Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
February 18, 2010
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 18, 2010 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready. Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight Staff Planner, and Tom Devine, recording Clerk. Absent: John Moustakis, Vice Chair.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of February 4, 2010 were reviewed.
There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the minutes of February 4, seconded by Mark George and approved 7-0 (Chuck Puleo, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed).
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of PAUL FERRAGAMO for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to allow the subdivision of 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 3, Lots 74, 75, and 76) into eleven (11) new single-family house lots, the construction of a new street off Highland Avenue, and the construction of eleven (11) single-family homes.
George Atkins, Attorney for the Applicant, said that they are engaged in an engineering peer review process. He said the site has a very steep incline that involves problems with collecting and disposing of water. He stated that they would be happy to answer any questions resulting from the peer review and that there are some unresolved issues. The plans would be revised prior to board members signing a final plan. He also noted that original plans showed street trees 100 feet apart while the requirement is for them to be every 30 feet. He stated that they will make that revision to the plan. He said that the applicant is requesting no waivers for the subdivision. They have talked to neighbors to the north and east about landscaping. The neighbor to the
north’s property is close to the subdivision’s entry. The applicant is proposing a landscaping easement to guarantee that a buffer exists in perpetuity. There will also be small areas of landscaping along Highland Ave., but these will depend on what soil exists and what it can support.
Bill Ross, 13 North Pine Street, Peer Reviewer for the applicant, said he wanted to highlight the results of his review. He referred to meetings with Danielle McKnight and the City Engineer, as well as prepared letters. He said there is drainage in a southwest direction toward Highland Ave. and he wanted to see expansion of a catchment area. Initially, pervious and impervious areas were too blended and they accounted for a smaller catchment area. The new proposal has Best Management Practices (BMPs) in all driveways to collect runoff. The previous design had basins in the roadway, but these have been moved into easements. Although first proposed to be the city’s easements, the City Engineer said he preferred it to be the responsibility of a homeowners’
association (HOA), which is what the new plan proposes. Another issue is the drainage toward Highland Ave. and Clark St. He said that structures could prevent slippage and he recommends a condition to require verification of certain excavation issues. He added that small devices are not easily noticeable in the plan, but the site’s water quality depends on them. Field verification of all these elements should be a condition. He said that the City Engineer determined that the existing pump station should be maintained by the HOA. The applicant has agreed to replaces some valves. The water-sewage separation does not meet DEP guidelines and the applicant will revise the plan to meet the guideline. The pipe size will be improved. Catch basins should have trash hoods and a sewage cleanout is recommended.
Mr. Puleo asked how the city should ensure that the HOA maintains all of this. Mr. Ross said that without maintenance there will be more runoff. He recommended inspections twice per year, and said they could be required as a condition. Mr. Puleo asked if the HOA will be responsible for plowing. Mr. Ross answered yes and added that the HOA will be responsible for it even if the city accepts the street.
Ms. Hanscom asked if the HOA could ever give up maintenance. Mr. Atkins said that the HOA can never change the conditions of the Planning Board’s decision, nor can it prevent the city from enforcing them. Ms. Hanscom asked if the city has a legal right to enforce the HOA’s required maintenance based on the board’s decision. Mr. Atkins said that this is the case and that the more common problem is with individuals who don’t want to participate, and this is an internal problem for the HOA, which it works out by itself. In the meantime, he said, the city has the power to enforce the decision. Mr. Ross said that other cities have had bonds for such conditions. Mr. Atkins noted that the alternative would be for the city to maintain the drainage
system. Ms. Hansom added that the bond is not something in the current draft decision, but it may be something to think about. Mr. Atkins stated that bonds are more typically used to ensure the completion of roadways, and this normally is temporary. Mr. Clark asked if this has been done and whether they would be setting a precedent. Mr. Atkins said no, to his knowledge this has not been done.
