Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Joint Public Hearing
With the
Salem City Council
Wednesday July 19, 2006
A joint public hearing was held with the Salem Planning Board and the Salem City Council on Wednesday July 19, 2006 for the purpose of discussing a proposed zoning amendment for Drive–Through facilities. Notice of this hearing was posted on July 7, 2006 at 10:46 a.m. and advertised in the Salem Evening News on June 29 & July 6, 2006. The meeting was held in the Salem City Council Chambers at Salem City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. at 6:00 p.m.
Planning Board members present were: Walter Power, Gene Collins, John Moustakis, Pam Lombardini, Tim Kavanagh, and Tim Ready. Also present were City Solicitor Beth Rennard, Staff Planner Dan Merhalski and Eileen Sacco, Clerk.
Planning Board Members Absent: Christine Sullivan, Paul Durand, and Chuck Puleo
City Councilor’s present were: Council President Jean Pelletier, Ward One Councilor Lucy Corchardo, Ward Two Councilor Mike Sosnowski, Ward Four Councilor Leonard O’Leary, Ward Five Councilor Matt Veno, Ward Six Councillor Paul Prevy, Ward Seven Councilor Joseph O’Keefe, Councilors At Large Arthur Sargent, Councilor Tom Furey, Councilor Joan Lovely, and Councilor Mark Blair.
City Councilors Absent were: None
Councilor Pelletier called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Councilor Pelletier asked if any members of the City Council wished to comment on the proposed zoning amendment.
Councilor Furey addressed the Council and stated that he felt that approving this would be a serious mistake and that the Council should leave the decision making on special permits to the experts. Councilor Pelletier interrupted Councilor Furey and clarified which zoning proposal was being discussed, noting that the meeting was not about the proposal submitted by Councilor Sargent that is currently before the city council. He explained that this discussion is regarding the proposal submitted by the Mayor which calls for the special permit granting authority by the Planning Board.
Councilor Blair asked for a review of the proposed zoning amendment for the information of the public.
Dan Merhalski explained the proposed zoning amendment regarding drive through facilities and explained that this is an attempt to tighten up the language that was passed at the last meeting as a stop gap measure. He noted the areas affected on the zoning map and reviewed the ordinance.
Dan Merhalski explained the process for the granting of a special permit that is proposed as well as the standards as follows:
Powers and Administrative Procedures:
The Planning Board is hereby designated the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) for Drive Through Plan Approval. The SPGA shall adopt rules relative to the issuance of special permits for Drive Through Plan Approval and file a copy with the City Clerk. The SPGA shall follow the procedural requirements for special permits as set forth in Section 9 of M.G.L. Chapter 40A After notice and public hearing and after due consideration of the reports and recommendations of other City boards, commissions and or departments the SPGA may grant such a permit. The SPGA shall also impose, in addition to any applicable conditions specified in the this section, such applicable conditions as the SPGA finds reasonably appropriate to improve the site design, traffic flow, safety and or otherwise serve the purpose of this
section. Such conditions shall be imposed in writing and the applicant may be required to post a bond or other surety for compliance with said conditions in an amount satisfactory to the SPGA.
Applicability:
This section applies to all uses identified as requiring a Special Permit for Drive-Through Facilities in Article V, Section 5-3 (f), and Section 7-21 North River Canal Corridor (NRCC)
RC R1 R2 R3 B1 B2 B4 B5 I NRCC
DT Fast Food N N N N N SP N N SP N
DT Other Use N N N N N SP N N SP SP
Traffic Impact Study:
4.1 A detailed traffic impact analysis in accordance with professional engineering standards is required for any special permit or site plan approval application containing a drive through facility for Fast Food. The SPGA may require a traffic impact study for other drive through facilities. A registered professional engineer experienced and qualified in traffic engineering shall prepare the traffic impact study.
