Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-08 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes � OFR Town of Reading ' tECEIVEG T OV,'N 5a Meeting Minutes E ; lE ' 23 Board - committee - commission - Council: Community Planning and Development Commission Date: 2021-03-08 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Location: Remote Meeting - Zoom Address: Session: Purpose: Meeting Version: Attendees: Members: John Weston, Chair; Pamela Adrian Heather Clish, Tony D'Arezzo-Associate, Nick Safina Members - Not Present: Linda Harrison Others Present: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Town Engineer Ryan Percival, Select Board Member Carlo Bacci, Select Board Member Vanessa Alvarado, Josh Latham, Mike Lacey, Larry Hayes, Amy Ward, Naomi Kaufman, Giovanni Fodera, Kevin Vendt, John Seger, Bob Holmes, Jackie McCarthy, Bob Connor, Sanir Luthia, Ann Dillaway, Julie Centralia, Robert Roy, Mark Delany, Michael Warner, Robert Roy, Ryan Martinello, David Gilblair, Carolyn Whiting, Brendan Pyburn, Emily Pelletier, Maria Kantorosinski, Mike Allan, Bill Jacobs Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: MEETING HELD REMOTELY VIA ZOOM Chairman John Weston called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Community Development Director Julie Mercier explained the protocols for tonight's meeting that is being held virtually as all hearings throughout the pandemic have been. She presented the Zoom Meeting information to the public for those wishing to join. She explained the features of the Zoom program and how to provide comments for any given application. She added that RCN is broadcasting and recording the meeting. Public Hearina. 40R Plan Review 18 Woburn Street GC Fodera Contracting Inc. Ms. Adrian read the public legal notice for the 40R Plan Review at 18 Woburn Street into the record. Mr. Weston asked if Town Staff had any introductory comments. Ms. Mercier noted that representative Mr. Joshua Latham, project architect John Seger, and project engineer Giovanni Fodera were present on behalf of the application. Mr. Latham begun by stating that the site is highly visible as it abuts a municipal parking lot and a fifteen-foot right-of-way that leads to such. The Applicant team is local to the Town of Reading and is looking to develop the existing vacant lot. The site is located along the southern side of Woburn Street and is adjacent to Reading Town Hall across the street. The topography of the 4,000 square foot lot is unique in that it runs steeply down towards the municipal lot to the south. Mr. Latham presented the history of the site which previously maintained an office building. That building subsequently burned down in an unfortunate accident in 2006. It was 1 Town of Reading 1 = Meeting Minutes proposed to be redeveloped as a mixed-use building. A Site Plan Review application for the site was approved in 2007 yet the approved project was never constructed for unknown reasons. Mr. Latham continued that the site is on a district edge and abuts the 5-15 Single Family Zoning District. However, the only residential structure near the site is to the north and across Woburn Street. It is a historic two-family dwelling. A commercial building abuts to the west, a right-of-way to the east, the municipal parking lot to the south and Town Hall to the north. Mr. Latham summarized that the current proposal is for a mixed-use structure that contains seven (7) residential units and 1,600sf of commercial area on the first Floor. The project is designed with a number of historic Reading buildings in mind; a brick facade and Flat roof is proposed and will be explained further by the project architect. Nine (9) parking spaces would be provided underneath the building in a garage. Mr. Latham stated that the Applicant team is aware that the proposal includes the removal of six (6) parking spaces within the site. They are also aware that pedestrian access into the municipal lot is unsafe and needs Improvement. Mr. Latham stated that the Applicant team is in agreement to provide an extra three-feet of right-of-way width in order to improve the pedestrian access and turning movements into the lot. The Applicant is also agreeing to contribute a monetary amount to a future redesign and study of the municipal lot. This idea will be discussed further at the staff level. Mr. Latham continued that traffic patterns for the public parking lot would remain unchanged. No new curb cuts are required. Mr. Latham summarized the project includes a total of seven (7) units; all two-bedroom units. One of the residential units will be ADA accessible. Commercial space is about 1,600sf and will include an outdoor retail deck. Mr. Latham stated that the use of the site is not a major impact to the area. The commercial area on the first-floor also includes outdoor amenity space in both the front and the rear. Mr. Latham continued that though they could build to the front lot line the