SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 4/5/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, April 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 and George McCabe, Mark George, Lewis Beilman, Tim Kavanagh, Randy Clarke and Helen Sides. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: Tim Ready.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:07 pm.
Approval of Minutes
March 15, 2012 draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Randy Clarke motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Helen Sides. Approved 8-0.
Public hearing: Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST (Map 26, Lot 96). The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping. Applicant requests to open hearing on April 19, 2012 instead of April 5, 2012.
Helen Sides moved to open the hearing at the Planning Board meeting on 4/19/12, Mark George seconded. All approved 8-0.
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.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the developers and property owners from MRM Project Management. He reminded the Board of the previous presentation on traffic and the environmental work that has been done on the site. He also noted that the city’s peer reviewer was at the last meeting. He introduced Bob Griffin from Griffin Engineering, who will provide a review of the civil engineering, and Brian Beaudette, the architect on the project. Mr. Correnti concluded by stating that they have taken the feedback from the public on the site design and they are prepared to present it this evening.
Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, presented an overall site plan which included landscaping and parking. He reminded the Board that there are 3 parcels that make up the site and briefly described each. He pointed out that the overall development scheme includes three residential buildings and a commercial one. The commercial site layout for 60 Grove Street includes approximately 17,000 gross square feet and includes 13 parking spaces in front of the property. The drainage in the area will be modernized to meet current stormwater management standards. On the residential portion of the site at 64 Grove Street and 3 Harmony Grove Road, there are three buildings that will be removed as part of site development work. There will be a looped access road, which provides for 24 feet of vehicular access
throughout the property; additionally there will be 33 parking spaces under each of the 3 buildings, and the rest will be on the surface level. There will be about a ten foot grade change. He showed the Board that as one enters the property it will be relatively flat, and then it will rise up to the first level, which is about 10 feet. There will be various levels throughout the property and there will be a sidewalk throughout the whole property. There will also be a pedestrian gravel pathway, crossing the railroad tracks, that will go along the river. He said they have a thorough landscaping plan that will be presented in more detail at a later date. He noted that there will be approximately 2500 plants and they will retain mature vegetation along Beaver Street. He described where there will be recycling stations in each of the buildings and the dumpster will be enclosed with a fence. They will use existing services in each of the
buildings and they will probably use natural gas and new electricity coming in as well. There will be underground service as well. From a drainage point of view, they are going to put in a modern drainage system, that will meet the up-to-date DEP water management standards. They will have roof runoff that will allow water to go into the drain water system, they will place some drainage to capture some of the runoff. They will collect water and discharge into treatment tanks before they enter the North River canal. Any water that overflows will go into another treatment tank before it goes into the North River Canal and 94% of water from impervious surfaces will be treated. All existing discharges will be sealed up so nothing will get into the North River without being treated.
Mark George asked what is the increase as a percent of total in impervious surface in contrast to what is there now. Mr. Griffin responded that he didn’t know the exact number but they are going to decrease the square footage of building coverage by 20%. Mr. George then asked for clarification on the rate of run-off. Mr. Griffin stated that 94% will be treated which is significant to what is happening today, which is nothing. Mr. Griffin said that he believes that this development will be the best thing to ever happen to the canal.
Brian Beaudette, site architect, stated that they had great input from the February 2nd meeting. He walked the Board through the site design and stated that he is going for the industrial loft look. The intent of it is that each of the three buildings will be slightly different. He presented the Canal Side, which has a parking level and 4 floors of living space. There is a 12 inch or so protrusion from the initial design in order to create different roof lines. He then showed the upper level, and described the 2 to 4 inch protrusions in the building. He stated that the main entrances will be similar in style but slightly different.
John Moustakis asked if the underground parking will hold all of the parking. Bob Griffin stated that the elevation can hold it, and Mr. Correnti clarified that the parking is under the building, not underground.
Mr. Puleo asked if there will be brick on the protrusions. Mr. Beaudette stated that it would be some sort of brick material and there would be 4 different materials used throughout the project.
Randy Clarke asked if this design allows for a green roof design. Mr. Beaudette said that he can look into that. Mr. Clarke commented that he liked the design.
