SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 9/29/11
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, September 29, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready, Nadine Hanscom, and Tim Kavanaugh.
Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Absent: Mark George.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm.
Approval of Minutes
7/7/11 and 7/21/11 draft minutes
Ms. Sides moves to approve the minutes of 7/7/11, seconded by Mr. Clarke; all in favor. Mr. Moustakis moves to approve the minutes of 7/21/11, seconded by Ms. Hanscom; all in favor.
Continuation of Public hearing: Site Plan Review amendment at the request of MCDONALD’S CORPORATION for the property located at 1 TRADER’S WAY (Map 8, Lot 126), Salem MA. The proposed project includes a tandem drive-through, additions to the front and rear of the existing restaurant and changes to the façade and roof.
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application date-stamped 8/25/11, and accompanying materials
- Plans titled “Construction Plans for McDonald’s, 1 Traders Way, Salem, Massachusetts,” prepared by Ayoub Engineering, Pawtucket, RI, last dated 8/24/11
Anthony Guba of Ayoube Engineering presents the petition. Andrew Guilmette and Jim Giorusso from McDonald’s are present also.
Mr. Puleo says he drove through there today and notes they have a shed currently there, which Mr. Guba says will go away. Chuck asks if the building will actually encompass the freezer so it will no longer be seen; Mr. Guba says that’s correct. Mr. Puleo asks if the back façade will be that close to the drive through menu board; Mr. Guba says yes.
Tim Ready says he rode through the Revere site at North Gate Plaza – that’s the most recent building of this design? Mr. Guba says it’s similar. Mr. Ready says it was a very suitable building for the shopping center environment. Mr. Giorusso explains the materials on that building are different and describes a few other differences, saying that was an earlier attempt at a similar model.
Mr. Puleo notes that no one from the public is here tonight.
Mr. Clarke moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Sullivan; all in favor (Ms. Hanscom abstaining).
Mr. Puleo asks about the construction practices – will everything be kept on site, since the store will be open? Mr. Guilmette says yes. Mr. Puleo asks if he’s aware to the 8-5 p.m. restrictions? Mr. Guilmette asks if this includes work inside building as well. Mr. Puleo is unsure – perhaps if there were complaints. Mr. Moustakis suggests he check with the Building Commissioner.
Ms. McKnight reads a draft decision. It is noted that there are no HVAC/mechanicals shown on the plans. The applicant states that the parapet wall will definitely hide the whole unit. The Board suggests changing the standard condition that requires HVAC equipment to be screened from view to say that the parapet wall will be done as shown in the drawings, and the HVAC unit will be screened by this wall as shown on the approved plans.
Mr. Puleo asks about the dumpster area, and asks if they will spruce up the enclosure? Mr. Guilmette says yes.
Mr. Kavanagh suggests adding that the dumpster needs to be maintained in good working order and repair. Both the dumpster and enclosure should be maintained. Mr. Clarke suggests saying the trash enclosure area shall be maintained in good working order and repair.
Ms. Sullivan moves to approve, seconded by Mr. Moustakis; all are in favor with Ms. Hanscom abstaining. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
- Briefing: Urban Renewal Plan update
Ms. McKnight explains that the City is working on an update to the City’s two urban renewal plans, one of which expires this spring, with the other one expiring in five years. She explains the plan is a good tool for the city to use to apply design review to projects in the downtown, to have control over demolition of buildings, etc. The city is working with consultants the Cecil Group to combine these into one plan and update it. Ms. Sides, Ms. Sullivan and Mr. George are participating in the working group. She says the Planning Board will be asked to review the new plan for consistency with the city’s Master Plan, that a draft will be available to the Board on Oct. 27, and that we would plan to hold a discussion and vote on the matter on Nov. 3.
Ms. Sullivan ads that the changes to the plan are minimal, involving cleaning up the language and minor changes to the map. She describes the process as final proofreading rather than major changes. Ms. Sides says it’s important update the plan because once expired, it’s impossible to get a new one. She stresses that it’s important for the city to keep an urban renewal plan. She says there has been a lot of focus on the design guidelines, and the DRB is also reviewing those aspects. She says they are working a lot with the language in the design guidelines. She says nothing controversial has been added because the greater need is to update it so we can still have it, but it leaves open the possibility of amendments in the future.
Mr. Clarke asks why the city doesn’t expand the urban renewal area further.
Ms. Sides says this has been talked about, but if we try to expand the reach too far, it could become controversial and threaten our ability to meet the deadline for updating the plan. Mr. Clarke notes that Pickering Wharf, Blaney St., and other areas around Derby St. should be considered. Ms. Sullivan says if the proposed change threatens someone’s property, then we could get held up. She notes that there are certain parcels that are being discussed for a minor expansion, including the Post Office property and MBTA land. Mr. Clarke asks how we have jurisdiction over federal and state land. Ms. Sullivan says that if these properties change hands, we’d have control over the redevelopment. Mr. Clarke says he still feels the boundary expansion should be larger. Ms. Sullivan
agrees with him, but says she understands the urgency associated with the update. She says that she wants the Planning Department to do a real urban downtown renewal plan – what it really ought to look like once this plan is renewed, 30 years in the future, including Shetland Park and Pickering Wharf, and priority properties down canal St. Ms. Sides notes that they have discussed language for including the entrance corridors too. Ms. Sullivan says there should be a second phase of this for creating a real downtown renewal plan for the 21st century.
Mr. Ready says he agrees that a plan update is important, but we should move along. He says the Board will look forward to participating in the plan update.
Mr. Moustakis asks for an update from the City Solicitor on the Lowe’s suit.
Ms. Sullivan announces that she has resigned from the Planning Board because she has been on for 10 years and that’s enough. She has loved it; it’s a wonderful board, and this has been a great and glorious experience. She says it is a board of integrity and commitment and she is grateful for the experience, but 10 years is enough.
Mr. Clarke moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Kavanagh; all are in favor. The meeting adjourns at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner
For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/.
Approved by the Planning Board 11/3/11
| 
