Minutes
of October 3, 2006
Present were: Louis Calabrese, Chair; Marilyn Richards, Vice
Chair; Donald Anderson, Clerk, Michael Przybylowicz and Thomas Morrissette.
Public Hearing – Special Permit for Michael Collins –
Section
The Chair, Louis Calabrese welcomed the petitioners and
introduced the members of the Board. Mr.
Calabrese then explained the procedure and rules for the public hearing. Clerk, Donald Anderson read the legal notice
into the record. Mr. Calabrese then
asked Mr. Collins to present his proposal to the Board.
Mr. Collins said that he would like to construct a third bay
to an existing two-car garage in order to park all of his 3 cars indoors.
At this time, the Chair addressed the audience for any
questions. There being none, Mr. Calabrese turned the questions over to
the Board. The Board members being
satisfied with the presentation, unanimously upon motion duly made and
seconded, voted to close the public hearing.
With no need for further discussion and upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted (5-0) to approve the Special Permit as the alteration
to the existing structure would not be more detrimental to the surrounding
neighborhood.
Request for Signage –
After review of the sign application submitted by Tyler
Equipment, the Board voted (5-0) to approve one non- illuminated building sign
measuring 4’ 1” x 9’ 1” to attach to the
existing building. The existing signage
on the building is to be removed and the approval is conditioned upon obtaining
approval and a permit from the Building Inspector.
ANR -
Mr. Anderson read a request for an
extension of time from Attorney Lawrence Levine for an additional 30 days in
which to vote on the ANR for
Public Hearing – Edens &
Avant – Definitive Subdivision –
Clerk, Donald Anderson read the legal notice and
correspondence into the record.
Tighe & Bond wrote in their report dated October 2, 2006:
1. Per Section 6.2.0 of the Subdivision Regulations,
streets "shall be designed so that, in the opinion of
the Board, they will provide safe vehicular travel". There are four
proposed curb cuts at the cul-de-sac turnaround
(two shown for existing shopping plaza and two not shown for the anticipated for the Lot 3 and
2. Per Section 6.2.1.1 of the Subdivision Regulations,
visibility from the street centerline shall never
be less than stopping sight distance as defined by AASHTO (American Association
of State Highway Transportation Officials). The proposed sag curve at Station 12+86 has a K value of 12.09, which provides safe
stopping sight distance for approximately
17 miles per hour (headlight sight distance). It is anticipated that the actual
travel speed would be greater than the
proposed safe stopping speed. It is
recommended that the street profile
be revised to provide a broader curve (increased K value) to match the anticipated travel speed. As an alternative,
the Board may consider that the design include provisions for street
lights as appropriate.
3. Per Section 6.2.3.1 of the Subdivision Regulations, the
grade of the intersecting streets shall not exceed
plus or minus 2%. As shown on the
roadway profile on Sheet 22, the proposed road centerline grade is 3%.
4. Per Section 6.2.3.1 of the Subdivision Regulations, no
structure that will impair corner visibility will be permitted within 25 feet
of street intersections. The proposed building shown on
5. The proposed road would he categorized as a minor street
per the definition of the Subdivision Regulations. Accordingly, the proposed roadway centerline
curvature is 150 feet which is consistent with the minor road requirements of
Section 6.2.5.3.d of the Subdivision Regulations. However, the referenced section also allows
the Board to require a greater centerline radii required to assure adequate
safety for vehicular traffic. Given the potential for high traffic volumes and
the use of large vehicles, we recommend that a larger road curvature be
evaluated and the drawings be revised if necessary.
6. Per Section 6.8.4 of the Subdivision Regulations, street
trees shall be provided on each side of the
street for every 40 feet of street length.
The design plans do not include street trees.
7. Although not explicitly required by the Subdivision
Regulations, the drawings do not include any information regarding the proposed
erosion and sediment controls (type, location, details, operation and
maintenance notes).
8. The
submitted documentation does not include supporting calculations for the
stormwater control system and whether it
complies with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) Stormwater Policy. The required supporting documentation
is described in Section 6.7.3.4.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
9. The Typical Section – Underground Detention detail on
Sheet 22 includes a note that the 48-inch diameter
pipe will be perforated which indicates that the stormwater control system will use infiltration. Soil test information (percolation
tests and deep observation holes) should be provided to support the
infiltration design.
10. Sheet 23 includes details for two types of road edging:
bituminous concrete berm and pre-cast concrete
curb. However, the drawings do not describe the locations where each detail
would apply.
