Loading...
394 HIGHLAND AVENUE - MAROTTA, ANGELO - ZBA 314 Highland Ave. B-2 — — - R-1 & R-C \ Angelo Marotta (petitioner \\\ NIcholas Fiore (owner) C � v Tito of �Iem, C ttssttc�jusetts Poarb of '�Fvettl DECISION ON THE PETITION OF ANGELO MAROTTA FOR A VARIANCE FOR 394 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM, MASS. A hearing on this petition was held on September 19, 1984 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Scott Charnas, Secretary, Messrs Robert Gauthier, Edward Luzinski and Peter Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow a residential use in a non- residential zoned district to construct 216 single family concominimums. The Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously to allow petition Leave to Withdraw Without Prejudice. WITHDRAWN Scott E. Charms, Secretary A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, I' A!(Y, SHALL BE I,IADE PURSUANT TO SEY ;OP{ 17 OF THE LIASS. GENERAL LAV.S, CHAPTER SOB, AND SHALL BE FIL EO 1YIi r111; 20 DAYS A`f':R THE DATE OF RLIP.G OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUESt.NT TO !AASS. GE.—NERAL ri$ CHAPTER 018. S C7 " 11 TFE VAGI E .T tll GRTED HEREIN SHALL 143 i;:'.E `_FF:�T UNTIL A Ch' C° iN A FICATON OF THE CITY CLER THAT 20 DAYS HAVE u?. C..,:61 R LC — 07 OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS EEEiJ FILE. IH Il —„1,;,,_ a RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF C6_D, AND 1 Cc\c�- UND r 'F .1_."° �FJ`rc OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE MNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. c� BOARD OF APPEAL Y �I � IV M HIGHLAND AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS FINAL EIR ::HMM Document -No:-588-F April 30 , 1984 , Prepared for: " STASINOS & STASINOS 544 Chestnut Street Lynn, Massachusetts 01902 Prepared by : HMM ASSOCIATES 336 Baker Avenue Concord , Massachusetts 01742 L 'TABLE OF CONTENTSr <,'. Page .. T. Introduct-ion .2. Comments Rece-i.ved. on .Draft. EIR 3 3. Responses to Comments 4 -ii- L _1. INTRODUCTION This document is the Final EIR for the proposedHighland Avenue Condominium .project (EOEA #4884). The project71- - located in .Salem, proposes.-30,000 _GSF .of retail andofficespace and 216 condominium units. The Final EIR has been prepared pursuant to the Executive Of.fic.e .of_Environmental Affairs (EDEA) Regulations .governing the implementation of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) , General Laws, Chapter 30, Sections 62 to 62H inclusive. ...This Final EIR..contains all comments received from .. State and local agencies and from the general public. Responses to these comments have been drafted by the project proponent The Draft EIR' is not being.:.:recirculated,-with, or as ..part bf,'-the Final EIR. Subsequent sections -of the P_inal. EIR--rare as .fo.11ows.: Section 2, Comments on the Draft EIR In this section, -the--proponent has included copies. of .all comments received on the Draft EIR. Comments were received" from two -agencies, including the EDEA. a The Secretary of the :Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EDEA ) a Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) i In the margins of these comments the proponent has placed oi c'iicied numbers,• (=i. e. , `'°(V ( 2) , :etc . ) . ' ..,These . numbers are used as a ' key to -the .proponent-s'"iesp-onses in tine :subsequent -section. Section 3, Responses to Comments In this section, the proponent has responded to each of the comments submitted. Responses include clarification of 0131D -1- ? . \ : statements made in the ga#t :2, and descwpton }\ ` additional efforts undetke»b response to &mmns \ ' . . :. . . d � « . : � . . { &!m -2 �� ^ . } 2. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIR Y S . y' y � 0131D -3- �f e 4mmonceeal,64 0 �/!�/,ayl� uaeCl� - �2CClC�9fC ©��CP.(/�O�(J�ttlCY07L�(R�C9ECll�JQC��CY:I , _ 7�0 Tocsm�nr��e J6xee� � �'" r �.Daslon, / �Lu�elG 02202 °MICHAEL S.S. DUKAKIS t _ _ GOVERNOR JAMES S. HOYTE - ' SECRETARY - CERTTFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS" ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL' IMPACT REPORT PROJECT NAME Highland Avenue Condominium PROJECT 'LOCATION> balem {{ EOEA NUMBER 4884 PROJECT. PROPONENT : Michael Sta.,s4snos - - DATE NOTICED IN .MONITOR: February 7, 1984 The Secretary of Environmental Affairs herein issues a statement that the - Draft Environmental Impact•:Report submitted on-the-above=referenced project does adequately and properly comply with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 30, Section 62-62H incl.usive,.