Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
February 15, 2007
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 15, 2007, in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 7:00 p.m.
Those present were: Walter Power, John Moustakis, Gene Collins, Tim Kavanagh, Chuck Puleo, Pam Lombardini, Nadine Hanscom, and Timothy Ready. Also present were Staff Planner Dan Merhalski, and Ian Fullerton, Clerk.
Members Absent: Christine Sullivan
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Power reviewed the minutes for the Planning Board meeting held on January 18th, 2007.
There being no questions or comments regarding the matter, a motion was made by Ms. Lombardini to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Puleo, and approved (7-0).
Continuation of Public Hearing – Request to Amend Site Plan Review Decision – Stutz Volvo – 209 Highland Ave. (Map 8, Lot 139) – Beth Rennard
Mr. Merhalski stated that Ms. Rennard had requested a continuation of the public hearing until April 5th, 2007.
There being no further questions or comments regarding the matter at this time, a motion was made by Mr. Moustakis to continue the public hearing on April 5th, 2007, seconded by Ms. Lombardini, and approved (7-0).
Continuation of Public Hearing Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Residential Development Special Permit – Chapel Hill LLC – Clark Avenue (Map 6, Lots 6, 7, 8) – Atty. Jack Keilty
Mr. Merhalski stated that Mr. Keilty had sent a letter requesting that the Planning Board continue the public hearing on March 15th, 2007, and also to extend the statutory time for the Planning Board to act until May 24th, 2007.
There being no further questions or comments regarding the matter at this time, a motion was made by Mr. Puleo to continue the public hearing to March 15th, 2007, and to extend the statutory time for the Planning Board to act until May 24th, 2007, seconded by Ms. Hanscom, and approved (8-0).
Continuation of Public Hearing – Site Plan Review and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit – North River Canal, LLC -28 Goodhue Street (Map 16, Lot 372) – Joseph Correnti
Mr. Correnti, representing North River Canal, LLC, addressed the Planning Board in regards to a Site Plan Review and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for 28 Goodhue Street. Mr. Correnti noted that the developers had met twice with the Conservation Commission since they had last gone before the Planning Board, and had met with the Design Review Board for the third time. He noted the DRB had requested that the developers revise a few details in the plan pertaining to the building’s architectural features.
Mr. Correnti addressed the issue of fencing along the canal, stating that the DRB had approved a proposed 2 foot high wooden railing. Mr. Correnti noted that the DBR had not wanted to set precedent in enforcing a particular type of fence for the walkway, and had cited that the proposed wooden fence would be easy to remove if it were to be replaced in the future. Mr. Correnti stated that the developers were concerned with the safety issue as well as the aesthetic aspect of the walkway.
At this point Tom Galvin, the architect for the project, addressed the Planning Board. Mr. Galvin noted that the developers had revised the landscaping near the plaza to include low planting beds, as well as a portico to emphasize the entrance and the sitting area. He also noted that the color scheme of the building had been revised, which now included a tan banding on the base. Mr. Galvin stated that they had added two bay windows at each end of the building, and one more bay window on the side elevations of the building.
Mr. Puleo inquired as to the reconsideration of roofing material in the Site Plan. Mr. Galvin stated that other materials had been considered apart from the proposed fiber glass shingles, including a polysynthetic slate shingle. Mr. Galvin stated that these shingles wouldn’t have the desired curve line on the roof and would be too expensive for the project. Mr. Puleo asked if the DRB had commented on the color of the fiber glass shingles. Mr. Galvin stated that the DRB had not made any negative comments concerning the color.
Mr. Moustakis asked Mr. Galvin to review the bay window modifications. Mr. Galvin stated that the new windows were meant to break up the linear facade of the building. Mr. Power asked if the new windows would extend further out than the original windows. Mr. Galvin stated that they would not, and that all windows would extend out 30 inches from the building.
Mr. Power asked if the commercial store windows in the front of the building were designed with the Salem Standard Design Handbook in mind. Mr. Galvin stated that the handbook had been considered in the design of the building. Mr. Correnti stated that the issue had been discussed thoroughly with the DRB, and that the developers were satisfied with the plan’s design.
