Countdown. >> Okay. From what? >> 5 4 3 2 1. It's now 6:30. Uh we're here for a
planning board meeting. The uh agenda is primarily taken up with 550 very storm water um the storm water review and the site plan phase one
um our agenda as uh board business. Do we have any do we have any minutes? We do. Were they Did anyone look at them? I have so let's table that. Um
Lauren prepared a budget for fiscal year 27 which is uh which was distributed to us. I didn't have any comments on it. Did anyone else? >> So we uh presented that at the joint
finance committee's left board meeting last night. We'll respond to a few general questions from those members and then the town will get feedback um well the boards departments will get feedback um through throughout the process.
>> Okay. And you had uh mentioned uh we should mention that um Lucia is retiring. Yes, Lucia is retiring and we're in the process of um um
interviewing for a replacement for somebody who can do planning and so and uh building. >> Okay. Um the next item is public input. Uh, I would ask that this be limited to
um issues that aren't related to what we're talking about because we'll have an opportunity for public comments after uh presentations. Today we're going to hear from
the various teams uh and uh primarily to review peer reviews that we've done. We have peer review for the storm water. We have peer review for
traffic. the purity architecture and um they based on our last meeting there were changes to the architecture which we'll be looking at and um by the end of
this uh meeting we want to identify all the issues that we need to include in a draft um decision uh because we want to work toward making
to uh to accomplishing a decision. Um that being said, well, we're we've got some time before the uh scheduled public hearing. Uh do we have any comments uh that you want to bring up else?
I'm told that the soft opening for the Northern Bank will be the second which is next week. >> I don't know if that's one of my neighbors went to try to open an account and that's what they were told. Um soft
opening uh whatever that means. Um that was a um one of the projects that was um approved by our board in years past that has been accomplished
and uh I hope um everyone is enjoying the result of that. Um anything else? >> You got anything?
So we uh attended a um regional housing uh meeting this morning um MAPC or regional planning uh agency convened a meeting of um affordable housing trusts
etc. was able to share our experience um with the homeowner small grant program. Uh and Lexington was able to share their experience um with applying for a mass works no housing works infrastructure
grant for um a buy down on some affordable units that that they're seeing developed in in their community. So, it was a good um time to share notes and and learn from each other on that. One thing that I would mention in um in
your budget request, you are planning ahead for renewing the master plan. >> Yes. >> And what is the schedule for that you think? >> Well, let's see. Littleton adopted the master plan in uh 2017.
Generally, we consider those good for 10 years. So over the next three three or so um fiscal years the town starts setting money aside to update the master plan then after those few years then we'll have enough funding
to get started on that. My thought process anyway on that. >> Okay. There were there was a housing production plan and there was one other was there one other >> so request for um CPC funds um one would
be for housing production plan our housing production plan is from 2014 so it's well out of date and once we start to um understand um the housing production that's going to be forthcoming from this development then it's time to look um ask the community
again what kind of housing um does the community want to see built over the next um several years and it provides an opportunity to to have that conversation and do the outreach. So the
use of it is to identify community concerns or is it used for grants or but what is the use? >> Um so se several things um as you know the benefit of most planning studies is
the process to produce the study, gather the stakeholders and get input on what the community would like to see. Um but then uh the report itself is also useful because you can point to it um as you're applying for grants etc. If the
community has a housing production plan in place um then you get you know few bonus points for a lack of a better word on upcoming grants. >> Okay. Um, and was there another >> um
affordable housing trust um will be um requesting CPC funding um to uh bring the uh rental assistance program back up to full funding. That's ongoing program.
>> I don't know if um the town wide knows about the rental assistance program. Can you just quickly? Um, >> yeah. So, residents that um um are in
rental units um across the town um when they reach out to Elder and Human Services um for assistance. One of the um parts, one of the ways that the town can assist is through the rental assistance program. Uh I mean it is
geared towards um lower income um residents who are having trouble meeting their uh rental um each month. And um if uh household qualifies um then they can the landlord
can receive up to $500 per month for a year potentially renewable for up to three years um depending on qualifications and etc. But um so far um that program has since it started
several years ago has assisted we believe 44 different households How many was it? >> Um what for five years? >> Yes. >> And some of the time frame um the town
was able to use um federal funds to cover that cost. >> Okay, it's now 640. We can continue public hearing. Uh it seems like based on the u soon
we're going to hear first from the storm water peer review. Is that >> I think um that Morgan would like to kick it off with their presentation and then we'll get back to the >> after. That works. That's that's great.
Um Mr. Chair, members of the board, thank you so much for hosting us again. Uh I'm Morgan Pearson with Leoli Companies. Uh try to try to keep it brief and hand it off to different team members who can introduce themselves. Uh before I jump in, I just want to acknowledge a few other people that have
joined us tonight. Um Mary Leapolei Donado and her husband and Mike Donado, both part of the company. Um Sal Lei Jr. is here, Gary Armstrong as well. Um so we we brought the whole squad uh once again and we thank you for the special meeting um in keeping the momentum on uh
on our first phase of the retail. I think uh as Chair Yates mentioned our intent tonight is to to show you the progress we've made. Um the last meeting we spoke to a lot of the things we've heard and a lot of the uh the changes we intended to make and so we're excited to show you those as well as talk about the
storm water and the traffic. Um anything else the the board would like to discuss. Um before we jump into that, I I wanted just a couple housekeeping things that um there's no slides necessary for. Uh very happy to announce that we uh submitted just this evening for retail, I'm sorry, the residential
uh part of the project. Um so so that that's you will see that uh shortly. Um but but uh that is something we promised we would get the the board and the town and so that's a big move forward uh for the project as well. 318 units. Yes. >> Can I interrupt for one second? So for
the people here, we're going to be opening those hearings. It would be similar to this storm water review and site plan review. We're going opening those hearings on the 12th February 12th and it will be in this.
Excellent. >> Um >> that's a that's a >> special right appreciate that. Um, another another item I wanted to mention to the board is that um, uh, part of our team was able to join the BPAC meeting uh, last week and um, that was
beneficial to our team to hear some of the comments made at that meeting and wanted to reiterate our desire to focus on some of the intersections that are part of our off-site mitigation and uh, just acknowledge that we understand how important that is to the town given the
very unfortunate recent fatality um, along King Street. So, um, you're you're happy that our team could join that meeting. Um, next, just as a sort of a heads up as a reminder, one of the things I mentioned at the last meetings
that we were going to show um, as an illustration, the town green, something that in the past we had just not shown because our intentions is and still is to present that formally to the board under a separate application. You're going to see it tonight. I would just I
just want to preface that it is a draft. is part of the evolution. Um, it's purely being shown to to illustrate a lot of the the to be responsive to some of the the feedback we've received. So, I I would just ask the board and the community to keep that in mind. Um, and
then I'll just sort of move into a couple of other things that are important to to lay the groundwork for before we we jump into the more fun stuff. Over the last month or so, we we have heard in different ways from the community and others that there was this sort of perception that what we were
proposing was vastly different. Um that was when it was approved. I mentioned this last meeting. I won't dwell on it too much, but it's just important for everyone to see this. This is what was approved by the board and the community. It went through a rigorous process for master plan approval um most recently in
June of 2024. The outline here shows what this phase is. Um, and the buildings along King Streets, every so much of it is is nearly identical. Um, and again, I just wanted to level set with with all the folks that might not be as intimately involved as the board
members and of course our team. So, um, just reiterating that. Um, again, another reiteration is that there was um a desire by our team and I think others to have parking along King Street. Um,
and some folks may have heard this last time. Again, I want to reiterate it that Mass DOT owns and controls uh King Street uh and Great Road. They specifically asked us to remove the parking on King Street as part of the MEPA process uh that was approved last
year and uh we complied. um as as one can imagine. So um again just that these are the facts. People should just be aware of them. It's not something that we did unilaterally. Um lastly just to to tee up the group before Chris joins
uh and and speaks to some of the traffic and the storm water. The last time I spoke um I think the the the message was that we were searching for a balance. This is the balance between the viability of the retail and we're going
to hear from our retail expert tonight as well. We brought Jeremy Gman here to uh to speak to to the community um and the balance between that and of course the feedback we've heard from this board and the community about formbbased code
and activating King Street. Um, and I'm I'm happy to say that I believe tonight we will show you that we've found that balance. And I guess I would just say that my hope and the takeaway from from the community and the board tonight is that um the message now is
that we've listened and we hope that that comes through um our presentation. So um with that, I'll give it to uh to Chris Rain. Thank you, Morgan. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board um for having me here this
evening. Great to see you all again. Um my name is Chris Raymond from TEC. Um so before we jump into actually some of this exciting uh site plan review updates that we have for you tonight, I did just want to reiterate um just planned here. Um we are also in addition
to the site plan approval uh seeking approval for uh uh minor modification to the subdivision plans. Um this is to help facil facilitate the phase one uh development as well as the surrounding infrastructure. Um and um you can see as
shown on the graphic here um the highlighted in gray it's a little washed out uh with the lights but highlighted in gray is the extent of the phase one development that's been proposed. And you can see the existing property line shown in black and then highlighted in red are the proposed modifications. Um,
>> could you please speak up? We can't hear you very well. >> Sorry. Sorry. Um, yeah. So, highlighted here in gray is the um is the extent of the phase one commercial development that we're
proposing. uh shown in black is the um are the existing property lines and uh highlighted in red are what we're seeking to uh to amend with some minor modifications. Um um so uh that that is just a simp it's a
simple process um or it's simply just a process that we need to go uh go through to um actually move these property lines and specifically um going through this this uh definitive subdivision process so that we can modify this the rightway lines. Um, just
>> I know we moved the podium. >> Um, but the microphone's up in the ceiling over there. >> So, can we move the podium >> that way? >> That way. Um, >> I'm not sure how you want to handle that. >> Community still needs to hear. It's very
small. >> That was great. Thank you. >> Sorry. >> It's okay. >> Um, all right. So, that's the definitive subdivision update. I wanted to change the wedding. People wanted to see better.
>> Okay. >> Um that was me back on the rightway. >> Somebody somebody was going to hit movie over here, right? >> Yeah. Movie. Yep. Right. >> The timing on the rightway changes. Do you is that a separate process or do you
really need to be done >> at the same time any of the building sizes are definitized? Right. >> Yeah, it's it's a separate process. Um um so nothing on this this this process does not change anything that we're proposing as part of the development.
Simply the mechanism to adjust the property lines, >> right? >> So >> what's not overlaid on there is where the build So if you do adjust the size of the buildings, they're not going to encroach on any of those right aways. >> Uh that's why you can't tell that's from this where we're at in the process.