-.and the- regulations implementing MEPA. - -- - - -- -- - -- The FEiR should address-my' comments and the issues raised in the attached letter from Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) . TRAFFIC - The EEIR .should contain commitments to implement the mitigative measures J identified in the DEIR and should contain a reporting of conversations with Mass. Department of,.,Public Works_z bout,what canr,be=..done and what will be permitted _by.DPI.I. : WETLANDS%FLOODING= -The FEIR should present .detailed' information on the 'effect of V the increased discharge to the Highland Avenue drainage system aid an assessment of the capacity of this system to handle the increased runoff. MISCELLANEOUS_- As indicated above, I have adopted the comments of MAPC as my own. These comments should be addressed in detail in the FEIR. March 22, 1984j DATE S S. HO"- -- T JSH/RNF/dc Attachment lFORM D H Metropolitan Area Planning Council r" 110 Tremont Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617)-451-2770 Serving 101 Cities & Towns in Metropolitan Boston � z MAPC a r March 7, 1984 RECEIVED _The Honorable James S. Hoyte,- Secretary EhAR 8 ipP-4 Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street CFF10E OF TB: $`CRE�FAIF3 Boston, MA 02202 E�'11ROt;tt�NiA_A.-. Attention: MEPA Unit RE: Highland Avenue Condominiums, Salem (MAPC #EIR-84-13, EOEA #4884) Dear Secretary Hoyte: aIn accordance with the :prrnrii 'srons.: of Chapter "30, Section=.62 of the-Massachusetts General...Laws the Council has reviewed the.above Draft Environmental . Impact 4, Report. -- The project proposes the construction of a_.216-unit condominium development. and r 30,000 sq.� t_--of­.seta.il.-and:-office space along Highland Avenue, Route 107, r in Salem. Generally, the DEIR contains a clear description and- adequate analysis of i. probable environmental impacts, but fails to present necessary mitigating _ measures and-site-specific recommended actions in detail. _In addition, .we have , the following -specific comments- and -questions- Traffic omments- and questions:Traffic _ .' 33 1. More information is necessary to comment on the traffic impacts of the project. A description and illustration is needed for the project'saccess along Highland Avenue. This should show geometry, direction of traffic, number of lanes, etc. VG) 2. The estimate of.one percent .per year regional growth in ADT -is probably low (page 6-16). _ — „` 5 _3. The..assumptions .used. for. trip. distri.bu.tion-:need-to. be...better V defined (figure' 6. 108), particul-arly-to explain-why--more- trips---- are rips - are not generated onto Swampscott Road by the project. Drainage ---- r., Land alterations and roadway construction within the 5 acre - __ _ Spring Pond catchment and wetland-buffer zones should be_descrbed_ in more detail . To what extent will cutting and filling affect the wetland area and what are the mitigating measures? Elizabeth A. Bransfield. President William C.Sawyer,Vice-President Frank E.Baxter, Secretary Patricia A. Brady,Treasurer Executive Director:Alexander V.Zaleski Secretary James S. Hoyte - 2 - = March 7, 1984 General y' 7 1. What are the effects of significant grading and excavation-on the site mentioned several times in .the report? ,x<,,;.,, .88 2. The site plan does not show proposed landscaping on the ;site or as buffer. -;The,-Council looks forward .to reviewing additional: information regarding this ;project.- : Additional comments are attached from the MAPC representative from Salem. Sincerely, Joel B. Bard x. Assistant Director/ General-Counsel _ - JBB/LS/lab Attachment cc: W. Gregory Sen*o - q MAPC Representative, Salem Michael _Stasinos Stasinos & Stasinos Denny Lawton - MAPC Staff Laura Stambaugh MAPC ;Staff Y �i y 'L N 4 ' Metropolitan Area Planning. Council 110 Tremont Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617)-451-2770 - � , Sen irg 101 Gbe, d Tnvn. in Ale!ropoiran Bo>!onA DATE: _ February E, 1984 DEIR-84-13 :OT. d. ". Gregory Senko x COMMUNITY: Salem ` Enclosed i.s a description of the project referenced-below. The Council requests that you consider whether this report adequately describestheproject' s impact upon your community and addresses significant environcenzal tenefits and potential damages. `i PROJECT TITLE:- " : Highland'Avenue Condatrni.ums THE COUNCIL HAS ONLY 20 CALENDAR DAYS TO FILE COMMENT WITH 'TO-MEET-THIS DEADLINE, YOUR COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED AT THE MAPC-'BY March 5.;-:1984 ADEQUATELY DESCRIBES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - MERITS FURTHER"-E NIRO„MENTAL 'STUDY .,r 0 NEED MORE INFORiMATION a, EXPLANATORY COtIMENTS: 9 1 . Under the site present zoning, the proposed project would not be allowed. Site would require..re-zoning .to .R73 by .City .Council 10 2. Putting a'Yight at Highland Ave. entrance would force traffic to block -median-cut at Ravenna causing a hazard.. If median were .filled, Ravenna residents would have to go to Lynn and .make .a -U-turn if Salem were destination. Likewise, if project does not. get a median--cut ` pioiect 'res.idents would have to go to Lvnn .and turn around. __3.—City Engineer says there is already a heed for a new pumping station at Ravenna Rd. _O Proposed project would impact this further. 