January 11, 2000 - Regular Planning Board Meeting
CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE
PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 2000
503RD MEETING
PRESENT WERE: Messers. Poland, Fisher, Medeiros, Sullivan, Gerstein, Jeanne Boyle (staff), James Moran (staff), City Solicitor William Conley, and City Engineer Stephen Coutu.
I. SEATING OF ALTERNATE MEMBER
Mr. Gerstein was seated as the alternate member and was welcomed by the Chairman and members. It was noted Mr. DiTraglia could not attend and Mr. Cunha was ill.
II. APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
It was noted that the minutes of November and December were not completed yet, but would be forthcoming.
III. APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Medeiros, the Board voted unanimously to accept the following correspondence and make them part of the Board's official record.
A. Memo dated l2/l7/99 to the City Council Re: "Request to Purchase City-owned Land in Seekonk, Massachusetts. 
B. Copy of letter dated l/5/00 to Chairman Eugene Saveory, Zoning Board of Review from Chairman Peter Poland, Planning Board re: update of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Appl. 99-17LDP - Westminster Park Partners - 401 Wampanoag Trail
Master Plan Submission (LDP), Assessors Map 509, Block 2, Parcel 2
At this time Mr. Conley swore in the architect for the developer, Mr. Richard Hunt of Old Raccoon Hill Road, West Greenwich, RI. Ms. Christine Engustian, attorney representing 401 Wampanoag Trail L.P., which is the owner of the property, detailed some aspects of the proposal prior to asking Mr. Hunt a series of questions. She noted that this is a master plan of the land development project that involves the construction of a four-story office building on the subject site. She said # 401 Wampanoag Trail immediately abuts # 501, on which a four-story office building similar in size and nature to one proposed is currently situated. Ms. Engustian explained that these properties are under common ownership and were part of an original development plan that was submitted to the City in the l980's for construction of two office buildings. She noted that only the office building at 501 Wampanoag Trail was erected. She noted that the application before the Board now is an initial step to effectuate the owner's original intent to complete the second phase of the project, which would be the construction of the four-
story office building at 401 Wampanoag Trail.
Ms. Engustian explained in keeping with the City's Regulations, they have submitted a master plan reflecting the basic parameters of the project. She stated she would like to discuss the zoning variances of the development with the Board before Mr. Hunt testifies.
Ms. Engustian explained the property is located in a C-1 zone and the proposed construction is a permitted use in that zone so a use variance will not be required. She said she had detailed discussions with the City's former Zoning Officer, Gary Butterworth that revealed the need for four-dimensional variances. She noted those four dimensional variances are delineated in the lower right hand corner of the site plan and include: 1) maximum height; 2) maximum impermeable surface; 3) required minimum area of shading for the parking area; and 4) off-
street parking requirements. She also stated that we have submitted an application to the Zoning Board for the four dimensional variances, with the hearing scheduled for January 25, 2000.
Ms. Engustian stated that on the issue of the parking variances she stated that Mr. Butterworth sent a memo to the Engineering Division that was dated November 10, 1999. In that memo he stated that the project would require an additional 65 spaces (taking into consideration a utilization of parking spaces located at the existing parking lot at 501 Wampanoag Trail). She said when the site plan showed 64 not 65 spaces, she initially thought there was an error and discussed this with Mr. Moran of the Planning Department. After speaking with Mr. Hunt, he informed me that after viewing the site at 501 Wampanoag Trail, he calculated that the number of spaces needed was 64, not 65. She said Mr. Hunt could answer any questions regarding these spaces.
At this time Mr. Richard Hunt described his educational background (which is part of the record of the application). He stated that back in the l980s he was the architect for the original development of this site and supervised construction of the first office building on the site. He stated he has been qualified as an expert in the areas of architectural design for Planning Boards and Zoning Boards in Rhode Island. At this time, Ms. Engustian asked that the Board accept Mr. Hunt's resume and qualifications as an expert in the area of architectural design.
On a motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Medeiros, the Board unanimously voted to accept Mr. Hunt as an expert witness and accept his resume into the Board's record.
Mr. Hunt explained the proposed stormwater runoff and drainage system. Mr. Hunt stated his discussion right now is limited to the 401 Wampanoag Trail development because the existing system in place at # 501 has been accepted and in use for about l5 years. He said the system comprises two series of catchbasins connected by a 12 inch perforated pipe with stone around it and those two components would be connected to an existing manhole (in the northwest corner) within the existing storm drainage line.
