Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 01/19/2012
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 1/19/12

A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.

Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Mark George, Lewis Beilman, Randy Clarke, Tim Kavanaugh, Helen Sides, and Tim Ready.  Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: John Moustakis, Vice Chair

Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:04 pm.      

Approval of Minutes
January 5, 2012 draft minutes
Will be reviewed at the next meeting.

Request of Paul DiBiase for endorsement of a tri-party agreement and release of lots in Phase 2A of the Strongwater Crossing (AKA Osborne Hills) subdivision (Amanda Way, off Marlborough Road).  CONTINUED TO 2/2/12.

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.  

Documents & 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 R.J. O’Connell & Associates, Inc., last revised 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.)
Response memo to civil engineering peer review from RJ O’Connell & Associates, Inc., dated 1/9/12
  • Response memo to traffic peer review from GPI, Inc., dated 1/9/12
  • “Follow-up Civil Technical Peer Review,” prepared by AECOM and dated 1/18/12
  • “Technical Peer Review, Traffic Impact and Access Study,” dated 1/17/12

Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the applicant and introduced Paul Beck, Jason Plourde and Phil Henry.  He stated that at the last meeting they had responded to the issues brought by the peer reviewers, and since then they have provided a formal written response to the review.  There have been numerous changes made to the site plan; the revisions incorporate many of the suggestions made at previous meetings.  They will forestall any presentation right now to allow the peer reviewers to present.  

Danielle McKnight introduces peer reviewers Paul Carter and Jeff Maxtutis from AECOM, who are here to discuss their response to the applicant’s revisions.  Mr. Carter says they have spoken with the applicant about the comments and stated that the majority of the comments have been addressed, though there are still minor issues.  As noted previously, the soil boring results have been requested as the side of the hill was blasted out at one point, and there will need to be some excavation for the retention basin, and it’s possible there will be a little bit of ledge.  They noted that the soil borings and/or auger borings didn’t go down that far.  Mr. Puleo asked if in considering that they can’t go that deep, does that impact how much water that can get absorbed into the ground.  Mr. Carter stated that the test showed that there was five feet of material that they can excavate, noting that they need to be a minimum of 2 feet above groundwater or bedrock.  It was his understanding that the applicant would be putting in some sandy organic soil to treat the stormwater.  They are going to excavate the depth they are required to and the additional two feet to provide the offset.

Mr. Carter continued his presentation with a discussion of the area around Kimball Road noting that it is wide open pavement needing better definition, and they have added pavement markings as well as an edge line. They spoke to Phil Henry about putting curbing along the road, but there are problems with this, including obstructing the Mobil station entrance.  They also had concerns about the drive through.  They recommended a four way stop and can do that by moving the stop sign and the stop line over so that they are located before the intersection and not in it.  Mr. Carter noted that all of their comments about water were addressed.  He pointed out that at the last meeting the applicant showed closing off the easterly driveway in front of Tedeschi’s where they are showing a landscaped area.  One comment they had about that it would impact the drainage and recommend some kind of edge control in the form of a curb or a berm, and if possible install a catch basin.

Mr. Puleo asked for a further description of the single lane drive through – he noted that it still looked like there were tandem lanes.  Phil Henry, site engineer with R.J. O’Connell, confirmed it was a single lane with a bypass – there is no functionality for a second drive through.  Mr. Puleo asked if it will be marked with arrows.  Mr. Henry said yes.

Mr. Carter continued his presentation noting that they had minor drainage comments, which the applicant has responded to.  In making the drive through a single drive through, they changed some of the grading and the location of the catch basin.  The plans currently show it being connected to a roof drain system and they recommend that the CB2 should be connected to the drain manhole rather than the storm drain.  In general they addressed most of the comments.

Mr. Puleo said they had a question at the last meeting from the public about the grading on the sidewalk and asked if they looked specifically at that.  Mr. Carter said that it was his understanding that they aren’t changing the grading much in the front, so there will still be a grade differential, and at the corner where Eastern Bank is.  Mr. Carter stated that the applicant needs to look at that further to determine if they need stairs or a ramp there.

