Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 10/16/2014
City of Salem Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, October 16, 2014

A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, October 16, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.

Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:06 pm. ~

Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Ben Anderson, Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Randy Clarke, Kirt Rieder, Dale Yale, Bill Griset, Matthew Veno and Noah Koretz. Absent: None

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

Approval of Minutes
September 18, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes

Motion and Vote:~Helen Sides made a motion to approve the September 18, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes, seconded by Randy Clarke. ~The vote was unanimous with nine (9) in favor and none (0) opposed.

September 11, 2014 Joint Public Hearing with City Council Meeting Minutes REVISED
Ms. Menon reported these minutes were revised at the request of Patrick and Patricia Scanlan, who spoke during public comment; their names were misspelled. The following sentence was also struck as Mr. Scanlan’s remarks were actually the opposite in meaning, “Believes Board of Health is discriminating against proponents of chicken keepers.”

Motion and Vote:~Kirt Rieder made a motion to approve the revised September 11, 2014 Joint Public Heating with City Council Minutes, seconded by Dale Yale. ~The vote was unanimous with nine (9) in favor and none (0) opposed.


Regular Agenda

Location:       72 FLINT STREET AND 67-71 MASON STREET (Map 26, Lots 91, 95 & 97)
Applicant:      RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC
Description:    Continuation of the public hearing for an application for an Amendment to the previously approved Site Plan Review decision, North River Canal Corridor District Special Permit, and Flood Hazard District Special Permit. Specifically, the application proposes changes to the proposed buildings, landscaping, and parking, primarily in order to meet the requirements of the required Ch. 91 License issued by the MA Dept. of Environmental Protection. The number of residential units and square footage of commercial space remains the same.

Documents and Exhibitions:
Riverview Place Site Plans, revised September 14, 2014
Riverview Place Landscape Plan, revised September 23, 2014
Comparative Drainage Analysis Riverview Place, revised September 21, 2014
Riverview Place Parking Connection Plan SK-1, dated October 2, 2014
Stormwater Report for Riverview Place, dated September 21, 2014

Atty Scott Grover of Tinti, Quinn, Grover & Frey, 27 Congress Street, presented for the applicant. Additional presenters included:
  • Richard Williams, MSCE, P.E.;  Williams & Sparages, 189 North Main Street Suite 101, Middleton, MA (civil engineering)
  • James K. Emmanuel Associates, 22 Carlton Road, Marblehead, MA (landscape architecture)
  • Landers Symes, President, Symes Associates, 50 Dodge Street, Beverly, MA (primary developer)
Atty Grover summarized work on the project since the applicant’s last appearance. The proponent has been working with the Design Review Board (DRB) to finalize the footprint locations of the buildings. These have been amended from the original approved site plan to meet MEPA and Chapter 91 requirements. They expect to be heard by the Conservation Commission this month, and are ready to file with MEPA for Chapter 91 waterways permitting. The proponent did request a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to reduce parking from 2 to 1.5 spaces per unit; the request for variance failed.

The proponent is prepared to address the issues raised by the Planning Board at the July 17, 2014 meeting. Once they have finished with the DRB they expect to make a final presentation to the Planning Board which will include additional drawings.

Chair Puleo asked if the proponent expects additional changes required by Chapter 91; Atty Grover replied the consultant has advised they are in compliance so it is their hope there will be no additional changes.

Chair Puleo advised the Planning staff has researched the lot previously thought to be owned by the state Department of Transportation and determined it is actually owned by the City of Salem. This change needs to be made to the proponent’s Site Plans.  Atty Grover acknowledged their research found the same and they will make the change on the plans.