12 4, What is - the impactonStorm .Water Brook and the Peabody watershed? Not adequately --- addressed. (SEE OVER) - _SIGNATURE: ' >(/ �:! DATE: Elizabeth A. Bransrield,President William C.Sawyer, Vice-President Frank E. Baxter. Secretary Patricia A. Bradv.Treasurer \ »s- April g wetlands regulations -prohibit the removal w _re\%/ /G R. R\e \ .g : _gam r.. . -Project proposes to f21yal all. —taws on. site (over 2 acres), .»e& : &� : �eseaeo .eRaceGee@&k .Gads. r : > . . . y . . . > � . . y y > - - ---------------� .\ A \ . \ : � . • . � . . , . y . . : \ � ( ^ . . � . . . » . . . � . § . . . y � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ � � 3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ` ` l TT F 4A Response to Comment 41 ' s z, Proposed mitigative measures/recommended actions to promote more efficient traffic flow .in .:the project study .area -_are. :outlined in 'Section' 6.1. 4 (pages 6-28 through 6-31) of -the DEIR. As noted at the top of page 6-31 of the DEIR, these '1 mitigative measures are proposed for implementation independently of this project , under either the Build or t No-Build Alternative. i ' The mitigative measures considered include design Iw` improvements at the Highland Avenue/Swampscott Road ' intersection_, tha'..t--_coal-d .,s'iIg.nificantt:y impr.ove .:future traffic operations': These measures: cons`'ist of. the signalization df the intersection as .well -as �t,he : implementation of .an exclusive " right-turn .-lane for . vehicles. entering -Swampscott Road. :f..rom. -the (.; south. ,,, Implemen.tation..of_ one,:,or both, .of these -measures .would _ improve the A.Mr peak hour LOS from 8 to A .- and the P.M. :peak hour LOS from E to C. This improvement in intersection LOS would oc,cur :.under ;b.o.t-h the .Build and'..No-3u id Alternatives. ' Analyses of these mitigative measures indicates that the V/C - ratio and ..LOS at. the< Swampscott 'Road intersection would be _ the same whether or not the project is built . Table 6. 1-6 of Y the-DEIR indicatesthat the A.M. peak hour V/C is .70 with a . corresponding LOS B under either the Build or No-Build Alternative . `This`table also shows that the P.M. peak hour V/C is .96 with LOS E for either alternative. Therefore , in any •r, g case, future capacity def.iciencies. would be realized at the Highland-Avenue/Swampscott Road. -intersection during the P.M. ,k peak hour. Peak hour vehicle trips added to the study area roadways by the planned Highland. Acres development* will .have a much more. significant . influence on traffic flow at this k:. y_ * "Highland Acres Draft Environmental Impact Report " , EOEA #45739 HMM Associates, April 1983. a- 0131D -4- 1 intersection than that estimated for the proposed project . Specifically , the Highland Acres development , when' completed , �' will result in a traffic operations change from LOS C tolLOS E during the P.M. -peak hour at the Highland Avenue/Swampscott d flrt s > Road intersection. Lj _ The mitigative measures considered in conjunction with E this project also include signalization of the Highland A.ven.ue/_Project Access Drive intersection. . .Implementation of tris measure would be accompanied by a median-cut-that would allow traffic exiting -the Project Access Drive to enter the Highland Avenue. traffic stream in either .direc.tion. However, insta-llation. of-...this signal (with accompanying median cut) at the project entrance could cause traffic to back-up and block the median cut at Ravenna Avenue , about 500 feet to the north. f J A meeting. was. held.:..a:t=:the .MDPW_. Di,st.ri-ct:--5._O.ffice on Tuesday ':- April 24, .?1`984 ,tb ..disc.uss alte:rna-'t v,e :.tra:f'fi-c' conts.ol operations .and_.design. measures -f.o.r__the :pr.oject. In _at_tendan.ce at this meeting were MDPW officials, the project proponent , and + s a"::representative f-Tom- HMM >Assnciate,s. -A: descriptson of the alternatives- discussed `at -'tfi sme`etin'g " hb1uding `the': basis for considering signal.ization of the project entrance, is-presented in the Resp.on:se T.o--Comment.-A10.. - Response To Comment #2 The area- identified in the Draft EIR as Catchment D , the Highland Avenue Catchment , contains all portions of the site contributing'-runoff . to' the.. Highland Avenue drainage system . As indicated in tables 6. 3-2 and 6. 3-4 of the DEIR, the increase in, peak discha.r.ge -,f.rom this catchment due to the development would oe..f r.om -r_o.ughly .--88 _cubic . feet .per_ -s.e.c.ond _ ( cf s). -t.o roughly 130 cfs for the 50 year design storm if' this discharge were uncontrol. or not retained. The goal of the drainage plan in this portion of the development .is to maintain peak discharges from this area to the drainage system beneath the department store parking lot at essentially pre-development levels. For the 50 year design storm, this is approximately 88 cfs. I 0131D -5- I 1 The- developer proposes to accomplish this goal by limiting _ the size of inlets" or conduits which convey- runoff from ,the 1 _ r. -site to the drainage system beneath the department storey, , `This appears to be feasible based on the potential water retention volume' available in the onsite parking areas compared with the `size of the contributory catchment. Inlet structures and ' ! .