2015-01-06CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Parking and Traffic Commission
January 6, 2015
City Council Chambers, Third Floor City Hall
Richard Benevento, Chair, City Planner Aaron
Clausen, Richard Hutchinson, John Somes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sgt. Russ Rollins, Bill Fiore
OTHERS PRESENT: City Engineer Greg St. Louis, Sean Ciancarelli,
Councilor Martin, Councilor Lang
RECORDER: Eileen Sacco
1. Benevento calls the meeting to order at 8: 30 a.m.
2. Discussion on Traffic Study for the Neighborhood Around Route lA and
Route 97 — Councilor Don. Martin
Benevento reports that the scope of work for the traffic study has been developed.
Martin states that he is concerned about the scope of work relative to the neighborhood.
Benevento explains that the traffic counting study for McKay Street and County way
needs to be done to understand what is going at the Henry's intersection. He explains
that the scope is a draft and recommends that the Engineering Department review it.
Clausen agrees and recommends that the platter be tabled to the next meeting on the PTC
in February and a vote on the recommendation can be taken at that time.
Benevento agrees and notes that the scope includes a schedule for dates etc. and that can
be tweaked as we move forward. }
Somes: motion to table the matter to the next meeting of the PTC on February 2,
2015. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion carries (4 -0).
3. Continued: Recommendation to Plannin Board — Site Plan Review
#113 --14 and Special Permit #139 -14 = Construct North Shore
Crossing consisting of 4 Buildings Totaling 65,795 s.f. at 140 Brimbal
Avenue — CBA Group
— innn. .111111111/ - I i i or
Atty. Thomas Alexander with Law Offices at 1 School Street, Beverly
addresses the Commission on behalf of his client CEA Group. He
explains that at the last meeting the peer review of the traffic study that
Parking & Traffic Commission minutes January 6, 2015 Meeting
Page 1 of 13
they submitted was reviewed and they have responded to that in a letter
that has been submitted to the Commission.
Benevento explains that the peer reviewer Rebecca Brown of The
Engineering Corp. (TEC) has reviewed the responses from the applicant
and she is present this morning to review her findings. He invites Brown
to address the Commission on their review.
Brown addresses the Commission and reviews the following concerning
the response from the applicant:
Updated Site Development Plans
1. The drive aisles on the northerly and southerly sides of the supermarket building
(Building A) will provide two -way traffic flow based on A &M's' December 19,
2014 site plans. The drive aisle at the rear of the building will be limited to one-
way flow
2. A&III notes in their December 19, 2014 response letter that the service
area between Buildings B and C will be utilized for maintenance and
trash. If dumpsters are to be stored in this area, the - applicant should
indicate how dumpsters will be emptied as truck access is not provided to
this service area.
3. TEC noted in Comment 6 of our original November 14, 2014 comment
letter that the proposed 342 parking spaces on the site exceeds the City of
Beverly minimum requirements by 60 parking spaces and recommended
banking of additional parking spaces to be constructed in the future only if
determined necessary by a parking monitoring study. A &M responded in
their December 19, 2014 letter that additional parking spaces above the
City's zoning requirements have been provided to accommodate carriage
corrals, snow storage, and peak seasonal parking demand. Although 10
additional parking spaces have been banked on the December 19 updated
site plans, the updated site plans include revisions to the parking lot layout
that increase the total number of constructible parking spaces on the site
from 342 spaces to 350 spaces. The site plan revisions result in a
reduction of 2 parking spaces upon initial occupancy of the project.
4. The site plans have been modified to provide an additional teller lane for
the drive through bank (Building D). As noted in TEC's November 14,
2014 comment letter, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
article New Drive - Through Stacking Information for Banks and Coffee
Shops (an Update to: Queuing Areas for Drive -Thru Facilities) provides
information on the maximum queues experienced by drive through
facilities at drive -in banks. The results of the study showed that a
Parking & Traffic Commission minutes January 6,201-5 Meeting
Page 2 of 13
maximum drive - through queue per lane of four (4) vehicles occurred at
drive -in banks. Therefore, a maximum drive - through queue of eight (8)
vehicles may be, anticipated for the proposed drive - through bank (Building
D) at North Shore Crossing. The proposed drive - through storage area
provides adequate storage for eight (8) vehicles without impacting on -site
circulation or parking stalls. Therefore, the available storage on site is
adequate to accommodate the expected drive - through queues.
