 |
SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3/15/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were: Tim Ready, Alternate Vice Chair (Chairing the meeting), Mark George, Lewis Beilman, Tim Kavanaugh, Randy Clarke and Helen Sides. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Vice Chair and George McCabe.
Tim Ready opened the meeting at 7:05 pm. He noted that the Board would be reviewing the minutes at the end of the meeting.
Continuation of 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.
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Site Plan Review application, date-stamped 12/22/12
- Planned Unit Development Special Permit application, date-stamped 12/22/12
- Plans titled Site Plan for Mixed-Use Development, Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove 60-64 Grove Street & 3 Harmony Grove Road, Salem, MA,” dated 12/20/11
- “Traffic Impact and Access Study: Proposed Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove, Salem, MA,” prepared by Vanasse & Associates, Inc., Andover, MA
- PowerPoint presentation entitled “Legacy Park Apartments, Salem,” presented by MRM Project Management, LLC & The Federated Companies, dated November 2011
- Letter from Attorney Joseph Correnti dated 2/22/12 regarding ownership of 3 Harmony Grove Rd., and accompanying deed for 3 Harmony Grove Rd. and 60 and 64 Grove Street
Mr. Ready welcomed City Councilors Paul Prevey and Jerry Ryan. He then introduced the traffic consultant and peer reviewer for the city, Gary Hebert of Fay, Spofford, and Thorndike. Mr. Hebert stated that he is also the city’s consultant for the North River Canal Corridor transportation study.
Mr. Ready introduced a letter into the record from Attorney Correnti that discusses the ownership of the 3 Harmony Grove parcel, in response to questions raised at the last meeting. A copy of the deed has also been provided. Mr. Ready noted that the Board will neither arbitrate nor adjudicate on the question of ownership of that property.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the developers and property owners from MRM Project Management. He introduced Giles Ham, from Vanasse & Associates, who is the Traffic Consultant and Luke Fabbri, of Geological Field Services, is the environmental consultant and LSP on the site.
Mr. Correnti provided a brief recap of the project. He stated that this is a $20 million investment in the property of the former Salem Oil & Grease site, which is abandoned and vacated. Their intent is to demolish all of the buildings except for one. The proposed construction includes 3 new residential buildings, which has a total of 141 units; 17,000 square foot commercial space and 239 parking spaces. He noted that all of the buildings will be built above flood elevation and this is being done in coordination with the City of Peabody. They are also proposing to rebuild the bridge to Harmony Grove Road, which will be their main entrance. There will also be some comprehensive site remediation. He stated that they also have aerial views of the site that can be shared.
Giles Ham, Vanasse & Associates, is the developer’s traffic consultant, and stated that they have done a very comprehensive study which was coordinated with the neighbors, the city and the peer reviewer. They looked at the existing conditions, including safety and accident studies. They made recommendations to mitigate the impact to make sure things are safe. They started this process a year ago, in March of 2011. They looked at five intersections, which included Harmony Grove Road, Grove Street, Goodhue Street, and Boston Street. Counts were done in March 2011. He found that the busiest times are from 7:15 am to 8:15 am and from 4:30 to 5:30 pm. They saw 500 – 600 cars per hour on Grove Street near the site driveway during those peak hours, and it was heavier on Harmony Grove
Rd. , about 600-800 cars per hour. They noted that traffic has slightly gone down in the last ten years, based on what was recorded in the NRCC study in 2003.
Mark George asked if the potential impact of the plan to change Main Street in Peabody to a single lane was taken into consideration, and Mr. Ham said no, but it is something they can look into.
Mr. Ham continued stating that they looked at speeds in the vicinity, which are between 30 and 40 mph and they paid particular attention to the how speeds impact the sight distance when turning in and out of the site. Additionally, they looked at accident data. The two intersections with the most accidents that were reported were about 5 for each intersection. He discussed how they looked at potential traffic volume, which included 1,144 cars over a 24 period entering and exiting the site. They noted that more cars would come in during the peak PM times. He did note that they are near the commuter rail station, which will impact traffic and utilizing public transportation will be encouraged through this project.
Mr. Ready encouraged the audience to move forward to read the slides more clearly. Mr. Ham continued and described the traffic distribution map. They also looked at the driveways and how well drivers could see beyond the egresses, and they felt that the proposed locations are the safest areas to have driveways. Mr. Ham described the AM and PM peak traffic routes going in and out of the site.
Randy Clarke recommended that the fonts be larger for future presentations so the audience can see information better.
Mr. Ham continued describing the proposed signage and striping for the area.
Mr. George asked Mr. Ham to further describe the enhancements proposed on Grove and Beaver Streets, to which Mr. Ham showed on the slides the locations of the new striping and stop signs, as well as traffic islands. Mr. George stated that there is no delineation currently. Mr. George asked if the proposal is to add an island raise up the center area, to which Mr. Ham said no.