Applicants have proposed a 3- to 5-foot front setback in order to allow outdoor dining in the front. A retail deck is proposed in the rear that will be used for further outdoor dining. Residential parking is provided on-site and meets zoning requirements. He continued that if spaces within the garage are unused by all residents the owner will allow staff of the commercial area to park within. The owner will also aim to procure annual parking permits under the Reading Employee Parking Permit Program. Mr. Fodera presented the site plans on the screen. He reviewed the turning movements into the site which is accessed by the fifteen-foot right-of-way along Woburn Street. There is a ten-percent slope down to the public parking lot. The right-of-way is a one-way access so now cars will be coming up from the public parking lot. A mounted curb and street striping would be provided along the right-of-way in order for large trucks and emergency vehicles to drive over and access the area. Mr. Fodera provided an example image of a mounted curb. Mr. Fodera stated the proposal includes a 3- to 4-foot sidewalk along the east of the building to improve pedestrian access into the municipal lot. The sidewalk will include flush curbing as well to ensure emergency vehicles can access the drive. The garage of the site will be accessed from the south and through the municipal lot by a twenty-four-foot wide garage entry. Three (3) existing parking spaces found within the private land will need to be removed and an additional three (3) spaces within the municipal lot will be removed in order to provide the twenty-four-foot wide entry way into the garage. 2 OPLL AERP../ Town of Reading a� Meeting Minutes I�a� fis aronvoPv Mr. Fodera stated that three street trees will be provided within the Woburn Street sidewalk. A photometric lighting plan was submitted to depict the illumination of the proposed sidewalks and building. Mr. Fodera informed the Board that a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) was completed for the site and the report concluded that no major impacts are expected from the proposed development. Mr. Fodera explained that all utilities will be extended from Woburn Street and run underground. A drainage system will be installed underneath the garage and will capture stormwater runoff from the site. The system has been designed to capture the 100-year storm event. Mr. Fodera opined that because the retail deck extends over the parking area snow maintenance and runoff in the area will be minimal. Outdoor lighting will be provided as well and a photometric plan has been developed for the site. Mr. John Seger, project architect, presented the architectural plans on the screen. He began by explaining the context of the existing site being a vacant grass filled area. The office building to the west is two-stories in the front and three-stories in the rear due to the grade change. The proposed structure is similar in nature, being three-stories in the front and four-stories from the rear. The design is intended to maintain the street-level appearance despite the proposed front setback. A number of historic and precedent buildings in Reading helped develop the proposed building design. The Reading Town Hall, Old Reading Schoolhouse, the MF Charles Building and the newly constructed 475 Main Street development were used for the context. Mr. Seger stated that more than 60% of the Woburn Street facade is set back from the minimum front setback line of 0'. This does not meet the Downtown Design Guidelines but was done to provide outdoor amenity space as well as the three street trees within the sidewalk. The setback also helps to allow residential bays on the second and third floors of the building. The Applicant team is exploring further design considerations that would allow the outdoor seating area to be expanded. Mr. Seger stated the second and third Floor Floorplans are identical and each contain three (3) two-bedroom units. The team is also looking for ways to expand the residential bays into full balconies. Studies of sight lines were done and mechanical units on the roof will not be visible from the street level. If additional screening for the roof is needed, it can be provided. Mr. Seger presented the proposed elevation sheets. He explained that the residential entry way will be separate from the commercial entry way. Projecting canopies and signage will help separate and identify the two entrances from one another. The commercial level will include architectural pre-cast concrete materials and open Floor windows. A brick fagade will be provided for the residential areas above. The height above the average grade is 38.9'. Mr. Seger continued that the architectural pre-cast concrete treatment wraps around the eastern fagade on both the garage and first Floor levels. The garage windows will be screened for safety. Projecting bays will be provided along the buildings fagades to help break up the massing and will utilize a different material and color. Mr. Seger opined that the retail deck along the south fagade will help draw excitement in the area as it is visible from the municipal lot. Any outdoor lighting will be'Dark Sky' compliant and aim downwards, to the proposed sidewalk to help pedestrian safety. Mr. Seager stated that he would like to add upwards facing lighting along the fagade to further accentuate the building and area if allowed. 