Ms. McKnight said that it must go into the HOA document that homeowners maintain the system. Mr. Atkins said that would include the storm water system and even reach beyond it. Mr. Ross said it would include sidewalks, common property, and a drainage easement. Ms. McKnight read aloud the specific wording of the relevant part of the draft decision and noted that it covers the city even if it doesn’t accept the street. Mr. Atkins said that the enforcement mechanism is not a light mechanism. The city regularly goes forward to enforce zoning issues.
Ms. Sides asked who inspects the work during construction. Mr. Ross said it would be the building inspector. Mr. Atkins said the city appoints a clerk of the works, who is paid by the developer.
Upon Ms. Sullivan’s request, Ms. McKnight distributed the draft decision to the board members.
Issue Opened Up for Public Comment
There being no public comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved 5-0 (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed).
Ms. McKnight remarked that Ms. Sides, Mr. George, and Randy Clark are not eligible to vote. She began to read highlighted elements of the draft decision. Mr. George suggest that they put in a provision that the applicant notify them that they are in compliance for storm water maintenance so that they actively notify the city, not the other way around. Ms. Duncan said that it would go through the City Engineer. Ms. McKnight added the change to the draft decision.
Mr. Puleo asked about blasting. Ms. Sullivan noted that page 6 covers blasting. She said the blasting ordinance must be followed. Mr. Puleo said that there must be 72 hours notice for neighbors. Ms. Sullivan said that a pre-blast survey is required for nearby homes. She added that neighbors should know their rights and recommended that the city put the blasting ordinance online for everyone affected to see. Ms. Duncan said that anyone concerned can contact the Fire Department. Mr. Puleo noted that the draft decision requires the applicant to distribute a flyer to neighbors within 300 feet.
Mr. Atkins said that these are standard provisions, except for the additional items. These are expensive and complicated additions for an 11-lot subdivision. He said is he surprised that no one asked what a BMP is, and noted that it stands for Best Management Practices.
Mr. Kavanaugh asked whether the city will have the right to sue individuals who are in default of the HOA obligations in the event of an emergency in which the city must do work. Mr. Atkins said that the HOA is the entity the city would deal with, but every owner is required to be a member. Mr. Kavanaugh said that he would like to be able to sue an individual who hasn’t done the right thing. Mr. Atkins replied that the individual member is only responsible for dues. Mr. Kavanaugh said that the HOA should say that individuals are responsible to the city and that the city can sue individuals who fail to meet their responsibilities. Mr. Atkins said the he objects because buyers and their attorneys would dislike such a provision. Homeowners, he said, are not directly
responsible for maintenance, but only for dues. He said he doesn’t know if he could put such a provision into the HOA and worried that it would seriously impact sales. Mr. George asked what entity would be held responsible for such things. Mr. Atkins answered that the HOA is made up of individual owners in the subdivision. You can’t sue individuals for failure of the HOA. Building inspectors can go to court and get funds or reach the insurance agency. Mr. Puleo asked if HOAs normally have insurance. Mr. Atkins answered no. Mr. George said that the structure of the HOA is fuzzy. Mr. Atkins said that this is not a new concept. A document at the Registry of Deeds requires membership in an HOA, dues to be paid, and maintenance to occur. It is similar to what happens if a homeowner doesn’t pay taxes. Perhaps if the HOA does nothing and owners don’t pay, the city could take liens against
their property, but he has never seen this done. The city, however, certainly can enforce this one.
Mr. Kavanaugh said he is asking because this is a complex storm water management system. He said he wants to know if there is something he can do to make it easy for the city to enforce it without unduly making sales difficult. Mr. Atkins said that right now the site is vacant with water sheeting off into the street and this project will be a major improvement. He suggested that they do not put too much of a responsibility on the developer.
Mr. Clark said that he thinks the requirements the board is placing are certainly enough, with two letters per year to the City Engineer. Ms. Sides asked Ms. McKnight to read the part of the draft decision related to notification and stated that they should be clear that it will be twice per year. Ms. McKnight read part 7.a.1. of the draft decision aloud. Mr. Clark said it might be best to be clear that the notification happen within 15 days of maintenance.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to approve the draft decision, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 5-0 (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, Mark George, Randy Clark, and Helen Sides not voting, none opposed).