4.2 A proposed mitigation plan must be included: A plan (with supporting text)
to minimize traffic and safety impacts through such means as physical design
and layout concepts, or other appropriate means; and an interior traffic and pedestrian circulation plan designated to minimize conflicts and safety problems. Measures shall be proposed to achieve the following post development standards: All streets and intersections to be impacted by the project shall have the same Level of Service or better than pre-development conditions.
5.0 Standards
5.1 There must be a minimum of 200 feet between curb cuts, unless waived by the SPGA.
5.2 The width of any curb cut shall not exceed 25 feet, unless the traffic impact study identifies the need for a larger curb cut and the requirement is waived by the SPGA
5.3 Curb cuts must be sufficiently setback from intersections and directional restrictions (i.e. right in/out only and/or a restrictive medium)
5.4 A system of joint use driveways and cross access easements shall be established wherever feasible and the proposed development shall incorporate the following:
5.4.1 A service drive or cross access corridor extending the width of the parcel
5.4.2 Sufficient width to accommodate two-way travel sides
5.4.3 Stub-outs and other design features to make it visually obvious that the abutting properties may be tied in to provide cross-access via a service drive.
5.5 Developments that provide service drives between properties may be permitted a 10% reduction in the required number of parking spaces. If information can be provided to show that peak demand periods of development with shared parking or a service drive connection are not simultaneous, the number of required parking spaces may be reduced by 20%.
5.6 Drive-through facilities shall provide a minimum of eight (8) stacking spaces (within the site) before the order board. The facility shall provide another four (4) stacking spaces between the order board and the transaction window. If the facility has two transaction windows the four (4) stacking spaces may be split between each of the windows. An additional stacking space shall be provided adjacent to the last transaction window.
5.7 Each stacking space shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in length and ten (10) feet in width along straight portions. Stacking spaces and stacking lane shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width along curved segments.
5.8 Stacking lanes shall be delineated from traffic aisles, other stacking lands and parking areas with striping, curbing, landscaping, and/or the use of alternative paving materials or raised medians.
5.9 Entrances to stacking lane(s) shall be clearly marked and a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the curb cut measured at the property line.
5.10 Stacking lanes shall be designed to prevent circulation congestion, both on site and on adjacent public streets. The circulation shall:
(a) Separate drive through traffic from site circulation
(b) Not impede access into or out of parking spaces
(c) Not impede or impair vehicle or pedestrian traffic movement
(d) Minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Stacking lanes shall not interfere with required loading and trash storage areas and loading or trash operations shall not impede or impair vehicle movement within stacking lanes. If said separate stacking lane is curbed, an emergency by-pass or exit shall be provided.
5.11 Any outdoor service facilities (including menu boards, speakers etc.) shall be a minimum of one hundred (100) feet from the property line of a residential use. A landscaped buffer and solid wooden panel fence must be provided to screen the abutting residential use. The landscaped buffer must be a minimum of twenty (20) feet along the side and rear yards abutting residential property.
5.12 Menu boards shall be a maximum of thirty (30) square feet, with a maximum height of six (6) feet in height and shall be shielded from any public street and residential properties.
5.13 A leveling area shall be provided having a minus one percent (-1%) grade for a distance of thirty (30) feet measured from the nearest exterior line of the intersecting street, to the point of vertical curvature.
5.14 When a drive-through is proposed on a property with an historic building, the architectural character defining the exterior elements of the historic building shall be preserved. Signage should be compatible with the historic character of the building.
Dan Merhalski also reviewed the provisions in the ordinance for compliance, appeals, invalidity and definitions.
Councilor O’Leary asked if the process would include Site Plan Review. Mr. Merhalski noted that if the proposal met the threshold requirements for the Planning Board, then Site Plan Review would be part of the process.
Councilor Veno stated that he liked the standards set forth in the zoning amendment and asked how they were drafted. Mr. Merhalski stated that they were written by City Planner Lynn Duncan in conjunction with City Solicitor Beth Rennard and noted that they looked at ordinances from other communities.