�i drainage pipes will be sized and designed in final site plans , 'c howeVer., .based on flow relationships for piped culverts- with 'enttance control* , a terminal'pipe° diameter of -30" would maintain discharges below 80 cfs for equivalent head pressures up to 10 feet , ` thus ' ensuring pre-development peak drainage __levels. Catchment D, discussed above , represents a portion of what the MEPA letter of March 22 refers to as the Highland Avenue drainage-_system=. -This 'ent re -s.ys.tem- r_ep.resents ..all_dr.a.inage r contribut-dry-to' tht drainag"e' pipe. 'benea.th Highl°ande Avenue opposite .the-'.'department stare:an.d- includes drainage :.from the department: store catchment (Catchment E in DEIR) . The present r %.. .capacity of this Highland A,venue:-z.drainage system is difficult -to determine with certainty''due to apparent 's'u'bsidence and infiltration beneath the department store parking lot . The best evidence -.of the -capacity--is„.a -_repor.ted-_-la.ck._of. historic parking lot flooding due to diainage backups .- '. 3f this .system ._ were to reach. its_..subsurface <capacity., -:the adverse.-impact. would_- . be a temporary`,backup of runoff into the shopping center parking lot and possibly onto Highland Avenue. Ponding which presently occurs in this parking lot appears to be due to uneven settlement which has -formed isolated- depressions rather -. „. than due to surcharges to the subsurface system . In assessing the potential flooding effects-- of increased runoff _,:volume- to the High.1an.d-.Avenue drainage_sys-tem,.:tw.o locations appear to be of primary concern. These are the * For example , see nomographs in Appendix B, "Hydraulic Computations in Design of Small Dams , United States i Department of the interior , 19 / / . K t E i 01310 -6- culvert which will connect the development site to the ' land Avenue .drainage system and the drainage pipe beneath Highland Avenue. As described aoove ,. discharge to the first location will be controlled by limiting the size of the storm -drainage - _ r inlets and/or the terminal culvert , and the developer has ;:; _- a.greed .to implement .these measures in the final design 'plans . ` This-. Will ess:en:tially maintain: .peak...sit e:.draina.ge from this area at pre-d"evelopment. aevels . The consequence will be possible temporary flooding in the parking area of the new development during periods of - intensestorm runoff. As previously mentioned ,'the _lack.of drainage -backups -in the department store parking lot suggests that the drainage pipe beneath Highland Avenue has not been surcharged to a , degree which 'cannuV be handled `within--the,subsur:f_aCe-:system. , The extent to With: pipe 'sLbs-tdenca-, ..'leik.'ag"e ,'' and infiltration has mitigated ';;f:lood ng `in this-ar:Ea is'ahnt=-:clear , but it may" be a factor . Following . dev.elopment, . the ..chance of temporary ponding in :the"department store parking.-lot during intense runoff. periods will. incr.ease - somewnat due to -the increase .in -total runoff volume. This .-increased probability is small because of the=.s.ys:tem's. prasent abj-Ut,y :.t.o-.,.effecti.vely remove storm runoff and the :limitation --on peak- runoff- -,.rate -.from the development . - Response To Comment #3 The attached drawing- shows ' th"eaccess drive for the project in more detail. Respon'se` To .Comment #4 The assumption of one percent ° per - year .regional." growth in ADT is based primarily on a .review. of regional traffic volume trends at several MDPW control count stations , as well as recent local trends in population growth (i .e . , as indicated by data taken from the decennial U. S. Census ) . The Salem Planning 0131D -7- L i h� a y1 ch 3 Ntv O mI 10 fpc.B. 0�I 1 � l PNN. I A ll� I ♦ N -0, D ,'Sh h� �•SZ/7 SAM.H d � , gON LANE R ' �. -.._ , z/ 70 -rI aGGE o . $ �9515z,w LE2 Ms � � x � � U r �- iw Proposed Signal Locatlons tr Department,, wa.s. contacted in order to obtain additional ;local input prior to determining the estimated ADT growth,,,--,,factor_. ,_ ' . The estimated growth rate of one percent per, :year��zdoes: not account for planned growth and development associated with the �r Fafard .Companies ' Highland Acres project . This growth rate is consistent with that developed and used by HMM - in pre p .x, ng the Highland Acres EIR, which was determined to adequately ',,meet ME --sequirement s. In predicting the rate of traffic growth in the project study area , a review of regional ( i. e. , North Shore area) . , .traffic volume trends was conducted. MDPW traffic count data was obtained for North Shore -area -roadways of similar . type and usage characteristics as Highland Avenue (Route 107) . The data obtained was for the most recently available five-year period 80:)•�,arr�::.-.coaa.is e;d.:of .:.cD:unts :at: the _:P,.D11;ov�ing ' �'� locations: 1. MDPW Station #55000 : Route l .in 'Peabody _ at the ,Danvex.s- Town-Line; 2. MDPW Station #56000 : Route 127 in Manchester at .the Gloucester .city :Line;. ,..... 