These minutes are not verbatim – they are the secretary’s interpretation of what took place at the meeting. – Open Meeting Law – Section III.
Board Members: Marc Garrett, Malcolm MacGregor, Paul McAlduff, Larry Rosenblum, and Bill Wennerberg
Staff Members: Lee Hartmann, Valerie Massard, and Howard Coppari
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
MEPOD II – Workshop
Marc Garrett outlined the schedule for the evening and introduced the first topic that would be presented, “What does a studio do in its day to day life on the site and in the neighborhood”.
Lee Hartmann announced that the redlined comparison of the1,000 acre bylaw and the Waverly Oaks bylaw would be posted on the Town’s web site tomorrow. He also stated that Town Counsel issued an opinion regarding the Chapter 61B question. Basically, the opinion stated that conversion is ruled by use, not zoning.
Bill Wynne, Plymouth Rock Studios, (PRS) addressed the question of why the studio wants to move forward with the “as of right” use. They are committed to building a studio in Massachusetts and would like it to be in Plymouth and for the studio to be successful. The studio has to operate on a schedule and they have already begun preleasing of space. The approval of an “as of right” use would allow them to meet the schedule they have set whereas the special permit process is another layer of permitting and allows for appeals that could delay the approval process for an indefinite period of time. The studio understands that the bar is higher and they believe they can meet that bar. The fall of 2010 is the target date for the studio to open. Mr. Wynne asked that if the Board felt there
was any deficiencies in their presentations of information, the studio needs to be informed, so they can provide additional information.
Jeff Dirk, Vanasse Associates, began the preliminary traffic review for PRS. Mr. Dirk presented the study areas as follows: the Clark Road/Route 3 interchanges; Jordan Road/Long Pond Road intersection; Mast Road/entrance to Waverly Oaks; and the Long Pond Road entrance to the State Forest. Mr. Dirk also presented a preliminary trip generation summery using estimated traffic for the PRS project. The total project trips on an average weekday would be approximately 10,198 daily, with the weekday morning peak hour trips approximately 1,161 and the weekday evening peak hour trips approximately 1,210. The estimates were based on a figures relating to Paramount Studios and its employees and took into account the Pinehills and River Run projects as well as existing traffic. The majority of the expected the
trip distribution would be 55% of the traffic from the North on Route 3; 20% from the south on Route 3; 15% from Beaver Dam Road to Clark Road; 5% from the south of Long Pond Road; 4% from the north of Long Pond Road; and 1% from Jordan Road. Currently, Clark Road handles 10,000 vehicles with an expectation that it would double at full buildout of the projects in the area. The current roadways will not be able to handle this increase. The mitigation proposed includes installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Clark Road and Long Pond Road (designed as part of the traffic mitigations for the A.D. Makepeace project); signalization at the north and south bound Route 3 ramps and the proposed access road; a new north bound slip ramp (Mass Highway is trying to expedite the process for the slip ramp) onto Route 3; and lane reconfigurations on all area roads. The proposed access road would be located approximately halfway between the south bound
exit ramp off Route 3 and the Clark Road/Long Pond Road intersection. The access road would have two left hand turning lanes and one right hand turning lane onto Clark Road. There would be two right hand turning lanes off the Route 3 ramp onto Clark Road which would narrow to one lane after the proposed access road as vehicles approach the roundabout. The proposed access road would take approximately 200-300 vehicles off Long Pond Road by providing an alternate bus and vehicle access to the schools as well as the studios.
Malcolm MacGregor asked how the percent of distribution figures were derived.
Mr. Dirk explained that data regarding population centers, general traffic patterns, where people are employed, and from the Census was analyzed.
Marc Garrett asked if there was sufficient distance between the Route 3 ramps, the proposed access road and Long Pond Road and what was the required distance between the existing northbound entrance onto Route 3 and the proposed slip ramp.
Mr. Dirk explained that the minimum requirement between traffic signals is 500 ft. and there is just over 500 ft. between each intersection. The distance between the new slip ramp and the existing entrance has to be 2,500 ft., but this slip ramp’s length might be extended to allow for vehicles to get up to necessary speed to enter Route 3.
Mr. Hartmann stated that this traffic information is preliminary and that the traffic report will be peer reviewed. Any necessary mitigations will become part of the MOU.
Chris Schelleng asked for an explanation of the intersection grades and how they function.
Mr. Dirk explained that the Clark Road/Long Pond Road intersection has been at a level F for some time and has safety issues. The south bound ramp is also failing. There are long delays and safety issues on the west side of the Clark Road bridge.
Brian Dempsey was concerned with the traffic issues especially during peak hours. Mr. Dempsey suggested adding a right turn only lane from Clark Road onto Long Pond Road and moving the access road to allow the traffic turning right off the highway to turn directly into the access road. He asked if the studio traffic would have the same peak hours as the existing traffic.
Mr. Dirk explained that there can only be a single lane going into the roundabout, but that they could consider adding a right turn only area similar to the one on the other side of the roundabout. Mr. Dirk stated that the traffic review has been based on the studio traffic adding to the existing peak hour traffic. Mr. Dirk explained that an interchange cannot access a private roadway; it has to access a public roadway.
