Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 01/05/2012
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 1/5/12

A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, January 5, 2012 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.

Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm.      

Approval of Minutes
December 1, 2011 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. John Moustakis motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Mark George. Approved 7-0. Randy Clarke abstained.

December 15, 2011 draft minutes
Danielle McKnight noted the list of the documents discussed during the meeting needed to be added to the minutes.  She passed out a hard copy of the first page of the minutes with the changes. No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. John Moustakis motioned to accept the minutes with changes, seconded by Mark George. Approved 8-0.

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; revisions shown – later submitted plan is dated 1/9/12
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 12/31/11

Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the applicant and introduced Paul Beck, Bryce Hillman, Jason Plourde and Phil Henry, and he stated that the team has a lot to show the Board in the form of a PowerPoint presentation.  They have tried to respond to the feedback they have received from the reviewers, the Board, and the public since the last meeting in relation to site plan, architecture, and traffic.

Mr. Puleo asked Ms. McKnight if she could share the comments she had received since the last meeting.  Ms. McKnight stated that she spoke to Lt. Griffin today who stated that having 18 feet at the loading dock area when a trailer was parked was fine, but it should be no less than 18 feet.  She also asked John Giardi to look at the lighting plan, but he has not had an opportunity to do so yet.  She confirmed that the hours of operation can only be 6am to 11pm, otherwise the applicant needs City Council approval for extended hours.  Ambulance access questions were sent to Dennis Cataldo, and she has not yet heard back.  She stated that she also checked on the warning strips and confirmed that they should to be brick red.

Phil Henry, civil engineer from RG O’Connell, 80 Montvale St, Stoneham, MA, presented on the modifications and revisions based on the last two public hearings.  He explained that they went to a single side-loaded drive-through and they reduced the three access curb cuts.  He described the plan that showed a side-loaded drive-through with a three car stack and a by-pass lane for drivers who are entering the area solely to use the drive through. He highlighted the route that showed the toughest movement, stating that it’s less than ideal but does not run over any curb.  He stressed that they are talking about internal drives, not public ways.  He also stated that the drive through queue can accommodate up to 6 cars.  

Mr. Puleo asked if a concrete divider is still being proposed between the businesses.  Mr. Henry stated that yes, there would be a grade difference via a wall, and noted that there will be a guardrail on the high side of it as well as a landscaped island.  

He then took Board members through the new plan stating that some of these changes were based on AECOM’s recommendations. They proposed to close one of the Jefferson Avenue access points.  They chose to close the one the closest to yield lane from Loring Avenue (southbound) as they felt that this option created a safer environment.  They also eliminated the 8th car space to add more handicapped spacing.  They created more access for someone walking down the street, which will create more walkability.  On the northern section of the site they modified the loading area by detaching the compactor and attaching it to the dumpster.  That addresses the requisite width of 20 feet; they now have 24 feet.  Mr. Puleo asked about the trailer approach to which Mr. Henry stated that this would be addressed further into the presentation.  

Mark George asked if the location of the dumpster is closer to the nearest dwelling.  Mr. Henry said yes, but he did not know Lt. Griffin would have been OK with only 18 feet and said that in light of that information they can go back to the original design and put it closer to the building.  

Mr. Henry continued discussing the signage at the entrance by Kimball Road.  The other major modification was the new traffic marking at the Canal Street access, which they feel is vital.  They really want to stress to the Board members that this is a critical function of the site.  They have three enhancements: 1. a “Do Not Block” intersection box, 2. a box on the road and 3. relocation of the ambulance access sign.  Randy Clarke asked if they referred to MassDOT on questions regarding this piece of the road.  Jason Plourde, traffic consultant for the applicant, stated that Canal Street is owned by the city, thus they do not need to go through MassDOT for any changes on Canal Street.  

Mr. Henry continued his presentation.  They took away an additional 2 spaces which allows for 50 feet at the entrance and will allow customers to notice any potential car pulling out.  The next plan slide showed the site lighting.  They proposed to lower the lights from 33 feet to 23 feet, and add two more lights.  They proposed to line the access drive from Jefferson Avenue with lights mounted on bollards.  He said this would be a nice feature aesthetically and also would prevent light pollution.

Mr. Puleo asked if the lighting will be timed 24 hours or with the operations of the store.  Paul Beck, of CVS, responded stating that they will operate in conjunction with the operations of the store.  Mr. Puleo asked if the whole parking lot will go dark.  Mr. Henry said they could have conversations with the other businesses.  Mr. Puleo said that at the CVS on Highland Avenue, he observed the lights on Marlborough Road go off when the business closes and the Highland Avenue ones stay on.  Mr. Henry said that the light coming off the current site was relatively dim, so they are proposing no additional lights.  He does not have foot candle readings from the whole site, but they do have it from the proposed CVS site.  

