 |
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
January 15, 2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, January 15, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Pam Lombardini, Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins, Tim Kavanaugh, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, Dave Weiner. Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk.
Public Hearing – Site Plan Review, Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit & North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street, 67-679 Mason Street & 71 Mason Street (Map 26, Lots 0091, 0095 & 0097) (former Salem Suede Property) – Attorney Scott Grover
Attorney Scott Grover, representing Riverview Place, introduced Dave Walsh, Jim McDowell, Steve Livermore, Architect, and Jeff Maxtutis. Attorney Scott Grover explained that this past December of 2008 they withdrew their petition and then refiled so they could have the full Board eligible to vote. Prior to withdrawal, many things had been discussed and the project has evolved tremendously. He feels they have better a project than 12 months ago when they first appeared in front of the Board. They filed their complete package with the Design Review Board today and are hoping for a recommendation for the next meeting. The focus of tonight’s Planning Board meeting is to be traffic; Riverview’s traffic engineers are in attendance (AE Com, formerly Earthtech), as are John Mirabito at
Ken Petraglia of BETA, the city’s traffic peer reviewer. Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering (the Civil Engineering peer reviewer) will appear at the next Planning Board meeting to discuss site engineering and present his comments.
Atty. Grover gave an overview of the project: All buildings will be demolished and 3 new ones will be constructed. The first building has 24 residential units, the second will have 42 units and the third has 64 units. A parking garage was added to take some parking off the surface.
Attorney Grover stated that several permits are required for this project. Three variances have been granted by the Board of Appeals (BOA): one from minimum lot size requirements; one for construction within the 50 foot buffer zone; and one from first floor entrance requirements for multi-family houses in the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC). The BOA granted a variance for the latter which paves the way for the Planning Board to grant permit for multi-family use. Attorney Grover said they are asking for 3 Special Permits from the Planning Board: flood hazard/wetlands; NRCC Site Plan Review; and multi-family housing. For the last of these, the project must satisfy 3 conditions: the property abuts a residential use parcel; any building on a main corridor has to have commercial on the
first floor; and residential units have to have first floor entrance. For the NRCC Special Permit, there are additional criteria that the Planning Board has to consider. These criteria include consistency with the NRCC Master Plan and a recommendation from the Design Review Board. The Master Plan lists 7 items which include extending access to pedestrians, considering redeveloping the Salem Suede Site for housing, improving and maintaining views from the neighborhood of the canal, redeveloping industrial sites, enhancing residential character, and enhancing the canal edge. Attorney Grover feels this proposal is very consistent with the objectives of the NRCC Masterplan.
Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey said there are 3 proposed buildings. There is a site entrance/egress on Flint and Mason. There will be recommendations on curbing forthcoming. There are 309 parking spaces that include 223 garage spaces and 86 spaces throughout site, 12 will be reserved for neighborhood use. Near building 2, there is now one central access point that opened up and allowed for placement of a planting strip. There are interior walkways along buildings and up main driveways. They have proposed a walkway along the bank of the river. There is still a provision for an easement if Commercial Street goes forward in the future. For trash, they are proposing one dumpster in the corner of building one and interior to building one and two will be central trash. Mr. McDowell gave
an overview of the utilities and water supply plans and said there are 2 connection points on Tremont and Mason Streets. There are 2 hydrants proposed on site and they feel circulation for fire trucks will be fine. For sanitary sewer they will use an existing 10-inch PVC line, will avoid making a new connection and terminate at manhole. All wastewater will have gravity discharge. Storm drainage: catch basins throughout site will go into gravity storm drain system and into North River. At this location, there will be a DEP-approved stormcepter device for total suspended solids removal. This, in addition to the proposed catch basins, will exceed DEP requirements. Any roof drainage that comes from areas where there is rooftop mechanical equipment that could have any sort of lubricating oils, etc. will be directed through the stormcepter. Two rain gardens are proposed to take clean roof runoff. After the buildings are torn down, they will do more
investigation to see if the soil is clean enough for rain gardens to be a possibility. If not, the swales will be lined so that water does not filter through the contaminated soil. They will still perform a stormwater volume reduction function through evapotranspiration, and they are a nice site amenity. As part of flood hazard, they have demonstrated in the elevations that the proposed buildings are above the base flood level within the North River Canal floodplain. Basement and garage levels are also above this level, so they would not flood. With regard to the site being adjacent to a tidal waterway, the North River, DEP is not requiring that water be held in a detention basin; they won’t be installing any large underground storage tanks. The water can go into the river once adequately pretreated. Also, power, cable & phone will be in underground conduits.