11. The proposed Plunge Pool Detail on Sheet 23 depicts that
the outfall pipe is 12-inches in diameter, whereas
notes on the road plan/profile on Sheet 22 indicate that the pipe is 15 inches in diameter. This discrepancy should be resolved.
12. Per Section 6.2.4.2.d stormwater runoff shall not he
permitted to flow upon the road surface for a
distance longer than 300 feet before it enters the underground system. The proposed catch basins at Station 13+09 collect runoff from
the north that travels approximately 320 feet along the road surface (measured
from the
13. The outfall pipe discharges to a location identified on
Sheet 22 as an existing drainage sump. No additional
information is provided as to how water will be emptied from the sump.
14. The proposed Typical Paving Section on Sheet 23 depicts
the bituminous concrete pavement installed as a 1-1/2-inch top course over 2-inch
binder course which may not be sufficient for the
traffic volume and vehicle type (trucks) anticipated from the development of Lots 3 and 4. We recommend that the pavement section
be evaluated using Massachusetts Highway Department Design
Manual standards for maximum build-out of Lots 3 and 4.
15. The cover over the proposed sewer pipe at Station 12 +45
will be approximately 3 feet. It is
recommended that the design is revised to provide 5 feet minimum cover or pipe insulation to deter freezing in extreme winter
conditions.
16. This project may
be subject to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Phase II Stormwater Program since it may involve land
disturbance greater than 1 acre. Under the Phase
II program, a notice must be submitted to EPA prior to construction and reference that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) has been prepared consistent with EPA
requirements and will be maintained on site. We recommend that the applicant
consult with EPA regarding specific requirements of the notice and preparation
of the SWPPP.
Zoning By-Law
Per Section
5.3.1.15 of the Subdivision Regulations Section "... no subdivision shall
be approved in which the proposed lot lines would make the existing lot,
structures, or uses non-conforming with respect to lot coverage, setback, parking
or other requirements of the Zoning By-Laws". Accordingly, the following
comments relate to modifications to the existing features associated with
the commercial use on
1. Per Section 5.65.a of the Zoning By-Law, a 10-foot
landscape buffer shall be provided between lot and
street line. The proposed landscape buffer between the proposed right-of-way
and the exiting parking lot to remain is only 5 feet.
2. The minimum number of required parking spaces is described
in Section 5.66 of the Zoning
By-Law. Additional information should be
provided to demonstrate that the number of parking
spaces to remain after the modifications will be sufficient to serve the existing
buildings and uses.
3. Per Section 7.4.5.b of the Zoning By-Law, "The
design should give attention to the placement of storage, waste or
mechanical equipment so as to screen it from view." The proposed subdivision road will result in having the
existing building rear visible from a public
street. Currently, this area is used for loading, temporary storage and waste (dumpsters). These uses should be relocated or new
screening should be installed to shield these uses from public view.
4. Per Section 7.461 of the Zoning By-Law, the Planning Board
shall consider "Convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian
movement within the site and the relationship to adjoining
ways and properties." As indicated
in Subdivision Rules and Regulations Comment I
above, the proposed cul-de-sac turnaround will result in conflicting traffic patterns
for two driveway curb cuts onto
5. Per Section 7.464 of the Zoning By-Law, the Planning Board
shall consider provisions for off-street loading incidental to normal
operation of the establishment, parking, lighting and internal traffic control. The proposed cul-de-sac encroaches onto the
existing parking lot and access to the
rear of the building. It appears that
tractor trailer trucks and other delivery
and service vehicles may have difficulty accessing the rear docks without
having to maneuver in the public right-of-way. Supporting information
should be submitted to demonstrate that available access is within the
site. Supporting information should also
demonstrate that emergency vehicles will
have adequate access and egress to the building.
Traffic
1. The Executive Summary of the Traffic Impact and Access
Study reports the current intersection to be
operating at a Level-of-Service (LOS) D. Based on the Existing conditions
modeling presented in the appendix the intersection is operating at LOS B. This inconsistency should be resolved.
2. The accident data presented suggests this intersection is
more prone to collisions than the state average. The
proposed approach should be moved west to align the dedicated left turn
lanes to minimize conflicting movements.
3. Traffic growth projections were not applied to several
turning movements along the
4. The reduction in use of
a. 33 % of the existing traffic departing the
b. the trip distribution arriving at the site is
proportionally equal from
5. The
6.
The proposed timing plan reports a
significant increase in the natural cycle time for the
7.
The handicap ramps as shown do not meet
the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (AAB) guidelines with regard to
tactile warning and orientation. These elements should be addressed.