Mr. Henry moved onto the next slide which showed the delivery truck route.  He stated that if the board feels strongly that they should go back to the attached compactor, they can do that.  They can go back to an at grade loading dock.  The last slide that they have is showing the fire truck turning route, which they improved based on AECOM’s recommendations.  They found a ladder truck to be longer so they drove that around the site, and the slides reflect that route.  

Mr. Clarke asked about the number of parking spaces, to which Mr. Henry stated that will be addressed later in the presentation.  

Tim Ready asked what the sidewalks will look like and what they will be made of.  Mr. Henry stated that all of the sidewalks proposed are going to be concrete and monolithic.  Mr. Ready inquired about the maintenance of the crosswalks, in terms of the painting surviving the harsh winter.  

Mr. Clarke asked if the disabilities commission has input on this.  Ms. McKnight said that she can find out the answer.  Mr. Henry asked if he is asking in terms of meeting ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) regulations.  Mr. Clarke said yes, that this is one example of a project that the disabilities commission should comment on, particularly on the sidewalks and the texture.

Jason Plourde, Greenman Pedersen, Stoneham, is the traffic consultant and he described the parking around the site.  He stated that they looked at the ITE parking generation report (4th edition) and based on that report, they are proposing 128 total parking spaces within the PUD.  They found that the site has an average peak demand for parking of approximately 127 spaces.  

Mr. Clarke states that he still thinks that it is way too much parking.  He drove by what he thought was a peak demand time for Tedeschi’s (around 5:45 pm) and the parking lot was practically empty.  Mr. Plourde stated that he’s gone by at other times and seen that spaces have been almost completely filled during weekday evenings.  Mr. Clarke said that he has echoed his comments on other projects and he is echoing them again on this project that there is way too much pavement.  He noted that this area is supposed to be the new area of Salem, and should be more of a gateway to Salem as well as the university, and should be focused on more pedestrians and less cars.  Ms. Sides echoed his comments that this area should be more green, especially to buffer the edge of the sidewalk and street on the Jefferson Avenue side.  Mr. Plourde stated that they are looking into that, especially into closing up one of the entrances but they want that decision to be based on something concrete.  He said that they can look at which parking spaces to eliminate.

Mr. Plourde continued his presentation stating that they are moving the existing driveway on Canal Street further to the north which is away from the intersection to give more room to the Auto Zone.  In looking at the additional traffic that will be added by the site, and based on the methodology of the traffic assumptions, he showed a slide that included weekday and weekend traffic; he said that none of these movements should be restricted.  He also showed a slide that demonstrated the additional cars that will be added to the area with the development of the site, specifically the increases in vehicles making left and right turns in and out of the site.  Mr. Plourde described the Manual of Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) sign that will further enhance the motorist awareness of the driveway into the site; and he noted that pavement markings will also bring more awareness to drivers.  He thinks that this is a better solution than restricting movements.  

Mr. Puleo noted that the slide shows the two worst movements turning from Canal Street with the highest numbers.  Mr. Plourde explained where those cars were coming from the access points on Jefferson Avenue.  Mr. Puleo asked if they are assuming that they don’t know if cars coming onto to the site from one entrance will go out another way.  Mr. Plourde explained that there are up to three different types of trips: new trips to the site, which is a trip that is made with the intent of going to this specific CVS and the driver is coming right in and left out; a passby trip, which occurs when the driver is already on Canal Street, realizes that there is a CVS, makes a right turn in, and then a right turn out to continue onto the final destination; and a diverted linked trip, which is using a roadway that is not adjacent to the site.  All those types of trips have been taken into consideration, but the difference is that based on state standards they can only assume that 25% of the CVS site trips would be a combination of the passby trips and the diverted link trips.  Further, they had to assume that more new cars are coming into the study area than expected.  Based on the ITE trip generation report, the site could have up to a 69% increase.  

Mr. Puleo asked if the same methodology is used on the Jefferson Avenue intersection, to which Mr. Plourde said yes.  He then explained that the particular slide on the Canal Street intersection is used to exemplify why all movements should continue to be allowed.  He further explained that they are adding one additional car every 4 to 20 minutes. They observed that where there were cars that were waiting to turn left into Loring Plaza, the other cars were able to bypass the turning car and continue straight northbound, thus not stacking up through the signal.  Mr. Puleo asked if there was enough road width there to which Mr. Plourde stated that there is approximately 17 feet of pavement width.  Mr. Puleo asked about coming the opposite direction (southbound).  Mr. Plourde stated that right hand movements are not as critical as left hand turns as the traffic can continuously flow; they will have to slow down, but do not have to stop.  He noted that with the change in signage that there will be more opportunities for vehicles to turn left and turn out.  

