2005-04-05
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Parking and Traffic Commission
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: April 5, 2005
LOCATION: Third Floor, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Tarsook, Clark Mitchell, Susan
Mueller, Richard LaFave, Tina Cassidy
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Mead
RECORDER: Tina Cassidy
Cassidy calls the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. and explains that the purpose of this meeting
is to review a revised site plan for the Cabot Crossing project at 495 Cabot Street. The
developers are proposing a change in the site plan to install an ATM and drive-through
service window at the back of the commercial building that fronts on Cabot Street. The
Planning Board will be reviewing the proposed change at its upcoming meeting on April 19,
2005, and the Parking and Traffic Commission is responsible for making a recommendation
on the site plan.
Attorney Thomas Alexander, representing the developer, explains the details of the site plan.
It involves the creation of an 8’ wide travel lane to accommodate drive-through traffic for a
new branch of the Salem 5 Savings Bank, along with new signage and reconfiguration of two
landscape areas (along the southern property line adjacent to the gas station, and an island
next to the handicapped parking space on the southern side of the building). He notes that
the drive through lane can accommodate 3-4 cars.
Paul Hajek, the developer’s traffic consultant, explains the results of his analysis using traffic
generation numbers from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and review of other
Salem 5 locations in Danvers and Hamilton. As a result of that analysis, Hajek concluded
that the drive-through window would rarely have more than 1 or 2 cars queuing to use it.
His study was based on several assumptions, including a) 33% of all bank customers would
use the drive-through feature and b) that it takes four minutes for the bank to service each
drive-through customer. If half of the bank customers used the drive-through, one could
expect queues of 4-5 cars and the service time per vehicle would have to be reduced from 4
minutes per car to 3 minutes to achieve this.
Cassidy expresses concern with the proposed change. She believes peak demand at the
drive-through window will require a queuing line of 5-7 cars minimum, not 3-4. As currently
designed, a line with more than three cars will interfere with cars trying to exit the parking
spaces on the south side of the building, and may well interfere with the flow of traffic trying
to use the one-way through lane to get around the building. In an extreme case, this could
lead to problems on Cabot Street by affecting the traffic on that street.
Tarsook states that he likes the proposed change that would eliminate the landscaped buffer
area along the fence line, since this will increase the width of the driveway available for
vehicles.
Mitchell states his opinion that it will be difficult for vehicles to turn the corner at the back
of the building, if the drive through lane is added. Hajek offers two solutions to address that
concern; rounding back the landscaped island adjacent to the handicapped parking space,
and adding a pavement stripe down the center of the driveway to differentiate between the
drive-through lane and the through-traffic lane.
Parking and Traffic Commission meeting minutes
April 5, 2005
Page two
Cassidy states that those improvements would not lengthen the queue line or address the
issue of people trying to exit the parking spaces. LaFave asks for confirmation that the
drive-through lane will also have an ATM window. Alexander answers in the affirmative.
LaFave states that if someone is using the drive-through to utilize the ATM, that will only
decrease the number of cars that can be in the queue before a conflict occurs.
Cassidy asks if the site plan was designed with any extra parking spaces. Alexander states
that there are no “extra” parking spaces on site, just the minimum number needed to meet
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mitchell reiterates that the corner radius is a concern for the Fire Department. Alexander
states that he has conferred with his client, and makes two suggestions. One, that the
pavement be striped to separate the drive-through lane from the through traffic lane, and
two that the handicapped parking space be relocated to the other side of the building.
Relocating the space will address at least a part of Cassidy’s concern about the length of the
queue line, and would probably allow the island to be rounded back further to address
Mitchell’s concern.
Cassidy states that she wants to review the traffic analysis Hajek referenced before meeting
again to discuss the site plan. She suggests that since the plan won’t be reviewed by the
Planning Board for another two weeks, the applicant should review and revise the site plan
as discussed today and the Commission should meet again in a weeks’ time to review the
amended plan.
Mitchell asks for clarification on the design of the drive-through lane. Alexander assures
them that there won’t be any curbing or other barrier separating the drive-through lane from
the through traffic lane, other than a painted stripe.
LaFave suggests that the 8’ wide lane for the drive-through window be extended as far as
possible to maximize its capacity, and suggests that if the queue line needs to be made
longer, perhaps some of the parking spaces immediately adjacent to it could be posted for
“employees only”. Developer George Bellows thanks LaFave for the suggestion, but says
the commercial tenants in the building would likely object to the prime parking spaces near
the entrance being designated for employees instead of customers.
Members discuss their schedules, and agree to meet again on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 at
11:00 a.m. to review a new site plan.
The meeting is adjourned at 11:50 a.m.