The URL can be used to link to this page

1,3,5 HARMONY GROVE RD, 60,64 GROVE ST - PLANNING (14) 2.o�Z- pub\�c Comer,eh�} !o o+cay fns-ove s-t- -4.4. 3 R S H'o.cry�onyC�tro�re Rc� - __. . - - - — - - _� A I� �__�- May 17, 2012 To: Chairman Charles M. Puleo and Members of the Salem Planning Board Thru : Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development From: James Treadwell , AICP Subject : BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Salem Oil and Grease-Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road It is noted that the Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road is the first application for a planned unit development special permit since the Salem Zoning Ordinance was amended on January 7 , 2009 to authorize the PLANNING BOARD to grant special permits in Business Park Development (PBD) Districts . Comments : o Pursuant to Section 7 . 3 . 8 , the PLANNING BROAD may grant a special permit where it finds, among other things , that : "THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE . " 0 The Salem Oil and Grease property is zoned as a Business Park Development District . The purposes of this District are at Section 8 . 3 . 1 : "THE BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE ENCOURAGEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND USE WHICH WILL FURTHER THE OBJECTIVES OF: 1 . THE CREATION OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY WITHIN THE CITY. 2 . ENHANCEMENT OF THE CITY' S EMPLOYMENT BASE. 3 . ENHANCEMENT OF THE CITY ' S TAX AND REVENUE BASE. " o The permited uses listed in the Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations at Section 3 .0 are intended to accomplish the purposes and intent of the District and further the above-cited BPD objectives . Beyond the permitted uses , the only other uses allowed are residential uses and associated improvements-that cannot exceed fifty percent of the land area of the planned unit devel- opment parcel ( s ) -and ancillary eating and lodging establisments , allowed at the discretion of the PLANNING BOARD. ( Refer to Sections 7 . 3 . 3 . 3 and 8 . 3 . 6) Business Park Development District/Salem Oil & Grease page 2 o The proposed planned unit development area consists of 6 . 82 acres . 60 Grove Street contains 0 . 62 acre, approximately nine percent(9%) of the development area . It is proposed to be redeveloped for commercial-office use. This is a permitted use in the BPD District . It has the potential to further the BPD objectives regarding the creation of business and industry, and the enhancement of the City ' s employment base and tax and revenue base . 64 Grove Street ( 5 . 38 acres ) and 3 Harmony Grove Road ( 0. 82 acre) total 6 . 2 acres , approximately ninety-one percent ( 91%) of the development area . These parcels will be devel- oped with residential uses and associated improvements and "non-residential" uses . Specifically, the uses proposed are apartments , the access-way, parking, landscaping, open space, landscaped buffers, the multi-use trail and conservation land . While the residential uses and associated improvements are "permitted" , the uses proposed for these parcels do not have the potential to further the objectives of the Business Park Development zoning. The objectives of the BPD District and the purposes of the zoning will not be achieved from the land uses and improvements to be developed on these parcels. NOTE : EXCERPTS FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REFERENCED IN THIS MEMORANDUM, MAY BE ATTACHED. THE DEVELOPMENT ' S "SITE LAYOUT PLAN" , DEPICTING THE COMMERCIAL AREA IN RELATION TO THE PROJECT ' S RESIDENTIAL & "NON-RESIDENTIAL" AREA, MAY ALSO BE ATTACHED Conclusion; The predominant use in the proposed planned unit develop- ment , Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road , is the resi- dential use and the various improvements found necessary to develope a viable apartment complex. However, these residential and "non-residential" uses , which occupy ninety-one (91%) of the planned unit development , will not further the objectives of the BPD District which is TO CREATE BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY WITHIN THE CITY AND TO ENHANCE THE CITY' S EMPLOYMENT BASE AND THE CITY ' S TAX BASE AND REVENUE BASE. Therefore, it cannot be found that the proposed planned unit development is in accord with the purposes and intent of Business Park Development zoning. The special permit should not be granted by the PLANNING BOARD for the planned unit development as currently envisioned . / ooy GRpV ROAD a Dose HABUGwAr^ _ _ M^TURIG HIGH ER UK PRWAN OP05ED / moi ' // ' '' `_- --_ (NLD❑K) 1 T W9tORIC HNW �' 0\$i�q�GS Sld \I \Cl�i� �211Ew .. 'xA RK R UF��as•' ANDS _Pe(1 AIJ,� i DIV. a HID \ \ I NAP Is IN. 1M a \ vh S1RItr Rw m.ue \ . %� NORTH RIVER CANAL - TIDAL :uIF \ nrsranc S LK#ATER P 1 - i ♦ U E%ISPK \ \ Q LOT In RA aNO 10 NARNarr BAY TRANSPORTATION a.a mALRs AUTHORITY jai ro LIMM - - - - 0.a. PA MASSACHUSETTS — v s. I .), • E na Npq 6u No \ N4 DIn rPR (47-um al.aHowlDa� �i I`\ R( CANgL -1Tpq I \\ 1 m t II r .. .Frs) ..'Y\... L ia A OWN, Ppm . '' � (RP dw aany Irq (4�2-AjM�UwD01Q A -=n_ NOT I _ N;1tlIC 11 1 wAP a WATER OAK Tar m I _v o f • rt caa P M � �D�A •v cru(TwF�. (a_ muAorle NI91aRD M SILVER `- --.N_nLDrB� y _ W v . — — — (PuaACN4r ResdBlO/IS g-1 N --- WHIM I1a. A. Nr I m WN IH y 1 uI.Lm I J& 1 µN M 1. 128 R ^ 1 N2 F Lahr in I Aui MAL I I 4w I ,mLT LaM2A N.I I IRUOT IMAX ' IYM N111�D1 1` A11' 08 I- dNA xaluo1 I I I a I LpWL All I nY . I Q uN I WN I!LOT ly 1 f;14711 1 3 1 13 ��n ( - I2 I, J - R® ND LOT a ND IJB /J! 1 I2A P IN LOT N N LOT]p PATTION N / �, BfAVER STREET (EA E -)y NW1E) - POST _ FND MRS II afiFA t0 pRET N-1 FOR AOOIRORK HOrES ANp LEGEND. P.0 Bar RRI 20D CurPnYgP Cer1(W,S82S.0 ...T.., e...ly,Au u2sro LAND_ USE(COMMERCIAL) THAT CREATES BUSINESS & INDUSTRY. ETC rewRtrsm ZONING CHART - P.r92aGzrs2w P UI E NII,202 0EF1 RAL SPACE PER RA PRGNO♦D bs4202 aO WIN. Lor ARG 60.000 29a.fiss sF - MRM PROJECT VIM. LO ERONIN 100' I6 f..P' WIN La NIDR1 164,1• , , a MANAGEMENT, LLC WAX. Lo covERACE BuaolNcs 14s; \ RESIDENTIAL & "NON-RESIDENTIAL" (OPEN SPACE,. BIKE TRAILIETC)_p 60-64 GROVE 5T. 401. NON-RESID SPAC 50; St.O; __ VIN, fR0 Y pfPM 59.1' '-'r-'• wM. sloe rAAD OEPTN __ 11.6. 3 HARMONY GROVE VIN. PFM TMD DFPDI -- 447 sIAL BVILOINO NEI R 54 4) ' Ir W. BUILDING NpCHf SrORIES a YIN PMI L! 6P L"1212 215 EVOTNDIFo SITE LAYOUT 1) 73.4.2 FOR WN. FRONTAGE REOURMENT. R2 LISTED. • ' PLAN 1) LOT MOTH WE0.5URED AT ME PLV2 OF ❑@ REQUIREDFRONT YFp SETBR FOR R2 ZCNING O.SMICT. GRAPHIC SCALE 5) WV( BOILING HEIGHT OCCURS ALONG FROM OF DIALLING D. 51'.mfi l•�Ir 4) 215 SPACES PRO IDEO FOR RESIDMnq PORTON OF ME SITE ' � (1 5 SP/UNIT). 24 SPACES PR GES FOR ME FYISVNG OFFICE BUILDING (WAX. 24 EMPIOYFES ALLGINED). . d '• I I!KL. a a t CITY OF SALEM ZONING ORDINANCE September 10, 2009 -7 IRK 5 SECTION 3.0 USE REGULATIONS 3.1 PRINCIPAL USES. Except as provided bylaw or in this Ordinance in each district, no building or structure shall be constructed, used or occupied, nor shall land be used or occupied, except for the purposes permitted as set forth in the accompanying Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations. 3.1.1 By Right. A use listed in the Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations is permitted as of right in any district under which it is denoted by the letter "Y" subject to such restrictions as may be specified elsewhere in this Ordinance. 3.1.2 Special Permit: Zoning Board of Appeals. A use designated in the Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations by the letters "BA" may be permitted as a special permit only if the Zoning Board of Appeals so determines and grants a special permit therefore as provided in Section 9.4 of this Ordinance subject to such restrictions as are set forth elsewhere in this Ordinance, and such restrictions as said Board may establish. 3.1.3 Special Permit: Planning Board. A use designated in the Table of Principal and Accessory Use Regulations by the letters "PB" may be permitted as a special permit only if the Planning Board so determines and grants a special permit therefore as provided in Section 9.4 of this Ordinance subject to such restrictions as are set forth elsewhere in this Ordinance, and such restrictions as said Board may % establish. 1 6 TABLE OF PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY USE REGULATIONS PRINCIPAL USES RC R1 R2 R3 B1 B2 B4 BS 1 BPD A. RESIDENTIAL USES Dwelling, Single-family y Y y y Y N N Y N N Dwelling, Two-family N N Y Y Y N N Y N N Dwelling, Multifamily N N N Y Y N N Y N N Cluster development PB PB PB PB N N N N N N Dwelling unit above first floor retail, N N N N N N N Y N N personal service,or office use Dwelling unit in historic carriage house BA BA BA BA BA N N N N N Multifamily Development N N N BA N N N N N N Nursingor convalescent home N N N BA BA BA N N N PB Planned unit development N IN N PB PB PB PB PB PB Y Rooming, boarding or lodging house N N BA N BA BA N N N N B. EXEMPT AND INSTITUTIONAL RC Rl k2-0-13-1 -112 B4 BS I BPD USES Child care facilit Y Y Y Y y y Y Y Y y Essential services BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA PB Facilities for the sale of produce, and wine Y Y Y Y y Y y Y Y Y and dairy products, provided that during the months of June, July, August, and September of every year, or during the harvest season of the primary crop, the majority of such products for sale, based on either gross sales dollars or volume, have been produced by the owner of the land containing more than five acres in area on which the facility is located Hospital BA BA N N N N N N N N Munici al facilities Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Use of land for the primary purpose of Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, or viticulture on a parcel of more than five rcommonwealth rea nd or structures for educational y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y y on land owned or leased by the ealth or any of its agencies, ns or bodies politic or by a sect or denomination, or by a educational corporation Use of land or structures for religious Y Y Y Y y Y Y Y y y purposes C C. COMMERCIAL USES RC RI R2 R3 131 B2 B4 B5 1 BPD Adult da are BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA PB Agricultural use, nonexem t Y Y N N N N N N N N Animal clinic or hospital; kennel N N N N BA BA BA N BA PB Arts and crafts studios and workshops N N N BA BA BA BA Y Y Y Bank, financial agency N N N N Y _y Y Y Y N Bed and breakfast N N BA N BA BA N N N N Business or professional office, including N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y medical Club or lodge, private N N N N N N N Y N N Commercial recreation, indoor reN N N N N BA BA Y BA N Commercial recreation, outdoor N N N N N BA BA N N N Drive-through facilities; fast-food N N N N N PB PB PB PB N Drive-through facilities; other N N N -N N PB PB PB PB N Educational use, nonexempt N N N N N N N Y N N Farm stand, nonexempt Y Y N N N N N N N N Funeral home N N BA BA BA BA N N N N Retail store, except department store, not N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N elsewhere set forth General service establishment N N N N Y Y Y N N N Golf course Y ly Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Historic buildings open to the—public N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Hotel, motel, or inn N N N BA N Y BA Y N N Marina; waterfront boat and or acht club BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA N Motor vehicle general and body repair N N N N N BA BA N BA N Motor vehicle light service N J N N N BA Y Y N 1Y N Motor vehicle, trailer and boat sales, N N N N N BA Y N Y N service and rental Museum N I N Y Y Y Y Y Y y y Nonprofit outdoor recreational facilities BA I BA N N BA N N N N N Personal service establishment N J N N N Y BA Y Y N N Plumbing, carpentry and sheet metal shop— N N N N N N Y N N N Restaurant, with service of alcoholic N N N N N Y N Y N N b everages es estaurant; drive-in or fast-food N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N estaurant; no service of alcoholic N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N beverages etail department store located within a N N N N N Y N N N N o in , laza etal-wholesale supply establishments, N N N BA BA N N Y N N that the wholesale operation does t exceed 50% of the gross floor area Sale and storage of building supplies NtN N N N N Y N Y N Supermarket NN N N Y N N N N Wind energy facility, commercial scale NN PB N N NN PB PB Wind ener facilit , residential scale PBPB PB PB PB PB N PB PB s Wireless Communications Facility PB PQ PQ PB PB PQ PB PB PB PB D. INDUSTRIAL USES RC RI R2 R3 BI B2 B4 B5 I BPll Assembly or packaging N N N N N N N N Y PB Computer hardware develo ment N N N N N N N QA Y Y Contractor's yard; landsca in business N N N N N N N N BAFN Earth removal N N N N N N N N N Food and beverage manufacturing, bottling N N N N N N N N Y or processing facility Junkyard or automobile graveyard N N N N N N N N BA N Light manufacturing N N N N N N N N BA PB Livea facility,yard, or terminal N N N N N N N NBA N Manufacturing N N N N IN N N N BA PB Mini-stora a warehouse facility N N N N N BA BA N BA PB Publishin and rinting N N N N N Y Y Y Y N Research, laboratories, and development N N N N N Y N N BA Y facilities Transportation terminal N N N N N N N N BA N Wholesale, warehouse, or distribution N N N N N Y Y BA Y PB facility E. ACCESSORY USES RC RI R2 10BI B2 B4 BS I BPD FjjEla dlt dare BA BA BA BA N N N N N N ricultural, horticultural and BA BA N N N N No erationare, lar e BA BA BA BA N N N N N N are, small Y YN N N N tion BA BA BA BA N N N N N N te garages and other accessory Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N structures Rooming and boarding not more than 2 N N Y Y N N N N N N persons t .I 47 2. As far as possible, the plan follows the natural contours of the terrain and respects the natural features of the site. 3. The proposed plan is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purposes of this section. 4. The area of the tract of land to be subdivided is not less than five (5)acres. 5. When the open land is added to the building lots, the total area shall be at least equal in area to the land area required by this Ordinance for the total number of units or buildings proposed in the development for the zoning district. 6. At least twenty (20) percent of the total tract area-shall be set aside as common land and shall consist of usable open space. Such common land shall not contain more than fifty (50) percent wetlands or slopelands, nor shall it include streets, ways and parking areas. 7. The cluster development would not result in a net negative environmental impact. 7.2.5 Open Space. Provisions shall be made so that usable open space shall be owned: I. By the City of Salem for park, open space or conservation use; 2. By a corporation or trust owned or to be owned by the owners of lots or residential units within the land that may be approved by the Planning Board , with provisions for limited easements for recreational use by residents of the City; provided that such ownership shall vest in sufficient rights to enable it to enforce compliance with the restrictions imposed by the Planning Board as conditions of its special permit. 7.2.6 Conditions. The Planning Board may, in appropriate cases as it determines, impose further restrictions upon the cluster residential development or parts thereof as a condition to granting the special permit. 7.3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 7.3.1 Purpose. Planned unit development is designed to provide various types of land use which can be combined in compatible relationship with each other as part of a totally planned development. It is the intent of this Section to ensure compliance with the master plan and good zoning radices while allowing certain desirable departures from the strict provisions of specific zone classifications. The advantages which are intended to result from the application for planned unit development are to be ensured by the adoption of a precise development plan with a specific time limit for commencement of construction. 48 f' 7.3.2 Applicability. The Planning Board may grant a special permit for a planned unit development for any parcel of land in the following districts provided that said parcel contains a minimum of the lesser of sixty thousand (60,000) square feet or five (5) times the minimum lot size of the zoning district it is in, and subject to the requirements and conditions set out in this ' section. R3 Multifamily Residential District; B I Neighborhood Business District; B2 Highway Business District; B4 Wholesale and Automotive Business District; B5 Central Development District; BPD Business Park Development; Industrial District; 7.3.3 Uses. All uses or any combination thereof permitted in R3, B I, B2, B4, B5, BPD, and I { Districts may be allowed in a planned unit development, subject to the following limitations of uses: I. There can be a multiplicity of types of residential development, provided that, at the boundaries with existing residential development, where typical development is permitted, the form and type of development on the planned unit development aitP boundary are compatible with the existing or potential development of theirrr s un ii hoods. neighbor 2. A specific commercial or industrial use for property adjacent to an existing commercial or residential zone may be approved as a planned unit development. Where this is permitted, the plan for the total property shall be submitted and the applicant shall clearly detail, by engineering and architectural specifications and drawings, the manner in which the subject area is to be developed and the means that will be employed to protect the abutting property and the health, safety welfare and �vacy gnioved thereon 3. In the Business Park Development(BPD) district, residential uses and associated improvements, such as parking and landscaping, cannot excee 00/ of the land area of the parcel(s); or in the case of mixed use buildings, residential uses cannot exceed 50%of the gross square footage of the proposed development 7.3.4 Dimensional Requirements. 49 t� I. Maximum bulk, yards, parking and loading requirements shall be established for each planned unit development by the development plan approved by the Planning Board . Height limitations shall be in accordance with the zoning district in which the planned unit development is located. 2. Minimum lot frontage. To preserve and protect the value of properties adjacent to a proposed planned unit development district and to provide for an orderly and uniform transition, lots which will be adjacent or across the street from existing residential developments shall be required to provide an amount of street frontage not less than that of existing lots but not greater than minimum Ordinance requirements for the zone in which they are located. 3. Minimum lot size. Residential lot sizes in a planned unit development may be reduced below the minimum standards--required by the Zoning Ordinance. As a prerequisite, the developer shall demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the proposed lot size and the usable and accessible open area within the total development. An individual lot shall be large enough to provide for private open space associated with the living accommodations. 4. Maximum stories. The maximum number of stories of any building containing r residential units in the BPD District is four stories. f 7.3.5 Open Space. Provisions shall be made so that usable open space shall be owned: I. By the City of Salem for park, open space or conservation use; 2. By a corporation or trust owned or to be owned by the owners of lots or residential units within the land that may be approved by the Planning Board , with provisions for limited easements for recreational use by residents of the City; provided that such ownership shall vest in sufficient rights to bogs and areas of enable it to enforce compliance with the restrictions imposed by the Planning Board as conditions of its special permit. 7.3.6 Application. Any petition tiled for a planned unit development under this section shall be accompanied by fifteen (15) copies of site plan, which shall be at a scale to be established by the Planning Board and shall include fifteen (15)copies of all the information required for a definitive plan under section III B of the subdivision regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem, and such petition shall also be accompanied by fifteen (15) copies of an environmental impact statement as set out in Appendix A of the subdivision regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem. 50 7.3.7 Distribution. The Planning Board shall, within seven (7) days after receipt of said application, transmit one (1)copy of said application and plan to the Building Commissioner, City Engineer, Head of the Fire Department or his designee, Board of Health and Conservation Commission, who may at their discretion investigate the application and report in writing their recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board shall not take Final action on such plan until it has received a report thereon from the Building Commissioner, City Engineer, Head of the Fire Department or his designee, Board of Health and Conservation Commission or until thirty-five(35)days have elapsed after distribution of such application without a submission of a report. Notice of the filing of the petition shall be given to the City Clerk, Police Department, Department of Public Services, and School Department and further notice shall be given as required by the Planning Board. 7.3.8 Decision. The Planning Board may grant a special permit where the following findings are made: I. The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this Ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purpose of this section. 2. The mixture of uses in the planned unit development is determ�o b sufficiently advantageous to tender it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the e d_strict. ( 3. The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental impact. 7.3.9 Conditions. The Planning Board may, in appropriate cases as it determines impose further restrictions upon the planned unit development or parts thereof as a condition to granting the special permit. 58 8.2.5 Parking Areas. All parking areas of more than twelve (12) spaces shall be arranged and landscaped to properly screen vehicles from adjacent properties and streets. The requirements for such landscaping areas follows: I. Landscaping shall include one (1) tree of three and one-half-inch to four-inch caliper for each three(3) parking spaces. Trees shall be planted in plant beds bounded by six-inch granite curbing. 2. No plant bed shall be less than fifteen (15) square feet, and no dimension of such plant bed shall be less than three (3) feet. 3. A planting strip of no less than three(3) feet wide shall separate vehicles parked face to face in a parking area. Such planting strip shall include one (1) three and one-half- inch to four-inch caliper tree every twenty-seven (27) feet, in line with striping and other appropriate landscaping. 8.2.6 Signage. A sign review committee, comprised of the following members, shall be established for the purpose of reviewing all signage proposed for the ECOD; Building Commissioner or designee; and City Planner or designee; and representative of the Salem Redevelopment Authority. I. The sign review committee shall review the size, location, type of material and design of all signs located within an ECOD. 2. The sign review committee shall follow the Salem Sign Ordinance, except that the sign review committee shall be allowed to limit the size of all signs within an ECOD to one-half(1/2) the size which is allowed in the underlying zone. 3. Approval by a simple majority of this committee is required prior to a sign permit being granted by the City. 8.2.7 Site Plan Review. All new construction over two thousand (2,000) square feet in nonresidential uses shall be required to be reviewed and approved under the provisions of site plan review by the Planning Board. 8.3 BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 8.3.1 Purpose. The Business Park Development District is designed to provide encouragement for the development of land uses which will further the objectives of: I. The creation of business and industry within the City. 2. Enhancement of the City's employment base. I 59 3. Enhancement of the City's tax and revenue base. It is also the intent of this section to ensure compliance with the master plan and acceptable zoning practices. 8.3.2 Special Permit Required. No development in excess often thousand (10,000) square feet of gross building area shall be allowed within the Business Park Development Zoning District without a business park development special permit from the Planning Board. 8.3.3 Parking. The parking requirement for a development in excess of 10,000 square feet shall be determined by the Planning Board. Development less than 10,000 square feet shall comply with the parking requirements set forth in Section 5.1. 8.3.4 Application. Any petition filed for a business park development under this section shall be accompanied by fifteen (15) copies of a site plan, which shall be at a scale to be established by the Planning Board and shall include fifteen (15) copies of all information required for a definitive plan under Section 1I1 B of the Subdivision Regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem, and such petition shall also be accompanied by fifteen (15) copies of an environmental impact statement as set out in Appendix A of the Subdivision Regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem. The site plan shall also contain the following information: I. Location and dimensions of all building and other construction; 2. Location and dimensions of all parking areas, loading areas, walkways and driveways; 3. Location and dimensions of internal roadways and accessways to adjacent public roadways; 4. Location and type of external lighting; 5. Location, type,dimensions and quantities of landscaping and screening; 6. Location and dimensions of utilities, including water, surface drainage, sewer and other waste disposal; 7. Location of snow storage areas; 8. Location of existing natural features, including ponds, bridges, streams and wetlands; 9. Topography of the land at two-foot contours. 8.3.5 Narrative. Such site plan shall also be accompanied by a brief narrative, as requested by the Planning Board, addressing these concerns in the following defined categories: 60 I. Buildings; J 2. Parking and loading; 3. Traffic flow and circulation; 4. External lighting; 5. Landscaping and screening; 6. Utilities; 7. Snow removal. 8.3.6 Complementary and Ancillary Uses. In addition to the uses set out as permitted uses in the Business Park Development District in the Table of Use Regulations, the development of other uses shall also be allowed at the discretion of the Planning Board , if the Board determines that such use will complement existing and proposed uses and act as an acceptable ancillary use. Such other uses to be considered are as follows: I. Restaurants and other eating establishments; 2. Hotels, motels and other lodging establishments. 8.3.7 Review. The Planning Board shall review such submitted information in accordance with accepted site planning standards and attempt to promote such standards and make certain that the development, if approved, take place in a manner which will in all aspects be an asset to the City. The Planning Board shall request changes in such plans and information submitted to promote the quality of the development and its impact upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City. 8.3.8 Distribution. The Planning Board shall, within seven (7) days after receipt of said application, transmit one (1) copy of said application and plan to the Building Commissioner, City Engineer, Head of the Fire Department or his designee, Board of Health and Conservation Commission, who may at their discretion investigate the application and report in writing their recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board shall not take final action on such plan until it has received a report thereon from the Building Commissioner, City Engineer, Head of the Fire Department or his designee, Board of Health and Conservation Commission or until thirty-five(35)days have elapsed after distribution of such application without a submission of a report. Notice of the filing of the petition shall be given to the City Clerk, Police Department, Department of Public Services, and School Department and further notice shall be given as required by the Planning Board. 8.3.9 Decision. The Planning Board may grant such a special permit provided that: 61 I. If the surrounding area is residential in nature or is land reserved for conservation use, or is land which the board determines to be appropriate for such a requirement, a seventy-five-foot buffer zone shall be provided on the parcel being proposed for development within which no construction or disturbance of land, excepting approved landscaping or screening, shall take place. 2. To enhance the quality of the development and to maintain adequate open space, ten (10) percent of all land area must be maintained as open space. No construction of any kind shall take place in such area. 3. Screening and landscaping: The proposed development shall properly screen all buildings, structures and other construction with vegetative landscaping, earth berms, fencing or other appropriate screening as determined by the Planning Board. 8.3.10 Waivers and Further Conditions. The Planning Board may waive any requirement of this Section in the grant of any special permit. The Planning Board may, in appropriate cases, impose further restrictions as a condition in the grant of any special permit. 8.4 NORTH RIVER CANAL CORRIDOR NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE DISTRICT (NRCC) 8.4.1 Purpose. The North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) is intended to fulfill the goals and objectives contained within the Neighborhood Master Plan for l the North River Canal Corridor(the NRCC Plan). The NRCC Plan encourages the best use for the North River Canal Corridor physically, economically, environmentally, and socially while promoting the best interests of the residents of the city. The goals of the NRCC Plan, as stated in the North River Canal Corridor Vision Statement, February 2003, are as follows: 1. Create appropriate development while preserving our historic neighborhood character; 2. Address transportation issues for existing and new developments; 3. Enhance the public realm in keeping with our unique neighborhood character. 8.4.2 Standards. In order to achieve these goals, all development shall comply with the following standards: I. All development shall be in compliance with the NRCC Plan 2. All development shall be designed to complement and harmonize with 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. t City of Salem, MA 2/8/2012 Parcel Map 16_0242 HARMONY GROVE RD 16_0378– _ 16 0377 ` 16_0239 \ 26_0040 16_k38 160217 � 1 1 \ 1 � i6 0210 1 8 Rq i N� 160236 021 ® \ \ 1 0$ � , _0220 0 / 137 WATER 16_0237 J 22 6FgL _0223 16. 224 _022. FgST 16 0158 -; 2 - 22 Property Information 0 Buildings Property ID 16_0239_0 – Easement _ Location 3 HARMONY GROVE ROAD O Water Bodies — Streams MAP FOR REFERENCE ONLY G ocean NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT ❑ Town Boundary ❑ Surrounding Towns 13 Bemuse of different update schedules,wrrent property assessments may not reflect record changes to property bounden:Check with the Board of Assessors to confinn boundaries used at time of assessment. YLJ7D l 3,IRK.l LINE_- 1: 1 •AFRMONY rli, .!,.FL L. LLAPID r .1 ----�r! 'I`._..___-- GROVE /�� PAN OF ,. �(> ROAD o'_ `o -AR - SALEM, f y4S5. _ ✓II IZOO ; ��J� i A5 SURVEYED .FOR _ � r _ f`hlf n -- 1'—_ ri a JG q VI a '` ' �LU6BEF2 TFiUSTw REALTY HOLLOs v NOR C ^1 D0 SCALE. 1"�40' APRIL I9, 15.75 ser Hgsgq r z z50- O b ` g - A DEFUCAI(i \ .Q S , "9��3' so 47 Lt 52(1.1? So, EFe ,1, ,�r l c l iJ`9 IS. Q R'-9 oil 3'\,,,� '1r2 =.p Cf �C�, y ii)n�i/ it �":,? '('sl 'ef �' e T nJ� ?C.w t� J l ✓) ir, // Ci,r` ORTg7• I�hS LI•.. ' I, ) ¢ :F o� H q 9 \ S'R.1iJC L5 L AF(DISX L COSTON O � •n(SF It"t.(.. C4cF:\-(-a�`r!c_ s•�4�� leTgC SSL �� Y .- yr kO +'dr E( � � ^+3 �.< o ,:� � ' �a�c9. \ �Ty. ql.R •. '�. `(' ' `'sr - flu:�� r� ,. il� �\ ti,\1_ .. o �?o r 2 - 'r� '' :•. _ , \ rl: 13C/ A. R U®r /c8 I \\�� N VC WALL '•1E ROE?r RfY ONES a [n CIN[ cX15TING O•NNERSHPS, AaU 'rHF LIMES � .� yVW: �R. '1P /^ r3/ ,,, V'Cq 3r0 Or a EFTS AND .VAY5 3- NN ARE THOS OF //��'+ PI IPI �R PRIVACE STREETS OR \NAVE At KE Tn0'f �� ~TF ��rAtlLi YItU, AND Ni'J '�:cW LIVE.'n FJK JVISIOV ) I G�9• QrJ / ,t k OF EKIST NG OW�.E?Sf II? ^R �� - '� r 5' / ! .>•.�i IJc 9L' FLOOD Dlp}RICT LINE- A^" i.,l - ,. R NE':a NnYS Cy Sp,1 �r4 n ' irh pC T5� -I`!" 9BT F.>� k .l 6 Fn Y% iJ" q'r \ ai \.rte r S„I: Fr 1l\l l�.i NI MIN {IC�t- y. 1I n5 -,.Oou .01.,.r.1 A - > oT`�� . S % •I \ �._/ J •\ a29 q 1Iv iPIROS F C LUisi� -' ' e v 9{j o I to l I � � � �\� � � r vl � sv IIT 5 v -fit _ n. -APS I'�7 \�C"G a. . <<< / .�•r "i\L PlP_N OOOK/Jyl PL7N`Y. MAP ,,I St C .3Y r /tir%� \�Incj7 i 3C h in o'w.`f�oW MAP ,17i, r II 1-,_ ✓�i � IL �._� � � � '1'-� 0.50' ��.__ ' �Xlal�lUrnart l_ c,.xCo- RECEIVED July 25, 2012 JUL 26 2012 To: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP DEPT.OF PLOiNING& TY DEVELOPMENT From: James R. Treadwell, AICP Re: Planned Unit Development, Salem Oil and Grease Lynn: As we discussed recently via telecom, I would like to formally bring two matters to your attention respecting the opinions of Robin Stein ( letter of July 5, 2012 ) and Mark Bobrowski (July 3 , 2012 ) regarding the subject. 1. The documentation cited by Attorney Bobrowski , in my opinion, does not represent all available information relevant to the issue being deliberated . Apparently, not provided to Attorney Bobrowski for his review were : o Minutes of the Oil and Grease public hearing trough 6/7/2012 , o The follow-up Memorandum to the Planning Board from Danielle McKnight dated May 4, 2012 , o A second letter to the Planning Board from Councillor Prevey, o Correspondence to the Planning Board from Councillor Sosnowski , o Relevant memorandums that I have submitted to Chairman Puleo, Members of the Planning Board and to you, o The Landscape Plan for the MRM Planned Unit Development, dated 8/11/2011 o The Project Narrative and Environmental Impact Statement which I have referenced below. Attorney Stein did not specify the material that she reviewed . Could you agree that the above-cited documentation should be provided to Attorney Bobrowski so that he could supplement his. opinion, if warranted ? Could you please let me know the material that was reviewed by Attorney Stein. 2 . In his Memorandum of July 3 , 2012 , to Beth Renard, Attor--te:y Bobrowski states that : "I assume that all landscaping is within the parking areas or the spaces between the three residential buildings" 1/3 In this regard and as shown on the Landscape Plan for Legacy Park Apartments-a document that was not noted by Attorney Bobrowski as among documentation provided to him-all landscaping is not within the parking areas or the spaces between the three residential buildings . I have attached a copy of said Landscape Plan that I have modified to high-light two particular landscaped areas in the apartment complex that are not "within" the parking areas nor "between" the three residential buildings . The Applicant ' s intentions for these areas : o"lilac bushes will be planted above the proposed retaining wall along the main parking field" Reference: Item 5 , "Project Narrative In Support of PUD and Site Plan Review Applications For Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road" (Project Narrative) o"The landscaped areas surrounding the buildings and along the North River Canal are designated as common areas for recrea- tional activities . " Reference : Item 2 .4.d. , Environmental Impact Statement In Support of PUD and Site Plan Review App- lications For Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road (EIS ) . I would note that 1 ) the above-cited landscaping along the main parking field is located within an area designated as "limits of clearing" , further attesting to the association of this landscaping to the "clearing" that will be necessary to accommodate the construction of the apartment complex and 2 ) that the landscaping for recreational activities actually abuts the residential buildings and then extends 40 feet to the North River Canal . 2/3 In addition, I have superimposed the two landscaped areas on Drawing C-3 , Site Layout Plan. These areas are crosshatched, signifying "non-residential space" . I estimate that the land- scaping along the main parking field occupies +/- 21 , 700 Square Feet ( SF) and the landscaping that abuts the residential build- ings and runs to the Canal at approximately 15 ,000 SF. In my opinion, this landspacing represents improvements associated with the residential uses and the land area it occupies should be so categorized . Accordingly, and relying on the data on C-3 relative to total lot area ( 296 ,659 SF) and "non-residential space" of 152 , 202 SF, the amount and percentage of land in the planned unit development that will be occupied by "residential uses and associated improvements" is : o with the addition of the landscaping along .the main parking field, 160,457 SF or 54% of the planned unit development area . o with the addition of the landscaped area running from the residential buildings to the North River Canal , 167 , 157 SF or 56% of the planned unit development area. o with the addition of both landscaped areas, 182 , 157 SF or 61% of the planned unit development area . In any of these cases , the residential uses and associated improvement limitation of Section 7 . 3 . 3 . 3 . would be violated by the current proposal and a Special Permit for a Planned Unit Development for the Salem Oil and Grease site should not be granted by the Planning Board . Note : The Drawing C-3 data , used by DPCD in its calculations and conclusions (4/24/12 memo), must be independently verified. cc: Councillors Sosnowski & Prevey, Solicitor Renard , Chairman Puleo 3/3 FiN41 12 140 OSE ROADi ! • IS.. agILD: SAP HARMONy GP / / }ores lirY1W uM 1 Loi])J N/E NAP 16 T )SB rl GV eMv HARMONY GROVE 50 GROVE STREET REAL/ LLC LAND CWRT PUN 3I81361JA nre aMm•rb. NORTH RIVERGAIAL TIDAL �p le raA 4reb Aruwle. _ _ `\ L a 'I ... 31 " rro A LOT J)B 6 - ORP ae Yv . MY(ROVE BAY • II.}. X10°" TRANSPORTATION Ra mAar AUTHORITY .ORP. _ - �-� AYv Y Mm V ew b MNHNNMIHIIHHx11NH111HHNaHN1 IHNHIHHHNh � I IIIHHHL. I��wH1HHNHNi IfHNHHN11iH1 ewaPeTarAm w a 1 x CHUSETTS TP .��_`�` \ LvmMrolebeAw ® LIOb[M io � Y� lex e• ewae oravla'ee el 1 .oe aw eYOILYe •M 3 },� ANMICEO IplAwlm.l p8 >Ir< xi •{ A Yv V NMA! Y!„ BUILDING m ICCI}IpO1 \ J Y I IaY b F _ e.AV :y, !Yl rn }IU >M Iro Ile U.Y M'. �l xj � OeG IM IW Umlr, :y ♦4 Iro !10 MYR\\ � �t. v rov y„ aem A�Iw r,Ye res >^' �' -.:'>m .. '� • n v•l• •trey ebulm is 9t .PROPOm BVILOING,/1'�-�1, slev a '' "•4 •,. - e - ox vt„ ,�, _ mlwrw la•>u � Y ,� I^^^��""""ttt!!! o a �•.w/'6MAGE-unoER �.: ky 11O n w ' ` »'"Y o• O 1� 14 •a - 1114 ,�ro W2 Lexm ellaeewYe >w >M fi �� (de-ii of � lfO� >ibA�irry vLKI ,d �Y'T'r !m Yr 4 Lrc lerp � =-- _ neuwM�.. aro ors .i m IJO •tX iwAl PROPOS 4ww ! ,� 1 � .'r' _ -__�" �� L� >Mpt aM •Ie/Z 1 Brei e• 'TIlseeaA xwowI .w !er W IM a of LYW tM.i,(y.. IPalor�•\�x„1P106+/�-(G4.A)R-:AUGr'N�EI-ISM"l)aB >„' r Y_I—m3 a)I•.YAyUIO>DGCI[�I MW I-_>•lYreslbmml�>_ Ite/1r(.Rar eN�yC'K+4 BUI#w NO(47L,-UNo[R°� )S) S!"~?f.lY._>AarY ::'�M .�, -•�` l /ex AI, Tr m IYl0Ce�!x•Aix �x[®�j BWo(• WF II{ ,o �x� x5 sP RSr6�II �k�krIIW 16 LOT 2IJ - rT Ix M vOI lLA aar �_ •rN� i lm iMv! robeN \ G P L p N SA KR ES avr amN . _ - -ice_. ` lel >le• A .0 wr »we. !ro 7 is wx rn l»N �o'ro° - ,ral 6lM :M kk AP 1fi LOT 218 VER f_IMEs � •I Iro ♦xA fe v, a sVc ♦Ye! �' a!Y• wb Pl SIL N/P YA 18 LOT 376 MAP 16 YAP IB tiE6 e nA�ir6re LOT 4•M/F (L.?T 3 -2L O 3. rYKb siauoe e V m�y iTl Cp1LEY I TUCKER u I6 P w s •H. f Y , rriW I I LOr 3P 1 1 y .12 3Q I LON 13] I I I I I N/F MAP 16 LOr Y-lyr - - -—O� aY •T ^—qe~ IR YAP 16 A6N REAL I1 LAYISON N/F I ' L0320 LON�2 EMIT 1---� OWEAE: J II � , eRew l Awes N/P KOHIt%FMST I'' 1I' �' I MAP I0 NAP I6 LOT 232 r MAP ifi 4EMAP 10 p MOEN 1 I I I Q ' MAP I6 LOT 22B I Q 11 LOT 331 I' N/i' to e�l l0i 360 LOT 235 ) a M 3 I N/T -I MYERS L 010 YA l0 334 NA' N I ee$ 1 I ! ® I I 1 I BA91 I /2t ROSSNO II Ivl MAP 16 MCN GGN PATIISON PA040 '36 I 1 LOT 233 2 p R YEHIBAKO$ BEAVER STREET o } as YY S7 GFNPH10 SCALE }-}w orrmua eamlw. �p�" q I. m. d G ,Is ANaab.A.0 ueme, D CA NOTES N a,alter rabm+ r,lax\Jaxw. ,erAL rlv,Labe Run awn,aa e1KAx a Raaxr Lum Ale w ra}.ueera ro ralmmraA oar� f a rest) ro ecus I rnMn.cla..e reenx.asA rtes Y1 Rlrn ILwn wuwlKxl wax a rNArr\ L s1s erm wAOw eTsbAroa a raAxr rumen•xLLLL mee.•1 r ne umn®Irw o aa��arLxryoLe wast.lo.lalR.w.x...r=ac•o..�sMay.xYwo. x.b.x.,bL.lc PLANT L15T f YL rtM lumleeL x„ly s sR!}mm xeeCm AW oeeYl KET prY eerµCY.NPl4 IOKM ua L.N6•. xm>IeK Le1e[x ryme cw onR IL'ibw TM RWiw WYI.m em!x IfldMM�Yr4 CGEI•rML• 'eaTmLL 1LC,Yi\ TV f101 i!}Ip '.4MrtlIC\pKRx RAMM xq RlM plp Ybrgl TPl@A4ryry ryep Y 4 be•RYYm asr 6YMNvw vmlYmm p} ,Oen NV1L•be eTlxsm cw dn•Y mul+li Mw.rw.lbxlYnM laa'}m•Ire mlYxmWR n w ArbLYxxYfJ„.OxmM tMew[u• r.YlxA x.T Wi lvat �' :•'�J u.l ACcenlrl2 eT,4 eldw µM % AYIpeyA xreaxbGV►.'Y}nRirinlc' rLYelG exxOwer ).W ewT tL>b J) J ,• >. :YR wmRn wW m aYMmr®xIx e'elp;.b V M,LY nb fOl11YC,eL 40 eW b IMP.eMMII.x 01@11 rtllp wVA�' v'.YUV' //� Z P!RIW a iW,FI01uPANrlx Or M O1lR,tlt BAIL Q reel WLW L Q i, MI•Y YI.i4,l]T06 M0' aAp M.VD YIAYPO M•.la• AI4f N xx1(Aef ernxA A,YtlL! •"TY O Z mA jau..Mn•IR:A euo RIM rulmruL Mau ee wbL r In rwl w Te o cw•aw xPl.a Y•oYY• 'Y•amlAi xeeomumr '''l'4ir. RYRMe alums awreAaw p wrua I� caea ne ero w n41 oa mm 1'[mce.lre mmrleTow eb,Au rest 4v w eebuoa wet earn' aanba•e vfvuLToo .4,ra v1•e 4�r YA.mr 'Q. W IcceM.ry rwa+eb area T r e aL®mu rxuurinw.ra•emis acme' «nlamvlwnee`'�, rwlc y rnawzAur aur,el�xwcoM' eurTelem rorernl wnar ro}} rev w�ru.IrnA•flexr J A�mo-lur� = W r"`. o.AY,onu'.mirAwl Ye OeTau w.0 m rvvT.m llaa, Rwrw umae w v M0•rxrclur of wluoormaA saaus weer meow esu m„} ex roxu.'Iw AwLeY\•+ar urewaweA xvEnu euv. la1 63 „b �bw.TJLLM wMeOnAtlipb' Amlplr OplA•n vAna. II•->e .•e4a[rua iLAWIS IbJJ11lG eMol.m*bee ro a rceL.Vm uu ee Lw>mnm a•bu va. Aw esu}.ex .cv'vi rW,A LwAr elate Arles' we.l can •..lex euevw .xux arAve F 1 Z welwueun o.,le mean cullaacroa Y lamcutYwub w. rwnArw xnTA .}can vv eler Rlaw . A. wuoaounar o-elw sen C llMa 1» .aeu abo»+roa>' ro.l uAlr >IIRVILr m. T Ire LA.oeuae comrAeTm..e Aovlm a..e rweaxcx a lre ImLmee Are xPMwe.w rcracrr A==TA rnev xa lrLwr. xNll,ERcr-0 exuTCC YO L J,W L!ew MT4"4 YO oYA IM •A YJMIY•xRrtll•rAGaSnM' eaNMle1q elrpllp ro;rM} [s w M^M Ipt)r!ny Q csEwA,w x LroerJre ul+mAc}ex wu1ImVACt cw Iba vremm are 7 NP A I. ruwtu NbwrlA alAirear rlYrrwu •M re,n aeLL U o.albw,Arc PY..am x LewarYv a TPw voe Y xa ro„a Res.'""aaoe r.in w,w Ara ewxm I cava M H aubrmmA TMNApM o- n, v 41„mb rR.e xNM.m rLLe®Mru>•6IW xlRd eeR eYR ro M1aAe4x6A aIAOVx eR•Ai r-bNN*r I®,M ALL TAL. N,M• •�Z IRM,c'la ,urea 1M.A • �A awsu eelelw twee r Iaa•e ewem.awla oa,vwA xlms •NRxroxrTMeAaL W ELI a m >r ra}mAerfm eruu 1•vbe a•Lou+xla Iu wY ro eb '� i araA x,PrbvA b_L' a I l�$Y� wa•m.