The URL can be used to link to this page

FLINT & MASON STREETS - ZONING SUSAN ST. PIERRE CONSULTING SERVICES Memorandum ti TO: EENF Distribution List j `yg FROM: Susan St. Pierre xQ�,1v DATE: 8/5/2013 RE: Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Attached lease find a co of an Expanded Environmental Notification Form EENF submitted to the P PY p (EENF) state MEPA Office on July 31,2013 for the proposed Riverview Place Project located at Flint and Mason Streets in Salem, MA. Any comments on the EENF should be submitted in writing by September 6, 2013 and directed to: Secretary Richard K. Sullivan,Jr. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs(EEA) Attn: MEPA office 100 Cambridge Street,Suite 900, Boston, MA 02114 If you have any questions or concerns,or need further assistance please contact my office at 781-439- 2461. Thank you. 74 Bay View Avenue I Salem,MA 01970 I Tel. 781.439.2461 1 sst.pierm@comcast.net r• ' '--" Riverview Place EENF Supplemental information Alternatives Considered during City of Salem Special Permit Process The Project underwent more than a year and a half of local site plan and design review prior to receiving permits in 2009.As a result of these reviews,several changes were made to the project layout and design. Further refinements to the plan were made in order to comply with the state Chapter 91 regulations resulting in the Site Plan included in the Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form document dated July 2013(please refer to the attached Figures and the Site Plan included in the EENF document as well at the attached City of Salem meeting minutes). In 2007,the Project conceptual design was developed that included 184 units of housing located in four buildings. In preparation of filing permit documents with the City of Salem,the Project Proponents held a neighborhood meeting which resulted in project changes including reducing the number of units to 160 in the four buildings. The new design was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) in August of 2007 requesting variances from the parking,lot area per dwelling unit,50 foot buffer and common building entrance provisions of the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District zoning code. During the ZBA process,the number of units was first reduced to 148 and the number of buildings was reduced from four to three. The number of units was further reduced during the review process to 130 and in October of 2007 the ZBA voted to grant the variances. The decision imposed several conditions including the set aside of 13 units as affordable,creation of 12 parking spaces for use by nearby residents of Flint Street,and creation of a 30 foot easement along the North River for future use by the City to allow for the extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. The Project Proponent then filed a Special Permit for Site Plan Review with the Planning Board in February of 2008. That process,which was concluded in April of 2009, resulted in several refinements to the architectural design and layout of the proposed development as a result of several meetings with the Salem Redevelopment Authority(SRA),the Salem Design Review Board(DRB)and the Planning Board. The original Planning Board application included three buildings containing 130 units with nearly all of the parking provided in surface lots with minimal pedestrian access from Mason Street to the North River. Comments from the SRA/DRB process resulted in the introduction of a two story parking garage; a re-design of the internal circulation; provision of pedestrian access and view corridor from Mason Street through the site to the North River;creation of a 50 foot buffer between the Flint Street and Mason Street property boundaries;changes to the pavement materials,introduction of curb lines,and introduction of street lights and benches to define pedestrian areas along the internal roadway; provision of an open space/terrace area along the North River with interconnecting walkways; addition of an internal garage to one of the buildings; reduction of surface parking to 38 spaces;and changes to the architectural design of the buildings. These changes are reflected in the proposed Site Plan included in the EENF document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ❑❑ ' - ArtM1itettmte<t[ MASON STREET. 3 m (9978)UV9161 u&-0Ifl Nip i w 9 R NiF MESGNGER 3 d - C REAGAN N/F O DELIGIANIgb � p _ co66 R hhm 0 -009 Vp BON4NEw m6/25/Blrr �M1 CE eFS _ NiF ft g . Gu'L64uU NiF HARVEY = _ WNip nA50N - NiF - REALTY TR BT ' (f� 5alen Suede lSSJ Rasidenlal Project ' N/F Q Fill$ 00. � I - FNt[nenn 5veet L � 1 nn Rme Gam 'Nx0 4 > r 0 � WF 0 " ❑ Site Plan (Eastern Land Survey Layout ZBA Scheme "U, 1" = 30'-0" I nn m,om„gym„ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ao 00 N.11.Morenl& n.aelmm '� MASON STREET TC Non„eve 3 (9)Al ir0- U W (9f1))W-1151161 fl. w REAGAN MESSINGER 3 F N n DELIGIAIANIDIS /F ooee A � hhm 07-009 lam c5 v se 0 05/15/Bl 6OHANEW g ... o.. ...... ... Il CE B 8 WF GWL84uLi •- -� N/F W NdRVEY i N/F I W MASON �/ Wf REALTY TRUST I i c1TndN I I � Vroimt. I W ---- --- Salem Suede 155N R Resl�ntul Project NIP a PWS I h + I Flint r Hewn Street ii �� , 5d�m.Yea Iveerle i 5G6'G”r HP1NE COo _ 5de PWn kv (� tN Ceo 30-0, N.F l'IBiA C1.2 1 ' Site Plan pastern Land Survey Layout),-I" = 30'-0" rl,m m,-mm3/el/m„ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------_-----------------------------------------------------' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I FASC` m _ L,ry ❑❑ III �I H.H.Mprent d Cp.,Inw II Md9Ctl$L'EE: Ar[hil[[p II arm Oren '. wr.n...rr.mm li � II 1 1918)lep-SRS I I IRn 6p1-pp4f fn I Ery •3 BUYyn BB-Re 11Mle SWOn 1 1 1 hhm m�-Bm9 I I V I I f 3 m8/12/08 II 1 Ervbve e W 1 VO4r00 `blm e�J I I - H P16> g=�pae r 1 I - . I BWIOIn00R. _ Prelrt�: II -__� � � II'�m z wpn I� Rlvervew Face II eoua.p n.a lYilu 1 IL I v w,t r naeo.5traat - rce / - A 5I a an Br Undo 55 Uw(43%) BR Unde Total Unta 130 s^U.B'n /- roBY Garage Pa'kBV 209 p 1\ SUdacee arkv, Gara9 Pdkvg lBD Totel Pa'king 909 \� ��s Gena` R 3mym' Q P1Bip /� 1.1a Site Pldn (Scheme I0) e 30'-0" hhm 01003 r0Vo11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------— ------------------------- - - - _ --------- -- - - El- L7 � IML M..,:_ F"ilSG�{SL'__.. �t:uliSwlr IN khr V1 c !sue. 1 i }I• � 4a'nir 8t-LE:: 1 � ?'� I �C; 2.gl12r'0 N7 ✓�5 1 R f � i :— :.l'[a•eae,,.tal;-odslla+.r aS^f:+: •: �4 t f ! _ _. - ^y.. �•. _ _ _ - fir. FY � l'T.5 Tc lett t.:&%7 y- ,....,t. -All }L\ . TaLJ Uv.e G0 ..ice L.�e��J X i �- -�•��''� _ _ _ Alow C1.1 F I Riverview Place Salem, MA Expanded Environmental Notification Form ,T U M � T{ r - i - oa�'t/:`.n` ��$•` +�`"i ivy. j Prepared for: h" Riverview Place LLC , Salem, MA Lill Prepared by: In Association With: U, Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services R. Rumpf&Associates AECOM �f Tech Environmental Patrowicz Land M Development } Tinti, Quinn, Grover& Frey P.0 ' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Chapter 1 Project Summary 1.1 Project Identification 1.2 Project Overview 1.2.1 Project Site 1.2.2 Project Summary 1.3 EIR Waiver Request 1.3.1 Waiver Standards 1.3.2 Waiver Rationale 1.4 Project Permits/Approvals and Agency Coordination 1.4.1 Local 1.4.2 State 1.4.3 Federal 1.5 Project Team ' Chapter 2 Project Description 2.1 Existing Site Conditions ' 2.2 Neighborhood Context 2.3 Transportation and Infrastructure 2.4 Historical Resources 2.5 Wetland and Waterways Resources 2.5.1 Wetlands Resources ' 2.5.2 Waterways Resources 2.6 Project Alternatives 2.6.1 No Build Alternative ' 2.6.2 Preferred Alternative Chapter 3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Housing 3.2 Transportation ' 3.3 Infrastructure 3.4 Energy 3.5 Noise 3.6 Air Quality 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Analysis 3.8 Solid and Hazardous Wastes 3.9 Historical Resources 3.10 Wetlands and Waterways ' 3.11 Public Benefits 3.12 Consistency with Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Policies i Page � i Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form , Appendices Appendix 1 Mass Historical Commission Determination Appendix 2 Traffic Impact Assessment Study Appendix 3 Green House Gas Analysis ' Appendix 4 Draft Section 61 Findings Appendix 5 Distribution List List of Tables ' Table 1 Required Permits and Approvals Table 2 Waterways Authorizations , Table 3 Building Program Table 4 Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday Morning Peak Hour Table 5 Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour ' Table 6 Stormwater Runoff Calculations Table 7 Greenhouse Gas CO, Emissions Summary , Table 8 Motor Vehicle CO2 Emissions Summary List of Figures , Figure 1 Project Locus Plan Figure 2 Aerial View Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan ' Figure 4 2010 Existing Conditions Plan Figure 5 2010 Aerial View , Figure 6 North River Canal Master Plan Figure 7 Local Street Network Figure 8 1855 U.S. Coast Chart ' Figure 9 Plan of Flats in North River Figure 10 Wetlands and Waterways Resource Areas Figure 11 Project Site Plan ' Figure 12 Site Generated Project Trips Figure 13 Building 1 Elevations ' Figure 14 Buildings 2 and 3 Elevations i Page iii Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office Environmental Notification Form For Office Use Only ' EEA#: MEPA Analyst: ' The information requested on this form must be completed in order to submit a document electronically for review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00. ' Project Name: Riverview Place Street Address: 72 Flint Street Municipality: Salem Watershed: Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: 42°31'18" Longitude: -70054'.13" ' Estimated commencement date: Spring 2014 Estimated completion date: Winter 2014 Project Type: Mixed Use Development Status of project design: 75%complete ' Proponent: Riverview Place, LLC Street Address: 5 Broadmoor Lane Municipality: Peabody State: MA Zip Code: 01960 Name of Contact Person: Susan St. Pierre Firm/Agency: Susan St. Pierre Consulting Street Address: 74 Bay View Avenue Services Municipality: Salem State: MA Zip Code: 01970 Phone: 781-439-2461 Fax: E-mail:sst.pierre@comcast.net Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)? ®Yes ❑No ' If this is an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) or a Notice of Project Change (NPC), are you requesting: ' a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(6)) ❑Yes ❑No a Special Review Procedure? (see 301CMR 11.09) ❑Yes ❑No a Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.11) ®Yes [:]No t a Phase I Waiver? (see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes []No (Note: Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis must be included in the Expanded ENF.) Which MEPA review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03)? 301 CMR 11.03 (3)(a)(5) Which State Agency Permits will the project require? MADEP Waterways Ch. 91 License Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an Agency of the Commonwealth, including the Agency name and the amount of funding or land area in acres: Mass Development Brownfields Remediation Loan. Funding Amount $500,000 Effective January 2011 Summary of Project Size Existing Change Total ' & Environmental Impacts Total site acreage 4.3 , New acres of land altered o Acres of impervious area 3.7 3.0 3.0 ' Square feet of new bordering 0 vegetated wetlands alteration Square feet of new other wetland 32,267(land subject to ' alteration coastal storm flowage and coastal bank) Acres of new non-water dependent 1.47 ' use of tidelands or waterways Gross square footage 0(Buildings 265,620 265,620 1 Demolished) Number of housing units o 130 130 Maximum height (feet) 0 50 50 , TRANSPORTATION Vehicle trips per day 0 871 871 Parking spaces o 309 309 WASTEWATER Water Use (Gallons per day) 0 25,850 25,850 Water withdrawal (GPD) 0 0 0 Wastewater generation/treatment 0 23,500 23,500 , (GPD) Length of water mains (miles) Length of sewer mains (miles) , Has this project been filed with MEPA before? ❑ Yes (EEA# ) ®No ' Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before? ❑ Yes (EEA# ) ®No ' ' GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION — all proponents must fill out this section ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Describe the existing conditions and land uses on the project site: The Project involves the redevelopment of a 4.3 acre former industrial site into a mixed use development. The site is located in Salem, Massachusetts east of Flint Street between Mason Street and the North River canal ' (see Locus Plan and Sheet 1 Existing Conditions Plan). The site was previously developed with two leather manufacturing buildings-the Bonfanti Building located on Mason Street which was demolished in 2012 and the Salem Suede Building which comprised the bulk of the site development located off Flint Street.The Salem Suede ' Building experience significant fire damage and was demolished by the order of the City in the fall of 2009. Describe the proposed project and its programmatic and physical elements: ' NOTE: The project description should summarize both the project's direct and indirect impacts (including construction period impacts) in terms of their magnitude, geographic extent, duration ' and frequency, and reversibility, as applicable. It should also discuss the infrastructure requirements of the project and the capacity of the municipal and/or regional infrastructure to sustain these requirements into the future. The Project involves the redevelopment of the site into a mixed use complex consisting of 130 residential apartments and 5,540 square feet (sf)of commercial space. Three buildings are proposed on the site ' (see Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan). Two of the Buildings, Building 1 and 2, contain residential units and structured parking and the third Building, Building 3, contains residential uses in the upper floors and commercial uses on the lower level. The site has been designed with two site entrances; one off of Mason ' Street and one off of Flint Street. The development includes 309 parking spaces of which 271 are proposed in structured parking and 38 are located in at grade surface lots. Twelve of the at-grade spaces will be made ' available to existing residents of Flint Street. The Project conforms to the City of Salem's North River Canal Corridor Master Plan and has been approved by the City of Salem which supports the redevelopment Project. ' Describe the on-site project alternatives (and alternative off-site locations, if applicable), considered by the proponent, including at least one feasible alternative that is allowed under current zoning, and the reasons(s)that they were not selected as the preferred alternative: The On Site Alternative is No Build.Various alternative design scenarios were reviewed as part of the local Planning Board review process. There are no offsite Alternatives. NOTE: The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to consider what effect changing the parameters and/or siting of a project, or components thereof, will have on the environment, keeping in mind that the objective of the MEPA review process is to avoid or minimize damage to the environment to the ' greatest extent feasible. Examples of alternative projects include alternative site locations, alternative site uses, and alternative site configurations. ' Summarize the mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts of the preferred alternative: The Project will not result in any long term adverse impacts to Chapter 91 interests and in fact provides ' many program benefits including the introduction of public access to the site, parking for nearby residents, affordable housing units and traffic improvements. The site plan was developed in conjunction r with the goals outlined for the area in the 2003 Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal r Corridor. The Project will redevelop an existing 4.3 acre site and create public access to and along the North River ' Canal. A walkway will extend from Flint Street into the site to a green space being created between the North River Canal and the proposed Building 1. The green space will include public walkways along the Canal that extend to interior sidewalks. A view corridor will be created from Macon Street through the site toward r the North River Canal. Pedestrian access will be provided from Mason Street through the site to the North River Canal and Flint Street. The site plan also includes a 30-foot wide easement through the southern portion of the Project site to allow for a potential future extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. r The Proponent has also committed to implement energy efficiency measures that will reduce overall Project , energy use (stationary sources) by 12.7% and will reduce CO2emissions by 12.6%,compared to the Base Case. In accordance with the MEPA"Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol,"the proponent will provide a certification to the MEPA Office signed by an appropriate professional stating that all transportation and r non-transportation greenhouse gas mitigation measures described in this EENF, or measures providing comparable mitigation, have been incorporated into the Project. If the project is proposed to be constructed in phases, please describe each phase: N/A r AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: r Is the project within or adjacent to an Area of Critical Environmental Concern? ❑Yes (Specify ) ®No if yes, does the ACEC have an approved Resource Management Plan?_Yes _No; ' If yes, describe how the project complies with this plan. Will there be stormwater runoff or discharge to the designated ACEC?_Yes _No; r If yes, describe and assess the potential impacts of such stormwater runoff/discharge to the designated ACEC. RARE SPECIES: r Does the project site include Estimated and/or Priority Habitat of State-Listed Rare Species? (see http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/regulatory_review/priority_habitat/priority_habitat_home.htm) ❑Yes (Specify ) ®No r HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Does the project site include any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Place or the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? r ❑Yes (Specify ) ®No If yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic or archaeological resources? ❑Yes (Specify ) ❑No , WATER RESOURCES: Is there an Outstanding Resource Water(ORW)on or within a half-mile radius of the project site? _Yes_X_No;r if yes, identify the ORW and its location. (NOTE: Outstanding Resource Waters include Class A public water supplies, their tributaries, and bordering wetlands; active and inactive reservoirs approved by MassDEP;certain waters within Areas of Critical , Environmental Concern, and certified vernal pools. Outstanding resource waters are listed in the -4- ' ' Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00.) Are there any impaired water bodies on or within a half-mile radius of the project site? _Yes X No; if yes, identify the water body and pollutant(s)causing the impairment: ' Is the project within a medium or high stress basin, as established by the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission? Yes _X—No ' STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Generally describe the project's stormwater impacts and measures that the project will take to comply with the standards found in MassDEP's Stormwater Management Regulations: The Project is considered a redevelopment,and stormwater management systems will be used to the ' maximum extent practicable. A short term and long term pollution prevention plan addressing water quality measures will be prepared and presented to the Salem Conservation Commission. This redevelopment project will incorporate deep sump catch basins and other mitigative measures,to improve the water quality from ' existing conditions. Post construction the peak storm runoff will be reduced. MASSACHUSETTS CONTINGENCY PLAN: Has the project site been, or is it currently being, regulated under M.G.L.c.21 E or the Massachusetts Contingency Plan? Yes X_ No _ ; if yes, please describe the current status of the site (including Release Tracking Number(RTN), cleanup phase, and Response Action Outcome classification): ' The Project RTN is 3-30380. Project filed a Voluntary Release Abatement Measure Plan with the state which was approved by the MADEP Northeast Region. Metal waste materials associated with former tannery on the site have been and are being removed in accordance with the RAM. ' Is there an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on any portion of the project site? Yes_X_No if yes, describe which portion of the site and how the project will be consistent with the AUL: ' Are you aware of any Reportable Conditions at the property that have not yet been assigned an RTN? Yes _No _X_ ; if yes, please describe: ' SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE: If the project will generate solid waste during demolition or construction, describe alternatives considered for re-use, recycling, and disposal of, e.g., asphalt, brick, concrete, gypsum, metal, wood: (NOTE:Asphalt pavement, brick, concrete and metal are banned from disposal at Massachusetts landfills and waste combustion facilities and wood is banned from disposal at Massachusetts landfills. ' See 310 CMR 19.017 for the complete list of banned materials.) The Project Proponents are considering the feasibility of construction waste recycling for wood, gypsum, carpet and pavement and are also considering the use of recycled materials for new construction such as structural steel,concrete, steel studs, steel doors,gypsum, act, carpet, and composite wood products. All construction debris that is not re-used/re-cycled will be properly disposed of in accordance with state regulations. ' Will your project disturb asbestos containing materials? Yes _No _X_; if yes, please consult state asbestos requirements at http://mass.gov/MassDEP/air/asbhom0l.htm Describe anti-idling and other measures to limit emissions from construction equipment: The Project Proponent will encourage contractors not to idle construction equipment during the construction ' Phase. ' -5- DESIGNATED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER: Is this project site located wholly or partially within a defined river corridor of a federally designated Wild and Scenic River or a state designated Scenic River? Yes_No _X_ , if yes, specify name of river and designation: , If yes, does the project have the potential to impact any of the"outstandingly remarkable' resources of a federally Wild and Scenic River or the stated purpose of a state designated Scenic River? Yes _No _ ; if yes, specify name of river and designation: , if yes, will the project will result in any impacts to any of the designated "outstandingly remarkable' resources of the Wild and Scenic River or the stated purposes of a Scenic River. Yes No _ ; ' if yes,describe the potential impacts to one or more of the"outstandingly remarkable" resources or stated purposes and mitigation measures proposed. 1 1 ATTACHMENTS: 1. List of all attachments to this document. 1 2. U.S.G.S. map (good quality color copy, 8-1/2x 11 inches or larger, at a scale of 1:24,000) indicating the project location and boundaries. 3.. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of existing conditions on the project site and its immediate 1 environs, showing all known structures, roadways and parking lots, railroad rights-of-way, wetlands and water bodies, wooded areas, farmland, steep slopes, public open spaces, and major utilities. 4 Plan, at an appropriate scale, depicting environmental constraints on or adjacent to the 1 project site such as Priority and/or Estimated Habitat of state-listed rare species, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Chapter 91 jurisdictional areas, Article 97 lands, wetland resource area delineations, water supply protection areas, and historic resources ' and/or districts. 5. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of proposed conditions upon completion of project(if construction of the project is proposed to be phased, there should be a site plan showing conditions upon the completion of each phase). 1 6. List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance with 301 CMR 11.16(2). 7. List of municipal and federal permits and reviews required by the project, as applicable. 1 1 II 1 1 LAND SECTION — all proponents must fill out this section , I. Thresholds/ Permits A. Does the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to land (see 301 CMR 11.03(1) ' Yes_No; if yes, specify each threshold: II. Impacts and Permits , A. Describe, in acres, the current and proposed character of the project site, as follows: Existing Change Total Footprint of buildings 1.77 -0.15 1.62 Internal roadways 0 +0.65 0.65 ' Parking and other paved areas 1.26 -0.64 0.62 Other altered areas 1.26 +0.15 1.41 Undeveloped areas 0 0 0 , Total: Project Site Acreage 4.3 0 4.3 B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last five years? _Yes_X_No; if yes, how many acres of land in agricultural use (with prime state or ' locally important agricultural soils)will be converted to nonagricultural use? C. Is any part of the project site currently or proposed to be in active forestry use? _Yes_X_No; if yes, please describe current and proposed forestry activities and , indicate whether any part of the site is the subject of a forest management plan approved by the Department of Conservation and Recreation: D. Does any part of the project involve conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in ' accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97?_Yes_X_No; if yes, describe: ' E. Is any part of the project site currently subject to a conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation restriction or watershed preservation restriction?_ Yes_X_No; if yes, does the project involve the release or modification of such restriction? , Yes_No; if yes, describe: F. Does the project require approval of a new urban redevelopment project or a fundamental change 1 in an existing urban redevelopment project under M.G.L.c.121A? _Yes_X—No; if yes, describe: G. Does the project require approval of a new urban renewal plan or a major modification of an ' existing urban renewal plan under M.G.L.c.121 B? Yes_No_X_; if yes, describe: III. Consistency ' A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan Title: North River Canal Master Plan Date: 2003 B. Describe the project's consistency with that plan with regard to: ' 1) economic development complies 2) adequacy of infrastructure complies 3) open space impacts complies , 4) compatibility with adjacent land uses— complies C. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency(RPA) RPA: The Metropolitan Area Planning Council ' Title: Metro Future Date-2008 g i i 1 ' D. Describe the project's consistency with that plan with regard to: 1) economic development: complies Goal 43 More People will take advantage of the region's artistic and cultural resources 1 2) adequacy of infrastructure: complies Goal 2 suggest that throughout the region most new growth will occur through reuse of previously developed land and buildings 3) open space impacts: complies Goal 65 recommends the development of a robust ' network of protected open spaces farms parks and greenways will provide wildlife habitat ecological benefits, recreational opportunities and scenic beauty 1 1 1 1 i 1 RARE SPECIES SECTION , I. Thresholds/ Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to rare species or habitat (see , 301 CMR 11.03(2))? Yes_X_No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: (NOTE: If you are uncertain, it is recommended that you consult with the Natural Heritage and , Endangered Species Program (NHESP)prior to submitting the ENF.) B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? _Yes _X_No C. Does the project site fall within mapped rare species habitat (Priority or Estimated Habitat?) in the , current Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? _Yes_X_No. D. If you answered "No"to all questions A, B and C, proceed to the Wetlands,Waterways, and , Tidelands Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Rare Species section below. II. Impacts and Permits , A. Does the project site fall within Priority or Estimated Habitat in the current Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? _Yes_ No. If yes, , 1. Have you consulted with the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP)? _Yes_No; if yes, have you received a determination as to whether the project will result in the"take" of a rare species? Yes_No; if yes, attach the letter of determination to this submission. ' 2. Will the project"take" an endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern in accordance with M.G.L. c.131A(see also 321 CMR 10.04)? _Yes_No; if yes, provide a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate rare species impacts 3. Which rare species are known to occur within the Priority or Estimated Habitat? 4. Has the site been surveyed for rare species in accordance with the Massachusetts , Endangered Species Act? _Yes_No 4. If your project is within Estimated Habitat, have you filed a Notice of Intent or received an ' Order of Conditions for this project? _Yes_No; if yes, did you send a copy of the Notice of Intent to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations? _Yes_No ' B. Will the project"take"an endangered,threatened, and/or species of special concern in accordance with M.G.L. c.1 31A(see also 321 CMR 10.04)? _Yes _No; if yes, provide a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to significant habitat: _ ,o_ 1 1 ' WETLANDS, WATERWAYS, AND TIDELANDS SECTION I. Thresholds I Permits ' A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wetlands, waterways, and tidelands (see 301 CMR 11.03(3))? _X_Yes_No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: Nonwater dependent use proposed on more than one acre of filled tidelands. B. Does the project require any state permits (or a local Order of Conditions) related to wetlands, waterways, or tidelands? _x_Yes_No; if yes, specify which permit: Chapter 91 License and Order of Conditions. C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Water Supply Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wetlands, Waterways, 1 and Tidelands Section below. II. Wetlands Impacts and Permits A. Does the project require a new or amended Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c.131A)? _x_Yes_No; if yes, has a Notice of Intent been filed?_Yes_x_No; if yes, list the date and MassDEP file number: ; if yes, has a local Order of Conditions been issued? —Yes_No; Was the Order of Conditions appealed? _Yes_ No. Will the ' project require a Variance from the Wetlands regulations?_Yes_x_No. B. Describe any proposed permanent or temporary impacts to wetland resource areas located on the project site: Existing developed land located in Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and Coastal ' Bank resource areas will be redeveloped with landscaping and walkways. A portion of the internal roadway and a very small portions of two buildings are also located in Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage resource area. C. Estimate the extent and type of impact that the project will have on wetland resources, and indicate whether the impacts are temporary or permanent: Coastal Wetlands Area (square feet)or Temporary or Lenqth (linear feet) Permanent Impact? Land Under the Ocean Designated Port Areas Coastal Beaches Coastal Dunes ' Barrier Beaches Coastal Banks 40,081 Permanent but no adverse impact Rocky Intertidal Shores Salt Marshes Land Under Salt Ponds Land Containing Shellfish Fish Runs Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 28,831 Permanent but no adverse impact Inland Wetlands Bank (If) Bordering Vegetated Wetlands Isolated Vegetated Wetlands Land under Water Isolated Land Subject to Flooding Borderi ng Land Subject to Flooding Riverfront Area D. Is any part of the project: , 1. proposed as a limited project? _Yes_X No; if yes, what is the area (in sf)? 2. the construction or alteration of a dam? _Yes_X_No; if yes, describe: 3. fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway? _Yes_X No 4. dredging or disposal of dredged material? Yes_X_No; if yes, describe the volume ' of dredged material and the proposed disposal site: 5. a discharge to an Outstanding Resource Water(ORW) or an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)? —Yes_X_No , 6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? _Yes_X_No; if yes, identify the area (in sf): 7. located in buffer zones? _X–Yes_No; if yes, how much (in sf) 35,645 E. Will the project: 1. be subject to a local wetlands ordinance or bylaw? _Yes_X_No 2. alter any federally-protected wetlands not regulated under state law? _Yes_X_No; if yes, what is the area (sf)? III.Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits ' A. Does the project site contain waterways or tidelands (including filled former tidelands)that are subject to the Waterways Act, M.G.L.c.91? _X_Yes_No; if yes, is there a current Chapter 91 License or Permit affecting the project site? _X_Yes_No; if yes, list the date and license or , permit number and provide a copy of the historic map used to determine extent of filled tidelands: Please refer to Section 3.11 of the EENF. The MADEP Presumed historic shoreline map was used in coordination with MADEP Waterways staff. B. Does the project require a new or modified license or permit under M.G.L.c.91?_X_Yes_No; if ' yes, how many acres of the project site subject to M.G.L.c.91 will be for non-water-dependent use? Current 2.35 Change -0.88 Total 1.47 ' If yes, how many square feet of solid fill or pile-supported structures (in sf)?, 0 C. For non-water-dependent use projects, indicate the following: Area of filled tidelands on the site: 2.3 Area of filled tidelands covered by buildings: 44,7103 sf For portions of site on filled tidelands, list ground floor uses and area of each use: _residential D ' oes the project include new non-water-dependent uses located over flowed tidelands? Yes_No Height of building on filled tidelands maximum of 50 feet Also show the following on a site plan: Mean High Water, Mean Low Water, Water- , dependent Use Zone, location of uses within buildings on tidelands, and interior and exterior areas and facilities dedicated for public use, and historic high and historic low ' watermarks. Please refer to Figure 10 in EENF. D. Is the project located on landlocked tidelands? _Yes _X_No; if yes, describe the project's impact on the public's right to access, use and enjoy jurisdictional tidelands and describe ' measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact: E. Is the project located in an area where low groundwater levels have been identified by a municipality or by a state or federal agency as a threat to building foundations?_Yes , _X No; if yes, describe the project's impact on groundwater levels and describe measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact: F. Is the project non-water-dependent and located on landlocked tidelands or waterways or tidelands subject to the Waterways Act and subject to a mandatory EIR?_X_Yes No; 1 ' (NOTE: If yes, then the project will be subject to Public Benefit Review and Determination.) ' G. Does the project include dredging?_Yes_X No; if yes, answer the following questions: What type of dredging? Improvement Maintenance_Both What is the proposed dredge volume, in cubic yards (cys) What is the proposed dredge footprint_length (ft)_width (ft)_depth (ft); ' Will dredging impact the following resource areas? Intertidal Yes_ No_; if yes, _sq ft Outstanding Resource Waters Yes_ No if yes, _sq ft ' Other resource area (i.e. shellfish beds, eel grass beds) Yes_ No_; if yes_sq ft If yes to any of the above, have you evaluated appropriate and practicable steps to: 1)avoidance; 2) if avoidance is not possible, minimization; 3) if either ' avoidance or minimize is not possible, mitigation? If no to any of the above, what information or documentation was used to support this determination? ' Provide a comprehensive analysis of practicable alternatives for improvement dredging in accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(1)(b). Physical and chemical data of the sediment shall be included in the comprehensive analysis. Sediment Characterization ' Existing gradation analysis results? _Yes_No: if yes, provide results Existing chemical results for parameters listed in 314 CMR 9.07(2)(b)6? Yes No; if yes, provide results. Do you have sufficient information to evaluate feasibility of the following management ' options for dredged sediment? If yes, check the appropriate option. Beach Nourishment_ Unconfined Ocean Disposal Confined Disposal: Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD)_ Confined Disposal Facility (CDF)_ Landfill Reuse in accordance with COMM-97-001 Shoreline Placement_ Upland Material Reuse ' In-State landfill disposal_ _ Out-of-state landfill disposal (NOTE: This information is required for a 401 Water Quality Certification.) IV. Consistency: A. Does the project have effects on the coastal resources or uses, and/or is the project located within the Coastal Zone?_X Yes_No; if yes, describe these effects and the projects consistency with ' the policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management: Please refer to Section 3.12 of the EENF. B. Is the project located within an area subject to a Municipal Harbor Plan? — Yes X_No; if yes, identify the Municipal Harbor Plan and describe the project's consistency with that plan: i -13- WATER SUPPLY SECTION ' I. Thresholds/Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to water supply (see 301 CMR ' 11.03(4))? _Yes_X_No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to water supply? _Yes_X_No; if yes, specify which permit: , C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wastewater Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Water Supply Section ' below. II. Impacts and Permits A. Describe, in gallons per day(gpd), the volume and source of water use for existing and proposed ' activities at the project site: Existing Change Total Municipal or regional water supply Withdrawal from groundwater Withdrawal from surface water Interbasin transfer (NOTE:Interbasin Transfer approval will be required if the basin and community where the proposed water supply source is ' located is different from the basin and community where the wastewater from the source will be discharged.) B. If the source is a municipal or regional supply, has the municipality or region indicated that there , is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the project?_Yes_No C. If the project involves a new or expanded withdrawal from a groundwater or surface water source, has a pumping test been conducted? _Yes_No; if yes, attach a map of the drilling sites and a summary of the alternatives considered and the results. D. What is the currently permitted withdrawal at the proposed water supply source (in gallons per day)? Will the project require an increase in that withdrawal?_Yes _No; if yes, then how much of an increase (gpd)? E. Does the project site currently contain a water supply well, a drinking water treatment facility, , water main, or other water supply facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? Yes_No. If yes, describe existing and proposed water supply facilities at the project site: Permitted Existing Avg Proiect Flow Total Flow Daily Flow Capacity of water supply well(s) (gpd) Capacity of water treatment plant(gpd) , F. If the project involves a new interbasin transfer of water, which basins are involved, what is the direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed? G. Does the project involve: ' 1. new water service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority or other agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality or water district? _Yes —No ' 2. a Watershed Protection Act variance? _Yes_No; if yes, how many acres of alteration? 3. a non-bridged stream crossing 1,000 or less feet upstream of a public surface drinking water supply for purpose of forest harvesting activities? _Yes_No III. Consistency Describe the project's consistency with water conservation plans or other plans to enhance water , resources, quality, facilities and services: - 14- ' WASTEWATER SECTION I. Thresholds/ Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wastewater(see 301 CMR 11.03(5))? _Yes_X_No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to wastewater? _Yes_X_No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Transportation --Traffic Generation Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wastewater Section below. II. Impacts and Permits A. Describe the volume (in gallons per day)and type of disposal of wastewater generation for existing and proposed activities at the project site (calculate according to 310 CMR 15.00 for septic systems or 314 CMR 7.00 for sewer systems): Existing Change Total Discharge of sanitary wastewater Discharge of industrial wastewater TOTAL 1 Existing Change Total Discharge to groundwater ' Discharge to outstanding resource water Discharge to surface water Discharge to municipal or regional wastewater facility TOTAL B. Is the existing collection system at or near its capacity? _Yes_No; if yes, then describe the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project's wastewater flows: C. Is the existing wastewater disposal facility at or near its permitted capacity?_Yes_No; if yes, then describe the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project's wastewater flows: ' D. Does the project site currently contain a wastewater treatment facility, sewer main, or other wastewater disposal facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? _Yes No; if yes, describe as follows: IPermitted Existing Avg Proiect Flow Total Daily Flow Wastewater treatment plant capacity (in gallons per day) E. If the project requires an interbasin transfer of wastewater, which basins are involved, what is the direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or new? (NOTE.Interbasin Transfer approval may be needed if the basin and community where wastewater will be discharged is different from the basin and community where the source of water supply is - 15- located.) ' F. Does the project involve new sewer service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority ' (MW RA) or other Agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality or sewer district? _Yes_No G. Is there an existing facility, or is a new facility proposed at the project site for the storage, , treatment, processing, combustion or disposal of sewage sludge, sludge ash, grit, screenings, wastewater reuse (gray water) or other sewage residual materials? _Yes_No; if yes, what is the capacity(tons per day): Existing Change Total Storage Treatment , Processing Combustion Disposal ' H. Describe the water conservation measures to be undertaken by the project, and other wastewater mitigation, such as infiltration and inflow removal. III. Consistency A. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with applicable state, regional, and local plans and policies related to wastewater management: ' B. If the project requires a sewer extension permit, is that extension included in a comprehensive wastewater management plan? _Yes_No; if yes, indicate the EEA number for the plan and whether the project site is within a sewer service area recommended or approved in that ' plan: it 1 ' TRANSPORTATION SECTION (TRAFFIC GENERATION) ' I. Thresholds/ Permit A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to traffic generation (see 301 CMR 11.03(6))? _Yes_X_No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to state-controlled roadways?_Yes_X_ No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Roadways and Other Transportation Facilities Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Traffic Generation Section below. ' It. Traffic Impacts and Permits A. Describe existing and proposed vehicular traffic generated by activities at the project site: ' Existing Change Total Number of parking spaces Number of vehicle trips per day ITE Land Use Code(s): B. What is the estimated average daily traffic on roadways serving the site? Roadway Existing Change Total 1. Flint 8774 69 8843 ' 2. Mason 1657 145 1802 3. C. If applicable, describe proposed mitigation measures on state-controlled roadways that the project proponent will implement: ' D. How will the project implement and/or promote the use of transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and services to provide access to and from the project site? ' C. Is there a Transportation Management Association (TMA)that provides transportation demand management(TDM) services in the area of the project site? Yes No; if yes, describe if and how will the project will participate in the TMA: D. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation facilities? Yes No; if yes, generally describe: ' E. If the project will penetrate approach airspace of a nearby airport, has the proponent filed a Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission Airspace Review Form (780 CMR 111.7)and a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (CFR Title 14 Part 77.13, forms 7460-1 and 7460-2)? III. Consistency ' Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with municipal, regional, state, and federal plans and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services: - 17- TRANSPORTATION SECTION (ROADWAYS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION ' FACILITIES) I. Thresholds ' A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to roadways or other transportation facilities (see 301 CMR 11.03(6))? _Yes_X_No, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to roadways or other transportation ' facilities? _Yes_X_ No, if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Energy Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Roadways Section ' below. II.Transportation Facility Impacts ' A. Describe existing and proposed transportation facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site: B. Will the project involve any 1. Alteration of bank or terrain (in linear feet)? 2. Cutting of living public shade trees (number)? 3. Elimination of stone wall (in linear feet)? ' III. Consistency --Describe the project's consistency with other federal, state, regional, and local plans and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services, ' including consistency with the applicable regional transportation plan and the Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP), the State Bicycle Plan, and the State Pedestrian Plan: r _ ,8- 1 ' ENERGY SECTION ' I. Thresholds/ Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to energy(see 301 CMR 11.03(7))? Yes_X_No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to energy? _Yes_X_No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Air Quality Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Energy Section below. ' II. Impacts and Permits A. Describe existing and proposed energy generation and transmission facilities at the project site: Existin Change Total Capacity of electric generating facility(megawatts) Length of fuel line (in miles) Length of transmission lines (in miles) Capacity of transmission lines (in kilovolts) B. If the project involves construction or expansion of an electric generating facility, what are: 1. the facility's current and proposed fuel source(s)? 2. the facility's current and proposed cooling source(s)? C. If the project involves construction of an electrical transmission line, will it be located on a new, unused, or abandoned right of way?_Yes No; if yes, please describe: D. Describe the project's other impacts on energy facilities and services: III. Consistency Describe the project's consistency with state, municipal, regional, and federal plans and policies for enhancing energy facilities and services: 1 - 19- i AIR QUALITY SECTION ' I. Thresholds A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality(see 301 CMR ' 11.03(8))? _Yes_X_ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to air quality? _Yes_X_No; if yes, ' specify which permit: C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Air ' Quality Section below. II. Impacts and Permits ' A. Does the project involve construction or modification of a major stationary source (see 310 CMR 7.00, Appendix A)?_Yes_No; if yes, describe existing and proposed emissions (in tons per day)of: Existing Change Total ' Particulate matter Carbon monoxide Sulfur dioxide Volatile organic compounds Oxides of nitrogen ' Lead Any hazardous air pollutant Carbon dioxide B. Describe the project's other impacts on air resources and air quality, including noise impacts: III. Consistency , A. Describe the project's consistency with the State Implementation Plan: B. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with other federal, state, regional, and ' local plans and policies related to air resources and air quality: 20 t SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION I. Thresholds/ Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to solid or hazardous waste (see 301 CMR 11.03(9))? _Yes_X_No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: ' B. Does the project require any state permits related to solid and hazardous waste? _Yes _X_No; if yes, specify which permit: ' C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section below. ' II. Impacts and Permits A. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing, ' combustion or disposal of solid waste?_Yes_No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons per day) of the capacity: Existing Change Total Storage ' Treatment, processing Combustion Disposal ' B. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, recycling, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste?_Yes_No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons or gallons per day) of the capacity: ' Existing Change Total Storage Recycling Treatment Disposal C. If the project will generate solid waste (for example, during demolition or construction), describe alternatives considered for re-use, recycling, and disposal: D. If the project involves demolition, do any buildings to be demolished contain asbestos? ' Yes No E. Describe the project's other solid and hazardous waste impacts (including indirect impacts): III. Consistency Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with the State Solid Waste Master Plan: 1 ' 21 1 1 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION 1. Thresholds/Impacts ' A. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission? _X_Yes_No; if yes, attach correspondence. For project sites involving lands under water, have you consulted with the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources?_Yes_No; if yes, attach ' correspondence B. Is any part of the project site a historic structure, or a structure within a historic district, in either case listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological ' Assets of the Commonwealth? _Yes_X_No; if yes, does the project involve the demolition of all or any exterior part of such historic structure? _Yes_No; if yes, please describe: C. Is any part of the project site an archaeological site listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? _Yes_X_No; if yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site? _Yes No; if yes, please describe: ' D. If you answered "No"to all parts of both questions A, B and C, proceed to the Attachments and Certifications Sections. If you answered "Yes"to any part of either question A or question B, fill out ' the remainder of the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section below. 11. Impacts , Describe and assess the project's impacts, direct and indirect, on listed or inventoried historical and archaeological resources: III. Consistency , Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state, regional, and local plans and policies related to preserving historical and archaeological resources: ' 1 22 1 1 1 1 Chapter 1 Project Summary ' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 1.1 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Project Name: Riverview Place ' Project Location: Salem, MA Project Proponent: Riverview Place LLC 1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW II' ' 1.2.1. ProjectSite ' Riverview Place is a mixed-use redevelopment project (hereinafter referred to as the "Project") located on land under the control of Riverview LLC (hereinafter referred to as the " Proponent") in Salem, MA. The 4.3 acre site is bounded on the north by Mason Street on the west by Flint Street, on the south by ' the North River Canal and on the east by commercial and industrial properties (See Figure 1, Project Locus Plan and Figure 2, Aerial View). The northern portion of the site is elevated ten to fifteen feet t higher than most of the property which is fairly level sloping southerly toward the North River Canal. The property was formerly developed with industrial leather manufacturing facilities and is currently vacant. ' The Project site is well situated within walking distance of downtown Salem. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Salem Commuter Rail station is located about''/: mile east of the site. Abutting ' land uses include residential neighborhoods and commercial facilities. Two parks are located in close proximity to the property including the City-owned Mack Park located across Mason Street from the property's entrance and Leslie's Retreat Park located on the south side of the North River Canal. 1.2.2 Project Summary ' The Project involves the redevelopment of the site into a mixed use complex consisting of 130 residential apartments and 5,540 square feet (sf) of commercial space. Three buildings are proposed on the site (see Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan). Two of the Buildings, Buildings 1 and 2, contain residential units and structured parking and the third Building, Building 3, contains residential uses in the upper floors and commercial uses on the lower level. The site has been designed with two site entrances; one ' off of Mason Street and one off of Flint Street. The development includes 309 parking spaces of which 271 are proposed in structured parking and 38 are located in at grade surface lots. Twelve of the at- grade spaces will be made available to existing residents of Flint Street. The Project conforms to the City ' of Salem's North River Can Corridor Master Plan and has been approved by the City of Salem which supports the redevelopment project. Page 11-1 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' 1 Page Intentionally Blank 1 1 Page 11-2 MA'�X1'1 �4�►�i�,�^ �� --��' �' ��.,�_ %%/ Y.: M ..N_ �1 � ,yr�r� (� i ;d r�•-� yam'Ml ♦ ,��, JWN IM XMI ml jig "A21M . . • ��. .� 6� r FRS �1_�. / • `►` . �.J" �._46 JS OW wr PF lilt Tv In r VNIN tilt e AM ,.. `meq„\• _a�G�J`��"'`' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 1 Page Intentionally Blank t 1 1 1 Page 11-4 • �' } 7 Levi `� ✓ tA' U��♦ 1r I le ;Fllnt`St, Salem 5 a Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' Page Intentionally Blank 1 Page 11-6 i 5 9. Twelve (12) on site parking spaces are to be reserved for the sole use of Flint Street residents. The proposed mechanism for reserving the spaces is to be submitted and approved by the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 10. The applicant, upon taking title to the premises, will grant to the City of Salem and easement to construct an extension of the Commercial Street public roadway across the site in the location shown on the site plan at any time within a ten (10) year period after all necessary approvals for the project become final. Upon such construction, such easement shall automatically become a full and permanent easement to use and maintain the easement area as a public way in the City of Salem. Robin Stein, Chair Salem Zoning Board of Appeals A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,and shall be filed within 20 days of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A,Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. 4 1. To enable the proposed development, the petitioner may vary the following terms of the North River Canal Corridor Zoning District § 7-21: • minimum lot area per dwelling unit may be reduced to 1440 sf/dwelling unit (from the 3,500 sf/dwelling unit required) § 7-21 (k)(1), • common building entrances can be used instead of having separate exterior entrances for each unit § 7-21 (e)(2)(a)(3) • a small percentage of two buildings, and a portion of the roadway and parking on the western side of the Locus are within the 50 ft buffer zone, therefore construction may take place in the buffer zone § 7-21 (m)(1)(c). 2. In permitting such change, the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted, six (5) in favor (Stein, Debski, Belair, Pinto, and Curran) none (0) opposed, to grant petitioner's requests for variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to the Planning Board. 8. The Petitioner shall place an Affordable Housing Restriction on thirteen (13) of the one hundred and thirty (130) units in the form of a deed rider approved by the City Planner and registered with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. The affordable housing restrictions are to be in accordance with the eligibility criteria for the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Community Development's Subsidized Housing Inventory for the purpose of ensuring that thirteen (13) dwelling units will be restricted as affordable housing for households whose annual incomes are eighty percent (80%) or less of area median income (`low income households") with a sales price affordable to low income households for a period of ninety-nine (99) years from the date of the first occupancy permit. 3 14. Letters of support were also submitted by John Hoskins (22 Larchmont Rd), James Scanlan (13 Bayview Circle), and At-Large Councilor Thomas Furey. 15. A letter was submitted by Howard and Maryellen Sullivan (1 Orchard Street) requesting decisions be made in concordance with the NRCC Master Plan. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the following findings: 1. The variances requested are not contrary to the public interest and, owing to special conditions; a literal enforcement of the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. 2. There are circumstances including soil conditions and use and condition of the existing buildings which especially affect the Locus but do not affect generally the zoning district in which the Locus is located. The contaminated soil must be remediated prior to redevelopment of the Locus. 3. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the petitioner. 4. The proposed development complies with the goals of the NRCC Neighborhood Mixed Use District and the requirements set forth in § 7-21 (a) to achieve these goals, as follows: a. The Locus is being redeveloped for housing and commercial uses b. Public pedestrian access to and along the North River Canal will be provided. c. A public-private partnership to provide enhanced maintenance trees, sidewalks, benches, along the canal will be developed. d. The streetscape along Mason Street will be enhanced. e. The project is designed to enhance solutions to neighborhood traffic, including the granting of an easement to the City of Salem to allow it to construct an extension of the Commercial Street public roadway across the development site. Further the applicant will work with the City to incorporate reasonable recommendations from the Earth Tech, Inc. traffic study to improve travel along Flint Street. For these reasons, desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the ordinance. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the Plans, Documents and testimony, the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 2 r apartments on the upper floors. Thirteen (13) units are to be affordable. The original Petition proposed 164 residential units in addition to the proposed commercial space. 5. The project will provide 309 parking spaces of which, 260 parking spaces will be allotted to the residential units (2 spaces per dwelling unit), 37 parking spaces will serve the commercial space and 12 spaces will be reserved for residents of Flint Street. 6. The Locus has historically been used as a tannery. The existing buildings will be razed and extensive remediation will be undertaken to clean up the site prior to new construction. 7. Conditions of the Locus, including soil conditions are unique to it and not present other properties in the district. 8. Several City residents spoke saying they were not opposed to the request to allow common building entrances. 9. Approximately 10% of the structure on the Bonfanti site, 10% of one (1) structure on the Salem Suede site, and a portion of the roadway and parking on the western side of the Locus are within the 50 foot buffer zone. The existing industrial building is much closer to the abutting residences than will be the proposed new structure. 10. Several City residents voiced opposition to the proposed density variance; many felt it deviated from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Many of these residents participated in the development of the NRCC Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 11. Several City residents spoke in support of the project; many of these residents felt it was an opportunity to change a blighted area. 12. At the August 22, 2007 meeting, the petitioner submitted a petition in support of the proposed plan with sixteen (16) signatures of residents from Flint, Mason, School, and Larchmont Streets. 13. At the October 17, 2007 meeting, the petitioner submitted forty-eight (48) petitions, signed by neighborhood residents, in support of the redevelopment plans. The petitions,prepared by Riverview Place LLC, state "by signing below, I wish to express my support for this proposed project described above and I urge the Board of Appeals to grant the relief from the City's Zoning Ordinance necessary to allow the project to proceed. I consider this to be a valuable opportunity to improve two properties that are a substantial blight to my neighborhood. I believe that the redevelopment of these properties will not only be beneficial to me as part of the immediate neighborhood, but also to the City as a whole". f November 2, 2007 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of Riverview Place LLC requesting Variances to allow for a minimum lot area of 1,440 square feet per dwelling unit, common building entrances, and to allow construction within the 50 foot buffer area for the properties located at 72 FLINT STREET AND 67-69 & 71 MASON STREET [NRCC]. A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on August 22, 2007 and continued to September 19, 2007, and October 17, 2007 pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §§ 11. The public hearing was closed on October 17, 2007 with the following Zoning Board members present: Robin Stein, Bonnie Belair, Elizabeth Debski, Rebecca Curran, and Steven Pinto. Petitioner seeks variances pursuant to section § 7-21 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance specifically from: minimum lot area per dwelling unit § 7-21 (k)(1), separate first floor entrances § 7-21 (e)(2)(a)(3), and buffer areas § 7-21 (m)(1)(c). Statements of fact: 1. The locus in is in the North River Canal Corridor(NRCC) District and includes 72 Flint Street (3.69 acres), 71 Mason Street (0.34 acres), and 67-69 Mason Street (0.11 acres) for a total of 4.14 acres (the "Locus"). Salem Suede, Inc. owns 72 Flint Street. The R.L.B. Realty Trust owns 67-69 and 71 Mason Street. 2. Plans accompany the Petition include the site plan prepared by Eastern Land Survey, entitled"Site Development Permit Plan", dated October 9, 2007, and elevations prepared by H.H. Morant & Co., Inc. Architects, entitled "Riverview Place: Schematic Roof Plan & Elevations", dated September 26, 2007. 3. A Traffic Impact&Assessment Study prepared by Earth Tech, Inc. was submitted with the Petition. EarthTech, Inc. was previously involved with the North River Canal Corridor Master Plan. The study estimates 871 new vehicle trips on a daily basis including 56 additional trips during the morning peak traffic period and 87 additional trips during the evening peak traffic period. 4. The petitioner proposes to erect three new structures with a total of 130 dwelling units on the 4.14 acre site (1,440 sf per dwelling unit). The Mason Street building will contain 5,540 sf of commercial space on the first floor with residential �Ian�in1 �oa�� Site Plan Review Decision April 17, 2009 Mr. Michael O'Brien Riverview Place LLC 6 Cider Mill Road Peabody, MA 01960 RE: Riverview Place, 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, & 71 Mason Street (Map 26, Lots 0091, 0095 & 0097) (former Salem Suede Property), Site Plan Review, North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use Special Permit, Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit On Thursday, January 15, 2009, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing regarding the application of Michael O'Brien, Riverview Place LLC, 6 Cider Mill Road, Peabody, MA 01960 for the property located at 72 Flint Street, 67-69 Mason Street, & 71 Mason Street (Map 26, Lots 0091, 0095 & 0097) (former Salem Suede Property). The -- ---t-- proposed project includes three new structures containing a total of,130-residential'd---well-i-n • units; 5 540 square feet of com"mercial',space; and 309:off-street parking spaces: The Public Hearing was continued to February 5, 2009, March 5, 2009, and March 19, 2009, and closed on April 16, 2009. The Planning Board finds that the proposed special permit application meets the criteria of the North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District under Section 7-21(e) (2)Residential: multifamily residential uses as primary uses in town house, rowhouse flats, or multistory arrangements; specifically: 1. The residential uses abut residential uses on Mason Street and Flint Street; 2. Multi-family residential uses retain first floor commercial use on a main corridor— Commercial uses are proposed for the building on Mason Street. 3. A variance was granted by the Board of Appeals on October 17, 2007 allowing common residential building entrances. In considering approval of the Special Permit, the Planning Board found that the goals of the North River Canal Corridor Plan, as stated in the Salem Zoning Ordinance, were met, as follows: 1. Create appropriate development while preserving our historic neighborhood character The proposed project was unanimously recommended for approval without conditions by the Salem Design Review Board(DRB) on February 25, 2009. the DRB's role is to review proposals to ensure they are designed to complement and harmonize with adjacent land uses with respect to architecture, scale, landscaping and screening. The applicant responded to concerns expressed by the DRB about the project's massing, placement on the site, relationship to site topography, architectural treatment with respect to differing neighborhood character on the various sides of the property, impervious surface and access. In a recommendation letter to the Planning Board dated March 5, 2009, the DRB details how the applicant satisfactorily resolved these problems. 2. Address transportation issues for existing and new developments The project is located within walking distance of the Salem MBTA commuter rail stop. The developer has also agreed to mitigation measures, specified in the conditions below, to address existing traffic congestion problems in the neighborhood 3. Enhance the public realm in keeping with our unique neighborhood character The project provides public access to the canal and includes walkways throughout the site and landscaping along the water's edge. The project includes pedestrian improvements to facilitate access to the canal and throughout the site through wider sidewalks, additional plantings and a new terrace. Walkways are also connected to abutting properties. In considering approval of the Special Permit, the Planning Board also found that the proposed project complies with the North River Canal Corridor Master Plan, as follows: 1. Redevelops a key site in the NRCC, the Salem Suede site; 2. Enhances the streetscape along Mason Street; 3. Provides an easement to the City of Salem to allow it to construct an extension of the Commercial Street public roadway across the development site; and 4. Provides off street parking for adjacent Flint Street residents. On October 17, 2007, the Salem Board of Appeals granted Variances from the NRCC Zoning District to allow for a minimum lot area of 1,440 square feet per dwelling unit, common building entrances, and to allow construction within the 50 foot buffer area. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on April 16, 2009, the Planning Board, based on the information contained in the application and presented at the hearings, voted 2 I � , by a vote of eight (8) in favor (Chuck Puleo, Gene Collins, Nadine Hanscom, Tim Kavanaugh, Pam Lombardini, Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, and David Weiner), none opposed, to approve the Site Plan Review application, the North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit and the Flood Hazard District Special Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plans Work shall conform to the following plans: Site Development Permit Plan of Riverview Place in Salem, Massachusetts," Sheets I through 8, dated January 24, 2008 and revised on March 17, 2008, November 12, 2008, December 23, 2008, February 19, 2009, and March 26, 2009, prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc., Peabody, MA; �!"Riverview Place, Flint & Mason Street, Salem, Massachusetts," Sheets C1.1, A1.0 _ $�IZ/08 7 t ugh Al.7, A2.1, A2.2, A2.3 c, and A2.4b. nceptual Landscape Plan," Sheets L-1 and L-2, dated March 18, 2009, prepared by Huntress Associates, Inc., Andover, MA; d raffic Signing and Pavement Marking Plan," dated March 2009, prepared by AECOM, Concord MA; and Riverview Place, Salem, MA, Site Lighting with Wall Fixtures," dated March 25, 2009, prepared by Peter Beane. 2. Amendments Any amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed necessary by the City Planner, shall be brought to the Planning Board. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 3. Landscaping a. Applicant is to submit a final set of landscaping plans to concur with site development plans, showing all bio-retention areas. Final landscaping plans are to be approved by the City Planner. b. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans. c. Maintenance of landscape vegetation shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. 4. Lighting a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way. b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Electrician for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Construction Practices All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: a. All provisions in the City of Salem's Code of Ordinance, Chapter 22,Noise Control, shall be strictly adhered to. b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on abutters. Advance notice shall be provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to commencement of demolition and construction of the project. 3 c. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM. There shall be no drilling, blasting or rock hammering on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. d. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave the site. e. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Salem. f All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located completely on the site g. All construction activities shall be in accordance with the "Salem Police Station Construction Management Plan". 6. Clerk of the Works A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the applicant, his successors or assigns, as is deemed necessary by the City Planner. 7. Design Review Board All requirements as set forth by the Design Review Board (DRB) shall be strictly adhered to. Violation of DRB requirements shall be considered a violation of the Site Plan. 8. Conservation Commission a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Conservation Commission b. The applicant shall receive all necessary approvals from the Salem Conservation Commission. 9. Signage and Traffic Calming The applicant, his successors, or assigns shall be responsible for the following signage and traffic calming measures, provided that any required City Council approvals are granted: a. installation of an electronic speed monitor on Mason Street, with the location to be determined by the Traffic Division Commander; b. installation of signage and pavement markings as shown on the submitted plans; c. placement of"No Parking—Tow Zone" signage on Mason Street on both sides of the site driveway, to be approved by the Traffic Division Commander; d. signage at the Mason St. driveway prohibiting the entrance and exit of trucks(to be added to a revised signage plan); e. installation of a yellow flashing beacon at the intersection of Flint Street and Mason Street, with the type and exact location to be approved by the Traffic Division Commander; f. complete plans and specifications for the design of a traffic signal to be built at the intersection of Mason Street, Tremont Street and the site's Mason Street driveway prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. g. The Planning Department shall determine whether a traffic island is required at the base of Oak Street within six (6) months following the last Certificate of Occupancy issued in connection with the project. Should the Planning Department determine that a traffic island is necessary, then the developer shall cause the same to be installed at its sole cost and expense within the timeframe determined by the Planning Department. During the 4 interim, the developer shall be responsible for installing signage and making pavement markings at the intersection of Oak Street and Flint Street as directed by the Planning Department on the basis of recommendations made by the City Engineer and/or Traffic Division Commander. 10. Affordable Housing The Petitioner shall place an Affordable Housing Restriction on the development ensuring that at least thirteen (13) of the one hundred and thirty(130)units shall be affordable. The form of the restriction is to be approved by the City Planner and recorded with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. The affordable housing restriction is to be in accordance with the eligibility criteria for the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Community Development's Subsidized Housing Inventory for the purpose of ensuring that at least thirteen (13) dwelling units will be restricted as affordable housing for households whose annual incomes are eighty percent (80%)or less of area median income with rents affordable to low and moderate income households, by standards established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for a period of ninety-nine (99) years from the date of the first occupancy permit. 