Jeff Maxtutis, traffic consultant for AECOM, stated the applicant provided adequate responses, though there are still some issues.  The main issues were that they have questions and concerns about the access as they feel that the applicant understated the queuing at Loring and Canal, going southbound, at the site driveway.  The sensitivity test analysis that AECOM conducted showed cars would go beyond the driveway and further.  The concern is that the driveway will be blocked at peak times.  There are safety concerns at the driveway locations, particularly about operations and safety.  They noted that the applicant came back and created a “do not block” box similar to the one near Riley Plaza, but for that to be effective, it relies on driver courtesy and it’s best not to rely on that.  The most critical turn is left hand turn to exit to Canal St.  The sight distance issue makes it difficult to turn, so they recommend prohibiting left turns at that access point.  He said he understands prohibiting left turns in would be problematic for the site, and that allowing them is probably acceptable, but they still have problems with allowing left turns out.  

Mr. Puleo asked if he agreed that the trip generation analysis was done correctly.  Mr. Maxtutis stated that they did the calculation correctly, but because average trip generation rates are used, it’s difficult to predict exactly what will happen at the site.  He recommended monitoring the driveway 6 – 12 months after the store is occupied and operating.  Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Maxtutis if he thought that they should limit the left turn at certain hours of the day as they do at the Highland Ave. location, to which Mr. Maxtutis stated that is certainly an option, but is hard to enforce.  He would recommend a follow-up study.

Mark George asked if there is enough room for a car to make a left turn driving northbound on Canal Street and cars can get by.  He then asked how to control cars making a left turn onto Canal Street.  Mr. Maxtutis said it could be done physically by adjusting the driveway to make it geometrically almost impossible to force right turns.  Mr. George asked how does one govern the traffic going northbound.  Mr. Carter stated that signs and markings are passive means of controlling the traffic, and again they will have to rely on the courtesy of drivers this way.  

Randy Clarke stated that they should recommend AECOM to do a PM peak traffic study and asked Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, if they can require a condition to do an analysis in a year. Ms. McKnight responded that it is a possibility.  Mr. Clarke then noted that it would be problematic if a study was done a year later and they were doing the wrong thing – what would they do about it?

Mr. Maxtutis continued his presentation.  He noted access problems on Jefferson Avenue, specifically stating that the two access driveways that are 80 feet apart should have more space between. He suggested leaving the easternmost driveway open and making it right only access.  He then offered another idea about redesigning the parking area.  Mr. Puleo asked if he would see a problem with moving entrance closer to the main entrance.  Mr. Maxtutis said that he thought that is a good option to consider.  Mr. Puleo asked if they can move it to maintain spaces and serve other businesses.  Mr. Maxtutis said that it’s a good idea, access-wise.  Mr. Puleo stated that this design would allow for a wider green space between the site and the nearest resident, and asked also if having a greater distance between curb cuts would be better traffic-wise.  Mr. Maxtutis said yes.  Mr. Puleo then asked about the internal traffic flow, in terms of the drive through and moving the dumpster as well as the compactor.  Mr. Maxtutis said that the flow functions okay and recommended moving the stop sign to make it a more typical 4-way stop.  Mr. Puleo said asked if that area is enclosed does that give enough sight distance towards Jefferson Avenue.  Mr. Henry stated that the enclosure is going to be a 6 foot stockade fence.  Mr. Puleo asked if there will be enough sight distance when a car wants to take a left turn into the site. Mr. Henry described the area as concrete and flatwork, and stated that there will be nothing to block the line of sight.  Mr. Puleo asked if there would be no parking in front of building, to which Mr. Henry said correct.  Mr. Maxtutis stated that there are no fatal flaws.  Mr. Puleo said part of his comment was in terms of the treatment of Kimball Road as well, and further stated that the street line goes right over the driveway.  Mr. Puleo then asked if short of putting down some sort of curbing, if there were any suggestions other than striping to keep people from parking along there now.   Mr. Maxtutis said curbing would work, but is not sure if there would be parallel parking allowed.  Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the width of Kimball Road.  Mr. Henry confirmed it’s a 40 foot layout, although there is no curb there currently.