>> Yeah. current proposal. Uh yeah, doesn't we're we're going to try to color in the in the lines uh that we're that we're currently proposing. Um all right. And then uh just want to give an update on various uh peer reviews um since the last meeting. So,
um um since the last meeting, we're able to get um peer reviews from uh Green International who peer reviewed both the traffic and the storm water um for the site. Um we've had the opportunity to meet with uh uh with a couple members of
Green who I see are are here with us uh on the meeting tonight, which uh we we appreciate you guys being here. uh we've had the opportunity to meet with them uh review uh their comments, resolve these comments and we have issued a formal response uh to them as of last week. So
um I'm sure they are reviewing that. Um in addition to uh the peerreview um comments from green uh we have also received some uh great feedback from various town departments and boards including LLWD uh the board of health the historic
commission affordable housing trust and Littleton Fire Department and we do have uh meetings set up with LWD and the Littleton Fire Department for next week to uh to review their comments and results. Um now to dive into some of the site
plan review updates. Uh one thing we wanted to highlight uh and emphasize in this presentation um we've heard a few comments on it is pedestrian access to to the site. Um so this graphic highlights all the pedestrian routes um to and from the site from the
surrounding areas. >> Oh, I know. Um yeah, the background's a little washed out. Um there is an aerial on here, I swear. Um uh so uh this high this graphic highlights the um the pedestrian um infrastructure that is
currently in place or um or being proposed to be improved or added as part of our off-site um as part of our off-site improvements. So you can see here there are routes um in place or will be established um to the ver in in
various directions whether you're coming to or from Westford um to the right side of the screen here or up um to the point over across the bridge from 495. You can see there will be an established route there. Um and then um a lot of
pedestrian uh infrastructure around the common um to get us to and from this site from downtown and from uh the Littleton Common. So we just want to zoom. We just want to zoom in on this a little
bit. Um again, you can't really see the aerial, but um we we just wanted to highlight some of the access points. You can see the red circles here. Um, we know that it's important for you guys to to have access from King Street. So, you can see multiple access points, um, pedestrian access points along King
Street, um, to bring people into the site. And it's it's really highlighted by, um, you can see what Morgan kind of teased earlier, um, the conceptual plan for the town green to the left side here. Um, that's we know that that's going to be an important uh, pedestrian access to really funnel people into the
site, especially coming from town downtown and the town green. Uh we want this to be a a gateway into the site um um for people uh leaving uh or coming and going from the site um to really connect the downtown and u and the
proposed development here. So additionally um this is uh the uh bicycle improvements. So, uh you can see the dash line represents current bike lanes that are in place and then the solid blue lines are what's represented um by uh improved or added bike lanes uh
as part of as part of the development to really allow uh bicycle traffic all along King Street um and down to Great Road uh from this development. >> The bike paths are within the mass vote right away. >> Correct. Yep. >> Yeah. Except for the the ones that are
on site there. >> Yeah. On the top. I'm just the the blue ones going down street. >> Um and then in this graphic we wanted to uh highlight the off-site improvements that have been identified with with mass DOT. Um you can see along King Street
here, that's where we will be adding um bicycle uh bicycle lanes uh in both directions uh along the extent of this site. Um uh you'll also see highlighted there's three pedestrian crossings that we want to uh incorporate and we'll work
on. Um we'll work with Mass DOT through final design to figure out where where it makes sense and where the safest crossing points will be. Um but we have um we're required to do three of those crossings. Um, we're also going to be incorporating a shared use path um along
the site side of King Street um to allow uh safe pedestrian um access along uh and travel along uh the north side of King Street along the site frontage. Um you can see uh to the top of the graphic here along Great Road, we'll be
extending a sidewalk from the site driveway down to uh the 495 uh on-ramp uh with some pedestrian improvements um proposed there. Um and then at the street and great road intersection,
there'll be pedestrian improvements there as well as uh uh traffic signal retrofit upgrades. Um and there'll be some uh timing coordination done with the various lights along uh great road um to make sure timings are optimized
there as well. Um and then we'll incorporate um uh curb curb ramps and uh uh upgraded uh uh cross crosswalks. So um those are all up to standards and the pedestrians can feel safe uh crossing
that intersection. And then we have uh similar down at the Great Road uh Stevens intersection. There'll be pedestrian uh improvements there, including upgraded curb ramps and uh and pedestrian crossings. And then most
importantly, um as as Morgan mentioned, I was able to uh attend the EPAC meeting uh last week. We're um we're grateful to get that opportunity. I think a member of the community had invited uh people at the last meeting and we thought it
was a great opportunity to go uh hear some of the concerns that the that the board had and uh some of the uh the members of the public had and it was really highly focused on the on the intersection at Goldmith, Stevens and King Street um
which had the unfortunate fatality and we we saw just how important it is to um make some upgrades it's there to make people make people feel safe um when they're uh traveling in in their downtown. Um it's important for us to
make make sure that pedestrians coming to and from our site um also feel safe. So um we um are committed to working with DOT to make make um the necess necessary improvements at this location um to make everyone feel safe. So, um,
just to un that new chunk of sidewalk that's going to go down Great Road there, is that going to be right at the curb or is there going to be the 24 36 inch B perm space between the >> highway and the and sidewalk cuz some of
the sidewalks are right against the road and they're very uncomfortable because that's going to be a speed up zone for people going onto the highway. So, um, conceptually there's going to be a sidewalk there. Right now, we have not done the design plans for that, but we will be adjusting
the curb line, um, and increasing the the sidewalk there. We'll probably I know there's a guardrail there, so we'll we'll have to work with that where they want. >> Yeah. I just think it's something to take into consideration where you can provide and I don't know what the the formal term of that bum space is,
>> like a buffer space. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yep. >> So, that >> Yeah. Can can we pause on this um slide and subject for a minute to allow the board to uh make comments have a comment? Anna, do you have any
comments on this scope of work >> on the pedestrian access or everything that they >> about this particular slide? >> I think my concern still lies over on
Great Road. I mean, this whole notion of having a crossing down by the exit ramp is really of concern to me. And I think that if the bicycle the BPAC
is going to be um consulted, you know, as this project goes along, I think that will be very helpful. Uh truthfully, that wasn't our first um uh first uh spot to to present that. Um we would we would prefer a a lot
crossing, but um we need to look at the the safety concerns that have incorporating that at like our great road at our driveway comes to safety concern and mass dot um pointed us towards um incorporating this
crossing here. Well, >> so is there going to be crosser at King Street and Great Road? >> At King Street and Great Road? Yeah. Right at the intersection? >> Yep. >> Yep. There'll be there'll be all new upgrades there. >> So, I think I would recommend signage
that actually directs pedestrians to go to that corner as opposed to trying to cross the highway. >> Oh, for sure. Yeah. Yep. Yeah, that's a great idea. Um Bartlett. Um Mark, >> I'm good.
>> Uh my comments would be um a couple um a few things we want to accomplish with this aspect of the project. One of them would be to include a
town um presence between with along with you and Mass Dot. Um, you have interests, Mass. DOT has interests, the town has interests, and
it's been um and will this will be part of the decision. And we'd like to set up um a uh a town um me, not a member, but
a town presence on this this process that would consist of the administrator, a selectman, and a planning board design. Um and the purpose of this would be to
you know continue the outreach that you've done >> um with meeting on the 20th. Um the next thing and this is also being discussed and may become part of the decision is
that we would like to reintroduce the parking along King Street. Um, but there are certain things that have to happen for that. You know, apparently the town has to take control of that section of King Street. Um, and so we'd have to go
through that process. Uh, but the the DOT doesn't necessarily represent our best interests for this project. Um and so uh you know the parking there was a good
idea to you know to enliven that uh edge. So we we'd like to push toward uh and that is complicated for you guys because you I'd like to see
if we accept this as part of the decision that you incorporate that potential in whatever landscape plans you have along that that stretch. >> Yeah. So, I do know at the uh at the BPAC meeting um I know that that uh
advisory committee is working towards maybe producing a letter um of sorts to um to send to DOT and they have some or they're they plan on um um sending some sort of communication over to DOT with
um you know some of their thoughts and ideas and and that is absolutely we u we encourage that. Um if you guys want to directly send um some of your um comments and ideas to them. >> We're we're happy to be involved.
>> This is what Well, I'm speaking for myself. We can talk among the board get to that point, but we would be very interested in and we um Jim Dugan, the town administrator, has you know been in
this loop and and has some idea about what it would take to uh accomplish that essentially over ID and it's a town commitment to um uh basically take control of that those
sections of the roadway and would also include great road. However, we have an interest as we go forward for this entire area to have a little more control over it would we would control have more control over speed limits. We'd have more control over street
parking which you know would uh impact you know great further development on great road. Um, so anyway, that's going to I I think we'd like to make that a priority in this process of um the
traffic mitigation. Okay, >> hand it off. >> I guess what I'd suggest is we don't control that process, right? We could I think we would I I would say that we probably would write a letter to the board of selection requesting them to pursue that.
>> But would it be possible >> but we can't hold them to an uncommitted timeline that >> so could you perhaps indicate um you know what it would look like sort of an overlay with it so that we could see what would happen if it did get approved
versus a plan that we can actually execute on in a definitive timeline. Well, I I I don't think this is um you know, it's not possible before the deci, you know, before the decision. However,
uh it can be planned for assuming Anna present at the last meeting examples of neighboring towns where this has happened uh on DOT state highways. Um, so we think we can do it and if we could
accommodate it, it may just be you have a grassy verge. You know, I also point out that there'll be further development along King Street which this may um, you know, impact. So, we can think about how
we accomplish that, but that's the trigger point. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay. You know, we'll have to look into that because there's there obviously is going to also be some rightway impacts there as that expands. >> No, but we're just saying this is what we'd like to see and we can figure out
how to get there. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Yeah. Good to go. >> All right. I'm going to hand it over to Joe Facello to talk about uh landscaping and the pastor experience. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Joe
Fikachello. I am a senior landscape architect at Albertson Time Bonds. Um we are the landscape consultant uh on the design team and I'm also a resident at one. Um so first we're going to start off just kind of an overall uh kind of
reiterating or becoming familiar again with the main parts of pedestrian realm of the of the project. So we have our our main spine kind of working through the center there uh as one area. Uh and then we have our green which would just be kind of right off to the left of the
screen there. We have of course uh King Street uh the King Street edge. And then between building 1400 and 1500 we have our little Best Pocket Arc. So tonight we're going to focus on on King Street and the changes we made. And
if you kind of like look up at the top image and quickly look down, look up, look down, focus on King Street. Hopefully it'll start to bleed through is is what we've been doing there, what we've been working on based on uh the comments we've heard from from the board and of course the community. Um so if we
look at the lower lower image, oh actually let's stay on on the upper image there first. And and what we had presented before essentially was at the back of the roadway curve, we had our treeway. Um and then on the inside of the treeway there we had our 5-ft uh sidewalk and then uh we had either sort
of stone walls and to make up help make up grade or planting and those sorts of things. Uh and then you know within there there were certain access points. So now if we kind of look at the bottom plan now uh starting over on the the left hand side uh just to the left of uh
1200 is where our green is going to be. So that's sort of if you kind of think of that as the first kind of moment along King's Street. Um and we we do have some images that kind of quickly show like some highle ideas there to sort of tie this all together. And then
as you sort of walk uh east on King Street, I think it's east. Um let's call it Clam right. Um we're coming down and towards the corner of uh 1200 is where we hit our first kind of little node there. And what we're trying to do essentially along the length of King
Street is not sort of focus on one point. We're trying to sort of create moments where we can through the length. Some of them are bigger like uh the green um and some of them are are sort of smaller like little micro nodes of of benches. Uh and others are are kind of
intermediate where we were able to kind of wrap the building uh where we can introduce uh entrances uh sort of at that left lower corner of 1400 and the left lower corner of 1500 where we have nice little cafe zones. Uh and then of course we have our little best pocket
park uh between 1400 and 1500 which you know is a nice uh sort of bookend for what the green is going to be offering along King Street. Um, so again, if we kind of like walk down, we get to that corner of 1,400. And you can see that's our first little uh node there that
we're creating. Uh, and that parking space. We took two parking spaces off uh the parking count there. Um, which was a tough uh pill to swallow, but we thought it was worthwhile to try to create a little a little node again along King
Street there. Again, we draw some imagery that will help hopefully clarify what that'll start to look like. And then wrapping that corner of of 1400, we added a little cafe seating right at the back of of sidewalk there. And then as we continue uh east, uh you can see that
we have uh three little uh like micro or mini uh seat nooks there. And those are um essentially uh going to be benches, sculptural benches. you know, we're going to think of them as kind of being a couple feet off of the back of sidewalk so that if you're sitting
there, uh, and people are walking, you'll still feel comfortable. Um, and then also, uh, when people aren't sitting there, they're going to be benches that still have substance to them. In other words, uh, right now we're thinking that some of them will have backs to them, some of them will be backless, they might vary in terms of
depth. Um, they'll be potentially wood material for a seating surface, so they'll be comfortable. uh of course with a metal uh frame uh to hold them up and uh they'll be sculptural to you know to look at and kind of peique your interest. They'll again they'll have
some substance along that stretch of the roadway so they don't just kind of disappear and you you know you know that they're there. Um and then also if we continue down uh you'll see that we added some bike parking uh along that bike back of sidewalk there. And then we
get finally to the 1400 1500 where we have our little vest pocket park. And if you kind of look up and then look down, you'll see we've really sort of expanded that uh in its in its presence and really sort of rethought uh you know where it was focused on. We really tried
to make that little park kind of two-sided. Uh so there it's really nondirectional there. Uh and then just to the to the east of that we have another little uh entrance that we were able to get in there. It's a 1500. Uh, and we introduced uh another little cafe
zone there. And then of course moving down uh towards the right side of 1500 along King Street, we have another little uh nook in there uh with some more seating, you know, and again what we tried to do was kind of spread it out where it made sense where we could in
terms of grading. So that way there if you were, you know, getting a coffee, uh you didn't really have to go too far to find a place to sit depending on what scale uh and what type of intimacy you wanted to u to hang out in. Um and so from here, we relate it a little bit to
the formbbased code that was developed. Uh we've got two um got the front garden and the dining patio and then of course our little pocket park which was not in the form based code but I think it's worth mentioning uh because it is sort of it's it's a little different space
there but it is a nice public uh programmable space that's going to be along that that back of sidewalk up King Street. And you know again you can see it's sort of stretched along uh through the whole length there. And then we're going to go through a couple of images kind of relating it
back to the formbbased code. And then after this we'll have a quick walk through uh down uh King Street so we get an idea and a sense of what it's going to look like. So here we're looking at the front garden um and requirements there. 80% planted area uh minimum 4
foot wide uh walkway. And so here we're looking at, you know, we have our nice little garden planting. Um could be perennials, little woody plants, uh annuals, and then uh sort of a hint of what that um mini little seat nook will
start to look like. And our initial ideas of the type of seating want to see out there. You know, again, those seats aren't going to be uh you know, short. We envision them being two benches put together. Could be up to 14 feet of length of of sitting area there.