Mr. Hunt stated the two groupings of catchbasins would be tied into those two existing manholes. He noted that the calculations are such that the water introduced into that storm system is no greater than what currently exists by over-land or surface flow going into that system right now. He said the rate is 4.5 cubic feet per second and said the stormwater system will be able to handle that runoff.
Ms. Engustian asked Mr. Hunt if the design and location of the building on the site and the drainage minimize the flooding and soil erosion on that site? Mr. Hunt answered yes. Ms. Engustian asked if the catchbasin and leaching pipes are for stormwater drainage only. Mr. Hunt answered yes. Ms. Engustian asked if the project will be utilizing the City's water and sewer systems? Mr. Hunt answered yes. Ms. Engustian asked if he prepared the data for borings noted on the map. He answered that he had borings taken by Eagles Soils and said soil testing was performed on the site to: 1) determine structural capacity of the soil for the weight of the building, and 2) to determine what the capacity of the soil was to receive underground water. He stated that in addition to the six borings (he noted on the map) we took two additional test pits for the engineer to determine soil percolation rates. Mr. Hunt stated that the soil testing revealed, in general terms, that in some areas of the site there was approximately 3 to 4 feet of fill placed on the virgin material within the last l0 to 12 years, and stated that the soil is reasonably good and will support the proposed structure. Ms. Engustian asked Mr. Hunt if the application to DEM's Underground Injection Control Program been submitted. He answered yes, on January 26, 1999, and noted it usually takes two to three weeks for applications to be processed.
Mr. Hunt stated that the access and egress from the 40l Wampanoag Trail development will be through the 501 Wampanoag property, and noted they are not intending to install any additional curb cuts, either on Wampanoag Trail or on the East Shore Expressway. He noted that the original design prepared in the l980s had one site access and egress which was located opposite the intersection of Amaral Street. He said they would continue to utilize that design because both parcels were never combined. He said we still have two separate parcels and we have in fact prepared an easement both for vehicular and pedestrian traffic as well as utilities for a 35 foot wide easement along the common property line that will allow vehicles access and egress the 401 site via the existing curb cut for #501 Wampanoag Trail. Mr. Hunt stated that all the utilities for the new building, such as sanitary and water etc., are all located within this 35 foot easement area and we will access those utilities for the new facility.
Ms. Engustian asked Mr. Hunt if the only access for # 401 is through the curb cut opposite Amaral Street for # 501Wampanoag Trail. He said there is one additional access and egress point from #501 directly onto Wampanoag Trail along the southeast corner of the property which is north of the billboard. Ms. Engustian asked if the project will provide safe circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Mr. Hunt stated there is no parking along this first 200-foot stretch of access and egress as it relates to the #401 property. We have located the access and egress from the buildings as far away as the curb cut as possible. He said emergency vehicles will be able to access the site. The plan is very similar to the previous plan that was submitted l5 years ago and discussed with the City's Fire Department at that time. He stated his latest site visit was two weeks ago where he counted the parking spaces.
In her summation, Ms. Engustian stated she is personally excited about this project since it is an attractive building of quality and would be better than seeing vacant land that is not landscaped. She said it will also have a positive impact in terms of economic development as jobs will be created, and it will generate tax revenues for the city. She also noted that the testimony of Mr. Hunt has set forth the requirements for master plan approval of the LDP and respectfully requests that the Board grant this approval.
Mr. Gerstein asked what the cost was for the building on 501 Wampanoag Trail. Mr. Hunt stated he believes it was around $3 million dollars, or around there. He said the original owner of the development was Mr. Jack Marshall. Mr. Gerstein asked about the tenants in 501 and what the duration of the people's visits there. Ms. Engustian stated she personally does not know that, but that all the times that she has traveled by that site and visited that site on a number of occasions, that parking lot is never more than half filled.
At this time Mr. Moran gave the staff report. He stated for the record there are a couple of pages in the recommendation that reference the parcel as parcel number 3, it is actually parcel number 2. Mr. Moran stated since a lot of the issues were already covered in Mr. Hunt's testimony, he would discuss the compatibility of the project with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the proposed development is designated "Mixed Use" and the proposal is in keeping with this designation which states: "the dominant character of the land may very from location to location, but the uses may be industrial, retail, office, service or residential provided these uses are compatible with the existing adjacent land uses." He noted that the proposed development is compatible with adjoining land uses and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Moran stated the Fire Department finds the plan to be acceptable, but the building needs to meet all the requirements of the NFPA code. He said the off-street parking issue was adequately discussed by Attorney Engustian, and that the additional zoning variances have already been discussed.