3 Qty OFRI'.. ISI l0° Town of Reading i Meeting Minutes Mr. Latham concluded the presentation by stating a lot of consideration has gone into the project to help activate the area and increase pedestrian safety. Some waivers are required for the project to be viable including the allowed density, drive aisle widths in the garage and from providing one dedicated loading space on-site. Some design guideline standards may also require a deviation from. Mr. Safina acknowledged the amount of work that went into the presentation and project. He presented concerns with removing parking and providing minimal commercial area in a key downtown location. Mr. Safina suggested removing the residential unit on the first-floor and turning the entire first floor into commercial area, as he felt that the unit is not viable abutting the commercial area and deck. He noted that the ADA lift will not extend above the first-floor, so any handicap guests will not be able to visit those above the first floor. Mr. Safina continued that additional horizontal banding should be used on the upper floor building elevations to help break up the massing further. Ms. Adrian asked if the ADA lift would be for residential use only. Mr. Seger replied in the affirmative. Ms. Adrian expressed concerns that handicap users looking to utilize the retail space will need to walk up the steep grade to the front of the building. Mr. Seger replied street parking would also be available. Ms. Clish stated that the most major concern to her is the first-floor residential unit. She also had concern with the building separation between the existing building on the west as it could result in the second and third floor units being very dark. She questioned if the vents from the abutting building would fume into the residential units. Mr. Seger replied that three-feet of separation was provided per code but acknowledged the concerns and he will look for ways to mitigate such. Mr. Latham stated the abutting building is entirely commercial, so usage time may be opposite. Mr. Safina questioned if the western wall of the proposed building required fire rating. Mr. Seger replied in the negative due to the setback but it will be constructed as such regardless. Mr. Safina asked if additional right-of-way was granted to the Town what improvements would be done. Mr. Latham replied that a three-foot area can be provided to expand the right-of-way from 15' to 18'. This additional space could be used to provide a sidewalk on the other side of the right-of-way or to help improve turning movements into the site. Mr. Safina opined that a sidewalk on the opposite side would result in harder turning movements. Ms. Clish agreed and questioned how this could be improved. Mr. Weston opined that if the right-of-way was left at 18' with no sidewalk, turning movements would work better. Mr. Weston stated his concern revolved around the removal of parking spaces within the municipal lot. A loss of three (3) spaces is a 5% loss to the lot and demand will be increased. He stated that traffic volumes are hard to predict in today's world due to the pandemic but the traffic study was well done. He stated that the lot is a mix of both public and private spaces and questioned how many spaces will be open. 85% utilization of a parking lot is the ultimate goal and the lot exceeds this number on most days and peak hours. Mr. Weston stated he was not in support of reducing parking spaces but was in support of managing the lot so that any impacts are mitigated. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the traffic study aligned with the Town's own study on the lot. Ms. Mercier replied that a previous study was done on the lot in 2018 and utilization was around 60% average. Mr. D'Arezzo stated that if utilization is below standards than impacts would be less. Ms. Mercier stated she will review the study for more information. Mr. D'Arezzo 4 off:orR�a o Town of Reading Meeting Minutes asked to compare the two studies, Ms. Mercier confirmed that during peak hours the lot is over 85% utilization. Mr. Weston opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Jean Roy of 19 Woburn Street stated she has lived in the dwelling across the street for a number of years and sees the traffic flow and impacts in the area daily. She asked how many total spaces will need to be removed for this project. She added that during snow emergencies, accessing the garage will be difficult. She also asked If residents will be able to access