Steve Saja was concerned with the speed of the traffic on Long Pond Road and the school traffic. He suggested rerouting the traffic off Long Pond Road to the access road and out onto Clark Road.
Mr. Dirk replied that the intent is to keep a lot of additional traffic away from the schools and isolate the neighborhoods as a residential area. As part of the full traffic review, they will be looking at sight line distances and speed on the north and south sections of Long Pond Road and if necessary proposing mitigation to increase safety.
Jim Concannon asked if there could be a slip ramp directly to the studio. He also asked if the intent was to have the studio traffic directed toward the roundabout and if the roundabout would happen in a timely fashion.
Mr. Dirk explained that there are a lot of factors and agencies that go into creating a new ramp off an existing highway. The slip ramp would have to access a public road and it could take 10 years to have a new interchange approved. The intent of the roundabout and the signalization would be to direct traffic in a safe pattern. Mr. Dirk stated that the roundabout is needed now for safety reasons.
Robert Bielen, School Committee member, stated that the School Committee is supportive of the project and that one of the topics they will be discussing with the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board at their joint meeting on Tuesday would be the traffic.
Andrea McMillan asked who would maintain the roundabout and if it could be aesthetically pleasing. Ms. McMillan suggested that the traffic consultant should take into consideration the increase in the summer traffic in Plymouth.
Mr. Dirk explained that the roundabout has been designed to have a landscaped center island. Mr. Dirk also stated that traffic counts are actually higher in June than in the summer.
Mr. Hartmann stated that the Town would maintain the roundabout, but groups could offer to “adopt” the landscaped island in the center of the roundabout.
Mr. Rosenblum asked for clarification on the lanes for the roundabout including the width of the lanes.
Mr. Dirk explained that there would be five lanes (12 ft. lanes with 8 ft. shoulders for a total of 82 ft.) on Clark Road that would narrow into one lane after the access road. One lane would be a right turn only into the proposed access road.
Mr. Rosenblum suggested that the proposed road would not be in keeping with the rural character of the area. Mr. Rosenblum suggested creating a landscaped island on Clark Road. Mr. Rosenblum questioned why the slip ramp at Exit 5 was done so quickly.
Mr. Dirk replied that the slip ramp at Exit 5 was approved quicker because there was an existing interchange. He also agreed to look at a providing a landscaped island on Clark Road.
Marc Garrett suggested that a substantial amount of traffic on Clark Road could be eliminated if it were possible to create a slip ramp that would tie the existing south bound exit ramp on Route 3 into the access road.
Bill Wennerberg stated that adding a right hand turn onto Long Pond Road would help. Mr. Wennerberg asked who would build the roundabout.
Mr. Hartmann stated that whoever was ready to build first (either A. D. Makepeace or the Studio) would build the roundabout and there will be language to address that in the MOU. Mr. Hartmann explained that even without a local process the traffic mitigations would be required in the MEPA process and be required by Mass Highway as part of the curb cut permit.
Mr. Wennerberg was concerned that residents would be able to cut through the school to the access road.
Mr. Dirk stated that there would be traffic calming and that he would try to address that with the school department once their needs have been assessed.
Earl Lestz, PRS, stated that he was aware of the concerns of the residents and the traffic mitigations are necessary to the success of the project. The convenience of filming in Plymouth is a priority. Mr. Lestz also stated that when Paramount Studios were finished, the home values in the area went up substantially. Mr. Lestz explained that the proposal has not changed substantially from when it was proposed at the 1,000 acre site. There will still be 14 sound stages and a back lot and most of the ancillary facilities are the same. Mr. Lestz stated that they are trying to incorporate the necessary facilities adjacent to the stages so there won’t be a need for separate areas for makeup, costumes, grip trucks, etc. This would also save the filmmakers money, because they won’t have to rent
additional space.
David Kirkpatrick stated that it is important to understand that the studio would be in business to tell a story and that story is filmed undercover on the sound stages.
Mr. Wennerberg asked the proponents to explain the day to day operations of the facilities.
Mr. Kirkpatrick explained that filming works on a cycle. Some cycles may last two weeks (for a commercial or small project) and some may last 40 weeks for a major film. During that time, a production can start with 10 people working on site and range as high as 300 people during the peak of filming a production.
Mr. Lestz explained that the back lot would consist of building facades and areas for outdoor filming.
Mr. Garret stated that commercials, television shows, and films would be shooting at the studio. He asked how many hours a commercial would take.
Mr. Lestz explained that for one commercial that is seen on television, they could be filming six or seven different versions and would need approximately 50-60 people working at the same time. It could take two days or two weeks and there could be two or three different commercials shooting at the same time. For a television series, it may take a month to shoot one episode. Mr. Lestz gave Entertainment Tonight as an example. They have 30,000 sq. ft. of offices space where they are constantly researching articles; there are approximately 10 people on the set and one person in the control room.
Mr. Garrett asked for a time range for a 13 episode television program and for a full length movie.