Mr. Moran stated that based upon the finding that the proposed development is consistent with the East Providence Comprehensive Plan and with the general purposes stated in Article I of the Land Development and Subdivision Review Regulations, and further that the required findings of Section 5-4 of the Regulations are met, staff recommends Conditional Approval of the LDP Master Plan submission as proposed, subject to the following conditions:
1. That all comments of the technical staff memoranda, and any and all conditions of the Planning Board approval, be reflected in the Preliminary Plan submision;
2. That the applicant obtain all necessary Zoning variances, including those described in this recommendation and described by the City Zoning Officer, prior to the submittal of the Preliminary Plan submission;
3. That the applicant receive approval for the proposed drainage system by the RI Department of Environmental Management prior to the submission of the Preliminary Plan submission;
4. That the Preliminary plans and supporting documentation be based upon this Master Plan approval.
Ms. Boyle stated she did have an abutter come into the office today who questioned why the address was Wampanoag Trail rather than Amaral Street. She said it is my understanding that the actual frontage is on Wampanoag Trail. Ms. Engustian stated it is perpendicular. Ms. Boyle stated that because of this there has been no consideration to have the actual address be an Amaral Street address.
Mr. Poland asked if the Board had any questions.
Mr. Fisher asked Ms. Boyle if there is still a demand for office space throughout East Providence. She said yes, especially for sites this size. She stated we have had many inquiries in our office and we keep a database to help businesses looking for space. We have lost some businesses from the City because there was not this quality of office space in this size category available, and we are delighted to see this development going forward. She noted it will be a real asset to the City to have 48,000 sq.ft. of Class A office space available, especially at this location. Mr. Fisher stated it is proper utilization of this land. He asked Mr. Coutu if he agreed with this development. Mr. Coutu answered yes.
Mr. Medeiros stated he thought Mr. Hunt gave a very detailed explanation, which satisfied him.
Mr. Poland stated he is very familiar with the building and the area having lived in Kent Heights all my life. He can remember when it was first a bank in there and then Citizens took it over. Also, he said Robert Weygand's campaigns were run out of there. He said he has been to the building and cannot remember anyone parking in these parking spaces up near the street, and there seems to be 50 or 60 parking spaces up there that are always empty. He agrees that there is sufficient parking even though the parking calculations show that they are 64 or 65 spaces short. Mr. Poland stated the site is always clean and well landscaped and it will be an asset to the area. He asked if they still own the strip mall across the street. It was answered yes. Mr. Poland asked if anyone else had any comments.
Mr. Ron Rodrigues, C.P.A., with offices on Wampanoag Trail, stated he has no objections to the development.
Motion
On a motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board voted to accept the staff recommendation of conditional approval with the four stipulations as stated in the staff memorandum dated January 7, 2000.
Roll Call Vote
Mr. Fisher Aye
Mr. Gerstein Aye
Mr. Medeiros Aye
Mr. Sullivan Aye
Mr. Poland Aye
B. Hemingway Drive Bond Release Westminster Park VII
Ms. Boyle stated this bond release predates everyone on the Board. She said it was brought to staff attention by Mr. Ralph McGonigle of Marshall Properties that there was a small portion of the bond dated l993 for Westminster Park Partners project that hadn't been released because there were some small items that needed to be completed. We referred it to the Department of Public Works which researched the status of it and they were able to verify that the items that had been outstanding back in l993 such as street line monuments, concrete sidewalk replacements and mortar cement had been completed. Planning and DPW staff are recommending that this bond item be released to Hemingway Drive Partners, but we are not recommending that it be backdated to l992. She said at that time the authority for release of bonds was the City Council and since that time the Subdivision Regulations have changed and now it is the Planning Board's responsibility.
Mr. Poland asked Mr. Coutu why he would not want the bond released back to l992 if the work was completed in l992. Mr. Coutu stated those items were not completed back then, but after speaking to Mr. McGonigle, by phone, Mr. Coutu said those items were completed within two or three weeks. Mr. Moran stated it is referenced in a memorandum dated 10/22/99 to the Public Works Director from Jeanne Boyle that the work was done on l0/27/99. It is also referenced in the December 21 memo.
On a motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Medeiros, the Board unanimously voted to release the bond as recommended in the memorandum of December 21, 1999.
C. Discussion by the Board on a dinner for Former Member Charles Goodwin.
Mr. Poland asked if anyone had any suggestions on where to take former member Mr. Goodwin. Ms. Boyle asked if there was a strong preference by the Board to choose a restaurant in East Providence or not. Ms. Boyle asked Mr. Poland to check with Mr. Goodwin to see if he has a preference.