Tim Ready asked Mr. Maxtutis if he was comfortable with emergency vehicles maneuvering the interior traffic flow.  Mr. Maxtutis responded that it generally looked okay to them, noting that they have a comment from Lt. Griffin.  Ms. McKnight stated that Lt. Griffin is comfortable with the site revisions.  Mr. Ready asked if he had any concerns about pedestrian interior traffic flow.  Mr. Maxtutis stated that there will be more pedestrians.  Mr. Henry then showed on the slides where the two challenging areas are on Loring and Jefferson Avenues due to grading.  Mr. Maxtutis concluded his presentation.

Helen Sides described the traffic situation at the CVS on Essex before Highland Avenue and noted that there is no way for someone to make a left in traffic.  She further stated that this site will have a similar situation to the CVS on Essex Street, near Highland Avenue.  It is there during high traffic times that one cannot make a left turn in or out of the site easily.  Mr. Ready echoed her comments.  Mr. George stated that some of it might be enhanced where Kimball Road is more public and to alleviate that flow.  

Jason Plourde, Greeman Pedersen, discussed site access and the calculations they used to determine the vehicle increases, and noted that they used average estimates.  He also stated that although there are a wide range of data points, the average is the right one to use.  They talked about enhancing the striping, which enhances the safety of the intersection; he spoke particularly of using MUTCD signage to make motorists more aware of this intersection.  He said that the importance of this type of signage is it brings attention to motorists.  He stated that he wants to make sure that the board understands that it’s not a lot of traffic, specifically 1 vehicle every 2 – 6 minutes.  Mr. Clarke asked of the numbers how much of that is weighted at PM rush time and noted that in his understanding, in the entire scheme, it’s not very much. Mr. Plourde clarified Mr. Clarke’s question and went on to describe the slide that shows the rush estimates which showed 11 – 29 vehicles per hour; this equates to one new vehicle every 2 – 6 minutes.  Mr. Clarke asked if they eliminate the PM peak, then is the impact almost negligible, to which Mr. Plourde said yes.

Mr. Plourde continued his presentation by describing three current curb cuts.  He also identified safety concerns specifically with the access point closest to traffic signal, and noted that safety is subjective.  He stated that while the data doesn’t support there being a safety concern there, if you drive it then you know that it’s a safety concern.  The other two driveways are in the same spots that they currently are and they are trying to stay away from the traffic signal.  

Mr. George noted that if drivers are in acceleration mode then that does create a problem, which is the only drawback that he sees.  Mr. Plourde agreed with Mr. George’s statement and stated that they are trying to incorporate recommendations.  Mr. Ready stated that as he understands it that the purpose is to move the traffic flow away from the lights, and by movement away from lights it increases traffic flow. Mr. Plourde said that assessment is correct.

Ms. Sides asked about the advantage of having the residential driveway.  Mr. Plourde explained that it allows access to the whole site.  Mr. Ready asked why not move it to the middle to pull traffic from the intersection and improve circulation.  Mr. Plourde responded that these two driveways are not generating a lot of traffic currently.  Mr. Clarke said that he thinks they need to address it more.  Mr. Henry addressed it, stating that the only issue with this is that it forces the whole parking layout to be changed so that there wouldn’t be as much parking.  Mr. Clarke said that it would be perfect and the applicants said it would not be, noting that they heard from residents who said they needed more parking.

Mr. Puleo said that Ms. McKnight spoke to Dennis Cataldo about ambulance traffic usage.  Ms. McKnight stated that she asked about the hours they sent out ambulances from the site rather than from elsewhere in the city, to which Mr. Cataldo’s site manager said that about 95% of their trips originate from there during the night, and during the day it’s 40%.  Most of the time they use the Canal Street exit when leaving the site.

