Loading...
1998-09-09Don Martin, Chairman Nelland Douglas, Vice-Chairman Norwood Pond Commission Keyin Burke Tina Cassldy William Frost Todd Larapert David Lang J. Michael Lawler Virginia MeGlynn Joyce McMahon Bruce Nardella Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 1998 Members present: Chairman Don Martin, Vice-Chainnan Nelland Douglas, Joyce McMahon, David Lang, J. Michael Lawlet, Virginia McGlynn~ Todd Lainpert, Tina Cassidy, Bill Frost. Also present: City Engineer Frank Killflea. Martin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and asks if there are any members of the public who would like to speak. Ron Johnsen states that the press re!.ease he read in the newspapers the previous week did not indicate that the idea of constructing an overpass was still open to discussion, and asks the members if they fed constructing an overpass in this location is something they would support. Cassidy responds that it is her understanding that the commission was formed to study and recommend long-term land uses for the Norwood Pond site, and not to decide whether an overpass was a good idea or to design it. She acknowledges that at least one fellow commission member feels differently. Lang states his position that the issue of whether the expenditure of public funds to construct an overpass in this location is justified is still an open and valid question in his mind. Douglas agrees with Lang's position and states that a "no-build" option with respect to the overpass is part of the commission's scope. He says that infrastructure improvements to Route 128 and redesign of interchanges is also an alternative that may solve existing traffic problems. The consulting firms hired by the City will study the a~ailable alternatives. Constructing an overpass is not something he would support doing if it made no sense to do it or if the City in general did not support the concept. Lang notes that the Norwood Pond site could be opened up from Dunham Road or from Presidential Circle, rather than by an overpass. MeGlynn states that while the initial focus of the commission was to study the Norwood Pond site, the commission's focus has expanded to include a larger area now (i.e. the former landfill site). Dan DeAngelis asks how much money will be spent on the in!fial study by the consultant. Cassidy states that the contract was for slightly less than $150,000.00. Martin asks if there is any other public comment at this point. Hearing none, he explains to those in attendance that representatives from the consulting firm of Malcolm Pirnie are here this evening~ and asks Killilea to update the commission. Norwood Pond Commission September 9, 1998 meeting page two Killilea states that at the previous commission meeting, members voted to recommend to the Mayor that the consulting finn working on the landfill closure plan design a plan that would allow passive recreational use of the site once the closure is completed. The commission had asked the firm, Malcolm Pirnie, to redesign an initial passive recreation plan so that it was less costly than the plan originally proposed last month. Mr. Paul Ford from Malcolm Pimie introduces himself to the members and recaps the previous month's presentation. He notes that the landfill closure plan will be submitted to the State's Department of Environmental Protection by October 15, 1998. Mr. David Hiss from Malcolm Pimie explains the revised post-closure plan that has been drafted in response to the commission's request. It shows a small parking area, selective planting areas, and trails. Future trail connections could also be made to the school or to the YMCA property adjacent to this site. Martin asks what it would cost the City to constreet this plan. Hiss answers approximately $225,000. Douglas asks if the cost of the parking area, trail construction, and plantings are included in this cost, Hiss states that the wetland that would be created on the landfill is not included in that cost. Hiss informs members that typically a community is encouraged to wait one or two years before working on the (andfill. The total cost of site improvements should be about $350,000, $100,000 of which would be incurred after the 1-2 year waiting period. Lainpert asks if an inflation factor has bean built into the cost. Hiss states that the estimates quoted here should be accurate unless something untoward happens to the economy. Douglas asks Killilea if these costs, which will be borne solely by the City, are a realistic invesunent for the City to consider. Killilea answers that the City's capital expenditure plan includes $5,000,000 for the landfill closure, and these expenses would be within budget. A general discussion takes place among the members and Malcolm Pimie representatives relative to the planrings that would be used. Martin states that these cost estimates are higher than he would like to see. Lang suggests that the City try to find ways to cut these construction costs. Douglas notes that the Conservation Commission may modify the design shown here tonight when it reviews the plan. Nonetheless, he believes this plan would result in a worthwhile resource for the City in the future. General discussion takes place on current and proposed drainage schemes around the site. Frost asks