8.
The addition of a
pedestrian crossing west of
9. The proposed loop detection devices are not capable of
detecting bicycles. Consider use of two bicycle loops for each approach in
place of the four standard loops proposed.
10. The signal controller communication antenna location
was selected following the completion of a
radio path analysis study, antenna lead signal loss analysis, and an installation reliability evaluation. Relocation of the
antenna will require reanalysis and redesign of this equipment to
ensure reliable performance.
11. The timing plan proposed for the reconstructed of
Fire Department wrote:
1. Installation
of an emergency access road form
2.
The water line on the existing shopping
center must be looped and any required meters by the E.L. DPW must be full flow
fire meters.
3.
The new water from
Police Department wrote:
It is recommended that any
signage at the site be installed so as not to interfere with the visibility of
motor vehicle operators exiting or entering the site.
The following is
recommended for the proposed
A. It
is recommended Southbound traffic on
B. It is recommended the Eastbound traffic on
C.
It is recommended the traffic exiting
D. It
is recommended the Westbound traffic on
E. It is recommended a marked crosswalk be installed across the
entranceIexit to Pecousic Park
to assist pedestrian traffic.
F. It
is recommended the traffic
signals at the intersection be up-graded to include the additional traffic
exiting and entering the site. It should be synchronized with current traffic
patterns.
G. It
is recommended streetlights be
installed to increase the safety at the site for pedestrian and vehicular
traffic. Streetlights also reduce the potential for criminal activity.
H. It
is recommended a sidewalk
be installed to increase the safety at the site for pedestrian traffic. The
submitted plan shows a sidewalk on the East side of the entrance.
I. It is recommended a center line and
lane lines be marked on Road 1.
J. It
is recommended a stop
line be marked on Road 1 at it's intersection with
K.
It is recommended the
"island" located at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac be installed
as a "cape cod berm", or low berm, to improve the safety for
tractor-trailer units accessing the site.
2. The following is
recommended for the proposed Westwood entrance:
A. It
is recommended streetlights
be installed to increase the safety at the site for pedestrian and vehicular
traffic. Streetlights also reduce the potential for criminal activity.
B. It
is recommended a sidewalk be installed to increase the safety at the site for
pedestrian traffic. The submitted plan shows a sidewalk on the West side of the
entrance.
C. It is recommended a marked crosswalk be installed depending on
the proposed use of the site and the amount of pedestrian traffic generated.
D. It is recommended
crosswalk warning signage be installed if the crosswalk is installed to alert
motorists due to the curve of Westwood Avenue at the site entrance.
E. It is recommended a
center line be marked on Road 2.
F. It
is recommended the emergency access road be restricted on both ends with a
locked gate.
G. It is recommended that
a short section of guardrail be installed on each side of the gates to reduce
the potential for off-road vehicle activity at the site.
ADDITIONAL
RECOMMENDATIONS:.
1. It is recommended that
any proposed plantings at the site not interfere with visibility for pedestrian
and vehicular traffic.
At that time Chair, Louis Calabrese introduced the members
of the Board. Ms. Richards said for the
record that her son Mark Richards is an Environmental Engineer for Tighe &
Bond out of their Worcester Office and to her knowledge he has had no
involvement with the report that was read into the record nor have they
discussed the applicant before the Planning Board.
Mr. Calabrese said at the request of the petitioner a
stenographer was present and Mr.
Calabrese asked that the transcript of the recording be made available to the
Planning Board. Attorney Freymen said
they agree to that and wanted to point out that they might not order the
transcript but if they do request the transcript be reduced to writing, they would
request that two be produced, one for them and one for the Planning Board.
Attorney Freyman introduced the team with her that evening,
Keith Hague, Heritage Park; Jim McKenney, Heritage Park; Bob Michaud, MDM
Transportation; and Nat Arai, Baystate Environmental. She said since the submission there are two
encumbrances that need to be deleted that do not pertain to the property and
two that were added. She provided the
Board with a letter with regard to that.
Attorney Freyman said that a preliminary plan was submitted on April 25th and several meetings took place with the
Planning Board and staff, and on July 20th they received the certificate
of disapproval from the Board. She said
that comments from the Board were general and that the Board stated that there
was not enough detailed information to make a positive determination. She added that is part of the nature for the preliminary
plan process and they have addressed the comments that were in the preliminary
plan decision.