Continuation of Public Hearing: Petition of SHALLOP LANDING AT COLLINS COVE PARTNERSHIP for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, and for a Definitive Subdivision Plan, to allow the subdivision of 92,740 square feet of land between SZETELA LANE and FORT AVENUE, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 41, Lots 235, 236, 243, 244, 246, and 274) into fifteen (15) single-family house lots, the construction of fifteen (15) single-family homes, and the construction a new street off of Szetela Lane.
Ms. McKnight stated that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting to withdraw the application without prejudice.
There being no comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to accept a withdrawal of the application without prejudice, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved 6-0 (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed).
Public Hearing: Request of HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC for Site Plan Review and Special Permits within the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, for the property located at 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 305) (proposed Gateway Center, including Senior Center). Attorney Joseph Correnti.
Ms. Duncan spoke about the senior center process and gave some history. She said a Senior Center Committee came up with recommendations and the Planning Department reviewed proposals. Doug Bollen, head of the Parks and Recreation Services department, was involved and he is invited to talk with the Planning Board about Senior Center programming. The committee recommended 19,000 to 25,000 square feet for the senior center portion of the space, and 160 to 215 parking spaces. They determined that parking is very important. There needs to be a balance between parking and landscaping. The site was identified along with two other sites. Preferences included possibility for future expansion, transportation, outdoor recreation, and ocean view. When the sites were
reviewed, this site met all the criteria except outdoor recreation and ocean view. The city selected the site knowing this.
Ms. Sullivan asked how my people go to the current senior center.
Joan Lovely, Councilor at Large, 14 Story St., said that we want to attract younger seniors, more so than we do at the current Senior Center. We project many more people to come to the new facility. She noted that she brought some documentation. She said it turned out to be best to build on this site with a private developer and she voted in favor of that. She also looked at the importance of outdoor space and the mayor noted in the past that it is an important point. She said it is not just a first floor space, but it should absolutely include some kind of outdoor space—a rooftop garden or something else. Parking was very important. We sent out 14,000 surveys about transportation and we had focus groups. Parking was identified for drawing younger
seniors. She said that the mayor wanted dedicated parking spaces. It might matter for knowing which part of the lot the city is responsible for plowing. She said there should be some type of outdoor space beyond just tables and chairs.
Ms. Duncan said that programming is not relevant to the Planning Board; this is a site plan review. The mayor is certainly not interested in the cost of a rooftop garden, requiring the roof to bear the weight and the elevator to go up another floor. We don’t have additional funding for that and the provision of outdoor recreation space is not the responsibility of the Planning Board.
Ms. Hanscom asked about the city’s responsibility for plowing and landscaping. Ms. Duncan that that the city is buying a condominium in the building for the senior center, so those things will be outlined in an agreement. She added that the Planning Board is not responsible for ensuring that the city gets what it wants from the property.
Ms. Sullivan asked how the committee arrived at the number of needed parking spaces. Ms. Lovely said that they had committees, including a Site Search Committee, determine the size and number of spaces needed. Ms. Sullivan asked on what basis did they project uses and parking needs. Ms. Lovely said that it was based on the St. Joseph’s model. Ms. Duncan said that we can make sure Doug Bollen answers this when he comes in. Ms. Sullivan noted that the Enterprise Center has more office space and fewer parking spaces and it works fine. She said she wants to know if our parking requirement is sensible. If not, it opens up possibilities. Mr. Puleo said that Mr. Correnti may be able to address this. Ms. Duncan said that the RFP included this parking
requirement. She said she will ask about this and come back with more information.
Bill Bergeron of Hayes Engineering, Engineer for the applicant, said that he had looked at a memorandum that mentions problems with making Goodhue St. 2-way, as discussed at the last meeting. There were questions about the Riverview project at Flint and Mason Streets. He said it is beyond their scope, but noted that there were recommendations for a flashing beacon and that Tremont St. needs an extra lane for southbound traffic that is exclusive for left turns to improve traffic.