3. MDPW Station'#5o20b: `Rou+tes"125 and : 114_ in North - Andover just west of the Andover By-Pass; and 4. MDPW Station #50300 : Routes 97 and 113 in Groveland at the . Haverhill City Line. A review. of this data revealed an average yearly decrease in ADT at Locations : l- and -2`of -ten percent and-eleven -pere-ent , respectively . Meanwhile , Locations 3 and 4 exhibited an average yearly change of plus two percent and minus one percent , respectively.• The U .S. Census population data for the City of Salem from the year 1930 through 1980 was also reviewed in order to check for any correlation to decreasing traffic s f i 0131D -9- I s ` - volumes. : The population of the City of Salem decreased by approximately twelve percent during this time . period � ° More recent trends show a population decrease of approxb,ma ly six F percent .between 1970 and 1980 . These decreases provide supportive - evidence -toward a trend of stable. or decreasing it traffic volume in the project area. From the data evaluated as .a.. part of this study , it does not appear that the established t .-. ,_-..�region.al growth rate for ADT on study area roads- is." too low . r , Response To Comment #5 The distribution of project-generated trips was. based upon z regional trip tables developed by the Central Transportation Planning Staff. (CTPS) . . ., The CTPS data , identif,ied general 'a origin-destsnatioa_ pat.terns ,ofa.pera:vra trYps to an:d .:from. the, C i Salem.:;%are:a. Project=ge.net.ated•,, tr,affic was .__then -asci-gned_;t9 _ specific local routes based on -the - anticipated distribution of fut.ur.e...trip.s .(i-.e.. , same as' that-shown..by CTPS. Trip .T.ab.les ) . The vehicle_ assignments generally<:reflect.- minimum-path .routings from the proposed site to and from the various origins- destinations . Only approximately three percent of the project-based trips are., generated:: onto -Swampscott; Road . This s:elatively small -amount- of additional traffic is due primarily to Swampscott Road ' s orientation with:.respect, -to. the other=.study area- -access . .roadways (incl.uding - the.. project acces-s. ,drive) ..a.s well as the fact that it does not provide service to a large (i .e,. , both in numbers and land area) population base . As mentioned in -the DEIR ,, .it. is. anticipated - that this roadway =_would .serve only a relatively small portion of the vehicles approaching the project site from Lynn, Revere , and Nahant . The remaining portion of these vehicles would likely use Route 129 west to Route 107 north toward the project site . This route is the minimum distance path to the site from the south . Also , it is 't f 0131D -10- assumed that a majority of the- trips to and from ,Marblehead, . . .located north/northeast of the study area, would use the' minimum=path routing along Route 107, Willson Road, , and � _ • a, Route 114. Response To Comment #6 ' The site plan- presented .in-Ahe DEIR will be' modified to eliminate any construction, filling or land alterations within the -0.5 acre wetland. in .the Spring Pond Catchment ._.s.t. .appears that this modification will" be minor, . involving the re.loca.tion of the internal roadway and at least one :-housing. unit _to --avoid alterations in the wetland mapped by the City of Salem. The de.ta.il.s<.of_ this modification ,_w.ill_ .be....de-te.rmin.ed _in close co'nsul'tatioria:;with local:'permitting aut�,or ti,es.. This .modif.ication, _ha-s: been :adopt.ed-to pre.serve. -this 0. 5 acre wetland -and is not expected to have a significant impact n_the.:_dra.inage .-cal,cul:ations :.and: other:::impact; onalyses .included -the Draft EIR.. :Erosion control and s'0.1 1--stabilization . programs discussed . relative to the other two wetland areas ( see section 6..3. 5 of . D.EIR) will. be. undertaken to mitigate impacts to this wetland area. Thus, there will be no cutting and filling of any of the onsite wetland areas-,::_ and -construction within the buffer-zones will be controlled to minimize. adverse effects. The project - must receive-.a change- ..in local- zoning before .the - condominium portion of the- proj-e.ct.. may.. be ._constructed . Once this zoning R cnange :is .se.cured , the developer will apply to the Salem Conservati.on .Commission for .an Order of Conditions for ';aitera-ti.ons . wi.thin the :buffer::,zon:e. Response To Comment #7 t: -The grading and excavation on the site will generally serve to eliminate the steep slopes and ledges that currently exist . The land will be graded to provide a level and more 0131D -11- I A suitablesite for the development _ of the proposedxbuildings, A .. ryb '. roadways, and parking areas. > , N, The effect of this grading .and _excavation an �sfte drainage was considered in the Draft EIR by incorporating post development slopes into the .drainage analysis. Thus, the comparison of existing site drainage to the .future case incorporates ..the . effects of. planned grading an:d. excavation. Response To Comment #8 -- The goal of the developer is to maintain as- much of the existing vegetation as possible. Existing trees will be preserved to provide a 'buffer between the .homes. .on Pyburn Avenue .and-Madel.in.e.Aven.ue...,, ,Jn.a.ddi,tion,. the .we.tlands,. algng the northeast boundary.'eof. the: site 'will .provide'-a. buffer strip approximately 125 feet,; w-ide...between the proposed condominiums and these residences . A buffer strip of approximately the same width ..is provided along the southwest site boundary . Within 'the`,-site , 'landscaping Will include grassed lawn areas and ornamental plantings as well as existing large trees. A more detailed landscaping plan has not been prepared at this .time. Response To Comment #9 The project proponent -is aware that re-zoning of portions - of the site -is required and has.,.