SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 5/3/12
A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 3, 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, Tim Ready, 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.
Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:09 pm.
Approval of Minutes
March 29, 2012 NRCC draft minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 9-0.
April 5, 2012 draft minutes
Chuck Puleo noted a correction on page 4: Barbara Cleary’s last name is misspelled. Mark George motioned to accept the minutes with the edit, seconded by John Moustakis. All approved 9-0.
Request of YMCA OF NORTH SHORE INC. for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control (Form A/Approval Not Required). Plan shows changes to the boundaries of two lots on property located off of LEGGS HILL RD (Map 30, Lot 83).
Documents & Exhibitions:
- Application for Form A date stamped 4/25/12
- “Subdivision Plan of Land in Salem/Marblehead” dated 12/16/12
- “Subdivision Plan of Land in Salem/Marblehead” dated 3/12/07
Goerge Atkins, 59 Federal Street, representing the YMCA, explained that a neighbor has used a part of the land owned by the YMCA, and they would like to transfer this land to the neighbor. This will change the shape of the existing lot to maintain the 15,000 feet that currently exists in Lot 6 on the map. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Atkins to clarify the areas. Mr. Atkins showed the Board the changes on the map. Mr. Puleo then asked if there were lots that still existed and Mr. Atkins said that the previous changes that they have brought to the Board are still in effect and the lots in question are no longer designated as buildable. He showed both the plans that were approved by Salem and Marblehead.
Tim Kavanagh made a motion to endorse the plans as Approval Not Required under Subdivision Control, seconded by Randy Clarke. Approved 9-0 (Clarke, Kavanagh, Ready, Sides, Moustakis, Puleo, George, McCabe and Beilman in favor, none opposed).
Discussion and vote: Recommendation to City Council on a proposed amendment to Section 8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to comply with requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), including adoption of new Federal Insurance Rate Maps. Proposed amendment also includes deletion of the requirement for a Planning Board Special Permit in wetland and wetland buffer areas.
The Board asked for clarification of the Council’s concerns. Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, explained the recommendation given by the Division of Conservation and Recreation to require base flood elevation data in unnumbered A zones for subdivisions 5 acres or larger, or 50 lots or more. Her guess is that DCR wouldn’t have a problem with the City making the regulation more strict, but they would have to have any language changed approved by DCR. Helen Sides stated that she felt that Ms. Duncan’s explanation at the joint hearing was clear and she feels that they should not alter the language. Tim Kavanagh stated that he felt that Councilors Sosnowski and Sargent thought that projects would be exempted if they fell under the five acre requirement, but Ms. Duncan had explained that this
wasn’t the case.
Tim Ready feels that he feels there is no reason to change the language. He noted that these projects would still come before the Board. Mr. Ready favored recommending sending the ordinance back to City Council as written.
Ms. McKnight asked if there are any other comments that she should add to the Planning Board’s recommendation to Council. Mr. Ready stated that there were concerns raised about changing Conservation Commission jurisdiction. Ms. McKnight explained that the Conservation Commission reviews all projects that are eligible for Planning Board wetland special permits. She explained that tying a wetland to a zoning map, as we currently do, doesn’t make sense because wetland boundaries change over time, and the Conservation Commission has the ability to require applicants to submit updated delineations of wetland areas.
George McCabe stated that the issues that he thought the councilors were concerned about were removing a layer of review and responsibility of the Planning Board.
Randy Clark thinks the wetland special permit is unnecessary and bureaucratic.
Tim Kavanagh noted that the Planning Department has made the determination that what they are doing is duplicative.
Randy Clarke made a motion to recommend to the City Council to adopt the motion as written, seconded Helen Sides. All approved 9-0 (Clarke, Kavanagh, Ready, Sides, Moustakis, Puleo, George, McCabe and Beilman in favor, none opposed). The recommendation is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes.
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:
- Letter from James Treadwell, AICP, dated May 3, 2012; presented at meeting
- Traffic peer review memo prepared by Gary Hebert, VP, Fay, Spofford & Thorndike, dated 4/12/12
- 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,” dated May 2012
- 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
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, represents the developers and property owners from MRM Project Management. He also noted that the city’s peer reviewer is present at this meeting. He stated that they have new materials which include building elevations, which Brian Beaudette, their architect, will present and they have a landscaping plan to present as well. They are also going to present the cross sections that the Board asked for at the last meeting which will include different views of the project.