Ms. Sullivan said that her question was how many additional cars will get to Mason and Flint Streets during rush hour. Mr. Bergeron said that it would be 8 cars in the morning and 8 in the evening going to it, and coming from, it would be 22 in the morning and 18 in the afternoon. These are additional cars from this project. Riverview provides a Commercial St. and Flint St. link. Ms. Sullivan said that Riverview never expected the link for years. Mr. Bergeron addressed the status of the Bridge St. improvement project, from Washington St. to Flint St. He said a state memorandum indicated that the project hasn’t yet gone beyond the original 25% submittal. He read the memo aloud. He said the project will come online in 2013 or 2014. This includes
the re-signaling of Flint and Bridge Streets. The other design project down the line, with no plans yet submitted, is the reconstruction of Bridge St. from the Peabody line, set to begin in 2014. Those two projects are on the perimeter of our site. Our mitigation work should fit in with this. We reviewed the corridor and the recommendations from it. He said the right-turn-only lane from Bridge St. to Goodhue St. seems unnecessary because they found so few cars making that turn.
Mr. George asked if this includes the existing traffic flow without consideration of the new garage, courthouse, and Salem Suede project. Mr. Bergeron stated that they didn’t include the Salem Suede site because much is unknown and depends on the overall plan for the whole area. Mr. George said that he thinks the impact of any one of the projects will be substantial. If we don’t address it now, we will have to address it in the future. We might need to come up with a vision, or we will get gridlock. Mr. Bergeron said that he thinks their piece of the puzzle fits well with other projects. Mr. George said that he doesn’t think we should burden just this project, but we should widen out scope. Mr. Clark said that we could look at a more robust
corridor study. Ms. Duncan said that the point is well made, but she doesn’t know where the funding would come from. Most of the court activity is already here and there will only be a slight increase in the intensity of use, and there were traffic improvements made. Mr. Clark said he is concerned about all these disconnected projects without connecting the dots. Mr. George said that for this particular project, the changes are a straightforward improvement. There may be other issues in the neighborhood that should be discussed, but they should not burden this project. We just need to put it all out there.
Mr. Bergeron said that the corridor study has multiple alternatives, so it is hard to project a burden on this area. Ms. Sullivan said that she understands that a 2-way Goodhue St. might not be good, but the Flint-Mason intersection is terrible. She said she would like to know what should be done on Goodhue St. because that is a scary place. Mr. Bergeron said that when you add a new signal phase, it makes everything run slower at a lower level of service. Ms. Sullivan said that she would like Mr. Bergeron to drive these streets during rush hour and see what it is like. She said she understands the Goodhue St. problem but just doesn’t know what to do.
Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Bergeron to review how traveling down Boston St. toward Peabody would work. Mr. Bergeron said there will be a straight lane, a lane to go straight or left, and an exclusive right-turn lane. This allows more capacity for straight and left. It also helps Pope St., which is easily blocked with the cue at this intersection. It will still be a low level of service, but this will be an improvement. We are scraping land off our site to create a lane. Mr. Puleo asked if it would be timed for people to go left onto Proctor St. Mr. Bergeron said that he is not sure. Mr. Puleo noted that cars wishing to make the turn now have to wait for a break in traffic. Mr. Bergeron said that he believes that when the light is green, it allows for left
and straight. He said he will have to look at final design plans. Mr. Puleo asked if this will go through Mass Highway. Mr. Bergeron replied that it will not; the city will have control.
Ms. Sullivan asked where the storage building is and whether the corner of it was set aside for turning. Ms. Duncan said that a Planning Board decision before our time created an easement, but it comes right up against the building and doesn’t go the whole length of the street. We would look at that for 2-way traffic on Goodhue St. She said that she doesn’t think that to date they have identified a need to build that. Mr. Clark noted that it only makes sense if they were to make Goodhue St. 2-way. Mr. Bergeron said that it would be a benefit if it became a signalized phase.