Mr. Power asked if businesses in the building would be able to have tables and chairs in the plaza area. Mr. Correnti stated that the developers had intended for the building to be pedestrian-friendly.
Mr. Power inquired as to the parking in the rear of the building. Ms. Hanscom noted that the issue of the PVC material being used for the pillars had been addressed in the last meeting. Mr. Galvin displayed an illustration to show where the overhang was located. He also noted that the developers had revised the plan and the pillars would now be made of pre-cast concrete.
Ms. Hanscom asked if there would be enough parking underneath the building to accommodate all of the building’s tenants. Mr. Galvin stated that the internal parking spots would be assigned to the residential units and that the outdoor parking would be used as commercial and visitors’ spaces.
Mr. Power asked if the overhang had been assigned a fire rating. Mr. Correnti stated that when the construction plans were complete they would require review and approval from the building inspector.
Mr. Power asked if the building had been assigned an energy star rating for the insulation of the building. Mr. Galvin stated that the insulation would be reviewed and rated once the construction plans were completed. Mr. Power asked if the building would have fireplaces. Mr. Galvin stated that the there would not be fireplaces in the building.
Mr. Power inquired as to the parking requirements for the building. Mr. Correnti stated that each of the 44 condominiums had 2 spaces each, in addition to 30 commercial spaces, making a total of 120 spaces
Mr. Power stated that considerable thought should be put into the design of the parking lot in front and the surrounding streets. Mr. Correnti stated that the developers had committed $20,000 towards a traffic study for the area. Mr. Power asked if those funds would be given to the city. Mr. Correnti stated they would be.
In regards to the proposed walkway, Mr. Power asserted he felt that a chain link would be best for a barrier between the walkway and the canal, and he cited the NRCC’s aversion to allow a chain link to be constructed. Mr. Correnti stated that the developers shared the interest in safety, and that they were trying to find a middle ground between the public and the city’s preferences as to what will be done with the area. Mr. Power suggested a 4 foot tall pressure treated wooden fence to be set in concrete. Mr. Galvin exhibited an illustration of a pressure treated wooden fence that the developers had been considering.
Mr. Correnti stated that the developers were willing to take a condition that they would put up a fence, details to be determined with the Planning Department, to solve the safety issue concerning the canal.
Mr. Ready suggested that the Planning Board should broaden rather than limit the developers’ options concerning the construction of the fence. Mr. Power asserted that the fence should be 4 feet high.
At this point the hearing was opened up to public comment.
Martin Imm of 174 Federal Street commented that the master plan stated that the space where the parking lot was proposed to be built was originally intended as green space. He added that, although safety is an important issue, the aesthetic element of the project should be added to the criteria. Mr. Imm also suggested that exit ladders should be put in the canal.
Mr. Imm stated he felt the parking overhang on the southern side of the building was unattractive. Mr. Galvin stated that the landscaping would block the view of the overhang from the street.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt Street commented that the DRB had approved the project with significant landscaping in the plan, adding that the DRB had left the issue of benches and lighting fixtures to the discretion of the Planning Board. He also noted that the parking had met the requirements of the NRCC. Mr. Treadwell reiterated that the NRCC requested that chain link fencing would not be used for the barrier along the canal.
Mr. Treadwell requested that the developers clarify for him the language in the site review concerning the 100 year flood plain in regards to the building, noting that at the last Conservation Commission meeting it was stated that the contour for the flood level was at 10.5. Jim McDowell stated that the first floor was at 11.75; there being no basement, he asserted that the building was above the 100 year flood level.
Roger Ledger of 64 Marlboro Road stated in regards to the fence that, in the event of a snow storm, a natural drift would make it easy for children to make it over the fence, therefore suggesting that the fence should be reasonably high.
