Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 03/06/2014
City of Salem Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, March 6, 2014


A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.

Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:03 pm.

Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Dale Yale, Ben Anderson, Helen Sides, Bill Griset and Kirt Rieder. Absent: Randy Clarke, George McCabe and Tim Ready.

Also present: Dana Menon, Staff Planner, and Pamela Broderick, Planning Board Recording Clerk.

Approval of Minutes
February 20, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes

Ms. Sides identified a typographical error on p.5, para 3, line 1: Ms. Yale is incorrectly identified as Ms. Dale. Sentence should read: “Ms. Yale asked if the applicant was coordinating with the appropriate parties for the traffic generated by the site….”

No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.

Motion and Vote: Helen Sides  made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Ben Anderson.  The vote was unanimous with six (6) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Ms. Yale, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rieder Ms. Sides, and Mr. Griset) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.

Regular Agenda
Project:~~~A public  Continuation of the public hearing for a petition requesting Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard District Special Permit, for the proposed redevelopment of the former Flynntan site into a medical office building, with associated parking, landscaping, and demolition of existing buildings.
Applicant:   DHM REALTY TRUST/PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES OF GREATER SALEM, INC.
                   Locations:    70-92 ½  Boston St (Map 15, Lot 299; Map 16, Lot 139)

Documents & Exhibitions
Petitioner’s slide presentation delivered at the meeting.
Material Samples

Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street presents the petition on the applicant’s behalf. Other presenters included Romeo Moreira of Perkins + Will Architects, Bob Griffin, civil engineer, and Jack McKenna, LSP.

Atty Correnti reminded the board an overview was presented at the last meeting on Feb 20, 2014, reminding the audience of the applicant’s primary objectives for relocation: to consolidate their operations into one location (currently at 3 facilities located along Highland Ave), to remain in Salem, and to provide ample parking and safer access for visiting patients and staff. He also reminded the audience the 3rd floor of the proposed building is being left undeveloped for future tenant use. All entities who have expressed interest are complementary medical businesses.

Since the last presentation to the Salem Planning Board (Feb 20, 2014), the applicant has continued the permitting process with presentations to two additional groups:
Salem Design Review Board (DRB), March 5, 2014. An update on that presentation will be provided tonight by Mr. Romeo Moreira of Perkins + Will Architects.
Salem Historical Commission, March 5, 2014, submitted a request for a demolition delay waiver, to allow demolition in less than six months time of the buildings on the site that are over 50 years
old.

Purchase of the former Flynntan site is under agreement with the current owner, with a permitting contingency to this. PAGS (Pediatric Associates of Greater Salem, the applicant) is proceeding apace with the expectation for beginning construction this year, perhaps as early as late summer.

Mr. Moreira continued the presentation with a summary of the applicant’s appearance before the Salem Design Review Board (DRB). The suggestions and comments from the DRB are being reviewed by the applicant’s team. Tonight's presentation specifically addresses items raised by the Salem Planning Board during the applicant’s last appearance before the board on Feb 20, 2014. Additional drawings were created and shown, giving more perspective on the views approaching the site from various directions. Most drawings included a side-by-side photograph of the existing view:
Boston St @ Nichols St
Boston St @ Proctor St
Looking south from Grove Street
View from Grove Street houses (looking between houses) to show scale and plant material
Hanson St looking toward Boston St
Each drawing was reviewed in some level of detail, with minor clarification requests from board members.

The applicant’s architects also presented physical samples of proposed exterior materials. Residential buildings and a few commercial buildings around the site were considered for context; the homes in particular were considered for texture, light and shadow.
  • Sample of primary metal panel shown, color palette not finalized, silver, pewter colors shown. The proposed material has variegated surfaces and enables hidden fasteners.
  • Material for screening of the garage is a similar metal panel, perforated.
  • Mr. Rieder asked what would be behind the perforated garage panels?  Alan Buie (Perkins + Will Architects) advised the exterior behind the proposed perforated metal panels would be steel framing and open.
  • Mr. Puleo asked if the garage exterior is essentially open with the screening panels.  Alan Buie answered yes, there will be a garage door but the rest is open.
  • Mr. Rieder asked for clarification on the proximity of the garage exterior wall to the sidewalk. Alan Buie advised the garage wall is 8 feet beyond the sidewalk, setback behind the landscaping, and elevated on a concrete base so a vehicle would not be able to hit it.
  • Mr. Puleo asked if there is an open space above the metal screen; Alan Buie advised the screen would extend up to the top of the garage level/bottom of the staff balcony space.
  • Alan Buie pointed out an area of wood proposed on the Goodhue Street exterior façade, also used in the soffit area on the front of building for interest.
  • Exterior base of building will be textured, board-formed concrete. Horizontal etching about 1” deep on the board-formed concrete.
  • Mr. Puleo clarified this is cast concrete poured at the same time the foundation is poured (not a separate maintenance feature); Alan Buie confirmed, yes.
Atty Correnti, advised the board that all materials are before the Design Review Board for consideration and approval. This information is being provided to the Salem Planning Board at this stage because the applicant wants to keep them current. The applicant will continue to work with the Design Review Board on the materials details.