-been .pursuing this through local meetings. Response To Comment #10 , A check of the MUTCD* warrants for the installation of a traffic signal at the Project Access Drive/Highland Avenue intersection indicates that the minimum requirements for * Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and .'s ig ways , U .S. Departmentof Transportation a eral ighway Administration, 1978 . 0131D -12- Warrant U2 (Interruption .of. Continuous Traffic) would .be . satisfied . The Interruption of Continuous Traffic ,warrant applies -.to operating conditions where the .traffic. volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting •li W . street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street. The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any . 8 - hours of an average day., ;the traffic Volumes given in the -following- table exist on the major street and on the higher- volume minor-street approach to the intersection, and the signal . installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. Number of lanes for Vehicles per hour Vehicles per hour on moving traffic on each on major street higher-volume minor- approach (total of both street approach (one Major.:St.reet Minor Street _both_.,appxoaches) _direction only) 1 1` 750 75 2 or more -1 900 -75 2 or more 2 or.. more 900 100 :. .. 1 2 or^ m ore y These major-street and minor-street volumes are for the same 8 hours. -During those',8 -hours,.- he -direction :of h.ig-her volume.-:on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours.. Since Highland Avenue has two approach .lanes . in each direction And the` Project :'Access 'Drive would consist of one approach .lan.e, the second .row- of_.v..olume...criteria . was evaluated . The ATR data collected for the DEIR was used to develop 8-hour factors* for each approach at the project entrance . The methodology used- .in developing t.hese f..ac.to.rs--is -as f-ollows : 1) Calculate directional 8-hour factors for ATR location at Highland Avenue north of Rich' s Mall; * The 8-hour factor describes average hourly volume as a percentage of peak hour volume as opposed to the actual 8th highest hourly volumes, will tend to slightly overestimate subject approach volumes at the project entrance. 0131D -13- 2) Calculate - directional- 8.-hour factors forATR { -' location at Highland Avenue south of Rich!.s Mall; . and a �v 3) Apply ,t he average 8-hour factors: derived �for these locations to peak hour volumes for the corresponding approaches at the project entrance. ` " + The average 8-hour factor for` the- two AT.R . locations:.is.1:0.83.. Accordingly, this value was used as an estimate of the 8-hour factor for the project access drive outbound approach. Also, tne . average northbound factor of 0-.85 was applied to the Highland ' Avenue northbound approach. - .The.-aver age. .southbound factor of 0 . 81 was applied to the Highland Avenue southbound approach. Application of­'these factdr-s-to .the project entrance: approach volumes resulted in the - following average hourly volumes : H•i.ghland_:Avenue ,Narthbound = (.1089 ) (..0.85) = 926 r ! Highland Avenue Southbound = ( 1162) (0 . 81) = 941 Project Drive Eastbound = (129) ( 0.83 ) = 107 VEHICLES PER HOUR ON THE MAJOR -STREET ( total of.--both approaches ) 9:26'-+ 941-=_1867 1867 VEHICLES -PER HDUR- ON' THEI;MINORa_STREET APPROACH = ..107 A comparison of-these-- values to the minimum volumes outline d '-in the second row of Warrant #2 indicates :that the , Highland Avenue/Project Access Drive intersection warrants:.,, consideration.-for 'a`-traf-fit signal. Traffic flow' on' the:-major street approaches ( i. e. , Highland Avenue) is more than double the minimum required , 'while average volume an the minor st.reet approach exceeds the minimum requirements by approximately 43 percent . However, installation of this signal could force traffic to block the existing median-cut at Ravenna Avenue and ,a 01310 -14- W create . congestion and increased accident potential. . Also, if this median-cut were filled, Ravenna Avenue residents 'would have to proceed southbound to Lynn and make a U-turn if Salem were their destination. (NOTE : U-turns are currently i. prohibited at all median breaks in the study area ) :;:Similarly , if the project does not get.:approval for a median-cut , project residents would have to travel into Lynn and then turn