Ms. Boyle noted in the past the dinners came out of the Board's budget, but wasn't sure if this would be appropriate now since the Board gets paid for their meetings. She will look into it. The dinner would be open to the spouses of the Board members, and staff is welcome as well, including the City Engineer. It was noted we have a plaque for Mr. Goodwin for his many years of service, and it will be given to him at his dinner. Mr. Conley will look into the subject of the dinners being paid for through the budget process and if this were not appropriate, members would pay for themselves and their spouses.
V. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. Mr. Rodrigues - Mason Street Subdivision Bond Release - Request for
Reconsideration of a Board Decision.
Mr. Ronald Rodrigues, CPA, with a business address of 1445 Wampanoag Trail, East Providence, RI and of home address of 209 Hope Street, Bristol, Rhode Island, was sworn in by Mr. Conley. Mr. Rodrigues stated that he asked to be placed on the Board's agenda so the Board could reconsider their vote of December 14, 1999 which denied his request for final release of the $ 3,000 in the performance bond and which further required that he restore the driveway to concrete on Mason Street (street address 45 Fleming Street) that was disturbed during road construction.
Mr. Rodrigues said that the Planning Board had previously voted to reduce the performance bond from $ 30,000 to $ 3,000 at their September 8, 1998 meeting, and there was extensive discussion and testimony about the driveway at that time from his contractor, Michael Fonsesca, and himself. He said that the Board voted 4 to l to approve the bond reduction from $30,000 to $3,000. He said it was his impression that the Board's vote removed him from any obligation to repair the neighbor's driveway. He stated that he would have been at the December 14, 1999 meeting of the Board if he had known they were going to discuss this driveway issue.
Mr. Rodrigues distributed copies of the minutes of September 8, l998 to the Board. Mr. Rodrigues asked the Board to reconsider their vote of December 14, 1999, and asked that they keep the September 8, l998 decision, and also asked that they vote to consider a final reduction of the bond and acceptance of the road.
Ms. Boyle stated that the staff recommendation in September l998 and December l999 were consistent and both recommended that the Board require the contractor to restore the driveway section in question to concrete. She said the recommendation remains unchanged, and Planning and DPW both agree that the driveway should be restored to concrete. Ms. Boyle showed the Board photographs that are part of the file on this subdivision that were taken prior to the start of construction of the roadway. She noted that the photographs show the driveway in question and that it was all concrete prior to the construction and in good condition.
Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Boyle if the normal way to do this would be to restore the driveway back to its original way. She said yes, this has been the City's policy. He said he is assuming that the contractor asked the homeowner whether they could put asphalt in to replace the concrete. Ms. Boyle answered we do not have anything in the record stating that he was asked. Mr. Sullivan asked if the homeowner was at the meeting tonight. She answered no, but the homeowner was informed by letter and a phone call that Mr. Rodrigues had requested a reconsideration tonight and that it was going to be heard at tonight's meeting. Ms. Boyle stated she understands that the father has limited English and the son often acts as an interpreter. She stated she has never spoken to the elder Mr. Gonsalves. She said the son does not live at the property, but is speaking on behalf of his
father.
Mr. Sullivan stated that after perusing the property and the neighborhood there are a few streets where the driveways do not match and the fact that the homeowner put the concrete over the area which belongs to the City, and then the contractor decides to dig up the area which belongs to the City, then a stranger comes along and persuades his father to change his mind, Mr. Sullivan states he thinks it should be given a little thought.
Mr. Fisher states this is all coming back to me more and more and tries to recall the original meeting of September l998. He vaguely remembers a conversation that shortly after this vote had taken place with regards to the asphalt that was put down that there was a visit by the son to the Planning Department. He stated he is beginning to wonder if the elder Mr. Gonsalves clearly understood what was being offered to him. In looking at the piece of property today which has the concrete walkway, both side and rear yards, a concrete driveway, patio as well as a six to eight inch height concrete retaining wall in which a cycle and fence is anchored to, he said this is a well maintained piece of property. Mr. Fisher said he looked down at the asphalt and agrees that he would be disturbed at the job that was done. He stated not as much as a plum line was used to established a straight line in putting down the asphalt. He feels the whole procedure was not explained appropriately to Mr. Gonsalves. He states he does not feel that what Mr. Gonsalves has gotten is fair to him as a taxpayer.
Mr. Medeiros stated he would be abstaining from this vote since he was not here at the last meeting regarding the issue.
Mr. Gerstein said it was a botched up job and asked how many yards of cement would be needed to put it back. Mr. Coutu answered about nine square yards for the 4 x 20 foot section, and noted it would be about $800 to repair it.