the building from the garage or will they need to circle the building. Mr. Seger replied that residents who park in the garage will be able to access the stairwell within the garage that runs to the third-floor. Ms. Roy asked that lighting along the front of the building be limited so that it does not illuminate her house. Mr. Seger confirmed no flood lighting will be utilized and lighting will not project outwards. Lighting spec sheets will also be provided to the Board for approval. Ms. Roy asked about trash removal and procedures. She stated currently businesses within the lot empty trash at 6:OOAM or earlier and it is a big nuisance. Mr. Seger stated this is still under review but trash could be emptied at least two times a week. Ms. Roy replied that if a restaurant occupies the space, trash will need to be emptied more frequently. Mr. Seger stated that the trash room will be well maintained. Mr. Latham added that roll out bins will be provided and emptied by a private contractor. Trash removal and scheduling will also be managed by a property management company. Mr. Latham stated that the parking along the right-of-way is actually within the private lot and not town-owned, though the public currently utilizes them. Mr. Safina clarified that the proposal appears to remove the three (3) spaces within the private land and an additional three (3) spaces within the municipal lot. He added that the site will need to clear any snow in front of the garage access and the Town will not be responsible for such. Ms. Clish stated that the 2018 traffic study done by the Town studied the hours of 7:OOAM- 10:OOPM and the 600/o utilization was the average. This is expected when a number of businesses are closed at night. Ms. Mercier added that the study did show over 85% utilization at peak hours throughout the day. Mr. Weston asked to summarize the expected changes. Mr. MacNichol stated staff will discuss the right-of-way changes/additions, contributions to a redesign of the municipal lot, trash management and a number of design comments with the Applicant team. Mr. D'Arezzo added that a comparison of the Town's traffic study and the Applicants should be done. Mr. MacNichol confirmed. Mr. Safina made a motion to continue the 40R Plan Review for the site at IS Woburn Street to Monday April 12 at 7:30PM. Ms. Adrian seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Continued Public Hearina. Site Plan Review 0 Auburn Street, Water Tank Replacement Mr. Weston opened the continued public hearing for a Site Plan Review at 0 Auburn Street. He asked Town Engineer Ryan Percival to quickly re-summarize the application and the changes that have ensued since the last hearing. 5 49��� rn Town of Reading MeetingMinutes P IXCOP Mr. Percival noted that the takeaways from the last meeting revolved around contaminated soils on-site; the location of the fence line, which has since been flagged on-site; soil removal techniques, and the idea of a pocket park on the eastern portion of the site. Mr. Percival stated that they can also review water tank specific questions as well. Mr. Michael Warner of Weston and Sampson summarized the material reviewed since the last hearing. It was found that there are trace amounts of lead on both the interior and exterior of the existing water tank itself. It is not of major concern but does add demolition requirements that the contractor must meet. A site-specific demolition plan will be developed. The plan will include methods such as health and safety, soil removal, dust moderation and paint debris collection. Mr. Warner informed the Board that since the lead contaminated soils on-site are from the result of lead paint, it is excluded from being reported. This is due to the Environmental Protection Agency Massachusetts contingency rules. There are still rules, regulations and options that must be adhered to. The top twelve-inches of all contaminated soil can be removed off-site; only the soil contaminated within the fence line itself can be removed, or; soil can be brought in to compliance with `capping'. Discussions with the Town of Reading concluded that it was best to remove as much contaminated soil as possible. Thus, the construction fence line will be expanded to capture the two eastern most soil test pits. The fence line was flagged in order to capture any remaining contaminated soil so that the public is not impacted by such. Mr. Warner explained that if the use of the site were to change to a public park, it would likely require additional soil sampling, as well as other requirements. Mr. Percival opined that such a concept would be outside of the water tank project in order to give it the due diligence needed. He confirmed that further soil remediation would be needed for such. Mr. Warner continued that there are three different style of tanks that could be used today. One being the bolted Composite Elevated Tank (CET) style tank currently being discussed; another being