 |
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 12/15/11
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, December 15, 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, Mark George, Lewis Beilman, Randy Clarke, Tim Kavanaugh, Helen Sides, and Tim Ready. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: Nadine Hanscom.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:04 pm.
Approval of Minutes
November 17, 2011 draft minutes
Chuck Puleo asked that the minutes reflect that he rejoined the meeting for the AL Prime discussion. No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Tim Kavanaugh motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by John Moustakis. Approved 8-0.
December 1, 2011 draft minutes
Postponed until the next meeting on January 5, 2012.
Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 & 300 CANAL ST; and 399 ½ & 401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30 & 31, and Map 23, Lots 170 & 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank, Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping.
Attachments & Exhibitions:
- Applications for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Special Permit, all date-stamped 11/10/11, and accompanying materials
- Site Plan for CVS/Pharmacy #7109, Jefferson Avenue & Canal Street, Salem, MA 01970, prepared by RJ O’Connell & Associates, Inc., dated 11/10/11
- Exterior Elevation drawings prepared by BKA Architects, Inc., dated 11/8/11
- Stormwater Management Study, CVS/Pharmacy #7109, Loring Plaza, Canal Street and Jefferson Ave., Salem, Massachusetts, prepared by R.J. O’Connell & Associates
- Traffic Impact and Access Study, Proposed CVS/Pharmacy, Salem, Massachusetts, prepared by GPI (Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.)
- “Civil Technical Peer Review of Site Plans dated 11/10/11 and Storm Water Management study dated 11/10/11 for the CVS Pharmacy Jefferson Ave. and Canal St. City of Salem Planning Review of Application for PUD Special Permit, Drive-Through Special Permit and Site Plan Review,” prepared by AECOM and dated 12/12/12
- “Technical Peer Review, Traffic Impact and Access Study – Proposed CVS/Pharmacy, Salem, MA dated November 2011 prepared by GPI, Inc.,” prepared by AECOM and dated 12/12/12
- Letter from Ben Anderson, 10 Adams St., dated 12/14/11
- Letter from Ward 7 Councillor Joseph A. O’Keefe Sr., dated 12/14/11
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, representing the applicant, introduced Paul Beck, Jason Plourde and Phil Henry, and he stated that he understood that AECOM, on behalf of the city, had the opportunity to review the plans. Mr. Correnti said that the team will be prepared to respond to issues raised by AECOM at the next meeting. Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, noted that the civil engineers from AECOM were here to present their findings to the Board. She introduces Dennis Flynn, Paul Carter and Jeff Maxtutis of AECOM, who have been hired by the City to help the Board review the project. AECOM’s reviews of the traffic and civil engineering have been detailed in a memo, which Ms. McKnight says she has emailed to the Board and which she now passes out in hard copy.
Paul Carter, Senior Project Manager with AECOM, stated that he was very familiar with this project because he is the project manager for the Canal Street improvement project. He also introduces Jeff Maxtutis and Dennis Flynn with AECOM. He said that they have reviewed the site plan and traffic impact study as well as the stormwater drainage plan and the civil engineering.