Mr. Henry stated that they have two renderings of the proposed basin and landscaped area, specifically the back of the site.  Mr. Puleo asked if the transformer will remain to which Mr. Henry said it would be relocated.  Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Henry to describe the types of curbing.  He stated that at the request of the board and a resident they wanted to show the perspective entering the site form the side and noted that they added bollards.  He then explained that typically they would follow the current curbing and then when the curbing moved into the site, it would be extruded concrete. He then showed another slide which showed that they would provide a guardrail and a trench with stone to pre-treat water.  Mr. Ready asked if he had a slide to contrast the back of the building.  Mr. Henry said he did not, but he has an aerial which should show the expanse of concrete.  Mr. Ready asked if this is what the neighbors would look down on.  Mr. Henry said that they would see that after 20 feet of vegetation.  

Mr. Puleo asked about the plantings in terms of what would be seen from Adams Street.  Mr. Henry stated that they propose to not touch the back as it’s beyond their site but they will plant some trees that will mature to the 20 foot height.  A neighbor requested opaque slats in the fencing they will be putting up, and they will do that.

Issue opened to the public for comment
Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street, stated that he is concerned about left turns.

Ben Anderson, 10 Adams Street, stated that he is still concerned about the double driveway on Jefferson Avenue and likes the suggestion of the single entrance.  He said that while he’s pleased about the slats in the fence, he’s still concerned about the noise.  He’s concerned that the quality of life will be impacted.  Mr. Puleo asked which noises he is concerned about.  Mr. Anderson stated that he is concerned about the drive through, and general noise from a retail site.  Mr. Puleo asked about the location of the HVAC system.  Mr. Beck stated that there is a well in the center of the roof for it.  Mr. Henry said that the top of the building is a bathtub design.  Mr. Puleo asked if they will be seen from the street.  Mr. Beck and Mr. Henry said no, it’s hidden behind the dormers and the gables.  Mr. Beck said that they can bring sound data for the equipment they use.  

Ward 5 Councilor Josh Turiel, 238 Lafayette Street, stated that he is looking at the usage and the parking, and wants to know if they can be combined in a way that will positively impact the flow.  He recommended that if some of the traffic flow can be redirected to Kimball Road, that could help things.  He also suggested moving things farther away from the choke point which will help mitigate the problems.

Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, stated that she is still concerned about pedestrian safety as CVS wants college students and neighbors to walk to this site.  She pointed out that if a pedestrian walks across Loring Avenue, she believes that they are going to end up walking through the drive through of the Eastern Bank, and it’s unrealistic to expect pedestrians to walk around.  She asked how will they get to the ATM safely.  She feels that they would be safer if there were sidewalks on both sides of the driveway as the inner walk is the shortest distance between two points.  She said that there really isn’t any safe point as a pedestrian onto this site.  Mr. Puleo stated that he didn’t know if there is a back entrance to the Eastern Bank, to which Ms. Wilbert said that there is not one now.  Mr. Henry said will provide a crosswalk from the Eastern Bank to the CVS which will address these concerns.

Ward 7 Councilor Joseph O’Keefe, 28 Surrey Road, asked the applicant to clarify how many entrances there would be.  Mr. Puleo says they are still proposing two.  Councillor O’Keefe notes the traffic situation is difficult there.  He applauds the board for taking an interest in the intersection.  He wants to point out that there are cracks in the sidewalks by Tedeschi due to large truck deliveries – how could they make these turns?    He asked to see the rendering showing the single family dwelling and the site entrance.  He asked how wide the sidewalk is; Mr. Henry to said that the sidewalk is 4 ½ to 5 feet.  Councilor O’Keefe said he’s not opposed the the project, but he is concerned about traffic, pedestrian access and the signals at the intersection, which need to be adjusted and asked if they have spoken to Mass Highway.  Mr. Puleo stated that as previously discussed, this is currently below Mass Highway’s radar.  Councilor O’Keefe feels that Mass Highway is wrong in terms of the signage that is posted approaching the intersection.  He salutes the board for discussing traffic and pedestrian concerns.  He thinks there should be more study to get the project done.  He asked how someone from the college would get to the CVS from Canal St. walking across Loring Ave.    Mr. Henry showed on the slides where the existing sidewalk is and explained the sidewalk area will be re-graded and will be within acceptable handicapped limits.  

