Scheduled:
7:00 PM Old/New Business
Minutes/Bills
Form A - 3 Pond Park Road
7:45 PM Board of Appeals and Planning Board - Continuation of Hearings Samuels & Associates - 349 Lincoln Street
Major Amendment to the existing Mixed-Use Special Permit and Site Plan Review at the Hingham Shipyard
Central Meeting Room North and South __
Present: Planning Board Members, Susan Murphy, Chair, Paul Healey, Clerk, Sarah Corey, and
Judy Sneath. Also present was Planner Katharine Lacy.
Ms. Murphy opened the public meeting at 7:10 P.M. in the Planning Board office at the Hingham Town Hall.
Form A - 3 Pond Park Road
This Form A was previously endorsed by the Planning Board on February 26, 2006, and submitted to Land Court for recording. Land Court requested a revision to the plan, which the applicant made, so the revised plan needed a new signature. The plan involves the re-allocation of 357 square feet of land from one parcel to an adjacent parcel, and has no zoning implications.
Minutes
It was moved, seconded, and SO VOTED, to accept the minute of March 5, 2007 and March 12, 2007.
At 7:30 PM Planning Board members joined the audience at the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on Roseland's request for a modification to the Special Permit A2 for the Hingham Shipyard.
RE: Samuels & Associates, Request for Major Amendment to the existing Mixed-Use Special Permit at the Hingham Shipyard
This was a continuation of the Joint ZBA/Planning Board hearings on the proposed modifications to the Hingham Shipyard proposed by Samuels and Associates. The last hearing before this one was February 26, 2006.
Present for the Applicant: Joel Sklar, Samuels and Associates, Richard Cook, BSC; Jeffery Tocchio and Kelly McCarthy, Drohan, Hughes, Tocchio and Morgan.
Ms. Murphy provided a summary of activity relative to Samuel's application since the last hearing on February 26. At that meeting the developer presented a revised site design intended to respond to the Board's concerns. Changes included relocation of the Residential North building and cinema. Since that time the applicant had been working with the Town's engineer and the Working Group to resolve all outstanding traffic issues and identify potential alternatives to the design of the intersection at Shipyard and Essington Drives. This intersection has been a concern since the plans were first submitted. Ms. Murphy asked Mr. Dirk to present his finding to date on traffic issues relative to the development of the Hingham Shipyard.
Mr. Dirk noted that he had provided the Town with three peer review memos dated December 26, 2006, February 26, 2007 and March 13, 2007, and that his finding tonight are all contained in those letters.
Mr. Dirk outlined the overall traffic strategy for the Shipyard development, noting that there are three primary access points that will be serving the Samuels portion of the Shipyard, one across from Lincoln Plaza, one at Shipyard Drive, and another across from the Talbot's driveway. All will be signalized, with signals synchronized. He noted that despite the increase in intensity of land use at the Shipyard that the fact that multiple entrances in and out are planned may result in an overall improvement in the level of service for commuters coming in and out of the MBTA lot, who now have only one access point. Mr. Dirk pointed out that, in general, traffic studies had indicated that all three intersections will work at an acceptable level. The intersection at Shipyard Drive West and Essington, however, would attain a Level of Service of only D as currently planned, which, while acceptable is not optimal. Consequently, the applicant had provided several alternative designs for the 4-way stop currently planned for this intersection: one with a traffic signal, one with stop signs and diverter islands, and another using a modern roundabout. Of the three, the roundabout option would provide the highest level of service (A). The working group had also reviewed this option, and was convinced that it would provide the best level of service for the unique mix of uses (commuters, retail, residences) proposed for the site.
The roundabout would work to prevent queuing by allowing a yield condition at all points of the intersection instead of a signal or stop sign, which could create backups out to 3A. This would provide for smooth traffic flow at the times when large numbers of commuters were pouring out of the Shipyard. Tod McGrath reiterated that commuter traffic would be further improved by the fact that there will be more than one way in and out of the site.
Joel Sklar of Samuels Associates stated that they were fine with the roundabout, but that it would require approval from the Town, the MBTA, and the other Shipyard development partners.
Jeff Dirk went on to describe off-site traffic impacts. He started by stating that, because there was greater than 10% change in traffic impacts from the originally approved project, that it would require a formal Notice of Project Change with MEPA. The 10% change was limited to an increase in traffic volumes on the Saturday peak afternoon hour. Board members asked what this meant, and he responded that whereas now there were "peaks and valleys" in the amount of traffic flow, with significantly less traffic on weekends, that the new retail and cinema use would result in a steady flow of traffic throughout the week. Ms. Murphy asked whether the Notice of Project change would be a big deal and Mr. Dirk said that he didn't know, but assumed that it would just be a notification process, and would require extensive re-review on the part of the state.
Mr. Dirk noted that in terms of traffic volumes that it appeared that, with the proposed off site mitigation, Route 3A would have sufficient volume to handle the proposed development without a degradation in service. He went to say that there would be degradation in the level of service on Beal, William B. Terry, Fottler and other nearby side streets if appropriate mitigation was not undertaken. He pointed out that 23% of the trips associated with the retail component of the project are expected to use the Beal Street corridor. He explained that Beal Street had plenty of capacity, but that the speeds were currently too high due to the roadway layout, and this problem would be exacerbated with more traffic, and it would become more and more difficult to turn in or out of Beal Street from side streets and adjacent residential properties.
