City of Salem Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, April 3, 2014
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, April 3, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:01 pm. ~
Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Ben Anderson, Kirt Rieder, Tim Ready, Vice Chair, and Randy Clarke. ~Absent: Dale Yale, Helen Sides and Bill Griset.
Also present: Dana Menon, Staff Planner, and Pamela Broderick, Planning Board Recording Clerk. ~
Approval of Minutes
March 20, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. ~
Motion and Vote:~Kirt Rieder made a motion to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Randy Clarke. ~The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Rieder) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Mr. Puleo recognized City Council members Elaine Milo (Councilor at Large) and David Eppley (Ward 4 Councilor) in the audience and thanked them for their attendance.
Regular Agenda
Project: 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.
Location: ~~~~~ 70-92 ½ Boston St (Map 15, Lot 299; Map 16, Lot 139)
APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE HEARING TO APRIL 17, 2014
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, on behalf of the applicant, submitted a written request to continue the public hearing tol April 17, 2014.
Motion and Vote:~~Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing to April 17, 2014 , seconded by Kirt Rieder. ~The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Rieder) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Project: A public hearing for a petition requesting a Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and a Flood Hazard District Special Permit for the demolition of the existing Marina Building and the redevelopment of that site to include an expansion of the existing Salem Waterfront Hotel & Suites with associated parking and landscaping, and off-site parking at 13-15 Herbert Street and 25 Peabody Street.
Applicant: ~~~~~ THE SALEM WATERRONT HOTEL & SUITES, LLC
Locations: ~~~~~ 19 Congress St (Map 34, Lot 489); 23 Congress St (Map 34, Lot 447);
223-231 Derby St (Map 34, Lot 446; 235 Derby St (Map 34, Lot 445);
Congress St (Map 34, Lot 408); 13-15 Herbert St (map 35, Lot 321);
25 Peabody St (Map 34, Lot 436); The Remaining land of Pickering Wharf Condominium Trust (Map 34, Lot 408)
APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE HEARING TO APRIL 17, 2014
Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, on behalf of the applicant, submitted a written request to continue until April 17, 2014.
Motion and Vote:~~Kirt Rieder made a motion to continue the public hearing to April 17, 2014, seconded by Ben Anderson. ~The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Rieder) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Project: A public hearing for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the creation of two lots, each with less than the required minimum frontage. Also an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control (ANR).
Applicant: peter K Hantzopoulos
Location: 13 Cherry Hill Avenue (Map 14, Lot 225)
Ms. Menon advised that six (6) members are required to hear and vote on a Special Permit request. The applicant requested: 1) to extend the deadline for planning board final action on the ANR that is associated with the waiver from frontage, and 2) to continue the hearing on the waiver from frontage.
Motion and Vote:~~Randy Clarke made a motion to extend the deadline for planning board action on the ANR , seconded by Kirt Rieder. ~The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Rieder) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Motion and Vote:~~Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing on the waiver from frontage special permit request until April 17, 2014, seconded by Tim Ready. ~The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Rieder) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Project: Request for an insignificant change to the previously approved Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit to allow minimal building footprint change, minimal parking lot and drive reconfiguration, modified arch entry to meet fire safety requirements, and enlargement of courtyard area.
Applicant: OLD SALEM JAIL VENTURES, LLC
Location: 50 St. Peter St (Map 35, Lot 179)
John Seger, principal, Seger Architects Inc., 10 Derby Square, on behalf of the applicant, submitted a written request to continue the public hearing to April 17, 2014.
Motion and Vote:~~Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing until April 17, 2014, seconded by Kirt Rieder. ~The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Rieder) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Project: Request for an insignificant change to the previously approve Site Plan Review, Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District Special Permit, to allow modification to the pedestrian and vehicular barrier systems along the public walkway.
Applicant: NORTH RIVER CANAL, LLC
Location: 28 Goodhue ST (Map 16, Lot 372)
Documents and Exhibitions:
- Plan, section, and images of the proposed treatment of the pedestrian walkway, pedestrian barrier system, and vehicular barrier system.
Tom Galvin, architect with JD LaGrasse & Associates of Andover, MA, presents the petition on the applicant’s behalf.
Mr. Galvin provided context and reviewed the original Planning Board approved plan which called for a pedestrian walkway adjacent to the canal with a 4-foot high fence to prevent the pedestrians from entering the water. Following the Planning Board approval, the Conservation Commission issued a Decision requiring a vehicular barrier to prevent vehicles from accidentally entering the waterway. In light of the Conservation Commission ruling the developers first considered seeking relief from the 4-ft decorative (pedestrian) fence.
Mr. Puleo clarified this is the fence along the pedestrian way.
Mr. Galvin affirmed, and advised there is a 1 to 2 foot elevation change from the top of the retaining wall to the canal, and with this grade change the decision was made to keep the 4-foot fence to protect pedestrians.