Gary Hebert, Peer Reviewer for the City and Engineer from Fay, Spofford and Thorndike, highlighted the outcomes of the peer review. He noted that the reviews were done on the evening of February 15, 2012, and also reminded the board of the original proposal which includes 141 apartments and 17,000 square feet of commercial space. He described the locations of the site access points and described how his review was done with observations during the peak period. Relative to the study area, they looked at 4 different intersections. They found the study area is appropriate for addressing the primary impacts of the project, and he tied this into the broader North River Canal Corridor study. He noted that the applicant’s traffic generation estimates were reasonable from a peer review perspective.
John Moustakis asked if the condos across the street were taken into consideration. Mr. Hebert said yes. Mr. Hebert continued and stated that the applicant included permitted projects in the area, plus took into account a 1% background traffic increase. The Flynntan site is not included because it is not a distinct proposal – this is how traffic studies are normally done.
Mr. Puleo asked if the proposed office space was the highest use for traffic generation; if they used the space for something other than office space, could it generate more traffic? Mr. Hebert stated that it would depend on what they were using it for. Both parking and generation rates would be affected if the use was changed.
Mr. Hebert continued, explaining that accepted methodology of MassDOT was used in the study. He stated that the driveways’ sight lines are adequate, but vegetation must be kept trimmed. In terms of the pedestrian/ bicycle path and asked the applicant how it will be developed. Mr. Griffin stated the plan is now to pave it for bicycle use. Mr. Hebert stated that he didn’t see if any bike facilities were proposed on the site and discussed bike and pedestrian access to the MBTA station.
Mr. Hebert said the intersection that is of concern in the intersection of Harmony Grove, Grove and Mason Street (which is also part of the larger NRCC study).
In terms of parking, there are enough spaces for the joint demands site’s various uses. However, only 24 spaces are dedicated to the office use, so there may be some shared parking arrangements that should come into effect for the parking to be adequate in the future if the number of employees ever exceeds 24. Otherwise, parking is sufficient.
In terms of traffic mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, four locations were looked at. Grove, Goodhue and Beaver called for signage improvements and modifications to clarify legal movements. For Grove, Harmony Grove and Mason, altering signs to comply with updated standards. In terms of site access, stop signs are proposed at all entrances. For transportation demand management, they will provide information on site about local MBTA service and on site pedestrian and bike accommodation.
He then reviewed some considerations including sidewalks inlaid within the site driveways so they look like sidewalks and not streets. He stated that anything they want to do with traffic calming on the site would be beneficial for them. There was one issue with loading and asked if there was a plan to retain the loading bay, to which Mr. Griffin said yes. Mr. Hebert recommended reconfiguring the parking to work with the loading dock. Mr. Hebert felt that there should be something else there to make it safe for pedestrians. He didn’t see any railroad crossing signage addressed.
Mr. Hebert addressed the proposed mitigation for Beaver/Grove St., noting that improved signage is an appropriate interim strategy; however, over the long term, the intersection should be reconfigured. On Harmony Grove Road at Mason Street, distances between stop signs create inefficiencies, and he made recommendations for two possible reconfigurations, including a mini roundabout. As an interim solution, he recommended realigning Mason Street to a two way stop, which is workable from a traffic calming perspective. Mr. Puleo asked about the stop sign at Grove Street. Mr. Hebert stated that this stop sign would stay. Mr. Hebert concluded his presentation by stating that he generally thinks that the study was well done.
Mark George stated that he had a preference for the mini roundabout. Mr. Hebert described his reasons for preferring the roundabout.
John Moustakis asked about why Goodhue is not recommended to be two-way. Mr. Hebert stated that he will go into more detail at Monday’s NRCC-focused meeting but overall the concern was that it would add more backup to the area.
Brian Beaudette, architect, said he has continued the discussions with members of the Design Review Board, and explained that each of the three buildings are slightly different. He described the different styles in each of the buildings which included bump-out bricks and stucco. He then presented slides of the buildings in 3-D images.
Steve Dome, landscape architect, reviewed the planting designs. He stated that they looked at the area and the scale of the buildings and that there weren’t a lot of trees worth saving. He recommended honey locusts and other types of flowering trees, particularly in spring and summer. He said there would be smaller evergreen trees as well. He showed the view from Harmony Grove Road, and said they took sight distance into account in the design of that area. From the Grove Street view he showed the locations of the existing lindens that will remain on site. He showed what will be shown looking down the canal which will provide a more pedestrian friendly space. He stated that he knows neighbors are concerned about what they will see, particularly because they are at a higher elevation.