Mr. Puleo asked Helen Sides if she has been part of the design input and she said yes, and further stated that she feels it is vastly improved.
Mr. Clarke asked if there is any opportunity to reuse any of the brick on the site currently. Mr. Beaudette said that it wasn’t possible due to the condition of the old brick.
Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin about the elevation of the project. Mr. Griffin showed a graphic which described the 100 year flood zone based on the current topography of the site. The elevation is above the canal and if the 100 year storm occurs, then the gravel path along the canal would be about 8 inches under water. The location of the cars would be above the elevation. He then explained the various elevations around the site, and stated that they could not do anything about the elevations of Harmony Grove Road and the railroad tracks. However, he noted that Grove Street is above the elevation and people will be able to leave the site. He noted that this area of the site was dry during the 2006 Mother’s Day Storm. Mr. Puleo asked if this would affect the drainage system. Mr. Griffin
further explained that during a 100 year storm condition some water will come back into the drainage system, but most would not be affected.
Mr. Moustakis stated that Peabody is planning on widening the river and asked how that will affect this project. Mr. Griffin stated that they met with Peabody representatives and Army Corps representatives who were pleased with the particular layout of the project. He commented that the Corps is in the preliminary stages of analyzing the flood improvements and the river. The Corps was anxious to proceed to move on to their phase two which would increase the capacity of the pipes in Peabody Square, though there is still more that needs to be done.
Mr. Clarke asked if the pathway is going to be a public way, and asked if they will they have a maintenance plan in place for that area, regardless of if flooding occurs. Mr. Clarke asked Ms. McKnight if this could be a condition of the approval.
Ms. Sides asked about the three spots of the site that come up to Beaver Street. Mr. Griffin described the direction of the water main and described how they plan to tie into the water main to provide water to the site and fire protection. She asked about a specific area of the plan and Mr. Correnti stated that they are allowing neighbors on Beaver Street to use some of the vacant spaces for parking and other uses, although these areas are on their property.
George McCabe asked if there are any Army Corps of Engineers permits required for this project, to which Mr. Griffin said no.
Ms. Sides noted that she is on the Design Review Board and she has had a good experience working with the architect and developer.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Beverly McSwiggin, 30 Japonica Street, she asked if the entrance on Harmony Grove Road will be a main entrance and exit area, to which Mr. Griffin stated yes. Ms. McSwiggin stated that it will be a major safety issue. She then asked about ownership of 1, 3, and 5 Harmony Grove Road to which Mr. Correnti responded that they own 3 and the cemetery owns 1 & 5, which is not part of the project. Mr. Griffin showed a graphic and described the locations of each of the parcels.
Jonathon Reardon, 35 Chestnut Street, stated that MRM does not own number 3 Harmony Grove Road.
Mr. George asked if the cemetery’s land is offsite. Mr. Correnti stated that the cemetery is asserting a potential claim to a piece of 3 Harmony Grove Road. 1 & 5 are not part of this plan. He noted that he provided a deed to the Board that shows any potential title issues on 3 Harmony Grove. Mr. George asked if 3 Harmony Grove Road is the location for the main access to the site and if that is where the claim is. Mr. Correnti stated that yes it is and it has to do with a 100 year back title and concerns movement of the river.
Michael Ross, 20 Beaver Street, is concerned that the buildings are going to be looking out on his family having barbeques in his yard. He noted that his family has been living there for almost 100 years. Mr. Griffin showed where his property will be located in relation to the project. Mr. Puleo asked what the elevation of backyard is. Mr. Griffin described the various elevations of the site as compared to Mr. Ross’ home. He also noted that their goal is to keep the mature vegetation to use for screening, to which Mr. Ross asked about what this will look like during the winter. Mr. Puleo asked about the distance between the buildings. Mr. Griffin stated that the distance will be about 100 to 120 feet from Mr. Ross’ property to the site.
Teasie Riley-Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, asked what percentage of this project will have affordable housing. Mr. Correnti stated that they have a development partner that will be building this and there are no current plans to go to condo and the affordable housing issue will be discussed with the city, but he doesn’t have exact numbers yet.
