 |
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
March 19, 2009
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Pam Lombardini, Gene Collins, Dave Weiner, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan, City Planner and SRA Executive Director, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk. Absent: John Moustakis
The minutes of the March 5, 2009 meeting were reviewed.
There being no comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to accept the minutes, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved (8-0).
- Public Hearing – Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development, Old Salem Ventures LLC, 50 St. Peter Street (Map 35, Lot 179) – Proposed amendment to previously approved plans to allow the proposed restaurant use to be converted to three housing units if necessitated in the future- Attorney Joseph Correnti
Prior to the presentation, Tim Ready noticed that a member of the public, David Moison of 45 St. Peter St., was recording the meeting. He said his reason for filming was that this project is in his neighborhood, and he wanted a recording to view after the meeting. Attorney Correnti explained that if someone wants to record a meeting, they are supposed to ask for permission beforehand. A few Board members were not comfortable in being filmed since they were not previously asked. Nadine Hanscom suggested that after this, the Board should be properly asked beforehand, and Tim Ready insisted they get an unedited copy of a taping as well. Vote taken whether to allow taping of this meeting- 2 in favor, 6 against. Not Approved.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, representing Old Salem Ventures explained that they are ready to close and this is the last piece they need to do so. They have made this same presentation to the SRA. They aren’t making any changes to the site plan. Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, said that one implication she sees for this proposed amendment, if in fact restaurant doesn’t go forward, the Board would need to change the condition regarding the number of parking passes required for offsite parking to accommodate the possible new units. Ms. Duncan spoke with Councillor Sosnowski and he does support this amendment. Ms. Duncan explained that the developer has been creative and inventive with this project in response to market difficulties – one example is their phasing of the
project. She stated that with this amendment, there will be no exterior space change; the only difference with this amendment is that, as opposed to a restaurant, it would be 3 residential units. As far as parking spaces, a restaurant doesn’t require parking on site; the Phase I residential units require one space per unit, on site or off site.
Dennis Kanin, New Boston Ventures, said they will close on March 31 and construction will start a week after that. The bank is requiring this amendment as a condition of the loan, however, he says they are totally committed to putting in a restaurant. Mr. Kanin says this is a very attractive area for restaurants and it comes with a liquor license and low rent. Charlie Perkins, a restaurant broker involved in the project, was also present. He has been involved in many popular restaurants in Newburyport, Beverly, Salem, etc. It would be a 3,000 sq ft restaurant facility with rent $20/sq ft, about $60,000 year; they are looking at moderately priced bistro. He strongly believes they will find a restaurant for this space. Chuck Puleo asked if the driveway to the rear
of the building would have to be converted if the restaurant were changed to residential space. Attorney Correnti said they would build the driveway to restaurant specs and if the residences are built instead of a restaurant, they would leave it as is. Gene Collins mentioned that there is a curb cut on Bridge St. that could allow an access point.
Meeting Opened to the Public
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St., spoke in support of the project. She asked if they would need to close the old jail cells if the restaurant didn’t go through. Dennis Kanin and Lynn Duncan explained that they are preserving 3 jail cells that are in the main space of the building; they will not be affected by either possible use.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex St. and member of Salem Preservation Committee said the committee submitted a letter in support of this project and amendment.
Chuck Puleo read a letter from Councillor Joan Lovely, supports the jail renovation project, with a restaurant. She is disappointed that the restaurant may not happen. She urges the Planning Board to urge the developer to get a restaurant in that space within the year.
David Moison, 45 St. Peter St, across from jail, asked when they expect to close. Dennis Kanin said they expect to close March 31, 2009 with construction to start a week after, and finish a year after that.
There being no further comments on this matter, Nadine Hanscom made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved (8-0).
There being no further comments on this matter Christine Sullivan made a motion to approve the amendment, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (8-0).
- 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 St., 67-69 Mason Street & 71 Mason St. (Map 26, Lots 0091, 0095 & 0097) Former Salem Suede Property- Attorney Scott Grover
Attorney Scott Grover explained that since the project engineer and the city’s engineering peer reviewer are still working out some issues, they would not be discussing engineering at this meeting. Instead they will discuss traffic issues that came up at the last meeting. Jason Silber of AE COMM reviewed the following proposed mitigation measures: at Bridge St. and Flint St., they will retime the signals; they will install a flashing light at Flint St. and Mason St.; and they will contribute to signal at Mason and Tremont Streets. Newly revised signage and traffic calming plans show a proposed traffic island at the end of Oak St. approaching Flint; its purpose is to discourage traffic from Oak St. onto the site. Lynn Duncan commented that she hasn’t seen this yet, and that
these types of features have to be decided by City Council, as well as changes to traffic signals. However, a condition can be written in regarding these items pending Council approval.