He addressed the civil engineering first. He noted that overall the plans were well put together, and were done in a professional manner. He said the comments were regarding safety, circulation and some minor details. He noted that soil borings and percolation tests were done by the applicant, and AECOM needed to see a copy of the results (test boring logs showing what the soils are, what the depth of groundwater is, what the percolation test showed, and how quickly the stormwater infiltrates). MassDEP requires that a certain amount of water go back into the ground. Other comments included needing further clarification about how the existing drainage system will function on the site, including whether the infrastructure will be cleaned, maintained, etc. Mr. Puleo asked how the new site driveway from
Jefferson Ave. will impact the drainage. He noted that the Ward 3 councillor had had serious concerns at the last meeting about drainage in this area, and he wanted to make sure this was being addressed. Mr. Carter explained the new proposed drainage system, including a new catch basin for the new driveway. He demonstrated the direction of flow on the site. He asked if there were any known drainage problems from the lot by the bank and Tedeschi’s; he noted that water generally sheets across the parking lot, and there is no proposed drainage in that location, which is a concern. He also included a suggestion of locations for new catchbasins. He asked Mr. Puleo what were the particular concerns. Mr. Puleo said that much of the site at the rear was not paved currently, so what would happen to water that isn’t currently draining into the system? Mr. Carter highlighted the current drainage system and showed the Board on
the plan where the applicant would like to reroute the drainage. He commented that some of the inverts are flat and they may need to do some replacing to ensure a positive slope; he said their approach is to utilize the capacity of the current drainage system, and for the new pavement, deal with the additional water with the new system and run that water through their water quality treatment system. He noted that they are not showing an increase in peak runoff as water leaves the site, because it is being retained. However, there will be a small increase in the volume of water on the site, but they are infiltrating a portion of that – and this is why submitting the soil boring tests is important.
Mr. Carter continued, saying the proposed system is shallow – two feet of cover, so asked that the applicant submit the necessary information showing that the high-density polyethylene pipe they propose is adequate in the area of the site where the pipes will only be two feet below the surface. If not, they should propose a stronger, more rigid pipe. Mr. Carter also noted they needed confirmation of the type of pipe used – their calculations are based on a smooth line pipe, which takes more flow. Mr. Carter also noted they have questions regarding the outlet structure; there are inconsistencies regarding the outlet size and overflow grate size. He asked the applicant to show the depth of groundwater below the basin, and provide a material at the bottom of the basin which will allow for the basin to
infiltrate where it is supposed to. The soil here infiltrates only moderately. He says they have questions about a water quality unit proposed. This screens out trash and filters out sands and sediment, and has a sump at the bottom. It’s sized appropriately for the flows, it has only a 2 foot deep sump, 4 foot diameter - recommended that the sump depth be increased to a depth of 3 to 4 feet in case cleaning is not done as frequently as is necessary . He discussed the hydrology calculations which he stated were done with an acceptable methodology, but they would like to see more calculations in relation to the capacity of the pipes. There is one section of pipe that has a negative slope in the existing, which they need to resolve. Their long and short term pollution prevention plan, and his primary comment on those is that they need to designate where snow will be piled. Mr. Puleo asked if they are tying the roof drains into a
ground system to which Phil Henry, project manager for the applicant, responded in the affirmative. Mark George asked if there will be a net increase in the impervious area of the site as a result of this project to which Mr. Henry explained that they are increasing the impervious area and described the paving plan. He stated that the retention system will offset the peak rate of runoff. There will be an increase in volume, but for all storms this is only a 1% increase.
Mr. Carter then moved onto utilities. He said the location of fire hydrants should be shown, and the location of any new ones required by the Fire Chief. Ms. McKnight stated that there haven’t been any issues raised by Lt. Griffin from Fire Prevention, but that she would check back with her to see if she had any comments. Mr. Carter stated that they did have a question about fire apparatus access, specifically asking to show that there is the required turning radii for City of Salem vehicles. He noted that the utilities proposed are to be brought in underground, as shown on the site plans.
Mr. Carter then moved onto the demolition plan, and the only comment was on the portion of Canal Street, to put the barrier on the other side of the sidewalk so pedestrians can access the sidewalk during construction. Another recommendation that Mr. Carter made was that the joint use driveway should be the full width of the parcel. They are concerned that the Kimball Rd. entrance is an area that isn’t well defined and would need curb control, as well as signage. Another concern was with the geometry of the site in relation to the drive thru, and the path of traffic. He stated that the sight distance and the turning radii look like they are going to be difficult. He noted that the visual sight distance to the south is going to be constrained when there is a tractor trailer on site. They
recommended bringing the drive thru to a 90 degree angle instead of the current 45 degree design, and to make sure some of the turning movements are adequate. Given the constraints of the location they are recommending a single drive thru. He then discussed how to provide adequate pedestrian access, and recommended that the sidewalk be extended over to other areas of the site. He suggested having better delineated pedestrian pathways from Canal and Loring. He also noted that the back of the site will only have 18 feet of space when a tractor trailer will be there so this is something he recommends looking further into. He notes there is a retaining wall shown at the corner of Tedeschi’s – it looks like it’s holding up the corning of the building, so they would need to submit the construction details to the City for review. He stated that the applicant wants to use yellow for detectable warning strips, but they would recommend
using brick red, at least for those on public ways and sidewalks, since this is the color being used elsewhere by the City.