Mr. George said that the striping will go a long way towards addressing the choke point and asked how far is the curb cut being moved.  Mr. Plourde replied that it will be moved approximately 30 to 50 feet.  Mr. George stated that he is hoping that there will be something like what they have at the post office with the striping.  Mr. Plourde said there certainly are different options other than the “X”.  Mr. George said this goes a long way towards addressing this issue.  

Mr. Puleo asked if the traffic study volumes are pertinent to what is going on now.  Mr. Plourde described the how the study was done.  Mr. Clarke asked if the assumption is that the proponent will maintain the striping.  Mr. Plourde said that they can workout something in terms of the maintenance.

Mr. Ready said that there was striping and it has faded, so it’s critical that it will be maintained and will enhance curb appeal.  Mr. Plourde stated that he agreed, and noted that his in-laws live nearby so he sees the need for the maintenance of the road signage.  

Mr. Plourde continued his presentation and showed a slide of the Jefferson Avenue area and entrance.  He feels that the closure of the access point nearest the yield lane from Loring Avenue is a safety issue and needs to be closed.  He further noted that to shift them up to the other driveway should not be a big deal and it’s a good access management practice.  This is something that they are pursuing and they would like some feedback.  However, as this is the first time that AECOM is seeing it they are not expecting an immediate response.  

Mr. Puleo asked how they feel about having two entrances so close together.  Mr. Plourde stated that he believes that the vehicles that are using the driveway in front of Tedeschi’s and Eastern Bank are the businesses that the drivers will be accessing.  Mr. Puleo asked where do the cars go from there if they want to access the rest of the site.  Mr. Plourde described the routes of the cars from the other businesses to the CVS.  

Mr. George asked how they would close up the curb cut.  Mr. Plourde stated that they would continue the sidewalk and are thinking about striping.  They are still thinking this through and want to at least present the idea to the board.  Mr. Plourde said that they don’t want anything too high to impede the sight distance for other cars entering or exiting the site.  

Mr. George then asked how someone will know that the driveway is there to differentiate between the house and the business.  Mr. Henry stated that the renderings that will be shown will be geared to give Board members a view of the building itself and he further noted that the driveway will be delineated by roadway, curb, landscape enhancements and plantings.  Mr. George stated that he thinks that this is going to enhance the area.

Bryce Hillman, BAE architects, 142 Crescent Street, Brockton stated that he made improvements to materials and the design of the building.  He showed pictures of how the site will look and pointed out the dormers added to the site on the two sides that are most visible.  Additionally, he added materials to the building including brick and a shake that will be below the windows, as well as extra material below the framework.  He then showed how the side drive through will look, explaining that the enclosures have been modified.  

Mr. George asked about the location of the trash receptacle, specifically asking if it can be moved further away from the house.  Mr. Henry stated that they can move that back to the original location.  Mr. Puleo noted that the compactor, not the dumpster will be looked into being moved and the dumpster will still be in the same place away from the building.  Mr. George asked where the trash receptacle will be located and what is the proposed enclosure.  Mr. Henry stated that it will be wrapped in chain link fence with privacy slats for security purposes and they will add arbor vitae to protect from neighbors seeing it.  Mr. Clarke asked if they could think about wood instead of chain link fencing.  Mr. Hillman and Mr. Henry said they can look into it.  Ms. Sides stated that as long as it is dark and not glowing or reflective from behind the trees it should be fine.  Mr. Puleo said that this is a big improvement, comparing it to the Beverly store on the corner of Rantoul Street and Route 62 that has a more residential look.

Ms. Sides stated that she appreciated the letter they received from Mr. Ben Anderson, Adams Street resident.  Ms. McKnight addressed some of the issues from Mr. Anderson’s letter.  She stated that Robin Stein, the Assistant City Solicitor, didn’t have concerns that the retention basin is outside the PUD zone in the residential lot – they are not structures that are regulated by zoning.  Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Anderson to clarify his question in his letter which asked if there a proposed fence along the back area the retention basin.  Mr. Anderson stated that his main concern is the development is only focused towards the front of the property for retail development but in the back of the property there is potential for the neighbors to be impacted.  Mr. Correnti said that another neighbor, Mr. Beddard, asked if there can be an improvement in the fence on the hillside.  Mr. Correnti said yes and they really want to clean up the hillside; particularly in the area where the basin will go, it is currently broken and their intent is to clean it up and landscape it.  They will be happy to improve the fence, and they will find out exactly what the neighbors prefer.  They will improve but not develop that space.  Ms. McKnight asked if it is possible to see that landscaped area’s plans in more detail.  Mr. Correnti said that if the Board wants them to do that, they will be happy to do so.  Mr. Ready noted that Mr. Correnti has committed to landscaping a currently unsightly area.  Mr. Correnti stated that there will be more green than what is there now.  Mr. Henry stated that there will be between 300 – 400 new plantings.  Mr. Puleo asked if they can do renderings on the back of the lot to be presented at the next meeting.  Mr. Henry said yes.  John Moustakis asked if this addressed Mr. Anderson’s issue and Mr. Anderson said yes.  