The renderings developed by Chris Huntress were shown. Chuck Puleo mentioned that the proposed 6 ft. wide walkway along the canal wasn’t shown on the renderings. Jim McDowell explained that the drawing is being modified and will be provided to the Board. Chuck Puleo asked for confirmation that the walkway is still in the plan and noted that it would need to be shown so that it was clear whether it would be disturbed if Commercial Street were to be extended. Christine Sullivan noted that the walkway was also not shown in the landscape plans provided to the Board as part of the new filing.
Danielle McKnight asked for clarification on the width of the easement. Was the easement a total of 30 feet, 24 for the possible new roadway and 6 for the walkway, or was it 30 feet for the possible new roadway and an additional 6 for the walkway? Jim McDowell confirmed that it was 30 feet for the street and an additional 6 feet for the walkway.
Chuck Puleo asked if the plantings planned would have to be removed; Jim McDowell was unsure.
John Moustakis asked if they had been before the DRB with this plan and Attorney Grover said that they have with a slightly earlier plan and will be going back to the DRB the 28th of this month.
Jim McDowell had to leave.
Chuck Puleo opened the issue up for public comment and questions.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St., asked how stormwater would run off the property when the river crests its bank. Jim McDowell explained, as is required by the Salem Conservation Commission, they’re putting in tide gate/flap valve that holds the stormwater back; during extreme events the water might flood, but that’s something that happens throughout the city. Water is retained on site within basins, it might flood parking lot a little bit. Jane Arlander commented that it freezes in the winter in parking lots. Jim McDowell agreed that maintenance is very important, if it freezes, they would need to get someone in there. Ms. Arlander also asked about snow removal and Jim McDowell said the system could handle about a six to eight inch storm then offsite removal would be
necessary. The stormceptor capacity is 12,000 gal, so it would hold that then would flood. Meg Twohey, Federal St, asked for him to show where snow would go. He showed areas where snow could go, pushed back with plows.
Steven Livermore, Architect, described the buildings and their architecture. There was some confusion as to the drawings presented and those provided in Board members’ packages as they were different, newer plans will be provided to members. The first building is 50 ft maximum height with 203 car parking garage, combo 4 and 3 stories and an L-shaped building. Building two is a 42-unit building with 20 car parking garage at lowest part of building in back. The third is 24 units with commercial space. The image from Bridge and North St. will look like a renovated mill, they showed image of the Mason St. side that will look more residential. The architecture is similar to buildings around the site. He also showed view of the walkway image.
Christine Sullivan commented that she thought it was difficult for the audience and Board members to see drawings, so she wanted changes to presentations (example handouts, PowerPoint presentations, etc.) and updated color renderings. Scott said they made sure that citizens got extra copies of colored renderings before meetings. Steve Livermore also commented that they had not been asked to provide electronic files to project, and that the renderings they were providing were above and beyond the requirements of the Planning Board. Nadine Hanscom asked about the height of some of the buildings in comparison to those across the street; Steve Livermore showed an overview of the buildings, they are 3 stories above grade and the buildings across the street are about a grade higher, so
they’re about the same elevation. Chimney forms on the mill buildings are above the 50 ft mark, which is allowed.
John Moustakis wondered why are they doing a mill-building image. Steve Livermore explained that the DRB was looking for an image of a mill building because that’s what was there before. At the area around north river there were taller buildings of factory type in the late 70’s that are no longer there. The storage building on corner of Boston and Bridge is an image of a mill building. Also, people on Flint St. and Mason St. wanted to see a residential image. John Moustakis commented that by having a flat building, that allows 5 stories. Attorney Scott Grover added that when first presented, the building had a more pointed roof. John Moustakis wondered how much area the buildings cover. Steve Livermore said the footprint is 70,000 sq ft; about 40% of the site is covered with buildings.
They have reduced the footprint by 10,000 sq ft. Steve Livermore showed other images such as the view from Leslies Retreat park. Chuck Puleo requested that for the next meeting, board members should have all renderings.
