CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE
PLANNING BOARD
_______________________________________________________
MINUTES OF AUGUST 18, 2003
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m.
Present were: Messrs. Almeida, Gerstein, O’Brien, Robinson, Sullivan, Jeanne Boyle (staff), Zac Gordon (staff), and Tim Chapman, Assistant City Solicitor.
Vice Chairman Robinson states that the Planning Department and Planning Board suffered a personal tragedy last week when Chairman Peter Poland passed away. In respect to Mr. Poland there will be a moment of silence.
Vice Chairman Robinson indicated that Mr. Gerstein would be seated as a voting member for the meeting, due to the absence of Mr. Cunha.
No action was taken on the minutes of July, 14, 2003, or April 14, 2003.
A. Memo dated 8/15/03 to the City Council, Re: Future use of the Union Primary School
On a motion by Mr. O’Brien, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board voted unanimously to accept this correspondence to the City Council.
A. Public Hearing - Application #2003-12, Minor Subdivision, Ashburton Road, Applicants: Luis Mateus & M. Raymond Morris.
Assistant City Solicitor Tim Chapman swears in Peter Alviti, Jr. and Luis Mateus.
Mr. Alviti addresses the Board and explains that his client is proposing to subdivide and existing 73,000 square foot parcel into five (5) residential house lots, each conforming to the zoning requirements for the R-3 District. Mr. Alviti explains to the Board that the proposed subdivision site is located between Plymouth Road and Wampanoag Trail, is wooded and slopes to the south. According to Mr. Alviti, State records do not indicated any history of hazardous materials deposits at this site. The minimum lot size requirement for the R-3 District is 7,500 square feet and the proposed use is consistent with the surrounding residential uses. Mr. Alviti notes that test pits were dug along the eastern property line and revealed the presence of a dense, silty soil type. Mr. Alviti explained that the site drainage flows from North to south. The subdivision’s impact on the local school system is expected to be minimal. A new 8” water line will connect the subdivision to the City’s existing water lines in Plymouth Road and Wampanoag Trail. A fire hydrant is proposed to be installed at the subdivision’s intersection with Plymouth Road. A new sewer line will tie into the City’s existing 8” line, located in Plymouth Road and Wampanoag Trail. No easements are proposed as part of the subdivision. Mr. Alviti reviewed the traffic impact of the subdivision and explained that there would be a total of 48 trips per day generated, including 5 during the p.m. peak hour (4:30 – 5:30). Mr. Alviti stated that the proposed subdivision would have a minimal impact on the surrounding street system, and that “cut-through” traffic would also be minimal. With respect to people using this road as a cut-through, Mr. Alviti explained that this was not likely to be a problem as not much time would be saved in doing so. Mr. Alviti did note, however, that his client was willing to reduce the pavement width from 30’ to 24’, to slow traffic down.
Vice Chairman Robinson asked why granite curbing was not being proposed for the “eastern” side of Ashburton Road? Ms. Boyle noted that curbing was needed for drainage purposes. She also noted that if the applicant did not install the curbing now, a future homeowner could request a 50%, 50% cost sharing of this work. Mr. Sullivan asked why the pavement width was being reduced from 30 feet to 24 feet? Ms. Boyle noted that a reduction in pavement width has the effect of slowing traffic down on the road. She added that, in general, residential streets are 24 feet wide. Mr. Sullivan indicated his preference for 30 foot roads because of on-street parking issues.
Mr. Alviti indicated that the proposed reduction in road width was in response to a request by the Planning Department to do so. With respect to the request for a waiver from the requirement to install granite curbing and sidewalk along the eastern side of Ashburton Road, the request is based upon the absence of any lots on this side of the road. Any future developer should be required to pay for curbing and sidewalks in this area.
At this time, Vice Chairman Robinson asked the Planning Department staff to present its analysis of the proposed subdivision. Planning Director Boyle asked Mr. Zac Gordon to review the staff memorandum for this case.
Mr. Gordon provided the Board with an overview of the proposed subdivision process. He explained that this was the first of two (2) stages of review (Preliminary), with a decision required by the Board within 95 days of the date that a “Certificate of Completeness” was issued (July 25, 2003). Mr. Gordon explained that this was a public hearing and that notice was posted in the Providence Journal on August 5, 2003 and that notice was sent to all abutting property owners within 200 feet of the subdivision on this same day.