Mr. George asked for estimates for egress flow for Bridge versus Goodhue Streets. Mr. Bergeron said a majority from the site will take a left and go up Boston St. Thirty percent will turn right on Proctor St., and 45% will turn left. Mr. George asked whether the additional lane on Boston St. will end at this intersection. Mr. Bergeron answered that it does end. Mr. George asked what percentage flow he estimates. Mr. Bergeron said that traffic is diverted from the intersection, with 45% coming out and making a left onto Bridge St., and 15% making a right turn. Mr. Clark asked why a car would go to the north side to Boston St. when there is an alternative. Mr. Bergeron said that it depends were the car is parked, with the projections assuming that people will
take the exit closer to where they are parked. Mr. Clark said that he thinks people will go where there is no queue. He said he thinks that the percentage coming out of the Boston St. side will be more than projected.
Ms. Sullivan asked what percentage of these visitors don’t live in Salem. She said she is not sure how to gauge it all. Mr. Bergeron said it is difficult to assign, so they assumed what seems logical. Mr. George asked if the easement at the storage facility would allow the city to widen the road. Mr. Puleo answered yes, that the city has the ability to do that without it being a taking. Mr. George said that they can look at that without burdening this project. This is a good opportunity to take a broader view. Ms. Duncan said that if it is a question of whether there is something to gain by using the easement, we can ask the traffic engineer about it. Mr. Clark asked how far up the property line the easement goes and suggested that they don’t
burden the applicant with more work.
Issue Opened Up for Public Comment
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., said there should be reconsideration of this portion of the corridor. He said we should be looking at all these projects and put some money into a traffic analysis for this area. Mr. George said this project shouldn’t be delayed for this. Mr. Treadwell said he wants the board to recognize the problem – that this project and others will burden an already overburdened system. He said the master plan recommends a pedestrian signal at this intersection, and with the elderly coming to the new senior center, this is a good recommendation. He said the extension of Commercial St. is essential. Flint as 1-way didn’t work, but it could work coupled with Goodhue. And a connecting road from Goodhue to Boston could help drivers
avoid the intersection. Mr. Treadwell asked Mr. Bergeron what the ADT [Average Daily Traffic] is. Mr Bergeron said, to answer Mr. Treadwell’s first question, the pedestrian signal is part of the planned improvements to the intersection. Mr. Treadwell asked if there will be permitting from Mass Highway. Mr. Bergeron said none is required and stated the ADT: 4322 for peak hours. Mr. Treadwell said that the new courthouse garage will have a capacity for several hundred additional cars, but not in regular rush hour patterns. He said he thinks the garage and Bridge St. improvements will bring more traffic without Mass Highway improving Washington to Flint, and it will be difficult to get all the traffic moving. He said he appreciates that the board is looking into this thoroughly. Mr. George said that we have before us a plan for a piece of area that we are talking about. When looking at their proposal, since there is no master
plan, we shouldn’t make this project the recipient of all our issues. But we should make sure this piece does fit into a broader scheme. I don’t know how to address these issues but to raise them. Mr. Treadwell noted that there will be buildings vacated when the new court building opens, and they will eventually be filled.
Joyce Wallace, 172 Federal St., thanked the board for looking into traffic issues and for being forward looking. She said she thinks no one was talking to one another for different projects.
Jerry Ryan, City Councilor, 4 Nichols St., said that he knows the project would spur changes. He asked if a left turn from Boston to Proctor would cause a problem against traffic coming from Peabody. Mr. Bergeron said that the Bridge and Boston Streets project to Peabody would widen it. But once you go beyond the intersection, it will become one lane. Mr. Ryan said that an alternative would be better. Mr. Bergeron said that there are not enough left turns onto Proctor St. to warrant the alternative. Mr. Ryan said he does not want to see two lanes merge into one. Mr. Bergeron said that the second phase will widen the street. Mr. Ryan said there was an idea in the past to set up a traffic commission so all these changes could be looked at together.
There would be the question of who has power to make changes. Traffic will only get worse as more projects come in. Someone should put all this together. Mr. Clark said that he feels Salem is urban enough that there should be something like that (perhaps a commission) to deal with traffic and parking.