a welded CET tank, but the steel used in such would need to be coated and painted over time; and the final being a welded `steeloid' tank that is similar to what exists today. Paint will last 12-15 years at a maximum before needing a new coating; while upfront costs for such may be less, long-term costs and maintenance are increased. A study was done on life cycle costs for the different types of tanks and the Composite Elevated Tank was found to make the most financial sense. Mr. Percival agreed that maintenance is needed every 10-15 years on other style of tanks. Mr. Warner added that maintenance for such would require the removal of cell infrastructure each time which adds to costs. Mr. Warner stated that outreach was done to determine if any painted murals or other aesthetic improvements on the tank would Impact the warranty. It was found to have little impact but further study on such should be done. Mr. Warner asked the Board if they wished to discuss costs of the project. Mr. Weston informed all that typically the CPDC reviews applications by private developers and that applications by the Town are rarer but provide transparency to ongoing Town projects. He clarified that the CPDC has no jurisdiction on the cost of the project but can discuss the site impacts and request for certain conditions to be placed. Mr. Weston reviewed the options he found available for the fence line on the site. 1. The fence could be moved to entirely contain contaminated soil as proposed which would result in the removal of two trees inside the existing fence line. Mr. Percival confirmed that these two trees will need to be removed for access and demolition purposes regardless. Mr. Warner shared the plan sheet on the screen and highlighted 6 Q,NN OrR�O Town of Reading i� Meeting Minutes 9'IMpOP the trees needed to be removed. At least five (5) trees within the existing fence line will need to be removed. Mr. Warner shared images of the site and potential expansion lines of the fence that have been staked. He opined some additional trees may need to be removed based on final location but there is leeway to determine such and that they will look to leave as many existing trees as possible. 2. The second option would be to keep the fence where it is today, which would require further soil remediation outside the fence line. Mr. Weston asked if the soil would need to be removed and if trees located near Beacon Street would be able to remain. Mr. Percival replied that a number of trees would likely be impacted if soil was removed. 3. The third option was to explore if the fence line could be moved inwards. This would then allow further and separate public discussion on what the area outside of the fence line could become. Mr. Percival opined that the fence line could be moved inwards in the future but this needs approval by the Water Division and Mass DEP. It is something that will continue to be explored if the area is to be repurposed. Mr. Weston continued that there is existing green space along Auburn Street that is utilized by the public. He questioned if soil remediation should be expanded to this area. Mr. Percival stated that samples S-6 and S-20 were conducted in the area and they were found to be below 200ppm. This level of contamination does not require any remediation. Mr. Weston stated that the Town of Wilmington underwent a very similar project in 2019. Wilmington studied numerous options and decided on a CET style tank. Mr. Weston stated he brings this up because there is concern on the design and how cellular infrastructure can be added to the tank. He questioned if this would impact warranty on the tank as well since punctures cannot be made. He stated Wilmington installed a circular band around the top of the tank from which the cellular infrastructure is supported. He opined that the Wilmington tower was not an ideal design and looked to ensure the proper design for cellular infrastructure for Reading. Mr. Percival stated this has been considered. There is a circular band that would encircle the tank, which the cellular infrastructure will attach to. He stated leases can be creatively designed to ensure color of cellular infrastructure matches the tank and other options to camouflage such can be reviewed. The Select Board has decided that the cellular infrastructure will be reinstalled upon completion of the water tank, so all future installations will be accounted for now. Mr. Warner confirmed that space will be provided between the band and the tank to ensure cellular carriers are not piercing the tank itself. Mr. Percival asked if the band color matched the color of the tank. Mr. Warner replied it does not but this can be looked at further. Mr. Weston added that the Wilmington tank matched the school colors, which was aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Percival informed the Board that the project will also go in front of the Permanent Building Committee (PBC) for further