Mr. Puleo stated that Councilor O’Keefe made a good point about the traffic signal and noted GPI had brought this up at their first meeting.  He said perhaps this could be addressed at the next meeting.  Mr. Plourde described the different types of access permits required and stated that they are awaiting a response from MassDOT about what they would need, and they will provide this information to the City.  He noted that at the first meeting they identified lots of different concerns with the signage, and also wanted to make sure they had a full package of improvements to bring to MassDOT instead of addressing them piecemeal.  He says once they have agreed with the City about improvements to be made, they will then move forward with MassDOT.  Mr. Puleo asked if they can ask MassDOT if they can look when the timing of lights was last redone. Mr. Plourde said that they would absolutely look into that.

Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing until February 2, 2012, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 7-0.

Public Hearing: Petition of MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the property located at 3 HARMONY GROVE RD and 60 & 64 GROVE ST (Map 16, Lots 236, 237 & 239), Salem MA (redevelopment of the former site of Salem Oil & Grease factory), for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit.  The proposed project includes construction of three multi-family residential buildings (total of 141 units), re-use of an existing 17,000 square foot commercial office building, and associated parking and landscaping.  APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO 2/2/12.

Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing until February 2, 2012, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 7-0.

Presentation/Discussion: North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) Transportation Study.  Overview of the changes anticipated in the NRCC, identification of key intersections, and a preliminary discussion of potential transportation improvements.

Documents & Exhibitions:
  • PowerPoint presentation: North River Canal Corridor Transportation Study – Introduction – Options Evaluation, dated 1/19/12, prepared by Fay, Spofford & Thorndike
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, gave an introduction to the project.  She stated that the catalyst for this study was that the Planning Board has been reviewing a number of proposed projects in this area and for each project they are reviewing traffic mitigation as it relates to each specific project, while this is a more comprehensive look at the area and potential traffic mitigation measures.  She further noted that the study is supported by the Mayor.  Gary Hebert of Fay, Spofford and Thorndike (consultant for the City) is going to present an overview of the study, his initial findings, pros and cons associated with possible solutions, get feedback from the public, and then present recommendations at a second public meeting.

Mr. Hebert presented his overview of the study stating that the purpose of the meeting is to get the public’s input.  He presented an overview of the study, and described the five development areas, which are the Gateway Center, Riverview Place, North River site (28 Goodhue), Legacy Apartment site (Salem Oil & Grease), and the Flynntan site (information is preliminary).  He noted that the developments without direct access off Boston or Bridge Street present more difficult challenges, which he will discuss later in the presentation.  He described the purpose of the study, which is focused on traffic impacts, transportation mitigation measures, and costs of those measures.  He noted that this study is not starting from scratch, as FS&T looked at the studies and plans from 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2009.  Part of his study included daily trip generation associated with each of the sites and pointed out that the highest trip generation is from the Gateway Center, followed by Legacy Park Apartments.  The compiled data shows there will be 650 vehicle trips per hour added to the system during the AM peak hour, dispersed among the various streets.  He showed graphics demonstrating expected AM peak growth.  He pointed out that Bridge Street between Boston and Flint Street has a lower volume with the four lane cross section than the two lane cross section that has higher volume – this explains some of the congestion north of Flint Street.  He says the proposal to widen Route 107 is valid when you look at what else is going on in the area.  He also noted that Flint Street is carrying more traffic than it should for a local street.  Other slides showed safety congestion, hot spots, as well as crash rates, and the last slide of his overview showed future projections of potential safety and congestion areas.  He then reviewed  potential options, including adding traffic lights, new connectors and creating roundabouts, as follows:.  
  • He reviewed the pros and cons for changes at the intersection at Mason Street and Tremont Street, including a brief discussion about the installation of a traffic signal.  He discussed some of the problems associated with having a signal control on that street.  
  • The next slides focused on creating a connector between Commercial and Mason Streets and the pros and cons associated with that solution.  
  • Additionally he discussed creating a connector between Commercial and Flint Streets and the pros and cons were reviewed, which, he said, may have potential impacts upon Leslie’s Retreat Park.  
  • He identified previous alternatives discussed for Flint Street, including making Flint Street one way southbound to the Riverview entrance near Oak Street.  He pointed out the high crash rates in this area, and noted that there are not a lot of options for making this better.  Another option proposed the relocation of on-street parking and keeping Flint Street as t a two way street.  
  • Another roadway connector was proposed between Bridge and Goodhue Streets, noting that in this area, flood compensation would be needed.  This new roadway would facilitate a change to the existing intersection of Goodhue and Bridge.
  • One concept was to modify the intersection of Boston and Bridge Streets to make it more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, which was conditional upon the roadway connector between Bridge and Goodhue.  In thinking about pedestrian access, he stated that nothing would be accomplished in terms of pedestrian safety to make Goodhue a two-way street.  
  • He discussed the possibility of building a road from Hanson Street to Goodhue Street; however, there are significant grading and slope issues.  He noted possible modifications to Aborn Street such as signalization.   
  • At Harkin Square, where Grove and Harmony Grove Streets intersect, he said we could consider a roundabout, but we need to determine what would be an appropriate size of a roundabout as well as a truck’s ability to get around this area.  
At this point Mr. Hebert concluded his initial presentation.