Mr. Williams continued the presentation, referencing the revised Site Plan dated September 14, 2014. Key issues previously raised by the Planning Board and changes since their last presentation:
  • Tweaks to footprints of the buildings have necessitated minor relocation of the entrances and parking for all buildings, now shown on the updated plans.
  • Dumpster storage will be enclosed within a 6-foot high, wood stockade fence with bollards inside the metal poles. The fence conforms to the 6-foot maximum height per zoning requirement. A sketch of the layout was provided.
Lighting being used in the parking area and possibility of overspill onto adjacent properties:
  • Interior access roads lighting will be colonial style fixture with LED lamps, lining the access road per new drawing.
  • 3 pole-mounted, adjustable flat head (cut sheet provided) full cut-off; no light spill onto other properties. Photometric plan missing from the package distributed to the Board (sheet 7 missing). Hard copies made available during the meeting.
  • The Board asked for a cut sheet of the colonial fixtures.
  • Connection from the City of Salem parking area to the pedestrian walkway along the canal will be added to the plans. Details to be presented by James Emmanuel as part of the Landscape Plan update.
  • Board asked who controls the fence between the city property and the site.  Board recommended this property line be controlled with fencing and an opening for pedestrian access.
  • Mr. Symes advised the developer did speak to the owner of the abutting property on Mason Street (non-resident owner) about the retaining wall; he is in agreement and it was a positive conversation. The commercial abutter to the east agreed to a fence to prevent cut-through traffic.
  • Ms. Menon advised there are significant grade issues to extend the pedestrian walkway across the abutter’s property. The applicant explored such an extension on a goodwill basis. Their surveyor flagged where a 10-foot wide path would fit and it falls in the middle of the abutting parking lot (which is being used for revenue-generating purposes). There is a steep slope between the edge of the parking lot and the canal wall which makes placement of a path there very costly and likely prohibited due to the floodway.
  • The Board asked how the train is accessed from this neighborhood as the abutter is concerned about cut-through traffic. Mr. Symes advised the foot traffic would need to use the existing footbridge near Flint Street.
  • The Board discussed the need to have an opening in the fence around the City parking lot property to facilitate site and neighborhood foot traffic to the train station (see below).
  • Mr. Williams met with the City’s consultant (peer reviewer) for civil engineering and provided further details on the drainage plan.
James Emmanuel continued the presentation and advised there are a few modifications to the Landscape Plan previously presented. There is a greater quantity of plants due to increased green space.
  • Proposed connection to the City of Salem Parking Lot (a new drawing was distributed to individual Board members: Parking Connection Plan SK1 dated October 2, 2014).
  • Remove undesirable vegetation on city property which will improve safety by opening up view and sight lines.
  • Continue the 10-foot wide walkway onto the city property with a flare directing foot traffic over the footbridge. Proposed a jog in the path around the southeast edge of the parking lot. Replant with shrubs.
  • The Board suggested a change to the layout of this connector path, making the connection a hard left turn to access the footbridge sooner than what the drawing shows. Currently there is a “desire line” path created by pedestrians which represents the shortest distance; suggest the new formal path should follow this as closely as possible. The Board strongly encouraged the proponent to maintain/replace some fencing of the City parking lot; suggestions include a rail fence. Important to keep view corridors and not obscure the path. The path, including access from the Mason Street boundary of the site, should enable pedestrian travel without going into a vehicular travelway. This may necessitate adjusting interior crosswalks on the site; especially near Building 2. The Board and developer are unsure exactly who is using the City parking lot on Flint Street.
  • The Board asked if the proposed connector path is in the Essex Sewer easement. Mr. Emmanuel confirmed, yes. The Board advised the proponent will need to provide a letter of permission from Essex Sewer for the Planning Board to be able to approve this feature.
  • Atty Grover suggested that the proponent could propose the plan, then request the City to assist with approvals including improvements to Essex Sewer easement. The City could issue a license for the developer to work on City-owned property; when complete the City would own any improvements the developer makes.
  • Chair Puleo asked for clarification of how many dumpsters are planned and whether recycling is included in the plan for waste management. Mr. Symes advised there are 2 dumpsters planned and recycling will be provided. Width of enclosure is 24-feet wide X 20-feet deep; can accommodate 2 dumpsters and recycling.
  • The Board suggested other smart amenities  for multi-unit properties the developer may want to consider include:
  • composting pickup
  • dog wash stations
  • Some Board members expressed concern about the driveway from Mason Street; the grade is quite steep over a short distance. Mr. Williams advised 10% over a short distance is preferable to a longer distance and is quite common.
  • The Board asked for clarification about a new fence vs. existing fencing around the property. Please add to site plan and make it clear; be sure to distinguish between new and existing fencing.
Chair Puleo opened the meeting to public comment:

Ken Wallace 172 Federal Street; pointed out the combination of shrubs and dumpster station planned for the northeast corner of property doesn’t look like it will work—trees will be in the way of the dumpster.