Mr. Poland stated that back in September l998 the vote was 4 to l and that he was the one vote that was against it and he voted against it for all the reasons stated here tonight. Mr. Poland stated the owner was not there at the 1998 meeting and Mr. Fonseca was the only one who testified the driveway was all broken up. Mr. Poland stated he looked at the driveway and it appears to be in very good shape and feels it should have been replaced with concrete back then. He said the City Engineer at that time recommended that it be repaired with concrete and that the money be withheld to do that repair. Mr. Poland stated he agreed with that position then and agrees with it now. Mr. Poland stated he does not feel that Mr. Fonseca gave a good representation of what the owner, Mr. Gonsalves had said about whether he was satisfied with asphalt instead of concrete. He said everyone has recommended that the driveway be restored to concrete except for Mr. Rodrigues and Mr. Fonseca.
Mr. Poland stated that Mr. Rodrigues has had 30 days to restore the concrete and if he does not do it starting tomorrow, then stated to City Engineer Coutu that he find a contractor, have it done, and pay it out of Mr. Rodrigues' bond and refund him the rest of the bond. Mr. Poland states he is aware that Mr. Rodrigues has a pending appeal, but feels the Board is right in what we did and for $800 he thinks Mr. Rodrigues should do the right thing.
Mr. Medeiros explained his September l998 motion on this petition. He said that neither the property owners (Mr. Gonsalves and his son) nor the City Engineer were present at that meeting, and the only one the Board got testimony from was Mr. Fonseca. Mr. Medeiros stated that at the time he made the motion he felt that the one person present, Mr. Fonseca, was the only person interested in this and this is why he made the motion that night since there was no one else there to oppose Mr. Fonseca's view.
Mr. Rodrigues said that the photographs of the driveway the Board has seen are at a considerable distance and they do not identify or show for the record the condition of the driveway. He stated his contractor was not a slouch, he was a gentleman, a professional man and so am I. He stated the apron that was cut was completely cracked and what the picture does not show is that there was encroachment on the road with this driveway. When you cut it you left a major height which the landowner was responsible to remove that and to make it to the proper grade. Mr. Rodrigues stated the owner was told we would do it in cement if you pay the difference between the asphalt and the cement. He refused to pay anything just like he refused to help pay for the sewer line and water line that went into the road adjacent to his lot in the back. He stated the owner has received a tremendous benefit from this and has not brought it to staff's attention. Mr. Rodrigues stated he was very fair to him, was very careful not to upset any of the neighbors and he (the owner) said he wanted it with the asphalt and so we did it with the asphalt. He said that two weeks later the son came along and disagrees and wants cement and this was not fair to the contractor or the developer. He said we did what we thought was right.
Mr. Rodrigues noted that the vote in September of l998 was in the developer's favor and would like this noted in tonight's record. Mr. Rodrigues asked Mr. Poland to verify that. Mr. Poland responded that the vote, at that time, was only to release $27,000 of a $30,000 bond and keep $3,000 to complete all the parts of the job that were not done at the time. He said this is common and the City Engineer's recommendation at the time was that holding back the $3,000 was enough to cover the parts of the job that were not completed.
Mr. Poland stated that unless someone has some type of motion to offer, the Board will stand by its decision of December 14, l999. There was no motion.
Mr. Poland told Mr. Rodrigues that he would have to go before the Zoning Board of Review to appeal the Planning Board's decision.
B. Staff Report
1) Trailside Major Subdivision - Ms. Boyle stated that the subdivision plans were received today, but we have not had a chance to review them as yet to see whether they are ready to submit for formal review. She said enough drainage information has been received so that we can submit it to Camp, Dresser and McKee for their review, but does not know when the development will be ready to go before the Board.
2) Waterview Estates Major Subdivision - Ms. Boyle said that Preliminary Plans for this subdivision were received today. She said the applicants have received CRMC approval. She said it would probably be before the Board in the next couple of months.
3) Comprehensive Plan - Ms. Boyle noted we are still working on the Comprehensive Plan update. She said the Statewide Planning Program has recently promulgated guidelines for updates. She said some of the concerns are that they are looking to revisit some of the projections that were made on the build-out analysis. However, she noted that our argument is that absent any new census data, it would be a waste of time to update build-out projections. She said we just wanted to do a Comprehensive Plan update that just addressed whatever glaring issues were noted by staff in utilizing the Comprehensive Plan since its original adoption. She noted that the Planning Board would review the Update first, after which it will go to the City Council.
VI. COMMUNICATIONS
None
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next meeting will be held on February 8, 2000, 7:30 p.m., Room 306.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Fisher, the Board voted to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Medeiros, Secretary
JM/JMB/sac