Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan 134 Pleasant Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends 134 Pleasant Street redevelopment move to planning board with conditions
Summary
The Site Plan Review Technical Advisory Committee reviewed DMC LLC’s proposal to reuse and expand structures at 134 Pleasant Street, recommended it proceed to the planning board with conditions including third‑party construction oversight, a construction management and mitigation plan (CMMP), and final DPW drainage approval.
The Site Plan Review Technical Advisory Committee on Feb. 3 recommended that a redevelopment plan for 134 Pleasant Street advance to the planning board, provided the applicant meets several conditions including construction oversight for work on city property and final approval of the drainage system by the Department of Public Works.
John Shagner, representing Haley Ward, said the applicant submitted a revised packet on Jan. 22 responding to earlier TAC comments and provided truck‑turning templates for both the proposed and alternative circulation layouts. "We used a 30 foot WB30," Shagner said when describing truck templates and noted the team will supply additional fire‑truck information for review.
The proposal from DMC LLC would reuse and expand an existing structure and add a new building for residential and commercial uses. The applicant reported a revised unit count of 22 apartments after converting larger penthouse units into smaller units; the project team said this change was reflected in updated parking analyses and trip‑generation figures. The submitted parking summary shows 88 proposed spaces versus a calculated shared‑parking requirement of 79, producing an excess of nine spaces in the plan.
The committee and applicant discussed several site constraints. The proposal requires relocation or licensing for utilities and drainage that cross a courthouse parcel. Shagner noted that a deeded easement currently shows seven parking spaces in a hatched area on the courthouse lot; the plan would reduce that hatched area to five spaces and "there is a reduction in parking if under the proposed plan," he said, adding the team will seek city or court approval or pursue an alternate layout if necessary.
On stormwater and foundations, the project team said all new Building B foundations will be waterproofed, include an under‑slab perimeter drainage system and interior sump pumps, and be engineered to resist modeled groundwater rise. The team agreed a stormwater permit will be required and that the proposed "jellyfish" treatment device should be relocated downstream to serve site stormwater separate from roof drains.
Committee members pressed for sight‑distance verification at the garage ramp and proposed stop signs to control internal circulation; the applicant said the retaining wall is about 18 inches above grade and landscaping can be trimmed to maintain sight lines. The team also confirmed electrical routing adjustments and that the gas utility approved two services for the project.
Before recommending the project to the planning board, TAC attached several conditions: require a CMMP; third‑party oversight for utility and construction work within city property or right‑of‑way; submission of a license/easement plan for drainage and utilities; final DPW approval of the drainage system prior to planning board submission; and foundation design details in the permit set. After a brief discussion and the addition of a revised truck‑turning template for fire apparatus, the motion carried on a voice vote.
The planning board and, where applicable, city council will need to review the easement and licensing items before any changes to city property proceed. The committee noted some non‑substantive corrections (table headers and a mislabeled unit type) that the applicant said will be fixed in the submission package.