Attorney Freyman said that they submitted their definitive
plan on August 3rd, and by nature of the requirements of the town’s
subdivision regulations, they have provided the required detailed information. Further, she added that they have addressed
the comments that were in the disapproval relating to the detention basin,
which has been changed to an underground detention system. She said the Westwood Avenue entrance has
been eliminated and that the buildings on parcels 4 & 6 were within 100 feet
of the riverfront area so the lots were
reconfigured to avoid the conflict. She added
that the building shown on parcel 5 was
within 200 feet of the riverfront area and that has been eliminated also. Additionally, Attorney Freyman stated that since submission of the definitive plan there
have been two meetings with Department
Heads and, as of result of those meetings they have prepared a supplemental
plan that addresses their comments. She
said then they had another meeting on September 26th and at that
meeting they felt that all of the comments either addressed by the supplemental
plan or were conditions they agreed to implement upon approval.
Attorney Freyman stated that she believes the letter from
the Police Chief does not have all of the comments and asked if it could be revised
to reflect the changes they made.
Attorney Freyman said they would like to go through the plan and point
out the changes that they have agreed to and to answer any questions that the
Board might have. Lastly, she informed
the Board that they had received the Tighe & Bond report the day before, and they went through it and feel that some of
the comments were related to the fact that they did not receive all the
information that was submitted and she felt that her group could address the
other questions.
Nat Arai, Engineer from Baystate, said that he prepared a
set of plans based on comments with match lines so the board could better
understand and match up the lots on the
plan . He said he prepared a general
site plan and explained it to the Board.
He said that the proposal was to create a 5 lot subdivision by
constructing a 450+ linear foot subdivision road ending in a cul-de-sac. He added that the road will be situated so
that it is opposite Harkness Avenue and will end behind the northwest corner of
the existing Stop & Shop Plaza. He
said that there will be curb cuts within the subdivision cul-de-sac to provide
access and egress from the existing shopping center site and another one to
provide access to the two development lots further behind the existing shopping
center. Mr. Arai said that the 2 lots
will be approximately 8 ½ acres each and lot 1 will be approximately 2/3 acres
on the corner of North Main Street.
The new road which they are naming Pecousic Circle, Lot 2 will be the
existing Heritage Park Plaza reduced somewhat in land area by the development
of the road but maintain almost 14 acres.
He said lots 3 & 4 will be the other developable lots and lot 5 will
consist of the area encumbered by the railroad at the end of the center and a
portion of the lot that fronts on North Main Street. Mr. Arai said, based on the comments from the
Conservation Commission the wetland impact was of such great concern that we
pulled back and eliminated the configuration of more than 1 lot. He said that the access road to lots 3 &
4 will end at the beginning of lot 4, the access road will be a 26 foot wide
shared driveway for both lots and a 12 foot wide paved emergency access road
all the way down to Westwood Avenue, as requested by the Police and Fire
Departments.
Mr. Arai said as discussed in the letters that were read
from the Fire Department and Police Department, there will be keyed gates on
either end with extended fencing or guard rail to extend the blockage of
improper entrance of vehicles and motorcycles into the railroad area. He said that there will also be lights at
either end of the emergency access road with two 12 x 50 foot long pull outs in
case vehicles encounter a conflict with other vehicles during an emergency so
the vehicles will have a way to pull over out of the way of the emergency
vehicles.
Mr. Arai said that the subdivision road will actually
increase the impervious area at the end of the site by about 1/3 of an acre
because there is a portion of the existing parking lot that is covered by a
portion of the road. He said than the
stormwater management system will collect all of the roadway runoff within the
proposed roadway and will be pretreated with catch basins and stormwater will
enter a storm sector for further treatment and then enter a subsurface
detention system outside of the cul-de-sac area. Peak flows will not be increased due to the
slightly increased impervious area.
Mr. Arai said the report from Tighe & Bond as a result
of their review apparently had not received the stormwater management drainage
report which was submitted at the time the subdivision plans were submitted and
that they will provide another report.
Mr. Arai said one of the biggest concerns from Public Works was the
proposed water system. He continued by
stating that he was proposing a looped system for redundancy to connect to an
existing water line that goes behind the 99 Restaurant. With this setup, if there is a problem in any
section of the line there will continue to be service to other parts of the
loop. Mr. Arai then read a list of
conditions that were submitted with the plan as follows:
1.
Water lines for the existing shopping
center will be connected
by
8” water line to create a closed looped system.
2.
New lots 1, 3, 4 & 5 will
serviced by a new 8” water line running between North Main Street &
Westwood Avenue, master meters will be installed at all connections to the
street.
3.
At the time lots 3, 4 or 5 are ever
developed the emergency access road and shared driveway will then be
constructed.