Hiss to explain what will happen to the storm drain under Route 128. Hiss explains that the cap will prevent vertical flow, subsurface water will be collected at the toe of slope and carried to SESD, while overland flows will be diverted to existing drainage basins and wetlands. Next, Killilea introduces Mr. Richard Benevento from the consulting ftrm of HTSD, which is one of a two-fn-m design team chosen by the City to prepare preliminary design analyses and studies related to infrastructure improvements. Benevento explains that the firms of HTSD and Greenman-Pedersen were hired to conduct this study, and hope to create a process where City officials, the Mass. Highway Department, and City residents will work together to create a plan for transportation improvements that will meet the needs of the community. He views this Norwood Pond Commission September 9, 1998 meeting page three evening's discussion as a fact-finding mission to hear the eommission's efforts to date and learn about any information they have at this point. He explains the scope of the work that will be performed, including preliminary base mapping, traffic studies, public meetings, interchange redesign concepts, and overpass designs. He states his opinion that the stretch of Route 128 between Route 22 and Brimbal Ave. should be studied, along with the interchanges themselves. He explains that once the design and public participation process is completed, the preliminary concept plan would be submitted to the Mass. Highway Department for review and comment. That department must approve whatever improvements the City proposed to undertake on this state road. The Highway Department would hold a formal public hearing on the matter at that point. Following that, a final design phase would take place. Benevento explains to members that two members of his staff- Krista Erikkson and Bill Lyons - will also be working on this project and that Greenman Pedersen will be working on structural components, surveying, and base mapping. Mr. Sherman Eidelman from that firin, who worked for the department for 3 1 years, will act as the liaison with the Mass. Highway Department. Martin asks Benevento for an estimate as to when a preliminlry design could be completed. Benevento answers approximately eight months. The traffic study will take one month. McMahon informs Benevento that Douglas had drafted a concept plan for rodesign of Route 128, and Douglas explains the concept underlying his drawing was to create an intemhange that permitted traffic from Dunham Road and Brimhal Avenue to get onto and off of Route 128 directly. Benevento states that the Brimbal Avenue interchange is grossly under-capacity with respect to Mass. Highway standards. Douglas asks if the finn will be studying how much usable vacant land is left in the vicinity. Benevento answers yes, to some extent. Lyons elaborates that potential vehicle trip generation must be studied through the use of potential building scenarios. Lung asks if the study will include a "no-action" review. Lyons states that they would project normal traffic growth factors, plus 20-year development projections and traffic increases'. Lung suggests that the possibility of extending Dunham Road to Beaver Pond Road should be reviewed at least for the purposes of this study. Lyons states that it can be, but that the existence of intervening property owned by Essex County Greenbelt may be an obstacle to that alternative. Martin states that based on the conversations he has had with residents of Dunham Road, most people in the area would prefer to see Dunham Road dead-ended, rather than extended. Lampert asks Benevento to explain the term "under-capacity". Benevento explains that the term means traffic back-ups, the fact that design of the road can't handle the amount of traffic using it, and explains the "LOS", "level of service" concept. Douglas states that one of the important questions that needs to be answered is the location of the proposed roadway that would lead to the overpass. The property owned by Mr. Santin which houses Santin Engineering may be seriously impacted by an overpass access road, as could Norwood Pond Commission September 9, 1998 meeting page four the Cycles 128 establishment. The project would also introduce municipal water and sewer service to the area along Dunham Road, which currently relies on private utilities. Benevento suggests that the business owners in the area need to be consulted about their interest in additional development on their property. The proposed $5 million conslxuction price tag does not include money for infrastructure improvements. He indicates that assistance from local state legislators and, potentially, grant funds, could be pursued if additional funding is eventually needed. McMahon states that the prelimimuy review done by the commission seems to point toward placing playing fields behind the North Beverly Elementary School. She suggests that access through the existing residential side slreets would not be wise. She also suggests that the traffic patterns on the roads neighboring Beverly Hospital need to be studied as well. Lawler notes that the project should include ramping traffic directly to and from the highway. He notes that the commission has been led to