Beth Gerrard, Ward 6 Councilor, 49 Larchmont Road; indicated she is happy to see this project moving forward. Councilor Gerrard clarified the reason for the small City parking lot was to provide Flint Street residents with additional overnight parking. The “overnight parking only” sign is there to ensure parking is available when residents arrive home. The Flint Street residents also use a small number of spaces at the foot of Mack Park, along Mason Street.

Atty Grover reminded the Board that twelve (12) spaces on the proponent’s property will be designated for Flint Street residents and off-limits to the development residents. These are located near the City of Salem lot and Flint Street.

Atty Grover summarized the next steps for the proponent:
Finish with DRB and earn their endorsement
Work on connection to City of Salem parking lot (adjacent Flint Street)
Lighting cut sheets as requested
Peer review of civil engineering plan
Add fences and other details to the Site Plans
He concluded they anticipate two more meetings with Planning Board, will have renderings and 3D model for final.

Motion and Vote:~~Randy Clarke made a motion to continue the public hearing to November 6, 2014, seconded by Helen Sides. ~The vote was unanimous with nine (9) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno and Mr. Koretz) and none (0) opposed.



Location:               9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 & 231-251 Washington Street
(Map 34, Lots 0403, 0405 & 0406)
Applicant:              Dodge Area, LLC
Description:    A public hearing of the application for Site Plan Review, a Planned Unit Development Special Permit,  a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and a Stormwater Management Permit for the construction of an approximately 190,000 square foot mixed-use development with residential units, commercial space including a potential hotel, a parking structure, associated landscaping, and pedestrian and transportation improvements.

Chair Puleo advised the applicant has requested to be continued to November 6, 2014 and read into the record correspondence from Matthew Picarsic, dated October 15, 2014. The reason for the continuance request is to allow time to complete their response to the engineering peer review.

Motion and Vote:~~Noah Koretz made a motion to continue the public hearing to November 6, 2014, seconded by Randy Clarke. ~The vote was unanimous with nine (9) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno and Mr. Koretz) and none (0) opposed.



Location:               107 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 198)
Applicant:              Robert Willwerth
Description:    Discussion and vote on a request to allow an insignificant change to the previously approved Site plan Review, to allow the exterior of the building to be finished with new vinyl siding rather than the approved repainting and/or replacement of the original clapboard materials.

Documents and Exhibitions:
Presentation board display of photographs of the building with vinyl siding removed

Atty Scott Grover of Tinti, Quinn, Grover & Frey, 27 Congress Street, presented for the applicant. Additional presenter included the applicant, Robert Willwerth.

Atty Grover updated the Board with the status of the project. Once the vinyl siding was removed, the proponent found that thousands of holes had been previously drilled into the original wood siding as part of an insulation effort. The cost to fill these holes and paint is cost prohibitive given the modest price point planned for the condominiums. Painting estimates range from $56,000 - $85,000. A contractor has provided an estimate of $29,000 for vinyl siding.

Mr. Willwerth advised the revised plan is to scrap and paint the outside detail.  Soffits will be aluminum, wood eyebrows and detail around the top of the window will remain. He wants to make every effort to keep the character of the building. There is no detail on the present wood fascia. Corbels will stay exposed.

Board Discussion:
The Board and proponent entered into extensive discussion regarding exact details of what wood features will now be kept, what will be replaced and how the transitions between wood, vinyl and aluminum will be accomplished. Key points:
  • How to butt joint vinyl against the wood? Mr. Willwerth advised J-channel would be used.
  • The Board asked for notated large-size photographs or renderings to demonstrate what will be vinyl and what will be wood. Board needs to clearly understand treatment for each detail. This was later mitigated by an offer from some Board members to conduct an onsite review.
The Board asked to understand the grade and color of vinyl siding. Samples were provided; the developer will be using 25-foot lengths to minimize joints.  Color is a shade of blue close to historical shades. The Board indicated narrow width vinyl siding is strongly discouraged.