4.
Emergency driveway will have a gate
at both ends with knox boxes.
5.
Lighting will be provided along the
emergency access and lighting along the road.
6.
Emergency access will be maintained at
all times throughout the year, including snow removal and debris removal so it
is passable at anytime.
7.
Supplemental traffic studies will be
submitted when site plans are submitted.
8.
Signalization will be maintained in
North Main Street as well as the coordinated system that exists.
Bob Michaud, traffic
engineer from MDM explained that he was retained to look at the traffic aspects
of the project and to explain the plan to the Board He said they looked at a
number of locations which were evaluated during the study. Included in those locations were the
intersection of Harkness Avenue & North Main Street and a number of commercial
driveways including the signalized driveway to both the Big Y site and the
Heritage Park Plaza site driveway; and as far easterly as Dearborn Street. Mr. Michaud said the focus of the study was
to understand and identify existing safety related constraints, operational
constraints that effect North Main Street to quantify what impact may occur as
a result of this project, and to identify an appropriate access solution. Mr. Michaud said it really consists of a
number of steps starting with what happens on North Main Street today. He added that he went out and counted traffic
volumes for each one of those study locations during peak hours. North Main
Street is a well traveled road with over 20,000 vehicles a day. Mr. Michaud said that he evaluated how well
the intersections operate and then assigns a letter grade that ranges from A to
F. He added that they determined that travel on North Main under the existing
conditions operates at the level of service B or better, meaning that there is
little delay.
Mr. Michaud also stated that overall the operations along
North Main Street are above typical operations for urban type environments with
no specific constraints on how people
travel along the road. He said with that
as a back drop, they estimated the amount of traffic that would be generated by
150,000 square feet of office development as well as some ancillary retail, the
retail in this case will likely serve as a support function for the office
component as opposed to a destination retail type use. Mr. Michaud gave a summary of what they
estimate what will be generated by that use during the morning peak hour and
the evening peak hour. He said
essentially they will be generating just over 200 trips per hour entering the
site in the morning and likewise in the evening just over 200 vehicle trips
exiting the site over the course of the typical hour.
Mr. Michaud said over the course of entire day there will be
approximately 1,000 vehicles that are generated, 1,000 entering and 1,000
exiting for a total of 2,000 vehicle trips per day. He said the trips would be primarily to the
north & west of the site and that the driveway will be opposite Harkness
Avenue with no regular access provided via Westwood Avenue. Mr. Michaud said that the orientation of the
trips were determined based on US Census Information that indicates for those
folks who work in East Longmeadow and live in East Longmeadow. He said the data used to establish these
patterns show that 30% of the distribution trips is likely to come from East
Longmeadow or points east and 2 out of 3 trips orientated out of the
Springfield area to the west or north; with 15 % being on Harkness Avenue. He said if you look at additional volume
along North Main Street which equals approximately one additional vehicle trip
per minute, on average as a result of this project it is an important number to
keep in mind as you view the access improvements.
Mr. Michaud said one fundamental aspect of the access plan
is the re-allocation of existing plaza trips.
The Heritage Park Plaza is served by two driveways, a driveway located
just beyond the signal at Harkness Avenue that allows for right turn entry only,
and a signal further to the east that allows full access. He said approximately ⅔ to ¾ of the traffic that is being generated by the
plaza today is orientated to the north and to the west of the plaza and anyone
parked at the far west end of the site or at the east end of the site, if they
want to get back west or north, they have to traverse the entire parking lot to
the signal, make a left turn go through the Big Y signal through the Harkness
signal either as a right turn or through movement.
He said they think there is a better way to access the site
that works in concert with the proposal to provide access to the
subdivision. He explained that the
closure of that existing right turn only driveway into the plaza is intended to integrate the subdivision
roadway as a means of access/egress to the existing plaza. Mr. Michaud said the closure would also
eliminate a number of conflicts that currently occur and the other aspect of
the plan is that it widens out North Main Street to accommodate the primary
movements that are being added to North Main Street. He continued by stating that In the morning,
over half of the traffic will be generated as a right turn into the development. As a result,
they are proposing to allow for an exclusive right turn lane by widening
the roadway. Further, if someone is
making a right turn into the site they would not be impeding through traffic or
the ability for vehicles to continue to travel east. Likewise, in the west-bound direction they
are proposing to put an exclusive left turn for the same purpose. The removal of those turns from the through
travel lane would prevent obstruction to the travel flow in that lane.