Mr. Lestz explained that a seasonal television program would typically film one episode a week for three weeks then they would take a week off, so it could take close to 6 months. An average full length film would take approximately 120 days. They normally do not have heavy filming schedules on the weekends, but there will be some activity.
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the average price for a film is approximately $70 million. A movie similar to Harry Potter could take up to a year and a half to film. They would like to draw in the hour long shows with a 40 week cycle which would help to build up a steady workforce of approximately 200-300 employees.
Mr. Garrett observed that the model activities would be year round, every day and not a seasonal business.
Mr. Wennerberg asked with 14 sound stages how many productions can go on at once.
Mr. Lestz replied that there could be 15 productions being filmed at peak capacity (14 sound stages and the back lot). There could be five major productions at any given time and some will be in pre or post production.
Mr. Kirkpatrick explained that in the movie “Singing in the Rain”, it took 9 days to shoot the four minute scene with Gene Kelly singing in the rain. In most cases, there is a lot of waiting for the employees. The office space would have approximately 100 to 150 permanent employees with additional employees during the production cycles.
Joseph DeSilva asked the PRS representatives to explain the impact of the back lot filming on the neighbors.
Mr. Lestz explained that there is little noise as the filming is being done. During the construction phase for the sets, there will be typical construction noise. There may be an occasional explosion (which will require notice to the Town and to the neighbors).
Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that they are considering using modular pop out units instead of major construction on the back lot.
Mr. Lestz addressed Mr. Macgregor’s question regarding the noise from trucks. He stated that there will be occasions where trucks will need to back up and will create some noise.
Mr. Garrett noted that there are height requirements within the bylaw and asked what heights would be needed for the studio buildings.
Bill Wynne replied that they are looking at utilizing the existing topography and where possible will depress the buildings. They will also be including earthen berms, and significant landscaping to screen the buildings and back lot. The noise study which will detail the sound mitigation and a detailed landscaping plan will be presented at a later date.
Sharon LaRosa was concerned with the day to day impacts on the rural neighborhoods and the economic impact on the tax payers of Plymouth.
Mr. Lestz explained that the studios would bring in revenue to Plymouth. The people that come to work at the studios will spend money here.
Mr. Garrett stated that the Board is still expecting an economic impact report which will be reviewed by the Board’s peer consultant and will address the impact on taxes, cultural, educational, infrastructure, etc.
Mr. Wynne stated that a preliminary study found that the studio would create $350 million in additional real estate tax base; the average employment would create approximately $150 million in payroll; and the studio would be providing substantial infrastructure improvements. The preliminary report did not address the impacts on the police and fire departments and they will be meeting with both departments to determine their impacts. The goal is to make this a world class studio that would benefit the Town of Plymouth.
Mr. Hartmann stated that in addition to the zoning and land use aspects of the project, the studio will be requesting a TIF at Town Meeting.
Richard Rothstein noted that he believes that State requirements for noise levels are not sufficient to actually mitigate the noise. He suggested adding noise barriers and any other means available to block the noise and for a review of low and high frequency noise.
Mr. Wynne stated that at Monday night’s meeting they will begin to go through the draft zoning bylaw language in which the noise for one time events will be addressed and other mitigation could be added to the language. They will have a sound consultant available at a future meeting who will present a practical application of noise.
Paul Cripps, Destination Plymouth, stated that the room tax revenues for the Town would increase drastically if the studio constructs a high end hotel. The revenue from that hotel could equal the revenue from all the existing hotels combined. The studio would also increase the revenues for restaurants and shops of all kinds.
Loring Tripp was concerned with the traffic in the area and thought the roundabout was a good concept when it was just A. D. Makepeace increasing the traffic volume. He suggested considering moving traffic in a different pattern. He stated that there will probably be less light pollution and noise than at a Plymouth South football game and the studio will be a benefit to the community. Mr. Tripp stated that the studio is an opportunity to provide a future for our children.
Mr. Rosenblum stated that the Board needed further information to make an informed decision. He suggested that alternative designs for the roads should be presented and information regarding the costs and benefits to the Town should be provided.
Paul McAlduff was supportive of the benefits this project would have on the schools, the increase in the hotel room tax, the infrastructure improvements, etc. He encouraged the studio representatives to work with the residents to address all their concerns.
Marc Garrett announced the schedule for next week as follows: the Public Hearing begins on Monday, August 18, 2008 at 7:15 p.m.; there will be a joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen, the School Committee and the Advisory and Finance Committee on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.; and there will be a continued Public Hearing on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.. Topics will include environmental impacts and the bylaw language.
Other Business:
A4309 – OS Golf Homes LLC/Pinehills LLC, Talcott Pines, Map 77B, Lots 10-386 (1.16A), 10-387 (1.71A), 10-388 (1.01A), and 10-389 (0.92A) - Lot line adjustments to create lots 10-437 (1.14A), 10-438 (1.71A), 10-439 (1.07A) and 10-440 (0.88A).
Bill W recused himself from voting on A4309.
Malcolm MacGregor moved for the clerk to sign the plan; the vote was (4-0).
Malcolm MacGregor moved to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.; the vote was unanimous (5-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen M. Hawthorne Approved: August 25, 2008
Administrative Assistant
| 