believe that Mass. Highway will not approve additional ramps in this area since that agency is concerned about observing minimum distances between interchanges. Benevento responds that Mass. Highway is predominantly concerned with access and vehicular safety, which is why the agency must be involved in the conceptual plan process. Recon~guration of the roadway may in fact result in the elimination of existing ramps. Lawler states his opinion that the rural character of the area in question must be retained, and asks if the City will incur any excess costs over the $5 million earmarked for this project. Benevento states that in addition to pursuing roadway construction grants, the City may approach affected business owners for participation in the project. State Rep. Michael Cabill asks Benevento to explain what the Legislature has authorized to date. Benevento answers that the $5 million request was part of the State' s 1997 Transportation Bond Bill and that Mass. Highway is prepared to release ten percent of that figure to allow engineering work and study to begin. Cahill cautions that Legislative authorization is not the same as an appropriation, and suggests that any decisions about the Norwood Pond site or an overpass should wait until the City completes its Master Plan process. Douglas responds that he hopes this is not the case and, if it were to happen, would be very discouraging. He does not believe that the preliminary engineering and planning efforts should be shelved for that reason at this point. Benevento adds that a project that is well engineered and which has the support of the local community can move forward through to completion. McMahon quotes from several newspaper articles that indicate the $500,000 has been appropriated for the City's use for engineering studies and designs. Frost asks if the studies done at the time the North Shore Community College was considering moving to this location could still be valid. He says that those studies did not support the Norwood Pond Commission September 9, 1998 meeting page five construction of an overpass. Benevento answers that the North Shore Community College studies did not address the issue of an overpass. General discussion takes place on the potential cost of such a project. Erikkson states that it would be impossible to provide even a preliminary cost estimate for this project at this point, since the scope of potential construct is unknown. Members discuss some of the existing conditions in the vicinity of the Brimhal Avenue interchange. Elise Bernstein, a member of the public, believes that the Master Plan process is a very important one, and that open space preservation is a top concern. She says she is impressed with the Commission's work to date. Douglas states that he supports the idea of studying the entire area around the Norwood Pond site and the roadway system between the Brimbal Avenue and Route 22 exits but, with respect to Rep. Cahill' s comments, does not support putting the entire study in limbo to await the outcome of the City's master plan process. Pam Kampersoll, a member of the public, suggests that the Economic and Community Development Council should find out the exact acreage in the area that might be available for future development as it conducts its economic impact analysis. McMahon assures her that the commission will do this, and hopes that the analysis can be completed by the November meeting of the Norwood Pond Commission. Douglas points out that the traffic study that will be conducted by the consultants will address the question of the amount of potential future development. Lyons suggests that this commission needs to inform the consulting fn-rn of the specific types of uses it envisions for the Norwood Pond site so that those uses can be factored into the traffic analysis as well. Douglas states that with respect to the uses for the Norwood Pond site, the consensus of the commission seems to be to leave much of the area as open space, with active recreation uses to be concentrated around the North Beverly School site. Lawler suggests that the commission should focus on what to do with the heavily wooded area of the site; while much will be left for passive recreation, there will likely be playing fields of some kind behind the school. Lyons states that the number and types of fields should be decided by the commission. Lampert suggests that there should be more than just soccer fields under consideration, and that perhaps football fields should be considered too. He suggests that the commission should find out how much land is needed for the different types of playing fields that will be considered. Pam Kampersoll distributes a map of trails prepared by the Norwood Pond Association this year, along with a list of points of interest that hikers can use as they traverse the property. Next, Martin asks members if they have read the minutes of the July 1, 1998 meeting and if there are any corrections. There are none. Norwood Pond Commission September 9, 1998 meeting page six Douglas: motion to approve the minutes of the July 1, 1998 meeting, seconded by McMahon. All members in favor, motion carries. Martin states that the next meeting of the commission will be held on October 7, 1998. Meeting is adjourned.