Loading...
2011-PLANNING BOARD CITY OF SALEM 21 - PLANNING BOARD r o m Nm ma 3 3 NOTICE OF MEETING (n CD Ycu are hereby rmt#W that the Salem Pla=T Ba-ad trill hard its ngedarly soOab lu l truing on Thursday,January 5, 2012 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Armee,Rcem313, 120 Washington Stmet Churfa M. Pideq, MEETING AGENDA Clxair 1. Approval of Minutes December 1, 2011 and December 15, 2011 meetings 2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296&300 CANAL ST; and 3991/2 & 401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30 &31, and Map 23, Lots 170 & 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank, Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping. 3. Old/New Business 4. Adjournment Know Yortr Rights Under the Open Meeting L awM.G.L. c 39§23B aryl City Ordimnce Sectm 2-2018 thnxrgh 2-2033. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978,745.9595 Far 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SAI-E\I.COM tM1�NUIT`jt , CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND 1��M�ns COMMUNTI'Y DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 4 FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: December 21, 2011 RE: Agenda —January 5, 2012 meeting Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda • ➢ Minutes from 12/1/11 and 12/15/11 ➢ Materials for Agenda Items Public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 & 300 CANAL ST; and 399'/:&401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30& 31, and Map 23, Lots 170& 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop,Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping. While I have not yet received revisions to the submitted plans or to the traffic and civil engineering studies, I wanted to follow up on a few issues that were raised at the last meeting: Loading area— I have let Lt. Griffin know the question was raised about fire safety due the narrow area available in the loading area when a trailer is parked there (the lane does not seem to allow for two-way traffic flow). While I don't have her response yet, I will pass this along as soon as I hear back. Lighting— I asked City Electrician John Giardi if 33-foot lighting poles were appropriate for this use, especially given the proximity to residential abutters, and he responded that it really depends on the specifications of the lights used. I have sent him a copy of the photometric plan asking if he would review it and give us his opinion as to whether impacts to neighbors would be significant. Detectable Warning Strips— Brick red, rather than yellow, is the color that will be used on Canal Street as part of the city's improvements. We recommend using brick red for the detectable warning strips wherever they are being placed in the sidewalks or rights-of-way and within the site if possible. Hours of operation—According to Article IV, Sec. 14-228 of the City Ordinances, hours of operation of retail businesses are restricted to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. without City Council approval. Ambulance access— I have reached out to Dennis Cataldo with questions about which entry/exit the ambulances typically use, and whether most of the ambulances are dispatched from this site or are called in from other locations. I will pass this information along as soon as I have it. Upcoming project: I have received an application for the redevelopment of the Salem Oil & Grease property on Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street. The proposal is for 141 residential units and 17,000 square feet of commercial space. The applicant is represented by Joe Correnti. He has not yet requested a meeting date, but I expect it to be either the second meeting in January or the first meeting in February—this will depend in part on the status of the CVS review. Because the application is for a PUD special permit, we will need to open the hearing within 65 days of receipt of the application (February 23). The last meeting before this • date is February 16. I am enclosing the schedule of meeting dates for 2012. -2- ivF�`o" q�Qjc , City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet 3a, jq, 9 t�" Board P� aa✓ o o� Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail ,,,To iel3 d Lr? Ptd © 't-feFe'Se_ -2 gr Svrrp- �i' 9)�-7491 4 /=MOK&EaP_C_@ IIZ,62e e, IS Pr ,orzSi- 5vXj, �1�k - 7yy,Fsy`i35ess;� ra.Sy�b+o t� 11 Page of SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 1/5/12 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,January 5, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo,Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Lewis Beilman,Randy Clarke,Tim Kavanaugh,Helen Sides, and Tim Ready. Also present:Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm. Approval of Minutes December 1, 2011 draft minutes No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.John Moustakis motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Mark George.Approved 7-0. Randy Clarke abstained. December 15,2011 draft minutes Danielle McKnight noted the list of the documents discussed during the meeting needed to be added to the minutes. She passed out a hard copy of the first page of the minutes with the changes. No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.John Moustakis motioned to accept the minutes with changes,seconded by Mark George.Approved 8-0. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 &300 CANAL ST; and 399 '/2 &401 JEFFERSON • AVE (Map 32, Lots 27,29,30 &31, and Map 23, Lots 170 & 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop,Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping. Attachments&Exhibitions: ➢ Applications for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Special Permit,all date-stamped 11/10/11, and accompanying materials ➢ Site Plan for CVS/Pharmacy#7109,Jefferson Avenue&Canal Street,Salem,MA 01970,prepared by RJ O'Connell&Associates,Inc.,dated 11/10/11;revisions shown—later submitted plan is dated 1/9/12 ➢ Exterior Elevation drawings prepared by BKA Architects, Inc., dated 11/8/11 D Stormwater Management Study, CVS/Pharmacy#7109,Loring Plaza,Canal Street and Jefferson Ave., Salem,Massachusetts,prepared by R.J. O'Connell&Associates Traffic Impact and Access Study,Proposed CVS/Pharmacy,Salem,Massachusetts,prepared by GPI (Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.) ➢ "Civil Technical Peer Review of Site Plans dated 11/10/11 and Storm Water Management study dated 11/10/11 for the CVS Pharmacy Jefferson Ave. and Canal St. City of Salem Planning Review of Application for PUD Special Permit,Drive-Through Special Permit and Site Plan Review," prepared by AECOM and dated 12/12/12 ➢ "Technical Peer Review,Traffic Impact and Access Study—Proposed CVS/Pharmacy,Salem, MA dated November 2011 prepared by GPI,Inc.,"prepared by AECOM and dated 12/12/12 ➢ Letter from Ben Anderson, 10 Adams St., dated 12/31/11 1 Attorney Joseph Correnti,63 Federal Street, Salem,represents the applicant and introduced Paul Beck,Bryce Hillman,Jason Plourde and Phil Henry, and he stated that the team has a lot to show the Board in the form • of a PowerPoint presentation. They have tried to respond to the feedback they have received from the reviewers, the Board,and the public since the last meeting in relation to site plan,architecture,and traffic. Mr. Puleo asked Ms. McKnight if she could share the comments she had received since the last meeting. Ms. McKnight stated that she spoke to Lt. Griffin today who stated that having 18 feet at the loading dock area when a trailer was parked was fine, but it should be no less than 18 feet. She also asked John Giardi to look at the lighting plan,but he has not had an opportunity to do so yet. She confirmed that the hours of operation can only be 6am to 11pm, otherwise the applicant needs City Council approval for extended hours. Ambulance access questions were sent to Dennis Cataldo,and she has not yet heard back. She stated that she also checked on the warning strips and confirmed that they should to be brick red. Phil Henry,civil engineer from RG O'Connell,80 Montvale St, Stoneham,MA,presented on the modifications and revisions based on the last two public hearings. He explained that they went to a single side-loaded drive-through and they reduced the three access curb cuts. He described the plan that showed a side-loaded drive-through with a three car stack and a by-pass lane for drivers who are entering the area solely to use the drive through. He highlighted the route that showed the toughest movement,stating that it's less than ideal but does not run over any curb. He stressed that they are talking about internal drives,not public ways. He also stated that the drive through queue can accommodate up to 6 cars. Mr. Puleo asked if a concrete divider is still being proposed between the businesses. Mr. Henry stated that yes, there would be a grade difference via a wall,and noted that there will be a guardrail on the high side of it as well as a landscaped island. He then took Board members through the new plan stating that some of these changes were based on AECOM's recommendations.They proposed to close one of the Jefferson Avenue access points. They • chose to close the one the closest to yield lane from Loring Avenue (southbound) as they felt that this option created a safer environment. They also eliminated the 81h car space to add more handicapped spacing. They created more access for someone walking down the street,which will create more walkability. On the northern section of the site they modified the loading area by detaching the compactor and attaching it to the dumpster. That addresses the requisite width of 20 feet; they now have 24 feet. Mr. Puleo asked about the trailer approach to which Mr. Henry stated that this would be addressed further into the presentation. Mark George asked if the location of the dumpster is closer to the nearest dwelling. Mr. Henry said yes,but he did not know Lt. Griffin would have been OK with only 18 feet and said that in light of that information they can go back to the original design and put it closer to the building. Mr. Henry continued discussing the signage at the entrance by Kimball Road. The other major modification was the new traffic marking at the Canal Street access,which they feel is vital. They really want to stress to the Board members that this is a critical function of the site. They have three enhancements: 1. a"Do Not Block"intersection box, 2. a box on the road and 3.relocation of the ambulance access sign. Randy Clarke asked if they referred to MassDOT on questions regarding this piece of the road. Jason Plourde, traffic consultant for the applicant, stated that Canal Street is owned by the city, thus they do not need to go through MassDOT for any changes on Canal Street. Mr. Henry continued his presentation. They took away an additional 2 spaces which allows for 50 feet at the entrance and will allow customers to notice any potential car pulling out. The next plan slide showed the site lighting. They proposed to lower the lights from 33 feet to 23 feet,and add two more lights. They proposed to line the access drive from Jefferson Avenue with lights mounted on bollards. He said this would be a nice feature aesthetically and also would prevent light pollution. • 2 Mr. Puleo asked if the fighting will be timed 24 hours or with the operations of the store. Paul Beck, of CVS, • responded stating that they will operate in conjunction with the operations of the store. Mr.Puleo asked if the whole parking lot will go dark. Mr. Henry said they could have conversations with the other businesses. Mr.Puleo said that at the CVS on Highland Avenue,he observed the lights on Marlborough Road go off when the business closes and the Highland Avenue ones stay on. Mr. Henry said that the light coming off the current site was relatively dim, so they are proposing no additional lights. He does not have foot candle readings from the whole site,but they do have it from the proposed CVS site. Mr. Henry moved onto the next slide which showed the delivery truck route. He stated that if the board feels strongly that they should go back to the attached compactor, they can do that. They can go back to an at grade loading dock. The last slide that they have is showing the fire truck turning route,which they improved based on AECOM's recommendations. They found a ladder truck to be longer so they drove that around the site,and the slides reflect that route. Mr. Clarke asked about the number of parking spaces,to which Mr. Henry stated that will be addressed later in the presentation. Tim Ready asked what the sidewalks will look like and what they will be made of. Mr. Henry stated that all of the sidewalks proposed are going to be concrete and monolithic. Mr. Ready inquired about the maintenance of the crosswalks,in terms of the painting surviving the harsh winter. Mr. Clarke asked if the disabilities commission has input on this. Ms.McKnight said that she can find out the answer. Mr. Henry asked if he is asking in terms of meeting ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) regulations. Mr. Clarke said yes, that this is one example of a project that the disabilities commission should comment on,particularly on the sidewalks and the texture. • Jason Plourde,Greenman Pedersen,Stoneham,is the traffic consultant and he described the parking around the site. He stated that they looked at the ITE parking generation report(4th edition) and based on that report,they are proposing 128 total parking spaces within the PUD. They found that the site has an average peak demand for parking of approximately 127 spaces. Mr. Clarke states that he still thinks that it is way too much parking. He drove by what he thought was a peak demand time for Tedeschi's (around 5:45 pm) and the parking lot was practically empty. Mr.Plourde stated that he's gone by at other times and seen that spaces have been almost completely filled during weekday evenings. Mr. Clarke said that he has echoed his comments on other projects and he is echoing them again on this project that there is way too much pavement. He noted that this area is supposed to be the new area ` of Salem, and should be more of a gateway to Salem as well as the university, and should be focused on more pedestrians and less cars. Ms. Sides echoed his comments that this area should be more green,especially to buffer the edge of the sidewalk and street on the Jefferson Avenue side. Mr. Plourde stated that they are looking into that,especially into closing up one of the entrances but they want that decision to be based on something concrete. He said that they can look at which parking spaces to eliminate. Mr. Plourde continued his presentation stating that they are moving the existing driveway on Canal Street further to the north which is away from the intersection to give more room to the Auto Zone. In looking at the additional traffic that will be added by the site,and based on the methodology of the traffic assumptions, he showed a slide that included weekday and weekend traffic;he said that none of these movements should be restricted. He also showed a slide that demonstrated the additional cars that will be added to the area with the development of the site, specifically the increases in vehicles making left and right turns in and out of the site. Mr. Plourde described the Manual of Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) sign that will further enhance the motorist awareness of the driveway into the site;and he noted that pavement markings will also bring more awareness to drivers. He thinks that this is a better solution than restricting movements. 3 Mr. Puleo noted that the slide shows the two worst movements turning from Canal Street with the highest numbers. Mr. Plourde explained where those cars were coming from the access points on Jefferson Avenue. • Mr. Puleo asked if they are assuming that they don't know if cars coming onto to the site from one entrance will go out another way. Mr. Plourde explained that there are up to three different types of trips: new trips to the site,which is a trip that is made with the intent of going to this specific CVS and the driver is coming right in and left out;a passby trip,which occurs when the driver is already on Canal Street,realizes that there is a CVS,makes a right turn in,and then a right turn out to continue onto the final destination;and a diverted linked trip,which is using a roadway that is not adjacent to the site. All those types of trips have been taken into consideration,but the difference is that based on state standards they can only assume that 25%of the CVS site trips would be a combination of the passby trips and the diverted link trips. Further, they had to assume that more new cars are coming into the study area than expected. Based on the ITE trip generation report,the site could have up to a 69%increase. Mr. Puleo asked if the same methodology is used on the Jefferson Avenue intersection, to which Mr. Plourde said yes. He then explained that the particular slide on the Canal Street intersection is used to exemplify why all movements should continue to be allowed. He further explained that they are adding one additional car every 4 to 20 minutes.They observed that where there were cars that were waiting to.turn left into Loring Plaza, the other cars were able to bypass the turning car and continue straight northbound, thus not stacking up through the signal. Mr. Puleo asked if there was enough road width there to which Mr. Plourde stated that there is approximately 17 feet of pavement width. Mr.Puleo asked about coming the opposite direction (southbound). Mr. Plourde stated that right hand movements are not as critical as left hand turns as the traffic can continuously flow;they will have to slow down,but do not have to stop. He noted that with the change in signage that there will be more opportunities for vehicles to turn left and turn out. Mr. George said that the striping will go a long way towards addressing the choke point and asked how far is the curb cut being moved. Mr. Plourde replied that it will be moved approximately 30 to 50 feet. Mr. George stated that he is hoping that there will be something like what they have at the post office with the • striping. Mr. Plourde said there certainly are different options other than the"X". Mr. George said this goes a long way towards addressing this issue. Mr. Puleo asked if the traffic study volumes are pertinent to what is going on now. Mr. Plourde described the how the study was done. Mr. Clarke asked if the assumption is that the proponent will maintain the striping. Mr. Plourde said that they can workout something in terms of the maintenance. Mr. Ready said that there was striping and it has faded,so it's critical that it will be maintained and will enhance curb appeal. Mr. Plourde stated that he agreed,and noted that his in-laws live nearby so he sees the need for the maintenance of the road signage. Mr. Plourde continued his presentation and showed a slide of the Jefferson Avenue area and entrance. He feels that the closure of the access point nearest the yield lane from Loring Avenue is a safety issue and needs to be closed. He further noted that to shift them up to the other driveway should not be a big deal and it's a good access management practice. This is something that they are pursuing and they would like some feedback. However, as this is the first time that AECOM is seeing it they are not expecting an immediate response. Mr. Puleo asked how they feel about having two entrances so close together. Mr. Plourde stated that he believes that the vehicles that are using the driveway in front of Tedeschi's and Eastern Bank are the businesses that the drivers will be accessing. Mr. Puleo asked where do the cars go from there if they want to access the rest of the site. Mr. Plourde described the routes of the cars from the other businesses to the CVS. Mr. George asked how they would close up the curb cut. Mr. Plourde stated that they would continue the sidewalk and are thinking about striping. They are still thinking th s through and want to at least present the 4 idea to the board. Mr. Plourde said that they don't want anything too high to impede the sight distance for • other cars entering or exiting the site. Mr. George then asked how someone will know that the driveway is there to differentiate between the house and the business. Mr. Henry stated that the renderings that will be shown will be geared to give Board members a view of the building itself and he further noted that the driveway will be delineated by roadway, curb,landscape enhancements and plantings. Mr. George stated that he thinks that this is going to enhance the area. Bryce Hillman,BAE architects, 142 Crescent Street,Brockton stated that he made improvements to materials and the design of the building. He showed pictures of how the site will look and pointed out the dormers added to the site on the two sides that are most visible. Additionally,he added materials to the building including brick and a shake that will be below the windows,as well as extra material below the framework. He then showed how the side drive through will look,explaining that the enclosures have been modified. Mr. George asked about the location of the trash receptacle, specifically asking if it can be moved further away from the house. Mr. Henry stated that they can move that back to the original location. Mr. Puleo noted that the compactor,not the dumpster will be looked into being moved and the dumpster will still be in the same place away from the building. Mr. George asked where the trash receptacle will be located and what is the proposed enclosure. Mr. Henry stated that it will be wrapped in chain fink fence with privacy slats for security purposes and they will add arbor vitae to protect from neighbors seeing it. Mr. Clarke asked if they could think about wood instead of chain link fencing. Mr. Hillman and Mr. Henry said they can look into it. Ms. Sides stated that as long as it is dark and not glowing or reflective from behind the trees it should be fine. Mr. Puleo said that this is a big improvement, comparing it to the Beverly store on the corner of Rantoul Street and Route 62 that has a more residential look. • Ms. Sides stated that she appreciated the letter they received from Mr.Ben Anderson,Adams Street resident. Ms. McKnight addressed some of the issues from Mr.Anderson's letter. She stated that Robin Stein, the Assistant City Solicitor, didn't have concerns that the retention basin is outside the PUD zone in the residential lot—they are not structures that are regulated by zoning. Mr. Puleo asked Mr.Anderson to clarify his question in his letter which asked if there a proposed fence along the back area the retention basin. Mr. Anderson stated that his main concern is the development is only focused towards the front of the property for retail development but in the back of the property there is potential for the neighbors to be impacted. Mr. Correnti said that another neighbor,Mr.Beddard,asked if there can be an improvement in the fence on the hillside. Mr. Correnti said yes and they really want to clean up the hillside;particularly in the area where the basin will go,it is currently broken and their intent is to clean it up and landscape it. They will be happy to improve the fence, and they will find out exactly what the neighbors prefer. They will improve but not develop that space. Ms. McKnight asked if it is possible to see that landscaped area's plans in more detail. Mr. Correnti said that if the Board wants them to do that, they will be happy to do so. Mr.Ready noted that Mr. Correnti has committed to landscaping a currently unsightly area. Mr. Correnti stated that there will be more green than what is there now. Mr. Henry stated that there will be between 300—400 new plantings. Mr. Puleo asked if they can do renderings on the back of the lot to be presented at the next meeting. Mr. Henry said yes. John Moustakis asked if this addressed Mr.Anderson's issue and Mr.Anderson said yes. Mr. George asked about the lighting plans, to which Mr. Henry described the new plans,noting that the first light is over 200 feet away from anyone on Adams Street. Mr. George noted that this is a positive progression. Mr. Moustakis asked who will maintain the area. Mr. Henry stated that the proponent will. Mr. Correnti pointed out the section in Mr.Anderson's letter in regards to the zoning,and noted that the more restrictive zone is the residential zone. • Issue opened to the pubfic for comment 5 Polly Wilbert,7 Cedar Street, asked about the walking pattern from Jefferson Avenue onto the site. She specifically asked about the width of the bollards, to which Mr. Henry said they will be the width of the • sidewalks,plus some. She questioned whether the parking layout is safe from the perspective of a pedestrian. She wondered if those three spaces are needed at the end of the driveway and asked if there are there going to be some steps with the new grading. Mr. Henry said no,it is being raised a foot and it does not require steps. Ms. Wilbert asked how would someone go from Salem State to the site without steps or a ramp. Mr. Henry stated that they are actually leveling the site off, and it will be raised. Ms.Wilbert stated that she is concerned with how safely people walk there and how safely will they be guided there. She also said that she feels that left hand rums in and out of the site are too dangerous. Ben Anderson, 10 Adams Street, stated that he applauds the applicant for some of the changes that they made. He feels the two entrances on Jefferson Avenue are too close. His main concern is that he lives on Adams Street and he doesn't want to see or hear the development. He thinks the lighting is better but wants to make sure they are full cut-off lights. He thinks the solid fencing will help visually and with noise. He also thinks it is important that the site doesn't increase the current noise issues. He asked about the mezzanine storage as he is not familiar with CVS delivery schedules. Paul Beck, from CVS,responded, stating the CVS truck delivers once a week, for about 45 minutes. He noted that this will not be a distribution center for any other store. He further stated that the lift is inside the store and will not make any additional noise. Mr. Puleo asked if the smaller deliveries will be front door deliveries, to which Mr.Beck said yes. Ward 7 Councilor Joseph O'Keefe,28 Surrey Road, asked if the applicant has will discuss the traffic signals at the intersection. Chuck Puleo said he didn't think that was being discussed tonight,but asked Mr.Plourde if the state's proposal for the lights. Mr. Plourde stated that if they are making any changes to signage or the traffic signals, then they would have to go to MassDOT,but their thresholds will not be triggered for an access permit based on the amount of traffic generation and parking. Any MassDOT involvement depends on the improvements that are being made. Councilor asked if that meant that state sees no trouble with the signals and this development will be OK. Chuck Puleo said that what they understand is that if they are not • putting in access from any state roads,a permit's not needed. Councilor O'Keefe stated that the intersection is really bad as is. He stated that he waited this morning 8 seconds to make a left turn from Loring to Canal— no one moves—the lights are all red. He supports the project but this intersection is a mess and the backups will be significant. He asked for the Planning Board to get it in writing from the state that this is not on a state highway. He pointed out problems with the signage leading to the intersection. Mr. Puleo said the developer had identified problems with the signage. He said it's a good project and it will work, but he had concerns. He said that Ms.Wilbert is correct that the grading change should require steps. He noted that someone coming through the crosswalk needs more protection. They need at least four bollards along each side of the entrance to keep cars from pedestrians, and there should also be bollards to keep cars from going through the front door. He is pushing the Board and the State to fix the signals,and he expects CVS to contribute money to that as well. Mr.Anderson said that the relocated handicapped spots in front of Eastern Bank may have a grading issue and may impact accessibility. Ms. Sides stated that she wondered about that. Mr.Anderson said that he also knows that there was an environmental impact study for the project and would like to hear the results of that study at the next meeting. Mr. Ready thanked Mr.Anderson for his thoughtful letter which addressed the concerns of the neighbors. John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing until January 19,2012,seconded by Randy Clarke.All approved 8-0. Old/New Business Ms. McKnight informed that Board that Nadine Hanscom resigned from the board and they are working on finding a new member. • 6 The letter to Editor that was written thanking Christine Sullivan For her service on the Planning Board was published on December 24th. Adjournment Tim Ready made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 8-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:07pm. Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 2/2/12 • • 7 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby roti,fray that the SalemPlammgBourd will held its rTdady sd rmtirrg en Thursday, December 15, 2011 at 7.00 pm at C4Hall Aroxx,Rcwrr313, 120 Wasbin m Stmt aurles M UL-4 chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ November 17, 2011 and December 1,2011 meetings 2. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC for the property •, - located at'72 LORING AVE; 292,296 &300 CANAL ST; and 399 i/2'& 401 JEFFERSON AVE • (Map 32, Lots 27,.29,30 &31, and Map 23, Lots 170 & 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review; Planned Unit Development,and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank, Tedeschi Food Shop,Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-through,including associated parking and landscaping. 3. Old/New Business 4. Adjournment Kno YourRigitsUdertheOpezM"LawM.GL, c39§23BandCityOrdmarxeSoMan2.2028thr�2-2033. 9 �.ytgl;1'�,4 '��"t. ..6 r,rt c �4:. r' i y^?„tt, }'.. *`� .•., Ct � q 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS p j DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND Mr_n COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD DimcrOR MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: December 7, 2011 RE: Agenda—December 15, 2011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo • ➢ Agenda ➢ Minutes from 11/1.7/11 and 12/1/11 ➢ Materials for Agenda Items Public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC,for the property located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 & 300 CANAL ST; and 399 Yz &401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30& 31, and Map 23, Lots 170& 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping. We have AECOM under contract to do a peer review of the project's civil engineering and traffic. Paul Carter, who is handling the civil engineering review, will be at the meeting along with Dennis Flynn, who is reviewing the traffic. Both reviews will be completed by the 15th, and AECOM will be presenting their findings and recommendations. Because of the tight timeframe, I will probably not have written findings from AECOM more than a day or so prior to the meeting. However, I will pass along their findings by email as soon as I have them. Lynn and I spoke with Lt. Preczewski (Traffic Division) about concerns raised at the meeting regarding the three proposed entrances to the site from Jefferson Ave. Lt. Preczewski's opinion • was that at least one of the existing curb cuts should be closed, preferably the one closer to the intersection, for safety reasons. I also had a follow-up conversation with Paul Carter and Dennis Flynn about the traffic concerns • raised at the last meeting. While these will be addressed in detail in AECOM's written recommendations, I'll briefly summarize the main issues we discussed: ➢ Free right turn from Canal Street to Jefferson Avenue: widening the right of way to allow two lanes to turn right would bring vehicles through the intersection faster. However, once those two lanes arrived at Jefferson Avenue,the street narrows to a single receiving lane, and new problems would arise as a result of bringing two lanes down to one lane entering Jefferson Avenue at the yield sign. ➢ Canal Street entrance: AECOM is looking at Kimball Road as an alternative site entrance. They will also examine other solutions to the congestion problems at the Canal Street entrance, such as restricting left turns in and out from Canal Street. ➢ Jefferson Avenue entrances: It is AECOM's opinion that both the existing Jefferson Avenue curb cuts should be closed and access from Jefferson Avenue limited only to the proposed new site drive. In 2008, Sasaki completed the Loring-Canal Corridor Vision & Weir Property Development Study. Suggested streetscape improvements included street trees and locating buildings close to the sidewalks. I will discuss with the applicant the possibility of planting street trees rather than the smaller plantings shown in the landscape plan. I will also discuss with the applicant bringing the CVS closer to the street, but if this is not possible, one idea for achieving a similar aesthetic would be to install a fence along the sidewalk, similar to the CVS at 426 Essex Street, • with street trees behind it. A photo of this CVS is enclosed, as are renderings from the Sasaki study. I am also including photos of a new CVS in Arlington, which is of a similar design to the one proposed, but with some differences in colors and materials used , and with more windows along the sides of the building. This store is also located very close to the sidewalk. • -2- ��CONDI7q��\ City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Date Name lQ Mailing Address Phone # E-mail se t � _,j $1 R¢� � s ofiG34 AP 314-3?b � 2OL ,,;)/&oc-uS e e 217A _so _Xj e_.L' GtJ o-J,5 crx 1 Page of SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 12/15/11 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,December 15,2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo,Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Lewis Beaman,Randy Clarke,Tim Kavanaugh, Helen Sides,and Tim Ready. Also present: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk.Absent:Nadine Hanscom. