Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 04/14/2004 Planning Board Meeting I of 5 Wednesday, April 14,2004 ** DRAFT ** COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES ** DRAFT DATE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2004 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL—BASEMENT MEETING RM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET, MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred S.Moore, Chairman Peter J.Pratt,Vice Chairman Stuart Ivimey,Clerk Robert H. Sturdy Michael Westcott Board Members Absent: Town Planner Present: Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT: 7:10 PM 7:10 PM VILLAGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS Meeting very well attended by: Planning Board; Selectmen Koed,Dormitzer and Spofford; Contractors Wayne Sawchuk, George McGoldrick, Jim Sandell,Dave Calhoun; Merchants Benjamin Watson, Tom Hamilton; and approximately a dozen citizens. Objective of this Special Meeting: This meeting was called as a positive way of addressing the ever growing comments and concerns by Cohasset residents about the potential outcome and efficiency of the Village Infrastructure and Streetscape Improvements. A long list of individuals have expressed frustration that many recommendations have been made over the past year that have not been incorporated into plans irrespective of the large amounts of state monies that have been spent. The purpose of this meeting was not to find fault and point fingers but rather to better identify what the Town wants the outcome of this project to be and to identify recommendations as to ways these plans can be modified and improved to make the overall outcome of the project better. The ultimate outcome of the meeting was a list of recommendations to the Board of Selectmen outlining concerns and suggestions for addressing those concerns. It was the hope of those present that the recommendations resulting from this meeting will also be forwarded to The Waterfield Design Group. Selectmen Dormitzer gave an overview of the current status of project: The bid package has gone out to 3 bidders for revitalizing the downtown village and is due back on April 30th- In very short time,there will be figures associated with these plans. There is a drop dead date of May 30,2005 when all construction must be completed or the grant will not be useable. Over the past few years,there have been revisions to the plans. However,many people believe there are still revisions to be made which would substantially improve the project. Since this is a 50 year construction project, it would be best to do this project as well as possible with as much consensus as possible so this project works for the whole town. The evening progressed as an informal discussion open to all present. Overview of major concerns(not in order of importance) addressed at this meeting: In general, major concerns discussed during the meeting centered around eight major concepts: • Overall design approach to the Village area as not being consistent with the very essence of the Cohasset Village area • When completed,the Village area, despite a large expenditure of money,will not really be improved • The non-inclusion of several areas that are most needy of improvement • The impact of the parking changes and elaborate phasing program will have a very negative impact on merchants' businesses Planning Board Meeting 2 of 5 Wednesday, April 14,2004 • Too few bids were received which may ultimately have reflected higher bids • The project is not being approached efficiently to include utilities and future work the utilities could accomplish while this project is in progress • The lack of communication between Waterfield Design Group and the Town in this and other projects • The lack of detailed, objective review by a certified engineering professional Detailed comments addressing each area of concern: 1. Overall design approach There is a major concern that this streetscape design is not going to result in a representation of the true essence of Cohasset. There is a growing sense that people just want to have the Village area cleaned up,not changed: • General concern that The Waterfield Design Group has not treated the"Town"as clients whose wishes and suggestions should be listened to resulting in plans that are not the essence of"Cohasset." • Comments indicate that residents do not want to modernize the downtown area to be the latest state of the art design streetscape nor do they want the downtown an image of 18th Colonial Williamsburg. • Generally speaking, the Village area is an historic New England downtown area that has evolved over the years with the times. Any problems in the Village area exist because of the way the downtown was originally laid out and it has evolved into the best way that you can handle the problems short of knocking down buildings. It isn't great,but it works as best it can. Perhaps all the tinkering with parking etc. isn't making it any better. As with the Central Historic District around the Common,there is a preference to freeze the look and flavor of the Village area as it is today and just clean it up. HID lighting and the proposed clock do not represent the essence of this village. • One merchant expressed the opinion that the Village area should be a warm and inviting spot to visit and to do business and that the current streetscape plans will result in the cold, sterile,uninviting place that Scituate Harbor has become. • The overall opinion that grinding up and repaving the street, adding new granite curbstones and using some sort of paver rather then cement would significantly clean-up the Village,making it more pleasing and inviting while maintaining the atmosphere of the Village as it has become today. • Is it better not to do the job at all rather than do a bad job. There are many issues here that could be a detriment to the Town and need to be thought through more thoroughly. 