Mr. Gordon noted that the applicants are proposing to subdivide a 2.44 acre parcel into (5) house lots, ranging in size from 9,900 square feet to 10,700 square feet. The homes will be ranch type, with garages located beneath. Mr. Gordon reviewed the proposed public improvements (road, water, sewer & drainage) for this subdivision. Mr. Gordon reiterated what the applicants’ engineer had said earlier regarding the slope of the site from north to south and indicated that test pits had been dug and revealed a water table at 3’ – 4’ below the surface.
Mr. Gordon explained that the drainage study by the applicants’ engineer had revealed that the proposed subdivision will produce a 2.87 cubic feet/second increase in stormwater runoff. Mr. Gordon indicated that the “Land Development and Subdivision Regulations” require that there be no net increase in runoff from a new development, but allows for the Board to approve such an increase provided there will be no adverse impact. Mr. Gordon noted that the applicants’ engineer has determined that the additional runoff from this subdivision can be adequately handled by the City’s storm drainage system. Mr. Gordon also reviewed the applicants’ engineer’s finding regarding traffic impact (48 total trips per day; 5 during the peak pm hour (4:30 p.m – 5:30 pm) and that traffic from the proposed subdivision will not have an adverse impact on the adjoining street system.
With regard to zoning, Mr. Gordon explained that the proposed house lots each comply with the minimum dimensional requirements for the R-3 Zoning District (i.e. 7,500 square feet of area; 75 feet lot width; 100 feet lot depth).
Mr. Gordon noted that City staff had reviewed the proposed subdivision and provided comments, which the applicants have addressed.
Mr. Gordon noted that the applicants were requesting waivers from the following requirements:
1. Road width (reduction from 30’ to 24’)– Section 13-13
2. Sidewalks (waiver from installation on eastern side of road) - Section 13-6
3. Granite Curbing (waiver from installation on eastern side of road - Section 13-2 (3)
Mr. Gordon indicated that the Planning Department was in favor of the request for a reduction in road width and relief from the requirement for a sidewalk on the eastern side of Ashburton Road, but opposed to the request for a waiver from the requirement for granite curbing on the eastern side of Ashburton Road.
Mr. Gordon noted that the subdivision was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which called for low-density (less than 8 dwelling units/acre) residential, as well as the General Purposes of Article 1 and the Required Findings outlined in Section 5-4 of the “Land Development and Subdivision Regulations”.
Based upon this consistency, the Planning Department was recommending Preliminary Approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision application, subject to the following conditions:
1. that the Final Plans be stamped and signed by the professional land surveyor and engineer.
2. that the title block be revised to indicate Final Plan status;
3. that the Final Plans be based upon the approved Preliminary Plans, and further that the Final Plan and supporting documentation meet the requirements of the East Providence Land Development and Subdivision Review Regulations;
4. that a Physical Alteration Permit (PAP) be obtained from RIDOT;
5. that upon project completion, final “as-built” plans be submitted on mylar, and disk in AutoCAD version 14. The as-built drawings shall include all roadway and utility information, including final inverts, rims, sewer lateral depths, and locations (swing ties) to permanent structures.
Ms. Boyle asked that the following condition be added:
6. that the applicants provide a performance guarantee for the proposed public roadway improvements, with the amount of the guarantee to be based upon an estimate provided by the Public Works Department.
On a motion by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Almeida, the Board voted unanimously to make the staff memorandum part of the record.
Public Testimony
Vice Chairman Robinson explained that this was a public hearing and asked if there were any members of the public who wished to address the Board. (Attorney Chapman swears in potential speakers).
Maryann Matthews, 51 Outlook Avenue, indicated that she did not think that people should be given additional lot frontage, which would be the result of a reduction in pavement width.
Burton Batty, 15 Plymouth Road, addressed the Board with the following concerns.
Mr. Raymond Stachelek, 21 Plymouth Road, addressed the Board and expressed his concern that traffic to be generated by the subdivision will be greater than projected. Mr. Stachelek distributed pictures, which showed on street parking along Plymouth Road. Mr. Stachelek suggested that there be a “dead-end” at the Wampanoag Trail end of Ashburton Road, with the utilities being connected to Plymouth Road and Wampanoag Trail as proposed.
Mr. Almeida responded that a dead end would represent a problem for public safety access. Mr. Sullivan stated that he did not favor a dead end either.
Mr. Robinson asked for a motion to enter the photos into the record. Mr. Almeida moved to enter the photos into the record. Seconded by Mr. Sullivan. Motion approved 5-0.