Mr. Puleo asked about the loading dock situation – if they were to move the drive-through window around the side of the building, considering they have such a long queue line shown, would that make the loading dock function better? The loading doc is currently at an angle because of the drive-through. Mr. Henry said the drive-through function is exclusive of the angle at which the loading dock is placed. There is a compactor attached to the building used for cardboard. Mr. Puleo said that since there would only be 18 feet when a tractor trailer was there, the fire department might be concerned. Mr. Henry said they would take a look at this and address it. Mr. Carter said that to have the 45 degree right of the location – there is a lot going on – so if it would help and could be
accommodated that the drive through be at a 90 degree angle instead, that’s something he would suggest looking at. Mr. Puleo asked if there are any statistics on the usage of the drive-through; does this site really warrant a double drive-through? He’s never seen anyone use the outer lane in the Highland Ave. store (at Marlborough Rd). Mr. Henry states that it is something that they are looking at internally. Mr. Beck noted that in other stores, there has been much more success with the double drive thru in terms of access and circulation.
Tim Ready asked what the snow storage plans are for the site; he noted that it’s a congested site. Mr. Henry stated that this is something that they are thinking about and there are some landscaping areas that they can use, and what is important is that when the snow melts, it runs through the proper drainage, and they need to look at this.
Mr. Puleo asked if the curbing or an island could be added without impeding the parking at AutoZone, and could they achieve that by just striping the ground? Mr. Henry stated that behind the spaces is 24 feet, which is industry standard for maneuverability, but the real reason for the island is that it’s almost like a retaining wall, needed because of the change of grade. He is using that to achieve some grade across the site. Mr. Carter stated that if they did a single drive-through, it would give them more room. He says with the main entrance areas, it is preferable if they don’t have cars all backing out into the aisles. He says it’s very tight. He notes that this goes to the issue of where the access feeds into the site. Randy Clarke asked the applicant to explain at the
next meeting their justification for two drive thru lanes, since it seems as though one would be adequate. He notes that Salem is trying to encourage more pedestrian activity.
Helen Sides stated that there looks like there is more parking than there needs to be, especially at the back – she doesn’t think anyone will park there to enter the store - and asked if that is the number of parking spaces that is really needed. She also stated that the Eastern Bank and the Tedeschi’s has been left out of this plan. She stated that this particular area of the site looks awful and is poorly planned. This part of the plan needs to be developed. It’s an important corner as you enter the city. Mr. Puleo asked if the parking calculation was the same as a retail use, or is it a convenience and drug store? Mr. Henry said it’s calculated as a retail use.
Mr. Clarke asked if this is a PUD, are they looking at this as a whole PUD site or just focusing on CVS? The parking for all the stores should be considered together. He further stated that to Ms. Sides’ point, if there is too much parking, why not plant more trees and and have fewer parking spaces – it looks better and makes more sense environmentally.
Mr. Carter noted that this is an important corner – one of the reasons CVS wants to be here , since it will attract customers. He noted that even though this is in the entrance corridor, the zoning exempts PUD sites from meeting entrance corridor requirements.