Mr. Michaud added that they are also proposing exclusive
lanes on the subdivision road itself to accommodate the predominate left turn
movement as well as the through and the right turn movements from the
site. The subdivision road will not only
accommodate the traffic from the subdivision itself, but will also accommodate
upwards of 100 vehicles or so per hour from the plaza by providing more direct access. There will be sidewalk connections, crosswalk
connections across 3 of 4 quadrants of the intersection and the signal will be
designed in a manner that is consistent with it’s current operation. It will allow for pedestrians crossings using
push buttons, it will work within the framework of the coordinated signal
system that currently exists on the street.
At the same time it will provide enhanced capacity, reduce vehicular
conflict and fully accommodate the project.
Mr. Michaud was convinced that with these improvements in
place their analysis shows there can actually be a reduction in delay for
specific movements within the intersection compared to today’s conditions. Because
they would be adding capacity and adding a lane, adding a right turn lane and
rephrasing the signal, it allows for a more efficient operation of certain
movements, particularly along Harkness Avenue.
He continued to state that there are a number of comments that Tighe
& Bond have mentioned that are fairly easily addressed and many of them
relate to specific design elements that are easy to address. Mr. Michaud added that the comments relate to
ADA compliant access ramps. The handicap ramps that are there today will be
replaced in kind, concrete ramps to ADA standards. He said the only point that requires further
discussion and clarification is the notion that these improvements will some
how effect bicycle facilities and somehow reduce safety. Mr. Michaud explained that he evaluated the
capacity and the safety needs of the intersection, and found it to be an above
average accident location. Through this
design he stated that his company was going to eliminate a number of conflicts
that currently happen. They are going to
improve capacity, reduce the potential for queue back ups and doing that in a
way that is consistent with standard Mass Highway Design Policy even through it
is not a Mass Highway roadway. He said
that there is no bicycle path along North Main Street - that there are no
designated bicycle routes existing on North Main Street - and to that extent
nothing that is shown in the plan is inconsistent with the longer term need or
goal of the Town to provide bicycle facilities - specifically the Hazardville
Bicycle Rail Trail that will be provided just to the east of the site.
Mr. Anderson asked how are they going to resolve the level
of service? He pointed out that Tighe & Bond say level D service where Mr. Michaud’s company states a
level B service. Mr. Michaud said it is
real easy, there is an overall rating for an intersection that waits for the
delays that might be experienced at any given approach. He said the intersection works at B today but
specific movements within the intersection may experience longer delays. For instance the southbound Harkness Avenue
movement in the evening is a level of service C. Mr. Anderson asked if the Pecousic Park would
be an Eden’s & Avant project? Mr.
Michaud said that it is property they control.
Mr. Anderson said that Eden’s & Avant website is saying that
Heritage Plaza is 116,000 square feet and the new buildings are 80,000 a piece,
160,000 and asked if that was correct?
Mr. Michaud said that their assessment assumes 150,000 square feet. Mr. Anderson said that he has been checking
out everything with Eden’s & Avant and has yet to find a commercial use
with an ancillary retail use. Mr.
Anderson asked whether or not figuring retail use with ancillary commercial use
would be more realistic? He said the
retail is saturated through the web site and asked if this is a change in plans
where to be first in the nation for Eden’s & Avant?
Mr. Hague said that they find that the best use that meets
the zoning regulations is for an office and that the property and the land as
it is situated, behind their entire plaza, the visibility is pretty poor. He said to design it as a retail element
meeting the town’s regulations, it’s not the highest and best use. Mr. Hague said that they reviewed the
elevations and decided that a office use with some supporting retail would be
the best and highest profitable use.
Mr. Przybylowicz said that it was mentioned that a lot of
the traffic movements will be eliminated, especially the one where people are
allowed to right turn into the plaza. He
said now knowing that they can go straight across the intersection or turn
right, as a driver, he looks at the cul-de-sac and it seems as if it would be more confusing - he
would opt to stay away from it. He said
if he was coming down Harkness Avenue he would still make that left traffic
movement knowing that not everyone is going to go straight just because they
don’t want to contend with that mess at the bottom. He asked what that does to their evaluation
of the level of service, is it more in line with the Tighe & Bond report? Mr. Michaud said more in line with the Tighe
& Bond report, meaning what? Mr.
Przybylowicz said, meaning how they
consider the level at the intersection to be a D? Mr. Michaud said actually that is not what
their statement says, what they are saying is that it could be couched either
as a typographical error where things are actually better than what is
described in executive summary or more precise in identifying what happens for
specific movements in the intersection.