Issue opened to the public for comment
Gavin McCauliffe, 11 Prescott Street, asked Mr. Hebert to first describe the location of Commercial Street and then describe the proposed changes to Commercial Street.  He then asked about how the additional traffic and parking from the future MBTA garage will impact the study areas and other plans.  Mr. Hebert said that the garage is south, traffic using it is generally coming from the north.  In terms of adding new traffic, the whole idea of these garages is to reduce traffic, not add it.  This will remove some cars who are now heading all the way into Boston.  1% growth is assumed up to 2016.  

Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal Street, stated that the courthouse traffic study has been completed and they never saw the data from that study.  He asked if that traffic study had been taken into consideration for this study.  Mr. Hebert stated that his counts were done this year, after the courthouse was in place, and there are also the counts taken by Salem Oil & Grease.    Ms. Duncan said that the courthouse traffic study is a separate issue, but she would made a note to get this information.  

Lisa Joubert, 70A School Street, asked how traffic from North Street was taken into account for this project.  She asks how overflow and cut through traffic has been factored into this study, as well as traffic from proposed development projects in the area.  Mr. Hebert explained that he looked at data from North Street.  He focused on this area because it’s further to the south and while they aren’t yet sure what they will be recommending, if the possible improvements have other impacts on this area, he will identify them.  Ms. Joubert said that it would be helpful to have the study be more comprehensive; there is a lot of cut through traffic going to 128 and back.  She recommended there be more thought put into where the traffic will then flow after these projects are completed.  Ms. Joubert said that it would be nice to restrict traffic through neighborhoods during certain hours and noted that backups that occur on North Street are a serious problem.  She concluded, stating that with the new developments, people are going to look at new ways to avoid North Street.

Charlie Newhall, 131 Federal Street, stated that they want to keep neighborhoods safe, and new developments may come at the expense of the neighborhoods.  The Federal Street neighborhood has people flowing through there very fast, and asked how to encourage people to stay on the main roads we want people to drive on, rather than using cut throughs.

Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, asked if they are late in holding this first public meeting, since the scope of work indicates the public meetings were to be held sooner.  Mr. Hebert responded that there was a delay in the study.  Ms. Duncan then explained further that the city was waiting for the Salem Oil & Grease project to come in so that they could use more accurate figures.  She says Mr. Hebert had to make estimates for the Flynntan site because they don’t have a real, proposed development plan.  Mr. Treadwell continued, stating that the transportation committee for the Mack Park Neighborhood Association wanted Bridge, Boston and North Streets to be acknowledged as access streets.  They would have liked the City to coordinate with the consultants doing the traffic analysis for the T.  He says their comments are getting in after some of the primary decisions have been made.  He was on the working group for the North River Canal Corridor plan, and one of the great things it has is traffic calming measures for the Franklin St. neighborhood.  He feels that traffic calming would be of great benefit to these five developments as part of the improvement package.  He recommended the city should have a peer review done of this study.