Mr. Willwerth pointed out the neighborhood has a lot of buildings clad in vinyl siding. The Board spoke favorably regarding his commitment to the project but must understand the details of what they are being asked to approve. The original approval was given on the basis that wood clapboard would be scraped and painted.

Ms. Sides reported she recently went on site to better understand the condition of the building. She proposed the body be covered in vinyl siding and all trim be painted wood; she offered an onsite meeting with the developer to review all exterior details. Various Board members expressed willingness to go onsite for a mockup and walk-through review rather than require additional drawings.

Mr. Willwerth indicated the siding company is currently on hold. The Board indicated they are sensitive to the schedule and costs associated with delays; however it is imperative they understand the details of what they are being asked to approve, and that the developer disclose all changes from the approved plan.

Further discussion indicated the developer may propose changes to the main entry.

Some Board members encouraged Mr. Willwerth to speak with realtors about the relative valuation of the new units with vinyl siding vs. wood clapboards; and suggested he review his budget and reconsider installing vinyl siding vs. scrape/paint/repair/replace existing clapboards. The Board also advised that by skipping the step of new elevations; the developer is depriving himself of the opportunity to create an accurate road map for himself, the Board and other contractors to use.

The developer and Board members agreed to a consultative course of action to enable the Board to approve the changes and the developer to move forward with work on the project as quickly as possible. Members of the Board with availability will attend an onsite review meeting next week. The developer will provide mockups of join details and review all exterior details with those in attendance. The developer will then be responsible for updated drawings that accurately document the changes required by the participating Board members and forward the drawings to the Planning Department for approval. Board member Helen Sides will provide a formal letter to the developer and Planning Board, detailing the changes required as a result of the onsite review meeting.

Motion and Vote:~~Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the insignificant change subject to two conditions: 1) an onsite inspection of detail by designated Planning Board members documented in a formal letter; and 2) Planning Department approval of resulting modified drawings documenting the changes required by the designated Planning Board members , seconded by Dale Yale. ~The vote was unanimous with nine (9) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Griset, Mr. Veno and Mr. Koretz) and none (0) opposed.



Old/New Business

  • Board discussion regarding Request for Comment/Input on FY15 Community Preservation Plan—Board comments due by November 20th
Ms. Sides is the Board’s designate to the CPC and solicited suggestions for additional projects. She offered several examples of projects that have received CPC funding this past year. Mr. Clarke suggested historic preservation of our maritime culture is extremely important and encouraged the Board and CPC to consider projects that address this aspect of the City’s heritage.

  • Reporting by Board Member Bill Griset on Downtown Biking Audit
Mr. Griset reported the audit was held on October 6. He joined Mass DOT, Mass Bike and City officials to walk the downtown commercial district. They observed very few bicyclists during the midday audit walk.

Key points for the audit:
  • There is no safe way to cross Washington Street except at Derby Street.
  • Observed sharrows—when they do and do not work.
The Board commented that bike parking at the T is currently not adequate. Mr. Clarke mentioned a substantial amount of new bike parking is being added as part of the new garage.

  • Report by Staff Planner on October 6th Complete Streets Working Group meeting
Ms. Menon advised a decision was reached to staff the Working Group with city staff planners and key city employees from other departments rather than designated member from various Boards and Commissions. The content of the Work Group will be mostly process and/or administrative. Planning staff will report to the Planning Board on Working Group matters as appropriate. The Board requested that the Working Group encourage underground utilities as a strategic priority.

  • The Board asked for details regarding the utility infrastructure installation on PEM property (Charter Street adjacent Yin Yu Tang house).  As the installation is not screened in any way, they requested staff to research whether it is temporary or permanent. If permanent, please advise the approval process used. The Board is particularly interested to understand what mechanism the City has to approve temporary or permanent utility installations.
Adjournment

Motion and Vote:~ Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Dale Yale. The vote was unanimous with nine (9) in favor (Mr. Puleo,Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Ms. Yale, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Rieder, Mr. Griset and Mr. Veno) and none (0) opposed.

Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 930pm.

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 11/06/2014

Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A § 18-25 and City Ordinance § 2-2028 through § 2-2033.



Approved on November 6th, 2014