Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
December 20, 2007
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, December 20, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Walter Power, Pam Lombardini, John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, Gene Collins, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present were: Lynn Duncan, Director of the Department of Planning & Community Development, Amy Lash, Staff Planner, and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes for the December 6, 2007 Planning Board meeting were reviewed. Walter Power suggested the following changes: On page 3, 3rd paragraph, take first sentence out, then in the last sentence after “…for the City” add in “to balance infrastructure gains”. Also on page 3, second to last paragraph, after “…about knowing” add in “the difference between”. Same paragraph last sentence change “they are” to “the Planning Board is” and after “presentation” add in “by the developer”.
A motion was made by Walter Power to accept the minutes with these changes, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved unanimously.
Continued: Public Hearing Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Residential Development Special Permit- Chapel Hill LLC, Clark Avenue (Map 8, Lots 6,7,8) – Attorney Jack Keilty
Note: Christine Sullivan recused herself from this agenda item.
Attorney John Keilty, representing Chapel Hill LLC, said that they are moving toward a compromise between the City and his client. At the site visit, Board members were able to see the layout of Clark St and Clark Ave. He also said there was a discussion during the site visit regarding the neighbor to the left of the subdivision entrance (the Tran’s) whose property has some arborvitae trees. If the road was constructed as planed, the trees adjacent to their property would have to be moved. Mr. Keilty said if the Fire Department approved changes to the layout of the subdivision entrance the trees could be saved.
Jack Keilty had a meeting with Faye, Spofford & Thorndike, the City’s Peer Review Engineer. He said there were still a few remaining issues, which are outline in the latest memo from FS&T. One issue is the drainage problems at the intersection of Clark Ave and Clark St, which they are willing to help the City with. Mr. Keilty said they received a memo from Mr. Knowlton, City Engineer, which had outlined three infrastructure improvements that the City need assistance with to support the proposed development a) new sewer pump, b) infiltration and infill study and removal, and c) drainage improvements at the intersection of Clark St and Clark Ave.
Attorney Keilty said another issue that has come up is the potential road widening down on Clark Street where a rock outcropping lies partially within the public way; his client is not interested in addressing this issued. His client is also not interested in the providing sidewalks during the short stretch from Clark St up Clark Ave heading up the hill. When Eastern Land Survey marked the public way with stakes, it showed there was encroachment by private property owners. Attorney Keilty does not believe it’s his client’s responsibility to widen the road as the pavement width near the rock is the required 24 ft. Attorney Keilty mentioned that the City’s cost to do the work is inflated over their costs. Additional expenses Attorney Keilty mentioned that have been added to
the project include the Fire Department’s sprinkler requirement and the Board of Health’s requirement for radon testing.
Chuck Puleo said on the site visit he noticed a double catch basin between #16 and #20 Clark St. Amy said she understood from the City Engineer that the improvements would tie into that system. Chuck asked if the City had a schedule to repave Clark Rd and if so, how would this project fit into that schedule?
Walter Power doesn’t think the area where you go up the hill and turn near the rock is a safe situation. He suggested rounding off the corner and putting a sidewalk.
Nadine Hanscom asked if the rock is on City property. Chuck explained that it was partially on private land and partially in the City right of way. Nadine asked if the rock was removable. It’s unknown at this time. Nadine questioned why Attorney Keilty and his client did not want to undertake the rock issue. Mr. Keilty said that whether it’s right or wrong to remove it they did not want undertake such a project on private property.
Tim Ready said that it is imperative that the coordination of paving takes place so that a new street isn’t disrupted with construction.
Lynn Duncan mentioned that Steve Casazza of Faye, Spofford & Thorndike, was present at the meeting and could update the Board on the instructions they had given him last time.
Mr. Casazza said that last time there was a question about would happen if a school bus was traveling on the street while there were parked cars along the side. He made a scale model of a vehicle 40 feet long and 8 ½ feet wide and placed it over the proposed plan. The school bus was able to pass with no problems in the area where the waiver is being requested for the centerline radius. Where there is a slight crossover is at Kimberly & Clark Ave, it’s a 90-degree turn and that’s not uncommon.
Chuck asked Steve Casazza, in regards to where the vortex system is going to be installed, if he is comfortable where that system drains. Steve said yes and also explained that the calculations were reviewed as well as the location. This first location for the system had been in the back end, but FS&T had recommended it be put at the front end and it was revised.
Walter Power commented that with this cluster subdivision and all the issues they have been talking about, the narrow street and rock/sidewalk issues are imperative to handling additional traffic. Walter mentioned he remembered a similar issue with another project with a narrow road and rock, and that developer was required to remove the rock. He also said that if the developer wants the units, there has to be substantial benefits to the City and that the developer should work with the City to make the roads passable.
Chuck Puleo pointed out the rock’s location to other members of the Board. He noted that there is 24 ft of pavement even with the rock there, and with the rock on private property its removal would be complicated.
Attorney Keilty said they will work with the City on the timing of the repaving. He also mentioned that with the Infiltration and Inflow study and removal, they need to examine and seal pipes.
