Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDAC 08/22/1983DOWNTOWN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES August 22, 1983 Present: Chairman R. Seifert, R. Stearns, N. Anagnos, E. Tartufo, J. Zeneski, D. D'Onofrio, and T. Durbano Ralph Cataldo and John Kaito representing Cataldo Associates appeared before the DAC to go over what they have done so far on the design of the High St. bridge. They presented diagrams of the lay -out for the High Street bridge which showed details of the improvements. They will be maintaining a similar type of design, and they are discussing using stone facing. The Massachusetts DPW will have to inspect the structure. They are presently looking into the alternative of using a twin culvert instead of a single culvert. They will also be replacing a water line at the same time. The Department of Public Works has the materials. They do not want to end up with the water line under the structure; therefore, it will be placed beside it. Joseph Zeneski and John Larch have been working together to have Cataldo Associates design a similar structure for West Street. The town may be able to obtain money for the West Street bridge replacement through the Force Account. Joseph Zeneski met with TAMS to go over preliminary alternatives for the other projects. The DAC first discussed the alternatives for the Commuter Rail. Commuter Rail Concept Plan (1) This alternative provides for the maximum number of parking spaces which is 188. (2) This alternative would allow for the installation of parking meters, which cost $100 per meter. There would be 163 spaces. (3) This would have more landscaping with an island for an attendant booth: 156 parking spaces. (4) This would have less landscaping with an island for an attendant booth: 166 parking spaces. It was pointed out that there have been problems with the land swap; and the committee should consider looking at alternative plans without the land swap **It was the concensus of the DAC to go with Alternative No. 1, which would allow for the maximum number of parking spaces at 188. The DPW Director will also direct the engineer to redesign the parking without the land swap parcel. Page 2 For the board's recommendations on the other downtown improvements, please see the attached letter. In reference to the meeting at the train station, Ralph Seifert thanked Richard D'Onofrio because he made the contacts with the MBTA representatives. There will be coordination with the MBTA and GATRA to survey the area. The MBTA will pay for this, and they are going ahead with it. There is a problem with the people at Graphic Labs regarding the land swap. *The DAC needs to find out who owns the land underneath the station. Andy Barr, representing the Historical Commission, appeared before the DAC and explained that the committee is very concerned about the brick structure on the outbound side of the tracks. The building has been a part of Mansfield's railroad history for almost 100 years. He explained that it was once the pumping station that took water from the Rumford River and pumped it into the wooden tank beside it. The old steam locomotives used this water. The committee would like to see the building restored and used in some other capacity. Andy Barr met with the MBIA. He has also talked to Yellow Taxi regarding locating there. Date of Next Meeting is September 26, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. 111 August 25, 1983 TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048 Mr. Georgy Bezorovainy, P.E. TAMS 211 Congress Street Boston, MA 02110 Re: Mansfield PWED Project Dear Mr. Bezorovai Thank you for your presentation on August 22, 1983, pr viding information on the development of concepts for the downtown improvements. The concepts are especially significant since you are three (3) wee s ahead of schedule. I have presented your concept plans to the D.A.C. and can report to you comments and direction received from the members. 1. The Committee has selected your Alternative I for the R.R. parking lot. We want to consider guardrail to separate the lot from surrounding parcels since the lot will be used by residents.;with parking stickers. Since there is some possible problem with the land 'trade proposal', we also want a concept for maximum use of existing land (Parcel A, B,& D). We understand that this may not result in the most efficient parking arrangement and that you may;not be apple to meet the schedule submission date of September 30th fo plans and specifications if the 'land situation is not r solved soon. 2. I'.ve presented your recommendations for improvements to North Main Street in the vicinity of the train station. The Committee has suggested making Oakland a two-way>street. I've enclosed ;:a,.sketch as a possibility, this sketch'rincludes Pratt as a one-way street to Crocker and Crocker one-way from Pratt to North Main. Other arrangements are possible. 3. The Committee supports your suggestion to ;pursue additional state funds for improvements to the intersection of Rte. 106 and North Main. It was suggested that advance left signals and the right turn lane on 106 to Thomas should be given further consideration. Mr. Georgy Bezkorovainy, P.E. Page 2 August 25, 1983 #3 cont. It is my understanding that Bob Hartnet at District 6 is familiar with the proposal included in the Everett Study. You should note that there is currently no parking in front of and along side of Sannies so the wide swing from Rte. 106 should not meet resistance. Please pursue this further. 4. The Committee agrees with Alternative 1 for the Church Street island and Alternative 1 for the middle common park. f 5. The; Committee wants maximum parking on the right-of-way; look into different arrangements for entrance/exit from --the_parking__1ot. _We..may__ be__able-to-mini mize-c-onfldct t High Street by having a one-way exit or entrance. We want you to consider parking along North Main from West Church to High either by removing a travel lane or suggesting the curbing be pushed back by a future developer. 6. We Want to have some details for discussion with residents/ We'd like some textural details (for speed control, cross- walk definition, and side walks) and some sections to show landscape concepts (benches, shrubs, curbing, signing, etc.) before our next meeting on September 26th. 7. You and I have discussed concepts for Old Colony, Rumford, and Thomas. Please pursue these ideas and report back to me as soon as possible. The Committee has suggested diagonal parking with island separation on Old Colony. Also, let us know how we can improve the proposed parking at the develop - meat parcel between Rumford and Old Colony. Very truly yours, OF PUBLIC WOR S N, v zeneski, P. . cc: D.A.C./ enc/eac -1 �� 1 ¢ i 1 �;� i� 1 � ,� � � ,; (�;, �, �� l �! �i 1