Mr. Alviti asked for the opportunity to address the comments of the abutters. He noted that stop signs were proposed for either end of Ashburton Road. With regard to lighting, Mr. Alviti said that this was a decision to be made by the City. Concerning projected traffic generation figures, Mr. Alviti informed the Board that the figure of 48 vehicles/day was an “overestimate”. In response to the interest in a dead-end, Mr. Alviti indicated that rescue vehicles would have a difficult time if there were a blockage in the road (e.g. a fallen tree) and that having two (2) access points was prudent. In terms of parking, Mr. Alviti stated that each lot was provided with two (2) parking spaces and in some cases a third to accommodate guests.
Public testimony closed.
Requests for Waivers
Street Pavement Width
Mr. Almeida moved to grant the request for a reduction in street pavement width from 30 feet to 24 feet. Seconded by Mr. O’Brien. Vote: 4-1 (Mr. Sullivan voting no), waiver granted.
Sidewalk
Mr. Sullivan moved to grant the request for relief from the requirement to provide a sidewalk on the eastern side of Ashburton Road. Seconded by Mr. Almeida. Vote 5-0, waiver granted.
Granite Curbing
Mr. Sullivan moved to deny the request for a waiver from the requirement that granite curbing be installed on the eastern side of Ashburton Road. Seconded Mr. O’Brien. Vote: 5-0, waiver denied.
Subdivision Approval
Mr. Almeida moved to approve the requested subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
Seconded by Mr. Sullivan.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. O’Brien – yes
Mr. Almeida – yes
Mr. Gerstein – yes
Mr. Sullivan – yes
Mr. Robinson – yes
Motion approved 5-0.
Consistency with General Purposes & Required Findings
Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Almeida that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the General Purposes section 1-2 of the “Land Development and Subdivision Regulations” and also that the Board had made positive findings of fact, pertaining to each of the standards found in Section 5-4 of these regulations (as outlined in the Planning Department’s memorandum to the Board, dated August 15, 2003).
Seconded by Mr. Almeida.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. O’Brien – yes
Mr. Almeida – yes
Mr. Gerstein – yes
Mr. Sullivan – yes
Mr. Robinson – yes
Motion approved 5-0.
Delegation of Final Plan Approval
Mr. Sullivan made a motion to delegate Final Plan approval to the Administrative Officer, once all conditions of the preliminary approval have been satisfied. Seconded by Mr. Almeida.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. O’Brien – yes
Mr. Almeida – yes
Mr. Gerstein – yes
Mr. Sullivan – yes
Mr. Robinson – yes
Motion approved 5-0.
B. Lease – Caleb Williams Cottage
Ms. Boyle asked Mr. Gordon to highlight the Planning Department’s memo to the Board. Mr. Gordon explained that the City had entered into a 25 year lease agreement with Gloria Q. & John W. Garvin for occupancy of the Caleb Williams cottage, located on the Hunts Mill property. Mr. Gordon noted that this lease is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2003 and that the City Council is requesting Planning Board input on the future use of this property. Mr. Gordon explained that the Planning Department had requested input from City departments on what, if any, interest they had in this property. None of the Departments has indicated any interest in this property. However, the Public Works Department, which retains maintenance responsibility for the overall Hunts Mill property, has recommended that a master plan be prepared for the entire Hunts Mills site. Mr. Gordon noted that, based upon its review of this property, the Planning Department had concluded that the “highest and best” of this property was for continued use as a single-family residence, which is consistent with the Open Space zoning designation of this property. Based upon this assessment, Mr. Gordon indicated that the Planning Department was recommending that the City prepare a “Request for Proposals” for the short-term lease of this property for single-family residential use and that special consideration be given to leasing this property to an East Providence family, for a rental figure deemed to be affordable by the RI Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation. Mr. Gordon also noted that it is the Planning Department’s recommendation that the Planning Board forward this recommendation to the City Council for their action and approval.
Mr. Sullivan asked what the age of the current tenants was (i.e. were they elderly)? Ms. Boyle indicated that the tenants were not elderly.
Ms. Boyle noted that the Planning Department had previously recommended that a master plan be prepared for Hunts Mill, but that the current recommendation would address the short-term use of the cottage.
Mr. Sullivan moved that the Planning memo be made a part of the record. Seconded by Mr. Almeida. Vote: 5-0, motion approved.
Mr. O’Brien made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Department regarding the future use of the Caleb Williams cottage and forward this same recommend to the City Council. Seconded by Mr. Sullivan.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. O’Brien – yes
Mr. Almeida – yes
Mr. Gerstein – yes
Mr. Sullivan – yes
Mr. Robinson – yes
Motion approved 5-0.
