October 29, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting - WEHI Transcript

11/19/2025 04:42:31 PM Page 61 to 64 of 149 16 of 59 sheets 61 cul-de-sac, in that case you have actually higher1 standards for maximum grade up to 12 percent. So2 whether the de minimis exception is granted or not, does3 not affect the maximum roadway slope. So it's either,4 right now it's currently at a maximum of ten because5 they're minor collector roadways. But if the exception6 is granted that maximum grade would go up to 12 percent7 and the plans would still confirm compliance with that8 standard.9 Last point is ADA requirements must be met.10 I absolutely agree. Every development must comply with11 ADA requirements. Again, if the development is granted12 by the Planning Board the applicant will be required to13 provide revised plans verifying compliance with those14 ADA requirements and will also be responsible to ensure15 the installed infrastructure maintains ADA compliance at16 the completion of the construction phase. So this is17 verified typically through an as-built survey that is a18 requirement of all developments to verify they have the19 adequate slopes. If they don't have the adequate slopes20 they will be required to remediate and ensure that they21 are ADA compliant.22 So that really ends the conclusions that Mr.23 Litwornia had in his review letter. Again, a lot of the24 points I would say are correct on if the de minimis25 62 exception is granted it would be considered a1 multifamily cul-de-sac, which is why you need the2 exception. If the board did not grant that exception3 then they would remain as minor collector roadways with4 the adequate, or under the maximum average daily trips.5 Further, the intersection at Eagle Rock and6 Oval will absolutely be required if the board granted7 approval and, again, ADA compliance will have to be8 maintained and reviewed at the end of construction.9 All right. That's all I have on traffic10 RSIS compliance.11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Okay. Thank you.12 Mayor McCartney, do you have any questions13 on Mr. MacNeill's testimony?14 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you, Mr. MacNeill.15 Working backwards, number 7, the ADA requirements, what16 are they related to traffic?17 THE WITNESS: That's a good question. So18 really, so typically you have curb ramps really that are19 required to be 8.3 percent maximum, with really flat20 areas, landing areas, as well as turning areas that have21 a maximum requirement of 2 percent.

so typically you have curb ramps really that are19 required to be 8.3 percent maximum, with really flat20 areas, landing areas, as well as turning areas that have21 a maximum requirement of 2 percent. So as far we're22 aware they do comply with those requirements. As -- the23 last meeting where the traffic -- applicants traffic24 engineer provided testimony, they did agree to work with25 63 our office to provide even additional ramping throughout1 the project and potentially raised crosswalks just to2 make the site more walkable for ADA compliance. ADA3 compliance also outlines a number of required spaces you4 need based on the units and total parking spaces. Based5 on our review it appears that they comply with that6 requirement.7 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Okay.8 And number 5, you mentioned about how9 widening the roads -- that it would be a good idea to10 widen the road, but explain that again?11 MR. MacNEILL: Yeah. So, again, from an12 engineering standpoint I absolutely do agree it would be13 a good idea to improve Warner Road, but it is not the14 applicants requirement to do so based on the RSIS15 standards, Residential Site Improvement Standards.16 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Also seems impossible to17 do?18 MR. MacNEILL: I will let the applicant19 address that one.20 MAYOR McCARTNEY: That's my observation.21 And I think I'm still not clear about number22 1, about Warner Road and Kuzik. If you keep Kuzik23 closed what is that option?24 MR. MacNEILL: So if the board does grant25 64 that exception and allows it to only require emergency1 access then it would be a multifamily cul-de-sac, which2 is why they need the exception. But I believe that the3 applicants traffic engineer provided testimony that4 essentially said if the board did not grant it that they5 would move forward with keeping Kuzik Drive open, which6 then in turn still -- it would still comply with the7 standards due to the average daily trips of 2728 being8 below the 3500 trips for a minor collector roadway.9 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Sounds like an awful lot10 of trips, but I'm curious even what that would, you11 know, hypothetically, what the number would be? What's12 the current number for the development or --13 MR. MacNEILL: As you said, I can't answer14 that. Thank you.15 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer, do have any17 questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?18 MS. KAPFERER: I don't

cNEILL: As you said, I can't answer14 that. Thank you.15 MAYOR McCARTNEY: Thank you.16 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Ms. Kapferer, do have any17 questions for Mr. MacNeill on his testimony?18 MS. KAPFERER: I don't have any questions.19 Thank you.20 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Vice Chairman Guarino, do21 you have any questions for Mr. MacNeill on his22 testimony?23 VICE CHAIRMAN GUARINO: Yes, I do. Thank24 you, Mr. Chairman.25