Shelby Hypes, Federal St, wondered since the buildings take up 40% of site, if you add parking area and building together, what percent of open space would be left and if there a requirement? Attorney Scott Grover doesn’t think NRCC provides requirements for percentage of open space, it provides set number of trees, and other landscaping guidance and they’ve complied with landscaping. Shelby Hypes, 157 Federal St., also asked how much impervious space is left on the plan. Attorney Grover said they could have that information at the next meeting. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, had a problem with views presented, as they were very far away and asked for him to explain the number of stories. Building one is technically 5 floors, four floors above grade. Scott said they spoke with the Building
Inspector, Tom St. Pierre, regarding height requirements and, based on this design and definition, they have complied, they don’t exceed height or story requirements. Christine Sullivan questioned the number of floors. Chuck Puleo explained that it varies between the front and back of building.
Tim Ready suggested that height level seemed to be a point of contention and thought for the next meeting maybe can get something in writing from building inspector confirming compliance with zoning. Christine Sullivan would like to see renderings and what it looks like at pedestrian level. Chuck Puleo suggested that Steve Livermore could divide up renderings so that they have those with different perspectives including from pedestrian level. Daniel Little, 86 Flint St, asked about a comment made that there would be commercial space in the Mason St. building. If that was the case, would the commercial space be entered from Mason St.? Steve Livermore said the commercial entrance is at lower level of access garage. Mr. Little asked what would be going into that commercial space.
Steve Livermore said that there has been some discussion on it but didn’t know what will be going in there yet.
Chuck Puleo asked if there were further questions for Mr. Livermore. There were not, so AE Com began their traffic presentation.
Jeff Maxtutis, who performed traffic study, briefly summarized AE Com’s evaluation. After initially assessing existing and future conditions and identifying mitigation measures in their 2007 report, they went through 2 rounds of questions from BETA and responded to those questions. Changes were made to their original recommendations, including mitigation suggestions and the configuration of the Flint St. driveway. For their assessment of the existing conditions, they did a field inventory of the site, studied surrounding streets and intersections (Tremont and Mason, Flint and Mason, Bridge and Flint and the project driveways), did traffic counts at morning and afternoon peak periods, and performed accident research of the intersections. He said that Tremont and Mason Street, and Flint and
Mason do exceed state average crash rates. They also performed capacity analysis for the intersections, including “no-build” conditions and for the project itself.
Mr. Maxtutis stated that the Riverview project itself would generate a small number of trips for a project of its size because apartments generally generate less traffic than single-family homes, and also because the proximity of the commuter rail station would lessen traffic because residents would use the trains as well as drive. Mr. Maxtutis estimated the project would generate 56 trips in morning at peak hour, a little less than one vehicle per minute, and in the evening peak hour there would be an estimated 87 vehicle trips. Mr. Maxtutis said the number of trips would be divided about evenly between the project’s two driveways. Mr. Maxtutis also said that the Flint St driveway, based on recommendations, was changed to allow left turn-only out and right-only in. He explained that this reduces the
number of vehicle trips at the North part of Flint Street.
Chuck Puleo asked for further specifics on new traffic activity onto Mason St., the numbers of turns being made, and how many people might be traveling onto Tremont St. toward Peabody. Mr. Maxtutis said that the numbers of the project trips are all less than 10 vehicles for any movement. He explained that in the morning peak hour, there are more people leaving the site, going to work. Chuck Puleo asked of those trips, how many would be leaving the site through Flint St.? Mr. Maxtutis said at morning peak hour there would be 20 left turns an hour, or 1 vehicle every 3 minutes making that left turn. He said that at Mason St, he said there would be little more than 20 turns, less than 10 vehicles for any movement, or 7 lefts, 7 throughs and 8 rights. Mr. Maxtutis said these are very small
rates of trip generation, so small that they don’t change the local service results in any of the intersections. He said there are issues at some of the intersections; not because of this project, but because of currently existing traffic problems on the Salem streets.
Mr. Maxtutis went on to say that regarding the level of service, the intersection at Flint and Bridge operates under acceptable conditions, as will the two project driveways. He said there is an issue in the northbound left turn lane from Flint Street onto Mason which operates at level of service F, as it does today. He said that the southbound Tremont St. approach to Mason St. operates at level of service F, particularly at the morning peak hour, and on Mason St. there are currently long delays. Mr. Maxtutis finished summarizing the existing conditions.