5. The proposed drive - through layout for the bank (Building D) does not
provide a bypass lane for the entire length of the anticipated maximum
queue. However, the bypass lane provides bypass for four to five vehicles
in the drive - through queue and is reasonably designed for those motorists
that may mistakenly enter the drive -thru area.
6. The exit from the bank drive - through (Building D) provides limited area
for the three exiting lanes to merge prior to entering the circulation aisle.
This condition creates potential conflicts at the STOP line with three lanes
exiting side -by -side. In addition, the STOP line is located less than 10
feet from the inside teller lane, which will not provide adequate space for
even one vehicle to queue between the STOP line and the teller window.
Therefore, vehicles waiting to exit the drive - through will block access to
the teller window for following vehicles. The proximity of the drive -
through egress to the parking stalls may result in vehicles, backing into the
drive- through egress while exiting the parking stalls. Consideration
should be given to modifying the drive -- through egress by removing the
last few parking stalls in the parking aisle closest to the egress to allow a
merge area for the multiple lanes exiting the drive through and adequate
storage between the teller window and the STOP line for at least one
vehicle to queue. I
Updated Traffic Impact Analysis
7. RMA's original Traffic Impact and Access Study (TIAS) included traffic
generated by multiple other development proj ects for which no formal
applications have been submitted to the City of Beverly or the
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) for project
permitting. These included an additional 600 employees at
Communications & Power Inc., 500 additional employees at Beverly
Hospital, and 300 additional employees at Cell Signaling. As there are
currently no plans in the foreseeable future to increase staff at these
locations, RMA conducted an updated traffic impact assessment, which
removed these other development projects from the No -Build and Build
traffic -- volume projections. In addition, RMA added traffic to be
generated by the development of 52 Dunham Road by Cummings
Properties, which was not included in the original TIAS. As Cell
Parking &Traffic Commission minutes January 6, 2015 Meeting
Page 3 of 13
Signaling added 100 employees in September 2013 after the turning
movement counts were collected in March 2012 at the Route 128 Exit 19
Interchange, RM.A added traffic associated with these employees to the
No -Build and Build traffic volumes at these intersections. TEC concurs
with the methodology used to estimate No -Build traffic - volume conditions
within RMA's updated traffic impact assessment.
8. Response 21 in RMA's December 10, 2014 response letter provides a
comparison of the trip generation estimate conducted by TEC as part of
our November 14, 2014 comment letter and an updated trip generation
estimate conducted by RMA based on the proposed tenants and building
sizes. RNIA's methodology results in significantly louver site -- generated
trips than TEC's methodology by 109 fewer trips during the weekday PM
peak hour and 158 fewer trips during the Saturday midday peak hour.
Much of this difference is attributable to the use of different land uses
within the analysis, which have lower trip generation rates. In addition,
RMA applied a 20 percent multi -use trip credit to all land uses. TEC does
not concur with the application of a blanket 20 percent multi --use trip
credit given that more than 60 percent of the site- generated trips are
associated with the grocery store, which would require at least 33 percent
of the trips from all other land uses to be shared with the grocery store.
Although TEC does not concur with the methodology used to estimate
site- generated trips within RMA's trip generation comparison, the updated
capacity and queue analysis prepared by RMA utilized TEC's
recommended methodology for estimating trip generation, and therefore
represents a conservative (worse case) analysis condition.
9. At the request of the Beverly Parking and Traffic Commission, RMA
prepared an analysis of the Brimbal Avenue 1 Dunham Road 1 Route 128
Ramps intersection both with and without installation of a signal, which
would be installed by Cummings Properties as mitigation for the 48 -52
Dunham Road developments if and when a signal is warranted. The
results of the analysis indicate that the intersection will operate at
acceptable levels of service with minimal increases in delay and queues
generated by the North Shore Crossing development either with or without
installation of a signal by Cummings Properties.