Mr. George asked about the lighting plans, to which Mr. Henry described the new plans, noting that the first light is over 200 feet away from anyone on Adams Street.  Mr. George noted that this is a positive progression.  Mr. Moustakis asked who will maintain the area.  Mr. Henry stated that the proponent will.   

Mr. Correnti pointed out the section in Mr. Anderson’s letter in regards to the zoning, and noted that the more restrictive zone is the residential zone.  

Issue opened to the public for comment
Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, asked about the walking pattern from Jefferson Avenue onto the site.  She specifically asked about the width of the bollards, to which Mr. Henry said they will be the width of the sidewalks, plus some.  She questioned whether the parking layout is safe from the perspective of a pedestrian.  She wondered if those three spaces are needed at the end of the driveway and asked if there are there going to be some steps with the new grading.  Mr. Henry said no, it is being raised a foot and it does not require steps.  Ms. Wilbert asked how would someone go from Salem State to the site without steps or a ramp.  Mr. Henry stated that they are actually leveling the site off, and it will be raised.  Ms. Wilbert stated that she is concerned with how safely people walk there and how safely will they be guided there.  She also said that she feels that left hand turns in and out of the site are too dangerous.  

Ben Anderson, 10 Adams Street, stated that he applauds the applicant for some of the changes that they made.  He feels the two entrances on Jefferson Avenue are too close.  His main concern is that he lives on Adams Street and he doesn’t want to see or hear the development.  He thinks the lighting is better but wants to make sure they are full cut-off lights.  He thinks the solid fencing will help visually and with noise.  He also thinks it is important that the site doesn’t increase the current noise issues.  He asked about the mezzanine storage as he is not familiar with CVS delivery schedules.  Paul Beck, from CVS, responded, stating the CVS truck delivers once a week, for about 45 minutes.  He noted that this will not be a distribution center for any other store.  He further stated that the lift is inside the store and will not make any additional noise.  Mr. Puleo asked if the smaller deliveries will be front door deliveries, to which Mr. Beck said yes.  
Ward 7 Councilor Joseph O’Keefe, 28 Surrey Road, asked if the applicant has will discuss the traffic signals at the intersection.  Chuck Puleo said he didn’t think that was being discussed tonight, but asked Mr. Plourde if the state’s proposal for the lights.  Mr. Plourde stated that if they are making any changes to signage or the traffic signals, then they would have to go to MassDOT, but their thresholds will not be triggered for an access permit based on the amount of traffic generation and parking.  Any MassDOT involvement depends on the improvements that are being made.  Councilor asked if that meant that state sees no trouble with the signals and this development will be OK.  Chuck Puleo said that what they understand is that if they are not putting in access from any state roads, a permit’s not needed.  Councilor O’Keefe stated that the intersection is really bad as is.  He stated that he waited this morning 8 seconds to make a left turn from Loring to Canal – no one moves – the lights are all red.  He supports the project but this intersection is a mess and the backups will be significant.  He asked for the Planning Board to get it in writing from the state that this is not on a state highway.  He pointed out problems with the signage leading to the intersection.  Mr. Puleo said the developer had identified problems with the signage.  He said it’s a good project and it will work, but he had concerns.  He said that Ms. Wilbert is correct that the grading change should require steps.  He noted that someone coming through the crosswalk needs more protection.  They need at least four bollards along each side of the entrance to keep cars from pedestrians, and there should also be bollards to keep cars from going through the front door.  He is pushing the Board and the State to fix the signals, and he expects CVS to contribute money to that as well.

Mr. Anderson said that the relocated handicapped spots in front of Eastern Bank may have a grading issue and may impact accessibility.  Ms. Sides stated that she wondered about that.  Mr. Anderson said that he also knows that there was an environmental impact study for the project and would like to hear the results of that study at the next meeting.

Mr. Ready thanked Mr. Anderson for his thoughtful letter which addressed the concerns of the neighbors.

John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing until January 19, 2012, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 8-0.

Old/New Business
Ms. McKnight informed that Board that Nadine Hanscom resigned from the board and they are working on finding a new member.

The letter to Editor that was written thanking Christine Sullivan for her service on the Planning Board was published on December 24th.

Adjournment
Tim Ready made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke.  All approved 8-0.  Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:07pm.


Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk

Approved by the Planning Board 2/2/12