` xYLL R2M Y•w'LLT... ALMM I! QL le M1Ce.wWD\ eerALWi ewli u._e. ej lw)I,4TNtf Iver •IUL v Q } e Q a cmowm emuux LIeL•Iw.leal u.lx,w aAreaAL eat"vy . '.or •L RLeer e'l+ oaroe rpeex eAceu nl.vb 'U } RACM LOYt ro v. .`PN Vl•tllO' \ND NreLWpeR,l !.r N;T. i• R ltilY4•C�elA4 m eFSOm (A I U ; a R# V Ia w ^eOO° mul x Ibm' maa a qm mcocoHolo. ia•: • nes wlx wlu loa r rxa u• O Q E¢e5(A rvewoNrlw Proal Ire LareyA,a lila xalo.b rtu n LCCA eeLeelxx eta, .� a a.sbA AnrourA rw1Ar eux' IbMA waA:' '..?. erlwu nnvu Ip�m g COLITIp1 xM4 ve IlYIYLo LI YRW�er Tw m hgeY sax TIVur'LL m ellVl® QZ aGJI[R tap rWelan aYnllalR.a ATLrflyLl nrCla le wi r p xL 2wA^ M m I.aAiMA ryW IVT a LYI }I�L•Cn l Ire ll0a�IOeR T.p,1E!a M'YALWm ATLr (J OIJ F f a a.nna RYiRxxw ea r., wxr=em„In AuwAL Roma L® ur „�Nxor lodrnle wlAwaoo' ele6lnv or®,usw„Ilm r-i w,vr. DECIDUOUS 4 EVERGREEN SHRUB }.nes RAV r>OLNJrY„eo-,gbLr u„v..maoleN;AoeauLoreo xm\ ` a'ar.elA.Tuve v..crRwrlw LACA,Kx.e coawaev o sub aR arer Lane.exvmv eon•. _ �.e��14L caas:er Ca rum sure rc+mlL Irra en4b„n .uo M 'e rolRe vlewVr l...Y I .WT:O YYE a scree a`e aln0 Y¢rb6•®.lODan2<✓reR O!+Lu 6AlE i.. SWE aauurcra:m or.vLum w,roeerur mYroei ”^,.Iormn DECIDUOUS TREES aoe^e'cAL+en vw x,vT1 r.av w vexrcx.mv xx,Am i�resoeT.Rlrollu sees re•veaa • EVERGREEN TREES n'rn To xALE SHEET 1 0F1 _ r � ffinNF a 1 . HISTMIC HIGH WERUNE GAIN Sq/DMRoAT KM INT � OMAN a i i _ _ _ - 7\ 1 (NLD UNE) \ 1 1 H5' MDE 4 I OM/ yXAY R N/T , \\ ( CASEMENTHSICRC HIGH eP le LT!) MI,WArEP LINE Addv I \IIW HARMONY FD iI YAP le I (a44AO119 ` 1 N IT SO wro ONOM, RR N, .0, NORgH RIVER CANAL - ❑DAL \ 1 I CP WDE EASCMENJ,� (1 S A V I 1 i 0 HN I \ ml t HISTORIC NIGH A U "0"'EXISTING NN..I WATER UNE FT i. E r I ABUTMENTS Ii \ \ I Lyi - -•I�I YAP le Lar ve -R pA naurMENrz � \—'\ L` FFF3 aW s� p NANNONIN(R)Lf DWP. 5 '! � _` _ I PAG® O 0.03 ACRES)� AY N I l -� __ T MANd i iniyl ✓ eN, BAY \ - - -- - _ RR TRA_VSNNHNH,N«HµHHN«1M Hr HHNH «H««IH.N-rNHN TRANSPORTATION I R.P rPAcns AUTHORITY `ffi NImAY aARNw Ar i 1««Hnr�HHHwHN«.Hre«ror+l.«NTA RON H.«RHH«FIHHnHHN«R T.RA««HHHmH« N,HrHHHHoa.HIH.Hn wH "'""D SSCHUSET 4all�o.� �� Td IS¶¶�B { MA .M!HHHH BIT G PA R y \OYNN MfRY1°m�1l .H1NHHHNMMIM 1P� J. ✓ .•�1. .A RN i P KI SM \ I IIg xArRW9 I 1 Elf InN ; Mo IBI D 'Tm \ ha .7° T �P NORn/ BUI INS IAWARATA I aN 1PROPtSED BURPING n „ ` 4 �, A a R C,ANA( ON't i P\ A. W/GARAGE UNDER \ 1� I '91 y • ''7DAC �4 I>rORR TRA91SED . I IY ___- _ r ex SIOAO AIWA ,., 1 'W 1 IWP EAOI NAAONRI � GOND[ ti w'/GARAWgpµG i ^ 1 . •s^ �lyy-EL S.e} _ / I 1 e n.a1 s A ( "ua � yµ� •\ IMOTAROM NIG uuc, wAR.R IIHE I ea spa iu,ol `. is 'II{{ z , e/mn: :r.NAwr. u Adr _ _ _ _ A[W[ GARAGE UNDER/J MIN=.T RD, 12 - 1 .� _-v_V Ilrry UMIT9) T H W�jER UTNE Dery Dsw(eW�r y ---A-IS L® . _ Revisions .• t - - k2-b31ptCT___ ___i �� dA 1224 LO IDT E TTI YM le i e 1 I AT Ili N 0,2E nfT N/f � YMu0 l0i 1 NRS 038 'O TtiI IugY q'14AY,WM`® I ---I RfAE3 12 YAP 11 I M6 ' I 1 112 UWSb� 1 1 ni aW 1 LOT 333 II--�� I 1 AIO 4 AAFRr 10 1 N/FLO I AM SAL I I 1 1 YID le,Lrpr 3 LOA11 I 1 T xOW BLAN�O)f�N X KOI I > If-- I GOINIE I I ,rY I� dw 1 3 Q I "Old ` YM le LOT W r / ALL 1 y R I 1 T I X. 1 f di �1 1 13 YTCPS 1 ' LOT 31S YAB 1 R6� d3D 110 MM IS YAP�T10 / WO y,18 -I- HI /36 dT• 1 d10 - YAP 8�T 1341 /il - rT d I P N S YAP=U LOL LOr 3!4 0/{340 PA)fi40N- / �• ,Z I; ( N/T PAIIISOI —_ - Griffin ME BEAVER STREET PGosr (PVBUC MAY_Jp'wDEI 1 FRO I - - r-- - - - - - - cmw� uc P.0 SM 7061 w 01915- I 1 100 CMmm')Nps(GRa,Su6e 224G 1)REF 1 I BSM 1)REFER TO SHEET N-, FOR ADDITIONAL MOMS AND LEGEND. y,, - 1 ZONING CHART ' TN:97&8273111 REQUIRED NON-RE9DEI1rIN.'SD5 ACE 64 Grove Street-Parcel Boundary ��+ FaKm&,273103 PRONDED YIN, LOi AREA PER PUD i(15r.703 4)y� J 6o.1 sf ,DD' z96,e 9 sf — 3 MIN. LOT WIDNTAGE 161 37' Landscaping From North R1Velr Canal & MRM PROJECT '1 MANAGEMENT, LLC MIN. LOi WIDTH ,BN,• MAK. Lor COVEMCE BUILDINGS -- 1Y.5x Railroad to Apartment Buildings SALEM, MA MAK. PESIOEN/bAI SPACE 501E A9.OE MIH. {FONT YARD OEPM ,,• MIN. SIO YARD OEPIH -- 47B• MiN. REAR IN IN DEW,I Landscaping Along Retaining, Wall 1 MAK. BUILDHEIGHT fEEr So' T BUILOIN & Parking Fields MIN. ie1dsMIN. PARKING OVERALL ` SITE LAYOUT I) REF. , - PLAN ,) REE SECOON SURE AT MIN. ARO OF RE REQUIRED R2 T TED.YAR 2) LOT WIDTI MEASURED AT THE REAR Of THE REOUIPEO SROM YARD 1 SETBACK FOR R2 HONING DISTRICT. GRAPHIC SCALE !) MAX BUILDING RAL OCCURS ALONG FRONT Of BUILDING 3. I SEE ARCHIS P ORAL DRAWINGS BY BEAUDS RART,11O INC. ` e) 115 SPACES PROVIDED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR T E Of THE SITE , S G9IL PSV BUIL SP/UNIT). 22 SPACES PRONGED FOR ME E%,SYNC OFFICE u NA.RD BUILDING. (Ad , C-3 1 lm.. W R RIIT4 P/4/AA'0 411E 13/20/M j _ Petition for Impact on development for Local Residents Petition summary snd Petition of MRM Project Management,.LLC for the Property located at 3 Harmony Grove Rd,and 60 and 64 Grove Sheet in Ward 6, background Salem,MA The Site Plan Review is as follows..The proposed project includes construction of three residential buildings(total of 141 units) A population of 315 people and at a density ofmore-than 25 apartment units per residential acre.Three buildings each being mora than 195 feet long and 60 feet wide and 4/5 stories tall and 50/60 feet high.This project was presented to the City of Salem on Dec.22,2011. Action Pethioned for We the undersigned,are concerned citizens who object to the redevelopment of the former Salem Oil and Crease Background Property—this development is too large and is incompatible with the existing neighborhood which will aff"t the iategrity of the Salem Historic Area.Our concerns ss Salem Resldeatsare as follows_. • With the already approved two Sites in Ward 6,located at Goodhue St.and Mason St.adding this new deveigpmern will increase the populationto approximately 1000 new people,which will also increase the traffic in our already congested city/neighborhoods • Lackof Screening fur residence marby • More Overcrowded classnxmis • Concerns about Toxic Land • Flooding.on HarmonyCmve Rd,will Rcroute traffic toncarby neighborhoods ' Wildlife Homes The need for a proper Rtr(aining Wall to support the Banken that is already washing away With the estimated chddttil to reside in these buildings the tax rate for homeowners will increase Printed Ltik'te Signature Address Comments 2- 6WOV r.a�+��:7� t I � •.Zo mNNo!'lE'S �• — - _e_ve OLl/e �c Sw fGE. 3o�Tip�b pica{ S9 7ov/ y "t�e flSiT W-7�ryT -� /j -— ��1dN��(�ls/_`/C1�e/' _ _ i � � �-{ooderur¢� {�H;yAA� vel 7'lNe mmmiar%q 1 E � _ St 5-faue-to-i-e- Toa d" I i 4:6k f2=ic J rc�. i Q rr i Y ------------ , I i i i Petition for Impact on development for Local Residents Petition summary and petition of MRN?Project Management,LL{`for the property located at 3 Harmony Grove Rd,and 60 and(9 Grove Street in Ward(% background Salem,MA The Site Plan.Review is as follows..The proposed project includes construction of threeresidential building-,(total of 141 units) A,populat on of315 perople and at a density ofntore than 25 apartment units per residential acre.Three buildings each being more than 185 feet tong and 60 feet wide.and 415 stories tall and 50/60 feet high.This project was presented to the City of Salem on Dec.22,2011, Action Petitioned for We the undersigned,are concerned citizens who object to the redevelopment of the former Salem Oil and Grease Background Property...this development is too large and is incompatible with the existing neighborhood which will affect the Integrity of the Salem Historic Area. Our concerns as:&item Residents art as fellows— ' With the aiready approved two sites in Ward 6,located at Goodhue St.and Mason St.adding this new deveiopment will increase the population to.ipproximatcly IWO new people,which wilt also increase rhe traffic.inour already.congested city1neighborhoods • Luckof Screening for residence nearby • More Orcrcmwtted cluss7m>ms • Concerns about Toxic Land * Flooding:on Harmony-Grout;Rd,will Reroutc trafticto nearby neighborhoods * Wildlife Homes The need for a proper Retaining Wall to support the banken that is already washing away With the estimated children to reside in these buildings the tax rate for homeowners will increase Printed Name ! Signature' I Address Comments �✓Ily�leu� .�1�2p►Frf-a _ �39 �l�t/�!t d�s� --i Ak _ 'oy _ �Si1V�lesS� I N4 tvlqY-� ct S is � L (1_0 no n6 l SAVU Sal 'A10 I 1 { olden FrL, Irr 1 e (LRiS� %n Cr/ _ {r S � 'n �reA ;e rW/a)rfvv f Petition for Impact on development for Local Residents Petition summary and Petition of MRM Project Nharagemcnt,LLC for the property located at3 H"umtony.Grove.Rd,and 60 and 64 Grove Street in Ward 6, background Salem,MA The Site Plan Review is as follows..The proposed project includes construction of three residential buildings(total of 741 units) A poputmtian oF315 people and at a density of more than 25 apartment units per residential acre.Three buildings each being more than 155 feet long and 60£eer wide and 415 stories tall and 50/60 feet high.This project was presented to the City of SalemonDec.22,2011.. Action Petitioned for We the undersigned,are concerned citizens who object to the redevelopment of the former Salem Oil and Grease Background proptrty...this development is too large and is incompatible with the existing neighborhood which will affect the integrity of the Salem Historic Area_Our concerns as Salem Ri sidents.are as.follows_ • With the already approved two sites in Ward 6,located at Goodhue St.and Mason St..adding this new development will increase the.population to approxint rcty IOW new people,which wilt also increase the traffic in our already congested citytncighborhoods • Luck of Screening for residence nearby • Morc Overcruwded ciasnwms • Coma ms about Toxic Land * Flooding:on Harmony-Grove Rd,will Reroute traffic to nearby mighbofioods " Wildlife Homes The need for a proper Retaining Wall to support the banken that is already waking away With the estimated children to reside in these buildings the tax rate for homeowners will increase 'Printed Name i Signature ! Address Comments Pkv i LV _ t�b � A55t TIS I�IIn c�tFil'I?F �P4yJ_l 4 car G !r �01-el--I z<rC I 02 1 moi« aC, 6'10 L cd c LAO G 1 ' �V sr ;11; e I'L`t Eear+r Stip, y BU r-r-C R3 96we rV- aP l + L�> 6L�,✓ L( 0I4 Qeao°✓ ST �4 q 32- t _P7 ? EPL �vo-s r A Petition for Impact on development for Local Residents Petition summary and Petition of MRM Project Management,LLC for the.property located at3 Harmony Grove Rd,and 60 and 64 Grove Street in Ward 6, background Salem,MA The.Site Plan Review is as follows..The proposedproject includes construction of three residential. buildings(total.of 141 units) A population of 315 people and at a-density of more than 25 apartmentunits per residential acre.Thrive buildings each being more theft 185 feet long and 60 feet wide and 415 stories tall and 50160 feet high:This project was presented to the City of Salem on Dec.22,2011. Vilan Petitioned for We the undersigned,are concerned citizens who objector the redevelopment of the former Salem Oil and Grease Background Property...this development is too large and is incompatible with the existing neighborhood which will affect the integrity or the Salem Historic Area. Our concerns as Salem Residents are as follows... * With the already approved two sites in Ward 6,located at Goodhue Sl.and Mason St.adding this new development will increase the population to.approximately 1000 new people,which willalsoincrease the trafficin.ouraheady congested city/neighborhoods * Lackof Screening for residence nearby • More Overcrowded cla rmanins * Concerns about Tmtic-Land * Flooding:on Harmony Grove Rd,will Reroute traffic to nearby neighborhoods * Wildlife Homes The need for a proper Retaining Wall to support the banken that is already washing away " With the estimated children to reside in these buildings the tax rate for homeowners will increase Printed Name Signature Address Comments -- aS -- V ---rs � �'L o eCo� je&l k7L F � tit S t-'e — eke A I_ 0`n Uu— 41' QQ l i � e�9 I _ j �,�� Sci�e �'l��rl e�✓�r s Ier est2 l o s s.. www, 90CrAln 4 M � ,A Petition for Impact on development for Local Residents Petition summary and Petition of MRM Project Management,LLC for the property located at 3 Harmony Grove Rd,and W and 84(:hove Street in Ward 6. background Salem,MA The Site Plan Review is as follows..The proposed project includes construction of three residential buildings(total of 141 units) Apoputation of315 people and at a density of more than 25 apartmentuniistnrresidential acre.TV"buildings-each being more than 185 feet long and 60 feet wide and 415 stories tall and 50160 feet high.This project was presented to the City of Salem on Dec.22,2011. Action Petitioned for We the undersigned,are concerned eitizens who object to the redevelopment of the former Salem Oil and Grease -Background Property...this development is too large and is incompatible with the existing neighborhood which will affect the Integrity of the Salem Historic Area. Our canceras us:Salem Residents are as.follows— With the already approved two sites in Ward 6,located at Goodhue St.and Mason St.adding this new development will increase The population to.Approximately If"new people,which will also increase the traffic inour already congested cirylncighb rhoods * Lackof Screening for residence nearby * More Overcrowded classnwms * Concerns about Toxic Land * Flooding:on Harmony Grove Rd.will Reroute traffic to nearby neighborboods * Wildlife Homes The need for a proper Retaining Wall to support the banken that is already washing away * With the estimated children to reside in these buildings the tar rate for homeowners will increase -Printed Name Signal a Address Comments i C,3 c L . I ! Idcri� sro �_ f I � � �mel^ — • I \f�� I 11 I � I ' o C0 - n i Cabo+st -- --� Petition for Impact on development for Local Residents Petition summary and Petition of MRM Project Management,LLC for the property located at 3 Hurnamy Grove Rd,and 6(1 and 64 Grove Street in Ward 6, background Salem,MA The Site Plan Review is as follows..Tice proposed project includes constructionof three residential buildings(tocol of 141. units) A population of 315 people and at a density of more than 25 apartment units;perresidential acre.Three buildings each being more than 185 feet long and 60 feet wide and 4/5 stories tali and 50/60 fed high.This pmject was presented to the City of Salem on Dec.22,2011. Action Petitioned for We the undersigned,are concerned citizens who object to the redevelopment of the former Salem Oil and Crease Rachground Property._this development is too large and is incompatible with the existing neighborhood which will affect the integrity of the Salem Historic Area Our concerns as Salem Residents are as follows... s With the already approved two Sitec;in Ward 6,located at Goodhue St-.and Mason St adding this new development will increase the population to.approximately 1000now people,which will also increase the traffic in our akcady congested city/neighborhoods * Lack of Screening for residence nearby * Moro Overcruwded classrooms * Concerns about Toxic Land * Flooding:on Harmony Grove Rd,will Rcroutc traffic to nearby Neighborhoods * Wildlife Homes The need for a proper Retaining Wall to support the barden that is already washing away With the estimated children to reside in these buildings the tax rate for homeowners will increase Printed Name Signature Address 'C rttments � JA'«+I D UI rLRk�D _ 12i{ I 1CC tc/t' i � I • 9 From: Jim Kearney [mailto:jldkeamey@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:10 AM To: Danielle McKnight Subject: Comments for tonight's Planning Board meeting concerning Legacy Park's application Danielle, Would you please forward this to the Planning Board members for tonight's meeting (so they may see the pictures)? Thanks, Jim I'd like to make 3 comments about tonight's Planning Board meeting to consider the "Legacy" Park application. 1. We in Salem have so many beautiful buildings - and it's such a big part of why we live in Salem. Why do we have to settle for buildings such as these? Salem has become a desirable city in which to live and build - in no small part because of the character and charm of our architecture. If you allow massive and unattractive buildings to be built, you threaten our great appeal - and they will haunt us for generations. Legacy Park: 1.) "Legacy" Park will make even Jefferson at Salem (below) look grand: 2.) We can get good looking buildings! Below are some of the more humble bldgs in Salem where previous developers were willing to do more than the minimum in order to be able to build in Salem: The back of the Hess gas station on New Derby St: 3.) Wendy's on Lafayette St: 4.) Public Storage building a block from the proposed "Legacy Park": 5.) 2. Comply with recommendations of Salem's accepted North River Canal Corridor Plan: - "Building heights should be in scale and character with the surrounding buildings, which are typically 2 and 3 stories tall"(The proposed bldg is 5 stories.) - "View corridors should be established from Boston Street to preserve views to the canal and park" 3. "Encourage" developer's participation in transportation improvements recommended in NRCC Plan - especially in light of Councilor Prevey's observation that the projected annual tax revenue of$40,000 will, at best, cover the added costs for our tax-payers: - "Connect Goodhue Street with Boston Street via a new Hanson Street connection. This improvement would provide a new two-way connection between Boston Street and Goodhue Street." - "Replace four-way intersection at Grove Street/Harmony Grove Road/Mason Street with Roundabout. A roundabout at this location will help to reduce accidents at this wide intersection caused by poor sight distance and speeding." h.� .y N Y! „� k R 5� IMt y��■�3 d 9 5f f .r....._, � •a• d,� I .nom i�,TT1�1ftl'Hr[.. fly ,02/16,Q012 17:15 FAX IM 001/002 SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP Attorneys At Law 63 Federal Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 JOHN R.SERAFINI,SR. TELEPHONE:(978)7440212 JOHN R.SERAFINI,JR. (787)681.2743 JOHN E.DARUNG TELECOPIER:(978)741<683 JOSEPH C.CORRENTI PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) TO: NAME: Danielle McKnight,Clerk FIRM: City of Salem Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeal TELECOPIER NUMBER: (978) 740-0404 FROM: Joseph C.Correnti,Esquire PAGES(including this cover sheet): 2 DATE SENT: February 16,2012 CLIENT NUMBER: MESSAGE: Re: Request to Continue Legacy Park Apartments Danielle: Please give me a quick call to confirm you receipt of this request. Thanks, If there is a problem with this transmission,call(978) 7440212 and ask for: Denese Luxton CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THIS TELECOPY TRANSMISSION CONTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE LAW FIRM OF SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP WHICH IS CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED TO BE FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ON THIS TRANSMISSION SHEET. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE,COPYING,DISTRIBUTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS TELECOPIED INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TELECOPY IN ERROR,PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE IMMEDIATELY SO THAT WE CAN ARRANGE FOR THE RETRIEVAL OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 1 02/18/2012 17:15 FAX R 002/002 SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOHN R. SERAFINI, SR TELEPHONE JOHN E, DARING 878-744-0 212 JOOBPH C. CORRENTI - FACSIMILE. 876-741-4683 February 16, 2012 Charles Puleo, Chair City of Salem Planning Board 120 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road Application for Planned Unit Development, Site Plan Review and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit 3 Harmony Grove Road and 60 &64 Grove Street Dear Mr. Puleo: On behalf of the Applicant, MRM Project Management, LLC, I hereby request allowance to continue the public hearing for the above Applications from February 16, 2012 to the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting on March 1, 2012. MRM Project Management, LLC By i Attorney, G% seph C. Correnti JCC:dI cc: client ZDamaj, rn� February 6 , 2012 To: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP Director of Planning and Community Development City of Salem From: James Treadwell , AICP Subject : Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (Salem Oil and Grease) At the February 2 , 2012 , meeting of the Planning Board, Jonathan Reardon, identified as the President of the Harmony Grove Cemetery Corporation, indicated that the Cemetery owned certain property at 3 Harmony Grove Road that MRM Project Management, LLC, had included within the site of the subject development. Mr. Correnti , representing the Development Team, responded that he would look into this property boundary matter. The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide your Department and the Planning Board with copy of "Plan of Land in Salem, Mass . as surveyed for Blubber Hollow Realty Trust" , dated April 19, 1979, and received at the Essex Registry of Deeds on May 1 , 1979 . This Plan served as the basis for the admonition, included in my memorandum to the Board dated December 20, 2011 , regarding the need for "Clarification of the project boundary with the Harmony Grove Corporation" . This Plan is also the 111979 map" alluded to in the Approved Minutes of the May 26, 2011 meeting of our Con- servation Commission. You will note that this above-cited Plan indicates that the land north of the North River, identified elsewhere as 3 Harmony Grove Road , is the property of the Harmony Grove Cemetery, except for a remnant-style parcel of 1200 square feet assigned as land of Blubber Hollow Realty Trust . Note further that it is my understanding that the relevant map in our Assessor ' s files reflects property lines and ownership similar to that depicted on the Drawings of the proposed Legacy Park development . Thank you. r,y/p Attachment cc : Councillor Paul C . Prevey Councillor Jerry L. Ryan Mack Park Neighborhood Association Page 1 of 1 Danielle McKnight From: Donna McDonald fdonnamcdonaldl@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:48 PM To: Danielle McKnight Subject: Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road Dear Members of the Salem Planning Board, As a property owner on Beaver Street, I would like to comment on the Legacy Park Apartments on Harmony Grove Road. My initial concern is for the surrounding neighborhoods and how they will be changed forever. This is not just a piece of property being developed, but the installation of an entire neighborhood. I can appreciate that the developer wants to maximize his profit by clustering in as many units as possible, but once this is done, Salem will live with it forever. It is my opinion that Salem is losing a piece of its heritage everytime another boxy building is built or a home is modified without any concern for a historical aesthetic. People come from all around the country to see the neighborhoods and achitecture that Salem has to offer. Projects such as this move us in the opposite direction. I would ask you to visit other "very similiar" local buildings, such as this project and see how you feel after viewing them. They are located behind Furtado's Hardware store on Boston Street at the Peabody line, in Peabody at 8 Walnut Place across from Duncan Donuts, and at 75 Walnut Street in Peabody. All three are in close proximity. I would like Salem to look like Salem. Also with the proposed density, many surrounding streets will suffer from an increase in traffic and congestion. I also have a concern about this project being a mega rental with no "personal home ownership," other than a corporation. This neighborhood could degenerate into a depressed pocket. I ask you to look at the project and ask yourselves "would I be comfortable with this project in my backyard?" I understand Salem would like the increased tax revenue, but remember "forever" is a very long time. Once it is changed for the better or worse, it is changed forever. So in closing, I would say that I actually prefer it now, the way it currently is, than to see it developed in this manner. If it has to be developed, I would like to see the smallest amount of units possible. Please avoid four story buildings. I ask that you maintain the aesthetic that represents Salem at its best. Please also move toward home ownership opposed to rental property, so it can be tended better. Due to the intensity and scope of the project, I think this is a fair request. Sincerely,Tom McDonald 2/14/2012 r. X3. ni,L{VFI Y - AHM r STRUM .x Rig r "rpt; January 17. 2012 Sailvmt'isnr ng h .r Iz,t t��ash�aiiren Street al ad. %1A i'19 TO No: i;t3.64 t;r(iv , Strews 4;.M" OR Ak fW.i'at.' Dear t hairman ouleo c , ,I'nn), is of this Board: a` s ) '? 9 r ..,-:' ..i C'fi )r r CCl it t. t d`"VbwatLc'.1 tol,i! -xi ha"ring t`f Stabmiunig €hiti iMter n i. L ', 1 w� t#Y, 1€nu:lr4 j4 201? Please ac:ccpt i<r,a�lciaer at1.Jbu of my prusare girt . - he t v the 11 ..x 6 i 1A a prior 4�'t?ti -7E_Jit.S C£2T't1C2ki2P,ltid3i titjnwsl ':Y„s .ta s'?CIw<t4aii: The Ra".'r of ti''C proposed prCrJ'iCl „rt the SO =eMMI iy known a+ 01 & ')a:ase is -tai; important prt icet it:botsi the neigbborIYI)od and i,l'.L'',CA t. T!-,, . 2 s. tk +s [ay z+ i9k!W y s's no” and 1i urc has baa-n a deam", nuic, p-opik,� thrit. h cnia 4.,ktant to "t., 4.`-318 .Ws Paucot a}proprimsy. 1 1�1lw ,c+. �,ti4c_a t iS:,;S .1 r a r %tr utero amts Ai i_.F.I i "s} individual b i ldiRjfa, l CUE2ki}icreia, i.oi,3a.... v.3?.*'S1 2190 projeci is lop being ,subft;a1 e { a$ ,.ii.i `az' dus int'f}(i'i�aL i would 10, to bring jhc Tjoan!'S .i$n€')Tft n ta., .. S.'.al i',inum W cmicen, and £i!1`f5Ucrati-on. r]u dew'J:'s ;'3.., jTopf",s:.i: rS rgUcsr lop nroal Q ;{:;;`Sil£' rK, ROaRl ShOUld3 IW' ig,1p{V, 1ho inct. $}ix Y)eazlti 2sa F- il'Q "sl cel cal:m8 C,£�tilc,'Sll Sh-cet, ad ` 4 fis:Bz:L;r1� dk nrr:iu itl i�)t"-A 1k-a .;Tratc'.tl se'e a1 )Cars,ay. Ws asycl to be EAU. -SIR .die GaR,,vr o' ,.eT, ltt c� i�lt' t.i1t1 �' t�,s.`�'..� .,(l:. center co ulded wim,nlodic al £i tl"ices 1}at;'pr iousty app"o-'-,"d he 1 #s n+ 'PtG C`;n ner o1 )1', and}i3'3t.lge hinmi , Not Loo Car Erol 7 this arca on 11i11t ttaK1 Ni a5a,t i,' i- dic forniel Salem S a4;;js'i.' projnt;C, cora3Siing, of 130 units, ow ao prtev1ious'e' E,p t£C ti"...d :^nd s_:tinsa-.C;.ion is G-,pecicd RR' C7C#7 n in die S in ,. r WALE AUT'4 t--,',stip o3VWkS a ?:;UW 10? OnslGCt 11, 1;+'U»t [ c'.. clue u..�. y ., - . ds7ff cu" 31fi e dici lbspuldl hw T&AK o'--t s Alc ..,udy t,..8Y9pilued +,7x="£Ik i t es M, .COIkSI+.kt..aE1£lit tPtC n t3,i'.'.S'x Laf c. i.k n:h2 pn1 c tk e1^�.i� £ ' E €= i rs �h,x:.53 `et s.-£i z>}t. 117 t n„l..I .n' .to.,dli, :;. ,y t..tilt4t r_ pot 1?liEii r'"jI:v"6 it-aparttalvV �,,-o 31t11. '�,e'.ck Et; ovV call .•• 4.}.. ..:.:.'.. .. '- "lic Ek'91cl,should NO £'nsk"i :es this project IS he t;93':£Yl3(?5Ct L' I TCIts. k+1 I�7 �1'+€,.vi'?� ..«c # 'IS('t}kt"}1 ?tt a`�.E°xt,c�I Sf"z,t.l.'x5?i} _ ==t ici have "1 i s c,E t)S L4 C.;", S -```fY; IJd51{�. i e x55 Si ed 4 7 i ct �a>ic'{ 7 CCS1tIp165Cs1' ULpC.EY2 Won',; .I.xT�t l;;s ..,�.i.'s €1tScl ditCE '7„U57S.Ct Ic2i2tSa$dd ,S ;5 `_7 ;, C�1U`.ttC ,xC=JI ;t'"s.= "tl - .. C�-f3ttx'� 7.c4`4t+...1;,1.,FhiL pal of!.f... Irl closing.ng. I 'Al ultl urge the BQ -Ct to renihin a l o 4?c i'ici 111`#', fluiiz,flu' Lhi5 prgject "All 1`G E th�xt. lol trc-d}c1 .Se1=LS 1£- t`.C>ISfib^^, 1 IEC L�714Ce#c3 a;1'CIt)l3 " . S ..,4s,, ase St1t is one P h t x* y � i . if7}n.7:75}27@\.n..tihOE71i,� LlC Pi ec l"`U�'T tc< il..:£L4`• a ;-2 . 1, I#ls., xlF1e1+C 1�tti i1 11. CAa6E If''S t:;l:x nk; �1.:. _. =ap'Ud Ry �l"1114. which in I -Cs 1£:x7 acx i vpr^aI Pc xi7a,Akds 2�.,C£s7I tl`e.£- '1`S is '7 ilt ItS 4 Nea., fIC YItTi 3K'Svt_t7 .t':ii11 E€Ps PP1E11lt that,Suet)c3 p24'i olall z+ }k x E � '% t �.i2. v.tti:'.0-i tS <:{S33e1kCl.f - 51''ktt usRe. C3 t ,xe l....i SE;,..IT%:' pYJE'{",timateiy fl,(n{)O cu,,,c..c1 SSi 3s`rtJUtL 13' C;* �J3:", tIL'14'IIzIZR1�d7Y ! £."Yuki ei'.241`� Ic [' 7t1. Ila lk.6t ;;uch d 1),oject t+.+.£:.E Ixn'!'4 on why sprvicas Mll 7Il cx=STtk#'auYw.faUf3t7I3I5;;tX u1C?(k:.Sal"4,tt i7�t6CkfFxG,c'l7 It C .x.Lh s; .{"�xk xd$t ',4 lil tt 7t:3-lvc �Yt`li xic ill tig city's tax baso _ 11010, S nt for pVit little an't Cc733b7t erl"ti£712 E liIlt�i3 L'.T r nI1...CI?!' � CIOC1 E 1 p wd the,(x.Cdap s ou th "itkil considera6611 i71<I 1 kxA It xli sal i 1'0 1ppearing h lierc (ht Bf!alt in ayr.!!auto FI £)c'u'r"O ' His On== - 4 .� I k, - `` 0 s, 5 . kAAL V d oA cis g( P�tvc; ¢l� .a ks iE k 4y..� t iq t 4,4 0\v'JAs ISSUE: Number of Stories , Legacy Park at Harmony Grove Apartment Buildings STORY: City of Salem Zoning. Ordinance, September 10, 2009, Section 10 .0, Definitions "As defined in the State Building Code" STORY: 2009 International Building Code " That portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above" . STORY: Last Previous Salem Zoning Ordinance "That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it" . STORY: Webster ' s New World Dictionary "One level of a building" . Environmental Impact Statement In Support of PUD and Site Plan Review Applications For Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road , 60-64 Grove Street & 3 Harmony Grove Road ,December 20, 2011 Item 2 .4.b "The proposed residential buildings are 4-stories tall alomg their front( southerly) side and 5 stories tall along their rear (northerly/river ) side" . Multifamily Development 47 Unit Building Exterior Elevations A2 . 2 December 2011 . Drawing A2 . 2 demarcates , on the north elevation, five stories above the grade, for an above grade height of 60 ' 11" . In view of these definitions and information provided by MRM, please cite the basis for classifying the Legacy Park residential buildings as other than five stories or as four/five story buildings ie , buildings with four stories at the front and five stories at the rear. Note: I would note that, unlike height, Zoning does not require that stories be calculated at the front line of a building. ' James Treadwell April 9 , 2012 APR 10.2012 Lynn- 12/21/11 RE: Salem Oil & Grease Attached is very rough draft of Z.UeS rP Ct]hiPct_ .e_ Cedv-P�-opm� project that I would like to put ef.ote_the.-Pj-anning Boa- ci:� jsuch is agreeable to you after we discuss m memo. II will be on m cell hone 11978-395-6819 for the next `` week and would appreciate meeting with you on either 12/28 or 12/29 or on a date and time convenient for you after the new year U e ore a mee ing when the Planning Board i const edTi U1 an .Grease . �aFgy-11u1�'d i iI February 6 , 2012 To: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP Director of Planning and Community Development City of Salem From: James Treadwell , AICP 6-rW-13 ` Subject : Legacy Park Apartmen s at Harmony Grove ( Salem Oil and Grease) At the February 2 , 2012 , meeting of the Planning Board , Jonathan Reardon, identified as the President of the Harmony Grove Cemetery Corporation, indicated that the Cemetery owned certain property at 3 Harmony Grove Road that MRM Project Management , LLC, had included within the site of the subject development . Mr . Correnti , representing the Development Team, responded that he would look into this property boundary matter. The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide your 'Department and the Planning Board .with copy of "Plan of Land in Salem, Mass. as surveyed for Blubber Hollow Realty Trust" , dated April 19 , 1979 , and received at the Essex Registry of Deeds on May 1 , 1979 . This Plan served as the basis for the admonition, included in my memorandum to the Board dated December 20 , 2011 , regarding the need for "Clarification of the project boundary with the Harmony Grove Corporation" . This Plan is also the " 1979 map" alluded to in the Approved Minutes of the May 26 , 2011 meeting of our Con- servation Commission. You will note that this above-cited Plan indicates that the land north of the North River, identified elsewhere as 3 Harmony Grove Road , is the property of the Harmony Grove Cemetery, except for a remnant-style parcel of 1200 square feet assigned as land of Blubber Hollow Realty Trust . Note further that it is my understanding that the relevant map in our Assessor ' s files reflects property lines and ownership similar to that depicted on the Drawings of the proposed Legacy Park development. Thank you. Attachment cc : Councillor Paul C. Prevey Councillor Jerry L. Ryan Mack Park Neighborhood Association December 20 , 2011 To : The Planning Board of the City of Salem Thru: Lynn G. Duncan , AICP From: James R . Treadwell , AICP Subject : Proposed Redevelopment, Salem Oil and Grease Based on information derived 1 ) from attendance at the Mack Park Neighborhood Association meeting of November 30 , 2011 , at which the Development Team, representing MRM Project Management LLC, presented their proposal for redevelopment of the Salem Oil and Grease property and 2 ) review of the "Development Plan" ( 11/3/11 ) and the "Site Layout Plan". ( 10/18/11 ) of the oil and Grease property prepared by Griffin Engineering, LLC, I would offer the following observations and ask that they be considered by the Planning Board in connection with the evaluation of the current redevelopment proposal . Thank you. OBSERVATIONS. A. ONGOING AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES THAT EFFECT PROJECT PLANNING 1 ) Flood Mitigation A Feasibility Study of Phase 3 of "Flood Mitigation Facilities for the City of Peabody" (EDEA No . 14251 ) , by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , is currently underway. Phase 3 includes the Salem Oil and Grease property. A "Final Record of Decision" ( FROD) for this flood mitigation project was issued by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ( EOEEA.) , Ian Bowles, on November 30, 2010. (copy attached ) The FROD indicates that a "mandatory" Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the entire flood miti- gation project and , on page 4 , the flood mitigation activ- ities envisioned for the Oil and Grease property are set- forth. These include 1 ) the widening of the North River by approximately 38 feet on its north side, 2 ) realignment of a 90 degree bend of the River at the railroad crossing, 3 ) excavation of an unkown quantity of potentially contamin- ated material from the River and 4 ) the replacement of the Grove Street Bridge, the railroad crossing and the pedestrian bridge. There has also been discussion of culverts being constructed across and under the. property as part of the flood mitigation effort . -2- The time-line for completion of the Corps Feasibility Study and the subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment should be ascertained . It should be expected that the recommendations of the Study would serve as the basis for flood mitigation improve- ments in the final plan for the Oil and Grease property . Contacts for the Flood Mitigation project include Blair Haney of the Peabody Planning Department and David Knowlton, Salem' s City Engineer . 2 ) Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Review As noted above, an EIR must be prepared for the entire Peabody Flood Mitigation project , including Phase 3 , the portion of the project located in Salem. Consultation with EOEEA should determine when the MEPA review of the Oil and Grease project must be undertaken and if that review can proceed independent of the EIR. 3 ) NEPA and Section 106 Review The use of federal funding will require compliance with NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Pres- ervaticn Act . As directed by relevant Federal Regulations , these reviews are to be initiated early in a project ' s planning period . (References : 40 CFR Part 1500 and 30 CFR Part 800 ) Regarding the Section 106 process , it is rioted that two Oil and Grease buildings are listed on the Massachusetts Cultural Resources list, the site has an historical past with the potential for archaeological value and the North River Canal structure was built around 1896 . 4) Brownfields A U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Brown- fields "Coalition" grant is funding the Phase II , sub- surface investigation and hazardous materials building survey/assessment of the Oil and Grease site and a Phase III , remedial plan is to be developed . These activities are scheduled to be completed. in March and May 2012 and should contribute important data to the planning of the Oil and Grease Development Plan. -0 J 5) Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act The Salem Conservation Commission issued an Order of Resource Area Delineation (DEP File ,664-516 ) on July 19 , 2011 . Among other things, the Order granted a "limited exemption from the riverfront area regulations for a specific portion of the site" . An appeal of the Order and the resource area delineation was made by ten residents of Salem on July 28 , 2011 . The DEP has not yet ruled on said appeal . It should be ascer- tained how the ruling by the DEF would effect the planning of the Oil and Grease project. 6) Massachusetts Waterways Act It is anticipated that a Chapter 91 license will be required pursuant to the Waterways Act . Decisions made relative to the public interest during the licensing process could impact on the oil and Grease Development Plan . 7) Traffic Generation With the exception of the Franklin Street area , an up-dated traffic analysis of the North River Canal Corridor is being developed . The traffic impact study of the Oil and Grease property is to be co-ordinated with the NRCC Analysis . The results of these studies could influence the Plan for the Oil and Grease site . 8 ) Planned Unit Development (PUD)/ Business Par}: Develop- ment (BPD) While referring to the development proposal as "predomin- ately residential" , the Development Team stressed that the PUD provision of our Zoning Ordinance that requires , in BPD zones , that residential use/square footage cannot exceed 50% of the land area/square footage of a proposed develop- ment , has been carefully calculated and would be met in the case of Salem Oil and Grease . ( Refer to Section 7 . 3 . 3 . of the Salem Zoning Ordinance ) If in fact , the restriction on the amount of resi- dential use/square footage is not met in this instance, and the BPD objective of fostering the development of clean industry/commercial uses will not be achieved , I would submit that the Planning Board and/or the Board of Appeals may wish to address this land use issue . -4- 9) Aesthetics/Design The Project ' s housing element will consist of 3 four/ five story structures , containing 141 apartments with 262 bedrooms . The mass/bull: of the buildings is considerable, prompting the project architect to emphasize the extent of techniques that will be used to cause the buildings to appear less massive. Actually , the design replicates that exhibited by large apartment complexes that have emerged along our major highways . A design more in keeping with the traditional apartments in Salem ' s neighborhoods-- smaller buildings , less height, use of brick/masonry, flat or low gambled roofs--would seem more appropriate in the Mac': Park neighborhood . It would probably be helpful if our Design Review Board would review and comment on the design of the Oil and Grease development . It should be noted that the Design Review Board would be involved if the site was in the NRCC Zone across Grove Street . 10) The Railroad Coordination with the PanAm Railroad will be necessary during project planning in order to address the issues of 1 ) the existing, on-site railroad siding, 2 ) the construc- tion of the new, main vehicular access road over the rail line and 3) the potential for a Spur Line being developed from Danvers and Peabody to the Salem MBTA Station . B. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1 ) Rodent control during site preparation. 2) Construction of a vehicular bridge over the North River in a floodplain. 3) Along the Project ' s southern border , stabilization of the slope/embankment, clarification of the property ' s boundary, replacement of the deteriorated fence/provision of new safety barrier and the implications of the three "ways" to Beaver . 4) Involvement of the immediate neig`+bors as the planning/ permitting process advances , including a tour of the site by those so inclined . 5 ) Coordination with appropriate Salem and Peabody entities with the proposed 10 foot "gravel path" . 6 ) Reference by the Oil and Grease Team to proposals of the NRCC Neighborhood Master Plan that should be of interest , including the round-about at Grove/Mason/Harmony Grove , the new square at Grove and Goodhue and the extension of Hanson Street . 7 ) Clarification of the project boundary with the Harmony Grove Corporation. 8 ) Preparation of local EIS and Subdivision IIIA material . 9) Applicability of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to the demolition of Oil and Grease structures . The Commonwealth of Yassachusetts ecutive Office of Ener gy and rEnvironmentaf,4ffairs 100 Cam6ndge Street, Suite 900 lug Boston, %fA 02114 Deval L. Patrick GOVERNOR "1'imothy P.Murray Tel:(617)626-1000 LIEUTENANT Fax:(617)626-1181 GOVERNOR hltp.