Mr. Michaud also said it is a simple matter and the bottom
line is that there is ample capacity at that intersection today, there will
ample capacity tomorrow but it could be improved. Mr. Michaud said that they are extending the
existing left turn lane on Harkness Avenue, it does not have to be done but
they think it’s the right thing to do because they are accounting for all of
the volume from the west with no impact to North Main Street - through the
signal and dedicated lanes. Mr. Michaud
added that the bottom line is that the intersection today works at a B and with
normal area growth it will work at a level C.
Five years from now, independent of the subdivision, and with the
subdivision in place, it will perform at a level C. In fact, he added, it will work at a better C than without the
subdivision because the subdivision affords these improvements to be made.
Mr. Michaud said there is no level of service D rating for
this under existing or future conditions -anywhere in the report - and that is
not what Tighe & Bond had actually suggested in that comment. Mr. Przybylowicz mentioned to Mr. Michaud
that in his presentation, he mentioned there is going to be one additional trip
per minute and asked if that is based on a 24-hour period or for the amount of
time that the property would be utilized?
Mr. Michaud said the number of 1 vehicle trips per minute. He added, to be more specific, 30% of the
traffic generated by office use is likely to come somewhere from the east and
will eventually head up North Main Street.
He said for just over 200 vehicle trips that are being generated either as
an entering trip in the morning or an exiting trip in the evening, 30% of that
equals, in the morning, just over 60 vehicles an hour, traveling past the park,
past the Big Y eventually to the subdivision.
He said in the opposite direction in the morning, very few people will
actually be leaving the office component, but there will be some maintenance
workers- approximately 10 vehicle trips per hour. Mr. Michaud said the hourly numbers that occur
from 7:00 – 8:00 in the morning could also occur between 8:00 – 9:00 in the
morning and could also occur between 9:00 – 10:00 in the morning. He said if you were to look at trips being
made towards the site over a 24-hour period, 300 vehicles per day would be on
the west bound lane side of North Main Street and likewise 300 per day would be
orientated towards the east.
Mr. Michaud also said what offsets that is the number of
trips that may be re-oriented from the Plaza itself along that the same stretch
of North Main Street, which are actually estimated to range from the west bound
direction, 30 vehicles in the morning, and in the evening it is roughly 90
vehicles today that are making left turns.
He said that they really see the project reducing the amount of impact
that currently occurs along that portion of North Main Street and they have designed
it to be sensitive to where the true impacts are actually occurring for the
project and that is right at that signal and that is why you see those extra
lanes.
Ms. Richards asked Mr. Michaud if the existing shopping
plaza has an established truck delivery system and where will the tractor
trailer trucks deliver now that there is a cul-de-sac? She said the Board needs to feel more
comfortable with that particular site with respect to what can be anticipated for
the number of deliveries, how the trucks are going to facilitate their vehicles
in the area. Mr. Michaud said that they
actually provided, as a part of the plans, an auto turn analysis, an analysis
that shows how trucks would access the site and circulate within the site,
which essentially happens through the signal today to the rear of the building
and then back out to the signal again.
It is a clockwise operation, the
dock area for the Stop & Shop, the larger truck area is in the back corner,
so under this plan rather than having the trucks re-circulate through the
parking field as they do today, they have a direct means of access from North
Main Street through a signalized location so it is more efficient.
Mr. Michaud also said the design of the subdivision roadway where it
intersects North Main Street is designed specifically to accommodate those
larger truck movements. Ms. Richards
said getting on and off the site does not concern her as much as the number of
trucks, when they get to the area behind the store, and whether they drive in
frontward or backward to load. She added
that there will be trucks parked in the back in addition to the cul-de-sac that
exists at the same place. She said that
they have seen 3 or 4 tractor trailers out there at one time and that is a real
concern as far as she sees it. She would
like to see if they can discuss it a little more closely with respect to how they
are going to accomplish it. Mr. Arai
said the current operation is going to be very similar to the operation under
the proposal so trucks that need the truck bay would enter through the
subdivision road, through the curb cut, head down along the back the shopping
center and back in. He said that it is
similar to what they do now. He added
that the difference is the elimination of the way which will eliminate trucks
entering in which is a highly used pedestrian area because of the restaurant
currently there. He added that the
trucks leaving would exit through the subdivision road.
Mr. Morrissette said the real question is how will the
tractor trailers integrate with the traffic and the parking that is there. Mr. Arai said as they do now the spaces exist
today and it is very similar to the way they interact today. Further, single curb cuts are being proposed for a
shared access drive for both lots 3 & 4.