He briefly described the rest of the plantings.
Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, reviewed the locations of each of the buildings. He presented site cross-sections from three different addresses on Beaver Street, which included elevation changes, plantings, the retaining walls and the buildings. He showed how the design would prevent light from the property from impacting abutters. Mr. Griffin then responded to some questions from the previous meeting about the increases in impervious surfaces which will be a total of 48%; people had asked about the sidewalks, and they will be made of Portland Concrete.
Mr. Puleo asked about the third building which is closest to the road at Harmony Grove to which Mr. Griffin described the grade at that location noting that it will still be the same as the current grade for the most part. They are also making sure that their basement is out of the flood zone.
Mr. Beilman asked for clarification on the increase in impervious surfaces in terms of the landscaping. Mr. Griffin stated that he didn’t have a specific estimate for that however he stated that the overall site plan does get re-worked in terms of landscaping. Mr. Beilman stated that it looks very good but he has questions about the open space requirement. Mr. Beilman stated that he wants to make sure that this fits within the ordinance. Mr. Griffin stated that they made sure that they are within the zoning requirements.
Issue opened to the public for comment
Beverly McSwiggin, 30 Japonica Street, stated that the entrance is a safety issue and there is a flooding issue there, asked about their plans for dealing with the railroad track crossing. She also asked about the dispute with Harmony Grove Cemetery. Ms. McKnight stated that she shared the deed submitted by the applicant with the Assistant City Solicitor, and she agrees the deed shows that MRM Project Management owns all of 3 Harmony Grove Road. If there is another deed that shows anything that conflicts with that, Ms. Stein is happy to look into that. Mr. Correnti stated that the issue with the railroad is ongoing and they are into that process now. Ms. McSwiggin stated that the road as it currently is a safety issue. Mr. Puleo stated that Mr. Hebert, in his study noted that this is an issue.
Susan Strauss, 29 School Street, stated that she called Jefferson Station to ask about the density of the apartments. She said that it seems that developer took the density of the neighborhood into account when building it. She then asked about acceptable and good density standards for Legacy Park – what guidelines are used? Ms. McKnight stated that there is no specific number they used – they look at this issue site by site. Ms. Strauss asked for clarification on how the property is zoned. Ms. McKnight stated that it is Business Park Development. Mr. Correnti said that they she brought up a good question and they have a slide that shows a density analysis of units per acre. He commented that Ms., McKnight is correct, that there is no technical objective laid out in the ordinance, and it is
done site by site. He noted that they are on the lower end of the range. Mr. Puleo asked if any of the other sites used in the analysis are a PUD. Mr. Correnti stated that Jefferson at Salem was, and is, probably the most similar as a previous industrial site. He notes that the area that is now the Bridge St. bypass road was not factored in.
Mary Connelly, 38 Beaver Street, asked if they are going to leave the two trees behind her house. Mr. Dome stated that there is a silver maple tree there and they are not doing a lot of cutting behind there. They want to save as many trees as they can. Ms. Connelly noted that they all lose their leaves in the winter. She stated that she doesn’t want to see the buildings as she thinks they are ugly and will not fit in with the neighborhood. Mr. Dome stated they are planting trees which grow a foot a year.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, noted that when they did the study for the Mack Park area along the river, they found that the existing density in the neighborhood was 8 units per acre. She notes that some of the projects Mr. Correnti discussed are outside the NRCC area. Mr. Correnti stated that the 8 units per acre is not applicable here. They are not comparing this to Hawthorne Commons, and this is not the NRCC zoning district, it is a BPD district site. He concluded that there is a little frustration on their part when they are compared to a standard that the site is not within.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, says that in terms of density, he thinks it is closer to 25 residents per acre. He does not like the architecture either, it is not fitting with the area. The question is if it is compatible with the neighborhood. Noise is something that should be looked at. He referenced the City Council decision on allowing PUDs in the Business Park Development zone in 2009 which made two contingencies which was that the structures are not more than 4 stories high and they are not more than 50 % residential. He stated that the reason for that was to generate tax revenues and employment opportunities. He notes that for some reason they are bending over backwards not enforce the 50% non-residential requirement. He thinks this is not within normal land use guidelines, is being labeled as
non-residential use, which he is concerned about. He says ensuring compatibility with the master plan from 1996 is an issue, and this includes promotion of home-ownership. He stated that he would appreciate an executive summary of the master plan. He is concerned about the bicycle storage, parking and loading. He is concerned about the parking allotment per unit. He gave a breakdown of the parking as compared to the expected number of residents and noted that 2 units per acre would allow enough parking. In terms of loading, he recommended having a loading space in the basement of every building.