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:04 pm. Approval of Minutes November 17, 2011 draft minutes Chuck Puleo asked that the minutes reflect that he rejoined the meeting for the AL Prime discussion.No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.Tim Kavanaugh motioned to accept the minutes,seconded by John Moustakis.Approved 8-0. December 1,2011 draft minutes Postponed until the next meeting on January 5,2012. Continuation of public hearing: Petition of G.B.NEW ENGLAND 2,LLC, for the property located at 72 LORING AVE;292,296 & 300 CANAL ST; and 399 1/2 & 401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32,Lots 27,29,30 & 31, and Map 23, Lots 170 & 191), Salem MA, for Site Plan • Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop,Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-through,including associated parking and landscaping. Attachments&Exhibitions: D Applications for Planned Unit Development Special Permit,Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Special Permit,all date-stamped 11/10/11,and accompanying materials ➢ Site Plan for CVS/Pharmacy#7109,Jefferson Avenue&Canal Street,Salem,MA 01970,prepared by RJ O'Connell&Associates,Inc.,dated 11/10/11 Exterior Elevation drawings prepared by BKA Architects,Inc., dated.11/8/11 ➢ Stormwater Management Study,CVS/Pharmacy#7109,Loring Plaza,Canal Street and Jefferson Ave.,Salem,Massachusetts,prepared by R.J. O'Connell&Associates ➢ Traffic Impact and Access Study,Proposed CVS/Pharmacy,Salem,Massachusetts,prepared by GPI (Greenman-Pedersen,Inc.) ➢ "Civil Technical Peer Review of Site Plans dated 11/10/11 and Storm Water Management study dated 11/10/11 for the CVS Pharmacy Jefferson Ave. and Canal St. City of Salem Planning Review of Application for PUD Special Permit,Drive-Through Special Permit and Site Plan Review," prepared by AECOM and dated 12/12/12 "Technical Peer Review,Traffic Impact and Access Study—Proposed CVS/Pharmacy,Salem,MA dated November 2011 prepared by GPI, Inc.," prepared by AECOM and dated 12/12/12 ➢ Letter from Ben Anderson, 10 Adams St.,dated 12/14/11 ➢ Letter from Ward 7 Councillor Joseph A. O'Keefe Sr., dated 12/14/11 Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street,Salem,representing the applicant,introduced Paul Beck,Jason Plourde and Phil Henry,and hestated that he understood that AECOM,on behalf of the city,had the opportunity to review the plans. Mr. Correnti said that the team will be prepared to respond to issues raised 1 by AECOM at the next meeting. Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, noted that the civil engineers from AECOM were here to present their findings to the Board. She introduces Dennis Flynn, Paul Carter and Jeff Maxtutis of AECOM,who have been hired by the City to help the Board review the project. AECOM's reviews of the traffic and civil engineering have been detailed in a memo,which Ms. McKnight says she has emailed to the Board and which she now passes out in hard copy. Paul Carter,Senior Project Manager with AECOM, stated that he was very familiar with this project because he is the project manager for the Canal Street improvement project. He also introduces Jeff Maxtutis and Dennis Flynn with AECOM. He said that they have reviewed the site plan and traffic impact study as well as the stormwater drainage plan and the civil engineering. He addressed the civil engineering first. He noted that overall the plans were well put together, and were done in a professional manner. He said the comments were regarding safety,circulation and some minor details. He noted that soil borings and percolation tests were done by the applicant,and AECOM needed to see a copy of the results (test boring logs showing what the soils are,what the depth of groundwater is,what the percolation test showed, and how quickly the stormwater infiltrates). MassDEP requires that a certain amount of water go back into the ground. Other comments included needing further clarification about how the existing drainage system will function on the site,including whether the infrastructure will be cleaned, maintained, etc. Me Puleo asked how the new site driveway from Jefferson Ave. will impact the drainage. He noted that the Ward 3 councillor had had serious concerns at the last meeting about drainage in this area, and he wanted to make sure this was being addressed. Mr. Carter explained the new proposed drainage system,including a new catch basin for the new driveway. He demonstrated the direction of flow on the site. He asked if there were any known drainage problems from the lot by the bank and Tedeschi's;he noted that water generally sheets across the parking lot,and there is no proposed drainage in that location,which is a concern. He also included a suggestion of locations for new catchbasins. He asked Mr. Puleo what were the • particular concerns. Mr. Puleo said that much of the site at the rear was not paved currently,so what would happen to water that isn't currently draining into the system? Mr. Carter highlighted the current drainage system and showed the Board on the plan where the applicant would like to reroute the drainage. He commented that some of the inverts are flat and they may need to do some replacing to ensure a positive slope;he said their approach is to utilize the capacity of the current drainage system,and for the new pavement,deal with the additional water with the new system and run that water through their water quality treatment system. He noted that they are not showing an increase in peak runoff as water leaves the site, because it is being retained. However, there will be a small increase in the volume of water on the site,but they are infiltrating a portion of that—and this is why submitting the soil boring tests is important. Mr. Carter continued,saying the proposed system is shallow—two feet of cover,so asked that the applicant submit the necessary information showing that the high-density polyethylene pipe they propose is adequate in the area of the site where the pipes will only be two feet below the surface. If not, they should propose a stronger,more rigid pipe. Mr. Carter also noted they needed confirmation of the type of pipe used—their calculations are based on a smooth line pipe,which takes more flow. Mr. Carter also noted they have questions regarding the outlet structure;there are inconsistencies regarding the outlet size and overflow grate size. He asked the applicant to show the depth of groundwater below the basin, and provide a material at the bottom of the basin which will allow for the basin to infiltrate where it is supposed to. The soil here infiltrates only moderately. He says they have questions about a water quality unit proposed. This screens out trash and filters out sands and sediment,and has a sump at the bottom. It's sized appropriately for the flows,it has only a 2 foot deep sump,4 foot diameter- recommended that the sump depth be increased to a depth of 3 to 4 feet in case cleaning is not done as frequently as is necessary. He discussed the hydrology calculations which he stated were done with an acceptable methodology,but they would like to see more calculations in relation to the capacity of the pipes. There is one section of pipe that has a negative slope in the existing,which they need to resolve. Their long and short term pollution prevention plan, and his • primary comment on those is that they need to designate where snow will be piled. Mr. Puleo asked if they are tying the roof drains into a ground system to which Phil Henry,project manager for the applicant, 2 • responded in the affirmative. Mark George asked if there will be a net increase in the impervious area of the site as a result of this project to which Mr. Henry explained that they are increasing the impervious area and described the paving plan. He stated that the retention system will offset the peak rate of runoff There will be an increase in volume,but for all storms this is only a 1%increase. Mr. Carter then moved onto utilities. He said the location of fire hydrants should be shown, and the location of any new ones required by the Fire Chief. Ms. McKnight stated that there haven't been any issues raised by Lt. Griffin from Fire Prevention,but that she would check back with her to see if she had any comments. Mr. Carter stated that they did have a question about fire apparatus access, specifically asking to show that there is the required turning radii for City of Salem vehicles. He noted that the utilities proposed are to be brought in underground, as shown on the site plans. Mr. Carter then moved onto the demolition plan, and the only comment was on the portion of Canal Street, to put the barrier on the other side of the sidewalk so pedestrians can access the sidewalk during construction. Another recommendation that Mr. Carter made was that the joint use driveway should be the full width of the parcel. They are concerned that the Kimball Rd. entrance is an area that isn't well defined and would need curb control,as well as signage. Another concern was with the geometry of the site in relation to the drive thru,and the path of traffic. He stated that the sight distance and the turning radii look like they are going to be difficult. He noted that the visual sight distance to the south is going to be constrained when there is a tractor trailer on site. They recommended bringing the drive thin to a 90 degree angle instead of the current 45 degree design,and to make sure some of the turning movements are adequate. Given the constraints of the location they are recommending a single drive thin. He then discussed how to provide adequate pedestrian access,and recommended that the sidewalk be extended over to other areas of the site. He suggested having better delineated pedestrian pathways from Canal and Loring. He also noted • that the back of the site will only have 18 feet of space when a tractor trailer will be there so this is something he recommends looking further into. He notes there is a retaining wall shown at the comer of Tedeschi's—it looks like it's holding up the corning of the building,so they would need to submit the construction details to the City for review. He stated that the applicant wants to use yellow for detectable warning strips,but they would recommend using brick red,at least for those on public ways and sidewalks, since this is the color being used elsewhere by the City. Mr. Puleo asked about the loading dock situation—if they were to move the drive-through window around the side of the building, considering they have such a long queue line shown,would that make the loading dock function better? The loading doc is currently at an angle because of the drive-through. Mr. Henry said the drive-through function is exclusive of the angle at which the loading dock is placed. There is a compactor attached to the building used for cardboard. Mr. Puleo said that since there would only be 18 feet when a tractor trailer was there, the fire department might be concerned. Mr. Henry said they would take a look at this and address it. Mr.'Carter said that to have the 45 degree right of the location—there is a lot going on— so if it would help and could be accommodated that the drive through be at a 90 degree angle instead, that's something he would suggest looking at. Mr. Puleo asked if there are any statistics on the usage of the drive- through;does this site really warrant a double drive-through? He's never seen anyone use the outer lane in the Highland Ave. store (at Marlborough Rd). Mr. Henry states that it is something that they are looking at internally. Mr. Beck noted that in other stores, there has been much more success with the double drive thin in terms of access and circulation. Tim Ready asked what the snow storage plans are for the site;he noted that it's a congested site. Mr. Henry stated that this is something that they are thinking about and there are some landscaping areas that they can use,and what is important is that when the snow melts,it runs through the proper drainage, and they need to look at this. • Mr. Puleo asked if the curbing or an island could be added without impeding the parking at AutoZone,and could they achieve that by just striping the ground? Mr. Henry stated that behind the spaces is 24 feet,which 3 is industry standard for maneuverability,but the real reason for the island is that it's almost like a retaining • wall,needed because of the change of grade. He is using that to achieve some grade across the site. Mr. Carter stated that if they did a single drive-through,it would give them more room. He says with the main entrance areas,it is preferable if they don't have cars all backing out into the aisles. He says it's very tight. He notes that this goes to the issue of where the access feeds into the site. Randy Clarke asked the applicant to explain at the next meeting their justification for two drive thm lanes,since it seems as though one would be adequate. He notes that Salem is trying to encourage more pedestrian activity. Helen Sides stated that there looks like there is more parking than there needs to be,especially at the back— she doesn't think anyone will park there to enter the store-and asked if that is the number of parking spaces that is really needed. She also stated that the Eastern Bank and the Tedeschi's has been left out of this plan. She stated that this particular area of the site looks awful and is poorly planned. This part of the plan needs to be developed. It's an important corner as you enter the city. Mr. Puleo asked if the parking calculation was the same as a retail use, or is it a convenience and drug store? Mr. Henry said it's calculated as a retail use. Mr. Clarke asked if this is a PUD, are they looking at this as a whole PUD site or just focusing on CVS? The parking for all the stores should be considered together. He further stated that to Ms. Sides'point,if there is too much parking,why not plant more trees and and have fewer parking spaces—it looks better and makes more sense environmentally. Mr. Carter noted that this is an important corner—one of the reasons CVS wants to be here, since it will attract customers. He noted that even though this is in the entrance corridor, the zoning exempts PUD sites from meeting entrance corridor requirements. Dennis Flynn of AECOM,performed the traffic peer review for the project. He stated that this study was • performed in accordance with professional and state review guidelines. He began his presentation discussing accidents. At the Canal and Loring Plaza driveway intersection, there were 9 accidents over the three year project,7 of which were sideswipes,which indicates there are problems with vehicles entering and exiting. The calculated crash rate equals the average crash rate for MassDOT district 4. 5 involved left turns from Canal St. conflicting with southbound motors on Canal—people turning into the site heading north conflicting with southbound vehicles. In terms of trip generation, their concern is that this facility may increase trips at higher rates than the applicate has estimated based on ITE rates. They are asking how the traffic is expected to be maintained at the numbers provided in the report and used in the analysis. The discussion of estimated traffic based on demolition of 3000 square feet was based on the ITE land use generation code for specialty retail,but the average sized facility provided in the report was 69,000 SF. He thinks the reduction of trips has been overestimated. He recommends they use the trip rate rather than the trip generation equation. He felt they should only reduce the number of trips by 8, not the 29 reported. Mr. Flynn then spoke of the capacity analysis on the signal intersections and he specifically stated the calculations for vehicle queues were not provided in the report, thus they asked for the calculations to be submitted. He noted that the calculations did not include the exclusive pedestrian phase,which should be incorporated into the analysis, since it impacts important measures like performance delays. Previous studies AECOM conducted in the area with data collected in November 2009 found that significantly higher delays and queuing were observed particularly on the southbound side of Canal Street. The consultants are asking for this issue to be addressed. John Moustakis asked how the state rates the intersection. Mr. Flynn,clarifying that he is referring to the operational capacity of the intersection, stated that there are certain movements considered level of service F, but not all movements are at that level. Overall, the intersection has is operating at D or E. It is considered • at capacity. He says you will see much worse operations when the pedestrian only signal is used in the analysis,which it was not in the applicant's report. Mr.Moustakis asked how to get more information on 4 • this. Mr. Flynn stated that this information is part of the impact study. Mr. Carter notes that their analysis needs to be revised. Mr. Flynn stated that there is a level of service analysis in the developer's report and in Y P P the 2010 functional design report by AECOM. Jason Plourde, traffic consultant for the applicant,stated that they didn't include the exclusive pedestrian phase because it would all be rated and that wouldn't give P P them a clear understanding of the true impact. Mr. Moustakis stated that his concern is that they will be starting the project at a level of failure. Mr. Clarke asked about the MassDOT review and increasing the length of the pedestrian cycle. Mr. Flynn stated that with regards to site traffic, they have concerns in regards to Canal Street and Loring Plaza queues, therefore they ask that Canal Street be a "right turn in-right turn out" entrance and exit. They noted that with the close spacing of the Jefferson Ave. driveway, they recommend closing the center driveway to conform with Salem zoning requirements. He says 200 feet is the minimum allowed by zoning, and these driveways are about 80 feet apart. He recommends closing the center driveway and converting the one closest to the intersection to a right-in right-out only driveway. There are few people turning left in or out of this driveway. Providing the new driveway increases the number of conflict points along Jefferson. Mr. Flynn notes that based on similar sites, they feel that one drive thru would be appropriate. Mr. Flynn says notes the problems with the stop signs at the rear of the property and says a four way stop is recommended. In closing he recommended that the applicant find out if they need a state highway access permit from the MassDOT. Mr. Puleo asked if they would need state curb cut permits for Jefferson and Canal;Mr. Flynn says he thinks so. Mr. Carter noted that this is because the CVS is being proposed on the intersection and it • will have an impact on that particular intersection,which is under state jurisdiction. He notes the low level of service of the intersection and the congestion in the area. He says MassDOT is a critical player in the decision making about whether appropriate access is being provided here,and what the impacts will be. Mr. George asked Mr. Flynn to clarify why there would be a"right in- right out" on the Canal Street entrance to which Mr. Flynn said that left turn access could be accommodated at Kimball—the further away from the intersection these movements are pulled,the better. Mr. Puleo noted that Kimball Rd. doen't currently look like a street and needs curbing and other improvements. It looks like one big parking lot. Mr. Correnti stated that they are not prepared to respond to the peer reviewers comments this evening but they will address these comments at the next upcoming meetings. He said that the team will look at the recommendations;however, they do have a presentation tonight based on the comments from the last meeting. Jason Plourde, Greenman Pedersen,Stoneham, described the traffic conditions around the site. He stated that they have already reached out to MEPA and confirmed they do not have to go through the MEPA review process. The preliminary discussions with MassDOT in relation to traffic indicate they will not require any access permits;however,any improvements they would make, such as the different striping and proposed changes to the signage, has to be reviewed by MassDOT. He noted that they do not have the improvement package put together yet. Mr. Plourde shared a bar chart of traffic volumes that displayed specific time intervals,as well as what they think will be the increase in traffic from this project. Additionally, he noted that the true impacts will be minimal. He addressed another question about pedestrian comments and showed a graphic demonstrating the crossing patterns throughout the day and evening. Mr. George asked if there was any consideration given to developments specifically from Salem State University. Mr. Plourde responded that they reached out to the City and they know that there is a facility that has been purchased by the University but there have not been any plans put forth at this time. Mr. Correnti stated that • they had meetings with the University as well as the South Salem Neighborhood Association and what came out of it was a reallocation of the space that has not been fully determined yet. Further, they have been told that development on the facility is years away. Mr. George noted that this is not just going to impact one 5 building and recommends looking at a broader area to assess the full impact. Mr. Moustakis asked if it is • possible to factor in the future increase in the pedestrian traffic. Mr. Plourde responded that the signals operate based on pedestrian demand which may increase over time. Mr.Moustakis asked where the bus stops are in the area. Mr. Plourde pointed out on the map where the bus stop locations are. Mr. Puleo asked about how the bus operates in the northbound lane. Mr. Plourde stated that he has observed people jockeying for position to pull around the bus and then getting back into their original lane. Mr. Puleo asked who would determine if the bus stop should be moved. Mr.Plourde responded that the right of way is tight and that determination is a combination of the MassDOT and the MBTA with the City ideally leading the way. Mr. Plourde concluded his presentation stating that they recognize the comments on the multiple driveways and will work on a comprehensive plan to present to the Board.. Phil Henry, civil engineer from RG O'Connell, 80 Montvale St,Stoneham,MA,presented on the lighting plan. He showed a graphic demonstrating the distances from the nearest residences to the lights on the site. He showed an area on the site which will remain untouched and not be paved. He also discussed the grading on the lighting plan as well as the shielding on the luminaires,and noted that the lights will be shining down, not horizontally. He noted that there will not be fight impeding off site. Mr.Puleo asked about the pole height to which Mr.Henry stated that the pole will sit on a 3 foot base and the pole will be 30 feet up in the air. Ms. Sides stated that this sounds really tall to which Mr. Henry stated that this is consistent retail development and it is what is out there today. Mr.Puleo asked if fewer poles equal more light to which Mr. Henry clarified that fewer poles mean higher light. He stated that the highest rating on a foot candle is 20 which is what they have on their sites now,and CVS standards are between 4 to 6 foot candles on the store entrances. Mr. Clarke asked about how this related to the PUD line and asked them to show what it will look Eke at the next meeting. Mr. Ready asked if this lighting plan is comparable with the other lighting plans in the City,to which Mr.Puleo stated that Ms. McKnight will find out for the next meeting. Ms. Sides pointed out that on the Lowes project they had requested the lights will be lower, and she thought that was going in a • good direction. Mr. Moustakis stated that his concern is that the flow of traffic in the intersection is already problematic and he doesn't think the project will impact it that severely. However, they should try to make whatever improvements they can. Chuck Puleo asks Ms. McKnight to give a synopsis of Councilor O'Keefe's letter;it states that he supports the PUD development but has a few issues he would like to see addressed,including the two curb cuts on Jefferson (he recommends consolidating them into only one curb cut);he also has concerns about the intersection—the traffic signals should be improved. He recommends the Board have a peer review analysis done. She then shared hard copies with the Board of Adams Street resident Ben Anderson's letter;Mr. Anderson said the letter didn't need to be read and he could just speak about his points. Issue opened to the public for comment Laurie Barrows,406 Jefferson Avenue,who has lived in her home over 20 years,noted that the traffic is a nightmare as is and this is a neighborhood. She stated that the existing lot for the bank is typically jammed. She asked what would the hours of operation, to which Mr. Correnti responded that the applicant is proposing 7am—12 am. She is concerned about the three proposed entrances, specifically because the traffic is going on throughout the day. She feels that this will be a huge impact on traffic as well as trash and noise. She noted that the area is already saturated with other CVS sites. She stated that she has health issues due to the amount of exhaust coming in from the cars. She also noted that there having been constant horns and accidents throughout the day. As far as Canal Street stop sign for the ambulance, she wants to know how they will address this. She wants it to be known as a residential area, she purchased a home on what was a residential area which is now becoming another downtown area. Polly Wilbert,7 Cedar Street, noted that there is a unique situation with the ambulance service on site. She is assuming that the ambulances will not be held to making right turns only onto Canal Street. She is asking the 6 Board to take into consideration the unique characteristics of this tenant. She asks the Board to think about the striping due to the ambulance traffic. She urges the applicant to consider fencing to keep pedestrians from randomly crossing the street. She is also concerned about the snow removal. Additionally, she is concerned about the green area outside the PUD which the applicant said that they would not build,but she says it did come out in the last meeting that it is a buildable lot, and she asks the board to take that into consideration. She also said she thinks the possibility of creating a restricted left turning lane on Loring Ave. by the Enterprise Center should be looked at. Ms. Wilbert asked for clarity on the hours of operation as she is concerned about the hours. Ms. McKnight does not believe that operating until midnight is allowed by the City without Council approval and she will check on that. Ben Anderson, 10 Adams Street, asked what the stated traffic increase was during the day. He is concerned about the operating hours and lam is a peak rush hour time. As far as the light levels,he is happy about the distance from Adams Street but is concerned about the height of the luminaires and asked if they could come down 5— 10 feet. He then asked what effect this development will have on properties beyond the PUD line. Mr. Puleo asked if he is referring to the area designated as a tension basin, to which Mr.Anderson responded in the affirmative. Mr. Puleo stated that this area is part of their recension basin and probably cannot be developed. Mr. Correnti then clarified further showing the PUD line in relation to the project and further stated that the area in question does not have structures being proposed—only earth work. Mr.Anderson asked how the applicant is allowed to go 30 feet beyond the PUD line. Mr.Puleo stated that the B-2 zoning line is allowed to go 30 feet into the residential area. Mr. Correnti stated that they are proposing using the 30 feet extension area for earthwork,piping, and drainage. The Board asked for clarity on this issue, and Ms. McKnight said she would look into it. Mr. Henry described the project further, stating that they are ripping up asphalt to put an above-ground filtration system,as recommended by the South Salem Neighborhood Association. • Sandy Power,Loring Avenue,asked about landscaping and likes the fence idea proposed by a member from the public. She asked about the planting plan,which Mr. Henry described by quickly reviewing his presentation from the last meeting. James Rose,25 Linden Street, states that he fully supports the peer review team's recommendation to eliminate left hand turns onto Canal Street,and that using Kimball Rd. could work,perhaps using more signage. JohnBarrows,406 Jefferson Avenue, stated that there will be a lot of extra traffic which he is concerned J about. John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing until January 5,2012, seconded by Randy Clarke.All approved 8-0. Old/New Business Mr. Puleo told the Board that he saw an editorial in the Salem News about the Salem Oil and Grease site. Adjournment John Moustakis made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 8-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 222pm. Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 1/5/12 7 4 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING Yat ate hereby rrcxifial tdxit d)e Salem Platrrting Bavrl 21 Wd its ttgtrlady sdx Gbdtrl noting on Thursdrty, December 1, 2011 at 7:00 pin at Qolllall Anrtev, Raver 313, 120 W shirgon Snxut C 2r1 P,!,1u°V7< OxaI6 tt1. P11/0A Oxur bIE STING AGENDA 1. Old/New Business 2. Public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC, for the property located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 &300 CANAL ST; and 399 1h & 401 JEFFERSON AVE (Vlap 32, Lots 27, 29, 30 & 31, and Map 23, Lots 170 & l91), Salem MA, for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Dme-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank, Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the • construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping. 3. Adjoununent 1vt rw Yarr Rights Under the Open tb(ertirg Laze)M.G L. c 3915338 mnl City Odita my Staims 2-2028 t{mxtd 2-203_". ?U nnrrn:: S'TREE r, SALL.%! NL1s>AI11 ., 1:5 0NTO . Tia.. (J78,x-15 9.5O5 FAX 978.7.10.()40.1 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND �Asym$ ; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: November 22, 2011 RE: Agenda —December 1, 2011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items • Note: Because of the short week and holiday, the minutes won't be ready in time for this meeting. We will plan to review them on December 15. Old/New Business Christine Sullivan will be coming in briefly at 7:00. I've let her know the Board wants to say thank you and give her a gift. Public hearing: Petition of G.B. NEW ENGLAND 2, LLC,for the property located at 72 LORING AVE; 292, 296 & 300 CANAL ST;and 399'/: &401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27, 29, 30 & 31, and Map 23, Lots 170& 191), Salem MA,for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop, Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-through, including associated parking and landscaping. As noted above,the proposed PUD includes several buildings on the six-parcel site that already exist. The narrative in the traffic study discusses how, as part of the PUD plan, one of the existing driveways to the site (from Jefferson Avenue) will be extended to provide access to all the uses. The only proposed new business is the CVS, for which the applicant is requesting a drive-through special permit. The plan also calls for demolishing a portion of the garage structure to the rear of the site. The sections of the Zoning Ordinance that pertain to the Planning Board review of this project are: Section 9.5, Site Plan Review, Section 7.3, Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Section 6.7, Drive-Through Facilities. The application has been routed to Health, Conservation, Engineering, Building and Fire Prevention. The project is outside Conservation Commission jurisdiction. The City Engineer responded with a recommendation for peer review for traffic and civil engineering. We are currently working to obtain quotes from on-call engineering firms for the review. I have not yet received comments from Health, Building or Fire. Notice of the application was also given to the Superintendent of Schools, Police Chief and Public Works, Chief Tucker requested that the traffic study and plans be sent to Lt. Preczewski (Traffic Division), who replied that he had no concerns. • -2- .............. City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet 9 Ia1?: Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail JEI?RYSt/ G C SVol lvaj ao °( 74-ezt TBa�.