//mvw.mass.gov/envir Ian A.Bowles SECRETARY November 24, 2010 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION PROJECT NAME : Flood Mitigation Facilities for the City of Peabody PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Peabody PROJECT WATERSHED : North Coast EEA NUMBER : 14251 PROJECT PROPONENT : City of Peabody DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : June 23,2010 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act(MEPA) (G.L.c.30, ss. 61-62I) and Section 11.11 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I have reviewed the Notice of Project Change(NPC) and request for a Phase I Waiver and hereby grant a waiver that will allow the City of Peabody (City hereafter) to proceed with Phase 1 (Project 1) prior to preparing a mandatory Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the entire project. Project l is the relocation and enlargement of the Goldthwaite Brook culverts from Oak Street to its confluence with the North River. Project Description Project 1 consists of the installation of twin culverts to divert large stormwater flows from the existing Goldthwaite Brook culvert from Oak Street to its confluence with the North River. The watershed flooding model for the North River has been updated by the City. The watershed modeling results for Project 1, with the proposed upstream storage options in place, show that peak elevations do not increase for the 10-, 50-, and 100-year flood events at any of the eleven locations modeled in Peabody and Salem, and that the project mitigates flooding for the Peabody Square area for up to the 50-year flood event. Therefore,the implementation of Project 1 with the proposed upstream storage is not anticipated to result in adverse flood impacts to Peabody Square or the City of Salem. The proposed upstream stormwater storage projects to mitigate flooding in Peabody EEA#14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 Square include: • Centennial Park Detention Basins - the optimization of unused stormwater storage areas is proposed; • 45 Walnut Street- this brownfield property is proposed for redevelopment as open space and stormwater storage; Crowninshield Pond- a new outlet structure is proposed to permanently lower water levels; • Cedar Pond-the modification of the outlet structure and weir boards is proposed to create new storage; • Upper Flume Pond -the modification of the outlet structure and the implementation of management measures is proposed to lower water levels prior to forecasted storms; and • Scouting Way- the proponent has acquired this land that will be regraded to provide stormwater storage. These six upstream stormwater storage projects will be implemented by the City prior to the completion of Project 1. Several of these projects are currently underway. The NPC outlined a schedule for completing these six storage projects prior to Project 1. The proponent estimates that Project 1 (Goldthwaite Brook Culverts) would be completed by the summer of 2013. Project 1 includes the construction of a transition structure at the two existing culverts carrying Goldthwaite Brook where they connect in Foster Street at Oak Street. The dimensions of the existing Foster Street culvert downstream of Oak Street are 4 feet high by 10-feet wide. The transition structure will be designed to convey.flow from the upstream existing Foster Street culverts to the proposed new twin 4-feet high by 10-feet wide culverts downstream. Beginning at the transition structure and extending downstream approximately 140 feet, the existing culvert in Foster Street will be removed to make room for the proposed twin culverts. Approximately 70 feet southwest of the intersection of Franklin Street with Foster Street, a bend will redirect some of the flow to the existing Goldthwaite Brook culvert away from Foster Street to the north. The downstream side of the transition structure will include the location for removable stop logs for each of the proposed twin culverts. This will provide the proponent with the ability to direct flows into either the southeast or north/west twin culverts to facilitate cleaning during relatively dry conditions. Downstream of the location of the bend prior to Franklin Street, the existing culvert will remain in place. The culvert carrying Proctor Brook joins the culvert carrying Goldthwaite Brook just north of the Courthouse. The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)has identified this juncture as the start of the North River. The culvert carrying the North River varies in dimensions and is also daylighted in several areas. After crossing Wallis Street, the culvert makes a 90 degree bend to the south and becomes daylighted just north of the existing railroad 2 EEA 414251 Final Record of Decision November 24,2010 tracks along the North River. In order to maintain flow in the existing Goldthwaite Brook culvert and its daylighted sections, a conduit is now proposed prior to Franklin Street to connect the proposed north/west twin culvert to the existing Goldthwaite Brook culvert, matching inverts with both culverts. The proposed conduit will be sized to only allow flows that do not exceed the capacity of these downstream stream segments(i.e.,that do not overtop the banks of the downstream daylighted stream sections). If the invert elevation of the existing culvert is higher than the invert elevation of the proposed west side culvert, it may be necessary to install a removable weir or stop logs across the proposed northwest twin culvert to direct flow into the proposed conduit.The height of the bendable weir or stop logs will be determined during final design. Of the three alternative alignments presented in the 2008 ENF for the proposed twin culverts,Alternative A (Alignment Crossing Railroad Tracks)has been eliminated by the proponent due to the extensive work that would be required within land occupied by an active railroad and an existing 78-inch diameter sewer. Both Alternative B (Alignment South of the Railroad Tracks) and Alternative C (Alignment in Mill Street)remain viable alternatives. Final design will evaluate the Preferred Alternative. Since Project 1 is now proposed to move forward prior to Project 2 (North River Widening), the connection of the proposed culverts to the existing North River channel would have required modification to the width of the river,which is only 16 feet wide at the connection point and the culverts have a combined width of approximately 27 feet. Therefore,only the north/west twin culvert will be connected to the river from Project 1. Approximately 40 linear feet of the southwest granite block wall/bank of the North River(forming the 90 degree bend) will be removed to provide a direct hydraulic connection for the northwest culvert to the river. A removable bulkhead will be constructed at the downstream end of the southeast culvert to terminate this culvert. If Project 2 is implemented in the future, the bulkhead in the southerly culvert would be removed and both culverts would be connected to the widened river. An approximately 10-foot wide opening will connect the south/east culvert to the north/west culvert immediately upstream of the bulkhead, which will allow flow from the south/east culvert to pass into the northwest culvert and enter the North River. MEPA Proiect History As described in the Environmental Notification Form(ENF)filed in May 2008, the Flood Mitigation Facilities for the City of Peabody consists of three distinct projects. To reduce the breadth and periodicity of flood events in downtown Peabody,the Plan presented in the ENF included three project components. Project 1 consisted of the relocation and enlargement of the Goldthwaite Brook culverts for approximately 1,950 linear feet(10 from Oak Street to its confluence with the North River. The City proposed twin 4-feet high by 10-feet wide culverts. It 3 i. EEA#14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 has modified Project 1 to maintain flow in the daylighted section of Goldwaite Brook parallel to Foster Street. In the summer of 2009,the proponent completed the cleaning and restoration of the original Goldthwaite Brook culverts in the Foster Street area upstream of Oak Street. Project 2 included the widening of approximately 1,600 If of the North River to an approximately 38-to 41-foot wide corridor depending on the type of wall chosen for the south side of the river from the confluence of Goldthwaite Brook with the North River to the Howley Street Bridge.The existing North River corridor is approximately 11 to 22-feet wide. The proponent would eliminate two 90-degree bends in the North River between Strongwater Brook and Howley Street. Project 2 also included the replacement of the Caller Street Bridge. It included the dredging about 4,250 cubic yards of material from the North River channel as part of the widening process. Material, existing within the 38-foot wide path of the proposed river widening area, will be removed, and the project includes removing the existing south watt along the river. The proponent will remove the soil between the existing south wall and the proposed new south wall where the river is widened and the soil from portions of the north wall where the river bends. It will also replace the walls along the river. The Howley Street Bridge is anticipated to be replaced as a separate project by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). For Project 3, the Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE)would extend the widening of the North River(approximately 38 feet) from about 400 feet within Peabody to approximately 2,700 linear feet into Salem or about 600 linear feet downstream of Grove Street. Project 3 may include sheet piling along the 3,100 linear feet of the north side of the North River(the widened side for this portion of the project). Project 3 would realign a 90 degree river bend at a railroad crossing. It included excavating to about the same depth as Project 2(about one foot), and the disposal of an unknown quantity of potentially contaminated dredged materials from the river widening. Project 3 would replace the Grove Street Bridge,the railroad crossing west of Grove Street, and a pedestrian footbridge downstream of Howley Street in Salem. The ACOE has been funded to initiate a Feasibility Study to improve this section of the North River. Following the completion of the Feasibility Study, the ACOE will complete an Environmental Assessment(EA) in fulfillment of the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). The proponent anticipates that the Flood Mitigation Facilities Project would be completed in a sequential order: Project 1,2, and 3. On November 13,2009, 1 issued a Certificate establishing a Special Review Procedure (SRP) with the City of Peabody. This SRP was issued to allow for administrative flexibility to permit certain currently defined and undefined stormwat— er�projects� to move forward to required nermi� tti _n advance of the completion of the EIRsrocess. These stormwater protects will have no demonstrable downstream affect and requue no state agency action or permits i ass uttervention). To that end, a once of Project Change(NPC) was filed itt June 2009 for inclusion of the Strongwater Brook sub-watershed as an integral part of the overall hydrologic modeling and evaluation of opportunities for flood control and water quality improvement for the North 4 la O RL=p •Final recara ofdee�a�aw ►t L4.to EEA#14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 River watershed. Strongwater Brook enters the North River east of Howley Street.It has a direct effect on,and contributes to the flood elevation in the North River. Additionally, the City identified several areas throughout the Strongwater Brook watershed and the Goldthwaite Brook watershed where the potential for enhanced upstream stormwater storage exists. These projects go beyond the overriding goal of reducing flooding in the downtown area by incorporating water quality improvements as well. They could potentially provide benefits beyond the storage of stormwater and localized flood control, including: increased localized recharge; wetlands restoration; reduction of uncontrolled runoff;reduced erosion; and improved water quality through BMPs and LID techniques. The project, as proposed in all three of its components,is extremely complicated.There are many regulatory agencies at different levels of government involved,not only in permitting or approving project components,but in their implementation as well.The three phases of the project are closely interrelated. While it is my direct concern that one project's implementation does not adversely affect any other,I also recognize that successive steps are needed to determine how best to reduce flooding within the City of Peabody. MEPA Jurisdiction The original project was subject to MEPA review pursuant to Sections 11.03(3)(b)(1)(b), 11.03(3)(b)(1)(e), and 11.03(3)(b)(1)(0 of the MEPA regulations because it will alter 500 or more linear feet of bank along a fish run or inland bank; provide a new structure in a regulatory floodway; and alter 0.5 or more acres of any other wetlands. When Project 3 was added to the project, the entire project was determined to require a mandatory EIR pursuant to Sections 11.03(3)(a)(1)(b)and 11.03(3)(a)(2)because it may alter ten or more acres of wetlands and may require a Variance in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act from MassDEP. Orders of Conditions will be required from the Peabody Conservation Commission for Projects 1 and 2 as "limited" projects. A Superseding Order of Conditions will be required from MassDEP if the Orders are appealed. The project will require a Chapter 91 Waterways Permit for the dredging of the North River and a Chapter 91 License for some of the proposed structures from MassDEP. The project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certificate from MassDEP. It may also require the submission of a Notice of Intent to Perform Utility-Related Abatement Measures (URAM) to MassDEP. The project may need to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for stormwater discharges from a construction site. Programmatic General Permits(PGP) may also be needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project described in the current NPC and in this Final Record of Decision will also require additional review by the Peabody Conservation Commission and Orders of Conditions. Project 1 and the upstream stormwater storage projects may also need to comply with the NPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges. 5 EEA 914251 Final Record of Decision November 24,2010 Because state funding is being utilized for portions of this project and a Chapter 91 Permit/License is required, MEPA jurisdiction is broad and extends to all aspects of the project that are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause Damage to the Environment,as defined in the MEPA regulations. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts As a result of the above project changes, Project 1 will impact the following wetland resource areas: 40 linear feet of inland Bank(permanent); 16,200 sf of Riverfront Area(RA) (temporary); and 52,470 sf of Bordering Land Subject to Flooding(BLSF) (temporary). The City has reduced the majority of its proposed impacts to wetland resource areas since the review of the ENF. In addition, the construction of the six upstream storage projects will impact approximately: 620 linear feet of Bank; 3,600 sf(already permitted) and an unquantified amount of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands; 2,030 sf and an unquantified amount of Land under Water (LUW); 48,262 sf of RA;and 56,628 sf of BLSF. The upstream storage projects do not meet or exceed any MEPA thresholds individually nor require state agency actions or permits. Prior to the preparation of an EIR,the intent of the Special Review Procedure (SRP) was to allow smaller flood storage projects to move forward if: there is no demonstration of a downstream effect; no MEPA thresholds are exceeded;and state permits are not required. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of potentially contaminated soil will be excavated from the Project I footprint. Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures The City will utilize Best Management Practices(BMP) during construction. It will install erosion, sedimentation controls, and dust suppressants to minimize project impacts. Waste materials, debris, and trash will be cleaned from the work areas at the end of each day. Fueling operations will be monitored and conducted away from resource areas. Construction vehicles will be equipped with the proper mufflers. The construction equipment will be well-maintained. Appropriate barriers and signage will be used during construction as public safety measures. Police details will be used for work impacting roadways. The proponent will properly characterize excavated soil and manage it off-site. Construction will potentially result in impacts to roadway capacity, including a reduction in lanes,reduction in lane widths, and local road closures requiring detours.These temporary reductions in roadway capacity may lead to increased traffic delays in an already congested area. The City will prepare a traffic management plan as part of its final design. The traffic management plan will be designed to minimize construction related impacts on traffic and local businesses during construction. 6 EEA#14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 Waiver Request On April 30,2010, the proponent requested that I grant a waiver to allow Project I to proceed in advance of completion of the EIR. The waiver request was submitted with the NPC. The NPC identified the environmental impacts of the project,and it described the measures to be undertaken by the proponent to avoid,minimize and mitigate the projects' impacts. Based upon a review of the NPC and comments received, I issued a Draft Record of Decision (DROD),which was published in the Environmental Monitor on June 23,2010 in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(2).The public comment period lasted for 14 days and ended on July 7, 2010. On July 12, 2010, the City requested an extended review period in order for the proponent to respond and to address the MassDEP comment letter of July 7,2010. During this review period the City met with MassDEP and the MEPA Office to resolve the issues raised by MassDEP in their comments on the NPC and the DROD. The findings and conditions outlined herein reflect the subsequent discussions and correspondence between the City,MassDEP and the MEPA Office. Standards for All Waivers The MEPA regulations at 301 CMR 11.11(1) state that I may waive any provision or requirement in 301 CMR 11.00 not specifically required by MEPA and may impose appropriate and relevant conditions or restrictions, provided that I find that strict compliance with the provision or requirement would: (a) result in an undue hardship for the proponent,unless based on delay in compliance by the proponent; and (b) not serve to avoid or minimize Damage to the Environment. Determinations for a Phase 1 Waiver The MEPA regulations at 301 CMR 11.11(4) state that, in the case of a partial waiver of an EIR review that will allow the proponent to proceed with Phase I of the project prior to preparing an EIR, I shall base the findings required in accordance with 301 CMR 11.11(1)(b)on a determination that: (a) the potential environmental impacts of Phase 1, taken alone,are insignificant; (b) ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities and services exist to support Phase 1; (c) the project is severable,such that Phase I does not require the implementation of any other future phase of the project or restrict the means by which potential environmental impacts from any other phase of the project may be avoided, minimized or mitigated; and (d) the agency action(s)on Phase 1 will contain terms such as a condition or restriction, so as 7 EEA#14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 to ensure due compliance with MEPA and 301 CMR 11.00 prior to commencement of any other phase of the project. Findines Based upon the information submitted by the proponent,the supplemental information provided by the proponent on June 8, 2010 and on November 8, 2010, and after consultation with the state permitting agencies. I find that the Waiver Request has merit and that the proponent has demonstrated that the proposed project meets the standards for all waivers at 301 CMR 11.11(1). I find that strict compliance with the requirement to submit an EIR prior to completion of Project l would result in undue hardship for the City and would not serve to avoid or minimize Damage to the Environment. In accordance with 301 CMR 11.11(4),the latter finding is based on my determination that: (a) the potential environmental impacts of Phase 1, taken alone, are insignificant; • Project 1 has minimal impacts to wetland resource areas. Permanent impacts are limited to approximately 40 linear feet of inland Bank due to the creation of the discharge point from the proposed Goldthwaite Brook twin culverts to the North River, approximately 100 feet east of Wallis Street. The existing North River channel wall is comprised of artificial impervious material that does not contribute to flood control or storm damage prevention,which are characteristics considered to be significant to the interests of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act. Project 1 activities are in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations, as structures may be permitted in or on a Bank when required to prevent flood damage to facilities,buildings, and roads. The construction activities would use BMPs to minimize adverse effects. (b) Ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities and services exist to support Phase 1; • Although the purpose of the project is to add new stormwater infrastructure, the proposed project would not require any additional permanent infrastructure facilities or services upon completion. (c) The project is severable, such that Phase I does not require the implementation of any other future phase of the project or restrict the means by which potential environmental impacts from any other phase of the project may be avoided, minimized or mitigated; and • Project 1 does not require the implementation of Projects 2 or 3. Project I alone will significantly reduce the frequency, depth and duration of flooding in Peabody 8 i EEA#14251 Final Record of Decidion November 24, 2010 I Square. However, the proposed upstream storage projects must first be implemented to avoid any downstream increase to peak flood elevations. The proponent has committed to implement the upstream storage projects prior to the completion of Project 1, and the SRP established for the project allows the proponent to proceed with these protjects. The implementation of Project 1 in advance of Projects 2 and 3 will not limit future consideration and implementation of downstream project alternatives Aince it will neither be increasing flood elevations in the North River compared to existing conditions nor modifying the existing North River channel dimensions. (d) The agency action(s)on Phase l will contain terms such as a condition or restriction,so as to ensure due compliance with MEPA and 301 CMR 11.00 prior to commencement of any other phase of the project. • In order to ensure that adequate terrlis and conditions are placed on the Phase 1 project to ensure due compliance w�th MEPA,I hereby impose the following items as a condition of the Waiver:I • As referenced above, the comment received from MassDEP on July 8 and September 10 have raised; i sues concerning the implementation of Phase 1. In response to these MassDEP le ers,the City of Peabody has provided updated project information on Jul} 7 and November 8. Through these ongoing discussions MassDEP has evaluated the City's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM)and has indicated that the model appears to be sufficient to advance Project 1 before completion of the FIR. However, MassDEP has requested that additional information concerning t e model be provided in the forthcoming EIR's. The City has provided initi l responses to MassDEP's questions in its November 8, 2010 letter. These topics must nonetheless be further addressed in the Draft EIR that will be submitted on the project, and I hereby incorporate MassDEP's requests for information from its September 10, 2010 letter into the existing Scope for the EIR. The City should continue consulting MassDEP to resolve concerns regarding how well the model represents potential conditions for the Projects 2 and 3. The Draft EIR should provide a full update on the implementation of Project 1 and should also contain a comprehensive update on the City's ongoing discussions with MassDEP concerning the hydraulic modeling refinements. • In addition to MassDEP's review of the hydraulic modeling, MassDEP will review the upstream storage projects that are planned for Phase 1 as contemplated in the SRP. The City's evaluation of storage options will continue during final design of Project 1 and additional,modified or new storage alternatives may be considered or implemented to replace one or more of the preliminary list of 9 i EEA #14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 projects identified. As a condition of this Waiver,the City must provide MassDEP with an opportunity to review updates to the model, including revisions to the upstream storage locations and final design refinements. • As part of its effort to verify its modeling results, the City should install a USGS stream gauge in the North River in order to provide a larger data set for calibrating the model. Additional river gauging and high water mark measurements are needed as calibration parameters to ensure the reliability of the model from gauged watersheds to the North River watershed. • The City has committed to develop a Memorandum of Agreement with Eastman Gelatin Corporation regarding the operation of the dams at Cedar and Upper Flume Ponds as part of the City's overall flood mitigation facilities. • The City has also committed to sealing the downstream end of the one of the proposed twin culverts until the completion of the EIR process, as well as the state and local permitting processes for Project 2. MassDEP has indicated that this is essential to prevent scour to the banks of the North River and cause associated wetland loss. 'The City has provided details on how this sealing will be accomplished in its November 2010 submissions and I incorporate those measures as a condition of this Waiver. Conclusion I have determined that this waiver request has merit,and issued a Draft Record of Decision (DROD), which was published in the Environmental Monitor on June 23, 2010 in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(2), which began the public comment period. The public comment period lasted for 14 days and ended on July 7, 2010. On July 12, 2010, the City requested an extended review period in order for the proponent to respond and to address the MassDEP comment letter of July 7 20 assDEP to resolve the issues raised by MassDEP. This rFROD has incorporated hethe y resolution otY met with fthese issues in the above section of Findings. Accordingly, I hereby grant the waiver requested for this project, which will allow the proponent to proceed with Phase 1 of the project,prior to preparing an EIR for the entire project and subject to the above fin ing a ditions, if applicable. November 24 2010 Date [an A. Bowles Comments received on the NPC: Peabody Chamber of Commerce, 5/1/10 10 EEA #14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 Office of the Mayor, City of Peabody, 5/3/10 North Shore Bank, 5/4/10 Century Tire &Auto Service, 5/5/10 Massachusetts Historical Commission, 5/17/10 Senator Frederick E. Berry, 5/18/10 Northeast Arc, 5/18/10 Peabody Conservation Commission, 5/20/10 Arthur M. Gordon, 5/20/10 Terence J. Murphy, 5/24/10 Peabody City Council, 5/24/10 Peter M. McGinn, 5/24/10 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection/Northeast Regional Office, 5/27/10 David Paulson, 6/2/10 Richard Ellis, 6/3/10 Camille McKenny, 6/3/10 Salem Sound Coast Watch, 6/4/10 Salem City Engineer, 6/4/10 Judith Black, 6/4/10 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection/Northeast Regional Office, 6/4/10 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries& Wildlife, 6/4/10 Stewart Lazares, 6/4/10 Martin J. Scafidi, 6/4/10 Russell Donovan, 6/4/10 Camille McKenny& six other residents, 6/7/10 AECOM, 6/8/10 Comments received on the DROD: City of Peabody—Office of the Mayor, 7/7/10 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection/Northeast Regional Office, 7/8/10 Peabody Community Development& Planning, 7/12/10 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, 7/23/10 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, 8/9/10 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection/Northeast Regional Office. 9/10/10 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, 9/21/10 AECOM, 11/9/10 City of Peabody—Office of the Mayor, 11/10/10 14251 frod.doc IAB/WTG 11 a2'- "'F<.✓+'tia �•ii*�'k: '�l.P'6Fir 56@¢ c+sem.e a �r «i�s�' -+...c, sEs+ .q- ;k<� ..y.%,y`4 1 E[ a.^3^'..:fk•' �'.+'S Qrme' � splerxi Oil & *Greiase hE Hg � T.;r.* k�fya r•a M � v s�rew� ifields site Redeeeloprr�e # Rp` r.:L.. '-0r � S S lv, ' ..- v. Y- F +,+l.,fP �✓ � 5{b'+..M Srt x:i _ pF r+"�tJ� d�� a � ':�+9F��. - h,` . �� .� gam; X11. ••_� � � .+M��y� �_� f � •�' -t�" -^^99 y�s<<+��`— ��T�.� # �Vis. ,� �yady,� ,w�a .,...- _ �p � � �' y,�]f ,may .�rk •u,. + :e�� -C'';� ML�y�� -a•:*s';,pi� _�� `wt �b !�l'�f FS � �Ca �.rlb.rr3 ...cam 'jyr ��' +��=^�j'Ss g ,kc}i��re�d. i, �4t � `�^,. �~'��4'W. �`i �( .'�•Xty�'� 4ir R �•?�y � �. ' s - �M�v•. io 4'i%r �-Wr" :iY'�.i'E �'; ,�. r r �g � �.w.,;,s v iR�`►` 'a z.. t -��`' .y ..«'rffi �`�='' ,�..^ '"rf-,ec�ec&S.t� °z7a.:s� �-iA'>t'rf�:°4v�t-Ek +*s �-'E-c c .. �::. :`. " t.�+<- --^� ".r 'x• =a.: s.art:.. �`rgii � '�[�»x�^�n`,� ¢. vl�� nent . lai :.. r t «u�'3•'�'P'..� c ate, *_, k,- a �,.. , v ., w E � �s�Y ,S k✓ Y "`� .Wfr... n�'wT `u�o 2 � s • .w$� s k p`✓c r3 ?.a;�- fwWF, r,` g�Y f 64Ns ` 4� Fs,, 4 q '.-'. t 2 J.... fin.=��it r��SP� �+j�k ':men�r/+tiprsfa+e.N'n.k?, a#5dy::� ,wmaz+vti .S:i-•`a...,�"'t. � _..?� �_� �'�' , ��'eafi✓ :ii. '4 rt } ... :'F,`� m + pE_��'"�-- sc'^..�_� 1 �. �� ,w.,. 22 �� r� �.� -"*^,A' • .t F��, a �� '+�. .ase'° "2<1 ° `�— ' "L--ter- i ^p .� OR gyp- ii �.' .,z� j,�y eEAV�fbsTREE � � ��. t r S• k x,,,., s ew"sewr«c-*+x, �n'rP -e.�^^ K-,�� f= .,ys `»T�*.�•-m .:.'tR93Ya"o�' a'*'Sr�waw•.••w,¢� -.�- 'a5 +�g��- x .,3,MpeF� x� / HAHM� x --------------- w.ITTour Ran o.r � I 9W � IIII �IIIII lila l i°.Ap r� � R 51! � eHslme - Pa i _ BEA VER STREET vu mrur...a narou.m.mrno .ue.aa� �or� NPM PROJECT 4ANAGNENT, µC 60-64 GROVE 51. J HARMONY GROW �a V.YWi MN +i T o^: we xus '�• C-3 h �} North Shore Transportation Improvement Study ®D1V1JM SALEM TO DANVERS wE ® = oq ® �S I t —� �,�Int, _ �' a m 1 p � L � I�'�a ✓ I ( � Par+, i Y- 1�U � t \ ��:p1i� i -,.. r tem '. ..� / �. ` •.I ■ i,. Sl -- �. 1JI !•c �-+• 1Q, Fm.tr4\\ VO,1 mama!/ , of WWW t nt NW v°a.l _ T. ! t eLL'ulro Polnr �.�,i v �I . 7 I7,: 5. i � • Legend 1 • • • • FREIGHT LINE SALEM TO DANVERS —� MBTA EXISTING SERVICE �� , ` " f `� y�F� ' _•; '^ o 0.2s 0.5 ' Mlles � t /_ t crcnLE"r w Data Sources: MassGIS,MBTA C REG 1VED AIR MONITORING PLAN JAN 12 2012 RIVERVIEW PLACE LLC DEPT P & 72 FLINT STREET SALEM COMhgAJIT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT � PARAMETER FRED. WORKER PROPERTY CORRECTIVE ACTION TEST UNIT LIMIT LIMIT DUST PART. CONT.* 10 mWem 1.0 mWem STOP EXCAVATION/LOADING TSI 8530 DUSTTRAK II WET SURFACES WAIT FOR LESS WIND COVER PILES HOURLY ODOR, SULFIDE 2X/DAY 10/15 ppm 1.0 ppm STOP EXCAVATION/LOADING ISTMX 412 MULTIGAS SPREAD LIME WAIT FOR COLD/LT RAIN MOVE PILE, COVER HOURLY SPRAY DEODORANT VOLATILE ORGANICS NAPTHALENE 2X/DAY 10/15 ppm 1.0 ppm STOP EXCAVATION/LOADING MINIRAE PID IDENTIFY SOURCE COVER AND CONTAIN SPREAD PEAT OR CKD NOISE 2X/DAY 120 Db 80 db STOP EQUIPMENT QUEST Q-400 SLOW DOWN OPERATION DOSIMETER PLACE MATS ON SLABS * THERE WILL BE 4 MONITORING STATIONS,3 BETWEEN THE WORK AND RESIDENCES,AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND 1 BESIDE THE RIVER. THE DUST MONITORING IS CONTINUOUS DURING DEMOLITION, SOIL EXCAVATION, STABILIZATION AND TRUCK LOADING AND RESULTS ARE BASED ON A TIME WEIGHTED AVERAGE (TWA). THE PORTABLE AIR QUALITY MONITORS WILL BE USED AT THE WORK AREAS FOR WORKER SAFETY AND 2X/DAY READINGS WILL BE TAKEN AT THE 4 STATIONS, WITH THE RESPONSES LISTED ABOVE IF THE LIMITS ARE EXCEEDED. 1 1 FL» I 5FR1�.1 UNE' l rl 1-4AiR"o ! ...T. / o NY (;rRONJE i PLAN OF LAr .1D / T ROAD W �_ �C -AREA,- -_\/� SALEM. 11/IASS. �..' SURVEYED. FOR 1,200 It .�" ASLUBBER HOLLOW REALTY TRUST V1A gg ..-r`... 1'.JT] APRIL I] 90"L7 En < t •I IY�, U ` I -.3.r 4J. '(O 100 . D �E'pr JO 9.03• \.+'� _ 6.4,.00�, ! ndgi5 / 51;9 a,c,RrFi, IOr °✓7 4C�JrYJCHNEnl� M ?' 1Ir ,V HIGMw Cn r VAN EMERloin z 1,9J�r"Dn•9 171t'\e E L;I. yL/I)N{' / �"'2' L.A/ Irr 3. vvl 'Cl. In F'R.NIC IS / T1. C I. 4 AEzelSx v ` < �,/ � �9 .. p �.� �• ��n"oRl 5 Onl p f V c `se�! � l `v�' t r� l ''c ' my rrb� 3tJi �' �-y t i 7110 ��2no�, ° z ,� o/_, •` 4 TNl I z�ez' .r i �'. . 'c<` �� C 2s�R� I LI 'A �(Lt,` / 1 .y "' �\ �i e[( /EQ '30i(, �• _ _ I r,. 81. \�\J/, 1 _/ ♦ ! -�g/ cl,(. rrr A. Jls ^II W .i'n 6G/ILq .y9 \ m� C]NC WALL [i1Ec. POa_Rry CINES LRrH;N rHE L'uLS `\\�\\ wJw H 9uQiA ^1r //. 2� dU, R n / �rC _\� Jai J. X19TND O•NNER H P5, 4NIU r>tiE LIMES �s I .V (a 4, '4 r11,` EDR AND WAYS „+O NN 9RE TEiO. OF \ Yr V: IBLIC JR PR1 J4 fE STCE r. OR /iY'. Al 1l1 ACl'l /`��j' (' ' EXI b .E AND NJ 'vEW INE tort a .ISIOn1 \�_ F • 'j` N' GR t' c n� `� OF E%IST NG o%VUER511. rR. _.. R NLsv N•gY5 - ` q�l �.1. (� '`7• 4s \� • ° r i A 1j�7 /'�• S':1 1.1 �. �I� 19 BTL FLOOD 01'51111 T LINE- p. 1. .L9. A :t6t Sl J , I .� I `r 1 I �:RI i c]E 1T 115 \\ O ✓, / 11� I / - �•�. �}C \ ' 1.. I If.. 11 F LUOQ R A. 1 1 0 �: 4 ��3 r 1 / ..j ' L� V� i�H-29 V 'i �. .I 'RF_.y r'ET I IN GLPN 1306WS.A PLAN` Q ''1 I .] .J Li / � F \�-rte V iC A• 'J3 ,.a tl4 s0" l�od1 May 3 , 2012 To: Charles M. Puleo, Chair, and Members of the Salem Planning Board From: James Treadwell , AICP Subject : Site Plan Review Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove 1 . Adequacy of parking facilities and number of parking spaces . The Applicant proposes to meet the minimum parking require- ment of our Zoning Ordinance and provide one and one-half parking space per dwelling unit or 215 spaces . Using the number of apartment units as a basis , the Traffic Impact peer review finds that the 215 spaces "should be more than adequate to accommodate peak demands" . Our Ordinance ' s parking standard for the NRCC District , that borders Legacy Park Apartments to the East, is two parking spaces per unit . I believe this higher standard was applied in the Riverview Place and 28 Goodhue Street developments , and was based on the Neighborhood Master Plan that was pre- prepared by our Department of Planning and Community Devel- opment in consultation with Goody, Clancy and Associates and Earth Tech, Inc. The Application indicates that the population of Legacy Park will be 315 people with 40 school aged children and 275 adults . (EIS , page 16 of 18 ) Is there a planning standard applicable to the number of parking spaces that would be required to satisfy the demand of the "North-of-Boston apartment dwellers and their guests in a small city, suburban environment similar to Blubber Hollow/Mack Park neighborhood? I expect that most, if not all , of this demographic would maintain at least one vehicle , therefore making a parking ratio of one space per adult, or 275 spaces, appropriate for the Legacy Park development . I would note that this number of spaces is very similar to 282 spaces that would be required if the standard were 2 spaces per unit . 2 . Adequacy of loading facilities . The Applicant proposes that vehicular loading occur at the front entrances and be restricted to day-time . I note that handicapped parking spaces will be located at these entrances . I would consider the proposed loading plan to be inadequate primarily because it could produce significant congestion on on the project ' s single accessway. I would plan to provide at least one off-street loading space in the parking level of each apartment building. Ab JU" �®To Danielle McKnight June 7 , 201"b'p °TOF 0>�0,� From Jim Treadwell � �y� rVF� vV7 Attached are 3 copies of a one page memorandum regarding r Section 7. 3 . 3 . 3 of our Zoning Ordinance and the Salem Oil Grease property, proposed Legacy Park Apartments planned unit developed . Inasmuch as I will be unable to attend tonight ' s Planning Board meeting, I would appreciate your reading my comments into the record. I would also appreciate the solicitation of amy reaction from the Board and I will appreciate a response to this memorandum upon its being con- sidered by the Board . Thank you very much. June 7, 2012 To: Charles M. Puleo, Chair, and Members of the Planning Board Thru: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP From: James R. Treadwell , AICP Subject : Limitation, Residential Uses and Associated Improvements Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road Regarding Section 7. 3 . 3 . PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, USES, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance; "3 . In the Business Park Development (BPD) district, resi- dential uses and associated improvements , such as parking and landscaping, cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the parcel ( s) ; or in the case of mixed use buildings, residential uses cannot exceed 50% of the gross square footage of the proposed development . " the Application for a planned unit development special permit for the subject proposal does not address this limitation. The documentation does not specify that "residential uses and associated improvements" will not exceed 50% of the land area. Instead , Drawing C-3 , Site Layout Plan , indicates that 51% "non-residential space" will be "provided" . I note that this use category-which is not defined in the Application nor the Zoning Ordinance-is not relevant to the above-cited zoning limitation that is concerned with the percentage of "residential uses and associated improvements" . I would ask the Board to consider this issue . and to verify that the percentage of land area proposed to be developed with "residential uses and associated improvements" will not exceed 50°% of the planned unit development . I would recommend that the Board find , to its satisfaction, that the land area occupied by improvements associated with the proposed residential uses is properly classified as such in the calculations related to the satisfaction of the Ordinance ' s 50% limitation. An example of such an "associated improvement" might be the landscaping to be planted above the retaining wall of the main parking field on land that is to be cleared and excavated to accomodate the Legacy Park apartment complex. Reference : Land- scaping Plan and Drawing C-4 . Also, Drawing C-3 . I will appreciate your attention to this matter . Thank you. May 16, 2012 Mr. Charles Puleo,Chairman Salem Planning Board Salem, Ma. Subject: The proposed Salem Oil and Grease Project Mr. Puleo and members of the board, I am writing this letter because of council committee commitments I cannot attend the planning board meeting where the matter of the development of the former Salem Oil and Grease site will be discussed. I wish to be recorded as being opposed to the proposal for a variety of reasons. Anytime a project comes in at a density over 125%of what is allowed by zoning I will be opposed. Density guidelines were established to maintain the original character of the neighborhood. Here the density clearly violates all of these zoning laws. In adopting the PUD in the BPD areas the council agreed to limit the development to four stories. In the opinion of our building inspector the first floor being dedicated to parking is not supposed to be counted as a floor.With all due respect to our building inspector I totally disagree. By this thinking if four floors were to be dedicated to parking then we could go an additional four floors and wind up with an 8 story building. The state may define certain laws that can be interpreted this way but we all know the intent of why we set the limit. I guess the MGL thinks our parking garage with all floors dedicated to parking is a one level building. Common sense and intent should not be overlooked. PUD's are supposed to have a good balance of business to encourage growth of employment.Other than the token farce I do not see any business here. If this is to be justified as additional revenue then I would ask you to read the article of the MMA, Massachusetts Municipal Association, monthly newsletter which clearly state that for every dollar a city or town receives in residential tax they spend one dollar and seventy two cents. Residential tax only gives us a net loss. This is the state's statement not ours. Traffic concerns---We are being told that the traffic impact will be minimal. I recently have had to deal with a state certified traffic engineer that with all of the credentials,who after looking over the reconstructiorrplans for Bridge Street,told the state that the Carlton School kids do not need a pedestrian light to cross Bridge Street. Again I would ask you to use common sense as my opinion of 9 alleged traffic experts has hit a new low. Most of you have grown up here in the city.We know what works or does not and we do not need experts telling us otherwise. I have been watching with despair all that is happening around Salem. Every day we are seeing bits and pieces of Salem disappear. I do not want to change what we are. I do not want to become a Somerville or Chelsea, or Dorchester.Abandoned properties should be redeveloped but in harmony with who we are. Derelict properties do not need to be exempt from the rules in order to be redeveloped. If any project is to be built here it should conform to all the zoning laws and fit in with the neighborhood. I believe the PUD states that any project should work in harmony with the existing laws. I guess what disturbs me the most is that recently a man in his late sixties came up to me and made a statement we all need to listen to. " I have lived in Salem all my life and I do not want to be here anymore". Help this area get rebuilt but meeting the needs of Salem and not the needs of the developer. Thank you for your consideration. Michael Sosnowski Ward two City Councillor a. �. .. 4fftte of tlTe"�3iCp countit d s �tty Mill WARD COUNCIL COUNCILLOR AT LARGE" ^�* 'JOAN B:LOVELY{�x„ - "r ,'.F ¢ ,,, ''„ LORS PRESIDENTg# ... ' czj 3012 CHERYL A. LAPOINTE .r' I 2012 ' 'aKEVIN R.CARR JR. _ - CITY CLERK „�, � 'A' *^ ROSERTK.MCCARTHY '`. .k THOMAS H.FUREY MICHAEL SOSNOWSKI JOAN B:LOVELY � ,�, TODD A.SIEGEL ARTHUR C.SARGENT III - xa �„ x* -! JERRY L.RYAN -+.. s u£ ± a• "i c yt ,JOSH H.TURIEL ` p ¢ `.;2" PAUL PREVEY May 17, 2412 „'aa �. : `'' ;"`` -A, JOSEPH A:O'KEEFE SR .r Mr. Charles Puleo, Chair ^{ Salem'PianningBoard k 120 Washington Street * , Salem.Massachusetts 01970 s "" a *41 1 Re. 04&64 Grove Street Dear Mr. Chairman& Members of the Board'* r Please accept this letter,and my chelosed comments regarding this project pending before the Board. ._ V * `" n �. As the Board is aware, the City. Council in 2009 voted to insert�a'Planned Unit Development(PUD)feature in all qualifying Business Park Development zones in the City. Prior ` to its passage,:1 and some'of my,colleagaes oathe Council,pushed to-have.restrictions inserted into this zoiung to ensure that high density,jesidendal projects would be limited in height and density.; r K � ._ ;, _ ._. a „. `#'�" �• � .. " :" c s. .� � '3^ v ;ya kr tx � 'P�u.' " these restrictions were adopted was to li `mit the height of the preaect to,four Stories At the time c • these changes were before the C€inncil,Rmem hers questioned the issue of height iii stones vs:'feet t ,.. di L ,k flk. Y-i i k•`ns x t Initially, th touncil�sougl%t to insert feet as a liinisation so that it'could be"'strictly defined as ;: 5 T such. However, the Council at the flme,was advised by the Zoning Enfareezneiit C}fficer and the a > .�CityPianneithat the mostprefetnble way to set this'limit;vou2d be to define it by stories nui feet � �;r� x k Accordingly, the Council accepted the advice andadopted the language as part of the zorang '41 t adifications x Now we'find�ourselves attempting to address the'impacts"of a structure,tl at im .._`e t. "reality:is five(5) stories;not four{4), because the Zoning Enforcement Officer does notview the 1„ T �u proposed firstf1 1,toor of parking as a story,under his nterlsretation of thestate zoning code ; Had r , ;, "Jiar any of-;my colleagues who insistti ion these;limitations ever concetved,that the cuirent „ ; k M r �proposal would undercut our intentions,.we Wouldrhave either woitiled' it very differently, orin , . p x a - �, t=di"' "�i'o'- F;. ,yr ,the altematiVe,v6ted`against the'entire re-zouing elf6it +� j s_ r I would like to;draw.4te Boat 'saattentiowto a7mmi er of matters or the Board to s consider to evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed praleet.' In cooking at the BPI `the .s s Board should consider zoning Section $:3 i;ivkiich�reads that the'BPD,'is designed to protirde `x, , encouragement for`the,dei=elorpment of land uses iixhich;w fT foriher'the o#jectzves of 1: The �, � 1 creation of bzesiness,and.industry within the City;,2= Aancement.aJ the City'srempiayment .. ..