11. Parking Spaces for Flint Street Residents Twelve (12) on site parking spaces are to be reserved in perpetuity for the sole use of Flint Street residents who live between Mason Street and Bridge Street. The proposed mechanism for reserving the spaces is to be submitted and approved by the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Spaces are to be maintained year-round. 12. Roadway Easement The applicant, upon taking title to the premises, will grant to the City of Salem an easement to construct an extension of the Commercial Street public roadway across the site in the location shown on the site plan at any time within a fifteen(15) year period beginning on the date of the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. If no road is constructed within this time period, the easement shall expire. The easement is to be in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and to be recorded by the developer upon approval by the City Solicitor. The easement is to be recorded upon issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Bypass Pumping and Sedimentation Control With respect to that portion of the Mason Street storm drain system believed to pass through the site, applicant is to maintain bypass pumping twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week during wet weather conditions and plug the outfall to avoid sedimentation of the North River during demolition. 14. Gas Lines Applicant is to cut and cap the gas lines at the existing main prior to beginning demolition. 15. Drainage and Bio-Retention Plans Applicant is to submit a revised Sheet 6 of 8 of the site plans to include the drain stubs from all buildings and the bio-retention areas per the narrative submitted on March 9, 2009 by H.H. Morant, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Additionally, applicant is to submit details for 5 review showing the oil-water separator proposed for the interior parking garage drainage, and the flow splitting device proposed to proportion drain flows from the roof of Building#3, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 16. Maintenance of Catch Basins and Stormceptors Applicant is to submit a narrative describing the frequency of cleaning and maintenance of catch basins and Stormceptors and clearly define responsible party for maintenance, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 17. Performance of Drain Piping and Stormceptor Applicant is to submit a revised Sheet 7 of the site plans, and confirm that the drain piping will not allow backflow from the stormcepter to the lower bio-retention area. 18. Replacement of Mason Street Water Valve Applicant will replace the existing Mason Street water valve if deemed necessary by the City Engineer. 19. Irrigation Applicant is to revise plans to include proposed locations of irrigation piping and sprinkler heads. 20. Board of Health The owner shall comply with the following specific conditions issued by the Board of Health: a. The individual presenting the plan to the Board of Health must notify the Health Agent of the name, address, and telephone number of the project(site) manager who will be on site and directly responsible for the construction of the project. b. If a DEP tracking number is issued for this site under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, no structure shall be constructed until the Licensed Site Professional responsible for the site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use. c. The developer will give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report. d. A radon remediation kit is installed and is operational in each below grade dwelling unit. e. A radon test is conducted following installation and operation of the remediation kit. f. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. g. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, From BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. h. An initial rodent assessment and a weekly report shall be sent to the Health Agent for the first 30 days during demolition, then monthly inspections and reports sent to the Health Agent until such time the report indicates no rodent activity. Rodent control is to be in place one week prior to demolition. Abutters are to be notified 72 hours prior to demolition. i. The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area prior to construction, demolition, and/or blasting and shall send a copy of the exterminator's invoice to the Health Agent. j. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. k. Prior to renovation/demolition of any structures, a Certified Asbestos Inspector must inspect all buildings and send a report to the Health Agent. If asbestos is found, the owner 6 must comply with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's regulations including 310CMR 7.15, 1. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. m. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for containment and removal of debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable excavation material generated during demolition and/or construction. n. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. o. Noise levels from the resultant establishment(s) generated by operations, including but not limited to refrigeration and heating, shall not increase the broadband sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above the ambient levels measured at the property line. p. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. q. The resultant establishment shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its operation in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health. r. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetland Management District. s. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. 21. Fire Department All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. 22. Building Inspector All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 23. Utilities Underground utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 24. Exterior Elevations Elevations shall be in accordance with the approved plans. 25. Maintenance a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site. c. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the applicant, his successors or assigns. 26. As-built Plans As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. 27. Violations 7 Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy of this decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty (20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record is recorded on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner or applicant, his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering. Charles M. Puleo, Chairman 8 MUM, "IF IN -M- OEM N, 4 Won IN 110 MIlip'.1 HIM , MUM -r -RIM. Bin lH Z —of =Mi T ora 3 rt try "PORE op.1.IN ,gggip HIM 74,NgW, MM)M, MCI H!, -g gligammll, Hill g(-I 40 ftililOiiigN ggp.= Ril "I Hill, Ell ARM 5. ------ ximil 'n� 0ji;mR"'m'F' Ra '_glgm�grg'i_ ...wm.g mig.p n Ecite G li"I �R:gR'RcRKlg-'— MET M UNI I 1 1". M,i rjf�1 @E 111 al— m ......... -�T 01-1. MR m! jig g� N 611A MIN i I the. (o bUivd 1. Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form MASON STREET � < - — — ------- --------- - T— —�r --, — PROPOSED JRJJLDJNO 1 5 \ (i+lalud{ng mwrMnga) l "1 I I 1 1 I I P YM1t0FBeml l,. Building 3 1 1 Vj Ia i I - _iaru x 1 b I ti,;mmae -- PROPOSED BR20lNC I4.215taJ i I PROPOSED (imIuding o rhangs) �. EO e 16.714ta97IiaJ im lip / (ind%dinD Building '- y 1 1 �-J Building 2 i I } ; i I NAL NORTYZ ... _ Source: HR Morant PROPOSED SITE PLAN Figure 3 Page 11-7 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form , i 1 1 Page Intentionally Blank ' Page 11-8 Riverview Place Expantled Environmental Notification Form subject to review and authorization as part of the state Chapter 91 Waterways Licensing Process and Public benefits are proposed to offset these impacts. Proposed public benefits include:introducing Public access to a site where such access has not existed;creation of public pathways to and along the North River Canal;creation of a view corridor from Mason Street to the North River Canal; creation of pedestrian access from Mason and Flint Streets to the North River Canal and neighborhood benefits including off street parking areas and traffic improvements. Additionally,the Project has received local zoning and Site Plan review approvals from the City of Salem as well as Conservation Commission approval for Preconstruction activities. Some of these decisions were appealed and after several years of litigation,the Massachusetts Superior Court found in favor of the Proponent. Through those permitting processes, the City required traffic mitigation;the reservation of a an easement adjacent to the North River Canal for the City of Salem to construct a future connector road;a view corridor from Mason Street to the North River Canal; and specific building orientation requirements and architectural design standards. Due to the Presence of historic structures in the area and the proximity to a local historic district,a Project Notification Form was submitted to the Massachusetts Historical Commission which issued a Determination of No Adverse impact in January of 2011 (see Appendix I). The Project will be required to obtain a NPDES General Permit and a local Conservation Com stormwater discharges and treatment facilities. mission approve for 2.Ample and unconstrained inJrasnuctureJacili[ies and services exist to support those aspects of the Project within subject matterjurisdiction. The Project does not require any new infrastructure. The site was previously developed and is adequately serviced by public water and sewer. The existing curb cut on Flint Street will be used for site access from the west and an existing access point on Mason treet will be widened and improved to provide access to the site from the north. The Pr�ject will implement traffic improvements required as par[ of the Planning Board Special Permit that will improve existing transportation infrastructure in the area and will provide 12 on-site parking spaces for Flint Street residents to alleviate congestion and parking demand on that street. The Project will be served by municipal water and sewer. 1.4 PROJECT PERMITS/APPROVALS AND AGENCY COORDINATION The Project requires several local permits as well as a state Chapter 91 License and a federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)construction stormwater Permit(see Table 1). 1.4.1 Local Approvals The Project already received permits and approvals from the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals (zoning variances),the Planning Board(Special Permit/Site Plan Approval),the Design Review Board Page 11-10 recgl �mlfs fmm I�r�8F} Tc- �m�� .�fi �H- ' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form M 1.3 EIR WAIVER REQUEST The Project proponents are requesting a full waiver from the requirements to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Riverview Project. The Project is undergoing MEPA review pursuant to Sections 301 CMR 11.03 (3)(a)(5) because it is nonwater-dependent and proposed to be developed on one or more acres of tidelands which requires a Chapter 91 Waterways License from the Massachusetts ' Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP). 1.3.1 EIR Waiver Standards ' MEPA regulations at 310 CMR 11.1(1) provide that a waiver from the requirements to file an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) may be granted upon a finding that strict compliance with the ' regulations will result in undue hardship and will not serve to minimize or avoid damage to the environment. In the case of categorically included projects, this finding is based on the following circumstances: 1) the Project is likely to cause no damage to the environment; and 2) ample and ' unconstrained infrastructure exists to support the project. 1.3.2 EIR Waiver Rationale ' The Project is categorically included for the submittal of an EIR pursuant to 301 CMR 11.03(a)(5) as more than one acre of nonwater-dependent uses are proposed on filled tidelands. The Proponent is seeking a ' full EIR Waiver pursuant to 310 CMR 11.1(1) because requiring the preparation of an EIR would not serve to avoid or minimize damage to the environment. Project impacts on filled tidelands will be fully analyzed through the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) Waterways ' Division Chapter 91 licensing process and will be offset by appropriate mitigation without requiring an EIR level of review. The analyses included within this Expanded Environmental Notification document ' comprehensively assess the existing conditions and potential impacts of the proposed Project and demonstrate that any damage to the environment will be avoided and/or minimized. The Project qualifies for the granting of a waiver from the requirements to file an EIR pursuant to 310 CMR 11.1(1) ' as outlined below. 1. The project is not likely to cause damage to the environment. The Project site was filled for industrial purposes in the 1800's and used for nonwater-dependent uses since that time. The Project site historically contained buildings and extensive paved surfaces that occupied land subject to coastal storm flowage, the 100 foot buffer zone from coastal banks and over one acre of filled tidelands. While the Project will alter land subject to coastal storm flowage and areas within the 100 foot buffer zone to the coastal bank, the alterations will improve the environment by reducing ' impervious areas and replacing existing paved areas along the North River with lawn and public walkways. The Project also proposes re-development activities in filled tideland resources including buildings, parking areas, vehicular circulation, lawn and public walkways. These impacts will be Page 11-9 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' subject to review and authorization as part of the state Chapter 91 Waterways Licensing process and public benefits are proposed to offset these impacts. Proposed public benefits include: introducing ' public access to a site where such access has not existed; creation of public pathways to and along the North River Canal; creation of a view corridor from Mason Street to the North River Canal; creation of pedestrian access from Mason and Flint Streets to the North River Canal and ' neighborhood benefits including off street parking areas and traffic improvements. Additionally, the Project has received local zoning and Site Plan review approvals from the City of , Salem as well as Conservation Commission approval for preconstruction activities. Some of these decisions were appealed and after several years of litigation, the Massachusetts Superior Court , found in favor of the Proponent. Through those permitting processes, the City required traffic mitigation; the reservation of a an easement adjacent to the North River Canal for the City of Salem to construct a future connector road; a view corridor from Mason Street to the North River Canal; , and specific building orientation requirements and architectural design standards. Due to the presence of historic structures in the area and the proximity to a local historic district, a Project Notification Form was submitted to the Massachusetts Historical Commission which issued a ' Determination of No Adverse impact in January of 2011 (see Appendix 1). The Project will be required to obtain a NPDES General Permit and a local Conservation Commission approve for , stormwater discharges and treatment facilities. 2.Ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities and services exist to support those aspects of the ' project within subject matter jurisdiction. The Project does not require any new infrastructure. The site was previously developed and is adequately serviced b public water and sewer. The existing curb cut on Flint Street will be used for ' q Y YP g site access from the west and an existing access point on Mason Street will be widened and improved to provide access to the site from the north. The Project will implement traffic ' improvements required as part of the Planning Board Special Permit that will improve existing transportation infrastructure in the area and will provide 12 on-site parking spaces for Flint Street , residents to alleviate congestion and parking demand on that street. The Project will be served by municipal water and sewer. 1.4 PROJECT PERMITs/APPROVALS AND AGENCY COORDINATION The Project requires several local permits as well as a state Chapter 91 License and a federal National 1 q p p Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction stormwater permit (see Table 1). 1.4.1 Local Approvals The Project already received permits and approvals from the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals , (zoning variances), the Planning Board (Special Permit/Site Plan Approval), the Design Review Board Page 11-10 ' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form (Design Review), and the Salem Conservation Commission (for building demolition and stabilization following the fire). Additional permits will be required from the Salem Conservation Commission for work within 100 feet of resources areas and land subject to coastal storm flowage as well as local building permits from the Inspectional Services Department. 1.4.2 State Approval/Permits ' The Project site contains more than one acre of filled tidelands and is comprised of nonwater- dependent use and thus, pursuant to the state MEPA regulations at 301 CMR 11.03(a)(5), an EIR filing is required and pursuant to the state Chapter 91 waterways program regulations at 310 CMR 9.00, the ' Project also requires Chapter 91 authorization. EIR Waiver Request Because the only MEPA EIR threshold that the Project exceeds is the nonwater-dependent use of one acre or more of filled tidelands, and because the state Chapter 91 Licensing process will ' comprehensively address all the environmental issues associated with such use, an EIR waiver request is proposed herein (please see Section 1.3 above). ' MEPA/Chapter 91 Coordination Representatives of the Project Proponent held a pre-application meeting with MEPA and MADEP ' Waterways staff in December of 2010 to discuss the requirements for filing an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) and Request for EIR waiver. At that meeting, MEPA requested that the EENF/EIR waiver request include detailed information of the Project compliance with the state Chapter 91 program as well as a discussion of Public Benefits and a Green House Gas analysis. These analyses are provided in the following chapters. A second meeting was held with DEP waterways staff in February of 2011 to review the historic shoreline documentation and methodology used to establish the water-dependent use zone on the site. ' Agreement was reached on the location of both of these jurisdictional areas (see Chapter 3, Section 3.10, Wetland and Waterways Resource Areas). Massachusetts Historic Commission Subsequent to the MEPA pre-application meeting, a Project Notification Form was filed with the Massachusetts Historic Commission and in January 2011 and a determination was made that the Project is unlikely to affect significant historical or archeological resources (see Appendix 1, Massachusetts Historical Commission Determination). 1.4.3 Federal Permits ' A federal NPDES stormwater permit will be required during construction. This permit requires the filing of a Storm Water Management Plan. Page 11-11 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' Table 1 , Required Permits and Approvals ' Agency Permit/Approval Status City of Salem ' Conservation Commission Order of Conditions Issued for Demolition To be Filed for Construction Building Department Building Permits To be Filed , State , Department of Environmental Chapter 91 License for Nonwater- To be Filed Protection dependent Project Coastal Zone Management Federal Consistency Determination Part of Chapter 91 Licensing Mass Historic Project Notification Form Filed and Determination of No , Impact issued January 2011 Federal , Environmental Protection Agency NPDES Construction Stormwater To be Filed Discharge Permit 1.S PROJECTTEAM , Project Proponent , Riverview Place LLC 5 Broadmoor Lane Peabody, MA 01960 ' Permitting/Approvals Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services ' 74 Bay View Ave Salem, MA 01970 (781)439-2461 ' Contact: Susan St. Pierre,AICP Architect ' HH Morant P.O. Box 4485 Salem, MA 10970 ' (978) 744-5354 Contact: Steve Livermore Page 11-12 ' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' Engineer Eastern Land Survey Lowell Street Peabody, MA 01960 (978) 531-8121 Contact: Chris Mello ' Legal Counsel Tinti Quinn Grover& Frey Place Congress St#414 ' Salem, MA 01970-5591 (978) 745-8065 Contact: Scott Grover, Esq. Green House Gas Tech Environmental 1601 Trapelo Road Waltham, MA 02451 (781) 890-2220 ' Contact: PeterGulberg ' Transportation AECOM 300 Baker Avenue Suite 290 Concord, MA 01742 (978) 371-4356 C Contact: Jeff Maxtutis, Senior Planner Page 11-13 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' Page Intentionally Blank Page 11-14 1 1 1 r r r � r r � r � r r r Chapter 2 ' Project Description i Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Riverview Place Project is located along the North River Canal in the North Salem section of the City ' of Salem (see Figure 1, Locus Plan in Chapter 1). This part of North Salem is a mixed use neighborhood that contains residential,commercial and industrial uses. 2.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The Property, which is partially comprised of filled tidelands, has been significantly altered by more than a century of industrial use. The site was previously developed as industrial leather manufacturing operations and contained two separate companies, Bonfanti Leather which was a single building sited on a small parcel along Mason Street and the Salem Suede Leather Factory which was a larger, multi ' building facility located on a larger parcel off of Flint Street. The Bonfanti building was demolished in October 2012 and the Salem Suede facility was destroyed by fire in the fall of 2010 and subsequently demolished. Figure 4, 2010 Existing Conditions Plan and Figure 5, 2010 Aerial View, show the location of these former facilities and the North River Canal. As shown on the figures, the property was densely developed and the Salem Suede complex included structures in close proximity to the water's edge. ' The site is currently vacant with the remnants of the demolished buildings, foundations and former parking lots and paved surfaces. 2.2 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The site is bounded on the south by the North River Canal and on the north and west by the predominantly residentially developed portions of Mason Street and Flint Street. Industrial and commercial uses are located to the east between Mason Street and the North River Canal. Mack Park, a large city-owned recreational area is located north of the site on Mason Street. Along the south side of the River lies the Leslie's Retreat Park, a linear passive recreational area developed as mitigation for the Salem/Beverly By-Pass Road project. In 2005,the City of Salem adopted the North River Canal District Master Plan. See Figure 6, North River Canal Master Plan. The goals of the Master Plan are outlined in the 2003 vision statement and include: • Create appropriate development while preserving our historic neighborhood character • Address transportation issues for existing and new developments ' • Enhance the public realm in keeping with our unique neighborhood character To implement the goals and vision outlined in the Master Plan, the City of Salem adopted the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed use District as Section 8.4.1 of the city of Salem zoning code. The overlay district allows many different types of uses including manufacturing, single and multi-family residential, retail and office, and prohibits services stations, car washes, drug stores, supermarkets and drive through restaurants among others. Page 12-1 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form , 1 Page Intentionally Blank ' Page 12-2 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form -- . /,-- •�-a - -- ° _ ---i OATLW Is NGW OF 1928 - _ - -- --- 1 10 2 Si0PG5 N MFI(Yel* 4 y.-�- DBP B4[vlte Hio Irntw r 00 +fA]i �!a .fi,♦ �'i r' 0.,$ "`fes ,�� - � f I '_j I I .e p. ''�Q: gtlM1 "` 11 1• a r: VG 1,'�V 01" 11, y 11 1.F•!. nu'i ury .I U �; .. .�=� s � 1 1`� ��-• i 11 1111 j�."^�-1 FPI (meale�d !Od•Aot aJJSd hem ar -""*,W Haw) (m.n.uns BB.s-gym+ e0e4 holo uB.) 77 •`� �Y- - �. �• };tom(, _J/ PWA d W"(AdV B. 8O!!) _ ( •.�• , '� �•� _ fHBfOHfi LOW B•ATZR p►MU m6ro d fakft f9m " a, 4i; � .- ;�—..-� .�-�• HBrArrAB dVAB woe aArsH(AHI) .rwerm.4.4 AOVD - Source:Eastern Land Survey and Patrowicz Land Development 2010 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN Figure 4 Page 12-3 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Page Intentionally Blank Page 12-4 - mow f • - ® \ � ' 9• �l� r �1T' to V �i �• A&V%k ..♦y 'l�G w. +him • rG' . OJOI 4� a _ y F•��, ' 4 Leslie's Retreat, b Parko` . �,, r Jam'• •ss: �" . .. tel^�♦j �"'t �//'j// +R �3'" .. rq �.r �r r•�+ 1 1 • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' Page Intentionally Blank i Page 12-6 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLAN FOR THE NORTH RIVER CANAL CORRIDOR ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN / YOIIXW F31 kO41N NORTHEAST i MRM(OMIRONp6,40GiafG gfrb trvr -I JtNWb IBM J t— HpW NlydPy.wYMwNawsf r WIN T. wbpmlM—MMUd lLnrmt ME5vn t0aet M1•IOM IT it ✓OWruCOt=.=FMMOnJN001 cngetlen .mesY.r«rYerrNYYrwr .hK«wYYq.mleWgnYmsYot^.• -�MNMbMrrY/Ylbri« MrM wrNw YIAM NYYwylt ®umwY.aprsr -wMowrwr��q .orya�ISNw+nrgm.rnn. 1 � bmf MAW .tlNMmir[Y rO.^IOYW OMYMMMM1�Y�•YY6MYmMNa�m04mW riYtlrYOMrrmwNt[}pMr•rr� ' 'i -OabYMfOMhn.My'tl0 Y� tl�in✓MM aN1YY� -�YOsgOrYWlM1rr✓b111Yip .0«wtivO.. /JYwI N'i .YreA�wnYwm MrOM •Y.a.tl�.IMRmv»n..amerwrpmbYYAM -OMfAAYw»MmJI - rwv rM• moi...rM»benobemm - .b r..*rwn✓owY .mmwa.e.stli+w+pw �gM°"""r'^rsYuw ✓Mgro»Yy✓bA.nnn r. YrrPM.gMVWr PAr -Wle./JAMYOmY<rNbYAl sla .OmtfnYOMYMHf14PAVNVY mwlMYEr✓AnIMfA 'WrYIV✓m Ylr Yw MAtO•tlA»MpM IqW YllnbifttlMOy DOMrr OmJISEMIiJO•Vp MOiASOrlro -.PrrYm»YOP4YIrYrWer .MmMrM •Ii�11Y�w.bAnWMMAYI IMn"m.l00ay.UakbU ilIrM LTiICRWViWIia Y1fROA101 Yri. Y pp�A�pLMybp✓YnYrw.mamy ra Yyw bw.bwtefnwrs.a .ywgRmNawb Y.wAYrlYwwaM MU aMxOrapMlbY.rY011M,igIMgrMrpiiBMtlobril Wbbi MOwnY .AtTwrMMmNb.w yn«AYYw9YAbw M1dMi 07°aHTTwIwwM Mlgmrromf,mfmpbWE rnli mlll4nererara m- _ _ _ rbv HOM Wyiq 01RI1M gHYrylOME0611pIR NOMOY,Nb • �r•y ... S agr,`.Y.1 y. .e•�As{-• ev y 4.Y- rACMraba.abnwxna arwprrkrtnawa•paahaeiroln k _'RL.•• q "-I rc ytlRl �;a. ` t .[.y.. i €'' .... twuEJb+WrmttanrcnrtlmwacNr9arm- �m �, -. tt • 9 , {tt�-�a� +f��1 tyV�' � �f a�'N .OTN Y.Y' _ fi bIFVOr10MnM ! IOIWTtl1Y0AVAM IJIbh- a� s - n" ryr • 14•i•� Mom ni 4mpn04>d tluamb•gaorlro wbAY nrunna t ,Hart paMN.vlgraoPH SIYmiJAin.ibmi»»bm.mz ;' fil�� ✓ "' � ,wur� Ar•1 _ �+� 1 nd �/J Yrpml»as asNmtrlorytu m✓oprrt wlnyar Mrarw•r Ia'a a'YOw�rirHMb.y✓Y.MI ]' � ,1P�• � _ - - � {/ NIOO1NtlNTortYH1 JYOM ImtlM9Yewr T.b pbs.M/gtYMwa � sin Il Ar RFv �-% rYbwtb.MYYMY.W �t' Y� �i ,�A�'�'� �.e U��R q`d�a -Jim•J�-J�� e4< �r'� '�p 6� :�� -. .' �� ,nnX,+Mai�k o ��•Ii 1��rgs`eR�•�aryo '��6�r.N ��.�. ♦Al '%^i � �' e ,r� (,!f- ---•-+.� .��-.f.1 a .. r..�_.._-...a�s6�•i:T..� �.' \il'+f�l'1. i_ r.r:Mt�wM.n Ymb..».b�»M b.rwrY "w�u�w MMua�Yxinn OUINWEST 764L.;'J RETkEZ1;4k SOUTH MUTHEA31 Q .b✓"Yt paMaan"Urhq VYpyf aN^OgP4y- 41T.W.n WIN,"haat hm Shmgllrm lRnNly Or nAl2mraTc.Pm ft. ✓ 00tro'nt00'n0 HiOJeJtmOtirG 16[rnJUMI lEaro•rNONblba»Mry HOpJM[arb UlE abVi barb Ureyn Ua ,t l[rj�CA •rrs brY.YaRlbbmO pUYq.MusY.w mMwbeYrsgYrrrbtlwr». ✓aM EOIW WMSYlbnfil:fMaM! YIOMEaYRab WYrY-mNMnYuwWm6 OrrY •YMrMMmr.gaJrM tlbi")wlrtrtNa[g0 . .nPgrMwbiMMlrYMeaAMgMY®i w�»ind_ .bpwY.aW YrTme �r -k✓AtNOuer.mtliun. a.AtaserYm trwr � `'-,L � M NrtlMYWiYGamYarMYYYs -�Y P'1r A4NwrrpY� .y✓�mMNIbwA rrrOMrYOYMb-Ow YrYb ,�.vi..ylE Y w.w.fYw.bA.r..mwr.mR...w .r mMA.rpEwtl .Mqr+MWiAyMV �wapwA ,�\,.� (J'�,�iF' .1M�YwwwierbAwMYgrlwYr ,wNNla. -a,MrrwaP.wlM -M.faYYbOYY/»omr - YMYMrtlsMtl \l it" V,'. Y.rrA.xra -.YYtlMmw abY ¢rmrapam✓wY Yr.r / � �.. y - �amyM/Y �� .T..rr1Wf •'T.InJlwmroratl .nwsmMrwwmwr �s•r Y'P*... �. �I'.. -w m�H.•w Mam ' .�w..n�rtw 60. `.+�iminM.Y.bwrM n.�Y.,�rt.....Ywr s�-,; w� �',yt{,�l Y•wwYw..YYYaMwH✓ aTogawJw .A+.mon.w.M.r.46. .w,mq.e.sM1H.YM.w.ry �r -"^.°'°"°m„`°✓°"'ww' -bwYwiO°"� ws.Nq• .tie..aa..rr+•r.wr. rrwrYaAne..ewtl '� -b"YM1wM�MMrw..aTNa.w Y.Ymasr.ryr«Y wrMH»[MMYY bMpe».OMYTrwwfa �{ y -pMwM✓atlgnAJrnw✓M1buw PANMM»« -brww»ilr+`M -rrrrkrUboeEMnaar - ' 116wrbbbw✓Iyr AIeOYrgqM �pYO.YaibAYMma -YMNrr/wBtlObYwa..f •YTObnwsJM1YAMAmrr bfMbtlrYygmYYsba. INnawMlrwN✓M1MaM tY.N IMy fwl MrYtlw MgywnNbY W�M1�w4rn✓rM V/wlyYMa �Yw�AYn6v ✓1HrlrMrbM1YHr»O.M .�bM1.bt ,nYirV .Mm rpYMi wAgIlYnEgYtrrYtHtlrAy YYwirrr. -AVwrem'" MA ✓iWhYaMmvM»bOiH IgM.p Mm. ibrnreJ 1 rarW»MovrMrWYbrIM. -PFMYyIMT.wbtlYmmbb✓atllrltlYhs -OrVpOAISOMIw»OW ,IIEYIb. .rtl WnBr. 1 .YNY. MMNeMCrrhw .N*46Don'mLYm. )YYa 6YlOnY.IWY ` .F._ ._ .-.�.-^_. e.rnn _- -,.—_.. —..wrnm.rb br✓rwmMmY.«onWa h�rrMeyrabvryowgimr Source:2003 North River Canal MasterPlan NORTH RIVER CANAL MASTER PLAN Figure 6 Page 12-7 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Page Intentionally Blank Page 12-8 iRiverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Development projects proposed in the zoning district must meet certain standards outlined in the code such as compatibility with the Master Plan, designed to complement the scale and context of the ineighborhood, encourage pedestrian use and access, and include water dependent uses adjacent to the North River including parks, open space and pedestrian facilities. The ordinance requires two parking i spaces per dwelling unit. Density bonuses are provided for projects that preserve National Register eligible structures or provide affordable housing. The Project received a density bonus of 13 units in return for setting aside 13 units of affordable housing. The zoning also requires Planning Board site plan review including review by the Design Review Board for projects. ' 2.3 TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE The site is well serviced by a local street network. To alleviate existing traffic problems, the Project is required to implement several traffic improvements in accordance with the Planning Board Special Permit(see Chapter 3, Section 3.2 ). The site is directly serviced by Mason and Flint Streets and indirectly by Tremont and Bridge Streets (see Figure 7, Local Street Network below) which were all included in the 2007 Traffic Study prepared as part iof the City of Salem Planning Board filings and found in Appendix 2. IFI ,tg kO/f / Ire- 66 y'1 �aftljdsc LLLL -- ho / Kdaii "Id bb , Ivj sNI S'� � 4 `i�j!w J` �L'/ SiHif eNECK f ' J�� *� ,6+ A O OAF/ �f. la �J ..i"Eytlo�re9 Miaeumpi al A�va�S` MadcpeAl �,,."� Protect Bsez[gwi uhByEl Chgdrent . NnSftotaz_�y'.�,f'^"�""'M'useum S{iofR„ESiSCX:$ `` �C�,f 107 �St-/ IItSSS �R1}ae�mi ,oa. Witrh Hiry�ESS IX ISIION TVjE. + 4r �zmf jy�� 11 M,u„SEU L 5� c iiin sate n witch y ye"ttl�SE (J .aWtB ,�5;: -,.^..fuelna 00 r{ _ FI4 S'y � huts 11 t «`�N 4ClC. ^ MtINi1NE� Iy � �1��'^Y Malrer LOCAL STREET NETWORK Figure 7 i Page 12-9 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Mason Street (which is one point of access to the Project site) is a local roadway that runs in an east- west direction between Grove Street and North Street (Route 114). Mason Street provides one travel ' lane in each direction. Sidewalks are located on both sides of Mason Street to the east of Tremont Street, and along the south side of the roadway to the west of Tremont Street. On-street parking is permitted along various portions of Mason Street, although in the vicinity of the Project site, between ' Flint Street and Tremont Street, on-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway. Flint Street (which is another point of access to the Project site) is a local roadway that runs in a north-south direction between Mason Street and Bridge Street in the Project vicinity. Flint Street generally provides one travel lane in each direction. In the vicinity of the Project site, sidewalks are provided along both sides of the roadway and on-street parking is permitted on the west side. , Tremont Street is a local roadway that runs in a north-south direction between Mason Street and the Peabody city line. Tremont Street provides one travel lane in each direction. In the vicinity of the Project site, a sidewalk is provided along the east side of Tremont Street. Bridge Street (Route 107) is an urban arterial roadway that generally runs in an east-west direction through the City of Salem. To the west of Flint Street, Bridge Street provides two travel lanes in each direction. To the east of Flint Street, Bridge Street generally provides one travel lane in each direction. In the vicinity of the Project site, sidewalks are provided along both sides of Bridge Street west of Flint Street, and on the south side only east of Flint Street. ' As noted the MBTA commuter rail line is located about %: mile east of the Project site. The site is not directly serviced by MBTA public transportation service. The bus stop closest to the Project site is located at the intersection of Boston Street and Federal Streets which is within reasonable walking distance. 2.4 HISTORICAL RESOURCES The Project site is located north of and across the North River Canal from the McIntire Historic District , which is listed in the State Register of Historic Places. There are also buildings located on Mason and g g Flint Street and other nearby streets associated with the City's industrial worker housing that are listed , on the state Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. However neither the Bonfanti Building, the Salem Suede Building nor other buildings or structures on ' the Project site were included in this list. 2.5 WETLAND AND WATERWAYS RESOURCES ' The property abuts the North River Canal and includes wetland and waterways resources including coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage and filled tidelands. The Canal was once a large tidal estuary with extensive salt marshes and mudflats that extended inland from Salem and Beverly Harbors to the neighboring community of Peabody (see 1855 Coast Chart in Figure 8 and Plan of Flats in the North River on Figure 9) below. During the nineteenth century the North River was filled to , accommodate railroads, mills and industrial uses including several leather tanning factories that were developed along the banks. Flint Street, located just west of the Project site, as well as the adjacent Page 12- 10 ' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form y n� Project Site 4.1 �: : ';. ••`a, �'� '``":y .;4y 1855 US COAST CHART Figure8 PC Project Site .. a 7X`7_ N .« ® ..-./, ,.«✓/LNvv3im Guxl i4�rwaar .Ad's ' E �L -�*?/WI -11 KOfRµ aTMfaf PLAN OF FLATS - r" NORTH R/V£R. SALEM. gy r L5 pp1 Nr/a./vµfrrnOMr IY(w I(sNc G1Y W L<FN. Wj MOF.r IOrf Of rW'LL FRi<tFNFf. fo NN Fnl tPtan NL.M hn 3i, fGAIf NO/EFr 1U M•Wp. fnl Luam/im Nora M:s Lal Lw•h YAL f6IJ. d4 W SN4nmMb r.hN YnWb H ..eaM FwLI/N M/lp. CNIS.I.II/INAN caa S0aWK3q• /✓v/t EWIMFGrf YD IANO fWYdr0.4. Lf/LSIII fr.FN[Yr Y.III. ' PLAN OF FLATS IN NORTH RIVER Figure 9 Page 12-11 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form , Oak and Friend Streets were residentially developed around the same time period with the worker , housing while Mason Street located north of the site was developed with a mix of residential and , industrial uses. The wetland and waterways resource areas are described in more detail below. 2.5.1 Wetland Resources The Project site abuts the North River Canal, which is a tidally influenced water body. The site is separated from the North River Canal by a rip rapped coastal bank. Wetland resource areas on the Project site include Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Costal Storm Flowage. There is also a 100 foot Buffer Zone that extends inland from the top of the Coastal Bank. The location of these resource areas is shown on Figure 10,Wetlands and Waterways Resource Areas. 2.5.2 Waterways Resources The Project site abuts the North River Canal and is partially comprised of filled private tidelands and non-jurisdictional upland. While the North River was formerly navigable at high tide to Salem and Beverly Harbors in the Project vicinity, this access was eliminated as a result of filling activities in the 1800's. The area is still tidally influenced with large areas of exposed mudflats at low tide. Chapter 91 Jurisdiction Approximately 2.3 acres of the 4.3 acre site is comprised of filled tidelands and the remainder is non- jurisdictional uplands. The Proponent coordinated with the MADEP Waterways Division to determine , the extent of historic tidelands on the site and to delineate the Water-dependent Use Zone. The Department's presumed historic high tide line was used to delineate the extent of filled tidelands on the site and the Water-Dependent Use Zone (WDUZ) calculations resulted in a zone that extends inland 88.5 feet from the shoreline (mean high water). The location of the historic high water line, the agreed upon WDUZ and the 100 foot limit of ground plane Facility of Public Accommodation requirement are shown ' on Figure 10, Wetlands and Waterways Resource Areas. The North River was a tidal inlet with extensive mudflats (see Figure 9 Plan of Flats and an Inset from said plan on following page). The historic low water mark is riverward of the property line and,thus the site is comprised of private tidelands. Water-dependent Use Zone ' For nonwater-dependent projects, the Chapter 91 regulations establish a Water-Dependent Use Zone (WDUZ) within which new or expanded buildings for non-water-dependent use and parking at or above grade are prohibited. As shown on Figure 10, the WDUZ on the Property generally extends inland 88.5 feet from the current high water mark, which represents 15 percent of the weighted average distance from the high water mark to the landward property line. The methodology and results of the WDUZ calculations were reviewed with Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) Waterways staff at the meetings held in the spring of 2011 resulting in the delineation shown on Figure 10. Page 12-12 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form MAg pM a T63 �x O i= 1 C C-1 IJ W to C m FLAT$7 e � Y )'R/ ANOR�IY =L�1MRfN L JAG/ T.J.G/FFORD T.I AZdj.YQeFtF?a`uiuvc-• MA. CYI/RCpr /Oo ` C/T , OLLGO/ iAA?IN B AeF or<� [ fid/ � Inset from Figure 9 Showing g g Flats and high/low water lines y �� 3 R 4 `� � � U L& 6 circa 1881 100 Foot Ground Level Facility of Public Accommodation Zone The Chapter 91 regulations prohibit the placement of Facilities of Private Tenancy (FPTs) at the ground level within 100 feet of the shoreline for nonwater-dependent projects. The 100 Facility of Private Tenancy setback(denoted as "FPA") is shown on Figure 10,Wetlands and Waterways Resource Areas. Chapter 91 Authorizations Portions of the site were originally comprised mudflats and tidal waters of the historic North River that were filled over time for industrial uses. Waterways licenses were issued for filling and rail transportation activities on the Project site as listed in Table 2 below. Table 2 Waterways Authorizations License Number Date of Issuance Issuing Authority Purpose Chapter 185 1883 Massachusetts State Taking of Flats for Legislature Filling and to Build Canal in North River 748 1884 Harbor and Land Building Canal in Commissioners North River L3493 June 1010 Harbor and Land Proposed Pile Trestle Commissioners i Page 12-13 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form i t Page Intentionally Blank i Page 12-14 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form - 9 On . 1 ---_— rr lfl r\ PRDPDSfD BUILDtRC -.I.. &y yy to 60stal _ y sC� o r-..] r - 5 ,a,> \„� (erNantae ovraaaml I a <a 1 .t t (—ORP Historic NtgA (later plei F- qs agorae•�–�.� PRDAA9ED ffiBLDIhD°- t II,P(6fel Mi'a9RD (laetad/np o nes) , 9 DUILDINa ¢¢y /6,7113a1 I t '' t --- - ' "�- l • FPA (measured foo–fiat oJjbet ftam the arWing MAID V /00 FIX)rDUFFER ZONE � p��/• ;: r' I"� WDUZ (nuas—d 88.6–foot oJfket fom YNII) —FEMA A ZONE (July S. 2012) ------(—HISTORIC LOW HATER Per 1889 attfoad taking pian A ZO” (August 6. 1885) L �„y✓ `—ERISTINC MEAN HIGH WATER (YAII) etevofionw4.0 IVVD COASTAL BANK CANAL .'o Source: Eastern Land Survey& Patrowicz Land Development WETLAND AND WATERWAYS RESOURCE AREAS Figure 10 Page 12- 15 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Page Intentionally Blank Page 12-16 r5je- Ekwv,e--+ P4q Pltwf+ MASS s f, AM #4,75 F3/(2/vg � At plass 5ulln -Pl4miny 804.0(( &ildlty z ! ' 22- 1 (xclrcam vnf 5 20 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 2.6 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The No Build Alternative and the Preferred Alternatives are discussed below. 2.6.1 No Build Alternative Under the No Build Alternative, the Property would remain in its undeveloped state. Public access to and along the North River Canal would be nonexistent. Several proposed Project benefits would not occur including: • Redevelopment of a vacant, underutilized and blighted site. • Creation of a waterfront public realm. • Traffic improvements. �, • Improved site stormwater management. • Decrease in impervious surfaces and storm water runoff. • Creation of 13 units of affordable housing. • Allowance of an easement for the future construction of a roadway by the City of Salem • Economic benefits including real estate investment,jobs and local tax revenues. 2.6.2 Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative, shown on Figure 11, Project Site Plan, involves the redevelopment of industrial land formerly developed with leather manufacturing facilities. The proposed development program includes a mixture of uses including residences and commercial space. Two of the Buildings (Buildings 1 and 2) contain residential units and structured parking while the third building located on Mason Street(Building 3) contains residential uses in the upper floors and commercial uses on the lower level. The site has been designed with two site entrances; one off of Mason Street that will be restricted to automobile traffic only, and one off of Flint Street. The proposed Building Program includes 58 one bedroom units, 76 two bedroom units and 5,540 square feet of commercial space as outlined in Table 3 below. Table 3 Building Program Building Total #of Residential Bedrooms Commercial Interior Number Area Stories Units (sf) Parking (sf) Spaces Building 1 44,215 41 64 19-1BR/45-2BR 0 252 Building 2 15,714 4 42 26-1BR/16-2BR 0 19 Building 3 10,583 24 12-1BR/12-2BR 5,540 0 ' Due to slope of site Buildings 1 and 2 have 1 story below average grade(basement level) that are exposed at ground level on the North River Canal side. Page 12-17 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 1 1 1 1 1 Page Intentionally Blank i 1 1 1 1 Page 12-18 i Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Site Access from Mason MASON STREET --- ` 3"e I� i 1 i rn 10PFDl " BUILDING : � ID.BB9tsl , Z___�- r r iCti tevn�i � Orie:.k rnPR0 5 BUILDING a10i--.� 44.e.2lstel i 11 r PMMSD (ixl�6bp owrturripa) I g BU/LOIS i r � _ 169leS.J I — A I r f- -- 0-4ki [ Site Access from Flint /F NORTH - - P A R K C F ote: Site Plan includes 30 foot wide cess easement along River Source: HR Morant PROJECT SITE PLAN Figure 11 12-19 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification form Page Intentionally Blank Page 12-20 ' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' Site Driveways As indicated on the current site plan, the Project site will be served by two existing driveways, one on Flint Street and one on Mason Street. Both driveways will provide two-way circulation which allows motorists two points to enter and leave the site. Each driveway is a minimum of 24-feet wide and ' provides turning radii that accommodates all entering and exiting vehicles. Internal Site Circulation ' Based on the proposed building locations and the parking layout, the Flint Street driveway will be the primary driveway. The internal roadways have sufficient width and turning radii to accommodate trucks and other large vehicles. Parking A total of 309 parking spaces will be provided on the Project site. Of these, 271 are located in parking structures (252 spaces in Building 1 and 19 spaces in Building 2) and 38 are located in at grade lots. Twelve outdoor spaces will be designated for existing Flint Street residents only. �. Storm Drainage Site stormwater runoff be collected through a series of piped deep sump hooded catch basins and L manholes. Outflow from the system will be directed through appropriated designed proprietary water quality treatment devices (Stormceptor) before discharged in the North River via deep sump hooded catch basins to a subsurface drainage system that flows into an existing 18 inch storm drain located in ' the rip rap bank of the North River Canal. `' Water and Sanitary Sewer The site will be serviced by the City of Salem public water systems in Flint and Mason Street and a sanitary sewer system located in Flint Street. Public Benefits The Project proposes several public benefits including the introduction of public access to the site, parking for nearby residents, affordable housing units and traffic improvements. As previously mentioned, the site plan was developed in conjunction with the goals outlined for the area in the 2003 Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor. On the southern edge of the Project site, a walkway is proposed along the North River Canal. The site plan also includes a 30-foot wide easement through the southern portion of the Project site to allow for a potential future extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. 1 Page 12-21 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 Page Intentionally Blank 1 1 i 1 1 Page 2-22 1 1 1 1 f f, 1 f f If � f 1 r f f r f Chapter 3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures i1 1 ' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' CHAPTER 3 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 HOUSING The current site does not contain any housing units. The Project is proposing to construct 130 housing units comprised of one and two bedrooms. Thirteen of these units will be set aside as affordable housing. The Planning Board Special Permit requires that these units be subject to a 99 year Affordable Housing Restriction in accordance with the eligibility criteria for the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Community Development's Subsidized Housing Inventory for households whose annual incomes are 80%or less of area median income. ' 3.2 TRANSPORTATION ' A traffic study was prepared by AECOM in 2007 for the Project and updated during the Special Permit appeals process (see Appendix 2, Traffic Impact Assessment Study). The study projected estimated vehicular trips and trip distribution and evaluated level of service impacts of the Project. Trip Generation ' At present, the site is vacant and does not generate any daily vehicular trips. The proposed mixed use Project is expected to generate 56 new vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 87 new vehicle trips during the afternoon peak hour. This equates to around one new vehicle trip per minute ' during the weekday commuter peak hours and approximately 871 new vehicle trips on a daily basis. A comparison of the as of right office build out of the site versus the proposed build out shows that the proposed build out result in significantly less daily vehicle trips than the as of right office build out (871 ' versus 1,633 average daily trips). Trip Distribution and Intersection Capacity ' As part of the traffic study prepared for the Project, an overall trip distribution was developed for the new Project trips as shown on Figure 12. Capacity analyses were conducted to assess the quality of traffic flow at each of the study intersections. This was performed for the 2007 Existing conditions, the 2012 Future No-Build conditions, and 2012 Future Build conditions. The results of the traffic capacity analysis are shown in Table 4 and 5 and the complete analyses are contained in the Appendix 2. As ' shown on the tables, the future operating conditions are not expected to change under the Future Build condition, when compared to the Future No-Build scenario. The Flint Street and Tremont Street approaches to Mason Street operate at LOS F under the existing conditions (in both the weekday ' morning and afternoon peak hours).The operating conditions at these side street approaches to Mason Street are not expected to change under either future condition. Based on these capacity analyses, the site driveways are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service. ' Existing Sight Distance and Site Driveways ' The existing available sight distance at the site driveways was measured to determine whether vehicles would be able to safely exit the Project site onto Flint Street and Mason Street. The available stopping sight distance at both site driveways exceeds the minimum required distances specified by AASHTO. Page 13- 1 I Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' 1 1 Page Intentionally Blank 1 1 1 Page 13-2 1 Project Trips AM PM Daily Entering 13 51 435 NORTH Exiting 43 36 436 Total 56 87 871 G [a]) SUeet Mas011 ,7 (6) L65] [65](a)2Z 1 F r mm�+ 21 m� SITE 2 (1» Oak saae( rm a ma q Bridge$Neel lRoUbe 107) J 1 ( t_2 (7) [651 (1a) 2' S 1 Legend XX(XX)PO()=AM(PM)PalM Peak Hour Volumes OTraffic Signal Source: AECOM SITE GENERATED TRIPS Figure 12 Page i3-3 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Table 4 Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday Morning Peak Hour Summary of Intersection Capacity Analysis—Weekday Morning Peak Hour 2012 Future Build 2007 Eidsting 2012 Future No-Bulld with Mitigation Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length LOS Delay° 50th" 95thLOS Delay' Stith° 95th` LOS Delay" 50th 95th` Bridge Street at Flint Street Bridge Street EB L A 8 4 13 A 8 4 14 A 9 4 17 Bridge Street EB TR B 14 100 177 B 14 111 196 B 15 117 206 Bridge Street WB LTR C 20 149 318 C 27 182 387 C 34 196 409 Flint Street NB LTR B 14 34 51 B 17 38 56 B 16 37 54 Flint Street SB L D 35 96 224 D 49 105 244 D 45 104 242 Flint Street SB TR C 31 127 284 D 37 137 306 D 35 138 306 Overall Intersection C 23 C 28 C 30 Mason Street at Tremont Street and Site Driveway Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized Mason Street EB LTR A 3 - 7 A 3 - 7 B 20 62 145 Mason Street WB LTR A 0 - 0 A 0 - 0 B 19 84 257 Site Driveway NB LTR D 28 - 6 E 39 - 15 B _ 18 4 24 Tremont Street SB LTR F >120 - 622 F > 120 - 799 C 24 123 412 Overall Intersection n/a n/a n/a n/a C 22 - Mason Street at Flint Street Mason Street WB LT B 10 - 72 B 1 I - 82 B 11 - 83 Flint Street NB LR F > 120 - 291 F > 120 - 374 F > 120 - 378 Flint Street at Site Driveway Site Driveway WB LR n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n1a C 19 - 7 measumd in(seconds per vehicle) s 500 percentile queue measured in(feet) `9r percentile queue measured in(feet) Page 13-4 M Ml = M = = = M = = =11 ! = = = M Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Table 5 Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour Summary of Intersection Capacity Analysis—Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour 2012 Future Build 2007 Eidsting 2012 Future No-Build - with Mitigation Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length LOS Delay 50th 95th` LOS Delay' 50th 95th` LOS Delay' 50th° 95th` Bridge Street at Flint Street Bridge Street EB L A 5 3 10 A 5 3 11 A 7 4 15 Bridge Street EB TR A 7 60 106 A 8 76 133 A 9 81 142 Bridge Street WB LTR B 15 153 278 B 17 174 410 B 20 189 429 Flint Street NB LTR B 18 30 68 B 19 35 73 B 18 36 74 Flint Street SB L C 20 32 74 C 21 36 79 C 21 37 80 Flint Street SB TR C 30 77 201 C 34 88 215 C 31 89 214 Overall Intersection B 16 B 18 B 19 Mason Street at Tremont Street and Site Driveway Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized Mason Street EB LTR A 5 - 11 A 5 - 12 C 21 71 207 Mason Street WB LTR A 0 - 0 A 0 - 0 B 16 87 239 Site Driveway NB LTR A 0 - 0 A 0 - 0 C 24 4 25 Tremont Street SB LTR F 59 - 264 F 97 - 362 C 25 93 290 Overall Intersection n/a n/a n/a n/a C 20 Mason Street at Flint Street Mason Street WB LT A 7 - 25 A 7 - 28 A 7 - 28 Flint Street NB LR F 107 - 320 F > 120 - 424 F >120 - 438 Flint Street at Site Driveway Site Driveway WB LR n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C 15 - 4 °measured in(secondsper vehicle) °V percentile queue measured in(feet) c 9P percentile queue measured in(feet) Page 13-5 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Page Intentionally Blank Page 13-6 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form As indicated on the current site plan, the Project site will be served by two existing driveways, one on Flint Street and one on Mason Street. Both driveways will provide two-way circulation through the site ' allowing motorists two points to enter and leave the site. Traffic Improvements ' The Project will implement several traffic improvements in accordance with the Special Permit issued by the City of Salem Planning Board as described below. 1. Install an electronic speed monitor on Mason Street ' 2. Installation of signage and pavement markings 3. Placement of"No Parking—Tow Zone' signage on Mason Street on both sides of the site driveway 4. Signage at the Mason St. driveway prohibiting the entrance and exit of trucks 5. Installation of a yellow flashing beacon at the intersection of Flint Street and Mason Street, with the type and exact location to be approved by the Traffic Division Commander 6. Complete plans and specifications for the design of a traffic signal to be built at the intersection of Mason Street,Tremont Street and the site's Mason Street driveway prior to issuance of a Certificate ' of Occupancy 7. The Planning Department shall determine whether a traffic island is required at the base of Oak ' Street within six (6) months following the last Certificate of Occupancy issued in connection with the Project. During the interim, the developer shall be responsible for installing signage and pavement markings at the intersection of Oak Street and Flint 8. 12 at grade parking spaces must be reserved for current residents of Flint Street in perpetuity ' 9. An easement shall be granted to the City of Salem to construct a future extension of Commercial Street through the property from Flint Street along the North River Canal. The easement shall be ' valid for a 15 year period from the time the firs certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Project and shall expire after said 15 year period if the road is not constructed. ' 3.3 INFRASTRUCTURE ' The Project will not adversely impact existing infrastructure serving the site. The estimated Project generated stormwater runoff, water consumption and sanitary sewage discharges are described below. 1 Page 13-7 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' 3.3.1 Stormwater ' The Project will result in a net decrease in impervious cover compared to existing conditions. The site ' was also previously developed and is considered a "redevelopment' Project as defined in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) and MassDEP Stormwater Management Policy and ' Handbook(MASWMP). Stormwater rates for the 2, 10 and 100 year storm events were calculated in in all cases, the storm ' water peak runoff rates is decreased post construction. Table 6 ' Stormwater Runoff Calculations Storm Recurrence Interval Peak Ruoff Rate(cf) ' Predevelopment Post Development 2 yr 10.99 10.71 10 year 16.91 16.66 100 year 26.24 26.05 ' The use of deep sump catch basins with oil/gas hoods, water quality inlets such as Stormceptor° units, , periodic sweeping of roads/parking lots, and routine maintenance of drainage structures will improve stormwater quality, which in turn will improve water quality in the North River Canal over existing conditions. ' 3.3.2 Water and Sanitary Sewer To provide water service to the Project, a new eight inch cement line ductile iron water main will be ' installed and connected to the exiting City system on Flint and Mason Street. Two new hydrants will be installed on the site as determined by the Salem Fire Department. Water demand for the Project is t estimate to be approximately 25,850 gallons per day(gpd). There is adequate capacity in the City water system to service the Project. Project generated sanitary sewage will be collected into a system of eight inch gravity sewer lines that ' will lead from Mason Street to an existing sewer manhole located in the south side of the Flint Street entrance to the site. Wastewater discharges into the South Essex Sewage District interceptor which , runs parallel to the rail road line along the south side of the North River Canal. Sanitary sewage generation is expected to total approximately 23,500 gpd. The proposed sewer generation flows were ' estimated using the sewage generation rates as published in the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Sewer Connection regulations 314 CMR 7.15 (110 gallons/day/bedroom for residential uses=23,100 gpd and 75 gallons/day/1000 square feet for commercial uses=400 gpd). ' 1 Page 13-8 1 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' 3.4 ENERGY ' Increased electric and gas energy will be required to support the proposed mixed use development project. Natural gas will be extended into the site by the local utility and will be used for heating, cooling and clothes drying appliances. Electric service will be distributed to a transformer for each building installed in an underground conduit. The anticipated electric demand is 100,000 kwh per month. The anticipated natural gas demand is 90,000 therms per year. 3.5 NOISE Ambient daytime noise levels will increase during construction. The City of Salem requirements for work days and hours will be adhered to. Post construction the Project is not expected to significantly ' increase noise generation at the site. Some noise increase will occur resulting from automobile traffic and building mechanical systems. 3.6 AIR QUALITY The Project is not expected to create adverse impacts to air quality post construction. The construction of the Project will generate some airborne particulate matter and other air pollutants, particularly during the construction phase when the Property is being excavated for building foundations, driveways, and parking areas. Mitigation measures such as wheel washing will be used, as necessary,to minimize the air ' quality impacts from construction on the local air quality. it 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS A greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis was performed consistent with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol" (May 5, 2010; the "Policy"). Please refer to Appendix 3 for the full report. The Project's GHG emissions will include: 1) direct emissions of CO2 from natural gas combustion for space heating and hot water; 2) ' indirect emissions of CO2 from electricity generated off-site and used on-site for lighting, building cooling and ventilation, and the operation of other equipment; and 3) transportation emissions of CO2 from Project traffic. ' CO2 emissions were quantified for: (1) the Base Case corresponding to the 8th Edition of the MA Building Code that includes the 2009 IECC with MA amendments, and (2) the Mitigation Alternative, which includes all energy saving measures, detailed in Section 3 of the full GHG report found in Appendix 3. Energy use and CO2 emissions and energy mitigation measures were evaluated using the eQUEST model which determined that the Mitigation Alternative (with all energy saving measures) will reduce overall ' Project energy use stationary sources) by 12.7% and will reduce CO2 emissions by 12.6%, compared to the Base Case (buildings that comply with MA Building Code) as shown in Table 7 below). The eQUEST ' model input files have been provided to the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. Page 13-9 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' Table 7 t Greenhouse Gas(CO,) Emissions Summary (Tons/Year) 'Source Base Case Mitigation Alternative Change in GHG Emissions Direct Emissions 159.5 138.5 -13.2% , Indirect Emissions 660.7 578.2 -12.5% ' Subtotal Direct and 820.2 716.6 -12.6% , Indirect Emissions Transportation Emissions 60.4 59.2 -2.0% ' Total CO2 Emissions 880.6 775.8 -11.9% The transportation portion of the GHG analysis calculated emissions of CO2 for the traffic study area for , three traffic analysis scenarios: 2017 No-Build; 2017 Build without TDMs; and 2017 Build with TDMs. Average daily traffic volumes were provided in a 2007 traffic study prepared by Earth Tech, Inc. (AECOM). The 2012 No-Build traffic volumes presented in the traffic report were used to represent ' existing conditions and a one percent per year growth factor referenced in the traffic report was used to project the 2017 No-Build case. The emissions listed for the 2017 No- Build and Build cases include both ' existing volumes on the roadway network and new Project-generated trips.The 2017 Build case includes roadway mitigation measures, but not TDMs. The Project's transportation emissions are calculated by subtracting the 2017 No-Build values from those for the 2017 Build cases. The Build with TDMs case , results in CO2 emissions (60.4 tons/year) which are 2% less than those for the 2017 Build case (59.2 tons/year) as shown in Table 78below. The net reduction of the Project's total CO2 emissions (stationary sources plus transportation) is 11.9% , compared to the Base Case. , Page 13-10 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Table 7 ' Motor Vehicle CO, Emissions Summary Total Predicted CO, Emissions Burden ' 2017 2017 2017 ' No-Build Build without TDMs Build with TDMs ' 6,642.7 kg/day 6.639.7 kg/day ' 6,492.5 kg/day Project: 150.2 kg/day Project: 147.2 kg/day ' 2,670.2 tons/year 2,669.0 tons/year 2,609.9 tons/yr ' Project: 60.4 tons/year Project: 59.2 tons/year ' 3.8 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE ' The Project will generate solid wastes associated with the mix of uses proposed for the Project including residential trash. Hazardous wastes will not be generated. During construction, construction and ' demolition waste will be generated and properly disposed. 3.9 HISTORICAL During the Site Plan and Design Review process undertaken by the City, the architecture style and siting of the buildings in relationship to the adjacent neighborhoods and land uses were taken into ' consideration. The Project filed a Project Notification Form with the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) in 2010 and held meetings with the Salem Historical Commission to describe the proposed Project and the proposed demolition of the Bonfanti Building. The MHC subsequently determined that the Project would have "no effect" on the character and setting of the State Register- listed Historic District(See Appendix 1, Letter from Massachusetts Historic District). Page 13-11 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' 3.10 WETLAND AND WATERWAYS 3.10.1 Wetlands , The Project site was previously developed for a variety of industrial uses dating back to the 1800s. ' Currently the majority of the site is impervious (3 out of 4.3 acres) and there are no natural vegetated wetlands present. Coastal wetland resources on the site are limited to Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and Coastal Bank. The Project proposes activities in Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and ' Coastal Bank wetland resources as well as within the 100 foot Buffer Zone of the Coastal Bank located along the property shoreline. The proposed activities in wetland resource areas will increase pervious areas through the creation of a lawn area and the site conditions will be improved through removal of , existing foundations, paved areas and other debris. Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage ' The site contains Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage which is currently altered with buildings and foundations. Proposed activities in Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage include removal of paved ' areas and foundations and installation of landscaping, walkways, and a portion of the interior roadway. There are no performance standards for Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage in the state wetland regulations. ' Coastal Bank The site contains a rip rapped wall along the North River Canal which is subject to tidal actions. ' Therefore this wall falls under the definition of Coastal Bank. The Coastal Bank extends slightly inland from the top of the rip rap wall in some locations due to the presence of slopes greater than 10:1. , Proposed activities in the Coastal Bank Resource Area include removal of paved areas and foundations and installation of landscaping and walkways. The Project does not propose any activities on the rip rapped portion of the coastal bank and thus will not affect the stability of the bank or its storm damage ' control functions. 100 Foot Buffer Zone , The 100 Foot Buffer zone extends inland from the top of Coastal Bank. The Buffer Zone is currently altered with buildings and foundations. Proposed activities include removal of paved areas and , foundations and installation of landscaping, walkways, a portion of the interior roadway and very small portions of two buildings. 3.10.2 Waterways , The proposed Project is a nonwater-dependent use pursuant to 310 CMR 9.12(1) of the waterways , regulations comprised of water dependent (public access) and nonwater-dependent uses (proposed mixed use development). ' The Project proposes structural alterations and changes of use on previously filled, private tidelands and therefore requires a new Chapter 91 license. The Project has been designed to conform to the Chapter ' Page 13- 12 ' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 91 regulations. No work is proposed below mean high water or on Commonwealth tidelands. The Project complies with the following applicable standards of the Chapter 91 regulations. ' 310 CMR 9.32:Categorical Restrictions on Fill and Structures The proposed landside uses are allowed under the provisions of 310 CMR 9.32(a)(1) as they constitute "fill or structures for any use on previously filled tidelands." The Project is not located in flowed tidelands, a Designated Port Area or an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. ' 310 CMR 9.33:Environmental Protection Standards The Project will comply with the state's applicable environmental regulatory programs including: ' MEPA • Wetlands Protection Act • Massachusetts Historical Commission Act ' • Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review 310 CMR 9.34:Conformance with Municipal Zoning Law and Harbor Plans The Project is in compliance with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed use zoning adopted by the City of Salem. The North River was not included in the geographic boundary of the City ' of Salem Harbor Plan. 310 CMR 9.35:Standards to Preserve Water-Related Public Rights ' The Project consists of private tidelands and uplands. In accordance with 310 CMR 9.35(2)(a), the Project preserves the rights held by the Commonwealth for public use to tidelands including any rights ' of access associated with such use, as it does not significantly interfere with public rights of navigation or free passage over and through the water nor are there any existing public landings or existing public access points to the water existing at the Property that the Project would adversely impact. The Project includes public access along the North River Canal and does not propose any activities in the North River Canal. ' 310 CMR 9.36:Standards to Protect Water-Dependent Uses There are not any water-dependent uses on the Project site and thus the Project will not displace any ' existing water dependent uses. The Project is not located in a state Designated Port Area. 310 CMR 9.37 Engineering Construction Standards ' Proposed Project buildings will be structurally sound and designed to conform to the requirements of the State Building Code. 310 CMR 9.51:Conservation of Capacity for Water-Dependent Use The Project includes nonwater-dependent facilities of private tenancy that are set back from the water dependent use zone (WDUZ) and 100 feet from the Project shoreline. There Project does not contain any"at or above grade' parking facilities within the WDUZ. The Project has been designed to encourage public access and provides open space including landscaped areas and walkways to and along the North Page 13-13 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' River Canal. The site has been designed to provide views toward the North River Canal from Mason Street. 310 CMR 9.51(3)(b)—Facilities of Public Accommodation , The Project does not propose any new facilities of private tenancy at the ground level of any filled , tidelands within 100 feet of the Project shoreline. 310 CMR 9.51(3)(c) Water-Dependent Use Zone ' The Project does not include any new nonwater-dependent buildings or parking for any use within the water dependent use zone (WDUZ). The WDUZ for the Project site, which was calculated in accordance with the Chapter 91 regulations, extends 88.5 feet from the Project , Shoreline and is shown on Figure 10. 310 CMR 9.51(3)(d) Open Space ' The Project provides more than one square foot of open space for every square foot of nonwater- dependent building footprint located within filled tidelands. The estimated nonwater-dependent ' building footprint within Chapter 91 jurisdiction is 44,7103 square feet (sf) and the estimated area of open space is 57,955 sf for a total lot building footprint of 43.6% and open space of 56.4% within jurisdiction. See Figure 13, Building Footprint within Chapter 91 Jurisdiction. , 310 CMR 9.51(3)(E) Building Height The Project will comply with the height restrictions that limit building heights for new or , expanded nonwater-dependent buildings within Chapter 91 jurisdiction to 55 feet within 100 feet of mean high water plus one half foot for every one foot further from mean high water (see ' Figures 14 and 15 for Building Elevations showing height). 310 CMR 9.52: Utilization of Shoreline for Water-Dependent Purposes , The Property does include a WDUZ and includes one or more facilities that generate water-dependent activities, namely public access along the North River Canal. 310 CMR 9.53:Activation of Commonwealth Tidelands for Public Use , The upland portion of the Property within Chapter 91 jurisdiction, is comprised entirely of private filled , tidelands and thus the provisions of this section do not apply. 310 CMR 9.54:Consistency with Coastal Zone Management Policies , The Project is nonwater-dependent and is located within the Coastal Zone of Massachusetts.The Project will be designed to be in compliance with all Office of Coastal Zone Management Policies (see Section 3.12 below). ' 3.11 PUBLIC BENEFITS The Project proposes several public benefits including the introduction of public access to the site, ' parking for nearby residents, affordable housing units and traffic improvements. As previously , Page 13-14 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' mentioned, the site plan was developed in conjunction with the goals outlined for the area in the 2003 Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor. Public Access The Project will redevelop an existing 4.3 acre industrial site and create public access to and along the North River Canal. A walkway will extend from Flint Street into the site to a green space being created between the North River Canal and the proposed Building 1. The green space will include public ' walkways along the Canal that extend to interior sidewalks. A view corridor will be created from Mason Street through the site toward the North River Canal. Pedestrian access will be provided from Mason Street through the site to the North River Canal and Flint Street. The site plan also includes a 30-foot ' wide easement through the southern portion of the Project site to allow for a potential future extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. ' Energy Use and Green House Gas Emissions The Proponent has committed to implement energy efficiency measures that will reduce overall Project energy use (stationary sources) by 12.7% and will reduce CO,emissions by 12.6%, compared to the Base Case. In accordance with the MEPA"Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol," the proponent will provide a certification to the MEPA Office signed by an appropriate professional stating that all ' transportation and non-transportation greenhouse gas mitigation measures described in this EENF, or measures providing comparable mitigation, have been incorporated into the project. ' Traffic and Transportation Riverview Place is ideally suited in relation to the public transportation facility on Bridge Street at the ' MBTA Commuter Rail Station one-half a mile from project site. The Proponent is committed to a program of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies (see Table 7) to reduce residential and customer vehicle trips, listed below, and which in aggregate it is estimated will reduce CO, transportation emissions by 2%. • Locate New Buildings Near Transit—The project is one-half mile from the MBTA Station, providing ' commuter rail service on the Newburyport/Rockport commuter rail line. • Develop Multi-Use Paths To and Through Site —A walkway is proposed along the south side of the site along the North River from Flint Street and pedestrian access will be provided between Mason Street to the north and the North River to the south. ' • Provide Bicycle Storage — Secure, weather-protected bicycle racks will be provided at locations within the site with signs directing bicyclists to the bike storage facilities. ' • Roadway and Signalization Improvements to Improve Traffic Flow— Roadway and traffic signal improvements are proposed along Mason,Tremont and Flint Streets. Several other traffic improvements will be implemented by the Project as noted on page 3-6. Page 13-15 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' Page Intentionally Blank Page 13-16 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ♦ is S • r ` _ - _' - -----_"_ Upland Limit of Filled 4 ".�� n r m �C P1BDPaS6D WILelW `i' / 1� r 777 Tidelands e �1 ,t• ti 100 Foot Facility of Public Accommodation Ground Plan Line art / II.8I6SeJ f , F . PMMED pp 9 WHJUM F5.71415i -i , (67144{J .s i�� — ow.na ,) -"_ t ,I''•`�` 100 Foot Suffer Zone I WDUZ Line `\1 117—aJ z- —FEMA A ZONE (July 9. 