10. The capacity and queue analysis included within the original TIAS
indicated that long queues would occur under Build conditions at the
Brimbal Avenue 1 Connector Road intersection, which may extend into
the .roundabout at Sohier Road 1 Connector Road and beyond the
intersection of Brimbal Avenue 1 Route 128 SB Off -Ramp during peak
hours. The revised capacity and queue analysis indicates much shorter
queues at the Brimbal Avenue 1 Connector Road roundabout, which will
not extend through adjacent intersections. Much of this reduction is due
Parking & Traffic Commission minutes January 6, 2015 Meeting
Page 4of13
to the removal of several other development projects consisting of an
additional 1,400 employees from the analysis.
11. The Applicant has proposed installing STOP control on the Dodge Street
westbound approach to the Laurel Street intersection to create .a two -way
stop controlled intersection in which the Dodge Street eastbound approach
would operate free flowing while the Dodge Street westbound and Laurel
Street northbound approaches would operate under STOP control. Due to
the close spacing of the Dodge Street 1 Laurel Street and Dodge Street 1
Enon Street (Route 1 A) intersection, TEC does not recommend
installation of a two -way stop condition at the Dodge Street l Laurel Street
intersection. If all vehicles headed westbound on Dodge Street toward
Enon Street (Route 1 A) are required to stop at the Laurel Street
intersection, long gaps in Dodge Street traffic could occur that would
cause the Dodge Street westbound signal phase at Enon Street (Route 1A)
to gap out early, reducing the green time for traffic exiting Dodge Street
onto Enon Street (Route 1 A) and increasing delays and queues at the
Dodge Street 1 Laurel Street intersection. Adjustments to the signal timing
at the Dodge Street 1 Enon Street (Route 1 A) intersection could eliminate
or reduce the potential for this `early gap out condition, but would increase
delay and queues on Enon Street (Route 1 A) and result in less efficient
operations of the signalized intersection.
12. The applicant has committed to providing a fair share contribution of
$16,275 toward the installation of a traffic signal or other future
improvements at the Brimbal Avenue 1 Colon Street intersection to
mitigate project - related impacts. This contribution is proportional to the
percentage increase in trips through the intersection generated by the
proposed North Shore Crossing development.
1 1 3 . The applicant has committed to providing a fair share contribution of
$16,950 toward the construction of an exclusive right -turn lane on Essex
Street southbound or other future improvements at the Brimbal Avenue 1
Essex Street intersection to mitigate project-related impacts. This
contribution is proportional to the percentage increase in trips on this
movement generated by the proposed North Shore Crossing development.
Brown addresses the Parking and Traffic Commission and explains that the
applicant has revised their trip generation estimates for the site and it is now
based on the proposed tenants and building sizes. She explains that their
estimates originally included office space on the site which is now no longer
in the plan the result was about 1,400 trips were deleted.
Parking & Traffic Commission minutes January 6.2015 Meeting
Page 5of13
Brown explains that they concur with the cost analysis and methodology used
for the calculation of their fair share for mitigation measures in the area of
Brimbal Avenue and Colon Street.
Benevento states that it is important to estimate that cost correctly and asked
where the calculations came from. Brown explains that they came from her
office and explains the methodology used and the estimated contribution is
$33,000.
Benevento states that is not even enough to design the project and notes that
the city does not have the money to do those improvements.
Brown continued with her report and notes that the area in the back of the
building that was proposed to be one way has been revised. She also notes
that the drive through for the bank has been updated to provide two teller
windows and an adequate storage queue is provided. She explains that the
plan is for one teller to serve both windows.
Benevento states that the he is very concerned about the intersection of
Brimbal Avenue and Colon Street. He notes that the applicant is getting front
door improvements done by the state and the city and he feels that the
applicants fair share of the improvements at Brimbal and Colon are a little
nebulous. He states that there needs to be a discussion about those locations.
He notes that the Cummings project is making a contribution of $328,000 for
their Dunham Road project.
Benevento states that the internal circulation on the applicant's site is
secondary to this.