�... .... :. ,.a'.. base; and 3_-Enhancement o,f"the fifty s talc aril revenue`hase. It is alsrr-the intent of this section - i i m to ensure compliance with the,m,astei plan arid acceptable zonar:g praetrces, ' �-`While the,�PLJ[7 4 � 1 rev. r s- .. q-. iS., . ;;:.ns, +`�'..�'n'_ * d "requirements and `allowances provide+for greater flexibi try,within the restrictions of theBPD t:, zone,�the Board shouldLnot sideline these ;important.,—iectsiof this' zone. I beiiave the r ,1;straightforward nature and intent of the BPD designation should guide the Board in reviewing its ';s >'= r .a;. litltpOSe in relation to the proposed project. wl �:* ' r b turning to'the TUD section of.he City's zoning,,Sectian T 3 8 states=that the Board `army grant.�z special rmit where the followingg p,.p� p pe , ndin s are made 1 The rtJ osed` fanned unit rtevelopnient rs in harmony wiht the'p oposes and intern of this tirdifuince and the master' h=. R'plan of the;City of Salem and that it will promote the purpose of this section, 2' The miarttere of i t; uses fn th'e planned iu lit devetopmerrt is determined toibe"sii&iently`advantageous`ro tender it appropriate i to depart from the normal requzrerrfenis of the dtstt ict;a and 3.t?'he planned unit u �� a development i4auId not resuli.i-TM,a net:riegatrve environment impact.";nUnder the priaposal, the ` s t f ` mixture of uses fails 0 achieve;What any,standard foz a mixed-use development would seek to 4 achieve .What cannot be ign6i4is the<fact that,xthis development is an overstzed' multi unit w residential prrolect;+where the commercjai adjunct represents a token element ta`qualify, by letter of the law; asxa "mixed use"- development Arguably;'q this project lacks ;oily significant t } ,comrneircialfc6mponent whicligwould=-supp6rt a ;mixed-use,.00ncept as'envisianed,K--good, �_ tihei � ._' planning:p aotiees and intended zoningkof that-particular netghborh4od {In;thts instance, the tw+& t, drF y^ f �, proposed commercial,space is substantially limited and falls to identify anp vision or haw it will enhance the overall pmlect and,the development objectives of the rzeighborhood. �l_Would urge a h the I3aard to°carefully eoasider'tbese .points"as 'it,weighs, And'balances the;iatcrest of the l y *-�nelghhorh06d slid�rt}r As a. rd,+ "si.e a a -€ Lsir. _ ,sk �4—a `k'c" M ++ 5 x 4 sp 4 4:-: 611.0—tea. ''!' _ """ 'V�+ r:,5 y,z-a ,a' r ;- _ 'gR' .- ' v . �kd+. `t a� See In'closing the f3aard should bercogmaant of several unre`solued'issues which are 'e`idnent A � w+ p' Shz T y to the overall approval end viability of this project under Ats curient.prctposed"form .the land ,.. 1ux- £ e i .q " daspute Cvi h Hatniony Groye Cemetery;`the"railroad running through,the project, and pending e' � appeal to the Departmentp of Environmental Affairs,are"all matters Which have yet to be resolved in a satisfactory ntannei whkch would permit the project to move forwaxi " ,-+'"'T.,ys ss' '4r7 L d: , w .,a....�.F'.;€ On behalfof'the residents of the neighborhood, I�would respectfully request that the l '1106rra take seriously into aeeount my ooinmeritary-and many-of the points I have raised with this ' project. It is my hope that the Board will exercise its authority in shapmg;tbe prgleet"in a which Will limit the anverse i'' pacts and preserve`the charaety and nature of the neighborhood al' s IJ. It . espectfiilly, i a Paul C.Preve t `� ..+{f._ r"s+-; "` ', a r#" ..`y:o , a Flr•_ yd 0 4� '. ;,�,� w�* V, + s + " `�-t r f%Gf g �. m 3` , r r r t - i n' �' rx 3 ." e' `a° T > r +R c ip �, 2 .. x -+, `'r �. "* ry <$ ° }R ' ye' t :. a n` .. n aFl r "°vH Fl-g�$#. i,989 S Y E, s ?1 h- q r a �%k 4 "x fi: 0-4 d Fl C '1��.} �.A 'l }�dFl h ✓f 14 5 'I At Y 3T } '4s 1# £r'F kv -� qA 'A' =��' 8 ';g,, ' " 4�, rv- € Dear Planning Board, I have lived in 22 and 27 Silver St since I was a child of 9, and by virtue of motherhood and education in nursing, especially school nursing, and a Social Welfare Degree from SSU, have serious concerns about children living on this project the way it is described. The 60-64 Grove St. development will be a dangerous place to bring up children. We residents from years ago at the top of the old North River Bank erected fences to keep our children off the banking, 30 feet high from the tracks. The land is silty, contains a huge amount of trashy contaminents, our legacy of the tannery era 's disposal methods and processing of the skins with chemicals. Some of the banking area was listed as recreational possibilites area. Imagine children roaming that hilly place! Next comes the North River without fencing for them to explore. Always a chance of drowning along recreational land! That's why we built fences up top. Enter the Railroad, the tracks are always a threat, especially hopping a freight train! Trains have a possibility of being with us for the immediate near and far future. They blast their horns at crossings to alert people they are coming and do so at night also. They cross through the property. It will not be Smart to expose another generation to the dangers of the past that we have lived through. Thank God we survived! Respectfully submitted along with a letter I sent to the DEP / 10 person ODAR DOCKET # WET-212-010 With flood photos from me and Harmony Grove Cemetery . Thank you, Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver St, Salem, MA June 7,2012 Former Head Nurse, Salem Public Schools retired From: Joan Sweeney <sweeney.jm@verizon.net> Subject: OADR DOCKET #WET-212-010 # Date: April 25, 2012 10:04:18 AM EDT ` f To: Heidi.Davis@ State.MA.US Dear Heidi Davis, - I live at 22 Silver St.,Salem 101 ft. away from a listed plain area of MRM [Northwest] border. That plain is known as SESD DEP # 75-80 R12 Silver St{SESD dumped a lot of highly odorous material on that land and was forced by DEP to remove it on 8/24/1989 75-80. 1 write from a historical, long -time resident, and visual perspective. This land had been in South Danvers until 1855 when the entire property and this street and Beaver St which abuts it were transferred to Salem. On circa 10/26/1996 we had a huge flood that covered the entire of Harmony Grove Rd.,the Railroad tracks, and the North River, which parallel each other and my land from my back yard. I took a photos of the rise and fall of the water from 30 feet above the Railroad tracks on my land- there is not a chance that the plain parcel of MRM's did not flood on that day.The photos are progressive taken from my fence ,left and right ends at the top of the ancient Traske Apple Orchard This road , Harmony Grove Rd. has been shut down by the Salem Police Dept. several times a year for flooding in the area of the footbridge over the river circa #3 Harmony Grove Rd. We drove through the area on a Sunday morning last year from Peabody and got caught in that flooded area where we were lucky to not get stranded . I drove there this morning slowly observing the gradual dip from Peabody toward the bridge- 4/24/2012. Over the past weekend the rain reached the top of its bank almost flooding . If we had another two inches as predicted it would have.) have photos of that from the same setting. The ancient river bank turns gradually from my property inland to a paper street that could be labeled [8 Silver St.Rear running from Silver St to the railroad tracks on old maps on file at the DEP]on to rear Beaver St then on behind the cottages and two families to 8 Beaver St.at various heights. On old maps circa 1700's it shows marsh land at the base until it was filled by the construction of the Railroads.The top of the ancient river bank was defined as Captain Trasks' Apple Orchard where Silver and Beaver Streets are today. Submitted by Joan Sweeney who is sidelined by areplacement and cannot attend 22 Silver St., Salem,MA TEL 978-744-3717 Email Sweeney.JM@ verizon.net May 16, 2012 Mr. Charles Puleo,Chairman Salem Planning Board Salem, Ma. Subject: The proposed Salem Oil and Grease Project Mr. Puleo and members of the board, I am writing this letter because of council committee commitments I cannot attend the planning board meeting where the matter of the development of the former Salem Oil and Grease site will be discussed. I wish to be recorded as being opposed to the proposal for a variety of reasons. Anytime a project comes in at a density over 125%of what is allowed by zoning I will be opposed. Density guidelines were established to maintain the original character of the neighborhood. Here the density clearly violates all of these zoning laws. In adopting the PUD in the BPD areas the council agreed to limit the development to four stories. In the opinion of our building inspector the first floor being dedicated to parking is not supposed to be counted as a floor. With all due respect to our building inspector I totally disagree. By this thinking if four floors were to be dedicated to parking then we could go an additional four floors and wind up with an 8 story building. The state may define certain laws that can be interpreted this way but we all know the intent of why we set the limit. I guess the MGL thinks our parking garage with all floors dedicated to parking is a one level building. Common sense and intent should not be overlooked. PUD's are supposed to have a good balance of business to encourage growth of employment.Other than the token farce I do not see any business here. If this is to be justified as additional revenue then I would ask you to read the article of the MMA, Massachusetts Municipal Association, monthly newsletter which clearly state that for every dollar a city or town receives in residential tax they spend one dollar and seventy two cents. Residential tax only gives us a net loss. This is the state's statement not ours. Traffic concerns---We are being told that the traffic impact will be minimal. I recently have had to deal with a state certified traffic engineer that with all of the credentials,who after looking over the reconstruction plans for Bridge Street,told the state that the Carlton School kids do not need a pedestrian light to cross Bridge Street.Again I would ask you to use common sense as my opinion of alleged traffic experts has hit anew low. Most of you have grown up herein the city. We know what works or does not and we do not need experts telling us otherwise. I have been watching with despair all that is happening around Salem. Every day we are seeing bits and pieces of Salem disappear. I do not want to change what we are. I do not want to become a Somerville or Chelsea, or Dorchester.Abandoned properties should be redeveloped but in harmony with who we are. Derelict properties do not need to be exempt from the rules in order to be redeveloped. If any project is to be built here it should conform to all the zoning laws and fit in with the neighborhood. I believe the PUD states that any project should work in harmony with the existing laws. I guess what disturbs me the most is that recently a man in his late sixties came up to me and made a statement we all need to listen to. " I have lived in Salem all my life and I do not want to be here anymore". Help this area get rebuilt but meeting the needs of Salem and not the needs of the developer. Thank you for your consideration. Michael Sosnowski Ward two City Councillor RECEIVE® January 30 , 2012 JAN J0 2012 A I C P DEPT.OF PL ANWIRG& To: Lynn GoOf Duncan, Directorr of Planning ofand SalemCommunity COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Development , City From: James R . Treadwell , AICP Subject : Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove ( Salem Oil and Grease) with regard to the Planned Unit Development(PUD)/Business Park Development(BPD) district "limitation" , found at Section 7 . 3 . 3 .3 of our Zoning Ordinance, it is indicated , on Drawing C-3 , Site Layout Plan, dated 12/20/11 , that 51 .0% of the devel- opment represents "NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE" , thus satisfying the that "residential uses and associated improve- zoning requirement ments , such as parking and landscaping, cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the p ENTIAL Two areas are sopinion,own on tarehe sassociated with residentialite Layout Plan as use. SPACE that , in my p provided These areas are 1 ) the 40.0 ' landscaped "rear yard" from Proposed Building # 2 and #3 to the Gravel Path/North River Canal and 2) the area occupied by the osedlmuatiafamilyped ope between development the new retaining wall of the prop and the residential properties on Beaver and Silver Streets. I would appreciate your consideration of this matter . I would also appreciate being advised of the ramifications associated with a PUD/BPD developoment proposal that does not comply with the limitation at Section 7.3 . 3 . 3 of our Zoning Ordinance . Thank you. cc : Councillor Paul C. Prevey Councillor Jerry L. Ryan Rose Mary O 'Connors, CChair Mack Park Neighborhood Association hair, Mack Park Neighborhood Association Beverlie McSwigg CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING DEPAKIIIENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3i"FLOOR `�x>`+,✓�� TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KINIBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR THOMAS ST.PIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUI3L1C PROPERTY/I3UILDLNG M,11MISSIONER April 12, 2012 Danielle McKnight Planning Department City of Salem Dear Danielle, You have asked ,on behalf of the Planning Board, for some detail regarding the definition of"story' as defined in the Mass. State Building Code . I understand this concerns the project at the old Salem Oil and Grease site. The Salem Zoning Ordinance defers to the Mass State Building Code for a definition of"Story'. As described in the Eighth edition of the Mass State building Code(which consists if the I.B.C. code with Mass amendments) .,The definition of a story is " That portion of a building included between the Lipper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above (also see Basement and Mezzanine in section 502.1) It is measured as the vertical distance from the top of two successive tiers of beams or finished floor surfaces and,'for the topmost story, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. At first look this would be a simple way to address the number of stories. However, if this simple definition was used, the basement of residential homes would count as a story and only ranches would be able to be constructed under our zoning ordinance. We have had to address this issue on previous projects in the City, most recently the residential buildings behind Hillcrest Chevrolet. The definitions of story become critical due to the fact that building materials and construction methods have to change.. Therefore" Story above grade plane" becomes the important calculation. It is this definition, that I have used to determine the number of stories in buildings . "file definition of story above grade plane is " Any story having its finished floor surface entirely above grade plain, or in which the finished surface of tile floor next above is: 1. Vlore than 6 feet above grade plane; or 2. .More than 12 feet above the finished ground level at any point. " The definition of"Grade Plane is found in section 502.1 of the State Building Code and is as follows "A reference plane representing the average of IInlShell ground level adjoining the building at the "7{�r, CITY OF SALEM MASSACI IUSETTS W BUILDINGDEP:\RTtifENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET,30.D FLOOR t \cr`sxN j TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAx(978) 740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR THOMAS ST.PIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING COMMISSIONER exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or, where the lot line is more than six feet from the building ,between the building and a point six feet from the building." Looking at the site plan ,sheet number C-4 ,provided by Griffin Engineering, the most severe case is building number#3. The Garage elevation is at I l feet and the finished floor above(first floor) is at 2l feet. This gives you an average grade plain of 16 feet. The floor above is 21 feet for a difference of 5 feet. Also the finished floor(garage I 1 feet) to finish floor (first 21 feet) is a 10 foot difference. At no point is the finished first floor more than 12 feet above the finished ground level nor is it more than six feet above the "Grade Plane" In my opinion, the garage is not a story above grade plane. If further information is required ,please let me know. Sincerel , r— / /lcyr,' Thomas St. ierre Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer City of Salem, MA 5/3/2012 Interactive Map � • d��t 2.r+i .� °A5 q ; �" at }� I G 9V+' '•'.z#- + (�ti i�i�iA dj'(tl + Y' ' `'¢+ ,. ' s IiARriuN �arit ,�S�5• .r ..t ��.,`� c ?k' ' a .. �.<, 3+ k >,. g 4 f it Krr I, µµro* $ is + getal w a' 7 . . `fie: qq `f 7 �. � " „°Arcrr� lE'"t c `''�4x `'�C+�'�'y � 4`_`�is �� :3�C i'I,S{t'� � � ;tri. t��'4y! :yl s*.�• �$�. ax a - 1 1'F ,• + t Y .a�d I ' _ "` r b2 Spill y 5 ' �,yl �dt,t,, th` azya�,n 4;714 t p4wi t x"#•*+. ,:: y-�+ ^ n "- lid �" r fr_ .. E i•�i ' . ..~ ' f�'s. + `� a N �.�� ,i4� ,•��^, ray�,na�j 'u vd a '�,'h'.� j�-e '��.vt. �`'=n't°`k"�r'' { �'` '` "'"C.. �, I+t€ yn; ,;y�'� %` %.. 0 . a. fe@f_�-!F„,; r '•f '+ yi` + . t a *;. s+, -G e g % °:r�;'�n4irilt Irr"'C. .d` k•��,t, .,. a. .,... < .. �. .»,. • , P+operty information ^yt„ Property ID i6 Location 3 HARMONY GROVE ROAD J MAP FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT } 0 f Because mnl update schedules,current property f assessments may not resect recent changes to property r/ ro boundaries.Check ithe Beard of Assessors m confirm f bountlaries used at time of assessment ' <f �m i ar- "A o NY -GRcvEOAD yv o Lon EA'� r� b + . Zm STF:E Z I INS ) IF200 'ter. j $c4W! n` HARMONY _ GR4U� l� 11; A 7� 00 CCMETERy OfSSAC - N 51 C)Q 6.03• r'n ©CJO�. `'��'S• "� SINCCy�4l � S V''. 3. Z7ir x l_ ILI Al /o"- rL•(�y� St �O G- t-p{� o j uJ 5/C13 plan 0098.tif \ TYPE TIF File fl 4 Size,ISO MB Dimension,21600 x 14383 �); �V Y •'Q„ ,�T-ter.+ ty ptxefsU Pio !•?(5 1)/ t-IAALL CFn Rr AC1a i Q-� . _�.. �..- 4 - F r rr.�1O y � �} 4 9 .�:� {}°{ i Y' r i June 18 , 2012 To: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP, Director, Department of Planning & Community Development Charles M. Puleo, Chair, and Members of the Planning Board np From: James R. Treadwell , AICP �QJ"A; Subject : Compliance with Master Plan of the City of Salem Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road Section 7. 3, Planned Unit Development: "It is the intent of this Section to ensure compliance with the master plan. . . " . (Section 7 . 3. 1 , Purpose) The Planning Board may grant a special permit where the Board can find , among other findings , that "The planned unit development is in harmony with . . .the master plan of the City of Salem. . . " . ( Section 7 .3.8, Decision) Per the "City of Salem Master Plan Update and Action Plan 1996" : a '"critical element" is "the development of the commercial and industrial properties which have become contaminated from prior activities" (Refer to fore-page) , o Highest Planning Priorities . Economic Development . "Retaining existing businesses and attracting new ones, while redeveloping the vacant sites , is a top priority. " (Refer to page 7) o Economic development, Commercial/Industrial , goals and strategies, are intended to attract new business, redevelop vacant sites , develop new light industrial sites . (page 23) Accordingly, to be in harmony and in compliance with the master plan, the Salem Oil and Grease property would be rede- veloped with business and light industrial uses , uses that will contribute to the economic development goals of the City. 1/2 In my opinion, the proposed Legacy Park Apartments Planned Unit Development is not in harmony (agreement) with the economic development goals of the master plan. The relevant parts of Section ,7. 3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance cannot be satisfied by the proposal as currently envisioned . Note: * I was advised that the City considers the above-cited "Update" to be the master plan for the City. * I could not find any master plan guidance that would support redevelopment of the Oil and Grease site with housing. * The master plan Neighbor- hoods and Housing goals and strategies for the Boston Street Corridor include "target housing ownership and rehab programs and "preserve the existing housing mix" . These goals do not include the introduction of a large scale apartment complex into the neighborhood. (Refer to page 32 and "Neighborhoods" fold out) Only 0.62 of an acre of the 6 .62 acre Oil and Grease site (+/- 9%) would, in fact, be developed with a use (commercial office) that would promote the goals of the City ' s master plan. (Refer to Site Layout Plan, Drawing C-3, dated 12/20/11 ) 2/2 GHA%caMAN PvLWp June 14, 2012 To: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Community Development^ ter. From: James R, Treadwell , AICP y�� \A.a&,,Q0_ Subject : Various Issues . Redevelopment of Salem Oil and Grease/Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road As we agreed, I am transmitting certain additional comments for your consideration in connection with the on-going analysis of the subject undertaking. 1. When the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that extended planned unit development special permitting to Business Park Development(BPD) districts, on January 7, 2009, the Ordinance, then in effect , defined Story as, simply: "That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it or, if there be no floor above it, then the space between any floor and the ceiling above it . " Article II ,Sec. 2-2 . I note that said definition did not make reference to the State or International Building Code. Also, when the Amendment ' s "maximum stories" provision (Section 7. 3 .4) was being written, any reference made to the definition of stories, at that time, would have relied on the definition cited above. Further, the use of the above-cited definition in the case of the Legacy Park apartments , would conclude, as the Applicant has at 2 .4.b of the Environmental Impact Statement submitted in support of the subject, "The proposed residential buildings are. . . 5-stories tall along their rear(northerly/river) side. " A five story building would be in violation of the Maximum Story limitation. 2 . As I noted at the Planning Board meeting on June 7, 2012 , a shared parking agreement would require that the Board of Appeals grant a special permit and that the Traffic Impact Peer Review "recommended that as a condition, the Applicant submit a shared parking agreement plan to be activated if and when the number of employees exceeds 24" . 3 . Is the Special Permit Requirement set-forth at Section 8 . 3 . 2 of the Ordinance applicable in the case at hand? 4 . Site Plan Review, Application, Section 9 . 5 . 3 , indicates that "all information required for a Definitive Plan under Section II B of the Subdivision Regulations shall" be submitted . Has this requirement been satisfied? 1/2 II In addition to the issues that we had previously discussed, I am transmitting copy of the LANDSCAPE PLAN of LEGACY PARK APTS AT HARMONY GROVE, dated 8/11/11 . On this Plan I have high-lighted the landscaping that I reference in my memorandum to Chairman Puleo of June 7, 2012 , and that I contend should be recognized as an improvement associated with the Legacy Park Apartments . Accordingly, the land area occupied by this landscaping is not "non-residential space" as the Applicant contends but acreage that must be subject to the 50% limitation of Section 7. 3 . 3 . This Plan also indicates the "LIMITS OF CLEARING" that will be required to accommodate the entire apartment complex. I have also included Drawing C-4, Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan, dated 12/20/11 , that shows the "APPROX. LIMIT OF EXCAVATION" that will be required to properly site the apart- ments and associated improvements "such as parking and land- scaping" . Since these exhibits support my memorandum to Chairman Puleo of June 7, 2012 , and I understand that copy of said memorandum has recently been provided to the City Solicitor and the Building Inspector, I trust that you will send copy of each exhibit to the Solicitor and the Inspector. (extra copy included) Thank you very much for your effort . Attachment cc : Chairman Charles M. Puleo4$ Councillor Paul C. Prevey 2/2 GROVE ROAp OARMON / eraw l2rANw Nf➢tfi LOT])) / MM 16 LOT 2]6 \ d LAyM PD MARIJONY GR( 50 GROW STREET REAL EST,LLC � LAND COURT PJ]B13A ER C� •ac ur4.lel NORTH RIVER CRNA �L m»., .T!oIar.e �� F A P. \ STPFF s •'� tH T I e Vr ' tM 6 LOT 3)6 )ro __ 1 _ - v v-'•'-�' - AUTNORI7Y xrc GROW BAY ea• les °nw 'roe �WJt 7RANSPORTA TION Rx wAas IHIHN1H11NMrµ :CRP. � � fe Mw Y bICVIettwMe Nw Ia %10 Y gpQ¢ .CNUSETTS _ _ _ _=` r nrx _ ® rw•. •rr C•Y EN151ING re V awmww.m vl°P )yr w OfTICE )'� N \ \ 3 �' IM yM aCV e,W1If! e' IOT eM TYV v1N ;p � CUhDING )1p a \ $ >Nn '^L• � CI w. •rvv n a ) 1 a •1e•� F �e aM „ iI _ )a T Dec •er •w _ a — t Aw. r � aro a•NT \ S qE� �O""�� rs. ♦°°° ° Inc ti nvc'^. )ar r »wy • )� uc An eawm �_ _ .ti W w , l e/G $$ ero 1 erev Biro )� PROPOSED BUM1DINGn ww 74 (47-UNITS) R ! eroWAm )Ie� 1 �� eel rev - aE (n-uwTs) YI>C Pw lwc PIp��ellel , ra •� )vr vec YW p<y�w.�l3'z E� a+Cv erwura ° )M H F$x0 •NC 110A .-POSED .rel ) ee YV • ) •wP =='� w9'u�� .. aro a we 1 W/GM &IIl2NNO ae'a'^'° IYTA•en aoW erowave w lrml )^' r a Mw1.m. •lw�v ile �sl� aAGE aw ,em rle• Yem am (a2'LeW OER � \ 3 raa ) •rel 'w” •M .. .... lee rew •� �) ll� .. )la1 w IY vLae rti ew � / 19$9��1y9y D°B )M IM • •1Po pWDePAM Z'w% `G .,p. I4r a4r L.WII • !a°�I� PW//G,I�'"ING/J •� )4r- I 4 ��P ° 4' l )4r arae (e)-ONIrS)DER :ro w `VIIr1-1 ��.. 5y€W •M � sww elPalN alae raH ) nem la My lro » 3�v�Hi"�-{-�{B �: 16 LOT r) T w nail •Np am re' lm •O» )rtl •+^S�m�e N/E yVr alel ;Yw )M elP•o ,y SARKES • wlw )w.1 _ _--_ _ p >ro nla Ysr 1044 ° � ,lwrr )'el NLd�Bu�m 4a NAP 16 LOT 218 L.I, .. °r )ro sLK •1Me •r a.e 4J1V1 SILVER M 'u'w° erry :a .�.' lalS ROBES • )w w ys • • • aw re~iKa•srDWYeI_V NM 16 LOT])8 LDTP225 x yr A a I Irl ROPES el MAP 161 I N/F R6 NM IB P C l y 12 Q I LOT 2" 1 I I LAT, 1 ) ave YM :lA m NAP IB RM _ MM I6 3 LOT x22 �ESTATE f, YM 18 R la LOT 220 N/F /III ----I' 1(� MM i6 r LOT 380 / G TRUST I MAP 16 I I �' I I J'IYID IB LOT 2]l' 1 1 o Yr1P iN�T 232 le NAP 16 u y N/T KOHL LOT 2Jt �1 LOi 23S ro u1 I DEN 1 1 LOT 2N 1 Q NM 18 LOT 229 3 I N/f N/Y I MFRS I L /10 NAP ib LOT 2N NA+ N� / A{ s4 CW EY I 1 3 1 BA41 I DddIE ROSb� I Ie1 MM I6 mcs"G IN PA SON PA I I LOT 2J] p 1 Y ' L aefi I na ` U a6 __ _- _fi=d SPERI IXOS . ..-a- � avv'ucco arum f- '8 � a $ BEAVER STREET 0 2 a GRAPHIC SCALE w 8 m. rrQ 41 Ld164 c b LANDSCAPE NOTES Imes K wrro wlnrac *PLaN rrurzPul Na+t LaOe M114r alYrfrt@e a1NN w RYe LUia Nw Ww ffANDIPIQ ro Tw CtNTICiM T.rK L rte. w n C[MRCfgL le I@MgY1eY)qµL Rµ!ry.»p.11 wllLLdllpl m aCwl W RIw L �a MO flePCw eiYpJrpp W M1fM M11ptlLLe aYll CIMgOI i0 M LIRei eplrKw W 4°INaInNDtl�u R W er.wam«.w rvcNure+GOL•e+ne uewcw meoaarKN WNcemrWN)r PLANT LIST nA)naer"roW'L oo O nl M1IrR rureea a1w1 m rr@ n.n!snPele oro olxan. vEr an rKvrat:o�ums.� wr Pro.e Lamer 0 aYLL M IXA!wYt1RfYKe Y!X ICCepfeNe 11CRlIa.MK rMCfeev 4IV Nsmr4f!JIIVT ure.V£rM VYV®V IpLGen1 VY`�V mnLM 6 __ IYlpY1L ROr LrM cr01 rlp THe (, yr°ro)ulu Plva•va M1dnw rwc nun em aro rws m PlwParyrKµMaen Y:m iwa!e x>.a rart nM'w C9 anN),IWaMWePRa,Wa rERl6wnal PLYRw Aro Aoe°urz MIPIRIYLT K YCWbllew(14NWNlYLWtlr L YM KRVCSeIAf -r v:.c 1VY Q wrc accertsrrl OT ne wuea sn r .M.wA l6Mxwa'auvwrwlc' autuwrwdc w'MeeePlw e'.n,:.VlM1ro va Z J y P.Yn M1R.R4 a1LLL ee a1MMlll[D FaL a PLIIKO W G!T!Y°T M UMRK+Nt YO em A Mi0 YIfON:rO°k Ylwrk rGaO' eRw Ir'ICrID e'-4'(14T eI W T O MKRICO W Nn,eYw nplY CT M N R Fl DAR W wi.lLLliIWI GAYi rM w Ye 4errM 41KLN MIr1w elle' MMrR°°eO b1TeICYFLr r!•-ae' PRw 10 rCLLNVY Y2 Ai.WLI M w•r ILLCy Z T[M awltMree PllB'O.°MO M1AVrM»WK aVLLM RFPLA®ATMCer T.M CK Y ew ItNeL p1w1Y1W wreY q,.••My "IGr M1Mrw iPLVSe I'IlVA6w Iy�1p'I IrGRTAWw+ Cc Af1Fll AW'2 MprM DYIR TEV[PERW.MfLMRCTCR a141 CAIN rMLL 4i 11 4LLD)RfYAIIrWJNMT V?1L wRlb'MTLw' NCTLH W)MMNde^ ].111'CAL YPY/ffiLfI 1111 rNNG S W I4M 1M )EO 1erlIIRCwLM TYnE!!D RT'L,.I wnrEl®M1ICGRI DAYt.T w.t COn •.L"1 PIWE! e•eaw(ML44 W •. 41 fPAee.OAR egelATYlr Yp Depp)aU1y M IRp 1p gNfl ALL M1Ynw Y2Y N 4] gg)Wy -MKT TO Rd4rN1 181) M+DItYweA n.C1GTNrt3A HGLLm all¢R pGLey a))¢w NrCF LLA i eHaittl 1rCU T°K MCLEmm WL @ rltllClm pR1n CawrleYlKM 4D aVll ee 1 LfA Wee T°4Arl My 'r I6M1e DLn I, �y i�M .•CArK r,lw >� »IW4OBD eAprll eYKE1L Q Q 4lwar ax NveiA _ ckmrro eu Z a a UT 1e a>rGweLm W roe vicewaL rwvWmral � m loelwua w wo w wP1E�Tw DmLr w i o`'Mir DI°p�r A�4Awr °A'wH pei.�. :: � o w»u•entvrn4Gav 4iaGalr MIeN4WADe rmrnWau Q e IK LaOeC.a/W uwwAcrcT W ADVIem W rw P/ea)L2 w iw unele-4a>o�mmee.ro vc v Leronw ronueeaw rwanA' rosacr leucoruw ro.r Darr �� •t: Term a wre � � .alai tb ewwerry wo LolrlW w eue e0.9w W»ocw ao Da4M rw 14 MIrvrt4W eaaewe eoaw.nur mwL fwAm KM.M LYp�Cye CpAY'TgL aYLL rwM1A^p qL IEpaA V11Lrt°D.MVNm ) raC/ilu MfNYY a®1MT IY'IUIu e.r 1:)i aniw>N rlRp erekMl ew)Ge 1 YPdP d Y uDaK•amen D arc d m w rvwwtA•cs w ve m n uo avonlauL cror r.lw PA D rwwe,rruADe AccoLAoe owr �•-ae•c.� 111 wa+rw IB K U awR M a> MA.WYtA auerlew Pw .rIGT. love wL tern.cw ry 14• w)or eal W Q —Wa tv s .0 awls eleoe auu m ruam wTH a•near aveoDen Dave CIavM earac law roA ) Pau a'orixA ply •'-r l.:r wWe eoorvs l w,Y DR.,'•'. Boas, d [L o '� RT a P'4A o'L11WA 1I.T Al'M IWINIIMJr a1a`M'YGD e'MµuiN Q pF i r. rte canWACToa auLL PwD.oe.•Lout rca,aLL areY ro m azom ae eePsm. T e Pltu.Wxwu eErJem ePw 4:w' wa leLeaee call onm Ives ILL rLYIMa A/6m auu I£CM v KLtm rxlWey W LDwt rw Ld`eeC4L CwrRKTWL 1, PKLA IVYCw Cgglw.p[ppK2 •'l'•i°r LIRA 1A r1a 01T'A mM (n U a a l vvl eNwl coulmwre earmAoe MVAunw wrH rte renew ccnrR.Acrae PRaL TO u u eceKomoaM'axa axo loKavoorLm ,e: I Pacone IN,.. .. ualH wrH iov rAPEIa nw r O Q qu D PLADw Leu, lel in lwoowoaaal..,••ce leve• ansa x rens mwcoerowal ar-r maolu rmma¢ tplE9L U! °w rc K '� S a » rou rllorwuaA raee ra' maeu® wuu era°v A•o rare rovee elle PWLWow APM1r. W y VSs L Mr TY M q T1 TW L.YDCCyq PLAµwClyw M1lM IGfIIMM M1e1.lKµam w • e,p6.16rn)ArA'IV[wf eYC' hgel e111C rIp LLAD a•-14•M. I ne rR!W W bDerWIIAL as o J n Ji 1Di b '• LYWfrM1 a8 fLrOl,lw Wal X RNdCD w0 M•IV.ID DT M DIIP An LMOeCMe Ne Ma/iAWwY wMlLre' M 1°CR MerY1 'A.-y ).11e M1Ylfw LQJrb N eMla'6r WOr.Y[N GRI VgVRR®ellEe awllrearyo rweaAL Alnwlmr,wAPM1eAxm Moa ro wrwunwware x e,mav PAtLLA ,NI Kar YKn LLAG ,e.rsc CDUOUS EVERGREEN 5HRUB )mPLYRw W.IrKwYccrPwemWeuoceolraLLODle rarueo ala .amw waren w rLarL M1arnw eon nava tae PelerNlaL uo weuAL NOlee em TO w Vla)eut ...As ewu uww w avl Pales r POOL,ra>Pame enur Mar rove.uo x a-r I.:r. Alar 1g8rennwAL rtlalrz CI V0.M6 r4A!rcb luT ee NeenM®uaM uwL.gmeD y-w• NOT TO OCALe l e era2e ao GYrs AIe M°u2D.rwilDK uRw CN Teel rr6 MrE ! SCALE v ole ceH.DWAreD m.Lte ow u. I,.1emero A.1 Weroea DECIDUOUS TREES a��Qe aunt r.m 7 EVERGREEN TREES r.e•NreLwr lMoe6 SHEET 1 OF 1 �— NOT TO 6 E ROAD GROVIOEi �. \ ARMON CUR B y _ .� \ T 25'NUE /' EASEM SEWER la-]��nl J \ \ EASEMENT // FR094X 1 I i�< xARlwm�"'R 1Y1ruL \ \ uID to Lar zse • \ (D�K I I � - - \ \ 69 DR STIVREAL,Fsr.uc ` ( \ \ LAND COURT RAN 536134.OF ` NORTH RIVER CANAL - TIDA� \ C GO TAL is _ S.E. D ESA. i �reiAkR EASEMENT NMPo40 `p FxIs11Nc `Ewsr. \ ° 1 l / ABu.'mTs )a.' YM t8 WT JIB 1 y / �. _ dual CRIri NG `\ I `� BA11Y�XYYlAO\E a EASEM � . cwa' BAY . TRANSPORTATION RR. TRACKS AUTHORITY o R.R. Atl(5 - ___ LOP a` MASSACHUSETTS r--- AY FAT_----- ` R L\ R GO S L Anon EMSTRI \p \ STORAtt PRWUm a \\\ \ mWUwY ° /Ir' iii __'1"I� l- ` \ \ \I / ,RSR. i6 `q\\ 1 �� ORl •I� _Y GRTJ/ AREA E%ISBNG �W � N BNLONG \\ap s. :N CANAL -ap mT - PROPOSED Buunlxc R 1 TX-ss / �1°-+ _77DA .. • i 6 F/7// �" Y_ >.C_. \`� `W/SARA¢UNDER L 1� 6r WgLL L(a-uNl Gn c-tao.••'f 1 Y ,^'1.. .�moX )e c f GRA f1 B.Bf OETIILAm o-T) A \ L vn 4FFf=210_ auxwrl .1 /dlW/ � N °�D4GAGE ,A ] m� R_R-R_ ��Ay _^` to PR11A STLN,L i. \ �`��`````__-}\ �� - \' _ __ `�` • • \J rW/S�gI1ABa01Jr 1 1 N -� \ --6'� -�m�� _� \ mtixuve) l(47_�UNopt1 I 1 MN 1a lnr N7 m•0. `b. _�� \ 6-tee'-1 _ � R ualrs ) I xY7 ��'� _- 02 L sARlu: u„ � Fs•21p �_ IOL:6F�IOD1 ma.➢B°+ MAP IN LW ae m''0. N� = -� -O C - I _ Revisions LVER �� apt BUC WAY elm LERM 016 SLOE CBI to BARB 98.6' IY0 OSx I I I x7T 114 NYT 126 XgmL PXn® EE E*7 YM IB WP 16 LOT N6EY 1 N X/F NATq �/y CB2 to OMH, 24' fYa zO1L I�f>7 x4.' �3 1 TTB I o4Aviuv I /3T U Nv�J --M•mmv Rwrt I uLi \ J%\\\_ _`W_4. i `� OMNI to OMH2 131.8 IMO 1.OZ ~ FLS R MID le G93 to OM2 5.4' 12.11 20x I MAP 16 p LOT L3T I ESTATE I S X¢ Lap MAP 16 UOT I Y/S1uC MOM tm • =�w3 ' ` ALL + ` \ ` YeLdb x/f ra6Sf BIY m6-1u LOT•tlU XBHWQRS1 j, 1I1 elY SD-]le-1J6 UB011E MAP is U0 2r2 r /2 NPOUM DYH2 to MOSY 66.5' 15.1 1.0x I N/F I I NVj uoL(tYI AOm YAP i8 n ,T 1mf.CnR PXwN� ai OF 4 W4 to vN57 1].e' 17Y lox 1 I OAN°EN /4q I I I 3 (m wMAu,ABEL o-n 3C ItDr 21 b' I• rrOrs I" '11 0 (^T°< Y,oST to DMH3 52' 15.0 1.5% I i4a I I 1 I I I PNM�i 120 \ •/I I L I q R YA4 18 IND�T�t°0 HA' / 1 �6 9L I YID tfi LOT Ylel 174 _ 6l/ YM 16 1Di L°T YH x,Y PATlligl DMH3 10 DM" Iwo IBM ISR J @4D 136 �- /36 ,130 X� - I - I /16 t m N PAl11YAl CBS b DMH4 59' 12Y 20x __�`� )I_(',_ DM144 to DMH5 131.2' 18Y 1.5R n `-""'-'T� -�--- -- -- -- aee m DMH5 28 1Ya zox -6 - Mom ame -2L BEAVER STREET o -_ - (PUBLIC TRAY-30'NIDE) Grit I in qM5 to 0M115 ,53• ,a•. 251 -- ---- --------__-- __--- _ -�� Engineering C87 b WH5 17.4' 12.0 2Ox GmA LLC OMHB t0 Y 53.8 lea z= BBR7061 00 Wo52 to DMH] 2W IBM 15x 100CwmdnCenter,SLFRB 2240 1801 t0 DMN7 323' 8.0 BOR � Bow*,AIA 01 018/b OMI-to OFR zav'- IB•a zox PRECAST STRUCTURE SCHEDULE TeL'978.927Sfff WB to DMHB =7' 12'0 4.6x m m PYtO D2 PM �q y , For 9789275103 009 b DMHS NS' 12'0 1.0x RIM-20.80 RIM=11.30 RIM=21.00 RIM-15.40 RIM-1 D.W STC 900 STC 900 SQL TEST RT ("0/!]/11) INV.-17.80 MY.-6.30 1(io)-17.30(12') KF)-8.43(18•) I(F)=6.40(12•) RIM-11.00 RIM-9.60 TP-I(Et-15.9) GANS to DMH9 25.a' 12.0 a= 1(in)=17.65(12•) I(n)=12.20(1Y) I(F)=fi.40(15•) I(F)-75o(IB•) MER=6.5 B�zrel lcxulec sD�9e MDmcs sAMMmoa MRM PROJECT W10 to OMHS 15.z' isb 0.6% Kin)-17.50(6) 1(out)=833(Is) 1(F)-6.40(127 Kit:7.80(67 I(F)=4.75(127BRD __ __ VEL.BRICKS,LITRE TRASH 'RIM=20.80 RIM=10.50 B(oot)-17.20(12•) (out)--6.30(2e) 1(M)-7.50(6•)••• 1(F)-4.75(127 80-170 CI s 10YR 5/4 SNOIE-GRAIN,LOOSE,VARIES ACROSS RT N MANAGEMENT, LLC W11 to DNH9 Bl' 12'a 1.2R INV.-17.80 INV.-7S0 DM118 '(out)=7.25(18') 1(Ou[}=4.50(17') NO REFUSAL NO N¢P,NG,NO MOTRES ROOTS TO 108• I)ALL DRax PRES 8 ROOF IFADEBs 10 BE CAPANE W DAftl2 RIM-14.40 DMMID •Ni00F lEAOLF ESHWT, 6.9(>1207 SUPPORBNG A MINIMUM H-20 tOADMa 60-64 GROVE .ST_' 9 ONH9 to OMH10 168.8 24•a 0.5x �} f819Q1L• RIM=20.20 I(in)aB95(111•) RIM=10.25 7BDI 2)OETaLID RETa NG WALL PLAMS REWIRED DURING I =2 to DMH,D 7.Y 1Y0 1.4R RIM-2o.o0 RIM-9.75 I(Fp,s90(1z') I(F)=10.65(12') KF)-5.45(24•) W9.4t (iRFrIW maN) TP-2(EL 17.6) cWSlRucnox. TYwcAL sEcnoNs ON sHfIT o-7 ARE PROVIDm 3 HARMONY GROVE ! W.-17.0D MV.=B.W a),I&90(12•) 1(°)=10.65 (I87 (bo)-S.90(12'7 SIGw2 BOBFNM=10.96 D@➢i MDBR9tl D-um mm MMDIES D711EH FOR PERMITTING ONLY. =3 to WHIG 7.1' 12'0 1.Ix RIM BOB INV.=10.40 O'er FlLL -- -- SANDY GRAVEL BRICKS,IFT11E TRASH 3)DETaLED BRIDGE PLANS MEETING AA91TO STANDARDS Ego LAIZ� 1 In)-1].00(6') I(FN6.90(127 56-54 A FLS IOTA 3/2 GRANULAR REWIRED OURMG CONSTRUCnON. DYX1D to WD53 58 24.0 I.Ox RIM=19.50 RIM=10.0 I(out)=1580(157 D RMS MAN 1(N)-7.0(2-6') I(NR M'(247 YOtlfi'1 56-74 B Is 7.5YR 6/6 FRIABLE,BLENDS WBA A IATFR {)CONTRACTOR iD COORDINATE ROOF LEADERS NTN BUILDING INV-16.80 INV.=7.00 (TRU=5.35(14') OONNSPWT LOCA1101UB REFER TO BUILDING PLANS. GRADING,DRAINGE&� M)53 to OPa 984' ie•r 22x ohm M-11.01 Kat)=5.20(157 RIM-2,.75 74-120 CI 10YR '4/4 Mm.BAND,VARIES ACROSS PIT 5 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCBW ENTRANCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT / f CBI{to MOS{ 14.5' IYa 07% CO2 cel'utl MM-20.43 1(F)-7.20(IS-) DMH11 INV.-1275 NO REFUSAL NO NFPING,NO X011115 PROPOSED GROW STREET ENTRANCE (EROSION CONTROL RIM-19.00RIM-9.55 I(F�1{.85.(157 Bout)-2.55(18•) RBA-9.30 990 SW, -YpT(6.1 MAT, O.6(>1207 8)REFER 1D SKEET N-1 FOR AWInWAL NOBS AND LEGEND. PLAN =5 to YA1B4 7.8 2 0 Lax IW,15.00 INV.-8.55 I(In)-17.00(67 1(F)-560(12') NM=IDA RIM-20.75 TR-0(FL 123) L-11..7 tO 6a 525' lY0 23x I(out)=13.10(127•• DMUB 1(F)=560(127RM-15.25 RIY�.0�0 8 1„Out)=14.75(187 RIM=10.65 I(outNSW(127I(in)=8.45(1Y) INV.-1L50 Do-EP27H () 2)i B XTy@[ �ffi MDIlLE4S�DY GRAVII,BRICKS,LITTLE 1RASH o DYHII81.2' 12.0 O.SR MV.-6.00 N MFlL FlEID I(F)=2]5(127 mm I(.O+.2D(IY) YD3(12•) 24'36 4./B 1 S IOW 3/2 GRANULAR toO30.M IYa 1.3x RIM-2850 38-i20 C S 10YR 4/4 MED.SAND, GRAPMC SCALE SG91x f-W 02 •PROMOE DNS DMM4 I(wt)=T25(127 SIC BOD NV.-14.W NO REFUSAL NO N:F/'MG.HO MOT11E5W ISO.O IYa 0.3x RIY=19.20 R91-20.30 ,IRIM=14.00 GRAZE W KF1225(187 I(F}=1515(157 MAT0.3(>120) •1J24' 12.0 19x DIV=14.00 CB10 Q 15Y I(F 1588 ,Y) �F)=16.45(127 �to.04 39.Y lYa s.fix RIPE 1(oul)=1215(18•) I(Out},4.90(IV) NOTES SOIL TEST,PERFORMED BM 1 BLaMNET1E.P.E W 10/17/11 1 m°B-46 B OYOa tg/m/Tt. July 31 , 2012 To: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, DPCD From: James Treadwell, AICP Re: Planned Unit Development As discussed , please find attached nine copies of the two exhibits that I transmitted to Director Lynn Duncan with my memorandum of July 25, 2012 regarding the subject . I will appreciate your distribution of these exhibits to members of the Planning Board along with copy of my above- cited memorandum. Thank you. RECEIVED JUL 0 1 2012 DEPT.OF PLANNING& COMMLINTY DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED JUL 2 6 2012 July 25, 2012 DEPT, OFPLANNiNG& To: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP rte; ""7-Y QEVEL.OPME,V, From: James R. Treadwell , AICP Re : Planned Unit Development, Salem Oil and Grease Lynn: As we discussed recently via telecom, I would like to formally bring two matters to your attention respecting the opinions of Robin Stein ( letter of July 5 , 2012 ) and Mark Bobrowski (July 3 , 2012 ) regarding the subject . 1. The documentation cited by Attorney Bobrowski , in my opinion, does not represent all available information relevant to the issue being deliberated . Apparently, not provided to Attorney Bobrowski for his review were : o Minutes of the Oil and Grease public hearing trough 6/7/2012 , o The follow-up Memorandum to the Planning Board from Danielle McKnight dated May 4, 2012 , o A second letter to the Planning Board from Councillor Prevey, o Correspondence to the Planning Board from Councillor Sosnowski , o Relevant memorandums that I have submitted to Chairman Puleo, Members of the Planning Board and to you, o The Landscape Plan for the MRM Planned Unit Development, dated 8/11/2011 , o The Project Narrative and Environmental Impact Statement which I have referenced below. Attorney Stein did not specify the material that she reviewed . Could you agree that the above-cited documentation should be provided to Attorney Bobrowski so that he could supplement his opinion, if warranted ? Could you please let me know the material that was reviewed by Attorney Stein. 2 . In his Memorandum of July 3 , 2012 , to Beth Renard, Attor;iEy Bobrowski states that : "I assume that all landscaping is within the parking areas or the spaces between the three residential buildings" 1/3 In this regard and as shown on the Landscape Plan for Legacy Park Apartments-a document that was not noted by Attorney Bobrowski as among documentation provided to him-all landscaping is not within the parking areas or the spaces between the three residential buildings . I have attached a copy of said Landscape Plan that I have modified to high-light two particular landscaped areas in the apartment complex that are not "within" the parking areas nor "between" the three residential buildings . The Applicant ' s intentions for these areas : o"lilac bushes will be planted above the proposed retaining wall along the main parking field" Reference : Item 5 , "Project Narrative In Support of PUD and Site Plan Review Applications For Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road" (Project Narrative) o"The landscaped areas surrounding the buildings and along the North River Canal are designated as common areas for recrea- tional activities . " Reference : Item 2 .4 .d. , Environmental Impact Statement In Support of PUD and Site Plan Review App- lications For Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road (EIS ) . I would note that 1 ) the above-cited landscaping along the main parking field is located within an area designated as "limits of clearing" , further attesting to the association of this landscaping to the "clearing" that will be necessary to accommodate the construction of the apartment complex and 2 ) that the landscaping for recreational activities actually abuts the residential buildings and then extends 40 feet to the North River Canal . 2/3 In addition, I have superimposed the two landscaped areas on Drawing C-3, Site Layout Plan. These areas are crosshatched, signifying "non-residential space" . I estimate that the land- scaping along the main parking field occupies +/- 21 ,700 Square Feet ( SF) and the landscaping that abuts the residential build- ings and runs to the Canal at approximately 15,000 SF. In my opinion, this landspacing represents improvements associated with the residential uses and the land area it occupies should be so categorized . Accordingly, and relying on the data on C-3 relative to total lot area ( 296 , 659 SF) and "non-residential space" of 152 , 202 SF, the amount and percentage of land in the planned unit development that will be occupied by "residential uses and associated improvements" is : o with the addition of the landscaping along the main parking field, 160,457 SF or 54% of the planned unit development area. o with the addition of the landscaped area running from the residential buildings to the North River Canal , 167 , 157 SF or 56% of the planned unit development area . o with the addition of both landscaped areas , 182 , 157 SF or 61% of the planned unit development area . In any of these cases , the residential uses and associated improvement limitation of Section 7 . 3 . 3 . 3 . would be violated by the current proposal and a Special Permit for a Planned Unit Development for the Salem Oil and Grease site should not be granted by the Planning Board . Note: The Drawing C-3 data, used by DPCD in its calculations and conclusions (4/24/12 memo), must be independently verified. cc: Councillors Sosnowski & Prevey, Solicitor Renard , Chairman Puleo 3/3 ROPO - - OVE i IFAB' & 2EPe GR e C' - HARM � � � .1L - � • �.