Lynn Duncan said that she will ask the City Engineer what would be involved with cutting back part of the rock that is on the right of way. Walter Power said that the rock made it difficult to see at the bend in the road.
Lynn Duncan mentioned that Christine Sullivan is not present during this discussion due to a potential conflict of interest.
The meeting was opened to the public.
Ellen Rogato (13 Clark Ave) asked if the Peer Review Engineer was saying that based on tests, Kimberly Road does not require a waiver? Steve Casazza said that when they did the overlay in the location a waiver is needed, it showed that the bus did not create a safety hazard. Ellen Rogato asked what would happen if she had blasting or flooding issues? She said she has never had water in her basement before; would a survey be done incase she has problems after the project was completed? Lynn Duncan said she was not aware of a pre construction survey being done for flooding. Amy Lash mentioned that she had brought informational handouts on blasting to the meeting for those that had concerns. She also spoke with Lt. Griffin of the Fire Department who encouraged property owners outside of
the 250’ pre-blast survey area to take photos. Taking photos would also be away of showing damage from any flooding.
Sandra Tran (21 Clark Ave) asked how secure the retaining wall would be and if the sewer system would affect her property. Chuck Puleo mentioned that the developer would have to submit plans to the City for the wall. Amy Lash added that the Building Inspector could require the construction plans for the wall to be peer reviewed. Attorney Keilty said the sewer system would not impact her property.
Councilor Jean Pelletier (Ward 3) asked if the property has been surveyed. Jack Keilty said yes. He stated his concern that the number of homes will overflow the sewer pumping station. Will they run a new pipe? In regards to the rock, he said that he understands that the developer wouldn’t want to blast it. Councilor Pelletier would like to see the Board to ask the City Engineer to come in and address the Board for more clarification. He said the paving of Clark St was halted because of the drainage problem and Dunkin Donuts was being built.
Jeff Rogato (13 Clark Ave) mentioned the blind spot where the rock is on Clark Ave is dangerous. Maybe they could make the road have a less sharp turn. He also inquired as to whether he could get copies of the Planning Board meeting minutes. Amy Lash said that the minutes are available on the City’s website after final approval.
Councilor Pelletier will talk to the City Engineer about the rock, he will also talk to the homeowner. Nadine Hanscom would like to have this information for the next meeting. Lynn Duncan said the next meeting for Chapel Hill would be January 17th.
Walter Power had a question on the engineering. He asked about the sewage and the pumps and how much storage they will provide. Mr. Mello said that there are grinder pumps and built in wet wells. The submersible pumps are easily accessible and privately maintained. Walter asked about the gravity feed and asked if they would put connector pumps in. Mr. Mello said on Clark Ave they all have them.
Chuck Puleo asked who did the cost estimates for the drainage and I & I work. Attorney Keilty said the City did and that he believes that they could do the project for 25-30% less.
John Moustakis asked if they would have the City Engineer come in to address the Board. Lynn explained that that is why they brought in FS&T; they are paid for by the developer to serve as the engineer for the project. John asked if Councilor Pelletier is happy with that. Councilor Pelletier said he is and could speak with the City Engineer himself. Lynn Duncan said she likes the idea of the Councilor speaking with the City Engineer.
Amy Lash said that before the Board voted to continue the matter she wanted to mention that the Planning Department received a letter from Robert Strasnick, Attorney for David Colpitts stating his concerns. She noted Mr. Colpitts was concerned about industrial access in a residential neighborhood, he feels there are other alternatives for the site, and that the project does not meet the City’s design standards. She mentioned that members of the Planning Board all received copies of the letter and that it was available in the file for others who would like to read it in its entirety.
There being no further questions or comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the public hearing to January 17, 2008, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (7-0).
An additional motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to extend the deadline for final action to January 24, 2008, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (7-0). An extension form was signed by Attorney Keilty.
(Five-minute recess)
Public Hearing Site Plan Review– Washington at Derby LLC, 155 Washington Street, 26 New Derby Street & 31 Front Street (Map 34, Lots 423,425,426) (Former Salem News Building)- RCG LLC
Note: John Moustakis recused himself from this item.
Matthew Picarsic of RCG brought the Board up to date on the project and explained that they had been before the Salem Historic Commission, the Design Review Board, and then the Salem Redevelopment Authority. They received approval for the schematic design from the Redevelopment Authority with conditions.
Chuck Puleo asked if that means preliminary approval. Matt said yes they’d have to go back for final approval. Chuck mentioned that the previous proposal was 6 stories this is 4. Matt explained that the density and height of the proposal before the Board was within the zoning regulations. The existing building (central house) will remain with some renovations. The building will be residential on the top floors, retail on the first floor.
Christine said she did not like the windows and asked if they were reviewed. Matt said the windows were reviewed by the Design Review Board as far as size, shape and material. The color has yet to be determined.
