Street. Mr. MacNichol noted that he added a condition regarding EV charging ports, and mentioned that the bike racks will need to be relocated so they don't prohibit access. He commented that they could be provided in the CVS Lot where there aren't any currently. Mr. MacNichol noted that the Parking Traffic Transportation Task Force (PTTTF) will work with the developer to determine whether a sidewalk is added along the right-of-way. The Commission added some language regarding vehicle management, signage, bike racks, additional crash -worthiness of the column at the southern end of the entrance, and revised turning movements for vehicles. Mr. Robert Coulter asked for clarification on the number of units in the building. Ms. Mercier stated that it Is a 6 -unit structure. Mr. Weston moved to close the public hearing for the 40R Plan Review at 18 Woburn Street. Ms. Clish seconded the motion, and it was approved 5-0-0. Ms. Clish moved to approve the requested waivers for the 40R Plan Review at IS Woburn Street. Mr. Weston seconded the motion, and it was approved 5-0-0. Ms. Clish moved to approve the 40R Plan Review for 18 Woburn Street. Mr. Weston seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Continued Public Hearing, 40R Plan Review 6-16 Chute Street. Plimsoll Company Attorney Josh Latham, Jeff Olinger, Jamie Gerrity, and Patrick McCarty were present on behalf of the Application. Mr. Latham noted that a few additional items were requested at the last hearing. Mr. Olinger went through the requests in the Town Engineer's memo. O� OFRf., Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the plan is for all the lights to be on all night. Mr. Olinger said the building management system will turn the lights off automatically. Mr. Olinger noted that a group of abutters has identified the corner as a place of high civic importance, and the design team agrees and is willing to work with the Town to create a space there for people. Mr. Olinger explained the detail of the green living wall, and described the decibel levels anticipated by the acoustic analysis in the Noise Reduction Diagram, which are without any screening at all around the units. He explained how the decibels are measured at the source and out to the property line. He expressed willingness to have a more precise study done, and that they believe they will be within an acceptable range. Mr. Safina suggested they do a baseline analysis before anything changes so that existing conditions can be proven out before complaints blame the new building. He suggested doing a study with the train at rest as well, and noted how the building actually shields the neighborhood from some of the noise. Mr. Weston said the building will provide a benefit to Chute Street and behind because it will screen cars on High Street and trains on the tracks. He said the noise complaint will come from people on Woburn Street because the building Is higher and there is a direct line of sight/noise, and so if the mechanicals have a tone it won't be buffered. Mr. Gerrity commented that the mechanicals can be clustered more toward the nose of the building. Mr. D'Arezzo asked to see the lighting plan, and asked why it doesn't go off the property line. Mr. Olinger explained that there is a grade change and a fence that will shield the light from the garage/cars. The lighting plan is only showing light in the garage where It's needed for vehicular and pedestrian movement. Mr. Weston asked to further clarify exterior lighting. Mr. Olinger said there will be decorative sconces / goosenecks for retail, which will be part of the building automation system / building management system that tracks all utilities, as well as safety lighting on the balconies. Ms. Clish asked for clarification on what is proposed for the community open space at the corner, noting that it is a reduction of open space. Mr. Gerrity stated that there are 3 different open spaces proposed, which total about 850 square feet. Mr. Olinger showed where the 3 spaces are. Ms. Clish said the 2nd floor retail terrace could be lovely, but she opined that we can't count on it being publicly accessible if it becomes an office or fitness area. She said the small terrace at the ground level looks like a building exit with a transformer in the middle of it. Mr. Gerrity noted that the transformer location hasn't been officially determined. Ms. Clish asked for a more candid approach to what is referred to as "open space." Mr. Gerrity said the great opportunity for public open space is diminished by the reality that a train idles at the station multiple times a day. Ms. Clish opined that she is bothered by the transformer being along the main frontage. Mr. Olinger described the outdoor space at the corner of the building, which now includes seating. Mr. Gerrity mentioned that the Town has plans to redo the streetscape in this area, and that he would rather work with the Town once the design is finalized, in order to make the space truly functional for retail and as a public good. Mr. Weston agreed that the Town's designs could be instructive, but asked if there is a way to open up the space behind the VAN OFR Town of Reading Meeting Minutes 6J9.1FCOP glass. He said if it were