2. Overall all end result of the project: There is a major concern that the outcome of this project, despite the expenditure of a large amount of money, will not look any better than the down town area currently looks today: • John Modzelewski's comment as an objective outsider that these"plain vanilla"plans are nothing special is right on the mark. • The project should be reworked to be done better with higher quality materials even if it means eliminating parts of the project to stay within budget. Eliminated aspects of the project can be revisited in the future when new/more funds are available. • The use of cement instead of brick paving will contribute to the overall sterile look of the downtown and will not result in a look much different than the Village area looks today. Although Town Meeting voted not to have brick pavement in the Village area, the message from Town Meeting seems to have been that they did not want to spend the money on brick,not that they did not want brick. • The use of Black Rock Pavers installed over a compacted sand base which will hold up for decades is approximately$8.50 sq/ft or just under$200,000.00 for the downtown area plus the cost of removing the old sidewalk and the cost of disposal. The cost differential between Black Rock Pavers and City Hall Pavers is about$20,000 to$35,000.00. The use of a compacted sand base will also allow for changes to be made to utilities in the future without jack hammering out sidewalks. • The cost of Black Rock Pavers was not included as an alternative in the bid,therefore, the true cost of the use of pavers is not known and would have been good information to have. • The existing plans should be seriously examined to determine how they can be changed from a constructability standpoint to see if enough savings can be created by getting the costs down so we can use the approximately$900,000 remaining to get the look that people are saying they want—pavers on the sidewalks,new granite curbs and new pavement on the street. Planning Board Meeting 3 of 5 Wednesday, April 14,2004 • The street is not really that bad, it's the sidewalks and curbing that need to be reworked. 3. Non-inclusion of areas most needy of improvement: There was concern expressed that the scope of this project expanded to include the corner of Elm Street and South Main Street up to the old Paul Pratt Library while ignoring other more needy areas: • The Brook Street corner(from Richard Henderson's office to Cohasset News)and the James Lane intersection at Main Street(between the gas station and the Red Lion Inn)are the two worst looking areas in the Village and they have not been addressed at all. • The intersection of Ripley Rd. and Pleasant St. in front of Pat's Barbershop while not particularly dangerous, does not work very well, is in need of improvement and has not even been touched in this plan Perhaps blasting and reworking of sidewalks on the Elm Street area and the span to the old Paul Pratt Library should be eliminated from this project to focus on these more needy areas instead even if this means addressing the issue with the State rather than ruin the integrity of the Village area 4. The impact of parking changes and elaborate phasing on merchants' businesses The Village revitalization must work for the merchants if it is going to be ultimately successful. The only thing that will make the Village vital is vital shops and businesses at work: • Although it is understood that this project must be completed by May 30, 2005 for the grant money to be useable, merchants are concerned that the current phasing program,although elaborate,will not work for them. Merchants would prefer that their businesses are shutdown for 4-5 days with contractors working through the nights to minimize the length of disruption to their businesses. Having work done at night without pedestrian and vehicle traffic might also result in more aggressive bidding and less expense. • Elimination of parking spaces on Tom Hamilton's side of Elm Street will affect the businesses. The parking situation is not perfect but it is working and the current plans will make the situation worse. The plans call for wider sidewalks for joggers and baby walkers and there is not enough room to do that. Realizing that this is state money that comes with restrictions and standards,perhaps we should not take the state funds for Elm Street, remove Elm Street from this project and revisit Elm Street at a later date. • If tampering with parking makes things more difficult for the merchants,the outcome is going to be adverse. What will make an impact is the character of the buildings. Improvements that are modest and simple and show an interest in making the Village vital, will motivate owners and shopkeepers to make improvements to their own buildings. • This is an old Village without loading docks so one thing that has to be accommodated are delivery trucks. This is part of the fabric of the village that has to continue and curbing/curb cuts must take this into consideration. For example,the current plans for Brook Street between the bank and the cleaners do not have curbs at all,just pavement. Perhaps drive up curbing can be used so delivery trucks can back in for deliveries while staying off the sidewalks. • The size of the parking spaces must accommodate pedestrians with carriages etc. The Planning Board has a lot of pressure on them from merchants on Rt. 3A to have micro parking spaces. If the Town goes out to bid for the Village area with standards that are different than the standards the Planning Board has for site plan review in the commercial area not only will these micro spaces not work for pedestrians, a precedent can be set that will interfere with requiring contractors to provide larger spaces in other projects. Perhaps it's better not to comply with regulations and not use the State funds rather than ruin the downtown area. 5. Number of bids There is concern around the fact that only 3 bid documents have been taken out: • Bids are usually higher when there is so little competition • This should be a nice job for a company. There should be 20 bidders taking out bid documents with 5 or 6 ultimately putting in a bid. • Does anyone know why there were so few bidders? Are the plans ambiguous or problematic? Was the bid not advertised well? Someone should find out why there are so few bids. 6. Inclusion of utility companies There was concern expressed that utility companies may have plans for future work that could be accomplished during this project rather than having to disrupt the completed work in the future Planning Board Meeting 4 of 5 Wednesday, April 14,2004 • The Water Department has plans to upgrade the water main going up No. Main Street from Scituate to Hingham. Has the Water Department been contacted to determine if they want to do this work while this project is going on? This could result in significant mutual savings in digging,repaving,police details etc. • Have other utilities been contacted to ensure that they have an opportunity to replace any services/pipes while this project is underway and roads are disrupted etc. • The utility companies must be surveyed to determine which utilities would like to do work during this project rather than later at a much higher expense. • Property lines will have to be determined if utilities include their work