Jonathan Hayes, 38 Essex St., asked if the city has a traffic engineer to evaluate this. Ms. Duncan answered no, but said that for significant issues the Planning Board can require peer review for a project by a traffic engineer. We haven’t required that in this case yet. Mr. Hayes said he would like to see more evaluation of traffic counts. There are many illegal lefts being taken and traffic here is a problem. He said he would feel better if someone independent looked at it. Mr. Bergeron said that the Boston St. exit’s island physically obstructs certain turns from happening.
Joan Zabkar, said she is recording this meeting. She said something she said before did not make it into the minutes from the last meeting and commented on the HUD application. Mr. Puleo said that we are discussing traffic today. Ms. Zabkar said that she was told we have a right to make responses to an AUL and that she wants all three AULs included. We had several questions about that in 2009, and HUD requires that you study traffic, crime and pollution. Mr. Clark asked what this has to do with HUD. Ms. Duncan said the Planning Board does not deal with HUD. Ms. Zabkar said that HUD wants to know how impacted citizens feel about a project; I assume we should be able to give input when you review a changed AUL. Mr. Clark said that he thinks what Ms. Zabkar is
saying is valid, but not in relation to the Planning Board. I don’t see how HUD is our concern. Ms. Zabkar said she wants to ask all her questions and correct misrepresentations. All this comes back to Pat Donohue and her email, which is why the AUL was done. She didn’t know kids would be at the site. I want to reserve the right of Support Our Seniors (SOS) to eventually give input. Mr. Puleo stated that she had the opportunity do comment at the last meeting, when this issue was discussed. Ms. Zabkar remarked that Mr. Vetere said we could have a dialog. We hadn’t reviewed new material by the last meeting.
Mr. Correnti said that now is the public hearing. We are here now and will be back. I don’t want people saying they are reserving their right to ask questions. We will answer now or when we are back. Ms. Zabkar said that an environmental assessment is required when CDBG is in play and seniors are involved. Ms. Duncan noted that they are doing an environmental review because federal money is involved. Ms. Zabkar said that Pat Donohue thinks a city of this size needs an environmental department. Ms. Zabkar said that traffic has an environmental impact through pollution, with diesel trucks waiting for lights to change. I don’t think it was envisioned that seniors would be on a site like this. Mr. Puleo said the board didn’t make that
decision. This is a site plan review and we are dealing with traffic now. Ms. Zabkar said that traffic causes pollution. Mr, Puleo said that anything on the road has to pass an emissions inspections.
Paul Prevey, Ward 6 City Councilor, 26 Tremont St., said he is concerned about traffic on Flint and Goodhue Streets and that he shares Ms. Sullivan’s concern about Flint St. He said there is a unique opportunity to come up with a plan to deal with the area’s traffic. We should look at options for the easement. Sometime we need to string these projects together or we will have gridlock. I think the impact of all these projects will be tremendous and projections for individual projects are madness. I appreciate the comments the board has made. Does the board have a say as to where pedestrian lights go? People risk their lives crossing there. I have almost hit people. It is dangerous and the project will create more pedestrian traffic.
Ms. Bergeron said the pedestrian lights will be designed by a private firm and reviewed by the City Engineer. Mr. Prevey asked if it comes back to the board after the engineer’s approval. Mr. Bergeron answered no. Mr. Clark asked if there is a pedestrian light there now, and Mr. Prevey answered no. Mr. Clark said it would be part of the plan. Ms. Duncan said the City Engineer would give final approval, and the Planning Board could make crosswalks and signals part of the approval.
Dan Fulton, 182 Federal St. #2, asked what will happen to the bus stop at the proposed exit. Mr. Bergeron said they are talking about bringing it onto the site. Mr. Clark suggested they start that discussion soon.
Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Correnti if there are any other traffic comments. Mr. Correnti said they will stay as long as necessary to discuss traffic. Ms. Sullivan asked if it would be appropriate to ask a traffic engineer if it would make a difference with Flint St. 1-way coming and Goodhue St. 1-way going. Is there no logical thing that we can do to make a difference that can be looked into? Mr. Correnti said he thought it had been looked at by Beta. Ms. Duncan corrected that that it has not been looked at. They recommended that parking be removed from Flint St. and to keep it 2-way. Riverview had conditions for 12 spaces to be reserved for parking for Flint St. residents. I can’t say whether they looked at further changes, but they did recommend 2-way
traffic. Ms. Sullivan said no one has looked into the relationship between Goodhue and Flint Streets. Ms. Duncan said there is a question of whether an engineer could look at that. Mr. Correnti said the easement on Goodhue is within their purview, but Mason St. is beyond what we have looked at and would require a new study. Ms. Sullivan asked if Flint St. can be 1-way coming down. Ms. Duncan said it looks like this is something the city needed to look at. She pointed out that the Planning Board has taken the NRCC recommendations seriously, and there is a Riverview easement and a piece of property between this area and Commercial St. But we don’t want to pave over vegetation that doesn’t have to be paved before the street could actually be built. Ms. Sullivan said that she thinks this is urgent. Mr. George said that he thinks they need to be site specific. We don’t want to get too far afield. I agree
that there are issues, but I don’t think this is the forum for them.
Mr. Ready said the they have a responsibility to the applicant to review site specific issues. Ms. Sullivan said that she is just linking two projects we are involved in and would like someone to take a look. Mr. Ready said that Mr. Correnti has come back every time to listen to us talk about issues beyond the scope of his project. At some point we need to address issues for which he comes before us.
Ms. Sides asked what will come next. Ms. Zabkar asked if she can reserve traffic pollution review until she has a chance to review it. Mr. Treadwell said that the Planning Department will have an environmental review for traffic pollution. Mr. Ready suggested that they have covered traffic in detail and to a full extent. Many comments are now anecdotal. Somewhere we draw a conclusion that the professional presentation is acceptable or not. Mr. Puleo said that they have not addressed engineering and asked if there is time for it. Ms. Duncan said that the City Engineer is in the process of reviewing the plan and the board may want to bring up issues for the engineer to look at. Mr. Puleo said he is concerned with drainage, and noted that they required
Walgreens to build something on their property to address it. Ms. Duncan said she will make sure the engineer addresses that.
Mr. Correnti said they have filed a wetlands and flood district application for the project that will be addressed at the next meeting. We are not sure if we need it, but we are filing it. This has been advertised in the paper. That is when we would like to come back and address issues of civil engineering. We can talk more about it on March 4th. Mr. Vetere will be here for environmental issues. We can then circle back and talk about environmental issues and the AUL. We have been to the Design Review Board (DRB). They took some public comments and members noted their concerns. There has yet to be a lot of fine point detail. We expect to get into depth with the DRB at the next meeting about design, site layout, etc. If the board
has other specific issues we should prepare to address, we would be happy to do that.
Mr. Puleo asked when they will file for a parking variance. Mr. Correnti said they apply for parking, buffer and height variances probably by March 17. Ms. Sides asked that parking and the buffer should be the issue of the next meeting. Mr. Correnti said they will get feedback on why there is so much parking. Ms. Sides said there are reasons that can be analyzed again and some things are critical to how the site plan is laid out. Mr. Correnti said they would be glad to address this. Ms. Duncan said that parking and the buffer should be topics at the March 4th meeting, and Doug Bollen could perhaps talk about parking and programming. Ms. McKnight asked which of the board members would not be present at that meeting. Mr. Clark and Mr. Ready
indicated they will be absent.
Mr. Clark said that he thinks there is more parking than needed. The methodology behind the analysis has to be checked so we can see if the number is real. Ms. Sullivan said she wants to know exactly where the number came from because it is very large.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing to the March 4 meeting, seconded by Randy Clark and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed).
Old/New Business
None
Adjournment
A motion was made by Randy Clark to adjourn, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved 8-0 (Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clark, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed).
Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tom Devine
Planning Board Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 3/4/10
| 