Mr. Power requested that the plan for the benches and the lighting be reviewed. Mr. Galvin stated that the benches would be 60-80 feet apart, and that the benches would be 6 feet wide, made of wood slab with a metal frame. In regards to the lighting, Mr. Galvin stated that there would be cut-off fixtures along the walkway and in the parking lot.
There being no further questions or comments regarding the matter at this time, a motion was made by Mr. Moustakis to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Hanscom, and approved (8-0).
At this point Mr. Merhalski read aloud the Draft Decision.
In regards to section 9, sub-point C, Mr. Power suggested that the there should be added language regarding toddler safety, as well as the height and weight limit requirements for the fence. Mr. Power requested of Mr. Treadwell that the NRCC reverse their restriction on chain link fences, citing the safety benefit; Mr. Treadwell declined.
In regards to section 18, sub-point C, Ms. Hanscom suggested that there be clarification of the developers’ intent to give the city a permanent easement pertaining to the walkway.
There being no further questions or comments regarding the matter, a motion was made by Mr. Collins to approve the plan, seconded by Ms. Lombardini, and approved (8-0).
Continuation of Public Hearing – Drive Through Facilities Special Permit and Site Plan Review Special Permit – Tri-City Sales and CVS Pharmacy – 262-272 Ave. (Map 8, Lots 99, 100, 104, 105) – Joseph Correnti
Mr. Correnti, representing Tri-City Sales and CVS Pharmacy, addressed the Planning Board in regards to a Drive Through Facilities Special Permit and Site Plan Review Special Permit for 262-272 Ave. Mr. Correnti noted that the city had requested and received a peer review on the traffic in the area surrounding the site.
At this point Gary Hebert, the traffic consultant peer reviewer for the City, addressed the Planning Board in regards to the traffic study. Mr. Hebert stated that the study had surveyed a reasonable number of locations and had been conducted during several different peak hours of operation. Mr. Herbert noted it was clear that the during peak hours the driveways of Highland Ave. and Marlborough Road would be operating poorly. He stated that Highland Ave. carries roughly 24,000 vehicles per day, and Marlborough Road carries just under 20,000 vehicles per day. Mr. Herbert stated the analysis showed that the level of service on Marlborough Road during peak hours would be operating two to four times the capacity as would allow for proper site and street circulation.
Mr. Herbert stated that the study did not sufficiently address the issue of traffic back up at the traffic signal and how it would effect the driveway operations within the site. He stated that the driveways to the site would be blocked more than 50% of the time.
Mr. Moustakis asked what the daily traffic statistics were for the opposite side of Highland Ave. Mr. Herbert stated that the two roads combined accumulated 40,000 vehicles per day.
At this point Mr. Herbert displayed an aerial photo of the site and the surrounding area. Mr. Herbert suggested that exiting traffic should leave the site via Verona Street, but that access into the site should not be allowed via Verona Street. He stated that the big issues concerning the traffic flow were the driveways being blocked and the widening of the Highland Ave. entrance. Mr. Herbert stated that the entrance should only be slightly widened, by 3 feet at the most, to avoid blocking the bus stop.
Mr. Herbert stated that the intersection currently had a higher automobile accident percentage than the statewide average.
Mr. Moustakis noted that there were 133 planned homes to be built off of Marlborough Road and that would add traffic pressure to the area. Mr. Herbert stated that those proposed houses had been included in the analysis. He stated that the 5 year projection had shown that the situational traffic would be worse in the future.
Mr. Ready asked if the plan prevented exiting onto Marlborough Road and turning left. Mr. Herbert stated he would not recommend that action be allowed because it would cause blockage at the intersection.
Mr. Power asked if there would be “do not enter” signage at each end of Verona Street. Mr. Herbert stated that there would be.
Mr. Kavanagh suggested that the Verona Street exit would divert drivers from exiting onto Marlborough Road. Mr. Hebert noted that it would be difficult to enforce a “right out only” rule onto Marlborough Road.
Mr. Power suggested that there be two lanes out of Verona Street onto Highland Ave. Mr. Herbert suggested keeping the Verona Street exit as one lane.