�,�' TW MAN. YAP 15 LOT]n .,N etlN alsw 'IT YAP 16 LOT 23e / m1N HARMONY GROVE N/F Y aro 50 GROW STREET REAL EST, LLC LAND COURT PLAN 33813A ,�,. dvaluela, C NORTH RIVER CANAL TIDAL • '�f ...y •A ,,.r...�„ \ �, \ .fJO a IP L„Y1 aro a�, 6 LOT JIB /F 1 a NY M Ay GROW _ m,,e„ BAY Alm • Irw Ar°" TRANSPORTATION aR mAas AUTHORITY ;ORPmYW NRHI�NNNNRNN", 1NNN„NNIr1HNNNHNHN„WNIHNHNINRNN+ NHHH�HNINR) PA. • !M !'i'W lrLwtlf 4 C„ I4 yy CHUSETTS 011Il IM M YKW mq,Nee sl YKlY ergW •M \ 3 ^Ie NY )7 Yv ON EOF m m IO�f eTpO1 ) rCL' I N 'MAN b BUILDING iY N Y a lem N oeC Rpm iy A. m y Iro Iro V itl ! ,� 1... A, i4! W S1l, A. .aL YML \ em a aro "NM "ror L>< ti LaeITO lLIC a• rue _ )m •u ere Iro ).� PROPOSED BUILDIND,/I�'-'�1 aRN - a A. oen �rovm • - }(( 1. (a Cd N kW/-CARAGEUNDER RIf0 pd •i \.` m1lL V U6 i Yi[Y ILLx w – LRaI°�rp oe ] m. •"a4 iMY Ina, Isl .' ro �RDP R.r .21a, •a . eli m ___ em] LMO M sa.W 4YW eTAYC • �,~p lOb- >rn W ' aI MIi I.S W �BUILOIH i_ w� �eL M+� ` w my a •Tv =�--- �V ��t`� I wwirwLYe a^' � unTs) I irALW �, __ RI Yu aro ar o,� cxc-1JD uc Irac roA roA r _ _ hY1”' a_m oec le,ee _ (1 )M HO °� 1rTi MY ti m ]_UNI)$ ER� 4 M . a L ] CC K S • "a[1r i,W 101 l sON e V Ae ga (9 gEgp _ Y uw iN9 poem Rue 1 as �'_ Sul nd i Yw ��Z��O�K i� y !- "•I L' - ,lve nix Y I ni a m Lew •" I ••�_.I..S Y Ya PROPORb i 10 � .'y a s - !•ce Y W/G lOIA'C eM rrY ircw.n � A ue MAGE_OH a4 )y ° !M 3 W e )ar M°eea l lm) i YYs>_uH11B)DEN/ rl.• ire Ym '�"� �•A f ` E W 15 xI] LOT – 14 Rad a A 1 )at i11q__-, a– m re LaSR CSB yA G �tlJ SAREL S _ – I °P NN arolve101 , " •� jl�ea 1M a10 �� yyyFj AI IWa 1 LL f 101 __ MeA M aM C SILVER AP Ifi LOT 316 TM MN IYL YM r10r °�, A. opgyFJ99gq9g N/F Iro °~ WA ieN as lw iNY �"' ° llle �M gBN81ffi� . iLGRES NIMN/p I N/f ... J .I. ew ae1v. Iw plry M1ieeem 101 NA 16 LOr J]6 LAA YAV 16 MIB C/) •>i y 36 FioREs - _ ' LOT uA• LOT us� O _ rw rwee = „w e e o I m EMLEY I NCKEP Y OT lx2e] 625 I13 Y Y •N, _ i Y _ IY1 W 1 I L 1 r_ 1 II LOT -{ 3 N� 1 I I N/F I YAP 16 LOi 3 eY L em Ae MAP 15 - LET ASN REAL La'W20N N/F { • i 1 rM LOT 212 N I ESTATE DONEU E Y L N/F, KgILOfE1i TRUST I 1' 1II�— > YM t6 11�� YM Ifi LOT 232 r – , �• YM 16 �2 )ro 101 1 ANOEN I Q YM 19 LOT 329 I Q I LOi 2J1 ATl I" N/F to • ae"Neo�� LOT 3eD YM le ] Y 1 I 1 3 3 N//ff I YYER$ 1 610 Y W 2N N/T LOT 33S 1 16 I I I 1 SAW I /26 ROSSRO II I L_ I°I YM I6 4E COIN PAT090N PAN pT 23J 2 E /so s Ne N6 ` 61a , �6 L 9Y _I_ - �_' _.L - - La„e� BEAVER STREET GRAPHIC SCALEco %l --kk,-,N PmYLLL somas. # P I. m. ilk LANDS A NOT r im cuo ' a' e1 T.r WeTeW„..n Y• mWLLwrLile I n6N dL•Rlmi YYJI RaM Lum M!wcormac+aW u Aawce rrw eu.IAr. dLLpAuoru1flllRlerq pi..r1l t w RR) wr ro iC4d eNaa1 w rKArli 1 le.e.w n - a !la ee wecaa pruoAld o raANr neroeeLe YULL swim ne ismer evrtlw A - eA�ac a„� n +ua er4o.lo rw„Ml,r er�•e.of A•vecY,eaienevd N.leW.rex.c PLANT LIST c+•«+ ]� a Au rLA•n MrewLL ewu s sYl,wr„eaten ua omex W.s1w eu LeC6i ren rw eu.•ow TM RM'rsn YWl Gi oPC„eflL101Ni 0rt4 eCC0•rYll 'C1ln,YL.„.cfYii —�• _•J3@ �• NtlO Mo,•OM1lmtl„ 0 m ie KAICf PRTII,ReMM NIX.M1IM GQO OO rNC T Q rb{PmM,4 Y y b0 RWIe 61i,eWWAN.Yr:LO ,y �Ar rGMeL WOr.L100 CW]I rC il® f:•, Mi4[MC ONMYmeT,Y tMe.Ma.IRfIYTId RL`RM YO mM1M M4Q M .164dme fJV.DEVW LINmW ,WIRi'-T Wi. Ven[ Z •�'•.J K.ICCRIYQ CTMrA.ml d Y eypleN�T.'YNMmb1G' MIIYt,m,NL OYI.OLIAr i'.W 61aW rL1CW 1• narW MrzleeL ewLi ee weW,Nmm row a.emw a•w mu 'a`a'' J . °°° ry w.mAcroA eNo see a ==114=_ 4,l lee+wrse.vl®+Iwo o--Y'aYr ,a�4m /e, Feamorm.Eum rlelSYml,er nl wri,e nY,el vemo ,Murat va4p nl d6 Ver Gm,YA.,lgl.lYtVm epp• , � r ].•-]P• .mal L• APDL I T.AlYw. IW.F, O 1� AQ.IYIWY«tp 2llLO weonM NmIeL YPLL eB OII r1l CQeY If[•Y 01sO4w r-a•lnr. 14MIfM TT.Al ANRIJ[ erZ CYCR rlt llO eTl o.a mY lll„T.Tt fpA.C1W e„�N4 ec w edNb.lYN eW11' YWO® I.)M'fIL ellCnr e64Wr .ccmuLx„4F.R o1relL mw eAY m ua oLm�w Y '1�L1e. can elw.lm`'�r w I'rwr ww J LLL a+Ase.ona.'.mnero,erm veel,u Yuu IN,1eneec Waal �.L y mrm,�.e.r wnar N. laeui w RMW 1MlA N.ISI,I672i pUJI t 14uTW 14Ce r04.lYM®u1LLYMbmG1®CWOfdY. Nr mY'LLLY IWJYOIr IfMb00 WfR M�tAMY"C lt1�T• b .•eelR 1LLP1 i. rSda@ [sfM WYZS Q� QO i "C Ap4W�NLlri R Tl YIIR,L fd11\eC.LR YD Y,YL n •1"YLV Y �'r 'e�{Au q�l mea eAer Al.111n •b.:E�Nr .«Iw ea/fA F d YpwoA,ti. W.ICM oe lnfrLL „A.. 0 I` 2 k I» APCSOIre0.e' Y extra edL a Q i LYCY I1 Cwlaleiea le eOvt'A R.V/AtGC1 o r1i Y'Y.rtme tl0 LmCm1d txreVlYY CurClr e%O 1Ceu �:i vlimenr«1Hr Y awL L9War Tw wm.veW erly LOUrKM w V.•f eWIAl iso voow rw Y roeceNna4 a„IWm'cArcwLnM' saa aua Ne.,<°1TC0 rww oWep iQ <'R,YrKam w LAroerm•e cMnaecrea auu 1vL.¢w R A YmrlAceir ro rb i i .•tea u ilmsA.nii„uaA ro.:m,r 'L e~.orim,law. [L Y W,L[i.dow me oY.eom NrelWL YKlo,vm,m Ar•n Ie«'N ptur'w°oC ^ I ul1a ...m w4u �uwM r.ay�.• y 'ewrTorP.i eu rmtAL..., n,n,l • w.wen r1®e ewLL m run®u+v a•meN Yw¢om vemc e.mc runs .%A i C1'°'�fe YAW,Ym1u 4 e.e;nisi Id's e,arm,uneA. orvuwA clOm A"'p1 p'LL W V. Tl4MIwAGIT w41 FlOT•C[.•LOW•Lia LLL.11gY rO R K_e ) IkiA CCe'A YY1Ap"W I”e.°A� rRM lA Va 016br YIIm M a "'AtA QA]IOA 4'•ei %ell l3leY OM1 N. 4RY w4L I12N2 v ItlLtID i"Ic4lY fa L. n6 Kf.i Ca„YcrGw M1mA MiOI LAMAN a i°�A1CC Oder O n ( OO, �pv® Y„LL ralYwm Yawa«x.IA,mum,uv at mlaei rwY.ro AA o� eaLl "'" tarauva.aomr _ . .cw Lolt •'-` ,aede,e An:llsm wen e.Ye °°°R [n U d < rar m RIINARANA nc•Ama w•ere' evil aoe rtre ismmvold .0 y § §¢ c u'.pewrNM,AT Tl WOOG4!IlY iL11CM R4R LtCI A ", r00i AlleLere'Mwi eLLK' }�• °CYiMLL M1I%IVm 1".0 LP,i iYEC•M Y• 33 a.l.rir.w uwmd wY1 m c zmv ew mecMx els A e Ioau A T }Y' QOZ Q yry ,�31 Z icwlmcr rue•weeny eYnM1n.i eTLIO.ptA,.a1O,°e:lm. w w YL R°fJ�O M in i. MdnY1iV�1! °AMW�YALY� is:1f'cll C Y i.e0�6D 11�m-r"I�LL�srtl2e.1®SRe ro,!!i W fK s0.1PVn eTL.� _I o:J n LL I� N Y rA L\eC L' ].riK RYR,n L.1 leen °F. [xrm2l.Vas..Y p C191:1ep I I .. wlPe we.reOdR.n Rulrwa evL�+Ie rca, „ror ,H *lwe vcclvmn<LIe4w.m' a'-.wr DECIDUOUS J EVERGR�EN ..HQUB .Ku�ev 4ree rTp„IK YNYL 0.PICN e® r Y,e.n iOMCWf1 PYleel• r]O,ILC 04LI YOR+rtY ' .1�tl wr4L ePn:e.T NNe.Me rA I AN m l el'„bNM 1 ,Ye O! ,^SMM "'W�: !17i-o x.YE A•KrM1YTIW LR.ATK„ro CRRnele o ee•O[.ori21[L0.'4'Exll,®wile. \ v LLLIReL Rel re e.`CLV2 .eer,CY ryT We eJMn aell.lORm „'-a•� YFe Ll4Re eWe AO:a®.AIYhe Y>q!R!T[yi M DARE SCALE oe4rCNfEo nLV%cA CA.eer.pTpfyL ems ro Ao A. 1 DF!'IOUOUS TREES 7A* oee aNc"1eeN"' - 41 v+i-.. ,'•av 7 EVERGREEN TREES „e• 4eM NOT To State - SHEET 1 OF 7 �' I It _ I LI HIGH R a�E wwrt 0/w _ WATEF UNE # 1 NIRpIYM IIA¢ GAW / _ - _ _ / I . 1 Eaa--:. SB/DH 7\\ \ - (HLD UNE) / 1 / — — — \ \ l 25. WOEk d sxsu. SEWN HISTORIC,MTER NICK �,Dcl eNq u/J IN LOT)3) /w/DH \ CASEYENi 1 WAIEP UNE - sry h HLD �e `\ 1 laP'RMOBI'G WAx �Y1� HARMONY ASIROW CmP. \i \ 1 1 YAP le Lor 3.Y S /ti NORTH RIVER CANAL - POAL \ \I ICOWRT PLAN C �-2s' WDE pA,b-pre' ' SE. .D. SCIMERCASEMENJ /� EXISTING m < HISTORIC HIM A u E E T BNIOCE WATER UNE —YAP 1X IAT)]° RAI 0 'J V - _ o (1.03 Ames) a4A0 mcNR 3� ' .A BAY \ TRANSPORTATION 1 rmY LMax o10ss A R«H«R R.«r19w CX S,H«N»NX AUTHORITY ml«ftNAN 1 .I TTS MASS wUµEPhLL ° I y y T_ _>_ -\_ tl R• 1+.V 9 iO IIAGE AS $p )m \\ � rt E nN IRA My IDI RR (rw) \ a T "' _ 1 A'ORny eui rl lNC 4 � / �Isn I P,.-- PROPOSED Bunmxc II 1 "�: PA _ CAN ' PPN n _n 1 mA`°a.RI A¢ioweWL GARAGE AL _nOAL .5 L dR�inia•/� ~ ~ w ImFUR.i AWA sllo.® �. "ryDL ."'yP .. w I eum) (m.x M W ti W/CARAGE RANDR - I ♦W '"'� -.. 4 14mlaux 1L 9.et - WR WOI, ,. uxn) I (rn•a x HISTORIC XIII x ' _ .s. 1 N .l � wl•.O.Y). wArtR Lu+E .0 imuNW) I Lor 3tT v V }. 1 PROPOSED `}/ t ap°p) sr.uvwr. Iwm u 1e 1 1 EYRIE W/C BUPOINC v °•myl®w.wy L I13 s R Fsm�A 4 U 5J OEN H15 d It Hl rolls¢[RINOO° 16 WATER UNE Sii_VER I YAP _Ie Lor 318 L_ (PUB1/C wnr Rp® •, _i - - ;, -L---- - BPD 015 Revisions R3-bTS "� I A~ 34 Y e LO ZJ 1334 I N 3D AP 2 _ ., _ y 4].6' /P N]4 x s�mams 1 1*I YM le r ° y I -AR le LOT I I OT x3LIT� ,m aAYn I 'n FTl N/F 2 ], I 33) m I I Nei J 128 I s,y AI Yli venula I RmE° 1 �- YAP to Ab MA I I I I MJ3 U I 1 Mi)IAV LOTYM I° YLO�O`E I `1RUSi I R 1 .A 3)0 YAP Ie LOT 3 L 1 ALL 1 Wr BLixoExl d44 I I Q I Q I LL IUA^Is / NAP 1N 10,3)3i r / 12 1 { I <,•xW y49 d' I �I I 3 I I Z I ILO�r si] 130 / Y1[RB 1 I 0 WT2W I w J MD Nd6 dT• I 1 D uM IN Loi 3DI d2a / P H Y P m mr Lot 2,g l0�p0 PINSON /Z CURB -I �� BA91 _ _ _ -11; ( 5P 5 3)J F6 N/T x/F Yfv�-mss _ _ PAIM1SW BEAVER STREET GRA - Griffin wRIC) 1 Posr 1- - -- _ _ I END { - ' — - - - - - - - - - - - - i-- - - - - - - - Englneedng 1 1 CTDup, LLC 1 - 1 NOTES P.0 BOX 1001 100 CYmmOIpR Center,SIA°2240 1 I1 B 1)REFER TO SHEET N-1 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND IECEND. eroxy.AU 01915I 1 ZONING CHART 1 TeL 928A2/.5111 yF�/ / � 64 Grove Street-Parcel Boundary ..dmeim.�� Fer 9189225111 R OUIREO PROVIDED � ! / XON-NEYOExnA1 SPACE Y PER P110 L/�y (Is1 3D3 3) 1 MIN. LOT MFA 60,000 SF 296,659 SF MIN. LOT FRONTAGELandsca in ver a�,na-cL� '� MIN. LOT WIDTH I-- X64�' Landscaping From North River Canal & MRM PROJECTMANAGEMEN , LLC MAX. LOT COVERAGE BUILDINGS -- 14.St Railroad to Apartment Buillding - SALEM,MANAGEMENT MA%. RESIDENTIAL SPACE T s 50% 49.O% ) MA FRONT YARD DEP M -- 59.1• •� MIN. SIDE YARD DEPM -- 41.6 ' , MIN. FUR YARD DEPH -_ ,DO' Landscaping Along Retaining, Wall MAR. BUILDING HEIGHT FEET 50' 44.15' MAIL BUILDING HEIGHT si0R1Es 4 4 - & Parking Fields I OVERALL MIN., PMXING 1.5 SP UNIT 212 215 _ EDDINOTES SITE LAYOUT 1) REE SECTION I.3.4.2 FOR MIN. MONTAGE REOUIRMENT; R2 USTED. ' FLAN 2) LOT WIDTH MEASURED AT THE REAR OF THE REOUIRED FRONT YARD sETEBCN FOR R2EI ZONING DISTRICT. GRAPHIC SCALE J) MAX BUILDING HEIGHT OCCURS ALONG FROM OF BUILDING 3. SCOILI�W SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS ID BTIAUDS Mi, INC. ` Q 215 SPADES PROVIDED22S FOR RESIDENTIAL PORTION XI THE G SITE BU LO NG.UNIT). 22 SPACES PROVIDED FOR THE EXISTING OFFICE l• )m (OR.s„ ,P/PL4A«e C-3 LI:N- w n U9,2/d0M I June 14, 2012 To: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Community Development From: James R, Treadwell, AICP Qauaea K XAn n Subject : Various Issues . Redevelopment of Salem Oil and Grease/Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road As we agreed , I am transmitting certain additional comments for your consideration in connection with the on-going analysis of the subject undertaking. 1. When the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that extended planned unit development special permitting to Business Park Development(BPD) districts , on January 7 , 2009, the Ordinance, then in effect, defined Story as, simply: "That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it or, if there be no floor above it, then the space between any floor and the ceiling above it . " Article II ,Sec. 2-2 . I note that said definition did not make reference to the State or International Building Code . Also, when the Amendment ' s "maximum stories" provision (Section 7. 3 .4) was being written, any reference made to the definition of stories , at that time, would have relied on the definition cited above. Further, the use of the above-cited definition in the case of the Legacy Park apartments , would conclude, as the Applicant has at 2 .4 .b of the Environmental Impact Statement submitted in support of the subject , "The proposed residential buildings are. . . 5-stories tall along their rear(northerly/river) side . " A five story building would be in violation of the Maximum Story limitation. 2. As I noted at the Planning Board meeting on June 7 , 2012 , a shared parking agreement would require that the Board of Appeals grant a special permit and that the Traffic Impact Peer Review "recommended that as a condition, the Applicant submit a shared parking agreement plan to be activated if and when the number of employees exceeds 24" . 3 . Is the Special Permit Requirement set-forth at Section 8 . 3 . 2 of the Ordinance applicable in the case at hand? 4 . Site Plan Review, Application, Section 9 . 5 . 3 , indicates that "all information required for a Definitive Plan under Section II B of the Subdivision Regulations shall" be submitted. Has this requirement been satisfied? 1/2 r ►= In addition to the issues that we had previously discussed, I am transmitting copy of the LANDSCAPE PLAN of LEGACY PARK APTS AT HARMONY GROVE, dated 8/11/11 . On this Plan I have high-lighted the landscaping that I reference in my memorandum to Chairman Puleo of June 7, 2012 , and that I contend should be recognized as an improvement associated with the Legacy Park Apartments . Accordingly, the land area occupied by this landscaping is not "non-residential space" as the Applicant contends but acreage that must be subject to the 50% limitation of Section 7 . 3 . 3 . This Plan also indicates the "LIMITS OF CLEARING" that will be required to accommodate the entire apartment complex. I have also included Drawing C-4, Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan, dated 12/20/11 , that shows the "APPROX. LIMIT OF EXCAVATION" that will be required to properly site the apart- ments and associated improvements "such as parking and land- scaping" . Since these exhibits support my memorandum to Chairman Puleo of June 7, 2012 , and I understand that copy of said memorandum has recently been provided to the City Solicitor and the Building Inspector, I trust that you will send copy of each exhibit to the Solicitor and the Inspector . ( extra copy included) Thank you very much for your effort . Attachment cc : Chairman Charles M. Puleo Councillor Paul C. Prevey 2/2 a --°vE R°pD O °R MAP 16 LOT 238 r' GGA / erwe IeiANw i)ww HARMONN/P vliLe WM old •],la- Y GROVE "/T 50 GROVE SMUT REAL EST.LLC LAND CWRT PIAN 3JB13A mce •IXvd•re, NORTH RIVER CANAL y nOAL miP9 •1N Ai etll� _ —� � s� nra ,M. Rn T w - 1N 6 LOT 378 1 aro mAn _ _ _ ,nYTrROVE ] _ mom, » BAY • AUTHORITY iRANSPOR TA 110N ILR mAu! m r Iro. rm erDR.w ra I" rls ��+ HN .CHUSETTS _ _ — _.TD ,ew• Id Mw \ \ ! >- slapEcf nub IP: - � b!P °L >� IM DN I aCV eieRAOn eM )� TYV °Y •Rv iK Y.VI BUINDIHG ,IA� •le \ a \ �o :ip ,!M /°L° ° IY Ie LR IM ,M >OT m •Mu irM MGlT1R �_ it - - — rI e �LR: IY /LK e4P0 ] a6' DY'1 WV to >io ro lu vd aia, W/GNUCEBUeOO"IDER11 ?mw eRirGdiue ,�o�.ea, mNOA • _ )M � vrKPe /AL ane _ � � �� Mulerermn >M I6RC�1 TS) MERG pL IlC1 I ELICI T !a e� aOT C bNm =_ p ,q, eLro PROP /le, ) YMV. _ Sff C� L]We >ro °w rt )T-1I6 .a l 7 OSEO a - •rRP >- w�ep�yuu'> Id lW L"DOiT. eM eiNPiW al! iW ) Wi»�b 1��Ia iw0 d° ]mW/(1 ""1A15'Na�� > i > i.wP s >�, °M lm lWw !� N») lbWl aol IRA vw r mMR '�w M • ..LAMN • Rm Ipe Q°osm A• aaT ks , . >� er er Area rk W/WtAQRMNO�J >a m� 5� _� •r , ar,m•TOWYW aw (p_ OFR )M ZLaY, _ _ aei leer Inw we ONII$) •ro »a � I[6 Cp �� 16 LOT 217 - - M T a Nl~e, ser NWe flw Am IMV ro-ems are! �12� $j lPA WKES CIS f PR ler gggq 'p Y1P 16 LOT 216 SILVER PiM/F (A MAP 16 LOT 326MM to M - - •. Y sd ieNw nwevtr_� '}p m<a °ppE —iMIT a LOT 236 �wwW� ®' WN® »r CY rr7 FLORORE6 "/T NM 18 /28 ITT I MAP 16 1 I NIXFA r I I LOTrTI 2D I I ~ W,N IA ,2 Q' MAP r6 I LOT 2" 1 I I u 1 I a°Ard MAP 1 3 LOT 222 AESTAIE YM 16 /2 LOT 220 N/P I EST IIII----�1 ). YAP IB I'� MAP 15 LOT 2J2 N/T KOHLOPFI6 MAP 16 I I I INAP I6 LOT,2]II LO 2]1 6.11" N ler e1 LOT 360 0�2� / •� i I % DE1, LOT 231 Q MAP 15 LOT 22E Q N/T ( My�ps 1 /t0 MM 18 LOT 231 N//FF / y Cd"LT 6A91 i 31 OEYEVLE i F (2° I I I L �1 IPI L0�2336.J M W=M PATRSON PA" 8$ p � t 8E I LL__ __ _ _A SPERI KOs _ u $ C J BEAVER STREET wwlra 3 ? ° g S.'C0.VlI'VIER GRAPHIC SCALE ay DRrwau eoaa ` # ¢ $ IIP -- / IE.!]TE ILL LdCCIL. co LANDSCAPE NOTESALTTTP,EE WA"MANw Mir) L M1tl1r oyMrtlEe aKiLr W rtY1f Llero<I¢FT<a,�£1@H't ro Ti COIIR/C}A DLT.M ]loe>.ir n eaAwmr A r@awna6 nvn All Pla r wmYa.rraLunor m new w raga _ v e uo•"mpiaila"aeae"�irr m'eoe: xreMwew meoc�1pA'unw wMiw_'e'Ewnomi arc L' c�rmWu n PLANT LIST A 41 I'SdM rY,EALL atoll PF iMF2 fln'],DEICIe Y0 DIYAr. I iP�rd[�OMR 1'e1a116N NT RYS LEGDER KEY OTT DOiONICAL Nd4 1 4L RMIM aYLL r IX!e N IV<bW2 WM KCEPfAfYL ICRfgVPpµg4Ci12a mV PL YTRr YNKA EIDYAM VM vmf �� nM IM,EPo4 flKfl LEM MgglO)Gr9C Re'rPAP.4116a nU[RAIt K°AIO 1I®Rr rIeTMAnRIHwM Y 11Ne>IIMIA @iRAld,r»vM YmIYRIb p.TVM ` CDYfl1@T@E 0b !i"[M LA dI/Pa PR<FTW efAITKr rERIM1ILiIM 0.MIrNi YO MEOlA2 n4NR4VLE dL M N61M0<"NOCeAlMWOi LNMIFIWa'l9EWW' )'-ba'YlfLte M) lJY } J wra rcenuce°rMOuert' dt s uwArRAMcwM'"II°>r naac' auvNrlblePWMM+ ]/•.»• Z J ON d rrlu rSY,A �,M°�IO eO!°1X0 °;a't.VT y.W:CD O rl/M nlld°LL aW.L N aVR"RELO fGR A PEAW w G!,ldR eT M GLMIYCIQe"O 1) Y' dMm,CPRIPO\x tlIRV IKVO' )T i F' RI(AO NO,'ldlp MREIPIEN pT M(WER ia>I DPIe W N>tILLA,IIX P. M C4 YD 4eTlY WP{4Y,YTIp dp' W ReMAr CMItIAG1�b�W1'�(ArY1 No riOM 6«C u EaWL'IA 1.Or OV DrP )•y Jl R ��'�°a TiWY2M A M Io ALT KIXri Z Y{EPfA)L2 fM'1 M OI,R •. P4RLlgrRl rAorM1.OfMMGP6 Yi1rW1"O GEN61 aVil r PETbveC rMl/11 M1LKM d1aY eMLP #O° NNoTpWKYIyJLALNWIMgCFleN1rRDvLMAPnyMpbWZlMlIe''aMf)L@PR!' aMN Mrl]LCf 4rRW/4•']LL i / TW ceM) MOSTA M] rR FQw . U j •30 FI.V,IOIfrM1,D.xsT Ib lCllf /•e<R(IYGI ]�IrRil IFa08D WRX WCER Q_ Q /�Pxarp,i26 ro ee PBlIRrtD Wly A PROICIID PMd ffATpKTd 4p aaLL Go !,r Mr.T� VN ANPf r� eq.r M TANON$NMIA rb.] ON' DO pr Faux GOAD. f�1 Z M rtexrnlenm w M tea.vrmr.rx Y wm.MLm w ao wr a y rEyru Ipb ire. Pr T Amwi p°"r"°P1�^ i e leiNs eov 'Z a1 Nw m uoeulmwnmD' 11 M woxsie u>nlercrcn ro AONeeD w M Prt)Aa G M uoewaaw urLmee Aro LK v ltvcoMa NwrumaarAruPAcrA' oWPaa Corona alNl veldrM etlelNlCe 4D 1[F1,Ida W@ep lm Cg6V.N>Yp DI.YX] IAV / eJQIeATr1eaA]LW ],; �4 d ALL Ig Q R4NLTICra MLbO%M6 WIIRKTCR aW1 RM1ACr LR IaEPdIR WWiiLI.PANU M' > rWNA' Mv»WAW 'Ni Y4Kl.O]6W EiC OYV �MPPN(M6`YL lMe Jtm AipmGIMWL.CeiMM PA D PRNa ALCAADE llLAbEOeRR '�cN. exA,>o ma uriw.r E+owd,Ww Q: YY (JF WRR ro >! PaA cL'AOtA pprl,W b»a .�b lar. Iw.1[Au r@r4 on nl M' Y1P4 p� PALL tL Q ly 'Kw ♦ Oil a)OC TN I- aaFLOED DAM(G0.'Wi GdRL XLIX 1 PKSA O11R1 PAa 1aY 1!T NW,1T m,iKVf L , e'nN atM a a0 OF _ r. M CMM.C,d aW1 R De/•LOM1lCR OLl A4Y i0 r an0. !D R tEFLm. KC a PKL YYpIA ldblYl a11VY2 >'M':Ui dY1 )A]•N'YIXO .,LL 1I%IIIC Qr RAMP . a141 RECM P•pTL®MbCEMI P LON4 M LYCaSP!fARRALTq FT )1 Pal PYMde r�q],OO Nwa .,y�roi EIIdQ P O.uwo mwa m ePEfJleO y' > d w IMKL CCLIC]WR aLWALI InEPNNiId W,X MOalR,14MP.lry PRGRM ,Y M MYARMIpI'/Old dHHAKaIe.YO.'OaOKN ]/' i O Fal ne 1°rm°oowM YLLe xlere' u•-]!• e•r1N LL 8l •Q a g. riALDYI IOMt A6LOIMALEdW, Y. >PAOBrlrtW11PID WM LOID T/TRMN M• IroRr enx nm LnAc ]' D d r roe.PR»r>Aru rllorA RW - eaulLt Homs@ wnPe. n A•n oew IANFrau ML aroxxe ��]N•cu. ame wir•lroL�rM rouaWM ePPLn PLaL)nwva nam locLrluL DmecrYTt a¢ a P°] eTR,aA ImlIOLITA NaPr enK' Y aecr® alAvrrm oR ruOlia al.LLelmNdWo ao APProlso er.1ALA Aro LAIOYM aro xIWYA awr woaa n.'..LePwrA DECIDUOUS t EVERGREEN SHRUB ')e°`soPPo IIIEn m d1G11,ECr rAro IVIICIP"."IIMAIM1,eYP If1ge/PRq!r0 MTAlL11(M d are M e> eTRYJ PAr1 ALM tIT .'4?T)T L M mANTm L TK)1 u IXil@!LT GOT.Y w Gql L�'tE iE%IV@D MLe < TO ]° TWAKO6p,lALn'rWIM1'ID' pRNyy el®,pip.]•a.Rm LMNM)a LUATa aC(ATRY9weYO gplrq r ~ e w1G,®d M1"L RYRM ML nIX11M KR PdaN1AL M0 AVYK`L I ZO H Ib eIRY1 rLT4MCNf TWPEN' AP.VarYl N..)1:i. NOi To GLACE /. eTA ANP alI•Ai!/£OIIR2D.IElV•C<r1El)RE TaAR rPE DArE 6G]LE aael wdlra Raw Pam ioPeoa,Tw Pum awlmNn Purl»>e,ao ox DECIDUOUS TREES td)N]1J Z PART NPwreanA,Al PEalrenvaua PurPrr ruTraanvAa WMPeu.norieD umeR P•CALIPpR OR r=a0' (.T DEMLI4RD MaL.TS(M GAfCOT IpfOFILL CEDp i0 A°SPM G e Pole YdenV N Mari EVERGREEN TREES ,•-CNK NOT TO 6OALE SHEETSOF1 _ ROAD a oosr. NARf•Ai�`wrtR50vW 2s RIDE tl 25 WIDE SEVER /MM 16 LGT 3T! 1 1 \ EAYLIEHT / fPO9O1 ` I/✓T K xARlwuv aoYt 1r1fIw+L \ \ 1 MAP m LOT. CORP. SD mornsMaemAL¢r, A uc aTWJ ` NORTH RIVER CANAL - TIDA� -- COASTAL zz Ms_' OED[ EASEMENT eAIACR_ -e�bAno-ew.-'11✓`. p s am°'nJ PAo, pa EXIS1ING \ _ DGE low /M Ie RAILROAD lOT 1m \ �I \ 1 MABUTMENTS; \ ZONE xuMd�ITmE e�OSN FG EA \ 1 \l / _ - �y BAY m�onJ md. TRANSPORTAT ON R.R. TRACKS AUTHORITY �o ND µ vevw R.R. s w TOP GF r 6xnw_A=_____ \ , wLrt COASTAL MASSACHUSETTS B JI PNK 2s. EMSISI J ' ___ __ �\ \ SJ ➢ STORA �0- GE ___l1. _ yr( G\ �\ \ �\ �' - ( /.-• � AREA \fn* M65sn EXISTING \ i ° �t /i/ --1?® - `Cy'�'l \ \ \ \I\• ' ly\ J c \ �-_ WA �I� /V R� Rw BUIWING o \ °rson �` 0CA NAC ` \ \ relmosa,WONG n 1 \ l fl/" ��- T - _tel ` \ q w/GMAC£UNOEH 1 \ \/ \1 _ C _•) W (CRO�3o' 1aFMwlll / / w dl D • ,I�y- I¢ _ mlmas SRA �ANI>==D R W lOw:49.6t _o`�� Zi W. L_ _ =�T '\1°' �� -_-� _ v • 22D /- moa.r. ( PRa°DgD tMn wveo `�� \J i \ -Wq � �� ` ``�c_��\ � '�� __ lr�=��` � \ • / p� vwi��v¢) w/(4� UV� pFpp RSB y 1 1 L__ n2 --SARK¢ nr1°°tvAmx �� .�� _____�L__1___yt___-)°L _ I•- trlr G'�+FR �=zl.G mu a�atm�n ``, / 1 �'�� umwa F ` i_ -r__-__ C_ l0 \♦ . aaez /� r OaN Da3obA'I'1 SILVER MW Is LOT Me �/'A s.Rr e3x�mP_ - _ • -� ��p - -.°, :- ' _ _ Revisions QBE. LEbIm M& .4DPf. � 4-N ` MAP t°IJIT ---- CST - CW b OYHI mw ter am 1 I 1 x7F pas x TZ14 NA` pea .aim ` s0.® ____®ry Wpy �`� �-- \\ 3L� M.w 16x� MAp la LIT cwEY 1 rAMG x Wr ' /y wu lQ ATS 4 ` '�- �\ \ C82 to OMNt l.0.' tri las I�R1 FLdnEt RFFs. I m I olc... I pat u1 I Ci _ J _u•oem°wwr urt �10.��\-�✓ \ Amar Diad to MM2 131.6' IYr ,.Di ~ -_ 3ey� MAP m ,.pj gAy I ..ei Nl I MWI MTTy�W.Wy IiAVAIax •l \,a\y` ^ 1 \` \ �` �x 31 CB3 b DMH2 S4' 12•1 Z= I YM 14 I 1Dn F I TRYST I I L_.,� �. tax YM 1N?T PmAL. 0.]I qw2 b WSI 66.5' 15.0 I.M I 1 my KONLMOR e I R. IIY 4-JIO-iJo �• Of Me F fl a MAY 1 N WT= R�L PMYW . 4 ATOM W.YIWII p2 II.'MAx. 33o<nr.lrmu (� PIE1 I EgJ oEnc seer o-D C Iln�rna, Li I° Mv[s br MAP la (m s.ml CB4 b MSI IYW t2•r lox I 1 22m I I I 3 I 1 3 1 Rte; 120 I I L-� I nD MAP 1e m VTC M951 to OMN3 0.7 15•/ 1.5x 1 to p'IO p36 /3G Blf. I /3D YIP 1°lOr 991 I Ra _ _ ' I01 MMS LOT lIM YM IIM,Sy6D PAT95M CM to OMH4 1&W WeIwo 1.55 JI -I_ x/T - f I - -p4 _- pAiiMOx BAW J� CB5 t0 DMI-14 SW 1Y1 LOx ^ -� __ - mm to 0x145 1m.r. Wo 1.55 BEAVER STREET Griffin ® b ox 30 6 DMH5 26' IYr lroA.me nw _ (PUBLIC WAY- •(EIDE) Dtw5 b DMR9 ,0.3• ler zsx -- ---- -- ------_-- __--- _-�� Engineenng CRY to OMn6 17.40 Wo lox - __-__ IGIDup, LLC DUMB to VA52 S1.6' 18.0 255 I 00 1Am52 to OMNI z0' 18Y zu JW 91x7081 Gmx0Supe 7116 Ml to DMH7 123' 6•r 8.01, Bevetly,AA4b1019/5 DMH7 to OFF MW Wo z55 PRECAST STRUCTURE SCHEDULE Tet 978&275111 CBS to DUNS MY 1rr 4.65 SOIL TEST PIT DATA ' frex:97&8275103 f2R b DMH6 14S' tY0 1.ax -20.80 RINV.11.30 121.00 RI1 5.40 RID Nns D.oJ RIM 9m 5�9m l'J/1J/Il) INV.-i].W WV.-930 I(in)-17.30 Ile) I(F-9..3(18•) I(b)-8..0(le) RIM-11.00 RIM-9665 1 (EL 15.9), . MO to WHO 2SB' 5'0 0.35 1(in)=17.65(12•) 1(M 12.20 OY) 1(F 6.40(157 I(M}>.30(19•) VIER-6.5 MffiMgd IEETI®E GtAffi MDDlES SANDY MO b DMHB 16.Y is•r O.6x OR I(F)-1750(67 I(out}9.33 097 I(F 6..0(127 1(FJ-).60(6•) I(F)-0.675(127 80,1 %LL -- -- SANDY MAIN. WBIXS RIES TRASH MRM PROJECT RIM=20.60 RIM-1x50 I(outr1J2D(1r) I(wt)=8.30(247 1(91}7.50(e•)... I(b)•435(IY) 60-120 CI S ,OM 5/1 SNGITS M I.LOOSE,VARIES ACROSS%T MDIIS MANAGEMENT, LLC OB11 b DMH9 91' We 1.2x INV.-17.60 INV.-7.50 DMMB I(out)--].25(18•) 1(out)-4.55(12•) �R��'ID ANG NO MOTRES BOOTS 10 lOB• 1)ALL GNAPMINNIIIMUM H-20 LOWOM1 A,IRCOF LEADERS M BE CAPABLE W DlUl2 RIM-14.40 DMHIO •9tO0F ENI ER MINT. 6'B(>Ip7 2 DETNIID RETARBNG WALL PLANS REWIRED DURING 60-.64 GROVE ST. DMH9 to OMHIO 168.4' 24•r 0.55 {2)� LBlmll. RIM-20.20 (in)-d-95(16•) MM-IM25 IBM] ) 1 =2 to ENNIS >.1- We I.as MU-20.W At -175 I N}15.95(12•) I(F�1o.fis(Iz•7 I(F)=5.45(z4•) M957 (BREACH DRun) m-2(EL 17-6) D6a51RUc TM ONLY SEc90N5 ON SHEET c-7 ARE PROMOm 3 HARMONY GROVE I W,17.m INV.-6.50 2 9m WM=10.95 �m d T_.XIIIBE SALDB MQIRES D➢IEB FOR PFAYITIIHG ONLY. b)_Z90(12•) K-0-5,85(18•) I(F)-6.90 0r) 0-54 m, __ -- SANDY GRAYII.BRIIXS,UTNE TRASH 3)DETAOID BRIDGE PLANS MEETING AASHM STANDARDS C613 b pMH10 >.1' 1Y0 1.45 1(In)-O.m(8•) I(b}6.80(127 RIM=10.30 wV.-IO.M REWIRED WIRING Cottsm TON. MFR EXT.=6.5 5.-64 A .R5 low 3/2 GRANULAR DMH10 to WZ3 ad 24•r IAS RIIM--19.80 NM--IQQO 1(wt)=15.80(15•) MHz I(A}>.0(2-6•) 64-]4 B IS 7.5M 6/6 MAINZ GLENN MTH A LATtR 4)CQI1MCi0R TO CODRWNAIE ROOF IEMFIEB LATH BUILDING 905]to OFR 984' l9•r 225 INV.-16.80 WV.-).m (DROP MANHOLE) K-t}5.0.4(24•) I(N1-5']0<24•) ]pI(g�] DO OUT W001ION5 REFER M BUILDING PLANS GRADING, DRAINGE & DMB,} RIM=II.OE 1(Out)-520(la') FSM-21.75 74-Iz0 Cl IDM '4/4 MO. SAND.VARIES ACROSS%T 5)TEMPORARY LWSIRIICDON ENTRANCE 10 BE CONSTRUCTED AT l 1NV.-1275 xo REFusAL•NO NEFFING.No MOTTLES EROSION CONTROL W14 to M254 14.5' tY1 0.]5 �` CBr46t.5 RIM=20.43 1(F}7.]0(la•) a16M ESHWT: A.6(>120 14bWOS D mow STREET ENTRANCE J Rw-10.00 RIM-9.55 Bla)-14.&4.05•) I(out)-255(16ry MM-9.30 Sll�45W MN6.1 7 6)REFER 10 SHEET N-1 FQt ADg00NAL NOTES AND LEGEND. 'PLAN C815 to M054 >.9' 1Yr, 1.35 wV.=Ie.m INV-Q55 I(F)-1).00(67 I(F}5.60(1Y) RW-10.0 RIM-2x75 7-3 EL 17.3) I M054 to WP3 5250 IY0 23x 1(-t)=a1O(127•• DMH9 I(b)-S60(Iz7 IUE,)_&0.5(127 INV.-1T50 DEEM HMZ M ffx uRF Q= MOIRES Om 5216 CD19.IZA1H 1(.t}14.75(la) RIM-10.65 1(out)-5.50(127 !616 to WHIE W.Y 12•r 0.55 RIM=1S25 RIM-9.00O -M INFIL.IIEID 1(F)oTM(127 11yY1}6.m(1(ii7 �Y) 22. 36 FILL SANDY ;1s low 3/2 CRµu �'W'YA's'LITTLE mAs1 GRAPHIC SCALE f-0. INV.=1235 MV.M.m 1(F)=7.35(127 Sm RIM-25.50 36-120 C .'s lora 4/4 MED.SAND. cen b DMnn 35.n Irr 1.35 p goNt)-).25(127 sn sao Oblil b NOSS 150.0' lYr O.Sx SHZ pP0\IDE )BLE PoM.19.20 RIM-20.30 wV.=14.50 N0 REFUSAL.NO NEEDING NO YOITIER PoM-14.00 WUIE W I(F}.1z25(I6•) I(b-18.,5(157 FSHWR 0..3(>1107'. 12x6 to MOSS 324' 1Y0 0.95 WV.-fi.m 0810 R Isar I(In)_1586(12•) 1(F)-16.45(127 f -4 %PE NOTES SOIL TESTPEANRIQD 8M .L BLANLNEII[P.E W 10/17/It BeEI�PbAA+- }� M155 to OFµ 79.5 I2Y S6x I(wt}1215(1C) I(out)-14.9)(157 (p JCt.) RECEIVED June 27, 2012 JUN 28 2012 DEPT.OF PLANNNG& To: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP, Director, Department COYIa{"TY DEVELOPMENT of Planning and Community Development Charles M. Puleo, Chair, and Members of the Planning Board -�^ p From: James R. Treadwell, AICP Qom --R. LAac�d V�tQQ. Subject : LEGACY PARK APARTMENTS AT HARMONY GROVE ROAD 1. PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2 . CERTAIN ON-GOING AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 1 . PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. According to Section 7. 3 . 1 . , Planned Unit Development- Purpose, of the Zoning Ordinance : "The advantages which are intended to result from the application for a planned unit development are to be ensured by the adoption of a precise development plan. . . I would anticipate that a "precise development plan" will be prepared and adopted for the Legacy Park Apartments project . Accordingly, I would very much appreciate an explanation of a) what is meant by a "precise" development plan, within the context of Section 7 . 3 . 1 . and b) how does a"precise" development plan, prepared for a planned unit development, differ from other development pians? 2 . UNRESOLVED PLANNING ISSUES In order to prepare a "precise development plan"-that meets the expectations of the Planning Board-I would note certain on-going issues that might require resolution prior to the adoption of a "precise" plan . 1/2 �11- -Al o a determination regarding the need to satisfy the federal environmental review requirements of the National Environ- mental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preser- vation Act (Section 106) . o compliance with the regulations of the Massachusetts 'Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the Commonwealth ' s historic preservation review requiements. o satisfaction of the environmental review responsibilities for the "Flood Mitigation Facilities for the City of Peabody" (EOEA No. 14251 ) , set-forth in the "Final Record of Decision" (FROD) issued by Secretary Bowles on November 24, 2010, and consideration of the potential impact of all flood mitigation activities on the planned unit development, including those listed in the FROD and others, such as the use of culverts . o satisfaction of the Regulations of the Wetlands and Water- ways Act, particularly with regard to the Chapter 91 license and the location of the new access bridge. .* o receipt and analysis of the final reports for Phase I , sub- surface investigation and hazardous materials building survey and assessment, and Phase III , remedial plan. o co-ordination with the PanAm Railroad with regard to the railroad siding on the site, location of the new access road over the rail line and the potential improvement of The SPUR. o preparation of revised exterior elevations and review of these documents by the Zoning Officer to determine compliance with the height requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. o resolution of the issue involving the limitation on land area devoted to residential use and associated improvements in a planned unit development in a BPD zone. At this time, and in order for the Board to find that a precise development plan has been prepared , and may be adopted, is it necessary for these above-cited issues to be resolved, and for corollary revisions to be made to the development plan? I thank you very much for your attention. * re: new bridge, refer to "points" 24-26 of Woodard & Curren letter peer review of 5/10/12 and of PB meeting 5/17/12 minutes . I cc: Councillor Paul Prevey 2/2 July 5, 2012 JUL 05 2012 To: Charles M. Puleo, Chair, and DEPT OF PLANNING& Members of the Panning Board STV OFVFLOPMEN7 Thru: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP, Director, Department of PLanning & Community Development From: James R. Treadwell , AICP Subject : Technical Review-Woodard & Curran Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road The "Letter Report" of May 10 , 2012 , directed to David Knowlton, City Engineer, from David A. White, Jr . , P.E. , Vice President of Woodard & Curran, concludes : "Woodard & Curran is unable to make a determination as to the project ' s compliance with the City of Salem site plan review requirements , Zoning Bylaw, special permit require- ments and the applicable Standards of the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Handbook at this time. There are a number of concerns relative to the information submitted by the Applicant that need to be considered before such a determination can be made. We recommend the Applicant address the comments and recommendations noted above. " According to the Planning Board ' s Draft Meeting Minutes of 6/7/12 , Attorney Joseph Correnti indicated that Bob Griffin would address some concerns for the peer reviewer ' s comments but "that their responses to the consultant will be submitted to the city at a later date" . May I assume that the "responses to the consultant" will be presented to the Planning Board during the public hearing in accordance with standard peer review procedures and in view of the significance of Woodard & Curran ' s "comments and recom- mendations" to decisions and findings that the Board must render with respect to the Legacy Park Apartments project ? RECEIVED JUL 11 NII Dear ttn;elf e_ Regarding the Legacy Project orT.OFPLANNING 8' As I sat and listened to the last meeting the planning b8 Ty�^1ELOPt+4=NI had, I thought about Twenty Questions that you shall ponder . How would you like to be unable to see another sunrise from your back yard due to the height of these 3 buildings? How would you like to gamble on evergreen trees and be wrong- there are only 2 that I know of on the this entire side of the river banks. How would you wish Jack Nutting were here to ask how far did you have to go to reach bedrock on a filled river bed? Will it hold 3 4 story buildings with out sinking? From the beginning have you heard anyone other than the mayor and developer speak in favor of the project? How would you like a freight train going by your abode at night blowing its horn at your railroad crossing. How would you like living in an area that floods ? All your cars may be at risk. Where will you park them? How will you exit a building with all that water around it? How would you like to bring up your kids near a river walk with no fence , never mind railroad tracks? How would you like it if the Peabody Project involves taking of the land behind lower Silver St. for a flood storage creation and you can't use a great deal of the now designated recreational area forever? How would you like a project that would be a more beneficial tax provider ? Business verses Residential? Perhaps it could be 2 story vs. 5 or 6. How would you feel if you were compassionate in regards the neighborhood and listened to their pleas and petitions and denied this plan as it is proposed now. Persons on Beaver St., Silver St., Grove St., Watson St., Nichols St. and Boston Sts will be very grateful . Thank you for reading this please ponder the affect of the proposal on our lives forever. We think this can be a much better plan with changes without the hurtful elevations and invasion of privacy. Sincerely, ---- ----------------------- Joan M. Sweeney 22 Silver St. Salem July 6,2010 Tel.978 744 3717 Email Sweeney.JM@verizon.net CC. members of the Planning Board ems- Mrs. Joan Sweeney VIA. _t ,' .fir 22 Silver St. a" Salem. MA,,01970 ,Fug Qj 19 ,7 - ��=��si:i'S'v�%�r liin itfi�i lF�t t'Ftl��inlvli!tllF!ti niF l!1!.I tinillu�t ei ii V r` 1 _ flECEIVE® JUL 11 2012 Dear .1hn;elJe _ Regarding the Legacy Project nM,OFPunwMG8- As I sat and listened to the last meeting the planning bs%""N a^reLoP«:-N1 had, I thought about Twenty Questions that you shall ponder . How would you like to be unable to see another sunrise from ' your back yard due to the height of these 3 buildings? How would you like to gamble on evergreen trees and be wrong- there are only 2 that I know of on the this entire side of the river banks. How would you wish Jack Nutting were here to ask how far did you have to go to reach bedrock on a filled river bed? Will it hold 3 4 story buildings with out sinking? From the beginning have you heard anyone other than the mayor and developer speak in favor of the project? How would you like a freight train going by your abode at night blowing its horn at your railroad crossing. How would you like living in an area that floods ? All your cars may be at risk. Where will you park them? How will you exit a building with all that water around it? How would you like to bring up your kids near a river walk with no fence , never mind railroad tracks? How would you like it if the Peabody Project involves taking of the land behind lower Silver St. for a flood storage creation and you can't use a great deal of the now designated recreational area forever? How would you like a project that would be a more beneficial a tax provider ? Business verses Residential? Perhaps it could be 2 story vs. 5 or 6. How would you feel if you were compassionate in regards the neighborhood and listened to their pleas and petitions and denied this plan as it is proposed now. Persons on Beaver St., Silver St., Grove St., Watson St., Nichols St. and Boston Sts will be very grateful . Thank you for reading this please ponder the affect of the proposal on our lives forever. We think this can be a much better plan with changes without the hurtful elevations and invasion of privacy. Sincerely, Joan M. Sweeney 22 Silver St. Salem July 6,2010 Te1.978 744 3717 Email Sweeney.JM@verizon.net CC. members of the Planning Board July 25 , 2012 RECEIVE® JUL 26 2012 To: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP OE'T:OFPLANNING& From: James R. Treadwell , AICP Co' '"Ty DEVELOPMENT Re : Planned Unit Development, Salem Oil and Grease Lynn: As we discussed recently via telecom, I would like to formally bring two matters to your attention respecting the opinions of Robin Stein ( letter of July 5, 2012 ) and Mark Bobrowski (July 3 , 2012 ) regarding the subject . 1. The documentation cited by Attorney Bobrowski , in my opinion, does not represent all available information relevant to the issue being deliberated . Apparently, not provided to Attorney Bobrowski for his review were : o Minutes of the Oil and Grease public hearing trough 6/7/2012 , o The follow-up Memorandum to the Planning Board from Danielle McKnight dated May 4, 2012 , o A second letter to the Planning Board from Councillor Prevey, o Correspondence to the Planning Board from Councillor Sosnowski , o Relevant memorandums that I have submitted to Chairman Puleo, Members of the Planning Board and to you, o The Landscape Plan for the MRM Planned Unit Development, dated 8/11/2011 , o The Project Narrative and Environmental Impact Statement which I have referenced below. Attorney Stein did not specify the material that she reviewed. Could you agree that the above-cited documentation should be provided. to Attorney Bobrowski so that he could supplement his opinion, if warranted ? Could you please let me know the material that was reviewed by Attorney Stein . 2 . In his Memorandum of July 3 , 2012 , to Beth Renard, Attor_rey Bobrowski states that : "I assume that all landscaping is within the parking areas or the spaces between the three residential buildings" 1/3 l ,Y In this regard and as shown on the Landscape Plan for Legacy Park Apartments-a document that was not noted by Attorney Bobrowski as among documentation provided to him-all landscaping is not within the parking areas or the spaces between the three residential buildings. I have attached a copy of said Landscape Plan that I have modified to high-light two particular landscaped areas in the apartment complex that are not "within" the parking areas nor "between" the three residential buildings . The Applicant ' s intentions for these areas : o"lilac bushes will be planted above the proposed retaining wall along the main parking field" Reference : Item 5, "Project Narrative In Support of PUD and Site Plan Review Applications For Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road" (Project Narrative) o"The landscaped areas surrounding the buildings and along the North River Canal are designated as common areas for recrea- tional activities . " Reference : Item 2 .4 .d . , Environmental Impact Statement In Support of PUD and Site Plan Review App- lications For Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road (EIS ) . I would note that 1 ) the above-cited landscaping along. the main parking field is located within an area designated as "limits of clearing" , further attesting to the association of this landscaping to the "clearing" that will be necessary to accommodate the construction of the apartment complex and 2 ) that the landscaping for recreational activities actually abuts the residential buildings and then extends 40 feet to the North River Canal . 2/3 In addition, I have superimposed the two landscaped areas on Drawing C-3, Site Layout Plan. These areas are crosshatched, signifying "non-residential space" . I estimate that the land- scaping along the main parking field occupies +/- 21 , 700 Square Feet ( SF ) and the landscaping that abuts the residential build- ings and runs to the Canal at approximately 15 ,000 SF. In my opinion, this landspacing represents improvements associated with the residential uses and the land area it occupies should be so categorized . Accordingly, and relying on the data on C-3 relative to total lot area ( 296 ,659 SF) and "non-residential space" of 152 , 202 SF, the amount and percentage of land in the planned unit development that will be occupied by "residential uses and associated improvementS' is : o with the addition of the landscaping along the main parking field, 160 ,457 SF or 54% of the planned unit development area. o with the addition of the landscaped area running from the residential buildings to the North River Canal , 167 , 157 SF or 56% of the planned unit development area. o with ,the addition of both landscaped areas , 182 , 157 SF or 61% of the planned unit development area . In any of these cases , the residential uses and associated improvement limitation of Section 7 . 3 . 3 . 3 . would be violated by the current proposal and a Special Permit for a Planned Unit Development for the Salem Oil and Grease site should not be granted by the Planning Board. Note: The Drawing C-3 data , used by DPCD in its calculations and conclusions (4/24/12 memo) must be independently verified . cc : Councillors Sosnowski & Prevey, Solicitor Renard , Chairman Puleo 3/3 f 1 —- HISTORIC NIGH 1 \ \\ p,�rz SL 'I(.al.,wR Pq - I WATER LINE I NA PAIRS T SB/DH Yrs (HLD UNE) 1 I 1 \ \ ZS' 1 1 sEs.B.WIOE SEWER HISTORIC HIGH /" GR,-,N,DL) E1o�s� MAP 1e LOT In \ \ EASEMENT WATER LINE NY !0 N i �- CR //j�� 1 ,,11 O Y" // �i xAALpxT OroIE OMP MB k NLD �( \ N PRrv`NDUE NA _ �i I (GAS AORs YM IN/LTn1]Ae SO GROW f,RWT / \ \ 1 LANG C RT RAP SN,ULUC ` OlSE AIDE RQ%roCANAL - liDAL Po . .EASEMENS i Y.x I\ f Gtf E 7t \j\ 1 SJ,L� 1 T NI \ \ \ 1 \ DTP\ -/i I A u ExIsnNG \ ml E<. HISTORIC NIDI LOT WATER UNI - stn JT _ T SEiyl ,P Z9 xA% _10 xARYV. MORES)CCIfl. (1 m ApIE� RR rRAC%NNHHNI.NfNNNN«NN BAµ HN11N IMHNxN\MI TRA NSPORTA nON I OR mAas AUTHORITY F.Lffi�iP� w.pNM Ar E1 56775 NNx«NN'N,N��N:xN«NNN,NwNN:"NN"HI" Nxl I«Nx«ANN+NN.«IwHNHNHHHwNRHNNH«IIHIhwn«HNNNN.H«NNxN:IrHI �xH w,Ixa MASSACHU - �.,,• y: v y IN,N.MHNNN«xNfNNN PARasm InI[RRIL. I NNxhNHIMNfINf�NMNN EIV 1 BIT QI PA HRIHI � y p RMS M PMNIHN « +.•� .'� ! I IFN T P NI !e/y 19 xxEcy 1 +s • \ - I E,FInN \ as DI D9 Iiw) Y a j. 1S. 7 PA N0,1? auI TNG 4 mYlm 1 a I i PROPOSED BU TO 1 A" .' RIVER ' o%i n. _ w/GARAGE uxDER� \ T '�• s ,,R - CA/yAL n '�"Jll�v mlr.a.7\ / yy A' ! " ,pAM IO�mmvMR (47-UNITS) .. - At W mIPRrz -_ s sn Mp u / i y y i IDP ECI euuERO) SMA A.PONOMMS M ti I WD/°DGMABNLMND u , IpYRw -CL' a.e>• ` 1 A EUIoy Own ( (47-UDE)DER t {. v, t r •" . 1 1 4pq _ 4YA) ; • MITEInVIC) NI WARIER HIGH TI YVq) 5 22� $ — 1 AI cr.uw1UT. EAP& YAP'BLOT 217 v v « ' • Y 1 N0'WaEO - E 4 VO.pllAue. /(4ta UN RHDERk) HS pIC HI - Ld[ 'BMR 06 ` T wA1EF UNE a - 1 .. . „I ' d A R DSAr DEm{TIDO y � SILVER __MV le Lm me - - �17r--- - Revisions (PUBLIC WAY - qpm .. - �.��_I___ BPD DIS R2 MITI �U1 14 gg IT) 1 R]4LOT]a - - y 47.6• ITT1 X,FYI .-IN L T B 1 YAP Ie LOT I /F 1 tlL4" S 22 128 >wo AT�BBONR NAI T, `-( gOis tl2 F 1 S 1 1 132 UA^ 1 1 sIn s4. 1 LO�]]] AM REAL I I W SIV YIP IB M� I ESTATE I YAP N LOT] 1 ALL I '"ERr LOT]90 1( NST 048 d xaaOrFA AL I L4 I I I YAP IB LOT].HI r• / - •,y MAP IS Q u✓le f 1 � 1 3 ¢ Loxxra "�/iE F�^^7 ^''` J - - tl 0 1 to 4T. I 3 424 R69s M]o / I MwRt I MAP IS LOTss / -I- E]6 530 - YAP I„^T]H P N YM m LOT L0�]I,lej LOT/FNO PA Spl .ASM — SP S 311 IG x/P PAf115a1 BEAVER STREETGriffin (PUBLIC*AT-JO'KN) I �PlOST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i-- - - - - - - Enlneenng r 1 - Gm-up, LLC 1 1 P.0 Box 7061 1 I 1)REM TO sxEET x-I FOR Aoan100 CumrMps Ckn1I Su6e 2246CNAL NOTES AND LEGEND. I ! B.LBIIy.AEA 01915 ZONING CHART 64 Grove street-Parcel Boundary 7N:97"27-5111 QUIRED xaA-RESOMnAiSPAGE Fez 976927-510.3 PRWrDED PER PDD (I51,Y_0] SEs` MIN. LOT AREA 5F 1296.659 sF MRM PROJECT MIN. LOTMONTAGE1.37• Landscaping From North River Canal & .=- MIN. LO WIDTH 164.1' MANAGEMENT, LLC ' MI RESCOVERACE BUILDINGS -- 49.0 � Railroad t0 Apartment Buildings SALEM, MA MIN. RONT YARD SPACE 501[ 49.1 i MIN. ERONI RDD DEPTH -- 1• MIN. SIDE YARD OCPTH _= 47.9• MIN. REAR YARD DEPTH 4D.D• Landscaping Along Retaining, Wall MA%. BUILDING HEIGHr FEET 50 414 & Parking Fields F MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT STORIES 4 MIN. PARNINC 1.5 SP UNIT 212 215 - OVERALL 1) REP. SITE LAYOUT 1) REF. SECTION SUA.2 FOR MIN. MONTAGE REOUIRIVED RZ T YAR PLAN 2) l0i ACKN MEASURED IN THE REAR OF ME REOUIREO FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR EI HT OC RSi ALO S) MAX BUILDING HEIGHT OCCURS ALONG FRONT OF RUILDINC 3. GRAPHIC SCALE SEE ARCH0E01URA1 DRAWINGS ID BTIAL PORTION ART, TNG 1 SG9N T'�b \ 4) 215 SPACES PRO 22 S FOR RESOENTIAL ORTHEXI THE SHE �- �,_ .--_� (L5 SP/UNIT). 