In terms of mitigation measures, which had been reviewed by BETA, AE Com suggests optimizing the signal timing at Bridge and Flint St.; skewing the driveway to prevent trips to the North section of Flint St.. For safety at Flint St., they recommend a flashing beacon and supplemental signage to increase driver awareness at the intersection; for Mason and Tremont Street, thought about widening but would have to take 10 ft section of Mack park; BETA suggested traffic signal to be 4 way signal. Delay would be reduced on Mason St. John Moustakis wondered if they took into consideration potential extension of Commercial St. They did not take it into consideration with traffic study, they were under impression it wouldn’t happen for 5 years. Christine Sullivan mentioned that there was a discussion
as to whether traffic patterns would change due to new courthouse. Danielle McKnight said they asked BETA about that; BETA felt there would be no significant impact; she can elaborate further on this if needed.
Nick Nowak, 336 Essex St., asked if there was another way out and about the number of cars. Jeff Maxtutis said 56 would be the total of inbound and outbound trips. 43 will exit in the morning.
Councillor Paul Prevey, Ward 6, asked if in regards to the light at Tremont St., would it require an easement from Mack Park to work or would it be preferable to have an extra lane. Jeff Maxtutis said the signal doesn’t need additional lane to work or easement to Mack Park and as a single lane, it would work well. Dave Weiner asked if it would need a signal if you had the other lane. Jeff Maxtutis said that they were looking at that option. You don’t have to have a signal, but it would help separate left and right turns. Councillor Prevey added that it would be a long process with the legislature to get land for that extra lane.
Nadine Hanscom needed to leave the meeting at 8:20 PM.
Ken Petraglia of BETA group, said they assessed that intersection was because of the Riverview project, but they feel the light signal is needed there because of safety issues, not capacity issues. Even without this project, there are concerns with poor sight distance at that intersection. Councillor Prevey asked for clarification of the standards for putting a light in, and Jeff Maxtutis explained that based on 2 and 4 peak hour tests, called warrants, the intersection meets standards based numbers at peak hours.
Nick Nowak, 336 Essex St., asked about the number of cars going north of the buildings and commented that if it backed up, it might back up the queue onto Bridge Street. Chuck Puleo remembered that there was discussion about re-striping the road. Jeff Maxtutis said they talked about that at one point but it was taken off the table. He discussed signal optimization. Chuck Puleo and Jeff Maxtutis discussed that the lights that are on Bridge & Flint Streets have technology to do what they want to do with them so they can be adjusted. Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St., was concerned that the driveway on Flint St will be directly across Oak St, but Jeff Maxtutis said that they’re both low volume streets and the visibility is fine.
Martin Imm, 174 Federal St., commented that there should be a connection for the possible extension of Commercial St. He suggested the Planning Board make a condition to have a connection. Chuck Puleo responded that the Planning Board doesn’t have the ability to make that condition because some of the land that would be needed to build the street straight across to Flint Street is owned by a third party. Mr. Imm thinks they have that power but Chuck reiterated that some of the land needed is privately owned. Martin Imm said that they could make one of the proposed buildings less massive to accommodate the street connection. Attorney Scott Grover said they did not have the power to take someone else’s private property and since that party is not here, the Board could not negotiate that.
Chuck Puleo asked what benefits the extension of Commercial St. would provide, assuming it was possible. Jeff Maxtutis was not sure how much benefit that would provide. Tim Ready wasn’t sure it was fair to ask that at this time. Martin Imm argued it would benefit Salem to create a section of Commercial St. and connect it with Mason St. Christine Sullivan said for clarification, the plan indicates that the property line ends, and to cross Tremont St you’d have to cross someone else’s property. Martin Imm said that when the Master Plan was put together, there was a stripe on the map. Now they’re tearing down buildings, you have an opportunity to add on now, an opportunity to follow the Master Plan.
John Mirabito from BETA group, the traffic engineering peer reviewer for the City was asked to give a recap of BETA’s assessment of the project. Mr. Mirabito summarized BETA’s assessment and referenced the correspondence between AE Com and BETA through which BETA noted issues in need of resolution and AE Com responded. The Board and Planning department had also specifically asked about making Goodhue St. two-way and limiting the access/egress to Flint St.to left turn out/right turn in. Additionally, BETA was asked to note any issues still outstanding since their last report in the Spring of 2008. Mr. Mirabito also highlighted three issues: 1) Parking on Flint St. entrance driveway, they recommend no parking there. Idea is that if there is parking there, it slows traffic entering and
could cause accidents. Chuck Puleo added that would change total number of spaces and those spaces are the ones that were set aside for the abutting residents of Flint St. Chuck Puleo asked if there some way of rearranging the parking so these can be rearranged, such as enter from another side. Perhaps Jim McDowell can look at this and see how to reconfigure these. Christine Sullivan thought it looks like they have all the spaces they need and Attorney Scott Grover said because it’s commercial, they need more than just a residential development would, and the NRCC requires 2 spaces per apartment. He didn’t realize the spaces being recommended to remove were those allotted for neighborhood parking. Jeff will take a look at it.