Councilor Furey asked if existing drive through facilities would be eliminated by this ordinance. Mr. Merhalski explained that this would be for new proposals and the existing ones would be grandfathered.
Councilor Pelletier noted that the matter of this ordinance is on the Planning Board agenda for tomorrow night. Mr. Merhalski explained that they anticipated that the Council would refer the matter to the Planning Board and advertised and posted the agenda ahead of time. Councilor Pelletier questioned if the matter being on the agenda tomorrow would allow enough time for public input. Walter Power noted that the public will be allowed to speak at the meeting.
Councilor Mark Blair requested that the use of speakers be addressed in the ordinance noting that on Canal Street the speakers at McDonalds can be heard across the street at the Shell gas station. Councilor Sargent noted that there are regulations regarding noise decibel levels.
Councilor Sargent stated that he and Councillor Sosnowski sponsored a Council order regarding Drive through facilities because there was no law governing them and they want things to run smoothly. He noted that there is a gridlock on Canal Street due to the drive through facilities on that street. He noted that the drive through facilities on Highland Avenue, (Burger King, McDonalds, and Taco Bell) are examples of good drive though facilities. He also noted that he would like to see if it would be possible to hold separate meetings for the buildings and the drive throughs and vote on them separately. He also suggested that the drive through should be a renewable option and if there are problems with them they can be taken away. He explained that if the owners know that there is a
possibility that they can lose it they will do the right thing.
Councilor Pelletier opened the hearing up for public comment at this time.
Patricia Donahue, a member of the NRCC working group addressed the Councilors and Planning Board members and stated that she is firmly opposed to changing the NRCC zoning ordinance to include drive through facilities. She noted that the group was very specific that no drive through facilities be allowed in the area and there is no purpose in allowing them. She also noted that they focused on more residential uses for the neighborhood noting that they would like to see more waterfront development of Franklin Street. She also stated that as far as she is concerned there are enough drive through facilities and we do not need anymore.
Patricia Murphy of 27 Foster Street addressed the Councilors and the Planning Board members and expressed her concern about traffic on North Street and noted the congestion at the Citco station where there is a Dunkin Donuts.
James Rose of 25 Linden Street addressed the Councilors and the Planning Board members and noted that there is a proposal coming up for a bank, a CVS and a Dunkin Donuts on Canal Street noting that the area is already congested.
Julianne Keller addressed the Councilors and the Planning Board members and noted that she agrees with Councilor Sargent and is opposed to the amendment.
Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street addressed the Councilors and the Planning Board members and noted that she is opposed to the NRCC zoning change. She noted that the proposal was the result of a well thought out process by the members of the NRCC working group. She also questioned why the Planning Board would be the Special Permit Granting Authority and suggested that it should be under the prevue of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Harold ?? of 122 Federal Street addressed the Councilors and the Planning Board members and urged the Councilors to be careful and deal with the issues separately. He also urged them not to undo the NRCC. He also noted that there may be merit to having drive through facilities in certain areas.
Rita Marcounis of 192 Federal Street addressed the Councilors and the Planning Board members and noted that she was shocked that they were considering an amendment to the NRCC. She noted that the NRCC is about preservation and quality of life and we do not need anymore squawk boxes or ATM’s.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt Street addressed the Councilors and the Planning Board members and noted that he is a certified city planner. He stated that the permission of “Drive-Through’s – Other” in the NRCC as a special permit based on land use, development potential and traffic considerations. He noted that the only appropriate location might be the former Sylvania site on Boston Street and Bridge Street. He noted that as proposed a free standing bank facility and intersection is inconsistent with the plan objectives for “urban village/gateway communities, landmark buildings with an emphasis on a pedestrian environment”. He noted that further objective criteria be incorporated as an integral part of permitted developments.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he would heartily support oversight of this review process by our duly elected City Councilors noting that the current amendment does not accomplish this at all. He also stated that he would submit that council review and approval rules Section 7-22-2 /sign off-endorsement of Special Permit decision (7-22-6.2) review/endorse changes to approved plan (7-22-6.4) and of congestion/nuisance results – Special Permit be revoked until corrected to the satisfaction of the council and the SPGA.