2Z SPACES PRONGED FOR THE E%ISTING OFFICE RDILOINL. IpR*) C-3 I:e- a n LL11mF P/P/AAFe GAS 12/20/11 A/ GROve FZO AO - - MAP 16 LOT JD / 3 - N,. .,7 MAP 16 LOT 236 T1 - 23 HARMONY OR., N/F 50 CROW STREET REAL EST. LLL ^.ea LAND[OJRT PLAN 33813A Jma o:^m1e 1r, NORTH RIVER CANAL fi LOT 378 - N MM N.r 010,E .LRv _ mI.R BAYres • Iro. ter°" TRANSPORTATION as mKNs AUTHORITY H4«41 . - _ --- r.w � HHRN IW '' 1�111�IIIN'111 X IIIX 1 'Nk' IXNHkIt NN4NXNHHNHXNINI • xDW ITq Yd x C HUSETTSEXISR K -V' a� A nmuri'i nloux �® LJmo,ro j{{pypy Ibl Y xM11 e,G,xy ' N R'C YCYem#.b0 eM m1s aI YY N YY, NWILDINC mwA)r �TGM.J �G � y a Ism ler ru rry TVr !' rK Jti ' rro em < ax Dec •sw •1r iQ Iro 2 Iro D s •`' lam ala Ny .K ,ro www \ i ♦IW .M1°Y •M9 L rNC IY )M _ a01 x` L •W •FYY .i0 O LIC IIY .LR: •LIC ) N OfC •d _ lXmrM J1•DIA 6 8 n0 )lar'.. PROPOSm BUILDIND�p�--'�� slPer, .-. d ;- »� oYl rw w�, Lwd,ly ro C Ma l em R d r L_W/-CARAGF-UNDER I rve °•ire ,ai°p u d - ¢ .R.. Dec )r y 1 K !� _.Iww Lrvm as cRc-lap IRc mA _ -__ ,M ro aro bls � rpt' �aDA a- Dec rw p% F4evro. Ylw bvw eicwW ' I, )M,ff IJ.p �W._I IRN RWOSm i.lax , _ •I�W+ w .^M - _=_,= 9��r �) rrl f.n. 4w I'� wt i,tle I.ImN-I.ImI Iroo '4 W/OABUIIdNG «��. ` GIS i g - i Iv p,pO WR Wa M 1{ ACE- Np 12 a •�•••) _ CCYpK�R % ,M waJLN •la, eta, .w. -. 1. +wo.wa ,� rmlax : (.2_RuwrB) I . . •R91 qp ®7 pp _ Nw • _n_' �.�u°rye •u�c ( (--R:/ ^A ^cl :._ p �- .f ` ._,, ;r •A ��7�0�F� �s �� , J w lOi aer LIYI IIe,D Dei IaOC _ ri0 PNpPO�ed-�- LPO W/CARAOE GOING 1] )a 1 m Isn 1 ' I 75 DER/ !n eM , •la, $ air 'R' eq•� 1a (a>_uM j rar•m.ie yC 16 LOT 217 - _ _ tT x Y rIW amr NN', )`rN lar INY •ro s� ` � A_isp �y[p' SAR ES '1 r'w aro, iOlm1 ) m6.b 1pb - ' - !M a/1 0Ni60 ffiy,�k �m M Ifi LOT 216 it Tri NK Dxm >Ir ,1a elal •q, 6 SILVER N ro °m •w. m °or aem� eNm aroDa W • a FLpREs _ _ a la °i� nuuu - - - (A MA t6 LOT 196 MAP - - mlw m•P /Layn 18 MI6 '1 N/F a LDT 3N• LOT 2YS'g9 I.. m+wu ncw.m i D Y w D u m�r L 1 iLORES ' N/F I N/T I 28 al[ ¢ g m COIILEY 1 >`CNFH I LIT 227 I 1 I b m e r 1 I LOT n3 I 1 y 3Q N/b 1 I N/Y MAP 16 LOT 2 �\`(`�' •Y Lo20 OM/F A9D2 REAL I 1 LAWSON DEMEUIE / I I J , ` r n ESTATE I { N/T16 KOIILMi � I I OATP 231 n I e MM Ifi LOT 2J2 r .� • `P LOT38D 02 AP 16 a / 1 ANDEx 1 1 : I Q MM I6 LOT 239 Q 11 tr' /r N I 1 LOT 235 gq %N 3 1 N� 3 I x/r II I MYERS 1 In 11p M LID zx N/T 1 1 I 1 I 9A5i RCSSNO MM Ifi N/F PATOSDN PA less 040 _I 138 N0 - - - N°- M GwlrvS R 1 SP DAKOS N % —' r+DYa.aDD aixe (��,� yyyq}{ W BEAVER STREET o a byA GRAPHIC SCALE �$ J.JR oInYW.L xarup q G a na a LANDSCAPE NOTE: t x rser) �r, w___"s AT�=� W mRK r�r L•m L nc�lxmroxauMlibe a1wN w ra.vr Lmm ala w m,.w¢.0 to cwrw.l,,a oar.a 1 Ime. a R ro r'1+ e Iaere.erLe rOw.Ll ruY. mRK gi,lwrvn pII��eNJLN a 0.lrm L els.rm iP.cw slYo4m•P rLINr ruroe4•N1W.rcwcwrna umsT mmw P tl e.cK A W.c+1 W +ua siNo.ro row wNrw+rwwL•m.,m uveeu,.wP..ilw rLJvw.ell rc PLANT LIST >1 J .0 laA•rt,xlewlK eN•LL m rmi Pea.Neecm 4o Dme•R IMNIAN IV°RPet m KEY L' dim aim u D�ila�%w'w rm•Ram wcw Au 1R.N.w xuti s oor N rcwmAro LJIN.Ccsn.Nla lu•4 RwAcrve �w�roY.w.ml mina ' riamlDK Rau•ee crn,re nxe s,`, iW b i0 Mlp RC.a^R/LIMN RIX I••LIMr DQO YO iNe T MAiKN TNNi Y 1i blL.RWIe MT CLM 1 .Kam ow aurrm ew.ra+n s+..w.lelxa:rno%•LI^Rw.rD amm wMeNNm a ar• "O0° 2 ,a'•J NTL AOCarTAI,q D.nr WIBR NMaI'6YkCllr.'AY^)M I4]IC' �rtaxc OOH• •'-r'dI1 M1•rW I 1• e. RYR M1DeK DYll be tlWYr®KN d wfllr.O P M Am nr CWIRACTAI Yr p f 4CYm erreMram%bl®I J,PJO 'rte°"�I C.N»4l J AFppl(AOiJp.F.y ruegYlarL D.M Wrq 1q}I D.mPq KLI ro •wX0 0 Pt.eY mlmu.+YrRL.Oe.V 0.Yrt N,elK W4L OBIOL OW4 nr ml MW MiY W'190 WO• DIrp J1LO OP5rVC0 Y'.m' J1l CWIR M mr P nIOJ.fm 1SRlL.nm U.X.wACKR fAtYl NIK i LO,q O[ : DgRy MRAm•Gplmm' r ]'->":tlr. A)E N RRIOL°La I DItCR.mae'!r DIY W _ rtMiNa eiW 1i YCLa CO NT iMCN LOWriA IVr PImrY ].]'fj CK .fL6rtmG MO1KCYr2R y q �gw.•P+DWIYpl Y4t alrw lRRM' NNMnCCImi N11G(M iGWOeIlYeLLWE rwioRa.AwR.a•.eai..ila.ro Dmw DwL ee IvesD Past rawmb urm YurA wwrm °�QOM rrm'�roreax wnar ru Aiwrt rw lauw W nmw"°^) rewntlmer4axr .•elM rod j fY iM.WOLL�R f1.MIseeM..OmR4uuGw,R a,bb rem .rr ruu s kwNqL wrr 'Y'i•Wrio-•A.w:nn%wex4Al1J°4lAW�OnO.On`'ao mW'iwl so�ur w+v Ner^rLaw Nlas+rrMR•eN.DwAnwn.A �;CN DO 66$ A0 lo•u FNYNr YAD• dMV aDAnlr ro:I LPN D^YCR.N.qi WIN aaICA ne L..P°r renwacru le.awm P ia'lexxa a na nwrxa.ro N mPCPw RsnwaYM cPranr amawt ea.n wm w r'uNL a«Iv aRaw +tA IeIM L la 2 MYLL HPR TK a%brrC1 Yw LCfJfW P w'V DE0.R Yr DtlOW 1!V w YYM�W eNaWe COxb[\IIY! •M1HD DRW CCM. D'LMGIe w W DwALV h _ Ia17we 41 [itLTYaD.'M LYo°Gw!CCN11r.CfA WLLL IaM1.S Pe I!w N0.1'R4 a.Y•Y N N,YCam MW WY OIRIY.rtbWLY M J GMr -'4 r AL P,RDri la [D.OlmrO erG DY.mm NRrITYIQPnN JfA.i Vl CC..rO iV b - y.CK Gblb 14 evo O,wY^ I� PJp{ M N I'Nm reJlrl lLT.p�0t.%q AT iON Kl WLn eme Nmlt Ol.uo®wiN a•ClaYl xlLpp oerc bewc w i ° rIrI.X mRCi "b'Ibi. 'a0.1 A4 rmK Lw .i,ly —T U F iLLQI • •-1'NaT IITI OaO•W.uNM M•IDLL^CIaO IWfDAl1 W ' I ..'Y K r IW UNAACttw x141 TT9C.•LOM AL YrY rOQm C„aID<D. hY • roAP�[. frIW MRYd r-C'.OT rlat -Y'Yl a14L N.1 N P R]Oi JyYN.�eR f rT 0 M1)MNJ 46Y W411VSM 0•Kl1ID NCA[YPLNN Ir Y111 f3NIw.C.PL Je M1m.l•NMm '.y.1Yr xCW lrlflr ee,�uN D'nYJ '11N rn _ .cn .M Lrmolmwm Neoax Plo.a..ild w»nr amew.L •ww to ti p. wncaorowal'.xe, waRlre x•Rn °..r w,r. In•rarm.mzr croe° u Wim® R R' �w fa4%ar•40111® NwIY u,iu°iCVi i.iEew MN g mL'oWRarr1W Ma!M M✓!' Mll W IbW iNFO�oIxN .%.DewrY+l wwt r1a L.w•cw ri.N.slow rLlrlr Lcu menlPt NO: a w Nso.lenau,.9roRr ewc' loM.laJee' iA:W ®N� rEG x•wMRMAJMl11u'WrGA• J'.e CG o IJ u N m ^ac*.^w'yancal�•wn.+ai+.•Yrarmalrw T. i ie ro Ib .w•DA anaA nNe ue ny%weel L�r..c° .Jy°T DECIDUOUS 1 EVERGREEN nab lalinPLa°m°ui�le °e a .Y+o.mwP•W;J.oe.,eLPeD a+m v wza wlumn w naY'rL.Mw xa i.mae rcR rwNIK .I«uL Rwew o® ., :, Ra'.e1°f JpR"Pton'L'osewr.°dplee°I: D alm,.rmPn+i.e „'GT -�HQUg .. i L cPN:°.o IC,w wgfle roIMR.RC/Jw1e eNYYLt ICr,Yo oe s Ylgpaa. rrT Y6 PL4ffW1 Lounp m GPPoefD P e.q CR C,4w LttC¢iQm.®aRe IDL.i✓I.L f4PL,R e..CLIfR PRAI 1Vr�N.0[.1 4,r,1 epL-bTrm -'w� NOT TO 9C.^LE l%et.Reb Yo xlre)Ra ADi®.I@bA YRT PE RM iK pAIE SCALE_ --_ — ow DeNroMmD NWYeb wcDeM>I.mroml eme lDAxw1N •^crm e DEGIDUOU$ TREES wr Y' DR "-DATE S..E 7 EVERGREEN TREE5 -e�N1elYM,MaD• ro xnLr= SHEET 1 OF 1 RECEIVE® August 9 , 2012 AUG 10 2012 DCFT.OF PLANNING& To: Chairman Charles M. Puleo and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Members of the Planning Board From: James R. Treadwell, AICP Qp � _ Re : Limitation on Residential Uses and Associated Improvements in a Planned Unit Development in a Business Park Development (BPD) District Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road 1 . The Issue A basic issue before the Planning Board (the Board ) concerns the claim, made by MRM Project Management, LLC (the Applicant) , that the proposed planned unit development, Legacy Park Apart- ments at Harmony Grove Road ( the Development) , meets the limita- tion, at Section 7. 3 . 3 . 3 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, that provides that residential uses and associated improvements, in a BPD district , cannot exceed 50% of the Development ' s land area. In fact , the "Zoning Chart" , Overall Site Layout Plan, Drawing C-3, dated 12/20/11 , revised 6/20/12 , indicates that the Development has "provided " 49% residential space. (Excerpt from Zoning Ordinance (the Ordinance) and Drawing C-3 attached ) The DPCD, in the memorandum to Board Members from Danielle McKnight , dated April 24 , 2012 , finds the Applicant ' s "calcula- tion acceptable" . Specifically . DPCD indicates that 1 ) "the non-residential area (commercial and open space) is 151 . 202 square feet , which is 51% of the total land" and 2 ) the "calcu- lation is acceptable to the Planning Department because only usable open space to be accessible to the public is counted toward the open space use" • (Copy of Memorandum attached ) 1/5 f Among other matters of concern to the Board , Attorney Mark Bobrowski , in his memorandum to Attorney Elizabeth Renard , dated July 3 , 2012 , and Attorney Robin Stein, in her memorandum to the Board of July 5 , 2012, signify their agreement with the DPCD opinon that "usable open space" is appropriately counted/ treated as nonresidential use . (Copy of memorandums attached ) Accordingly, there appears to be consensus among the above-. cited parties that "usable open space" , accessible to the public , should be recognized as nonresidential use for purposes pertaining to calculations related to Section 7 . 3 . 3 . 3 . in the instance of the subject-, proposed Development . 2 . "Usable Open Space" The concept of "usable open space" would encourage the reduction of residential lot size, below the minimum required by the Ordinance, and, in turn, the amount of land area that represents the difference between the land area that would have been mandated by the prevailing minimum lot area requirement and that land area actually required by the reduced lot size, is set aside as common land to be developed as "usable open space" . In the City of Salem Ordinance, the "usable open space" concept is only cited in Section 7. 2 . , Cluster Residential Development and Section 7. 3 . , Planned Unit Development. Both of these Sections were adopted on May 5, 1977 as Ordinance No. 286 and No. 287, respectively, and are complementary, in certain respects . (Excerpts attached) 2/5 The ability to create "usable open space" is very limited, being restricted to the residential minimum lot size provisions at 7. 3 .4 Dimensional Requirements . 3 . Minimum lot size. Residential lot sizes in a planned unit development may be reduced below the minimum standards required by the Zoning Ordinance. As a prerequisite , the developer shall demonstrate that there is a reasonable rela- tionship between the proposed lot size and the usable and accessible open area within the total development . An indi- vidual lot shall be large enough to provide for private open space associated with the living accommodations . Note that "usable" open space" can also be produced pursuant to 7. 2 .4, Standards for Cluster Residential Development. Reading said Standards could clarify the concept of"usable open space" . Despite the extensive reference to the planned unit develop- ment ' s "usable open space" in the above-cited DPCD memorandum and opinions of Attorneys Bobrowski and Stein, I cannot locate any documentation that would evidence compliance with the procedure at Section 7 .- .4 , 3 , from which "usable open space" would be derived . Further, I note that the opinion of the DPCD, in the previously cited memorandum of April 24 , 2012 , was that the 7. 3 .4. , 3 "provision does not apply to the project, since there are no individual house lots proposed" . Accordingly, if the developer has not consulted with the Board to work through the minimum lot size/"usable open space" process, it would appear that certain basic information may be flawed and may need to be revised . 3/5 Section 7.3 . 5 of the Ordinance is concerned with the owner- ship of the usable and accessible open area that has resulted from the application of Section 7 . 3.4, 3 . 7. 3 .5 Open Space. Provisions shall be made so that usable open space shall be owned : 1 . By the City of Salem for park, open space or conservation use; 2 . By a corporation or trust owned or to be owned by the owners of lots or residential units within the land that may be approved by the Planning Board, with provisions for limited easements for recreational use by residents of the City; provided that such ownership shall vest in sufficient rights to enable it to enforce compliance with he restrictions imposed by the Planning Board as conditions of its special permit . I read 7. 3 .5 . as a clear-cut provision to require ownership of the "usable open space" that will ensure that it will be used as parkland and/or as open, recreation or conservation space and that it will be accessible to property owners and the public. Note that all "useable open space" created pursuant to the Ordinance will be guaranteed accessibilty and that this provision is identical to 7 . 2 . 5. 4/5 3 . Conclusion I do not read anything in Section 7. 3 of the Ordinance directing that "usable open space" not be classified as an "associated improvement" or that mandates its designation as a nonresidential use. Accordingly, and because "usable open space" results from a formula involving a residential dimensional requirement , applied to the size of residential lots which results in the creation of common land within the residential development under review, any usable open §pace . produced in a planned unit development should be recognized as an "associated improvement" due to the intricate rela- tionship between the residential uses and the "usable open space" . Clearly the "usable open space" will support the residential uses and good zoning practices as exemplified by the more efficient use of land and by a reasonable rela- tionship between lot size and usable and accessible open area within the total residential development . Note : labeling "usable open space" as an "associated improve- ment" , rather than as nonresidential use at Legacy Park, could result in violation of the limitation at Section 7. 3 .3 . 3 . Attachments cc : Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development Elizabeth Renard, Esq. City Solicitor Michael Sosnowski , Councillor Ward Two, Chairman, Council Committee, Ordinances , Licenses & Legal Affairs Paul C. Prevey, Councillor , Ward Six Todd A. Siegel , Councillor, Ward Three, City Council Liaison, Planning Board 5/5 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Lvxx Gooxlx Duxcax,AICP TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: April 24, 2012 RE: Agenda —May 3, 2012 regular meeting and joint hearing Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes from 4/5/12 ➢ Materials for Agenda Items As a reminder, the Planning Board has a Joint Public Hearing scheduled with the City Council on at 6:00 P.M., prior to our regular meeting at 7:00 P.M, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington Street. After the joint hearing, we will reconvene at 120 Washington Street for the regular Planning Board meeting. Joint Hearing: Proposed Changes to Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District The joint hearing is being held for the purpose of amending Section 8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to comply with requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As part of the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization Program, Salem has received new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) and an updated Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report as part of a countywide update for Essex County. In order to remain compliant with the National Flood Insurance program (NFIP) and to ensure flood insurance remains available to property owners in Salem, the City needs to adopt an amended ordinance that regulates the 100-year floodplain as shown on the 2012 maps and meets the NFIP regulations and standards. This requires updating language in Section 8.1 of Salem's Zoning Ordinance, Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District, which currently regulates the 100-year floodplain as delineated on FIRM maps published in 1977. There are some changes between the old FIRM maps and the new ones. Essentially, all of the changes have occurred in coastal areas. Outside of the coastal areas, the old data was 'lifted" into the new maps, and those flood zones will not change. In the coastal areas, new analysis was done to more accurately define the flood elevations. As a result, some properties that were previously in a flood zone may not be, and vice versa. The old and new maps can be compared in order to view these changes and to make determinations about specific properties. The Planning Department has both the old and new maps on file, should residents wish to view and compare them. A more complete explanation of the changes is included in an enclosed message from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR is guiding communities in their adoption of the new maps). In addition, in order to be fully compliant with NFIP, we need to correct language that is outdated, inaccurate or redundant. We also propose to take this opportunity for additional housekeeping-to delete the requirement for a Special Permit by the Planning Board for work in wetlands, since this is repetitive with Conservation Commission jurisdiction. Enclosed is the proposed Ordinance to amend the Ordinance relative to Zoning, which contains a detailed description of all the proposed changes. In addition, I have enclosed a document that tracks the changes from our current ordinance. 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). The enclosed plan shows two building lots (Lot 3 and Former Lot 6), as well as Lot 19B, a larger land area in Marblehead behind Lot 3 and Former Lot 6. In 2006, the Board approved creation of both lots as part of a subdivision. For context, a copy of this 2006 plan is included. Currently, Lot 3 has frontage on Leggs Hill Road in Marblehead. Former Lot 6 has frontage on a subdivision road in Marblehead. The plan proposes increasing the rear of Lot 3 with land from Lot 198 and a portion of Former Lot 6. Former Lot 6 will also be increased at the rear with land from Lot 19B. The plan requires endorsement from both the Salem and Marblehead Planning Boards. 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. The proposal is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) located in the Business Park Development zoning district. A PUD allows a development to depart from certain zoning restrictions, such as -2- those on parking and density, and allows for a mixture of compatible uses. Certain requirements must be met, according to Section 7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. As requested, the portion of the ordinance pertaining to PUD is below, with Planning Department recommendations and opinions in italics: 7.3 PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENT 7.3.1 Purpose. Planned unit development is designed to provide various types of land use which can be combined in compatible relationship with each other as part of a totally planned development. It is the intent of this Section to ensure compliance with the master plan and good zoning practices, while allowing certain desirable departures from the strict provisions of specific zone classifications. The advantages which are intended to result from the application for planned unit development are to be ensured by the adoption of a precise development plan with a specific time limit for commencement of construction. It is the Planning Department's opinion that the development proposal meets the ordinance's definition of Planning Unit Development and complies with good zoning practice. The mixture of uses proposed is appropriate, and the departure from strict provisions of zoning classifications, specifically residential use in the Business Park Development zoning district, is justified by the cleanup of the formerly contaminated and dangerous property, productive reuse of a blighted site, location of new housing near the MBTA station, provision of open space for public use, and construction of a canal side path that continues the walking and biking trail system proposed for the North River Canal Corridor in its neighborhood master plan and in other NRCC development projects. 7.3.2 Applicability. The Planning Board may grant a special permit for a planned unit development for any parcel of land in the following districts provided that said parcel contains a minimum of the lesser of sixty thousand (60,000) square feet or five (5) times the minimum lot size of the zoning district it is in, and subject to the requirements and conditions set out in this section. The proposed PUD meets the minimum size requirement of 60,000 square feet(the three parcels equal 296,660 square feet). R3 Multifamily Residential District; B1 Neighborhood Business District; B2 Highway Business District; B4 Wholesale and Automotive Business District; B5 Central Development District; BPD Business Park Development; Industrial District. -3- The project is located within the BPD Business Park Development zoning district and is therefore proposed for an eligible zone. 7.3.3 Uses. All uses or any combination thereof permitted in R3, BI, B2, 134, B5, BPD, and I Districts may be allowed in a planned unit development, subject to the following limitations of uses: 1. There can be a multiplicity of types of residential development, provided that, at the boundaries with existing residential development, where typical development is permitted, the form and type of development on the planned unit development site boundary are compatible with the existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods. The combination of uses proposed(multifamily housing and a small commercial space)is compatible with the surrounding uses (mainly an R-2 and R-1 zoned residential neighborhood and the Harmony Grove Cemetery). The property's previous use was industrial. The residential use proposed would be less disruptive to the neighborhood than the industrial use was, and would also be less disruptive than some of the other uses allowed by right in the Business Park Development zoning district(food and beverage manufacturing, bottling or processing facilities;research, laboratories and development facilities; and medical and dental offices,for example). Business or professional offices, also allowed by right in BPD, are proposed as a small part of the development, but if they were planned for the entire site, they would generate more traffic than the combination of commercial and residential proposed. Medical and dental offices in particular generate high volumes of traffic. Other uses allowed by Special Permit include nursing homes; adult day care; animal clinic or hospital- kennel; commercial or residential scale wind energy facility; assembly or packaging facility; contractor's yard/landscaping business;light manufacturing; manufacturing; mini- storage warehouse facility; and wholesale, warehouse or distribution facility. Several of these uses have the potential to be much less compatible with a residential neighborhood than the proposed development. However, we would like to ensure appropriate buffering between the development and its neighbors. To help us understand whether buffering efforts are sufficient, and how the project will look in the context of the neighborhood, we have asked the applicant to show the street-level views and vantage points from around the neighborhood to the extent possible. 2. A specific commercial or industrial use for property adjacent to an existing commercial or residential zone may be approved as a planned unit development. Where this is permitted, the plan for the total property shall be submitted and the applicant shall clearly detail, by engineering and architectural specifications and drawings, the manner in which the subject area is to be developed and the means that will be employed to protect the abutting property and the health, safety, welfare and privacy enjoyed thereon. No industrial uses are proposed; the proposed commercial space was previously used as an office building (but is now vacant) and also does not directly abut residential properties. -4- 3. In the Business Park Development (BPD) district, residential uses and associated improvements, such as parking and landscaping, cannot exceed 50%of the land area of the parcel(s); or in the case of mixed use buildings, residential uses cannot exceed 50% of the gross square footage of the proposed development. According to the applicant's calculations, as shown on the Site Layout Plan (C-3), the non-residential area (commercial space and open space) is 151,202 square feet, which is 51%of the total land area and therefore meets the requirements of this provision. This calculation is acceptable to the Planning Department because only usable open space to be accessible to the public is counted toward the "open space"use; this does not include parking areas, space between the residential buildings, dumpster areas, or access drives. It does include the buffer area between the development and neighbors. There are no requirements in the Site Plan Review or PUD sections of the zoning ordinance that specify that any private open space be provided to residential multi family buildings. The open space and pathway, while usable by residents of the development, are also a public amenity. As noted below, usable open space in a PUD must provide public access either through limited easements or public ownership of the land. These agreements will need to be confirmed with the applicant and found agreeable by the Planning Board in order for the development to be compliant with the zoning ordinance. 7.3.4 Dimensional Requirements. 1. Maximum bulk, yards,parking and loading requirements shall be established for each planned unit development by the development plan approved by the Planning Board. Height limitations shall be in accordance with the zoning district in which the planned unit development is located. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the proposed bulk of the three new structures is appropriate for the size of the parcel, given the new design for the buildings. The new configuration of these buildings— different roofline heights and facade depths—and the varied materials used create the effect of being less visually bulky. It is also the Planning Department's opinion that the 1.5 parking spaces per unit proposed is sufficient to meet the needs of residents. Our peer reviewer, Gary Hebert, is recommending a shared parking arrangement between the commercial and residential uses in order to ensure there will be enough parking at all times of day and night. In addition, there are 117 two-bedroom units and 24 one- bedroom units proposed; there will be no three-bedroom units. This limits the number of cars on site. Mr. Hebert is also recommending changes to the loading areas in order to ensure safe travel on the narrow access drive serving the office use. The complete peer review memo is enclosed. 2. Minimum lot frontage. To preserve and protect the value of properties adjacent to a proposed planned unit development district and to provide for an orderly and uniform transition, lots which will be adjacent or across the street from existing residential developments shall be required to provide an amount of street frontage not less than that of existing lots but not greater than minimum Ordinance requirements for the zone in which they are located. This provision does not apply to the project, since there are no individual house lots proposed. -5- 3. Minimum lot size. Residential lot sizes in a planned unit development may be reduced below the minimum standards required by the Zoning Ordinance. As a prerequisite, the developer shall demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the proposed lot size and the usable and accessible open area within the total development. An individual lot shall be large enough to provide for private open space associated with the living accommodations. This provision does not apply to the project, since there are no individual house lots proposed. 4. Maximum stories. The maximum number of stories of any building containing residential units in the BPD District is four stories. The design of the buildings has changed since the original plans were submitted, and since it continues to evolve, scaled elevation drawings and information about the interior space of the top level have not yet been submitted. Therefore, Tom St. Pierre, Salem's Building Commissioner, is unable to determine at this time whether the proposed buildings comply with the four-story height limitation. However, he was able to determine, assuming the parking level grading and height have not changed since the original submittal, that the parking level is not considered a story, based on the definitions of"story'in the Salem Zoning Ordinance, which is based on the definition in the State Building Code. A written interpretation of this issue by Mr. St. Pierre is enclosed. 7.3.5 Open Space. Provisions shall be made so that usable open space shall be owned: 1. By the City of Salem for park, open space or conservation use; 2. By a corporation or trust owned or to be owned by the owners of lots or residential units within the land that may be approved by the Planning Board, with provisions for limited easements for recreational use by residents of the City; provided that such ownership shall vest in sufficient rights to enforce compliance with the restrictions imposed by the Planning Board as conditions of its special permit. While the applicant has indicated his intention that all open space areas be publicly accessible, he will need to agree to an easement providing public access, or another acceptable provision, as indicated above. 7.3.6 Application. Any petition filed for a planned unit development under this section shall be accompanied by fifteen (15) copies of a site plan, which shall be at a scale to be established by the Planning Board and shall include fifteen (15) copies of all the information required for a definitive plan under section III B of the subdivision regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem, and such petition shall also be accompanied by fifteen (15) copies of an environmental impact statement as set out in Appendix A of the subdivision regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem. -6- Section 1116 of Subdivision Regulations: Some of the requirements listed here are outdated and generally no longer requested by the Planning Board(such as India ink plans on cloth). However, the information provided on the plans regarding topography, drainage, landscaping, utilities, and other requirements listed in Section 1118 appear to be sufficient for Planning Board review. Civil engineering peer reviewer Woodard& Curran will be examining the utilities, drainage, grading, and other site issues, and will let us know if additional information is required from the applicant. Appendix A: The applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Statement(which was supplied along with the original application materials) with a response to each of the items requested in Appendix A to the subdivision regulations. Generally, the responses are acceptable and raise no significant concerns. However, we will highlight a few points: 1) Item 1.2.c states that no percolation tests would be conducted because they were not applicable. However, after submission of the application, I was contacted by the developer's engineer, who confirmed that they would be performing percolation tests. 2)Item 1.5a indicates that hours of construction will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., but city ordinances limit drilling and blasting to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. We have brought this to the applicant's attention. 3) Item 2.1.a refers to a "bike path"proposed as part of the project—plans show this path will be gravel. When the application was first submitted, we had asked the applicant to give some consideration to whether a paved path would be possible in order to be more compatible with the paved path proposed for the 28 Goodhue St. project. Gravel is not a suitable material for a bike path, and both gravel and stone dust are problematic if located in a flood zone because of the likelihood of erosion. Gravel is also not ADA compliant because it is unsuitable for wheelchairs. All other new bike paths proposed or recently built in Salem are multi-use, 10 feet wide, and bituminous. It is the Planning Department's strong recommendation that the some be installed as part of this project, rather than the proposed gravel path. 4)Item 2.5 states that there are no historic buildings on the site. However, the site does contain buildings older than 50 years, which are subject to demolition delay by the Historical Commission. This has been brought to the attention of the applicant. One of these structures, however, is not being demolished but rehabilitated for commercial use. Several items pertain to stormwater treatment, utility connections, and drainage; these issues are being reviewed by Woodard& Curran as part of the civil engineering peer review. 7.3.7 Distribution. The Planning Board shall, within seven(7) days after receipt of said application, transmit one (1) copy of said application and plan to the Building Commissioner, City Engineer, Head of the Fire Department or his designee, Board of Health and Conservation Commission, who may at their discretion investigate the application and report in writing their recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board shall not take Final action on such plan until it has received a report thereon from the Building Commissioner, City Engineer, Head of the Fire Department or his designee, Board of Health and Conservation Commission or until thirty-five (35)days have elapsed after distribution of such application without a submission of a report. Notice of the filing of the petition shall be given to the City Clerk, Police Department, Department of Public Services, and School Department and further notice shall be given as -7- required by the Planning Board. The plans were distributed as required. Tom St. Pierre, Building Commissioner, has responded with a comment that the hours of construction are dictated by city ordinance, since the applicant's proposed hours of construction are outside of this, as noted above. Tom Devine, Conservation Agent has noted in response to the filing that the project is within area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and will require submittal of a notice of intent to the Conservation Commission. The Commission's July 2011 order of resource area delineation for this property was appealed by residents. Depending on the outcome of that appeal, the proposed plans may need to be modified to comply with the requirements of the Wetlands Protection Act. Traffic Division Commander Lt. Preczewski requested the traffic study narrative, which we have provided. Other departments have not yet responded. 7.3.8 Decision. The Planning Board may grant a special permit where the following findings are made: 1. The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this Ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purpose of this section. 2. The mixture of uses in the planned unit development is determined to be sufficiently advantageous to tender it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the district. 3. The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental impact. Findings will need to be made by the Board once all materials, peer reviews, changes, etc. have been submitted and reviewed, and once the Board has had adequate opportunity to hear all public comments. 7.3.9 Conditions. The Planning Board may, in appropriate cases as it determines impose further restrictions upon the planned unit development or parts thereof as a condition to granting the special permit. Request of WILLIAM WHARFF for Site Plan Review and a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, for the property located at 162 FEDERAL ST(Map 26, Lot 96)and a portion of 150 FEDERAL STREET(Map 26, Lot 2).The proposed project includes the conversion of the existing building to eight (8) residential units and associated parking and landscaping. The applicant has requested to open the public hearing on May 17, 2012 because he would like to resolve a matter that as arisen with the Conservation Commission. -8- [3LATn1nN, 13011ROWSKI & N[Fs1D1 LLC ,rn•ORnEYS AT I.AW 9 Rununmill Square, Suite 4A4 Concord,NIA 01742 Phone: 979-371-3930 MARK BODROWSKI Fxv 978-371-3828 mark0bbm:nlaw.com NEWDURYPORT OFFICE 30 Green Street Newburyport,NLA 01950 Phone: 978-463-7700 F;ur 978-463-7747 FR: Mark Bobrowski 1 tltlt" r/ July 3, 2012 TO: Beth Remtard, City Solicitor RE: Proposed PUD You have asked me whether the PUD proposed by MRM Project Management, LLC ("MRM") on Grove Street, partially within the BPD District, complies with the residential area limit set forth in Section 7.3.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance(" c You have also asked the whether other sections of the ZO come into play. You have provided me with the following documents: ' Site layout plan for the MRM PUD; " Memorandum of L ynn Duncan to the" Correspondence of o uncillor P evey of he PlanningateBoard,gust datedty Council dd9y 1Ma 1 * Memorandum of Danielle NIcKttigllt to Planning Board " 7, 2012; dated April 24, 2012. ( McKnight Memorattdwn"), 1 have reviewed these documents, as well as the pertinent sections of the ZO. I offer the following opinion. First, to put the controversy regarding the eligibility of this PUD in perspective, 1 remind the Planning Board and Other interested parties that there is a m;u'ked distinction between eligibility" for a PUD special permit and the "gtwtt"ot'such special permit. In short, only those projects that meet each and every requirement Of Section 7.3 at-e eligible for consideration. However, the Plamting Board has discretionary authority to deny even those projects that are eligible: Neither the Zoning Enabling Act nor the town zoning by-law to the special permit. . . . File 60;u•d is not compelled to y, aw lives an absolute right discretionary power in actin„ p St vtt the permit. [t has thereon. 'Ile board nuut ac[ fitirly and reasonably un the evidence presented Gt it. kcelling in mind the objects and purposes of the enabling act :old i- f i the by-law. ,WacGibbon v. hoard of,lppeals of Durbmy, 356 Mass. 635, 638-639 (1970). Thus, a "board may deny a special permit even if the permit might have been lawfully issued." flunrhle Oil v. Board of Appeals•ofAmherst, 360 Mass. 604, 605 (1971) ("The mere fact that the standards set forth are complied with does not compel the granting of a special permit. . . ."). As to the MR1vf proposal, you have informed me that some City Councillors and abutters have questioned the computation of the area devoted to "residential uses and associated improvements, such as parking and landscaping" which is capped in Section 7.3.3.3 of the ZO at fifty (50%) percent. The "nonresidential" areas, which the McKnight Memorandum identifies as 51% of the total land area of the parcels, are shown on the site plan as hash-marked areas. 1 see nothing in the conclusion set forth in the McNight Memoranduun that is fundamentally inconsistent with the language of Section 7.3 in general, and Section 7.3.3.3 in particular. Section 7.3.5 clearly establishes that"usable open space"is a separate category of land use within a PUD. This has been appropriately counted as a"nonresidential"portion of the land area. There is no front, rear, or side ny-Id requirement set forth in Section 7.3.4.1. Thehash area shown on the site plan doesWnclude the residential building footprints, the spaces between the three buildings, the parking areas devoted to these buildings, and portions of the access road located in the BPD District to reach the parking areas. I assume that all landscaping is within the parking areas or the spaces between the three residential buildings. I also assume that the access road heading across the tracks to the north has been included in the residential portion of the property, because it is not hash-marked. Access to a residential site is a residential use. Harrison v. Building Inspector ofBralntree, 350 Mass. 559 (1966). Finally, I see nothing in any other section of(lie ZO that denies the MRM project eligibility to apply for a PUD special pennit. Section 7. 3.1, which states the ptu-pose of the PUD provision, simply sets introductory guidelines for consideration. The core of the PUD special permit decision is (1) in the eligibility criteria of Sections 7.3.2 to 7.3.5, inclusive, and (2) the special permit granting criteria of Section 7.3.8. While the purpose clause calls for Master Plan compliance, I note that Section 7.3.8.2 allows for deviation in appropriate circumstances. Therefore, it is my opinion that the calculation of the "residential area" in the McKnight Memorandum is legally sound. f make no representation as to whether, after application of the criteria set forth in Section 7.3.8, a special permit should be granted or denied for the MRM PUD. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding my opinion. CITY OFSALEM LEGAL DEPARTMENT 7 S kVVII I I NU I nN S I W-.I ff •S.11 I f S1,\I.Us.I, nr, ..I'I s 0191) l'I[I 978 7-1.5-9i7i I ,ts:978-7.I4-1277 I�u.uu.n Ll[I I)HIM I f.l. I:LVAIII.I i I Ill NN.ucn,If;,;. R,MN Sm.IN,l(s,,. �I.Ir,m ,;t llSUI.PA I', It ASS I'.6:111'S,11 U:I'I IM To: Salem Planning Board From: Robin Steil P� Re: Planned Unit Developments in the Business Park Development Zone Date: duly 5, 2012 You have asked for guidance in analyzing an application for a Planned Unit Development (-PUD") in the Business Park Development Zone ("BPD"). The Planning Board Most review all projects in a uniform and consistent manner as set forth in the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance ("Ordinance"). The Planning Board may, but is not required to, approve a PUD when the requirements of§7.3 of the Ordinance are met. Pursuant to §7.3.3 of the Ordinance, the Planning Board may grant a special permit where the following findings are made: I. The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this Ordinance and the master plan of the City ot'Salent and that it will promote the purpose of this section. 2. The nlisuur of uses in the planned unit develupnpent is determined to lie sufficiently advantageous to tender it appropriate to depart liunl the normal requirements of the district. 3. 1 lie planned unit development wouldold not result in a net negative environmental impact. l hr purpose a PI 1D is set I'M III as tbllows: Planned unit de\clopnlcnt is desiu'ned to proN ide \ariuus topes ul' land use tthich cull be combined in compatible relationship t�ith I i each other as part ol'a totally planned development. It is the intent of this Section to ensure compliance with the master plan and good zoning practices, while allowing certain desirable departures Rom file strict provisions of specific zone classifications. The advantages which are intended to result Rum the application for planned unit development are to he ensured by the adoption of a precise development plan with a specific time limit for commencement of construction. §7.3.1 Identified within the Master Plan are many goals for the City including the "developnncnt of the commercial and industrial properties which have become contaminated from prior activities." While the Master Plan identities attracting new business and redeveloping vacant sites as a priority, I do not interpret the Ordinance such that the goals of the Master Plan are to be an absolute bar to projects that depart from those goals so long as the Planning Board, in applying §7.3.3? determines that such departure is appropriate. It is illogical to conclude that the Master Plan prevents a PUD in the BPD from having a residential component when the Ordinance explicitly allows such residential use. In reviewing such a project the Planning Board may consider tactors including, but not limited to, the history of the property, the likelihood that the property might ever be redeveloped with a commercial use or if including a residential component appears necessary to achieve (lie overall goal of improving and developing contaminated properties. "In the BPD district residential uses and associated improvements, such as parking and landscaping, cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the pareel(s); or in the case of mixed use buildings, residential uses cannot exceed 50% of the gross square footage of the proposed development." Ordinance-§7.3.3.3. As part of a review pursuant to §7.3.3.3 of a project that does not involve mixed-use buildings, the Planning Board must consider each and every part of a site and determine if the land is in residential use or used as an improvement associated therewith. All land that is exclusively used or improved for residential purposes is in residential use. "rhe Planning Board should consider what land is being used to support the residential use or is required to be lelt unimproved because ofthe residential use. For example, if land is required between residential buildings or used to access residential buildings it is appropriate to treat the land as in residential use. The Planning Board should also review the land denominated as usable open space pursuant to §7.3.5 and determine if it is appropriate for that land to be so categorized. It is consistent with the Ordinance not to treat such usable open space as being in residential use because the land will he available tier use by the public. For further guidance on §7.3.3.3 and outer matters addressed herein, please see the memor:mdunn ol'Altorney Mark 130browski attached hereto. Attorney Bohro%%ski is a well respected land use attorney and %%pile he did not draft §7.3.3.3, he ans involved in drafting the OrdlaanCe and is I'anili:u' therewith. 