Dennis Flynn of AECOM, performed the traffic peer review for the project. He stated that this study was performed in accordance with professional and state review guidelines. He began his presentation discussing accidents. At the Canal and Loring Plaza driveway intersection, there were 9 accidents over the three year project, 7 of which were sideswipes, which indicates there are problems with vehicles entering and exiting. The calculated crash rate equals the average crash rate for MassDOT district 4. 5 involved left turns from Canal St. conflicting with southbound motors on Canal – people turning into the site heading north conflicting with southbound vehicles. In terms of trip generation, their concern is that this facility may increase trips at higher rates than the applicate
has estimated based on ITE rates. They are asking how the traffic is expected to be maintained at the numbers provided in the report and used in the analysis. The discussion of estimated traffic based on demolition of 3000 square feet was based on the ITE land use generation code for specialty retail, but the average sized facility provided in the report was 69,000 SF. He thinks the reduction of trips has been overestimated. He recommends they use the trip rate rather than the trip generation equation. He felt they should only reduce the number of trips by 8, not the 29 reported.
Mr. Flynn then spoke of the capacity analysis on the signal intersections and he specifically stated the calculations for vehicle queues were not provided in the report, thus they asked for the calculations to be submitted. He noted that the calculations did not include the exclusive pedestrian phase, which should be incorporated into the analysis, since it impacts important measures like performance delays. Previous studies AECOM conducted in the area with data collected in November 2009 found that significantly higher delays and queuing were observed particularly on the southbound side of Canal Street. The consultants are asking for this issue to be addressed.
John Moustakis asked how the state rates the intersection. Mr. Flynn, clarifying that he is referring to the operational capacity of the intersection, stated that there are certain movements considered level of service F, but not all movements are at that level. Overall, the intersection has is operating at D or E. It is considered at capacity. He says you will see much worse operations when the pedestrian only signal is used in the analysis, which it was not in the applicant’s report. Mr. Moustakis asked how to get more information on this. Mr. Flynn stated that this information is part of the impact study. Mr. Carter notes that their analysis needs to be revised. Mr. Flynn stated that there is a level of service analysis in the developer’s report and in the 2010
functional design report by AECOM. Jason Plourde, traffic consultant for the applicant, stated that they didn’t include the exclusive pedestrian phase because it would all be rated “F” and that wouldn’t give them a clear understanding of the true impact. Mr. Moustakis stated that his concern is that they will be starting the project at a level of failure. Mr. Clarke asked about the MassDOT review and increasing the length of the pedestrian cycle.
Mr. Flynn stated that with regards to site traffic, they have concerns in regards to Canal Street and Loring Plaza queues, therefore they ask that Canal Street be a “right turn in- right turn out” entrance and exit. They noted that with the close spacing of the Jefferson Ave. driveway, they recommend closing the center driveway to conform with Salem zoning requirements. He says 200 feet is the minimum allowed by zoning, and these driveways are about 80 feet apart. He recommends closing the center driveway and converting the one closest to the intersection to a right-in right-out only driveway. There are few people turning left in or out of this driveway. Providing the new driveway increases the number of conflict points along Jefferson.
Mr. Flynn notes that based on similar sites, they feel that one drive thru would be appropriate.
Mr. Flynn says notes the problems with the stop signs at the rear of the property and says a four way stop is recommended.
In closing he recommended that the applicant find out if they need a state highway access permit from the MassDOT. Mr. Puleo asked if they would need state curb cut permits for Jefferson and Canal; Mr. Flynn says he thinks so. Mr. Carter noted that this is because the CVS is being proposed on the intersection and it will have an impact on that particular intersection, which is under state jurisdiction. He notes the low level of service of the intersection and the congestion in the area. He says MassDOT is a critical player in the decision making about whether appropriate access is being provided here, and what the impacts will be. Mr. George asked Mr. Flynn to clarify why there would be a “right in- right out” on the Canal Street entrance to which Mr. Flynn said that left turn
access could be accommodated at Kimball – the further away from the intersection these movements are pulled, the better. Mr. Puleo noted that Kimball Rd. doen’t currently look like a street and needs curbing and other improvements. It looks like one big parking lot.