Mr. Rieder observed this is a tidal channel and the water level rises and falls during the course of a day.
Mr. Galvin stated that after discussions with city planning department (Dana Menon and Tom Devine of the Conservation Commission) the developer’s decision was to keep the 4 foot pedestrian fence between the pedestrian path and the canal edge, and find a solution for the vehicle barrier. The applicant’s proposal currently before the Planning Board is to erect concrete pre-cast barriers amongst the landscaping buffer between the parking lot and the pedestrian pathway. The proposed barriers would be 2-ft X 2-ft X 6-ft long, placed with 5 to 6 foot gaps to be filled with landscaping (shrubs, evergreen and deciduous trees, and seasonal plantings). Mr. Galvin added that the original Conservation Commission decision required a traditional guard rail 2 feet off the ground with a 12” rail and metal posts every 6
feet, situated between the pedestrian pathway and the water.
Ms. Menon clarified that the Conservation Commission proposal was to have the vehicular barrier between the pathway and the water, so starting from the water’s edge, the site features would be: canal retaining wall, pedestrian fence, vehicular barrier, pedestrian pathway, and finally the parking lot.
Mr. Galvin explained that the developer was concerned this treatment (the combined 4-foot pedestrian fence and 2-foot vehicular barrier) would create a collection of windblown trash along the pedestrian pathway. Planning board members agreed this was an unattractive solution.
Mr. Galvin summarized the Conservation Commission’s concerns as:
- Provide vehicular barriers to prevent vehicles from using the pedestrian way (bollards proposed to prevent entrance) or accidentally entering the waterway.
He noted the current proposal is to keep the 4-foot pedestrian fence between the water and the pedestrian pathway. The current thinking is to utilize fencing similar to what the city has installed along the South River pedestrian pathway between Congress and Lafayette Streets, adding the vehicular barrier [at the parking lot] in the form of concrete blocks interspersed with substantial landscaping.
Mr. Ready observed the standard for the 4-foot fence approved by the planning board is upscale, and contributing to the environment we are trying to create in this neighborhood. It seems the combination of fence and cement blocks compromises the aesthetic intent of the approved plan.
Mr. Galvin advised the current proposal places the blocks as far from the decorative, pedestrian fence and the pedestrian way as possible. The 2-foot blocks could also act as a bench, supplementing other benches. There would be landscaping placed intermittently to improve the aesthetic and soften the look of the blocks.
Mr. Clarke expressed a serious concern that pre-cast concrete blocks were not appropriate as these materials are most commonly used as construction and terrorist barriers. This design does not flow. These blocks are not appropriate as alternative benches.
There was general Board discussion about the intent of the Conservation Commission’s requirement and their scope of oversight. Dana Menon clarified the Commission is not dictating public safety but concerned with keeping vehicles out of the canal.
Mr. Rieder noted that the applicant proposes to use a 4-foot high pedestrian fence, but the applicable code only requires a 42 inch high barrier. He agreed that the solution of siting the vehicular barrier close to pedestrian barrier is poor design as it impedes pedestrians from using the fence as a viewpoint and it becomes a trash collector. He echoed Mr. Clarke’s comment that the concrete blocks are a poor choice of material due to their coarse design. He also commented that the proposed layout gives the site a haphazard look. The concrete blocks are incompatible with other design choices made for the site, and detract from the overall positive impact achieved with the project. He indicated he was sensitive to the likelihood the material choice was made for cost efficiency reasons.
Mr. Galvin confirmed cost is a serious consideration. The budget for these two barriers as proposed is now estimated to be in excess of $80,000.
Mr. Rieder observed the barriers are not adequate for seating, and are not faithfully depicted in the elevation. In reality they have beveled key joints and visible rebar. They are not a positive amenity. Adding these blocks is a step backwards from the success of the project’s design and build to date.
Mr. Anderson requested clarification on what was originally approved for the walkway. Ms. Menon advised that the Planning Board approved a pedestrian scale fence between the walkway and the water. The Conservation Commission approved a vehicular barrier for the same location. Mr. Anderson also asked to understand why the fence is at the edge of the sidewalk rather than on the top of the canal wall. Ms. Menon answered that the grade of the pedestrian walkway relative to the top of the canal wall is variable, so the pedestrian fence cannot be on top of the wall. Mr. Anderson stated he has similar concerns about the concrete block barriers; they do not seem permanent, they are too industrial and temporary looking. There are potentially a number of different solutions to consider:
- 12 X 12 pressure treated bollards are proposed for use at the end of the pedestrian way. Mr. Anderson suggested they continue these bollards (pressure treated or painted steel pipe) along the side of the parking area.
- Need to be more creative on the vehicular barrier separation.
Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Rieder and other Board members this proposed material is a significant detraction from the overall positive impact achieved with the development. This changing neighborhood will have even more pedestrian traffic, the barrier treatment design should measure up to the rest of the project.