Uh and then we're looking at the dining patio. Uh this one in particular is at the corner of 1500. Uh and again uh this is uh I think the code called for a minimum of six foot width for movable
tables and chairs. We're achieving that here. Plus a minimum of a 4 foot walk to get in that door and kind of get by there. Um these will be movable. So you'll be able to kind of make your own space depending on uh how many people are in your group where you want to you
know if you want to kind of just sit uh on your own and scroll through uh you know Instagram you're able to do that here. Um there also be a buffer somewhat between the back of curb and uh the dining patio and that's going to help do
two things. Uh, one is it's going to help us take up grade because in areas we do have some grading issues we need to be concerned about. And then also it's going to give just a little bit of a of a buffer without disconnecting that space. So it'll still feel comfortable to be in, but you'll still feel like
you're on King Street and part of all the kind of people watching, car watching action along there. And of course our our little pocket park. Um, so this is looking straight on and it's just to kind of give a sense of
how we're starting to envision that edge along King Street. So this is going to be a programmable space on the interior of that, but right on King Street, we're going to have um fixed seating elements. Right now, we're thinking that they're multi-tiered to add to, you know, the
whole idea of trying to create uh, you know, multi-uses, multi type people being able to go out and use it. Uh, and also, you know, the bench that's parallel to King Street is nondirectional. In other words, seating on all sides, sit on the upper tier on
all sides. So, it's not focusing on King Street. It's not focusing on the inside on on the pocket park side, but it's, you know, you can sit anywhere in there. Uh, and it's set back a little bit as a little foyer, uh, space, so that way they're it's comfortable to sit there
and hang out. And then on the inside of that, um, you know, it's more programmable where we'll have, uh, movable cafe tables and chairs. Uh, there could be, you know, little pop-up events. Maybe a busker is there and you sit on the on the multi-tiered, uh,
timber benches that we're going to have out there. Uh, or it could be a sort of popup shop event that happens out there. Uh now we're going to walk down King Street so you get a full sense of that length and and how we're trying to activate that space. And so here's that
sneak peek of uh of the green and that's really going to have a strong presence uh on King Street. Uh it's you know we've we've sort of rethought it uh a little bit in terms of uh this front space that we're looking at sort of
being that intermediate zone, that welcoming zone. Uh, and we're dealing with parading here quite a bit. So, we've thought it through where, you know, we have some monumental stairs um along that edge, sort of being really welcoming, bring you up into this intermediate level, start to bring you
into the space, but still have it really feel connected uh as much as we can to King Street, and then, you know, a couple more stairs up into that main green space there. So, if we continue walking down, uh we're down at uh the corner of 1400,
and you can see that little cafe uh zone that we've um integrated into that spot where we've eliminated two spaces, which will also help with stacking uh vehicles coming off of King Street. Um and then, of course, you'll get a sense of of some
of that um that planting zone and the and the garden spaces there as well. And then continuing on down, this is uh showing pretty much that stretch in front of 1400 and our little mini uh seat nodes that we have in there. What
those will start to look like how they're really, you know, they'll have some weight against the base of the building. So everything feels integrated uh and feels like a complete streetscape along that edge. And then finally kind of coming down
here uh to our little pocket park and our little cafe zone at the corner of 1500. Uh and you can start to kind of peek in to that pocket park and what that backside is going to look like and how those uh fixed benches can really kind of start to animate that edge um
and help kind of make an inviting entrance into the project here. Um, I think that's it for me for the public to >> Good evening uh to the board and to the
community. Uh, my name is Jeremy Gman. I'm president of Gman Development Group based in Framingham, Mass. Uh and I am uh in a minute going address a couple of the comments u and questions that uh were sparked in a couple of the last meetings. Uh before I do so I just want
to quickly introduce our company. Um our firm and principles have owned, operated, and advised on retail properties throughout New England for over 30 years. We have a strong and long track record of creating successful retail environments for both communities
and tenants. Our advisory work spans from master planning and merchandising to leasing and development for projects ranging from urban mixeduse developments to smaller scale suburban centers similar in scale and scope to King Street. Our firm specializes in curating
a retail tenant mix that delivers desired shopping and dining prospects uh and options to the communities it serves. King Street is obviously a very important project to this community and to the Leoli companies and our role as a company is to ensure that the retail
village is positioned for long-term success by delivering a retail experience that meets the consumer expectations and supports the needs and requirements of both the local and national tenants both now as it's developed and into the future so that
it's a sustainable project. And as I mentioned, I've attended uh all of the planning board hearings and have listened to the comments from the board and from the community. And I just want to touch on a couple of them uh really uh as I think it's important. Uh the first uh is that King Street uh I almost
wish we had the plan up again, but King Street uh the retail village specifically is absolutely not a mall. Uh if you look at the size of King Street, the square footage that's approved, it's about a quarter, if not even a fifth of the size of most malls or the open air centers that have been
previously mentioned, whether it be in Lynfield or Denim or Hangingham. Those centers on average are about 600,000 ft. This is a little over 100,000 ft. Uh it truly is an extension of the downtown. Uh and as you can see from the design, it's walkable, it's intimate, it's
approachable. uh much different than a largecale mall environment. Second point uh is our tenant mix will be anchored by local and regional retail and restaurants. In fact, our early leasing effort is focused on especially the restaurants, which we believe is the
heartbeat of the project, but also boutique retail, both retail that might exist in other downtown environments throughout uh the area or New England, uh but also new to the market concepts curated by operators who potentially have a business plan and that's very
important. The local and regional will be supported by national tenants. And if you look at any project whether it's large scale or smallcale having a national tenant presence is critical to the success of the project and especially of the local and re local and
regional retail. They really work together. Local retail has a certain pocket of of um consumer demand but it's the national retail that broadens the trade area into the neighboring communities that ultimately again rises
the tide of sales. Second point I want to speak to is the dual entries. Uh we've talked a lot about the importance of activating King Street. Uh and I think from the last set of images you can see how that how we've progressed in that uh fashion.
Traditional national retail and again there'll be a component of that um avoid dual entries and there's a few primary reasons why. First is that they really do need to manage the customer flow. Customers have to come in and out of typically one storefront. Uh there are
various reasons as to why uh we can get into them. Mainly it can be summarized by operational efficiency but what that means is they want to control the customer experience all the way through. They want to manage theft and other factors. One entrance allows them to do that. The other and more relevant to
really this site and any site is the proximity to parking. Parking is everything to these retailers. The parking in this project is closest to the pedestrian walkways and zones sitting on the opposite side of the storefronts, both surface lots and
structured. It's critical that they front the parking. Uh the last and really most uh critical for the national tenants specifically is they just simply don't do it. They don't have prototypes for it. Uh it ends up impacting their
their interest on leasing. uh and therefore it's something that uh we we struggle with. Now the exception to that uh and what you've seen in the images and there it's real is restaurants and some of the boutique local retail but restaurants actually work to have dual
entrances because it typically uh caters to the patio spaces and the outdoor areas and so we will move the restaurants through the project and up and down King Street again to maximize that activation. Um, next point and really the the
critical point uh you know we've taken a hard look uh at these plans uh at um the um ways in which these buildings have been configured the dimensions um the scale and size of the buildings. Uh bottom line is we believe it works. It
works for the retail. Uh it allows the retailers to operate uh efficiently and uh as we think about this project today uh where it's being developed today but it's forever. It mitigates the long-term leasing risk. Over time tenants will
come and they'll go. Some tenants will get smaller, some tenants will get larger. These buildings as designed up really maximize the leasing potential into the future. And so going to leave it there. All right.
All right, I'm clean up here everybody. We're almost done. Um Dave Snell from PCA uh master plan architects uh here. So going to uh continue this and talk about, you know, a lot of the changes that we made on the buildings along King Street. You know, again, we've heard a
lot from the community. Uh we've had a chance to meet with UTL. talked through the peer review uh with Jesse and gone through um a lot of different thinking and we've are and I hope it comes across we've worked really really hard to manipulate these buildings where they
hit King Street uh to accomplish many of the goals set out in the forbase code um that so this is the before and this is the after and I'm going to flip back and forth because what I think is important here is if you can try and sense the
scale. So the building volumes are quite significantly smaller now and that's accomplished through adherence to some of the primary mass dimensions that are in the formbbased code. So what you
see here is a is a bit of a diagram of this proposed uh change here. So what we've taken is that all the facads that base King Street are held within the limits of the formbbased codes dimensions. Um and so by doing that the
roof lines have now come down the volume reduces and um you know also in in our back and forth with UTIL the the idea of bringing in you know some more of the uh primary masses helps to vary the buildings um so they are not all the
same building. each one is is unique and different. Um, so what we think we've accomplished here is really brought the scale and volume down, increased the variety and uh address many of what I think much of what we heard uh about the
scale and presence. Um, this diagram just just points out that actually in some points uh of each one of these buildings the the ridge height the top of the roof is dropped by 10 ft which is substantial. Um also um you know German I know we talked about the eve height
we've dropped that from 22 down to 20 uh you know as we've done this proportional study to maintain um how how the buildings feel and making sure the roof lines don't feel too heavy. Um so that that ridge line reduction uh you know
really helps quite a lot and um we've increased the fenistration percentage along King Street in every building. Um, we've added entries as discussed. Uh, every building has an entry. Uh, the one on the corner of
1200, uh, is right close to King Street, but we're dealing with some very severe grades there. So, just want to acknowledge that, but we have put that there. Um, and all the windows will have clear glass and not frosted. >> So, before you move on, can I ask a
question about that particular slide? So the only place where there are actual physical doors that humans can go through are the orange ones. All the yellow ones are just fake windows or windows. So the those are where those
doors are and the yes those are the three locations one per building that follow those nodes on the street and that's where we intend to have restaurants uh and wraparound uses and you know feel confident in those locations in able to do that uh based on
what we've been able to go through with Jeremy and his team. Uh and again this is something that through leasing we would continue to push but this is what we're feeling comfortable commit and then we'll show you know we'll show you what those uh the windows are
expected to look like too. So this is just a before and after to show each building quickly. So this is the before and the after. And I think you know again going back and forth you really get a sense that the scale is quite a bit smaller. these smaller component parts uh more in keeping with uh little
Z in the common and the neighborhood here. Um so this is 1,200 these different changes here smaller dormer elements um smaller individual component parts also you know stone bases throughout here which is another thing that we came out of the
conversations uh with UTL each building has a different body material um so they're all light tone but this one is brick um this one is clabber the last one shingle um so this is the before and after on this one so you know quite a
bit of manipulation here um on on this building 1400 here. This is one of those entry corners. This is the other side. And then 1500 before and after. This one has quite a bit of change.
So, oh, and this is the other side. Let's go back and forth. Yeah. So, um, you know, Joe sneak peaked a lot of these, uh, renderings, but just give these, we've zoomed out in all of these so you can get the full picture, um, as we're, you know, focused in a little bit
more on the closer moments. But again, just want to reiterate that this is not turning its back on King Street. This is engage and active part of King Street. And also, this entire project is welcoming the residents of Littleton in at many points. So the site is extremely
porous and at each location where we draw you in, there are moments of activity, there are places that you can go, there are places that you can sit, there's entries at these points and uh all the spaces in between, we've worked to bring activation and amenities um you know throughout. And as we said before,
the green is a huge asset. This is a transformative element on King Street. It's going to change the character. is going to really be a new community hub uh for everyone in Littleton to enjoy. And while we're not here specifically
talking about that, it's hard to ignore the fact that it is an integral part of this. This master plan and what we've all been working towards for many many years is something dramatic and hugely uh useful for the town as a whole. And
we we think it's really powerful. And so as we walk down King Street, this, you know, as we go a little bit further and, you know, we see the combinations uh of these different uh front gardens and dining patios uh entries. And what you see in some of the windows here is that
um you know, every window now we've integrated additional depth for display uh and activation through art or or any of these components. So there's always something going on with light and um and
activity through the whole street. Uh this is pulled out at the corner of 1400 pocket park. But I think again it's important to also see in in many of these is you know the the scale transition that that occurs
like all of these buildings have their own individual character. They also they have their own massing and they they transition the scale well at this edge up into the back of the site. Um so it's you know we think that these changes we're actually we're quite happy with with them and you know glad to be able
to work through this um with all of you. We're really proud of where it's gotten to and and hope that you agree that this is a significant uh improvement. This is just looking from across the street back through the pocket park.
I think it's important to note here, you know, 1300 in the back is heavily obscured. It is really difficult to see. If you're actually on the street, you really can't see it. Um, and so we we did focus a ton of effort on on getting King Street right. Uh, this is a view I
don't think came up. This is the end of 1500. Uh, you see another one of our patio spaces here. uh and again a good throat coming into the the uh entry point of the site. Another thing that came up through the peer review flush sidewalks at all these entry points. So
you see we've elevated all those. That was a design change that also occurred. Uh so at each one of those entry points we've elevated those uh uh those sidewalks as well. And then just you know as a as a reminder you know these these have been
updated with the new buildings uh for the pedestrian way. And again, we think that this project has so much to give Littleton. A killer King Street, an incredible pedestrian way, a town green, uh a ton of amazing restaurants and
retailers going to come here. Uh and we think that this is going to be really exciting place. So, just want to leave you with a couple of these views. And that is it from us.
togan question. >> Yes. >> Could you go to the >> poster your render this one? >> Yeah. So, so like I think you're planning like
trying to maybe think about restaurants, coffee shops on the corners there where the entries were. >> Whose space is the seating outside? Right. So the one of those is a restaurant that if it's a restaurant, it wants seating for them, not for people just
walking by versus a coffee shop outside. You know, what's the ownership concept of the table space outside and then where's the restaurants have patio space? So, you know, Jeremy, I don't know if you want to speak to that at all.