advice on the design. He suspected technical help will be needed for further specifications and if there are major modifications to the plan they will come back before the CPDC to discuss such. Mr. Weston opened the hearing to public comment. Select Board Member Vanessa Alvarado thanked the Chair for reviewing the CPDC's jurisdiction on the project. She confirmed that the PBC has accepted review of the application and will look for further detail on any potential on a pocket park in the area. She opined this concept should be looked at concurrently since Town Meeting will need to approve the water tank project cost again. Ms. Alvarado stated that she was looking to maximize the project now while construction will be ongoing since there may not be another chance for funding of a park. 7 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes D`IM[OP Mr. Larry Hayes of 29 Beacon stated he lived directly across from the site and is a professional engineer. He stated he has looked for further input on the project and agreed that any future mountings to the tank must be thought of now and planned for. Mr. Hayes stated he had concerns with the note that stated details on the plan are an example of how cellular carriers may install infrastructure on the tank. He opined that meetings with the carriers should be conducted now to ensure proper design. Mr. Hayes informed the Board that the banding around the tank is also used for structural Integrity when the tank is empty. Mr. Hayes continued that relocating the fence further outwards to Beacon Street is not an ideal solution to the neighborhood as it may open the door for further clearing within the fenced area. He opined that a large number of organics are present in the soil and that the area should remain undisturbed. Ms. Jackie McCarthy stated that there was concern over a lack of detail provided in the plan set. She stated details and specs for cellular antennas and infrastructure should be prepared and conditioned. She added that she supported the proposal to explore the open space potential now since the project will have a number of impacts to the neighborhood. Ms. Carolyn Whiting of 17 Chestnut Road stated she had a concern of the idea of developing park land instead of preserving trees. She stated stormwater runoff for both existing conditions and a park should be explored and compared to determine which is less impactful to the neighbors in terms of flooding. She asked if the Town's infrastructure will relocate to the new tank once completed. Mr. Percival replied in the affirmative. Ms. Amy Ward of 15 Beacon Street stated that she has reviewed the Site Plan Review Application in detail and has concerns that the notes and conditions within the plan are not being met. She stated work has already begun and contaminated soil is being tracked throughout the area by trucks. She opined it is a rough beginning which presents further concerns for the care required for this project. Mr. Percival confirmed that the water division was out at the site breaking up existing concrete. Mr. Weston agreed that when they left the site tracks of mud were left behind and the standard rules in place were not abided by. Mr. Mike Lacey of 9 Beacon Street stated that his biggest concern revolved around the 4.6million dollar budget for the project. He asked how old this figure was. Mr. Percival stated that this number was from 2018. Mr. Lacey questioned if this number has increased since 2018 or if it was a confirmed price. Mr. Percival stated the number will likely be adjusted and require Town Meeting approval. Mr. Lacey stated in 2016 the estimate was $3- million, rose in 2018 and now is expected to rise again. He questioned if the cell carriers are guaranteed to be reinstalled. Mr. Weston stated that the budget is outside of the CPDC jurisdiction and should be discussed at the Select Board and/or Town Meeting but he understood the concerns presented. He continued that there is no guarantee that the cell carriers relocate in the exact same area as that is up to each company to determine their best locations. Mr. Percival agreed and stated that they can plan the design to accommodate the loading requirements for cell infrastructure but an RFP will need to go out for the leasing of the actual infrastructure on the tank. This could result in different carriers than existing today. Mr. Lacey stated that it felt like steps were being skipped since demolition work has begun and that design work was being done after the fact. Mr. Percival understood the comment but respectfully disagreed and stated that staff departments have the capacity to work on such and this process helps preparation, site readiness and lowering future costs. Mr. David Gilblair asked to review the location of the new tank versus the existing tank. Mr. Percival replied that it is being constructed in the same footprint as the existing tank. Mr. 8 rR Town of Reading Meeting Minutes ,neo, Gilblair