�- ur5Grc a '.f �Cbw<a,�� T���/S F(yn✓1 /7FC0/✓! /7g `!OS -J1OY deA.,'S-" ! Nnl g6,60W-cellL'� 2)L rI78-7`fJ -Q�d�o J n1 �j�g2ecraS /fob .,l—e e rte/ 4VE 917?-_3? 39�� ELM- 5 Fe( 8 S0,eeE�z Ofd.SdiAM Vi-1 At ff Fz�OKrEEFfns • os�t /v , X39 Page of • SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 12/1/11 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,December 1,2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Lewis Beilman,Nadine Hanscom,Helen Sides, and Tim Ready. Also present:: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent:Randy Clarke and Tim Kavanaugh. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:20 pm. Approval of Minutes November 17,2011 draft minutes Postponed until the next meeting. Old/New Business The Planning Board presented a gift to Christine Sullivan for her years of service on the Planning Board. Ms. Sullivan thanked the board for their hard work in improving the city. Public hearing: Petition of G.B.NEW ENGLAND 2,LLC, for the property located at 72 LORING AVE; 292,296 &300 CANAL ST; and 399 /2&401 JEFFERSON AVE (Map 32, Lots 27,29,30& 31, and Map 23, Lots 170& 191),Salem MA,for Site Plan Review,Planned Unit Development, and Drive-Through Facilities. The proposed PUD project includes the buildings currently housing the existing Eastern Bank,Tedeschi Food Shop,Autozone and Atlantic Ambulance service, and the • construction of a new CVS pharmacy with a drive-through,including associated parking and landscaping. Attachments&Exhibitions: ➢ Applications for Planned Unit Development Special Permit,Site Plan Review and Drive-Through Special Permit, all date-stamped 11/10/11,and accompanying materials ➢ Site Plan for CVS/Pharmacy#7109,Jefferson Avenue&Canal Street,Salem,MA 01970,prepared by RJ O'Connell&Associates, Inc., dated 11/10/11 ➢ Exterior Elevation drawings prepared by BKA Architects, Inc., dated 11/8/11 ➢ Stormwater Management Study,CVS/Parmacy#7109,Loring Plaza, Canal Street and Jefferson Ave., Salem,Massachusetts,prepared by RJ. O'Connell&Associates ➢ Traffic Impact and Access Study,Propsed CVS/Pharmacy, Salem,Massachusetts,prepared by GPI (Greenman-Pedersen,Inc.) PowerPoint presentation titled"CVS/pharmacy,Loring Plaza,"presented at meeting Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street,Salem,represents the applicant. The proposal is a CVS pharmacy with a drive thru on lower Canal Street. Mr. Corrend stated that prior to this meeting they met with the South Salem Neighborhood Association and CVS responded to comments made by the neighborhood association. He introduced Jason Plourde, the traffic consultant;Paul Beck from Gershman Brown;Phil Henry, the site engineer;and Bryce Hillman, the site architect;and noted that the site owners, Esther Realty,are represented at the meeting as well. They will present how the project fits as a planned unit development,and how it makes sense with the shared access and parking in Loring Plaza. Phil Henry,project manager from RG O'Connell, 80 Montvale St,Stoneham,MA, began the PowerPoint • presentation by describing the location,site,planned unit development line and drainage of the project. The significance of the PUD line is that it borders on the residential area, but he noted that it is not in the residential area. He cited several features of the building layout,and pointed out that the Eastern Bank drive- thru is in the opposite comer from the proposed CVS drive-thru, to make sure that there is no confusion 1 between the two drive-thrus. They also implemented a cross-access for vehicles so they do not have to leave . the site,and showed a slide with examples of potential passenger vehicle routes which allow for the site to be accessed through various paths. He also showed the Board the delivery truck route as well as the sidewalks for pedestrian access. He noted that the enhanced sidewalks,will discourage people from walking through the parking lot, and they also added a bike rack for cyclists. Mr. Henry then described the proposed stormwater runoff plan. He stated that they decreased the peak rate of runoff in all of the areas of the plan and increased the water quality. His final slide showed the landscaping plan,which included 40 new trees, and over 350 new low-lying shrubs. Paul Beck, Gershman Brown,Lincoln RI, stated that CVS determined that there is a need for this store and it is a significant investment by CVS. He noted that while it's close to the university,it will also benefit the rest of the neighborhood, and the normal hours of operation will be from 8am to 10 pm. Bryce Hillman,BKA Architects, 142 Crescent Street,Brockton,MA stated that they created a colonial style building,with brick, shingles, etc,which fits with the architectural styles of the neighborhood. He described the outer views of the building,including proposed curb cuts and signage. Mr. Correnti noted that this is different from the store that was permitted on Highland Avenue,which was a traditional CVS store;and based on the feedback they received from the neighborhood they felt this was the more appropriate design for the store. Helen Sides asked if the scale was accurate, to which Mr.Hillman said yes. Mark George asked where the cars will exit from the drive-thru. Mr. Henry demonstrated on the slides where the cars would exit,with one option exiting onto Canal Street,or a car can go around and exit onto Jefferson • Avenue. He also noted that they are discharged at the rear of the building. Mr. George asked if is a one-way drive-thru, to which Mr. Henry stated that it is and further explained the traffic flow. Mr. George noted that there is a"choke point"that already exists on Canal Street,which he felt would be made worse if that served as the main entry and exit. Jason Plourde, Greenman-Pedersen (GPI), Central Street,Stoneham,MA,explained how they developed the traffic study by walking the area,looking at the traffic flow,including the MBTA routes. The scope of the traffic study was developed with the South Salem Neighborhood Association,MEPA (Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act office),MassDOT and the City of Salem. He stated that they have not submitted anything to the state yet as they want to get all local permits approved fust. He explained details of the traffic study including the days and times that the traffic counts were done,including looking at accident data as well as signaled intersections. They noted that there are accidents that do occur in this area,however based upon the volume of traffic, the rates of accidents are below state-wide and district-wide averages. They also looked at the MBTA buses and how passengers might use the businesses,and noted that their traffic counts don't take any credit for bus service being available. He showed the access points currently on Jefferson Avenue and explained how each served Tedeschi and Eastern Bank. He explained the residential driveway would be modified to become the main site driveway. He said they also looked at the connection between Kimball Rd. and Canal St., and explained how Auto Zone and the ambulance station can be accessed from Kimball Rd. and said there is little control over vehicles entering that way. He showed the existing Canal St. driveway and its proximity to the intersection. He spoke of the Canal Street Improvement Project,which is being done by AECOM,who will also be acting as the City's peer reviewers for traffic, and who are present here tonight. He explains the boundaries of the improvement project and says it includes Kimball Rd., and travels north up to Mill St. He says it's not pedestrian friendly today,which the City is trying to address. He says this project will not impact the City's improvement project. He presented a slide on potential future conditions, and explained how this was calculated according to trip generation data. He stated that based on these • calculations, this project would add 86 additional vehicle trips during weekday evening peak hours to the site. 44 would be entering and 42 would be exiting. During Saturday midday, there would be a total of 73 vehicle 2 • it 37 entering, 36 exiting. This doesn't take into account any trip reduction associated with pedestrian or bus access. They assume all trips to the store will be associated with vehicles,so that they can assume a worst-case scenario for traffic. Mr. Puleo asked if these calculations are based just on the CVS or the other stores, to which Mr.Plourde stated that these calculations are based on the CVS only. Mr. Puleo then asked why the site traffic wasn't calculated earlier than 11 am. Mr.Plourde stated that the majority of the traffic at CVS is after 11 am. Mr. Plourde continued his presentation. He explained how certain types of vehicle trips,including pass-by trips and diverted link trips were calculated, noting that MassDOT guidelines limit to 25% the number of these trips they can take credit for with regard to traffic reduction,while the Institute of Traffic Engineers allows them to take credit for 49% of these trips. If they use the MassDOT strict guidelines, they will show that there will be more new cars to the area,because they can't take credit for cars already there,and those are the conservative standards used in their study. He noted that this isn't the typical drive-thru,like McDonalds, it's more of a drop-off/pick-up window, as it will solely be used just for prescriptions. He noted that the proposed internal connections will help get cars off of the road as they can access other businesses on the site rather than getting on the road to go to the business next door. Mr. Plourde then showed the pedestrian access points via walking, bicycling,or MBTA. He explained how the signage is confusing and often does not match pavement markings, causing driver confusion,which he feels explains much of the accident data for this intersection. He explains that another problem is the fact that cars park—legally—in the shoulder of the west side of Loring Ave. in front of the Enterprise Center,and as cars stop to tum left into the Enterprise Center,cars cannot pass those vehicles turning left because of the street parking. This causes backups to Jefferson Ave,preventing left turns onto Jefferson. He says they would like to work with the city to determine what solutions to these problems might be feasible,particularly given that these roadways are • under state jurisdiction. In concluding his presentation,Mr.Plourde stated that the traffic impacts are based on conservative data, and volume increases would be 1 additional car every 2 1/2 to 12 minutes,which he says is not noticeable. He says based on their data,the impacts from the project will not change the overall level of service at the traffic signals due to the project. Mr. Puleo asks how having better access to the site from the new driveway would affect traffic to the other business on the site. Mr. Plourde said that retail to retail trips allow a 20% credit for traffic reduction. The evaluated the traffic on the site this way,accounting for some cars going to more than one business,as the ITE guidelines allow. Mr. George asked how far back the current access driveway is being moved, to which Mr.Plourde stated that it is approximately 30-50 feet. Mr. George asked why Kimball Road would not be the main access point to ease up the traffic in the existing choke point on Canal St.. He says cars turning into the site at this point block other cars from passing. Mr. Plourde explained that they have examined alternatives, but that someone who enters the site from Kimball Road is coming up a hill. Mr. George said his recollection is Kimball Rd. is street grade until you get to the rear. Mr. Plourde says there is a slight incline coming in;he didn't think if customers had to enter this way and see the ambulance service, they would think they had gone the wrong way. He also felt that people would also use the existing Kimball Rd. for egress sometimes,if they were nearest to that part of the site and the other driveways were crowded—he said this kind of situation is self- regulating. Mr. George then asked how wide the access road from Jefferson Ave.would be, and whether it would be two lanes or one,and Mr. Plourde stated that it would be modified to be one lane in,one lane out. •, John Moustakis asked why they need three curb cuts from Jefferson Ave.,and noted they are very close together. Mr. Plourde said the driveway closest to the signal primarily serves the bank,while the next one 3 primarily serves Tedeschi. He says combining those two driveways might make it more difficult to turn left • out of there,since there would be more volume coming from the one combined driveway. Mr. Moustakis stated that it is still causing traffic on Jefferson Avenue. Ms. Sides stated that the entrance by Tedesclu's is a problem now—it's dangerous coming around Jefferson, and perhaps you could put people further down Jefferson and combined those two driveways,and change the parking area,making a clearer way to come around the edge and through the drive-thru. She says the lot is difficult also due to the grading. This whole area and the way the parking is set up should be reconfigured. . Mr. Plourde stated that their initial thought was to not disturb too much of what is currently there. He says he is very familiar with the area, and that the data did not show a significant number of crashes, surprisingly. He says their real concern was focused on the signal, and what could they do to improve things without blowing up the whole intersection, trying to come up with a scheme that would satisfy everyone within the right-of-way constraints. Ms. Sides stated that she hoped the whole site would be taken into account, including all the businesses there. Mr. George stated that he didn't understand how people were going to get out across Canal Street from that site driveway—most of the time it's blocked. Mr. Plourde says the driveway is existing, and has traffic that enters and exists. Their proposal will increase traffic there, and at the Kimball Rd. and Jefferson Ave. driveways. They aren't proposing any traffic movements that aren't allowed today. Mr. Puleo noted that left turns out of the CVS on Highland Avenue were restricted for certain peak hours because Marlborough Rd. backed up so much during those times,and this restriction works well. He says having Kimball Rd. as the site driveway wouldn't cause as much of a problem since the traffic typically does not back up that far,and that should be looked at. Mr.Plourde says they will look at it. • Mr. Correnti stated that they have concluded their presentation. Issue opened to the public for comment Councilor Jean Pelletier,7 Lawrence Avenue, noted that there are current problems in the area with the O'Keefe Center which impacts the drainage pipes. He asked that the Board to require the applicant to hire Woodward&Curran to comment on what is going on with the water problems in the area. He stated that the Jefferson Avenue entrance is on residential property,and he asked if there is a request for a zoning change. Mr. Correnti stated that the councilor is correct that part of it is in R-2, though they don't need the zone change because they are invoking the 30 feet zoning allowance and the house is partially in the B-2 zone. He also stated that the area above the PUD line is all zoned residential. Councilor Pelletier is against the Jefferson Street entrance. Councilor Joseph O'Keefe,28 Surrey Road, stated that the intersection of Jefferson Avenue,Canal Street and Loring Avenue is the worst intersection in eastern Massachusetts. He said he is not opposed to the project, but he is opposed to the three access points on Jefferson Avenue. He feels that there should be just one on Jefferson. He also noted that he has been trying to get the Enterprise Center to not allow left turns out onto Loring Avenue,and street parking should not be eliminated. He feels that they should hire Fay,Spofford& Thorndike to be the traffic consultant on this project because of their work with the university. He asks Danielle McKnight to ensure they are hired for th s review. Ms. McKnight explained that the City Engineer requested AECOM for both the traffic and civil engineering consultants because of the work they are doing already on the Canal Street improvements. She notes they are here tonight and indicates Dennis Flynn and Paul Carter sitting in the audience, James Rose, 25 Linden Street,is of the opinion that left hand turns should not be allowed out of CVS onto Canal Street and or into CVS from Canal St. 4 Ben Anderson, 10 Adams Street, stated that he is concerned about the light fixtures and light spilling into the neighborhood. Mr. Puleo asked how far up Adams Street he is to which Mr.Anderson answered that he is over 30 feet above the street. He stated that he is also concerned about Kimball Road being used as a cut through to Jefferson Ave. He thinks the building design is great, but he would like to see dormers. He is also concerned about noise levels-in particular from the compactor. He noted that drive-thrus tend to be noisy, and asked if it can be pulled closer to Canal Street. He said that he is not against the development. In terms of landscaping,he would like to see something in writing stating that the trees would be maintained. He stated that he would like a better-looking visual barrier other than the current chain-link fence. He asked that there be something written in the decision that this location would not operate 24 hours per day. He asked how often the retension basins would get filled up. Polly Wilbert, 7 Ceder Street, stated that her initial reaction is that more brick should be used in the facade of the building as it will unify the look of the buildings. She expressed that she is concerned that the traffic counts were taken during a huge recession. She also expressed concerns that as the driveway is closer to the Auto Zone building, that the people who are in AutoZone are going to have a difficult time getting out of the parking lot and backing into traffic. She noted that the location is at a blind corner. She also pointed out that in front of the Auto Zone, there is a fair amount of activity by people fixing their cars. She pointed out that this will have a significant increase in pedestrian flow,particularly from Salem State, and she is concerned about safety. She asked if this could increase risks to the wetlands with the additional drainage. She thinks the city's Canal St. improvement project should go all the way to the intersection, and she feels it's short- sighted not to include that in the project plan. She stated that there are real traffic problems that have to be addressed. She said that she is concerned that the snow storage on Kimball Road Xvill be insufficient, and she thinks that it will become a cut-through. • Councilor-Elect,Josh Turiel,238 Lafayette Street, stated that his concerns are related to the traffic. He said he is concerned about people backing out of AutoZone into the traffic. His other real concern is having three curb cuts on Jefferson Avenue, and he doesn't know how that is going to function. Paul Lerner, 1000 Loring Avenue, said that his concern is at that entryway onto Canal Street. He recommends moving it further up and eliminating a few parking spots. He is also concerned about the student traffic coinciding with heavy car traffic. He asked what the peak hours of flow for a typical CVS are and how that impacts the traffic. He is also concerned about snow, though he is looking forward to CVS coming to this location. Bill Barrows,406 Jefferson Avenue, states that he lives in one of the houses across the street from the project and he currently has to look across five different areas to back out of his driveway. He said that with the new proposed curb cuts he will have to look across 6 different directions. He is concerned about accidents. John Barrows,406 Jefferson Avenue,echoed the previous stated sentiments stating that he is also concerned about traffic. Matt Veno,20 Forest Avenue, stated that the architectural design is great. He said that his major concern, though,is the egress onto Jefferson Avenue. He is concerned about the folks that live around the site and asked if there are additional buffers that can be added. He recommended preserving as much of the vegetated area as possible. He also recommended giving added capacity for a right turn lane in this area towards Jefferson. He is also concerned about ease of access onto the site and wonders if the double drive- thru is necessary. • Frank Gellano, 22 Weaherly Drive, said that he agreed with previous sentiments regarding Kimball Road and too many driveways. He states that the CVS truck runs over the sidewalk at Highland Avenue and he is 5 concerned about that happening here. He noted that it takes five light cycles to get from Leggs Hill Road to • the intersection in question. Polly Wilbert asked whether the 1.1 acres beyond the PUD fine will remain undeveloped in perpetuity. Mr. Correnti stated that area is zoned residential and is not part of the project. She asked how that will impact the project's drainage if it's built on. Mr. Correnti stated that the 1.1 acres that isn't part of the PUD has no relationship to the drainage system. He stated that in every aspect,drainage will be improved on the site. The water will be contained,cleaner water going through the new stormwater receptors. All the drainage will be reviewed by the City Engineer and the city's peer reviewer. The remaining acreage isn't part of this—it's residentially zoned land with no proposals for it. If the owners ever want to do something with that land, they would have to go through the process. John Moustakis made a motion to continue the public hearing until December 15th,seconded by Nadine Hanscom.All approved 8-0. Adioumment Nadine Hanscom made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Chuck Puleo. All approved 8-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:37pm. Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 1/5/12 • • 6 CITY OF SALEM t PLANNING BOARD 1r,, In n CII ,. • NOTICE OF MEETING You am hereby noq&d that the Salem Plaronng Band WU bald its ngdarly sda"l i ntrting on Thursday, Nowmber 17, 2011 at 7:00 pm at C4HallAmxx, Romn313 120 WasbingtonSmer 'P ,&" Clazir REVISE D MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes November 3, 2011 meeting 2. Old/New Business ➢ Request of Ken Steadman for insignificant change to the Dell Street/Witch Hill subdivision: installing asphalt sidewalks in place of cement sidewalks 3. Continuation of public hearing: Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Map 34,.Lots 126 & 127), Salem NLA. The proposed protect includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site, construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps, and associated parking. K. Public hearing: Request for a Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit application filed by SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP to allow the replacement of nine (9) existing antennas with nine (9) newer technology antennas and associated equipment on the roof of 40 REAR HIGHLAND AVE, Salem, MA(Map 25, Lot 19). S. Adjournment r SIS netleo p4njA6 stn ^(f0{ s;l SOtl't 4,1 Rr1rd* lig '�Q+�i 4i9s1.•, V-••-,. . ut . � ) VVM 23A 4 231 Knaw Yarm Rights Urrder the Open Mating L awNl.C.L. c 39§23B artd Cay On&mnre Sations 2-2028 tlmutgh 2-20.33. 120 WA5HINGTUN STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 4 WWW.SALEM.COhI r CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby mtifra f that dx Salem Planning Board will boll its rWdarly schedule[rrteting on Thursday,Nozember 17, 2011 at 7:00 pm at City HaIIA rma, Rcwn313, X120 Wasbi%tonStret amrles M. Puleq GO air MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes November 3,2011 meeting 2. Old/New Business Request of Ken Steadman for insignificant change to the Dell Street/Witch Hill subdivision: installing asphalt sidewalks in place of cement sidewalks; changing trail material (eliminating gravel and stone dust) • 3. Continuation of public hearing: Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Map 34,Lots 126 & 127), Salem MA. The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site,construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps, and associated parking. K. Public hearing: Request for a Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit application filed by SPRINT SPECTRUM,LP to allow the replacement of nine (9) existing antennas with nine (9) newer technology antennas and associated equipment on the roof of 40 REAR HIGHLAND AVE, Salem, MA (Map 25, Lot 19). 5. Adjournment Thai $ yogqa `� p Ir 4/ Noel In `�4�5MkPW- .iu'it f9 �d� Ie i:.0.gV, f 1N 23A 900 at M.Q.L. Know Your Rigbts Under the Open MecungLa wM.GL. c 39§23B argil City Ordirranx Seam 2-2028 thrr o 2-2033. 120 WASFIINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSF,TTS 01970 ♦ TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SAT.F.M.COM cog ¢'m1, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • tt`s. `o DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ��'gd1M1NC �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL TELE: 978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: November 9, 2011 RE: Agenda— November 17,2011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from November 3, 2011 Notes on Agenda Items: Old/New Business: Request of Ken Steadman for insignificant change to the Dell Street/Witch Hill subdivision: installing asphalt sidewalks in place of cement sidewalks. Mr. Steadman is requesting to install bituminous asphalt sidewalks instead of cement concrete sidewalks, which were a condition of the decision for the Witch Hill subdivision. He is requesting that the Board consider this an insignificant change. The Planning Department's recommendation is that the change is insignificant and shouldn't require a public hearing. However, we aren't making a recommendation either way as to whether the Board should actually allow the change. Concrete sidewalks were required by the Board in the decision; however, they are not required by the city's subdivision regulations. The neighborhoods surrounding the subdivision typically have asphalt sidewalks with sloped granite curbing, which is what Mr. Steadman is proposing. Continuation of public hearing: Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the • property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST(Map 34, Lots 126 & 127), Salem MA.The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site, construction of a convenience store and canopy over three(3)gasoline pumps, and associated parking. 1 Revised plans are enclosed showing additional landscaping (including a new pin oak in the southeast corner of the lot, and rows of arborvitae along the property lines shared with abutters at 185 Lafayette St. and 12 Palmer St.). Changes are proposed to the screening method for the HVAC system on the convenience store. There is also a new auto turning plan, where previously only truck circulation had been shown. Public hearing: Request for a Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit application filed by SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP to allow the replacement of nine (9) existing antennas with nine (9) newer technology antennas and associated equipment on the roof of 40 REAR HIGHLAND AVE, Salem, MA (Map 25, Lot 19). The applicant proposes replacing nine antennas with nine updated ones. The application was routed to Building, Conservation, Health, Fire and Engineering. The Building Commissioner concurs with the proposal, and David Knowlton and Erin Griffin have no comments. The project is outside the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction. I have not yet received comments from Health. • • 2 • SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 11/17/11 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis, Vice Chair, Mark George, Lewis Beilman, Nadine Hanscom, Helen Sides, Randy Clarke,Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanagh. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:04 pm. Approval of Minutes November 3, 2011 draft minutes No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Randy Clarke motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Helen Sides.Approved 9-0. Old/New Business Request of Ken Steadman for insignificant change to the Dell Street/Witch Hill subdivision: installing asphalt sidewalks in place of cement sidewalks; changing trail material (eliminating gravel and stone dust) • Chuck Puleo recused himself from this matter and left the room. Attachments& Exhibitions: ➢ Planning Board decision dated January 20, 2005 George Atkins,the attorney representing Bartlett and Steadman, reminded Board members of the site which is off of Highland Avenue, called Dell Street; the name of the project is"Witch Hill". Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, asked Mr.Atkins for clarification that this is relating only to the sidewalk and not the granite curbing,to which he responded in the affirmative. John Moustakis reminded the Board of the original issues and concerns about the sidewalk and curbing material. Nadine Hanscom stated that the original concerns about the sidewalk material were related to safety issues, and the fact that the sidewalks would holdup better overtime if they were cement. Mr.Atkins responded that the requirements are not universal across the city and have not been required for all subdivisions. Tim Ready stated that the decision was controversial due to the request being so different than what had been required of other developers and that the Board members had been divided in their opinions. He further noted that the Board has not held any other developer to these standards since this decision. Mark George asked about the sidewalks around the area of the development. Mr.Atkins stated that leading up to the development is asphalt. Helen Sides stated that concrete is more durable as a material, and asphalt looks worse and is cheaper, and heaves over time. • Ms. McKnight shared the text of the original approval with the Board. Tim Kavanagh reminded the Board of Osborne Hills, another subdivision in the city that was not required to have concrete sidewalks and he stated that he has no problem with asphalt sidewalks. He further stated that he could not see 1 why concrete was insisted upon and he doesn't have an objection other than echoing Ms. Sides' • concerns about aesthetics. Mr. Moustakis asked why it has taken so long to construct after the original approval was from 2005. Mr.Atkins explained the various issues and delays throughout the project. Mr. Moustakis stated that he was concerned about the time lag. Randy Clarke stated that Ms. Sides is correct on the durability and aesthetics of the materials, and recommends that the group set a standard for the city going forward. He thinks the proponent is right in saying that the Board is being hypocritical in setting standards for one developer and not another. Ms. Hanscom commented that she wanted to make clear that this is not specific to him and that the proponent agreed to concrete. Mr. Atkins said that the proponent did agree to it, but with the economy the cost has changed significantly. Mr. Ready stated that since 2005 this Board has reviewed many projects with sidewalk requirements and did not enforce this requirement on other projects. Mr. Moustakis responded that the Board cannot insist on cement sidewalks, but the applicant can agree to it; the Board would not turn down the whole project because of the sidewalk issue. Mr. George asked for the size of the lots and then asked if this is consistent with the area. Mr. Steadman answered that asphalt sidewalks—or no sidewalks—are common in the surrounding area. Mr. Clarke asked what impact this decision will have on the development. Mr. Atkins stated that the • developer will continue. Ms. Hanscom stated that she would like to hold them to the original decision, and she felt it had been the right decision. Mr. George said that he didn't understand what the issue would be with changing the decision to something that fits with the rest of the area, and eases the developer's costs. Mr. Moustakis responded that the point was to make things better for the city going forward. Mr. Ready commented that time and economics have changed drastically, but to impose a burden on a single developer is not right. Ms. Hanscom and Ms.Sides disagreed with Mr. Ready. Tim Kavanagh made a motion that the board consider the change on the sidewalk from concrete to asphalt to be an insignificant change, and to approve it; Mark George seconded. Approved 5-3 (Kavanagh, Ready, George, Clarke and Beilman in favor; Moustakis, Hanscom and Sides opposed). Chuck Puleo rejoined the meeting. Continuation of public hearing: Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Map 34, Lots 126 & 127), Salem MA.The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site, construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3)gasoline pumps, and associated parking. l Attachments& Exhibitions: • ➢ Application date-stamped May 26, 2011 and accompanying materials 2 • ➢ Site plan revised 11/8/11 ➢ Drainage Alteration Application dated October 20, 2011 George Atkins, representing AL Prime, stated that they have submitted stormwater management information to the City Engineer,which he had requested. Mr.Atkins reviewed the new plans including new arborvitae and a new fence on the side which abuts Mr. Ramsey's property. Other updates include: ➢ Moving the antennae to the southwest corner; ➢ The underground gas tanks have been relocated 10 feet to the north; ➢ The dumpster location has been moved 8 feet to the north; ➢ Along the property line there will be 14 arborvitae which will be 10 feet in height; ➢ There will also be an additional 7 arborvitae and be a four-inch caliper oak tree; ➢ A narrowed front entrance on Lafayette Street from 70 feet to 56 feet; ➢ On Palmer Street there is a new 35 foot exit. Mr. Puleo asked about plantings along the back of the building—are they being eliminated in this plan? Mr. Atkins stated that there is fencing on their side, and arborvitae on the other side that Mr. Ramsey, an immediate abutter, will take care of. The narrow planting bed previously proposed will be eliminated, and this will just be mulch. Mr. Puleo asked how far down Palmer Street the new concrete sidewalk goes. Mr.Tony Guba,Ayoub Engineering, 414 Benefit Street, Pawtucket RI, and George Atkins stated that concrete sidewalks would be done in front of the building, and asphalt sidewalks would be • installed to match what is currently down Palmer St. Ms. Hanscom said there is concrete there now. Mr. Guba says then that they will match what is there now—concrete—on Palmer St. Mr. Puleo wants it to be noted in the decision. Mr. Puleo asked about the area behind the enclosure down to Lafayette Street. Mr. Guba described the . plans, stating that they would replace the fence. Ms. Hanscom asked about the new truck turning plan; Mr. Guba described the new plan. Issue opened up to the public for comment David Ramsey, 58 Gregory Island Road, Hamilton, stated that he would rather take care of the trees even though it eats at his property. He states that he is at the property a lot and there should be some attention paid to the traffic flow, which he thinks is dangerous. He suggested that AL Prime contribute funds to develop areas in the Point, as a sign of good faith. Mr. George asked Mr. Ramsey what he would prefer for green space going forward. Mr. Ramsey said that he would like the shrubbery, but on their side of the property, not his. Joey Aia,formerly of 12 Palmer Street, stated that it is already congested and there would be a huge disaster if someone crashed into one of those tanks. He feels that there is no room for it. He recommends that the Board think about the kids and the area. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, asked if there will be an air compressor, and if so where; also if there will • be a hose for watering the plants; also if the crosswalk will be moved; and asked for clarification on the HVAC screening. 3 Linda Locke owner of 7 13 and 15 Palmer Street, submitted fitted letters from the residents of 5 Palmer • Street demonstrating their opposition to the expansion of this site. She states that it is a residential area and it is a dangerous area due to the traffic. She stressed that the kids play in the street, in their driveways. She feels that these buildings are ugly and the canopies are inappropriate for this residential neighborhood. She suggested that they put this project on Chestnut Street. She does not approve of this project, and she is opposed to large trucks coming onto the property. Mr. Clarke states that just for clarification purposes,the Planning Board is not putting a gas station anywhere; the proponent is proposing this. Mr. Moustakis asked about the timing of the fuel deliveries. Mr.Atkins stated that would be at all times. Ms. Hanscom asked if there would be fewer deliveries. Mr. Nasser Buisier, owner of AL Prime, asked if the deliveries would be less frequent due to larger tank capacity; Mr. Buisier said yes—there would be about four deliveries a week. Priscilla Legault, 15 Palmer Street,stated that she is against the project, and feels that it is a good idea but in a bad area particularly due to the current traffic issues. Pam Anderson,488 Shepherd Pond Road, North Andover, stated that owns property on Lafayette, Dow and Cedar Streets, and her tenants will be looking right on this. The traffic is a real problem. Mr. George asked how long this has been a commercial site. Mr. Buisier stated that it has been • commercial since the 1920's. Ms.Wilbert stated that this used to be a "mom & pop" station, and that was when Marblehead had gas stations. She said that now they are absorbing the traffic from the closed stations in Marblehead. There is going to be a dramatic increase in traffic, lighting and pedestrian traffic. She noted that this is completely surrounded by residential property. Ms. Hanscom asked for clarification on the operating times. Mr. Buisier stated that the convenience store would close at 9 pm, but the gas station would stay open 24 hours a day. Ms. Hanscom asked if the applicant has gone before the City Council for approval of a 24-hour operation. Mr. Buisier said he has not done that yet. Ms. Hanscom asked if that doesn't get approved by the City Council, how will this affect the project and his profitability. Mr. Buisier stated that this is not about profit,this is about improving safety—there needs to be a presence there 24 hours to prevent theft. RJ Bilodariya, 8 Danforth Avenue, Woburn, MA,the current owner of Lafayette Market, stated that he has been there for 5 years and noted that they have never had a break-in. He also suggests to the owner of the gas station that they use four pumps, rather than two,to prevent traffic back-up on the street. Mr. Atkins responded to the questions and concerns voiced by those in attendance. He stated that he respectfully disagrees with Ms.Wilbert-they believe that this will be a very positive change, particularly in the traffic. He states that is it going to be a safer and cleaner site. He further states that contrary to the comments this will be an improvement for the site and they have taken into account the recommendations of the neighbors to make it better for them. Mr. Guba stated that they haven't decided exactly where the hose bib is going, but an irrigation system • will be in there. 4 • Mr. Atkins stated that the road is subject to local jurisdiction and they will work with the city to move the crosswalk. Mr. Puleo reminded Mr.Atkins of the issue previously discussed relating to parking close to the Palmer St./Lafayette St. intersection, and Mr.Atkins said they would call the ward councilor. Mr. Atkins stated that they are creating a state of the art facility to reduce spills and dangers. Mr. Ramsey asked for clarification on the beer/alcohol license. Mr.Atkins said that they are not applying for one, and Mr. Puleo said that it is not under the jurisdiction of the Board. Ms. Locke said that she wants the Board to understand that if this is approved this will be a detriment to the beautification of the neighborhood. Mr. Bilodariya asked what happens to the hundreds of signatures that were collected in opposition to the project. Ms. McKnight explained that it is a permanent part of the record and will stay in the file for the project. Mr. Ready asked if there is something that hasn't been addressed. Mr. Bilodariya stated that he is trying to understand the process, specifically if every voice gets heard. Mr. Puleo said that the Planning Board is reviewing the project with variances already in place, as granted by the Board of Appeals, and it would have been more effective for the opposition to have been active earlier in the process by attending the Board of Appeals meetings on this project. Mr. Bilodariya stated that the updating of the property isn't the issue, it's how they are doing it. Mr. Atkins noted that they didn't sneak through the Board of Appeals—there was a public hearing with notification and proper advertisement. . Mr. Ready made a motion to close the public hearing,seconded by Mark George. All approved 8-0. Lewis Beilman abstained. Mr. Clarke stated that the developer is trying to make the best they can out of very tight quarters. Mr. George echoed Mr. Clarke's comments that this is better for everyone around the area. Mr. Ready stated that this developer has entertained many suggestions, and has made a number of concessions to appease the neighbors. He thinks the developer has presented a plan that significantly improves the area. Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Atkins how they would address the HVAC screening. Mr.Guba stated that the screening comes in many different colors, and they can make it any color. Ms.Sides stated that she would like to see the physical choices. Ms. Hanscom asked if this can be assigned to Ms.Sides to make the decision. Ms. McKnight reviewed the conditions of a draft decision with the Board. Mr. Puleo asked if they plan to secure the site. The applicant stated that they would and Ms. McKnight added the appropriate language to the draft decision. Mr. Clarke recommended adding language related to traffic details during the construction, and Ms. McKnight made a note in the draft decision. Ms. Hanscom recommended looking at different sign examples and taking that into account that they are doing this in a residential neighborhood. Mr.Atkins stated that they are looking into it. Mr. Puleo asked Mr.Guba about the lighting plan to which Mr. Guba explained the change. Mr. Puleo asked if the only real lighting will be the canopy lighting, and Mr. Guba said yes. 5 Mr. Atkins stated that the conditions in the decision are enforced by the Building Inspector and if the abutters have any issues, they can be addressed with the Building Inspector. Mr. Ready also noted that abutters can speak to their ward Councilor about this. Randy Clarke made a motion approve the decision as reviewed, Mark George seconded. All approved 8- 0. Lewis Beilman abstained. Nadine Hanscom left the meeting at 9:05 pm. Public hearing: Request for a Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit application filed by SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP to allow the replacement of nine (9) existing antennas with nine (9) newer technology antennas and associated equipment on the roof of 40 REAR HIGHLAND AVE, Salem, MA (Map 25, Lot 19). Attachments& Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 11/2/11 and accompanying materials David Archambault,agent for Sprint Nextel, stated that Sprint Nextel is upgrading antennas to handle the newer technology. He said the coverage will not be increased but this will improve the service. He described where the antennas will be mounted and what they look like. Mr. Puleo asked if there was anything additional other than the replacements being added to the roof to which Mr. Archambault responded, no. • Issue opened to the public for comment No one from the public was present to comment. Randy Clarke made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh.All approved 8-0. Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the applicant's request to replace nine existing antennas with nine newer technology antennas and the associated equipment on the roof of 40 Rear Highland Avenue, John Moustakis seconded. All approved 8-0. Adjournment Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh. All approved 8-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:14 pm. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA PlanMin/. Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 12/15/11 6 5 t City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet ,ter �E ,9E Board b-A&'. N _ o� Date �am ailing Address Phone # E-mail eD �. If Z&d�jz J` S ,7_4c _ 1g2A l� Y R S�� C�(o� 9��- 7`Fr,'2022 Page of CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Notice of Decisions At a special meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem Massachusetts, the Planning Board voted on the following item: Petition of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST(Map 34, Lots 126 & 127), Salem MA. The project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site, construction of a convenience store, replacement/relocation of fuel storage tanks, a canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps, and associated parking. Decision: Approved • Filed with the City Clerk on November 21, 2011 Petition of SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP for a Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit to allow the replacement of nine (9) existing antennas with nine (9) newer technology antennas and associated equipment on the roof of 40 REAR HIGHLAND AVE, Salem, MA (Map 25, Lot 19). Decision: Approved Filed with the City Clerk on November 21, 2011 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 9 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. • C� CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Site Plan Review Decision November 18, 2011 AL Prime Energy Consultants, Inc. 219 Salem Street Wakefield, MA 01880 RE: 175 and 183 Lafayette Street — Site Plan Review On Thursday, June 16, 2011, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing under Section 9.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Site Plan Review, at the request of A.L. Prime Energy Consultants, Inc., for the properties located at 175 and 183 Lafayette Street. The proposed plans show the demolition of two existing buildings and the existing gasoline pumps, replacement of • fuel storage tanks, and construction of a new convenience store and three new double-sided gasoline pumps with a canopy. The public hearing was continued to, July 7, 2011, July 21, 2011, November 3, 2011, and November 17, 2011, and closed on November 17, 2011. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on November 17, 2011, the Planning Board voted by a vote of eight (8) in favor (Chuck Puleo, John Moustakis, Tim Ready, Tim Kavanagh, Randy Clarke, Helen Sides, Mark George, and Nadine Hanscom), none opposed (0), and one abstaining(Lewis Beilman) to approve the Site Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan Work shall conform to the plans titled, "Site Improvement Plans for A.L. Prime Energy at 175 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA 01970," prepared by Ayoub Engineering, Pawtucket, RI, dated May 24, 2011 and last revised November 8, 2011. 2. Transfer of Ownership Within five (5) days of transfer of ownership of the site, the Owner shall notify the Board in writing of the new owner's name and address. The terms, conditions, restrictions and/or requirements of this decision shall be binding on the Owner and its successors and/or assigns. • 3. Amendments Any amendments to the approved site plan, elevation plan, and landscape plan shall be brought to the Planning Board for review and approval. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 %VWW.SALEN1.00M • 4. Construction Practices All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: a. The operation of tools or equipment used in construction or demolition work shall occur in accordance with Salem Ordinance Section 22-2 (5): Construction and Blasting and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on weekdays and Saturdays. No work shall take place on Sundays or holidays. The Planning Board will agree to changes in the starting time, at the request of the applicant and if approved by a formal vote of the City Council, as per the ordinance. b. Any blasting, rock crushing,jack hammering, hydraulic blasting, or pile driving shall occur in accordance with Salem Ordinance Section 22-2 (5)• Construction and Blasting and be limited to Monday-Friday between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. There shall be no blasting, rock crushing,jack hammering, hydraulic blasting, or pile driving on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. c. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. d. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on abutters. Advance notice shall be provided by the applicant to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to commencement of construction of the project. • e. All construction vehicles and equipment shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they exit the site. f. 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. g. All construction vehicles and equipment left overnight at the site must be located completely on the site. h. All staging of materials and equipment shall be on-site. L No street shall be closed without prior approval of the Department of Planning and Community Development, unless deemed an emergency by the Salem Police Department. j. A Construction Management Plan and Construction Schedule shall be submitted by the Applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. Included in this plan, but not limited to, shall be information regarding how the construction equipment will be stored, a description of the construction staging area and its location in relation to the site, and where the construction employees will park their vehicles. The plan and schedule shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All storage of materials and • equipment will be on site. The Construction Management Plan is to be reviewed by the Traffic Division of the Salem Police Department. • k. All sidewalks, roadways, utilities, landscaping, etc. damaged during construction shall be replaced or repaired to their pre-construction condition, or better. I. The applicant agrees to secure the site with a temporary fence during construction. S. Fire Department All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. 6. Building Inspector All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Commissioner. 7. City Engineer All work shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer. The applicant shall obtain any required curb cut permit from the Engineering Department, and approval of the site plan is contingent upon receipt of this permit. 8. Board of Health The applicant shall comply with all requirements and conditions of the Board of Health. A separate application must be made to the Board of Health and all required plans and documents must be filed 30 days prior to the start of construction. • 9. Utilities a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All on site electrical utilities shall be located underground. 10. Department of Public Services The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services. 11. Signage a. Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Sign Review Committee in accordance with entrance corridor requirements, Section 8.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of the site plans does not represent approval of the proposed signage. 12. 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 Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. c. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • 13. HVAC -3- • The HVAC unit located on the roof shall be visually screened prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The method for screening the unit, including colors and materials, shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to installation. 14. Landscaping a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans. b. Maintenance of all landscaping on the site shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant, his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two (2) year period, from issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and completion of planting. C. Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced. The location of any replacement trees shall be approved by the City Planner prior to replanting. d. Final completed landscaping, done in accordance with the approved set of plans, shall be subject to approval by the City Planner prior, for consistency with such plans, to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 15. Maintenance a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, his successors or assigns. • b. Winter snow in excess of permitted snow storage areas on site shall be removed off site within forty-eight (48) hours. c. Maintenance of all Istormwater structures and bioretention areas shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, his successors or assigns. 16. As-Built Plans a. As-built Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public Services prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. b. The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the City's use and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. c. A completed tie card, a blank copy (available at the Engineering Department) and a certification signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed in substantial compliance with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. • 17. Special Conditions -4- • a. Applicant is to make a request to the appropriate City department to have signage installed on Palmer Street near the Lafayette Street intersection prohibiting parking 20 feet from the corner. 18. Violations Violations of any condition contained herein 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 Decision 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 Southern Essex District 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 • Chair • -5- �0 �y CITY OF SALEM � f PLANNING BOARD Wireless Special Permit Decision For The Petition of SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP For the Property Located At 40 Rear Highland Avenue, Salem,MA A Public Hearing on this petition was held on November 17, 2011. The following Planning Board members were present: Chuck Puleo (Chair),John Moustakis, Tim Kavanagh, Tim Ready,Randy Clarke, Helen Sides, Lewis Beilman, Nadine Hanscom and Mark George. Notice of this meeting was sent to abutters and notice of the hearing was properly published in the Salem News. The petitioner is requesting a Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit under Section 6.6,Wireless Communication Facilities (WFC), of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the replacement of nine (9) existing antennas with nine (9) newer technology antennas and associated equipment on the roof of 40 Rear Highland Avenue, Salem MA(Map 25, Lot 19). The Planning Board reviewed the application and plans submitted and found that the petitioner addressed the requirements of this section for the issuance of a Special Permit. • On November 17, 2011, the Board closed the Public Hearing and the Planning Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor, none (0) opposed, to grant the Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit for the location stated above, in accordance with the application dated November 2, 2011 and site plan last dated September 12, 2011, titled "Sprint Vision Site Number BS60XC325,Fairweather Apartments, 40 Rear Highland Ave., Salem, MA 01970" (Sheets T-1, G 1,A-1, A-2, and A-3,") submitted and now part of the file. This endorsement shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing 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 that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee for recording or registering shall be paid bythe owner or applicant. I hereby certify that a copy of this decision is on file with the City Clerk and that a copy of the decision and plans is on file with the Plarming Board. n Charles Puleo, Chair • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SAI,EM.COM 11 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'tM,.vct��'� KInIBERI.EY DRIscoI.L MAYOR 120 WASHINGCON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOOMN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR November 30, 2011 Ken Steadman Bartlett and Steadman Development Corp. R67 Village St. Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: Witch Hill Subdivision (Dell Street) 0 Dear Mr. Steadman: On November 17, 2011, the Planning Board met to discuss your request for an insignificant change to • the Dell Street Witch Hill subdivision plans. You requested to install as halt sidewalks throughout the / p q P g subdivision instead of the concrete sidewalks conditioned by the Planning Board decision dated January 20, 2005 and filed with the City Clerk on January 25, 2005. The Board understands this request is made because of the prohibitive cost of concrete, and because the surrounding streets generally have sidewalks made of asphalt. At its meeting on November 17, 2011, the Board voted to grant your request for an insignificant change, allowing asphalt sidewalks to be installed instead of concrete sidewalks, by a vote of 5-3 (Tim Kavanagh, Tim Ready, Mark George, Randy Clarke and Lewis Beilman in favor;John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom and Helen Sides opposed). This letter is to confirm that the proposed change, as referenced above, to the Planning Board decision dated January 20, 2005, is deemed insignificant and is hereby incorporated as part of the plan. Sincerely, John Moustakis,Vice Chair CC: Cheryl La Pointe, City Clerk !(0 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD r� NOTICE OF ME ETING Yar;ne/xiehy ntii ial tlktt tlx SaIem P&Mirg Bctml tulllx ,I its ?rwt/,nlysdxtbrletl treeting on Thursday, Noumher3, 2011 ut 7.00 pin at City HallAmxx, Rrxan313, 120 WirshirgtonSmet Lg- 'P"-e"1�M� C4111,5M. Pulte Gtxtir MEETING AGENDA i. Approval of Minutes r September 15, 2011 draft nunutes and September 29, 2011 special meeting draft minutes Old/New Business Requesto f Patick Delulis for extension of subdivision approval and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit for Circle Hill Road • ;;. Discussion and vote: Consistency of the SalonD(wtotutRemud Plan with Salem's Master Plan 4. Adjournment �7 Zod l j I ki:u,z� l�un Ri�htc (-itrler tl e Opoi I fa lvi ,L•u,-M.G L. c 39 2-1028 thn)ug�i 2 20-+_;. 1 20 1VA.41uNG11I.v SIP ei:I, S:�i.rai, MA,; .\,.in 01970 . TI:[': 978.7 45.95'd.5 F.\.e: 978.740.0-40-! . w�.�.v.;:u.r:ai.rn,%i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS w .- DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND F. KIMBERLEYDRISCou COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: October 13, 2011 RE: Agenda -0efeber26,-293 meeting Nov 3,, z�u Please find the following in your packet: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from September 15 and September 29, 2011 Notes on Agenda Items: Request of Patrick Delulis for extension of subdivision approval and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit for Circle Hill Road This project was approved by the Planning Board on November 19, 2009. The decision is enclosed. Due to delays in getting the plan approved by Land Court, and then due to the economy, Mr. Delulis has not yet been able to proceed with construction. However, he hopes to begin construction within the next few months and wants to make sure his approvals do not expire,which under normal circumstances would be on December 1, 2011 (two years after his decisions were filed). However, the Permit Extension Act(created by Section 173 of Chapter 240 of the Acts of 2010)allows an automatic two-year extension of any permit or approval that was"in effect or existence" during the qualifying period beginning on August 15, 2008 and extending through August 15, 2010. The Circle Hill Road project approvals fell within this time period, and so while he technically does not need the Planning Board to vote to extend the approvals, Mr. Delulis is making the requestjust to be certain the approvals don't expire. • Discussion and vote: Consistency of the Salem Downtown Renewal Plan with Salem's Master Plan As we discussed at our September 29 meeting, the City is updating our Urban Renewal Plan. The new document,Salem Downtown Renewal Plan, is enclosed. The Planning Board's role is to ensure 1 consistency between this plan and the City's Master Plan. I am also enclosing the Master Plan document from 1996. You don't need to review the whole Master Plan—the relevant portion is the chapter • pertaining to downtown economic development(pages 21 through 26 and the fold-out map that follows). It will be a good idea to have the Master Plan in front of you for our discussion. Anyone who has a use for the document is welcome to keep a copy,though we would like to collect any copies that aren't being used and kept them in the Planning Department for future use. • • 2 �COND1Tq,9Q�\ City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet �����irTiNeoocs Board 9'� )rgri Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail 97�­7 V`��Yo� r Page—L of 1 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Decision to Extend Subdivision and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit ;^ Delulis Brothers Construction Co., Inc. 40 Circle Hill Road I_ November 7, 2011 �n Delulis Brothers Construction Co., Inc. 31 Collins Street Terrace Lynn, MA 01902 • RE: 40 Circle Hill Road Extension of Subdivision/Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit On Thursday, November 19, 2009, the Planning Board of the City of Salem voted in favor to approve the application of Delulis Brothers Construction Co., Inc. for a Subdivision (Form C)and Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit. A Decision was filed with the City of Salem Clerk's Office on December 1, 2009. On November 3, 2011, the Board voted to approve a request to extend the Decision through December 1, 2013 by a vote of 7-0(John Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Tim Kavanaugh, Mark George, Tim Ready, Lewis Beilman and Helen Sides in favor, none opposed). I hereby certify that a copy of this Decision to Extend has been filed with the City Clerk and a copy is on file with the Planning Board. The Decision to Extend shall not take effect until a copy of this Decision to Extend bearing the certification of the City Clerk is recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record or is registered on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner of applicant, his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering. John Moustakis • Vice Chair 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01979 ♦TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALE.M.COM • SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 11/3/11 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,November 3,2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were:John Moustakis,Vice Chair(chairing the meeting),Mark George,Lewis Beilman,Helen Sides,Randy Clarke,Tim Ready,and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Lynn Duncan,Director of Planning and Community Development,Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk.Absent: Chuck Puleo,Chair,and Nadine Hanscom. John Moustakis opened the meeting at 7:00 pm. Approval of Minutes September 15,2011 draft minutes No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.Tim Kavanaugh motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Mark George. Approved 7-0. September 29, 2011 special meeting draft minutes No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members.Tim Kavanaugh motioned to accept the minutes,seconded by Tim Ready.Approved 6-0. Mark George abstained. Old/New Business • Request of Patrick DeIulis for extension of subdivision approval and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit for Circle Hill Road Patrick DeIulis,DeIulis Construction,explained that in 2009 his company came before the board for a previous approval. Danielle McKnight stated that Mr. DeIulis didn't have to come in for a formal extension, since the Permit Extension act would automatically give him another two years to begin work,but he preferred to get an extension from the Board nonetheless. Tim Kavanaugh made a motion to extend the date to December 2013,based on the requirements,Randy Clarke seconded. All approved 7-0. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Discussion and vote: Consistency of the Salem Downtown Renews/Plan with Salem's Master Plan Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development,acknowledged Helen Sides,Mark George and former Board member Christine Sullivan as representatives on the working group. Ms. Duncan explained the plan and that the plan for Heritage Plaza East expires in March 2012. The purpose is to keep the effort and the objectives active. They are looking at making a major plan change to the Urban Renewal Plan,aka the Salem Downtown Renewal Plan. The major parts of the plan are the design standards,in addition to new goals and objectives that have been established. Ms. Duncan explained the role of the Planning Board in relation to this Plan. She noted that the city has focused on neighborhood plans rather than update its city-wide Master Plan. Ms.Duncan briefly reviewed the plan and objectives with the Board Members. Ms. Duncan stated that she feels that this plan is in compliance and offered to answer any questions raised by the Board. She further explained the boundaries in relation to the Old Salem Jail,US Post Office,and Riley Plaza. She also noted that there are no specific project proposals being brought forth by the • SRA at this time. 1 John Moustakis,Vice Chair,noted that there has been a lot of work put into these action plans presented to • the Board. He stated that it is a compliment to the City that all of these Boards are working together. Tim Ready noted that these are very detailed plans and Ms. Duncan and her department should be complimented for being part of leading the charge. Ms. Duncan acknowledged the current Mayor and previous Mayor for their efforts in revitalizing the downtown. Randy Clarke stated that while it will not prevent him from supporting the new plan,he does not like the fact that Pickering Wharf,which is clearly in downtown,is not included in the urban renewal area. He is not a big fan of redevelopment authorities,which are steeped in the past. He feels they should be more focused on the future and be called"development authorities." He loves what is going on downtown. Mr. Ready noted that 40 years ago,Salem was a much different city;people are moving in and no longer moving away. He stated that this document is a living document. Mr. Moustakis stated that is because of the mayors and the city planners. He observed that back 15-20 years ago,Salem was stagnant and now everyone knows Salem. Tim Kavanaugh noted that for a small city it has a lot going on and a history worth preserving. Mr. Moustakis stated that a lot of this change had to do with previous mayors allowing previous planners to plan. Mr. Moustakis and Ms. Duncan also acknowledged that additionally a lot of this is due to having a great planning board for the past 15 years. Helen Sides made a motion that the Salem Planning Board hereby determines the major plan change to the • Heritage Plaza East Urban Renewal Plan, as documented in the plan titled, "Salem Downtown Renewal Plan", dated October 27 2011 is in conformance with the general plan for the community as a whole, specifically the "City of Salem Master Plan Update and Action Plan, 1996",Mark George seconded. All approved 7-0. Adjournment Prior to adjournment, the Board formally welcomed new Board member Lewis Beilman. Tim Ready made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh. All approved 7-0. John Moustakis adjourned the meeting at 7:35 pm. Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at http://saleni.com/Pages/Salemll,IA P1anMin/. Approved by the Planning Board 11/17/11 • 2 CITY OF SALEM �t PLANNING BOARD fit! I J �. NOTICE OF MEETING Yaf are Ixieby nctyW that dx Salem Planning Band UZZI hold as ttgularfy sdxrbdaf nretirg on Thursday, October 20 2011 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Anmx,Ram313, 120 Washingtmt StrzeG Clw,ff M. Prdcq (hair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 9/29/11 special meeting draft minutes 2. Continuation of public hearing: Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS,INC for the propertylocated at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Map 34,Lots 126 8t 127),Salem MA The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site,construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps,and associated parking. 3. Old/New Business • 4. Adjournment Know Yow Rights Umler dx Open b1crting LawM.G.L. c 39§23B and Cuy 0&mme Swim 2-2028 d m gli 2.2033. This notice posted on ?;; m fat 3uiton Award" City H I► mal®rn, P -in. . AA A 298 of W.1 Sx • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACIIUSETTs 01970 0 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 • WWW.SAI.FM.COM o �q��sa� lip CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,ACCP DIRECTOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: October 13, 2011 RE: Agenda—October 20, 2011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: . ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from September 15 and September 29, 2011 Notes on Agenda Items: Request of Patrick Delulis for extension of subdivision approval and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit for Circle Hill Road This project was approved by the Planning Board on November 19, 2009. The decision is enclosed. Due to delays in getting the plan approved by Land Court, and then due to the economy, Mr. Delulis has not yet been able to proceed with construction. However, he hopes to begin construction within the next few months and wants to make sure his approvals do not expire,which under normal circumstances would be on December 1, 2011 (two years after his decisions were filed). However, the Permit Extension Act(created by Section 173 of Chapter 240 of the Acts of 2010)allows an automatic two-year extension of any permit or approval that was in effect or existence during the qualifying period beginning on August 15, 2008 and extending through August 15, 2010. The Circle Hill Road project approvals fell within this time period, and so while he technically does not need the Planning Board to vote to extend the approvals, Mr. Delulis is making the request just to be certain the approvals don't expire. • Discussion and vote:Consistency of the Salem Downtown Renewal Plan with Salem's Master Plan As we discussed at our September 29 meeting,the City is updating our Urban Renewal Plan. The new document,Salem Downtown Renewal Plan, is enclosed. The Planning Board's role is to ensure 1 consistency between this plan and the City's Master Plan. I am also enclosing the Master Plan document from 1996. You don't need to review the whole Master Plan—the relevant portion is the chapter • pertaining to downtown economic development (pages 21 through 26 and the fold-out map that follows). It will be a good idea to have the Master Plan in front of you for our discussion. Anyone who has a use for the document is welcome to keep a copy,though we would like to collect any copies that aren't being used and kept them in the Planning Department for future use. • • 2 C� CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION You are hereby notified that the Salem Plarming Board's meeting schedLded for Thursday, October 20,2011 at 7:00 p.m at Cityl-lall Amies,Room 313, 120 Washington Street,has been CANCELED due to a lack of agenda items. AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC. requests to continue their hearing for 175 & 183 LAFAYETTE STREET to NOVEMBER 17, 2011. Charles M.Ptdeo, Chair • Knaw Your Riglz Urcler the Open McMT L awM.G.L. c 39�23B aril City Oirl wnw Saws 2-2028 tbnxtgh 2-2033. � � 1 ' ti�fDbzt I � Zr- II L 2-03A a ofMAX. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, .SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ♦ TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM �O CITY OF SALEM 1 PLANNING BOARD 20111 'E) 22 P 2: 5 1 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING' ` Ycui a>e lrmby txtoed dru d)eSalemPlamttng Band 7x11 Wd a speaal tt"on Thursday, September 29,2011 at 7:00 pm at CityHallAmex, Rccm�� � 3f�13,�1��20 WasbingtonStrtet C"ria M. Adeo, ClAtir REVISED MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes 7/7/11 and 7/21/11 draft minutes 2. Continuation of Public hearing: Site Plan Review amendment at the request of MCDONALD'S CORPORATION for the property located at 1 TRADER'S WAY(Map 8,Lot 126),Salem MA.The proposed project includes a tandem drive-through,additions to the front and rear of the existing restaurant.and changes to the facade and roof. • 3. Old/New Business ➢ Briefing: Urban Renewal Plan update 4. Adjournment Km,wYtxaRigiits Utrler dx Open Meeting LawM.G.L, e 39§23B and City 0dim7re Sertiaa 22028 dm tgb 2-2033. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHU=rs 01970 ♦ TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 • WWW.SAI.F.M.COM I9 as CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 2011 I A 11: 41 Cil V, NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING You am&-teby mto&that the SalemPlamwyBand wU bod a spttial n"T on Thursday, September 29,2011 at 7.00 pm at CityHallAmxx,Rocm313, 120 Washington Stmt C,o (..- P�-k4.�fya��L (1 arla M. Pideq Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes 7/7/11 and 7/21/11 draft minutes 2. Continuation of Public hearing:Site Plan Review amendment at the request of MCDONALD'S CORPORATION for the property located at 1 TRADER'S WAY(Map 8,Lot 126),Salem MA The proposed project includes a tandem drive-through,additions to the front and rear of the existing restaurant and changes to the fagade and roof. • 3. Old/New Business 4. Adjournment Know Your Rights Urder the Open Mwtitg LawM.G.L. c 39 523B and City Qdi'mnm Sectiem 2-2028 thrcvtgh 2-2033. This nofte i_10.:gr%1 of c J+)1v4 n Board" Y , Ila!! z + ,,j"t Qtc,:{r `'.�?3'fY, Cdrit ,�•. ��tIn SeP. ry clod 23A 33a�04 l ALL. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.COM w��oeiutr9�o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ai dC r p DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ��!MINF KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: September 23, 2011 RE: Agenda—September 29, 2011 special meeting Please find the following in your packet: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from July 7 and July 21, 2011 Notes on Agenda Items: Continuation of Public hearing: Site Plan Review amendment at the request of MCDONALD'S CORPORATION for the property located at 1 TRADER'S WAY (Map 8, Lot 126), Salem MA.The proposed project includes a tandem drive-through, additions to the front and rear of the existing restaurant and changes to the facade and roof. I spoke with David Knowlton this morning, and he has no issues with the project. The departmental review is now complete. Briefing: Urban Renewal Plan update I am enclosing a memo about the update of the city's Urban Renewal Plan (which I also emailed to you on September 22). Our consultant, the Cecil Group, has been working on the updated plan, advised by stakeholders and community members, including three Planning Board members— Helen Sides, Mark George and Christine Sullivan—who sit on the Working Group. The Planning Board's role in the Renewal Plan update will be to evaluate its consistency with • the City's Master Plan. A draft of the updated plan will be available to us on October 27. 1 will send it to you, along with relevant sections of the Master Plan, so that we can discuss it and hold a vote at our November 3 meeting. 1 r �5 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet ��c6 iuroo� Board Y' LA� 4 c Date q/2-1 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail ,tMG(pVUSso (6t0 CACrW S' UA-_Sf4,�oof�j 'MA 6641-861-3345- �i� jgq:� 2olli`cfAc. C\f. J-L(�0ck<jMD 434-2g\-7001 � 690 ST. /,E51✓OeD ,HA. 70- 7P -774 • Page I of C4 CITY OF SALEM ' PLANNING BOARD Site Plan Review Amendment Decision September 30, 2011 Ayoub Engineering, Inc. C/o McDonald's Corporation 1 Trader's Way Salem, MA 01970 RE: 1 Trader's Way — Site Plan Review Amendment On Thursday, September 15, 2011, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing under Section 9.5 of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Site Plan Review, at the request Ayoub Engineering, Inc., on behalf of McDonald's Corporation, for the property located at 1 Trader's Way, • Salem, MA. The applicant proposes to amend the previously issued Site Plan Review decision with additions to the front and rear of the existing restaurant, changes to the faPde and roof, and alteration of the drive-through, creating a "tandem" drive-through. The public hearing was continued to September 29, 2011 and closed on that date with the following Planning Board members present: Charles Puleo (Chair), John Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Nadine Hanscom, Tim Kavanagh, Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, and Helen Sides. The Planning Board voted by a vote of seven (7) in favor (Puleo, Moustakis, Clarke, Kavanagh, Ready, Sullivan and Sides) and none opposed, with Nadine Hanscom abstaining, to approve the amended Site Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan Work shall conform to the plans titled, "Construction Plans for McDonald's, 1 Traders Way, Salem, Massachusetts," prepared by Ayoub Engineering, Pawtucket, RI, last dated 8/24/11. 2. Transfer of Ownership Within five (5) days of transfer of ownership of the site, the Owner shall notify the Board in writing of the new owner's name and address. The terms, conditions, restrictions and/or requirements of this decision shall be binding on the Owner and its successors and/or assigns. 3. Amendments • Any amendments to the approved site plan, elevation plan, and landscape plan shall be brought to the Planning Board for review and approval. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSErrS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 . WWW.,,ALEM.COM 4. Construction Practices All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: a. The operation of tools or equipment used in construction or demolition work shall occur in accordance with Salem Ordinance Section 22-2 (5): Construction and Blasting and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on weekdays and Saturdays. No work shall take place on Sundays or holidays. The Planning Board will agree to changes in the starting time, at the request of the applicant and if approved by a formal vote of the City Council, as per the ordinance. b. Any blasting, rock crushing, jack hammering, hydraulic blasting, or pile driving shall occur in accordance with Salem Ordinance Section 22-2 (5): Construction and Blasting and be limited to Monday-Friday between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. There shall be no blasting, rock crushing,jack hammering, hydraulic blasting, or pile driving on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. c. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. d. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on abutters. Advance notice shall be provided by the applicant to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to commencement of construction of the project. • e. All construction vehicles and equipment shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they exit the site. f. 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. g. All construction vehicles and equipment left overnight at the site must be located completely on the site. h. All staging of materials and equipment shall be on-site. L No street shall be closed without prior approval of the Department of Planning and Community Development, unless deemed an emergency by the Salem Police Department. j. A Construction Management Plan and Construction Schedule shall be submitted by the Applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. Included in this plan, but not limited to, shall be information regarding how the construction equipment will be stored, a description of the construction staging area and its location in relation to the site, and where the construction employees will park their vehicles. The plan and schedule shall be submitted and approved by • the City Planner prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All storage of materials and equipment will be on site. -2- • k. All sidewalks, roadways, utilities, landscaping, etc. damaged during construction shall be replaced or repaired to their pre-construction condition, or better. S. Fire Department All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. Alteration or renovation of any of the existing equipment or appliances shall require upgrading such equipment or appliances to current building code. 6. Building Inspector All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Commissioner. 7. City Engineer All work shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer. 8. Board of Health The applicant shall comply with all requirements and conditions of the Board of Health. A separate application must be made to the Board of Health and all required plans and documents must be filed 30 days prior to the start of construction. 9. Utilities Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a • Building Permit. All on site electrical utilities shall be located underground. 30. Department of Public Services The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services. 11. Signage Proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Sign Review Committee in accordance with entrance corridor requirements, Section 8.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of the site plans does not represent approval of the proposed signage. 12. 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 Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. c. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. HVAC • The HVAC unit on the roof shall be visually screened by the parapet wall as shown on the submitted plans. 14. Landscaping -3- • a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans. b. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, his successors or assigns. c. Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced. The location of any replacement trees shall be approved by the City Planner prior to replanting. d. Final completed landscaping, done in accordance with the approved set of plans, shall be subject to approval by the City Planner prior, for consistency with such plans, to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 15. Maintenance a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, his successors or assigns. b. The trash enclosure area is to be maintained and the dumpster is to be kept in good working order and repair. c. Winter snow in excess of permitted snow storage areas on site shall be removed off site. . d. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant, his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two (2) year period, from issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and completion of planting. 16. As-Built Plans a. As-built Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public Services prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. b. The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the City's use and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. c. A completed tie card, a blank copy (available at the Engineering Department) and a certification signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed in substantial compliance with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. 17. Original Decision • All provisions of the original decision are to be adhered to. 18. Violations Violations of any condition contained herein shall result in revocation of this permit by the -K- • 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 Decision 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 Southern Essex District 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 Chair • -5- SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 9/29/11 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, September 29, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready, Nadine Hanscom, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner. Absent: Mark George. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm. Approval of Minutes ➢ 7/7/11 and 7/21/11 draft minutes Ms. Sides moves to approve the minutes of 7/7/11, seconded by Mr. Clarke; all in favor. Mr. Moustakis moves to approve the minutes of 7/21/11, seconded by Ms. Hanscom;all in favor. Continuation of Public hearing: Site Plan Review amendment at the request of MCDONALD'S CORPORATION for the property located at 1 TRADER'S WAY (Map 8, Lot 126), Salem MA. The proposed project includes a tandem drive-through, additions to the front and rear of the existing restaurant and changes to the facade and roof. • Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 8/25/11, and accompanying materials ➢ Plans titled"Construction Plans for McDonald's, 1 Traders Way, Salem, Massachusetts," prepared by Ayoub Engineering, Pawtucket, RI, last dated 8/24/11 Anthony Guba of Ayoube Engineering presents the petition. Andrew Guilmette and Jim Giorusso from McDonald's are present also. Mr. Puleo says he drove through there today and notes they have a shed currently there, which Mr. Guba says will go away. Chuck asks if the building will actually encompass the freezer so it will no longer be seen;Mr. Guba says that's correct. Mr. Puleo asks if the back fagade will be that close to the drive through menu board; Mr. Guba says yes. Tim Ready says he rode through the Revere site at North Gate Plaza—that's the most recent building of this design? Mr. Guba says it's similar. Mr. Ready says it was a very suitable building for the shopping center environment. Mr. Giorusso explains the materials on that building are different and describes a few other differences, saying that was an earlier attempt at a similar model. Mr. Puleo notes that no one from the public is here tonight. Mr. Clarke moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Sullivan; all in favor (Ms. • Hanscom abstaining). 1 Mr. Puleo asks about the construction practices —will everything be kept on site, since the store will be open? Mr. Guilmette says yes. Mr. Puleo asks if he's aware to the 8-5 p.m. restrictions? Mr. Guilmette asks if this includes work inside building as well. Mr. Puleo is unsure—perhaps if there were complaints. Mr. Moustakis suggests he check with the Building Commissioner. Ms. McKnight reads a draft decision. It is noted that there are no HVAC/mechanicals shown on the plans. The applicant states that the parapet wall will definitely hide the whole unit. The Board suggests changing the standard condition that requires HVAC equipment to be screened from view to say that the parapet wall will be done as shown in the drawings, and the HVAC unit will be screened by this wall as shown on the approved plans. Mr. Puleo asks about the dumpster area, and asks if they will spruce up the enclosure? Mr. Guilmette says yes. Mr. Kavanagh suggests adding that the dumpster needs to be maintained in good working order and repair. Both the dumpster and enclosure should be maintained. Mr. Clarke suggests saying the trash enclosure area shall be maintained in good working order and repair. Ms. Sullivan moves to approve, seconded by Mr. Moustakis; all are in favor with Ms. Hanscom abstaining. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Old/New Business • ➢ Briefing: Urban Renewal Plan update Ms: McKnight explains that the City is working on an update to the City's two urban renewal plans, one of which expires this spring,with the other one expiring in five years. She explains the plan is a good tool for the city to use to apply design review to projects in the downtown, to have control over demolition of buildings, etc. The city is working with consultants the Cecil Group to combine these into one plan and update it. Ms. Sides, Ms. Sullivan and Mr. George are participating in the working group. She says the Planning Board will be asked to review the new plan for consistency with the city's Master Plan, that a draft will be available to the Board on Oct. 27, and that we would plan to hold a discussion and vote on the matter on Nov. 3. Ms. Sullivan ads that the changes to the plan are minimal,involving cleaning up the language and minor changes to the map. She describes the process as final proofreading rather than major changes. Ms. Sides says it's important update the plan because once expired, it's impossible to get a new one. She stresses that it's important for the city to keep an urban renewal plan. She says there has been a lot of focus on the design guidelines, and the DRB is also reviewing those aspects. She says they are working a lot with the language in the design guidelines. She says nothing controversial has been added because the greater need is to update it so we can still have it,but it leaves open the possibility of amendments in the future. • 2 Mr. Clarke asks why the city doesn't expand the urban renewal area further. • Ms. Sides says this has been talked about, but if we try to expand the reach too far,it could become controversial and threaten our ability to meet the deadline for updating the plan. Mr. Clarke notes that Pickering Wharf,Blaney St.,and other areas around Derby St. should be considered. Ms. Sullivan says if the proposed change threatens someone's property, then we could get held up. She notes that there are certain parcels that are being discussed for a minor expansion,including the Post Office property and META land. Mr. Clarke asks how we have jurisdiction over federal and state land. Ms. Sullivan says that if these properties change hands,we'd have control over the redevelopment. Mr. Clarke says he still feels the boundary expansion should be larger. Ms. Sullivan agrees with him,but says she understands the urgency associated with the update. She says that she wants the Planning Department to do a real urban downtown renewal plan—what it really ought to look like once this plan is renewed, 30 years in the future,including Shetland Park and Pickering Wharf, and priority properties down canal St. Ms. Sides notes that they have discussed language for including the entrance corridors too. Ms. Sullivan says there should be a second phase of this for creating a real downtown renewal plan for the 21"century. Mr. Ready says he agrees that a plan update is important, but we should move along. He says the Board will look forward to participating in the plan update. Mr. Moustakis asks for an update from the City Solicitor on the Lowe's suit. Ms. Sullivan announces that she has resigned from the Planning Board because she has been • on for 10 years and that's enough. She has loved it;it's a wonderful board, and this has been a great and glorious experience. She says it is a board of integrity and commitment and she is grateful for the experience,but 10 years is enough. Mr. Clarke moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Kavanagh;all are in favor. The meeting adjourns at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at http://salem.com/Pages/SalemMA PlanMin/. Approved by the Planning Board 11/3/11 3 Ca CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING Yat are lx eby natif al dirt the Sale n Plarming Bozrzl will l dd its agtd'1dy sdxrlulal nct'ting on Tbursclay, Sep teinber 15, 2011 at 7:00 pm at City HallArrrxr,R" 3, 120 WashuigtonStxvt J."/,off CIM)les IN. Prdeq Clxrir MEETING AGENDA i. Approval of Minutes 7/7/11 and 7/21/11 draft minutes 2. Continuation of public hearing: Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Map 34, Lots 126& 127), Salem MA. The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site,construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps, and associated parking. 3. Public hearing: Site Plan Review amendment at the request of MCDONALD'S CORPORATION for the • property located at 1 TRADER'S WAY(Map 81 Lot 126),Salem MA-The proposed project includes a tandem drive-through,additions to the front and rear of the existing restaurant and changes to the facade and roof. 4. Old/New Business 5. Adjournment Know Karr Ri&bts Uixler die Qxn rV brig LawAl.G.L. c 39§23B arxl City O zilauxe Satias 2-2028 dmxtgli 2-2033. Thle notice Dootod on "©fflcisl ulle4#n o �Ity Mall Tatem, bass, On �kmkard 2011 eA 238 aP .c .�.ard�,ra 120 WASHING't0N Snar_eT, Snteni, MAssAcuuusrrrs 01970 • "Cr,[.: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 • www.s,t1.en1.0O3rou � CO CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Jt� fat nrr 7 n ,1. li W NOTICE OF MEETING Yat ate lxreby m0al tlan tlx Salem Planting Baml wil ldd its ?%-7 ady sdxrbtlxl n , it g as Tbarsdrty, September 15, 2011 at 7:00 pm at CitylhtUArvxe, ,Rmn 13 120 WrtslnngtonSt7w Clxtrlcs M. Pnleq REVISED MEETING AGENDA Gxrir 1. Approval of Minutes 7/7/11 and 7/21/11 draft minutes 2. Continuation of public hearing: Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Map 34, Lots 126 & 127),Salem NIA. The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site,construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps, and associated parking. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 20, 2011. 3. Public hearing: Site Plan Review amendment at the request of MCDONALD'S CORPORATION for the • property located at 1 TRADER'S WAY(Map 8,Lot 126),Salem MA. The proposed project includes a tandem drive-through, additions to the front and rear of the existing restaurant and changes to the [made and roof. 4. Old/New Business 5. Adjournment Krxnv You Ri&bts Uixkr tlx Opm Mcuting LawK C.L. c 39§23B atxl Clry Oab"aKe Saticvs 22028 tlmutgb 2-2033. xA p '40 tlA W�..C ..•L`:i tiSaaa Iv -` m�� �i�s!ne 120 WASHINGTON STRFE"r, SALEM, MASSACiusF'rrs 01970 . Tei.: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740 0404 0 %VW%V,sALFNLCOt ,ONDIP4' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • jG R ;� a Pyr` DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD DIRECTOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: September 8, 2011 RE: Agenda—September 15, 2011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from July 7 and July 21, 2011 Notes on Aeenda Items: Continuation of public hearing: Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST(Map 34, Lots 126 & 127), Salem MA.The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site, construction of a convenience store and canopy over three(3)gasoline pumps,and associated parking. David Knowlton sent me comments on this project. He has no concerns about it, since the stormwater leaving the site will be reduced due to the new canopy and roof drain system. He did ask that the developer submit the design/sizing calculations for the Cultec recharge system and the grease trap, so that we can have them on file. I would recommend these as conditions in the decision, unless I can obtain them prior to the meeting. Larry Ramdin, Health Agent, also let me know that the applicant will need to apply to the Board of Health if it intends to sell food. The Health Department needs to have plans in hand for approval 30 days prior to commencement of construction. The Board of Health is also interested in the placement and maintenance of their dumpsters and venting of hoods from cooking processes. The decision will need to emphasize that if the Board of Health finds that 1 the placement of the dumpster and vents are unacceptable, the applicant will need to submit a revised plan showing the Board of Health's required changes. 1 am enclosing a letter from the abutters at 185 Lafayette Street. I have not received any updates from the applicant regarding the project. Public hearing: Site Plan Review amendment at the request of MCDONALD'S CORPORATION for the property located at 1 TRADER'S WAY(Map 8, Lot 126), Salem MA. The proposed project includes a tandem drive-through, additions to the front and rear of the existing restaurant and changes to the facade and roof. A Site Plan Review approval for this property was issued by the Planning Board in 1993. (Site Plan Review for the 2,980 square foot restaurant was triggered because of its location in an Entrance Corridor). The decision is enclosed in your packet. The new proposal seeks to expand the dining room area by approximately 252 square feet, adding 20 new seats and replacing 12 exterior seats (the outdoor seating area will be eliminated). A 600 square foot addition is proposed at the rear for storage and a crew room. A "tandem" drive-through system is proposed to replace the current one. I spoke to Alan Micale of Ayoub Engineering to clarify how this will run. There will be two order boards (these are labeled on the plan as "COD," which stands for Customer Order Display) instead of the one there currently. There will still be one window for paying and one for serving the food, as there is now. The drive-through will • still have only one lane—they are not proposing a double lane ("tandem" refers to the two order boards). Changes are also proposed to the roof, eliminating the mansard design and replacing it with a built up parapet wall. The application was routed to Fire Prevention, Health, Building, Conservation and Engineering. The Building Commissioner concurs with the proposal, and the project is outside Conservation Commission jurisdiction. I have not yet received comments from Fire, Health or Engineering. • 2 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet �� tnnueo4N"� Board Date Name / Mailing Address / Phone # E-mail / 713/•416/•y717 A,& " , as. 6.27cr0 cvC L94J C+1^n'cXv $T, ��Cuazrcr�s� tiLOOOO, Mn, OZ.7kQ Loi"7-50- 33'�1� Mco,com • Page of SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 9/15/11 • A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,September 15,2011 at 7:00 p.m.in Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Helen Sides,Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan, Tim Ready,and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,and Stacy Kilb, substitute clerk Absent: Nadine Hanscom. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm. 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 7/7/11 and 7/21/11 draft minutes The item was tabled until the next meeting. Z. Continuation of public hearing:Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Map 34,Lots 126& 127),Salem MA.The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site,construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps, and associated parking. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 20,2011. The letter making said request is read into the record.The principal owner has been out of the country and is • not available. A motion to continue to October 20f is made by Mark George,Seconded by John Moustakis, and passes unanimously. 3. Public hearing: Site Plan Review amendment at the request of MCDONALD'S CORPORATION for the property located at 1 TRADER'S WAY(Map 8,Lot 126),Salem MA.The proposed project includes a tandem drive-through,additions to the front and rear of the existing restaurant and changes to the fagade and roof. Documents&Exhibitions: Application date-stamped 8/25/11, and accompanying materials ➢ Color legend, terra cotta scheme, 9/13/11 Site improvement plan C-1, 6/2/11 Tony Guba of Ayoub Engineering presents. He says the summary submitted is comprehensive.The site is located at 1 Trader's Way,and is under site plan approval from the 1990's.They want to upgrade,improve efficiency, make it look more appealing, add seats, storage, and space for crew training.This is Zone B2, and they are not asking for zoning relief.The project will still meet zoning requirements after these changes. Most external landscaping and impervious areas will not change. There will be some movement of a curb. Most of parking will remain the same. There are 4 major items in this project. 1. Removal of external seating(12),addition of 20 indoor seats with this modification (an increase of 8 seats) • 2.To the freezer area and shed in back, add an additional 600 sq feet for storage,cooler, freezer and crew room 1 3. Outside of the building—parapet wall will be put up,and the roofline will change 4. Drive-thru windows where you pay and receive orders are not changing,but ordering boards will change— • there will be 2 to decrease the queuing since the ordering process is what takes the longest. Photos of the existing structure are presented. The Chair asks about overhangs on the side of the building.They will be similar,but will be replaced with something newer.The Chair was on board in 1993 when the original decision was issued and notes that the front of the building faces Trader's Way since the state would not give a curb cut from Highland Ave. He says Blockbuster put things that look like windows on back to make it appear not to be a blank wall,and he says that they have an opportunity to make the back of the building look more like a front. Mr. Guba says treatment will happen on all sides. People will be able to see windows on either side of the entry arcade.The site also sits on a hill so he is not sure how much you see from Highland Ave. The Chair comments that trees are more mature now and screen the building.Right now from Highland Ave.,you see the freezer with arborvitaes in front. Ms. Sullivan suggests trees should stay but the Chair says some landscaping may have to go as it is right against freezer. Mr. Guba says a window(not functional) could be added on the Highland Ave. side. In other cases the addition of windows or facades would be difficult.Mr. George asks if the footprint is increasing but flow- through will remain the same. Mr. Guba says there will still be 29 parking spaces, though only 22 are required; they are keeping all 29 but will be reconfiguring them to meet ADA requirements. External sidewalks,vestibules,ramps,restrooms,and seating will be ADA compliant if they were not already. The Dumpster is now at the corner of the access road and Trader's Way. • The store will be closed while renovations are in progress. It is about a 6 week process.Jim Giorusso (from McDonadl's) says they will not close completely during construction;possibly just the drive through and dine —in will be open one at a time, and closed completely only for one or two days. Mr.Ready asks if there is a similar McDonald's already done.They are working on Peabody at the same time. Adam Gillman of McDonald's says this building is unique in that it was very small originally. New buildings are similar, but are larger.The Lowell,MA one is similar in design but not size.There is also one in Revere at Northgate. The Chair asks if the new exterior is clapboard;it appears to be brick but is indeed clapboard. The current material will be replaced with HardiePlank.A special permit was required in 1993,and that was because the building is on an entrance corridor. Ms. McKnight states that it actually required Site Plan Review,which used to be called a special permit,but is actually not. Ms. Sullivan says the design is interesting. She asks if the interior will change—the McDonald's representatives say it will be updated,very clean with a more adult feel, contemporary while still being family friendly,with wi-fi and zone seating. Ms. Sullivan says they've discovered that Starbucks is the conference room of small businesses. The Chair opens the issue up for public comments,but no members of the public are present. Ms. McKnight notes that more comments were submitted since sending packets out earlier. Mr. Guba has no problem with any comments submitted;they do not expect any major comments from engineering and they • will accept the condition that they work with Mr. Knowlton. Lt. Griffin responded on behalf of Fire 2 prevention—he wanted a condition that alterations to existing equipment/appliances be upgraded to current codes. Larry Ramdin,health agent, said that the applicant must submit a separate application to the Board of Heath.The usual conditions will apply: that they need to adhere to all conditions of that Board and the Health Dept., but also that they must have documents and plans on file 30 days from the start of construction. David Knowlton, City Engineer, did not yet have an opportunity to comment;Ms. McKnight says he has 35 days and wanted the opportunity to submit comments;therefore, the Board should not vote yet. The Chair asks if the new curbing will match the old, around the drive-thru band. It is pre-cast concrete. The dumpster enclosure will be repaired,but not replaced; the structure will look new and match the building. A motion to close public hearing by Mr. Moustakis, seconded by Mr. George, and all are in favor. Oct. 20th is next meeting because of Haunted Happenings. Mr. George asks if the Board could approve subject to a favorable engineering report, so it will not be delayed if Mr. Knowlton has no conditions. If he does they can come back. Mr.Ready asks when they will start construction. It must be finished by year end with a Mid-Oct. scheduled start. It is not complicated so Mr. Guba is not worried about engineering since nothing in that regard will be affected. Mr. Kavanagh asks when David Knowlton must respond by;Ms. McKnight says he needs to comment by Sept. 29th. Ms.McKnight does not want to hold up the project and the board seems ready to vote, but they are supposed to allow the full 35 day period for the departments to submit comments. Mr. Clarke asks who will be here on the 20th of October. 6 votes are needed to pass site plan review and so only one other person can be missing. Mr. Kavanagh suggests a special meeting on the . 29th of September—if there are comments, they will be made by then,if not, they're ready to vote. The Board has Mr. Guba's assurances that nothing engineering-related will be done. They need 5 days for advertising, and that is enough time. Board members discuss who will be there for a quorum. This is acceptable to the applicant and 7 Board members will be present. If extensive or complicated comments are received,it will be continued.This would be the only thing on the agenda at that meeting. A motion to continue to 9/29 is made by Mr. Clarke, seconded by Mr. George, and passes unanimously. K. Old/New Business 5. Adjournment Motion to adjourn is made by Sides, seconded by Moustakis and all approve. The meeting ends at 7:37PM Respectfully Submitted, Substitute Clerk,Planning Board Stacy Kilb Approved by the Planning Board 11/3/11 3 3 CITY OF SALEM ' j PLANNING BOARD ,;I ^c n 5b e! NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION You are h%eby nmfxd that the Salem Planning Baud's regular nesting sdxl del for Thursday, September 1,2011 at 7:00 pm at City HallArarx,Rootn313, 120 WasbingtoaSo ey has been CANCELED due to a la& cfag 7xla iters. C'zvla M. Puk Chair • Know YotrrRights Umkr the Open M"LawM.G.L. c 39 g23B and City Ordiruw Seetiora 2-2028 thnxtgh 2-2033. -174 h `96On 9 s:s� Pm -4 s � �r bus tl SSA A goo .1 j8,to®rd,v= was°, Cohap. 33 sea 120 WASHINGTON .STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SAI,EM.COM CITY OF SALEM r PLANNING BOARD a�I- It 11 A ll- 3.9 NOTICE OF MEETING You are tJzzt zlae SalemPla Bard will held its sdaadide� ar y�� 8 '��Y rrrear�g w Thursday,July 21, 2011 at 7:00 pm at City Had Araxx,Rcwn313 120 Was Street awiff M. Pulcq Chair REVISED MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 6/16/11 draft minutes;revision to 6/2/11 approved minutes 2. Public hearing:Waiver from Frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the property located at 66 DERBY STREET (Assessor's Map 41,Lot 98)to be subdivided into two lots. g. Form A Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval to allow the property located at 66 DERBY STREET (Assessor's Map 41,Lot 98) to be subdivided into two lots. • 4. Form A:Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval to allow a portion of property located off of LEGGS HILL ROAD (Salem Assessor's Map 30,Lot 83, and Marblehead Assessor's Map 35,Lot 1A) to be subdivided, resulting in four new parcels with frontage on Leggs Hill Road. 5. Continuation of public hearing:Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem,MA(Assessors Map 3,Lots 74,75, and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. 6. Continuation of public hearing:Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS,INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Assessors Map 34,Lots 126 &127),Salem MA.The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site,construction of a convenience store and canopyover three (3) gasoline pumps,and associated parking. Applicant requests to continue to September 15, 2011. 7. Old/New Business 8. Adjournment Know Ya ff Rights Under the Open MeetingLawM.G.L. c 39§23B and Qy 0aimme SectiaS 2-2028 thr*2-2033. This notice Doestod or, "4ffi69 Fu?e&p r nr-^ y Fia i9 SaIO Yt, MOSS, Cn, 04 z; Lal I l.'3 g i9 M in flc rd<an wM Cl >p. m' ;qac. 23A & 238 *f M.G.L 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 2011 JR I U P I: 52 1 NOTICE OF MEETING You a7e hereby raat#W dw the Sak7nPlarzrurrg Barrd Trill hold its rgdarly scheduled nr etir,g on Thursday,July 21,2011 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Arrrax,Room 31n3, 120, Wasbirrgton Street aw,r 3 M. Pula ClZair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 6/16/11 draft miputes;revision to 6/2/11 approved minutes 2. Public hearing:Waiver from Frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the property located at 66 DERBY STREET (Assessor's Map 41,Lot 98)to be subdivided into two lots. 3. Form A:Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval to allow the property located at 66 DERBY STREET (Assessor's Map 41,Lot 98) to be subdivided into two lots. • 4. Form A Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval to allow a portion of property located off of LEGGS HILL ROAD (Salem Assessor's Map 30,Lot 83,and Marblehead Assessor's Map 35,Lot 1A) to be subdivided,resulting in four new parcels with frontage on Leggs Hill Road. 5. Continuation of public hearing: Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem,MA(Assessors Map 3,Lots 74,75, and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. be 6. Continuation of public hearing: Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS,INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Assessors Map 34,Lots 126 &127),Salem MA The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site,construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps,and associated parking. 7. Old/New Business 8. Adjournment Ki owYaoRights Under the Open M"LawM.G.L. c 39§23B and City Orrlira nx Seam 2-2028 dyr*2-2033. '^ notico 13 s c.�, on "a';1 n- 2- P rn . JUi 14 .2011 . 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.c6vrr""> gONft a 'tQ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND KIMBERLEYDRISmu COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: July 14, 2011 RE: Agenda—July 21,2011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: •, ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from 6/16/11; revised Page 1 of minutes from 6/2/11 The approved minutes from 6/2/11 did not contain reference to the Board going into Executive Session. I have revised the first page of those minutes to reflect that;the change will need to be approved. We will review the 7/7/11 minutes at the next meeting. Notes on Agenda Items: Public hearing:Waiver from Frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the property located at 66 DERBY STREET(Assessor's Map 41, Lot 98)to be subdivided into two lots and Form A: Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval to allow the property located at 66 DERBY STREET(Assessor's Map 41, Lot 98)to be subdivided into two lots. The existing two-family house is in the Derby Street historic district. The applicant received an approval for a conceptual plan from the Historical Commission for the redevelopment of this • property that included the demolition of the rear addition on the existing house, renovation of the main house, a new addition, and construction of a second (two-family) house on the lot. However, constructing a second primary structure on one residential lot posed problems from a 1 zoning perspective, so the applicant revised his plans to show the same proposed changes to • the exterior of the existing historic house, but also showing subdivision of the lot into two lots and the construction of a single-family (rather than a two-family) house on the second lot. The historic house will also be converted from a two-family to a single-family house. This plan was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, which granted dimensional relief for both lots. The ZBA decision is enclosed in your packet. The applicant now needs a Waiver of Frontage from the Planning Board, since the frontage proposed is 45.48' for Lot 1 and 41.77' for Lot 2 (required frontage in the R-2 zone is 100). If the Board grants the Waiver, then the ANR plan is entitled to endorsement and does not need approval under Subdivision Control. Form A: Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval to allow a portion of property located off of LEGGS HILL ROAD(Salem Assessor's Map 30,Lot 83, and Marblehead Assessor's Map 35, Lot 3A)to be subdivided, resulting in four new parcels with frontage on Leggs Hill Road. This plan shows the creation of four new parcels,three of which have frontage on Leggs Hill Road in Marblehead (Lot 1C, Parcel B, and Parcel A), and one of which has frontage on Leggs Hill Road in Salem (Parcel 18A). Since the parcels and their frontage are located in two municipalities, endorsement is required of both Planning Boards. The Marblehead Planning Board endorsed the plan on July 12. The parcels are located in Salem's R-1 zone,which requires 100 feet of frontage; all the proposed new parcels have at least this much frontage on Leggs Hill Road, so the plan is entitled to endorsement. • Continuation of public hearing:Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST(Assessors Map 34, Lots 126&127),Salem MA.The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site,construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3)gasoline pumps, and associated parking. I wanted to address some of the questions and issues that have come up during the review of this project: Dumpster screening— I am enclosing a copy of the City's dumpster ordinance. According to the ordinance, any dumpster located within 50 feet of a residentially zoned area must be enclosed and screened. Additionally, the location of the dumpster is subject to approval by the Building Commissioner and the Fire Department. Entrance Corridor—Questions have come up regarding Entrance Corridor requirements as they may relate to fencing and other screening. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Entrance Corridor requirements do not apply to those development proposals which require site plan review. We believe the purpose of this provision is to allow the Planning Board to exercise its best judgment on a case by case basis. Hours of Operation—City ordinances limit the current gas station to operating within the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 p.m., unless approval is received from City Council. It is the Planning Department's recommendation that the Board place a condition in the decision restricting the hours of operation to • what is currently allowed (6 a.m.to 11 p.m.). Site Plan Review allows the Board to consider impacts on 2 the "health,convenience, and general welfare" of inhabitants, and this recommended restriction would be made in consideration of the convenience and welfare of the residents directly abutting the property. Traffic Study— For a project of this small size,the Planning Department would not normally recommend that a peer review be required for the applicant's traffic study. Parking on Palmer Street—The addition of curbing on Palmer Street near the corner of Lafayette Street may invite people to park too close to the corner. City ordinances prohibit parking 20 feet from an intersection. The Planning Department recommends a condition requiring the applicant to make all reasonable efforts to have a "No Parking from Here to Corner' sign placed on Palmer Street to prevent parking within the 20 feet from the Lafayette Street/Palmer Street intersection. Continuation of public hearing:Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem, MA(Assessors Map 3,Lots 74,75,and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. The applicant met with David Knowlton and our peer reviewer, Bill Ross, on June 29,to discuss the changes in drainage between the original project submission and the current proposal. At that time, Bill and David requested a letter from Scott Patrowicz,the project's engineer, asking him to address each of the conditions the Board placed in the project's first approval, and to explain whether these conditions are still relevant to the new submission. Scott sent this letter to David and Bill, and I am enclosing a copy in your packet. • Bill and Scott need to meet again in order to discuss the changes in the project and how drainage is impacted; following that meeting, Bill will complete the review. It is possible his review will be completed prior to our meeting on Thursday, and if so, I will send you a copy of his written feedback as soon as possible. • 3 covnrr City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board P a t4- Date Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail J mST Ex-cAg,4 * Sr -/F so Lka P�Nt lit)hYlllq Page of CU CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD ,n July 26, 2011 Decision—405-419 Highland Avenue Amendment to Form C—Definitive Subdivision Paul Ferragamo 405-419 Highland Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Re: Amendment to 405-419 Highland Avenue Subdivision On May 19, 2011, the Planning Board of the City of Salem (hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Board" or "the Board") opened a public hearing regarding the application of Paul Ferragamo (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant" and/or "Owner") to allow an amendment to the approved definitive subdivision plan for the property at 405-419 Highland Avenue (Map 3, Lots 74, 75 and 76) and associated roadways and utilities. The subdivision contains eleven • (11) residential lots. The hearing was continued to June 16, 2011, July 7, 2011, and July 21, 2011. At the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on July 21, 2011 the public hearing was closed with the following Board members in attendance: Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanagh, Tim Ready, Helen Sides, Randy Clarke, Nadine Hanscom, and Mark George. The Board voted by a vote of six (6) in favor (Puleo, Kavanagh, Ready, Sides, Clarke and George in favor), Hanscom abstaining and none (0) opposed approve the Form C-Definitive Subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan Work shall conform to the set of plans containing sheets 1 through 11, titled, "#405-427 Highland Avenue, Salem, Mass.," prepared by Patrowicz Land Development Engineering, 14 Brown Street, Salem, MA 01970, dated April 20, 2011 and last revised July 20, 2011. 2. Endorsement of the Plans Following the statutory twenty (20) day appeal period, the Planning Board will endorse the original subdivision plans, subject to conditions of this decision, which shall be recorded at the South Essex Registry of Deeds. The applicant must submit the following for the Planning Board's approval prior to endorsement of the plans: • a. A Covenant to secure the construction of ways and installation of municipal services, including required description of mortgages and assents of mortgagees. b. Acceptable form of grants of easements, if applicable. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSE,rrs 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SAI.ENI.COM • c. This decision shall be referenced on the original plans prior to the endorsement by the Planning Board; the decision shall be recorded with the plans at the South Essex Registry of Deeds. 3. Amendments Any modification to the approved plans must receive the prior approval of the Planning Board unless deemed insignificant by the City Planner. Any waiver of conditions contained within this decision shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 4. Subdivision Regulations The Subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and any other applicable regulations as affected by this decision. S. Transfer of Ownership Within five (5) days of transfer of ownership of the subdivision, the Owner shall notify the Board in writing of the new owner's name and address. This shall not include the sale of lots within the subdivision in the ordinary course of business, but only a sale of the entire subdivision. The terms, conditions, restrictions and/or requirements of this decision shall be binding on the Owner and its successors and/or assigns. • 6. Security (Section III(B)(5) of the Subdivision Regulations) Prior to the release of any lots for sale or building, the Planning Board shall require that an acceptable form of surety is posted along with a proposed schedule of releases. If partial release of surety is to be requested; the Planning Board may, at its discretion, require deposits to be broken down in amounts of anticipated requests for release. The applicant agrees to complete the required improvements in accordance with Section V of the Subdivision Regulations for the subdivision. Such construction and installation is to be secured by one and/or in part by the other of the following methods which may from time to time be varied by the applicant with the reasonable approval of the Planning Board: a. Endorsement of approval with covenant The Owner shall file a covenant, prior to endorsement by the Planning Board, executed and to be duly recorded with the Subdivision Plans by the owner of record, which instrument shall with the land, and shall state that such ways and services shown on the approved plans shall be provided to serve any and all lots before any lot may be built upon or conveyed, other than by mortgage deed; and/or b. Endorsement of approval with bonds, surety or tri-party agreement The Owner shall either file a performance bond, a deposit of money or negotiable securities, or a tri-party agreement in an amount determined by the Board to be • sufficient to cover the cost of all or any one phase of the sub-division of the improvements. Surety, if filed or deposited, shall be approved as to form and manner of execution by the City Solicitor and, as to sureties by the City Treasurer, and shall be . contingent on the construction of the roadway through binder course. The amount of the surety shall be reasonably determined by the City of Salem Engineering Department and shall include an additional 10%to cover the cost of inflation or maintenance for eighteen (18) months after completion of the phase and release of surety. The Owner may file a covenant to secure the construction of ways and services for the entire sub-division and said covenant may be partially released for phases of the sub-division by bond, surety or tri-party agreement being filed for any phase or phases of the subdivision by execution of a recordable instrument so stating by the Planning Board. c. Timeframe The construction of all ways and the installation of all required municipal services shall be completed within 18 months from the date of receipt of bond or surety by the Board or within two years of the date of approval of the Definitive Plan, whichever is earlier. Failure to do so shall automatically rescind approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Board. 7. Homeowner's Association a. A Draft Home Owners Association or Home Owner's Trust Documents shall be • submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development, for reasonable review as to form and content prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the proposed dwellings. These documents shall include the following responsibilities: i. Ownership and/or maintenance of the storm water management system, including all stormwater management BMPs, whether in a public or private way. The Homeowner's Association is to notify the City Engineer within thirty (30) days of each of the required bi-annual maintenance/cleanings of the stormwater management system. Each maintenance is to occur at least five (5) months apart. ii. Ownership and/or maintenance of any walls or gates located in the subdivision that are not situated on the lots in the sub-division; iii. Responsibility for snow removal on the proposed new road on the submitted plans until such time as the street is accepted as a public way by City Council. b. The City of Salem reserves the right to enforce the responsibilities and requirements of the Homeowner's Association documents. B. Salem Conservation Commission • a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Conservation Commission. 3 • 9. Street Trees The species of street tree is to be determined by the City's Director of Public Services. 10. Lighting a. The Owner shall coordinate with the electric company and the City Electrician regarding the installation of street lighting within the Subdivision. b. The street lighting shall be the responsibility of the Owner until such time as the City accepts the streets. c. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner and the City Electrician for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed dwelling units. 11. Water and Sewer a. The project is subject to reasonable mitigation recommended by the City Engineer relative to the capacity of the Ravenna Avenue sewer pump station to service the proposed homes. b. The applicant is to provide field verification (subject to approval by the City Engineer) that no virgin or over-blasted bedrock exists within two (2) feet of any proposed infiltration BMPs, prior to endorsement of the plans. c. Construction of all drainage infrastructure in the roadway layout, drainage easement, and Parcel A, as well as the "on-lot" drainage infrastructure including • the catch basins, piping, and driveway Cultec units, are to be constructed per approved plans and verified before issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. d. Applicant is to provide field verification that the proposed 2-foot minimum limits of"over blasting" are constructed as designed prior to backfill. e. Construction of the remaining "on-lot" drainage infrastructure on each parcel (including roof leaders, piping, ponds, berms, swales, etc.) are to be constructed per approved plans and verified before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy on each respective parcel. f. The City will exercise the water gates in Highland Avenue, in the vicinity of the proposed connection to the subdivision. If they do not operate effectively, new gates may be required at the location of the proposed connection, to provide effective emergency shut-off of the system and ensure the subdivision may still receive water if a portion of the City's system is shut down. The developer is to install the new gates on either side of the proposed tie-in, if requested by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. g. Applicant is to add the 7/20/11 detention basin berm details to the drawings, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to final endorsement of the plans. h. Applicant is to retain a licensed engineer or surveyor during construction to confirm utilities and drainage (structural and non-structural) infrastructure are constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Applicant is to provide as- built drawings to document same. i. Applicant is to revise the Homeowner's Association documents to include provisions that an Operations and Management Plan (on all common and on-lot 4 • drainage infrastructure) will be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development for records, prior to final endorsement of the plans. j. Applicant to receive approval of plans and drainage report from Mass DOT prior to commencement of construction. 12. Office of the Building Commissioner All work shall comply with the requirements of the office of the Salem Building Commissioner as affected by this decision. 13. Office of the City Engineer The applicant, his successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer 14. Fire Department a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department as affected by this decision. b. Houses are to be sprinklered. Sprinkler systems are to be installed and tested in compliance with NFPA 13D (sprinkler systems for one and two-family dwellings). 15. Health Department All work shall comply with the general requirements of the Salem Health Department as • affected by this decision. 16. Board of Health All requirements of the Board of Health shall be strictly adhered to, including the following conditions set forth in its decision of January 12, 2010: 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) A copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. d) A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. • e) A radon remediation kit shall be installed and operational in each below grade dwelling unit. 5 • f) A radon test shall be conducted following installation and operation of the remediation kit. g) The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. h) 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. i) The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. j) The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. k) 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. I) The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. • m) 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. n) The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. o) 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. p) The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. q) The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. 17. Pre-Construction Conference Prior to the start of work on the approved subdivision, a pre-construction conference shall be scheduled with the City Planner, the City Engineer (or his designee), the Building • Commissioner, the Health Agent, and any other departments that may be necessary. The Owner shall submit a construction schedule at the time of the pre-construction conference. 6 • 18. Construction Practices All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: a. The operation of tools or equipment used in construction or demolition work shall occur in accordance with Salem Ordinance Section 22-2 (5): Construction and Blasting and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on weekdays and Saturdays. No work shall take place on Sundays or holidays. The Planning Board will agree to changes in the starting time, at the request of the applicant and if approved by a formal vote of the City Council, as per the ordinance. b. Any blasting, rock crushing, jack hammering, hydraulic blasting, or pile driving shall occur in accordance with Salem Ordinance Section 22-2 (5): Construction and Blasting and be limited to Monday-Friday between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. There shall be no blasting, rock crushing, jack hammering, hydraulic blasting, or pile driving on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. c. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. d. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on abutters. Advance notice shall be provided by the applicant to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to commencement of construction of the project. • e. All construction vehicles and equipment shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not leave dirt and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they exit the site. f. The applicant shall abide by any and all applicable rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Salem. g. All construction vehicles and equipment left overnight at the site must be located completely on the site. h. No Street shall be closed without prior approval of the Department of Planning and Community Development, unless deemed an emergency by the Salem Police Department. 19. Blasting The applicant or agent shall distribute the flyers titled, "Facts for Massachusetts Property Owners About Blasting" to all abutters within three hundred (300) feet of the blasting area. 20. Construction Traffic a. With the exception of off-site improvements required as part of this decision, all • construction will occur on site; no construction will occur or be staged within City right of ways. Any deviation from this shall be approved by the Department of Planning & Community Development prior to construction. 7 • b. A construction traffic management plan and schedule shall be submitted to the Department of Planning& Community Development for review and approval prior to the start of construction. c. Any roadways, driveways, or sidewalks damaged during construction shall be restored to their original condition by the Owner. d. The Owner shall clean construction vehicles before they exit the construction site, and clean and sweep all streets affected by their construction truck traffic as necessary. 21. Progress Reports Upon the request of the Planning Board, the owner shall submit reports of the progress of the subdivision's completion. 22. Clerk of the Works The services of a consultant to serve as 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. Inspection shall include, but not be limited to, examining the depth of over- blasting of ledge, installation of crushed stone and filter fabric, perforated drains, and • construction of swales. 23. Utilities Any utility installation for housing lots shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. All utilities shall be installed underground. 24. As-built Plans & Street Acceptance Plans As-built plans and Street Acceptance Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public Services prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the subdivision and/or the acceptance of any streets. The plan shall include, at a.minimum, the locations and elevations of all stormwater management conveyances, structures and best management designs. Additionally, the applicant shall submit a letter from a Registered Professional Civil Engineer certifying compliance of the property with the approved plans and accompanying conditions, prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the City's use and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the subdivision and/or the acceptance of any streets. • A completed tie card, a blank copy (available at the Engineering Department) and a certification signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed in substantial compliance with the design drawing must be submitted to the City 8 • Engineer prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the subdivision and/or the acceptance of any streets; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. 25. Violations Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is cured within fourteen (14) days, or waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. I certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on file with the Board. The decision 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 or is recorded on the Owners Certificate of Title if Registered Land. The owner or applicant, his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering. Charles M. Puleo Chair • • 9 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1011 A h '�n Form A— Decision Leggs Hill Road July 26, 2011 On July 21, 2011, the Salem Planning Board voted 7-0 (Charles Puleo, Tim Kavanagh, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Randy Clarke, Helen Sides, and Tim Ready in favor, none opposed) to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan: 1. Applicant: Nick Meninno, NSD Realty Trust 2. Location: A portion of the property located off of LEGGS HILL ROAD (Salem Assessor's Map 30, Lot 83, and Marblehead Assessor's Map 35, Lot 1A). • 3. Project Description: The applicant requests to subdivide a portion of the property located off of Leggs Hill Road, creating four new parcels with frontage on Leggs Hill Road, as shown on the plan titled "Plan.of Land, Marblehead/Salem, Massachusetts," prepared for NSD Realty Trust, and dated April 5, 2011. The Marblehead Planning Board endorsed the ANR plan on July 12, 2011. Sincerely, Charles M. Puleo Chair Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACF11JSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SAI.EM.COM 0 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD w2.16n. Decision Waiver from Frontage 66 Derby Street July 25, 2011 A Public Hearing on this petition was held on July 21, 2011 and closed on that date with the following Board Members present: Charles Puleo (Chair), Randy Clarke, Mark George, Helen Sides, Tim Kavanaugh, Nadine Hanscom, and Tim Ready. Attorney Mark Glovsky, on behalf of petitioners Jay Levy and Neal Levy, Trustees of the Derby Street Realty Trust (owner of 66 Derby Street) requests a waiver from frontage requirements from the Subdivision Regulations and under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81R, to allow the subdivision of 66 Derby Street into two lots, reducing the frontage of 66 Derby Street from • 87.25' to 41.77', and creating a new lot with 45.45', where 100 feet of frontage is required. The Waiver from Frontage is granted for the property located at 66 Derby Street, as shown on the plans titled, "Plan of Land, 66 Derby Street, Salem, Property of Jay Levy, Neal Levy" dated June 27, 2011, and prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation, Salem, MA. The Planning Board voted by a vote of seven (7) in favor (Puleo, Sides, Clarke, George, Ready, Kavanaugh, and Hanscom), and none (0) opposed to grant the waiver from frontage requirements for 66 Derby Street. ` The endorsement shall not take effect until a copy of the decisions bearing 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 that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The owner or applicant shall pay the fee for recording or registering. 1 hereby certify that a copy of this decision is on file with the City Clerk and that a copy of the Decision and plans is on file with the Planning Board. Charles M. Puleo, Chair 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TFL: 978 745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALFM.COM Ca v CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 201! SIL ?t, cl , Form A— Decision 66 Derby Street July 25, 2011 On July 21, 2011, the Salem Planning Board voted 7-0 (Charles Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Nadine Hanscom, and Helen Sides in favor, none opposed) to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan: 1. Applicant:pp Jay Levy e y and Neal Levy, Trustees of the Derby Street Realty Trust 2. Location: 66 Derby Street (Map 41, Lot 98) 3. Project Description: The applicant requests to subdivide 66 Derby Street into two lots, Lot 1 and Lot 2, as shown on the plan titled "Plan of Land, 66 Derby Street, Salem, Property of Jay Levy, Neal Levy" dated June 27, 2011, and prepared by North Shore • Survey Corporation, Salem, MA. A Waiver from Frontage was also granted by the Planning Board on July 21, 2011 for 66 Derby Street to allow Lot 1 to have 45.48' of frontage and Lot 2 to have 41.77' feet of frontage instead of the required 100. Sincerely, Charles M. Puleo Chair Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk s 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TFL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 4 WWW.SALFM.COM CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Notice of Decisions At a regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday, July 21, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem Massachusetts, the Planning Board voted on the following items: 1. Application of JAY LEVY AND NEAL LEVY, DERBY STREET REALTY TRUST, for a waiver from the frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the subdivision of the property located at 66 DERBY STREET (Map 41, Lot 98) into two (2) lots. Decision: Approved — Filed with the City Clerk on July 26, 2011 2. Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA (Assessors Map 3, Lots 74, 75, and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. Decision: Approved — Filed with the City Clerk on July 26, 2011 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 9 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. • SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 7/21/11 • A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,July 21, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,Nadine Hanscom,Mark George, Helen Sides, Randy Clarke, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent:John Moustakis, Vice Chair, and Christine Sullivan. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:01 pm. Approval of Minutes Revision to 6/2/11 approved minutes Danielle McKnight noted that the roll call vote the Board took should have been added to the minutes when going into Executive Session on 6/2. Helen Sides made a motion to approve the revisions, seconded by Tim Ready. All approved 7-0 6/16/11 Planning Board meeting minutes No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Mark George motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by Randy Clarke. Approved 7-0. Public hearing: Waiver from Frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow the property located at 66 DERBY STREET (Assessor's Map 41, Lot 98) to be subdivided into two lots. Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 6/29/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plan of Land, 66 Derby St., Salem,Property of Jay Levy,Neal Levy, dated June 27, 2011 ➢ Photographs of the property Mark Glovsky, 8 Washington Street,Beverly,MA representing the Trustees of 66 Derby Street RealtyTrust stated that the plan for the redevelopment of the property has been approved by the Zoning Board. The project will convert the property from a two unit building to a single family dwelling. The second lot will be razed and rebuilt to house a single family structure. Mr. Glovsky stated that they have adequate frontage on Derby Street, and further noted that there is no problem with vehicular access. Mr. Puleo asked if off street parking will be provided. Mr. Lovesky said yes. Randy Clarke said he goes by it every day and the improvement will be fantastic. Issue opened up to the public for wnmi 7i • No one was present from the public to comment on this issue. • Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the waiver from frontage requirements,Mark George seconded. All approved 7-0. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Form A. Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval to allow the property located at 66 DERBY STREET (Assessor's Map 41, Lot 98) to be subdivided into two lots. ➢ Application date-stamped 6/29/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Plan of Land, 66 Derby St., Salem, Property of Jay Levy,Neal Levy, dated June 27, 2011 ➢ Photographs of the property Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the plan, Helen Sides seconded. All approved 7-0. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Form A. Request for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval to allow a portion of property located off of LEGGS HILL ROAD(Salem Assessor's Map 30, Lot 83, and Marblehead Assessor's Map 35, Lot lA) to be subdivided, resulting in four new parcels with frontage on Leggs Hill Road. Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 7/13/11 ➢ Plan of Land,Marblehead/Salem,MA, dated 4/5/11 • Attorney Jim Moore, representing the builder,presented the petition. Mr. George asked who controls this when there are multiple cities involved. Mr. Puleo explained that both Salem and Marblehead zoning applies to the project, and has to adhere to both Salem and Marblehead frontage requirements. Mr. Clarke asked to whom the builder will pay taxes, to which Mr.Moore stated both cities. Mr. Puleo stated that the issues are if the frontage and square footage of the lot are adequate, to which Ms.McKnight stated that they do comply with those requirements. Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the plan, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh. All approved 7-0. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Continuation of public hearing: Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem,MA(Assessors Map 3, Lots 74, 75, and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. Documents &Exhibitions: ➢ Application date-stamped 4/28/11 and accompanying materials ➢ Peer Review letter from Bill Ross,New England Civil Engineering,dated 7120111 ➢ Definitive Subdivision, 405-427 Highland Ave., Salem MA, dated April 20,2011 • Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal Street, Salem, representing Paul Ferragamo, stated that this is the subdivision that has been seen many tunes before and the project has been delayed due to the • engineering on the site. They now have a letter from Mr. Ross that Ms.McKnight distributed to the Board. Mr. Puleo asked if this is finalized,to which Mr. Atkins said yes. Mr. George asked if this is mostly ledge,to which Mr. Scott Patrowicz,site engineer, stated that he was correct and described how these changes will improve the site's drainage. Mr. Atkins noted that this is a state road, and stated that the state wants the Board's decision prior to making their decision. Mr. Puleo asked for clarification on the area of concem. Mr. Patrowicz explained that this area was along Clarke Avenue and explained their storm drainage plans. He noted that they are going to replace a pipe,which is something the state will view as an improvement to the site. Mr. Puleo asked if they were satisfied with the grade and the leveling of the area. Mr. Patrowicz described the changes further. Nadine Hanscom asked about the location,to which it was explained that the location is before Wal-Mart. Mr. George asked what issues the state had initially. Mr. Atkins explained that it was the location of an intersection. Mr. Puleo asked about a specific item on the plans,to which Mr. Patrowicz stated it was a fire hydrant. Mr. Puleo asked if the Fire Department had seen these plans, and Ms. McKnight stated that they did see them, and the Chief did not have any concerns. Mr. Puleo asked about curbing on the plans and Mr. Patrowicz stated that they are waiting for direction form the state. Ms. Hanscom asked if all of the recommendations on page 4 of the letter from Bill Ross,Peer Reviewer, have been incorporated. Mr. Patrowicz went through each of the bullets and explained how they have been incorporated, including showing the drainage calculations to the Board. Mr. Atkins further stated that the recommendation on the homeowner's association was included in previous approvals. Mr. Puleo asked about winter-specific recommendations. Mr. Patrowicz explained that there are 4-foot sumps to help with that issue. Mr. Puleo asked if there was something recommended other than sand, to which both Mr. Atkins and Mr. Patrowicz stated no. Ms. McKnight noted that she misspoke,that there was a comment from the Fire Department to be • addressed in regards to sprinkler system testing requirements. Mr. Atkins stated that they will comply with whatever the codes are. Mr. Puleo asked about a neighbor in the back who had concerns. Mr. Atkins said the issues with the gate and fence had been resolved. Mr. Puleo asked if the whole back of the lots are fenced,and Mr. Patrowicz pointed out the fence on the lots, which is only on lot 20. Issue opened up to the public far wmrem No one from the audience commented on this issue. Nadine Hanscom made a motion to close the public hearing,seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 7-0. Ms. McKnight shared the draft decision with the Board. Mr. Puleo asked about the Clerk of the Works condition,to which Ms.McKnight explained the condition proposed requires more from a Clerk of the Works than is normally in the standard condition. Ms.McKnight read draft conditions to the Board. Scott Patrowicz noted that in Section 11,subsection d,the language should be changed from"3 foot minimum" to "2 foot minimum". Mr. Puleo noted that the City Engineer has to give his final endorsement after the Group's meeting with the state. Mr. Puleo asked how to address the requirement in section 11,subsection a. Mr. Atkins stated this issue has not been fully discussed. He thought that it was felt that it didn't have a huge impact on the system Ms. McKnight stated that she had a conversation with David Knowlton and they discussed coming up with a dollar.amount, which would be difficult to obtain if this wasn't going to be built for a few • years. Mr. Clarke stated that this was something that would have to go through the CityEngineer. Mr. Puleo asked about the section on the timeframe on page 3. Ms.McKnight stated that she had • taken that from previous standard conditions, and Mr. Puleo stated that the regulations had changed. Mr. Atkins stated that they would be fine with the two-year constrauit. Randy Clarke made a motion to approve the plan, seconded by Tim Ready. Approved 6-0. Nadine Hanscom abstained. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Continuation of public hearing: Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Assessors Map 34, Lots 126 & 127), Salem MA. The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site, construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps, and associated parking.Applicant requests to continue to September 15, 2011. George Atkins stated that they haven't completed the discussions with the neighbors, and the CEO of AL Prime is out of the country. They would like to present at the September 15`h meeting. Nadine Hanscom made a motion to accept the applicant's request to continue to September 15, 2011, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh. Approved 7-0. Old/New Business Adjournment Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 7-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:01 pm Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 9/29/11 For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes,copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at hno://salem.corn/Pages/SalemMA_P1anMin/. 0 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 2ull 7-17d r_ 42 Cil'r NOTICE OF MEETING Yat am hereby non al that the SalemPlamdrzg Baird w1l hdd its rEgilady sdraluled nFeting on Thurs day,July 7, 2011 at 7.00 pm at City Hall A max,Room 313, 120 WashiVen Street CL1141 n GX arla M. Puleq Clazir MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes 6/16/11 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Continuation of public hearing:Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem,MA(Assessors Map 3,Lots 74,75, and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. 3. Continuation of public hearing: Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS,INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Assessors Map 34,Lots 126 &127),Salem MA. The proposed • project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site,construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps, and associated parking. K. Old/New Business 5. Adjournment Know Your Rights Uhler the Open M"LawM.G L. c 39 523E and City Orchnanx Seam 2-2028 thrargb 2-2033. Iis notice posteo € it °yn�ciLi Gutic;z Ily Hall Salem, Mass. on Jqk Jrr -401 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 4 WWW.SALEM.COM vwfl�OyN�D}iTg9�' �t CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND KI61BF11H;y DRISCOLL . . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECCOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 4 FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: June 22,2011 RE: Agenda—July 7, 2011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ' • ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items Notes on Agenda Items: We will review the minutes from 6/16/11 at the next meeting. , I will be out of the office next week, and then again from July 6 until July 12, so Tom Devine is going to be filling in for me at this meeting. Continuation of public hearing:Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for-an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem,MA(Assessors Map 3, Lots 74,75,and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. The engineering peer review for this project is underway. It will not be ready in time for this meeting, so I expect Attorney Atkins to request to continue the hearing until July 21. Continuation of public hearing:Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Assessors Map 34, Lots 126& 127),Salem MA. The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site,construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps, and associated parking. I have asked the applicant to address how cars will circulate on the site and why they feel it would be advantageous to maintain the existing curb cut and allow cars to enter from multiple points along Lafayette . St. It remains a concern of the Planning Department that this creates a dangerous pedestrian environment. However,if cars cannot access the site freely and continue to queue on Lafayette St. as a result of shortening the curb cut,this is another safety concern that needs to be considered. 1 I do not expect to receive revised plans for this project,but Attorney Atkins has indicated he will be addressing abutter concerns at this meeting,including options for screening,relocation of mechanical equipment,etc.. \At the site visit,it was brought up that sidewalk improvements might fall under state jurisdiction. However, At Street is under municipal control, and so the applicant could be asked to make improvements. Lt. Griffin responded that Fire Prevention has no concerns about the application. I have not yet received comments from Engineering,but I have asked Tom to pass along comments to the Board if we receive any. The 35-day review period for the departments will have passed by July 7,so if the Board is ready to vote on this petition,you may do so. Update on NRCC traffic study We will not be holding a public meeting for the NRCC traffic study at the July 2P Planning Board meeting. Given that we anticipate that plans will be filed for a public hearing in September or October,it makes sense to have our traffic engineer work with the proposed development plan for the site. 2 Please Sign-In Salem Planning Board Meeting July 7, 2011 Name ( Mailing Address Phone Email n, Cfl L.e I 17 3 Da�r1 e,.1. c)-i - vcP� -yq�s I £ l2 903A, 0 ASVC- ci?b- - 6 ' - �M- / a 6 - -1 U-Q- C, cc"C114,v SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 7/7/11 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,July 7,2011 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo,Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Helen Sides,Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready,and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present:Tom Devine, Conservation Agent/Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk Absent:Nadine Hanscom Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:02 pm Approval of Minutes 6/16/11 Planning Board meeting minutes The minutes from the 6/16/11 meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting. Continuation of public hearing:Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem,MA(Assessors Map 3,Lots 74, 75, and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal Street,Salem,representing Paul Ferragamo,stated that the engineering of the site was subject to peer review and they had a meeting last week with the peer reviewer. They are planning on another meeting and expect to have final comments to be presented at the next meeting. • Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to the July 2 Pt meeting,seconded by Mark George. Approved 8-0. Continuation of public hearing: Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS,INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Assessors Map 34, Lots 126 & 127), Salem MA. The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site, construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps,and associated parking. Attachments &Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped May 26,2011 and accompanying materials • "Site Improvement Plan" dated 7/5/11,prepared by Ayoub Engineering • "Site Details," dated 7/6/11,prepared by Ayoub Engineering • Photographs submitted by applicant at meeting • Letter from Taylor Blake, 185 Lafayette St. Unit 4,dated July 7,2011 and accompanying photographs Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal Street,Salem,representing AL Prime,began with a quick summary of the project,which consists of two lots.The lots are currently occupied by a convenience store,office,gas station and garage. The owner has entered into an agreement to purchase 183 Lafayette Street conditioned upon approval of this plan. The agreement does not include the beer and liquor license, and the owner of AL Prime does not have any interest in buying that license. The major change on this project is going from four businesses to two,which will be a gas station and a convenience store. The reconfigured site will remove queuing from Lafayette St. He noted that the Zoning Board requested three gas islands rather than the four they originally designed. The convenience store will not be a restaurant;it will be a convenience store that • sells food products. Construction will allow for replacement of the aging underground tanks,which will also reduce the number of deliveries per week from ten or eleven per week to four or five per week He noted that there are additional approvals needed to expand the number of gallons of gas the tanks hold. They will • add a canopythat will include fire suppression equipment. Theyplan to talk about changes made to the plans brought about due to the site visit with the Planning Board in June. The building inspector recommended temporary storage for snow that would not become permanent. Mr.Atkins had agreed to meet with the neighbors;however they could not meet prior to this meeting. He did get to meet with another abutter to resolve some issues. Changes to the plan include a new fence and installation of mature trees along the fence, with the hopes that it would be part of the conditions if this is approved. Mr.Puleo asked to clarify which property belongs to Mr.Ramsey,an abutter, and Mr.Atkins pointed it out on the plans. Mr. Atkins continued his presentation,stating that they also discussed moving the HVAC unit to the roof and screening it,which Mr. Guba will explain further. Because they were unable to meet with the south side abutters prior to this meeting,they created a five foot strip along the side of the building to plant mature arborvitae. Additionally,they want to address the issue with the dumpster where they will create screening around the dumpster that is higher and wider than what is normally used. One of the other concerns is about the entrance,which they have reduced. They also recommended creating another area for the crosswalk There was another concern about entry from Palmer Street,which was enlarged by five feet, which Mr. Guba will present in further detail. Mr.Puleo asked to clarify the zoning,to which Mr.Atkins explained that these two parcels are designated B- 1. Anthony Guba, 5 Riverbend Circle,Exeter,NH,site engineer,shared the new design with the Board. He began by describing the new fence material. They have added some detail for the fence on the south side around the dumpster. He shared photos of samples of what it maylook like with the Board and described the fence for the HVAC equipment on the roof,which will be 8 feet tall. Mr.Puleo asked Mr. Guba to • clarify further,to which he explained the location of the fence around the dumpster. Mr.Puleo asked Tom Devine, Conservation Agent/ Staff Planner,to check the entrance corridor requirements,to which Mr. Devine stated that there is a 4 foot height maximum. Mr.Atkins stated that the entrance corridor requirement is 4 feet on the front and side lot lines. Helen Sides asked about how the building will look and if the fence around the HVAC unit can be of a material that looks less like a fence in order to avoid drawing attention to the screening. She recommended against the white vinyl fence,stating that it won't weather well and they are not kept clean. Tim Ready stated that he hoped that these issues would be resolved before coming to this meeting. Mark George asked for clarification on the location of the fence,which Mr. Atkins described on the plans. Mr. Guba continued his presentation in regards to the delivery trucks and parking. He stated that they are expecting that most of the cars will be able to get off of Lafayette Street wh le they are either waiting for a dispenser or if they are pumping gas. lie reiterated that the whole project started in order to get the traffic off of the street and one waythey are doing this is by reducing the entrance size. Mr.George asked the pump count,to which they explained they are going from four to six. Christine Sullivan asked how a car will exit the station,to which Mr. Guba drew out the scenario on the plans. She asked about how this will improve exiting from Palmer Street onto Lafayette Street. Mr. Guba explained that they will push the exit back to make it easier to exit onto Palmer Street. Mr.Atkins stated that one of the other changes on the Palmer Street side is to reduce the exits from two to one,which may allow for another parking space. Mr.Puleo asked Mr. Atkins if they will go before the City Council to make a no parking zone from in front of the exit to the comer of Palmer Street. Mr. Atkins said this is something the Planning Department may want to request of the Council.Devine said he would investigate. Mr. George stated that moving the sidewalk may also improve the pedestrian access. • Issue opemi up to the pubic for onn za • David Ramsey, 58 Gregory Island Road,Hamilton,MA,is an abutter who thanks the Board for requesting that the folks at AL Prime meet with him He stated that there are tremendous safety concerns about the site. He thinks that AL Prime should hire a police detail. He feels that if the driveway is moved then people may park on the comer which will cause chaos. His wife works in the state prison system and they know what walls do to people. This project will devalue his property by creating these higher walls and a canopy. This property has been a junkyard for many years and has been an eyesore. The reason he agreed to the arborvitae on his proeprty is because he doesn't trust that AL Prime will take care of them, and at least he can water the trees. He stated that there needs to be a sound barrier. He wants to see the property improved,but not this way. Linda Moss, 185 Lafayette Street,Salem,wants to clarifythat the tentative plans to meet were made based on the new tenant,and once they were able to get in touch with the new owner,then they tried to change the meeting. She is not happy about having a beautiful tree cut down to be replaced by a dumpster. She is not sure how the height of the fence will impact the project and their building. Mr. George stated that when the building that is closest to them comes down,they will get some arborvitae,and asked if this alleviates her concerns. Ms.Moss stated that her concern is about if how construction will impact her building. She stated that she would prefer to let the neighbors on that side of the building comment. Mr.Puleo asked how they would install new tanks. Mr. Guba stated that they haven't worked out the geo- technical specifications yet,but they are not expecting ledge. Mr.Atkins also stated that they are going to have to do extensive surveying of the surrounding are prior to this. Ms.Sullivan asked Mr. Atkins to further explain the surveying requirements. Mr.Atkins explained that the