Mr. Correnti stated that they are not prepared to respond to the peer reviewers comments this evening but they will address these comments at the next upcoming meetings. He said that the team will look at the recommendations; however, they do have a presentation tonight based on the comments from the last meeting.
Jason Plourde, Greenman Pedersen, Stoneham, described the traffic conditions around the site. He stated that they have already reached out to MEPA and confirmed they do not have to go through the MEPA review process. The preliminary discussions with MassDOT in relation to traffic indicate they will not require any access permits; however, any improvements they would make, such as the different striping and proposed changes to the signage, has to be reviewed by MassDOT. He noted that they do not have the improvement package put together yet. Mr. Plourde shared a bar chart of traffic volumes that displayed specific time intervals, as well as what they think will be the increase in traffic from this project. Additionally, he noted that the true impacts will be minimal. He addressed another
question about pedestrian comments and showed a graphic demonstrating the crossing patterns throughout the day and evening. Mr. George asked if there was any consideration given to developments specifically from Salem State University. Mr. Plourde responded that they reached out to the City and they know that there is a facility that has been purchased by the University but there have not been any plans put forth at this time. Mr. Correnti stated that they had meetings with the University as well as the South Salem Neighborhood Association and what came out of it was a reallocation of the space that has not been fully determined yet. Further, they have been told that development on the facility is years away. Mr. George noted that this is not just going to impact one building and recommends looking at a broader area to assess the full impact. Mr. Moustakis asked if it is possible to factor in the future increase in the pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Plourde responded that the signals operate based on pedestrian demand which may increase over time. Mr. Moustakis asked where the bus stops are in the area. Mr. Plourde pointed out on the map where the bus stop locations are. Mr. Puleo asked about how the bus operates in the northbound lane. Mr. Plourde stated that he has observed people jockeying for position to pull around the bus and then getting back into their original lane. Mr. Puleo asked who would determine if the bus stop should be moved. Mr. Plourde responded that the right of way is tight and that determination is a combination of the MassDOT and the MBTA with the City ideally leading the way. Mr. Plourde concluded his presentation stating that they recognize the comments on the multiple driveways and will work on a comprehensive plan to present to the Board..
Phil Henry, civil engineer from RG O’Connell, 80 Montvale St, Stoneham, MA, presented on the lighting plan. He showed a graphic demonstrating the distances from the nearest residences to the lights on the site. He showed an area on the site which will remain untouched and not be paved. He also discussed the grading on the lighting plan as well as the shielding on the luminaires, and noted that the lights will be shining down, not horizontally. He noted that there will not be light impeding off site. Mr. Puleo asked about the pole height to which Mr. Henry stated that the pole will sit on a 3 foot base and the pole will be 30 feet up in the air. Ms. Sides stated that this sounds really tall to which Mr. Henry stated that this is consistent retail development and it is what is out there today. Mr. Puleo asked if fewer poles equal more light to which Mr. Henry clarified that fewer poles mean higher light. He stated that the highest rating on a foot candle is 20 which is what
they have on their sites now, and CVS standards are between 4 to 6 foot candles on the store entrances. Mr. Clarke asked about how this related to the PUD line and asked them to show what it will look like at the next meeting. Mr. Ready asked if this lighting plan is comparable with the other lighting plans in the City, to which Mr. Puleo stated that Ms. McKnight will find out for the next meeting. Ms. Sides pointed out that on the Lowes project they had requested the lights will be lower, and she thought that was going in a good direction.
Mr. Moustakis stated that his concern is that the flow of traffic in the intersection is already problematic and he doesn’t think the project will impact it that severely. However, they should try to make whatever improvements they can.
