Subscribe!
Cranston in the weeds with COSTCO. No to Mulligan’s. No to Chapel View. Who will find them a RI home?
Back to Plan A? Hold that thought say many in Cranston community.
COSTCO’s first plan for coming to Rhode Island was to locate themselves squeezed behind the Chapel View development – behind Shaw’s and next to TopGolf. After almost 3 years of neighborhood opposition, the COSTCO plan grew silent. But it was clear that Chapel View would not be where they would locate, if in Cranston, at all.
This year, their Plan B surfaced. They wanted to not only build at Mulligan’s Island, but the developers were to make a multi-phased development of the area, including housing, a gas station, stores, and a fast food/coffee shop located at the entrance at New London Avenue.
The many issues of COSTCO being located at Chapel View – neighborhood opposition, too little room, massive traffic issues, and inappropriate utilization of a beautiful boutique “heart” of Cranston with the squishing in of a big box store, much more suited for an industrial park area – were even more complicated over at Mulligan’s Island. Relocating a cell tower. Relocating a cemetery. Being on top of residences. And a prison. Blocking sight lines to the prison. Causing traffic on New London Ave, into the RIDMV, into state facilities, etc. Not to mention the concern about a gas station.
Notably, when all the variances were granted to bring TopGolf to Chapel View, the owner of Mulligan’s made a statement at the City Council meeting in support of it – and ended by saying that he would be coming to the Council one day, and he trusted that he could get his special project also approved.
Most COSTCO developments require both a gas station and a detached liquor store. The one proposed for its current favorite spot of Mulligan’s Island has a gas station but no liquor store. It does note that 750 parking spaces are required, which had not been specified in the Plan A for Chapel View.
Last week a ZOOM call was held for over 3 hours to talk about details by the Cranston Planning Committee. Only 2 people, one being the Mulligan’s owner, spoke in favor of the project.
State of Rhode Island weighs in
Letters were received by the Planning Dept. from the State of Rhode Island giving their disapproval for the project.
Mayor Fung weighs in
While the Mayor has not indicated his position on the COSTCO development, this weekend he taped NBC10’s Ten News Conference (above) with Gene Valicenti. When asked about COSTCO, he spoke quite openly about it, that it was not working out for the Mulligan’s Island location, but that it should go back to Plan A – Chapel View.
The tape made its way around all the Cranston neighborhood groups over the weekend. We requested commentary from Mayor-Elect Hopkins.
Mayor Fung also issued this letter after seeing the state letter:
Mayor-Elect Hopkins weighs in:
After the NBC10 show aired, RINewsToday asked Mr. Hopkins for comment: “I have my concerns and will take a good look at the design as well as having a complete vetting process with the neighbors that could be affected. I will weight that with the potential to increase our tax base and potential for employment by Cranston residents. I am not opposed to Costco. I was opposed to its location at Mulligan’s and it’s concerns for the surrounding neighborhoods. I will be taking a very good look at this location.”
Garden City Alliance says “NO” to a return to Chapel View
When asked for a response, Pauline DeRosa, Founder of the Garden City Alliance wrote:
“Attached is a statement I gave during the Plan Commission Meeting of Tuesday, December 1 regarding the Zone Change for New London Ave. I talked about the potential loss of revenue and jobs from our local business community.
In addition, the City of Cranston needs to keep in mind that we are not just dealing with the potential ‘Cranston Crossing’ but a multitude of projects that, if given approval, would put this area of Cranston in a difficult position – the onslaught of vehicular traffic.
The Cranston Herald has announced that TopGolf will begin site work in March. There is the potential for one or two Compassion Centers off Pontiac Ave. Under construction is Chase Bank at the corner of Sockanosset and Pontiac Ave. and the potential leasing of the now vacant Webster Bank Building. Our roads will be “choked” with traffic.
I urge you to consider the impact the potential ‘Cranston Crossing’ would have on its abutting neighbors as well as the infrastructure surrounding the area, namely New London Ave., Howard Ave., Pontiac Ave., Rte. 37 and to a degree Sockanosset Crossroads.” – Thank you.
ECORI Weighs in:
Cranston Neighbors for Safe Development statement:
“As shown by the strong resident turnout at last week’s Plan Committee Meeting, opposition to the ill-suited Cranston Crossing proposal still remains. In fact, the only two individuals who spoke in favor of the proposed development will benefit financially if it is approved. In addition to City officials, Representative Mattiello, Representative-Elect Fenton-Fung, the Cranston Historical Cemetery Commission, all whom have already spoken against the proposed development, the Rhode Island Department of Administration, Rhode Island Department of Corrections and the Rhode Island Department of Transportation all have voiced serious concerns. The developer and owner of Mulligan’s Island are now attempting a “scare tactic” strategy. They have stated that if the City doesn’t approve this proposal, then the prison may take over the property. What may or may not happen to this property in the future has no impact on the decision of whether or not a large-scale Highway Commercial development should be built within 75’ of existing neighborhoods and a city playground. We are disappointed that all of this, in addition to the developer’s flagrant disregard of the Planning Department’s requests for changes to the proposal, still was not enough for the Planning Department to provide a recommendation either for or against the proposed development in their staff report. We urge residents to continue to contact the City Council members and let them know that the proposed development is not a fit for this location.”
Cranston Staff Memo: An 8-page memo from the Cranston City Plan Commission to the City Planning Department addresses the COSTCO plan:
VIII. Recommendation
The City Plan Commission has been provided with a wide range of expert testimony, various supplementary documents, commentary, expert opinions, and objections from the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has tried our best to vet this complex information for you as best we could. Key to all of this is the understanding that this is a zone change application, not a land development project.
The City is well equipped to handle the mitigation strategies of a development proposal such as this since this development is not atypical. The Comprehensive Plan has been shown consistent with the proposal in some aspects, but is silent and unclear in others. Ultimately, the City Plan Commission has been specifically empowered to interpret the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff therefore offers no specific recommendation on the proposed MPD ordinance amendment. We further recommend that the City Plan Commission weigh the merits and deficiencies of this particular application and exercise their own rational judgement to decide if this application is an appropriate future land use at this location and how it conforms or not to the Comprehensive Plan.
Another ZOOM meeting will be held Tuesday, a continuation of the Planning Meeting. Thursday is the Ordinance Committee meeting. They will issue a recommendation – it is important for those who want to express their opinion attend that meeting.
Put it in West Warwick. Arctic area