C. Meeting Street School Property – Map 406, Block 7, Lots 2, 4 and 6
Ms. Boyle asked Mr. Gordon to highlight the Planning Department’s memo to the Board. Mr. Gordon explained that the Acting City Manager had received an inquiry from the Meeting Street School regarding the City’s interest in purchasing their property on Warren Avenue for a new City Hall location. Mr. Gordon noted that input was requested from City Departments to determine if there was any interest in such a move. Mr. Gordon said that no such interest was expressed. Mr. Gordon indicated that based upon the absence of any interest in relocating City Hall, the Planning Department was recommending that no further action be taken by the City and that the Meeting Street School be so notified. Ms. Boyle added that the City has been working closely with the Taunton Avenue “Downtown Business Association (DBA)” and that moving City Hall would seriously affect the viability of the Taunton Avenue businesses located near City Hall.
Mr. Almeida indicated that when he was on the City Council, there was discussion about purchasing this property for $600,000 but it never came to fruition.
Mr. Almeida moved that the Planning memo be made a part of the record. Seconded by Mr. O’Brien. Vote: 5-0, motion approved.
Mr. Sullivan moved to accept the Planning Department’s recommendation on the offer from Meeting Street School. Seconded Mr. Almeida.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. O’Brien – yes
Mr. Almeida – yes
Mr. Gerstein – yes
Mr. Sullivan – yes
Mr. Robinson – yes
Motion approved 5-0.
C. City-owned Property – Tristam Burges School – Map 207, Block 21, Lot 1
Ms. Boyle provided the Board with an overview of the Planning Department’s staff memo. Ms. Boyle noted that the City Council had referred the matter of the future use of the Tristam Burgess School to the Planning Department. The Planning Department, in turn, had requested City Department input. The only department expressing interest in this building was the Fire Department, which is looking to build a new Station #1 (along with Administrative offices) at this site. The Fire Department also indicated that they currently use the school for training purposes. Ms. Boyle noted that the Fire Department had studied the suitability of this site and determined that it would meet their needs. Ms. Boyle said that the Planning Department had asked the Fire Department for supporting documentation to justify use of this site by the Fire Department.
Ms. Boyle reiterated the Planning Department’s recommendation that the former Tristam Burgess School property be retained by the City and that further study be conducted to determine the feasibility and desirability of utilizing this site as the location for a new Station #1, together with administrative offices.
The Planning Department also recommends that the Board recommend to the City Council that this property be held by the City, pending further study to determine whether this site would be an appropriate location for a new Station #1.
Mr. Sullivan moved that the Planning memo be made a part of the record. Seconded by Mr. Almeida. Vote: 5-0, motion approved.
Mr. Almeida questioned whether the Board’s consideration of this matter be tabled until such time as a site feasibility study has been completed to determine the best location for a new Fire Station? Ms. Boyle responded that the Planning Department’s recommendation would be for the City to undertake such a study. Once this study is completed, the Planning Board would have the opportunity to review it and make a final recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Almeida moved to accept the Planning Department’s recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Sullivan.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. O’Brien – yes
Mr. Almeida – yes
Mr. Gerstein – yes
Mr. Sullivan – yes
Mr. Robinson – yes
E. City-owned Property – Former Rumford Fire Station, 27 Newman Avenue
Ms. Boyle introduced Stephanie Davies to the Board. Ms. Boyle informed the Board that Ms. Davies was an intern in the Planning Department and would be presenting the Planning Department staff memo for this item. Ms. Davies explained that the City Council has asked that the Planning Department and Planning Board review and make a recommendation on the possible disposition of the former Rumford Fire Station #3, located at 27 Newman Avenue. Ms. Davies noted that the property measures 14,172 square feet and is improved with a 6,500 square foot building (2 floors of 2,700 s.f. each, basement of 1,100 s.f.) and a paved parking lot of approximately 25 spaces. The property is currently zoned O-1, Open Space and is valued at $448,100 ($10,600 – land; $437,500 – building).
Ms. Davies indicated that the Planning Department requested input from City Departments regarding any possible interest in this property. The only expression of interest came from the Recreation Department, which currently uses the building for equipment storage. Recreation has requested an alternative storage location should the property be sold.
Ms. Davies noted that the Planning Department has studied the usefulness of this property and its future value to the City and determined that it serves no productive use to the City and should therefore be sold. Ms. Davies mentioned several possible uses for this site, including professional offices, artisan workspace, restaurant or residential development. Ms. Davies referred to an adaptive reuse of a similar fire station in Minneapolis, MN for residential dwellings.