Jack McKenna, LSP, continued with a geotechnical/MCP (Massachusetts Contingency Plan) review of the site (no relation to  Mark McKenna):
No Area of Concerns (ACECs), Sole Source Aquifers, Protected or Habitats of Species of Special Concern or Threatened or Endangered Species, Fish Habitats or Open Space within a 500 foot radius of the Property; and ground water flow is to the northeast toward the North River. The North River is located across Goodhue Street approximately 800 feet north of the site. No surface water is on the property.
Historically, the primary contaminants used on the site were petro-chemicals associated with tanning operations.

1997 and 1998 EPA conducted a Removal Action, consisting of the removal and disposal of waste materials left behind when the facility closed, including the removal of: drums, leather scraps and tannery solids. The EPA cleaned floor trenches and tanning pits, and scraped up soil contaminated with heavy metals. The EPA Removal Action was completed in October 1998.

In 2001 TRC began to investigate the site on behalf of the City of Salem. TRC identified petroleum releases and on Dec 30, 2004, the City of Salem notified MADEP. Nov 4, 2005; a Phase 1 and Tier II Classification were submitted to MADEP.

Two MADEP Release Site areas are identified on the property, together with an urban fill site, all 3 items have MCP Release Tracking Numbers:
Location identified on various maps/charts, a 20,000-gallon #6 Underground Storage Tank (UST) had leaked an undetermined amount of #6 oil.
Location identified on various maps/charts, a 6000-gallon UST of mineral spirits leaked an undetermined amount of mineral spirits.
Additionally, urban fill that did have petroleum and heavy metal associated with it was identified within the property limits, within the shallow soils along the eastern side of the property.

EPA Cleanup Actions:
EPA Cleanup Action: Jul 25, 2006, and Aug 22, 2006, the 20,000-gallon UST was cut, cleaned and removed from the site. This removal left remaining contamination about 15-20 feet down in the soil that was not removed per the MCP standards at the time.
EPA Cleanup Action: Jul 20-21, 2009, the 6,000-gallon UST was removed and some contaminated soil excavated and removed.

Mr. Puleo asked if the tanks remained in the ground during the period 1998 – 2009. Mr. McKenna affirmed this was the case. Mr. Puleo followed up to ask if there will be a need to continue to monitor these two contaminated areas with drill wells or some method. Mr. McKenna affirmed yes, a monitoring system will need to be designed and included as part of the site re-development.

In February of 2013, the current site owner submitted a Class C Response Action outcome to MADEP.  A better long-term solution will come along with plans for redevelopment of the property and allow the site to be closed out on a temporary basis.

What needs to be done:
Excavation of petroleum impacted soils within the mineral spirits release area;
Pump and dispose offsite petroleum impacted groundwater within the mineral spirits release area;
Stabilize residual petroleum impacted soil and groundwater within the #6 oil release area using a retaining wall / interceptor drain along the northeastern portion of the property;
Enhance long term reduction in petroleum contaminant mass in the #6 release area by using bio-injection to aid in degradation of the oil.
Prepare soil management plan to address urban fill and soils impacted by incidental spill areas associated with former tannery operations;
Conduct additional environmental sampling including soil vapor intrusion evaluation to support a risk assessment based on future redevelopment.
Have onsite LSP during excavation to identify incidental spill areas.