>> Yeah. >> About what they would expect, but that's usually something that gets negotiated. Yeah. >> Yeah. But you're presenting this as all public space right now. >> So actually that's why I'm trying to understand which part is going to be sort of like >> all of those benches 100% public and all
that. I think the the thing in question is the cafe tables >> and and in the dining patios and I would say that those are likely to be controlled by the restaurants. But >> yeah, all of the patio seating that's tight to each of the restaurant spaces
will be dedicated to the restaurants. they'll be retained by the rest. >> How does that overlay with pictures that you showed us? >> So yeah, I could I just want to make sure I understand which is which is likely to be private patio space versus published. >> Right. So this space here with the orange seating is likely to be activated
by the adjacent restaurant. Um so this go >> so and then if we keep going um the pocket park, right? So the there's a handful of orange I think it's you know these orange seats with like
>> so you go to the one that says illustrative site plan phase one which has got your all your orange and your things there. It'd be nice if that was overlaid in terms of which ones are public versus reserved. >> So because I can't get a feel from that
by trying to match what you just said to other show in order to just clarify. So, I'm going to go here. So, I'm going zoom in building per building. So, the this area, right, this this restaurant,
depending on how we lease it, uh whether it's one or two or three, right? There are a couple of opportunities. There's some, you know, opportunity to activate uh up here against the pedestrian way, but there's a a ton of space here, which we, you know, we think they're going to
want to activate against the green. So, I would say >> yellow the yellow, good point. Yeah. Everything up here in yellow will be public. This whole seating area on the corner public. This I mean this side of it I think is
probably TBD, but these seats would definitely be and you can they can kind of feel like that. They're they're really with the door there. And then all of these seats public public everything here public. the this would
be likely the restaurant seats and then maybe there's some here that would be DVD and then this is all public because I think personally I'd like to see the the renderings and everything updated with the distinct
be sensitive to people that maybe have color blindness pieces there more colorcoded as to which parts are we going to see as the public versus parts of the retail settings uh there so that we don't set a false expectation from our community that you can just
grab any table that was on this plan when you're walking down the street because I don't think that that's going to be necessarily the case. >> I can't tell. >> Yeah, I don't know that we can >> we could we could we could do that. But I think if you is there an overall we could do it too. If you look at sort of
percentage of of pedestrian realm spaces, spaces that aren't public, I don't like to use the word public. The ones that that that aren't uh managed by a tenant. Um you know, I think you you'll see that that percentage is pretty small. talking
about sort of the corner of 1500 uh corner of 1400 you know and I think I think maybe the that that edge there that we've created out of two parking spaces you know again that's that's a tough one but I think that that you know
that could go either way and then um and that I think is it and then we've got that you know entire green space and that entire uh spine in the back which I know is not King Street but but um you know if we just focus on King Street I think that I'm not opposed to what you presented here or anything. I just want just
clarification as to >> which so people don't have a wrong expectation. If they grab an ice cream from some other place and they're walking down King Street and >> and I think you're you're right. >> They're not landing in some restaurant table space. Typically
what I've experienced in in destinations like this is for formal sitdown restaurants, dinner places, things like that, their seating is usually very clearly theirs. Fast casual restaurants, coffee shops, cafes is typically much
more casual. And so you can grab a coffee from one place and sit at another. That's been my experience in these places. and they might be managed by that group, but it's not like a you can't sit here thing because none of those tables are usually you go to the host and you go and sit down. Um, so all
this is leasing dependent, but if there's a desire to >> Well, again, it's mainly in terms of >> knowing what the expectations are, right? I've gone to a lot of places where you grab a coffee and you walk down the street and there those there's tables there, but those are actually reserved for the business that put those
tables out there. They're not grabb seats. Then you get a copy from one place and a Danish from another place. Don't go to a third place and take their table. >> It's again just making sure we understand what for expectations.
>> Certainly. >> Did you want to say your closing remarks or >> if you guys want to jump in? I mean, I have like a couple additional thoughts if I if I can, but that's all right. Um, I appreciate it with your patience. I try to keep the center under an hour, but we may be failing. I have 30
seconds. Um, I mean, you there's a lot to absorb here, but I I really hope that the board and the community has seen the effort that has been made uh by our team. Uh, just as an aside, when Dave and and his team brought these changes to us, I was
trying to think of a nonarchchitectural way to describe what what he had done. And I and I the only thing I could come up with was that he had injected the buildings with Ozempic. Um because you just see how like just as a volume they have shrunk. It's not just the hype, but it's everything. Um and we really hope we were able to show that. It's not easy
to show, but I think we did a good job of showing that. And I know that was in response to a lot of the feedback we we received. Um and I and I just I can't stress enough and these guys are are are too humble to focus on it, but how difficult that is. It's these are each of these things are are difficult
decisions. I think at one one meeting board member uh Baker suggested losing, you know, removing parking spaces. We have done that. That's easy just to say in a in an environment like this, but it is it's it's excruciating because those parking spaces are critical to Jeremy's job to try to find these retailers and
those surface spaces are the most precious. But we want to be responsive. We wanted to listen. We listened. Um I just cannot stress enough that a lot of these decisions that have made changes, they seem like they're easy, but they're not. So, I am I just have to express my
my my appreciation, my pride for our team for for getting us here. Um, we certainly know, you know, we're here to listen more. Um, I said we've listened, but we're still listening. So, um, I do have the entire list of a lot of these changes. I wanted to run through them, but I will spare you for now. U, I guess
we'll just open it bring it back to the board and certainly open up for questions and comments at this point. One thing that you did submit was called form 1H. Uh we would need to identify clearly
what waiverss you would need for the and there I mean >> this is color this is colorcoded. It there's not a um key on it but um >> that's all. I mean, we just need
something that's clear and >> and maybe we can talk in in specifics offline about how we can do that, but it is basically everything in color would need it, but because >> but you have a green and a blue. >> Oh, >> so no one. >> Okay, I will clarify that for sure.
>> Yeah, >> the uh and the challenge is of course that form was not really designed for a project like this. So, we did our best to >> Sure. >> create something. So, we can something that we would want to >> uh nail down for this.
>> Sure. >> Um I have to compliment you for all of your renderings. >> Yeah. >> I'm old school. I can't even imagine in the old days doing anything like that. >> Um what whatever people think of the
content of them, the actual existence of them, my compliments. Okay. For >> um yes, so you can see the effort. Um I would say however that it is still not
the intention of farm-based code as it was written by UTIL and as voted upon by this town. It looks to me like we're trying to to fit a square peg in a round hole and you are
trying different band-aid approaches and it's just not working. It's not what we envisioned. And if you have any doubt about what was envisioned, I would hope that your time with Jesse has helped with that. One of the things that really has
concerned me when I saw the layout of the fire trucks that are supposed to be able to come in in case of emergency is building 1300 is a residential building. And from what you showed us tonight, specifically on slide
44 with everything along your proposed pedestrian walkway, if it's supposed to be that nice, there is no way that a truck a firet truck can get through there. So if a fire truck can't get through there, how are people and property going to be saved by our fire department? So that goes back to my
point about how this isn't following formbbased code. the four-based code was actually followed, then the buildings would have all the entries on the front and the back side of it would be parking. That entire parking structure that you have would
just be parking for everything up front because that's the way it was intended. And one of the things that is so frustrating to me, and this is the second time that this has happened, where a developer comes in to our town, we have a bylaw in place, and the developer comes in and basically, ah,
you know, we're not going to really follow that because it doesn't fit our needs. Well, you know what? We have a bylaw for a reason. Our town spent 18 months working on that bylaw to try to figure out what we wanted, and we came up with that bylaw. We voted on that
bylaw and then we also have it in our decision of the master plan that waiverss weren't going to be allowed from that decision. So we have two things. We have our master plan decision that
specifically says under condition number five that we should have no waiverss and we have our formbbased code bylaw. And you all are coming in and basically saying, you know what, this is what we believe we need to do. I've heard you too. I've heard you say that we, you
know, we we've heard from retailers and this is what's going to be bringing in money for the retailers. >> But it doesn't work for the town. >> Anna, I have to stop you. >> I'm done. >> Okay, you're done. When we originally designed for based Cody, it was not for that property. It was for the common.
No, it wasn't. It was common. >> Yes, it was common. >> You're wrong. The average distance in the common uh properties are 120 ft wide. That's it. No, I'm not. >> Look where they're approved. Look where that was where it was originally done. We didn't even know this was going to be
form based coding. >> This is what was approved at town meeting on June 13th, 2020. And if you look at this map right there, that line is exactly what space we're talking about on King Street.
>> This is twice the size of that. It doesn't matter. This is what we approve. >> It does. It does matter. You can't get You can't put a couple hundred square feet of form basin on >> You You said you were done, Mark. Please finish your comments. >> I'm just trying to say that you have We
saw this over two years ago. Access on both sides of the road. They've done everything they can to try to incorporate King Street. You can't have parking there. They make it look It looks great. It's walkable. That's what we've all wanted. This is way bigger than forbased code was ever designed to
be. There is no way you can have one one-sided buildings on that. Absolutely impossible. It's got to be >> maybe you should have said something in 2020. >> We never thought something this big was going to come along in 2020. >> No, that's exactly it's 100 ft wide.
>> We made you both. >> It's 100 ft wide. This is 250 ft wide. It has to be bigger and it has to be accessed from both sides. >> Anybody who's who looks at this sees that you have to be able to access it from both sides. That's it.
>> Voted forbased code. I was on the plan the whole time. It didn't even occur to me, Anna, that we would apply this to a parking lot, a giant 2,000 car parking lot.
it. I live in the comment. I was extremely excited about it because it really spoke to infill to um texture to uh relaxing relaxing some things
intensifying other things. So, I don't understand. I don't understand. You would want a giant parking lot back there. So >> you would run a giant parking lot back there and people walk along. >> That's part of what Mr. Yang presented
to us last time as to how they could do this differently and they haven't done that. They haven't even addressed building 1300 >> and I am concerned about it from a fire perspective. >> Well, that that is something that you all should know is that the fire department has come back and said,
>> you know, so that's something that's going to be worked through. >> We're meeting with them on Monday. Yeah, we've already, you know, my first reaction is, you know, but fire safety is important and uh it's it's a very deep building. So, so the so people in
the audience should know that the fire department would like to have access down the pedestrian walkway. >> Um >> and so that's going to have to be a landscape and material issue and things
will be changed. Um, >> Mr. Chair, my point is if they just did forbased code the way it was intended, that wouldn't be an issue. It wouldn't work. Absolutely wouldn't work. Form based coding would work on building 12,
14, and 15. It never took into account 13 and 11. It was never that wide. That's the difference. We're dealing with a site plan that's twice as big as what base code was designed for. We never saw a building. >> I'd like to hear what Mr. gang has to say about that since he was the one who
designed it. >> It was never designed for 250 ft. It was designed for 100 ft. Everything we saw, all the renditions, everything showed small little buildings on 100 foot lots. That's it. We never took we never saw this site, this site was never proposed
at 250 people. My my other perspective on being um I came in at the end of the formulation of the code, but including this part of it was a very
last minute decision. including the part of it along King Street was not in the original overlay and at the very last minute it was included and it anticipated to do that anticipated that you know we
might have something going you know something different going along there but >> it is in our bylaw and that line goes all the way up. >> I I agree with you. >> Yeah. Thank you. But planning and development.
Well, I don't I don't want to go further. You've made your point, Darl. Oh, I like the changes that they've presented. And I'm going to I'm trying to go through the history here to find where I was looking for, but uh at what
date did we give them approval of um their their It added the rendering >> 2024 I think. >> Right. I'm trying to make sure I have that right. So there's >> the first approval was 2022. >> 2022. We saw the fly through. It showed the common
>> and then we have a def what date did we give them a definitive plan that was I saw in 24 we have a concurrence for a master plan layout. So >> I believe it was 23. >> I'm just trying to find it. I wanted to just see in the record
>> for what we approved >> definitive subdivision. >> Uh yeah. >> So we're the baseline I view we're working off is what we approved >> and if we didn't approve it then a lot of the arguments became become in my mind more valid but we approved a plan
and this is enhancements to that plan. >> I don't think we further development of that >> right but we can't hold them to something that was not what we already approved. If you scroll to, if I may, scroll to the renderings,
they have a date of December 27th, 2023, but it's listed under March. >> All I know is they came through with a fly through that shows this with the common areas budding up to each other. >> That fly was this last summer and it was
exciting. It was an exciting addition to this project. >> See how it's activated and there are cars down there. >> They fully intended to activate King Street when we approved that plan. >> The state came in and said they can't
activate King Street. Okay. They already >> at the beginning of this conversation, Mr. Yates said that we were going to take a look at that. So my point is that when we approved this plan, it was activated on King Street. There were people coming out of doors. If you look at those renders, >> they're not now because you can't park.