a roof over some tables, it would only be good a couple months of the year, and suggested that it feel more like a foyer of a building. Ms. Meyer added onto the concept and noted it reminds her of a mobility hub; they could put the train times in there and encourage a lively, transitional space. Ms. Clish referred to it as an indoor/outdoor civic space. Ms. Clish asked if a waiver is now needed for height. Mr. Olinger explained that the average height is 45', but there is a 49' point above a 0' grade. Mr. Gerrity explained the height in detail. Ms. Karen Gately -Herrick, Select Board member, noted that the project is very large and thanked the Commission for going through all the details. She noted that an RMLD Commissioner is on the call and that he would like to speak up. She asked why the CPDC is not talking about the energy infrastructure to support all the new businesses and residents. She again mentioned the gas line, and suggested not building new structures utilizing fossil fuels. She said that the RMLD is able and willing to work with developers. Mr. Safina asked for the timeline on the climate law. Ms. Clish said that the state is required to reach net zero emissions by 2050, with some interim targets. Mr. Olinger said his understanding is that it targets new gas lines, not buildings using existing gas lines. He noted that this project will utilize as many technologies as possible to have a net zero framework for when future technologies and trends are the norm. Ms. Adrian opined that this is a perfect building for solar panels. Mr. Olinger agreed. Mr. Safina said the building doesn't have enough roof area for a PV installation at this time, at least in order to have a significant power source. He noted that as the technology evolves, having the right infrastructure in place to take advantage of it as components come up to speed, and to be retrofitted, is what they should plan for. Mr. Robert Coulter, RMLD Commissioner, former design supervisor at National Grid, agreed that there is no space for PV on this roof. He said the transformer is currently in a non - workable spot, and suggested the developer reach out to RMLD sooner than later. He opined that the building is a behemoth, and asked about the intensity of the density, and why the CPDC is contemplating cramming so many units Into this area. He questioned the heights allowed downtown, and commented that downtown Reading is starting to look like an urban environment. Mr. Latham noted that zoning over time adapts to changes, and explained how 40R makes it possible to do affordable housing, which requires market rate housing. He noted that Blacks Block and MF Charles, which are the character of the downtown, are enormous structures that max out the lot lines. Mr. Dave Talbot, 75 Linden Street, noted the late time and asked the CPDC to have more meetings. He opined that It is brutal to have to wait until 11: 15pm to make a comment on a project. He said the scale is a notch too big to meet goals, and that Reading is much denser than other 40R towns. Mr. Weston clarified that the information Mr. Talbot provided to Town Meeting was inaccurate and compared Reading to a number of towns that are do not utilize 40R, and that have developments on tracts of land much larger than the parcels in Reading's downtown. He commented that the projects are so big there is no room left to deal with mechanicals, so they end up at the front or visible sides of the building. Mr. Talbot asked the CPDC if they have the power to say no to a project seeking a density waiver. Mr. Weston responded in the affirmative. Mr. Talbot opined that the CPDC is just VAN 11iR Town of Reading Meeting Minutes uooxv doing what the developer wants, rather than doing what Town Meeting wants and scaling them back. Mr. Latham chimed in regarding the open space at the corner of the building, noting that it is an opportunity to do something. Mr. Barry Gagne, 100 Woburn Street, asked about the walls and fences up to the property line, and where the setback is, etc. He asked why it has to be a stockade fence. He asked for clarification on the shadow study. He asked how the maximum density over 20 units per acre is determined. Mr. Weston explained the 20 unit per acre minimum and the waiver process, noting that the 20 unit per acre minimum gives the CPDC leverage to ask for specific changes to the building. He said he considers the maximum density based on what the externalities are, and whether they would occur with a different type of development on the same property. Mr. Gerrity responded to the shadow study, saying that it will have very little impact on the house at 100 Woburn Street March through October. Mr. Gerrity said he wasn't planning on replacing his fence, just adding one next to it. He is happy to discuss it further. Ms. Sue Coppola, 98 Woburn Street, noted that the shadow casting does appear to impact both properties on Woburn Street. She opined that sun matters. Ms. Angela Binda, Town Meeting Member, echoed what was said by Ms. Clish regarding what counts as open space. She said she doesn't understand how second story space or foyer space can be considered open space. She said breathability and sight lines matter. Mr. Ken