Board Discussion of the geotechnical/MCP review of the site:
  • Mr. Rieder asked if there are  off gases or does testing still need to be done? Yes, testing still needs to be done. There are levels of screening to determine if there is a vapor issue. Primary focus will be on the petroleum.
  • Mr. Rieder clarified his understanding the contamination is not being capped, but left in place to cure by injection and time. Mr. McKenna replied yes, partially capped by paving, the area is stable (no migration) so capping is really not needed.
  • Mr. Rieder asked if there will be monitoring wells. Mr. McKenna responded yes, at this time they are not sure if will be wells or exactly what but there will be a monitoring system.
  • Mr. Puleo asked for clarification about what is under the proposed building; are there hazards there? Mr. McKenna replied the intent with the mineral spirits is to remove all contaminated soil. There is no other known area of contamination immediately under the proposed building location.
  • Mr. Griset asked if the #6 oil is not being removed for economic reasons. Mr. McKenna replied yes this is a factor, but also the state determination (under the MCP) is that there is not a risk because the released mass is stable and not migrating. If the contamination mass were above the 15’ depth there may be a requirement for a deed restriction, but per the state, for contamination deeper than 15’ there is no removal requirement for normal construction.
  • Mr. Griset asked how typical is it to see office building construction on top of a plume of #6 spill. According to Mr. McKenna, it happens quite a bit, but in this case the building is not on top of it, the #6 oil release is below the proposed parking lot. The risk with this part of the site is vapor issues. This mass is not migrating, the surface above is being paved and a monitoring network will be put in place to make sure it doesn’t migrate. The state is re-evaluating the practicality of requiring removal of this type of contamination; but the current thinking considers this not practical or needed.
  • Mr. Rieder asked to know delta of removal around the mineral spirits spill site.  According to Mr. McKenna, about 3-6 foot range.  
  • Mr. Rieder raised a concern that the #6 contamination site has big elevation change, and asked if the spill is closer to surface on the north side, where the elevation drops off.  Mr. McKenna replied that the depth measurement was taken from where the tank was.
  • Mr. Rieder responded that if it's 15 feet from the surface on the Boston street side, then it's going to be much closer to the surface on the Goodhue Street side, where the elevation drops off.  Mr. McKenna replies that makes sense, and currently they have no data points for the slope area in question.
  • Mr. Rieder asked to know what the proposed grading is for the north side of the #6 spill location. Mr. McKenna replied they are adding 8-10 feet of fill on north side of the parking lot area which will give more coverage to the spill site.
  • Mr. Rieder asked for elaboration on the interceptor drain. Mr. McKenna advised there are no details yet.
  • Mr. Puleo asked where in the basement area will mechanicals be located; expressed concern that if the area is open, mechanical sound might be noticeable from the street. Mr. Moreira advised mechanical space is not in the garage but on the next level up, so not in the open area.
  • Mr. Anderson commended the design team for adaptive reuse of the site, planning and massing of the building, stating the project overall will be good for the city. Team needs to address at the next meeting the following items (written list of questions submitted, see addendum A).  Comments included that
  • Drawings need to be updated to reflect the roof height of the building. Particularly along Goodhue Street, concerned the parapet is very close to code.
  • Mr. Puleo raised the possibility that some of the curb cuts are reused.
  • Mr. Anderson asked for clarification and quantification on curb cuts at the next presentation; Mr. McKenna agreed.
  • Mr. Puleo asked for confirmation there are no proposed traffic changes to Goodhue St on-street parking and how this interacts with the proposed road changes. He also inquired if a 30’ curb cut will be adequate for vehicle turning in the maintenance area.  Mr. McKenna confirmed and invited Gary Hebert from engineering firm Fay, Spofford & Thorndike (in the audience) to comment.  Mr. Hebert is working with the City on improvements tothe Grove Street corridorand will be making a future presentation on the proposed roadway changes, and how the proposed Flynntan driveways will interface with those improvements.
  • Mr. Hebert stated there are some elevation issues on the Goodhue Street side of the site; it is very important to understand driveways vs. the planned  roadway improvements.  FST is still working on this plan.
Mr. Puleo returned to an issue brought up at previous meeting, there is a traffic concern driven by the driveway entrance alignment with Boston and Hanson Streets. He asked why this is the chosen location for the applicant’s driveway; and if there will there be a presentation in the future to address this. Atty Correnti advised yes, there will be a presentation to address this.
Ms. Sides relayed to the board that at the DRB meeting that board discussed the narrowness of the Boston St sidewalk. There is a bus stop along this side of the property.  She asked if there is room for a pullback space to give pedestrians opportunity to pull off? Mr. McKenna advised the design team will look into the width of the sidewalk. Atty Correnti advised the right-of-way line will determine the width, and the design team will review this detail.
Mr. Rieder followed up on the detail of street trees along the Boston Street sidewalk and thanked the design team for adding this to the renderings. He pointed out these will be young trees and will not serve as a short-term screening device. They are a good long term investment.  He encouraged the design team to realize they are in pivotal position to bridge historical and current design and believes the metal represents a good opportunity to do so.
Ms. Sides advised the board that the DRB requested details on how the metal screen will appear.
Mr. Rieder offered that the articulation of the metal panel could bridge the design gap in the neighborhood.