Chuck Puleo asked about the number of spaces for parking. Matt mentioned there are 36 spaces on site, 31 on the surface, 5 enclosed, and 7 off-site. The 7 off site spaces will be by 76 Lafayette St (near the West Coast building).
Walter Power said he was concerned about the parking and disappointed with the parking lot; he feels there should be a garage and that this should be a component of the whole block’s redevelopment. Lynn Duncan mentioned that the project could possibly be phased. Matt Picarsic said it’s feasible that if the City comes up with improvements to Artists Row, it could be implemented. He said the plan doesn’t preclude a garage in the future.
Alex Steinberg said the City needs to come forward with a plan for the parking. RCG can’t do that; they can go forward with what they have. They’ve done as much as they can on this parcel. The parking lot could be entered from Derby, Lafayette or Washington.
Chuck Puleo asked how the seven off-site parking spaces would work. Matt said they would be for the units of the rehabilitated building.
Gene Collins asked if the project before them meets the parking requirements Matt said yes, it meets the requirements. Lynn asked Matt if visuals and figures for parking at 76 Lafayette St could be provided.
Christine Sullivan said she agrees with everyone’s comment. The City should push for parking, the corner is ugly, and the project is a great project for downtown. She asked about the sidewalk in front of the new building. Matt said it is a park. Christine said she would like to challenge whether it was a park or not. She said that she felt it could be used in a better way, like as an outdoor café area. Matt said that would be something they would consider being involved in.
(Meeting opened to the public)
Robert Wall (13 Crombie St. Unit #1) commended the project and asked what his view would be from his condo. Matt showed him on the plans. Robert Wall said he’d like to see diversity of form, more peaks than a flat roof because he doesn’t think this building fits the Salem look. Matt mentioned that the Design Review Board had opinions as well. They liked that the building pulled around New Derby St. Lynn Duncan mentioned that there would be other DRB meetings. Mr. Wall asked if there would be an awning.
Nadine Hanscom asked if there would be trees blocking the view of the parking lot. Matt said yes the existing street trees would remain. Nadine mentioned that the building itself doesn’t represent Salem, as the City is quainter than the building depicts.
Shirley Walker (resident of the Derby Lofts and member of the Beautification Committee) said they beautified Artists Row with great results. She suggests that if they’re looking for quaint, consider beautification. It would add culture and life.
Lynn Duncan said this was the most successful year for Artists Row and it’s caught on. They’ve been getting more proposals, thanks to the Beautification Committee and RCG.
Councillor Pelletier (Ward 3) thanked Matt and Alex. He said that the area mentioned as a park was actually open space under Rick Rennard’s jurisdiction. He mentioned that when they took a tree down near the Indian restaurant, and the restaurant owners will be putting seed down to grow others.
Christine Sullivan asked if they could show what the building will look like on the back (from Artists Row). She mentioned that on the Derby St. side, she thought the building was all brick, but it doesn’t look like it on the drawing. Alex said that two stories are brick; two stories are handy plank.
Chuck Puleo mentioned that the Board of Health will require a dumpster. The project architect mentioned that there is an internal compactor and that it’s serviced from the parking lot area.
Robert Wall asked what the material is at ground level. The architect said it was wood and glass. It was explained that they would keep in sync with existing building instead of bring in a new buildings with new materials. The DRB was happy with this approach of continuity. Lynn said that new buildings should be compatible, not mimic, older buildings.
Amy summarized a letter she received from Historic Salem Inc. that included suggestions for the site design. She said they would like to see access from the residential entrance in the rear of the building to New Derby Street. They would to see treatment of the parking lot paving and landscaping to make a pedestrian friendly path between the residential entrance and Front Street. Amy will copy this letter for the members of the Planning Board as well as other past letters from Historic Salem to the Design Review Board.
Amy read a letter from Hugh Kerr, of Passage to India; he is in support of the application and believes the project will be beneficial to his business.
Amy read a letter of support from Dennis Moustakis, owner of the Edgewater Café. He has been a tenant of that building for 5 years and looks forward to the restoration of the building.
Amy Lash said that the Fire Department is concerned with the width of the gate to the rear parking lot and that they would like to see the width increased to 18’ ft. They would like to see the sprinkler hook up location noted on the plans. If there are restaurants in the new spaces the applicant is aware the Fire Department is concerned about the ventilation.
Amy received a memo from David Knowlton, which has specific details he would like changed on the plan relative to the sewer lines. He has some additional details that he would like clarification on when they get to the building documents.
Walter requested that the Board gets copies of letters the Planning Department gets. Amy will get the copies of these letters to the Board members. Amy will also get the minutes of the Design Review Board meetings for the Planning Board members so they have an idea of the review that has taken place to date.
There being no further questions or comments, a motion was made by Gene Collins to continue the Public Hearing on January 3, 2008, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (7-0).
Old/New Business
o Many members of the Planning Board expressed interest I having a joint meeting with other Boards like the Design Review Board to discuss how the Boards work together.
Adjournment
There being no further business, a motion was made by Gene Collins to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (7-0).
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
| 