>> So that was the bait and switch that the resident talked about that last time. >> The bait and switch. >> I I I please. >> So >> anyway, Darl, did you finish? >> I like the revisions that you've done. Uh here I um looked at the um various
review comments. Uh there look like the storm water ones are just procedural that you're going to do. There's still clearly a disagreement on some of the traffic mitigation. uh pieces uh there. And then the latest thing about the fire access needs to obviously be addressed
uh there. I um I am personally not concerned about building 1300's overall size because you can't see it from the front. It's fully in back of it. It's going to be similar to um
you know the fact that the um residential units that you're going to eventually build are are larger than some of the ones that we have. But based on where they're positioned, the mass of them is not as um visible or noticeable. I don't concur
with the reviewer's comment about reducing the amount of parking because if you don't have parking, people can't go there. And so I I appreciate the balance that you have to maintain between trying to maintain a local character uh of the development, but the
needs of the retail. I you know I've been to you know you know you can see that stores that have entrances on both sides that they usually try to block one off with a long hallway so you can't use it uh there
because of the issues of that um all the parking in the back access to the front. Well we could use this building. This building doesn't activate the main street. We all came in the basement entrance. So
I think we have to be realistic about how people you people actually use buildings and want to access buildings uh there. Uh so I'm you know I I like what I've been seeing here. I
like the reduced scales and um and again I like again I think one of the reviewer comments was against it but I like that burm of green burm between the road and the sidewalk uh there with the trees in order to isolate yourself from all of
that traffic that's on King Street. the renderings that you have don't show, you know, 500 cars an hour or 600 cars an hour going past there, which is what, you know, we have on King Street, you know, there. So,
I guess that's that's sort of the gist of my comments. >> Well, um I think this presentation is a whole lot better than the last one. I appreciate the work that you've done. the renderings um the perspectives were
great for understanding it. I would very much like to see more activation on King Street. I think you need more entrances. Um I think that the the corner one that you have on 15 really belongs on 12 near the near the open space.
Um I think there some tweaks. It looks like the buildings have moved up the up from the street 10 ft um so that you have a wider space between the sidewalk and the buildings. >> We've reconfigured the massing. So in some places they got you know they got
further away. >> But I'm really glad to see that there's more space there and I'd like to see um more doors and more utilization of that space. I think that there are people walking along, but I think it's, you know, it's important to be able to go in a door and get a cup of coffee or an ice
cream cone and keep going. So, that's that's really my my my comment. I think that I think that the formbased code strictly interpreted doesn't work. Um, and it's not appropriate for this site just
because of the scale of it. Um, I think that you guys have done um pretty well um making what you want to do fit as closely as you have. I think it's a it's
it looks like to me like like what you would have proposed before, but I would like some more doors on. >> Thank you very much. Um Mark, I'm going to assume you've said your piece. I >> said my piece. Okay. Um my
I I this is a great presentation. You did respond. I do however when I look at this versus the renderings, I just have a little bit of a disconnect between these little um
sidewalks, these little tiny sidewalks going in in random places. in the renderings of the actual renderings, it looks much more convincing. So, I guess my point would be to make this plan look
more convincing than as convincing as the renderings are. And um I um we've talked about se you know
that being said let's um extend the conversation to a uh you know because we're going to work toward a decision. Um, we still have a big
um part of the puzzle about the housing component. And we have been told that 410 is going to satisfy our affordable housing
agreement or uh obligation. What remains is the issue of how we can come to and you're going to have to propose something to us. But our
concern is that since this is a multi-phase project, if it's interrupted in any phase and we have pushed the affordable housing toward a later phase that will not be done, we're stuck with no affordable housing, which is one of
the primary goals of this whole project. So, we need a mechanism by which we can claw back apartments for affordables if they if it doesn't go through, if we haven't seen what's going on at 410 yet. But as much as the retail has taken all
of our attention, the main part of this project is housing. And we will we want to look at everything we we can do to, you know, get the housing to potentially
make it, you know, some affordability a little bit more affordable than um otherwise might be. Um so I don't want to leave this meeting without bringing it back toward that
goal. >> Okay. Yes. appreciate that. Um, part of the submission, um, we included, uh, a letter from, um, Henry Fontaine, the filming officer. >> I understand. >> Okay. I just, yeah, I just I just want to
>> understand. However, >> if we don't want to be, we have our town council here. We don't want to be stuck with no affordable housing if what for whatever reason the project doesn't go forward. in a fa in and you know we've
pushed it all to later phases which we're told we have that letter it's unfortunate but we have that letter but we still need a mechanism by which we can be assured that we will get our inclusionary housing
taken care >> understood no I I hear your concern I if if I can I guess just a couple thoughts one is um you know before the board today is the 44 units that's it obviously we're coming as a second application with larger amounts, >> you know, won't have if if this is all
you did on that site, we wouldn't get, you know, 10% of that. >> And if I guess I put my legal hat on, I mean, it is in compliance with the bylaws of the town. Um, and and the part of >> I don't Well, we'll get a we'll we'll get our legal hats on that because I
don't think it is, >> which is why we asked the zoning enforcement officer for an opinion. >> I agree. But listen to me carefully. I I I all I want is some mechanism for a clawback if things don't go forward that
I I don't know. We need we need something because this is this is as much as we're we love all these drawings and like the idea of ice cream cones and cafes, um the whole point of this
project is housing. Understood. >> Okay. >> Understood. >> I don't I I don't know. I don't have a suggestion. We're not going to solve it right now. >> I don't think uh I want to go to a
decision until we have some agreement or mechanism. But shouldn't that be handled as we do the residential? This is really >> It's possible. It's possible. commercial. >> Yeah, we have four. But but it's uh you
know I'm taking the opportunity here to emphasize that. Um so a couple a couple things as we go forward um that you will you know this firetruck thing is a big big issue. Um
and uh I don't expect us to have you know uh you know we can't solve that today at this meeting but you'll have to work on that. Um the second issue is I don't the way this is landscape
currently I don't know if we could do parking lot King Street. Um, and it's possible when you look at it, maybe you do parking, you know, in front of building 1500 or, you know, I I'm just acknowledging that
there's issues here. But I think as much as you've worked on and you know you've worked on the King Street buildings, I do believe
you've worked on the King Street sidewalk with the benches. I I like the look of the benches you're you know at least in the renderings but there still isn't that zone between
the sidewalk and the buildings is still mysterious and it's it I don't think that it's um well yeah you show plants but Um
we did submit a landscape plan which pardon a landscape plan which was sub more detail on that. >> I when I say mysterious I mean it it doesn't support doesn't go quite far enough in supporting
the potential for entrances along in some of these other spaces. um or the potential for uh you know an additional you know restaurant that might have a completely private um patio
in the in the front. Um and then the other thing is uh you know when you look at the typologies that the formbbased code proposed, one of the things that um
isn't here or wasn't made use of and I'm not saying that it had to be made made use of but is is our covered areas. I don't know. >> Talk about the frontage types. >> We do that. Well, there was Yeah, there's all kinds of different and one
of them was porches and and I realized that >> that that's maybe not uh the thing to do here, but >> I do Yeah, I mean on King Street it's uh for us, but I do want to point out there is there's actually a covered porch in
this area here of uh 1,200 and then we have another one here on 1100 which you might be able to see Yeah, here >> you know so we are bringing in that typology in certain places and it's not along the street. Um could you use that
but >> you're being invited to continue we you've accomplished a lot. >> You're being invited to >> you know go a little more. Um, and we we
can't design it for you. And we understand the retail, you know, imperatives and but whatever. I'm just putting that out there. Um, well, let me ask you a question. Would you rather sit and have dinner with your wife and that space over there looking
at other space across the way or would you rather look at traffic? >> I'm there. I'm there. >> Yeah. See, that's my point. King Street does not offer anything as far as eating, stopping, having an ice cream, having a coffee. Yes. But if you're having dinner, you're going to be
in the common in that common area with people on one side, people on the other, which is most of the most of the places that you go to that are like this. That's what you get. That's what they're trying to accomplish here. That's what the fly through we saw two years ago showed us. That's what this is. It has
>> So, I go back to I agree with you totally. Um, but I go back to the fact that there's going to be 800 new families living on this parcel and each one of them is going to have a way
of using this site that may not, you know, that we can't, you know, maybe it's even if you just walk the dog, you know, that that's kind of not sit there with dedicated space for a rescue. That's going to be in between >> to the sides
and coffee. Yes. sit there, read the paper, have an ice cream. Yes. But as far as dedicated, no one reads a paper anymore. >> Oh, read the computer that has paper. >> That's my point. This >> I I you someone in in the presentation
mentioned, you know, looking at Instagram and I'm going, "Oh, is there going to be Wi-Fi over the whole site?" There there hopefully will be. Anyway, so we have um gone through the architectural portion of this, but we
have peer reviewers here for the storm water and the traffic that are waiting. Um and if we could hear from them, we never hear from >> Oh, yes, of course. >> So,
thinking I'm not sure who's got time constraints. Um, so who needs to go first? Perhaps Karen if you're ready. >> Good evening everyone. My name is Karen Tobias um with green and I traffic peer review
um which was submitted to the consultant. They have uh prepared their initial responses. Um, so hopefully everyone has had a chance to take a look at those. Um, I haven't taken a quick look at those. I do have um a very very
brief PowerPoint just to kind of go over the status of of some of the outstanding comments. Um, you know, I I do believe it was mentioned previously that there's still a decent amount of distance on these comments. um not to go over every
single one of them but uh just some of the more major ones. So with that share my screen and can everyone see? >> Yes, it's working. >> Y
excellent. And just quick introduction, my name is Karina Tobias. um the the peer review consultants project. Um so some of our original comments that I wanted to bring up um
with respect to to how they're addressed and how they're still a little bit outstanding. Um the first point we made was with respect to the study area. Um there's an intersection of King Street and Russell Street that appeared to meet the 5%
increase in traffic thresholds um but was not included in the study area. Now the petitioner acknowledges that the threshold was met but they did negotiate their study area with DOT. Um they also stated in their comment that the current
buildout is unlikely to actually increase traffic um by that much on um at that location for King Street and Russell Street. Um but that they are including a substantial
um traffic monitoring package that is required in the section 61 binding. Um and so our our recommendation for that location just um as we go forward, you know, if the petitioner couldn't provide
the current expected volume of traffic on at at that location um to show that they did not anticipate, you know, meeting that 5% threshold with the current buildout plan. Um and then to
potentially to commit to monitoring that location. Um including it in future if they do end up increasing traffic to that effect. Um because you know it it was mentioned by some of the residents as well um with respect to a school at
that location and um the potential uh conflicts created between both you know the users of that and and additional traffic to the site. So that is what brings to be our suggested response. Um but we can certainly
discuss that um in more depth after this meeting. Um the next is kind of a group of comments if you will um regarding King Street um and Great Road.
So actually this is the King Street and Great Road intersection itself. Um we took a look at it in the mass impact portal. flags the high crash location. And so we are requesting additional
evaluation of um the crash history at that site, including what we call um you know uh crash diagrams, which basically show you where and how um accidents happened in and around the intersection.