At that time the Chair addressed the audience for any
questions.
Lloyd Dupre, 17 Waterman Avenue said
that he has never heard of Pecousic Park and asked if it extends all the way to
Westwood Avenue? Mr. Arai said that
Pecousic Park doesn’t exist yet and pointed out on the plan where it would
be. Mr. Dupre asked if the safety access
road is going to be put in only if they develop lots 4 & 5? Mr. Arai said if there is development proposed
for any of lots they would be approved through site plan approval in the
future. Mr. Dupre asked if that road
would be taking the place where the old railroad tracks were? Mr. Arai said yes. Mr. Dupre said that the subdivision is
basically retail and commercial and asked if they knew of any retail that is
interested in going in there? Mr. Arai
said no. Mr. Dupre asked if Lowe’s is
one of them. Mr. Hague said that Lowe’s
couldn’t fit there.
Bill Berselli, Acorn Street asked
if Lowe’s was in or out. Mr. Hague said
that they were there for subdivision approval and they are talking about 2
offices and some retail. Mr. Berselli
asked if he has seen a tractor trailer try to get back there. Mr. Hague said he hasn’t but they have
reconfigured it and the guardrail is
gone because the daycare center doesn’t exist anymore. He said the truck turn motions that they
simulated show that that the trucks can swing and turn and there will be a cape
cod berm installed also.
Beverly Beebe, Acorn Street asked
in what month was the traffic count done?
Mr.
Michaud said that counts were done in March and June of this year.
Elizabeth Dugal, 264 North Main Street asked
who owned the property currently? Ms. Freyman said that there is 2 separate
owners, E & A Acquisition II and Heritage Park (E & A) LLC. Ms. Dugal asked if they had any samples of
other subdivision that have gone in that have reduced traffic in similar areas? Mr. Michaud said that was a subjective
question because not every subdivision is alike. Further, in this particular instance they
have the right ingredients to reduce traffic because of the nature of how the
plaza is orientated and where the access is currently in relation to the
signal. He said in this particular case
there is clearly an easier more efficient way for 3 out of every 4 trips that
the plaza is generating to leave the site.
He said clearly it’s not the case for every subdivision that comes
before a Board.
Joe Lacopo, 18 Waterman Avenue asked
if they knew what kind of businesses are going in there? Mr. Hague said at this point we can only
assume general office use. Mr. Lacopo
asked what type of retail? Mr. Hague
said that he could not be specific about the tenant but by way of example, many
office uses may have an on site dry cleaner, ATM Facility, Florist, internal
coffee place and there are a number amenities for the people who work at the
office. Mr. Lacopo said that was his
point - that they have all of these variables then with their traffic studies they
are telling us where the traffic is coming in and going out, how do they know
people working there aren’t going to be coming from other directions or the
customer base will be coming from other directions? Mr. Michaud said that they actually estimate
that those retail uses are going to operate the same way as a normal retail use
would. They have applied a standard that
is required by the Town and it is his opinion as a professional that is the way
they estimated the trips. Mr. Michaud
added that they are slightly over- estimating how much traffic 4,000 square of
retail is likely to generate. Mr. Lacopo
asked who owns the land where the access road is being proposed? Mr. Anderson said that the developers
did. Mr. Lacopo asked when it was the
railroad who owned it? Mr. Anderson said
that they bought it all.
Ms. Dugal asked what state the Limited Partnership is
in. Ms. Freyman said that it is
registered in Massachusetts but she doesn’t recall exactly where. Mr. Hague said that his company was
originated in South Carolina and they do not own Lowe’s.
Mr. Serrazina, 382 North Main Street asked
if it was approved could it be changed from commercial retail or does it have
to stay as that? Attorney Freyman said
that they could use it for whatever it is zoned for and their infrastructure is
being designed for maximum. She
continued by stating that it does not mean that they are going to build an
80,000 square foot building – what is proposed is for its maximum use. She said that they could come in for less
when they come in for site plan approval. Mr. Serrazina asked if the traffic changes are
based on retail or commercial? Mr.
Anderson said that was a different situation.
Mr. Hague said what they have analyzed is a 150,000 square feet of
office space and that could include a single tenant, multiple tenants, single
building or multiple buildings. Mr.
Serrazina said if you go to retail doesn’t the traffic flow double or triple? Mr. Michaud said it has a higher trip rate
and as a result trips that he showed reflect that per square foot.
Guy Dalton, Waterman Avenue asked if they did switch over to a more predominately retail use won’t they have to redo all of the traffic studies? Mr. Michaud said they would and ther