Mr. Rieder also suggested that it is not unheard of to raise the curbing (Lynnway as an example) to 9 to 10 inches. Mr. Galvin advised that the curbing is already set. The project is 80% complete.
Mr. Galvin advised this is a cost issue now because two barriers are required. He appreciates that the Board is looking for a more aesthetic treatment that is in character with the rest of the development.
Mr. Rieder asked that the solution be deployed in a linear and uniform manner as the proposed design looks messy. The design pattern should be something that can be immediately perceived in total by the pedestrian to minimize trip/fall hazard and to create a harmonious appearance.
Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Anderson to explain in more detail his suggestion of extending the bollards; how would they be spaced? Mr. Anderson suggested 6-feet on center so cars could not drive between them, possibly even connected via chain. Mr. Rieder also offered examples of vertical I-beams set in the ground to prevent vehicle access.
Mr. Anderson asked for clarification on the pedestrian fence material. Mr. Galvin said the proposal is to use the city’s preferred fence. Mr. Anderson noted this is a sectional product, wear shows much more quickly than on other types of fence. Steel, PVC-coated is the city standard. Aluminum versions are even worse.
Mr. Puleo refocused the discussion to address the applicant’s need which is direction on a vehicular barrier that will satisfy the Planning Board standards. Ms. Menon summarized the Conservation Commission requirement and feedback as: a system of vehicular barriers is required to keep vehicles out of the waterway. The Chair of the Conservation Commission acknowledged that the concrete barriers are not the most aesthetic solution; the Chair is open to other appropriate vehicular barrier solutions as determined by the Planning Board.
Mr. Ready asked if this is an issue for the Design Review Board (DRB) to review. After discussion, the Board concluded it is prudent for the DRB to provide input before the Planning Board reviews this again. Mr. Anderson suggested the applicant be allowed to take the Planning Board’s feedback and return with alternatives.
Mr. Galvin pointed out the need to expedite decisions as they are at 80% with completion due by mid-June. The applicant is looking to get all approvals in place for occupancy. He asked if there is an option to work informally with the DRB and the Planning Board.
Mr. Puleo suggested they will seek advice from the City Planner (Lynn Duncan), and if appropriate they will refer the issue to the DRB for input prior to the next planning board meeting. Meanwhile the design team should prepare alternatives given the negative feedback on the use of the proposed concrete block material. The hope is to have received input from the DRB (if appropriate) and new alternatives from the applicant for the next Planning Board meeting on April 17th.
Motion and Vote:~~Ben Anderson made a motion to table the Planning Board’s discussion, to allow time to determine if the Design Review Board should have input on the proposal, seconded by Kirt Rieder. ~The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Rieder) and none (0) opposed. The decision is hereby incorporated and made a part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
No old business was raised for further discussion.
Mr. Rieder asked to know the status of installation of the new track surface at Bertram Field and if there will be public access. Ms. Menon reported it has not been resurfaced yetwith the rubber, planned for this spring (unsure of timing, but this is a weather-dependent project). Mr. Rieder emphasized the value of providing access to the public. Tom Devine in the planning office has been working on this project. Ms. Menon will provide an update.
Mr. Clarke raised a concern about agenda planning for the next few meetings as the schedule is getting very full. He suggested the agenda order be set to take the first couple of small items (like NRCC) first; especially those that are continued from pervious meetings. Mr. Puleo agreed and indicated the Salem Jail project will be scheduled 1st or 2nd to enable the City Planner to attend if possible (Apr 17 is next meeting date for both City Council and planning board). He acknowledged it will be helpful to set expectations in advance for time limits presenters of large projects.
Mr. Clarke also requested the chair set a firm meeting end time of 10pm as the quality of the meeting deteriorates considerably after 3 hours; even if this requires adding meetings to the schedule.
Mr. Ready also reminded the board the people are best served with thorough preparation by applicants, board members and staff. With the upcoming workload, we must make the necessary investment in resources to be be prepared to do the people’s business even if there are several large projects together.
Mr. Puleo spoke in regards the Old Salem Jail project that was continued tonight. To move forward, the planning board should have a written opinion from the fire department on how they will support the Jail. The board collectively agreed this applicant needs to bring the original plans approved and a more complete description between the differences in the original and requested change to their next appearance before the planning board. Ms. Menon advised the applicant will be presenting some new elevations to illustrate; in general they are proposing the same number of parking spaces with a different layout, including changes to the footprint and pulling the façade back. Mr. Puleo has requested the Fire Department provide a written review and indicate they are able to access all buildings on St. Peter Street.
Mr. Rieder indicated there is a need to fix the lane striping/arrows on Norman Street near the Post Office as the current markings create a notable risk of pedestrian/vehicular accident. Ms. Menon has noted the issue and will convey it to the appropriate city department.
Adjournment
Motion and Vote:~~Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Tim Ready. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Clarke 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 7:45 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Broderick, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board on 4/17/2014
| 