Um, so the petitioner did state in their response that this will be required as part of the um mass application, excuse me. Um, that they'll have to provide it at that time. And so,
you know, I guess I would just say that the fact that it's required later does not preclude them from providing it sooner um, under this process. And I would just suggest that, you know, knowing that it's going to be required later, it would be great if we could see that information sooner and help the
board, this board make that any decisions regarding safety at that location. Um, another comment that was brought up um in kind of different a couple different places in a couple different ways, but
it it they all relate to the left turns in and out of Great Road um and the configuration of the drivers about location and how the left turns out um are proposed to be prohibited and how it will functionally operate. Um so with
respect to kind of all of those comments and comments like I had um the petitioner you know has stated and and it came up as well with the King Street on street parking that these are things that they've been negotiating with mass
as part of the MEA process and so you know with that respect kind of the town play um I think you know the board spoke earlier about getting some um designated people um to start
negotiating the town's desires and perspectives um with respect to stock and this project. Um, I think that's a great idea and I think in in some ways the 25% access permit application process will provide um
some of the bandwidth and and scope to do that if it if it extends past this particular process. Um, we could utilize the uh the access application in order to have the
conversations as well. Um, and a couple of the other comments that I wanted to bring up were um extending the sidewalk on the north side of Great Road to the King Street intersection. Um, and I I wanted to bring this up
because I I also feel like in the beginning um with the presentation it wasn't clear. Um, I know, you know, there there's some concern about the crossing of the ramps and, um, I believe the petitioners said they'd send folks
down to the King Street um, and a great road intersection to cross that location instead. Um, however, right now there's kind of a gap in the sidewalk network um, between
essentially in front of where the gas station is today. Um and you know understanding that that is private property and the petitioner does not own that property um I just would question you know it's currently being developed on all sides of the property. So
presumably there was some discussions with the property owner um and whether or not that there's something that they would consider negotiating um to include a sidewalk to just finalize that connection so that you
have um one continuous route all the way um along Great Road to King Street intersection. Um then one other comment we made was regarding expanding the width of the sidewalk on the south side of great road. Um which is where
the current sidewalk is located. Um right now it's a proposed 5ft sidewalk. You know there is no grass B separating it. It's it's a pretty key pedestrian route. Um and it it feels rather narrow and and a little bit cramped especially
as you go over the bridge. Um and you I'll be the common response to that was a little bit um open-ended um that last shot has agreed to the vote with during the leave process but there
may be some room for negotiation during the design. Um, so I guess I would just say let's keep pushing for that and either the expanded width of the sidewalk or some form of um, you know, grass or something just to make a more
comfortable pedestrian experience. And then finally, um, the King Street on street parking, which I think has already been discussed pretty heavily at this location. We understand that NASA has rejected it, but there may be um
additional ways forward for the town. Um so the I'll say the rest of the comments I think can either be um addressed or have been you know satisfactory or satisfaced. So we'll provide our our written
responses to those. Um, but I just kind of wanted to give uh the board a little bit of balance up with respect to, you know, I think a lot of these comments the responses were that these were things that were negotiated with last shot and so therefore there's nothing we can do at this time. But I think that
that's not necessarily the case in all of these situations and with respect to the request for additional information um that's certainly not, you know, there's nothing in the mass process that again prohibits us from requesting
additional information. Um but again this next step this is just our suggestions what we write with respect to our responses to these comments. Um uh you know I think I kind of already
discussed most of these in depth but um here it is for the record and um you have any questions about any particular issues I'd be happy to talk to them speak to them a little bit more in depth. Um in addition to that, um I did want to motion the safety improvements
for pedestrians at uh King Street that was brought up um in the hearing earlier. It did not make our initial letter because the hearing would happen after that date, but um we would also recommend um including any of the improvements that kind of came out of
that discussion this fall. Um and finally, I just I just kind of did want to bring up one thing from section 61 of NEA. you know, we many of these comments were made um in the FBI um you know, by the board on the public
record and you know, MASTA did acknowledge those comments and and they did um acknowledge them and suggest working with the planning board to um include some of these suggestions surrounding the sin access and the
pedestrian accommodations. So, I just want to kind of point out that um although section 6190 was made, they acknowledge that this is the process for the town to their interests. >> Thank you. I I want to clarify
something, Morgan. You had told us that despite this is a small portion of the overall project that you were going to do all the traffic mitigation work as
part of this. So I don't do did um do they know that or is that one of your responses or I mean I I see this 25% thing and I don't know what that means. That's the design level of all of it. 25% of 100% of it.
>> Yeah. The 25% is the initial um submission to DOT. DOT has several steps along the way for their for their design review. So is next uh thing that I think you could clarify with the consultant is on the uh great road sidewalk, the
existing sidewalk um which is adjacent to 410 that there is a development planned by this applicant at that site which has the potential to
change the sidewalk configuration which would make it more attractive to uh use. We haven't seen that yet, but that's that's in the works, right? That's helpful to hear.
>> Okay. Any Does board have any other quest uh questions, comments? >> I have a clarifying question. Um so, our uh representative from Green, I'm sorry, I can't read your name. Karen. >> Hi Karen. So um you you had mentioned
the the fear. So the traffic report that you peer reviewed, is it the one from the fear or was it a separate traffic report? >> So um just just we looked at a number of
different documents. Um the full traffic study was actually performed under the DI um which was like chapter 7. Um and then the FBI had a a updated traffic section
but it wasn't a full traffic study. Um and looked at that as well. And then we also looked at um what came before the board with this application. >> Okay. Thank you, Karen. I appreciate that because I know that some residents have wondered what specific traffic
report to look at because there isn't anything on the project page that actually sent traffic report. So, the fear and the deer. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh, no, it it's going to cycle back to the request for on street parking. I think we need the request from the
select board. What kind of timeline are we talking about for even making a request and then anticipated response from Mass DOT for this concept that this town would take over the road? Is this a one-mon process? Is a two-year process?
Is it a 10-year process? Because without that information, I don't think we can make any judgments about what we ought to be requiring about uh local traffic mitigation concerns. >> My impression that it would be several years
Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, Kar. Um we're very interested in um establishing and going forward with some
town um with with a town component to um working with these mitigation measures with the you know Lei and uh DOT. So, which is thank you for pointing out that it was part of the Meepa
comment. >> Okay. Um, next >> storm water. Um so to give you an update on the film review um we we've done an initial review. We've uh
met with the applicant and some of our comments um and we have reviewed uh the comments they submitted. Um but we're still kind we're still going through the comments to confirm everything has been addressed.
Um but just to kind of give you a summary of um the comments, our findings and you know just reviewing their responses. Um most of our comments uh were related to you know inconsistencies between the
plans details or between the watershed plans and the hydrocad model um or plan uh clarity uh comments. Um and it looks like a lot of those have been addressed um just based off of our initial review
and their responses to comments. Uh which is great. Um uh some of our um you know bigger comments where you know we noticed that some of the deep rates uh ex uh under post construction exceeded pre
construction. Um it looks like they've um revised their plans or model to uh address that. So now all the post construction decrease creates are mitigated and are less than um pre construction uh which is good. Um
the we question some of the wershed boundaries uh for their wershed plans um and it looks like they've gone through and updated them. We're still in the process of fact checking them to make sure we approve all the boundaries.
Um we also had um some back and forth with the applicant on um the drainage uh configuration and pre-treatment. So uh the initial plan that was sent um
had uh many catch bas catch basin connections and those catch basins also didn't have sumps. Um so we expressed our concern for you know having them online um and not having stumps and um
you know any kind of sediment and debris that would enter them would um you know start um you know entering the pipe and you know losing capacity. So, um the applicants made the effort to uh make a
lot of those uh catch basins offline uh which is great and um make sure that all the catch based debris is stored in that the sump and not um you know potentially clogging the
the drain line. Um so, you know, we saw improvements to that. Um you know, we're still um fully reviewing the updated plan since um the changes um were fairly uh there was you know fairly decent amount of changes to the change um layout.
Um in terms of pre-treatment um you know we had some discussions about pre-treatment um so basically we have a large drain system that goes through um this phase one area discharges to a subsurface
infiltration system. Um and uh you know the initial goal of the applicant was to basically only pre-treat the parking area. Um but due to the large size of the pedestrian area um and services um
and you know high traffic that we're expecting um of pedestrians you know we recommended some additional pre-treatment. So they uh it looks like they agreed and you know they've revised their design so that um there's some
additional pre-treatment of the pedestrian areas as well. um to help pre-treat before discharging to the subsurface system for full treatment. Um
which is great. Um another comment we had was of the subsurface system. Uh it is on um a sloped area. Um, and we were concerned about potential breakout in that slope area because of
the steepness of the of the slope. Um and it looks like they've updated their plan to the flat mass slope to be within the parameters of the Massachusetts handbook which is good. Um and um you know we also review the plan
and you know some of the missing from the plan but um it looks like they've been added uh now. So in the process of reviewing that, make sure that um you know we agree with um their update on
plan as well. So um you know overall it looks like the applicant intended to address all of our comments. Um so um which is good. We're just in the process of confirming that everything's
been addressed. So that is our update for small water. >> Thank you. Um, any questions? >> I have two questions. >> Sure. >> So, um, Jim, I I just wanted to ask the storm water review that you did. Is it
for the entirety of the project or was it just for the select piece that we're discussing tonight on retail? Uh yeah, that's a that's a great question and that is something that I did coordinate with the applicant as
well because um you know it wasn't 100% clear. So I did look at the whole site um initially uh and um they did model the whole site um but
how it works is they mainly focused on the retail site and they modeled that but they tied it into the full site. The full site has hypothetical storm water DMPS that tie
into the full system. So I reviewed them on a hypothetical um sense meaning um the applicant when they develop those other areas they need to meet what they're presenting right now or better
in terms of storm water mitigation in those other areas. So so I guess my answer is yes. I focused on the retail site, but I also looked at the whole site as a whole. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, reason why I asked is because on page one of their storm
water report, it says that there are 67 hotel rooms. Now, mind you, we haven't even really approved that part of the project. But I've seen various numbers ranging from 67 to 150. So, if it changes and they come back and they say, "Oh, yeah, we want 150." How does that
change this evaluation? Um so in terms of um our review, we were we were reviewing based off of the the plans that they had and their um their
assumptions for imperous area. So if that impervious area changes then they would have to provide. So you know in terms of the retail space I think they they have you know what they have now so that can be you know easily reviewed
based on you know what they have but those other areas that are undeveloped um they've assumed an impervious surface so again like I was saying um if that impervious surface increases because they changed what they're thinking now
then they'd have to provide more storm water indication on site because the peak flows leaving those areas need to meet what they have right now or better. >> Thank you. >> Um so each of those will have to be reviewed individually as as they move
forward. >> Um >> thank you. >> Does that make sense? >> Yes, it does. And so Mr. Chair, I would just ask that we set that as a potential condition then that um moving forward with the project that they if as he said
the impervious changes that then they have to have that mitigated and reviewed. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um >> anyone else department? >> Okay. Thank you, Jim. Um I guess there's just a timing question. So, you
haven't finished the response to their response. Uh, when do you anticipate having that done? >> Uh, I plan to finish up next week. >> Okay. >> Um, we just couldn't turn around this
week because we got the responses last Friday and, you know, material is still coming in until Tuesday. So, >> no, that that's fine. and if we could get it um you know uh into our system as
soon as possible so that we can have it to inform our decision you know um as we go forward. >> That's great chair. >> Yes. One thing I would ask on this this uh peer review and others is if we could
have a focused part of the report that says the unresolved issues between the applicant and peer review. I appreciate the in-depth comments on all the other ones, but if it's resolved, it's not something that really needs to be brought up to to our level here. Uh but
if there's a disconnect or unresolved issue, those are the ones that I think as a board we need to focus on. >> Well, in the past we've gotten colorcoded That's the process that he's doing now. >> Yeah, we we haven't gotten to that. >> Yeah, but I mean I read all the the
storm water ones and it basically said they're going to do them all. So it's like a >> bunch of verbage. >> I didn't really need to if they're going to do them. >> No, no, no. They usually it usually comes down to >> I know, but even on the summary presentations, if they could focus on what's unresolved, okay, versus what they've already come to agreement with
everybody, it will just make it a little easier for us to focus on the parts that we need to pay more attention to. And that may, you know, if you don't come to, you know, an agreement, uh, that may happen at the next go round.