2012) L—HISTORIC LOW HATER jIOT /BSS r¢ilfaad taHng plan •/ �,�\ \ t.. "'_>._ •/ ��-5.,�` ski - '� ,,,,, �. —FEHA A ZONE (August 5, 1885) • j•� 'S y✓ � ' 'r '••��'^ `—EXISTING MEAN HIGH HATER (MRW) eleuaite 4.4 NGVD COASTAL BANK t1 A a°i°" '� •�_' CAVA ° N�RgI ° Source: HR Morant and Patrowicz Land Development PROJECT BUILDINGS IN CH. 91 JURISDICTION Figure 13 Page 13-17 Page Intentionally Blank Page 13-18 11WiW �� M Ed — ILII 111 �� 1� I 111 nll I1 11.1 - tin uu nn�'L.1.'lun uu un ■..� rn . .. .t t. .. to .. I I We - I i I 4' 4' - _ __ .. .. .. k :: .. .. 1111 1111 II II n 11 1i:1 11 1� 1- .� � W � �IM. •• .• i. •. •• r• •• • •. a .• 1■ a _•: 7�" maim li l uu nl 1-1 un•.�� . � . 1 . .-. n un lin.. -•: un nnL�� .1.1.t �■. .. © I I I Elevation, O ■ Be, . , ' .111 1111 1111 1111 .1.. Ir 11 1111 1111 1111 II ill rli 111 .1.1 II11. �I II Iln 1111 Il fl 1111 111 II II .111 1111 1111 r111 1111 ..1. II11 II11 111 11 11 111 ■ . ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ I . 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 .1.. 111 n 1 1111 1111 ■ - . . . . . - _ �I.1 1i 11 1111 1111 1111 1�11�11 1111 1111 1 -- --- -----------—— — ..P s�. - Im1,N-91tl Pu hhm 01-009 ---------------------------------------------- ---------------- --- ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------. ------------ -------------------------- ------- - • 08/12/08 I PAS ' Rvar�u Plxs I I i Rrt t tie"on 9Yeet r __________________ ________________________________________________________ ____ _ + I �� a 3 2 _ A2.2 ��Bull�(nq"L4Nor-th=Elevation-111C°=`�=m"' B$.jt . Aro �..mP. hltec4 (91n lM-9µ1 Pv hhm 01-009 •---------- ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------' --_--------------------------------------------, -------------------------------------------------- ------- -- -------------- -- -----------, 08/12/08 177 12 � ® 2 I i � eva- _- � IL j 14 - - - - - . I � I Building "2 - South Eltion, i/16' - I'-m' 1 n4Bwlding2 East Elevation, I/16' - I' m' � sem -------- ---------- -------------------- ------- ------ - ------------- ----- -------- ---------- --- E13 -® sR R ® ® ® ® ® 24 9 2 ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®� --------- -- { r2 � a -- - -- A2 .3c Building 02 - North Elevation, 1/16' = 1'-m° I I Z I�Bulldina 2 West FIPva+nn vlti° - r-rn^ 1 �----- ----------- __ Q _ Bulldlnq °I West Elevatlon, 1/16' = I'-O° hhm 01-009 r-------------------------------—------------------------------- -----——---------- -----------------------------------------------------, m5/12/08 i Fl _ El ® ® ® ® ® ® 2 s ® ® ® ® ® ® 11 f( 21® ® ® I ® Rrverviem Pkce B g I 13I Bulldlnq "I East Elevatlon, 1/16' = 1;�; 1 �--� - ----------- ----------- °n --- ------ a Bulldlnq "I - North Elevatlon, 1/16' I'-m' ............................................................. r-___-_-._.___..__.._-....___._.___-____...___..._..--___-____. ...._------_- } I I I I I JI �sc�•m, ® 4 R R ® ® ® ® ® 9 2 $ 2 4 ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® 1 1 - - - A2.4b 3 -5- ulldlnq °I - East Elevatlon, I/16° -= I'-m° � n Buddh--a #I North-Elevatlon I/I6° - I'-oJ'- -------------- - - - - - - Chan�r� �mn+ pf> uPP P�nS Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 50 Feet a R R 9 4 n 4 g I $ 3 3 $ 2 2 I s s 1 1 � RM fl B B ----------------------------. ,u.: Building # I South Elevation m' Budding 01 North Elevation, 1/4" = 1'-0' I 2 I 11 I/4° = I'-m" Source: HR Morant BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS Figure 14 Page 13-19 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 40 Feet i R R a � 3 3 � d _n p� 2 2 d }� 8 � B Bg I 5uildirg 12 Partal Elevation, 1/4" = I'-0' 12 I Budding r3 - Partial Elevation, 1/4" = 1'-0" Source: HR Morant BUILDINGS 2 AND 3 ELEVATIONS Figure lS Page 13-20 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' The site plan also includes a 30-foot wide easement through the southern portion of the Project site to allow for a potential future extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. The Project will convert a large expanse of currently vacant paved areas into new residential housing ' including 13 affordable units and commercial uses with public access along the North River Canal. 3.12 CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT POLICIES The Project is consistent with the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program Policies.The Massachusetts CZM Program was established to protect and manage the development and use of the coastal zone under the provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. This is accomplished by reviewing proposed developments in the coastal zone in terms of consistency with the CZM Coastal Policies and Management Principles. The Project's consistency with relevant policies/principles is described below. Stormwater Management Water Quality Policy 1 "Ensure that nonpoint pollution controls promote the attainment of state surface water quality standards in the coastal zone." Water Quality Policy 2 ' "Ensure that point-source discharges in or affecting the coastal zone are consistent with federally approved state effluent limitations and water quality standards The Project stormwater management system will comply with the DEP Stormwater Design Standards. Coastal Hazards Coastal Hazard Policy 1 "Preserve, protect restore, and enhance the beneficial functions of storm damage prevention and flood control provided by natural coastal landforms, such as dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, coastal banks, ' land subject to coastal storm flow, salt marshes, and land under the ocean." The site does not contain any natural coastal landforms. The site does contain land subject to coastal storm flow however no buildings are proposed in this area. Public Access ' Public Access Policy 1 "Ensure that developments proposed near existing public recreation sites minimize their adverse effects." ' Public Access Management Principle 1 Improve public access to coastal recreation facilities and alleviate auto traffic and parking problems through improvements in public transportation. Link existing coastal recreation sites to each other or to nearby coastal inland facilities via trails for bicyclists, hikers, and equestrians, and via rivers for boaters. Public Access Management Principle 2 Page 13-21 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form , Increase capacity of existing recreation areas by facilitating multiple use and by improving management maintenance and public support facilities. Resolve conflicting uses whenever possible through improved management rather than through exclusion of uses. ' The Project will provide a view corridor from Mason Street, directly across from Mack Park, through the ' site to the North River Canal. Pedestrian access from Mason Street to the North River Canal will be provided through the Project site. Public access along the North River Canal will be provided from Flint Street through the Project Site. The site is located across the North River Canal from the Leslie's Retreat ' Park which can be accessed from Flint Street. Growth Management ' Growth Management Principal "Encourage the revitalization and enhancement of existing development centers in the coastal zone through technical assistance and federal and state financial support for residential, commercial and , industrial development." The Project is consistent with the stated management principles as the Project site is located in an , existing urban neighborhood located in close proximity to the downtown and the MBTA commuter rail station. The Project will convert a large expanse of currently vacant paved areas into new residential housing and commercial uses with public access along the North River Canal. , Page 13-22 1 1 Appendix 1 MASS HISTORICAL COMMISSION DETERMINATION 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK r 1 1 1 1 RECEIVE 950 CMR: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH r APPENDIX A MASS, HIST. CC)M. MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD BOSTON,MASS. 02125 617-727-8470, FAX: 617-727-5128 —" rPROJECT NOTIFICATION F0 review of MHC files and the materials you su6mitted, it has been determined that r Project Name: Riverview Place this project is unlikely to affect significant Location/Address: 72 flint Street historic or archaeological resources, City/Town: Salem Project Proponent Oran ee LougFdm Name: Riverview Place, LLC Preservation Planner l Massachusetts Historical Comm as5� j Address: c/o Michael O'Brien, 6 Cider Mill Road City/Town/Zip/Telephone: Peabody,MA 01960 Agency license or funding for the project(list all licenses,permits,approvals,grants or other entitlements being sought from state and federal agencies). Agency Name Type of License or funding(specify) r MA DEP Division of Waterways Chapter 91 License r Project Description(narrative): See Attached Project Description rDoes the project include demolition? YES If so,specify nature of demolition and describe the building(s)which are proposed for demolition. The site previously contained 2 buildings,one,The Bonfanti Builidng on Mason Street, still exists and will be demolished; the second building,Salem Suede was ordered to be demolished by the City of Salem following a fire inthe fall of 2009. Does the project include rehabilitation of any existing buildings? NO If so,specify nature of rehabilitation and describe the buildings)which are proposed for rehabilitation. i - Does the project include new construction?If so,describe(attach plans and elevations if necessary). YES. See Attached 1 (Effective 7/l/93)-corrected 950 CMR-275 r RECEIVED � MAR 0 7 2011 DEPT.OF PLANNING; "t , e� CAb11YlF►IrY Ge:,.:..C:: ..�.:.t The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Massachusetts Historical Commission ' March 4,2011 Hannah Dioui Chair,Salem Historical Commission 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: Riverview Place,72 Flint Street,Salem, MA;MHC#50041 Dear Ms.Dioui: y , In response to your recent submissions to our office regarding the Riverview Place project at 72 Flint Street in Salem,Massachusetts,the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)offers the following comments. The project site is located north of and across the canal from the McIntire Historic District,which is listed in the State Register of Historic Places. After review of project elevations and drawings, the MHC has , determined that the project would have"no effect"(950 CMR 71.07(2)(b)(1))on the character and setting of the State Register-listed Historic District. The Bonifante and Salem Suede buildings are not included in MHC's Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth. Because the proposed project did not include the demolition of any properties that are included in MHC's Inventory, the categorical threshold for filing an Environmental Notification Form(ENF)with MEPA does not apply(see 301 CMR 11.03(10)). ' The MHC is aware of the numerous inventoried properties located on Mason, Flint, Tremont and other streets near the project site. However, because the project only requires a permit from a state agency(DEP), the MHC's review is limited to determining whether the project will affect any historic properties that are listed in the State Register of Historic Places(see M.G.L.Chapter 9,Section 27C and 950 CMR 71.00). These comments are offered to assist in compliance with M.G.L. Chapter 9, Section 26-27C, (950 CMR , 71.00). Please do not hesitate to contact Brandee Loughlin of my staff if you have any questions. Sincerely, Brona Simon State Historic Preservation Officer Executive Director Massachusetts Historical Commission xc: Michael O'Brien,Riverview Place,LLC , Lynn Goonin Duncan,City of Salem Department of Planning&Community Development Rose Mary O'Connor,Chairperson,Mack Park Neighborhood Association ' Lorene T. Scanlon,Mack Park Condominiums Meg Twohey,Chair,Federal Street Neighborhood Association, Inc. Mary Whitney&Nick Nowak Representative John D. Keenan , 220 Morrissey Boulevard,Boston,Massachusetts 02125 (617) 727-8470 • Fax: (617) 727-5128 www sec.state.ma.us/mhc 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Appendix 2 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY 1 1 r r 1 r r r r r PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK r r r r i r r r r r r 1 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT & ASSESSMENT 1 STUDY Riverview Place Proposed Residential Development Project Salem, MA 1 1 1 i 1 1 Prepared for: Riverview Place, LLC Prepared by: Earth Tech,Inc. 300 Baker Avenue Concord,MA 01742 1 October 2007 Please note that the Appendix is not included but will be provided upon request made to: 1 Susan St. Pierre - 781-439-2461 1 Executive Summary ' This Traffic Impact and Assessment Study has been prepared to evaluate the proposed Riverview Place development project. Riverview Place, LLC proposes to redevelop the parcels of land located at 72 Flint Street and 69 Mason Street in the City of Salem, MA. The development project calls for the demolition of the existing buildings located on the project site (formerly the Salem Suede, Inc. and the L. Bonfanti, Inc. leather factories) and the construction of 130 residential apartment units and 5,540 SF of commercial space. New traffic volume data were collected for this study and was used to perform intersection capacity analyses. The findings of this study indicate that: • Both of the site driveways will operate adequately and meet the minimum stopping sight ' distance requirements. • The intersections of Mason Street / Tremont Street and Mason Street / Flint Street experienced crash rates higher than the MHD District 4 average. • The proposed development project is expected to generate 56 new vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and 87 new vehicle trips during the afternoon peak hour. This equates to just under to just over one vehicle trip per minute during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. On a daily basis, approximately 870 new vehicle trips are anticipated. • The addition of project-generated vehicles to the roadway network is not expected to ' significantly change traffic operations at the study intersections. The following improvements have been incorporated into the proposed project: • The proposed project will not preclude the long-term measures outlined in the Neighborhood Master Plan. A 30-foot wide roadway easement has been included into , the project in anticipation of a future extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. • As part of the project, 12 parking spaces have been designated on-site for Flint Street residents. The following measures should be considered to improve operations and safety in the study area: • A flashing beacon at the intersection of Mason Street/Flint Street should be considered , to increase awareness and safety. • At the intersection of Mason Street / Tremont Street, widening the Tremont Street southbound approach should be considered to accommodate an exclusive left-tum lane to improve traffic operations at this location. In summary, the local roadway network in the vicinity of the project site can accommodate the , proposed development project. Suggested transportation enhancements would improve existing deficiencies and future operations. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................1-1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS........................................................................2-1 2.1 Study Roadways..............................................................................2-1 2.2 Intersection Characteristics.............................................................2-2 2.3 Existing Traffic Volume Data.........................................................2-4 2.4 Accident Data..................................................................................2-7 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES.........................3-1 1 3.1 Future No-Build Conditions............................................................3-1 3.2 Future Build Conditions..................................................................3-6 4.0 TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS.........................................................4-1 4.1 Level of Service Criteria.................................................................4-1 4.2 Operating Conditions......................................................................4-2 ,\ 5.0 SITE CIRCULATION/ACCESS &PARKING......................................5-1 5.1 Site Access......................................................................................5-1 ' 5.2 Internal Site Circulation..................................................................5-2 5.3 Parking............................................................................................5-3 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................6-1 6.1 Neighborhood Master Plan..............................................................6-1 6.2 Safety Improvements.......................................................................6-1 6.3 Intersection Capacity Improvements...............................................6-2 7.0 CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................7-1 ' APPENDICES ' APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNT DATA APPENDIX B CRASH RATE WORKSHEETS ' APPENDIX C BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS APPENDIX D TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS APPENDIX E INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Table of Contents Page i L:Iwork11019791PROJIET Internal RecordsITIAS1101979-TIAS.doe LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP.....................................................1-2 FIGURE 2: 2007 EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES...........2-6 FIGURE 3: 2012 FUTURE NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES.....................................................................................3-5 FIGURE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT TRIPS....................................3-8 FIGURE 5: SITE-GENERATED VEHICLE TRIPS.....................................3-9 FIGURE 6: 2012 FUTURE BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES3-10 FIGURE 7: PROPOSED SITE PLAN.............................................................5-4 LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE I: AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES— FLINT STREET............................................................................2-4 TABLE 2: HISTORICAL TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON.............2-5 TABLE 3: ACCIDENT SUMMARY(2003—2005)......................................2-8 TABLE 4: BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.....................3-4 TABLE 5: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY.............................................3-7 TABLE 6: LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA—INTERSECTIONS........4-1 , TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS— WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR......................................4-2 TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS— WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR................................4-3 TABLE 9: SIGHT DISTANCE SUMMARY................................................5-2 Table of Contents Page ii L.1 work11019791PROJ1ET Internal RecordsWAS1101979-TIAS.doc 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' Riverview Place, LLC proposes to redevelop a parcel of land located at 72 Flint Street and 69 Mason Street in the City of Salem, Massachusetts. The project site is bound by Flint Street to the west, Mason Street to the north, the North River Canal to the south, and an adjacent parcel to the east. The development project calls for the construction of 130 residential apartment units, including 81 two-bedroom units and 49 one-bedroom units, and 5,540 SF of commercial space. The project site has previously been used as the Salem Suede, Inc. and the L. Bonfami, Inc. leather factories. Under the proposed plan, all of the existing buildings located on the project site will be demolished. A total of 309 on-site parking spaces are proposed, including twelve spaces designated for existing residents of Flint Street. ' The site development plan was developed in conjunction with the goals outlined for the area in the Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor ' (prepared by Goody, Clancy & Associates, Earth Tech, Inc., and FXM Associates in September 2003). On the southern edge of the project site, a walkway is proposed along the North River Canal. The site plan also includes a 30-foot wide easement through the southern portion of the project site to allow for a potential future extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. These attributes of the proposed site plan are consistent with the objectives and recommendations contained in the Neighborhood Master Plan, and do not preclude any of the long-term transportation improvements recommended for the area. Figure I shows the project site location. This study includes a review of the existing traffic and roadway conditions, a review of accident history at study area intersections, forecasts background traffic growth within the study area, estimates the additional traffic generated by the proposed development project, and evaluates the potential impacts on the local transportation network associated with this development project. 1 ii Introduction Page 1-1 I.IworkU019791PROJIET Internal Records lTIASV 01979-TIAS.doc �� i •Q�°'a_;,�� +-i �k �S�o�4A`��✓ ai�a�?� \ moi / �i ��df'�'� � '� r 4`. '\. Y '� `�\�j]--yeam� � f�� / a !/`�a�• � \ 0 r ,��. � Cyyew ,�t a ty7� .��. -Pry �.b °r �V AY, -.�y"h•� ��"�, ! i/'la�i ti' .�� ." • .c °'r` '� R� a`f Vag �� '�� i`.r '� ♦ � ✓4f��.o'i r �r.. \ �K�t - e»" -� �� {��'�i. 9 ti. 4 .2^:�! - ✓ b �!`. � aaY'.. i ♦ l y1 i}. �� a/� ``Y �p� ? a�^a "`i. ii J Hr ti sjY^�.'I'�j � �Y1 �bJ� -✓�✓ ` ,�✓J r8�i <i .y+ � r�✓� RA"x�t."� ..��yltS<�t4�� ,>£° �1t\�r ��,�. Z // - w i 1° �F r 1`�•n v c� J � Fr �G Y�. l�:_ O'f ♦J dal + =J f� �� ss� a �, ��f '=��x�.�'Y3i� +�'• V'jrp�+yO,� � �4� .x -"� �'" � F, �Y AAA`;;;.\+ 4 •!.�,� } � c�\�,1vs-�. ,�., .Xr_ Ap yyg' � � +�.,�� , , �., 0�7✓�pr Mrs �:�e 1 •�y M �-z`-�''"`�3 ; Ls{�`� i��:.i� yI1- � qtr ♦, .,� ,+�r��. \ ;�..,.:.�'r'n'vp�k °, h ,,l,A `�OJ �� Z�`tr_y` T �j,&.'F ti \�.��q�� r3�° �-1_ 1 ��',S �`a� � �,�'t \+( T rr � a.r �a '.:'�.>� �� /a..•3 C?M a ^`Y k}q 1.: t('te.l-xl�� t P` l@� L. "t _.:.e, AAI „+t#Y ee t o�aP b �' /' .♦ a cfjl +� • aY< - K w l.y 'C• ' r er L Ik t ��m. fid �+. ! , s� .Z �+,3 V, ,5�, • � ' �'.�,�l� . � (� ° )/�� \y Y `v ��'��i -•`.Ods _,w� t�r�=1 :g( ov '/'4¢ Y }.��'(•-�.'-!�� w p�� [ Ty � � � <R'�I � ) '� a� ,�,,,i,,//�`1• ✓�. �� ) � �� f }IRS . t �'�: • y � {. N,�`t .,,'r\. � 'til;I �/'\�i �'e ab ♦)`�+2` rw,. 4°•. a :cY 9+"�.i �. '�... !w' J?�Svir��.� � ® ._� L��i.� ��•,-"� t 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS A field inventory of the study area was conducted during September 2007. The inventory included collection of existing roadway geometry, traffic control, traffic volumes, and general observations of roadway operating characteristics. The study area intersections evaluated for this study are: ,1 • Bridge Street(Route 107) at Flint Street • Mason Street at Flint Street • Mason Street at Tremont Street • Existing site driveways on Flint Street and on Mason Street The findings of the field inventory are summarized below. 2.1 Study Roadways Bridge Street(Route 107) Bridge Street (Route 107) is an urban arterial roadway that generally runs in an east- west direction through the City of Salem. To the west of Flint Street, Bridge Street provides two travel lanes in each direction. To the east of Flint Street, Bridge Street generally provides one travel lane in each direction. In the vicinity of the project site, sidewalks are provided along both sides of Bridge Street to the west of Flint Street, and along the south side of Bridge Street to the east of Flint Street. There are no posted speed limit signs on Bridge Street in the vicinity of the study area. On-street ' parking on Bridge Street is prohibited within the study area of this report. Flint Street Flint Street is a local roadway that runs in a north-south direction between Mason Street and Broad Street. Flint Street generally provides one travel lane in each direction. In the vicinity of the project site, sidewalks are provided along both sides of the roadway, and on-street parking is permitted on both sides of Flint Street. eMason Street Mason Street is a local roadway that generally runs in an east-west direction between Grove Street and North Street (Route 114). Mason Street provides one travel lane in each direction. Sidewalks are located on both sides of Mason Street to the east of Tremont Street, and along the south side of the roadway to the west of Tremont Street. The posted speed limit on Mason Street is 30 MPH to the east of Flint Street; to the west of Flint Street the posted speed limit on Mason Street is 20 MPH in both Existing Conditions Page 2-1 L:Iwork11019791PROJIET Internal RecordsWASII01979-TIAS.dac directions. On-street parking is permitted along various portions of Mason Street, 1 although in the vicinity of the project site, between Flint Street and Tremont Street, on-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway. ' Tremont Street Tremont Street is a local roadway that runs in a north-south direction between Mason Street and the Peabody city line. Tremont Street provides one travel lane in each ' direction. In the vicinity of the project site, the posted speed limit on Tremont Street is 25 MPH. In the area of the project site, a sidewalk is provided along the east side of Tremont Street. 2.2 Intersection Characteristics Bridge Street(Route 107)at Flint Street The signalized intersection of Bridge Street / Flint Street is located approximately 100 feet south of an at-grade railroad crossing. At the intersection of Bridge Street/ Flint Street, the Bridge Street eastbound approach provides two 13-foot wide travel lanes. These two eastbound travel lanes on Bridge Street are provided for the entire length between Boston Street and Flint Street, or approximately 1,200 feet. At the intersection of Bridge Street / Flint Street, the eastbound travel lanes are marked as an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through and right-turn lane. East of Flint Street, Bridge Street currently provides one eastbound travel lane. The Bridge Street westbound approach to this intersection consists of one 15-foot wide travel lane. The Flint Street northbound approach provides one 20-foot wide travel lane. This is sufficient width for vehicles traveling through or right to bypass vehicles waiting to turn left, though vehicles generally queue in one lane on the northbound approach while waiting for the green light. The Flint Street southbound approach provides one 12-foot wide exclusive left-tum lane and one 13-foot wide shared through and right- turn lane. The left-turn lane is provided for approximately 150 feet. Painted pedestrian crosswalks are provided across each leg of this intersection and an exclusive pedestrian signal phase is activated with pedestrian push buttons. Mason Street at Flint Street Flint Street intersects Mason Street to form an unsignalized T-intersection. The Flint Street northbound approach is approximately 11-feet wide and vehicular traffic is under STOP sign control. The Mason Street eastbound approach provides one general purpose travel lane. The lane width is 17-feet wide, which includes space for -on-street parking on the south side of Mason Street. The Mason Street westbound approach provides one 11-foot wide general purpose travel lane. There is a striped crosswalk across the west leg of Mason Street. Although there is no sidewalk along Existing Conditions Page 2-2 L:Iwo&1019791PROJIET Internal Records l TMSI 101979-TMS.doc ' the north side of Mason Street, this crosswalk leads to a path and staircase that leads into Mack Park. On the north side of Mason Street, slightly offset from the Flint ' Street intersection, there is a small informal parking lot for Mack Park. This parking area has approximately seven parking spaces. Mason Street at Tremont Street and Site Drivewav Tremont Street and the existing site driveway intersect Mason Street to form an off- set unsignalized intersection. The Tremont Street southbound approach provides one 15-foot wide travel lane, and vehicular traffic is under STOP sign control. The Mason Street eastbound approach provides one 16-foot wide travel lane, while the westbound approach provides one 18-foot wide travel lane. The Mason Street westbound lane also provides width for on-street parking on the north side of Mason Street(to the east of Tremont Street only). The site driveway northbound approach is approximately 24-feet wide and provides one travel lane in each direction. Striped crosswalks are provided across the east leg of Mason Street and across Tremont Street. Flint Street at Site Driveway The existing site driveway intersects Flint Street slightly offset from the Oak Street/ Flint Street intersection. This site driveway currently has a gate; this gate is opened intermittently as needed by the existing uses on the project site. Under the future ' conditions, the gate will be removed and this driveway will remain open. This site driveway is approximately 24-feet wide and allows for two-way vehicular operation. i 1 Existing Conditions Page 2-3 L:1work11019791PROJET Internal RecordsWAS1101979-TIAS.doc 2.3 Existing Traffic Volume Data Traffic volume data were collected to assess the operational characteristics within the study area. The existing daily two-way traffic volumes on Flint Street were obtained through the placement of an Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) machine. The ATR count was conducted over a 48-hour period on Monday September 10 and Tuesday September 11,2007. The ATR data are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Average Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes—Flint Street Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour Averaee Daily Traffic Peak Traffic K- Dir. Peak Traffic K- Dir. Location Volume Hour Volume Factor° Dist.° Hour Volume Factor° Dist.° Flint Street,south 6,635 7:30 765 12 81%SB 4,30- 663 10 56%SB of Mason Street 8:30am 5:30pm �. °Percentage of daily traffic during the peak hour °Directional Distribution As indicated in Table 1, during the weekday morning peak hour traffic volumes on Flint Street were much heavier in the southbound direction. During the afternoon peak hour, the southbound direction on Flint Street still experienced more traffic but the directional distribution was considerably more balanced. In addition to the ATR count on Flint Street, manual Turning Movement Counts (TMC's) were conducted at study area intersections during the peak weekday commuting hours. The TMC's were collected on Tuesday September 11, 2007 between the hours of 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM. Based on the ATR and TMC's, it was determined that the morning peak hour generally occurs from 7:30- 8:30 AM and the afternoon peak hour generally occurs from 4:30-5:30 PM. To determine if any of the data needed to be adjusted to account for seasonal fluctuation within the area, MassHighway seasonal data were researched. The MassHighway seasonal data revealed that traffic volume data collected during the month of September are generally nine percent higher than average month conditions. Based on this, the observed volumes were not adjusted; this provides a conservative (or above average) 2007 analysis condition. The most recent traffic volume data were also compared to historical traffic volume data to gain an understanding of traffic growth in recent years. Year 2003 traffic data were available from the Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal i Corridor, prepared by Goody, Clancy & Associates, Earth Tech, Inc., and FXM Existing Conditions Page 2-4 L:4orkV 019791PRO.AET Internal RecordsWAS1101979-TIAS.doc Associates in September 2003, and year 2005 traffic data were available from the Functional Design Report—Proposed Trial Court Expansion, prepared by Edwards ' and Kelcey, Inc. in June 2006. Table 2 summarizes the results of this comparison. Table 2: Historical Traffic Volume Comparison 2003 Traffic 2005 Traffic 2007 Traffic Annual Location Volumes Volumes Volumes Chanee Growth Rate Mason Street at Tremont Street Morning Peak Hour 1,118 - 1,188 70 1.5% Afternoon Peak Hour 1,176 - 1,053 -123 -2.7% ' Mason Street at Flint Street Morning Peak Hour 1,028 - 1,101 73 1.7% Afternoon Peak Hour 1,058 - 941 -117 -2.9% Bridge Street at Flint Street Morning Peak Hour - 1,980 2,017 37 0.9% Afternoon Peak Hour - 2,073 1,780 -293 -7.3% Note:Traffic volumes represent the total number ofvehicles entering each intersection. As indicated in Table 2, traffic volumes generally increased during the weekday morning peak hour and generally decreased during the weekday afternoon peak hour. '1 The 2007 existing weekday morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are displayed on Figure 2. The complete traffic count data are contained in Appendix A. 1 ' Existing Conditions Page 2-5 ' L:lwork1I011MPROMTInternal RecordslTIASl101979-TL4S.doe 3 N NORTH m N tT 199) 1-'20 -1 5213) (1 t 1. r20(0) X921 (2482) Mason Street �. (1 3) 73J 1�' (140)(140 0) 2"1 (115) 115— (99) 95- r T SITE Oak Street m� 72 (170) Bridge Street(Ftoute 107) —522 wu t 8(16 )1) r3 S 22J (389))4589^ N?r (2 5) o" Legend XX(XX)=AM(PM)Peak Hour Volumes N O Traffic Signal Figure 2 EclrthTCCh 2007 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Riverview Place — Salem, MA A Ud.CKMM 1 2.4 Accident Data ' Accident reports were obtained from MassHighway for each of the study intersections for the three most recent years on record (2003-2005). These data are summarized in Table 3. Crash rates were calculated per MassHighway methodology at each study intersection. The crash rate worksheets are contained in Appendix B. The most recent statewide and district averages published by MassHighway indicate the statewide average crash rate is 0.66 for unsignalized intersections and 0.87 for signalized intersections. The District 4 (which includes the City of Salem) average crash rate is 0.63 for unsignalized intersections and 0.88 for signalized intersections. As shown in Table 3, the two intersections of Mason Street / Tremont Street and Mason Street / Flint Street experienced a crash rate higher than the MassHighway District 4 average of 0.63. At both of these locations, the majority of crashes were ' angle type crashes, likely because of the large number of conflicting turning movements at these unsignalized intersections and restricted sight distance. Most crashes occurred during the midday period. Safety related improvements are suggested, and detailed in Chapter 6 of this report. 1 Existing Conditions Page 2-7 ' L:Iwork11019791PROJETInternal Records WASll01979-TIAS.doc 1 Table 3: Accident Summary(2003—2005) Mason Street at Mason Street at Bridge Street(Route 107) ' Tremont Street Flint Street at Flint Street 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 Severity Property Damage 4 3 5 6 3 2 3 2 4 Injury l 2 2 Hit and Run ' Fatality Unknown l 1 Crash Type Rear End 1 2 1 l 2 I 2 ' Angle 3 1 3 6 4 3 1 2 Head-On 1 Other/Unknown 1 1 1 1 1 Time of Day 6AM- 10 AM 2 l l 1 10AM-4PM 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 4PM-7PM 2 1 3 l 2 7PM-6 AM 2 1 2 1 l 1 1 Roadway Condition Dry 4 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 Wet 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 Snow/Ice 1 2 1 Other/Unknown I Season Dec—Feb 2 2 1 2 2 Mar—May 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 , Jun—Aug 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Sep—Nov 1 1 1 1 2 Light Conditions Daylight 3 3 3 6 4 4 2 2 1 t Dawn/Dusk 1 Dark(unlit) Dark(lit) 2 1 2 1 1 3 Unknown Total 5 4 5 6 5 5 3 2 4 Average 4.67 5.33 3.00 MHD Crash Rate 1.21 1.55 0.46 Existing Conditions Page 2-8 L:IworW 019791PR0J ET Internal Records l TIASU 01979-TIAS.doc ' 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 Future traffic volumes were projected within the study area in order to evaluate the effect of the proposed residential development project on the local roadway network. ' Two future scenarios were analyzed, a "Future No-Build" and a "Future Build" condition. The No-Build scenario examines projects traffic volumes assuming that the proposed development project does not occur. The Future Build scenario then adds vehicle-trips generated by the development project to the roadway network. The Future No-Build scenario provides a baseline comparison to see the effects of the development project. The future conditions were projected five years, to the year ' 2012. This five-year planning projection is consistent with the state guidelines for traffic impact assessments (Executive Office of Environmental Affairs/Executive ' Office of Transportation and Construction — Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments). 3.1 Future No-Build Conditions Future Roadway Conditions North River Canal Neighborhood Master Plan ' The North River Canal Neighborhood Master Plan was completed in September 2003. The Master Plan provides a framework for new growth and development in the North River area, while preserving and enhancing the quality of life in the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The project is consistent with the general vision of Master Plan by proposing to redevelop parcels of land to create a mix of uses that can be served by the nearby MBTA train station. This proposed transit-oriented development would reduce the reliance on single-occupant automobiles and promote transit usage. ' The proposed project conforms to urban design recommendations outlined in the ' Master Plan by seeking to redevelop the Salem Suede site for housing and commercial uses. In the project study area, a long-term recommendation in the Master Plan calls for extending Commercial Street west to Flint Street and Mason Street. The proposed project includes a 30-foot wide easement that can be used to accommodate a future extension of Commercial Street along the project boundary. Some on-site project parking spaces would need to be relocated or replaced when ' Commercial Street is extended. The project site plan does not preclude other long- term circulation options discussed in the Master Plan such as designating Flint Street and a Commercial Street extension to Mason Street as a one-way pair. ' It was assumed that extending Commercial Street to the west would not be ' implemented within the year 2012 analysis time frame for the proposed project. Future Traffic Volume Projections and Conditions Page 3-1 ' L:lworkWl9791PROJIETInternal Records lTIASU01979-TL4S.doc 1 Therefore, year 2012 scenario analysis results do not include a westerly extension of Commercial Street. However, the project has been designed so as not to prevent an extension of Commercial Street in the future. ' North Street ' The proposed North Street (Route 114) Improvement Project, which is currently under construction, begins at the Salem/Peabody City Line and extends southeasterly ' approximately one mile to Federal Street. This project's objectives are to improve the safety, operations and capacity of the roadway, including pedestrian safety. The rehabilitation of this roadway corridor includes cold planning and overlay, removing ' and resetting granite curb, installing new sidewalks and grass strips, and upgrading the existing traffic signals. Traffic/pedestrian signal upgrades are proposed at the , intersections of North Street/School Street/Ome Street and North Street/Mason Street. There are minor modifications proposed to the existing roadway geometries to provide a uniform cross-section width and composition. In addition, the work ' includes the adjustment of drainage structure castings and the replacement of pavement markings, as needed. These improvements, while outside the immediate study area of the Riverview project, are expected to be completed by the 2012 ' analysis year. DCAM Courthouse North Street/Bridge Street Interchange ' DCAM has proposed constructing a new Judicial Center to be located on Federal ' Street at the North Street intersection. The project includes roadway operations, circulation, and safety improvements at the intersection of North Street with Bridge Street consisting of reconfiguring ramp geometry and the installation of new traffic ' signals. The project involves the removal of the easterly ramps between North Street and Bridge Street and the installation of fully actuated traffic signals at the intersection of North Street/Federal Street/West Ramps and at the intersection of the ' West Ramps and Bridge Street. The new signals are proposed to mitigate the impacted traffic between North Street and Bridge Street due to the removal of the , east ramps. Other features of the project include signal coordination along North Street between Federal Street and Essex Street; pedestrian accommodations across North Street; textured paved islands; and new green space. These improvements, ' while outside the immediate study area of the Riverview project, are expected to be completed by the 2012 analysis year. Bridge Street(Route 107) ' MassHighway is planning to reconstruct Bridge Street (Route 107) between ' Washington Street and Flint Street. This project is currently at the 25% design stage. The project includes widening Bridge Street to provide two travel lanes in each Future Traffze [volume Projections and Conditions Page 3-2 1 I.lworkl1019791PROAET Internal Records lTIAS1101979-TIAS.doc ' ' direction and signalizing both the Bridge Street at MBTA Drive and West Ramps intersections. Increased capacity and upgraded signal operations are also proposed for the Bridge Street and Flint Street intersection. Although this project is currently being designed, construction will likely not be completed within the 5 year planning ' horizon of this report. For this reason, the Bridge Street / Flint Street intersection was analyzed with the existing geometry and signal control under the Future No- Build and Build conditions. This assumption provides for a conservative analysis, because the completion of the Bridge Street construction is expected to improve traffic operations under all future conditions. ' Future No-Build Traffic Volumes ' Future No-Build traffic volume projections typically consist of a general background growth factor, and traffic generated from other known specific development projects within the study area. Background growth is typically a function of unspecified development projects,increased economic activity, and population growth. To develop an appropriate background growth rate, the recent traffic volume data were compared to historical traffic data. This comparison has been summarized in ' Section 2.3 of this report. Based on the varying growth and decline of weekday peak hour traffic volumes over the past several years, a 1.0% annual growth rate was assumed for the future background traffic growth. This annual growth rate is consistent with several other recent studies conducted in the area, including the Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor, the Functional Design Report—Proposed Trial Court Expansion, and Transportation Improvement ' Study for Routes IA, 114, and 107, and Other Major Roadways in Downtown Salem, prepared by the Central Transportation Planning Staff in November 2005. The ' existing 2007 weekday peak hour traffic volumes were therefore adjusted upward by a factor of 5.1% to account for the background traffic growth between 2007 and 2012. ' Based on discussions with the City's Planning and Community Development Department, several potential development projects in the area were identified. Table 4 identifies and summarizes the status of each of the background development projects. i 1 Future Traffic Volume Projections and Conditions Page 3-3 ' L:IworkV019791PROJ1ETInternal Records 71AS1101979-TIAS.doc 1 Table 4: Background Development Projects Location Proposed Build-Out Status ' 28 Goodhue Street 44 condominium units Approved 6,000 SF of commercial space 401 Bridge Street 78,000 SF of office space Approved (former Sylvania site) 70—92 (former FlynnTan site) Boston Street (fn/a Potential development project ' North Street/Franklin Street CVS(assumed 11,000 SF) Proposed Source:City of Salem , As shown in Table 4, four sites for potential development projects were identified in the study area. Of these projects, trip generation calculations and trip distribution ' assumption were made for 28 Goodhue Street, 401 Bridge Street, and the proposed CVS at North Street / Franklin Street. Vehicle-trips from these three specific development projects were estimated with the Institute of Transportation Engineers ' (ITE) Trip Generation manual (7`"ed., 2003). For the proposed CVS at the corner of North Street/Franklin Street, detailed information was not available to Earth Tech at the time of this report; a floor area of 11,000 square feet was assumed for the ' background trip generation calculations. The vehicle trips associated with these projects were then distributed and assigned to the roadway network. The distribution patterns for these background development projects were developed with the year 2000 U.S. Census Journey-to-Work data and with existing traffic pattern information. The former F1ynnTan site has recently been sold by the City of Salem for a potential ' redevelopment project, although no specific plans for that site have been made at this time. It is expected that future traffic from that site(in the Riverview study area)will be captured by the annual background growth rate. The complete background project , trip generation calculations and vehicular distribution patterns are contained in Appendix C. The assigned traffic volumes from the specific background development projects were added to the adjusted 2007 traffic volumes to create the ' 2012 No-Build peak hour traffic volumes. Figure 3 displays the 2012 Future No-Build traffic volumes for the weekday morning and afternoonP eak hours. 1 Future Traffic Volume Projections and Conditions Page 3-4 ' L I ivork11019791PROJlET Internal RecordsWASV 01979-TIAS.doc , 0 a ur NORTH 4 m m N m 2 21 ) (0) ) J `Z1231 .-121 (162) Mason Street J t f• `546 (297) 40) 77 N o 0 (A54)(01)53—(0)53 (127) 126 5� 7 (105) _ A N v T N SITE m Oak Street a u107) _rr Street(Route w w t-76 (179) and9a J 14 r40(17) ( 1))<z S Nt r (27) 20 w m Legend ?. XX(XX)=AM(PM)Peak Hour Volumes N O Traffic Signal Figure 3 EarthTeCh 2012 No—Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Riverview Place — Salem, MA AT,= Imam 1 3.2 Future Build Conditions In order to assess the potential impact of the project on traffic conditions in the study area, vehicle trips associated with the proposed residential development project were estimated and distributed onto the roadway network. These vehicle trips were then added to the Future No-Build traffic volumes to form the Future Build traffic volume projections for the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. 1 Project-Generated Traffic The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual (7`s ed., ' 2003) was used to estimate the trip generation characteristics of the proposed apartment units and commercial use. ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 220 — Apartments ' was used to estimate the residential trips associated with the project, and ITE LUC 814— Specialty Retail was considered the most appropriate land use to estimate the ' retail component vehicle trips. The ITE land use codes provide a baseline for the vehicular trip generation of the ' project site; however, given the specific nature of this transit-oriented development project, adjustments were applied to both the residential and retail trips associated with this project. The project site is located within walking distance (approximately one-half mile) of the Salem MBTA Commuter Rail Station, and it is expected that many residents will make use of the available public transportation. Based on the 2000 US Census data for the City of Salem, 23% of workers who live in Salem use ' alternate (non-single occupant automobile) forms of transportation. Furthermore, based on the nature of mixed-use development project, it can reasonably be assumed ' that internal site trips will account for a portion of the total trip generation characteristics of a project site. In this case, it is likely that some of the trips going to and from the retail portion of the project site will be made by residents of the project site. These are considered as "internal' trips and will not generate additional vehicular traffic on the surrounding roadway network. The Trip Generation Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice (Institute of Transportation Engineers, ' March 2001) contains data and guidelines for the assessment of internal site trips. The "Internal Capture Rate" contained in the Trip Generation Handbook ranges from ' 28% to 41%. For this analysis, the lower 28% figure was used to account for the internal trips of the retail component of the project site. The trip generation calculations were computed for the project site on a daily basis, and the weekday ' morning and afternoon peak hours. The weekday morning and afternoon peak hours are the most critical periods for trip generation for the proposed land uses, and also represent the highest hourly vehicular volume on the surrounding roadway network ' during a typical weekday. The weekend trip generation characteristics are significantly lower, and thus, were not evaluated. The complete trip generation ' Future Traffic Volume Projections and Conditions Page 3-6 L:IworW 01979WROJIET Internal RecordsWASW 1979-TIAS.doc calculations are contained in the attached Appendix D. Table 5 provides a complete summary of the trip generation analysis. ' Table 5: Trip Generation Summary ' Weekday Moming Peak Hour Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour Daily (vehicle-trips) (vehicle-trips) Trips Entering Exitin Total Enterin Estrin Total Total ' 130 Apartment Units(Total Trips)° 13 53 66 52 29 81 874 Non Vehicular Site-Trips 3 12 15 12 7 19 201 (23%of Residential Trips) New Residential Vehicle-Trips 10 41 51 40 22 62 673 5,540 SF of Specialty Retail(Total Trips)° 4 3 7 15 20 35 275 Internal Trips(28%of Retail Trips) 1 1 2 4 6 10 77 New Retail Vehicle-Trips 3 2 5 11 14Tf 25 198 ' New Site-Generated Vehicle-Trips 13 43 56 51 36 87 871 °Based on ITE L UC 220—Apartments °Based on ITE LUC 814—Specialty Retail ' As shown on Table 5, the proposed project is expected to generate 56 new vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 87 new vehicle trips during the afternoon peak hour. This equates to between just under and just over one new vehicle trip per minute during the weekday commuter peak hours. On a daily basis, approximately 871 new vehicle trips are anticipated. Trip Distribution and Assignment ' In order to evaluate the potential impacts related to the incremental traffic volumes associated with the development project, the new vehicle-trips must be distributed onto the local roadway network. U.S. Census 2000 Journey-to-Work data were consulted to develop the proposed trip distribution patterns. Journey-to-Work data ' are developed from the latest US Census data, and indicates where the residents of Salem work and where workers in Salem live. It was assumed that the residents/visitors of the proposed project would exhibit similar travel patterns. Based ' on these data, an overall trip distribution was developed for the new project trips. The trip distribution patterns are displayed on Figure 4. The new project-generated ' trips were then distributed accordingly, and are displayed on Figure 5. These incremental vehicle-trips were then added to the Future No-Build traffic volume network to form the 2012 Future Build Traffic Volumes and displayed on Figure 6. Future Traffic Volume Projections and Conditions Page 3-7 L:lwork11019791PROJIETInternal Recor&TIAS110I979-TIAS.doe 3 Ln NORTH o� N^. rD. ,2o% 5% J t r,SR (toR) Mason Street r10% 10%-� �T zo� SITE Oak street N 15% Bridge Street(Route 107) d� 15% S 15RJ Legend T XX%=Entering Trip Distribution (P w (XX%)=Exiting Trip Distribution OTraffic Signal Figure 4 ject EarthTech bution verve ew Place — Salem,ri ps RMA ATM Yihrott101W MCOMM ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 0 a N NORTH 4 m m J t `z (e) r 2�a) Mason Street , (. 5 2) 2 z—• > ° r � (5 (5) 1-1 A .rte N -n i.. s SITE u t9 (7) 4 r19 (16) oak Street N W m Bridge Street(Route 107) 1, PJO (a) 2, T N b Legend N XX(XX)=AM(PM)Peak Hour Volumes gym, O Traffic Signal Figure 5 EdrthTeCh Site—Generated Vehicle Trips Riverview Place — Salem, MA AllWi l el®IriaWW i9 0 a U! NORTH m 12 N Q, J J _ 5234 `21(a) '12566) Mason Street r55o 1302) 15))155 79, ( (5) 1"7 > (132) 127 0, (110) 206 �m N -n �o SITE 1 rig(16) Oak Street T r J N N� J NRoute N w u g (186) Bridge Street( 107) J$ 4 X40 (17)g) S 26J (4izi 2 Nt P Legend ?. )(X(XX)=AM(PM)Peak Hour Volumes N O Traffic Signal Figure 6 EclrthTCCh 2012 Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Riverview Place — Salem, MA AWkb dm$dutl.CNWW 4.0 TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS ' Capacity analyses were conducted to assess the quality of traffic flow at each of the study intersections. This was performed for the 2007 Existing conditions, the 2012 ' Future No-Build conditions, and 2012 Future Build conditions. 4.1 Level of Service Criteria ' The capacity analysis was conducted using the procedures of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) using the Synchro/SimTraffic (version 7) software package. The capacity analysis utilizes traffic volumes, geometries, and traffic controls at an intersection to determine a Level of Service (LOS) rating from A through F indicating how the intersection is expected to operate, or the quality of the driving conditions. LOS A represents the best operating conditions or little to no delay, while LOS F represents the worst operating conditions or very high delay. LOS E represents an intersection operating at capacity or at the limit of acceptable delay. ' Level of service for signalized intersections is based on the average control delay in seconds per vehicle approaching the intersection. The methodology takes into consideration the effects of signal type, timing and phasing, and geometries when determining the delay for the intersection approaches and the intersection as a whole. Level of service at an unsignalized intersection is defined as the delay experienced by each minor movement, since the major movements are considered to be uninterrupted. The LOS for unsignalized intersections is not defined for the ' intersection as a whole. Table 6 provides the level of service and the delay threshold criteria for both ' signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 6: Level of Service Criteria—Intersections ' Delay(seconds per vehicle) Category Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections ' A 0.0-10.0 0.0-10.0 B 10.1-15.0 10.1 -20.0 C 15.1-25.0 20.1-35.0 ' D 25.1 —35.0 35.1 —55.0 E 35.1-50.0 55.1-80.0 F >50 >80 source:Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC:2000 ' Traffic Capacity Analysis Page 4-1 I:Iwork11019791projlet internal records ltiasll01979-tias.doe 4.2 Operating Conditions The traffic capacity results are shown in Tables 7 and 8 and the complete analyses are contained in the Appendix E. The results also provide the queue lengths for each , approach movement. The reported queue is the 95th percentile queue, which is considered the maximum expected backing of vehicles. , Table 7: Summary of Intersection Capacity Analysis-Weekday Morning Peak Hour 2007 Existing 2012 Future No-Build 2012 Future Build , Queue Queue Queue LOS Delay' Length° LOS Delay' Length° LOS Delay' Length° Signalized Intersections Bridge Street at Flint Street ' Bridge Street EB L A 8.0 13 A 8.3 14 A 8.5 16 Bridge Street EB TR B 13.5 177 B 14.0 196 B 14.0 196 Bridge Street WB LTR C 20.0 318 C 26.5 387 C 26.8 389 Flint Street NB LTR B 14.3 51 B 16.7 56 B 17.8 58 Flint Street SB L D 35.4 224 D 48.6 244 D 52.2 250 Flint Street SB TR C 30.6 284 D 37.3 306 D 40.7 316 Overall Intersection C 22.7 C 25.4 C 30.0 , Unsignalized Intersections Mason Street at Flint Street Mason Street WB LT B 10.1 72 B 10.8 82 B 10.8 83 ' Flint Street NB LR F > 120 291 F > 120 374 F > 120 417 Mason Street at Tremont Street and Site Driveway Mason Street EB LTR A 3.4 7 A 3.1 7 A 3.5 7 Mason Street WB LTR A 0.0 0 A 0.1 0 A 0.1 0 Site Driveway NB LTR D 28.3 6 E 39.3 15 E 35.7 10 Tremont Street SB LTR F > 120 622 F > 120 799 F >120 ` 808 Flint Street at Site Driveway Site Driveway WB LR C 16.4 7 , Flint Street SB LT A 0.1 0 `measured in(seconds per vehicle) °95"percentile queue measured in(feet) ' Traffic Capacity Analysis Page 4-2 ' l:Iwork11019791pro&t internal records Was 1101979-tias.doc , Table 8: Summary of Intersection Capacity Analysis-Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour 2007 Existing 2012 Future No-Build 2012 Future Build Queue Queue Queue LOS Delay° Length° LOS Delay° Length° LOS Delay' Length' Signalized Intersections Bridge Street at Flint Street Bridge Street EB L A 5.3 10 A 5.4 11 A 5.8 13 Bridge Street EB TR A 7.4 106 A 8.1 133 A 8.2 133 Bridge Street WB LTR B 14.7 278 B 17.3 410 B 18.1 416 Flint Street NB LTR B 17.7 68 B 19.2 73 B 19.6 77 Flint Street SBL C 20.1 74 C 21.4 79 C 22.1 83 Flint Street SB TR C 29.6 201 C 34.1 215 D 36.0 225 Overall Intersection B 16.1 B 18.1 B 18.9 Unsignalized Intersections Mason Street at Flint Street Mason Street WB LT A 6.5 25 A 6.6 28 A 6.7 29 Flint Street NB LR F 107.4 320 F > 120 424 F > 120 468 Mason Street at Tremont Street and Site Driveway Mason Street EB LTR A 4.9 11 A 4.9 12 A 4.9 13 Mason Street WB LTR A 0.0 0 A 0.0 0 A 0.2 0 Site Driveway NB LTR A 0.0 0 A 0.0 0 C 23.8 5 Tremont Street SB LTR F 58.6 264 F 96.6 362 F > 120 426 Flint Street at Site Driveway Site Driveway WB LR B 14.1 5 Flint Street SB LT A 0.3 1 °measured in(seconds per vehicle) - °95ed percen(it,queue measured in(feet) As shown on Table 7 and Table 8, the future operating conditions are not expected to change under the Future Build condition, when compared to the Future No-Build scenario. The Flint Street and Tremont Street approaches to Mason Street operate at LOS F under the existing conditions (in both the weekday morning and afternoon ' peak hours). The operating conditions at these side street approaches to Mason Street are not expected to change under either future condition. Based on these capacity analyses,the site driveways are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service. It is noted that, under existing conditions, the intersection of Mason Street/ Tremont Street meets the conditions for Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume and Warrant 3: Peak Hour contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2003 Edition, published by the Federal Highway Administration. However, consideration of a traffic signal should include other factors such as off- peak periods, weekends, and inducement of greater traffic volumes. Therefore, alternate improvements should also be considered. The intersection of Mason Street/ ' Flint Street was also examined relative to the traffic signal warrants contained in the MUTCD. The Mason Street/ Flint Street did not meet the signal warrant standards, ' thus a traffic signal should not be considered at this location. Traffic Capacity Analysis Page 4-3 ' 1:Iwork11019791projlet internal records4ias1101979-tias.doc 5.0 SITE CIRCULATION/ACCESS & PARKING 5.1 Site Access Existing Sight Distance , The existing available sight distance at the site driveways was measured to determine , whether vehicles would be able to safely exit the project site onto Flint Street and Mason Street. The available sight distance was measured based on the procedures in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (5`" ed., 2004). The measured available sight distance was compared to the minimum requirements for two sight distance criteria: Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) and Intersection Sight ' Distance (ISD). SSD is the required distance for vehicles traveling on the major roadway (Flint Street or Mason Street) to stop in time to avoid a collision with a ' stationary object. ISD is the distance needed for motorists on the minor roadway to enter the major roadway without interfering with traffic operations on the major roadway. ISD is desirable to improve traffic operations for vehicles entering the , major roadway, but it is not required. As detailed in the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the ISD was recorded 15 feet back from the edge of the travel way on Flint Street and Mason Street. This point is one corner , of the "clear sight triangle" that must be clear from obstructions to provide sufficient ISD. The posted speed on Mason Street (west of Flint Street) is 20 MPH in both ' directions. The posted speed limit on Mason Street cast of Flint Street is 30 MPH. ' These speeds were used to evaluate sight distance. Because there is no posted speed limit on Flint Street,a 30 MPH operating speed was assumed for this roadway. Table 9 compares the available sight distance to the minimum requirements for SSD and , ISD. The available stopping sight distance at both site driveways exceeds the minimum required distances specified by AASHTO. At the driveway along Flint Street, the available sight distance to the north of the driveway assumes that an existing wooden ' fence will be removed during construction. The available intersection sight distance does not meet the desirable distance at either driveway. At the Mason Street driveway, the ISD is limited in both directions by existing houses adjacent to the ' driveway. At the Flint Street driveway, the ISD looking to the north is limited by a horizontal curve in the roadway. Looking to the south, the available ISD is to the Bridge Street/Flint Street intersection and slightly beyond. ' Traffic Capacity Analysis Page 5-1 ' 1:IworkWl9791pro&t internal records kiaAl01979-tias.doc ' 1 Table 9: Sight Distance Summary Flint Street at Site Drivewav Minimum Stopping Sight Distance Measured Required Meets Standard Vehicles on Flint Street,traveling northbound 215 ft° 200 ft Yes ' Vehicles on Flint Street,traveling southbound 285 ft° 200 ft Yes Intersection Sight Distance Measured Desirable Vehicles exiting the project site,looking to the south 215 ft° 335 ft Acceptable` Vehicles exiting the project site,looking to the north 255 ft° 335 ft No ' Mason Street at Site Driveway Minimum Stopping Sight Distance Measured Required Vehicles on Mason Street,traveling eastbound 575 ft 200 ft Yes Vehicles on Mason Street,traveling westbound 490 ft 200 ft Yes Intersection Sight Distance Measured Desirable Vehicles exiting the project site,looking to the west 315 ft 335 ft Borderline Vehicles exiting the project site,looking to the east 225 ft 335 ft No distance to Bridge Street/Flint Street intersection assumes existing wooden fence at back of sidewalk is removed `when exiting the project site onto Flint Street and looking to the south,the available sight distance is clear through the intersection of Bridge Street/Flint Street Site Driveways As indicated on the current site plan, the project site will be served by two existing driveways, one on Flint Street and one on Mason Street. Both driveways will ' provide two-way circulation which allows motorists two points to enter and leave the site. Each driveway is a minimum of 24-feet wide and provides a fuming radius that ' is expected to accommodate all entering and exiting vehicles. ' 5.2 Internal Site Circulation Based on the proposed building locations and the parking layout, the Flint Street driveway will be the primary driveway. The existing internal roadways appear to have sufficient width and turning radii to accommodate trucks and other large vehicles. Consideration should be given to one-way operation (counter-clockwise) on the roadways surrounding the "court yard" area of the project site. One-way operation could reduce the number of conflict point on the internal roadways. The Traffic Capacity Analysis Page 5-2 ' 1:Iwork11019791projletinternal recordsltias1101979-tias.doc 1 site plan should be reviewed by the Salem Fire Department to ensure safe and efficient operations of emergency vehicles on the project site. 5.3 Parking , A total of 309 parking spaces will be provided on the project site. Of these, 170 outdoor parking spaces will be provided and 139 parking spaces will be provided inside three parking structures. Twelve outdoor spaces will be designated for existing Flint Street residents only. For reference, the proposed site plan is shown here on Figure 7. ' Traffic Capacity Analysis Page 5-3 I:Iwork1019791projlet internal records WasU 01 979-tias.doc , _- I ISG, PROPOSED BUILDING ! 3 — COMMERCIAL SPACE M FIRST F . ILI eo It, till, PT7 All, j L PROPOSED BUILDING PROPOSED BUILDING i 58 sp.c., M G.,.g. I 50 Sp..., M G.rug. 4 I. Ca!RTARO PARKING CALCULATION P,ki,:, 130-Wtis Tit sptTm4 'a UiTt 260 sct,,I.. ........... 3 309 T..I ,1 s"e,, pl,' J,.J, �M Y sell" ` — _ ol, NORT14 SECTION 7-21(K) DENSITY REGULATIONS i5,01r SF st, P A C,,,Lqv b,r.;F R, 3:b,1 50 7. v tf .v Ymor 2- ;T I j AnFrrur, t7dti, >f 1,-1: YuLj rT ?,11j,'J"Wr leiTLIf NIXiI 11; ff I't Fi —Z- Ill. ...cxir*. qof uc,rd., & LION 0 Ft G T 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Potential transportation improvements have been identified within the study area. ' These improvements address existing deficiencies as well as diminish the impacts of the proposed development project on the roadway network. The suggested , improvements generally fall within three types of improvements: Consistency with the Neighborhood Master Plan, Safety Improvements, and Intersection Capacity Improvements. These are summarized below. , 6.1 Neighborhood Master Plan , On-site facilities have been proposed as part of this project in consideration of measures identified in the Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor. These include the construction of a pedestrian walkway along the southern side of the project site and a 30-foot wide easement for the potential future extension ' of Commercial Street to Flint Street. These two features are consistent with the Neighborhood Master Plan by improving pedestrian accommodations and by allowing for the implementation of the long-term transportation recommendation of ' extending Commercial Street to Flint Street. 6.2 Safety Improvements Based on the existing above-average crash rate at the intersection of Mason Street Flint Street, and the less than desirable intersection sight distance at this location, a flashing beacon should be considered. The flashing beacon would be located directly above the intersection, and would have a flashing yellow circular signal indication ' facing both approaches on Mason Street, and a flashing red circular signal indication facing the Flint Street approach. The flashing beacon would complement the existing warning signs on Mason Street and would provide supplemental emphasis to drivers on Mason Street by warning them to proceed with caution. Additionally, on-street parking should be restricted on both Mason Street and Flint Street in the vicinity of , this intersection to improve the available sight distance. Twelve parking spaces on the project site will be designated for Flint Street residents. Recommendations and Improvements Page 6-1 , 1Iwork1019Mprojlet internal recordsltiasV01979-tias.doc ' 6.3 Intersection Capacity Improvements ' At the intersection of Mason Street/ Tremont Street, the Tremont Street southbound approach currently operates at LOS F during both the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours, and is expected to continue to do so in the future. During both peak hours, the southbound right turning movement is heavier than the left-turning movement. However, many right-turning vehicles are delayed while vehicles wait to turn left onto Mason Street. Consideration should be given to providing an additional southbound travel lane on the Tremont Street approach, in order to accommodate an exclusive left-turn storage bay. Based on the capacity analysis, a left-tum storage bay provided for approximately 140 feet should be sufficient to allow right-turning vehicles to bypass the entire queue of vehicles waiting to tum left. The existing ' pavement width of Tremont Street is approximately 30 feet. To accommodate two southbound travel lanes, Tremont Street would have to be widened approximately 4 feet on the western side of the roadway. These improvements are expected to improve operations on the Tremont Street southbound approach to LOS E and LOS C for the left-turning and right-turning movements, respectively, during the morning peak hour, and to LOS F and LOS B for the left-turning and right-turning movements, respectively, during the afternoon peak hour. In both cases, the average delay per vehicle is significantly reduced for both left-turning and right-turning vehicles. The intersection capacity analyses for this scenario are contained in Appendix E. It is noted that, under existing conditions, the intersection of Mason Street/Tremont Street meets the conditions for Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume and Warrant 3: Peak Hour contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2003 Edition, published by the Federal Highway Administration. However, at this time, a traffic signal is not recommended because the intersection ' operations are expected to be sufficient with a two-lane southbound approach on Tremont Street. A traffic signal at this location may be considered in the future if additional development occurs in conjunction with an extension of Commercial Street north to Mason Street. Recommendations and Improvements Page 6-2 ' Nworkg019791pro&t internal recordsltias1101979-tias.doc 1 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK , ' 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Earth Tech, Inc. has reviewed the proposed redevelopment project at 72 Flint Street and 69 Mason Street. The proposed build conditions calls for the demolition all of existing buildings on the project site (previously the Salem Suede, Inc. and the L. Bonfanti, Inc. leather factories) and for the construction of 130 residential apartment units (including 81 two-bedroom units and 49 one-bedroom units), and 5,540 SF of ' commercial space. A total of 309 on-site parking spaces are proposed, including twelve spaces designated for existing residents of Flint Street. This Traffic Impact and Assessment Study has: • Reviewed existing traffic volumes, roadway characteristics, and intersection operating conditions in the vicinity of the project site; • Projected background traffic volume growth within the study area between 2007 and 2012; • Estimated the incremental traffic volumes associated with the proposed development project; • Presented an assessment of the potential impacts on traffic operations associated with the proposed development project; • Recommended transportation improvements to effectively mitigate existing transportation deficiencies and to minimize the impacts of the proposed development project. ' The results of this study indicate that: ' • Both of the site driveways will operate adequately and meet the minimum stopping sight distance requirements. ' • The intersections of Mason Street / Tremont Street and Mason Street / Flint Street experienced crash rates higher than the MHD District 4 average. ' • The proposed development project is expected to generate 56 new vehicle trips during the morning peak hour (13 entering, 43 exiting) and 87 new vehicle trips during the afternoon peak hour (51 entering, 36 exiting). This equates to just under to just over one vehicle trip per minute during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. On a daily basis, approximately 871 new vehicle trips are anticipated. Estimated Quantities and Costs Page 7-1 ' L Iwork11019791projlet internal records Was 1 I 01979-tias.doe • The addition of project-generated vehicles to the roadway network is not expected to significantly change traffic operations at the study intersections. The following improvements have been incorporated into the proposed project: , • The proposed project will not preclude the long-term measures outlined in ' the Neighborhood Master Plan. A 30-foot wide roadway easement has been included into the project in anticipation of a future extension of Commercial , Street to Flint Street. • As part of the project, twelve parking have been designated on-site for Flint , Street residents. This will help to improve sight lines and improve maneuverability on Flint Street. , The following measures should be considered to improve operations and safety in the study area: ' • A flashing beacon at the intersection of Mason Street/Flint Street should be considered to increase awareness and safety. • At the intersection of Mason Street / Tremont Street, widening the Tremont Street southbound approach should be considered to accommodate an ' exclusive left-turn lane to improve traffic operations at this location. In summary, the local roadway network in the vicinity of the project site can , accommodate the proposed development project. Suggested transportation enhancements would improve existing deficiencies and future operations. Estimated Quantities and Costs Page 7-2 ' I:Iwork11019Mprojlet internal records Wasll 019 79-tias.doc , ' Appendix 3 GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS 1 1 1 i i 1 i 1 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK , i i 1 i i 1 1 i 1 1 1 GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS FOR RIVER VIEW PLACE ' SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 1 i IJanuary 2013 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 TeCHenvironmenraL FOCUSED KNOWLEDGE. REAL SOLUTIONS. GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS FOR RIVERVIEW PLACE SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 1 Prepared for: Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services 74 Bay View Avenue , Salem, MA 01970 Prepared by: Tech Environmental, Inc. 303 Wyman Street, Suite 295 Waltham, Massachusetts 02451 January 30, 2013 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Contents page 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY....................................................................1 1.1 Methodology....................................................................................................I 1.2 Summary of Results.........................................................................................3 2.0 TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS..............................................................7 ' 3.0 GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) MITIGATION ANALYSIS....................................9 3.1 Site Design Mitigation Measures.....................................................................9 3.2 Building Design and Operation Mitigation Measures.....................................9 3.3 Transportation Mitigation Measures..............................................................13 IAPPENDIX A - EQUEST MODEL OUTPUT APPENDIX B - TRANSPORTATION WORKSHEET FOR VMT AND CO2 EMISSIONS APPENDIX C - PV COST CALCULATION SPREADSHEETS ii LIST OF TABLES Table Description Page 1 Energy and CO2 Modeling......................................................................................... 