Brown explains that they concur with the recommendation of MADOT for a
curb cut on the connector road.
Benevento questions if the City Engineer has looked at the connector road
driveway. St. Louis states that he has seen them. Mueller states that the three
access points were recommended to disperse the traffic around the site.
Benevento asks if the driveway will be right in and right out only. Mueller
explains that Sohier Road will be right turn in and right turn out, and Brimbal
Avenue will be right turn in and out with a left turn lane. He also explains the
layout of the driveways and notes that they will be stop sign controlled.
Benevento suggests that a traffic signal may be appropriate in that area.
Brown explains that a traffic signal would be inappropriate at that location
because of the location of the round about.
Parking & Traffic Commission minuses January 6, 2015 .Meeting
Page 6 of 13
Clausen states that a recommendation from DOT would be best before we can
propose access from Sohier Road. He explains that an analysis of each option
for the fair share agreement regarding the Essex, Brimbal and Colon Street
needs to be done. He notes that the level of service at the intersection of
Essex and Brimbal is a level C and there could be some ability to change that.
Clausen also reports that the bid opening for the Brimbal Ave traffic
improvement projects is next week and there could be a potential budget
shortfall for the project and there may be a fair share contribution needed for
that project as well.
Mr. Cohen addresses the Commission and states that they have already agreed
to pay for a new drainage pipe under his property which could cost $300,000.
He also states that he could end up paying the state hundreds of thousands of
dollars in connection with the improvements that the state is making.
Benevento states that those issues have nothing to do with the Parking and
Traffic Commission that is someone else's hunt and his concern is with
Parking and Traffic issues. He also notes that with projects of this size there
are always offsite traffic improvements. He further explains that the role of
the Commission to be sure that the - project works well but at the same time be
sure that the city does not have a problem as a result of it.
Mr. Cohen states that they were ready to go with a project four years ago and
the city asked them to hold off because they wanted to reconfigure the road
and they asked them to coordinate with their plans.
Benevento states that this is not about money it has to do with making sure
that what is implemented makes. the traffic flow and make the area safe. He
notes that at the end of the day it has to work'because the city doesn't have the
resources to fix the problems later.
Mr. Cohen states that if there is a problem that is the result of their project
they will -work with . the city to solve it.
Benevento notes that the contribution offered for traffic mitigation is about
$65,000 plus the cost of the pipe.
Cohen states that they will also be paying a considerable amount to the state
to break access on the state road and that has yet to be established.
Clausen clarified that the contribution proposed for the signal and the right
turn lane is $33,000.
Parking & Traffic Commission minutes January G, Z 015 ,Meeting
Page 7 of 13
Benevento states that there are a lot of unknowns and he would life to know
what MADOT is thinking. He suggests that a meeting be set up with DoT
and get everyone around the table and find out what this really looks like.
Benevento states that he thinks that the proposal for more access and egress
for the site is a good idea but the bigger piece of the puzzle would be if
MADOT does not like it.
Mueller agrees with Benevento and states that they would be better off if the
city reviews this before going to DoT. Benevento states that he thinks that
the city should go to DoT as opposed to sitting on this and waiting for them.
Benevento asps if they are asking the PTC to approve the plan in concept.
Mueller explains that they are. Benevento states that he is not in a position to
approve this until there is some concurrence from DoT because there are too
many moving parts. He notes that there has to be a discussion with DoT to
work this out and if DoT does not agree then changes have to be made.
Clausen reports that the Planning Board is scheduled to review the traffic for
this project at a special meeting next Tuesday, January 13, 2015 and they will
be needing a recommendation from the Parking and Traffic Commission. He
suggests that the PTC issue a decision with the condition that the action is
based on assumed access and egress design they believe will be approved and
that they are reasonably confident of He also notes that if there is a change to
the plans they will have to come back to the Commission.
Benevento states that MA DoT approval is one piece of this and explains that
the other stuff that is hanging out there are the other issues. He notes that he
does not agree with the proposed fair share contribution for the mitigation at
Essex, Brimbal and Colon, noting that he is not convinced that they should
not be doing anything at that location that will be affected by this project.