Mr. Ham continued his presentations describing the area of Grove Street, Harmony Grove Road and Mason Street. He stated that they measured delays in this area, and they were not very significant. He stated that they want to update and upgrade all of the signs to conform to MUTCD signage requirements – for example, putting “all way” on the stop signs. He also recommends improving the striping. He feels that they don’t need a roundabout in this area, and that the grades present a challenge. He then summarized his presentation and stressed that they are here to answer questions and encourage comments. He says the developer would pay for the improvements they are recommending. He noted that the site driveways will be under stop control and they will be lit in order to see
oncoming cars. In terms of travel demand management, they will also have transit schedules posted on the site. He feels the area can accommodate the traffic volumes from this project.
Mr. George stated that there is a great deal of concern at the intersection of Mason and Flint Street, specifically going north and east, and asked what they forecast the impact will be at that intersection on Mason St. Mr. Ham said they have calculated less than 20 cars an hour during the peak hours (7:15 – 8:15 am and 4:30 – 5:30 pm), about a car every 3 minutes.
Mr. Clarke asked about how many people would be taking transit, to which Mr. Ham stated that they don’t have those exact numbers, but they are guessing that there is under 10% transit usage based on other community statistics. Mr. Clarke asked for a walking distance estimate, which Mr. Ham said about 15 minutes. Mr. Clarke stated that he thinks that Salem is doing so well because of the proximity to the public transit and that is one of the things he likes about this project. Mr. Clarke stated that he is assuming that they will have a clearer sidewalk accessing public transit.
Mr. Correnti stated that it is 0.9 miles from the center of the project to the train station and he thinks it will be one of the nicest walks in the city to the train. They are proposing a walkway which will connect with other projects in the area, including the future Linear Park. They think these projects will attract commuters.
Tim Kavanagh asked about surface improvements to the roadway at Goodhue and Grove Street, and asked if the striping will change the current traffic flow, and if it would accommodate the flow from the site driveway at the anticipated development at 28 Goodhue St. Mr. Ham stated that they are not proposing changing the flow.
Mr. Correnti suggested concluding their traffic presentation to allow members of the audience the opportunity to ask specific traffic-related questions, and after which time they can resume their environmental presentation. The Board and the Chair agreed with his suggestion.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, stated that she is confused about the 20 cars on Flint Street statistic given, and asked if that is what exists now or if this is what they are predicting. Mr. Ham stated that currently there are 400- 500 cars on Mason Street in the morning, and a little more in the evening. This project will add less than 20 cars. Ms. Strauss then asked how he came to that calculation if there are going to be 141 units. Mr. Ham explained this further and stated that his calculation was based on what happened during the peak hours, and in the morning peak hour, they estimated 96 trips, and not all of that is going to go down Mason Street. Where the site has 2 driveways and some folks are going to go to Route 128, as they do now, 96 was the estimate that they came to.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that it was Jeff Maxtutis who did the original study and he thanked Ms. McKnight for providing the traffic study, to which Ms. McKnight said that the documents are through the Planning Department and they are happy to provide those. He stated that he wants to discuss peak period traffic. He thinks that the car estimate is low. He addressed Mr. George’s question about Main Street in Peabody, which should be a good thing for Salem. His other problem with this report is horizon year is not included in their analysis, which he thinks is a flaw. He discussed the state guidelines on TIAs, and thinks the planning staff should have these guidelines available at meetings. He pointed out that there is a proposal to have a Salem – Danvers commuter rail line, and this
project is halfway between this proposed station and Salem Station. He would hope that this development would include that in its proposal. He also feels that there is not enough parking. He noted that another project in the area estimated a 5% use of transit. He feels that this doesn’t respect the North River Canal Corridor plan, as the plan calls for a raised plaza in this area. The population of this project is approximately 315 people, or another estimate is over 500 people, which included 40 children, and there is an opportunity to have a school bus route run through the project. He would love to have the traffic engineers debate the roundabout proposal.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street, asked for clarification on the entry points on the project, and where the traffic will actually be going on this project. She is concerned about left turns on Harmony Grove. Mr. Ham stated there are two driveways on this project, and the majority of traffic will be going to Harmony Grove. In terms of left turns, Mr. Ham explained that they looked at if the driver can see far enough to make left turns, and their analysis says that they can, and they can make it safely. Ms. Twohey stated that the other concern of hers is the turn on Grove Street. Mr. Ham stated that the building that they will remove will make it easier to see cars coming in and out. He explained that they look at things in terms of sight triangles and they need to make sure it is safe. Ms.
Twohey stated that she wants to support the board’s comment that when Main Street goes down to one lane that this will impact the project. Mr. Ready stated that this has been noted.
Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, stated that he is curious in terms of the activities that went into the traffic analysis. He also asked about other analyses that have been done for other proposed projects and asked how that shaped their study. He then asked about what type of traffic was analyzed. He also asked what the formula they used to determine the traffic and are there other data sources that they draw upon to make these conclusions. Mr. Ham described the traffic study that was done in March 2011 and their methods. He made some comparisons to the traffic study done for the 2003 NRCC plan. He also said that they received the other traffic studies from the projects near this site and in terms of the distribution of the census data and volumes, they used those to make the best
estimates. Mr. Prevey then asked for clarification on how much time was spent on their traffic study. Mr. Ham stated that they study was done for a day but he has been out there at least 10 times plus they are also relying on the experience. Mr. Prevey asked about his thoughts on the roundabout. Mr. Ham stated that it is worth looking at further, though in his opinion, he does not think that it is a very problematic intersection.
Jonathon Reardon, 35 Chestnut Street, asked about the actual speed limit on Harmony Grove Road. Mr. Ham stated that there is no speed limit posted on that road, but noted that they measured actual speeds of 30 – 40 miles per hour.
Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, stated that his concern is that Harmony Grove is going to become a main street into Peabody, just like Marlborough Road. His concern is residents coming out of the site onto the road, and asked if they considered adding a light and he is concerned about the traffic getting worse and worse. Mr. Ham stated that they understand the speed issue – if people speed, that is more an enforcement issue. He also noted that all of the proposed projects in the area have cumulative effects on traffic.
Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street, asked what day the study was done. Mr. Ham stated that it was done on March 29, 2011.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, stated that Harmony Grove does flash flood from time to time and asked if the secondary exit can handle the shut down of the main road due to flooding. Mr. Ham stated that the manager of the housing development will have a plan in place for those issues, and that in the rare case that Harmony Grove Rd. was closed due to flooding, the other site driveway could accommodate the cars.
Mr. Ready stated that he is pleased that the traffic engineer is here to hear comments. There being no further comments on traffic, Mr. Ready discontinued the public comment portion of the hearing to move on to the environmental status of the property.
Luke Fabbri, Licensed Site Professional from Geological Field Services, briefly gave background on the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. He gave an overview of the oil and hazardous waste contamination on the site and explained the property had several Release Tracking Numbers (RTNs), all now tied to their most recently issued RTN, so people could look up information about all the releases through this one number on the DEP website. He reviewed the DEP history of the site, which was to treat leather. He explained that they heated and sulphenated the leather and there had been releases of chemicals and by products on the site in the late 80’s. He stated that there was another RTN in 2002 due to a spill, and then in 2005 there was a fire hazard. He summarized the work they have done to clean up the site, which
was completed in 2009. He noted that there are some wastes left on site as there was not a way to get to them safely, thus he described how the group would deal with them as they develop the site. They have submitted a Phase II application for investigation, thus they began the field work in October 2011, and they have drafted the report and will have a final report completed in April 2012. He then described the contaminants of concern, which were limited to the soil. He then presented the site investigation plan, which included soil samples and monitoring wells. Mr. Fabbri explained the Phase III feasibility evaluation options, which is expected in the Spring of 2012 once the redevelopment aspects are finalized.
Mr. George asked if any of the contaminants have gone into the canal during the rains. Mr. Fabbri stated that none of the contaminants are in the groundwater because the type of chemicals that spilled tend to attach to soil instead of water. He further explained that the water has tested clean for detection standards.
Mr. Ready stated that Salem is very lucky that MRM has taken this on.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Councilor Jerry Ryan , 4 Nichols Street, asked how they are going to clean the site. Mr. Fabbri described the extensive clean-up process, which included the careful containing and removal of hundreds of barrels of chemicals and leather process by-product. Mr. Ryan then asked what will happen when the construction is taking place. Mr. Fabbri stated that there will be an environmental professional observing the site during the pre-site work conducting tests such as dust monitoring.
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, asked where the oils were dumped. Mr. Fabbri stated that they went to mostly landfills in Detroit and Fall River, and Gordon College also took some of it for biofuel.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that this is a good update. He stated that he has more of a ConCom issue, but perhaps the Planning Board should have the latest report on the cleanup. He also asked about utility easements. Mr. Fabbri said there were clean corridors for utilities, rather than easements, so that utility repairs would not require an LSP. He also said that all submittals are sent electronically to DEP, and all of their filings will be available on the DEP website. Mr. Treadwell stated that he noticed that the bridge on the site does not look like it is above the flood plain level.
Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing on April 5, 2012, seconded by Helen Sides. Approved 6-0.
Approval of Minutes
January 19, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh. Approved 6-0.
March 1, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Mark George. Approved 5-0. Randy Clarke abstained.
Old/New Business
Randy Clarke made a suggestion to upgrade the Planning Department website to include all documents related to the Planning Board and other department projects. Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, stated that she will find out whether this is feasible.
Adjournment
Mark George made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Tim Kavanagh. All approved 6-0. Tim Ready adjourned the meeting at 9:14 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 4/5/12
| |