Katrina Pattison, 2 Beaver Street, asked about the shared parking suggestion. She noted that they are the lowest elevation on the street, and there are no pictures on their end of the street, which would show that the new buildings’ roof line would be 30 feet below their roof line. She is concerned about the driveways, and she feels that this issue is being avoided. She also wanted to note that she appreciates the time that has been put into the renderings, but she states that they don’t really show the sight lines in comparison to where their windows are. Mr. Griffin described the grading closest to Ms. Pattison’s house as well as what is located currently. Ms. Pattison stated that there will be a building right behind her house, which is 30 feet away. Mr. Griffin then showed the
aerial shots and stated that she will have a clear view that will not include the building. Mr. Griffin then explained that the distance from building to building is 47 feet and discussed the landscaping plan. Mr. Correnti stated that this is a perfect example of a neighbor who is at a different elevation than the rest of the street and they will work with her in terms of landscaping. They can talk about protecting her views as this is a significant concern.
Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver Street, asked to go back to the issues raised regarding Ms. Connelly’s house. She stated that space available in the back of the house is typical for the area. She feels that the new trees are going to take a very long time to grow and will negatively impact the way people use their yards. She feels that the end of the yard is much closer than what is shown on the slide. She would like to see that there is a little more privacy. She is concerned that the privacy is gone on three sides of some of their houses.
Beverly McSwiggin, 30 Japonica Street, asked for about a site visit. Mr. Puleo stated that it will be scheduled.
Jim Kearney, 1 ½ Cambridge Street, stated that loud air conditioners are a very serious concern. Mr. Puleo stated that there are city ordinances that address this. He also asked about pedestrians and bicycle routes. His last point is asking about the height of the trees when they will be planted.
Katrina Pattison, 2 Beaver Street, asked about the open space calculation. Mr. Correnti stated that there is no open space calculation, but there is a non-residential calculation.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, reviewed the open space requirement, and said he thought it was great that they will offer this to the neighbors.
Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, stated that Mr. Treadwell’s comments referencing the City Council discussions are correct; there is a height restriction which makes for a less negative impact, but what the result is in terms of this project was not what they had in mind. He urges the Board to hold the developer to the usage requirements. He says the project does not fit in with the neighborhood. He urges the Board to not allow the project to detract from the neighborhood. The last point that he wants to make is that there is no proposed community room.
Tricia Meyers, 14 Beaver Street, asked about how invasive the electrical and water service, specifically near her house. She also asked about controlling the foot traffic. She feels there will definitely be more than 40 kids here, contrary to estimates. She recommended putting in a fence. She stated that they currently have a very peaceful neighborhood and this is going to seriously disrupt it. Mr. Griffin showed on the graphics the location of the current fence by Ms. Meyers’ home and noted that it is on her property. He explained how the electricity will be installed and it will be routine work. Water is already on site and there will not be any water work in the vicinity of Mrs. Meyers’ house. Mr. Puleo asked if utilities will be underground, and Mr. Griffin said
yes.
Mr. Moustakis stated that the Board should set a date for the site visit.
Ms. McSwiggin stated that Mr. Correnti said he would provide a number of subsidized housing units that will be here. Mr. Correnti responded that there is a standard generally done in Salem of 10 percent, and that is what they would expect to do.
Ward 4 Councilor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols Street, noted previous noise problems on Nichols Street with the AOH.
John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing to May 17, 2012, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 9-0.
The Board discussed a site visit date. Ms. Sides said that it would be better if Ms. McKnight coordinated this over email. Ms. McKnight said that this can be worked out and will be posted publicly. She reminded the public that there is no deliberation as it is not a public hearing, and if anyone wants to contact her before the site visit with specific issues that would be fine. Mr. Correnti stated that he will work with them as well to plan the visit, as some areas on the property are not safe. Mr. Moustakis asked him to mark off the corners of the proposed buildings and Mr. Puleo requested to mark off the roadways.
Adjournment
Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mark George. All approved 9-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board 5/17/12
| 