John Mirabito said for the Flint St driveway they recommend when coming down Flint St not being able to take a left into the site, you would have to go down to the bridge and back around to North Street. Attorney Grover added that if City decides that its appropriate to have traffic light at Tremont St., they would be willing to contribute to a portion of it or install it. John Mirabito recommended this light at this intersection for safety. He said it would cost about $200,000 to signalize and make minor road improvements.
Christine Sullivan asked about the impact on North St (with a light on Mason St) and would it back up North St. Jason Silva with AE Com said their study showed it wouldn’t back up onto North St. Chuck Puleo added that they received a memo in their packages regarding Goodhue St. Dave Weiner wondered what would happen if they didn’t put a signal in. John Mirabito said they would still have problems that you have today. The traffic problems warrant this light regardless of this project. Mr. Zion commented that they’re inheriting a problem that is actually the city’s problem. He’s concerned that they’re going to link this project with that light. Danielle McKnight had a conversation with Lynn Duncan and the City realizes that traffic is
already a problem in this area even without the project. Daniel Little, 86 Flint St., asked about a study from Flint St. Traffic coming from Peabody will back up or go down Oak St. and straight across into the driveway. He feels it’s a major cut through and it’s going to back up. Jeff Maxtutis said the signal would provide additional gaps on Mason St. Mr. Little feels a person would never get to North St.
John Mirabito said, in regards to making Goodhue St. a two-way street, there could be quite a few problems. First, they would have to phase the traffic signal (at Boston, Proctor and Bridge Streets) and that would back up that intersection. Also, the grade of Boston St. is higher so it would be difficult to see; the street would lose parking area; there would be some traffic cutting through to Harmony Grove. John Moustakis respectfully disagreed. He said it used to be two way, when there were many people working in that area. On the corner of Bridge and Goodhue Street there is an easement across the Self Storage property; if the City wished to widen or move Goodhue St., they could use a 50 foot wide strip of land from that property. He said that with all the new developments proposed or expected in
that area, Goodhue St. was needed to take some of the traffic heading to Bridge St. Christine Sullivan agreed.
Nick Nowak, 336 Essex St., wondered if this was the last evening for traffic discussion and Meg Twohey wanted to know, since they have identified a problem at Tremont onto Mason St, if there is no traffic light, would they hear about it at next meeting. She asks that the Board ask for more clarification since it’s a safety issue. Chuck Puleo responded that this was not the final discussion on traffic or the light at Tremont and Mason; the Board needed to hear the peer review comment tonight, but there would be further discussion about traffic. Also, the Board would need to hear more about how we might handle the Flint St. entrance given BETA had suggested eliminating the parking area there.
John Mirabito then reviewed BETA’s recommendations for the Flint St. access/egress and explained the reasons for suggesting right turn in/left turn out only.+
Councillor Prevey, Ward 6, is concerned about the possible loss of the Flint St. residential parking, where will the Flint St. residents park if the designated spaces are taken away? If those spaces are relocated within the site, people could walk half a mile to their cars from their homes. He’s also disappointed that BETA group recommended against making Goodhue St. a two way; he felt the City collectively has to look at it. He said that in terms of reducing traffic in that area, Goodhue St. seems to be the only way, the only “valve” that could relieve the pressure there. On the subject of the light at Tremont St., he asked who would pay for that; he’s also been trying to get pedestrian crosswalk at Boston and Bridge, which would be $10,000-15,000 and questioned where
the city would get money for that or for the new light at Tremont. Christine Sullivan added that given what John said about opportunities (the 2 and 12 Goodhue St. easement) it would behoove them to take a second look now.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Gene Collins to continue the public hearing to February 5, 2009, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved (8-0).
Dave and Pam left at 9:30 PM.
Chuck Puleo said at next meeting they will discuss the neighborhood parking spaces and Attorney Scott Grover will get renderings to Board members.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the December 18th meeting were reviewed.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Gene Collins to accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved (6-0).
Old/New Business
Discussion of 2009 meeting: Dates to be discussed at next meeting.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Tim Ready to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved (6-0).
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
| |