Based upon its analysis of this property, Ms. Davies indicated that the Planning Department was recommending that the Planning Board advise the City Council to authorize a Phase I Environmental Assessment of this property, to determine if there are any environmental issues that need to be addressed prior to sale of the property. This assessment would be followed by a “Request for Proposals (RFP)” to identify the best, most appropriate use of this property.
Mr. Sullivan moved that the Planning memo be made a part of the record. Seconded by Mr. Almeida. Vote: 5-0, motion approved.
Mr. Almeida moved to accept the Planning Department’s recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Sullivan.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. O’Brien – yes
Mr. Almeida – yes
Mr. Gerstein – yes
Mr. Sullivan – yes
Mr. Robinson – yes
F. Capital Budget – 2003-2004 and Six-Year (2003-2009) Capital Improvement Program
Ms. Boyle addressed the Board and indicated that Ms. Davies would review the Planning Department staff memo for this agenda item.
Ms. Davies indicated that the City ordinance requires the preparation of a Capital Budget by the Planning Board. This ordinance states that the Planning Board: “Shall recommend to the city manager, for inclusion by the manager in his annual budget, a capital program of proposed capital projects for the five fiscal years, next succeeding the budget year, the proposed projects to be arranged in order to preference with recommendations as to which projects should be constructed and in which year”. Ms. Davies noted that the Planning Department was recommending a Net Capital Budget of $959,500 for the fiscal year 2003-2004, based upon a total project costs figure of $5,259,500. The balance of the total project costs is to be drawn from the following revenue sources:
Ms. Davies indicated that total capital funding requests by all City Departments totaled $42,351,000 for the period 2003-2009. Of this total, $11,314,000 is proposed to be funded from the City’s Capital Budget; $1,750,000 from the 2002 Bond Issue; $6,100,000 from future capital bonds and $21,265,000 from other financing sources.
Ms. Davies noted that the 2003-2004 Capital Budget is based upon several considerations. First, is the need for regularly funded capital improvements to insure that the City’s capital plant, equipment and infrastructure is properly maintained. Second, the Planning Department has researched what should be the minimum level of capital funding for the City and determined that a figure of 3% to 5% of the previous year’s operating budget is appropriate. This figure is based upon a recommendation of the American Planning Association. The recommended Capital budget for 2003-2004 of $959,500, represents 2.5% of the City’s 2002-2003 operating budget of $38,814,201. With projected debt service of $2,115,910 for FY 2003-2004 added in, total capital expenditures as a percentage of the City’s prior year operating budget is 5.5%.
Ms. Davies explained that the FY 2003-2004 Capital Budget will allow for the replacement and repair of aging equipment and infrastructure, and will result in improved efficiency, worker health, and safety. Ms. Davies referred to a detailed analysis of the recommended capital expenditures in the staff memo to the Board. Ms. Davies emphasized the Planning Department’s strong support for such capital funding.
Ms. Davies referred to the 2002 Bond Referendum approved by City voters. This bond, for $9 million, included $4.5 million in school spending and $4.5 in city spending. Ms. Davies noted that all of the School bonds were sold, while for the City projects, “Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs)” were sold for those projects which were scheduled to begin in the upcoming Fiscal Year.
Ms. Davies concluded her remarks by noting that the Planning Department had worked closely with other City departments in preparation of the 2003-2004 Capital Budget and the 2003-2009 Capital Improvement Schedule. She reiterated the Planning Department’s position that capital funding was crucial to the continued viability of the City’s aging infrastructure. And also that bonding was not the preferred method for annual capital improvements, but rather should be reserved for “one time” capital items which would result in an inordinate increase in the City’s tax rate.
Ms. Boyle emphasized the need for annual capital budgeting in order to cover the cost of “short-term” capital repairs that are not funded by bond issues.
The Board thanked the Planning Department for its presentation.
Mr. Sullivan moved to accept the Planning Department’s recommendation for the 2003-2004 Capital Budget and 2003-2009 Six-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Seconded by Mr. Almeida.
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. O’Brien – yes
Mr. Almeida – yes
Mr. Gerstein – yes
Mr. Sullivan – yes
Mr. Robinson – yes
V. Continued Business
A. Staff Report
Ms. Boyle provided the Board with an overview of current projects and Planning Department activity, as follows:
A. Memo dated 7/25/03 to the Zoning Board of Review from the Planning Department, Re: Requests for Variance and Special Use Permit to be heard on 7/30/03.
B. Zoning Board of Review correspondence regarding Appl. # 2003-06 – Linden Street Minor Subdivision.
Mr. Sullivan moved to accept these communications. Seconded by Mr. Almeida. Motion approved 5-0.
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Robinson, Vice-chairman
MR/JMB/zg