1 CITY OF SALEM ZONING ORDINANCE September 10, 2009 EXCERPTS Section 7. 2, Cluster Residential Development Section 7. 3 , Planned Unit Development i 46 1 I. Outdoor swimming pools which conform with the State Building Code. 12. Banks and savings and loan institutions. 7.2 CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 7.2.1 Purposes. For the purposes of promoting the more efficient use of land in harmony with its natural features and with the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance and to protect and promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City, an owner or owners of a tract of land situated within the R I One-Family Residential Districts RC Residential Conservation Districts, R2 Two-Family Residential Districts and R3 Multifamily Residential Districts or a duly authonzedagency ihereo may, m connection with the submission of subdivision plan for Planning Board approval under the Subdivision Control Law or, if no such approval is required, after consultation with the Planning Board , make application to the annmg oar or a specia permit excepting is plan from the lo[ area and frontase requirwe_meof Section 4.0 herein. _ 7.2.2 Submittals. Any petition filed for a cluster residential development under this section shall be accompanied by fifteen (15)copies of site plan, which shall be at a scale to be established by the Planning Board , and shall include fifteen (15)copies of all the information required for a definitive plan under section III B of the subdivision regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem, and such petition shall also be accompanied by fifteen (15) copies of an environmental impact statement as set out in Appendix A of the subdivision regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem. 7.2.3 Distribution. The Planning Board shall, within seven (7)days after receipt of said application, transmit one(1)copy of said application and plan to the Building Commissioner, City Engineer, Head of the Fire Department or lye' designee, Board of Health and Conservation Commission, who may at their discretion investigate the application and report in writing their recommendations to the Planning Board . The Planning Board shall not take final action on such plan until it has received a report thereon from the Building Commissioner, City Engineer, Head of the Fire Department or his designee, Board of Health and Conservation Commission or until thirty-five(35) days have elapsed after distribution of such application without a submission of a report. Notice of the filing of the application shall be given to the City Clerk, Police Department, Department of Public Services, and School Department and further notice shall be given as required by the Planning Board. 7.2.4 Standards. 1. No structure shall exceed two and one-half(2.5) stories. 47 2. As tar as possible, the plan follows the natural contours of the terrain and respects the natural features of the site. 3. The proposed plan is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it will promote the purposes of this section. 4. The area of the tract of land to be subdivided is not less than five (5) acres. 5. When the ops end is added to the building lots, the total area shall be at least equal in area to the land area required by this Ordinance for the total number of units or buildings proposed in the development for the zoning district. 6. At least twenty (20)percent of the total tract area-shall be set aside as common land and shall consist of usable open space. Such common land shall not contain more than fifty (50) percent wetlands or slopelands, nor shall it include streets ways and walking_ areas. 7. The cluster development would not result in a net negative environmental impact. 7.2.5 Open Space. Provisions shall be made so that usable open space shall be owned: I. By the City of Salem for park, open space or conservation use; 2. By a corporation or trust owned or to be owned by the owners of lots or residential units within the land that may be approved by the Planning Board , with provisions for limited easements for recreational use by residents of the City; provided that such ownership shall vest in sufficient rights to enable it to enforce compliance with the restrictions imposed by the Planning Board as conditions of its special permit. 7.2.6 Conditions. The Planning Board may, in appropriate cases as it determines, impose further restrictions upon the cluster residential development or parts thereof as a condition to granting the special permit. 7.3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 7.3.1 Purpose. Planned unit development is designed to provide various types of land use which can be combined in compatible relationship with each other as part of a totally planned development. It is the intent of this Section to ensure compliance with the master plan and good zoning practices, while allowin,certain desirable departures from the strict provisions of specific zone classifications. The advantages which are intended to result from the application for p anne umt eve opment are to be ensured by the adoption of a precise development plan with a specific time limit for commencement of construction. 4s 7.3.2 Applicability. The Planning Board may grant a special permit for a planned unit development for any parcel of land in the following districts provided that said parcel contains a minimum of the lesser of sixty thousand (60,000) square feet or five (5) times the minimum lot sizeeoo `the zoning district it is in, and subject to the requirements and conditions set out in this section. R3 Multifamily Residential District; B I Neighborhood Business District; B2 Highway Business District; B4 Wholesale and Automotive Business District; B5 Central Development District; BPD Business Park Development; Industrial District; 7.3.3 Uses. All uses or any combination thereof permitted in R3, B I, B2, B4, B5, BPD, and 1 Districts may be allowed in a planned unit development, subject to the following limitations of uses: I. There can be a multiplicity of types of residential development, provided that, at the boundaries with existingI'llresidential development where typical development is permitted, the form and tune ofdevelopment on the planned unit development it boundary are compatible with the existing or potential development of the s urro mdinv neighborhoods. 2. A specific commercial or industrial use for property adjacent to an existing commercial or residential zone may be approved as a planned unit development. Where this is permitted, the plan for the total property shall be submitted and the applicant shall clearly detail, by engineering and architectural specifications and drawings, the manner in which the subject area is to be developed and the means that will be employed to protect the abutting and the health safety, welfare and orivacv en*.Qy.cd thereon 3. In the Business Park Development (BPD) district, residential uses and associated improvements, such as parking and landscaping, cannot exceed 0% of the land area of the parcel(s); or in the case of mixed use buildings, residential uses cannot exceed 50%of the ross square footage of the proposed development 7.3.4 Dimensional Requirements. 49 1• Maximum bulk, yards, parking and loading requirements shall be established for each planned unit development by the development plan approved by the Planning Board . Height limitations shall be in accordance with the zoning district in which the planned unit development is located. 2• Minimum lot frontage. To preserve and protect the value of properties adjacent to a proposed planned unit development district and to provide for an orderly and uniform transition, lots which will be adjacent or across the street from existing residential developments shall be required to provide an amount of street frontage not less than that of existing lots but not greater than minimum Ordinance requirements for the zone in which they are located. 3. Minimum lot size. Residential lot sizes in a planned unit development may be reduced below the minimum standards required by the Zoning Ordinance. As a prerequisite, the developer shall demonstrate that there is a reasonable relation h'n between the proposed lot size and the usable and accessible Men area within the total Bevel_ oument. An individual lot shall be lame enough to provide for private open space associated with the Irving accommodations. 4. Maximum stories. The maximum number of stories of any building containing residential units in the BPD District is four stories. 7.3.5 Open Space. Provisions shall be made so that usable open space shall be owned: 1• By the City of Salem for park, open space or conservation use; 2. By a corporation or trust owned or to be owned by the owners of lots or residential units within the land that may be approved by the Planning Board , with provisions for limited easements for recreational use by residents of t e City; provided that such ownership shall vest in sufficient rights t o s arid areas of enable it to enforce compliance with the restrictions imposed by the Planning Board as conditions of its special permit. 7.3.6 Application. Any petition filed for a planned unit development under this section shall be accompanied by fifteen (15) copies of a site plan, which shall be at a scale to be established by the Planning Board and shall include fifteen (15)copies of all the information required for a definitive plan under section III B of the subdivision regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem, and such petition shall also be accompanied by fifteen (IS)copies of an environmental impact statement as set out in Appendix A of the subdivision regulations of the Planning Board of the City of Salem. 50 7.3.7 Distribution. The Planning Board shall, within seven (7) days after receipt of said application, transmit one(1) copy of said application and plan to the Building Commissioner, City Engineer, Head of the Fire Department or his designee, Board of Health and Conservation Commission, who may at their discretion investigate the application and report in writing their recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board shall not take Final action on such plan until it has received a report thereon from the Building Commissioner, City Engineer, Head of the Fire Department or his designee, Board of Health and Conservation Commission or until thirty-five(35)days have elapsed after distribution of such application without a submission of a report. Notice of the filing of the petition shall be given to the City Clerk, Police Department, Department of Public Services, and School Department and further notice shall be given as required by the Planning Board. 7.3.8 Decision. The Planning Board may grant a special permit where the following findings are made: I. The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this Ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and that it wil I oromote the ouroose of this section. 2. The mixture of uses in the planned unit development is determined to b sufficiently advantaeeous to tender it_appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the district. 3. The planned unit development would not result impact. in a net neeative environmental _ 7.3.9 Conditions. The Planning Board may, in appropriate cases as it determines impose further restrictions upon the planned unit development or parts thereof as a condition to granting the special permit. VAD LOgYrt Ii4 '.YW oMrt n/LY _ ' NIStORIC Hla \ OLOHNw uD y WdJI y WA1FR UNC , MAN . . . 1 ("ID LINE) MStOIC„IW _ _ _ _ SCSO WA TER LINE O 50 LOT U)N N/kNHID \ (AXYCNYWR IN TO An6 \ \ 1 1 YY o Lor}x OWE 5 MAL EST.UL DSYNER FS bpt'+�`� /� NORr11 RIVER CANAL — TIDAL SESTIr I.JN1 muni M1AN vnJr GXYFNS / Iv \ \ 1 \\ br0/i A /c T YYY < HISTORIC HIGH =T� Y.V IM I J)e RR A BFIDCE \ �\ ` WATER UNC _IO �yr »MYON.OMK ttYR. W1 ,� / EAX N ' YpSII D ZA _fN I p«I. r« ' "«A"»"""'...... «r«w,»\»L..«,. .»«,»..I �« « TRANSPORTATON 1 R R vAiNs AUTHORITY MASSACHUSE «..».«»«««««.«».H« ""'^^�^««—««» n TIG .:I•RH»'..'[rf.�.Wl f»"'Lym •tL» '6�a:«�»«�_ -Slot—_ _ sv sM I y 781T a vA _ _ —' / / / / rz'••} /, / IEH TP RNI ' ~ SY /y DIifN IRF W I ~ 1 / do 101 011 In I PR POSED IUXDMG n L PA I NOgTjy R/ BUI IIHc K / Q \\ W/GARAGE UNDER \ 1 z ANA( !) / Z. A. ry frrr lAW WnWD) auo[W -�yD WA WYWO) K ' W/(�}WAq HMRR O / GRµlh �RrR� [F Iex Wm IY eYOWI HISTORIC„IGH LM uO l�• W -__ e_... AY LINEM I.LOT}I> 1• I / v v _ 'e'YLRI \ '(�] JL __=- 1 L/n/N 4LRA ND � DIDaMllla A 1 ffWl H LM. iFR INE LWHOU u SIL VER x LOT}le _ ( IS (PIF&/C weY n� _R DI -L---- ------------ BPD Dls Ie.Y -- Revisions� F A� 1 [TYY ML r� 1 I I}A IJ LOT2a YY *1 Ie // 1 y 47.6' ~ IfY7 „� YY I. Lor I ry or x} 1}e / /j /1 IA.o mlomL 1 -i nWEs I• MAY is 1 Au?RfAL I I 1 r31 N� 1 / 1 DO Ywi IN 0 I YAP le LOT 222 I E A ler}}p .ONWMMR 1M15r I�1 IES Y1P IL lOr}J 1 / AU I I I ftNNO1 I I 1 I J� I u MA 1 I / 1 ,nrenl QODAUE ,Yo re /� MAP a Lor if}� L "EF 1 3 IL nRJ r / i YNKRs I r4I J ND ptl 116 ?T. I 1 1. 30 - YY Ie LOT x111 I)s RO 5 I 0 /i {11 I O Yw n Yw le w�/n X N MAP Is L0,EN LOT MM) PArfiEM A .Io-IL BEAVER STREETa,„. - i- - - - (PUBLIC WAY_!O'NIX) 1 POST - - - - Griffin FIND- - - — - i--- - - — - - - - — Engineering MOrtS, 1 GY.UD. LLC I)REFER TO SHEET N-1 FOR ADDITIONAL MOMS AND LEGEND. 1 1 P.O BOI I081 1 HONING CHART 1 j 00 OICeMeC SWs 21M. RPER PROVIDED / xON_RE4DENTAL SPAGC t MIN. LOT MFA (151,20} sq TN:078427u'ITT BO.DOp 5 2 6,6 B SF Fer.11EM02Id IW MIN. LOT IRONTAGE r- 1 1.37- MIN. Lor WIDTH 16A 1. t MA%. Lor coYERACE MRM PROJECT BunDINGS -- 1X.y; MANAGEMENT, LLC MAX. RESIDENTIAL SPACE 50; XY.D; 1 MIN., FRONT YARD DEPTH SO 1. ' MIN. SIDE YARD DEPT __ A} SALEM, MA MIN. D M . REM YARDCWH MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT SECT 50' A4i5 MAX. HEIGHT STORIES A I 1 MIN. PARKING 1.5 $P UNIT t 15 FOOTNOTES REF.SE OVERALL I) REF. SECTION LURED At E FRONTAGE RREWIIED RI T YAR SITE LAYOUT ]) 101 ACK OR R2 ZONING IN MI REM OF ME RCOUWFD FRONT YARD PLAN SETBACK FOR EI HONING RS1 ALO J) MAX BUILDING HEIGHT OCCURS ALONG PROM OF BUILDING D. SEE MCHREOTURAL DRAWINGS BUUDO MT, INC A) TIS SPACES PRONOEO FOR RESIDENTIAL PORTIONNE SITE GRAPHIC SCA LE(L5 SP/UNIT). HP SPACES PROADED FOR ME fXI$IING UIFILEBUILDING. � BCdi Ppb�r ' N1 0 ) �"`� C-3 1 Mme- w IL ��o/P/Q" 011L n/lpAl .- I h C reaoQ -f7 I ,s Con /Cern 0C�IIYrn- � '1"117� SU�siC�2td /� Cuw- � �l F FP�te �_1 H Xv 1 k ill Y h I �jeaVc r vie Ytn^ �eotma,a > . /sem (City o d" l ll, �HAP of tllr Cop t! ound( COUNCILLORS-ALARGE JOAN & LOVW' 'WITT DQ7 t 50. PREMEW By CHERYL A. LAFGIN l E 2'"1= KEVIN R.CARR,JR. CITY CLERK ROBERM %W-67w w 7H01MAS H_FUREY .i c''A_ JOAN B.LOVELY September 11, 2012 1 OGS -• - ARTHUR C.SARGENT III JERRY t..iIY""'! Stun PlanAng Board =AUiL!-, p E - 120 Washington Street JOSEPH n 0 Q 11: sz Salem. Massachusetts 01970 W Vlr. Ch.uics Pulco, Chairman Re: N'IRM Project IIN'lanagement, LLC Dear Mr. Chairman & Ulembers ol'the Board; I am submitting this beef letter ill reference to the proposed project at 60 & Ga Grove Street (formerly Salem Oil & Grease). As the Board will recall, there have been several issues which have been raised at prior board meotings. Spccitically, the issue of the percentage of the project as it relates to residcnti:11 developnlcnt as well as the heigm of!he buildings remain a concern. Given thou the intention of the City-Council when this mZwling m nwr wasbeforeus in 2009 "as clearly to limit (lie sire and heiehl ol'the any Such project, it seems what's proposed under its current form "olates that intcn on. Several members of the Council as well as the public,, have poimcd out that the intention of the Council was to ensure that WoulL restrictions were in place, to Coster and encotu-;tgc e nJiscd u;e development with limited inspau, 'Me Traffic and flooding impact on the area are two orMe most critical concerns. 11c wllortumoc problem is that. if approved tis caurendy submitted, the expected impacts would plague the neighborhood and general area of the City for decades to come. Now is the time I'ot the Board Io look very cam ully at requiring the applicant to examino ways in which w reduce the rcAdcmiA component i Fthis project; thereby reducing any powinhal ncWW%c impacts to tyle neighborhood. !C done correctly, a settled down residential project would alleviate a majority of the concerns raised by the neighbors on Beaver and Silver Streets, while sinnthaneously providing an opportunity= to explore the possible expansion of the commercial component ofthe project. (t1�y/�ecli`ully s(u'bmi+ticd Paul C. I'Iuey City COurtoillor. Ward SALENI CITY HALL• 93 WASHINGTON STREET. SALENII. KIA 0197'0-3592 • VViidSV.SALEiJ�.COP✓1 I �� I June 7 , 2012 To: Charles M. Puleo, Chair, and Members of the Planning Board Thru: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP From: James R. Treadwell, AICP Subject : Limitation, Residential Uses and Associated Improvements Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road +I I Regarding Section 7. 3 . 3 . PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, USES, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance; "3 . In the Business Park Development (BPD) district , resi- dential uses and associated improvements , such as parking and landscaping, cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the parcel ( s) ; or in the case of mixed use buildings, residential uses cannot exceed 50% of the gross square footage of the proposed development . " the Application for a planned unit development special permit for the subject proposal does not address this limitation. The documentation does not specify that "residential uses and associated improvements" will not exceed 50% of the land area . Instead , Drawing C-3 , Site Layout Plan, indicates that 51% "non-residential space" will be "provided" . I note that this use category-which is not defined in the Application nor the Zoning Ordinance-is not relevant to the above-cited zoning limitation that is concerned with the percentage of "residential uses and associated improvements" . I would ask the Board to consider this issue and to verify that the percentage of land area proposed to be developed with "residential uses and associated improvements" will not exceed 50% of the planned unit development . I would recommend that the Board find , to its satisfaction, that the land area occupied by improvements associated with the proposed residential uses is properly classified as such in the calculations related to the satisfaction of the Ordinance ' s 50% limitation. An example of such an "associated improvement" might be the landscaping to be planted above the retaining wall of the main parking field on land that is to be cleared and excavated to accomodate the Legacy Park apartment complex. Reference : Land- scaping Plan and Drawing C-4 . Also, Drawing C-3 . I will appreciate your attention to this matter. Thank you. i ; June 18 , 2012 To: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP, Director, Department of Planning & Community Development Charles M. Puleo, Chair, and Members of the Planning Board nn From: James R. Treadwell , AICP ` MLA 1r3.a.�l4ytJCXr Subject : Compliance with Master Plan 11of the City of Salem Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road Section 7 . 3, Planned Unit Development : "It is the intent of this Section to ensure compliance with the master plan. . . " . (Section 7 . 3 . 1, Purpose) The Planning Board may grant a special permit where the Board can find , among other findings, that "The planned unit development is in harmony with . . .the master plan of the City of Salem. . . " . ( Section 7. 3 .8 , Decision) Per the "City of Salem Master Plan Update and Action Plan 1996" : a "critical element" is "the development of the commercial and industrial properties which have become contaminated from prior activities" (Refer to fore-page) , o Highest Planning Priorities . Economic Development. "Retaining existing businesses and attracting new ones, while redeveloping the vacant sites , is a top priority. " (Refer to page 7) o Economic development, Commercial/Industrial, goals and strategies, are intended to attract new business, redevelop vacant sites, develop new light industrial sites . (page 23 ) Accordingly, to be in harmony and in compliance with the master plan, the Salem Oil and Grease property would be rede- veloped with business and light industrial uses, uses that will contribute to the economic development goals of the City. 1/2" f 1` In my opinion, the proposed Legacy Park Apartments Planned Unit Development is not in harmony (agreement) with the economic development goals of the master plan. The relevant parts of Section 7. 3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance cannot be satisfied by the proposal as currently envisioned . Note: * I was advised that the City considers the above-cited "Update" to be the master plan for the City. * I could not find any master plan guidance that would support redevelopment of the Oil and Grease site with housing. * The master plan Neighbor- hoods and Housing goals and strategies for the Boston Street Corridor include "target housing ownership and rehab programs" and "preserve the existing housing mix" . These goals do not include the introduction of a large scale apartment complex into the neighborhood . (Refer to page 32 and "Neighborhoods" fold_.out.) Only 0.62 of an acre of the 6 .82 acre Oil and Grease site (+/- 9%) would, in fact, be developed with a use (commercial office) that would promote the goals of the City ' s master plan. (Refer to Site Layout Plan, Drawing C-3 , dated 12/20/11 ) 2/2 REC L Dear Lynn Regarding the Legacy Project JUL i I • As I sat and listened to the last meeting the planning b:oarRE" had, I thought about Twenty Questions that you shall po How would you like to be unable to see another sunrise from your back yard due to the height of these 3 buildings? How would you like to gamble on evergreen trees and be wrong- there are only 2 that I know of on the this entire side of the river banks. How would you wish Jack Nutting were here to ask how far did you have to go to reach bedrock on a filled river bed? Will it hold 3 4 story buildings with out sinking? From the beginning have you heard anyone other than the mayor and developer speak in favor of the project? How would you like a freight train going by your abode at night blowing its horn at your railroad crossing. How would you like living in an area that floods ? All your cars may be at risk. Where will you park them? How will you exit a building with all that water around it? How would you like to bring up your kids near a river walk with no fence , never mind railroad tracks? How would you like it if the Peabody Project involves taking of the land behind lower Silver St. for a flood storage creation and you can't use a great deal of the now designated recreational area forever? How would you like a project that would be a more beneficial tax provider ? Business verses Residential? Perhaps;it could be 2 story vs. 5 or 6. How would you feel if you were compassionate in regards the neighborhood and listened to their pleas and petitions and denied this plan as it is proposed now. Persons on Beaver St., Silver St., Grove St., Watson St., Nichols St. and Boston Sts will be very grateful . Thank you for reading this please ponder the affect of the proposal on our lives forever. We think this can be a much better plan with changes without the hurtful elevations and invasion of privacy. Sincerely, y ---- ----------------------- Joan M. Sweeney 22 Silver St. Salem July 6,2010 Tel.978 744 3717 Email Sweeney.JM@verizon.net CC. members of the Planning Board RECEIVED JUL 05 2012 July 5 , 2012 DEPT.OF PUNNING& To: Charles M. Puleo, Chair, and COUMLWTYD VFLOPMENI Members of the Panning Board Thru: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP, Director, Department of PLanning & Community Development o.�nn 'Lz TJZ..Raa1•��, From: mes R. Treadwell, AICP Subject : Technical Review-Woodard & Curran Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road The "Letter Report" of May 10, 2012 , directed to David Knowlton, City Engineer, from David A. White, Jr. , P.E. , Vice President of Woodard & Curran, concludes : "Woodard & Curran is unable to make a determination as to the project ' s compliance with the City of Salem site plan review requirements , Zoning Bylaw, special permit require- ments and the applicable Standards of the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Handbook at this time. There are a number of concerns relative to the information submitted by the Applicant that need to be considered before such a determination can be made . We recommend the Applicant address the comments and recommendations noted above. " According to the Planning Board ' s Draft Meeting Minutes of 6/7/12 , Attorney Joseph Correnti indicated that Bob Griffin would address some concerns for the peer reviewer ' s comments but "that their responses to the consultant will be submitted to the city at a later date" . May I assume that the "responses to the consultant" will be presented to the Planning Board during the public hearing in accordance with standard peer review procedures and in view of the significance of Woodard & Curran ' s "comments and recom- mendations" to decisions and findings that the Board must render with respect to the Legacy Park Apartments project ? RECEIVE June 27 , 2012 JUN 2'8 2012 OEPL OF PLANNMlli i To: • Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP, Director, Department COIYNWY DEVELOPMENT of Planning and Community Development Charles M. Puleo, Chair, and Members of the Planning Board From: James R. Treadwell , AICP �{o�M�G+D�TJl4a Subject : LEGACY PARK APARTMENTS AT HARMONY GROVE ROAD 1. PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2 . CERTAIN ON-GOING AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 1 . PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. According to Section 7 . 3 . 1 . , Planned Unit Development- Purpose, of the Zoning Ordinance : "The advantages which are intended to result from the application for a planned unit development are to be ensured by the adoption of a precise development plan. . . ".. I would anticipate that a "precise development plan" will be prepared and adopted for the Legacy Park Apartments project . Accordingly, I would very much appreciate an explanation of a ) what is meant by a "precise" development plan, within the context of Section 7. 3 . 1 . and b) how does a"precise" development plan, prepared for a planned unit development, differ from other development plans? 2. UNRESOLVED PLANNING ISSUES In order to prepare a "precise development plan"-that meets the expectations of the Planning Board-I would note certain on-going issues that might require resolution prior to the adoption of a "precise" plan. 1/2 f !._ . {x.h�"r ..;ti t o a determination regarding the need to satisfy the federal environmental review requirements of the National Environ- mental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preser- vation Act (Section 106) . N o compliance with the regulations of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the Commonwealth' s historic preservation review requiements . o satisfaction of the environmental review responsibilities for the "Flood Mitigation Facilities for the City of Peabody" (EDEA No. 14251 ) , set-forth in the "Final Record of Decision" (FROD) issued by Secretary Bowles on November 24, 2010, and consideration of the potential impact of all flood mitigation activities on the planned unit development, including those listed in the FROD and others, such as the use of culverts . o satisfaction of the Regulations of the Wetlands and Water- ways Act, particularly with regard to the Chapter 91 license and the location of the new access bridge. ,* o receipt and analysis of the final reports for Phase I , sub- surface investigation and hazardous materials building survey and assessment, and Phase III , remedial plan . o co-ordination with the PanAm Railroad with regard to the railroad siding on the site, location of the new access road over the rail line and the potential improvement of The SPUR . o preparation of revised exterior elevations and review of these documents by the Zoning Officer to determine compliance with the height requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. o resolution of the issue involving the limitation on land area devoted to residential use and associated improvements in a planned unit development in a BPD zone. At this time, and in order for the Board to find that a precise development plan has been prepared , and may be adopted , is it necessary for these above-cited issues to be resolved, and for corollary revisions to be made to the development plan? I thank you very much for your attention. * re: new bridge, refer to "points" 24-26 of Woodard & Curren letter peer review of 5/10/12 and of PB meeting 5/17/12 minutes . cc : Councillor Paul Prevey 2/2 RECEIVE[) June 27 , 2012 JUN .28 2012 DEPT.OF PLANNING i To: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP, Director, Department COLOAL TY DEVELOPUEN1 of Planning and Community Development Charles M. Puleo, Chair, and Members of the Planning Board -T From: James R. Treadwell , AICP �p�v.up�. 1j�oaS(Q Subject : LEGACY PARK APARTMENTS AT HARMONY GROVE ROAD 1 . PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2. CERTAIN ON-GOING AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES 1 . PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. According to Section 7 . 3. 1 . , Planned Unit Development- Purpose, of the Zoning Ordinance: "The advantages which are intended to result from the application for a planned unit development are to be ensured by the adoption of a precise development plan. . . " . I would anticipate that a "precise development plan" will be prepared and adopted for the Legacy Park Apartments project . Accordingly, I would very much appreciate an explanation of a) what is meant by a "precise" development plan, within the context of Section 7. 3 . 1 . and b) how does a"precise" development pian, prepared for a planned unit development, differ from other development plans? 2 . UNRESOLVED PLANNING ISSUES In order to prepare a "precise development plan"-that meets the expectations of the Planning Board-I would note certain on-going issues that might require resolution prior to the adoption of a "precise" plan. 1/2 - 1 o a determination regarding the need to satisfy the federal environmental review requirements of the National Environ- mental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preser- vation Act ( Section 106 ) . o compliance with the regulations of the Massachusetts •Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the Commonwealth ' s historic preservation review requiements . o satisfaction of the environmental review responsibilities for the "Flood Mitigation Facilities for the City of Peabody" ( EDEA No. 14251 ) , set-forth in the "Final Record of Decision" (FROD) issued by Secretary Bowles on November 24, 2010, and consideration of the potential impact of all flood mitigation activities on the planned unit development, including those listed in the FROD and others , such as the use of culverts . o satisfaction of the Regulations of the Wetlands and Water- ways Act , particularly with regard to the Chapter 91 license and the location of the new access bridge. .* o receipt and analysis of the final reports for Phase I , sub- surface investigation and hazardous materials building survey and assessment, and Phase III , remedial plan . o co-ordination with the PanAm Railroad with regard to the railroad siding on the site, location of the new access road over the rail line and the potential improvement of The SPUR . o preparation of revised exterior elevations and review of these documents by the Zoning Officer to determine compliance with the height requirements of the Zoning Ordinance . o resolution of the issue involving the limitation on land area devoted to residential use and associated improvements in a planned unit development in a BPD zone. At this time, and in order for the Board to find that a precise development plan has been prepared, and may be adopted, is it necessary for these above-cited issues to be resolved , and for corollary revisions to be made to the development plan? I thank you very much for your attention. * re : new bridge, refer to "points" 24-26 of Woodard & Curren letter peer review of 5/10/12 and of PB meeting 5/17/12 minutes . cc : Councillor Paul Prevey 2/2 r r i June 18 , 2012 To: Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP, Director, Department of Planning & Community Development Charles M. Puleo, Chair, and Members of the Planning Board nn n� From: James R. Treadwell, AICP \1WWL Subject : Compliance with Master Plan 11of the City of Salem Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road Section 7. 3, Planned Unit .Development : "It is the intent of this Section to ensure compliance with the master plan. . . " . (Section 7 . 3. 1 , Purpose) The Planning Board may grant a special permit where the Board can find, among other findings, that "The planned unit development is in harmony with . . .the master plan of the City of Salem. . . " . ( Section 7 . 3 .8, Decision) Per the "City of Salem Master Plan Update and Action Plan 1996" : a "critical element" is "the development of the commercial and industrial properties which have become contaminated from prior activities" (Refer to fore-page) , o Highest Planning Priorities. Economic Development. "Retaining existing businesses and attracting new ones, while redeveloping the vacant sites , is a top priority. " (Refer to page 7) o Economic development , Commercial/Industrial , goals and strategies , are intended to attract new business, redevelop vacant sites, develop new light industrial sites . (page 23 ) Accordingly, to be in harmony and in compliance with the master plan, the Salem Oil and Grease property would be rede- veloped with business and light industrial uses , uses that will contribute to the economic development goals of the City. 1/2 In my opinion, the proposed Legacy Park Apartments Planned Unit Development is not in harmony (agreement) with the economic development goals of the master plan. The relevant parts of Section 7 . 3 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance cannot be satisfied by the proposal as currently envisioned . Note : * I was advised that the City considers the above-cited "Update" to be the master plan for the City. * I could not find any master plan guidance that would support redevelopment of the Oil and Grease site with housing. * The master plan Neighbor- hoods and Housing goals and strategies for the Boston Street Corridor include "target housing ownership and rehab programs" and "preserve the existing housing mix" . These goals do not include the introduction of a large scale apartment complex into the neighborhood . (Refer to page 32 and "Neighborhoods" foldout) Only 0.62 of an acre of the 6 .82 acre Oil and Grease site (+/- 9%) would, in fact, be developed with a use (commercial office) that would promote the goals of the City ' s master plan. (Refer to Site Layout Plan, Drawing C-3 , dated 12/20/11 ) 2/2 January 30, 2012 JAN S' 0 201Z DCFT.OF ;:a & vw=+To : Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP COMMUM , =1gENT Director of Planning and Community Development, City of Salem ((� From: James R. Treadwell , AICP 4 a+��sorwo Subject : Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove ( Salem Oil and Grease ) With regard to the Planned Unit Development(PUD)/Business Park Development(BPD) district "limitation" , found at Section 7 . 3. 3 . 3 of our Zoning Ordinance, it is indicated , on Drawing C-3 , Site Layout Plan, dated 12/20/11 , that 51 .0% of the devel- opment represents "NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE" , thus satisfying the zoning requirement that "residential uses and associated improve- ments , such as parking and landscaping, cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the parcels) " . Two areas are shown on the Site Layout Plan as NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE that, in my opinion, are associated with residential use. These areas are 1 ) the 40 .0 ' landscaped "rear yard" provided from Proposed Building # 2 and #3 to the Gravel Path/North River Canal and 2 ) the area occupied by the landscaped slope between the new retaining wall of the proposed multi-family development and the residential properties on Beaver and Silver Streets . I would appreciate your consideration of this matter . I would also appreciate being advised of the ramifications associated with a PUD/BPD developoment proposal that does not comply with the limitation at Section 7 . 3 . 3 . 3 of our Zoning Ordinance. Thank you. cc : Councillor Paul C . Prevey Councillor Jerry L. Ryan Rose Mary O 'Connor, Chair, Mack Park Neighborhood Association Beverlie McSwiggin, Chair, Mack Park Neighborhood Association December 20, 2011 To: The Planning Board of the City of Salem Thru: Lynn G. Duncan , AICP From: James R . Treadwell, AICP Subject : Proposed Redevelopment, Salem Oil and Grease Based on information derived 1 ) from attendance at the Mack Park Neighborhood Association meeting of November 30, 2011 , at which the Development Team, representing MRM Project Management LLC, presented their proposal for redevelopment of the Salem Oil and Grease property and 2 ) review of the "Development Plan" ( 11/3/11 ) and the "Site Layout Plan" ( 10/18/11 ) of the Oil and Grease property prepared by Griffin Engineering, LLC , I would offer the following observations and ask that they be considered by the Planning Board in connection with the evaluation of the current redevelopment proposal . Thank you. OBSERVATIONS. A. ONGOING AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES THAT EFFECT PROJECT PLANNING 1 ) Flood Mitigation A Feasibility Study of Phase 3 of "Flood Mitigation Facilities for the City of Peabody" (EDEA No. 14251 ) , by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers , is currently underway . Phase 3 includes the Salem Oil and Grease property. A "Final Record of Decision" (FROD) for this flood mitigation project was issued by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) , Ian Bowles , on November 30, 2010. (copy attached ) The FROD indicates that a "mandatory" Environmental Impact Report (EIR ) will be prepared for the entire flood miti- gation project and , on page 4, the flood mitigation activ- ities envisioned for the Oil and Grease property are set- forth. These include 1 ) the widening of the North River by approximately 38 feet on its north side, 2 ) realignment of a 40 degree bend of the River at the railroad crossing, 3) excavation of an unkown quantity of potentially contamin- ated material from the River and 4 ) the replacement of the Grove Street Bridge, the railroad crossing and the pedestrian bridge. There has also been discussion of culverts being constructed across and under the property as part of the flood mitigation effort . _2- The time-line for completion of the Corps Feasibility Study and the subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment should be ascertained . It should be expected that the recommendations of the Study would serve as the basis for flood mitigation improve- ments in the final plan for the Oil and Grease property. Contacts for the Flood Mitigation project include Blair Haney of the Peabody Planning Department and David Knowlton, Salem' s City Engineer. 2 ) Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Review As noted above, an EIR must be prepared for the entire Peabody Flood Mitigation project , including Phase 3 , the portion of the project located in Salem. Consultation with EOEEA should determine when the MEPA review of the Oil and Grease project must be undertaken and if that review can proceed independent of the EIR. 3) NEPA and Section 106 Review The use of federal funding will require compliance with NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Pres- ervation Act . As directed by relevant Federal Regulations, these reviews are to be initiated early in a project ' s planning period . (References : 40 CFR Part 1500 and 30 CFR Part 800) Regarding the Section 106 process , it is noted that two Oil and Grease buildings are listed on the Massachusetts Cultural Resources list, the site has an historical past with the potential for archaeological value and the North River Canal structure was built around 1896 . 4) Brownfields A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Brown- fields "Coalition" grant is funding the Phase II , sub- surface investigation and hazardous materials building survey/assessment of the Oil and Grease site and a Phase III , remedial plan is to be developed . These activities are scheduled to be completed in March and May 2012 and should contribute important data to the planning of the Oil and Grease Development Plan. -J- 5 ) Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act The Salem Conservation Commission issued an Order of Resource Area Delineation (LEP File ,$64-516) on July 19 , 2011. Among other things, the Order granted a "limited exemption from the riverfront area regulations for a specific portion of the site" . An appeal of the Order and the resource area delineation was made by ten residents of Salem on July 28 , 2011 . The DEP has not yet ruled on said appeal . It should be ascer- tained how the ruling by the DEP would effect the planning of the Oil and Grease project . 6) Massachusetts Waterways Act It is anticipated that a Chapter 91 license will be required pursuant to the Waterways Act . Decisions made relative to the public interest during the licensing process could impact on the Oil and Grease Development Plan . 