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, stated that she commends the architect as it is better than the previous design. She is concerned about the height of the buildings and asked if some of the houses could be two story apartments, and maybe gabled roofs to fit more in line with the rest of the neighborhood. She asked what the possibility would be to make more improvements. Mr. Beaudette said he appreciated her previous comments and he is taken them into account.
Jim Raymond, 18 Silver Street, stated that he is a direct abutter and is concerned about the traffic and described how he would get through the neighborhood. He asked about other entrances. Mr. Raymond stated that he feels that it is a safety issue. Mr. Griffin stated that he feels that Harmony Grove Road will still be the preferred route, and understands what he’s saying.
Barbara Cleary, 104 Federal Street, said that it is a much better design, but wants to be clear that this is a design to maximize the housing and it’s big boxes, noting that it’s not conducive to neighborhoods. She pointed out that the reason this is a PUD is because the Planning Department and the Mayor said they trust the Planning Board to do the right thing and that this needs to be smaller.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, says he looked at this from the perspective of the PUD and zoning review. He feels that this could be award-winning architecture, but it needs to be tweaked more. PUD encourages different types of housing, such as the 2 ½ story townhouse style used in some of the JPI housing. He reminded the board that there are PUD requirements and that they must meet the requirements of the surroundings. He noted that in the EIS the ridgeline will be identical, which means that there will be an incompatibility of this site. Some of the normal requirements of business park development are waived for this PUD, but not the limit to four stories. He says height is measured at the front of the building. He says revising this would help reduce the mass of these buildings. He
also disagrees with the development team’s contention that there is enough parking based on the expected capacity and feels that this has to be increased. He asked where the gravel path goes after it stops. He stated that the sight distance there is good but it is not perfect. He agrees that Beaver Street will be a shortcut for getting around this property. As far as the landscaping plan goes, he is concerned about the mature trees and wants more information on this. He feels that there are liberties that are being taken that should not be, concerning the PUD requirements of the zoning.
Ms. McSwiggin asked about the proposed location of the transformer. Mr. Griffin pointed out where the transformer will be located on the site. He noted that it will go from overhead electrical service to underground electrical service. He also described a “pad mounted transformer” that they will also use to provide electricity to the site.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street, asked Mr. Griffin to specify where the transformer will be located. Mr. Griffin stated that it will be on the site. She also asked that at the next meeting that they get a rendering of what the buildings will look like in the neighborhood. She reiterated a re-examination of the PUD requirements. She is concerned about townhouses next to the neighborhood. She also feels it does not meet the PUD requirement that the development be more than 50% commercial.
Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, asked about the maturity levels of the shrubs and trees on the site. Mr. Griffin stated that it varies throughout the project and described the landscaping plan, stating that there is a mixture of trees and shrubs throughout the property. Mr. Prevey asked if there are any plans to increase the density of the shrubbery and the trees. Mr. Griffin recommended waiting for the Landscape Architect’s presentation to hear a more detailed description of landscaping plan. He read a portion of the landscaping plan to give an overview. Councilor Prevey asked about the sidewalk materials to which Mr. Griffin said he wasn’t sure but would get an answer on that. Mr. Prevey asked about the commercial aspect of the development and felt that it was being
sidelined and asked what types of commercial development are being considered. Mr. Griffin stated that this would depend upon the market, but the have thought about office space, storage space, and other types of commercial space, but noted that there is no intended tenant to the space currently. Mr. Prevey asked about the approval process if there was going to be affordable housing. He noted that he was a holdout on the City Council on the PUD in BPD ordinance, since he was concerned about this property. He says it’s unfortunate that he was not contacted by the Planning Department about the project’s design. He encourages the Board to look at this project with a critical eye.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal Street, noted that this is an area of superseding order of delineation, which is in the process of being appealed by the proponent. He asked the board what aspects of the superseding delineation cramped the foot of the proponent. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin to clarify the area to which he is speaking of. Mr. Griffin explained this further stating that they presented this to the Conservation Commission, and they have an appeal pending with DEP. He stated that the outcome of the appeal could affect the costs of the infrastructure of the project but will not affect the project as a whole. Mr. Puleo asked how the outcomes could affect this. Mr. Griffin stated that he doesn’t see this being an issue as they would re-grade around the site. Mr. Puleo asked how long the
process with DEP would take. Mr. Griffin stated that the appeals go slowly. Mr. Lebovici stated that this was not the issue that the 10 citizens group appealed and described how they appealed a waiver for historic mill complexes. He then asked two questions: 1. does the override of the Conservation Committee’s ruling affect the development at all, and if so, how and 2. if there may be some small changes, could DEP’s determination potentially jeopardize the project. Mr. Correnti stated that they are not trying to keep anything from the Board, but it is inappropriate to be cross-examined here when the issue is under appeal. As Mr. Griffin stated, this is not jeopardizing the project.
Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, stated that there is a missing exhibit that should show a scale of the buildings in relation to the canal and that site section will be interesting to see. He feels that the methods of calculating the residential and non-residential sections is fuzzy math at best. He asked what is the height of the retaining wall at the rear of the houses on Beaver Street. Mr. Correnti stated that he is happy to go over this project with members of the public and there is a reason why townhouses were not included at the back of the site at the top of the hill. Mr. Griffin stated that the height of the retaining wall varies with the hill changes and reviewed the retaining wall heights with the Board, which range from 1 foot to 12 feet.
Ms. McSwiggin stated that they had a meeting at the Moose with MRM and Federated and it was their understanding that he would sell to Legacy. Mr. Correnti said yes.
Mary Connelly, 38 Beaver Street, asked about the section of property at which there is a 15 foot drop. Mr. Griffin showed where the retaining wall is located around her property. She then asked what they are going to do with the hill around her property. She stated that they ripped everything but two trees out behind her house. Mr. Griffin read from the landscaping plan about the vegetation that will be planted and noted that they will look at the existing vegetation and if necessary they will supplement the vegetation. She stated that every year the water washes land away and she doesn’t know how they will help that situation with a 1 foot wall.
Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Griffin to describe the grading proposal further, to which Mr. Griffin reviewed the grading proposal and described how they would make a grade change.
Mr. Moustakis asked how they plan to handle the runoff. Mr. Griffin showed on the plan that there will be a swale and that it won’t go across the parking lot; they will have a comprehensive stormwater drainage system. Mr. Clarke noted that it will be a significant improvement to what is currently there today.
Patricia Myers, 14 Beaver Street, stated that her concern is that she has only been notified only once, and Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, stated that they only send out one notice. Ms. Myers stated that her other concern is that a lot of kids will be cutting through the property. She would also much prefer to see a two-story structure rather than a four story structure. She also stated that she would like to see more vegetation and she does not want to look into other people’s bedrooms.
Mr. Puleo asked who owns the fence, to which Mr. Correnti said that he would find that out.
Ms. Twohey stated that she assumed that there will be a site visit which will help the Board understand the issues.
Mr. Treadwell stated if the neighborhood would like a new fence to be put up there than they should define who owns it.
Ms. Myers stated that 315 people are a lot of people and recommended a community building or recreation hall to be added to the design.
Mr. Ross stated that there will be a negative environmental impact due to this project. He noted that since the dumping in the canal ceased, the fish and wildlife came back, and now this will impact it negatively. Mr. Clarke asked Mr. Griffin about how the wastewater system will impact the project and Mr. Griffin stated that this will be the best thing to happen to the canal in 100 years.
John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing on April 19, 2012, seconded by Helen Sides. Approved 8-0.
Old/New Business
Board members requested guidance and clarification on several zoning issues from the Planning Department, to either be addressed by Lynn Duncan at a future meeting, or included in a memo to the Board. Ms. McKnight said they could do this, and also asked any Board member who needs another hard copy of the full Zoning Ordinance to let her know.
Ms. McKnight also says she contacted Board members about the Bridge Street Neck rezoning project and Tim Kavanagh and Helen Sides stated they were interested in participating.
Adjournment
John Moustakis made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 8-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:11 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 5/3/12
| 