around if. going to Salem,. It appears one solution to this dilemma might be to have coordinated signals at both the Project Access Drive and Ravenna Avenue intersections. This type of coordinated signal system would allow traffic to flow in the same ._directions _at the same time at both locations. Median-cuts would be allowed at both intersections. Traffic along Route 107 would flow through- each ;intersection w.ittiout -being impeded by cross- traffic,.'' The probability of" right-attgle accidents 'Would : be reduced.,. ---T-he signals would :allow .:vehicles from Ravenna -Avenue and the Project Access Drive to enter the Highland Avenue trafficstreamwithout excessive. delays or hazards from Ioncoming .traffic on the main approaches. The necessity of travel to -Lynn and/or U-turns for trips having destinations in Salem .w.ould--be-eliminated- One: disad-vantage of the implementation7of this measure would be the possible inter.rupt.i-on:. to the-" .continuous flow of traffic---in - both directions along the major route ( i. e. , Highland Avenue) . There ::are. :two . additional alternative traffic control measures for the Ravenna Avenue intersection . They are as follows : 1) . Installation of a left-turn storage lane for vehicles turning left from Highland Avenue northbound to Ravenna-, Avenue; and 2) _ Filling of the existing median-cut at Ravenna Avenue and construction of a .by-pass. road. to the Project Access Drive. 0131D -15- Ij The implementation of Alternative #1 would require 'some J. modifications to the existing alignment of Highl.and ,Avenue. The horizontal curve of that portion of the roadwaynear the Ravenna Avenue intersection would need to. be_reduced..an order to improve -sight distance and make room for the additional turning lane. This turning lane would provide - a relatively ;safe .-place for ..left,-turning .vehicles to wait for an acceptable gap in oncoming traffic. The implementation of Alternative #2, meanwhile , would eliminate left turns into and from. Ravenna Avenue. Conflicts with cross-traffic on Highland_ Avenue and right-angle accident potential at the Highland Avenue/Ravenna Avenue intersection would be eliminated. However, left-turn conflicts and accident __potential at .the,.Project,-Access : Drive:.would ,be increased .by,:an amouTit.'co-rre pm'd; ,ng to 'the number';bf vehicles using the new". by-passe read.. ., The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative , including .s,ignalization at -both .the Project Access -Drive ands= Ravenna Avenue , have been discussed with MDPW.:District 5 '7 officials. At the present time, there has been - no conclusion' regarding .the most. Peasible._imp.rnvement: alternative. Further anal.ys.is .of :,traffic operations ..at­the-Ravenna -Avenue intersection may -be__necessary prior to the selection.`.of_one' of these`.tr.affic.- control -measures Additional meetings with MDPW officials are . planned to. f-ur.ther discuss .:.the merits of each alternative and to decide on specific- analysis procedures for the. Highland Avenue/Ravenna: A.venue_. intersection. Response To Comment dill , When the appropriate re-zoning of the parcel is made, careful examination of the Ravenna Road pumping station will. be made . The developer has agreed to provide any repair or upgrading of this station that may be required as a result of this project . This issue will be resolved with the City Engineer prior to construction of any condominium units on the site. 0131D -16- _ s " Response To Comment 1112 For clarification, the Peabody Watershed is referred to as t the Spring Pond Watershed in the DEIR and it is assumed that Storm Water Brook mentioned in the MAPC letter refers to the Strongwater Brook Watershed described in the DEIR. As discussed in section 6. 3. 4 .of the DEIR, potential impacts to both these watersheds are : • water quality affects including effects on fisheries and water supply • loss of, flood mitigation potential .It -is"anticipated 'that' both' of thesepotential impacts " will' be _so; small. as to be undetectable. This conclusion -is based primarily on the large extent of downstream undeveloped land in each watershed compared with the small development areas. The onsite portions of the' Spring Pond Watershed and the Strongwater _Brook Watershed are 5. 7 and 4. 