Nielson, Grand Street, asked if the pipes in the street are large enough to support these projects, noting that when new pipes go in, they are not supposed to be dug up for 10 years. He opined that he doesn't believe the sound study provided. Mr. Safina noted that newer equipment is not as noisy as the old machines currently there. Mr. Olinger said there will likely be electric heat pumps, and will utilize the existing natural gas hookup if it fits within the larger carbon footprint goals for the building. Ms. Mary Ellen O'Neill, 125 Summer Avenue, said she appreciates that the CPDC is working on the updates to the 4011 Bylaw, and asked whether one night in January can be dedicated to the discussion on that. She asked if the Chute Street project can be moved back a bit so they can preserve the small open space at the front. Mr. Talbot noted that of course the projects have to be economical, and said that 2 Haven Is 3 stories and fully commercial without any incentives was economic when it was built. He opined that the Chute Street project would be fully profitable at 28 units/acre. Mr. Latham said there are a lot of anecdotal statements being made about what is profitable, and noted what could be built by -right in the underlying Business B zoning district. He said looking at this piecemeal doesn't make sense. Mr. Latham noted that the 4011 statute requires a minimum of 20 units per acre, and quoted under 4011 Section 11, that Towns can only deny projects if it doesn't meet requirements or if it causes significant adverse impacts. He said 40R promotes this type of project barring certain things, not the other way around. 10 orsr•o Town of Reading .. -; Meeting Minutes Ms. Coppola asked if there could be a response to the shadow casting or transformer. Answers were reiterated. Ms. Karen Gately -Herrick said she very much appreciates a commitment to look at air source heat pumps, and commented that RMLD is beneficial and helpful to the process. She said that she has been hearing concerns about the size and density of this project from the beginning and thanked the Commission for working with everyone to get to better project. Mr. Safina went back to a prior comment he made that the numbers for this project should be 24-28 units, and asked the developer to show a pro forma proving that 28 units is not economically feasible. He said that he likes everything else about the project. Mr. Gerrity said that constructing 1 affordable unit requires 2.5 market rate units, which lines up with all the other projects CPDC has approved. He noted that the project won't be built for another 2 years, which could make the economics worse. Mr. Safina asked what profit Mr. Gerrity is looking to make. Mr. Gerrity pushed back on this, saying his profit is likely no different from the others. Mr. Safina said he is looking at massing and other components, which are the best way to make a significant impact on the building. Mr. Safina commented that the downtown needed some anchor buildings to get 40R moving, and were given higher densities to get there. Mr. Gerrity opined that his building meets all of the things CPDC is looking at in their new 40R zoning. Ms. Clish pointed out that this isn't the first time that the building size has come up, and that she is struggling with the design because she also feels that it is too big. Mr. Gerrity said the project will not be able to proceed if he has to change it more. Ms. Clish moved to continue the hearing for a 40R Pian Review at 6-16 Chute Street to January 24th at 7:30 PM. Mr. Weston seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Minutes Due to the late time the Commission elected to review and vote on meeting minutes at future hearing dates. Adiournment Ms. Clish moved to adjourn at 12:07am. Mr. Weston seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Documents Reviewed at the Meeting: • CPDC Agenda 12/13/21 • CPDC Meeting Minutes of 7/12/21 and 8/18/21 • Approval Not Required Plan Endorsement, 89 King St and 90 Prospect St o Form A, dated 11/9/21 o ANR Plan of Land, dated 11/9/21 o Project Engineer Responses, dated 12/921 o Memo from CDD and Town Engineer, dated 12/1321 o ANR Certificate, dated 12/1321 • Continued Public Heanng, 3 -Lot Defnigve Subdivision and Stormwater Permit for 103 Sanborn Lane o Summary of Changes, dated 11/15/21 o Civil Plan Set, dated 11/10/21 11 � OrR Town of Reading Meeting Minutes •`�NCOPr o Fire Truck Turning Plan, dated 1123/21 o Memo from Town Engineer, dated 12/921 o Draft Decision, dated 12/1321 • Continued Public Hearing, 40R Plan Review for 18 Woburn Street o Civil Plan Set, dated 12/721 o Parking Garage Exhibit Plans, dated 9/18/21 o Response to Engineering Memo, dated 112421 o TEC Ground Clearance Letter, dated 11/1821 o TEC Ground Clearance Letter revised, dated 112421 o Applicant Responses, dated 12/13/21 o Memo from Town Engineer, dated 12/9/21 o Draft Decision, dated 12/1321 • Continued Public Hearing, 40R Plan Review for 6-16 Chute Street o Civil and Architectural Plan Set, dated 11/2921 o Project Manual, dated 11/29/21 o Project Open Space calculations, dated 112321 o Citizen Petition, received 12/621 o Memo from Town Engineer, dated 12/921 o Draft Decision, dated 12/1321 12