Mr. Treadwell also stated that we have no traffic planning expertise and questioned who will advise the SPGA with regard to traffic impacts and scrutinize traffic analysis. He also questioned if a traffic authority has reviewed this proposed amendment and offered counsel. He also noted that the character of the city/design the zoning input should require the review of the Design Review Board as in the Ordinance for the NRCC. He also suggested that section 2 add land use impact, neighborhood character as appropriate considerations for further review. He also suggested that section 2 include a provision for the posting of a surety as a requirement not an option.
Mr. Treadwell questioned who will fund the traffic impact analysis noting an appearance of conflict and also who would select the registered engineer to do the traffic analysis. He also questioned who would provide technical oversight noting that section 4 is silent on this.
Mr. Treadwell referred to the section on Level of Service and questioned if this is an appropriate measurement (.6) increase of congestion. He also questions if Councilors realize that this is only for intersections. He also noted that section 4.2 refers to pedestrian traffic around the site. He also noted that section 5.1 refers to curb cuts and asked if there is a maximum number of the curb cuts allowed.
Mr. Treadwell referred to section 5.2 and questioned what is a sufficient setback from intersection and asked if there was a standard for that.
Mr. Treadwell questioned whether directional restrictions have worked where they have been imposed. He noted the Beverly Coop site and the Citco Station on North Street. He also noted that the zoning ordinance does not address parking requirements or loading spaces locations or refuse area locations.
Mr. Treadwell addressed the issue of noise and asked if there are requirements for decibel levels on audio equipment and location in regards to abutting properties.
Mr. Treadwell addressed landscaping and suggested a height and width for the fence should be specified.
Mr. Treadwell also suggested that changes should be subject to a public hearing as well as be scrutinized by the City Council. He also stated that stacking is a good principal but questioned what the basis of it was.
Mr. Treadwell also suggested that the hours of operation and hours of delivery restrictions should be addressed as well.
Councilor O’Keefe addressed the Councilors and the Planning Board members and noted that he agrees with Mr. Treadwell that the City Council should have the Special Permit Granting Authority and asked that Mr. Treadwell submit his written comments to the City Clerk.
Councilor Prevy addressed the Councilors and the Planning Board members and stated that he is opposed to the amendment to the NRCC and noted he feels that it undercuts the intent of the NRCC. He also noted that he has concerns about existing business and the congestion in the area.
Councilor Veno addressed the Councilors and the Planning Board members and noted that there are three drive through facilities proposed for the Bertini’s property on Canal street and he also agrees that the NRCC should not be amended.
Councilor Sosnowski addressed the Councilors and the Planning Board members and stated that this is not a bad document but noted that there are a lot of things that have been left out that need to be discussed further.
Councilor Lovely addressed the Councilors and the Planning Board members and stated that she appreciates the comments that have been made this evening and referred to section 5-14 and suggested that the language be tightened up so that the historic neighborhoods are protected.
Councilor O’Leary addressed the Councilors and the Planning Board members and stated that he also appreciated the comments made this evening and noted that he is upset that drive through’s could be in residential neighborhoods.
Councilor Pelletier noted that the Dunkin Donuts at the former Bob’s Fried Clams site avoided the review process by coming in under the 10,000 s.f. threshold for site plan review.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter Councilor O’Leary moved that the public hearing be closed. Councilor O’Keefe seconded the motion. The motion carried (11-0).
Councilor O’Keefe moved that the matter be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation. It was so voted (11-0).
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board and the City Council this evening a motion was made by Councilor O’Keefe to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Councilor O’Leary and approved (10-0)
The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
__________________________
Eileen M. Sacco, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
PBCC071906
| 