3 acres, respectively'. Based_on .plans to .:px.eserve.. exi-sting -wetlands. ' is these . two areas,. the maximum extent of residential development will be approximately 4 and 3 acres in the two watersheds respectively . Pollutants of primary concern associated with the construction and operation of this residential development will be suspended solids and small quantities of traffic - related pollutants. such as lead, copper, and oily substances. The deve.loper, s proposal incorporates catchbas.ins and oil traps in the drainage _systems to reduce sediment.and".pollutant` -loads prior to discharge. However, the most important factor in mitigating both runoff quality and quantity impacts is the downstream distance to flow. restriction structures or ponds in both watersheds . In the 260 acre Spring Pond Watershed , the onsite portion is one of several upstream reaches which drains through over 2000 feet of natural channels and several wetlands 0131D -17- R s t : to Spring Pond. Within the Stron water Brook Watershed t -is p o Strong water 6000 feet from the headwaters on the site to 'the-nearest f P culvert or low- restriction according to the most recennt*j U .S .G .S . topographic map. In both cases wetlands'andW"natural drainage serve .to dampen out minor increases in both runoff and M 7 T... pollutant loads. For f.lood:. related impacts this mitigating effect *is -F demonstrated in the modeling results for the Spring Pond Watershed where there is no increase in the predevelopment discharge of 380 -cfs to the_ pond, associated with the 50 year design storm. At the selected .design point in Upper Strongwater Brook the increase in peak discharge associated , with the 50 year storm is from 185 to 192 cfs. In terms of water quali.ty._impac.ts, -based ,on. pr.esent.. construction and -land, __ , use plans;.-,simil'ar :.negligible'effects.-:can.._be.. an ticipated_due .:to the aforementinned:-onsite _.and offsite..mitigating, measures. "The- site' s location within these watersheds suggests that the R magnitude of water -qual:ity. changes occurring :in. Strongwater Brook or Spring Pond 'would. not be .dete.ctable within the sensitivity of .-sampl.ing, . chemical,. or biological investigations. Resoonse To Comment ##13 See Response ##6 . The proponent is aware that wetland regulations p.rohibit -.-the alteration of , more than 5,-00O. square feet of wetlands . The proponent intends to work with the Salem Conservation .Commissi.on_ to . sl.ightly modify_ .the. site plan to avoid the infringement of the Spring Brook Catchment wetland area . Alteration of other wetlands is not and has not been contem.pla.ted.. ,.,,W,ork. ,within _the.,buffer, zones.-w.i I l_.be conducted in accordance with the mitigating measures outlined in Section 6..3. 5 of the Draft EIR and. in accordance with any limitations imposed in the Order of Conditions to be issued by the City of Salem. 0131D -18- ;, CtU of 1Pm, ' laSSar4USPfts cn 01 rn p � � A O O �m o cn n -n ca nm r— �u o M September 17, 1984 y r— V1 CO � Mr. James Hacker, Chairman Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA. 01970 Re: Petition of Angelo Marotta for a Variance to allow a residential use at 394 Highland Avenue (B-2, R-1,R-C) to construct 216 single-family condominiums. Dear Mr. Hacker: The Planning Board remains in strong opposition to the above-referenced petition. Petitions regarding this same parcel were scheduled before the Board of Appeal on December 21, 1983, and February 8, 1984, and both were withdrawn without prejudice. Since that time, the former petitioner appeared before the Planning Board with preliminary plans for his proposal to build condominiums. This plan appears to be the same plan that is before you this evening and has not changed since December, 1983. The Planning Board has reviewed the plan and would oppose it for the following reasons: 1. Under current zoning, the proposed project would not be allowed. 2. The installation of traffic signalization at the entrance of the proposed project on Highland Avenue would force traffic to block the Ravenna Road and Highland Avenue intersection causing a significant access problem for neighborhood residents. 3. The existing sewage pumping station at Ravenna Road is inadequate for existing residential units in the area, and additional residential units would exacerbate this inadequacy. if -2- 4. The impact of the development on Strong Water Brook and the Peabody Watershed has not been adequately addressed. 5. The Wetlands Protection Act, Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40, prohibits the displacement of more than 5000 square feet of wetlands. The proposed plans require the filling of over two acres of wetland area with no plans to compensate those wetlands as required. . 6. The impact of this proposed project on existing storm drainage problems within the Highland Avenue drainage system has not been sufficiently addressed. 7. The impact of grading and excavation on site drainage has not been adequately addressed. 8. The petitioner's proposal to maintain the existing vegetation on site and his designation of adequate buffer zones between the proposed project and existing homes on Pyburn and Madeline Avenues has not been adequately addressed. 9. The overall traffic impact of the proposed project has not been adequately addressed. It is evident from these concerns that the Board feels very strongly that the proposed project and its impacts must be seriously researched and studied. Because such research has not been completed, the Board is strongly opposed. City Planner Gerard Kavanaugh will be available at your meeting to answer any questions. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this petition. Sincerely yours, W Walter B. Power, III Chairman dey CJ -^1J S7J l"1 V ti