In response to this projected increase in traffic, Mr. Dirk went on to identify potential mitigation measures that would ameliorate the projected increase in traffic on back streets. He noted that the proposed traffic signal at Beal and William B. Terry was critical. He also suggested a variety of traffic calming measures identified in the Beal Street Traffic Study completed by VAI in November, 2006. He suggested that there be a traffic monitoring program put into place that would allow the Town to assess whether further traffic mitigation was needed. Finally he suggested that a Traffic Demand Management program put into place. Steve McLaughlin asked how much of the traffic coming from the project could be attributed to the cinema use. Jeff responded that 10% of the weekday traffic, and 22% of the Saturday traffic would be coming from the cinema.
Gary Tondorf-Dick noted that general retail uses generate a lot more traffic than specialty retail uses. He expressed concern that the Boards had not properly thought through what kinds of specific uses would be most appropriate for the site. He asked whether the Boards had considered the impact of the cinema on the character of the development. Steve McLaughlin said that the Boards were just now getting into it.
Mr. Shrader expressed concern about the impact of this project on the town as a whole. He asked whether the Boards had discussed the impact on traffic throughout the Downtown area. He noted that the excessive traffic on Beal Street may be from those who find 3A to have too much traffic.
Tod McGrath asked whether it would be possible to determine how much of the increase in traffic from the originally proposed project could be attributed to the cinema, and how much could be attributed to the shift from specialty to general retail use. Jeff said that he would provide the board with this information.
Several people in the audience expressed concern with potential impacts of the project. Bonnard Phage asked whether it was possible to determine exactly how much longer it would take to get from Lincoln Street and Thaxter to the Back River Bridge when the project was built. Dick Cook said that he felt it would be possible to determine this, and that he would provide this information.
Sergeant Olsson of the HPD said that he liked the concept of the roundabout, but was very concerned about traffic impacts on abutting residential streets. He asked whether increased traffic on Beal Street would have impacts on the actual roadway, which is already pretty beat up, and experiences periodic flooding and puddling.
Mr. Dirk noted that increased truck traffic would result in the deterioration of the pavement surface, but that normal vehicle traffic would not. If the Shipyard project directs their construction-related truck traffic not to use Beal Street, then the increase in automobile trips that would result from the project would not materially impact the pavement condition along Beal Street over current conditions. He went on to say that truck traffic on Beal Street could be controlled through a condition identifying truck route, and the designation of a specific individual to monitor compliance with such routes.
At the end of the hearing Joel Sklar from Samuels asked the Zoning Board of Appeals for a straw poll on whether they were inclined to permit the cinema use within the Shipyard. He noted that the cinema use played a critical role in their proposed mix of uses. As explained at earlier hearings, he noted that the cinema was an important draw for the types of restaurants and retail uses that they were seeking. Taken together the entertainment and dining component of the project would provide a unique draw that would distinguish it from Derby Street Shoppes, and ensure the success of the development. He noted that the traffic studies indicated that, with the proposed off-site roadway improvements, the traffic impacts would not lower the level of service in the area. He went on to say that if the cinema was not permitted Samuels would want to change their plans fairly significantly.
Steve McLaughlin responded that, while his initial opinion of the cinema was that it would "cheapen" the project, that he felt that, if built right, and with the proper use restrictions, that it would not create undue negative impacts. He reiterated that he still believed that the project could succeed without the cinema.
Victor Popp stated that he had never had a problem with the proposed cinema use. He noted that, based on the information about traffic that he had heard at the hearing, however, that he was increasingly concerned about impacts on secondary streets such as Beal Street.
Tod McGrath concurred with Steve McLaughlin, noting that while he was initially opposed to the cinema use, and still felt that the project would succeed without it, that he was increasingly comfortable with the concept. He noted that his recent visit to Mashpee had also contributed to his change of opinion, in that the theatre there was very unobtrusive within the overall Mashpee Commons development.
Planning Board Chairman Susan Murphy noted that she remained opposed to the cinema use, and believed that the development could succeed without it. That said, if the ZBA were to approve it she felt that negative impacts could be ameliorated through appropriate mitigation, and that the Planning Board needed to continue with their site plan review.
Sarah Corey spoke in opposition to the cinema, noting that public opinion did not support it, and that the traffic impacts would be too great.
Judy Sneath commented that while she acknowledged that the cinema at Mashpee was attractive, she firmly believed that the cinema at the Shipyard would have negative impacts on local traffic. She reiterated her belief that the development could succeed without the cinema facility.
Paul Healey spoke in favor of the cinema use. He noted that he had carefully considered the letters of opposition which had appeared in the Hingham Journal, and felt that the writers were missing important information that the Boards had gleaned through the public hearing process.
The joint hearing was continued to March 29 at 8:00 AM. The topics for discussion at that time will be parking, and civil engineering including drainage.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Katharine Lacy
Town Planner