Atty. Alexander states that in his experience with these types of projects the
state always looks to the local decision and the state will review that and if
there are changes they will have to come back to the city.
Atty. Alexander also states that with regards to the fair share contribution the
Planning Board is the permit granting authority and they and the city can
determine that. He also notes that the city" s expert has opined that the amount
proposed is appropriate and they have agreed to that.
Benevento opens the meeting up for public comment at this time.
Parking &Traffic Commission minutes January 6, 2015 Meeting
Page Sofl3
Dave DiLoria of Northridge addresses the Commission and states -that he has
not heard anything about the effect of the traffic on the Northridge condos and
he is also opposed to the entrance to the site on Sohier Road.
Rosemary Broadbent of Northridge addresses the Commission and states that
the Sohier entrance is a new concept and they are concerned that there will
only be a 10 foot buffer between the building and the Sohier Road access.
Chris Snow of Northridge addresses the Commission and states that he feels
that this project is a raw deal for Northridge. He also notes that he is
concerned about the truck access in the rear of the proposed whole Foods
Building, noting that it is a small space.
Mike Loge of 15 Walnut Avenue addresses the PTC and states that he is
concerned about the traffic backup in the area that already exists. He notes
that some of that is caused by the train station.
Dan D' Angelis addresses the PTC and rotes that the R- building of the
Northridge complex is missing from the plans. He states that it should be
there in consideration of the curb cut proposed for Sohier Road. He also
states that the neighbors should be in the room for those discussions as well.
Clausen states that if there are any questions regarding proposed changes to an
approved plan it would have to come back to the Planning Board and a review
by the Parking and Traffic Commission would be a part of that process.
Benevento suggests that the PTC could indicate that they support the plan but
he would like more information or have a meeting with MADDT,' or at least
find out what direction they are heading.
Clausen states that the Essex 1 Colon Street intersection is of concern to him.
Benevento agrees and states that there are a lot of unknowns and he would
rather not be hasty.
Somes asks who would have control of the financial contribution. Benevento
explains that the money would be placed in an account with the city for if and
when it is determined that the improvements are needed.
Benevento states that he likes the idea of meeting with the Department of
Transportation.
Atly: Alexander states that the process with DOT will be many months.
Benevento states that the goal would be to get all involved on the same page
regarding the access and egress on Sohier Road.
Parking &Traffic Commission minutes January 6, 2015 Meeting
Page 9 of 13
Alexander states that DOT is very much interested in the opinion of the
Parking and Traffic Commission and the Planning Board and a vote of this
Commission would give them information on what the city wants. He notes
that they want to know that the city is onboard.
Alexander also states that if the bids for the Brimbal Avenue come in short
they would be willing to discuss an appropriate contribution.
Alexander states that it is disingenuous to hold this up.
Benevento states that fundamentally he is in agreement with the plan and if he
were to present a motion to the PTC he would recommend that this plan is an
improvement and add language regarding any short fall for the Mass DoT
project be accommodated in this project.
Clausen states that he is concerned about Essex/Colon Street and it is also
worth looking into a solution for the concerns about North Ridge, as well as
Laurel Street residents' concerns. He also notes that the Planning Board will
be looking for a very specific recommendation from the PTC.
Clausen: Motion to continue the matter for more information and , to
determine a more precise mitigation package for the project. Hutchinson
seconds the motion. The motion carries.
4. Recommendation to Planning Board: Site Plan Review #114 -14 --
Administrative Review -- Redevelo ment of the McKay School
Building — 131 McKgy Street — Windover McKa LLC
Atty. Miranda Gooding addresses the Commission and reports that she is
joined this morning by the Architect for the project Thad Siernasko, and Peter
Gordeau of Windover McKay LLC.
Gooding explains that Windover was the successful bidder in the RFP process
for the sale of the former McKay School building at 131 McKay Street. She
explains that they are proposing 32 residential units (13 -1 bedroom units and
7 -2 bedroom units). She states that there will be 2 parking spaces per unit.
Gooding explains that they are meeting all zoning and fire access regulations.