>> Okay. Um, thank you. Next, Jesse. Thank you for being patient. >> Hi. Um, good evening. Uh I wasn't sure if I was supposed to chime in earlier when there was quite a um active debate
about forbased code. Um I'll just say one thing about that. Um uh the formbbased code district. Uh I think what Anna was maybe passing around was the map of the Littleton Village common form base code uh outline. Um and it
does include some parcels that are even deeper than 255 ft. um uh the kind of area that we're looking at for this project. Um because we did consider some parcels that were that deep um and all the the form based code says that you
can have buildings behind a first row of buildings along the street um primarily residential. That was the way we had programmed it and and thought about you know increasing uh housing capacity. So that's not um so the the proponents can propose those
buildings. So we see 100 1300 etc. Um that's not um uh uh that's totally compliant um or or legal to do to proposed buildings behind or first buildings. Our our concern um uh one of
our concerns remains is that um the buildings primarily along the street um still fundamentally faces uh uh towards the pedestrian alley um in on King Street. But um just wanted to address the the question about what based code
um was. I'll share my screen. I'm it's late. I know it's late. Um I'll be very quick. Um, and a lot has already come up, so I'm not going to blavor any of this. I'll try to speed through this very quickly. This is about nine slides, and I'll try to fly through this quickly. Um, I do
want to acknowledge the team, the design team has made uh put in a lot of effort. Uh, as a designer myself, you know, seen all the work since uh what is it, the 8th or so. Um, it's a lot of work. Um so um you know they they made they worked to make the u buildings the three
buildings smaller in scale. Um they've increased the number of um primary massings. It's technically exceeds the limit of three but you know we think it's acceptable. Um it's reduced there's some architectural features that are added that are more in line with kind of the rule character of Littleton. There
are a couple of front doors added at the corners. um and there's a lot of um thought place um on the landscape improvements etc. And I did want to mention, I didn't get the chance to say it last time, the the ways that the project is compliant, um, as well, such
as, for example, notably that the frontage buildout along King Street meets the minimum 60%. You're right there. There are setting buildings along King Street there. Um, and there is a mix of retail and residential uses. Um, could be really rich. So, um, I do want
to credit the team for that. Um, I'll just cut to the chase. What are the remaining concerns? Um, I've already alluded to one. Uh, we still would recommend that the buildings prioritize their fronts towards King Street. I I'll get into that in a second. I included
this map here um because this is the village um common um point-based code district. Um this is the kind of what the town um came to consensus would be the village common district, right? If this project was outside of this
district, I don't think that front question would be so important. But the town has decided that what they believe to be, you know, the future vision for the the town common would encompass all of the the blue tier and and that does squarely um encompass um this project in
question. Um uh comment number two, vary the size of buildings along street. I'll get to that in a second. And number three, we think there's still some opportunity to reduce the size and scale of the garage building 1300. It's not changed from the original design. Even you know a
reduction in height of say, you know, 6 feet or so. We've given um um design um recommendations on on doing that. Um uh why face the street? Uh I'm sorry. I
not going to get into all the bullet points here. We can imagine why it's important um to face the street. Um but I'll just say that you know the many of the town commons and really centers around Littleton like Air Weston conquered you know
there's a they they work because there's a shared understanding that the buildings face the street they beautify they activate the the most public of all spaces in the town common which is the street um you know they are privately owned public spaces alleys etc but you
know nothing's more public um than the actual um public street and the the main the primary civic space, right? The the common park, the King Street, Great Grey Road, etc. And so we think it would be a missed opportunity if um this project doesn't um reinforce that and you know
continue to um activate and you know beautify um the the the truly public realm of the common. Um so again recommendation one prioritize the front orient the floods towards King Street. Um some of this already have already
come up. Um the components have you know again sort of massage the massing to make it more pedestrian scale um from King Street. They've added a couple of you know uh doors at the corners and a few select corners but um you know primarily the the the remainder of that
front is not really a front. Um fundamentally um you know the the the glass is transparent yes but there are display windows you don't actually see you know the life of the activity a restaurant inside or shoppers or what have you you know you see like 3 ft in.
Um, and then the doors, there are a couple of doors. Um, that does open out to King, but you know, they're they're discreet. Like right here, there's a door here that's, you know, kind of hidden. Right there, there's one. They're not integrated with the um the storefront system, and we would like,
you know, really to feel like an inviting front door, you would integrate that with um the storefront system. And then again, without a front entry, you know, for the majority of that, you know, 165 ft with, you know, there's really no reason for anyone to walk
along King Street. Um, right. And um and again and then um you know and as you all have already alluded to and you've seen um the the there's again you know I want to give credit to the landscape architects a lot of thought into placing
benches you know providing more pedestrian amenities bike racks etc. But it's a little bit um what is it? missing the tree for the forest or something like that where you know they're still fundamentally not facing the front because you know you don't go into a
building crossing a a lawn you right and and so um again um it is true that um and the team had brought this up that the um king street
can be loud and busy um and I think Mark you had mentioned you wouldn't want to sit with your partner uh facing King Street because of that. Um you know I there there are a couple of comments to address that um you know one King Street can be can be different in the future.
Part of this project I hope is meant to transform King Street um is to um domesticated traffic calming. Um one of the ways of course we've been doing that is narrowing the lanes, adding bike lanes. Another is adding on street parking. Um I really do hope that the
town pursues that avenue. Um it it is truly a game changer. Uh urbanistically it's not it's not an understatement to say that you know all all of the active main streets that we all know and love around Middleton
often have on street parking because not just because they provide access from the car to the store but they calm traffic. You see life there's foot there's people there's foot traffic. there's people going from there what's there what's called eyes on the street. They create a safer environment because
you know there are people in public. Um the um the other thing we recommend um one of the concerns that the project team has is that again the the king is very busy and loud. Um we would recommend setting back the buildings
more um which you can. Um the the red is the current distance from the front of front face of the closest point or pinch point to the curb right now. Um of course this would look different if it was on street parking. Um but you can set it back more have more of a buffer,
have more plantings that help, you know, create that sort of more nest nested um eating dining area that maybe hopefully everyone would feel comfortable um eating and facing a much more quiet or quieter King Street. Um, this project on the bottom I've alluded to before is
good reference for the distance that feels comfortable. I really encourage everyone to visit this. It's 10 minutes south of the common. Um, and you just walk in here and you really feels like, you know, a much more calm space along a state road 11 with pocket parks that are not dissimilar to the pocket parks that
are being proposed through this project. Um, two other quick comments. This seems this may seem small, but this was actually brought up earlier by um a few on the board. I think porches um porches are really important. They're historic to many of the buildings, both
residential and commercial to signal entry. They provide cover from the elements. They're an architectural feature that's innate to, you know, farm houses. Um we think there's opportunities to add some porches, particularly in the recessed areas, um in the front. again reinforcing this as
the front. And lastly, um we, you know, recommend putting the front along King Street, but that's not necessarily to the detriment of this really interesting alley space, this pedestrian way that the proponents have been thinking about.
Um, we recommend again, you know, if you do put the the front along King Street, this this alley could take on a slightly different identity that could still be enriching to the whole project. Um, you can have your active green on the left there, the the big public plaza space
that should be that should be there. That's that's awesome. And then the central space here is it could be more of a linear park that is also sort of a service alley. Someone mentioned needing to put fire trucks do this. Like it becomes it takes on more of a bit more of a serviceoriented
um uh road and uh uh you can still have residents come out, walk their dogs, read, you can have visitors. There could still be a few moments, you know, there could be double-sided restaurants that open out there. Um we agree that dualsided retail is very challenging.
We're not saying you have to have dual-sided retail everywhere. We're saying put the front on King Street. Um and then there could be a few back doors and then a few secondary entrance along that alley. Um uh so there there other um examples that this this really
interesting alley could take on. Another is a residential use that could have ground floor units even increasing your residential units um have little yards stoops and a you know sort of much more of a residential character that complements the more active front along
street. So there I I I we really believe that there are ways of of of what is what is it called? Having our cake and eating it too. Um two more slides. Um we think that um you know the three buildings along King, they're all very
similar in terms of footprint, scale, height. Um even if one of them just broke into two, um it it would dramatically change the cadence. You go from large large to large, medium, small, large. I know that's not that's a
much easier said than done. Um retail uh we recognize that as some of the retail expands in sizes that there's probably a moment where you could have a 4,000 4,000 or 4,500 square ft retail and then the rest could still be you
know these very flexible large um retail boxes. Um again uh when Maron came to us asking us to do design review she essentially said at the end how do you turn a good project or we would like to hear how your recommendations for turning a good project into a great project. This is an
example a fairly simple um example of that. And finally um we don't have to keep litigating 1300. Um would you think that it's important um to um you know is there
some way to bring down the height just a little bit? It's carrying excess parking from future phases. Um you know cuz some of that moved back to the future phases. Um it is as the proponent still largely invisible from King Street. So that that really helps. Um but you know it is
still visible from the gaps between the buildings and you know it's a it's a very bulky building that's pretty close to King Street. Is there anything that could be done and we I pinned behind this I'm not going to go into the same set of comments that we had last time suggestions for bringing down the size
scale and the perceived scale of the building. So um that's it I think. Um yeah let me I guess let me know if you have any questions. I know it's really late. >> Thank you. Um
I am interested in the development team's um feeling about you be making their pedestrian whatever I don't know what you're
calling it into an alley. I think that's um you know it's not convincing to me. But um the other thing is about the parking. Um why is it a problem to have more parking
spots? I mean the formbbased code uh has minimum parking spots but it doesn't I don't believe it proscribes more parking spots. >> That's correct. There's a minimum. Um so
you can you can have more. Um that's not the we're not saying that's not allowed. Uh we're recommending some strategies to bring down the scale of 1300 and one of that is transferring some of the access parking um to the future phases that
it's currently parking. But yes, you can have more than the minimum. >> Okay, those were my comments. Anything else? >> I have one comment. Yeah, >> I think the proposal that they just showed us tonight, all the improvements that they made are hund times better
than downtown air. The picture that he showed us was downtown air. This is way better than accenting off of downtown air, which has no outdoor seating if you noticed. >> Nothing was there. There's no place to sit and eat. This is a hund times better.
>> Nobody should nobody presented to us. street downtown air is two-sided. >> Yeah. >> And there's a lot of empty space on the side of King Street. >> Okay. Anyway, >> thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> I think that's um it for our presentations of our consultants. Uh, I think we probably do need to open it up to anyone in the uh audience who has comments. Limit them to two minutes.
Yes, George. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. George Sanders sets heavenly neighborhood the year. I have concern that uh Petru develop a
curveball here tonight about this parking and I feel that uh you really don't want to ruffle the feathers of the state do here
they say loan a gold bat no parking diagn your pocket. And if you did, you say you want to take over the highway that the state has control of, they're going to make you put the money
into whatever you plan on doing if they gave you that authority to do so. You don't have space across the street to take property by domain.
It appears that you want to have the developer to take and move his property back so that you can put diagonal parking along there. Then you got to put the bank
strip along there. Then you got to put the two lanes in over there. When would this developer started building? If you're going to pursue this with the state, if I was the state and you put
the request into me, I'd throw it over in a file and let it sit there because it's nonsense. They've been dealing with highways and that highway that's coming through there that they have control of.
Where's the town that's going to come up with money to now put in here, take by domain and fix what you want on the street here? You expect a developer to do what you want done now?
No. They shouldn't have to pay for what you want now and telling them to keep that in mind as an impending issue that you want to consider putting diagonal parking
along the street there. >> I think George I think your comments are well taken. I first of all we weren't talking about diagonal parking but but secondly it does not appear what the issue was is there's two competing
issues number one the mass DOT and number two the desire to activate King Street the buildings along King Street one of the best things to do would be to put in that parking and it you are correct it is not going to be
accomplished at least at this phase of the project. >> Well, I I just I just think that with all due consideration, I I think I I sit here and listen to you all come up and
and tell a developer what you don't like about what they've done and they went back and they've made sincere effort to try to conform with what you're asking them to do. Now you talk about the uh
the cobbase code when we passed that in the town of Lilton. This was a typical add-on for 410 and this project of 8 of 550. When you did all the study, you did all
the study for the common area of the town of LIT. you did not go into project as to what's going to be built on that project over there. >> I agree. >> Or that land over there. So I think in
all fairness you you you you need to give due consideration where due consideration is due in terms that this developer has put in money here and he's trying to build up
what he think that is best what he would like to do for the best of little and so forth and I think his people are working very diligently in trying to do what we are asking them to do. A lot of time
when we put stuff down in writing, you should never put nothing down in writing say it never can change. It can change and you put in say it never will require a waiver. You won't issue a waiver. There are things that you put in and you
find out later it doesn't work and we need to make adjustment. Sometime we have things put in place and because we don't want to tear it out like they did at the point over here because the
walkway need to be 36 for a handicap chair to go through and it was so close you could get one through but the fact was the state waved it said no you don't have to tear that out. Go ahead and do what you want to do there. That's what
the guy did. He put the roof up there and put it in. But I find that listen here tonight especially when they went back and they put forth a
good effort and trying to conform to our wishes and it seemed like to me it's it it doesn't get less it gets more the the the the need for them to go back and make adjustment make adjustment and make
adjustment We're better than that. We should be giving them some instructions here to try to get this project moving along. When you talk about the housing so forth, they in the
first phase, they talking about 44 units so that you you obligated to get 10% out of it. Every time they build units, you obligate get your 10% out of it. But what I understand is that they want to take all the housing, which is is the
800 units that they're going to put on the 850 here, and they're going to advance the town their portion. And they supposed to be going to put everything over there in the 410 over there because they got a nonprofit
that's going to take in there and they supposed to be giving the the deep deep senior housing over there as well. But I tell you, we need to get our act together here and put things down here. And another
thing, if if if we got a change in the hotel, I don't know exactly where it's going to go there, but now I hear one member say they down to six or seven units. Now I'm still to 150. What's the scope? They going to build a hotel for
67 house, I mean 67 rooms, or they going to build it for 150? Do we do we not know that? >> No. >> No. >> We don't know where they're going to be. >> Not been a proposal. >> Well, how do we come up with 6 to seven? >> Truthfully, I think
>> Okay. >> I I was also wondering because the rooms are irres. It's just the area of the need to respect the time. >> Yes. So, George, time's up. I appreciate your comments. I very much appreciate
your comments and I I think that um um we got to do a better job. >> Thank you, George. >> Joanne, >> I'm Joanne Deiri from Harwood Avenue. Um I I really appreciate the changes that
you made that varied the the I think it's called the massing and you said you kind of exemplified the building. That was good. Um, I hope that you'll listen to the comments from Jesse Kang. Uh, this town was incorporated in 1715. It's
been around for a long time and it will be around for many more hundreds of years, we hope. And this development is going to be like the lead into our town. It's part of our town common. So, I really think that varying the size of the buildings that will look a lot
better. It will look a lot better in a hundred years. And I think having more of the entries on the King Street side, we have to do that. I mean, it won't be part of our town if we don't do that. It'll just like have its back turned to
our town. That I think is what the bait and switch was. You know, I spend a lot of time down at the West Actton development. The West Actton crearyy is there. There's a little tavern there. There's a fish store. And we really thought that that's
what it was going to look like. But we've proposed it doesn't look like that. It's not like that. And one of the slides that Jesse Yang put up showed the distance of the building fronts in the West Actton development to the roadway.