asked what the closest setback is from the existing fence to the tank. Mr. Percival replied the setback is around 15-20ft from the north and west property line and is upwards of 30-40ft to the east. Mr. Gilblair asked to keep the fence to the minimum requirement of 20ft. Mr. Percival stated that the fence location will be explored further but there are concerns that if the use changes the lot may be required to be split by deed. Mr. Bob Connor opined that as much remediation as possible would be preferred. This will allow better and safer uses of the site in the future. Mr. Connor suggested that the Town look for opinion on how to mitigate construction impacts to the neighborhood. Mr. Mark Delaney appreciated the Board's comments so far. Mr. Delaney informed the Board that his concerns surround the fact that the plans do not clearly identify the infrastructure required to maintain cellular infrastructure. He requested details on such be provided. He agreed the property should be cleaned up for useable open space and then any future uses can be considered. Ms. Dana Forbes stated that she would love to see the fenced area be reduced. She continued that the neighborhood has a lot of young children and that all safety measures should be taken, including construction and decontamination. Mr. Safina stated that in his experience broad language is used for the unknowns of a project. Cell carrier engineers will need to provide details on load requirements and that will help determine additional needs. He understood the concerns of vague language but found that site specifics have been presented. Select Board Member Carlo Bacci asked if it is known when a commitment from the carriers to go back onto the tank is expected. Mr. Percival stated discussions are ongoing with the carriers but specifics are all determined through the future RFP process. He stated equipment details and specifications have been requested and will be requested throughout the process to ensure that they are the latest to date. Mr. Percival opined that the RFP's for leasing will be done around the same time that the construction of the project goes out to bid. Mr. Weston found that the unknown pieces presented will not preclude the project from moving forward with the items requested tonight. He stated that a condition can be placed to review the fence location further which can help start progress towards reviewing the concepts of a pocket park. Mr. Percival agreed that contaminated areas will be studied further and that expanding removal of any contaminated soils is feasible. Mr. Weston recommended flagging a no disturb area along Beacon Street in order to preserve the natural screening as much as possible. Mr. Percival agreed that preserving as much as possible is preferred as recreating such is difficult to do. He added that a detail on the banding around the tank can be provided as well. Mr. Safina made a motion to continue the Site Plan Review Application for O Auburn Street to March 22, 2021 at 7:30PM. Ms. Clish seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Continued Public Hearing, Site Plan Review 323 Main Street, Bagel World Mr. Weston opened the continued public hearing for Site Plan Review at 323 Main Street, Bagel World. 9 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Mr. Bill Jacobs, project architect, stated that following the last CPDC discussion the Applicant Team met with a variety of Town departments at the Parking Transportation and Traffic Task Force (PTTTF) meeting. The PTTTF agreed with the CPDC that a single-entry way and a separate single exit way should be provided on the site and changes since then have been aimed at meeting such requests. The southern driveway has been increased to 35' wide to accommodate three lanes of travel on-site and will be for entry only. The northern driveway has been reduced to 22' wide and will be exit only. Signage for both driveways will be installed. If queue length does exceed past the driveways and onto Main Street, the site traffic directors will be used. Mr. Brendan Pyburn, project engineer, stated a lot of these changes were made based on all gathered comments. He stated that Public Safety presented concerns of restricting right hand turning movements on the south driveway as it could have impacts on traffic away from the site such as illegal U-turn's. The site has now been designed for a free one-way traffic flow. Drivers entering the site from the southern driveway will now be able to turn left into the front parking area. Mr. Pyburn stated that the Town Engineer also presented concerns of the proposed exit drive having three lanes of traffic (the two drive-throughs and the one passing lane) merging into the one driveway. The Applicant's traffic engineer reviewed this concern and found it is very similar to existing practices and based on times for customers to receive orders, it should allow gaps for safe movements onto Main Street. Mr. Weston asked what direction the'Do Not Enter' sign at the drive-through pick-up window faces. Mr. Pyburn clarified it points towards Main Street in order to ensure no one in the front parking area turns right into the drive-through. Mr. Weston asked if all dotted areas within the plan are proposed landscaped areas. Mr. Jacob replied in the affirmative. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if the exit driveway will be two lanes. Mr. Pyburn stated it will not be formally striped for right- or left-hand turns out, but typical practices of drivers will dictate such. Mr. D'Arezzo questioned if the Do Not Enter signage within the front parking should be modified to'No Right Turn'. Mr. Pyburn replied this can be reviewed. Mr. Weston asked if the arrows shown on the plan are to be painted on site. Mr. Pyburn replied that paving markings at the entry way can be done but opined that the others are not needed. Mr. Safina stated a sign should be provided at the northeast corner of the front parking area's landscaped island to direct traffic to the drive-through. Mr. Pyburn agreed. Ms. Clish stated that the remaining concern is that drivers exiting left out of the site will be blocked by the Main Street southbound left-hand turning lane into the site if it is backed up. She questioned if the exit way needed to be signed as'Right Turn Only'. Mr. Pyburn stated the intent is to ensure the Town is okay with the design and then to bring it to Mass DOT for further review. He opined that if right turn only is allowed it may result in the previous concern of traffic performing illegal U-turn's or illegal left turns out of the site. He agreed the left-hand exit is not always ideal but opined that it is the better approach. Mr. Weston asked if the existing exit allows left hand turns out. Mr. Pyburn answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bacci asked if the volume of the POS system has been discussed. Mr. Jacobs replied that it was discussed at the last hearing and that sound volume control will be installed. The system will also mitigate outside noise and be quieter than the existing system. The system has been installed at other Bagel World sites to great success. 10 � rR Town of Reading = Meeting Minutes Mr. Weston asked what the next steps of the process are. Ms. Mercier answered that if the Board is comfortable with the revised design then they could close the public hearing and vote on the proposal, Mr. D'Arezzo asked the normal seating capacity of the site. Ms. Emily Pelletier of Bagel World replied that tables will be reduced to six (6) even after the pandemic. Each table will seat no more than four (4) people. This will be done due to the length of the indoor customer line impacting those eating at tables. Ms. Pelletier stated that there were previously thirty (30) seats indoors. The Board reviewed the Draft Decision on-screen. Mr. D'Arezzo asked if maximum employees on-site at one time is eleven (11). Ms. Pelletier replied in the affirmative. The Board clarified that this would then allow up to twenty-four (24) seats indoors which is the number proposed. Ms. Pelletier informed the Board that deliveries to the site occur no earlier than business opening and no deliveries occur over night. The Board requested that the language conditioning police details at peak hours be modified. Mr. Weston clarified that police details should be pre-arranged. Mr. MacNichol revised the condition language on-screen. The Board added conditions for the discussed pavement markings to be installed and that additional directional signage be installed. Ms. Clish made a motion to close the Public Hearing for Site Plan Review at 323 Main Street. Mr. D'Arezzo seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to approve the requested waivers for Site Plan Review at 323 Main Street. Ms. Clish seconded the motion and it was approved 4- 0-0. Mr. D'Arezzo made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review application for 323 Main Street. Ms. Clish seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Minutes Due to the late time of evening the Board elected to review meeting minutes at a future hearing date. Adiournment Ms. Clish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:46 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. Safina and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Documents Reviewed at the Meeting: CPDC Agenda 3/8/21 • CPDC Minutes of 1/11/21 18 Woburn Street,40R Plan Review o Project Narrative(Application, Summary and Waivers), dated 1/25/21 o Site Plan Set and Architectural Plan Set, dated 1/21/21 o Traffic Impact Study, dated 2/5/21 o Draft Decision, dated 3/8/21 0 Auburn Street, Site Plan Review o Complete Permit Set, dated 2//21 o Draft Decision, dated 3/8/21 11 o,Hd OFq� Town of Reading a Meeting Minutes �p9 •I.�OP • 323 Main Street, Site Plan Review o Site Plan, dated 2/26/11 o Draft Decision,dated 3/8/21 o Floodplain Bylaw-Track Changes,dated 1/25/21 12