7) Traffic Generation With the exception of the Franklin Street area , an up-dated traffic analysis of the North River Canal Corridor is being developed . The traffic impact study of the Oil and Grease property is to be co-ordinated with the NRCC Analysis . The results of these studies could influence the Plan for the Oil and Grease site. 8) Planned Unit Development (PUD)/ Business Pari, Develop- ment (BPD) While referring to the development proposal as "predomin- ately residential" , the Development Team stressed that the PUD provision of our Zoning Ordinance that requires , in BPD zones, that residential use/square footage cannot exceed 50% of the land area/square footage of a proposed develop- ment , has been carefully calculated and would be met in the case of Salem Oil and Grease. (Refer to Section 7 . 3 . 3 . of the Salem Zoning Ordinance) If in fact, the restriction on the amount of resi- dential use/square footage is not met in this instance, and the BPD objective of fostering the development of clean industry/commercial uses will not be achieved, I would submit that the Planning Board and/or the Board of Appeals may wish to address this land use issue . f -4- 9) Aesthetics/Design The Project ' s housing element will consist of 3 four/ five story structures , containing 141 apartments with 262 bedrooms . The mass/bull: of the buildings is considerable, prompting the project architect to emphasize the extent of techniques that will be used to cause the buildings to appear less massive. Actually, the design replicates that exhibited by large apartment complexes that have emerged along our major highways . A design more in keeping with the traditional apartments in Salem ' s neighborhoods-- smaller buildings , less height, use of brick/masonry, flat or low gambled roofs--would seem more appropriate in the Mack Park neighborhood. It would probably be helpful if our Design Review Board would review and comment on the design of the Oil and Grease development . It should be noted that the Design Review Board would be involved if the site was in the NRCC Zone across Grove Street . 10) The Railroad Coordination with the PanAm Railroad will be necessary during project planning in order to address the issues of 1 ) the existing, on-site railroad siding, 2 ) the construc- tion of the new, main vehicular access road over the rail line and 3) the potential for a Spur Line being developed from Danvers and Peabody to the Salem MBTA Station . B. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1 ) Rodent control during site preparation. 2) Construction of a vehicular bridge over the North River in a floodplain. 3) Along the Project ' s southern border , stabilization of the slope/embankment, clarification of the property ' s boundary, replacement of the deteriorated fence/provision of new safety barrier and the implications of the three "ways" to Beaver. 4) Involvement of the immediate neighbors as the planning/ permitting process advances , including a tour of the site by those so inclined . 5) Coordination with appropriate Salem and Peabody entities with the proposed 10 foot "gravel path" . 6 ) Reference by the Oil and Grease Team to proposals of the NRCC Neighborhood Master Plan that should be of interest , including the round-about at Grove/Mason/Harmony Grove, the new square at Grove and Goodhue and the extension of Hanson Street . 7) Clarification of the project boundary with the Harmony Grove Corporation. 8 ) Preparation of local EIS and Subdivision IIIB material . 9) Applicability of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to the demolition of Oil and Grease structures . North Shore Transportation Improvement Study N `e ®D SALEM TO DANVERS WE OT NNHARRIS .U2 1 `�./i �J){ .� �.•� �/y'�yi^�y� � ` Sr Ny N. .. \ rj INfEF4I1ANG6 `�r^. I'7 ' l ' /�_ 1 _ yis.F� •;. 11` I�P L �> //yg Z , T k ♦ �,ruc�wx. � t ��,�i� =� / f`�N Cb'a.� J � �;` t♦ rrT—` it �'�. � i t. t "1�. {rt.�TFRCH� �yj,n • � t,-e�)�� Y \ .f ^I(�. i •, 1 �.: a 1~'11��i`rrrti prr`•�Ic'`� n A` �, C'�w- j�bvlev Pog .�.f� �" � � F L ., i. �� r �/• !r'`°,.� &[`mal,! """� ,� lieq A.�� t ,._✓� \t ��r•lflaq�� ` \.II/ :-s�.'� ��•� ��eort r a r I.. ,, PIT s A ray ✓.�.��. , � _^!� r 11 � .,� � �, Aad . \ l +� II 1•.� N � I 1 ��• `�•` _// � �y� �� ry ff" f � �✓,la, 4 ��°tT"n° �� -• V. Poinr Sel['E AN a fi R8G l� Legend . . . . FREIGHT LINE SALEM TO DANVERS � �� tet, P •�s , MBTA EXISTING SERVICE A� �' ! 0 0.25 0.5 1y.'"� e.l Mlles a� y �:�� Gdn cwr<._y \� �1 _'? .�1�, - PJ\a�f{ : lc,•��.5 _ Data Sources.MassGIS MBTA 'f�SFAT P.m " The Commonweafth of 9lassachusetts Executive Office of Energy andEnvironmenta[Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, 911,4 02114 Deval L.Patrick GOVERNOR 'Timothy P.Murray Tel:(617)626-1000 LIEUTENANT Paz:(617)626-1181 GOVERNOR hnp'//www.mass.gWenvir lan A.Bowles SECRE'T'ARY November 24, 2010 FINAL RECORD OF DECISION PROJECT NAME : Flood Mitigation Facilities for the City of Peabody PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Peabody PROJECT WATERSHED : North Coast EEA NUMBER : 14251 PROJECT PROPONENT : City of Peabody DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : June 23, 2010 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act(MEPA) (G.L.c.30, ss. 61-62I) and Section 11.11 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00),1 have reviewed the Notice of Project Change(NPC) and request for a Phase I Waiver and hereby grant a waiver that will allow the City of Peabody(City hereafter) to proceed with Phase 1 (Project 1)prior to preparing a mandatory Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the entire project. Project 1 is the relocation and enlargement of the Goldthwaite Brook culverts from Oak Street to its confluence with the North River. Project Description Project 1 consists of the installation of twin culverts to divert large stormwater flows from the existing Goldthwaite Brook culvert from Oak Street to its confluence with the North River. The watershed flooding model for the North River has been updated by the City. The watershed modeling results for Project 1, with the proposed upstream storage options in place, show that peak elevations do not increase for the 10-, 50-,and 100-year flood events at any of the eleven locations modeled in Peabody and Salem, and that the project mitigates flooding for the Peabody Square area for up to the 50-year flood event. Therefore,the implementation of Project 1 with the proposed upstream storage is not anticipated to result in adverse flood impacts to Peabody Square or the City of Salem. The proposed upstream stormwater storage projects to mitigate flooding in Peabody EEA#14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 Square include: • Centennial Park Detention Basins -the optimization of unused stormwater storage areas is proposed; • 45 Walnut Street- this brownfield property is proposed for redevelopment as open space and stormwater storage; • Crowninshield Pond- a new outlet structure is proposed to permanently lower water levels; • Cedar Pond-the modification of the outlet structure and weir boards is proposed to create new storage; • Upper Flume Pond -the modification of the outlet structure and the implementation of management measures is proposed to lower water levels prior to forecasted storms; and • Scouting Way- the proponent has acquired this land that will be regraded to provide stormwater storage. These six upstream stormwater storage projects will be implemented by the City prior to the completion of Project 1. Several of these projects are currently underway. The NPC outlined a schedule for completing these six storage projects prior to Project 1.The proponent estimates that Project 1 (Goldthwaite Brook Culverts)would be completed by the summer of 2013. Project 1 includes the construction of a transition structure at the two existing culverts carrying Goldthwaite Brook where they connect in Foster Street at Oak Street. The dimensions of the existing Foster Street culvert downstream of Oak Street are 4 feet high by 10-feet wide. The transition structure will be designed to convey.flow from the upstream existing Foster Street culverts to the proposed new twin 4-feet high by 10-feet wide culverts downstream. Beginning at the transition structure and extending downstream approximately 140 feet, the existing culvert in Foster Street will be removed to make room for the proposed twin culverts. Approximately 70 feet southwest of the intersection of Franklin Street with Foster Street, a bend will redirect some of the flow to the existing Goldthwaite Brook culvert away from Foster Street to the north. The downstream side of the transition structure will include the location for removable stop logs for each of the proposed twin culverts. This will provide the proponent with the ability to direct flows into either the south/east or north/west twin culverts to facilitate cleaning during relatively dry conditions. Downstream of the location of the bend prior to Franklin Street, the existing culvert will remain in place. The culvert carrying Proctor Brook joins the culvert carrying Goldthwaite Brook just north of the Courthouse. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)has identified this juncture as the start of the North River. The culvert carrying the North River varies in dimensions and is also daylighted in several areas.After crossing Wallis Street,the culvert makes a 90 degree bend to the south and becomes daylighted just north of the existing railroad 2 EEA#14251 Final Record of Decision November 24,2010 tracks along the North River. In order to maintain flow in the existing Goldthwaite Brook culvert and its daylighted sections, a conduit is now proposed prior to Franklin Street to connect the proposed north/west twin culvert to the existing Goldthwaite Brook culvert, matching inverts with both culverts. The proposed conduit will be sized to only allow flows that do not exceed the capacity of these downstream stream segments(i.e.,that do not overtop the banks of the downstream daylighted stream sections). If the invert elevation of the existing culvert is higher than the invert elevation of the proposed west side culvert, it may be necessary to install a removable weir or stop logs across the proposed northwest twin culvert to direct flow into the proposed conduit. The height of the bendable weir or stop logs will be determined during final design. Of the three alternative alignments presented in the 2008 ENF for the proposed twin culverts,Alternative A (Alignment Crossing Railroad Tracks) has been eliminated by the proponent due to the extensive work that would be required within land occupied by an active railroad and an existing 78-inch diameter sewer. Both Alternative B (Alignment South of the Railroad Tracks) and Alternative C (Alignment in Mill Street)remain viable alternatives. Final design will evaluate the Preferred Alternative. Since Project 1 is now proposed to move forward prior to Project 2 (North River Widening), the connection of the proposed culverts to the existing North River channel would have required modification to the width of the river,which is only 16 feet wide at the connection point and the culverts have a combined width of approximately 27 feet. Therefore,only the northwest twin culvert will be connected to the river from Project 1. Approximately 40 linear feet of the southwest granite block wall/bank of the North River(forming the 90 degree bend) will be removed to provide a direct hydraulic connection for the north/west culvert to the river. A removable bulkhead will be constructed at the downstream end of the southeast culvert to terminate this culvert. If Project 2 is implemented in the future,the bulkhead in the southerly culvert would be removed and both culverts would be connected to the widened river. An approximately 10-foot wide opening will connect the south/east culvert to the north/west culvert immediately upstream of the bulkhead,which will allow flow from the southeast culvert to pass into the north/west culvert and enter the North River. MEPA Project History As described in the Environmental Notification Form(ENF)filed in May 2008,the Flood Mitigation Facilities for the City of Peabody consists of three distinct projects. To reduce the breadth and periodicity of flood events in downtown Peabody,the Plan presented in the ENF included three project components. Project 1 consisted of the relocation and enlargement of the Goldthwaite Brook culverts for approximately 1,950 linear feet(If) from Oak Street to its confluence with the North River. The City proposed twin 4-feet high by 10-feet wide culverts. It 3 r t EEA#14251 ,Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 has modified Project 1 to maintain flow in the daylighted section of Goldwaite Brook parallel to Foster Street. In the summer of 2009,the proponent completed the cleaning and restoration of the original Goldthwaite Brook culverts in the Foster Street area upstream of Oak Street. Project 2 included the widening of approximately 1,6001f of the North River to an approximately 38-to 41-foot wide corridor depending on the type of wall chosen for the south side of the river from the confluence of Goldthwaite Brook with the North River to the Howley Street Bridge.The existing North River corridor is approximately 11 to 22-feet wide. The proponent would eliminate two 90-degree bends in the North River between Strongwater Brook and Howley Street. Project 2 also included the replacement of the Caller Street Bridge. It included the dredging about 4,250 cubic yards of material from the North River channel as part of the widening process. Material, existing within the 38-foot wide path of the proposed river widening area, will be removed, and the project includes removing the existing south wall along the river. The proponent will remove the soil between the existing south wall and the proposed new south wall where the river is widened and the soil from portions of the north wall where the river bends. It will also replace the walls along the river. The Howley Street Bridge is anticipated to be replaced as a separate project by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). For Project 3, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)would extend the widening of the North River(approximately 38 feet) from about 400 feet within Peabody to approximately 2,700 linear feet into Salem or about 600 linear feet downstream of Grove Street. Project 3 may include sheet piling along the 3,100 linear feet of the north side of the North River(the widened side for this portion of the project). Project 3 would realign a 90 degree river bend at a railroad crossing. It included excavating to about the same depth as Project 2(about one foot), and the disposal of an unknown quantity of potentially contaminated dredged materials from the river widening. Project 3 would replace the Grove Street Bridge, the railroad crossing west of Grove Street, and a pedestrian footbridge downstream of Howley Street in Salem. The ACOE has been funded to initiate a Feasibility Study to improve this section of the North River. Following the completion of the Feasibility Study, the ACOE will complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) in fulfillment of the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). The proponent anticipates that the Flood Mitigation Facilities Project would be completed in a sequential order: Project 1, 2, and 3. On November 13, 2009, I issued a Certificate establishing a Special Review Procedure (SRP) with the City of Peabody. This SRP was issued to allow for administrative flexibility to permit certain currently defined and undefined stormwater projects to move forward to required permitti n advance of the completion of the EIR process. Thee stormwater projects will have no demonstrable downstream affect and require no state agency action or penmts ass intervention). To that end, a Notice of Project Change (NPC)was filed in June 2009 for inclusion of the Strongwater Brook sub-watershed as an integral part of the overall hydrologic modeling and evaluation of opportunities for flood control and water quality improvement for the North 4 f s„a recar� of dee��ww Il-2.4.to EEA#14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 River watershed. Strongwater Brook enters the North River east of Howley Street. It has a direct effect on,and contributes to the flood elevation in the North River. Additionally,the City identified several areas throughout the Strongwater Brook watershed and the Goldthwaite Brook watershed where the potential for enhanced upstream stormwater storage exists. These projects go beyond the overriding goal of reducing flooding in the downtown area by incorporating water quality improvements as well. They could potentially provide benefits beyond the storage of stormwater and localized flood control, including: increased localized recharge; wetlands restoration; reduction of uncontrolled runoff, reduced erosion; and improved water quality through BMPs and LID techniques. The project, as proposed in all three of its components,is extremely complicated. There are many regulatory agencies at different levels of government involved,not only in permitting or approving project components,but in their implementation as well. The three phases of the project are closely interrelated. While it is my direct concern that one project's implementation does not adversely affect any other,I also recognize that successive steps are needed to determine how best to reduce flooding within the City of Peabody. MEPA Jurisdiction The original project was subject to MEPA review pursuant to Sections 11.03(3)(b)(1)(b), 11.03(3)(b)(1)(e), and 11.03(3)(b)(1)(f)of the MEPA regulations because it will alter 500 or more linear feet of bank along a fish run or inland bank;provide a new structure in a regulatory floodway; and alter 0.5 or more acres of any other wetlands. When Project 3 was added to the project,the entire project was determined to require a mandatory EIR pursuant to Sections 11.03(3)(a)(1)(b) and 11.03(3)(a)(2)because it may alter ten or more acres of wetlands and may require a Variance in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act from MassDEP. Orders of Conditions will be required from the Peabody Conservation Commission for Projects I and 2 as "limited"projects. A Superseding Order of Conditions will be required from MassDEP if the Orders are appealed. The project will require a Chapter 91 Waterways Permit for the dredging of the North River and a Chapter 91 License for some of the proposed structures from MassDEP. The project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certificate from MassDEP. It may also require the submission of a Notice of Intent to Perform Utility-Related Abatement Measures (URAM)to MassDEP. The project may need to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for stormwater discharges from a construction site. Programmatic General Permits(PGP) may also be needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project described in the current NPC and in this Final Record of Decision will also require additional review by the Peabody Conservation Commission and Orders of Conditions. Project 1 and the upstream stormwater storage projects may also need to comply with the NPDES General Permit for stormwater discharges. 5 f EEA#14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 Because state funding is being utilized for portions of this project and a Chapter 91 Permit/License is required, MEPA jurisdiction is broad and extends to all aspects of the project that are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause Damage to the Environment, as defined in the MEPA regulations. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts As a result of the above project changes, Project 1 will impact the following wetland resource areas: 40 linear feet of inland Bank(permanent); 16,200 sf of Riverfront Area(RA) (temporary); and 52,470 sf of Bordering Land Subject to Flooding(BLSF) (temporary). The City has reduced the majority of its proposed impacts to wetland resource areas since the review of the ENF. In addition, the construction of the six upstream storage projects will impact approximately: 620 linear feet of Bank; 3,600 sf(already permitted) and an unquantified amount of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands; 2,030 sf and an unquantified amount of Land under Water (LUW); 48,262 sf of RA; and 56,628 sf of BLSF. The upstream storage projects do not meet or exceed any MEPA thresholds individually nor require state agency actions or permits. Prior to the preparation of an EIR,the intent of the Special Review Procedure(SRP)was to allow smaller flood storage projects to move forward if: there is no demonstration of a downstream effect; no MEPA thresholds are exceeded; and state permits are not required. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of potentially contaminated soil will be excavated from the Project 1 footprint. Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures The City will utilize Best Management Practices(BMP)during construction. It will install erosion, sedimentation controls, and dust suppressants to minimize project impacts. Waste materials, debris, and trash will be cleaned from the work areas at the end of each day. Fueling operations will be monitored and conducted away from resource areas. Construction vehicles will be equipped with the proper mufflers. The construction equipment will be well-maintained. Appropriate barriers and signage will be used during construction as public safety measures. Police details will be used for work impacting roadways. The proponent will properly characterize excavated soil and manage it off-site. Construction will potentially result in impacts to roadway capacity, including a reduction in lanes,reduction in lane widths, and local road closures requiring detours.These temporary reductions in roadway capacity may lead to increased traffic delays in an already congested area. The City will prepare a traffic management plan as part of its final design. The traffic management plan will be designed to minimize construction related impacts on traffic and local businesses during construction. 6 EEA#14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 Waiver Request On April 30, 2010,the proponent requested that I grant a waiver to allow Project 1 to proceed in advance of completion of the EIR. The waiver request was submitted with the NPC. The NPC identified the environmental impacts of the project, and it described the measures to be undertaken by the proponent to avoid,minimize and mitigate the projects' impacts. Based upon a review of the NPC and comments received,I issued a Draft Record of Decision(DROD), which was published in the Environmental Monitor on June 23, 2010 in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(2). The public comment period lasted for 14 days and ended on July 7, 2010. On July 12,2010, the City requested an extended review period in order for the proponent to respond and to address the MassDEP comment letter of July 7,2010. During this review period the City met with MassDEP and the MEPA Office to resolve the issues raised by MassDEP in their comments on the NPC and the DROD. The findings and conditions outlined herein reflect the subsequent discussions and correspondence between the City,MassDEP and the MEPA Office. Standards for All Waivers The MEPA regulations at 301 CMR 11.11(1)state that I may waive any provision or requirement in 301 CMR 11.00 not specifically required by MEPA and may impose appropriate and relevant conditions or restrictions, provided that I find that strict compliance with the provision or requirement would: (a) result in an undue hardship for the proponent, unless based on delay in compliance by the proponent; and (b) not serve to avoid or minimize Damage to the Environment. Determinations for a Phase 1 Waiver The MEPA regulations at 301 CMR 11.11(4) state that, in the case of a partial waiver of an EIR review that will allow the proponent to proceed with Phase 1 of the project prior to preparing an EIR, I shall base the findings required in accordance with 301 CMR 11.1 l(l)(b)on a determination that: (a) the potential environmental impacts of Phase 1, taken alone, are insignificant; (b) ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities and services exist to support Phase 1; (c) the project is severable,such that Phase 1 does not require the implementation of any other future phase of the project or restrict the means by which potential environmental impacts from any other phase of the project may be avoided, minimized or mitigated; and (d) the agency action(s)on Phase 1 will contain terms such as a condition or restriction, so as 7 EEA#14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 to ensure due compliance with MEPA and 301 CMR 11.00 prior to commencement of any other phase of the project. Findin s Based upon the information submitted by the proponent,the supplemental information provided by the proponent on June 8, 2010 and on November 8, 2010, and after consultation with the state permitting agencies. I find that the Waiver Request has merit and that the proponent has demonstrated that the proposed project meets the standards for all waivers at 301 CMR 11.11(1).I find that strict compliance with the requirement to submit an FIR prior to completion of Project 1 would result in undue hardship for the City and would not serve to avoid or minimize Damage to the Environment. In accordance with 301 CMR 11.11(4),the latter finding is based on my determination that: (a) the potential environmental impacts of Phase 1,taken alone, are insignificant; • Project 1 has minimal impacts to wetland resource areas. Permanent impacts are limited to approximately 40 linear feet of inland Bank due to the creation of the discharge point from the proposed Goldthwaite Brook twin culverts to the North River, approximately 100 feet east of Wallis Street. The existing North River channel wall is comprised of artificial impervious material that does not contribute to flood control or storm damage prevention, which are characteristics considered to be significant to the interests of the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act. Project 1 activities are in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations, as structures may be permitted in or on a Bank when required to prevent flood damage to facilities,buildings,and roads. The construction activities would use BMPs to minimize adverse effects. (b) Ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities and services exist to support Phase 1; • Although the purpose of the project is to add new stormwater infrastructure, the proposed project would not require any additional permanent infrastructure facilities or services upon completion. (c) The project is severable, such that Phase 1 does not require the implementation of any other future phase of the project or restrict the means by which potential environmental impacts from any other phase of the project may be avoided, minimized or mitigated; and • Project l does not require the implementation of Projects 2 or 3. Project 1 alone will significantly reduce the frequency, depth and duration of flooding in Peabody 8 i EEA#14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 Square. However, the proposed upstream storage projects must first be implemented to avoid any downstream increase to peak flood elevations. The proponent has committed to implement the upstream storage projects prior to the completion of Project 1, and the SRP established for the project allows the proponent to proceed with these projects. The implementation of Project 1 in advance of Projects 2 and 3 will not limit future consideration and implementation of downstream project alternatives since it will neither be increasing flood elevations in the North River compared to existing conditions nor modifying the existing North River channel dimensions. (d) The agency action(s)on Phase 1 will contain terms such as a condition or restriction,so as to ensure due compliance with MEPA and 301 CMR 11.00 prior to commencement of any other phase of the project. • In order to ensure that adequate terms and conditions are placed on the Phase 1 project to ensure due compliance with MEPA,I hereby impose the following items as a condition of the Waiver: As referenced above, the comments received from MassDEP on July 8 and September 10 have raised several issues concerning the implementation of Phase 1. In response to these MassDEP letters,the City of Peabody has provided updated project information on July 7 and November 8. Through these ongoing discussions MassDEP has evaluated the City's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) and has indicated that the model appears to be sufficient to advance Project 1 before completion of the EIR. However, MassDEP has requested that additional information concerning the model be provided in the forthcoming EIR's. The City has provided initial responses to MassDEP's questions in its November 8, 2010 letter. These topics must nonetheless be further addressed in the Draft EIR that will be submitted on the project, and I hereby incorporate MassDEP's requests for information from its September 10, 2010 letter into the existing Scope for the EIR. The City should continue consulting MassDEP to resolve concerns regarding how well the model represents potential conditions for the Projects 2 and 3. The Draft EIR should provide a full update on the implementation of Project 1 and should also contain a comprehensive update on the City's ongoing discussions with MassDEP concerning the hydraulic modeling refinements. • In addition to MassDEP's review of the hydraulic modeling,MassDEP will review the upstream storage projects that are planned for Phase 1 as contemplated in the SRP. The City's evaluation of storage options will continue during final design of Project 1 and additional,modified or new storage alternatives may be considered or implemented to replace one or more of the preliminary list of 9 ! i EEA #14251 Final Record of Decision November 24,2010 projects identified. As a condition of this Waiver,the City must provide MassDEP with an opportunity to review updates to the model, including revisions to the upstream storage locations and final design refinements. • As part of its effort to verify its modeling results, the City should install a USGS stream gauge in the North River in order to provide a larger data set for calibrating the model. Additional river gauging and high water mark measurements are needed as calibration parameters to ensure the reliability of the model from gauged watersheds to the North River watershed. • The City has committed to develop a Memorandum of Agreement with Eastman Gelatin Corporation regarding the operation of the dams at Cedar and Upper Flume Ponds as part of the City's overall flood mitigation facilities. • The City has also committed to sealing the downstream end of the one of the proposed twin culverts until the completion of the FIR process, as well as the state and local permitting processes for Project 2. MassDEP has indicated that this is essential to prevent scour to the banks of the North River and cause associated wetland loss. The City has provided details on how this sealing will be accomplished in its November 2010 submissions and I incorporate those measures as a condition of this Waiver. Conclusion I have determined that this waiver request has merit,and issued a Draft Record of Decision (DROD), which was published in the Environmental Monitor on June 23, 2010 in accordance with 301 CMR 11,15(2), which began the public comment period. The public comment period lasted for 14 days and ended on July 7, 2010. On July 12, 2010,the City requested an extended review period in order for the proponent to respond and to address the MassDEP comment letter of July 7, 2010. During this review period the City met with MassDEP to resolve the issues raised by MassDEP. This FROD has incorporated the resolution of these issues in the above section of Findings. Accordingly,I hereby grant the waiver requested for this project, which will allow the proponent to proceed with Phase 1 of the project, prior to preparing an FIR for the entire project and subject to the above fin ing ditions, if applicable. November 24, 2010 Date Ian A. Bowles Comments received on the NPC: Peabody Chamber of Commerce, 5/1/10 10 EEA #14251 Final Record of Decision November 24, 2010 Office of the Mayor, City of Peabody, 5/3/10 North Shore Bank, 5/4/10 Century Tire &Auto Service, 5/5/10 Massachusetts Historical Commission, 5/17/10 Senator Frederick E.Berry, 5/18/10 Northeast Arc, 5/18/10 Peabody Conservation Commission, 5/20/10 Arthur M. Gordon, 5/20/10 Terence J. Murphy, 5/24/10 Peabody City Council, 5/24/10 Peter M. McGinn, 5/24/10 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection/Northeast Regional Office, 5/27/10 David Paulson, 6/2/10 Richard Ellis, 6/3/10 Camille McKenny, 6/3/10 Salem Sound Coast Watch, 6/4/10 Salem City Engineer, 6/4/10 Judith Black, 6/4/10 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection/Northeast Regional Office, 6/4/10 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries& Wildlife, 6/4/10 Stewart Lazares, 6/4/10 Martin J. Scafidi, 6/4/10 Russell Donovan, 6/4/10 Camille McKenny& six other residents, 6/7/10 AECOM, 6/8/10 Comments received on the DROD: City of Peabody—Office of the Mayor, 7/7/10 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection/Northeast Regional Office, 7/8/10 Peabody Community Development& Planning, 7/12/10 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, 7/23/10 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, 8/9/10 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection/Northeast Regional Office, 9/10/10 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, 9/21/10 AECOM, 11/9/10 City of Peabody—Office of the Mayor, 11/10/10 14251 frod.doc IAB/WTG 11 Former Salem Oil & Grease Brownfields Site Redevelopment ' r • � � � �, .r - �! i r Development Plan m vEa fw i- o�� , .::q�,� a,/ / r '•' ,2 h ru wr • . i'9td6� ,"'At + 71a° M r> S .u>Naarc �—A��•. . ,,,",.,,s., ,:e.r +'�—"'�R.s T�n w.,., � � a++:..• .a....De-.�x. •�,�}y. "; ��_ WW ,y -WN� P i11 r + . 0 ue a VE ROAD CHU i -- NOR ix FI VcR CANH.- CO<L � -------- -Z - Hill LL..J_I p - - - �- � 2la ; ' m R6NNans SILVER n� ------------------------------- —�- " -!- - b sTncr— " ,mo - T 1 - _ _ eEa ER smEEr Gn�n ��LygNn9 pammm�+'n rn.mrtuu umwamo. Iss[.axxl �x[Yv t 2OXIAC[WA Fe:ex�)d��m MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT,LLC 60-64 GROI£ST. -- d HARMONY GROVE 41E L/.vWi ' u"yu D�C66. ])WEMimvu ea1w �nnmMmm umcol, ' OA m10C SA1E C_3 muMM f J _ G October 18 , 2012 To : Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP. Director of PLanninq and Community Development Charled M. Puleo . Chairman. and Members of the Planning Board From: James R. Treadwell, AICP Subject : Unresolved Issues MRM Project Management , LLC 3 Harmonv Grove Road and 60 S 64 Grove Street I respectively ask that the Planning Board consider the following matters as the Board continues its deliberation of the subject Planned Unit Development . 1 . The engineering peer review should be revised to review the newly proposed , pedestrian bridge structure. 2 . The "Basement Floor Plan" should be revised to depict bike racks that " . . .will be located at the lower levels next to the elevators- (Griffin , PB meeting draft minutes . 9/11/12 ) 3. Regarding Section 7 . 3 . 1 . Purpose . Salem Zoning Ordinance . an explanation of the adoption process and a discussion of the "specific time limit for commencement of construction" at the Public hearing would be appreciated. 4. At 5 . 2 . a . the Applicant ' s Environmental Impact Statement notes that "the proposed project will clean-up and enhance natural areas" while "the undeveloped portions of the 3 Harmony Grove Road could be made available to the City for open space or natural area use" . Section 9. 5 , Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance includes two provisions pertaining to "natural areas" ; first . at 9 . 5 . 6 . the Board ' s review will include 1112 . Adeuuacv of Protec- tion or enhancement of natural areas" and second , at 9 . 5 . 8 . 2 . Decision , the issue of reserving land that is appropriate for conservation use and/or the matters of creating buffers along property lines . A hearing of the Board ' s position regarding the "natural areas" on the Harmony Grove parceltand regarding its review of the adequacy of the protection/enhancement the this parcel ' s natural areas would appear appropriate. 1/2 5�. over six months ago at the March 15 , 2012 meeting of the Planning Board , Mark Fabri , LSP, indicated that a final Phase II Report for the project would be completed in April of 2012 and that a Phase III Report was expected in the Spring . These Reports and up-to-date data regarding environmental conditions and any remediation planned at the Salem Oil and Grease property should be provided to the Board in order to ensure that its Special Permit deliberation is based on the most current clean-up information. F; The Woodard & Curran letter to David ,Knowlton, City Engineer, dated July 5, 2012 , at comment 26 , indicates that the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers , is currently performing a cost-benefit analysis for implementing improvements along the North River in Salem. Further, a description of the "two principle alternatives currently being considered"-- the widening of the North River and the installation of a bypass culvert--is included . Is this relatively current information regarding the Salem phase of the Peabody Flood Mitigation project of relevance to the Board ' s current review of the Special Permit Applications ? 7.With r:eagrd to Section 7. 3 .5 , according to the above- „ cited draft minutes of the Board ' s public hearing of 9/11/12 , Ms. Duncan indicated that the open space requirement of the PUD will be met by an easement for public access to the walk- way and the passive recreational use on the site. Assuming that the specifics of the proposed easement(s ) have been presented to the Board, has the Board found that the easement proposal will satisfy the ownership require- ments of Section 7 . 3 . 5 including "provisions for limited easements for recreational use by residents of the City-, ? The easement proposal should be presented at the public hearing. 2/2 �i SALEM RE /E h CHAMBER of COMMERCE October 16, 2012 OCT 18 2612 265 Essex Street DEPT. OF PLF;,ti;NING$ Salem, MA 01970 OMA4liNr 978-744-0004 Charles Puleo,Chair TY DEVFLOPIM^ni- www.salem-chamber.org City of Salem Planning Board .......................................................... 120 Washington Street FxecutiveCommittee Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Sandy Heaphy,President Kensington-Stobart Galley Sean Tesoro,tat Vice President Re: Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Road Salem Five Patrick Delulis,Treasurer i De Isis Brothers Construction i Beth Anne Bower Salem i Robe" eRosier,At Dear Chairman Puleo and Members of the Planning Board: i Robert State University At large g Dominion Energy i Mike Kapnls,At Large EaararneenarraAmnp Juli ern Be aus,At Large The Salem Chamber of Commerce is writing in support of the proposed development at the i Hawthorne Hotel former Salem Oil and Grease factory site. Paul Van Nass,At Large Cinema Salem i Mike Wheeler,At Large Beverly Cooperative Bank i This project will clean up and redevelop this contaminated and dilapidated site located in Directorsi the midst of our neighborhoods and one of the gateways into our downtown. This $20 Susan Babine Finz Seafood Restaurant million investment,which includes 141 dwelling units and a 17,000 square foot commercial Ruth Bitchell Eastern Bank office building, will help revitalize not only the Blubber Hollow area, but continue the Davie Bowie positive impacts for business in the city. These local impacts include construction jobs, Gina Deschamps Deschamps Printing property sales and excise taxes and permit fees, as well as the ongoing annual participation E Tom Dexter of additional families and residents in our local economy, including patronizing our i Wells Fargo Advisors i Jay Pinner i businesses along Boston Street, Highland Avenue and, of course, our downtown. The Peabody Essex Museum i Rose Fisher public amenities proposed, including the extension of the riverside pathway will enhance € North Shore Medical Center Nancy the neighborhood and make the commercial aspect of the project more attractive, as well. i Funari i Meridiann Construction i Scott Grover rinti,Curia,GrnverBFray The continued redevelopment and multi-million dollar investments in our Brownfield sites i Allan Houle Winer Bros Paint BHardware located throughout the city is not only important to the business community, but the i Tina Jordan So'. Sam wires Museum entire image of the city in attracting both businesses and residents. We believe this project Mark Leavitt i Salem Car Wash helps fulfill those objectives. Rob Liani i Coffee Time Bake Shop David McKillop Rocks/e/las Kind regards, i Jamie Metsch RoostlBeehbe John Neely i Boys 8 Girls Club of Greater Salem Matt well Ba c i RCG Christopher Polak Cold well Banker Residential Brokerage ? Bob Shea Morning Glory Bed 8 Break/est Ann Sousa Rinus Oosthoek Body 8 Sent Massage Christine Sullivan Executive Director Enterprise ante Bmce wheat Salem Chamber of Commerce e Wve 4 Hie i Patricia Zaido [ Salem Partnership Y �a SALEM CHAMBER of COMMERCE 265 Essex Street Salem,MA 01970 �� - � "¢ s �o�- r► � .. � ' / I i � , �� l.l Ar .I �� . � ' � ,, • , , a , F ' � � � , � � . ►. � � � � � „ _� ' ' � � ' ' 1'1 �' f � s i. 4) � _ ZY �� i !��• -�lp•� / ��. .� ,x �� ',rk: �� . ,r -�-ti' Dear Salem Planning Board, As the sun sets today I reflect on the whole proposal. Was the land the Railroad owns included as MRM's and the paper street from 8 Silver St to the Railroad Tracks when the land was measured? Were the DEP reports read and pursued? Was the massiveness of Sim's factory ever explored for contaminates from that leather Was what that was found previously and unsuccessfullty hot topped and not accepted by DEP ever remediated? Were calculations made to see if the buildings' s water on site can drain and be absorbed on the parts that flood.? Do they take up too much land?Will evergreens thrive at the top of the banking? Will the silty soil support these enormous buildings? The other night a RR train was stranded for more than an hour in the evening, how would a resident like that racket out side their window? Floods, river walk without fence s by the river and tracks, flooded cars and contaminated land : not too attractive! Please consider the height of the buildings and, see if that can be reduced to lesson the affect on the abutters. The affects of much less sun, more air pollution and noise should be a health concern to the planning board. The residents of Beaver St. have presented a petition with many residents signatures in opposition to this plan and should not be ignored. Thank you for listening. Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver St. Salem October 18, 2012 Y t f n L��' TL)