She notes that the two existing curb cuts on the site will be 2 points of access.
Gooding states that they have provided a traffic study and notes that they
estimate 212 trips per day generated from this project and notes that this
project is less than the previous use of the site as a school.
Parking & Traffic Commission minutes January 6, 2015 Meeting
Page 10 of 13
Chris ? of Meridian Associates addresses the Commission and reviews the site
plan with the Commission. He notes the access and egress points on the site
and notes the location of the dumpsters, the layout of the parking areas and
notes that they are providing required parking for the site.
Benevento states that he would not be comfortable closing this review today
noting that Sgt. Rollins and Lt. Fiore the police and fire department -
representatives to the Commission are not present this morning. Clausen
notes that the plans were emailed to them and Fiore has provided a letter to
the Commission. He also notes that this project would not typically be subject
to review by the Parking and Traffic Commission noting that the special
permit is issued by the City Council as required by the Residential Reuse
Ordinance. He notes that the city asked the applicant to go through this
process as part of the reuse of a public building ordinance.
Clausen notes that the Balch Street curb cut on the property is being closed
and moved further east to make the McKay Street intersection work better.
Gooding reported that they are demolishing the auditorium section of the
building and notes that they have been to the Historic Commission which
found the building to be historically significant but deemed that the
auditorium section not be preferably preserved and they have received
approval for a permit for the dernolition.
St. Louis questions where visitors will park on the site. Gooding states that 20
of the 32 units are one bedroom units and they will be rotating the use of the
parking spaces noting that there will be no deeded parking.
Benevento asks if they would be opposed to replacing the sidewalks if
needed. Gordeau reports that if they find that they are in such disrepair and
unsafe they would replace the sidewalks.
Benevento opens the meeting up for public comment at this time.
Denny Katz of 99 Balch Street expresses his concern about the traffic in the
neighborhood from the Cummings Center and notes that a lot of people walk
in that neighborhood.
There being no further questions or comments regarding the McKay School
review, Benevento asks what is the wish of the Commission:
Hutchinson: moved to recommend approval of the proposal to the
Beverly City Council and that the City Engineer review the condition of the
sidewalks and if any improvements are necessary the applicant will make
improvements, and that landscape plantings near the access and egress be low
Parking &Traffic Commission minutes January 6, 2015 Meeting
Page 11 of 13
level plantings so as not to impede vision. Somes seconds the motion. The
motion carries (4 -0).
5. Discussion with Steve Drohos -- Re: 50 -52 Dunham Road
Benevento reports that he met with Drohosky yesterday with regards to the
Cummings property on Dunham Road and they have agreed to contribute
$328,,000 for the mitigation package in addition to the widening of Dunham Road.
Benevento states that the approval has been amended to reflect this and asked that
the Commission approve the changes to clarify the matter for the record.
Hutchinson: motion to approve the amended approval for 50 -52 Dunham Road.
Somes seconds the motion. The motion carries (4 -0).
G. Discussion with City Engineer Greg St. Louis Regarding and Endicott
Streets
Benevento states that he has reviewed the plans and states that the pavement markings are
a great proposal.
Hutchinson: motion to recommend to the Public Services Department that the
pavement markings be installed at Hale and Endicott Streets to improve the traffic issues.
Somes seconds the motion. The motion carries (4 -0).
7. Old/New Business
Election of Chair and Vice Chair
This matter was tabled to the next meeting.
8. Approval of Minutes
The' minutes of the PTC meeting held on December 2, 2014 were presented for approval.
The approval of minutes were tabled to the next meeting.
9. Next Meet. ink
The next regular meeting of the Parking and Traffic Commission will be held on
Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 8:30 a.m.
Parking & Traffic Commission minutes January 6, 2015 Meeting
.Page 12 of 13
10. Ad' aurnment
Benevento asks if there is any additional business for the Commission to conduct. There
is none.
Sames: motion to adjourn, seconded by Hutchinson. All members in favor,
motion carries 4 -0.
The meeting is adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Parking & Traffic commission minutes January 6, 2015 Meeting
Page 13 of 13