4 to 5 , 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary................................................................................6 3 Motor Vehicle CO2 Emissions Summary...........................................................................8 4 Summary of eQUEST Model Assumptions......................................................14 ' 5 Project Site Design Mitigation Measures.........................................................................15 , 6 Building Design and Operation Mitigation Measures......................................................16 7 Transportation Demand Mitigation Measures..................................................................17 iii ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1.1 Methodology A greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis was performed for Riverview Place(the"Project')in Salem, Massachusetts, consistent with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol" (May 5, 2010; the "Policy"). The Project involves the redevelopment of a 4.14 acre former industrial site into a mixed use development. The site is located in Salem,Massachusetts east of Flint Street between Mason Street and the North River canal. The site was previously developed with two leather manufacturing j buildings:the Bonfanti Building located on Mason Street(which will be demolished)and the Salem Suede Building which comprised the bulk of the site development located off Flint Street.The Salem Suede Building experienced significant fire damage and was demolished by the order of the City in the fall of 2009. The development includes three(3),four to five-story buildings containing a total of 130 residential units of which 49 are one bedroom and 81 are two bedroom units as well as 5,540 square feet(sf)of ' commercial space in the lower level of the building proposed along Mason Street. A total of 309 parking spaces are provided of which 271 are located in parking structures(252 spaces in Building #1 and 19 spaces in Building#2) and 38 are located in at grade lots. Twelve of the outdoor spaces are reserved for existing residents of Flint Street. The site will be accessed from Mason Street and ' Flint Street and trucks will be prohibited from using the Mason Street Driveway. A walkway is proposed along the south side of the parcel along the North River. The project will increase the Iamount of open space and the setback from the North River from the previously developed buildings on the site. The City of Salem has adopted the Massachusetts Stretch Energy Code,which requires higher levels of energy efficiency. Since all proposed residential buildings are over three stories in height,they are regulated as commercial buildings under the Stretch Code. Since all building have less than 100,000 sf,the GHG analysis assumed the prescriptive option of the Stretch Code(Section 501.1.4) in modeling energy use. The GHG Policy requires a project to quantify carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate such emissions, quantifying the effect of proposed 1 mitigation in terms of emissions reduction and energy savings. The GHG Emissions Policy and Protocol requires quantification of GHG emissions from three sources: direct emissions from on-site ' stationary sources, indirect emissions from energy generated off-site (electricity), and traffic generated by the Project. The Project's GHG emissions will include: 1) direct emissions of CO2 from natural gas combustion for space heating and hot water; 2) indirect emissions of CO2 from electricity generated off-site and used on-site for lighting,building cooling and ventilation, and the ' operation of other equipment; and 3) transportation emissions of CO2 from Project traffic. CO2 emissions were quantified for: (1) the Base Case corresponding to the 8th Edition of the MA Building Code that includes the 2009 IECC with MA amendments, and (2) the Mitigation Alternative, which includes all energy saving measures, detailed in Section 3. This analysis uses the eQUEST energy design software(version 3.63),which incorporates the U.S. , Department of Energy's DOE-2 building energy use model,and CO2 emission rates of 120.6 lb/103 cubic feet of natural gas' and 829 lb/MWhr.2 The eQUEST model inputs are summarized in Table , 4. CO2 emissions produced by project motor vehicle trips were calculated by multiplying the daily VMT by the MOBILE6.2 predicted CO2 emission factor of 561.3 grams per mile in 2012 and 566.9 , in 2017. Appendix B contains the transportation-related CO2 emission calculations. Energy use and CO2 emissions are detailed for each building in Tables IA through 1D,and the eQUEST model ' output is provided in Appendix A. Table 2 summarizes total CO2 emissions for the Project, for the Base Case(buildings that comply with the Code),and the Mitigation Alternative(includes all energy t saving measures). The eQUEST model input files have been provided to the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER). , U.S.Department of Energy,Energy Information Administration. 2 ISO New England Inc.,2010 New England Electric Generator Air Emissions Report,Annual Average Emission Rate,Table 5.3,March 2012. 2 ' 1.2 Summary of Results ' Energy use and CO2 emissions are detailed for each building in Tables lA through 1D, and the eQUEST model output is provided in Appendix A. Table IE reveals that the energy mitigation measures proposed for the Mitigation Alternative will reduce overall Project energy use(stationary ' sources) by 12.7% and will reduce CO2 emissions by 12.6%, compared to the Base Case. Table 2 summarizes total CO2 emissions for the Project, for the Base Case(buildings that comply with MA Building Code),and the Mitigation Alternative(includes all energy saving measures). The eQUEST model input files have been provided to the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (MassDOER) on a CD-ROM disk. Transportation emission calculations are given in Appendix B, and Appendix C provides a cost analysis for a photo-voltaic (PV) system. ' As discussed in Section 2.0,Transportation Demand Management(TDM)measures for this project will reduce Project-related motor vehicle CO2 emissions by 2.0%. The net reduction of the Project's total CO2 emissions (stationary sources plus transportation) is 11.9% compared to the Base Case. Section 61 Findings tThe Proponent has committed to implement energy efficiency measures that will reduce overall Project energy use (stationary sources) by 12.7% and will reduce CO2 emissions by 12.6%, compared to the Base Case. In accordance with the MEPA"Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol,"the proponent will provide a certification to the MEPA Office signed by an appropriate professional stating that all transportation and non-transportation greenhouse gas mitigation measures described in this EENF, or measures providing comparable mitigation, have been incorporated into the project. 1 1 3 TABLE 1A ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR RIVERVIEW PLACE-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING#1 Effects of Individual Mitigation Measures Electrical Total Energy Electrical Healing CO2 CO2 Electrical Gas Usage Gas Change CO2 CO2 Use Mitigation Measures-eQUEST Model Run GLA(sf) Usage Change(%) (Mcf/yr) (%) Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Change (MWh/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tans/yr) Change(/) (%) Base Case 81,312 720.86 924.78 55.8 298.8 354.6 Higher Heating Efficiency 720.86 0.0% 870.38 -5.9% 52.5 298.8 351.3 -0.9% Reflective Cool Roof 719.89 -0.1% 936.56 1.3% 56.5 298.4 354.9 0.1% Lower Light Power Density 661.89 -8.2% 1040.70 12.5% 62.8 274.4 337.1 -4.9% Higher Cooling Efficiency 714.96 -0.8% 924.78 0.0% 55.8 296.4 352.1 -0.7% Increased Roof Insulation 720.59 0.0% 887.72 -4.0% 53.5 298.7 352.2 -0.7% Lower U Value Glass Type 720.23 -0.1% 688.09 -25.6% 41.5 298.5 340.0 -4.1% Energy STAR Kitchen Appliances 686.88 -4.7% 996.45 7.7% 60.1 284.7 344.8 -2.8% Slab Insulation 721.46 0.1% 887.65 -4.0% 53.5 299.0 352.6 -0.6% Mitigation Alternative-All Measures Listed Above 623.01 -13.6% 734.44 -20.6% 44.3 258.2 1 302.5 1 -14.7% -15.5% TABLE 1B ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR RIVERVIEW PLACE-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING#2 Effects of Individual Mitigation Measures Electrical Total Energy Electrical Heating CO2 CO2 Mitigation Measures-eQUEST Model Run GLA(sf) Usage Electrical Gas Usage Gas Change Emissions CO2 CO2 Emissions Use MWh/ r Change I%) (Mcf/yr) (%) Emissions Emissions Change ( y) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) Change(%) (%) Base Case 46,552 454.21 1006.10 60.7 188.3 248.9 Higher Heating Efficiency 454.21 0.0% 981.19 -2.5% 59.2 188.3 247.4 -0.6% Reflective Cool Roof 454.18 0.0% 1006.40 0.0% 60.7 188.3 248.9 0.0% Lower Light Power Density 443.42 -2.4% 1025.30 1.9% 61.8 183.8 245.6 -1.3% Increased Wall Insulation 453.58 -0.1% 973.33 -3.3% 58.7 188.0 246.7 -0.9% Higher Cooling Efficiency 450.67 -0.8% 1006.10 0.0% 60.7 186.8 247.5 -0.6% Increased Roof Insulation 454.20 0.0% 1006.10 0.0% 60.7 188.3 248.9 0.0% Lower U Value Glass Type 451.89 -0.5% 887.36 -11.8% 53.5 187.3 240.8 -3.3% Energy STAR Kitchen Appliances 424.20 -6.6% 1060.80 5.4% 64.0 175.8 239.8 -3.7% Slab Insulation 454.63 0.1% 992.23 -1.4% 59.8 188.4 248.3 391 Mitigation Alternative-All Measures Listed Above 409.53 -9.8% 915.49 -9.0% 55.2 169.8 225.0 4 M on = W M M M mm Ir MM M40 TABLE 1C ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR RIVERVIEW PLACE-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING#3 Effects of Individual Mitigation Measures Electrical Total Energy Electrical Heating CO2 CO2 Mitigation Measures-eQUEST Model Run GLA(sf) Usage Electrical Gas Usage Gas Change Emissions CO2 CO2 Emissions Use (MWh/yr) Change(%) (Mcf/yr) (%) (tons/yr) Emissions Emissions Change(%) Change (tons/yr) (tonslyr) (%) Base Case 32,428 315.72 714.50 43.1 130.9 174.0 Higher Heating Efficiency 315.72 0.0% 696.33 -2.5% 42.0 130.9 172.9 -0.6% Reflective Cool Roof 315.71 0.0% 714.66 0.0% 43.1 130.9 174.0 0.0% Lower Light Power Density 308.20 -2.4% 727.74 1.9% 43.9 127.7. 171.6 -1.3% Increased Wall Insulation 315.37 -0.1% 689.10 -3.6% 41.6 130.7 172.3 -1.0% Higher Cooling Efficiency 313.32 -0.8% 714.50 0.0% 43.1 129.9 173.0 -0.6% Increased Roof Insulation 315.71 0.0% 714.48 0.0% 43.1 130.9 173.9 0.0% Lower U Value Glass Type 314.30 -0.4% 627.11 -12.2% 37.8 130.3 168.1 -3.4% Energy STAR Kitchen Appliances 294.83 -6.6% 752.30 5.3% 45.4 122.2 167.6 -3.7% Slab Insulation 316.03 0.1% 704.24 -1.4% 42.5 131.0 173.5 -0.3% Mitigation Alternative-All Measures Listed Above 284.90 -9.8% 646.17 -9.6% 39.0 118.1 157.1 -9.7% -9.7% TABLE 10 ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR RIVERVIEW PLACE Outdoor Lighting for Parking Lot Electrical Total Energy Electrical Heating CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 Use Usage Electrical Gas Usage Gas Change Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Change Mitigation Measures (MWh/yr) Change(%) (Mcf/yr) (%) (tonslyr) (tonslyr) (tonslyr) Change(%) (%) Base Case 103.3 0.0 0.0 42.8 42.8 Mitigation Alternative-LED Lights 77.5 -25.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 32.1 32.1 -25.0% -25.0% TABLE 1E ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR RIVERVIEW PLACE Totals Electrical Heating CO2 Electrical Total CO2 Electrical Gas Usage Gas Change CO2 CO2 Energy Use All Buildings -Combined Mitigation Usage Change(%) (Mcf/yr) (%) Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Change(%) (MWh/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr tons/yr) Change(%) Base Case 1,594.1 2,645.4 159.5 660.7 820.2 Mitigation Case 1,394.9 -12.5% 2,296.1 -13.2% 138.5 578.2 716.6 -12.6% -12.7% 5 TABLE 2 GREENHOUSE GAS (CO2) EMISSIONS SUMMARY RIVERVIEW PLACE (TONS/YEAR) Source Base Case Mitigation Alternative Change in GHG Emissions ' Direct Emissions 159.5 138.5 -13.2% Indirect Emissions 660.7 578.2 -12.5% Subtotal Direct and 820.2 716.6 -12.6% Indirect Emissions Transportation Emissions 60.4 59.2 -2.0% Total CO2 Emissions 880.6 775.8 -11.9% 6 2.0 TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS The transportation portion of the GHG analysis calculated emissions of CO2 for the traffic study area for three traffic analysis scenarios: • 2017 No-Build • 2017 Build without TDMs • 2017 Build with TDMs The vehicle miles traveled(VMT)for the four major roadway segments in the traffic study area was calculated by multiplying the length of each road segment by the average daily traffic(ADT)volume on the segment. The CO2 emissions for each roadway segment were calculated by multiplying the daily VMT by the CO2 emission factors of 561.3 grams per mile in 2012 and 566.9 in 2017. Average daily traffic volumes were provided in a 2007 traffic study prepared by Earth Tech, Inc. The 2012 No-Build traffic volumes presented in the traffic report were used to represent existing conditions and a one percent per year growth factor referenced in the traffic report was used to project the 2017 No-Build case. Appendix B presents the VMT and emission calculations. Transportation CO2 emissions are summarized in Table 3. The emissions listed for the 2017 No- Build and Build cases include both existing volumes on the roadway network and new project- generated trips. The 2017 Build case includes roadway mitigation measures, but not TDMs. The project's transportation emissions are calculated by subtracting the 2017 No-Build values from those for the 2017 Build cases. The Build with TDMs case includes the effects of the Transportation Demand Management(TDM) measures, detailed in Section 3.4, and Table 3 reveals the 2017 Build with TDMs CO2 emissions (60.4 tons/year) will be 2% less than those for the 2017 Build case (59.2 tons/year). I , �I � 7 TABLE 3 MOTOR VEHICLE CO2 EMISSIONS SUMMARY RIVERVIEW PLACE Total Predicted CO2 Emissions Burden 2017 2017 2017 No-Build Build without TDMs Build with TDMs 6,642.7 kg/day 6.639.7 kg/day 6,492.5 kg/day Project: 150.2 kg/day Project: 147.2 kg/day 2,670.2 tons/year 2,669.0 tons/year 2,609.9 tons/yr Project: 60.4 tons/year Project: 59.2 tons/year i 8 i 3.0 GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) MITIGATION ANALYSIS ' The GHG Policy requires the Project to identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate GHG emissions. The following sections discuss the measures Riverview Place will implement,and these are summarized in Tables 4 through 7. 3.1 Site Design Mitigation Measures • Sustainable Development Principles — The Project conserves land by reusing a previously developed industrial and commercial site.The green space will increase by approximately 3,300 sf. • Design Project io Support Alternative Transportation to the Site—The project is one-half mile away from a MBTA Commuter Rail Station. A walkway is also proposed along the south side of the site along the North River. • Minimize Energy Use Through Building Orientation—Due to the shape and orientation of the site, Building#1 will face east and south, Building#2 will face east and Building#3 will have one side of the building facing east. Windows facing east and south will get natural lighting reducing electrical energy demand of the buildings. • Best Practices for Stormwater Design — To the extent possible, the stormwater management system will utilize Best Management Practices (BMP) including stormeeptor and bioretention basins. 3.2 Building Design and Operation Mitigation Measures The eQUEST energy model inputs are summarized in Table 4. • Energy Efficient Windows and Building Envelope—Building envelope insulation will exceed MA Building Code for the roof with insulation at R-38 for Building #1, wood frame wall insulation at R-20 for Buildings#2 and#3 and slab foundation at R-10. Window glass type will be better than MA Building Code for all buildings: double-pane, low-e glass with a lower U value— 0.35. • Use of Cool Roofing Materials—A reflective cool roof will be installed on all three buildings. • Install High-Efficiency HVAC Systems—Energy-STAR rated HVAC units will be used and Energy Efficiency Ratios (EER) will be 10% above MA Building Code. • High-Efficiency Heating Systems— Heating systems will be 5% more efficient than MA ' Building Code. 9 • Seal, Test andlnsulateHVACSupply Ducts—HVAC supply ducts will be sealed, leak tested, and insulated to reduce energy losses. • Energy Efficient Interior Lighting—Interior Light Power Density(LPD)will be at least 10% below MA Building Code and consistent with the requirements of the Stretch Code for residential and retail spaces in all buildings. • Energy Efficient Exterior Lighting—Energy efficient Metal Halide fixtures will be used to light the parking lots. • Energy STAR Appliances — Energy STAR appliances will be used in residential units and associated laundry rooms to reduce plug load. Consistent with DOER policy, the plug load values used in the eQUEST model are are COMNET average values for all buildings. The plug loads with Energy Star appliances are assumed to be at least 10%below MA Building Code for residential buildings. • Provide storage and collection of recyclables—The proponent will set side space for recyclables per the requirements of the local ordinance. Other building design and operation mitigation measures were considered for the Project,but were rejected because they are either technically/financially infeasible or inappropriate for the Project: • Reduce Energy Demand by Using Peak Shaving or Load Shifting Strategies—These measures are not appropriate for buildings that must use power during peak periods. • Incorporate Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Technologies into Project— CHP requires a host for the constant (year-round) and substantial steam load (waste heat) generated as part of the process. The project's thermal loads are seasonal only, making CHP economically infeasible. • Construct Green Roof--The proponent does not consider it economically feasible to construct and maintain a green roof. Green roofs, which consist of layers of gravel, soil and vegetation atop a rubberized water-proof membrane, are expensive to install and maintain. They typically require a steel-reinforced concrete roof that can support a dead weight of 35 lb/sf and the installation cost exclusive of roof redesign is $30/sf3 While green roof technology has the potential to improve stormwater management on the Project and reduce overall energy costs,the significant additional costs (over $4 million for the proposed development) related to the required engineering,construction and installation of the green roof is not economically feasible. • On-Site Renewable Energy—The proponent affirms its commitment to set aside space on the flat roof garage for a possible third-party photo-voltaic (PV) installation and make those roofs solar-ready. 'Obemdorfer,Erica,et al.,"Green Roofs as Urban Ecosystems: Ecological Structures,Functions and Services," Bioscience,Vol. 57,No. 10,November 2007. 10 The PV cost feasibility analysis presented below estimates the cost of a 200-kW system installed in a single block on a commercial building roof.To obtain the most accurate installed-cost for a commercial-size PV system,data were obtained from the most recent installed-cost report on the MassCEC website for Commercial solar installations of 100+ MW over the last two reporting years (application years 2010 and 2009)4 Those data are provided in Appendix C. The data were sorted by Owner-Installed and 3`d-Party-Installed projects and then by year within those categories. The results are as follows. For Owner-Installed Commercial PV,costs for the 2009-projects ranged from$4.34 to$6.66 per Watt, and averaged $5.60/W, while costs for the 2010-projects ranged from$4.95 to $7.23 per Watt,and averaged$5.96/W. The average cost actually increased for the more recent projects. The overall two-year average for 23 Owner-Installed Commercial PV projects was $5.74/W. For 3`d-Party-Installation Commercial PV, costs for the 2009-projects ranged from $4.79 to $8.21 per Watt, and averaged$5.65/W, while costs for the 2010-projects ranged from$4.68 to $9.60 per Watt, and averaged$6.44/W. The average cost actually increased for the more recent projects. The overall two-year average for 21 3rd-Party-Installation Commercial PV projects was $5.99/W. The 3`d-Party installation projects were 4.4% more expensive than Owner-Installed projects, consistent with the fact the 3`d-Party Installer charges a fee for his work. For this PV cost analysis, two scenarios were examined: (1) Owner-Installed 200-kW system with a cost of$5.74/W, and(2) 3`d-Party-Installation 200-kW system with a cost of$5.99/W. The following facts were obtained from MassDOER: (1) SRECs are market-based incentives and should sell today between $300 and $550 per MWh, less broker fees; (2) An owner can place excess SRECs into an auction account and receive $285 per MWh ($300 minus 5% fee); (3)The Alterantive Compliance Payment(ACP)cap that is$550 today declines to only$365 in the future on a schedule set by DOER. Since there are no firm estimates of the future value of SRECs,this analysis assumed the guaranteed floor price of$285,the most realistic assumption. For the alternative analysis, a 200 kW system was assumed; this is generally considered the minimum size for a financially feasible third-party vendor PPA.5 In Massachusetts, a 200 kW PV system,flat-mounted,is projected to generate 206,528 kWh per year,6 which equates to 85.5 tons per year in GHG emissions reductions. A 200 kW PV system would reduce the annual Mitigation Case CO2 emissions (Table 2)by 1.5%= 100% * 85.5 / 5,735.3. 4 MassCEC,"PV Installers Costs,"May 30,2012. The two most recent years of data in the report are"dates of Application"in 2009 and 2010. Public projects were not included because costs often do not reflect the market cost for a Commercial installation. 'Personal communication,Dave Hebert,Gloria Spire Solar,March 3,2009. 6 Personal communication,Natalie Howlett,Renewable Energy Project Coordinator,Massachusetts DOER, December 18, 2008. This figure is 4 times 51,632 kWh/year for a 50 kW system- 'Annual ystem.'Annual PV system electrical generation is 206.5 MWh. Multiplying by the ISO New England emission factor of 828 Ib CO2 per MWh and dividing by 2,000 Ib/ton yields an annual CO2 emission reduction of 85.5 tons/year. i The economics of a PV installation were calculated using the DOER Commercial Solar Financial Model updated to reflect the above assumptions. Model output is provided in Appendix C. The cost calculator inputs are as follows: • PV system size of 200 kW • System cost of$5.74/Watt(Owner Installed) or $5.99/W (3`a Party Installation) • Annual capacity factor of 11.8% (flush mounted on roof)$ • SREC value of$285 /MWh and revenue term 10 years • An inverter replacement frequency of once every 10 years • Customer discount rate of 7% The default customer discount rate in the CS Financial Model is 3%, which is incorrect. The customer discount rate is defined as the interest rate of return that could be earned in an investment in the financial markets with similar risk. At present, a 20-year U.S. Treasury bond pays just below 3%; that is the lowest risk investment possible and is not comparable to the risk of investing in a PV system. Corporate bond rates are 4%to 8%,depending on their investment grade. This analysis assumed a reasonable customer discount rate of 7%. The calculations assume all current financial incentives: federal tax credits, State tax deductions and SREC values. For the 200-kW system,the calculated Net Present Value of the PV system is-$33,681 (Owner- Installed) and -$52,812 (3`d-Party Installation). The internal rates of return (IRR) are 6.0% (Owner Installed) and 5.5% (P-Party Installation). The Simple Payback Period is 8 years for both scenarios. Based on market research,almost 90 percent of strong prospects would consider a payback of four years,but acceptance begins to drop rapidly once paybacks reach five years.10 The Simple Payback also has serious limitations as a measure of cost feasibility and is not used in making business decisions because it ignores inflation, the time value of money and investment risk. Net Present Value (NPV)is the standard financial method for using the time value of money to appraise long-term projects. Used for capital budgeting,and widely throughout economics,NPV measures the excess or shortfall of cash flows,in present value terms,once financing charges are met. If the NPV is positive,an investment maybe accepted since it would add value to a project over the long-term. If the NPV is negative, as is the case here, the investment should be rejected. The IRR is the annualized effective compound return rate that can be earned on the invested capital, i.e. the yield on the investment. A project is a good investment if its IRR is greater than the rate of return that could be earned by alternate investments of equal risk;in this case the alternate rate of return is the 7% discount rate in the financial model. 'Personal communication,Natalie Howlett, Renewable Energy Project Coordinator,Massachusetts DOER, t December 18,2008. 9 Personal communication, Dave Hebert,Gloria Spire Solar,March 3,2009. "Assessment of California CHP Market and Policy Options forincreased Penetration,Final Report,Cosponsors Public Interest Energy Research Program(PIER)and California Energy Commission,July 2005. 12 Given the negative NPV and longer than acceptable payback period, a PV system is not financially feasible for the project at this time. The proponent will set aside space on the roof of the two large buildings with a flat roof as "solar ready" to accommodate flat-mounted PV systems for a possible third-party provider PV installation in the future. 3.3 Transportation Mitigation Measures Riverview Place is ideally suited in relation to the public transportation facility on Bridge Street at the MBTA Commuter Rail Station one-half a mile from project site. The Proponent is committed to ' a program of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies (see Table 7) to reduce residential and customer vehicle trips, listed below, and which in aggregate it is estimated will reduce CO2 transportation emissions by 2%. • Locate New Buildings Near Transit— The project is one-half mile from the MBTA Station, providing commuter rail service on the Newburyport/Rockport commuter rail line. • Develop Multi-Use Paths To and Through Site—A walkway is proposed along the south side of the site along the North River from Flint Street and pedestrian access will be provided between Mason Street to the north and the North River to the south. • Provide Bicycle Storage—Secure,weather-protected bicycle racks will be provided at locations within the site with signs directing bicyclists to the bike storage facilities. • Roadway and Signalization Improvements to Improve Traffic Flow— Roadway and traffic signal improvements are proposed along Mason, Tremont and Flint Streets. 13 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF ENERGY MODELING ASSUMPTIONS RIVERVIEW PLACE Energy Efficiency Measure 1 Mitigation (EEM) Base Case (Code) t gation Case Cool Roof No Yes Metal Roof Deck R20 Roof R38 Wood Attic Joist Roof R38 Same Building Envelope Metal Frame Walls R13+R7ci Walls = R20 Wood Frame Walls R13+R3.4 Walls = R20 Slab Insulation (NA) R-10 (2 ft) Window Glass U=0.55, U=0.35, (Metal Frame) DOE Type 2000 DOE Type 2611 HVAC Cooling Efficiency for EER 11.0 EER 12.1 Typical 15-ton Unit Heating System Efficiency 80/ 85/ Parking Lot Lighting Parking Lots Parking Lots 150 W/1,000 SF Metal Halide 112 W/1,000 SF Light Power Density Retail 1.5 W/SF Retail 1.2 W/SF (Whole Building Method) MF Residential 0.7 W/SF MF Residential 0.6 W/SF Electric Plug Load Retail 0.86 W/SF Same as Base Case Residential 1.44 W/SF Residential 1.3 W/SF (COMNETValue) Energy STAR Appliances No Residential Buildings: Yes 1 IECC, 2009. 14 t i TABLE 5 PROJECT SITE DESIGN MITIGATION MEASURES RIVERVIEW PLACE Part of Project Technically/ Inappropriate Suggested Mitigation Measure Economically Design Infeasible to Project ect Type Sustainable development principles ✓ Locate new buildings near transit—site is one-half mile from the MBTA Commuter Rail Station. A walkway is also ✓ proposed along the south side of the site along the North River. Use Best Management Practices for stormwater design ✓ Minimize energy use through building orientation ✓ 15 TABLE 6 BUILDING DESIGN AND OPERATION MITIGATION MEASURES RIVERVIEW PLACE Part of Project Technically/ Inappropriate Suggested Mitigation Measure Des Economically Design to Project Type g Infeasible YP Green roofs ✓ Cool roofs ✓ r Higher roof, wall and slab insulation than MA Building Code, lower U value than MA Building Code for ✓ window glass. Interior lighting, lower Light Power Density ✓ HVAC Cooling Efficiency- 10% more efficient than MA ✓ Building Code Heating System Efficiency-5% more efficient than MA ✓ Building Code Peak shaving or load shifting strategies ✓ Exterior lighting, energy efficient metal halide fixtures ✓ Electric plug load—10% below MA Building Code for ✓ residential buildings Combined heat and power(CHP) ✓ Water conserving bathroom fixtures ✓ Energy STAR appliances ✓ Provide storage and collection of rec clables V/g Y The proponent does not consider PV to be economically feasible atthis time; howeverthe project will set aside space on the garage roof for a possible third-party PV installation, should it become economically feasible in the future. 16 TABLE 7 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MITIGATION MEASURES RIVERVIEW PLACE Technically/ Part of Project Economically Inappropriate Suggested Mitigation Measure Design Infeasible to Project Type Locate new buildings near transit ✓ Develop multi-use paths to and through site ✓ Roadway and traffic signal improvements ✓ Bicycle rack storage ✓ 1 17 I� r APPENDIX A 1 EQUEST MODEL OUTPUT Appendix Not Included but was submitted to MADEP ' A-1 APPENDIX B TRANSPORTATION WORKSHEET FOR VMT AND CO2 EMISSIONS 1 B-1 *M0BILE6.2.03(24-Sep-2003) ` *Input file:3449 12.INP(file 1,run 1). ** 'Summer 2012*** *Reading Registration Distributions from the following external *data file:2005_REG.D M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.998 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.998 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.998 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.999 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.998 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.999 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) *Reading I/M program description records from the following external *data file:09NEWIM.D *15 Year Exemption Age *New Annual OBD Exhaust I/M program for Light Duty MY 1996 through 2007 vehicles<=8,5001b GVWR *New Annual OBD Exhaust I/M program for Light Duty and Medium duty MY 2008 and later<=14,000Ila GVWR *New Annual OBD Evap I/M program for Light Duty MY 1996 through 2007 vehicles<=8,500 lb GVWR *New Annual OBD Evap I/M program for for Light Duty and Medium duty MY 2008 and later<=14,000 Ib GVWR M601 Comment: User has enabled STAGE 11 REFUELING. *Reading 94+LEV IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE from the following external *data file:MA LEV2.D Reading User Supplied Tier2 Exhaust bin phase-in fractions Data read from file:LEV2EXH.D Reading User Supplied Tier2 EVAP phase-in fractions Data read from file:LEV2EVAP.D Reading User Supplied Tier2 50K certification standards Data read from file:LEV2CERT.D M616 Comment User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels. M614 Comment: User supplied diesel sale fractions. ' *######################### *2012-Summer at 15 mph *File 1,Run 1,Scenario 1. *######################### M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 15.0 will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. ***I/M credits for Techl&2 vehicles were read from the following external data file:TECHI2.13 M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class H DGV8b LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.D Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm Exhaust I/M Program: Yes Evap I/M Program: Yes ATP Program: No - Reformulated Gas: Yes �s Vehicle Type: LDGV UDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC AIIVeh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ------ ------ VMT Distribution: 0.3070 0.4054 0.1595 0.0368 0.0002 0.0015 0.0858 0.0038 1.0000 Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.1 9.9 32.3 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.3 Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): Composite CO2: 368.0 478.9 623.9 519.9 895.1 314.7 554.3 1400.6 177.4 561.31 ----------------------------------------------------------- *2012-Summer at 20 mph *File 1,Run 1,Scenario 2. M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 20.0 will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: ' there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b LEV phase-in data read from file MA LEV2.D Calendar Year 2012 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) Q Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib ' Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm Exhaust I/M Program: Yes Evap I/M Program: Yes ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: -<6000 >6000 (All) ' VMT Distribution: 0.3070 0.4054 0.1595 0.0368 0.0002 0.0015 0.0858 0.0038 1.0000 Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.1 9.9 32.3 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): � Composite CO2: 368.0 478.9 623.9 519.9 895.1 314.7 554.3 1400.6 177.4 561.31 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '######################### `2012-Summer at 25 mph File 1,Run 1,Scenario 3. 44######################## M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 25.0 will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.D Calendar Year. 2012 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm Exhaust l/M Program: Yes Evan I/M Program: Yes ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) VMT Distribution: 0.3070 0.4054 0.1595 0.0368 0.0002 0.0015 0.0858 0.0038 1.0000 Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.1 9.9 32.3 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.3 _.__________--_-_--__________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors(g/mi). - Composite CO2: 368.0 478.9 623.9 519.9 895.1 314.7 554.3 1400.6 177.4 561.31 _--__ _----- 2012 __2012-Summer at 30 mph "File 1,Run 1,Scenario 4. M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 30.0 will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT - has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.D Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) r ,yr Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm r Exhaust I/M Program: yes Evap I/M Program: yes ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) VMT Distribution: 0.3070 0.4054 0.1595 0.0368 0.0002 0.0015 0.0858 0.0038 1.0000 Fu el Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.1 9.9 32.3 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.3 Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): Composite CO2: 368.0 478.9 623.9 519.9 895.1 314.7 554.3 1400.6 177.4 561.31 r 1 r r. r� r. r r r r 4####444f Yf RRRif Yiirtiiiiikiiik3ii FF#FkFFi######k##!#!#4###kk####4####44#f44 *MOBILE6.2.03(24-Sep-2003) *Input file:3449_17.INP(file 1,run 1). kk3F3FF3F33FF#i#FFikk#RkkkR##kkk#4#4#4##444f4444f444rt YRrt4R4R44RRRiRiYii Yiii ***Summer 2017*** *Reading Registration Distributions from the following external *data file:2005-REG.D M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not 1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.998 MYR sum not 1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.998 MVR sum not 1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.998 MVR sum not 1.(will normalize) ' M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not 1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not 1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: ' 0.999 MVR sum not 1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.998 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.999 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) *Reading I/M program description records from the following external *data file:09NEWIM.D *15 Year Exemption Age •New Annual OBD Exhaust I/M program for Light Duty MY 1996 through 2007 vehicles -8,500 lb GVWR *New Annual OBD Exhaust I/M program for Light Duty and Medium duty MY 2008 and later<=14,000 Ib GVWR *New Annual OBD Evap I/M program for Light Duty MY 1996 through 2007 vehicles<=8,500 Ib GVWR 4 New Annual OBD Evap I/M program for for Light Duty and Medium duty MY 2008 and later<=14,000 lb GVWR M601 Comment: ' User has enabled STAGE II REFUELING. *Reading 94+LEV IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE from the following external *data file:MA_LEV2.D � Reading User Supplied Tier2 Exhaust bin phase-in fractions - Data read from file:LEV2EXH.D Reading User Supplied Tier2 EVAP phase-in fractions Data read from file:LEV2EVAP.D Reading User Supplied Tier2 50K certification standards ' Data read from file:LEV2CERT.D M616 Comment: 1 ' User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels. M614 Comment- It User supplied diesel sale fractions. *2017-Summer at 15 mph *File 1,Run 1,Scenario 1. ' *######################### M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 15.0 will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT * has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. **I/M credits for Techl&2 vehicles were read from the following external data file:TECHI2.D M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.D Calendar Year: 2017 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) t Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm Exhaust I/M Program: Yes Evap I/M Program: Yes ATP Program: No ,. Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh �i GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) VMT Distribution: 0.2723 0.4300 0.1692 0.0369 0.0002 0.0016 0.0861 0.0037 1.0000 Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.0 9.9 32.4 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.1 Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): Composite CO2: 368.0 479.3 624.4 520.3 894.1 314.1 554.0 1398.0 177.4 566.90 ______-_________________________________________________________________________________________________ '2017-Summer at 20 mph I File 1,Run 1,Scenario 2. M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 20.0 will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.1) Calendar Year: 2017 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) Absolute Humidity: 7S.grains/Ib Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm Exhaust I/M Program: Yes Evap I/M Program: Yes ' ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: Yes t Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: -<6000 >6000 (All) ______ ______ _____ ___ _____ ______ ______ ______ ______ VMT Distribution: 0.2723 0.4300 0.1692 0.0369 0.0002 0.0016 0.0861 0.0037 1.0000 Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.0 9.9 32.4 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '. Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): Composite CO2: 368.0 479.3 624.4 520.3 894.1 314.1 554.0 1398.0 177.4 566.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *######################### *2017-Summer at 25 mph File 1,Run 1,Scenario 3. M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 25.0 will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway ' type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.D Calendar Year: 2017 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm Exhaust l/M Program: Yes Evap I/M Program: Yes ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: Yes I Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) VMT Distribution: 0.2723 0.4300 0.1692 0.0369 0.0002 0.0016 0.0861 0.0037 1.0000 Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.0 9.9 32.4 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.1 ---------._._._.---------------------------.__-_______________-_____________________________________ Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): Composite CO2: 368.0 479.3 624.4 520.3 894.1 314.1 554.0 1398.0 177.4 566.90 ' _--__ _-----_________________________________________________________________________________----________ *2017-Summer at 30 mph *File 1,Run 1,Scenario 4. *######################### M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 30.0 will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: t there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.1) Calendar Year: 2017 Month: July Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) , I TABLE B-1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the Mesoscale Study Area Riverview Place Project, Salem, Massachusetts Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) (vehicles/day)* (miles/day) Link Link Length Link Descriptor 2017 2017 2017 2017 2012 2017 Full Build Full Build 2012 2017 Full Build Full Build I.D. (feet) Existing No-Build w/o mitigation w/mitigation** Existing No-Build w/o mitigation w/mitigation** 1 585 Tremont Street 7,400 7,777 7,927 7,924 820 862 878 878 2 1,050 Mason Street(East of Flint St.) 7,530 7,914 8,134 8,130 1,497 1,574 1,618 1,617 3 500 St.) an Street(West of Flint 5,480 5,759 5,929 5,926 519 545 562 561 4 690 Flintt Street(North of Bridge 7,780 8,177 8,407 8,402 1,017 1,069 1,099 1,098 5 440 St)t Street(South of Bridge 3,870 4,067 4,207 4,205 323 339 351 350 6 2,160 Bridge Street(Route 107) 16,430 17,268 17,518 17,513 6,721 7,064 7,166 7,164 7 250 Site North Access Road 0 0 560 549 0 0 27 26 8 250 Site West Access Road 0 0 380 372 0 0 18 18 VMT (miles/day): 10,897 11,453 11,718 11,712 Used the 2012 No-Build traffic volumes to represent existing conditions and applied a one percent per year growth rate on the 2012 no-build traffic volumes presented in the Earth Tech, Inc.,Traffic Impact 8 Assessement Study Riverview Place Proposed Residential Development, October 2007 to calculate the 2017 No-Build Traffic Volume. **A two percent reduction in traffic volumes and vehicles traveled was assumed for the proposed Traffic Demand Measures. Tech Environmental,Inc. 3449 Meso,VMT 1/15/2013 TABLE B-2 Mesoscale Study Area Total Carbon Dioxide (COO Emissions Riverview Place Project, Salem, Massachusetts MOBILE6.2 CO2 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mesoscale CO2 Emissions Emission Rate (miles/day) (kg/day) (gra /mile) Link Speed 2017 2017 2017 2017 2012 2017 Full Build Full Build 2012 2017 Full Build Full Build I.D. (mph) . 2012 2017 Existing No-Build w/o mitigation w/miti ation* Existin No-Build w/o mitigation w/miti ation* 1 25 561.31 566.90 820 862 878 878 460.2 488.5 497.9 497.7 2 30 561.31 566.90 1,497 1,574 1,618 1,617 840.5 892.2 917.0 916.5 3 20 561.31 566.90 519 545 562 561 291.3 309.2 318.3 318.1 4 25 561.31 566.90 1,017 1,069 1,099 1,098 570.7 605.8 622.8 622.5 5 25 561.31 566.90 323 339 351 350 181.0 192.1 198.8 198.6 6 30 561.31 566.90 6,721 7,064 7,166 7,164 3,772.8 4,004.7 4,062.6 4,061.5 7 15 561.31 566.90 0 0 27 26 0.0 0.0 15.0 14.7 8 15 561.31 566.90 0 0 18 18 0.0 0.0 10.2 10.0 Total Daily CO2 Emissions k /da 6,116.5 6,492.5 6,642.7 6,639.7 Tech Environmental,Inc. 3449 Meso,CO2 1/15/2013 ' Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm ' Exhaust l/M Program: Yes Evap I/M Program: Yes ATP Program: No Reformulated Gas: Yes ' Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) ' VMT Distribution: 0.2723 0.4300 0.1692 0.0369 0.0002 0.0016 0.0861 0.0037 1.0000 Fu el Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.0 9.9 32.4 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.1 Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): 1 Composite CO2: 368.0 479.3 624.4 520.3 894.1 314.1 554.0 1398.0 177.4 566.90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 1 APPENDIX C ' PV COST CALCULATIONS ' SPREADSHEETS ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C-1 1 1 Date of Primary Installer Electric System Size Total Installation InstallationGost '. Program Applicat Building Type City Third Party Owner (a.k.a Applicant ion Utility in PowerClerk) (kW) Costs per Watt Commonwealth Solar 12/8/08 NSTAR Commercial Watertown Crimson Solar,LLC SunPower Corporatic 500.960 $2,920,300.00 $5.83 Commonwealth Solar 9/8/08 GRID Commercial Dracut Constellation Energy Projects Constellation Energy 411.264 $2,385,609.00 $5.80 Commonwealth Solar 9/10/08 GRID Public Newburyport Ameresco Ameresco 391.690 $2,506,000.00 $6.40 Commonwealth Solar 4/21/09 GRID Commercial Attleboro Tioga Energy,LLC Spire Solar 343.850 $1,961,055.00 $5.70 Commonwealth Solar 4/21/09 GRID Commercial Leominster Tioga Energy,LLC Spire Solar 307.970 $1,707,265.00 $5.54 Commonwealth Solar 9/9/09 NSTAR Commercial Waltham EOS Project Berkshire Bundle Alteris Renewables 277.000 $1,431,469.00 $5.17 Commonwealth Solar 6/16/09 NSTAR Commercial Barnstable Alteris Renewables 258.300 $1,336,200.00 $5.17 Commonwealth Solar 12/8/08 NSTAR Commercial Waltham John A Penny Co. 224.480 $1,785,829.00 $7.96 Commonwealth Solar 7/1/09 GRID Commercial Harvard Lighthouse Electrical 220.500 $1,277,000.00 $5.79 Commonwealth Solar 9/16/09 NSTAR Commercial Dartmouth Solar Installation,LLC 201.600 $874,944.00 $4.34 Commonwealth Solar 9/10/08 GRID Commercial Westford Alteris Renewables 200.200 $1,544,322.00 $7.71 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Boston lBroadway Electrical Compan Broadway Electrical 199.650 $1,917,192.00 $9.60 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Boston Broadway Electrical Compan Broadway Electrical 199.650 $1,917,192.00 $9.60 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/10 NSTAR Commercial Boston BCC SEA QALICB I,LLC Nexamp,Inc 198.450 $1,099,735.55 $5.54 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 MLP Commercial Plymouth Cotuit Solar 198.440 $1,012,175.00 $5.10 Commonwealth Solar 7/31/09 NSTAR Commercial Somerville AReris Renewables 198.440 $1,156,823.45 $5.83 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/10 NSTAR Commercial Boston Borrego Solar Borrego Solar 197.340 $978,833.00 $4.96 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/10 NSTAR Commercial Chelsea Borrego Solar 197.340 $1,094,778.00 $5.55 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/10 NSTAR Commercial Lowell Solventerra,I.I.C. Fall River Electrical A 197.340 $923,157.00 $4.68 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial New Bedford Munro Electric 194.350 $961,369.00 $4.95 Commonwealth Solar 10/29/08 NSTAR Public Hopkinton Boston Community Capital,Ir Borrego Solar 193.375 $1,377,976.00 $7.13 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Yarmouth Beaumont Sign Co. 183.610 $1,285,270.00 $7.00 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Mashpee Unutility Electric My Generation Eneri 181.470 $1,301,164.37 $7.17 Commonwealth Solar 7/31/09 NSTAR Commercial Boston Alteris Renewables 170.405 $1,129,707.00 $6.63 Commonwealth Solar 10/7/09 GRID Commercial Orange Pete's Tire Barns,Inc. Nexamp,Inc 170.100 $814,240.50 $4.79 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Boston Broadway Electrical Compan Broadway Electrical 169.400 $1,285,577.00 $7.59 Commonwealth Solar 7/31/09 NSTAR Commercial Dedham Alteris Renewables 166.870 $1,111,471.11 $6.66 Commonwealth Solar 12/10/08 GRID Commercial Billerica Borrego Solar 155.904 $838,770.00 $5.38 Commonwealth Solar 30/8/09 NSTAR Commercial Canton GRE 104 Sika LLC Greenskies Renewab 154.700 $1,269,491.30 $8.21 Commonwealth Solar 12/30/08 NSTAR Commercial lBedford Borrego Solar 153.216 $993,530.00 $6.48 Commonwealth Solar 9/3/09 NSTAR Public Bourne Con Edison Solutions lAtens Renewables 1 142.560 $716,042.83 $5.02 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial IMashpee JUnutilitV Electric IMy Generation Ener4 140.760 $988,000.00 $7.02 Commonwealth Solar 9/24/09 WMECO Commercial Pittsfield 0 Alteris Renewables 140.000 $687,104.00 $4.91 Commonwealth Solar 8/27/09 GRID Commercial Lee Aheris Renewables 140.000 $835,519.00 $5.97 Commonwealth Solar 9/2/08 GRID Commercial Oxford Borrego Solar 139.230 $1,193,054.68 $8.57 Commonwealth Solar 9/10/08 NSTAR Commercial Natick Alteris Renewables 139.080 $1,056,209.00 $7.59 Commonwealth Solar 12/30/08 NSTAR Public Medway Broadway Electrical Compan Broadway Electrical 132.000 $914,309.00 $6.93 Commonwealth Solar 9/2/09 NSTAR Public Barnstable Con Edison Solutions Alteris Renewables 130.680 $666,488.78 $5.10 Commonwealth Solar 10/8/09 GRID Public Lowell Ameresco Ameresco 128.800 $660,265.60 $5.13 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Fairhaven Beaumont Sign Co. 121.275 $787,758.00 $6.50 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 GRID Commercial Hanover JBeard Lincoln LLC Coneco Energy 116.090 $536,300.00 $4.62 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/20/10 WMECO Commercial Springfield Absolute Green Eneri 111.370 $805,000.00 $7.23 Commonwealth Solar 9/24/09 GRID Commercial Methuen Nexamp,Inc 110.700 $566,500.00 $5.12 Commonwealth Solar 9/10/08 GRID Public Newburyport Ameresco Ameresco 110.630 $810,000.00 $7.32 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 GRID Commercial Beverly Nexamp,Inc 110.250 $562,276.00 $5.10 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/10 NSTAR Commercial Framingham SolarFlair Energy,Inc 110.250 $703,738.00 $6.38 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/30 GRID Public Warren BCC Solar Energy Advantage, Nexamp,Inc 110.250 $570,515.00 $5.17 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/10 GRID Public Warren BCC Solar Energy Advantage, Nexamp,Inc 110.250 $638,165.00 $5.79 Commonwealth Solar 9/16/09 NSTAR Commercial Weston Nexamp Capital Nexamp,Inc 110.250 $651,887.871 $5.91 Commonwealth Solar 7/6/09 GRID Commercial Orange Nexamp,Inc 110.250 $616,000.00 $5.59 Commonwealth Solar 7/6/09 GRID Commercial Orange Nexamp,Inc 110.250 $616,000.00 $5.59 Commonwealth Solar 9/25/09 GRID lCommercial Attleboro Nexamp Capital Nexamp,Inc 110.000 $550,000,00 $5.00 Commonwealth Solar 9/24/09 WMECO Commercial Hancock EOS Project Berkshire Bundle Alteris Renewables 109.200 $566,135.00 $5.18 Commonwealth Solar 10/7/09 NSTAR Commercial Brockton Borrego Solar 108.870 $579,351.00 $5.32 Commonwealth Solar 8/8/08 NSTAR Commercial Boston Nexamp,Inc _ 108.580 $787,996.00 $7.26 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/10 GRID Public West Brookfield BCC Solar Energy Advantage, Nexamp,Inc 107.100 $575,025.00 $5.37 Commonwealth Solar 2/8/10 GRID Public Beverly Green Schools Initiati 106.000 $218,750.00 $2.06 Commonwealth Solar 8/6/08 NSTAR Commercial Arlington Nexamp,Inc 105.875 $742,368.00 $7.01 Commonwealth Solar 9/2/09 NSTAR Public Harwich JCon Edison Solutions Alteris Renewables 103.950 $537,656.24 $5.17 Commonwealth Solar 10/6/09 NSTAR Public Acton Nexamp Capital Nexamp,Inc 103.730 $558,692.00 $5.39 Commonwealth Solar 10/6/09 NSTAR Public Acton Nexamp Capital Nexamp,Inc 103.730 $579,198.00 $5.58 Commonwealth Solar 4/22/09 GRID Commercial Tewksbury Nexamp,Inc 103.155 $649,845.00 $6.30 Commonwealth Solar 8/19/09 GRID Public Westford Nexamp Capital Nexamp,Inc 101.200 $602,140.00 $5.95 Commonwealth Solar 7/22/09 GRID Commercial Shirley Phoenix Finance LLC Alteris Renewables 101.200 $546,800.00 $5.40 Commonwealth Solar 7/22/09 GRID Commercial Shirley Phoenix Finance LLC Alteris Renewables 101.200 $546,800.00 $5.40 Commonwealth Solar 7/22/09 GRID Commercial Shirley Phoenix Finance LLC Alteris Renewables 101.200 $546,800.00 $5.40 Commonwealth Solar 7/22/09 GRID Commercial Shirley Phoenix Finance LLC Alteris Renewables 101.200 $546,800.00 $5.40 Commonwealth Solar 7/22/09 GRID Commercial Shirley Phoenix Finance LLC Alteris Renewables 101.200 $546,800.00 $5.40 Commonwealth Solar 9/2/09 NSTAR JPublic Brewster Con Edison Solutions Alteris Renewables 100.980 $510,040.17 $5.05 Commonwealth Solar 9/2/09 NSTAR Public Brewster Con Edison Solutions Alteris Renewables 100.980 $504,970.86 $5.00 Commonwealth Solar 8/19/09 GRID Commercial Seekonk EOS Project Berkshire Bundle Alteris Renewables 100.800 $674,618.00 $6.69 Commonwealth Solar 12/22/08 NSTAR Commercial Woburn Cummings Propertiet 100.800 $841,394.00 $8.35 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Plymouth Beaumont Sign Co. 100.776 $507,000.00 $5.03 Commonwealth Solar 9/2/09 NSTAR Public Eastham Con Edison Solutions Alteris Renewables 100.440 $521,533.64 $5.19 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Falmouth Beaumont Sign Co. 100.3201 $601,010.00 $5.99 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 GRID Commercial Fall River Alteris Renewables 100.1ool $680,938.00 $6.80 amm_a_<n.m.n..mm Commercial Solar Photocidtaim Preject Simple Financial Model(posted td)6109) $REG Guaranteed Price EATA;NTRY AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY-Mrl Av,Installed Cost for Coinmefcial 10D,MW Projects(Owner Installed) x ,_..._..,....rm ,_a_.ma w n++Mwn<x✓wm t s,n twxlttsm smm�,uwu 1p�. 5 rna _ mammal—mma -- .re I.sx' me sma..w�. -- wmanmrmsm_iocsm mma —v sme s sx srii om. nw ,amw_s cuuserac ¢rclmuwn.c ur..una I.—, cal resea.1 Par yy�®Po� u.,. IT a.T .am_I—sa.ml.+xl m_..,c—se. vm�+inl ola,I- mmgwpm - NTo ars-- lmmle � _ mgpm _. clear r. ,re To e. t�.nmmw mam.ne.ma mel cmcmnu11M..rel leef a,re..l wI. uxNMW tmvMaM..—T—T-I. mm- wm.Mtl ....my w.m. mT- m a.ms..w.,..loarmi nm pmrvw.��eM,let— esesse,derelse.es.aw.�esses!r.1nne real,,redo-1.1 se, of ixnreyyceral ce mr.wv.mm.n this ,a l,mmp pmmN.mM Mp.M"Pr e— ^e•..o wM�emma-arwb.nvo...irymry.artmnq ancer m'.—a,.mall'IT IT .m,rrugl mnnwl.nmlu,mIce-ro mnaneemM1M,JsaalW.eNal.ra.-Tor mrmmrnmu..m.sl Carem—uoi1. ITT r¢cn.we w exs n n wA.'..vm Gsuewmlr 1 TO I.I f a�r t1 oto i .1 1.1 r w u° ,nmm.x�...xmx I.<m Onal Is. senso 11.so a,.xm_mmn.. 1 1 as I w..,n t x. t ,r,,, ,. - .... . ,.,t o. , ,- .. xw rwr aM , 1-1P, r m,, .;w. ;,n. Ill - -- ---� -- — T-- - _ ._ _ - - _. _—.. . ' --- — ' - - - 1 11 1 IT 1 11 11 �.'.m.nxm p Inial t I_.wl t I>mon r Par Ill)t r,e,ml r ,.wn t ones¢ .n.t .p.�m, x,. t w,m t ,...xr t t al ¢ ,call r mr.m, r xx,m 1 Of,c.1 ._w.r ,.xn sen.seece—1 DEBT SCHEDULES lear S., IT. I., oer n. mir ol las gxLlmw:lM.UwlnoltlLM Flow MwblbM.MEIOP�'IMnenn.lYMYIeMIIN.uMmuntlMlry lF.WrtluxWlnvmlYlbnnl.nbr.mpy gWpmmlxM.pemN wEmergNpelpmYCN Imglur WrN.xand H.rtlWon risa..MW.61ru.mM In YemMp rm. I., Is., —1 —1 cardinal 1W,call'drama darremSN.pmwxmaInNNlor Owlx.mri r maromater.ndera W Is NNemm IxmennmrWl.rpn..iM IMomMYnunuM1.EIn Ne Mmmtltic.Ma IsanarnW Mepoll ymrygnrw.nrForllrmlth.rmmellm nNn.msaloeraMvfnvMwarrM Md,se, rui.UnabpyCMEar'rhr al CammmnnlYi allfill aVw'Ni.r'rmu u.q.pallla mtlNotlEm M<auNtW'n orlarsm'.puWrcmmr.Mtllm arm0anmwMrmIr.MJNx M.MnuGu.M iwlmalopy con.W xrM nm w cnmmnnwlm d Ma.xrhxtl.and,se,wm.nlY m rgrmnxrbm,apa...0 m rmplM,.'ra u.n..rums.,rmmpNlnw.w or aoounq ar vry P.�^.e^.�^^u^].ar etlxr InlemuYm aaMIM,e..erQ.d A.W.aO.m raranM ra a ul.mi W I. FImM,inlrM rM M—..morseloh L..nm Yn Lseres. alllrNM—oloset.on.,I,npn.aMnJan Nar M,am If al pmfua,rWardes,pmxn,reaM,nr ally IMmMbn Tell as IMXry,"red,amnf papMy rlpM16 mtl alarms as lY Mlry W my xFE u ntlm. la',yIa.M1 cries,u Mrcl drag or MCLMIy alsonap,am,or local pM Parra nTeN,IM w Of MlmmWm un41mC.CuodealN.tlw.J,as,raM1r.M TO,M fall YneTrYl[rM flm M Wal. Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Project Simple Fircencild Model(posted 4M6109) SREC Guaranteed Pill DATA ENTRY AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY-Moil AP.. mdalled Cost for Commercial lGO1MVV Projects(...or loadeflifild sel"I , .�.eelf I. en W—,.—,m�.ml awww mehave. ,wmmCCrtl pm.rrma �vxr.,.m_,sizx_aen l—incl—oax—ama—¢mv—cw—ewa—ow—nxv—axf—cmi—emu—nm Y.—aara mmee,r cmle.. mdrwm.mim. m ff�for'. of manse ml c lerpewmm �wl.mam anmm. mm vev vvvl'Ill ser I t. mxw.anmm. nl . m 11 e „movII w .1—ese leftheimmrwIll Wnpam0ele, Wfeneaem.dNeW.nleeam.meBd �a �e � mplukn q M ourtwe oe lniwme0 qupmml Issermm m ev11wreveme w 'el er unNnNd W.—elue e-drown.Mmbl.CVlummX 1life .--v�mr w aneemnwneweee b...xmY eoMCc.eveennTeemeww elms P. ennoyv Cvluwmiry mr M Cw�me.emr n uvummnn mal my mmmM ar nowemnbm. firoffelij leveled=Ill en Ire elemxlmu.emmoanuve.awlespivry 0 or,P..,male.er mnnmmmCm.marl,eueRu,eaemeee,er III m la mnmvon.Fenn„nM1Mrux ferseveleof elwiwecvneanare.tM Cnememnne d Mreass umem my,uvellop e.IW tM vn n m,poled,epmmun Anew,maw,er eche MaeNe.e.eou-eYWe..lemnne m Neil If eq YlM er naw tm ny ie.,Ill.eemep eimtry arlof mM prem er PRO FORMA AND PRODUCTION aizzlildrol asma Pass —1. val” eires e. I.." ..I I... I'. af.lo 1. pose I.. ip'- mall. prado aff". Ir2P pat uer amuurul IA _ all vi _"Ra or! fTT1 1 "Ill el cI7 1 silo Slid Mill .531 xse A•m!%' �_` n'a:-a Te W 1+ T ' Le. ve el el ve ._ _ _ _-w tpmm.em.wnemre lex♦ s ,cu , lw f nm t .de-i t , Vn,- ♦♦u f ♦em f t ♦em-f sms 1 5 x 1 Svc-, fur f seu-4 liseleversevesee. I sim r;.1 It�w 1 1,-.1 ...1 1 1.of I still 1-1 lf'..= P;T liv.I vale .7p il sial, ,-I mo 1 ailis sell liver Ill I,I'll vnipill1— eas,, le..1 1 pl.e 1 !n t tree, ml e `camel. cnnrv.. _... aae 1 1.7 _. . _ _ _ n u _— _ 2 r at' oevi nswea polxnl t Imia,l, Poll t Isa)sxli meso 1 Ila.-11 11.111 roccel 1 .1 F. t ♦etm t sl , w,sn 1 Ittml 1 av,vu f nerd 1 Imea 1 cw.nt 1 utoa 1 Al t ed.1 210%, of fre 1 2— im,w t ,l. `w e.meun ye rnr Ie salle rnr ver oar I... vm plica Th.NUIPCIaCaM iM Mel a to 1.-1 praNeenolwelbMeN MlceNn ovecaM ntlap Yn WIIM eepee oil d losel-ryry pdere ve a pmwJ evemovdrig dw ppollY lmaMplad ii ar-eameeMenmtllmNlldica. lmamNYe MlamlNM WmIM r: ...--he IM WINvu vea Metellvllmdedar anarpy pulpmntm erye]le -If NNr ova..led...ndvl ecgra.ire lMomWen wulnM In Ne YnePldvl[nrilwMWelmry nd la nllNmb/m mlcrmyWToevv.Furllnrmdn Bw ldemuWn m11tlIMIn Ill. ld— plessaml othelIt""ImaM ivNndcpy EdleloraWenlM CemmmnmtlNdMn"Ifiese..a rdannumrnyviecMc mlave.McolvWNa an lmpllMaraWaexOncwnmenNlknwmemunmlla111.Radeadn MuuNUMle "alibpl CellaEwalNv to,Na Cnnmm ..M.I...T.mobeq--.a-ar npnvedMcrala.pma.d w Imdbtl.u.IMueYMnga,camlAeYnan,Isacwarycl any Prover,mlYo1 ee Mw I.e..aneanva,encllMq elwlal,wraM1mE to 1..1.meeel. Flndy.v�l lareves.iecMrNlBy Cd mor emi."Ale-dvNa—I..say ..I grWud.appudialpral..w ur eeldap wmbm.1..lMMpMvaamnpM ly vel plit.mtl mmm aua ne lYd fair y a Adel er nw /ar enY lwa,lnlury,e a mepv EllWry erindlecLy wlllnp M1am.oroccuMnB lnconnvalen MN.Na un dNlwmNen cenxlnl,e..ml, pdedoeee,01 ldeme el 11 Nlv YmTdJ CM Flan Ill Cc"di Solar all Project Simple Firmincial Model HoSted 4106109)-SREC Gdar�maadt Price )�;;ENTR�AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY-MarsCEC Avg.Ill ed Cost for Commercial 100.MW Pejo.ca Old P., nodall.1mo) Yom. .o. r[m oPi m m... . e,.".[ ,..,Wm"am._odm pmm.,p.m«pn mm_ m"p �nlI,d n M Pool re. orelM.M M �.m .m n.......o d.d.pd re......... Wior-of .1 .eebl" real.�W:IM I...m �n. .m�.11m:�, 11.:r[M.melew.eno.or.,_e_ iol." inpNb vnquipixbrem purW«e.[ wnM nllwr «n"xvpY ursmr.,x..•..m�emme�eudu umv.ar..."e ung«ulv.m.t�enen,.11wemmlcmv"nuYmariol I"mlMe"°"..•meai.•wd,.mmmmm.IM erMimen.m.m a u"'"rw�rlw wmgwvneu,yrdeivwymgp[iemw•[—..Y an~Ide Nm—of—.proalreararrood.Pool oo ryd made. mreM 1n imerlwFlnriN.Ml.rnx ecMmq.G of proalioll ou.Morry e.w or rool MnM e."Vroom MM Mnnvmr Ilof."11 oaf Noral to 1111'..dro vM Igmn red«yrebeuuy°rinel«drynumlrglrvmar PRO FORMA AND PRODUCTION mrrry Modol fdw uwm cm„ a,p�o f a.re� f Ym� 1 vxo t .v.rzb f ssm f ani 5 sav 5 arras 1 mm 1 area 1 Hess f Bless 1 dzmr 1 •s,zr i ua�r 1 •yn,1 drcee 1 ulm 1 de.n f w.[w t s.vs i vim 5 %sn 4 ssyst ucw«v. tress wo m f �, _T area d1. d d ♦ _ _ .yd -,a "L -.s _G. .f n vre. ;'iu. ern �. rw w m- 'vas Tw.. '% l or Ma enm an o lea. 13 11 11 Vu aro v rr. .ver ss • Niea,l .mpu 1 am.[m f 6a.'mli l i of 5 sae 5 [ 55 t m.m f a t nna f ar.m f zar f aro, 1 i, f ,mzm f z„w 1 .0 1 ,••m i .1 f ane•f +seem^f 'm,.wa f rz ge.ylmm;lM1M VmT[Ial Eeel,plw MCYlle lmenYEle WwleeromstlM1MW edM1W mnmontlee�ry lM pvNneaM In«iW[YmoleeYr en ,mIrdom Nlo.'Prmddnmmebpely ........ oraleueb]In MVNnp v«r r«r v«r v«r rar ImglulbneNM Wa[I,nemCImYIINon W[mbmeryyerylpnianlenurWElmwmWl NNrmm rmeM llun[Iel edryne.iM lnlwmellm wMlmClntlm YnelPdel G[M1 ion MWelmry nml MnlbOm OYe,ryoAinbrmy W,pmdn. imMemmra Y,eMmmuJm Malma6i lM1l.mmhlEmenar nendu,Ily reIM:11M VIededNe M..n[AineN.wAntlgyce manYnivb.m.WmmmmMOOEwwl unNlub.m lmlYlM ..poorridwan m•ddi model cdodionWew IM Cmoro po el m—.o .—to eM mmMn or npmeMelknC enol wMpood. 1.Yn mn11-1 wroddir ne,w.—,el,pmwne,.We w.A.o.worrodod,EeenlM.YY.10.., r.1.b Im Mle mWd•u M',nNNn W NNY MM M•meceekpy parobotlYN e—qe CemmwseeM NwcM1wlY nYee aeq lM reproor.mtl room eM prroelg md, vel�eC dm4 I..m .or.1 FRmmvYwr Nll ro11MMpPi rd.doorl uW propnry di eM ewmnerro tool or \Fe or Iw erar loreWmry.ne.mge aLeclly or MP spry nwNmp loam,or roomoor Im uemnbn NN,ue a dMorta Hanle root eeral doomo.or moans to lm rob umolod Ed.a fbv Ill 1 1 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK , t 1 1 Appendix 4 SECTION 61 FINDINGS 1 1 1 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK , 1 1 ' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Draft Section 61 Findings ' Project Name: Riverview Place Project Location: Mason and Flint Streets,Salem, MA ' Project Proponent: Riverview LLC EOEA File No.: TBD Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30, Section 61 requires State agencies and authorities to review, evaluate and determine impacts on the natural environment of all projects or activities conducted by them, and to undertake all practicable means and measures to minimize and prevent damage to the environment. The finding required by Section 61 shall be limited to those matters which are within the ' scope of the environmental impact report, if any, required on a project M.G.L. c. 30, §. 62A. ' Draft Section 61 Findings prepared for the Project are found on the following pages. Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' FINDING BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF RESOURCE PROTECTION (FOR A CHAPTER 91 LICENSE) UNDER M.G.L. C. 30, S. 61 t The Department of Environmental Protection — Bureau of Resource Protection ("DEP-BRP") declares as follows: Introduction ' Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 30, section 61 ("Section 61") requires that "[a]II agencies, , departments, boards, commission and authorities of the Commonwealth shall review, evaluate, and determine the impact on the natural environment of all works, projects, or activities conducted by them and shall use all practical means and measures to minimize damage to the environment. Any ' determination made by an agency of the Commonwealth shall include a finding describing that all feasible measures have been taken to avoid or minimize said impact." The finding required by Section 61 "shall be limited to those matters which are within the scope of the environmental impact report, if any, required ' [on a project]." M.G.L. c. 30. S. 62A. The development of the Riverview Place Project requires a Chapter 91 License from DEP Waterways ' Division for activities proposed on filled tidelands construction of portions of two residential buildings, public walkways, roads, parking and lawn areas. Therefore, the DEP-Waterways Division must issue a , Section 61 finding. MEPA Review , Representatives of the Project Proponent held a pre-application meeting with MEPA and MADEP Waterways staff in December of 2010 to discuss the requirements for filing an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) and Request for EIR waiver. At that meeting, MEPA requested that the , EENF/EIR waiver request include detailed information of the Project compliance with the state Chapter 91 program as well as a discussion of Public Benefits and a Green House Gas analysis. These analyses , are provided in the following chapters. On February 28, 2013 an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) was filed with the MEPA , Office along with a request for an EIR Waiver. On , 2013 the Secretary issued a Draft Record of Decision on the EIR Waiver Request and a Certificate on the EENF Project Description , The Project involves the redevelopment of the site into a mixed use complex consisting of 130 1 P P g residential apartments and 5,540 square feet (sf) of commercial space. Three buildings are proposed on the site (see Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan). Two of the Buildings, Building 1 and 2, contain residential ' units and structured parking and the third Building, Building 3, contains residential uses in the upper floors and commercial uses on the lower level. The site has been designed with two site entrances; one ' off of Mason Street and one off of Flint Street. The development includes 309 parking spaces of which 271 are proposed in structured parking and 38 are located in at grade surface lots. Twelve of the at- ' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form grade spaces will be made available to existing residents of Flint Street. The Project conforms to the City of Salem's North River Can Corridor Master Plan and has been approved by the City of Salem which ' supports the redevelopment project. Mitigation Measures The Project will not result in any long term adverse impacts to Chapter 91 interests and in fact provides many program benefits including the introduction of public access to the site, parking for nearby residents, affordable housing units and traffic improvements. The site plan was developed in conjunction with the goals outlined for the area in the 2003 Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor. ' The Project will redevelop an existing 4.3 acre site and create public access to and along the North River Canal. A walkway will extend from Flint Street into the site to a green space being created between the North River Canal and the proposed Building 1. The green space will include public walkways along the Canal that extends to interior sidewalks. A view corridor will be created from Macon Street through the ' site toward the North River Canal. Pedestrian access will be provided from Mason Street through the site to the North River Canal and Flint Street. The site plan also includes a 30-foot wide easement through the southern portion of the Project site to allow for a potential future extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. The Proponent has also committed to implement energy efficiency measures that will reduce overall ' Project energy use (stationary sources) by 12.7% and will reduce CO2 emissions by 12.6%, compared to the Base Case. In accordance with the MEPA "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol," the proponent will provide a certification to the MEPA Office signed by an appropriate professional stating that all transportation and non-transportation greenhouse gas mitigation measures described in this EENF, or measures providing comparable mitigation, have been incorporated into the project. ' Conclusion Now, therefore, the DEP-DW W, having reviewed the MEPA filings for the Riverview Place Project and the mitigation measures propose, finds pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30, Section 61 that with the implementation of the aforesaid measures, all practical and feasible means and measures will have been taken to avoid or ' minimize potential damage to the environment from the Project. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ' PROTECTION-BUREAU OF RESOURCE PROTECTION Date By 1 1 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK ' 1 1 1 i Appendix 5 DISTRIBUTION LIST 1 1 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK ' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form DISTRIBUTION LIST PUBLIC OFFICIALS Senator Joan Lovely State House Room 313A ' Boston, MA 02133 State Representative John Keenan State House Office Room 136 Massachusetts State House Boston, MA 02133 ' Mayor Kimberley Driscoll Salem City Hall ' 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 STATE AGENCIES Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner's Office One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 Department of Environmental Protection ' Northeast Regional office Attn: MEPA Coordinator ' 205B Lowell Street Wilmington, MA 01887 ' Department of Environmental Protection Waterways Regulatory Program One Winter Street, 6`h Floor ' Boston, MA Office of Coastal Zone Management Attn: Project Review Coordinator 251 Causeway Street, Suite 800 ' Boston, MA 02114 2 Appendix 5 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ' Division of Marine Fisheries , (North Shore) Attn: Environmental Reviewer 30 Emerson Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 Massachusetts Department of Transportation ' Public/Private Development Unit 10 Park Plaza t Boston, MA 02116 Executive Office of Transportation ' Attn: Environmental Reviewer 10 Park Plaza, Room 3510 ' Boston, MA 02116-3969 Massachusetts DOT District Office Attn: MEPA Coordinator 519 Appleton Street Arlington, MA 02476 Massachusetts Historical Commission The MA Archives Building 220 Morrissey Boulevard , Boston, MA 02125 Metropolitan Area Planning Council , 60 Temple Place/6th floor Boston, MA 02111 Department of Environmental Protection ' Attention: Nancy Seidman , One Winter Street Boston, MA 02114 Department of Energy Resources , Attention:John Ballam 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1020 ' Boston, MA 02114 3 jAppendix5 ' Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form ! CITY OF SALEM City Council City Hall ' 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Planning Board City Hall Annex 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor ' Salem, MA 01970 Conservation Commission City Hall Annex 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Salem, MA Board of Health ' City Hall Annex 120 Washington Street,4"' Floor Salem, MA 01970 1 1 4 Appendix %8/7/13 City of Salem,MA-Minutes 08/22/2007 Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 Y ph:978-745-9595 Minutes 08/22/2007 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Wednesday,August 22,2007 - A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals("Salem ZBA")was held on Wednesday,August 22,2007 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein(chairperson)Elizabeth Debski,Rebecca Curran,Annie Harris, Steve Pinto(alternate),and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Also present were Building Commissioner Thomas St.Pierre and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Members absent: Richard Dionne Business Items A motion was made by Steve Pinto approve the July 18,2007 meeting minutes, seconded by Robin Stein. Robin Stein announced that two petitions have requested to withdraw without prejudice. Ms. Stein read the request letters aloud for the following petitions: • Petition of Joseph Gagnon requesting a Variance from number of stories allowed(2 %)to allow 3rd floor roof deck for the property located at 13 Columbus Ave [R-11. Motion made by Beth Debski,secondedby Robin Stein to allowwithdrawal,approved(6-0). • Continued: Petition of Benjamin Richard seeking Variances from number of stories to allow expansion of a third floor dormer for the property located at 30 Hathorne Street Unit 2 [R-21. Motion made by Annie Harris, seconded by Robin Stein to allow withdrawal. Approved(5-0) -Beth Debski did not take part in the vote. Public Hearine CONTINUED: Petition of Mary Jinks requesting a Variance from side yard setback to extend existing deck for the property located at 64 TREMONT STREET[R-21. Petitioner explained that she would like to replace the porches on her home. Thomas St.Pierre explained that the existing porches are non-conforming and a variance is required for the porches to be torn down and enlarged He mentioned that there was confusion at first on whether or not the applicant needed to come to the Board of Appeals and the application had to be continued from July,when there wasn't a quorum. Robin Stein mentioned that letters of support were submitted by Bill and Ilene Simons(79 School Street),and Ellen Talkowsky (3 Devereaux Ave)and Max Talkowsky(3 Devereaux Ave). Those who spoke at the hearing in support of the petition include Ward 6 City Councilor Paul Prevey,and Ward 7 City Councilor Joseph O'Keefe. A motion was made by Steve Pinto and seconded by Robin Stein to grant the variance subject to eight (8)standard conditions. The Salem Board of Appeals voted,five(5)in favor(Stein,Debski,Harris,Belair,and Pinto)none(0)opposed- Petition pposedPetition of Gregory M.Salamido reguestine a Variance from number of stories to allow a third floor shed dormer for the property located at 7 CLHgON AVE[R-11. war.salem.corn/Pages/SalemMA_ZoningAppealsMin/2007Minutes/S010F87CD?te#Page=1 1/4 8r7/13 City of Salem,MA-Minutes 08/22/2007 { .z Rebecca Curran disclosed that she had received an abutters notice for this property. Robin Stein noted that she would not need to vote because their were enough other eligible members present. Petitioner Gregory Salamido explained that the Salem Board of Appeals had granted him a variance for an opposing dormer in 2005. He explained that the dormer would provide more space and storage options for his family. The petitioner agreed that he would keep the residence as a single-family residence,and that it could be a condition where he would not be issued a certificate of occupancy until he updated the residence to single family status with the City. A motion was made by Bonnie Belair,and seconded by Robin Stein to grant the variance subject to eight (8) conditions. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted five(5)in favor(Stein,Debski,Harris,Belair, and Pinto and none(0)opposed- Petition pposedPetition of Riverview Place LLC requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit(7-21 (k),Variance from off street parking requirements 7-21 (1)and 7-3 lel.Variance from number of stories and height of three buildings 7-21 (m)(1), Variance from number of exterior entrances for dwelling units 7-21 (e)(2)(a),Variance of buffer area 7-21(m)(1)(c) at 72 FLINT STREET AND 67-69&71 MASON STREEr INRCCI. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition. He introduced Mike O'Brian,David Walsh,and David Zion,who are leading the redevelopment. He mentioned past development projects they had been involved in. He also introduced the other professional involved in the project-Steve Livermoore of H.H.Morrant,who is the architect,and Jim MacDowell of Eastern Land Survey. Attorney Grover explained that Mr.O'Brian,Mr.Walsh,and Mr.Zion have entered into a purchase and sale agreement to purchase the two parcels which make up the redevelopment site. One parcel is Salem Suede,the other is the Bonfanti Site. Attorney Grover explained the location of the site,and that it would be a multi use site in the new North River Canal Corridor zoning district. He said this redevelopment will also have to go through the Planning Board,Design Review Board and Conservation Commission. He said state approval under Chapter 91 would also be necessary. Attorney Grover explained that they had held a number of meetings with neighbors and City Officials since they had first filed in July. He acknowledged that concerns that have consistently come up include density,traffic,and parking. He said that if the City were to extend Commercial Street,parking on the site would be relocated A conceptual drawing of what one of the buildings would look like was presented Attorney Grover said that their would actually be a reduction in lot coverage from what is their now(80,000 sq.ft existing,50,000 sq. ft.proposed). Attorney Grover explained the four requested variances. He mentioned that it would not be possible to meet conflicting conditions of the North River Zoning District-having both townhouses with separate entrances,as well as first floor commercial. Attorney Grover reviewed the requirements for granting a variance,and why this application requires variances. He said that first, there is hardship due to the environmental clean up costs being about $4 million dollars,which would equal$27,000 per unit. He said the redevelopment would serve the public good by removing an eyesore and safety hazard $34,000 is the current tax revenue,ten(10) times the tax revenue,approximately$300,000 would be generated by the redevelopment. He said the redevelopment plans do not detract from the intent of the zoning The architect,Steve Livermoore described the design. He said the eave height would be 49 ft. above grade,which is the same as what is existing. Bonnie Belair asked if their would be decks. Steve Livermoore answered that they propose Juliet balconies. Steve Pinto asked how many entrance there would be. Steve Livermoore replied that it would be one main entrance per building. Bonnie Belair asked about the results of the preliminary contamination reports done by SP Engineering. Scott Grover said they were pleased to find out that there are not public safety issues,but for residential use some soil should be removed He explained that MassDevelopment came to the site and will be providing a loan. Scott Grover explained that they had also retained Earth Tech to do a traffic study,and that traffic counts would be don on the 2nd Tuesday in September,once school was back in session. Beth Debski inquired if they had been incontact with the Fire Department. Scott Grover said this would not happen until Site Plan Review and that a Planning Board application had not been filed at this time. Steve was asked if the parking on Flint Street had been addressed He said they would be happy to do a residential parking program www.salem.corrr/Pages/SalemMA_ZoningAppealsMiN2007Minutes/S010F87CDRekPage=1 2/4 *a/7/13 } City of Salem,MA-Minutes 08/22/2007 with extra spaces. Annie Harris asked Attorney Grover to talk about the easement. The easement would allow the City of Salem to extend commercial street within ten years following approval. Annie Harris said that it really looks like 5 stories,with some of the underground parking really being above ground. Building Inspector Tom St.Pierre said he would have to look into how story is defined Annie Harris mentioned the success of the Salem Laundry/Derby Loft project,which some of the development team was involved with. The following members of the public spoke on the points summarized below. • Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey-Described the removal of the building as an opportunity. Feels the proposal exceeds appropriate density. Is concerned about added traffic on Flint Street. • Jim Treadwell,Ward 6,NRCC Working Grouo-Provided background for NRCC Master Plan and Zoning. Spoke about relative density saying what is proposed(34 units/acre) is far higher than the density the zoning allows(13 unit&/acre) and higher than Mat is existing in the area(8 units/acre). Questioned whether the parking,which is somewhat below the surface is actually a fifth story. Feels that there most be a sensitive transition into what is existing,cited the JPI townhouses as an example. Questioned hardship,saying the purchase price discussed is above the assessed value. • John Carr,7 River St,NRCC Working Group-Is scared by the scale and density. Feels the Master Plan does not intend to promote this type of development. • John Haves-Concerned about parking and traffic. Wants to see a separate northbound Flint Street. • Robin Amara, 18 Bar Street-Feels what is proposed is better than what is there. Feels residences will increase revenue of the City and that more people will shop in Salem. • Pat Donahue,Ward 6,NRCC Working Grow-Concerned about density and traffic and feels that the requests for variances are far too excessive. • Dave Pellitier-Acknowledged that the proposal is a work in progress. • Liz Bratt,22 Larchmont-Owns veterinary practice on Commercial Street and feels that there is a housing shortage and that her employees most commute to Salem from other places. • Martin Dem, 143 Federal St,NRCC Working Grow-Wants message to get out that Salem wants development. Feels that the NRCC zoning is a consensus about what people want. Feels that the combination of housing andjobs is a plus. Wants the developer to come in with a by-right project and explain why it won't work. That would then be the basis to work from. • (At-Large) Councilor Joan Lovely, 14 Story Street-Feels that the community can support additional rental wits. Said that the City Council in the future may have to limit parking on the streets in the area surrounding the proposed redevelopment. Pointed out that other North River projects like Flynntan and Franklin St will be coming in front of the Board of Appeals in the future and asking for zoning relief because of the nature of the projects. • Betsy Burnes,22 Beckford St-Wanted to know if the project could go before the Design Review Board before the ZBA voted • Beverlie McSwiggin, 30 Japonica St-Said the scale of the building would not compliment the congested area. Would like something that fits better. Feels that office space would provide more revenue and be less of a drain on services. • Jeannie Pitman,82 Flint St-Is in favor of the project and says that there have been many problems with the factory over the years. • Ward 2 Councilor Mike Sosnowski-Supports cleaning up an eyesore,does not support the density. Says that is the Councilors who deal with the repercussions of decisions,not the Board of Appeals. Thinks there is roof for compromise. Thinks the acquisition cost is asking more than the property is worth. Says the cost of school kids will take away any revenue gain. • Teasie Riley Goggin-Says more information is needed. Too many wits are proposed and she would like Salem to remain a quaint seaside community. • Rich Lanechia,Oak Street-Feels board should wait until there is a traffic study. The public hearing was closed and the board had a brief concluding discussion. The developers were complimented for their efforts working with the neighborhood It was decided that it would premature to vote tonight,not knowing how this density would really impact the neighborhood Many board members requested that the density be lowered before the next meeting and wanted to see more compromise. Board members said a traffic study was needed, Scott Grover said they would have this for the next meeting. A figure of what could be built out as of right was requested Whether this is truly four stories was questioned Tom St.Pierre said that the percentage,which is below grade,would determine that and that it would have to be looked at more closely to ensure the right relief is being requested Scott Grover suggested that perhaps at the next meeting they could talk more about the financial aspect of the project. Beth Debski questioned whether people wanted all residential or some commercial space-this is a another topic of discussion for the next meeting. Robin Stein summarized a letter from Councilor Furey in support of the redevelopement,acknowledging the challenges of the sight. A letter of support from Jame Scnlan of 13 Bayview Circle was submitted by Scott Grover. e .salem.corn/Pages/SalemMA ZwingAppealsMin/2007Minutes/S010F87CD?te)GPage=1 3/4 &r7/13 City of Salem,MA-Minutes 10/1712007 f, Salem City Hall 93Washington Street,ph:Salem, 978-745-9595 Minutes ph: 978-745-9595 Minutes 10/17/2007 City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting-Wednesday,October 17,2007 A meeting of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals("Salem ZBA")was held on Wednesday,October 17,2007 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Those present were: Robin Stein(chairperson),Rebecca Curran,Beth Debski,Richard Dionne, Steve Pinto (alternate),and Bonnie Belair(alternate). Also present were Building Commissioner Thomas St.Pierre and Amy Lash of the Planning Department. Members absent: Annie Harris Business Items Petition of Sean Pray and Richard Smith requesting to modify a previous special permit decision to allow an exterior sign to remain for the property located at 3 HAWTHORNEBLVD [R-21.---Requested continuance until December meeting. Robin Stein read a letter from Sean Pray requesting continuance for his petition for 3 Hawthorn Blvd A motion was made by Bonnie Belair to continue the petition to December 19, 2007,seconded by Steve Pinto,and approved 5-0 (Beth Debski abstained). A motion was made by Steve Pinto to approve the September 19, 2007 Meeting Minutes, seconded by Bonnie Belair,and approved 5-0(Beth Debski abstained). Joanne Fitzgerald Mcrea gave a brief presentation about the Community Preservation Act(CPA). She said it was on the ballot for November and if passed it would cost an average home assessed at$500,000 an extra$32 per year. She said that the funds would go towards historic preservation, open space,and recreation. She said it would be a way to strike the state budget and there would be a 100%match from the State. 127 communities have taken advantage of it so far. After it was voted in a CPA committee would be formed Public Hearine Petition of Edward A.Potvin requesting a Variance from the number of stories allowed(2 1/2)to allow a third floor roof deck and a Special Permit to modify an existing non-conforming building for the property located at 12 Hanson Street [R-21• Attorney Patrick Burke presented the petition of the Bass River Inc. He explained that Bass River runs programs to provide work and educational experience to mentally retarded adults. There are 65 adults,ages 22-65,participating in the programs at the 12 Hanson Street facility. The facility operates Monday-Friday,typically 9:00 am-3:00 pm and all the activities are staff supervised They would like to provide program participants with an outdoor gardening experience,which is why they would like to build a roof deck. Rebecca Curran asked if this would be a container garden. Yes, it would be a container garden Arty.Patrick Burke replied Richard Dionne said he didn't have any problems with the proposed deck and is in support of it. Tom St. Pierre said he has been to the property on numerous occasions to do inspections and the facility is very well nm. Bonnie Belair said she is concerned with safety and asked if the deck would be locked off. Attorney Burke said yes,they would take those precautions and that all activities are staff supervised Robin Stein asked if limits to keep the use of the deck to agricultural purposes should be incorporated Beth Debski said she wnnw.salem.corrdPages/Sa1emMA_2oningAppealsMin/2007Minutes/S011CD2D07te#Page=1 1/6 '8/7/13 ` Cityof Salem,MA-Minutes 10/17/2007 thought access to the deck to just be outside should be fine too. There being no further questions or comments,a motion was made by Bonnie Belair to approve the request for a Variance from the number of stories,and a Special Permit to modify an existing non-conforming structure to allow for the roof deck subject to seven (7)standard conditions and one(l)special condition that supervised use be required The motion was secondedby Richard Dionne and approved 5-0(Steve Pinto abstained). Petition of Helen Sides requesting a Variance from rear yard setback and a Special Permit to modify an existing non- conforming structure,to allow for a second story balcony for the property located at IA DANULS STRFErCOURT(R-2). Architect,Helen Sides,presented the petition for the property owned by Hans Weedon. She said that they were at the Board only for the balcony.The balcony is off a planned second story addition. The zoning allows for the second story addition. She said she believed the existing setback is 16 ft,the new setback with the 3 ft balcony would be 13 ft. Bonnie a Belair asked if there would be stairs comm down from the balcony. Helen said no there would not. g Katie Bickford(5 Daniels St Ct)asked why nobody was notified about the second story addition. Robin Stein explained that a second story is allowed by right. Robin said that what's being considered is a 3 ft impact into an existing no conforming setback and she did not think this would take away from the intent of the zoning ordinance. She asked if anybody wanted to entertain a motion. Beth Debski made a motion to grant the Variance from rear yard setback,and a Special Permit to modify an existing non- conforming structure to allow for a second story balcony subject to seven(7)standard conditions and one(1)special condition that there be no stairs leading down from the balcony. The motion was seconded by Richard Dionne and approved 5-0(Steve Pinto abstained). Ward Councilor Jean Pelletier asked that a better explanation about the height be given to the residents who came concerned with the second story. Tom St.Pierre showed the residents a copy of the plans and explained to them that the zoning ordinance allows for(2 1/2)stories. Continued Petition of Riverview Place LLC requesting Variances from lot area per dwelling unit 7-21 (k),Variance from off street parking requirements 7-21 (m)(1),Variance from number of exterior entrances for dwelling units 7-21 (e)(2) (a),Variances of buffer area 7-21 (m)(1)(c)at 72 Flint Street and 67-69 &71 Mason Street[NRCC7. Attorney Scott Grover presented the petition for Riverview Place LLC. Arty. Grover reintroducedthe principals David Zion, Mike O'Brien,and David Walsh. He explained they have a purchase and sale agreement for the Salem Suede and Bonfanti sites. He introduced Stephen Livermore the project Architect,and Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey,as well as the traffic engineer Jeff Maxtutis of EarthTech. Arty. Grover explained that the proposed project would redevelop the Salem Suede and Bonfanti leather factories for apartments. He wanted to focus on the changes that had been made to the plan since they had last been at the Board of Appeals. He feels the comments and concerns that they heard last time were in two areas: 1)the size and impact of the project on the neighbors and 2)the traffic problems already in existence. Arty. Grover explained that they had first submitted an application in June with 160 units. After having a neighborhood meeting they decided to reduce the number of units to 148,the number they had come to the Board of Appeals with. The proposal has now been reduce by 18 units,bringing the total to 130[nits. 13 units(or 10%)will be affordable, 117 units will be market rate. Atty. Grover said the density per acre is 28 units/acre of market rate units,and about 32 units/acre including the affordable units. Arty. Grover said that the inclusion of the Bonfanti site is beneficial for marketability and quality of the project. He said the difference between this whole site compared to others in the area is the significant cost to clean up and demolish the buildings. He said for these reasons it is a unique site that most be looked on its own. Last time they were seeking variances from parking,which they no longer need with 309 spaces proposed He said they had met the requirements of 2 spaces per tacit (260 spaces),37 spaces are for the commercial space and 12 are earmarked for residents of Flint Street. Arty. Grover said that the variances they were seeking were for the density and the conditions of the 50 ft.buffer and the use of separate exterior entrances. He presented Jeff Maxtutis of EarthTech to present an overview of the Traffic Impact Assessment. w w.salem.corr/Pages/SalemMA_ZoningAppealsMin/2007Minutes/S011CD2D0?te#Page=1 216 8r7/13 Citycf Salem,MA-Minutes 10/172007 Jeff explained that he started by looking at the existing conditions as a baseline,then looking at the impact of the project,then looking at mitigation efforts to improve both the existing and projected conditions. Jeff explained that counts were done in September at commuter peak hours,which are from 7:00-9:00 am and 4:00-6:00 pm. He said the highest volumes of traffic were between the hours of 7:30-8:30 am,and 4:30-5:30 pm. Accident data was also collected from MassHighway. The projections looked five years ahead,and projections were influenced by the traffic generation data available for the type of use. Apartments are expected to generate less traffic than homes owned and occupied by families. He said when the counts were than compared to the as of right use of an office development,and they came out significantly lower. Jeff said that suggested improvements include an easement which would allow the extension of Commercial Street,a flashing beacon at Flint and Mason,and a left turn lane on Tremont(which would require the street to be widened slightly on the park side). Arty. Scott Grover said that the traffic impact assessment would be peer reviewed at the Planning Board stage. Architect Stephen Livermore presented a visual which showed both the existing footprint and the proposed. The proposed footprint would be smaller,and the building would be further from the river. He said that 62%would be two bedrooms. He showed street view perspectives of the proposed and existing structure. He said the massing at the edge of the sight would be greatly reduced Bonnie Belair asked how 130 additional cars would not add to the poor traffic conditions. Jeff said it would not be 130 cars leaving at once and that the estimates assume that some residents would take transit. Bonnie said she was concerned about safety. If there is already a higher crash rate,how would we deal with this? Jeff said that by removing parking on Flint Street the site lines would be improved Scott Grover mentioned that off street parking will be offered on the site. Steve Pinto asked how a traffic signal would be approved Councilor Prevey said he believed there would be a process with the Police Department and Engineering Department. Robin Stein asked Arty. Scott Grover if his clients were willing to pay for the traffic light. Scott said yes they were. Beth Debski said that the Zoning Board was a step in a series of steps that the development would have to go through. She said the Planning Board would look at traffic in more detail. Bonnie Belair asked if there was a lender in place. Arty. Scott Grover said that MassDevelopment would be providing loan for acquisition and clean up. David Zion said that they have willing partners that will provide funding after the site is clean. Scott read a petition in support of the project,which was signed by forty-seven(47)neighborhood residents. He submitted the petition into the record Robin Stein summarized a letter in support of the development which was submitted by John Hoskins of 22 Larchmont Rd and passed it around for the Board to see. Robin then read a memo from Lynn Duncan about the process that the project would go through following the Board of Appeals. The memo explained that there is still independent review required by three boards,the Planning Board,Design Review Board, and Conservation Commission. Robin opened the public portion of the hearing and invited members of the public to speak starting in the front right corner of the room and working around Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey said he met with Mr. Grover yesterday and is encouraged that the project has been scaled back and that less relief is being requested He urged the Board to think about density. He is concerned with the failing safety grade with regards to the traffic. He said that a project of this size and scope could be detrimental to the traffic problem. He said he's listened to the concerns and has taken them seriously. He wants to see the project go forward and feels that staying with the building that is currently there is unacceptable to everybody in the room. At Large Councilor Thomas Furey said that both his parents worked in the leather industry and lived on Mason Street. Right now the area is blighted and he feels the proposed development would improve the City at large. He feels that major compromises have been made and that it is a win-win situation for the City. w ..salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_ZoningAppeaIsMin2007Minutes/SO11CD2DOReMPage=1 3/6 'flr7/13 �4 Cityof Salem,MA-Minutes 10/17/2007 Elizabeth Bradt(20 Commercial Street)is concerned about the current state of the property. She said she had learned that her daughter and her friends has walked around on the property and found syringes. She is in support of getting rid of the blight and existing problems. Ward 7 Councilor Joseph O'Keefe sees pluses in the Riverview Place project. He is a fire protection engineer and feels that the current building is a fire trap. Raymond Harvey(84 Flint Street)has lived on Flint Street for 35 years. He said that he will be glad to we the existing buildings go. He said that he and his wife made a deal with one another that they would move away if there was a fire at Salem Suede,which damaged their property. - At Large Councilor Joan Lovely said that the developers have brought down the density,and added adequate parking so she hopes the Board acts favorably. Martin imm(174 Federal Street)worked on the Master Plan. He feels that the question for the ZBA is the hardship question. He said everybody wants the existing building comes down and that is clear. He said the developer's approach has been,"What can I afford to pay for the land?" He said that's the wrong question to ask and that they should start be determining what the land is worth. Why should the current owner receive more than what is appropriate? He wants to challenge the developer and ask,"What can you really pay for that?" He said more focus is need on hardship. Jim Treadwell(resident of Ward 6)is concerned that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance shouldn't be deviated from. He said that on August 61h the Fire Department inspected Salem Suede and that things were in place in case of a fire. He questioned the numbers used by Mr. Maxtutis. He said the Master Plan recommended other traffic modifications and that the extension of Commercial Street could be accommodated on site. He said that 28 Goodhue only has 22 units/acre as opposed to 30,and that the Jefferson is also 22 units/acre. He said the Jefferson blends into the neighborhood with the townhouses on the edge. He said he strongly objects to the request to waive the buffer requirement. He said he was disappointed that there was no chance to meet with the developer following the August meeting. He said that the Bonfanti site is assessed at $640,000. Lorene Scanlon(75 and 77 Mason Street)said she was representing the Mack Park condominium development. She said she and the other condo owners feel that the development is too large for the neighborhood and she is concerned about the noise of 130 units. She feels traffic is a huge problem and mentioned there had been an accident very recently. She said she has been concerned about the redevelopment of the site since moving to Mason St. She thinks people are only signing the petition to get rid of the buildings. Pat Donahue(12 Dearborn Lane) does not feel that the development integrates with the neighborhood. He said the density is too much for 1 &2 family residences and that such a development belongs on Highland Ave or near a highway. He said the design looks like a new addition to Salem Hospital. He said that the variances will set a precedent for projects to come. Stephen Harris(148 North Street)feels that the parking issue has been addressed. He agrees with Ms.Belair that the biggest problem is people parking on the comer. He said the area could turn into a mega office complex which would mean that traffic doubles. John Carr said he is a lifelong resident who worked on the NRCC zoning and that he served on the Historic Commission. He says it's difficult for Board members to absorb all of the information at the meeting. He said that even with the density bonus from the affordable housing,there are still two times as many units as what is allowed He said safety issues are separate from matters before the Board. He is not concerned with the first floor entrances,but he's concerned about the number of units. He said there isn't a market for office space. David Pelletier(12 Crombie Street) feels that the next step after the demolition of the building would be to build a parallel Flint Street for northbound traffic. He said the project design should have more creative solutions and that the cart is being put before the horse. He feels the Jefferson is an embarrassment and that he doesn't want a repeat of that. Betsy Burns(22 Beckford Street)said"Does zoning mean anything in this City?" She feels that the density is still more than 2x what is allowed and wants to know how this can be dismissed She wonders about hardship and wants to know why when the principal is also an owner there can be hardship. Erin Lenz said that she is looking forward to this. She feels that there is an opportunity that shouldn't be turned away. She says she is for the project and wants to remind everyone that Salem is a city,and this is the scale of a project that belongs in a city. Jim Scanlon (Ward 6)says that he is a lifelong residents and he has always felt that the site was an eyesore. He thinks the www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_ZoningAppealsMinl2007Minutes/S011CD2D0?teAPage=1 4/6 89/13 Cityof Salem,MA-Minutes 10/17/2007 f .t opportunity to move forward should be seized. Bob Manuppelli(Barr Street)says the developers have given and given. He is upset by the people from other wards commenting on this project. He said that the traffic would be cut in half with traffic coming and going through different entrances. Mary (last name unknown,a resident of Essex St) feels that Salem is very lucky to have a Master Plan and zoning to back it up. She said that some communities are not in this situation. She said the project is too dense and it doesn't fit in. In her opinion the developer hasn't proven hardship. The development team was given the opportunity to respond to public comments. David Zion talked about cleanup costs. He said that the Bon fanti site would cost $750,000 to purchase,and$250,000 for cleanup and demolition. The total cost would be one(1) million. If the site was only going to hold 20 units,after adding in permitting costs,the cost per unit would be in excess of$50,000. David Zion feels that the Bonfanti site hurts the project financially,but he feels it is key to the redevelopment of the area,he wants to leave a legacy. David said that in 1980 his father purchased the property for 1.1 million. He said his father was not the polluter and that he was actually the one who put in the water treatment facility. David said that with the inclusion of the Bonfanti site,the costs would be up to$35,000 per unit. David said that his father did have 10-15 inquiries of people interested in buying the site for residential development. Robin Stein brought it back to the Board for comments. Richard Dionne said that he applauds the developers for their efforts. He personally likes the design of the project. He feels 130 units is a lot,though something needs to be done. He said given the site and the support from the direct abutters he said he feels this is an excellent project he can go on with it. Steve Pinto said he felt as though something had to be done. He feels the hardship is legitimate;he knows that it is a contaminated site that will require clean up. He is encouraged that the traffic signal may improve existing and future conditions. He said he appreciated how the developers have been very up front and flexible. Bonnie Belair said she was opposed feeling it was way too dense,but she now feels that the hardship has been addressed. She feels that there will be no perfect project;she knows everybody wants the site cleaned up. She hopes the other concerns can be worked out as the development goes on in the process. Robin Stein reviewed the findings that the board needed to make in order to grant variances. She said that there most be unusual circumstances affecting the land or structures,literal enforcement of the ordinance would have to cause substantial hardship financial or otherwise,and that desirable relief may be granted if there is not substantial detriment to the public good,and if the relief does not derogate from the intent of the ordinance. She feels this is a unique and challenging site,and that the requirements for granting a variance have been met. She is pleased the applicant is going to work with the City on traffic mitigation. She said she believes the project fits within the bylaw. She feels that no project will ever be perfect and that there will never be agreement from everyone on what should happen on with the site. She feels that throughout the review process the project that will continue to be shaped resulting in a better end product. Beth Debski said that she feels that the project is a much better since the number of units was reduced and that the granting of the relief has been justified. She feels that many of the direct abutters are in support of the project. She is in support of the project. Rebecca Curran said that she feels they are 90%in compliance with the buffer zone requirement. She said that the zoning ordinance says in black and white that variances are allowed. She said she would have felt more comfortable with a pro forma analysis. She is glad the project has been reduced. There being no further questions of comments,Bonnie Belair made a motion to grant variances from lot area per dwelling unit,to allow for common building entrances,and to allow construction within the buffer area,subject to five standard conditions and three special conditions. The special conditions are that there are to be 13 affordable units as required by the NRCC zoning, 12 parking spaces are to be designated for use by residents of Flint Street,and a 30 It easement as shown on the plans should be granted to the City of Salem to allow for the extension of Commercial Street. The motion was seconded by Steve Pinto and approved 6-0(Stein,Debski, Curran,Pinto,Belair,Dionne). Old/New Business Discussion-Rescheduling November 21st Meeting for Thanksgiving Holiday The November meeting needs to be rescheduled. Amy Lash said there are currently no applications. The Board decided that the meeting is to be rescheduled to November 14th if there www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA Zoning AppealsMin/2007Minutes/S011CD2D0?te#Page=1 5/6 '8/6/13 1 Cityof Salem,MA-Approved Minutes,April 23,2008 Salem C1*" Hall 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 111 City jl ph: 978-745-9595 Approved Minutes, April 23, 2008 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board,Regular Meeting SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: Wednesday,April 23,2008 LOCATION: 120 Washington Street,3rd Floor Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blier,Ernest DeMaio,David Jaquith MEMBERSABSENT: Paul Durand,Glenn Kennedy OTHERSPRESENT: Tom Daniel,Economic Development Manager RECORDER: Andrea Bray Jaquith calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects under Review 1. 221 Essex Street(Eastern Bank): Discussion of proposed rooftop wireless backhaul dish antenna Attorney Ann Malone,representing Sprint/Nextel,states that they wish to amend their special permit to add a wireless backhaul dish,which will provide high-speed intemet access,next to existing antennas. She adds that the new equipment would not extend above the existing equipment. Daniel states that the city has added two conditions on the approval,(1)the color should minimize visibility and blend with existing rooftop equipment,and(2)they must install a 150-foot zip-cord line and secure it above the ground. He adds that the SRA has granted approval subject to DRB review. DeMaio states that he doesn't have a problem with the design except for the painting of the antennas. He states that the existing antennas are too pronounced and they should all be painted darker to minimize visibility. Jaquith asks what color would be the least visible. DeMaio states that they should be black or dark grey or brown. DeMaio:Motion to approve this application provided that all existing antennas,and the new equipment are painted dark grey, seconded by Blier. Passes 3-0. 2. 15 Peabody Street Park: Discussion of proposed Schematic Design Blier recuses himself from this item. Daniel states that the SRA waived its procedures to allow this plan to continue on to final design approval at the next DRB meeting Kirsten Kinzer,with the Planning and Community Development Department,states that two grants will fund this project,and the grants have strict guidelines,one being that the project must be completed by the end of June. She adds that M ichael Blier and his firm have been creating the design while simultaneous community meetings have been conducted. David Jaquith volunteered to w .salem.con/pages/sale MA_DRBnurutes/2008Minutes/S020508D5?te)dPage=1 10 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approe d Minutes,April 23,2008 t , 5. 72 Flint Street and 67-69&71 Mason Street(Riverview Place f/k/a Salem Suede): Discussion of proposed Schematic Design Daniel states that the Planning Board is asking the DRB to consider,among other things,massing and consistency with the master p Ian. Attorney Scott Grover,representing Riverview Place,states that this is primarily a residential property,consisting of 130 units. He describes the approval process to date for this project. Architect Steven Livermore states that the buildings will be landscaped,and that 126 of the 309 parking spaces will be under the building DeMaio clarifies that the 309 spaces is 49 more than required by zoning Livermore states that the landscaping will be similar to that of the park on the other side of the North River Canal. He states that they will vary the materials on the elevation,and that the building will beset back from the canal so the landscaping in front can tie into the park across the canal. Daniel cites Glenn Kennedy's comments,stating that he is concerned that the style doesn't fit into the context and wishes to have a more factory—inspired style and he sees a great opportunity for an industrial style design. Jaquith agrees that he would like to have a more industrial loft building He adds that it is rigidly plopped on the site,and perhaps can have a more industrial look with bigger windows. He states that now it just looks like a design of"run of the mill,suburban apartments." Daniel states that the Planning Board is looking for more comments on the massing Jaquith states that the massing currently has an implied centerline and maybe it should not be that centered and lowering as it goes toward Flint Street. Bher states that this currently appears to be designed to sit on a flat site and Flint Street has beautiful homes on the slope. He says that he would like to see more variation in the rooflines. He adds that there seems to be a lot of impervious material. He says that it needs to factor into the surrounding neighborhood. He asks about the stormwater plan. Livermore states that Jim McDowell has a plan for it,and it has been presented to the Planning Board. Grover states that Chris Huntress is the landscape architect and will be at the neat meeting and he wishes to develop the walkway and connect it up to Mason Street. Livermore adds that the Planning Board also wishes to have a stronger pedestrian walkway up to Mason Street. DeMaio states that it is important to think about the types of projects that the NRCC is seeking and consider that Commercial Street should be assumed to extend to Flint Street. He reads some of the requirements from the NRCC master plan,which include having a design that will enhance the waterfront pathway along the canal,redefine the north edge of the park,create public parkways,and complement and harmonize with existing neighborhoods. DeMaio states that the site has different personalities on Mason Street,Flint Street and the canal,and as a design approach,they need to pick up cues from each face of the site. The current proposal fails to do this as it has the same architectural treatment throughout. He says that the project should have active edges that relate to and promote the park. He agrees with Blier about varying the rooflines. DeMaio believes the materials and massing have along way to go. The site plan reads as two buildings with a sea of parking and wNw.salem.com/pages/salemMA_DRBminutes/2008Minutes/S020508D5?te#Page=1 50 8/6/13 City of Sal em,MA-Approved M inutes,April 23,2008 the buildings read as a large mass that is impenetrable. He asks where one would go to sit and read outside? DeMaio suggests looking at how people pass through the site. Blier suggests making the pathway to Mason a central connection and organizing principal rather put on the edge of the site. DeMaio says that there should be more emphasis to what happens at the ground level where people will walk. He states that it is difficult to comment on the specific architecture because there are problems with the massing He suggests they review the NRCC document and gain inspiration from it. He says the parking lot on the canal should be replaced with green space. The members discuss flipping the buildings in order to pull more massing toward the canal. DeMaio expresses concern about the large expanses of p aving. Jaquith: Motion to continue this until the next meeting,seconded by DeMaio. Passes 3-0. Other 6. Flower Boxes and Exterior Container Plantings: Discussion of approach and parameters Daniel states that several years ago the SRA had approved two window boxdesigns as part of a Main Streets project. He presents the two window box designs used by the Main Streets project and asks the member if they will reaffirm the designs or would like to modify them. Blier states that pine will rot and look bad over time. He suggests usingcedar or mahogany. Jaquith suggests looking to Newburyport for their designs for window boxes,and that they be painted"Essex Green"(Benjamin M core). Daniel says that some businesses wish to place urns of flowers outside their stores. He asks if the board would like to set criteria so he can manage this. Jaquith states that they could have 4-5 acceptable options for urns. DeMaio states that this would create a sameness that might limit opportunities to improve the design. Jaquith states that the board can review anything that is outside of the standard. Daniel states that he wishes to streamline the program so that if someone wishes to spend money to improve the look of their business,he would be able make it as easy as possible for them. Blier states that the window boxes should specify that there be drains at the bottom of the boxes. The Board reaffirms the previously approved designs. 7. Auuroved Failing for South River Harborwalk: Update Daniel states that the SRA has approved the design with the railing that was presented,but they are looking into alternatives. He shows a sample of the railing by AVCON that they had considered and says that staff has some reservations about it. The members discuss the sample and agree to look into alternative designs from the AVCON Company. 8. Joint Land Use Board Meeting: Summary wm..salem.corrdpages/salemMA_DRBn mutes/2008Minutes/S020508D5?te)dPage=1 6/7 816113 Cityof Salem,MA-Approwd Minutes,October 1,2008 r Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 ph: 978-745-9595 Approved Minutes, October 1, 2008 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board,Special Meeting SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: Wednesday,October 1,2008 LOCATION: 120 Washington Street,3rd Floor Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Paul Durand,Michael Blier,Ernest DeMaio,David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy,Helen Sides MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Daniel,Economic Development Manager RECORDER: Andrea Bray Chairperson Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Proiects Under Review 1. 2 East India Sauare,Suite 119(Rita's Water Ice): Discussion of proposed outdoor cafe seating Durand recuses himself from this issue. Voting members are DeMaio,Jaquith,Kennedy,and Sides. Proprietor Cynthia Weaver states that the seating will almost be identical to the other tables and chairs in the area. The members review the plans and agree that the design is good. DeMaio:Motion to approve the seating design,seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0. 2. 281 Essex Street,Unit 3(Body Empowered Wellness): Discussion of proposed signage DeMaio recuses himself from this issue. Voting members are Durand,Jaquith,Kennedy,and Sides. Daniel states that Dale Gienapp is here to present the revised design. Gienapp states that he has modified the design after getting information from the owner. He adds that the lettering will be the same as in the original plan,and the sign will be flat with a 3M coating on it. Sides confirms that the steel plate will be painted the green color. Kennedy agrees that the metal could be green or remain natural,and Durand suggests that the green may appear too heavy. Gienapp clarifies that all the metal and the plate will be green. Sides suggests that he go with the unfinished aluminum for the scrollwork and the plates. Durand agrees that the bracket will be best in clear aluminum or silver. H .Salem.ccrtJpages/salemMA_DRBninutesl2008Minutes/SO22265BFReAPage=1 10 8/6/13 s City of Salem,MA-Approved,M inotes,October 1,2008 Kennedy asks Gienapp if he would have any objections to having the metal be black. Gienapp states that he would not object to black but he would prefer green. Durand states that the black references things that are more appropriate for the sign bracket. He states that if he saw the other side of the building he might feel better about it. He says that he dislikes submissions without context and this has very little context except the immediate area Daniel states that the applicant is open to the black. Jaquith: Motion to approve this sign as presented with the frame and mounting brackets in black,seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0. North River Canal Corridor Projects under Review 3. 72 Flint Street and 67-69&71 Mason Street(Riverview Place Mda S alem Suede): Discussion of proposed Schematic Design Jaquith recuses himself from this issue. Blier arrives in time for this presentation. Voting members are Blier,DeMaio,Durand, Kennedy,and Sides. Daniel clarifies that the Planning Board requested that the DRB review the design elements of this plan,specifically the massing and the design. Attorney Scott Grover,representing Riverview Place,acknowledges that David Zion and Michael O'Brien(developers)are also here tonight,as well as Steve Livermore,the principal architect on the project. He requests that the DRB review the project in a way similar to the way they treat projects in the urban renewal district,which is to make a recommendation on schematic design initially,and then later a final recommendation on all of the design details. Grover provides a history of the project,stating that it originally consisted of 184 units in the summer of 2007,and then later reduced down to 164 units,still in four buildings. He adds that it was finally approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals with 130 units permitted in three building and 13 of those units designated as affordable. He states that the project also went through a major design modification based on the comments from the neighbors and the DRB. Architect Steve Livermore states that original project presented to the DRB had three building with 51 units,57 units,and 22 units,respectively,and with almost all of the parking on the surface and much of that parkingwas in the front of the building. There was little pedestrian access from Mason Street down to the river,and the landscaping was intermittent.He adds that this was all changed as a result of the comments from the board. Livermore explains that the new design which includes: • A 196-car parking garage,which is two floors above grade and one partial floor below grade. • The surface parking around the building has been reduced by about 100 cars. • The vehicular access and pedestrian access has been taken up through the middle of the site. The pedestrian access continues up through to Mason Street. • There is now a view from Mason Street down through to the canal. • There is a 50-foot buffer between the Flint Street and the Mason Street properties. • He changed the image of the building,so the appearance from North Street down Bridge Street would be that of a renovated mill,and from Flint Street and Mason Street the image is much more residential in nature. Livermore shows several images of the proposed site,and describes each image. DeMaio states that this design is a vast improvement in the scheme,particularly in the way Livermore is working within the w ..salem.cadpages/salemMA_DRBminutes/2008Minutes/S022265BF?te)dPage=1 27 L— 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes,October 1,2008 i. existing context to create massing that is sympathetic to the neighborhood,and to get back to the NRCC guidelines and the intent of the master plan. DeMaio states that the commercial space in the basement of building 3,and perhaps Masons Street might want to be more residential in character,so the commercial use might migrate to the 67 unit building either the west side of building 1 or the east side of building 2,where the public will be more likely to access them from Commercial Street or Bridge Street. DeMaio states the landscaping might need the most work in order to extend the waterfront to Mason Street and to encourage permeability through the site. He suggests that Livermore consider how sidewalks or paving materials can encourage the passage of pedestrians from the neighborhood to the waterfront and make this area more pedestrian friendly. DeMaio states that there might be some ways to create islands of green in the parking areas rather than have vast areas of pavement. DeMaio states that it is important not to think of the Commercial Street extension to Flint Street as what could potentially happen,but to think of how the landscape connection to the building and the canal will be done when the buildings are fust completed and then,if Commercial Street were to happen,to have in mind how that transition would be made. DeMaio acknowledges that this project is precedent-setting for the North River and the DRB would like this project and all future projects to have a strong connection to the Canal. DeMaio explains that there was great care in making each one of the buildings somewhat different from the other because the site has different personalities,as does the neighboring context. He encourages Livermore to consider having some variety in the texture,colors,and materials in each of the three buildings to give the project the look of having evolved rather than being placed here. He adds that a little differentiation will help to break down the scale and make each building feel more comfortable in context. Sides expresses concern with the"awkward"transitioning of the exterior design on Building Two at the corner where the "residential"image changes to the"industrial mill"image. Additionally,she points to the fact that these buildings have parking underneath them which makes them feel less residential. She cites the buildings that are up on stilts. Livermore states that they eliminated that as part of the project,but there is one piece that still has parking under,and he agrees to look at that. Sides asks how the path from Mason Street on the other side of that building will took as you are walking down past it. Livermore states that the grade climbs from the access road up almost a full level at the back of the Mason Street building so that the buildings,as they go up the new access road,will be on a hill. He offers to bring those elevations to the next meeting Sides asks if the elevation will change to look like a mill,and Livermore says that it will. Livermore states that as you go up the access road you will have mills on either side,so the general intent that you are walking down a street that is renovated mills that are now residential buildings. Livermore states that the people that are looking out of the rear of the Flint Street properties will be looking at landscaping and fencing and they won't look down at the parking He adds that the surrounding area on Mason Street is more residential,so he was trying to make the buildings relate to the residences on this side of the property. Kennedy states that he appreciates the improvement in the plan since the last meeting particularly on the Bridge Street view. He states that the transition at the comer of Building Two is uncomfortable,even though he understands the reasoning He asks Livermore to examine that more closely. Livermore agrees to look at that comer. w salem.com/pages/salemMA_DRBminutes/2008Minutes/S022265BF?te)dPage=1 W •8/6/13 v City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes,October 1,2008 Kennedy states that he likes the renovated mill look. He says that the openparkingunder the building doesn't quite look finished. Livermore states that they could make it into garages. Kennedy mentions the transition from brick to the other material of the three stories,stating that he would prefer more brick. Livermore states that he is trying to maintain some economy,therefore portraying a renovated mill rather thanjust a huge mill building. Durand explains that there is a reason why we can't build mill buildings today because of the economy and the lack of skilled craftsmen. He adds that these buildings do not have brick walls,but veneer walls,but the details in this plan are effectively portraying the character of the old mill buildings. He cites the extensive brick corbelling and arched windows as beneficial to this design. He then explains that,when the budget is tight,these details might have to come out of the design,and the building ends up looking like an imitation mill building without any character. He expresses concern about this happening in this case. Having expressed his concern,Durand states that he would like to know what the materials are,what the brick construction will be, what the material is on top of that,what the siding is on the residential section,and the materials of the stone walls. Livermore states that he does not have anything to show the DRB today regarding the materials. He adds that the brick walls will not be 16-inch brick walls and although they intend to do some corbelling it will be fairly simple corbelling work. Durand states that they can agree now that this will look like the current plan and have all of the corbelling shown,but what will happen when the economy does not allow them to do this,and the building ends up looking nothing like this. He states that it might end up looking like a cheap housing project. He cautions everyone that this may be the reality. He suggests addressing the economy in the initial design. DeM aio suggests that the board point out exactly what it is that they would like to have in terms of materials and construction for this project. Durand agrees but states that he is trying to provide full disclosure. Much discussion ensues regardingthis point. Durand asks the budget of the building Livermore states that it is$15-16 million. Much more discussion ensues regarding this point. Blier states that there is a big improvement in this new plan because he addressed the scale,and now the site planning makes sense. He states that the massing is strong He adds that it creates a sense of community in the streets and an opportunity to create some beautiful pedestrian ways. He suggests that he work on the screening for the parking lot. Blier states that the last time Livermore was here,he presented a plan with buildings that could have been anywhere,and parking that separated the development from the canal,and a pedestrian path that took you around the backside of the building and up to the street. He goes onto acknowledge that Livermore has reversed those issues,and made a really strong connection to the park to the canal through the center of your project,and addressed the issue of scale along Mason Street. He adds that the overall design is vastly improved. Blier states that the typologies on the site are the gabled roofs and the mill buildings of this site's history and that seems like a reasonable jumping off point. He adds that,from a site plan point of view,the ways that Livermore dispersed the architecture across the site seems to make sense,and the parking is in the back off to the side,and the smaller buildings are up behind and the mill buildings are close to the canal. He says that the massing is relatively strong He commends Livermore's design strategy that creates community streets. He says that if you have the mill building facing the mill building you think of mill yards,and you could integrate beautiful pedestrian ways and vehicular ways that share a certain kind of landscape. He continues v .sai m.com/pages/salemMA_DRBminutes/2008Minutes/SO22265BF?te#Page=1 417 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes,October 1,2008 , by stating that the other streets are residential connectors,and the screening presents other issues because there is a lot offence. He expresses his desire to also see the site plan,which would help the board determine whether or not that central street is ADA compliant,or where the stormwater is going,as well as some other systems. Livermore states that they have held off designing some of the engineering issues for the site until they have an idea that they are going in the right direction. Durand states that the massing has been handled fairly well,and Livermore did a good job transitioning from the old neighborhood into the new neighborhood. He acknowledges that there area lot of good things happening from the site planning perspective. Durand opens to the public. Ana Gordon of 167 Federal Street agrees that the schematic is vastly improved over the previous one,but she expresses concern about the increase of traffic in the area. She says that she likes the concept of the street going through the development. She objects to the veneer aspect of the shell and is concerned about the transition on the corner of Building Two from the"residential' to the"industrial mill'image. Jean Arlander at 93 Federal Street states her family has owned the property on Federal Street since 1818,and that the Federal Street residents view themselves as the stewards of the North River Canal. She makes the following points: • The scale of this project is incongruous with the abutting historic neighborhoods,because it is too dense. • Current density in this area is 8 units per acre,and the density being proposed is 130 units per 4.14 acres,which is 31.4 units per acre. • She cites an example of density in the Jefferson Apartments at Salem Station,which has 14.69 acres and 266 units,which equals 18.11 units per acre. • The Massachusetts Smart Growth Policy is 20 units per acre. • The proposed density is 2.5 times the density permitted by the North River Canal Corridor,which is 1 unit per 3500 square feet. • By right this property can have 52 units. She suggests one solution would be to remove one floor from each building. She says that this is a mixed-use district,and she would like to see more commercial retail in the area because it would generate jobs and increase the tax base with less stress on the human resources in the city. Betsy Bums of 22 Beckford Street states that the density is inappropriate for this area. She expresses concern about the traffic. She concludes by saying that all of the concern about the construction,materials,the traffic could be addressed by reducing the density. She asks if the parking lot is okay to have within the buffer. Grover states that one of the conditions that was imposed with the special permit was that there would be limited activity within the buffer,and parking was allowed to be there. Mary Whitney of Essex Street states that they are moving in the right direction,but it is still not in line with the vision of the master plan for the North River Canal Corridor. The vision was that at some point it would be pleasant to walk along the North River. She states that the project is too oversized,and the parking in the buffer is inappropriate. She adds that the pedestrian ways need work to look more attractive,and there is not an ample amount of green space on the site,and this will have a negative effect on the North River because the land slopes toward the river. She states that they need to look at the total effect on the North River profile,and that there should be more commercial use on this site. She requests an elevation depicting eye level views from the sidewalk and would like to see a shadow study with the impact on the houses. Emily Udy,representing Historic Salem Inc,states that this is precedent-setting and agrees with the board members that they must pay attention to the materials. She says that Building Two should have a cohesive look on both sides. She explains that they are not necessarily looking for a project that looks historically accurate but one that responds intelligently to the context. Udy states that parking under Building Two with the columns looks bad,and if any thing in the landscape could shield that it would be good. Regarding the Mason Street buildings, Udy says that it is nice that those buildings can be seen from the street but the decks look bad and should be more like porches. w .salem.conrVpages/salemMA_DRBnunutes/2008Minutes/SO22265BF?te#Page=1 5/7 -'-8/6/13 ' City of Salem,MA-Approvd M inutes,October 1,2008 Nick Nowak of 356 Essex Street stresses the importance of the DRB's vigilance in working with the project to ensure that the development conforms to the vision for the North River Canal Corridor. Rich Laperchia of 7 and 9 Oak Street states that his concern for the building was the traffic,even though this plan has improved since the last time. He expresses concern about the Flint Street/Mason Street/Bridge Street traffic. Cheryl Callaghan of 14 Oak Street states that these changes represent a large improvement and expresses concern about the traffic and emphasizes the importance of paying attention to the materials. Mark Callaghan of 14 Oak Street expresses concern about the infrastructure surrounding the site,i.e.,the water main,sewer line, and traffic. Ward 6 City Councilor Paul Prevey of 26 Tremont Street states that he is opposed to the density of the project. His chief concern is the impact of the traffic. He acknowledges that,from a design standpoint, it is a vast improvement from where it was before. He commends Grover and Livermore for meeting with the community and making these changes. He states that he appreciates the board's insight,and thanks the board and emphasizes the importance of making sure this project fits into the neighborhood without destroying the neighborhood. City Councilor Steven Pinto of 55 Columbus Avenue states that the traffic issue was addressed and it was found that more commercial use creates more traffic. He states that the design has improved greatly. He states that he would like to see this project happen. He is hopeful that a design can be agree upon. Grover states that this project is still in the middle of site plan review with the Planning Board and looking at some larger issues which will help the traffic in that area. He explains that the traffic experts are saying that this project will not add much to the traffic in this area. He requests that the board consider this plan in two phases,first the schematic approval and then the final design. He explains that hey have been at the Planning Board for 5 months so far. Kennedy asks Daniel if he knows how they were approved for this density. Daniel states that he doesn't have the details of the Zoning Board hearings,but the decision from the Zoning Board allows for 130 units and 309 parking spaces. Grover states that according to the zoning if this were a commercial project,a building over 300,000 square feet could be built on that property by right. Blier expresses concern about approving the schematic design without having seen any site plan. Durand states that some of the concerns that were brought up tonight must be addressed before he can make a decision. He states that he has reservations about some of the issues that were discussed tonight. The other members agree. Much discussion ensues regarding the nature of the information that is currently available vs.what will be needed to make a decision. Durand cautions the public about having this development become too small because the quality will be poor,given the economics of the project. Betsy Bums asks if scale is within the review purview of the DRB. Durand responds that scale is within the DRB's purview and adds that the proposal has very good scale. The proposed buildings meet other buildings well and the proposal works with the topography. Grover says that the comments tonight have been extremely helpful. Sides: Motion to continue this hearinguntil the next meeting seconded by DeMaio. Passes 5-0. w .salem.corrVpages/salemMA_DRBminutes/2008Minutes/5022265BF7le)dPage=1 6r/ 8[6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes,November 19,2008 , 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 Salem City Hall ph:978-745-9595 Approved Minutes, November 19, 2008 CITY OF SALEM MAS S ACHUS ETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board,Regular Meeting SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: Wednesday,November 19,2008 LOCATION: 120 Washington Street,Yd Floor Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Paul Durand,Michael Blier,Ernest DeMaio,David Jaquith,Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Daniel,Economic Development Manager RECORDER: Andrea Bray Chairperson Durand calls the meeting to order. Approval of Meeting Schedule Blier: Motion to approve the meeting schedule,seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 155-189 Washington Street(Tavern in the Square): Discussion of proposed exterior fap tle,signage,and lighting Architect Stephen Sousa describes the design for the color scheme,signage,and fighting Sousa discusses the photos of the other locations. He says they will introduce the"practical beige"color on the recessed portion of the sign band as requested by the Board. He presents samples of the brick,window trim,and building colors. Sousa says the building sign will be a dimensional letter that is halo-fit by LED. He describes the way in which the sign is constructed. He states that the blade sign will have a multi-colored background with dimensional letters,lit with a small blade-sign light. Sousa states that they will use bronze gooseneck fights above the awnings. He shows a photo of the wall sconces. Sides expresses concern about the beige band interrupting the color scheme for the storefront. She states that she prefers the uniform brown that was originally presented. Sousa states that there will be a polished absolute granite base. Durand agrees that he doesn't like the beige stripe and would prefer the original proposal. Jaquith states that the trees enhance the base and provide richness to the look. DeMaio agrees with Sides and Durand in preferring the original color scheme. He expresses concern about the relationship of the awnings to the sign,because the red awnings are much taller on the other locations,and perhaps the awnings are too small in this case. He states likes the all dark scheme when there is horizontal trim on the pilasters,and he prefers having a silver band on the w .salem.coedpages/salemMA_DRBminutes/2008Minutes/S022CDB00?le#Page=1 1/8 '8/6/13 ' City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes,November 19,2008 Durand states that the thickness should be a minimum of%inch. Kennedy: Motion to approve this sign design with the red background,seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0. Members voting BLer,DeMaio,Durand,Kennedy, Sides. Kennedy steps out. North River Canal Corridor Projects under Review 5. 72 Flint Street and 67-69&71 Mason Street(Riverview Place f/k/a/Salem Suede): Discussion of proposed Schematic Design Attorney Scott Grover states that they are here to present some of the deign changes and will not look for approval tonight,but they wish to get an understanding of what more the Board would like to see. Chris Huntress,Landscape Architect,describes the landscape plan,which includes sidewalks,curbing street trees,plantings,and lighting. He states that they intend to develop a main streetscape that relates to the buildings,featuring a promenade that opens to the river. He describes the various plantings including evergreens and ornamentals to screen and provide variety. He says that the downcast lighting will be minimally invasive. Huntress states that there will be benches and lights along the walkway. He adds that this design has changed since last time because they have added details on the sidewalks. Stephen Livermore,architect,speaks about the buildings stating that the Board was uncomfortable with the transition on building two between the mill building design and the more residential design. He describes two alternatives at to the uncomfortable transition. He adds that he screened the parked cars under the building by adding carriage type doors at the base of the building Livermore states that he has added more detail to the drawings,site elevations coming up the hill from the river from both sides and coming across the street,and provided bigger scale elevations depicting the materials on the fagade which include brick,roll-formed aluminum crown molding,diamond-shaped 16-inch aluminum shingles,asphalt shingles,and cement clapboard(hardiplank). He says that the railing will feature a balustrade on the residential buildings,and on the mill buildings it will appear more commercial looking with a metal rail. Livermore describes the construction for the big buildings using a steel frame and the smaller residential buildings with a wood frame. He explains that the systems on the roof would be screened and he hasn't designed the scremingyet. Sides states that she is bothered by havingno real base to buildingtwo. She adds that the garage doors help compared to the last version,but it might look too much like a long ribbon and there isn't enough relationship to the space above. It appears the residential style"houses"are floating without a base. DeMain states that for future presentations they should present new information in advance of the meetingbecause it is difficult to discuss these issues when it is being presented tonight. He describes the elevations being of details and vignettes but not of what the building looks like from one end of the building to the other. He says that he has no problem with each building having its own personality,but he has a problem with buildings with multiple personalities,turning the comer from one style to another. He asks why the materials on the brick building changes. Livermore states that it is partially for economy and to keep the piers vertical. DeMaio states that the challenge becomes real when the project progresses from paper and is constructed. He says that the mixed surfaces present a disconnect within each of the fagades. He says that the site and landscaping plans have not gone very far,and he would like to see a more developed landscape p lan dealing with speed bumps and other items. He notes that the central pedestrian spine doesn't carry through well. DeMaio states that he would like to see a plan that shows,short-term and long-term,before Commercial Street cuts through and atter Commercial Street cuts through,because this change will be critical,and he currently can't see how it will work when Commercial Street runs through. He agrees with Sides about the garage doors. www.salem.conVpages/salemMA_DRBminutes/2008Minutes/S022CDB00?te#Page=1 6/8 816/13 City of Salem,MA-Approe d Minutes,November 19,2008 Bher agrees with DeMaio on the connection back to Mason Street,stating that there is inconsistency between the plan and the perspective drawing with the fight posts and plantings,and he has the sense that more time needs to be spent exploring the nature of these spaces. He adds that,along the promenade,the plantings need to reinforce that transition moving from the wide walkway to the four-foot walkway,and on Flint Street the street edge could be planted with trees. He describes the plant palette as very good,and he likes the tree species. He suggests that they look at the landscape plan more carefully to achieve the look they are seeking He asks about the storm water system and how it would engage into the landscaping Huntress states that they don't have the civil engineer here tonight to provide a description of the drainage system. Durand states that he would like to see the site plan including the adjacent properties to show how it ties into the neighborhood, and to see how this scale fits into the fabric of the neighborhood. He agrees with DeMaio about needing to see plans with a Commercial Street extension. He expresses disappointment that there are not more site amenities,stating that the site needs to be looked at from a human scale. Regarding the construction of the buildings,Durand says that he doesn't want to seethe design go down a path that cannot be delivered,as it relates to the construction. He says that he would like to see some details through the walls. He clarifies that if this is the design the developer wants to do,the Board will be happy to go down that road with him. He asks them to memorialize the construction details,but he wants it to be real. He explains that he will follow this project through the construction. Durand explains that having density is fine as long as it comes with quality in design. He will not compromise the design quality. Emily Udy of 7 Phelps Street,with Historic Salem,agrees that the building with multiple personalities would be better in a single building type. She wonders how this building which is attractive and trendy looking,will appear in 20 years. She states that the parking garage elevations have no detail. She says that the scale on Mason Street is appropriate but was hoping the decks could look more like porches,and the site plan view from Flint Street has too much parking lot and needs screening She remarks that the parking count is very high for the number of units,and if the parking could be reduced then the amount of green space on the site could be increased,or the number of parking spaces in the garage could be reduced. Darrow Lebovici of 122 Federal Street describes the role that the DRB has in the North River context,stating that the DRB needs to certify as a requirement of the special permit that the project proposed meets the requirements and are compatible with the North River Canal Ordinance,and this project doesn't. Scott Grover states that the ZBA issued variances to the ordinance. Lebovici states that the ZBA can grant a variance,which allows the DRB to determine if this is compliant,and the fact is that it is not compliant.He adds that the master plan was designed to encourage an"Urban Village"and this project is not that. Edward Nilsson whose office is at 262 Essex Street,with Historic Salem,questions the design philosophy in taking a mill building down and then rebuilding it to look like a mill. He recommends having an all residential design or changing the use in the mill buildings to be something other than residential. Morris Schot of l Carey Street states that the diversity of forms is not bad but it is not clearly defined in terms of materials and treatments,and there are too many buildings,too close together,crammed into too big a parking lot,and too much of the site is devoted to parking and accommodation ought to be made in favor of open space. Durand states that the comments are the same as what the Board has been alluding to when asking for context and further details. He adds that he would like to see this project be more friendly with the surrounding neighborhood,and he will not view this project as being confined to a site. He says that this is a good project,and it is important. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal Street asks for illustrations of what the buildings would look like at eye level. Durand agrees. Sides states that she doesn't think that the whole project can go to the residential type because it is too big and the imagery of the mill building is more as a type to adapt and can be quite repetitive in a very situp le way. She explains that this reference to a mill w .salem.corr✓pages/salemMA_DRBminutes/2008Minutes/S022CDB00?teriPage=1 718 '8/6/13 ' City of Salem,MA-Approsed Minutes,November 19,2008 building is good and she would like the mill building to come around the comer of building two and the residential units should come all the way to the ground. She says that there are too many balconies. Livermore explains how this will look when coming up the street across the tracks from Bridge Street and the city and the overpass you are seeing the mill form. Blier asks what the finished floor elevation is,and Livermore says 10 or 11. Much discussion ensues about the building types. Scott Grover clarifies the role of the DRB stating that the ordinance does not require DRB certification for the plan to conform to the master plan. Durand agrees and states that they can look at it in context of the master plan. He thanks the public for their comments. DeMaio:Motion to continue this issue,seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0. Members voting Blier,DeMaio,Durand,Sides. Approval of Minutes-November 22,2008 Meeting Bfier: Motion to approve the minutes,seconded by DeMaio. Passes 4-0. Members voting:Blier,DeMaio,Durand,Sides. Blier: Motion to adjourn,seconded by DeMaio. Passes 4-0. Members voting Bher,DeMaio,Durand, Sides. The meeting is adjourned at 9:30 PM. �.salem.com/pages/salemMA_DRBnunutes/2008Minutes/S022CDB00?te#Page-1 8(8 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-APPROVED Minutes,February 4,2009 ;. ., Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street, Salem,MA 01970 ph: 978-745-9595 APPROVED Minutes, February 4, 2009 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board,Regular Meeting SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: Wednesday,February 4,2009 LOCATION: 120 Washington Street,3rd Floor Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Paul Durand,Michael Blier,Ernest DeMaio,David Jaquith,Helen Sides MEMBERSABSENT: Glenn Kennedy OTHERS PRESENT: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel RECORDER: Andrea Bray Chairperson Durand calls the meeting to order. Jaquith is present only for the approval of the Metro PCS signage and the approval of the minutes. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 221 Washington Street(Metro PCS): Discussion of proposed signage Jim Butler from Amerisign presents the proposal for the sign stating that it is a plain sign,which will be placed flat against the wall,fastened with drop hangers,made of aluminum,with a lxl aluminum frame,and the letters will be in vinyl,and it will be unlit. He adds that it is a national logo sign,and the background is blue. Blier asks why there are two signs, and Butler states that it is because there originally were two stores in that building Daniel states that there are three entrances doors,two of which are used. Sides asks which one is the entry and Butler presumes that it is the middle door. Butler states that the vinyl lettering will be 1/4 inch deep and mounted on foam tape or silicone. The members express concern about the location of the signs. DeMaio agrees that there should not be two equal logos and suggests that,with the one on the right,the blue band extend the whole length of the signs. He adds that the blue is not part of the sign square footage. Jaquith confirms that by right he is allowed to have two signs. Butler suggests having all blue on the right so there would be no gray,and on the left there would be blue with no copy on it. Daniel confirms that they are taking all three storefronts. Durand states that there are a few ways to do this,and if there is some unifying blue background it would appear more contiguous. He also suggests doing something on the glass. w .salem.torr/pages/salemMA_DRBminutes/2009Minutes/S023623B2.>te#Page 1 116 '8/6/13 ' City of Salem,MA-APPROVED Minutes,February 4,2009 DeMaio asks if this is the only signage that they are requesting or will they come back to request additional signage. Butler says that he doesn't believe they will come back but they might post hours and numbers on the door. DeMaio states that any additional signage for the doors or the glass should be presented tonight. As an alternative,he suggests that the board approve this tonight while specifying that there will not be any additional signage on the glass or elsewhere. DeMaio adds that fastening materials should be painted to match the sign. Butler clarifies that he will use drop hangers,which will be hidden. He shows a detail of the fasteners. The members agree to fill the right side with all blue. Sides states that the dimension of the blue should be equal in height throughout the sign. Blier states that the data that carries across should be consistent. Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed signage at 221 Washington Street with the following conditions: - the blue colored panels shall be installed across all three storefronts at the same elevation and be 34"high; - there shall only be one sign and it shall be located above the main entrance; - the sign lettering shall be raised off the panel;and - the applicant will need to submit a new sign permit application if they decide to add window lettering The motion is seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0. North River Canal Corridor Proiects under Review 2. 72 Flint Street and 67-69& 71 Mason Street(Riverview Place f/k/a Salem Suede): Discussion of proposed Schematic Design Scott Grover,Representing River Place,LLC,states that the design team has worked diligently to address the concerns from the board. Chris Huntress presents the landscape plan. He states that many changes have been made and he reviews these changes. On the main boulevard from Mason Street down to the river,he states that they have changed the pavement material to crushed granite, and added a curb line that wraps and returns to define the pedestrian area and break down some of the scale. He adds that streetlights will line the path and they added a terrace at the end with benches and streetkgitts,and a sidewalk along the edge of the river. For the area in back of building#2,Huntress states that there was some concern about the view,so they made a minor realignment along the entry drive to gain a 12 foot landscape buffer. He explains that there is now one garage entrance along the back of the building where there previously had been individual garage entrances,and the balance of the building has been given over to landscaping material. He states that the trash dump ster has been eliminated from building#2,and the remaining dump sters will be screened. Huntress states there is a possibility of curb returns and they can reconfigure the area to tie into Commercial Street. DeM aio asks if there is a recorded map that shows where the future location of Commercial Street is. He wonders how Commercial Street would go by the corner of one of the buildings. He confirms that this is something that the board has been asking for since day one. He adds that the extension of Commercial Street,whether it happens immediately of not,is a big part of the plan. DeMaio explains that there are several issues to be considered:(1)the issue of physically getting the street to fit,and(2)how will wnw.Salem.mndpages/salemMA_DRBminutes/2009Minutes/S023623B2Re#Page 1 - 2/6 6/6113 Cityof Salem,MA-APPROVED Minutes,February4,2009 I , that look,and where the walkways and benches will be,and how that will relate to the canal. He states that there needs to be some thought as to how that will be done in the future,should Commercial Street be extended. Huntress indicates the line on the plan and states that it is a future curb line and there is landscape and walkways on both sides of what will be Commercial Street. He adds that the plan would be to have those walkways remain if Commercial Street is constructed. DeM aio asks how they will connect to abutters. He clarifies that there will be a walkway at least along the waterside. Huntress states that there will be a sidewalk that will connect all the way down Commercial Street. DeMaio asks if there will be a walkway on the opposite side of Commercial Street connecting all of the properties on Commercial Street. Huntress points to the walkway and states that the walkway extended on the opposite side. Much discussion ensues regarding about Commercial Street. DeMaio clarifies that he asked them for a plan that shows what this development would look like with the existence of Commercial Street. He cites the specifications of the Master Plan. Blier agrees that it would be clearer for the board to see a plan that shows the existence of Commercial Street. Durand states that this connection may not be something that is very desirable,because he sees it as a cut-through,and that is not what the board wants. He adds that it is really tight and it might look encroached upon. DeMaio agrees that it might be too tight. He asks if those trees will be able to survive being that close to a roadway. Blier confirms that they are maple trees. Huntress states that the trees could survive beside the roadway. There is discussion about the possible construction method for the road. Blier clarifies that they would benefit by having an actual drawing of the roadway. DeMaio states that the mater plan defines the space between the canal and the surrounding neighborhood to serve as a catalyst for development of this district in the future. He adds that it is imperative to consider how that connection may be made even if it is years off. He explains that he is not looking for a completed plan,but something that shows the relationship between the road and the existing buildings,and he is still skeptical that the final version of this will be successful. Huntress clarifies that the pedestrian walkway would be on the canal side of the street. He adds that this would fit fine if developed similar to what has been built elsewhere. Livermore states that the design of the building takes into account the existence of Commercial Street and it will work well if they sheet pile near it. Sides states that she is not so worried about the proximity of that building and the bigger issue is the amount of building there is on this site,as it is incredibly dense. Blier states that the street edge with maples and spruce in between creates a mass,and on the other hand on Flint Street the landscaping creates a thick dark edge,so they could add another maple there to set up a cadence. He adds that the fronting in front �.salem.con/pages/saletnMA_DRBminutes/2009Minutes/5023623B27te#Page=1 3/6 '8/6/13 Cityof Salem,MA-APPROVED Minutes,February4,2009 of the parkingbays is a big improvement. He says that the connection along the pedestrian way to the canal should be as clear as the connection is to Mason Street. Blier describes the feel of each pathway and states that upon entering the pathway to the water"you hit a wall"and it doesn't make a clear connection. He adds that they are almost there and they need to take this a bit further. He suggests organizing the trees differently. He asks if there was ever a sidewalk connection to the vehicular route off of Mason down into the site. Livermore states that there was not and the intent would be for a different pedestrian connection. He indicates the place for that on the plan. Blier states that he shares Helen's nagging concern about density. The discussion returns to the Commercial Street possibility. Durand states that the extension of Commercial Street might cause a traffic problem,but they will consider that issue at a later time. In the meantime the board still needs to see a plan of the project with the existence of Commercial Street. DeMaio states that it was the intention of the plan to have more commercial space on the ground floor and residential space above. He cites the master plan,and states that limited commercial space is in Building#3 and that makes very little sense to him,because he is seeing Commercial Street as the possible main corridor in the future. Edward Nilsson of 262 Essex Street,a member of Historic Salem,Inc.,expresses concern about the density,and the lack of open space. He suggests changing the floor in the parking garage from sloped floors to flat floors in order to fit 258 cars in the garage, and 55 cars could be removed from the left hand comer of the property so that the area could become green space. Durand states that he beheves his plan would help. He asks Olson if he designed this and Olson says yes. DeMaio states that if the parking were no longer surface parking the question would be how would one access the garage. He asks if that would encourage people to access the garage on Mason Street as opposed to Flint Street. There is much discussion on this point and Durand states that they should look at this. Mary Whitney of 356 Essex Street states that there is a lot of roof space and if the roof is flat they could put green space on the roof. Steve Livermore presents the changes to the architecture,stating that pages 6 and 7 contain the basic changes made since the last meeting He says that they have added detail sheets in response to Durand's concerns about how they would build this design. He adds that they included the details for the screening on the flat roofs. Livermore describes the following changes that have been made to the plans: - The terra cotta colored stucco will be used on building#1 for the chimney forms,the spandrills on the brick part of the building below the top of the building,and on the garage elevations on the north side and east side. - They maintained arch windows on the brick buildings and eliminated the arches on all of the windows on the shingle and clapboard buildings. - In an effort to eliminate service dumpsters,the have gone to an internal trash room on buildings#1 and#2. They still have one service dump ster in the back comer of the garage in building#1. - They added 7 spaces to the parking garage to increase the landscape material on the Flint Street side. - Building#2 will have stucco chimneys and spandrilis. - They added an internal 20-car parking garage on Building#2,to eliminate the open line of parking on the Flint Street side. - In the lobby of Building#3,an elevator will provide handicapped pedestrian access from Mason Street down into the site. - Steps are added to the Mason Street side of Building#3. Blier questions the elevator access into the site. w .salem.ccm/pages/salemMA_DRBninutes/2009Minutes/S023623Bne)dPage=1 4/6 6/6113 City of Salem,MA-APPROVED Minutes,February4,2009 , Livermore states that this is the solution to the problem of accommodating handicapped access into the site. Blier asks if this means that the lobby will always be open to the public. Livermore states that they haven't considered this and perhaps the lobby will be locked during late night hours. Biter asks what the grade change is there and Livermore states that it will be about 7-8 feet so the ramp system would be extensive. Sides asks about trash pick-up. Livermore explains that in Building#1 there will be trash shoot into a central trash collection area. Sides asks how they would use this system for recycling. Livermore says that there might be a small area on each floor for the recycling to be picked up. He adds that the trash room would be on the lowest level. He adds that they have changed the color schemes to be neutral. He explains that the renderings are illustrated from the pedestrian point of view. Sides states that the elevator idea seems like a disaster because she can't imagine how it will be maintained. Livermore states that the alternative would be to have a lift or an 80-90 foot ramp. Durand opens to the public. M eg Twohey of 122 Federal Street wonders what this site will look like from Bridge Street. Livermore calls attention to the renderings that illustrate the view from Bridge Street. Durand states that he would like to see more detail on the Juliette balconies. He asks about the color of the metal shingles. Livermore states that they gray. will be a . Durand states that he would like a sample of that. Livermore states that the Salem Oil and Grease has some metal shingles that are similar to the ones that he will use. Durand explains that he has always asked that they diagram the quality of the aesthetics,and Livermore has done that. He adds that in light of the economy he wonders if this will be a phased project. Livermore states that it will not be phased. Durand asks if there will be a back-up p Ian for phasing this if it cannot be completed. The developer states that he can phase it if he has to. Durand clarifies that there will be parameters set for phasing if that must happen. He iterates that he would like to see samples of materials and window colors. DeMaio states that he appreciates the work that has been done on Building#2 in bringing the massing of the building down to grade. He expresses concern about the metal shingles,citing the master plan,which stipulates natural materials. wm.sa1em.con-Vpages/salemMA_DRBnunutes/2009Minutes/S023623B2RedPage=1 5/6 '6/6/13 City of Salem,MA-APPROVED Minutes,February4,2009 Livermore says that he can provide some photographs. DeMaio states that the key is that the buildingnot appear metallic. He says there might be too many materials used in this project,and that it is important that they insure that there is cohesiveness of this design. Livermore states that he has changed the surfaces so they don't abut one another. Sides says that she likes the juxtaposition of the materials. Livermore states that he has oversized the comices to create shadow lines. Blier asks how the parking garages will be ventilated. Livermore states that the windows will be open to meet the code requirement for an open garage. Blier states that the porches on the Mason Street side of the building now look more like porches instead of decks. DeMaio states that the screens on the roof should match the height of the equipment. Livermore states that they are about 4 feet tall. Durand suggests that they summarize the requests that have been made. Daniel lists the following items: - Provide details on the Juliette balcony. - Provide identification of materials and colors,a color board. - Provide an illustration of the proposed development of Commercial Street. - Explore using a flat floor in the parking garage as a way to provide additional parking Sides: Motion to continue this item until the next meeting seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0. Alternate Meeting Date Daniel suggests moving the April meeting up one week to the 151h and the members agree. Approval of Minutes—January 8,2009 Meetine Sides: Motion to approve the minutes from January 8,2009,seconded by DeMaio. Passes 5-0. Sides: Motion to adjourn,seconded by DeMaio. Passes 4-0. The meeting is adjourned at 8:00 PM. w .salem.corr✓pages/salemMA—DRBnunutes/2009Minutes/S02362382?tedPage=1 6/6 8/6113 City of Salem,MA-APPROVED Minutes,February 25,2009 1 ,. • 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 Salem Cit Hall Y ph: 978-745-9595 APPROVED Minutes, February 25, 2009 CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board,Regular Meeting SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: Wednesday,February 25,2009 LOCATION: 120 Washington Street,3rd Floor Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Paul Durand,Michael Blier,Ernest DeMaio,Helen Sides MEMBERSABSENT: David Jaquith,Glenn Kennedy OTHERS PRESENT: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel RECORDER: Andrea Bray Chairperson Durand calls the meeting to order. North River Canal Corridor Projects under Review 1. 72 Flint Street and 67-69&71 Mason Street(Riverview Place f/Wa S alem Suede): Discussion of proposed Schematic Design Architect Steve Livermore presents the revised site plan stating he has reoriented the focus coming down the access road,and the terrace was moved over. He reminds the Board about the suggestion from Ed Nilsson pertaining to facilitating an increase in parking spaces in the garage. He conf oris that he followed this suggestion by switching to flat plates with a central ramp which resulted in increasing the parking spaces to 252 spaces and reducing the surface parking to 38 cars. Livermore reviews the recommendations from the last meeting which are:(1)to modify the focus of the downhill side,and(2)to provide details for the Juliette balconies. In addition to these changes,he states that he removed the roof structure off of the top floor of the garage. Livermore shows the color boards containing sample colors for brick veneer,stucco spandrels,sills,window frames and sub- frames,diamond aluminum shingles,and comices. He shows the detail of the Juliette balconies,stating that they will be black,and that the gable will be in a hardy plank,and that trim and windows will be the same on all of the buildings. He shows the cream trim color and Harvard slate blend for the roof. He says that the rails on the residential building will be typical baluster rails. Livermore shows the plan with Commercial Street going through the site along the canal. He describes the revised parking scheme,confmning the reduction of surface parking down to 38 cars,with some near Flint Street, and with parking removed along the access drive and having only some recesses for drop off and short term parking on the central road so they can add street trees. He states that the queuing on the access to Flint Street is much better now. Sides states that she is excited about the reduction in surface parking she thanks them for that change. DeM aio states that additional landscaping and the reduction in the paving is very helpful. He asks whether the garage would be accessed mainly from M anon Street or Flint Street. Livermore states that it would probably be from Mason Street and there will be a left turn only out to Flint Street. w.wv.salem.coMpages/salemMA_DRBntinutes/2009Minutes/S023E347D?teAPage 1 1/5 I "8/6/13 1 Cityof Salem,MA-APPROVED Minutes,February25,2009 DeMain states that the plan,pre-Commercial Street,seems like the terrace is not very well developed because of where it sits and how it relates to the rest of what is going on there. He adds that he thinks the color schemes are interestingbut he would need to see elevations depictingthe colors on the buildings. Livermore states that the general colors are depicted in the rendering DeMaio states that there are some nagging issues down the road: (1)There is 5,000 square feet of commercial space in building#3 and there is no conviction as to why it is there because that is a residential building and the mill building is a more commercial building Attorney Scott Grover states that it is there because zoning requires that there must be commercial space on the fust floor of any building on a main corridor,so they did this to comply with the zoning Durand states that the goal is for the commercial tenants to be successful and there is not a bustling commercial use down any of these streets and Building#3 has more of a street presence. Grover states that it is probably more likely to be used as office space. Livermore states that they discussed having a gym for the residents and the neighbors in that space. Durand speaks favorably about the commercial space in Building#3,stating commercial use would be viable there. DeMaio states that if he were driving through the site looking for a commercial site he would be looking for a mill building Durand states that a resident would like to live in a mill building because it would be cool space and the zoning is in place to provide more commercial vibrancy. DeM aio continues with his concerns:(2)Regarding the future scheme,he states that the access drive to Flint is about 60 feet from where Commercial Street will meet Flint Street and this could create a traffic problem. Durand states that the traffic issue could be worked on at the time that Commercial Street comes in. He agrees with DeM aio that there would be a potential traffic problem if the access drive stays where it is,but he suggests that the access drive could come down directly into Commercial Street. DeMaio states that this is still an unresolved issue for him. Durand states that he can see a possible solution without too much mental gymnastics,and it is resolvable,and at the time,the onus would be on the developers to resolve the potential traffic problems. DeMaio states that the scheme as it is presented now would present problems for a future Commercial Street,and he would not want the access to go to Flint Street if the Commercial Street intersection is only 60 feet away. Livermore states that the Planning Board would require a traffic study at the time that Commercial Street were extended. DeMaio continues: (3)The plan presupposes that there will not be pedestrian access on the north side of Commercial Street. Livermore states that they based this on having some walking surface right next to the canal,and the fencing that they are showing is theoretical if Commercial Street is added. DeM aio recommends they do not create barriers that prevent pedestrian access to the north side of Commercial Street. Sides asks about the parking to access the commercial spaces in Building#3. w .salem.con/pages/salemMA_DRBminutes/2009Minutes/S023E347D?te#Page=1 215 816/13 Cityof Salem,MA-APPROVED Minutes,February25,2009 Livermore states that there will be some spaces in the garage reserved for use by the commercial unit. Bher commends Livermore for adjusting the parking and incorporating more into the garage. He states that removing the parking near the canal is good,and the connection of the walkways is well done. He notes his lingering concern about the density issue. He expresses some concern about the riverside being a one-sided street in the future,and having much of the landscaping removed for the addition of Commercial Street. He accepts that this rendering is not actually the proposal. Durand confirms that the developer does not need to design it now but to design the current plan in a way that will allow for Commercial Street to happen in the future. Blier agrees and states that this Board and other Boards will have an opportunity to review this design later. Durand says that Building#1 might need to be cut back a little to allow more latitude for Commercial Street to happen if it is to be developed as a boulevard. Durand states that he appreciates Livermore's response to all of the comments from the Board. While acknowledging that there will be differences on the philosophy of the aesthetic,he confirms that he still wants quality,and density provides a means to afford quality. He adds that the renderings allude to the quality. He states that in the event of the road being designed,the only obstacle is that narrow throat at the corner of Building#1. Livermore states that he sees that being similar in set-back to the church on North Street,and in the context of an urban village, even in the master plan,a lot of the buildings look like they are right on the street. He adds that the jutting corner might be very striking on Commercial Street. He says he can measure it and get the dimension. Blier says that he never suggested a suburban landscape,and that was Livermore's choice. Durand states that they wanted the landscaping so that the scale would not look imposing on the surrounding neighborhood. Livermore says he can try to pull that comer back and Durand says that it would be good if he can. Durand states that it is nicer to have some separation between traffic and people at that point. Blier states that the jutting comer is not a big deal for him because it is a relatively urban space,but he is concerned about all of the stuff that will happen between the building and the street to achieve the landscaping Much discussion ensues regarding the Commercial Street possibility as it pertains to the landscaping Daniel clarifies that plan with Commercial Street extension has the walkway on top of the riprap. Sides states that there is a lot of attention beingpaid to this one corner and this scenario exists all over the city and she is not sure how critical it really is,but in a relative sense the people on that comer would feel closer to the street than the other residents. Durand opens to the public. Shelby Hypes of 157 Federal Street asks about the gray diamonds. Livermore states that they are 16"x16"diamond aluminum shingles with an enamel finish. He reviews the other items on the color board. Jean Arlander of 91-93 Federal Street expresses concern about the design. She commends DeMaio's early comments about how this project should harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood. She says that the size of this building is huge and the density www.salem.cornlpages/salemMA_DRBnunutes/2009Minutes/S023E347D?te)dPage=1 3/5 W6/13 City of Salem,MA-APPROVED Minutes,February 25,2009 has dictated the size,and this design does not permit any additional views of the river from the earlier designs. She adds that the inspiration has not changed,because the density is the same. She asks if this project will make things better for the people living in the development or for any neighbors. She answers her own question with"No." Darrow Lebovici of 122 Federal Street expresses concern about the density of this project. He urges the board to accept that they have done their best but it is not good enough given the density and suggests the DRB should recommend that that the Planning Board deny this application,or recommend a different design,or at the very least he urges that any recommendation include specific language describing the detrimental impact and limitations of design imposed by density,and the negative impacts(general and specific)in terms of the master plan. William Penta of 89 Flint Street expresses concerns about the additional traffic that will be attracted to the area by this development. He says that if it becomes a through street it will be unsafe. Livermore responds stating that this design vastly improves the view to the river from anywhere on Flint Street and Mason Street. The developer states that they are getting veiled complements for the addition of parking spaces in the garage. He commends all of the Boards that they have gone through,and states that every time they come back they come back with an added cost. Grover takes issue with the comments that this is not consistent with the master plan for the North River Canal. He reads the master plan objectives for projects in the district and states that they have met all of these objectives except creating artist spaces (although the commercial space could be used this way). He states that they have worked very hard to make this proposal consistent with the master plan. Durand speaks at length summarizing the progress that the Board and the developer have made with this design,stating that they brought this along in a linear fashion with the criticism and responses,and they have come a long way. He acknowledges that they talked about density and quality,and assured that this project will be detailed in a quality manner. He explains that this process is in the schematic stage now and will be further evaluated when they move to the next stage. He says that aesthetics are subjective, and they have come along way. He explains that many issues expressed by the public are Planning Board issues and this Board will deal only in aesthetic issues,and he will rely on the Planning Board to work on traffic and other issues in their purview. He acknowledges that it has been a constructive process,and although there are differences of opinion,he agrees with Grover that the applicant has met all of the Board's comments right down to the minutia. He confirms that his one comment was only to address the tight comer at Building#1 but he doesn't have any objection to having an urban feel,so he is okay with this design. He iterates that there are technical issues that they can still review on the next stage. He recommends that the Board move forward with this, either approve it or continue it. He requests a motion from the Board. Beer agrees that this project should move forward,and asks if there are specific recommendations that need to be listed. There is some discussion about the way the motion can be crafted. Grover clarifies that the project must be built in strict accordance with these plans. Blier: Motion to approve the schematic design as submitted,seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0. Approval of Minutes—February 4.2009 Meeting The members review the minutes and make suggestions for amendments. Sides: Motion to approve the minutes as amended for the February 4,2009 meeting seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0. Sides: Motion to adjourn,seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0. The meeting is adjourned at 7:30 PM. v .Salem.corrVpages/sale MA—DRBntinules/2009Minutes/S023E347D?[e#Page=1 4/5 8/7/13 s City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 0281/2008 93 Washington Street, Salem City Hall Salem,MA 01970 ph: 978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 02/21/2008 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting February 21,2008 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,February 21,2008,at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were:Chuck Puleo,Christine Sullivan,Walter Power,Nadine Hanscom,Tim Kavanaugh,Tim Ready,Gene Collins (arrived 7:45).Also present were:Amy Lash,Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis,Clerk. Absent:John M oustakis,Pam Lombardini Approval of Minutes The minutes of the February 7th meeting were reviewed. Changes to be made: Page 2:(recommended by Walter Power)fourth paragraph,after"the street paved"add"on Clark Ave.';same paragraph,at the end of the last sentence add"to the intersection at Clark Rd". Page 3:(recommended by Walter Power)last paragraph,at"up the hill"add"to Chapel Hill". Same paragraph at end add sentence "Paving on Chapel Hill Ave.will start from the previous development at the telephone pole." Page 4:(Recommended by Chuck Puleo)second paragraph at"6 and 8 ft piping'change"ft"to"inch". There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Walter Power to accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved(6-0). Public Hearing Site Plan Review,Wetlands&Flood Hazard District Special Permit,and North River Canal Corridor M fixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC,72 Flint Street,67-69 Mason Street &71 Mason Street(Mar) 26,Lots 91,95&97) (formerly Salem Suede)—Attorney Scott Grover Attorney Scott Grover,representing Riverview Place LLC,informed the Board that for traffic,the City currently has a peer review in progress,and,Earthtech will be at the next meeting to discuss traffic. The proposed project will be located on two industrial sites,the Salem Suede site and the Bonfanti site.The buildings that are currently there will come down and be replaced with 3 buildings. Two main buildings will be on the Salem Suede site and the third building will be on the Bonfanti site. It will have 130 residential apartment units and about 5500 ft.of commercial space. There will be 309 parking spaces-260 allocated for the residential units, 12 allocated to Flint St. residents and 37 remaining spaces for commercial use. Christine Sullivan asked if they could provide an aerial view of the site at the next meeting They started the permitting process with the Zoning Board of Appeals. They had neighborhood meetings and took some concerns from the residents and made some changes before going to ZBA. There were three variances that were granted. The first was lot area per dwelling unit. 13 of the 130 units will be affordable housing The second allows for construction in the buffer zone. The NRCC creates a transition zone,which means no construction can be within 50 ft of a residential used parcel. They created buffers in certain areas and asked the Zoning Board for the variance for these buffer zones.They also reduced the height of the building in the transitional zone. The third relates to the action that they are asking the Planning Board to take. The multifamily use in the NRCC is allowable by special permit. There are three conditions on which the Planning Board can grant the permit. 1)Every unit has to have a first floor entrance if it's located within 100 ft. of a residential used parcel in another zoning district. All the units would have to be first floor,which would limit the style of the building The Board of Appeals granted a variance from that condition so that the www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S013BC783?teAPage=1 1/5 'ar7/13 City of Salem,MA-Approeed Minutes 02/21/2008 Planning Board would be in a position to grant the special permit that they have asked for. Attorney Grover said they received votes in favor of the project with the Zoning Board,but that was appealed and they're presently in litigation in land court to uphold the decision. The Conservation Commission will also have jurisdiction over this project and the Design Review Board has a role as well,they will make a recommendation to the Planning Board. He is asking the Planning Board to make a referral to the DRB. Christine Sullivan said she wants to seethe design of the project before making the referral to the DRB. She also confirmed that this project is not a development cluster. Attorney Grover explained that it's a residential development. He also said that they would be meeting with Erin Griffin of the Fire Department to discuss access. Attorney Grover continued to explain the conditions that need to be met for the multifamily use-2)Project abuts residential use and 3)When on main corridor(like Mason St.)you have to have commercial space on first floor. Attorney Grover said that some of these conditions are met with this project.Chuck Puleo asked,in regards to condition#3,what type of commercial use?Is there any restriction?Attorney Grover believes the developer will determine the type of commercial usage. Attorney Grover explained that the other applications before the Board are the site plan review and the site plan review criteria for the NRCC,this is where the referral to the DRB comes in. The Zoning Board found that the proposed project complies with the objectives&goals of the NRCC. Steven Livermore,Architect,said that the three buildings would house 22,51 and 57 residential units respectively. He then presented drawings that showed the different views of the building The new buildings will be about 100 ft. and 125 ft from the North River. So the heights of the building will be roughly the same as the existing Salem Suede building The base of the buildings will be synthetic stone;the body will be prefmished brick&veneer clapboards. The pitched roofs will be metal and the flat roofs will be rubber or PVC type. Landscaping will include shade trees throughout site,screening and plantings around the buildings. Lighting will include old-fashioned street lighting at the interior site and the rest will be more traditional. Chuck Palen suggested that at the next meeting they have a streetscape of adjacent properties on Flint and Mason Street. They will also provide details of fencing Walter Power asked if they have given thought to the idea(that the master plan suggested)of the possible extension of Commercial Street through to Flint St.,with the easement part of Commercial St.being one- way. Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey said that they have given thought to it and are making a provision on their site for it. The road would be about 30 ft.wide.The space between the proposed project and Commercial St, is about 400-500 ft;and between the parcel and the adjacent parcel is about 28 ft.He pointed out the land that is owned by the Commonwealth of Mass. Christine Sullivan suggested that for the walkway with benches,to have it along the river. Jim McDowell explained the utility systems:the water supply will tie into existing 8-inch line on Flint Street&tie into the 12-inch line on Mason St. The sanitary sewer will take from the site and tie into Mason St. There will be a new sewer system on site that will tie into existing site. For storm drains,they are proposing catch basins to connect to a water treatment device and discharge to the North River;the site doesn't need stonnwater detention. Low impact development will be ongoing For grading the site right now is atypical elevation of 8-9 above mean sea level,other p arts of the site about 9 '/�to 11 '/,. He pointed out the areas that will have elevation 9'/z to 10 Ya;some areas at 11 and the driveway/parking are at 18. Chuck Palen asked,due to soil testing if there are any special conditions for the site. Jim McDowell said they might have to do some soil capping The test wells haven't exhibited anything Christine Sullivan inquired if there is expensive cleanup. David Zion said they have budgeted half a million dollars for cleanup and they're applying for money for cleanup and for testing The majority of cleanup is where the buildings won't be. Meeting opened to the public Paul Prevey (Ward 6 Councillor,26 Tremont SL)has been in attendance at the Board of Appeals meetings. Based on the neighborhood,he feels the project is"too big"for the area. He lives on Tremont St.and sees the traffic and congestion there.Also, there are abutting neighbors,who he doesn't want to see negative impacted. He wants a project to enhance the neighborhood. For the Commercial St.easement,if the City doesn't have money to purchase abutting property within 10 years,it will revert back and he's concerned about that. Barbara Warren(5 Hardy St.)said she encourages the walkway to be built along the river. She is concerned with amount of parking. The plan shows that snow storage is on the landscaping you won't have trees for very long if snow&salt are on them. She asked when the FEMA 100 yr.flood zone map was last done. She also asked if the lowest level is in the basement. Jim M cDowell answered that the FEMA map was updated around mid 1980's and that the lower plan living units in the back of the www.salem.corNPages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S013BC783?textPage=1 215 8/7/13 City of Salem,MA-Apprae dMinutes 02/21/2008 building are above ground.Christine Sullivan said this makes it more urgent to see pictures of the back of the building and David Zion said it's a good point because the building is almost set in"like a bowl",it's hard to see what the view will really be like. Martin Imm(174 Federal St.)was on the Master plan committee and feels that density is an issue. The zoning ordinance provided for lower level of density and the Planning Board has to approve this as a special permit. Then he handed out a page from the Master plan and went over some features. If Commercial St.could be built with a connection made up to Mason St.,which may relieve some of the congestion. Lorene Scanlon(77 Mason St.)said when she purchased her condo years ago she went to the Planning Department and got the NRCC Master Plan. She was told that there wouldn't be any large buildings or apartment complexes put at that site which is what is being discussed today. She feels the building is too large for the neighborhood and that variances were wrongly given. Bill Penta(89 Flint St.)said that traffic is ridiculous. The City Council all agrees that the situation is bad,and this is before the building goes up. He heard Jim McDowell say they'd build an easement street to Flint that would be 30 ft.wide,which would be adequate.However,Flint St.is only 25 ft.wide,how would people get thru there? It's very narrow. Jane Arlander(93 Federal St.)stated that the City is lucky to have received a HUD grant to prepare a Master plan for NRCC. We should take the time to look at a development that would help the city,one that brings in more money. To put more residential buildings,that would stress the infrastructure. Jane Arlander had a memo from Lynn Duncan dated October 2007 that outlined the p ermitting process,that she thought was well written,and handed it out. Ray Harvey (84 Flint St.)said that when he looks out his window,he sees the roof of the existing building because the building is down low. Also,he's lived there for 36 years and has yet to see anything done with the parcels,so he's for the development since it will improve the area. Jacqueline Washburn(143 Federal St.)has concerns of the effects on traffic. The streets are not wide and the traffic comes from the Salem Hospital,schools,etc. By adding residents,that will increase the number of kids,increasing traffic to those areas. Look at Boards ability to rectify the traffic situation.Amy Lash said when this project came in,she checked on the number of kids in other similar units such as the Jefferson building in which there are 260 units and less than 5 children. Darryl Labisi(122 Federal St.)said the context of the NRCC Master plan included one overriding concept-to bring mixed use to an urban area,have a way of connecting old industrial areas back to the City. He urged the Board to look at ways to modify the plan to keep more in concept and in line with the Master plan. Mary Whitney(356 Essex St.)said that there has been pollution,asbestos falling into the river and asked where the refuse would be as to eliminate pollution. She asked how many stories the building will have and also asked,for the affordable units,how is portability calculated? Scott Grover said that rent is based on 20%of 80%of income. There beingno further comments on this matter,a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to continue the Public Hearing seconded by Tim Ready and approved(7-0). The public hearing to be continued to March 20th. Christine Sullivan recused herself from the remainder of the meeting. Continued:Public Hearing Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Residential Development Special Permit-Chanel Hill LLC,Clark Avenue(Mat) 6,Lots 7,8,91-Attorney Jack Keilty Attorney Jack Keilty,representing Chapel Hill LLC, said that they are in agreement with City Engineer David Knowlton with all matters except for the intersection of Clark SL/Clark Ave.They,the developers,don't think the paving on Clark St. is as bad as Clark Ave. Amy Lash said that the Planning Department asked FS&T to compare the cost of the paving options: Option 1:Repair and put down two inches of top layer pavement-Cost$60,000 with 8-10 yrs lifetime expectancy Option 2:Full rebuild-Cost$120,000 with 15-20 yrs lifetime expectancy Attorney Keilty said they're paving out the full course to the catch basins and some driveways are below grade.They're going to "w.salem.conYPages/SalemMA_PlanMiN2008Minutes/S013BC783?teAPage=1 3/5 '87/13 City of Salem,MA-Approsed Minutes 02121/2008 try to minimize any water that could pool on the roadway. Chuck Puleo reaffirmed that they are proposing 30 ft of paving out to Highland Avenue. Chris Mello agrees with the cost options. The road from Clark Avenue to the rock,it's not too bad,it has a good base. George Belleau said in areas where patches are done,it would be equivalent with the new road. Chuck Puleo asked what the time frame of construction is. Chris Mello said they agreed to do all grinding and base paving first,then construction and finish paving Walter Power asked about the paving on Clark Avenue up to the new section of subdivision pavement.Attorney Keilty said they would repair any deficiencies and put topcoat over to match the new section. Chris Mello said they have provided a stripingplan. Walter Power suggested having vertical granite curbing up Clark Avenue.Gene Collins felt that that is a little overkill on the developer and Walter Power said he's concerned about safety;there should be a verified sidewalk on one side. Amy Lash said to put a sidewalk and curbing in on the same side as the rock,there is the issue of the wall at I Clark Avenue in the way. Walter said he was talking about the other side of Clark Avenue. Attorney Keilty said there is an encroachment issue. If they consider this, it will change the drainage issue. Tim Ready asked if they consider Walter Power's proposal,what would be the cost? Chris Mello said it would be about $10,000 but it's not about the money;it's about possibly impeding on the neighbors. Chris Mello said that Dave Knowlton is fine with the number of manholes and that there is another manhole to be named later. Walter Power said he won't make a big deal out of the sidewalk if there's striping where the stop sign will be-at the top of the hill,fust house on right,in gutter line. Chris Mello,said they could do that. George Belleau said residents aren't here to object to the sidewalk impeding on their driveway. Gene Collins said they've been through this in other neighborhoods and wound up backing off. Councillor Jean Pelletier said that there would be a lot of vehicles going up there including heavier vehicles,the Board should consider that when considering the paving Tim Ready said that the developer has proposed a reasonable plan;imposing rebuilding a city street on the developer is excessive. Chuck Puleo said the Board seems to be in agreement with Option 1 for paving Tim Kavanaugh said the sidewalk, from the safety point of view is a good idea but the cost and anticipatory uproar of the neighbors is something to consider. Walter Power said that the Legal Department might back them up. Tim Ready pointed out that it's an issue not brought by the neighbors but raised by the Board. George Belleau offered to put $10,000 in escrow,then,if the neighbors are okay with the sidewalk improvements,use the money for the sidewalk. If not,then the money would go back to the developer. Ellen Regato(13 Clark Ave)said that neighbors have addressed the comer in question. She felt that a sidewalk for safety might be something to consider. Nadine Hanscom said its City land,the Board has the right to determine its safety. Tim Ready pointed out that there is already a sidewalk but the problem is that the neighborhood is not treating it like a sidewalk. Councillor Pelletier said that it's bituminous curbing it's not much to take it out&put in granite curbing. Walter Power said that their subdivision will impact the existing subdivision and it should have a sidewalk,George Belleau then said they would repair the sidewalk and replace the curbing with vertical granite. There being no further comments on this matter,a motion was made by Gene Collins to close the Public Hearing seconded by Walter Power and approved(6-0). Amy Lash reviewed the Draft Decision with the Board members,adding in the conditions that have been agreed to: Section 14(a)-should say 240 feet easterly towards Barnes Avenue. Section 14-Specify the full pavement replacement program shall be applied to Clark Street and that the applicant has agreed to patch all deficiencies and overlay the road with two inches of new pavement on Clark Avenue from the intersection to the existing vertical granite curbing. Section 15-add:(C)The applicant has agreed to install vertical granite curbing from the intersection of Clark Avenue and Clark Street southwesterly to the existing granite curbing on Clark Avenue and repair sidewalk as necessary Section 16-Fences: add"onto owners property"at 13 Clark Avenue Section 18-Trees:Guarantee tree survival,change to"One year" Section 17-Sidewalks: insert:"vertical"granite w .salem.corrVPages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S013BC783?teMPage=1 4/5 8/7/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 02/21/2008 I , Chris Mello said that the sidewalks will have vertical granite curbing he will change the plan details to removed the sloped granite Section 14(d)Attorney Keilty said for the Conservation Commission files,the first sentence says"shall"insert if deemed necessary Attorney Keilty requested that a note be added to the second paragraph on Page 1 that the Planning Board's understanding about Lot 21 is not a condition. Gene Collins commented that he is taken back at the last minute money and burden put on the developer. There being no further comments on this matter,a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the Definitive Subdivision and Cluster Special Permit with the decision and conditions reviewed,seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved(6-0). Old/New Business • Chuck Puleo said that the telephone poles on Highland Ave.have been removed. • Chapter 91 License Application Received: 15 Peabody Street Waterfront Park Amy said action of the Board was not required,this was simply a notification. Many Board Members requested that they receive their own copies. Adioumment There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was made by Walter Power to adjourn the meeting seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved(6-0). The meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Stacey Dupuis,Clerk Salem Planning Board www.salem.corrlPages/SalemMA_PlanMiN2008Minutes/S013BC783?te#Page=1 5/5 - '8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 03/20/2008 Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA°197° ph: 978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 03/20/2008 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting March 20,2008 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,March 20,2008,at 7:00 p.m.in Room 312,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were:Chuck Puleo,Christine Sullivan,Walter Power,Nadine Hanscom,Tim Kavanaugh,Tim Ready,Pam Lombardini,Gene Collins.Also present were:Amy Lash,Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis,Clerk. Absent:John Moustakis Approval of Minutes The minutes of the February 21st meetingwere reviewed. There were no changes,a motion was made by Walter Power to accept the minutes,seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved(6-0). (Pam and Gene were not present/missed part of the last meeting and did not vote in the approval of the minutes). Public Hearine Site Plan Review.Wetlands&Flood Hazard District Special Permit.and North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC 72 Flint Street 67-69 Mason Street&71 Mason Street(Man 26 Lots 91 95&97) (formerly Salem Suede)—Attorney Scott Grover Attorney Joseph Correnti explained that the plans for this project for the Old Salem Jail are being amended due to finances and some required meetings with the city are presently being held. He commented that the plans are turning out to be better than the ones previously approved. He felt that until they complete the meetings with City Departments,they should wait to make their presentation to the Planning Board. They are requesting an extension so that they can present to the Board when the plans and meetings are complete. There is a formal letter from New Boston Ventures that was sent to the Planning Department requesting this extension. There being no further comments on this matter,a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to move the public hearing to April 3, 2008,seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved(8-0). Old Business • Request for a six(6)month extension for the North River Canal Corridor Special Use Permit granted April 13,2006 for the property located at 28 Goodhue Street-Attorney Joseph Correnti Attorney Joseph Correnti explained that the project is fully permitted,but not fully financed.There is a lender that they have been working with closely,and may come through in the spring They are requesting a six-month extension to keep the project permitted;nothing will change about the project. w .sal em.condPages/Sal emMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S013FC428?te#Page=1 1/7 8/6113 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 03/20/2008 1 ., providing free access to downtown as a benefit. They could offer it in return for using the building and then take credit for it. Tim Kavanaugh said if there were a business district,it would make sense to offer that.Rick Sousa said that it will be offered to Sprint customers and that it's a gradual process,they're swapping out first. When the network has significant amount of subscribers,they would add more. Walter Power mentioned that another wireless company came in recently with a backup technology. Amy Lash said the name of the company was FiberTower. Rick Sousa said that is a different type of company and Sprint is expanding so that it doesn't have to rely on those companies. Meeting Opened to the Public David Pelletier(12 Crombie Street)said on top of Eastern Bank,where they have the antennas,there was a wire from the civil defense hom to Old Town Hall.He asked if while Sprint is there—could they hook the wire back up for that hom? Mark Sousa said they'll be using licensed electricians and it wouldn't be a problem to do that. Councillor Jean Pelletier(Ward 3)appreciated what Christine Sullivan said about the City getting something in return for companies usingbuildings for such purposes,so he plans to put in an ordinance for this to happen. Mark Sousa suggested that the City put out an RFP to wireless carriers makingavailable City properties for wireless facilities. Carol Magulies(99 Washington Street)asked if the dish going on the roof emits radio frequencies,and how it affects people in the neighboring area?Phil Leite explained that the FCC places strict limitations on emissions. Sprints'emissions are 20%of the maximum allowed,which is a lot less than the FCC maximum. Mark Sousa said it doesn't impact health and explained that the signal dissipates once it leaves the tower. Also,it can't go thin stone walls. Sprint will provide the copy of the FCC regulations, the scientific information and affidavit to Amy Lash in the Planning Department,who will pass it on to Carol Magulies,she can distribute in her building There being no further comments on this matter,Gene Collins made a motion to close the public hearing seconded by Walter Power,and approved(7-0). Christine Sullivan asked for Dave Pelletier's request for the civil defense hom hook-up to be in writing and asked what is needed to hook it up. She would also like the SRA to be aware of this as well. Dave Pelletier said just a 14-gauge zip cord is needed. Condition#3 to be added: "Applicant to install a 150 ft.zip cord line connected to the former Civil Defense hom on top of the building and coil it 10 ft. above the ground,subject to Eastern Bank approval." Councillor Pelletier will talk to Eastern Bank. There beingno further comments on this matter,a motion was made by Gene Collins to approve the Special Pemut,seconded by Pam Lombardini,and approved(8-0). Continued:Public Hearing-Site Plan Review,Wetlands&Flood Hazard District Special Permit,and North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC,72 Flint Street,67-69 M ason Street&71 Mason Street (Man 26,Lots 91.95&97)(formerly Salem Suede)-Attorney Scott Grover Attorney Bill Quinn,filling in for Scott Grover,explained that they would like to address questions from the Board as well as traffic concerns. The Planning Board asked for a streetscape but he didn't have that because they haven't come up with renderings that they were happy with,they are trying different options for the renderings and want it to give views desired.They plan to bring them to the next meeting Chris Huntress,Landscape Architect(Huntress&Associates)explained the landscape plan:around the perimeter of the property there are shade trees(ash,maple&oak)and evergreens to provide buffering and screening There are also ornamental trees. The walkway to the north of the river canal there are benches and ornamental lights. Significant foundation plants around buildings are provided. There are street trees along Mason Street. There are two different types of lighting used:the shoebox type that directs light downward and ornamental/traditional lighting There are benches along the walkway and interior of the backside of the building. Chuck Puleo asked if there would be fencing along the Flint Street properties. There will be fencing at the perimeter of the site, starting at Flint Street,going down the sidewalk and across the back. Chuck Puleo pointed out the gap between#73 Mason St & wAw.salm.com/Pages/SaImMA PlanMitV200BMinutesIS013FC428?teAPage=1 47 '8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 03/20/2008 #65 Mason St.and said there should be some type of screening Attorney Bill Quinn will bring in details of landscaping elevation and fencing including the type of fencing and height. Chuck Puleo said they want to make sure that there will be some type of screening that won't take many years to grow.Chris Huntress said the fence will be on the developer's property and they will maintain it. There would not be a fence along the waterway. Christine Sullivan asked about the color of the lights and since Chris Huntress said they would be white,she wondered how they would look in that neighborhood;they may not be very attractive. Chris Huntress said there is a proposed walkway with lighting and a bench near the river and that it's where it is because the easement is there,it can however be moved.He also said the shoebox fights are utilitarian and the poles are painted black so that they fade into the landscape. If they used the ornamental type,they would have to use more because of how the fight is dispersed.Chuck Puleo asked if the driveway coming in from Flint St. would be one of the main entranceways. If so,is lighting adequate? Attorney Quinn said it does have adequate lighting Christine Sullivan asked if this needs to go before the Design Review Board,and Attorney Quinn said they're getting ready to do that. Walter Power asked if they have established illumination levels for foot-candle coverage. Chris Huntress will present analysis on this. Walter Power also inquired about the green strip and property line on the plan and Chris Huntress said the white area on the plan is not their property. Walter Power questioned if there are any problems with that area(from the canal back).This information would be useful if the City planned to extend Commercial Street in the future. Attorney Quinn the property goes down to the North River Canal and there's an easement across that area. Chuck Puleo asked if there will be any lighting on the building,Attorney Quinn said that there would be and they will present this at the next meeting Tim Ready pointed out that on the drawing on the right side of the 51-unit building there is a walkway with lines. Chris Huntress explained that the lines denote a retaining wall and there is no projected walkway from one end of the building to the other. Meeting Opened to the Public Dave Pelletier(12 Crombie Street)suggested they use the city standard historic lamp pole,which replaced the lights downtown. They're brighter than shoebox lights,flexible and would be more uniform with the other fights in the park across the river. Jean Arlander(Federal Street)asked how many trees would be planted,as the NRCC parking requirements are specific: 1 tree of at least 3 %caliper,for every 3 parking spaces. Chris said they can look at the number of trees on the plan and try to meet the requirements. Nick Nowak(356 Essex Street)asked if the flood lines and types of plantings were taken into account and Chris Huntress explained that they did and the plantings are of native species. Betsy Barnes(22 Beckford Street)asked if this project is being held to the original NRCC master plan,in terns of lighting and landscaping Christine Sullivan suggested that although there are variances,the developer is not exempt from compliance with these requirements. Darrow Lebovici(122 Federal Street)said that the NRCC Master Plan and ordinance reflects how the area should evolve. Clusters of townhouses were proposed but this proposal shows 3 block like buildings. Chuck Puleo said that right now the Board is looking at what the developer is proposing whether it complies or not is separate. Attorney Quinn said he'd look at the Master Plan and see how they can comply,or request a waiver. Christine Sullivan asked what has been approved by the Zoning Board and Attorney Quinn explained that elevations,p lans, location of building lot coverage,footprints and height of building were all presented to the ZBA and they gave 3 variances including the density,construction in the buffer zone,and the requirements for first floor entrances.The p Ian is now subject to the review of the Planning Board,Design Review Board,and Conservation Commission. Pam Lombardini reminded all that the issues are they are discussing are lighting and planting Chuck Puleo restated that Attorney Quinn said they would comply with the plan,or apply for waivers. Dave Pelletier was at the ZBA meeting and said that the building hasn't been approved yet(the footprint)so he feels the Board is talking about landscaping for buildings that aren't definite.Tim Ready offered that there is a proposal before the Board and these �.salem.corrJPage ISalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S013FC428?te#Page=1 57 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 03/20/2008 are the steps they have to go through.David Ziom,one of the developers,added that they originally came in proposing 160 units and have made modifications to the buildings with the help of the neighborhood and Board of Appeals. Councillor Pelletier added that he was involved with the NRCC and was opposed because of the process,but he wants the project to go through for the betterment of the City. When Christine Sullivan was on the SRA,they would look at a plan,take into account the ZBA,and send it to the DRB. She feels this discussion is a bit premature and suggests deferring this to the DRB. Chuck Puleo added that the DRB will be looking at the NRCC Master Plan. Betsy Barnes asked the Board,when looking at the plan,to consider the parking.The Master Plan suggests parking be contained inside,instead of seeing mass parking as people would see from the streets. Jean Arlander said the NRCC called for mostly commercial with some residential for this area,this project has it the opposite way,so it should need a special pemilt. Attorney Quinn said that they have requested one. Jeff Maxter,Traffic Engineer(EarthTech)presented the traffic analysis that looked at present and future conditions. They conducted accident research and found that there are geometric issues with this area. They looked at the 5-year analysis and added a percentage of growth and looked at peak hours. This project will generate 56 trips in the morning peak hour,less than 1 vehicle per minute; 87 trips in the afternoon peak hour,a little more than 1 vehicle per minute. They conducted level of service analysis,2 areas of concern:Tremont Street southbound and Flint Street northbound,he feels this project won't exacerbate these too much. Site drives are on Mason Street and Flint Street;they agree on the easement;they suggest a flashingbeacon for traffic;BETA suggested signalizing the intersection,EarthTech suggested making a divided lane. Chuck Puleo questioned if they are proposing two-way traffic on both entrances? Jeff Maxter said yes. Did the studies show higher numbers on Flint or Mason,and if they're proposing a two-way tum on Tremont,won't they be blocking the Mason Street tum? The additional 12 parkingspaces on Flint Street are for those at the top,left of Flint St. Walter Power suggested they consider putting a one-way lane on right hand side of the entrance Mason Street.Christine Sullivan thinks that people will mostly use the Flint Street entrance because most of the parking is concentrated near there.Also,because of school there is a peak time between 2-3,study should be done if it hasn't already,Jeff Maxter said they would provide data for that hour. Richard Laperchia (79 Oak St.)asked the date of the study;Jeff said that it was September 2007,when school was in session. He suggested that the residents wouldn't use the 12 parking spaces,because it will be difficult to park with kids,groceries,etc. Dave Pelletier feels that with this project,Flint Street won't get fixed. They should p Ian for the future and take care of Flint Street first, then plan the buildings around it,and comp the developer for being involved in the process. Ken Petralia,Peer Review(BETA Group)said the report by EarthTech was very professional.He outlined areas that need to be concentrated on: • Internal capture rate-how many trips from one to another buildingwithin the development. EarthTech used 28%, BETA disagrees with that. • Journey to work data-they've asked for more data. • Intersection of Bridge&Flint St. They feel if there's a cue,it could block Oak Street. BETA suggests timing of signals or maybe a stripe for a left tum lane on that part of Flint Street. • Intersection of Tremont&Mason,discussion of widening They don't think it will help,if you widen it,it wouldn't provide a wide-enough lane to turn. It's a high accident area. There is also poor sight distance-when you have this,it's best to put in signals,in conjunction with site egress. • In terms of measuring site distance,they disagree with the measurement from the road;there are issues with safe stopping distance. • EarthTech is going to talk to the Fire Department about the turns. Signals at Tremont-others thought it would cause more traffic,BETA feels it may be less partly because drivers tend to avoid traffic signals. All this information has been presented in writing Ken hasn't seen a mitigation plan,it should be part of the final plan. Jeff said in the Master Plan,it did talk about a signal,he thinks there are issues with the City to recommend the signal. Attorney Quinn wants this to work for the neighborhoods sake,they'll look at everything to see what they can comply with and will get the analysis to the Planning Department. Dave Pelletier thinks that if they put a traffic signal in,Dunlop Street will get pretty popular.Rich Laperchia asked if anyone looked at the Oak Street traffic and thought that a left tum lane on Flint Street,would add to the cue. Jeff Maxter said if you stripe w.wd.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S013FC428Re#Page=1 617 '816/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 03/20/2008 in a third tum lane,it will keep it down. There being no further questions or comments on this matter,a motion was made to continue the Public Hearing to April 3,2008 by Nadine Hanscom,seconded by Gene Collins and approved(8-0). Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was made by Walter Power to adjourn the meeting seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved(8-0). The meeting adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Stacey Dupuis,Clerk Salem Planning Board w .salem.corrdPa9es/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S013FC428?te#Page=1 M 8/&13 Cityof Salem,MA-Approwd Minutes 04!03/2008 I Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 ph: 978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 04/03/2008 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting April 3,2008 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,April 3,2008,at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were:Chuck Puleo,Christine Sullivan,Walter Power,Nadine Hanscom,Tim Kavanaugh,Tim Ready,Pam Lombardini,Gene Collins,and John M oustakis.Also present were:Lynn Duncan,Director,Planning&Development;Amy Lash, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis,Clerk. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the March 20th meeting were reviewed. There were no changes. A motion was made by Gene Collins to accept the minutes,seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved(8-0). Request for Plan Endorsement and Execution of Covenant-Chapel Hill Subdivision,Clark Avenue-Attorney Jack Keilty Attorney Keilty had several sheets of plans and a covenant that require signatures by Board members. One condition to be met is to change the sloped granite,but since that detail hadn't been changed on the appropriate sheet yet,that won't be endorsed at this time. They'll bring it in for separate endorsement.Attorney Keilty informed the Board that they still have to go before land court. There being no further questions or comments on this matter,a motion was made by Gene Collins to endorse the plans and execute of covenant,seconded by Pam Lombardini,and approved(8-0). Christine Sullivan recused herself on this matter. Continued:Public Hearim,Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Amendment to Previously Approved Plans-Old Salem Ventures LLC,50 St.Peter Street (Man 35,Lot 179)-Attorney Josenh Correnti Attorney Joseph Correnti(63 Federal St.)representing Old Salem Ventures explained that in December 2006,the Planning Board unanimously approved the site plan review for the jail site,now they're back with amendments to that plan. Currently,the SRA holds the title to the project. Penn Lindsay of New Boston Ventures(NBV)said that they applied for federal and state credits, which will provide 40%of construction costs. These tax credits require historical buildings to have apartments,not condominiums. The jail building and jail keeper's house(Macintyre and Bryant buildings)will have apartments for rent for five years,and then they will be converted to condos. The new Alexander building will have condos.There will be 36 units altogether- 22 rental and 14 condos. This proposal is the same as originally presented to the SRA and they are still proposing a restaurant on site,exhibit space and artist workspace. A 3-D model and drawings were presented to the Board. Daniel Ricciarelli explained that parking is in the same location;as is the access,drop off,the restaurant,etc. What they changed is the shape of the building-it will be an L-shaped building with the bottom of the building carved out for parking The building will hug the streetscape like other buildings in Salem;outside exterior remains the same as well as the height. There are 5 additional units in this building all flats. Gene Collins asked where the building comes to on St. Peter Street and Daniel Ricciarelh explained that it's about a five-foot setback to match the other building The w .salem.corrdPages/SalemMA_PlanMiN2008Minutes/S01F80DFARe#Page=1 1/5 '816/13 City of Salem,MA-Approwd Minutes 04/03/2008 materials are the same as what has been approved. Chuck Puler,inquired about the status with the Fire Department. Penn Lindsay said they are working out the issue,which is that the Fire Dept. isn't totally comfortable with the entrance into the building.Access onto the site hasn't changed much so they're optimistic they can resolve this over the next few weeks.Penn Lindsay said they have been to the DRB,commenting that they Eked this p Ian better than the fust.They have received schematic approval.Walter Power inquired if the new entrance will have a gated door.Penn Lindsay answered no,that they anticipate an archway with granite pillars and a window over the archway. Since they've increased the number of units,John M oustakis asked for parking information and Penn explained that there will be 36 parking spaces(1:1 ratio).Amy Lash referred to the SRA minutes that state that NBV will lease 7 spaces in the garage for resident's use and for use of the residents of the senior housing,5 additional spaces in the municipal garage for the period of construction. John Moustakis wondered where restaurant and exhibit patrons will park,Penn Lindsay said they can use the garage,optional valet parking and anticipates a lot of foot traffic. He mentioned that their target market are those who want to be near downtown,near a train,and will have less vehicles.In response to Gene Collins,Lynn Duncan explained that this is a B5 zone and the renovation of the1ail/Jailhouse requires no parking. Lynn Duncan commented that with leasing spaces in the garage, they go above and beyond requirements. John Moustakis commented that parking passes don't guarantee a space. Gene Collins said that the Board can't change the parking issues since it's a B5 zone. Christine Sullivan asked if they have a restaurant yet,if not,can they guarantee one. Penn said they don't have one yet,they will guarantee one and when they are actually in construction,they will get a restaurant partner. He hopes they will break ground sometime in June. Chuck Puleo added that they are waiting final approval from the Fire Dept and the SRA. In regards to the 22 rentals for 5 years,Gene Collins wanted to know how many are affordable units.He suggested that a 5-year term is short,how about 4 or 5 affordable units?Penn Lindsay said that due to the complexity and expense of renovations,as of now there will be I affordable unit. There being no further questions or comments on this matter,a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to continue the Public Hearingto April 17th,seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved(9-0). Continued:Public Hearin--Site Plan Review,Wetlands&Flood Hazard District Special Permit,and North River Canal Corridor Mined Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC,72 Flint Street,67-69 Mason Street&71 Mason Street(Map 26,Lots 91.95 &97)(formerly Salem Suede)-Attorney Scott Grover Attorney Scott Grover explained that there are two issues to clear to go forward: 1. Special permit for use of property,for the Board to approve this they must find that three requirements are met:A. It abuts a residential area (this has been met)B. Retain first floor use on main corridor(Mason St. is one)C. For all newly constructed units,each must have separate entrance,for this, they have a variance from the ZBA. 2. Site plan review process is enhanced by the Board making a decision based on NRCC, consistency with the Masterplan,which says it should be used for mixed use(the project is raised use). John Moustakis asked if they could have a walkway. Attorney Grover spoke with Chris Huntress who said they can put a walkway from Mason down the right side of the site. They'll be meeting on April 23`d with the design review Board. Chuck Puleo said the DRB would be commenting on the plans as well.Attorney Grover added that Chapter 91 states to keep areas approximate to tide lands open to the public.Christine Sullivan would like the Board's concerns communicated to the DRB and Lynn Duncan suggested there could be a couple of Board representatives to attend the DRB meeting Attorney Grover said realistically they'd be back before the Planning Board sometime around May. Attorney Grover explained the two requirements for landscaping 1.Rows of cars head to head with a planting strip in between, trees in that planting strip as well.2.One shade tree for every 3 parking spaces. If they account for all parking spaces,there would be over 100 trees. So he suggests interpreting it as one tree for every three visible parking spaces. Steve Livermore went over the renderings. All buildings are roughly the same height;the 3-story building height is similar to what's on Mason SL Ken Petraglia,BETA group,said there is a cuing issue at the Flint St. lights,they've agreed to evaluate the signal and consider retuning Into the site drive,there should be a left tum only lane,the consultant feels parking should be eliminated on that side on Flint St. Ken Petraglia said they met with the Fire Dept,and that they haven't seen any change in plans.Amy Lash spoke with Erin Griffin who said the only changes they asked for were for additional hydrants. www.salem.cornfPages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S01F80DFA7teAPage=1 2/5 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 04103/2008 Ken Petraglia suggested additional signals on Mason St.