Issue opened to the public for comment

Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street. Thanked Dana Menon of the city planning office who promptly forwarded the presentation made at the Feb 20, 2014 meeting.  Remind the board of Pat Liberti’s comments from Feb 20 minutes, proposed exterior materials don’t fit into the neighborhood (proposed use of the metal). Traffic will be a big issue which was discussed again tonight. This project needs to be consistent with the NRCC plan. The stated goals of NRCC vision statement include: create appropriate development consistent with the neighborhood, create a new square at Hanson, Grove and Goodhue, and Beaver/Goodhue is tangential to this key element in the NRCC. Key sites identified in the NRCC plan include the Flynntan site. Redevelopment of this site should consider collaboration with the existing Dunkin' Donuts property for a village gateway theme.  Stated in the NRCC plan, a key standard to achieve NRCC goals is the requirement that all development compliment and harmonize with existing adjacent land uses - 28 Goodhue sets a good example of new development that is in harmony with the neighborhood. The NRCC plan also states that buildings should be located to create a presence on the main corridor streets – this includes Boston ,not Goodhue. NRCC parking requirements state that a parking lot with more than 12 spaces must be screened from adjacent properties and streets. Will the metal screen on the parking garage be enough on Goodhue Street? Other NRCC requirements provide for 1 tree for every 3 parking spaces, 6” granite curbing required around the parking. Also an NRCC requirement, in addition to normal site plan review, there are 4 more components including; adequate plans for contamination remediation, adequate storm water management plans. The proposed storm water management plan for this site seems to be quite sophisticated. Who will monitor it to ensure water management plans meet state guidelines? There is a need for more data to ensure capacity exists. Traffic circulation is a concern, particularly at Boston/Hanson/Nichols/Grove Streets —average daily traffic is 1200 vehicles a day does this meet MEPA thresholds? Are hazardous materials waste disposal thresholds met MEPA standards)?. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is looking at more than contamination in the soil/ground water. Infiltration bed on the site plan looks like a vacant lot; can it be tied into the street edge? Have there been any comments from the Historic Commission? (Ms. Menon advised that the planning board has not received comment from the Historic Commission regarding this project). Mr. Treadwell concluded by asking the board and the project design team to consider what can be done to make the Goodhue St. side of this development  a more welcoming and residential elevation.

Rosemary O’Connor 111 Mason St, Chair of the Mack Park Neighborhood Association. Very excited to have Flynntan cleaned up, and welcome sPAGS to the neighborhood. Ms .O’Connor expressed concern about the metal screen proposed for the Goodhue Street parking garage exterior, it appears very cold and doesn’t fit with the neighborhood. She cited 28 Goodhue as a good example of fitting in architecturally. Ms. O’Connor concluded by affirming this is a great project; she hopes these design issues can be addressed satisfactorily.


Motion and Vote: Helen Sides made a motion to continue the public hearing, seconded by Kirt Rieder. The vote was unanimous with six (6) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Ms. Yale, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Griset, Ms. Sides, and Mr. Rieder) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.

Project: Endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision
Control (ANR)
                       Applicant: PETER K. HANTZOPOULOS, TRUSTEE
                       Location: 13 Cherry Hill Avenue (Map 14, Lot 225)

Applicant submitted a request for extension of deadline for Planning Board Final Action until April 10, 2014.

Motion and Vote:  Dale Yale made a motion to grant the extension of the deadline for action until April 10, 2014, seconded by Kirt Rieder. ~The vote was unanimous with six (6) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Ms. Yale, Mr. Rieder, and Mr. Griset) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.


Old/New Business

Continued Ms. Menon reported she has confirmed with the city Engineering Department, and the correction of road striping on Trader’s Way is planned for Spring 2014.

Ms. Menon has been working on reducing the number of hard copy plans applicants must submit—not all departments need hard copies to review. She asked if the Board members would be comfortable reviewing plans digitally and then share hard copy sets at the meetings? After discussion, the board agreed, Ms. Menon should send digital versions to members in advance, with 2-3 full-size hard copy sets available at the meeting.

In general discussion, the board agreed to the following with regard to the PAGS (Pediatric Associates of Greater Salem) application process:
It is very important that traffic considerations be carefully coordinated given the multiple developments and street changes planned for this neighborhood.
When will the planning board know if the Conservation Commission will be waiving jurisdiction on this application? Ms. Menon will find out.
The next time this applicant presents, if would be helpful if their presentation showed what they presented at the last meeting and directly compare/contrast with updates made as a result of
suggestions made by the planning board. This approach should begin with any April 3, 2014 presentation, after the applicant’s March 26 appearance at the DRB.