Chuck Puleo asks Ms. McKnight to give a synopsis of Councilor O’Keefe’s letter; it states that he supports the PUD development but has a few issues he would like to see addressed, including the two curb cuts on Jefferson (he recommends consolidating them into only one curb cut); he also has concerns about the intersection – the traffic signals should be improved. He recommends the Board have a peer review analysis done. She then shared hard copies with the Board of Adams Street resident Ben Anderson’s letter; Mr. Anderson said the letter didn’t need to be read and he could just speak about his points.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Laurie Barrows, 406 Jefferson Avenue, who has lived in her home over 20 years, noted that the traffic is a nightmare as is and this is a neighborhood. She stated that the existing lot for the bank is typically jammed. She asked what would the hours of operation, to which Mr. Correnti responded that the applicant is proposing 7am – 12 am. She is concerned about the three proposed entrances, specifically because the traffic is going on throughout the day. She feels that this will be a huge impact on traffic as well as trash and noise. She noted that the area is already saturated with other CVS sites. She stated that she has health issues due to the amount of exhaust coming in from the cars. She also noted that there having been constant horns and accidents throughout the day. As far
as Canal Street stop sign for the ambulance, she wants to know how they will address this. She wants it to be known as a residential area, she purchased a home on what was a residential area which is now becoming another downtown area.
Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, noted that there is a unique situation with the ambulance service on site. She is assuming that the ambulances will not be held to making right turns only onto Canal Street. She is asking the Board to take into consideration the unique characteristics of this tenant. She asks the Board to think about the striping due to the ambulance traffic. She urges the applicant to consider fencing to keep pedestrians from randomly crossing the street. She is also concerned about the snow removal. Additionally, she is concerned about the green area outside the PUD which the applicant said that they would not build, but she says it did come out in the last meeting that it is a buildable lot, and she asks the board to take that into consideration. She also said she thinks the
possibility of creating a restricted left turning lane on Loring Ave. by the Enterprise Center should be looked at. Ms. Wilbert asked for clarity on the hours of operation as she is concerned about the hours. Ms. McKnight does not believe that operating until midnight is allowed by the City without Council approval and she will check on that.
Ben Anderson, 10 Adams Street, asked what the stated traffic increase was during the day. He is concerned about the operating hours and 7am is a peak rush hour time. As far as the light levels, he is happy about the distance from Adams Street but is concerned about the height of the luminaires and asked if they could come down 5 – 10 feet. He then asked what effect this development will have on properties beyond the PUD line. Mr. Puleo asked if he is referring to the area designated as a tension basin, to which Mr. Anderson responded in the affirmative. Mr. Puleo stated that this area is part of their retension basin and probably cannot be developed. Mr. Correnti then clarified further showing the PUD line in relation to the project and further stated that the area in question does not have
structures being proposed – only earth work. Mr. Anderson asked how the applicant is allowed to go 30 feet beyond the PUD line. Mr. Puleo stated that the B-2 zoning line is allowed to go 30 feet into the residential area. Mr. Correnti stated that they are proposing using the 30 feet extension area for earthwork, piping, and drainage. The Board asked for clarity on this issue, and Ms. McKnight said she would look into it. Mr. Henry described the project further, stating that they are ripping up asphalt to put an above-ground filtration system, as recommended by the South Salem Neighborhood Association.
Sandy Power, Loring Avenue, asked about landscaping and likes the fence idea proposed by a member from the public. She asked about the planting plan, which Mr. Henry described by quickly reviewing his presentation from the last meeting.
James Rose, 25 Linden Street, states that he fully supports the peer review team’s recommendation to eliminate left hand turns onto Canal Street, and that using Kimball Rd. could work, perhaps using more signage.
John Barrows, 406 Jefferson Avenue, stated that there will be a lot of extra traffic, which he is concerned about.
John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing until January 5, 2012, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 8-0.
Old/New Business
Mr. Puleo told the Board that he saw an editorial in the Salem News about the Salem Oil and Grease site.
Adjournment
John Moustakis made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 8-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:22pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 1/5/12
| |