At this point the hearing was opened up to public comment.
Steven Disick of 10 Greenlawn Ave. stated that regardless of signage, drivers will continue to cut through Verona Street after exiting the site or coming from Highland Ave. Mr. Power suggested that a barrier should be placed at the exit to discourage drivers from taking a left turn out of the site.
Chuck Barton of 26 Marlborough Road concurred with Mr. Disick in that signage or curbing would not prevent drivers from using Verona Street as a detour off of Highland Ave. Mr. Barton stated he felt that the interior flow of traffic around the CVS seemed odd without an exit onto Marlborough Road. Mr. Herbert restated that right turn exits onto Marlborough Road could be possible but that they would disrupt the flow of traffic within the site.
Mr. Power suggested the possibility of sealing off Verona Street above the entrance from Highland Ave. and reserving it as an emergency lane. Christopher Iannuzzi, the site engineer, suggested that a geometric deterrent be designed to stop drivers from taking a right onto Verona Street from Highland Ave. Mr. Herbert stated this could be a possibility.
At this point Alan Cloutier, engineer, addressed the Planning Board. Mr. Cloutier suggested that signage on site could defer drivers from taking a right onto Marlborough Road when exiting. He added that one way circulation within the site would be troublesome and may congest traffic. Mr. Cloutier noted that the developers had met informally with Mass Highway and they hadn’t objected to the right in/right out entrance on Highland Ave.
Mr. Correnti stated that the entrance/exit from Highland was necessary to allow traffic to exit the site. Mr. Moustakis commented that the traffic flow within the site was confusing and it would be generally difficult to head towards Peabody upon exiting.
Mr. Kavanagh stated that drivers waiting to make a left hand turn from Marlborough onto Highland would impede traffic going into the site. Mr. Herbert noted that drivers would push their way out to make the left turn and that it would cause back up on the site, as well as compromise safety.
Mr. Correnti suggested that the developers stay in contact with Mr. Herbert and form a consensus for the next meeting as to what will work for the site in terms of exiting and traffic flow.
Seven Gilcrest of 4 Greenlawn Ave. asked if it would be possible to employ Jersey barriers to prevent exiting vehicles from turning left onto Verona Street. Mr. Cloutier stated that Jersey barriers in particular would not be used, but that there would be a horizontal crest to prevent vehicles from taking a right onto Verona that could also be used to prevent the exiting left turn onto Verona Street.
At this point William Starck, architect in place of Chris Hollis, addressed the Planning Board in regards to the architecture of the buildings. Mr. Starck noted that cut-out windows would be used in the front of the Tri-City Sales showroom. Mr. Correnti noted that this feature was added upon the Planning Board’s request.
Mr. Moustakis asked if the Dunkin Donuts could be located in the back of the building to help clear up the traffic flow and improve the appearance of the two buildings. Mr. Starck stated that this would decrease the number of parking spaces on the site.
Mr. Power asked if the site would save space if the Dunkin Donuts was placed on the Verona Street side of the building. Mr. Starck stated that there would be less queuing ability within the site if the Dunkin Donuts changed location.
There being no further questions or comments regarding the matter at this time, a motion was made by Mr. Collins to continue the public hearing on March 1st, 2007, seconded by Ms. Lombardini, and approved (8-0).
Old/New Business
Mr. Puleo suggested that the Planning Department compose a letter stating the Planning Board’s position on the Mullin Rule. Mr. Merhalski suggested that it would be more effective if each member wrote a letter individually to City Council.
Mr. Moustakis presented a letter from Beth Rennard in regard to the St. Joseph’s lawsuit. Mr. Merhalski stated that the John Carr lawsuit was directed at the Zoning Board of Appeals and not the Planning Board.
Mr. Moustakis asked what would happen if the P.U.D. was approved for 4 stories instead of 6 stories. Mr. Kavanagh stated that they would have to come back before the Planning Board with new plans.
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was made by Mr. Collins to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Puleo, and approved (8-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Ian Fullerton, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
| 