Jason Silber continued to explain that there would be two signs on the island on Oak St. (No Traffic to Riverview Place and Trucks Right Turn Only). There will be signage on the Flint St. driveway and left turn only markings; on Mason St. pedestrian warning signs and intersection warning signs. Within the project site itself, there would be 15 mile/hr signs, and some access signs to indicate which driveways to use. Chuck Puleo asked if the signs on street require City Council approval and Lynn Duncan said the Planning Department would check to see if the Traffic Lieutenant/police need to review. Christine Sullivan is still concerned about the Mason St. entrance/exit because the buildings are right up to the corner, and they only have one stop sign. Lynn Duncan said they did ask peer
reviewer about stop lines and they will ask if mirrors will be appropriate here. She also mentioned that the developer is willing to contribute some funds to a traffic signal since BETA is recommending one at this area.
David Weiner asked if trucks could turn into and out of the Mason St. driveway staying in their own lanes; John Silber said that trucks said he believed they should be able to. Chuck Puleo asked about warning striping along Mason St.; Mr. Silber said that this type of marking wouldn’t be typical. Lynn Duncan pointed out that numerous warning signs along Mason were proposed in order to slow traffic.
Meeting Opened to the Public
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St., echoed Christine Sullivan’s concern with the driveway on Mason Street as the houses do block the corner.
Bill Penta, 89 Flint St., said that there is a No Heavy Trucks sign posted and noted that many trucks do not pay any attention to the signs. He said he did his own traffic counts and questioned the traffic counts done by the traffic engineer, since his numbers were higher. He outlined the differences between his counts and the engineers on a handout, which he made available. Where there is a flashing yellow light proposed at the top of Flint on Mason, he pointed out that there used to be stop sign there but it was taken down because people went through it. Nadine Hanscom suggested that residents contact their councilors if they want a light or to hold ward neighborhood meetings to encourage getting police on duty there with radar. Mr. Penta said that people trying to go out the Flint
St. driveway to take a left turn will cause a bottleneck at the Flint/Bridge intersection. He is concerned about safety and the traffic study Earthtech (AE COMM) did.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St., said that Bill Penta, after doing the traffic counts, asked him to run an analysis. The then handed out his analysis of the traffic counts and a comparison of traffic counts done by EarthTech and Mr. Penta. He said the engineers counted a third of the cars counted by Mr. Penta. Mr. Lebovici speculated that since there were lights installed at North and Federal, traffic was directed more toward Flint Street. He said that to add another car an hour would be too much and suggested that the Board could deny the special permit because of the impact of the additional traffic generated by the increased density.
Tom Furey, 77 Linden St, Councillor at Large, feels this project should not be held hostage because of a traffic problem that’s already there. He said the site is an eyesore and it wouldn’t solve the traffic problem if the project is stopped. He also said the project would be an asset to the neighborhood, and any redevelopment of the site would pose the same problems.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex St., was interested in the traffic count that Bill Penta had done and was concerned that the engineers’ evaluation of the traffic is based on old data; since the studies were done, new lights have been installed at other intersections. Jason Silber said in the original traffic study, they did find that Mason & Tremont St. were over capacity and warranted a signal. Lynn Duncan added that there is no outdated information; they asked the City’s peer reviewer about the new lights on North St and those haven’t had any impact on the traffic situation near Riverview. She also said that according to the peer review, the addition of traffic by this project is minimal.
There being no further comments, Gene Collins made a motion to continue the public hearing to the next meeting, seconded by Pam Lombardini, all in favor (8-0).
There was a discussion among Scott Grover, Danielle McKnight and the Board members about the materials the Board wished to have in preparation for the next meeting. It was agreed that for the next meeting, all the updated engineering information would be provided, along with plans showing turning movements for trucks into and out of the Mason St. driveway at David Weiner’s request. The Planning Department will ask the city engineer and Traffic Lt. Preczewski to review the proposed island at Oak St. Attorney Grover said he would like to see the Board be able to make a decision at the next meeting. Also, the possibility of a contribution toward the traffic light at Tremont and Mason would still need to be discussed.
- 28 Goodhue St. site has been cleaned up.
- Parking set back on Canal Street was investigated and is fine.
- Danielle is still looking into traffic flow signage in front of homeless shelter downtown.
There being no further business before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Gene Collins to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (8-0).
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
| |