&Flint St.,the consultant made a commitment to that. Tremont St., Mason St.and site drive have site distance problems. Ken said they're recommending that this be signalized. Reasons for this:high accident rate location,poor site distance,the proponent prepared sketch to widen Tremont,but Ken doesn't feel it addresses the situation. Nadine Hanscom asked the consultant why they are against a signal. Steve Livermore explained that they're not really for or against a signal,it's that they're not sure how the City stands on this situation. They need more information from the City, also,how do the residents feel about this. Tim Ready asked whether the Police Dept.has weighed in on this intersection,do they have an opinion?Do they have data on this intersection? Ken Petraglia said that he hasn't consulted that department. Lynn Duncan suggested it's the Planning Department's responsibility to get the data from the Police Department,so they will get that information. There was a suggestion to widen Tremont St.,and Pam Lombardini suggested that if they were to widen Tremont St.,it would cut into Mack Park,is that feasible?Ken Petraglia said that if you cut into the park,it would be about 5 ft.Christine Sullivan asked how many entrances are required for this project. Attorney Grover said there is not a particular amount required. Christine suggested that since Flint St. is old and narrow,and if the entrance off M anon St.is sufficient,maybe they don't need the entrance off of Flint St at all. Lynn Duncan reminded the Board that for Osbome Hill,when the Planning Board and Consultant agreed on a light,they made it a condition and added`providing City Council approval';they could potentially do that in this case. John Moustakis suggested making Goodhue St. a two-way street like it used to be.That would alleviate a lot of traffic. He asked if it would be possible to get someone here at the next meeting to talk about this. Lynn Duncan will talk to Lt.Prezinsky. Walter Power reminded all that issues might take a while to work out. If Goodhue St.is made two-way,it may be an easier travel. He thinks we should also utilize the parking lot across the street(at the top of Flint),possibly expand the pocket with parking. Attorney Grover said they have designated 12 spaces in the lot to Flint St.residents. The Board and neighbors need to realize parking and traffic are an existing problem-and the project is not adding much to the problem. Ken agreed with Attorney Grover adding that lights on Tremont and Mason Streets aren't just for new problems,they're also for existing problems. Jeff Maxtutis of EarthTech responded to Christine Sullivan's inquiry about the traffic study during afterschool hours and explained that this project will generate less than I vehicle per minute in the morning peak hour;a little more than 1 vehicle per minute in the afternoon peak hour,and during the hours of 2-4 is about the same. Meeting opened to the public Councillor Paul Prevey(Ward 6)lives on Tremont St.,and says there is little effort of cars to slow down when they approach Flint St. The cars parked on Flint St. act like a barrier. If there weren't any cars parked on Flint St.,it would be worse. He supports Goodhue St.becoming a two-way street. As far as traffic lights,the traffic impact and density make him somewhat leery of this solution. Attorney Grover said they will consider a left-tum only out of Flint St. Sonia Hernandez(89 Flint St.)feels that removing parking on Flint St.will make cars go even faster down that street. She has parking on Mason St. and said it's hard to cross with her two kids,parking across the street in the proposed new lot and crossing Flint St.will be difficult too. She said the neighborhood petitioned and got a one-way sign put up on Friday,and it worked pretty well,but it was taken down the following M onday. Bill Penta(89 Flint St.)told Board members that neighbors stood guard because commuters were try ingto rip down the one-way signs. He asked about construction trucks in that area,Attorney Grover said there would be a Construction Plan. Mr.Penta said if there were to be no parking on Flint St.,it would be bad because they block traffic and slow it down.Attorney Grover said they have considered slanting the driveway so that peop le couldn't turn into the driveway from the other way. Martin Imm(174 Federal St.)worked on the NRCC masterplan and said it included long-term traffic recommendations including the extension of Commercial St.;extending Tremont onto Commercial. He suggested having Commercial St, coming across;they'd have to use some parking spaces to put Commercial St in.He feels that this is an opportunity to work with the traffic problem. Dave Pelletier(12 Crombie St.)said to come out of this process without a solution to Flint St.would be to fail. Darrow Lebovici(122 Federal St)asked about the report's predicted additional trips an hour in peak and for an explanation. Jeff e .salem.con✓Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S01F80DFA?te#Page=1 3/5 '8/6113 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 04/03/2008 Maxtutis explained the numbers,3-6%increase in the morning and afternoon,defining those making the left and right turns.Mr. Lebovici asked about the capture ratio-how many cars would raise the number of trips? He was asked how this project affects him and he stated he is concerned for the neighbors on those streets. Lynn Duncan reminded all that that's why there is a peer reviewer to evaluate. Tan Ready asked Mr.Lebovici if he accepts the traffic study. Darrow Lebovici said he accepts it but doesn't agree with it. Bill Penta and Sonia Hernandez said they agree with making Flint St. a one way or left turn only.Jeff Maxtutis clarified that there would be a left-tum only lane into the project drive.He reiterated that the impact of the project on the roadway is the issue on the table. Lynn Duncan,Director of Planning&Community Development reviewed some recommendations of the NRCC masterplan and how this project is meeting those. She said the Planning Board could not take action without a recommendation from the DRB. The M asterplan suggests a project to facilitate a gateway to downtown. For the North area,extend Mason St.to Commercial St; extend Commercial St to Flint St.Offer parking spaces;improving and maintaining views;enhance residential character;enhance the canal edge. Gene Collins asked if these were recommendations,not requirements. Lynn Duncan confirmed that they are recommendations,and feels this plan meets many of them. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to continue the public hearing to M ay 1st,seconded by Gene Collins and approved(8-0). Gene Collins clarified that the Planning Board cannot change streets,like Goodhue St.,but they can suggest it to the City Council. A motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to extend the deadline for final Planning Board action to M ay 30th,seconded by Gene Collins and accepted(8-0). Chuck Puleo suggested a site visit on April 19th at 9 a.m. Old/New Business • Chuck Puleo said the Beverly Cooperative Bank still hasn't provided screening Amy Lash has spoke with Tim Smith and is expecting to see a screening proposal soon. • Chuck Puleo said the stop sign at Swampscott Rd&First St. is missing Amy Lash will call the DPW. • John Moustakis mentioned that he knows the Planning Board can't change streets,but they can recommend their ideas to the City Council(members). • In regards to the role of the DRB,Tim Ready feels that an overwhelming influence of the Planning Board does not overcome the DRB's effort to objectively review the process and make a recommendation to the Planning Board. He thinks the Planning Board needs to be very cautious and careful to allow them to exercise their responsibilities in the best possible measure and then forward their recommendations to the Planning Board. Chuck Puleo said he went to two(2)meetings,along with Walter and they had a chance to speak. Although the DRB politely listened,they still did their deliberations. He feels the architects on the DRB are diligent and professional.He said they don't just review,they spend a lot of time reviewing details and used the Salem Evening News building project as an example. For that project,they're working with a developer trying to work in the most economic way,while the DRB is trying to get abetter product out of it,which is their job.Amy Lash said the Salem News Redevelopment is not coming back to the Planning Board.Christine Sullivan said a few members of the Planning Board had a wonderful meeting with the DRB where they talked about their roles. She feels sometimes the DRB doesn't know where the Planning Board and SRA are coming from. Christine said they had a good conversation with the DRB and emphasized that the Planning Board has a willingness to look at different kinds of design and they,in working with the Planning Board,should exercise their judgment. Christine said when she was on the SRA,sometimes the DRB would make recommendations,the SRA wouldn't like them and they would send it back again. Christine believes in open communication. Tim Ready restated that he's troubled and strongly believes the DRB should have the opportunity to exercise their best judgment and to do their best work and when they've completed it,forward it to the Planning Board. Christine agreed.Chuck feels the DRB clearly knows what their duty is. Christine said she'd like them to know to look at the entire structure,not just areas in question.Amy Lash said that for Salem Suede,the DRB will be doing a schematic level of review,and she will communicate the concerns she has head from some of the Planning www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minules/S01F80DFA?te)dPage 1 4/5 8/6113 City 008 of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 05/01/2 Salem Cl*l.y Hal 93 Washing on Street,Salem,MA 01970 ph:978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 05/01/2008 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting May 1,2008 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,May 1,2008,at 7:00 p.m.in Room 312,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were:John Moustakis(Acting Chair),Pam Lombardini,Nadine Hanscom,Gene Collins,Tim Kavanaugh,Tim Ready,Christine Sullivan. Also present were:Amy Lash,Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis,Clerk. Absent:Chuck Puleo(Chair) A moment of silence was held in memory of Walter Power. Form A Ann lication for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval-Tri City Sales Inc. and Tri-City Realty,Inc.- 262-272 Hiebland Avenue(Map 8,Lots 99, 100, 104&1051-Attorney Joseph Correnti Attorney Joseph Correnti said they will be creating two lots,the CVS lot and the Tri-City Sales lot. There are 14 registered lots that they went to land court to de-register. They are essentially wiping out the interior lot lines and splitting the land into two lots. The lot at the comer of Marlborough Rd and Highland Ave will be CVS,and the one next to it will be Tri-City sales. Each lot is about 1.64 acres. Gene Collins asked if the access from Marlborough Road to the second lot will have delineation. Attorney Correnti said not yet,there will be permanent cross easements on both lots,all recorded at the registry,and people will be able to park on either as it will not look like two lots. The Cohen family will still own tri-City Sales building and they'll own a piece of the CVS building with another entity. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Gene Collins approve,seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved(7-0). An o roval of Minutes The minutes of the April 3rd meeting were reviewed. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to accept the minutes, seconded by Gene Collins,and approved(7-0). The minutes of the April 17th meeting were reviewed. Christine Sullivan asked if there was a different term that should be used rather than insignificant.Tim Kavanaugh suggested on page 1,changing"insignificant"to"insubstantial". There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to accept the minutes with the suggested revision,seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved(7-0). Continued: Public Hearing-Site Plan Review.Wetlands&Flood Hazard District Special Permit,and North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit—Riverview Place LLC,72 Flint Street,67-69 Mason Street,&71 Mason Street (Mal) 26,Lots 91,95&97)(formerly Salem Suede)—Attorney Scott Grover Reouest for Continuance to June 5. 2008 a ..salem.con/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S01FE2835?te#Page=1 1/3 '8/8/13 ' City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 05/01/2008 Amy Lash said that everyone should have a copy of the DRB minutes pertaining to Salem Suede,and said she spoke with their staff person Tom Daniel. At the DRB last meeting,the architect Steve Livermore was asked questions about the design;there was talk about getting a certain number of units on the site and the DRB responded that that's not what they're looking for. They want them to look more closely at the MasterpIan.Amy said it sounded like a constructive meeting with good recommendations. The DRB wants focus on the neighborhood and canal and they want to see changes to reflect the character of the different streets. They will be revising the plans and returning to the DRB.They will possibly coming back before the Planning Board around June 5th. Amy received a letter from Scott Grover requesting continuance of the Public Hearing to June 5th and to extend the time for the Planning Board to act on this application to June 19th. There being no further comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Pam Lombardim to continue the public hearing on June 5th,seconded by Christine Sullivan and accepted(7-0). There being no further comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Pam Lombardim to extend the time for final approval to June 19th,seconded by Christine Sullivan and accepted(7-0). Old/New Business • Notice of MEPA Review-Salem Port Expansion—City of Salem-Amy said this requires no action by the Board but if -members would like to comment,they can.The project involves dredging a portion of the South river to increase the depth to allow bigger cruise ships to dock. John Moustakis commented that they should fixup that area,as it is currently not appealing • The Zoning Ordinance Recodification Committee has been meeting for several months. There will be one more meeting to discuss the new draft ordinance and a strike-through version showing changes. They are cleaning up the ordinance,making it more user-friendly. Chuck and Walter were Planning Board representatives,Amy asked if anyone is interested in being on the committee in place of Walter. There is one committee meeting left and one public meeting the dates have not been scheduled. Gene Collins and Tim Kavanugb are willing to attend. This will go to the City Council after the meetings. • Amy received a letter from Beverly Co-Op Bank that offered sincerest apologies for not completingthe screeningunit. They have identified a company in Florida that can provide it. They will keep the Planning Board posted of their timetable. Christine Sullivan thinks `wind issues' on that roof caused the delay of the screening.John Moustakis said many times developers don't follow what the Planning Bd.agrees on. For example,the building next to CVS on Highland Ave(has hairdresser,chiropractor,etc) doesn't have the right curb cut. Cars were supposed to go in to the right of the bldg and come out the same way,not go around the building and come out over the curb. Amy will bring those plans to the next meeting • Amy announced some upcoming events that some Planning Bd.members may be interested in attending A tour of an LID development in Ipswich;a Conference at Holy Cross College on"Regionalism in the 21st century';The Dept of Housing& Community Dev. Spring Workshop Series,Topics include: Downtown Economics,Housing and the Creative Economy,and Business Improvement Districts. Christine Sullivan asked if Salem has a BID.Amy said no,that the Main Street Program is set up differently;the idea of BID is self-assessments and tax money going into improving those areas. • Living Green&Renewable Energy Fair being hosted at Old Town Hall June 14 by the Renewable Energy Task Force. This group has also been creating a draft wind turbine ordinance and will be coming before the Planning Board in the new future. • Pam Lombardini recently came back from Louisville,KY and said what struck her about their downtown is that there were beautiful sculptures. She thought with the college here and local artists,maybe it's something Salem should consider-add sculptures with artists name on it. Also,she spoke with Chuck about the Board doing something special for Walter Power to commemorate what he's done for the City.Amy spoke with Lynn about this as well. Some ideas that came up: naming a road; approaching a developer to name a road;naming a trail system;Peabody St.park isn't named yet;Gene suggested naming the small piece of land near Salem News Building(it will be a plaza)—could put a plaque and make it a`square'. • Tim Ready thinks the Board has had an influence on the DRB because in their minutes they mention the Board in respect to the MasterpIan.He feels the Board should let them do their work and then come to us. John Moustakis repeated what he said at the last meeting that the reason for the DRB for the NRCC is to have"another voice",but the Planning Board has the final say. Pam Lombardim said she felt encouraged by the DRB minutes,she feels they heard what the Board had to say. Amy suggested another angle to look at this-that the Board is seeking the DRB's assistance because they're experts in design. John said there's a booklet they can refer to,it says what they can and can't do. John suggested the ZBA caused the problem as there are restrictions on mass and size,and they made it bigger than it was supposed to be.Tim Kavanaugh said as far as he knows,the Board heard a lot of comments during the public hearing listened and referred them to the DRB.Then,the DRB will consider everything including mass,size,and then refer back to the Planning Board.Christine Sullivan gave an analogy-the SRA to the DRB,which may help explain the jurisdiction of the Board. Gene said Lynn Duncan was here at a prior meeting maybe she needs to come back.He doesn't like the idea of someone giving opinions to the DRB from the entire Board,when everyone didn't agree on them. www.salem.conJPages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S01 FF2835?te#Pag a=1 213 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approed Minutes 05/01/2008 1 .,. Amy said there was nothing formal written,though she had said at the last meeting she would communicate the concerns she had heard to their staff person.Pam said her impression was that we wanted them to take a closer look at things and Nadine said it's also a way to ask questions. John feels this will work out itself.John M. said this is the only project the DRB(other than the one downtown)is involved in. Tim R. said because this is the fust time,maybe the Board is being preemptory;the Board needs to let the DRB do theirjob. Christine said the issues that Tim R.and Gene bring should be addressed. Tim R. feels it opens the door for future projects. Christine said the meeting between the DRB and a few Board members went very well. Tim K. said the meeting gave the DRB a sense that the Board appreciates their work. Adioumment There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening,a motion was made by Tim Ready to adjourn the meeting seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved(7-0). The meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Stacey Dupuis,Clerk Salem Planning Board �wi.salem.corr✓Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S01FE28357teMPage=1 3/3 '8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 09/04/2008 Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 ph:978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 09/04/2008 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting September 4,2008 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, September 4,2008,at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were:Chuck Puleo,Pam Lombardini,Tim Kavanaugh,Nadine Hanscom,Tim Ready,Christine Sullivan,David Weiner.Also present were:Amy Lash,Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis,Clerk. Absent:Gene Collins,John Moustakis Aonroval of Minutes The minutes of the July 17th meeting were reviewed. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to accept the minutes, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved(6-0). Continued:Public Hearing-Site Plan Review. Wetlands&Flood Hazard District Special Permit,and North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC,72 Flint Street,67-69 M ason Street&71 Mason Street(M an 26,Lots 91,95&97)(formerly Salem Suede)-Attorney Scott Grover- Request for Continuance to October 16 2008 Attorney Scott Grover explained that they are going to the Design Review Board with some revisions,and he's optimistic about the outcome. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to continue the public hearingto October 151h,2008,seconded by Tim Ready and approved(6-0). Request for a six(6)month extension for the North River Canal Corridor Special Use Permit canted April 13,2006 and a request for the Site Plan Review and Wetland and Flood Hazard District Special Permit granted February 20,2007 to be extended to run concurrently with the Special use hermit for the property located at 28 Goodhue Street-Attomev Josenh Correnti Attorney Joseph Correnti said this project was originally permitted on 6/2007,had 44 condo units with first floor commercial development. Can't get financing for condos,site itself is vacant. They'd like to keep permits in place and are askingthat wetland/flood hazard district permit run concurrently to April. Chuck Puleo mentioned that permits could be two years as opposed to asking for six months. Christine Sullivan moved to approve the six-month extension of the permit until April 2009. Paul Prevey, Ward 6 Councillor,said that the project keeps getting delayed because of financing. His issue is with the condition of vmwsalem.caNPages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S02131 B23Re#Pag a=1 116 8/6/13 Cityof Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 09/04/2008 + the area. He showed photos of the area taken by a neighbor. Until ground is broken and development starts,he hopes the Board takes this into consideration. He'd like some effort to be made to maintain the property until the project starts.Attorney Correnti said they'd agree to repair the fence and clean up the site. Others agreed that it's also a safety issue with havingpart of the fence broken. Tim Ready asked if anyone checks the property frequently and the owner said that he goes by there every 2-'h weeks. The fence has been repaired four times already. David Weiner moved to grant the extension of permit with the condition that the site would be maintained. Tim Kavanaugh suggested extending the special use permit 6 month to April 13,2009 with a further condition on cleaningup the property i.e.trash removal,lawn in 30 days from today while Tim Ready mentioned that we've had good faith with this developer,he's not comfortable putting in a condition. Amy Lash suggested wording it"the developer agreed to cleaning site,moving... There beingno further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Christine Sullivan to extend the special use permit six months to April 16,2009,seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved(6-0). Added to that is"The developer has agreed to clean up the site in 30 days including removing the trash,mowing the lawn and firing the fence." Although not a public hearing Beverly McSwiggin of Japonica Street remarked that she had noticed that area in poor condition at one time,mentioned it to the Ward Councillor,and it was cleaned up. Form_A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval-0 Felt Street Way (Man 27,Lots 602,603.604) —Attomey Georgie Atkins Attorney George Atkins explained that Felt St. Way is an extension of Locust St. On the parcel being discussed,the house is in the center of the lot and they want to take a piece of land on each side of the house and conveying it to the neighbors. Size of each piece being conveyed was shown on map; Lot F is not a separate build-able lot. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,Nadine Hanscom made a motion to approve,seconded by Pam Lombardini and all in favor(6-0). Form A Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval— I I I Highland Avenue/I Wilson Road(Man 14, Lot 199)-Attorney Georgie Atkins Attorney Atkins described the property as having two existing buildings on it and the subdivision statute says you can divide a lot with two buildings on it.The front of the property on Highland Ave.is a building previously used as a gas station;the house set back on the property has a Wilson Street address;both buildings were built in the 50's.The residential home is currently for sale to its tenants. The commercial building in front would have to go to the Board of Appeals. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,Pam Lombardini made a motion to approve,seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved(6-0). Public Hearing-Amendment to Thomas Circle Plans to Allow Boulders to Remain Instead of Guard Rail-Anthony Tiro, 17-7 Thomas Circle(Mal) 8,Lots 20,21,22& 168) Chuck Palen read the public hearing notice. The original decision for this was made on 5/18/00 and then again on 7/06. Anthony Tiro said the original plan called for a 150 ft. guardrail. He met with two companies and both suggested that this is not an area where guardrails would be conducive. Guardrails should be bolted in place,but because of the boulders that are there,it may not work. So,he's requesting an amendment to keep the boulders instead of putting in a guardrail.He moved some of the boulders to widen the street. He thinks because of ledge,they still won't get 20 ft width of street in some areas.He said 20 ft.is in about 95% of the street,and can't achieve that width in some spots. Chuck Puleo mentioned the condition of paving-the entryway of road has to be re-laid. Mr.Tiro said he's not at that point yet. w wsalem.corrVPages/SalemMA—PlanMin/2008Minutes/S02131B23?tedPage=1 216 W6113 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 11/06/2008 Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 ph: 978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 11/06/2008 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting November 6,2008 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,November 6,2008,at 6:30p in in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were:Chairman Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis,Pam Lombardini,David Weiner,Gene Collins,Tim Kavanaugh, Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready. Also present were:Frank Taormina,Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis,Clerk. Absent:Nadine Hanscom Approval of Minutes The minutes of the October 161h meetingwere reviewed. Chairman Puleo pointed out that on Page 2,second to last paragraph,it should read"...the HVAC Unit shall be screened prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter a motion was made by John Moustakis to accept the minutes as revised,seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved(7-0). Continued Public Hearine-Site Plan Review,Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Snecial Permit,&North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC,72 Flint Street,67-69 Mason Street&71 Mason Street(Mal)26.Lots 0091,0095&00971 former Salem Suede Property—Attorney Scott Grover Attorney Scott Grover explained that the last time they were before the Planning Board in April,the Planning Board referred this to the Design Review Board. When the DRB first saw the design of this project,they were not very enthusiastic. With recommendations and comments from the Planning Board that they incorporated into the re-design,Attorney Scott Grover feels that they are now closer to a DRB decision. Eastern Land Survey is working on the engineered plans to be submitted and Riverview Place LLC will be providing money for the Traffic Peer Review and the Engineering Peer Review. They hope the Planning Board will be ready to render a decision in December. Attorney Grover asked that Staff Planner Frank Taormina read into the record the status of quorum and each board member's eligibility to vote on the project. Frank mentioned that currently there are seven(7)members eligible to vote and quorum is six(6) members. Those members those are efigible to vote Chairman Palen,Gene Collins,Tim Kavanaugh,Pam Lombardini,Nadine Hanscom,Christine Sullivan and Tim Ready. Frank mentioned that Dave Weiner will not be able to vote since this project began prior to his appointment to the Planning Board. He also mentioned that both Gene Collins and Pam Lombardini have already missed a meeting and pursuant the Mullin Rule are still eligible to vote,however they cannot miss any further meeting Steve Livermore,Architect,discussed the revised p lans:It still includes 3 buildings but they were reconfigured and the design of the buildings have changed. The largest of the three buildings includes a 196-car parking garage,this reduces the surface parking by 100 cars. The garage has 2 floors with one floor below grade. The image of the building has been modified to appear as an old www.salem.com(Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/200BMinutes/S022334AB?te)dPage=I - 1/4 8/8/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 11/0612008 renovated mill from Bridge Street,and will appear more residential from another Mason Street and Flint Street. There is a physical and visual connection from Mason St through the development to the canal. The new landscape design includes more trees and plantings along the North River Canal side,with some parking along the Flint Street side for the residents of Flint Street. Steve Livermore walked the board members through all the design changes and the new access street. Gene Collins expressed his concern with calling it a street,as it may encourage people to cut through. He remembers them offering to provide an easement through the property to connect Commercial Street to Flint Street. Attorney Scott Grover said the access road is much narrower than a street,it's an access way or driveway into the complex,with speed bumps. Steve Livermore mentioned that the DRB liked the vista and access way,the access way organizes vehicular access on site and creates an edge that the NRCC Plan calls for. Dave Weiner noticed on the plans that there is a set of stairs and asked if there will be ADA access as well. Steve Livermore said that due to a grade change it is extremely difficult to add an ADA ramp next to the stairs,instead there is a sidewalk that connects to Mason Street which does meet ADA standards. Michael O'Brien,Manager Riverview Place LLC,mentioned that he is willing to create an easement through his property to connect Commercial Street with Flint Street,he is just not sure how long that will take,and in the mean time he would rather keep that area green as shown on the plans. Steve Livermore added how much greener this plan is compared to the last and that the trees would be planted in a manner that once the road connection is build they would remain. Steve Livermore mentioned that the Mason St.building is more residential in nature. They are still proposing commercial space but it will not be on Mason Street but rather within the complex on the first floor. There is some parking along the access drive and they have proposed about 5,000 sq ft of that first floor for commercial/retail use. Steve Livermore added that the commercial space is intended for more internal use. Gene Collins said that they had an earlier discussion regarding retail on Mason St. to encourage circulation on Mason St.,not internally. Pam Lombardini likes the idea of the`internal' commercial space because Mason St. is so busy. Michael O'Brien explained that they changed from Mason St.to interior due to traffic issues on Mason St and Flint St. Michel added that he does not plan of including an attraction or commercial use that people would drive to,but rather a use like a gym,bookstore,or coffee shop,etc for people in that comp lex and/or residents within walking distance. Chairman Puleo asked for comparison of old design and new design with regards to height and area. Steve Livermore explained that the tallest building is 50 ft,the next one 40 ft and the last one is slightly lower. The actual footprints increased slightly to 69,000 mainly because of the added parking garage;green space increased 18-20%. Christine Sullivan agreed with Pam Lombardini as far as buildinguse. John Moustakis did not really like the old mill building style. Steve Livermore explained that it fits the NRCC and it looks more residential from the Flint St.and Mason St side. The materials to be used will mimic that of the old mill and the siding will be diamond shaped asphalt shingles. Gene Collins echoed what John Moustakis said regarding not liking the`old mill"style either. Steve Livermore feels that the look from the North Street overpass will look good. Pam Lombardini however likes the idea of the old mill style. Tim Ready suggested tabling these issues until the DRB comes to the Planning Board with recommendations.Christine Sullivan disagreed with that and said that the DRB will only make recommendations and it is up to the Planning Board to agree or disagree with them and ultimately issue a decision.Christine Sullivan also stated that she,like Pam also likes the old mill style as well. Prior to opening the meeting to the public,Chairman Puleo read a letter submitted by Lorene T. Scanlon,President of M ack Park Association. The letter explained how two years ago she wanted to purchase a condominium on Mason St.but was reluctant. After some research,she was satisfied because she was told if someone were to re-develop the former Salem Suede Property it would be of a certain style,type,size,etc according the NRCC plans. She is now disappointed with the eyesore that is still there and what is now being planned for that site.John Moustakis suggested the letter be sent to Board of Appeals. Public Comment David Goggin inquired about the width of the driveway,curb cuts and fire hydrant connections. Steve Livermore said the with of w w.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/5022334AB?teMPage=1 2/4 '816/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 11/06/2008 the driveway is 24 ft but doesn't know yet about the fire connections,however,the fire department has approved what they have done so far. David Goggin suggested the Fire Marshall get a set of plans. He also suggested the parking garage be open air and for them to check the grading of the area for the garage for flooding issues. Paul Prevey,26 Tremont Street,City Councilor Ward 6,opposes the density of this project because of it's impact on the neighborhood. Flint St.and Mason St.are a failure with traffic. He thinks this re-design looks better than last design. He attended the last Design Review Board(DRB)meeting and said one of the members suggested using quality materials or it won't look like a mill building He ap preciates the comments from the Planning Board and work thus far by the members of the DRB. John Moustakis suggested making Goodhue St. a two-way street. Chairman Puleo said he asked Lynn Duncan to look into that possibility. Jane Arlander,92 Federal Street,suggested that the study done by the City's Traffic Consulting Engineers,BETA Group,relative to the Court Project should be looked at in concert with this project because this project may have an impact those mitigation measures for the Court project.Attorney Scott Grover said that is why they are paying for the Peer Review consultant. Jane Arlander added that residents have noted that since the traffic changes on North Street were implemented,traffic on Federal Street has increased. Scott Grover suggested that discussion of traffic issues will be best to discuss at the December meeting because traffic experts will be present at that meeting Frank Taormina added that the traffic engineers that will be performing the peer review of this project are the same traffic engineers that the City hived for the Court Traffic Study,so there will be continuity. M ark Bellingham, 14 Oak Street(across from cement factory),commended everyone on their work. Regarding traffic,he feels any study won't matter because those streets were built for horse drawn carriages.He also said the sewer systems are old as his water main has blown twice in the last two years. Rich Lapurches,79 Oak Street,his biggest concern is traffic. He said that it is getting worse every day. He suggested before the Planning Board allows this project,they should deal with the traffic. Tim Ready explained to audience members that the Planning Board would try to mitigate and work with the developers and neighbors. M artin Imm, 174 Federal St.,exp lained that he played a role in the NRCC Master Plan and ordinance and that this project does not follow the guidelines. He presented the Planning Board with a letter he drafted and highlighted some of his concerns. He wants the property to be complying with the Master Plan. One factor it ignores is the connection of Commercial St to Mason St. Chairman Puleo pointed out that the connection is shown through the abutting property connecting Tremont Street,Mason St to Commercial Street. Matin Imm claims that that may never be done,but this property could offer that connection,even though it is not a direct connection with Tremont St. John Moustakis added that Martin Imm is correct in that when they were on the NRCC working group,they didn't envision developments this large.However,the ZBA granted the density relief and the Board is working within in that and trying its best to the best project under that framework. Chairman Puleo read a memo from Lynn Duncan,City Planner,regarding the Zoning Board of Appeals(ZBA)Decision to grant a density variance for the project and the role of the Planning Boards moving forward. Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street,questioned Lynn Duncan's letter to the board. She read a couple sentences from the NCRR Ordinance which allows the Planning Board to grant density bonuses and questioned why the applicant had to go before the ZBA for a variance when the Planning Board had the jurisdiction to grant a density bonus above and beyond what is allowed by-right. Betsy Burns,20 Burnside Road,questioned the density of the project and that it is not in keep ing with the NRCC Ordinance. She cautioned the board that this project once approved will transform the area forever. Humphrey Gardner, 170 Federal Street,asked the developer whether the number of one bedroom units,two bedroom units,and three bedroom units. He also asked whether they would all be rental or owner occupied or both. Christine Sullivan asked that all DRB Meeting Minutes relative to this project be sent to the board members. Staff Planner Frank www.salem.corrVPages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/5022334AB?te#Page=1 3/4 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 11/06/2008 ' Taormina agreed to forward the DRB meeting minutes to the board. Old/New Business Danvers Bank—3-5 Traders Way—Request to Release Escrow Account Funds Frank Taormina mentioned that he received a letter from Danvers Bank requesting the release of Escrow,as they have finished all the landscaping requirements and have comphed with all the other conditions of their Decision. Frank stated that the City has already received the As-Built Plans and that he drove to the site and confirmed that everything has in fact been completed and recommended that the Board release the funds being held in escrow. Chairman Puleo asked for a motion to release the funds. A motion was made by Gene Collins,seconded by Tim Ready and approved unanimously (7-0). Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening,a motion was made by John M oustakis to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved unanimously (7-0) The meeting adjourned at 8:28pm. Respectfully submitted by: Stacey Dupuis,Clerk Salem Planning Board w .salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/5022334AB?te#Page l 414 '8/6/13 Cityof Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 11/20108 Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 ph: 978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 11/20/08 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting November 20,2008 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,November 20,2008,at 6:40 p.m.in Room 312,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. - Those present were:Chuck Palen,John M oustakis,Pam Lombardini,Nadine Hanscom,Gene Collins,Tim Kavanaugh,Christine Sullivan(arrived 6:55),Tim Ready. Also present were:Danielle M cKnight,Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis,Clerk. Those absent:Dave Weiner. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the November 6th meeting were reviewed. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by John Moustakis to accept the minutes, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved(7-0). Public Hearing.-Request for Waiver of Frontage-2 Prosnect Avenue(Mai) 16,Lot 0121)Angelo M eimeteas represented by Attorney William F.Onion Attorney William Quinn said the Board of Appeals has approved the division of land frontage on Butler St(behind the Diary Witch)&Prospect St.,which is considered legal frontage.Mr.Meimeteas owns the lot from Boston to Butler St.It's an oddly shaped lot and in May they were at the Board of Appeals where they received a variance to establish a separate building lot to build a single-family house.Because the lot does not meet the Planning Board's frontage requirements,they have come for a waiver. The lot has 50 feet of frontage,and about 9,000 sq ft on the land division plan provided with the Form A application. This would be a single family home set back at least 25 ft. There is access on an approved way,Butler Street,where the driveway will be. A two-family home is next to this property and there are no easements or other connections between the two lots. Attorney Quinn said this is a clear division. Meeting Opened for Pubic Comments Mario Costa of 26 Butler St. and Ed Young of 30 Butler St.took a closer look at the plans. Chuck Puleo asked if the way shown on the plan will remain a private way and Attorney Quinn confirmed that it will. Chuck Puleo asked Attorney Quinn to clarify if Prospect Ave.was a"private way"or a right-of-way for use by all the abutting lots;Attorney Quinn said it is one of those private ways that is considered frontage by the City of Salem because it's paved and it's adequate access—it's an existingprivate way. He said the abutters probably have rights to the middle of it. It's used as a walkway,but could be used for drivingpurposes to get between the properties. The current address on the petition is 2 Prospect Ave,but the City would assign it a Butler St.address. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to close the public hearing seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved(7-0). There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Gene Collins to approve the waiver of w .salem.cwn/Pages/SalemMA_PImMin/2008Minutes/502266BDA?te)dPage 1 1/5 8/6/13 Cityof Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 11/20/06 ' frontage,seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved(7-0). Form_A_Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval-2 Prospect Avenue(Man 16,Lot 0121)Angelo Meimeteas represented by Attorney William F.Ouinn Attorney Quinn stated that the plan presented for the Form A application was the same as that shown for the Waiver of Frontage just granted. Chuck Palen,asked Attorney Quinn to explain that the conditions of the variance for the above application are tied to the deed for this property—the variance is recorded and has a specific condition about not blocking the kitchen window of the abutter at 30 Butler St. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to approve the Form A Application believed not to require approval,seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved(7-0) Old/New Business • Recommendation to City Council on proposed Zoning Amendment to allow Wind Energy Facilities Danielle McKnight went over some of the issues that arose from the joint public hearing with the City Council last week: 1)Some wondered if it was an error that it was zoned R3—this was not an error;it was done to allow sites like the Fairweather to possibly be considered for something like this. 2)How would we define nuisance? This can include noise,odor and visual nuisances,which can be discretionary to the Planning Board. 3)Use of the word"preferred"in reference to monopoles doesn't mean technologies other than monopoles are not considered,it isn't lhniting.4)The question had been asked whether Marblehead had an wind facility siting ordinance-they do not and would like to see Salem's ordinance when it's complete. Chuck Puleo asked if the Planning Board's next step was now to endorse the ordinance as it was sent to City Council,if no language changes were proposed;Danielle McKnight confirmed that it was. Nadine Hanscom reminded all that Councillor O'Keefe suggested an amendment to the ordinance to include fire safety equipment and wondered if it will be incorporated.Gene Collins said that the Councillor made a suggestion that Board members haven't discussed and noted this language had not yet come back before the Board.Danielle McKnight thinks it would be up to City Council to add and approve that suggested amendment. Chuck Puleo feels they would likely incorporate at least some of the suggested amendment—that this was probably the prudent thing to do. There beingno further questions or comments regardingthis matter,a motion was made by John Moustakis to recommend to the City Council to accept the proposed Zoning Ordinance relative to special permit uses and regulations for land-based wind energy facilities,seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved(8-0). Continued Public Hearing-Site Plan Review,Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit,&North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC,72 Flint Street,67-69 Mason Street&71 Mason Street(Mat) 26,Lots 0091,0095&0097)former Salem Suede Property—Attorney Scott Grover John M oustakis and Nadine Hanscom are not eligible to vote on this item;as the recorder didn't work at the last meeting,they are unable to listen to that meeting for information purposes. Chuck Puleo clarified that there are now six members eligible to vote, and all six votes are needed. www.salem.mn,VPages/SaIemMAPlanMin/2008Minutes/50226BBDA7te#Page 1 2/5 8/6/13 Cityof Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 11/20/08 Attorney Scott Grover,representing Riverview Place LLC,introduced Dave Walsh,Dave Zion,Chris Huntress,Landscape Architect,Steve Livermore and Jim McDowell,Site Engineer from Eastern Land Survey. Attorney Grover noted that since the last meeting they had been before the Design Review Board. The peer review consultants are expected to be at the first Planning Board meeting in December. The traffic study has begun;the civil engineering peer review has also begun.Danielle will check next week on the status of the studies. Discussion on traffic issues will be covered at the next December meeting Chuck Puleo said traffic would one of the strongest points the Board would be focusing on,and there were suggestions for particular points the traffic peer review should cover,such as Goodhue St. Gene Collins mentioned that they already had a traffic study submitted and presented at the first meeting.Scott Grover responded that new issues were being looked at,such as the entrance and exit off of Flint St. The bigger picture on traffic has been presented in terms of the number of trips,but the peer review is looking at new specifics.The Board will also be refreshed on previous information given by Beta. Tonight will be discussion on the site plan,including drainage,landscaping and utilities. Danielle McKnight received the watershed plan and distributes. Councillor Prevey had suggested moving entrances that will be addressed at the next meeting as well. Chris Huntress,Landscape Architect from Huntress&Associates said they presented to the Design Review Board(DRB)last night and the DRB had good comments. From Mason St. down to the river,there is a 12 ft.wide walkway with a few steps. They are introducing some crosswalks and plantings that would strengthen the street for pedestrians. He discussed some of the trees and plantings to be used. There will be two styles of lighting one using pedestrian scale ornamental fixture,an identical fixture to what's being used on the canal corridor already;and another using downcast shoebox fixtures with ornamental light pole and using taller fixtures with a concealed source. Chuck Puleo,who was at the DRB meeting said that someone mentioned that if the easement for the extension of Commercial St. becomes a reality,how would we address the fact that this would take out the majority of the green space along the canal? Chris said they haven't fully examined the issue,but said that in considering the potential for the Commercial St. extension,they would look to tie the main road in one exit up Flint St.;although the road itself would take up open space,it might also present an opportunity to increase buffering and landscaping on Flint St. if they can reorganize parking and circulation. They would be presenting plans that will not inhibit the future construction of Commercial St.and will include buffering and landscaping Chuck Puleo asked about the proposed 6 ft walkway. Jim McDowell said they were asked early on to incorporate a walkway and that it should be close to the river. They will have more information to present this at next meeting There will be a pedestrian connection from the walkway to the sidewalk.Chuck Puleo suggested getting as much built into the plans for the walkway as they can;if the road does come through the area,we want to be sure not to be left with just a swatch of pavement with no amenities left. Attorney Grover said the plan is to come up with alternative schemes. Chris Huntress mentioned that the DRB suggested that the walkway could perhaps become a sidewalk in the future,and also that they should take a harder look at programming the open space and taking advantage of the views. Christine Sullivan said if the road were to go in,there should be a condition that landscaping must be reviewed by the Planning Board. She mentioned that when the Jefferson apartments went in,the landscaping/plants were tiny in comparison to the building and she would like these to be good size in relation to the building.Chris said the by-laws state they have to be 3 '/z to 4"caliper trees. The building is 3-5 stories in height. Also,it's required to have 1 tree for every three spaces. Chris Huntress said they will be providing more than the bylaw requires for planting and that the buffering trees are significant in size. Chuck Puleo mentioned that there was also a fence proposed along the back on Flint St.on the previous p Ian and wanted to know if this was still part of the landscape plan. Chris Huntress said they are working on proposing a retaining wall between the driveway and landscape area,and it is not very high. Tim Ready asked roughly how high the trees would grow. Chris Huntress approximated 30 ft up to 60 ft high and said bigger plants have a higher failure rate,so they need a balance. Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey,talked about the utilities. They are proposing two water connections:one at the existing 8 inch on Flint St and tie into the existing 12 inch at Mason. They will be building anew 8-inch through the property.They are proposing 2 fire hydrants. Each building will have potable water and sprinkler connections,all service connections for sewer and water will be off of new facilities they are building on the site,other than their water main connection. The sanitary sewer will be an 8-inch sewer with 6-inch connection and will be a gravity system with no pumps on site.Concerning storm drainage-the 2008 DEP regulations stated when you have site subject to coastal storm flows tidal waters,you don't have to have storm water w .salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/S0226BBDA2textPage=1 315 816/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 11/20/08 detention rate or volume. They do have a series of manholes/catch basins on site which will flow to a common point that he showed on the plan,at which point they will go into the stormceptor. Roof drain will be separate;the conservation commission asked to have it separate in case of a spill from mechanical equipment on the roof. Rain gardens will be installed to handle the roof drainage(uncontaminated water only). McDowell explained how rain gardens function and how they are constructed. There are some 21E site conditions,which they won't know until later.They are looking at the possibility of putting in rain gardens to handle roof drainage. A discussion of how rain gardens,how they function,and how they are constructed ensued. Chuck Puleo asked about what would happen to the drainage system in an extreme high tide event,and McDowell explained that they are bringing the outlet in at the high tide level,and there will be a tide flex gate on the end of the outfall.The stormcep for has a high-capacity tank. McDowell explained that the telephone,electric and transformers will all be underground. Chuck Puleo wondered if they have received comments from the City engineers as well as the age of the water mains on Flint and Mason Streets. Jim McDowell said they have not received comments from the city engineer yet since the plans just came in last week. He spoke with the Fire Department regarding the water mains and they are not aware of problems with them,as far as the age of the water mains. Christine Sullivan asked about snow removal and Jim McDowell said it would have to be removed from the site by trucking since snow storage areas on the site are limited.They will show these areas on the drawings and will be in compliance. Chuck Puleo inquired about whether they were recommending restrictions on what was used for ice melt. McDowell said that sometimes sand is preferable to ice melt in a tidal area and that the retention basins and stormceptor's maintenance plans include sand removal. Christine Sullivan wondered if the water mains,since they are older,could handle the extra water? Jim McDowell offered to send a letter with that question to the City Engineer and cc the DPW,and will bring the answer back to the Board_ Meeting Opened for Public Comments Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street,thought that the traffic engineer would be looking at the traffic as it is today compared to the traffic report the Board saw earlier,since there has been a substantial change to that area due to changes on North St.,Mason and Flint. Scott said BETA is doing the traffic study and it would be appropriate for the Board to ask if the new lights on North St. have had any impact on their report. Chuck Puleo said the point had come up at the last meeting and so he had assumed BETA would be looking at this,and we should certainly expect the question to be asked when BETA comes before the Board again. Scott Grover said that it probably made sense for the Planning Department to ask BETA to include this in the scope of their report. Gene Collins said the project would have an impact all over the city,but that it was not located on North St.or Goodhue St. Chuck Puleo said that the project would impact both of those streets. Christine Sullivan suggested that the Planning Board urgently asks that BETA presents this information to them. Chuck Puleo said the we could do that,and Danielle McKnight said she would communicate that to BETA. David Gogin,retired Deputy Fire Chief,asked about the two story parking garage and suggested the p lans be submitted to the Fire Department. Martin Imm, 174 Federal St.,asked where the trash collection is going to be. Jim McDowell explained that there would be two closed dumpsters angled next to buildingone. Mr. From also pointed out that the designated land for the extension of Commercial St.bumps against a parking lot that offers parking spaces for the park,which is owned by the state,and does this present a problem? He wondered if Commercial St.gets pushed through,what would happen to this land? He notes that the creation of the parking lot for the park was done as mitigation for other activities at the other end of the park. Dave Walsh said that offering the easement is an accommodation to the City,and that the City was under no obligation to take it,but in view of the requirements for the number of spaces needed,we feel the parking is probably in excess of what is needed.Pam Lombardini reiterated that they're providing an easement and that the issue of what will happen to that parking lot hes between the City and Commonwealth and is not under the control of the developer. Mr. Imm said if they're accommodating the Master Plan,they should offer public parking as it is now by the state owned land(there are 7 spaces). Scott Grover mentioned that a condition of the variance is to provide 12 or 13 spaces or so for public parking on the Riverview w.wv.salem.cornlPages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2008Minutes/50226BBDA?te#Page 1 4/5 6/6/13 Cityof Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 11/20/06 Place property. Chuck Puleo pointed out that when the state does a project in the city,the Planning Board doesn't get to review it. Christine Sullivan said the Planning Board could put in a recommendation to say that should Commercial Street go through, those seven spaces shouldn't be lost. Pam Lombardini mentioned that they could recommend something for the Riverview Place site but not for the state's land.Tim Ready felt the Board was getting ahead of themselves,but recognized that the developer seems amenable to working with the Board on this problem. He feels the problem has been presented from both sides and that both sides seem to want to work to an answer,but it's not currently an issue that should be before the Board. Jane Arlander,92 Federal St.,noted that Section 110 of the Eastern Land Survey submission asks if there are any historic homes and it's marked"no",however 13 of the abutters to this project are within the McIntire District. MegTwohey also noted that when Commercial and Bridge Streets are flooded,traffic goes up to Flint&Federal Streets and this puts more stress on the infrastructure;and any construction,such as pile driving,will affect the historic district.Some board members felt that this project wouldn't affect the historic district. Pam Lombardini acknowledged the traffic and flooding problems in the Federal Street neighborhood,but stated that this project would not have any impact on these conditions. However,she said that she would like to see a list of the abutters in the historic district because it had not occurred to her that there would be impacts to the historic district itself,and suggested Ms.Arlander and Ms.Twohey send a copy of this fist of abutters to the Planning Department. Steve Livermore added that if they do pile driving they would do a pre-blast survey.Jane Arlander wondered if they have contacted the Historic Commission and Scott Grover said they haven't been directly contacted but representatives from the Historic Commission have attended the DRB meetings,so they know what is planned. Gene Collins questioned whether this property in question is part of the historic district. Jane Arlander thought she remembered hearing the dump sters would be in a garage behind closed doors. Jim McDowell said both plans have always had the dumpsters out and not behind doors. Steve Livermore added that there will be further discussion about trash removal with the DRB and that the dumpster location may be moved. There being no further questions or comments on this matter,a motion was made by Gene Collins to continue the Public Hearing to December 4,2008,seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved(6-0). Adiournment There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to adjourn the meeting seconded by Gene Collins and approved(7-0) The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Stacey Dupuis,Clerk Salem Planning Board v .Salem.corrdPages/SalemMA_PlanMin/200BMinutes/S0226BBDA?teAPage=1 5/5 &6/13 City of Salem,MA-Apprmed Minutes 12/18/2008 ' Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 ph: 978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 12/18/2008 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting December 18,2008 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,November 20,2008,at 6:40 p.m. in Room 312,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were:Chuck Puleo,John Moustakis,Pam Lombardini,Nadine Hanscom,Gene Collins,Tim Kavanaugh,Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready. Also present were: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planter. Members absent:Dave Weiner. Chairman Puleo opens hearing at 6:38. Approval of Minutes Moustakis:motion to approve the 12/4/08 meeting minutes,seconded by Hanscom. Passes 8-0. Lombardini:motion to approve minutes from the 11/13/08 joint public hearing seconded by M oustakis. Passes 8-0. Public Hearine—Site Plan Review—William Wharff, 17 North Street (M an 26.Lot 492)(formerly the Elks Lodcc). Attorney Scott Grover presents the petition,explaining that while the Planning Board had previously approved an application under Site Plan Review for the property at 17 North Street. However,Grover explained that the original design features made the project economically unfeasible to build,and so the applicant had submitted anew design. The building had previously had two distinct components,one in a Victorian,late-I800s style;the other more modem. The applicant had problems melding those two structures together. The new application proposes a single structure. Grover states that the previous night,the Zoning Board of Appeals had granted the variances necessary to build the project,which were similar to original set of variances granted. Grover also states that the Historical Commission had also issued a certificate of appropriateness the previous night,and that the Commission were enthusiastic about the new design. Grover states that as a result of the plan changes,the project is now less dense than it was when first proposed. Seven units were originally approved,and now only six are proposed. Grover explains that the building as proposed is not as imposing as it was, and not as tall. The footprint is bigger,spread out a bit. This has absorbed one parking space,and now there remain six parking spaces. The Board of Appeals approved this. Puleo:the previous plan had parking laid out...this one does too,now I see. Grover:It's mislabeled,M r.Palen,but you can still count the number of them. Palen:where is 4? 5 is 4, 6 is 5,etc. Grover shows where each parking space is. Puleo remarks on the increased footprint and notes that the building extends back further. Hanscom asks Grover to show the parking spaces on the easel. Grover points to each numbered space on the easel so the public can see. w .salem.ccrn(Pages/SalemMA—PlanMin/2008Minutes/S022C87EF?te#Page=1 1/3 'a(6/13 City of Salem,MA-Apprmed Minutes 12/18/2008 Puled confirms with Grover that what the petitioner needed from the Board of Appeals were variances for density,lot area per dwelling unit,height,and parking Puleo clarifies the difference in parking spaces—seven units with eight spaces were previously approved,and the new proposal shows six units with six spaces. Puled remarks on a space which still might accommodate a parked car,but notes that the applicant is not counting it as a legal space and remarks there should be language in the condo agreement about the use of that space. Sullivan says she is an enthusiastic supporter of the project. Puled asks if they are still proposing to keep the fence in front. Grover says they are going to try to incorporate as many details as possible,finances allowing Grover says that the details are still also subject to the Historical Commission,including color scheme,etc.,so any variation on their plans need to go back to the Commission. Puleo opens the issue up for public comment.. Emily Udy of Historic Salem states Historic Salem's support for the project. Martin Imm, 174 Federal St.,states his support for the project. Sullivan:motion to close public hearing seconded by Lombardini. Passes 8-0. Sullivan:motion to approve the site plan,seconded by Lombardini.The petition passes 8-0. Withdrawal of Riverview Place,LLC petition. Grover:because this hearing was continued so long and due to technology issues with the recorder,and because so many board members are now ineligible to vote,we decided it was probably best to withdraw the petition and re-file in the same form without changes to the project other than those already made. That way we have the full board to render a decision. We'd like benefit of full board participation. We want to file to be on meeting for first meeting in January. That will be a very complete application containing all architectural and engineering plans,rather than peicemeal. Puleo asks if they are still moving forward with Design Review Board;Grover says yes,they are on the agenda for December. Puled asks if the traffic study and engineering peer review were still moving forward. Grover says they we met with the city engineer,the peer reviewers and McKnight about the peer review issues. Peer review is still ongoing when the new application is filed,it would contain a lot more information. Grover says he wants to have traffic engineers come to the first meeting because they'll be ready,and we can try to address those issues first. The engineers will attend the following meeting Grover says that with the Board's permission,they would like to withdraw the current application. Ready:motion to withdraw without prejudice,seconded by Sullivan. Passes 8-0. Old/new business The Board hears a presentation by Andrea Leary,who discusses the North Shore Traffic Management Association(TMA)and reviews the ways in which the Planning Board might use TMA membership as a condition for certain projects as a means of traffic congestion mitigation. Discussion ensues. Dates for the 2009 Planning Board meetings are discussed. McKnight will email the tentative schedule to the Board members. The first and third Thursdays of each month,except October(no first Thursday)and August(no meetings)will be scheduled. The Board also agrees to return to a 7:00 PM start time instead of 6:30. Lombardini:motion to adjourn,seconded by Moustakis. Passes 8-0. w .salem.car✓Pages/Sale MA_PlanMirV2008Minutes/S022C87EF7te)dPage=1 2/3 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Appro�d Minutes 1/15/09 ' Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street, Salem,MA 01970 ph: 978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 1/15/09 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting January 15,2009 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,January 15,2009 at 7:00 p.m.in Room 312,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were:Chuck Puleo,John M oustakis,Pam Lombardini,Nadine Hanscom,Gene Collins,Tim Kavanaugh,Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready,Dave Weiner. Also present were:Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis,Clerk. Public Hearine—Site Plan Review,Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit&North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC,72 Flint Street,67-679 Mason Street&71 Mason Street (Map 26.Lots 0091.0095 &0097)(former Salem Suede Prot)city)—Attorney Scott Grover Attorney Scott Grover,representing Riverview Place,introduced Dave Walsh,Jim McDowell,Steve Livermore,Architect,and Jeff M axtutis.Attorney Scott Grover explained that this past December of 2008 they withdrew their petition and then refiled so they could have the full Board eligible to vote. Prior to withdrawal,many things had been discussed and the project has evolved tremendously. He feels they have better a project than 12 months ago when they first appeared in front of the Board.They filed their complete package with the Design Review Board today and are hoping for a recommendation for the next meeting. The focus of tonight's Planning Board meeting is to be traffic;Riverview's traffic engineers are in attendance(AE Com, formerly Earthtech), as are John Mirabito at Ken Petraglia of BETA,the city's traffic peer reviewer. Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering(the Civil Engineering peer reviewer)will appear at the next Planning Board meeting to discuss site engineering and present his comments. Arty. Grover gave an overview of the project:All buildings will be demolished and 3 new ones will be constructed. The first building has 24 residential units,the second will have 42 units and the third has 64 units. A parking garage was added to take some parking off the surface. Attorney Grover stated that several permits are required for this project. Three variances have been granted by the Board of Appeals(BOA): one from minimum lot size requirements;one for construction within the 50 foot buffer zone;and one from first floor entrance requirements for multi-family houses in the North River Canal Corridor(NRCC). The BOA granted a variance for the latter which paves the way for the Planning Board to grant permit for multi-family use. Attorney Grover said they are asking for 3 Special Permits from the Planning Board:flood hazard/wetlands;NRCC Site Plan Review;and multi-family housing For the last of these,the project must satisfy 3 conditions:the property abuts a residential use parcel;any building on a main corridor has to have commercial on the fust floor;and residential units have to have fust floor entrance. For the NRCC Special Permit,there are additional criteria that the Planning Board has to consider. These criteria include consistency with the NRCC Master Plan and a recommendation from the Design Review Board. The Master Plan lists 7 items which include extending access to pedestrians, considering redeveloping the Salem Suede Site for housing,improving and maintaining views from the neighborhood of the canal, redeveloping industrial sites,enhancing residential character,and enhancing the canal edge. Attorney Grover feels this proposal is very consistent with the objectives of the NRCC M asterp lan. Jim McDowell of Eastern Land Survey said there are 3 proposed buildings. There is a site entrance/egress on Flint and Mason. There will be recommendations on curbing forthcoming There are 309 parking spaces that include 223 garage spaces and 86 spaces throughout site, 12 will be reserved for neighborhood use.Near building 2,there is now one central access point that opened up and allowed for placement of a planting strip. There are interior walkways along buildings and up main driveways. They have proposed a walkway along the bank of the river. There is still a provision for an easement if Commercial Street goes forward in the future.For trash,they are proposing one dumpster in the comer of building one and interior to building one and two will be central www.salem.conYPages/SalemMA—PlanMin/2009Minutes/502326CD7Re#Page=1 1/6 x&6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 1/15/09 trash. Mr.McDowell gave an overview of the utilities and water supply plans and said there are 2 connection points on Tremont and Mason Streets.There are 2 hydrants proposed on site and they feel circulation for fire trucks will be fine.For sanitary sewer they will use an existing 10-inch PVC line,will avoid making a new connection and terminate at manhole. All wastewater will have gravity discharge. Storm drainage:catch basins throughout site will go into gravity storm drain system and into North River. At this location,there will be a DEP-approved stormcepter device for total suspended solids removal. This, in addition to the proposed catch basins,will exceed DEP requirements. Any roof drainage that comes from areas where there is rooftop mechanical equipment that could have any sort of lubricating oils,etc.will be directed through the stormcepter. Two rain gardens are proposed to take clean roof runoff. After the buildings are tom down,they will do more investigation to see if the soil is clean enough for rain gardens to be a possibility.If not,the swales will be lined so that water does not filter through the contaminated soil. They will still perform a stormwater volume reduction function through evapotranspiration,and they are a nice site amenity. As part of flood hazard,they have demonstrated in the elevations that the proposed buildings are above the base flood level within the North River Canal floodplain. Basement and garage levels are also above this level,so they would not flood. With regard to the site being adjacent to a tidal waterway,the North River,DEP is not requiring that water be held in a detention basin;they won't be installing any large underground storage tanks. The water can go into the river once adequately pretreated.Also,power,cable& phone will be in underground conduits. The renderings developed by Chris Huntress were shown. Chuck Puleo mentioned that the proposed 6 ft.wide walkway along the canal wasn't shown on the renderings. Jim McDowell explained that the drawing is being modified and will be provided to the Board. Chuck Palen asked for confirmation that the walkway is still in the plan and noted that it would need to be shown so that it was clear whether it would be disturbed if Commercial Street were to be extended. Christine Sullivan noted that the walkway was also not shown in the landscape plans provided to the Board as part of the new filing Danielle McKnight asked for clarification on the width of the easement. Was the easement a total of 30 feet,24 for the possible new roadway and 6 for the walkway,or was it 30 feet for the possible new roadway and an additional 6 for the walkway? Jim McDowell confirmed that it was 30 feet for the street and an additional 6 feet for the walkway. Chuck Puleo asked if the plantings planned would have to be removed;Jim McDowell was unsure. John M oustakis asked if they had been before the DRB with this plan and Attorney Grover said that they have with a slightly earlier plan and will be going back to the DRB the 28th of this month. Jim McDowell had to leave. Chuck Puleo opened the issue up for public comment and questions. Jane Arlander,93 Federal St.,asked how stormwater would run off the property when the river crests its bank. Jim M cDowell explained,as is required by the Salem Conservation Commission,they're putting in tide gate/flap valve that holds the stormwater back;during extreme events the water might flood,but that's something that happens throughout the city. Water is retained on site within basins,it might flood parking lot a little bit. Jane Arlander commented that it freezes in the winter in parking lots. Jim McDowell agreed that maintenance is very important,if it freezes,they would need to get someone in there. Ms.Arlander also asked about snow removal and Jim McDowell said the system could handle about a six to eight inch storm then offsite removal would be necessary. The stormceptor capacity is 12,000 gal,so it would hold that then would flood. M eg Twohey,Federal St, asked for him to show where snow would go. He showed areas where snow could go,pushed back with plows. Steven Livermore,Architect,described the buildings and their architecture. There was some confusion as to the drawings presented and those provided in Board members'packages as they were different,newer plans will be provided to members.The fust building is 50 ft maximum height with 203 car parking garage,combo 4 and 3 stories and an L-shaped building Building two is a 42-unit building with 20 carparking garage at lowest part of building in back.The third is 24 units with commercial space. The image from Bridge and North St.will look like a renovated mill,they showed image of the Mason St.side that will look more residential. The architecture is sunder to buildings around the site. He also showed view of the walkway image. Christine Sullivan commented that she thought it was difficult for the audience and Board members to see drawing,so she wanted changes to presentations(example handouts,PowerPoint presentations,etc.)and updated color renderings. Scott said they made sure that citizens got extra copies of colored renderings before meetings. Steve Livermore also commented that they had not been w .salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PImMin/2009Minutes/SO2326CD7?teAPage=1 2/6 816113 Cityof Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 1/15/09 asked to provide electronic files to project,and that the renderings they were providing were above and beyond the requirements of the Planning Board. Nadine Hanscom asked about the height of some of the buildings in comparison to those across the street; Steve Livermore showed an overview of the buildings,they are 3 stories above grade and the buildings across the street are about a grade higher,so they're about the same elevation. Chimney forms on the mill buildings are above the 50 ft mark,which is allowed. John Moustakis wondered why are they doing a mill-building image. Steve Livermore explained that the DRB was looking form image of a mill building because that's what was there before. At the area around north river there were taller buildings of factory type in the late 70's that are no longer there.The storage building on comer of Boston and Bridge is an image of a mill building Also,people on Flint St. and Mason St.wanted to see a residential image. John Moustakis commented that by having a flat building that allows 5 stories.Attorney Scott Grover added that when first presented,the building had a more pointed roof.John Moustakis wondered how much area the buildings cover. Steve Livermore said the footprint is 70,000 sq ft;about 40%of the site is covered with buildings. They have reduced the footprint by 10,000 sq ft. Steve Livermore showed other images such as the view from Leslies Retreat park. Chuck Puleo requested that for the next meeting,board members should have all renderings. Shelby Hypes,Federal St,wondered since the buildings take up 40%of site,if you add parking area and building together,what percent of open space would be left and if there a requirement?Attorney Scott Grover doesn't think NRCC provides requirements for percentage of open space,it provides set number of trees,and other landscaping guidance and they've complied with landscaping Shelby Hypes, 157 Federal St.,also asked how much impervious space is left on the plan.Attorney Grover said they could have that information at the next meeting Jane Arlander,93 Federal Street,had a problem with views presented,as they were very far away and asked for him to explain the number of stories. Building one is technically 5 floors,four floors above grade. Scott said they spoke with the Building Inspector,Tom St.Pierre,regarding height requirements and,based on this design and definition,they have complied,they don't exceed height or story requirements. Christine Sullivan questioned the number of floors.Chuck Puleo explained that it varies between the front and back of building Tim Ready suggested that height level seemed to be a point of contention and thought for the next meeting maybe can get something in writing from building inspector confirming compliance with zoning Christine Sullivan would like to see renderings and what it looks like at pedestrian level. Chuck Puleo suggested that Steve Livermore could divide up renderings so that they have those with different perspectives including from pedestrian level. Daniel Little,86 Flint St,asked about a comment made that there would be commercial space in the Mason St. building If that was the case,would the commercial space be entered from Mason St.? Steve Livermore said the commercial entrance is at lower level of access garage. Mr. Little asked what would be going into that commercial space. Steve Livermore said that there has been some discussion on it but didn't know what will be going in there yet. Chuck Puleo asked if there were further questions for M r. Livermore. There were not,so AE Com began their traffic presentation. Jeff Maxtutis,who performed traffic study,briefly summarized AE Com's evaluation. After initially assessing existing and future conditions and identifying mitigation measures in their 2007 report,they went through 2 rounds of questions from BETA and responded to those questions. Changes were made to their original recommendations,including mitigation suggestions and the configuration of the Flint St.driveway. For their assessment of the existing conditions,they did a field inventory of the site, studied surrounding streets and intersections(Tremont and Mason,Flint and M ason,Bridge and Flint and the project driveways), did traffic counts at morning and afternoon peak periods,and performed accident research of the intersections. He said that Tremont and Mason Street,and Flint and Mason do exceed state average crash rates.They also performed capacity analysis for the intersections,including"no-build"conditions and for the project itself. Mr.Maxtutis stated that the Riverview project itself would generate a small number of trips for a project of its size because apartments generally generate less traffic than single-family homes,and also because the proximity of the commuter rail station would lessen traffic because residents would use the trains as well as drive. Mr.Maxtutis estimated the project would generate 56 trips in morning at peak hour,a little less than one vehicle per minute,and in the eveningpeak hour there would be an estimated 87 vehicle trips.Mr.Maxtutis said the number of trips would be divided about evenly between the project's two driveways. Mr. Maxtutis also said that the Flint St driveway,based on recommendations,was changed to allow left tum-only out and right-only in. He explained that this reduces the number of vehicle trips at the North part of Flint Street. Chuck Puleo asked for further specifics on new traffic activity onto Mason St.,the numbers of turns being made,and how many people might be traveling onto Tremont St.toward Peabody. Mr.Maxtutis said that the numbers of the project trips are all less w .salem.com/Pages/Sale MA_PlanMin/2009Minutes/S02326CD7Re#Page=1 316 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approsed Minutes 1/15/09 than 10 vehicles for any movement. He explained that in the moming p eak hour,there are more people leaving the site,going to work. Chuck Puleo asked of those trips,how many would be leaving the site through Flint St.? Mr.Maxtutis said at morning peak hour there would be 20 left turns an hour,or 1 vehicle every 3 minutes making that left tum. He said that at M ason St,he said there would be little more than 20 turns,less than 10 vehicles for any movement,or 7 lefts,7 throughs and 8 rights. Mr. M axtutis said these are very small rates of trip generation,so small that they don't change the local service results in any of the intersections. He said there are issues at some of the intersections;not because of this project,but because of currently existing traffic problems on the Salem streets. Mr.Maxtutis went on to say that regardingthe level of service,the intersection at Flint and Bridge operates under acceptable conditions,as will the two project driveways. He said there is an issue in the northbound left tum lane from Flint Street onto Mason which operates at level of service F,as it does today. He said that the southbound Tremont St. approach to Mason St. operates at level of service F,particularly at the morningpeak hour,and on Mason St.there are currently longdelays. Mr. Maxtutis finished summarizing the existing conditions. In terms of mitigation measures,which had been reviewed by BETA,AE Com suggests optimizing the signal timing at Bridge and Flint St.;skewing the driveway to prevent trips to the North section of Flint St_ For safety at Flint St.,they recommend a flashingbeacon and supplemental signage to increase driver awareness at the intersection;for Mason and Tremont Street,thought about widening but would have to take 10 ft section of Mack park;BETA suggested traffic signal to be 4 way signal. Delay would be reduced on Mason St. John Moustakis wondered if they took into consideration potential extension of Commercial St.They did not take it into consideration with traffic study,they were under impression it wouldn't happen for 5 years. Christine Sullivan mentioned that there was a discussion as to whether traffic patterns would change due to new courthouse. Danielle M cKnight said they asked BETA about that;BETA felt there would be no significant impact;she can elaborate further on this if needed. Nick Nowak,336 Essex St.,asked if there was another way out and about the number of cars. Jeff Maxtutis said 56 would be the total of inbound and outbound trips.43 will exit in the morning. Councillor Paul Prevey,Ward 6,asked if in regards to the light at Tremont St.,would it require an easement from Mack Park to work or would it be preferable to have an extra lane. Jeff Maxtutis said the signal doesn't need additional lane to work or easement to Mack Park and as a single lane,it would work well.Dave Weiner asked if it would need a signal if you had the other lane. Jeff Maxtutis said that they were looking at that option. You don't have to have a signal,but it would help separate left and right turns. Councillor Prevey added that it would be a long process with the legislature to get land for that extra lane. Nadine Hanscom needed to leave the meeting at 8:20 PM. Ken Petraglia of BETA gaup,said they assessed that intersection was because of the Riverview project,but they feel the light signal is needed there because of safety issues,not capacity issues. Even without this project,there are concerns with poor sight distance at that intersection. Councillor Prevey asked for clarification of the standards for putting a light in,and Jeff M axtutis explained that based on 2 and 4 peak hour tests,called warrants,the intersection meets standards based numbers at peak hours. Nick Nowak,336 Essex St.,asked about the number of cars going north of the buildings and commented that if it backed up,it might back up the queue onto Bridge Street. Chuck Puleo remembered that there was discussion about re-striping the road. Jeff Maxtutis said they talked about that atone point but it was taken off the table.He discussed signal optimization. Chuck Puleo and Jeff Maxtutis discussed that the lights that are on Bridge&Flint Streets have technology to do what they want to do with them so they can be adjusted. Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St.,was concerned that the driveway on Flint St will be directly across Oak St,but Jeff Maxtutis said that they're both low volume streets and the visibility is fine. Martin Imm, 174 Federal St.,commented that there should be a connection for the possible extension of Commercial St.He suggested the Planning Board make a condition to have a connection. Chuck Puleo responded that the Planning Board doesn't have the ability to make that condition because some of the land that would be needed to build the street straight across to Flint Street is owned by a third party. Mr.Imm thinks they have that power but Chuck reiterated that some of the land needed is privately owned. Martin Imm said that they could make one of the proposed buildings less massive to accommodate the street connection. Attorney Scott Grover said they did not have the power to take someone else's private property and since that party is not here, the Board could not negotiate that. Chuck Puleo asked what benefits the extension of Commercial St.would provide,assuming it was possible. Jeff Maxtutis was not www.salem.corn/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2009Minutes/502326CD7?te#Page=1 416 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approwd Minutes 1/15/09 - sure how much benefit that would provide. Tim Ready wasn't sure it was fair to ask that at this time. Martin Imm argued it would benefit Salem to create a section of Commercial St.and connect it with Mason St. Christine Sullivan said for clarification, the plan indicates that the property line ends, and to cross Tremont St you'd have to cross someone else's property. Martin Imm said that when the Master Plan was put together,there was a stripe on the map.Now they're tearing down buildings,you have an opportunity to add on now,an opportunity to follow the Master Plan. John Mirabito from BETA group,the traffic engineering peer reviewer for the City was asked to give a recap of BETA's assessment of the project. Mr.Mirabito summarized BETA's assessment and referenced the correspondence between AE Com and BETA through which BETA noted issues in need of resolution and AE Com responded.The Board and Planning department had also specifically asked about making Goodhue St.two-way and limiting the access/egress to Flint St.to left tum out/right turn in.Additionally,BETA was asked to note any issues still outstanding since their last report in the Spring of 2008. Mc M irabito also highlighted three issues: 1)Parking on Flint St.entrance driveway,they recommend no parking there. Idea is that if there is parking there,it slows traffic entering and could cause accidents. Chuck Puleo added that would change total number of spaces and those spaces are the ones that were set aside for the abutting residents of Flint St. Chuck Palen asked if there someway of rearranging the parking so these can be rearranged,such as enter from another side. Perhaps Jim McDowell can look at this and see how to reconfigure these. Christine Sullivan thought it looks like they have all the spaces they need and Attorney Scott Grover said because it's commercial,they need more than just a residential development would,and the NRCC requires 2 spaces per apartment.He didn't realize the spaces being recommended to remove were those allotted for neighborhood parking Jeff willtake a look at it. John M irabito said for the Flint St driveway they recommend when coming down Flint St not being able to take a left into the site, you would have to go down to the bridge and back around to North Street. Attorney Grover added that if City decides that its appropriate to have traffic light at Tremont St.,they would be willing to contribute to a portion of it or install it. John M irabito recommended this light at this intersection for safety. He said it would cost about $200,000 to signalize and make minor road improvements. Christine Sullivan asked about the impact on North St(with a light on Mason St)and would it backup North St. Jason Silva with AE Com said their study showed it wouldn't back up onto North St. Chuck Puke,added that they received a memo in their packages regarding Goodhue St. Dave Weiner wondered what would happen if they didn't put a signal in. John Mirabito said they would still have problems that you have today. The traffic problems warrant this fight regardless of this project. Mr.Zion commented that they're inheriting a problem that is actually the city's problem. He's concerned that they're going to link this project with that light. Danielle McKnight had a conversation with Lynn Duncan and the City realizes that traffic is already a problem in this area even without the project. Daniel Little,86 Flint St.,asked about a study from Flint St. Traffic coming from Peabody will back up or go down Oak St. and straight across into the driveway. He feels it's a major cut through and it's going to backup. Jeff Maxtutis said the signal would provide additional gips on Mason St. Mr.Little feels a person would never get to North St. John Mirabito said,in regards to making Goodhue St. a two-way street,there could be quite a few problems. First,they would have to phase the traffic signal(at Boston,Proctor and Bridge Streets)and that would back up that intersection.Also,the grade of Boston St. is higher so it would be difficult to see;the street would lose parking area;there would be some traffic cutting through to Harmony Grove. John Moustakis respectfully disagreed.He said it used to be two way,when there were many people working in that area. On the comer of Bridge and Goodhue Street there is an easement across the Self Storage property;if the City wished to widen or move Goodhue St.,they could use a 50 foot wide strip of land from that property. He said that with all the new developments proposed or expected in that area,Goodhue St.was needed to take some of the traffic heading to Bridge St. Christine Sullivan agreed. Nick Nowak,336 Essex St.,wondered if this was the last evening for traffic discussion and Meg Twohey wanted to know,since they have identified a problem at Tremont onto Mason St,if there is no traffic light,would they hear about it at next meeting She asks that the Board ask for more clarification since it's a safety issue. Chuck Puleo responded that this was not the final discussion on traffic or the light at Tremont and Mason;the Board needed to hear the peer review comment tonight,but there would be further discussion about traffic. Also,the Board would need to hear more about how we might handle the Flint St. entrance given BETA had suggested eliminating the parking area there. John Mirabito then reviewed BETA's recommendations for the Flint St. access/egress and explained the reasons for suggesting right turn in/left tum out only.+ w .salem.con/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2009Minutes/502326CD7?te)tPage=1 5/6 816/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 1/15/09 Councillor Prevey,Ward 6,is concerned about the possible loss of the Flint St.residential parking,where will the Flint St. residents park if the designated spaces are taken away? If those spaces are relocated within the site,people could walk half a mile to their cars from their homes. He's also disappointed that BETA group recommended against making Goodhue St. a two way; he felt the City collectively has to look at it. He said that in terms of reducing traffic in that area,Goodhue St.seems to be the only way,the only"valve"that could relieve the pressure there. On the subject of the light at Tremont St.,he asked who would pay for that;he's also been trying to get pedestrian crosswalk at Boston and Bridge,which would be$10,000-15,000 and questioned where the city would get money for that or for the new light at Tremont. Christine Sullivan added that given what John said about opportunities (the 2 and 12 Goodhue St.easement)it would behoove them to take a second look now. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Gene Collins to continue the public hearing to February 5,2009,seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved(8-0). Dave and Pam left at 9:30 PM. Chuck Puleo said at next meeting they will discuss the neighborhood parking spaces and Attorney Scott Grover will get renderings to Board members. Annroval of Minutes The minutes of the December 18th meeting were reviewed. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Gene Collins to accept the minutes, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved(6-0). Old/New Business Discussion of 2009 meeting Dates to be discussed at next meeting Adiournment There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was made by Tim Ready to adjourn the meeting seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved(6-0). The meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM. Respectfully submitted by: Stacey Dupuis,Clerk Salem Planning Board www.Salem.condPages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2009Minutes/502326CD7Re#Page=1 6/6 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 2105/09 1 '- ' Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 ph: 978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 2/05/09 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting February 5, 2009 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo,Pam Lombardirt,Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins,Tim Kavanaugh, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready,Dave Weiner. Absent:John Moustakis Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk. ADDroyal of Minutes The minutes of the January 7th City Council/Planning Board joint hearing were reviewed. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to accept the minutes, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved (8-0). The minutes of the January 7th Planning Board special meeting were reviewed. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to accept the minutes, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved(8-0). The minutes of the January 15th regular meeting were reviewed. On page 4,Chuck Puleo questioned whether the sentence "the number of vehicles are all less than 10 vehicles per minute" makes sense. Danielle will check the recording for this to clarify who said, "will generate a small amount of trips". There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to accept the minutes, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved(8-0). Public Hearing- Personal Wireless Service Facilities Special Permit- Omnipoint Communications. Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Incl 181 North Street (Map 27.Lot 1200. Attorney Scott Lacy— The proposed project includes the installation of six (6) antennas on the roof of the existing condominium building and ancillary radio equipment cabinets located within a ground-level fenced leased area. Attorney Scott Lacy,representing Omnipoint, explained that the site is a multi-story condo and the proposed facility would be located on the center of the pitched part of the roof. The proposal consists of 6 antennas that will not be visible as they will be within a proposed 12 ft tall faux chimney. There will be cabling along roof edge and ancillary equipment cabinets. There is an existing fence compound on the side of the building w ..salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMiN2009Minutes/S0238E75ne#Page=1 1/6 „ 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-ApproRd Minutes 2/05/09 explained that the FCC determines the level of radio frequency emissions that will cause human harm and the company must comply with those standards. John McDonald added that because the building is high, there is a concern with things blowing off, for example they've had slate shingles blow off in the past, which is a risk to neighbors. Chuck Puleo added that they would need to get a permit from the building department and the building inspector would be involved to be sure construction was done to code. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Gene Collins to continue the public hearing at the next meeting, seconded by Dave Weiner and approved(8-0). Public Hearing— Site Plan Review.Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit & North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC, 72 Flint Street, 67-679 Mason Street & 71 Mason Street (Map 26. Lots 0091. 0095 & 0097) (former Salem Suede Property, — Attorney Scott Grover Attorney Scott Grover representing Riverview Place LLC addressed the issue of parking near the Flint St. entrance to the site. BETA suggested reconfiguring that area of parking because they are concerned that cars backing out would have obstructed views and would be dangerous to cars entering the site. He showed an alternative site plan,which has 32 spaces, as before,but with the spaces placed so as to allow cars to back out away from the entrance. However,Attorney Grover said Riverview Place prefers the original configuration of parking. Attorney Grover said the new parking alternative negatively infringes on some of the landscaped area that acts as a buffer between the parking lot and Flint Street. Chris Huntress explained with the new parking scheme more impervious area is created,landscape buffer is lost and the arrangement is more awkward for cars to turn around. There are a total of 309 spaces on site - 260 spaces (2 spaces per unit), 12 for the Flint St. residents, and 37 spaces for commercial Mr. Huntress said they are providing the maximum parking that might be required for the commercial and residential space, since they don't know what's going in for commercial use yet and want to be sure there is sufficient parking for any possible commercial use. Mr. Huntress also said this plan meets landscape requirements but would need to add trees to comply with zoning. Attorney Grover mentioned that if the Board hkes this parking layout better, they can do it,but it's not desirable. The second issue discussed is the number of stories of the building. Steve Livermore submitted an opinion to the building department stating why he felt the plans complied with the maximum number of stories in the NRCC zoning(4 stories) and received feedback from Tom McGrath agreeing with his opinion. However, Mr. McGrath had stated that he would need to see final drawings showing grading in order to make a defmitive determination. Attorney Grover also said they met with the Design Review Board (DRB) the previous night so they made some revisions based on some of the DRB's suggestions. Attorney Scott Grover felt it appeared from that meeting that the DRB is getting ready to make a recommendation to the Planning Board. Bill Ross,NE Civil Engineering,presented his most recent peer review. He stated what his concerns were, including the lack of existing utilities showing and the industrial wastewater treatment facility on site. They need to get plans from SESD and will have to have a TV camera inspection to see where the connection is. Mr. Ross has questions as to where will poles be dug into city streets; there are no isolation valves shown for city water mains,they need to get that information. Mr. Ross said the largest issue is city drainage, particularly the drain that leaves Mason St. and heads through the project. A TV line and report must be done on this because they can see something going in but cannot find outlet into river. Mr. Ross said they want to see where the gas utilities are; the drainage plan looks acceptable; for stormwater management/flooding,they need delineation maps and plans for bioretention. Mr. Ross said that before final approval, every sheet of the plans still would require some form of revision. wmAt.Salem.conJPages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2009Minutes/S0238E757Re#Page 1 316 8/6/13 Cityof Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 2/05/09 I There was a brief discussion of dumpster locations. Mr. Ross noted there would be one outside dumpster and the rest of trash will be stored inside. Nadine Hanscom is concerned with gas Imes being worked on, particularly considering this is an old site, and as work is going on, wants to be sure someone (from the City) is overseeing the work. Bill Ross said they are required to pull a street opening permit from the City. Chuck Puleo believes a job this size should have a Clerk of the Works. Bill Ross would like more information on snow removal and how many parking spaces it will take up. He also questioned the impact of lighting on adjacent properties as well as whether the building with commercial space will require a loading area. Mr. Ross said there are also some minor landscaping questions remaining such as whether there will be irrigation lines. Attorney Grover expects to respond to the site engineering issues at the next Planning Board meeting, and BETA,the traffic peer reviewer,will be coming to that meeting as well to finish the discussion about traffic issues. Christine Sullivan asked if BETA had looked into impacts from the court construction traffic signal changes. Danielle McKnight said they asked BETA about the signal changes and their impacts, and BETA doesn't predict there would be a significant impact. Tim Ready encouraged the applicant to work with BETA to come to a consensus before coming to the next Planning Board meeting. Chris Huntress went over the updated landscape plan. Revisions include:the removal of 4 spaces from the parking lot on the Flint St side; the widening of the planting buffer between the parking in front; 7 spaces removed from the site and put into the garage to increase the landscape buffer; in the back of the building, a single entrance to the garage allows planting area to soften the view from Flint St.; the strengthening of the pedestrian walkway by adding specialty pavers to define it; and a bumped curb line in the middle of the walkway to visually break up the length of street. It was noted that the walkway on the left side connects to state-owned parking lot. Chris Huntress explained that there are two styles of lighting (shoebox and ornamental) and the fixtures come with a feature to shield the residential/abutters side. Mr. Huntress said there will be wall lighting to code. Once the project is complete,they can do photometric and field adjustments and add shields if necessary to adjust impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Board received a letter from Beth Rennard, City Solicitor,explaining that with regard to density bonuses, the Planning Board does not have any legal authority to vary, set aside or modify any decision of the BOA. There are exceptions - density bonuses for historic preservation and affordable housing - but neither of these applies to this case. Hearing Opened for Public Comment Martin Imm, 174 Federal St., feels the Board can, in fact, address the density issue through site plan review. He suggests the Board deny the petition because this proposal doesn't fit the site. He also mentioned the connection of Commercial Street as in previous meetings. He asked how people would get from their cars to their apartments and Steve Livermore explained that there would be a connection from the garage into the building so they won't have to go outside. Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St.,mentioned that regarding traffic on Flint St., residents feel traffic has changed immensely since the lights have changed. Nadine Hanscom suggested they bring these concerns to the next meeting when a discussion of traffic was planned. Meg Twohey attended the recent DRB meeting last night and said there was a suggestion to redesign the garage with an additional 50 spaces to add green spaces to the area by removing surface parking. There was also an idea for a green roof. Steve Livermore said they could look at the green roof idea,but the client is concerned with economics. k .salemxom/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMirV2009Minutes/S0238E757?teMPage=1 4/6 8/6113 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 2/05/09 Christine Sullivan is concerned about requiring the commercial space on the site; she feels it doesn't make sense in a residential area and adds unnecessarily to the size of the site. Nadine Hanscom said she'd had a similar concern and discussed it prior to the meeting with Danielle McKnight. Danielle McKnight clarified that commercial space was required in the NRCC zoning district and that waiving this requirement would require a use variance,which is not permitted in Salem. Attorney Scott Grover said they moved the commercial to the back so it's not in the residential area. Councillor Paul Prevey wanted to know, what the landscaped buffer between the project and abutters would look like. Chris Huntress said they have added evergreens, shade trees and ornamental trees and showed perspective drawings. Councillor Jean Pelletier commended Bill Ross and his work. Danielle McKnight mentioned that some board members would not be here at the next meeting and asked which members knew they would not be attending. It was confirmed that three members would be absent on February 19, so Attorney Grover indicated he would like to continue the public hearing to the March 5, 2009 meeting. Attorney Grover expects that they would have a DRB recommendation for the next meeting. Danielle McKnight confirmed that the next DRB hearing was scheduled for February 25, 2009. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to continue the Public Hearing at the March 5th meeting, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved(8-0). Old/New Business • Elections - Pam Lombardini suggested holding elections when the full board is available at the first meeting in April • Danielle McKnight said the Planning Dept. received plans for a Chapter 91 marina at Hawthorne Cove. If anyone wants to see them,they can contact her. • Chuck Puleo noticed the rows of parking at the project on Canal Street(Dollar Store). He thinks the project looks like its closer to Canal St. than it should be; a few others agreed and wondered who goes out and checks on projects once they are in construction. Danielle McKnight said if there's no clerk of the works for a project, she would check. Other sites mentioned that needed inspection were the North Street garage(was it over 10,000 square feet?) and Beverly Cooperative Bank(was there HVAC screening?). Danielle McKnight said she would check into those. Adiou nrnent There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Gene Collins and approved (8-0). The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Stacey Dupuis, Clerk Salem Planning Board w .salem.mrryPages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2009Minutes/S0238E757?teMPag a=1 - 5/6 8/6(13 City of Salem, VIA-Approved Minutes 2/05/09 11.1 Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street, Salem,MA 01970 ph: 978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 2/05/09 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting February 5, 2009 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,February 5, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo,Pam Lombardi*Nadine Hanscom, Gene Collins, Tim Kavanaugh, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready,Dave Weiner. Absent:John Moustakis Also present were: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis, Clerk. AWroval of Minutes The minutes of the January 7th City Council/Planning Board joint hearing were reviewed. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to accept the minutes, seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved(8-0). The minutes of the January 7th Planning Board special meeting were reviewed. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to accept the minutes, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved(8-0). The minutes of the January 15th regular meeting were reviewed. On page 4,Chuck Puleo questioned whether the sentence "the number of vehicles are all less than 10 vehicles per minute" makes sense. Danielle will check the recording for this to clarify who said, `will generate a small amount of trips". There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to accept the minutes, seconded by Nadine Hanscom and approved(8-0). Public Hearing- Personal Wireless Service Facilities Special Permit- Omnipoint Communications. Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc.) 181 North Street (Map 27,Lot 1200. Attorney Scott Lacy— The proposed project includes the installation of six (6) antennas on the roof of the existing condominium building and ancillary radio equipment cabinets located within a ground-level fenced leased area. Attorney Scott Lacy,representing Omnipoint, explained that the site is a multi-story condo and the proposed facility would be located on the center of the pitched part of the roof. The proposal consists of 6 antennas that will not be visible as they will be within a proposed 12 ft tall faux chimney. There will be cabling along roof edge and ancillary equipment cabinets. There is an existing fence compound on the side of the building v .salem.corn'Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2009Minutes/S0238E757?te)QPage=1 1/6 8/6113 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 2/05/09 explained that the FCC determines the level of radio frequency emissions that will cause human harm and the company must comply with those standards. John McDonald added that because the building is high, there is a concern with things blowing off, for example they've had slate shingles blow off in the past, which is a risk to neighbors. Chuck Puleo added that they would need to get a permit from the building department and the building inspector would be involved to be sure construction was done to code. There being no farther questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Gene Collins to continue the public hearing at the next meeting, seconded by Dave Weiner and approved(8-0). Public Hearing— Site Plan Review-Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit & North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC- 72 Flint Street, 67-679 Mason Street & 71 Mason Street(Map 26,Lots 0091. 0095 & 0097) (former Salem Suede Propenyl — Attorney Scott Grover Attorney Scott Grover representing Riverview Place LLC addressed the issue of parking near the Flint St. entrance to the site. BETA suggested reconfiguring that area of parking because they are concerned that cars backing out would have obstructed views and would be dangerous to cars entering the site. He showed an alternative site plan,which has 32 spaces, as before,but with the spaces placed so as to allow cars to back out away from the entrance. However,Attorney Grover said Riverview Place prefers the original configuration of parking. Attorney Grover said the new parking alternative negatively infringes on some of the landscaped area that acts as a buffer between the parking lot and Flint Street. Chris Huntress explained with the new parking scheme more impervious area is created, landscape buffer is lost and the arrangement is more awkward for cars to turn around. There are a total of 309 spaces on site - 260 spaces (2 spaces per unit), 12 for the Flint St. residents, and 37 spaces for commerciaL Mr. Huntress said they are providing the maximum parking that might be required for the commercial and residential space, since they don't know what's going in for commercial use yet and want to be sure there is sufficient parking for any possible commercial use. Mr. Huntress also said this plan meets landscape requirements but would need to add trees to comply with zoning. Attorney Grover mentioned that if the Board likes this parking layout better,they can do it,but it's not desirable. The second issue discussed is the number of stories of the building. Steve Livermore submitted an opinion to the budding department stating why he felt the plans complied with the maximum number of stories in the NRCC zoning (4 stories) and received feedback from Tom McGrath agreeing with his opinion. However, Mr. McGrath had stated that he would need to see final drawings showing grading in order to make a definitive determination. Attorney Grover also said they met with the Design Review Board(DRB) the previous night so they made some revisions based on some of the DRB's suggestions. Attorney Scott Grover felt it appeared from that meeting that the DRB is getting ready to make a recommendation to the Planning Board. Bill Ross,NE Civil Engineering,presented his most recent peer review. He stated what his concerns were, including the lack of existing utilities showing and the industrial wastewater treatment facility on site. They need to get plans from SESD and will have to have a TV camera inspection to see where the connection is. Mr. Ross has questions as to where will poles be dug into city streets; there are no isolation valves shown for city water mains, they need to get that information. Mr. Ross said the largest issue is city drainage, particularly the drain that leaves Mason St. and heads through the project. A TV line and report must be done on this because they can see something going in but cannot fid outlet into river. Mr. Ross said they want to see where the gas utilities are; the drainage plan looks acceptable; for stormwater management/flooding,they need delineation maps and plans for bioretention. Mr. Ross said that before final approval,every sheet of the plans still would require some form of revision. wro»v.salem.corr Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2009Minutes/S0238E757?te#Page=1 3/6 816/13 - - - City of Salem,MA-Apprrned Minutes 2105/09 L " ' There was a brief discussion of dumpster locations. Mr. Ross noted there would be one outside dumpster and the rest of trash will be stored inside. Nadine Hanscom is concerned with gas limes being worked on, particularly considering this is an old site,and as work is going on,wants to be sure someone (from the City) is overseeing the work Bill Ross said they are required to pull a street opening permit from the City. Chuck Puleo believes a job this size should have a Clerk of the Works. Bill Ross would like more information on snow removal and how many parking spaces it will take up. He also questioned the impact of lighting on adjacent properties as well as whether the building with commercial space will require a loading area. Mr. Ross said there are also some minor landscaping questions remaining such as whether there will be irrigation lines. Attorney Grover expects to respond to the site engineering issues at the next Planning Board meeting, and BETA, the traffic peer reviewer,will be coming to that meeting as well to finish the discussion about traffic issues. Christine Sullivan asked if BETA had looked into impacts from the court construction traffic signal changes. Danielle McKnight said they asked BETA about the signal changes and their impacts, and BETA doesn't predict there would be a significant impact. Tim Ready encouraged the applicant to work with BETA to come to a consensus before coming to the next Planning Board meeting. Chris Huntress went over the updated landscape plan. Revisions include: the removal of 4 spaces from the parking lot on the Flint St side; the widening of the planting buffer between the parking in front; 7 spaces removed from the site and put into the garage to increase the landscape buffer; in the back of the building, a single entrance to the garage allows planting area to soften the view from Flint St.; the strengthening of the pedestrian walkway by adding specialty pavers to define it; and a bumped curb line in the middle of the walkway to visually break up the length of street. It was noted that the walkway on the left side connects to state-owned parking lot. Chris Huntress explained that there are two styles of lighting (shoebox and ornamental) and the fixtures come with a feature to shield the residential/abutters side. Mr. Huntress said there will be wall lighting to code. Once the project is complete,they can do photometric and field adjustments and add shields if necessary to adjust impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Board received a letter from Beth Rennard, City Solicitor, explaining that with regard to density bonuses,the Planning Board does not have any legal authority to vary, set aside or modify any decision of the BOA. There are exceptions - density bonuses for historic preservation and affordable housing - but neither of these applies to this case. Hearing Opened for Public Comment Martin Imm, 174 Federal St., feels the Board can, in fact, address the density issue through site plan review. He suggests the Board deny the petition because this proposal doesn't fit the site. He also mentioned the connection of Commercial Street as in previous meetings. He asked how people would get from their cars to their apartments and Steve Livermore explained that there would be a connection from the garage into the building so they won't have to go outside. Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St., mentioned that regarding traffic on Flint St.,residents feel traffic has changed immensely since the lights have changed. Nadine Hanscom suggested they bring these concerns to the next meeting when a discussion of traffic was planned. Meg Twohey attended the recent DRB meeting last night and said there was a suggestion to redesign the garage with an additional 50 spaces to add green spaces to the area by removing surface parking. There was also an idea for a green roof. Steve Livermore said they could look at the green roof idea,but the client is concerned with economics. �.salem.car✓Pages/SalemMA_PImMin/2009Minutes/S0238E757?tedPage=1 416 J , 8/6/13 City of Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 2/05/09 Christine Sullivan is concerned about requiring the commercial space on the site; she feels it doesn't make sense in a residential area and adds unnecessarily to the size of the site. Nadine Hanscom said she'd had a similar concern and discussed it prior to the meeting with Danielle McKnight. Danielle McKnight clarified that commercial space was required in the NRCC zoning district and that waiving this requirement would require a use variance, which is not permitted in Salem. Attorney Scott Grover said they moved the commercial to the back so it's not in the residential area. Councillor Paul Prevey wanted to know,what the landscaped buffer between the project and abutters would look like. Chris Huntress said they have added evergreens, shade trees and ornamental trees and showed perspective drawings. Councillor Jean Pelletier commended Bill Ross and his work. Danielle McKnight mentioned that some board members would not be here at the next meeting and asked which members knew they would not be attending. It was confirmed that three members would be absent on February 19, so Attorney Grover indicated he would like to continue the public hearing to the March 5, 2009 meeting. Attorney Grover expects that they would have a DRB recommendation for the next meeting. Danielle McKnight confirmed that the next DRB hearing was scheduled for February 25,2009. There being no further comments, a motion was made by Pam Lombardini to continue the Public Hearing at the March 5th meeting, seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved(8-0). Old/New Business • Elections - Pam Lombardini suggested holding elections when the full board is available at the first meeting in April • Danielle McKnight said the Planning Dept. received plans for a Chapter 91 marina at Hawthorne Cove. If anyone wants to see them,they can contact her. • Chuck Puleo noticed the rows of parking at the project on Canal Street(Dollar Store). He thinks the project looks like its closer to Canal St. than it should be; a few others agreed and wondered who goes out and checks on projects once they are in construction. Danielle McKnight said if there's no clerk of the works for a project, she would check. Other sites mentioned that needed inspection were the North Street garage (was it over 10,000 square feet?) and Beverly Cooperative Bank(was there HVAC screening?). Danielle McKnight said she would check into those. Ad iournment There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Gene Collins and approved(8-0). The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Stacey Dupuis, Clerk Salem Planning Board w .salem.conJPages/SalemMA_PlanMiN2009Minutes/S0238E757?te#Page=t 56 8/6(13 Cityof Salem,MA-Approe d Minutes 03/05/09 ` Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 ph: 978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 03/05/09 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting March 5,2009 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,March 5,2009 at 7:00 p.m.in Room 312,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were:Chuck Puleo,Nadine Hanscom,Gene Collins,Tim Kavanaugh,Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready,Dave Weiner. Absent: John Moustakis,Pam Lombardini. Also present were:Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis,Clerk. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the February 5,2009 meeting were reviewed. There being no comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to accept the minutes,seconded by Dave Weiner and approved(7-0). Public Hearing-Personal Wireless Service Facilities Special Permit-Omnipoint Communications-Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA,Inc.) 181 North Street(Mai) 27,Lot 1200. Attorney Scott Lacy—The proposed oroiect includes the installation of six(6)antennas on the roof of the existing condominium building and ancillary radio equipment cabinets located within aground-level fenced leased area.Attorney Scott Lacy As requested at the last Planning Board meeting,Attorney Lacy presented photos to Board members. The photos included views of existing conditions from Simon Street side;a future view of the buildingwith a chimney superimposed,an approximate representation of what it would look like. He also provided information from T Mobile,which explains that the site will comply with Federal standards and contains comparisons of emissions generated from this project and from other household items. Issue Opened up for Public Comment Karen Piotrowski, 181 North Street asked about decibel levels and emissions. Attorney Lacy explained that the decibel level would be 46-56 db,quieter than a refrigerator,and emissions will be less than 1%. Ms.Markarian, 181 North Street,pointed out that although they took a vote in their building for this project and it passed,those opposing were only slightly outvoted. She wanted to state for the record that not everyone in the building and neighborhood is for this project because there are potential health risks,potential drop in realty value and it wouldn't be desirable to look at. John McDonald,61 Buffum Street,is opposed to this project. He feels the building is not taken care of now and adding on a chimney will make it even more unattractive to look at. There beingno further comments,a motion was made by Gene Collins to close the public hearing seconded by Tim Kavanaugh and approved(7-0). Christine Sullivan mentioned that she read an article in the Boston Globe about the healthcare risks of such a project. Although she'd like the Board of Health to look into this,Chuck Puleo explained that neither the Planning Board nor the BOH have jurisdiction over this,they can't deny based on the health risks. www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2009Minutes/S023AB6C5?te#Page=1 1/4 ( L 8/6113 City of Salem,MA-Approsed Minutes 03/05/09 There being no further comments,a motion was made by Gene Collins to approve the Special Permit,seconded by Tim Ready and approved(7-0). Public Hearing—Site Plan Review.Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit&North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC,72 Flint Street,67-679 Mason Street&71 Mason Street(Map 26 Lots 0091 0095 &0097)(former Salem Suede Property)—Attorney Scott Grover Attorney Scott Grover,representing Riverview Place,said that last week the DRB issued it's recommendation to the Planning Board without any condition,and,they were pleased with how the project has evolved. This meeting will be to discuss traffic issues and next meeting will be to discuss civil engineering issues. They will be meeting with the Board of Health on Tuesday, March 10th Steve Livermore,Architect,explained that they have increased the garage spaces from 203 to 252 spaces;the appearance of the garage would be the same as it was in the previous design;and it will now be 3 flat garage floors. They have reduced surface parking to 38. The parking for Flint St.residents will be in the same lot as before. The entrance into the building on Flint St. is 24 ft wide and is two-way. This same entrance is designed to discourage a right-hand tum onto Flint St. Chris Huntress,Landscape Architect,said that with the reduction of spaces,there is reduction of pavement but an increase of green. He provided to Board members Landscape&Lighting plan that includes an inventory and sheets on plants,flowering photos which show a variety of plants over a time period. There will be no fence behind the back of houses on Flint St. There were some minor lighting changes from the previous plan and Chris explained some of this. At the parking lot for Flint St. residents,there is a walkway with streetlights on each side. They may change those lights to ornamental lights. Chuck Puleo asked that they bring an updated page 2 of the plans to the next Planning Board meeting There will be lights on the building especially at entranceways,and these will be included on the plan as well. Jeff Maxtutis,Traffic Engineer,said the outstanding issue of backing out of the Flint St. driveway was accomplished by the applicant by moving some parking spaces. Chuck wondered if a rumble strip or signs could be put in to discourage the right hand tum onto Flint Street.Attorney Scott Grover said since the site plan is being re-done,he will ask for signage plan be done as well. Jeff Maxtutis said they are not proposing any speed bumps,as there's not a long stretch of lot to allow cars to speed up. Chuck Puleo suggested they look at options for minimizing speed since they will be promoting pedestrian access on site. Rumble strips are an option but they tend to be loud which may not be desirable at a residential site.Christine Sullivan was concerned that the angle of the curbing at the entrance on Flint Street would not be strong enough to suggest a left tum and discourage illegal right turns. Jeff Maxtutis explained that the curb will be raised granite 6"high and angled sharply to make it difficult to tum right. Christine suggested that going from Mason St,down Flint Stand turning left into the site should be discouraged as well.Another concern is the entrance on Mason St which is a narrow entrance. Jeff Maxtutis explained that the intersection of the entranceway/Mason St/Tremmu St does not meet site and stopping distance,so they suggest signs to improve this,a signal would greatly improve this. Chuck Puleo asked about the lighting duringnighttime on Mason St,and the possible placement of a stop sign(if approaching Tremont St coming from North St)at Mason&Tremont Streets.Jeff Maxtutis explained that stop signs are not meant to be a cahning device but more to create a right of way and if they place a sign there,it may create some confusion. However,they will consider this. Discussion of placing a traffic signal at the Mason St/Tremont St intersection took place. John Mirabito of BETA group said ideally a signal on Mason&Tremont Streets would be best,but cost is a concern(about$200,000). If a traffic signal there isn't possible because of cost,they recommend advanced warning signs. Scott Grover reminded them that this project doesn't add a significant amount of traffic. Issue Opened up for Public Comment Jane Arlander,93 Federal St.,is concerned with pedestrians crossing the driveway entrance on their way up Mason Street,cars coming out may not yield to them.Many people walk that way towards the park. Sonia Penta,89 Flint St,pointed out that signs for tuming/not turning at Walgreen's on Boston St go ignored,no one pays wnwsalem.corNPages/SalemMA_PlanMin2009Minutes/S023AB6C5?te#Page=1 2/4 6/6/13 Cityof Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 03/05/09 ' attention to them,she feels that signs at this project would probably go ignored as well. She feels people don't respect signs and won't do much good. Also,she feels this is not a kid-friendly site because most apartments are only one bedroom. What about fewer,bigger apartments? Lori Stanley,77 Mason St,agreed with Jane's comments about pedestrians crossing the Mason St. driveway. She wondered why the developers eliminated a fence on Flint St. Steve Livermore and Scott Grover explained that the grading changes and the houses get higher on Flint St,so they thought it would be better for those neighbors to have a view of landscaping instead of a fence. The said if the Board and neighbors want a fence,they can add it in. Nick Nowak,336 Essex SL,is concerned with the left tum out of the parking lot. He feels that if it's angled too much,people won't be able to see to their right. Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge St,said that discussing the two intersections(of entrances on Flint &Mason St.)is absurd because they both qualify for a traffic light due to the 309 car spaces this project will have. There will be too many cars with no satisfactory way into the property and he feels this needs to be improved. Jane Arlander handed out a listing of motor vehicle accidents over the past two years in the area. There were 93 accidents, 51 of them involving personal injury or damage over$1,000. Chuck Puleo mentioned that the neighbors could advocate for a stronger presence in that area to slow down traffic,such as police stopping people over a certain speed lirmt. Tim Ready added that if they add enhancements such as signs and striping they would be enhancing safety. Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St,said that the traffic situation on Flint St.is absolutely one of the worst in the city,adding a car a minute at peak hours would make it worse. He informed members that one of the neighbors took some video of the traffic at that area;it will be posted online,and asked the Board members to please view it and take it into consideration. Dave Weiner wondered if a signal is warranted at the Mason St, driveway. Jeff M axtutis said the driveway volume doesn't warrant a signal,Tremont St.does. It was suggested that the City pay for half the signal,the developer the other half. Jeff said that they have suggested signal timing driveway structure to discourage traffic away from Flint St,etc. Also,they offered to pay a portion of the signal at Tremont St. Scott Grover added that the City Council has to decide to put a signal in,not the Planning Board. While Dave would like the Planning Dept to bring this into discussion,Chuck Puleo suggested taking the next step and get estimates on cost. Scott Grover thinks if they agree to contribute some money it should be put that in escrow. If they wait for the City to decide about a traffic light,it would probably take too long Christine wants to see a complete signage p Ian. MegTwohey, 122 Federal St,asked about Flint St.driveway and Oak St,people might try to cut across them. She also inquired about whether the garage would have a roof Steve Livermore said the garage will not have a roof but it won't be visible from the apartments,he wasn't sure about the visibility from M ason St. As far as the Flint St driveway/Oak St.,the City may want to consider putting in a meridian strip on Flint St. There being no further continents regarding this matter,a motion was made by Gene Collins to continue the public hearing on March 19th,seconded by Tim Ready and approved(7-0). Old/New Business • Request to extend Special Permit granted to North River Canal LLC for the property at 28 Goodhue St.-Danielle McKnight read a letter from Councillor Paul Prevey requesting the Board to impose a condition on the extension for the owner to clean this site. Anthony Roberto,one of the owners stated that the site was cleaned after the last clean up request. It was recommended that he have the site cleaned up again and then contact Councillor Prevey to check the site once it's done. Danielle had another letter from Councillor Sosnowski. His letter questioned the Peabody Flood Mitigation Plan as to whether it will affect the project at this site. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Dave Weiner to extend the special permit for six months,seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved(7-0). unwi.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PImMin2009Minutes/S023AB6C5?te#Page I 3/4 tS/&/13 Cityof Saie n,MA-Approaed Minutes 03/19/09 Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street, ph:9 01970 ph:978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 03/19/09 Salem Planning Board Minutes of Meeting March 19,2009 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,M arch 5,2009 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 312,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were:Chuck Puleo,Nadine Hanscom,Pam Lombardmi,Gene Collins, Dave Weiner,Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready, Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan,City Planner and SRA Executive Director,Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner and Stacey Dupuis,Clerk. Absent:John Moustakis • Approval of Minutes The minutes of the March 5,2009 meeting were reviewed. There being no comments regarding this matter,a motion was made by Nadine Hanscom to accept the minutes,seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved(8-0). • Public Hearing-Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development,Old S alem Ventures LLC,50 St.Peter Street (Map 35,Lot 179)-Proposed amendment to previously approved plans to allow the proposed restaurant use to be converted to three housingunits if necessitated in the future-Attorney Joseph Correnti - Prior to the presentation,Tin Ready noticed that a member of the public,David Moison of 45 St.Peter St.,was recording the meeting He said his reason for filming was that this project is in his neighborhood,and he wanted a recording to view after the meeting Attorney Correnti explained that if someone wants to record a meeting they are supposed to ask for permission beforehand. A few Board members were not comfortable in being filmed since they were not previously asked.Nadine Hanscom suggested that after this,the Board should be properly asked beforehand,and Tim Ready insisted they get an unedited copy of a taping as well. Vote taken whether to allow taping of this meeting-2 in favor,6 against.Not Approved. Attorney Joseph Correnti,representing Old Salem Ventures explained that they are ready to close and this is the last piece they need to do so. They have made this same presentation to the SRA.They aren't makingany changes to the site plan. Lynn Duncan,Executive Director,said that one implication she sees for this proposed amendment,if in fact restaurant doesn't go forward,the Board would need to change the condition regardingthe number of parkingpasses required for offsite parkingto accommodate the possible new units.Ms.Duncan spoke with Councillor Sosnowski and he does support this amendment. Ms.Duncan explained that the developer has been creative and inventive with this project in response to market difficulties- one example is their phasing of the project. She stated that with this amendment,there will be no exterior space change;the only difference with this amendment is that,as opposed to a restaurant,it would be 3 residential units. As far as parking spaces,a restaurant doesn't require parking on site;the Phase I residential units require one space per unit,on site or off site. Dennis Kanin,New Boston Ventures,said they will close on March 31 and construction will start a week after that. The bank is requiring this amendment as a condition of the loan,however,he says they are totally committed to putting in a restaurant. Mr.Kanin says this is a very attractive area for restaurants and it comes with a liquor license and low rent. Charlie Perkins,a restaurant broker involved in the project,was also present. He has been involved in many popular restaurants in Newburyport,Beverly, Salem,etc. It would be a 3,000 sq ft restaurant facility with rent$20/sq ft,about$60,000 year;they e .salem.com/Pages/Sale MA_PlanMird2009Minutes/S02458661'.4e#Page-1 1/4 8/6/13 CityotSalem,MA-Approwd Minutes 03/19/09 1 ° •? are looking at moderately priced bistro. He strongly believes they will find a restaurant for this space. Chuck Puleo asked if the driveway to the rear of the building would have to be converted if the restaurant were changed to residential space. Attorney Correnti said they would build the driveway to restaurant specs and if the residences are built instead of a restaurant, they would leave it as is.Gene Collins mentioned that there is a curb cut on Bridge St.that could allow an access point. Meeting Opened to the Public Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St.,spoke in support of the project. She asked if they would need to close the old jail cells if the restaurant didn't go through.Dennis Kanin and Lynn Duncan explained that they are preserving 3 jail cells that are in the main space of the building;they will not be affected by either possible use. Mary Whitney,356 Essex St.and member of Salem Preservation Committee said the committee submitted a letter in support of this project and amendment. Chuck Puleo read a letter from Councillor Joan Lovely,supports the jail renovation project,with a restaurant. She is disappointed that the restaurant may not happen. She urges the Planning Board to urge the developer to get a restaurant in that space within the year. David Moison,45 St.Peter St,across from jail,asked when they expect to close. Dennis Kanin said they expect to close March 31,2009 with construction to start a week after,and finish a year after that. There being no further comments on this matter,Nadine Hanscom made a motion to close the public hearing seconded by Christine Sullivan and approved(8-0). There being no further comments on this matter Christine Sullivan made a motion to approve the amendment,seconded by Pam Lombardini and approved(8-0). • Public Hearing—Site Plan Review,Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit&North River Canal Corridor Mixed Use District Special Permit-Riverview Place LLC,72 Flint St.,67-69 Mason Street&71 Mason St. (Map 26,Lots 0091,0095&0097)Former Salem Suede Property-Attorney Scott Grover Attorney Scott Grover explained that since the project engineer and the city's engineering peer reviewer are still working out some issues,they would not be discussing engineering at this meeting. Instead they will discuss traffic issues that came up at the last meeting Jason Silber of AE COMM reviewed the following proposed mitigation measures:at Bridge SL and Flint St., they will retime the signals;they will install a flashing fight at Flint St.and Mason St.;and they will contribute to signal at Mason and Tremont Streets. Newly revised signage and traffic calming plans show a proposed traffic island at the end of Oak St.approaching Flint;its purpose is to discourage traffic from Oak St.onto the site. Lynn Duncancommented that she hasn't seen this yet,and that these types of features have to be decided by City Council,as well as changes to traffic signals. However,a condition can be written in regarding these items pending Council approval. Jason Silber continued to explain that there would be two signs on the island on Oak St. (No Traffic to Riverview Place and Trucks Right Tum Only). There will be signage on the Flint St.driveway and left turn only markings;on Mason St.pedestrian warning signs and intersection warning signs. Within the project site itself,there would be 15 mile/hr signs,and some access signs to indicate which driveways to use. Chuck Puleo asked if the signs on street require City Council approval and Lynn Duncan said the Planning Department would check to see if the Traffic Lieutenant/police need to review. Christine Sullivan is still concerned about the Mason St.entrance/exit because the buildings are right up to the comer,and they only have one stop sign. Lynn Duncan said they did ask peer reviewer about stop lines and they will ask if mirrors will be appropriate here. She also mentioned that the developer is willing to contribute some funds to a traffic signal since BETA is recommending one at this area. David Weiner asked if trucks could turn into and out of the Mason St.driveway staying in their own lanes;John Silber said that trucks said he believed they should be able to. Chuck Puleo asked about warning striping along M anon St.;Mr. Silber said that this type of marking wouldn't be typical. Lynn Duncan pointed out that numerous warning signs along Mason were proposed in order to slow traffic. wmvsalem.cam/Pages/Sa1emMA—PlanMin/2009Minutes/502458661ReAPage=1 214 16/13 ✓ Cityof Salem,MA-Approved Minutes 03/19/09 Meeling Opened to the Public Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St.,echoed Christine Sullivan's concern with the driveway on Mason Street as the houses do block the corner. Bill Penta,89 Flint St.,said that there is a No Heavy Trucks sign posted and noted that many trucks do not pay any attention to the signs.He said he did his own traffic counts and questioned the traffic counts done by the traffic engineer,since his numbers were higher.He outlined the differences between his counts and the engineers on a handout,which he made available. Where there is a flashing yellow light proposed at the top of Flint on M ason,he pointed out that there used to be stop sign there but it was taken down because people went through it. Nadine Hanscom suggested that residents contact their councilors if they want alight or to hold ward neighborhood meetings to encourage getting police on duty therewith radar. Mr.Penta said that people trying to go out the Flint St, driveway to take a left turn will cause a bottleneck at the Flint/Bridge intersection.He is concerned about safety and the traffic study Earthtech(AE COMM)did. Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St.,said that Bill Penta,after doing the traffic counts,asked him to run an analysis. The then handed out his analysis of the traffic counts and a comparison of traffic counts done by EarthTech and Mr.Penta. He said the engineers counted a third of the cars counted by Mr.Penta. Mr.Lebovici speculated that since there were lights installed at North and Federal,traffic was directed more toward Flint Street. He said that to add another car an hour would be too much and suggested that the Board could deny the special permit because of the impact of the additional traffic generated by the increased density. Tom Furey,77 Linden St,Councillor at Large,feels this project should not be held hostage because of a traffic problem that's already there. He said the site is an eyesore and it wouldn't solve the traffic problem if the project is stopped. He also said the project would be an asset to the neighborhood,and any redevelopment of the site would pose the same problems. M ary Whitney,356 Essex St., was interested in the traffic count that Bill Penta had done and was concerned that the engineers' evaluation of the traffic is based on old data;since the studies were done,new lights have been installed at other intersections. Jason Silber said in the original traffic study,they did find that Mason&Tremont St.were over capacity and warranted a signal. Lynn Duncan added that there is no outdated information;they asked the City's peer reviewer about the new fights on North Stand those haven't had any impact on the traffic situation near Riverview. She also said that according to the peer review,the addition of traffic by this project is minimal. There being no further comments,Gene Collins made a motion to continue the public hearing to the next meeting seconded by Pam Lombardini,all in favor(8-0). There was a discussion among Scott Grover,Danielle McKnight and the Board members about the materials the Board wished to have in preparation for the next meeting It was agreed that for the next meeting all the updated engineering information would be provided,alongwith plans showing turning movements for trucks into and out of the Mason St.driveway at David Weiner's request. The Planning Department will ask the city engineer and Traffic Lt.Preczewski to review the proposed island at Oak St. Attorney Grover said he would like to seethe Board be able to make a decision at the next meeting Also,the possibility of a contribution toward the traffic light at Tremont and Mason would still need to be discussed. • Old/New Business • 28 Goodhue St. site has been cleaned up. • Parking setback on Canal Street was investigated and is fine. • Danielle is still looking into traffic flow signage in front of homeless shelter downtown. • Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Board this evening a motion was made by Gene Collins to adjourn the e .salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_PlanMin/2009Minutes/SO2458661 Re)dPage=1 34