during this project so it can be determined who should be paying for portions of the work • This combined approach might allow for utility conduits to be buried at a relatively small comparative expense to the overall project • If utility companies do want to accomplish work during this project, one contractor needs to oversee the scheduling of subs etc. so the various contractors are not in each other's way, causing delays etc. • Drainage down Brook Street and other areas should be considered at this time as well 7. Lack of communication between The Waterfield Design Group and other groups • There was a general opinion the The Waterfield Design Group has never treated the Town like"clients." Instead of listening to comments, opinions and suggestions from the Town, Waterfield has gone its own way from the start of this project • There was a general concern that The Waterfield Design Group has not been forthcoming in having plans and drawings available. Until a few weeks ago when real, final drawings were released,plans were "conceptual." • Now that plans are finally available there are details that cause concern. For example, the plans show a footing for a little wall in front of the Red Lion Inn that is 2' x2' of 3500 lb. concrete with reinforcement for a retaining wall. When they go in,they will find ledge because it is built on ledge,necessitating a lot of blasting at a greater extra expense. There are other specs in the plans that are unnecessarily substantial • The stairs designed for St. Stephen's Church will require blasting out 5'-10' of ledge because the corner of the road does not have 5' of space for sidewalks. This will cost a huge amount of money and the final,new look is not necessarily needed • There is real desire to avoid another James Brook Project situation that seems to be the result of this lack of communication. Two weeks ago people's property flooded during heavy rain. There is substantial debate between Tutela Engineering and The Waterfield Design Group regarding calculations. Something was engineered incorrectly as property is still flooding. Yet,the two companies do not communicate with one another. Contributing to this error was the lack of an objective outside review to catch mistakes. Mistakes like this cannot be allowed to occur with the Village Improvement Project. 8. Lack of a detailed, objective review and involvement by a certified professional engineer • Producing plans for a million dollar project without review by another objective engineer is unheard of • This is a rather simpleminded project that has a huge set of plans, drawings and specifications that may be much more than is really needed for this project. A certified professional engineer is capable of making these decisions and suggesting changes—on the spot if necessary • No engineering firm is perfect and mistakes can occur in the best design. However,review by an objective certified professional engineer can increase the likelihood of avoiding mistakes such as the continued flooding in the James Brook Project • Involvement of a certified professional engineer also provides an individual to"police"the work that is being done Recommendations to the Selectmen: While it appears as though a good deal of changes have been discussed, it was the general feeling that almost everything this group would like to see accomplished could be accomplished by an appointed,knowledgeable group working with the selected contractors to eliminate some aspects of this project that are considered costly and Planning Board Meeting 5 of 5 Wednesday, April 14,2004 unnecessary and replacing those aspects with fewer,better done factors such as pavers instead of concrete. The ultimate goal is to reel in the scope of this project and bring it back in line with the essence of the Village area in a more efficient, cost effective manner. 1. The Selectmen should appoint a Construction Committee to represent the Town and work with The Waterfield Design group and the selected contractor to accomplish the suggested changes in the areas of materials, scope of the project,phasing,parking and so on. To represent the various merchants, contractors,the Selectmen and the Planning Board it is recommended that the committee consist of: Tom Hamilton Dave Calhoun Jim Sandell Wayne Sawchuk Ralph Dormitzer Bob Sturdy An additional charge of this committee would be to more clearly define the direction of the"streetscape"to better represent the essence of Cohasset and the Village area. 2. In lieu of a Clerk of the Works for approximately$45,000, it is recommended that John Modzelewski be retained to be at the ready to analyze plans, conduct inspections, answer questions and make professional, sensible, cost effective suggestions for changes as the need arises. A professional engineer's decisions will also reflect safety standards and regulations. This is not an ability or expectation of a Clerk of the Works position but is necessary to the success of this project. 3. John Modzelewski should also look at the conflict between Tutela Engineering and The Waterfield Design Group regarding the James Brook Project. 4. In the long term, the Town should consider retaining John Modzelewski as a part time engineer to review and overview all projects for the Town of Cohasset 5. The Planning Board should be involved in the review of all projects of this sort. In general,the Board of Selectmen have a different charge than the Planning Board. Specifically,they deal with higher level items for shorter periods of time. These larger types of projects are generally overseen by the Planning Board because of its experience and expertise in reviewing the detail over longer periods of time during the design,review and construction phases of a project. 6. The Selectmen should postpone the bid at the last minute. Bidders talk to one another and gain an accurate idea of the bids that are out. They know they have to come in with lower bids and generally,this tactic does result in lower bids. It was agreed that the concerns addressed during this discussion reflected the consensus of the people involved in the discussion and not a simple majority opinion. The suggested members of the recommended Construction Committee will attend the 4/21/04 Planning Board Meeting for a 15 minute introductory conversation with John Modzelewski and the Planning Board. Al Moore will attend the 4/27/04 Selectmen's Meeting to provide a detailed explanation of the content of this Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board will contact John Modzelewski to determine his availability to participate in the duration of this project. Meeting adjourned at: 9:15 PM.