Peter Coklis, 40 Lawrence Street, stated that he felt that the study didn’t address how Salem handles Boston Street and is surprised that it isn’t part of the scope of the project.  Mr. Hebert explained that he did a study of Aborn, Hawley and Boston Streets for the city which will be presented separately.  Mr. Coklis noted that this hasn’t been discussed.  Ms. Duncan pointed out that the geographic boundaries tend to expand when discussing traffic, noting that Boston Street is one of the city’s roadway improvement priorities.  She said that it is outside the scope of this study, but not outside the city’s priorities.

Ward 2 Councilor Mike Sosnowski, 17 Collins Street, asked if this plan is included in the peak with or without the developments, to which Mr. Hebert said it was with the developments.  He then asked how the new courts were taken into account. Ms. Duncan said that the court system wasn’t taken into account because the courts just moved in in December.  Mr. Sosnowski said that he had spoken with someone who stated that the courts in Salem are not fully up to speed and other courts in Gloucester and Ipswich are closing and more traffic will be coming here – these need to be taken into account.  He then asked if they had thought about extending Commercial Street to cross Bridge Street, could that take pressure off North St.?  The railroad is not used that frequently.  Leaving the new MBTA garage, what if you went parallel to North St., come out by Franklin re-intersect with North again – would that help the traffic on Bridge St.?    He also asked if Goodhue Street would be coming toward the intersection with Boston, Goodhue and Bridge Streets, to which Mr. Hebert responded no, it will remain one way as it is today.  Councilor Sosnowski stated that he thought Public Storage was supposed to put a turning lane in at that intersection. Ms. Duncan explained that it there was an easement included in their plan that would allow the city to build the lane if needed.  He then asked if, for  the Gateway development, had they considered a turning lane onto Bridge Street?  It’s not shown here.  This would be a 3rd lane westbound.  Mr. Hebert explained that from a traffic perspective, a third lane was not needed.   Councilor Sosnowski then asked a question related to traffic safety, specifically about adding a 3 way stop on Flint Street and asked if any changes on Mason Street are being considered.  Mr. Hebert said that’s promising.  You’d just have to make sure people were using it correctly.  He says they are looking at everything.  

Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street, stated she was intrigued by the possibility of a roundabout at Harmony Grove but felt that the rest of it was like pushing 10 pounds into a 5 pound bag.  She is concerned about the conclusions Mr. Hebert has reached.  Mr. Hebert says he has not yet reached any conclusions.  Ms. Twohey stated that Riverview Place was supposed to have 50% density that was approved.  They have twice the density at Goodhue.  She says they have taken rules in the city and broken them for developers and hurt other people – we are paying with the traffic.  She says they need more input to arrive at something that really works.  Ms. Duncan asked what type of input is she thinking of.  Ms. Twohey said she thinks that a small citizen group should work with Mr. Hebert.  She then asked if they can get a copy of the presentation and think about it, and make comments, to which Ms. Duncan said absolutely.   Ms. Duncan reminded the audience that the purpose of the meeting is for public comment, and she will look into additional opportunities for citizen input.  She asked Ms. Twohey what was a reasonable amount of time for public comment on the presentation after it was posted.  Ms. Twohey stated two weeks and Ms. Duncan agreed.  Ms Duncan then addressed the issue of cut through traffic.  She noted the Court Traffic Committee and the recommendation of the City’s traffic consultant to eliminate cut-through traffic on Federal Street.  Everyone had agreed that the recommendation would work; however, it would have a negative impact on residents of River Road. She said we need to keep in mind that when we make a change, it may help some people but hurt others.  Ms. Duncan then reminded the audience that the scope of this project is  focused on this specific area because of projects being proposed there.  The Planning Board wants to be able to have perspective on the whole area, rather than just individual developments.

Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., says there should be a peer review by AECOM.  He refers to the Salem/Beverly Transportation Plan – from the overpass to Flint – making Bridge St. a four lane right of way.  He says they can’t figure out where and when this will be done.  He says he wouldn’t do a traffic plan without knowing what the capacity of Bridge Street will be after its improvement.   Ms. Duncan said this is a five year plan – looking until 2016, and that Bridge St. improvement would not be constructed before then.  Funding is extremely constrained for transportation improvements.  The State’s priority was to undertake the Court project first, then the MBTA garage project, and then the last phase of Bridge Street, from Washington to Flint Street.  She asks if Mr. Hebert assumed the four lane road; he said no because he assumed it would not be done in the five-year period.  Mr. Treadwell said he thinks five years is a short period.  

Councilor Sosnowski asked if Councilors Prevey, Ryan and himself could be kept informed of meetings about this project because they and their constituents are directly impacted by this, and Ms. Duncan said yes.  Mr. Sosnowski also noted that CTPS completed “Journey to 2030” to look at transportation needs and asked if they are thinking beyond 5 years.  Ms. Duncan responded that they are being very pragmatic and trying to identify traffic mitigation for this area that may not have been identified because we’ve been looking at individual projects.  In addition, the objective is to determine ballpark costs for these mitigation measures.  She noted that they are very focused, on a five year time horizon, and limited to this corridor for the time being.  

Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, said he appreciates this project and asked if they have thought about a crosswalk from Dunkin Donuts to Proctor Street.  Mr. Puleo said he thought that the pedestrian phase for the crosswalk is being done as part of the Gateway Project.  Mr. Hebert suggested thinking about this in the bigger picture.  When all the developments are constructed, pedestrians will have another option to cross further up.  Additionally, they are also looking at the possibility of incorporating bike lanes according to the city’s master plan.

Lorene Scanlon, 77 Mason Street, stated that last week a truck slammed into guardrail near her house at the corner of Mason and Flint Streets.  She states that she is concerned that the city needs to protect the citizens.

Councilor O’Keefe thanked Mr. Hebert on the work he’s done for the City of Salem.  He noted that Mr. Hebert lives in Marblehead and he brings local knowledge to this.

Tina Stoner, 1 Buffum Street, stated she is very concerned about Flint Street.  She remembers a time when the road was unilaterally changed and went into effect without advance notice.  

Thomas Costagliola, 51 Lafayette Street, would like to see comments in a blog format on the web, to which Ms. Duncan stated that it’s not the usual protocol or technology the City uses, but she offered to look further into it.

Request for Insignificant Change: Request of Ayoub Engineering on behalf of McDonald’s Corporation for a change of approved color scheme for McDonald’s, 1 Trader’s Way.

Documents & Exhibitions:

  • Photographs of construction in process, no date
  • Renderings showing terra cotta scheme and New England gray scheme, last revised 1/11/12, prepared by Ayoub Engineering
Tony Guba, Ayoub Engineering, introduced Tom Giarusso, from McDonalds, and Larry Kimmelman and stated that they had expected to use a terracotta finish on the building.  Mr. Kimmelman preferred to use the hardy plank color of New England grey and noted that other than the color there are no other changes.  He concluded by stating that he hopes the Board sees this as a very insignificant change.  

Mr. Clarke asked if it’s already up, to which Mr. Guba said yes.  He explained that the owner wanted the color change and they didn’t get to the Board in time to make the request prior to the color change.  Mr. Giarusso stated that they used the same material in a different color.  After showing the Board the pictures via Mr. Kimmelman’s iPad, Danielle McKnight asked them to provide copies of the pictures to her for the record.  Mr. Kimmelman then emailed the pictures to her.

Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the request for the insignificant change, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 7-0.

Planning Board Officer Elections

Tim Kavanaugh made a motion to approve Charles Puleo as Chair, John Moustakis as Vice Chair and Tim Ready as alternate Vice Chair, seconded by Mark George, all approved 6-0.

Old/New Business

Adjournment
Mark George made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Chuck Puleo.  All approved 7-0.  Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 10:13 pm.

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://www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/ 


Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk

Approved by the Planning Board 3/15/12