Adjournment

Motion and Vote:  Helen Sides made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Bill Griset. ~The vote was unanimous with six (6) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Ms. Yale, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Mr. Griset, and  Mr. Rieder) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.

Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:55 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,
Pamela Broderick, Recording Clerk

Approved by the Planning Board on 3/20/2014

















ATTACHMENT A

March 6, 2014

City of Salem
Department of Planning and Community Development
120 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Attn: Dana Menon

City of Salem
Planning Board
Attn: Charles M. Puleo, Chair

Re: Site Plan Review and Flood hazard District Special Permit of the former Flynntan Site  70 to 92 ½ Boston Street.


Mr. Puleo and Ms Menon –

Having reviewed the submission material prior to the 2/20/14 meeting and observing the presentation I have several questions I would like addressed by the proponents:

  • Additional Renderings/model perspectives of the building and site from each of the entrance corridor streets, Boston and Goodhue, and one from Boston Street facing the site approximately from Walgreens.  An additional view should be taken from Bridge Street approaching the light at the intersection of Boston and Bridge Streets (requested at the 2/20/14 meeting).
  • Please describe the type of HVAC system being proposed for this project. It was mentioned that there would be no mechanical units on the roof and the plans show a mechanical room but I’m not sure how the fresh air will be pulled in and any exhaust expelled.  I’d like to understand where the fans and vents will be located.
  • It appears the property line intersects with a shed at 75 Grove Street.  How do you propose to handle the landscaping being proposed in that area?  Will there be an additional fence to separate the properties?
  • The Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) Zoning Requirements indicate that commercial property can only have (2) curb cuts and each can only be a maximum of 24 feet.  The proponent has (4) curb cuts and (2) of them are 30 feet.
  • Please clarify the height of the building.  Sections indicate a roof height but it appears your parapet edge is right at 50 feet along Goodhue Street.
  • Proponent should clarify the parking requirements by listing the actual requirement count as noted in the Zoning Ordinance and how the proponent is meeting those requirements.
  • Zoning Ordinance indicates parking stall dimensional requirements at 9 feet by 22 feet or 170 square feet per stall.  Proponed is currently showing 153 square feet in the surface parking lot.
  • Traffic report is not provided.
  • Parking and Building lighting is not provided.  We can see the light pole locations, but don’t know the light fixture types or the photometric on the site.  This information is required.
  • The ECOD requires that planting beds be bound by 6 inch granite curbs.  The proponent should indicate their intention for curbing around the surface parking areas but based on the ECOD granite curbing should be provided.
  • The trees along Bridge Street and the fence along Grove Street are a good start but I think the proponent needs to provide more.  The trees will help screen the surface parking along Bridge street from the second levels of the homes across the street but at the first floor of the residences the will be able to see right into the parking area.  The proponent should consider providing a decorative fence at four feet along Bridge Street and provide bushes or seasonal planting in front of it to shield the residents from the parking lot and cars.
  • Transitional Overlay District requirements indicate a 50 foot buffer zone required from any residential use where no construction or destruction of land shall take place.  The buffer zone must include landscaping to shield the abutting residential properties. Please address.
  • Based on the requirements of the NRCC I believe the Goodhue street side of the property should have additional landscaping besides the lawn to promote pedestrian use and walking.  Many residences will soon be in that area of the NRCC.  Families will most assuredly be walking around the area.  Possibly a bench and landscaping to hide the cars within the garage.
  • Is the metal grating at the sub grade parking on Goodhue providing your openness requirement?  Will mechanical ventilation be required?
  • It appears that pile driving will be required for the support of this building. As there are many historic properties adjacent to this property I would suggest that you offer to survey the adjacent residences for you own benefit against claims of damage.
  • Will this be a Sustainable and LEED project?
  • What color will the roofing be?  Reflectance for the neighbors?
  • NRCC statement “All development shall be designed to complement and harmonize with the adjacent land uses (existing and proposed) with respect to architecture, scale, landscaping and screening. Building materials of brick, stone, and wood are encouraged. Pre-cast concrete or prefab aluminum or metal panels are highly discouraged.”  What is the life expectancy of this building?  What are you designing too?  Materials suggest a 20 year life span?  Many adjacent buildings are 100 years or more.
  • Project narrative statements that I take issue with:
  • “ The textured metal cladding recalls the highly-textured clapboard siding typical in many of the surrounding houses in a contemporary way.”
  • Wood ceilings and soffits along the curvilinear Boston Street façade recall the beadboard of residential porches and provide warmth within the architecture.”
The proponent should address each of these items for the Board and the Planning Department.
Sincerely


Ben J. Anderson
Salem Planning Board