And it's just it's much better. It makes it, as Mr. Yang said, there'd be no reason for anyone to walk in the sidewalk the way it is right now. So, I think you've come a little way, but you need to go farther. I'm sorry, but you just do. I mean, this is our town and it's going to be here for a long time.
Um, as far as the big building in the back, which I guess is mainly parking, I agree with Mr. Yang that we shouldn't pre-make parking for future parts of this development that aren't being done right now because, as one of the board
members pointed out, maybe those phases will change or not happen. So, why make lots of extra parking for those future phases when maybe they aren't going to happen? So, I think you could reduce the size of that building. And as far as
parking along the street, that will make a big difference. It slows the traffic down, makes it much more pedestrian friendly. Um, they have parking along the street in the West Actton development. West Actton was able to like take back control from the state of
that road. If they can do it, so can Littleton. And they did it in air. They've done it in Groen. It can be done. And it makes the street safer. It's not just going to improve this development, but it lets the town make the street safer for pedestrians. I
mean, we just had a pedestrian fatality. It's horrific. So, we have to get that. And I think if we do get that, having that on street parking, by my count, there'd be maybe 18 or 20 parking spaces there. That's your people. They're going to use the doors that you're going to
put in those buildings on the side that faces King Street. So, like good work, but you're not done. It's my feeling. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your work. Thank you, >> Mr. Zelda. >> Full confession that I'm one of the
birth fathers for for embrace code and at the end of my remarks I'll tell you a little bit of the history very briefly. But here I want to say to the development group that I know you're working very hard but
given a C plus best because I don't think it has anything to do with your ability. I think it has to do with what you're used to. Uh there to me there are three parts and they're in in the one that's in conflict is mainly created by the emphasis on what I would call the
ret what you're calling the retail side. The evidence to me is very clear from the data available from a variety of associations that Littleton including taking into account these analyses are not done with just
Littleton. They're done with habits. And the other thing I want to point out to you, I'm not talking about a organization or a point that involves the point. The point's a totally different place. It's going to be very valuable to you in reasons and I'll try
to get to real fast. My point is is that the top things that really would work for a lieutenant are one or two or maybe three restaurants, maybe three. A high-end one requires parking immediately, not necessarily by
whoever drives up, but it needs parking. The other is grab and go. And the third is casual family drive uh restaurant experience. The other kind of business. So in other words, restaurants
take the top top priority. The second, believe it or not, are health clubs, specialty grocery stores if you're lucky to find one. And that's about it. What I suggest to you is what was interesting to me about
your point of view is during your presentation, you never showed your idea about the connection between the very large buildings that are planned for the majority of the 800 units that you're planning for this. You didn't
show that this is a place of residence. It's the major component here. It is not retail. the retail and I'll just say restaurants and modest retail should be driven by the use of the captive market that you
already have with the 800 units when they come. So my suggestion is is that look at your business model and see if you can back off what I would call the linear boring inappropriate construction of what you
put up to in the last couple of nights. Now form-based code when we did for excuse me when we did form-based code there was a discussion to have more than one form of formbbased code
and the reason it was put on the side is because of the process the formbbased code had to go through to put the rescue in for great road. However, nothing would stop this board or nothing would stop this town from
coming up with what we'll call variations on the theme, I'll call it. But be but if you think working with dot is tough, working with changes or additions to the the code, that's the way to do it. We have form-based code
you've implemented here. I think if the emphasis put on residency, a lot of the parking issues, a lot of the other crowdy issues, the design issues begin to offer solution. So, let me suggest that you encourage
the team to place their ev their emphasis on increasing residents conveniences. that will also draw folks from Littleton like myself who are a within walking distance and b those who
want to take the drive and see what the excitement might be about. But beyond that, the retail formation that you've seen so far to me is out of scale. It's neither big nor small. It's just inappropriate. We need the housing.
Thank you very much. Who's next? Anyone? If that is >> me. >> Oh, okay. >> Judy Reed, Pamela Way. >> Okay. >> As a resident trying to cover over work stuff. Um, I'm interested in I haven't been able to speak at any of these. So,
um, I would really be interested in the residence. My son is in his 20s and about to graduate college and I really want him to get an apartment. He's used to being on a campus. He's used to having everything close by. Even me, if I'm looking at where I'm
going to stand next, um, if I have to move out of my apartment that I have now, I would love to be on a place that I could walk to a restaurant. I like your idea of grab and go. Um,
you know, you can talk about making it boutique shops and stuff, but if I'm living there, I want to be able to do everything right on your property. >> So, that's my little two cents. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, that being said,
um, thank you for all the comments. Pardon? >> Oh, I have another Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see your hands. Okay. Who's next? Um, hi Marggo Bloomstein, uh, 7 Wilson Lane. Um, I really appreciate the the changes that that you made. Um, I think
that you heard a lot of the the frustration I think that we were voicing last time. Um, as as Joanne said, um, I want to see you go further in responding to that frustration because, um, and I
certainly think that many of like the the points that Jesse raised in in the UTL's evaluation uh, make so much sense. I I heard you say how um, how this is built around a common and there's like that common green space.
We already and it's a community, too. We already are a community though that this could augment and and extend in a good way. We're not looking for something to come in and distract from that and distract from the common that's already
there. And I think that's one of the reasons why we need to activate that that space along King Street. There's already like the main attraction there that is the common. I don't know how much time like in doing user research
and all that you spend in Littleton, but that's where you know we're right now we have rallies there like weekly it seems. Um that's where like people come and speak like local legislators and all. That's where like the big Christmas tree
lighting is. That's where the Hanukkah manora lighting is. That space deserves buildings facing it because people are already facing it in our daily lives. And what this could do on that space could
be very similar to what we have in West Actton. And I say we because as a Littleton resident, I spent a lot of time going to West Actton because there's that playground there that was already there. And then they built more stuff facing out to it and it's set back
a little bit. And I always feel like such a winner when I'm like, I can get a parking spot right in front. That's awesome. And then I can zip across to the playground with my daughter. I can come back, grab ice cream. We sit out in front in kind of public space chairs that are not just a space where
somebody's going to scoot me off because I didn't buy my coffee right there. So, I think that that is something to consider. Um, and I appreciate Anna, I really appreciate everything that you were saying in advocating for making sure that it is safe and making sure
that we do adhere to our form-based code because we have it for a reason. And I think if we're saying that it was never intended to accommodate things of other scales or the future, why have a code if not to allow for vision of the future?
If we want to pass amendments to it, that's one thing, but we shouldn't be doing it on an ad hoc basis of like granting exceptions to it. I did have one tactical question sort of about public use of ostensibly private
spaces of like those different like retailers and restaurants and whatnot in there. Where are the public spaces in the layout for like bathrooms and whatnot for people that are there >> any it can I would I would just I'll sit
down but I just want to say I don't want to just hear like well you can go into a coffee shop go into a restaurant because that's not always the case not always allowed >> this space does not have a public rest component
to be clear and many of these shopping centers of all different types don't necessarily already have larger scales don't always have them in this particular scale we are only I think in this particular one 70,000
ft this one there isn't an accommodation >> but that you'll change that right >> yeah we're definitely we've been talking about that and seeing where we can fit something like that >> yeah I cuz I think if people want to come like with their kids and be hanging out. >> Yeah. Or if there's a concert on the
green or something like that, we we're we're looking into that for sure understand. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Good. We >> That's I think maybe that's basic user research. We're going to we're going to need to go to the bathroom. >> Sure. Um I I want to Gretchen Webster um Bley
Road. I want to reiterate so that we can grasp what our expectation was of this space and that is very similar to the feel, the vibe, the aesthetic of West. Likewise, if you think about downtown Graten
years ago, the Grten Inn burned down to the ground. They didn't build a big new um fancy motel to replace it. They built something that had a New England aesthetic. What I see presented here
today doesn't have to be Littleton, Massachusetts. It could be North Carolina. It could be Texas. It could be Arizona. What makes this New England? What makes this look like our town? It has that deep history and the roots
where people walked to and the revolution to participate it in it where they built houses that we still own one that had that was built in 1700s. What makes this a New England retail
experience and housing experience? That's what I would challenge you to go back to the drawing board. C plus can be improved. I heard a lot of this is better. This is better. It's better, sure, but it could be more. And it was
not what we expected when we signed up for formbbased code and really truly intentionally are seeking to transform downtown Littleton so it can be a space that we're proud of. Thank you. >> Um,
please, this is the last. >> Hi, Kate Rcieri. Uh, Pine Road. So, I want to thank reiterate and thank Anna for I think trying to um focus on what voters thought they were voting for when this went through.
Um I'm have great hope for this project. We heard a lot at our town meeting about prior feelings of bait and switch. You guys are probably sick of hearing that phrase, but as a community, we've that's something folks have felt like they've experienced previously. And so I think
the really important thing to focus on here is that we as a community were voting on a pedestrian focused design. And the moment you turn buildings away from the street where the pedestrians are and you turn it into where the
parking is, it's not a pedestrian focused design. It's now a multi-building suburban autofocused strip mall. And so that's not what we voted for. And it's also not what will be successful in
Littleton. And we really want I mean I personally and there's a lot of talk about this right now in this town right now in this moment online. And people really want this to be successful, but they want it to be what we voted for. And so I appreciate again Anna trying to
focus us back on what we actually voted for. The other piece is that we've talked some about the pedestrian issues on King Street. So the again I'm not sure how much time you guys have spent in Littleton, but in recent years the
495 route 2 interchange has become a hot spot for D mass DOT. We it is there have been terrible casualties there, multiple pileups, but even small accidents there constantly that shut down 495 and
because of waves and all of the other ways that we all get around them, we are flooded now in our small downtown with all of these people who are not Littleton residents who are maneuvering through our town and they drive like maniacs. And I want to believe that those are not the Littleton residents. So, let's let me keep that dream. but
they drive crazily through down King Street. And so those additional trafficcoming measures and those additional, as Jesse was describing it, those ways of making it so that this is a human centered design from a safety perspective are incredibly important.
It's part of the reason, the traffic piece is part of the reason people are so concerned about this because we already have such a problem as a small downtown where we are flooded with non-residents whenever traffic on 495 and Route 2 gets insane and whenever there's an accident and it's closed down, which happens very often. But then
there's the safety piece where you have all these people who are we all understand the frustration. You never intended to be in Littleton. You certainly never intended to be going through our little downtown. now you are and you're already late and you're frustrated and what we need to make sure we're not doing is making that less safe
for Littleton residents. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um with all that being said, um we will continue this hearing to our regularly scheduled February meeting, which is
>> February 12th. >> Oh, I thought we were doing the apartments. >> Yes, >> we are. >> Okay. take that one. >> Um, okay. >> Mr. Mayor, may I make a comment before we close? Um,
>> I have been talking to people about the Tuttle House, the very old house that, um, we expressed the desire to move it. I just want to suggest that, um, historical commission is willing to
allow it to be moved as long as it stays on site. So, I want to make the suggestion that um it be moved um somewhat towards the gas station corner um to get it out of the way of the hotel if that's an issue. Um and it can be
integrated. It could be because the common has other old houses around it. It can be part of the common and it could be a leadin to the site. I think it would be a good solution for that building. >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks Barbara. >> So do you need a motion on the
continuing the hearing or >> so which one would you rather do first? Um >> so uh we will we have three hearings going on now. >> We have the storm water, we have the >> definitive subdivision
>> definitive subdivision and we have the uh site plan review. So may we do them all at once? >> Yes. Um but between um phase one commercial and phase one residential that application that public hearing
will open can open on on February 12th. Yes. >> Would you rather turn to the residential first or would you rather have first? >> Let's do the residential first. >> That will just be an introduction to it. Well, we we apparently are being given
imminently the the you know the uh drawings for that. So, everyone look on their um on the on the uh page for it. Um so, so that would be >> for that and then this could be at 7:30
>> since it's the same people. Let's >> Yeah, let's do it, you know, 40 minutes or something. So 6:40 and then um >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Gonna go late anyway. >> Yeah. >> If we post it for um say something then have you can always push it later. >> Yeah. No, I mean I would post it you know so we don't have any dead zone. Um,
so I would uh like to hear a motion to continue um these three hearings uh to February 12th at 7. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I 12th, we have this meeting room again. >> Great. >> I think this works well with this. >> Okay. Thank you everyone. Thank you. >> Oh, I I've been informed that we need a
motion to >> motion to adjurnn. Second favor I Oh, no. I won't say