insurer will have to survey the area in order to be prepared for future claims. Taylor Blake, 185 Lafayette Street,Salem,MA,shared some point of view photos from her condominium • with the Board. Some of her biggest concerns are that from her bedroom she is going to see a dumpster and vents. Currentlythere is a large tree shading her bedroom,and she would like that to remain. She would like the vents to be moved. Mr.Puleo asked how far away the vents can be moved. Mr. Guba agreed to evaluate the possibility of relocating the vents. Mr.Puleo asked to clarifythe number of vents. Mr. Guba said there is one for gas and one for diesel. Mr.Puleo stated that they looked at the site and they were concerned about the tree and he asked if the tree could stay. Mr. Guba stated that they would have to reconfigure the whole project to keep the tree. Mr.Puleo asked what type of dumpster will be used, Mr. Cuba described the type of dumpster typically used. Mr. Clarke asked Ms.Blake if there was any space on her land to move the tree. She said there is a little bit of land. Ms. Sides recommended that the abutter and the proponent get together to work this out. Chris Bresnahan,6 Leblanc Drive,Peabody,father of Taylor Blake,stated that when he looked at the plans that there is a convenience store and a restaurant with seating. He wants to clarify that there are three uses, not two uses as claimed. The Chapter 148 license does not cover flammable storage at 183 Lafayette Street. They are saying it will be 20,000 gallons, and in reality it is 40,000 gallons. He stated that the diesel fuel vent displaces fumes to the two bedrooms of the abutters. Mr.Puleo asked about vapor recovery on the diesel tank,to which Mr. Guba described the venting process specifically for diesel. Mr.Puleo asked how many gallons of diesel are proposed,to which Mr. Guba stated 4000 - 6000 gallons. Mr.Bresnahan continued stating that they don't have a license to store this. He also stated that this design is not in character with the rest of the neighborhood and ask that they reconsider the design of the project. He also is concerned about the dumpster containing food waste bringing vermin to the property,which is fairly close to the residential property. He thinks that there must be some other location for this. He feels that the traffic design will not support the amount of traffic that will be utilizing the site. The truck turning lane seems to be inadequate and asks the group to look at that again. The onsite parking seems to be inadequate and recommended the site • plan change to have fewer uses or fewer pumps. • Ms.Sullivan asked if the current convenience store sells food,and Mr.Atkins stated that he did not know. She asked to clarify if the dumpster will have a top,to which Mr. Atkins stated that there is a top to the dumpster, but the screening consists of fencing only along the sides. Mr. Clarke stated that since there will not be a liquor license then there will be less traffic and less people drinking in the immediate area, and that this is a significant improvement. Polly Wilbert,7 Cedar Street,Salem,stated that to the best of her knowledge there has never been a dumpster on that site in the 30 years she has lived there. She asked if they have to have a dumpster or can they have a trash room instead. She pointed out that on the other side of the street the property rises so she is concerned about what the roof will look like. She is also concerned about the noise and the buffer. She noted the screening on top of the Public Safety Building at Salem State,and encouraged them to be sympathetic to people across the street. Mr.Puleo asked what the size of the HVAC unit is needed. Mr. Guba stated that it should be about five tons,which is about 30 -36 inches tall. He said they are not bigger than most residential air conditioning units. Ms. Sides recommended that they make it as low profile as possible. Mr. Atkins stated that they will change the fencing and the colors. Mr.Puleo asked if they could look at doing something smaller than a dumpster. Ms.Sides encourages an alternative to the dumpster.Mr.Atkins stated that they would review the dumpster issue. Candice Harewood, 185 Lafayette Street,Salem,stated that currentlythe back of the lot is three garages and a parking spot. She asked if they are still thinking of going to 24 hour operation;does that include the convenience store or just the gas station. Mr. Atkins stated that it will be just the gas station that will be open 24 hours. She also asked about the light,to which Mr.Atkins and Mr. Guba described the lighting plan. David Ramsey asked where the vents may be moved. Mr. Guba that it may be possible to move them slightly • further from the abutting residential property. Mr. Ready clarified that it would be pre-prepared food,not a call-in pizzeria,which Mr. Atkins confirmed. And Mr.Atkins further explained that there will be no table or chairs in the convenience store. Ms.Moss stated that she is concerned that there will be food. Ms. Harewood stated that she is concerned that the time expected to be spent in the gas station will be longer than expected and cause people to double park and block them in. She is concerned about noise pollution and that the changes proposed will cause more problems. She asked about the times when gas deliveries will be made. Mr.Atkins said that this has to be worked out. Mr.Puleo reminded the applicant that this has to be done in accordance with city ordinances. Ms.Wilbert stated that deliveries occur throughout the night. Mr.Atkins stated that his client's contention is that this won't increase business;it will just get people off the street. Mr.Bresnahan stated that there is a significant buffer in front of where the deliveries are taking place currently,and when the site changes,the buffer will be gone. Mr.Puleo asked Mr.Atkins to speak with his client about clarifying the delivery schedule. Ms.Blake stated that it looks like the tanks could be shifted over away from their property. Mr. Guba stated that they have a limited track turning radius and the pump is on the driver's side. They can move the tanks slightly, but it can't be anything major. • Bonnie Arcata, 185 Lafayette Street,asked d it is a loud process during the gas delivery,because she doesn't want to be woken up at 3am. Mr. Guba described the process. Ms.Arrata explained that she is abutting more than anybody. Mr. George stated that there will be better traffic flow,fencing,greenery,and a lot of i A positive things,and wants to be clear that this will be an enhancement. Mr. Atkins stated that before the next Planning Board meeting,Mr.Atkins will meet with the neighbors. Ms. Harewood noted that they all signed a piece of paper at the last meeting with their contact'info and the applicant has not reached out to them Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to the July 21st meeting,seconded by Helen Sides.Approved 8-0. Old/New Business Adjournment Helen Sides made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Christine Sullivan. All approved 8-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:47 pm Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 9/29/11 • c CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF SITE VISIT The Salem Planning Board will hold a site visit on Tuesday, June 21 at 6:30 PM at 175 and 183 Lafayette Street, site of a proposed new gas station. The applicant is A.L. Prime Energy, Inc. Charles M. Puleo, Chair • Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Luw M.G.L c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 tbmugh 2-2033. CD f,- .J lotlee posted This ted on -official Butle n 13 ard" ... co malty Hall seism, Mass. on Crd//� i At to '►�Ai��L �p 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING Ym ane 44iy ixrifierl dnt dw Salem Plaaanng Bund 411 1x41 its rug I nl sLbitbilal nrt-tirg rat Thursday,juste 16, 2011 at 7:00 pars at City Hall Anixx, Razn313, 170 1asbutgaat Stnet CYxnd M. Pada, Clxair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes i 5/31/11 Planning Board/City Council Joint hearing nninutes 6/2/11 Planning Boani meeting minutes 2. Continuation of public hearing: Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem, MA(Assessors Map 3,Lots 74,75, and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. 3. Public hearing:Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the property located at 175- 183 LAFAYETTE ST (Assessors Map 34, Lots 126 & 137),Salem MA. The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site,construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps, and associated parking. K. Old/New Business S. Adjournment hixnu}un Rgti5ts U�xler d e Qvn A1et7iiN Lawdl.G.L. c .39§218 anti City Onkirnee Sonic 2.2018 tlmxtgii 2-2033. �i notice posted 0i, est:,: S trot l 3 8�f J^1)Qt�, I�a�i7ri�i, i .'r'vr SACH n `(tY 33'�tCCG:r�'l�ui 120 VVr�In.vr ,,s Sr!+eei, S�i.r:si, 61s:;;,�,rlii_,r.rt; 019;0 0Tra. 078.715.()5')5 F,t.x: 1)718.7 1() 1()zj • wtcts <si_e,�i ruse goNOITg4 3R° CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD DIRECIoR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: June 7,2011 RE: Agenda—June 16,2011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda • ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from 5/31/11 and 6/2/11 Notes on Agenda Items: Continuation of public hearing:Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem, MA(Assessors Map 3, Lots 74, 75, and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. Prior to the last meeting, City Engineer David Knowlton requested that the applicant submit detailed engineering plans and drainage calculations for review. I am enclosing a copy of this request in your packet. I expect to receive the information from the applicant on June 13, so I do not expect to be able to pass along hard copies to you prior to the meeting. Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering,who will be completing the peer review,has confirmed that if plans are submitted Monday, there will not be sufficient time for him to review the information and provide feedback for the Board before Thursday's meeting. Public hearing:Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC for the property located at 175-183 LAFAYETTE ST (Assessors Map 34, Lots 126& 127),Salem MA.The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site, construction of a convenience store and canopy over three (3) gasoline pumps, and associated parking. The project's site plans and a traffic study are included in your packet. • This project received a Special Permit to extend a nonconforming use from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA also granted the applicant Variances under Section 3.3.4 to increase nonconformity,dimensional Variances under Section 4.0, and Variances from front,side and rear setbacks,driveway width,parking requirements (10 spaces are proposed where 23 are required), and screening requirements. In addition to the 1 Site Plan Review regulations (Section 9.5 of the zoning), the applicant must comply with Section 6.3,special regulations for Motor Vehicle Light Service Stations. I am enclosing a copy of this section for your review. • As you can see on the plans, some landscaping is shown (both existing and new) along the north, east, and south borders of the property, but this is different from the "solid wall or compact evergreen screening five feet high" that Section 6.3 requires,which is why the applicant requested relief from this requirement from the ZBA. While relief from the ZBA is necessary to construct the project as proposed, the landscaping, parking and other aspects of the site plan are still subject to review by the Planning Board. The application does not include an environmental impact statement,which the Board may require if you determine it's necessary. However,it is not a required component of a Site Plan Review application. Many of the items that normally go into an environmental impact statement do not apply to this project (such as linear measurements of new roadways), but the Board could simply request that the applicant address relevant environmental issues,such as the one noted by Conservation (below). The application has been routed to Building, Engineering, Health,Conservation and Fire Prevention. The Building Commissioner commented that the project has been before the ZBA for the proper relief. Tom Devine,our Conservation Agent, commented that the project is outside Conservation Commission jurisdiction,but he recommended that the applicant take steps to ensure that no gasoline or other pollutants enter the storm sewer system, and noted that catch basins located around this site drain into Collins Cove. I have not yet received comments from Engineering,Health or Fire Prevention. However, the Health Agent, Larry Ramdin,indicated that the Board of Health would be inviting the applicant in to review this project. Because the Board of Health will likely be sending us a decision letter with conditions,and because the 35-day comment period for the other departments has not yet passed, I would not expect that the Board would be voting on this project on 6/16. • • 2 • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Pla.fLn.( k Px) Date c Name Mailing Address Phone # Email cm— G9�t��� 9 ?&- `f -z L cam Page of SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 6/16/11 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,June 16, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair, Mark George, Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clarke, Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk.Absent: Helen Sides. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:13 pm. Approval of Minutes 5/31/11 Planning Board/City Council Joint hearing minutes No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Mark George motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by John Moustakis. Approved 5-0. Randy Clarke and Nadine Hanscom abstained. Christine Sullivan was not present for the minutes review. 6/2/11 Planning Board meeting minutes No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Tim Ready motioned to accept the minutes, seconded by John Moustakis. Approved 5-0. Randy Clarke and Nadine Hanscom abstained. Christine Sullivan was not present for the minutes review. • Continuation of public hearing:Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem, MA(Assessors Map 3, Lots 74,75, and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. George Atkins,59 Federal Street, representing Paul Ferragamo stated that the City Engineer requested that the group re-do the drainage calculations. Mr.Atkins was informed by Scott Petrowicz that these will be ready next week and they would like to present the new plans at the next meeting. Nadine Hanscom made a motion to continue to the July 7`h meeting,seconded by Mark George. Approved 6-0. Christine Sullivan &Tim Kavanaugh not present for vote. Public hearing:Application of AL PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANTS,INC for the property located at 175- 183 LAFAYETTE ST(Assessors Map 34, Lots 126&127),Salem MA.The proposed project includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the site,construction of a convenience store and canopy over three(3)gasoline pumps,and associated parking. Attachments& Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped May 26, 2011 and accompanying materials • "Site Improvement Plan" last dated 5/24/11, prepared by Ayoub Engineering • • Traffic Impact Assessment, dated May 2011 1 George Atkins, 59 Federal Street, Salem, representing AL Prime, stated that he had a previous discussion with Councilor O'Keefe about the queue to get into the gas station and based on that discussion,the • owner would like to redesign the site. The owner is in the process of purchasing the convenience store next door,which will improve the site, and Mr. Atkins believes that they have developed a plan to reduce the issues with the site. Nadine Hanscom asked which parcels were bought. Mr.Atkins stated that it is the insurance office and the convenience store; he then described the site explaining that the group met with the Zoning Board of Appeals with a design that included four pumping stations. He stated that the Zoning Board recommended and approved a plan with one less pumping island, which meant that the applicant would re-locate the gas tanks. Mr. Atkins stated that the new design will reduce the number of deliveries, which are currently 10 a week, and by changing the location of the convenience store this will allow the gas truck to be completely off the street. Also, in terms of safety, the new design would allow a canopy to be built,which will include safety sprinklers. He did meet with a neighborhood group, and discussed their concerns about losing parking on Palmer Street; he showed that the new design would not decrease parking. Mr. Atkins further explained that another issue raised by the Zoning Board is in regards to the entryway being widened. The building inspector raised concerns about snow storage, specifically the temporary storage prior to removal. He described where that location would be on the plan, and the building inspector was satisfied. The other issue was in terms of landscaping to which they have added some landscaping to shield the residential neighbors on both Lafayette and Palmer Streets. Mr. Atkins stated that the current hours of operation are Monday through Saturday from 6 am—10 pm and Sunday from 8 am—8 pm and they may be applying for 24 hour operation. The convenience store will shut down for certain hours and there will be a window arrangement for cigarettes. Their experience has been that a 24-hour operation protects from theft,and security cameras will also add • safety to the site. Overall they think this is a substantial improvement to the current site. They need to get the new signage approved by another committee,as they want to show the pricing for this station, which is something customers like. Mr. Atkins explained that this will become a self-serve station as compared to what it is now, even though they are not expecting this will create a major increase in customers. The final issue is the location of the crosswalk—he described the location of this and the bus shelter. They feel that the crosswalk should be moved to a location closer to the bus shelter and they will support what ever determinations the state makes. John Moustakis asked to clarify the plan design, specifically if they will actually have a sit-down pizza place there, to which Mr. Atkins said no. He also asked about clarifying the parking plans to which Mr. Atkins explained that they are only required to have 10 spaces. Mark George asked about the discussions with the neighbors, in particular the location of the curb cut. Mr. Atkins said that they would close the exit to allow more parking. Mr.Atkins stated that there were other things that he should address: 1.there will be no idling of gas trucks and 2. this is a heavily policed area, and there will not be young people gathering here; and 3.the time frame of the demolition which is approximately 3-4 months. Nadine Hanscom asked for clarification on how the curb cut changes will affect traffic within the gas station. Mr. Atkins said that other members of the group will explain that in their presentations, but noted that it is a crowded gas station,which is similar to others in town. Ms. Hanscom addressed potential congestion issues with people exiting cars due to the proposed change to a self-service gas • 2 station. Mr. Atkins stated that he disagrees with her assessment of how long it would take to fill up with • gas with full serve versus self-serve. Randy Clarke states that he disagrees with Ms. Hanscom and that he sees this as an improvement. He stated that the exit onto Palmer Street is too close to the intersection, to which the curb cut changes address. Christine Sullivan asked for clarification on the sizes and types of the tanks. Mr.Atkins described the changes and stated that Tony Guba will address this in his presentation. Tony Guba, Myers Engineering, 414 Benefit Street, Pawtucket Rl,further explained the proposed changes to the site. He described the changes to the gas dispensers,and other improvements to the site, which they believe will be able to pull all of the queuing from the street onto the site. He added that the gas deliveries should not obstruct traffic and grading should remain flat. One thing that they do plan to change is infiltration on the site by using Cultec chambers to reduce the stormwater runoff to about a third of the current rate,which will also recharge the current groundwater. The remaining runoff will run out to the catch basins as it does now. The new store will have a grease track for the grey water. He noted that the plans include bringing in new gas service for air conditioning, heating and cooking on site; electrical service will be slightly enlarged than what is there now. Additionally,there will be anew water service as well. Mr. Guba stated that they will try to preserve landscaping in the back as well as foundation plantings for screening to break up any light from the property. He noted that there will be one light pole on the site. In terms of the gas tanks,they are adding double-walled tanks in addition to active monitors to both walls,which are not part of the State requirements. They • also have sumps that contain monitors as well, and all of these are monitored using top of the line equipment 24 hours, 7 days a week. He reviewed the fire suppression plan which is required for any gas station going to self-service and explained that it is certified for high winds (over 10 miles per hour) as well. He also described a truck turning plan, but did not do one for the cars because there is plenty of room for the cars,which is over 30 feet. The truck turning plan shows the worst case scenario, and noted that backing movement is not allowed,which is the most difficult maneuver. He also reviewed a photometric lighting plan with one primary light, and some safety lights around the site, noting that nothing is higher than a 90 degree angle. He further stated that the lights will be 100 watts which will be LED and 25%of normal usage. He explained that the goal is to create a light to make the site safe. Mr. Guba then presented a floor plan of the store, and noted that there will be some preparation of food but no seating,which is typical of these types of stores. Mr. Clarke asked about the trash bin on the side as well as for a description of the fence. Mr. Guba stated that they are proposing a 6 foot vinyl fence,to which Mr. Clarke asked what kinds of views will people have into the trash. Mr. Guba explained that they designed it to have room to the get the truck through. Mr.Clarke said that he sees concerns with this because there has to be more screening provided. His other question is about the height of the air conditioning unit in the back and how this affects the view for the neighbors in the back. Mr. Guba stated that there is no current proposal for screening. Ms. Sullivan asked about lighting, specifically in relation to the safety of this site with only lighting on three sides, which does not include the front of the store. Nasser Buisier, 357 Commercial Street, Boston, is the owner of AL Prime and stated that the lights would be on even when the store is closed. • Mr. Atkins said they can add light. Mr. Buisier added that they like the places well-lit. 3 Ms. Hanscom asked if someone doesn't have a credit card, how far do they have to walk to pay. Mr. Guba stated that is about 40 feet. • Ms. Hanscom asked about the landscaping. Mr. Guba stated that this is moderately high plantings. Ms. Hanscom asked where the runoff will be going. Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, stated that the existing runoff goes into Palmer Cove. Mr. Atkins stated that they are reducing the amount of runoff and they are also reducing the number of deliveries which will then reduce potential spills while increasing safety. Mark George asked about the proximity lighting around the dumpster to the garages and if it is close to what is beyond houses. He stated that he is concerned about the proximity to immediate abutters. Mr. Guba explained that the lights reflect straight down. Mr. George asked if a hood can be added to it. Mr. Guba said that they have done this before and they can do it on this site. Mr. Guba stressed that the LED fixtures focus the light and are much more efficient for that reason,which will reduce the annoyance to neighbors. He also supported the recommendation of fencing the HVAC system on the roof to hide them from neighbors. Ms. McKnight stated that this is a standard requirement. Mr. Puleo pointed out another site where this was done. Ms. McKnight said that this can be made a condition. Mr. Guba clarified that the size of the HVAC system would be about an apartment refrigerator. Mr. George said that it's not just a visual issue, it's also sound. Mr. Clarke asked if the site becoming operational 24 hours a day is an issue for the Planning Board or the City Council. Ms. McKnight responded that City Council approval is needed and Mr. Puleo said that members of the Planning Board could go to the public hearing to offer recommendations. Mr. Moustakis asked about 11 doors for the refrigerators on the site plan. Mr. Guba explained that due • to the variety of drinks,this is the minimum. Ms. Hanscom asked if neighbors would hear the noise where they don't hear any now. Mr. Guba stated that the air conditioning will be on at all times which will be the same as what's there now, but new with noise suppression. Ms. Sullivan states that she is concerned about protecting the residential neighborhood but is sympathetic to improving the area. Mr. Puleo asked if they are going to have more than one car at a time at the pumps. Mr. Guba stated that they would only allow to have 6 cars pumping at a time. He also explained that where more people are going to higher efficiency cars, they are going to have one pump that is designated for diesel which will be located closest to the tanks. Mr. Puleo asked if that would be clearly marked. Mr. Guba described the dispenser design. Mr. Puleo asked what is the average amount of time someone takes to fill up their gas tank and leave. Mr. Guba stated that on average it is 4 minutes,give or take depending upon if they are paying with credit cards or cash. Mr. Puleo asked if the hoses are long enough to reach around the vehicle. Mr. Guba stated that unless they were in an SUV,they can get the hose around the car. Mr. Puleo asked how this design will affect traffic facing Lafayette. Mr. Guba described the traffic designs and potential impacts onto traffic on Lafayette. • 4 Mr. George asked if people can still come in to get gas if a truck is in there,to which Mr. Guba • responded in the affirmative. He stated that trucks will not be making deliveries during high traffic periods. Mr. Ready asked Mr.Atkins to work out the landscaping issues with the neighbors before coming to the Board. Mr. Atkins said they had met with one of the neighborhood groups, though none of those people are here. He additionally stated that they are taking diligent notes of the comments and they will look at the comments and come back to discuss. Jack Gillon, 305 Old Farm Road, Norwood,described the traffic study and stated that he learned that this site is generating more traffic than what was expected. He further stated that they don't believe that the new design will create more trips, noting that each trip was about 3 minutes and 25 seconds with one attendant,which is less than the time estimated if the station becomes self-serve. The longest queue that they studied saw eight vehicles onto Lafayette, and based on what he is looking at,the additional fueling stations are needed. He stated that changing the curb cut can help the traffic flow out of Palmer Street. Mr. Atkins presented the owner of the AL Prime, Nasser Buisier, to the Board to describe the company. Mr. Buisier stated that they try to develop 3—4 sites per year and his architects were looking at how to improve this site. He stated that most of the self-serve convenience stores are managed by people who have college degrees and MBAs, and within 5 years they can become franchisee owners,which has been shown to minimize complaints. He stated that they are a profitable company so they are not looking to cut corners and they are a local independent company. He said they have trucking as part of their • business and described their training on containing spills. He thinks this would be a great site to be redeveloped. Mr. George asked if the traffic study looked at how filling up and going in the store affects traffic. Mr. Gillon stated that he did not look at that specifically, but he is confident in the traffic study that he did, and it will not have a significant backup. Mr. Buisier stated that the 3.5 minutes included the amount of time to get out of the car. Issue opened up to the public for comment David Ramsey, 58 Gregory Island Road, Hamilton, bought 12 Palmer Street ten years ago, right behind the gas station. The one virtue about the property is that at the second floor you can see over the junkyard neighbor. Now the proposal is to put up a building where no one can see over the building. He stressed that this is a tough corner and the neighbors have never cleaned up the area. He feels that this is going to devalue his property. He has been trying to put up a fence for years to block all of the junk cars. He asked the board not to reduce this corner to another super-profit business. Candice Harewood, 185 Lafayette Street, Salem, stated that she is a direct abutter and never received a notice about this. Ms. Hayward said that her issue is with the tanks and asked how far down are the tanks going since they are next to her foundation. She stated that she also has an issue as to when the trucks will be there. She understands that they want to beautify the neighborhood, but the light will come into their property. She is concerned about where the snow removal will be placed as it could damage the fence that borders her property. Mr.George states that their lot line does not go to the • dumpster, which is beyond their rear lot line. Mr. Puleo asked about the size of the building, and about 5 the convenience store level of activity. Ms. Harewood stated that this is the issue that she is concerned about, particularly with the noise. Mr.Clarke stated that their job is to mitigate issues. • Bonnie Arrata, 185 Lafayette Street, asked how far away from the property line is the gas tanks. Mr. Guba stated that it's about 10 feet. John Moustakis requested a site visit, and the Board agreed to schedule one for June 21 at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Hanscom asked about the variance and Mr. Atkins described the relief the ZBA granted. Mr.Atkins stated that they met with the Point Neighborhood Association and he stated that they will make all efforts to speak with the neighbors present tonight to take their concerns into account. Tim Ready made a motion to continue the public hearing to July 7`"with the understanding that the developer will make efforts to meet with neighbors and make a site visit, seconded by Randy Clarke. Approved 8-0. Old/New Business Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, explained that Lynn Duncan sent out an email on behalf of the Mayor looking for Planning Board Members to participate in the update of the City's urban renewal plan. The meeting is scheduled for 8:30 am on June 30. Mr.George asked if that is an update to the previous plan. Ms. McKnight said yes. Ms. McKnight stated that the North River Corridor transportation study is being undertaken to guide • future projects. The Planning Department met with consultants and would like to set up public meetings, preferably during Planning Board meetings. Adjournment Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mark George. All approved 8-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:44 pm. Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 7/21/11 • 6 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD - NOTICE OF MEETING You me hereby rotifrcrl that the Salem Pla=T Band will hdd its mydady sdaxlydal nwn on Thunday,June 2, 2011 at 7:00 Pm at City HJAwzx,ROOM31^3,'12�0 WashingtonStnet CJWA3 M. Ptdeq Uuir MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes 5/19/11 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Executive Session-discussion of litigation of the following item: Dzierzek et al. v. Salem Lafayette Development LLC et al. Essex County Superior Court Docket No.2006-01881. 3. Discussion and vote: Recommendation to GtyCouncil regarding a proposed amendment to the Gtyof Salem Zoning Ordinance to rezone the propertylocated at 111 Hrghland Avenue (Assessor Map 14,Lot 199) from R 1 Residential One Family to B-4 Wholesale&Automotive Zoning District. • 4. Old/New Business 5. Adjournment Know YcaaRigtm Under the Open Meeting LawM.GL. c 39§23B aryl City Otrl nx Strtiaa 2-2028 d)7uo 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall Salem, Mass. on at 3: 41 38 Ot 1VI.a.PhI 29A 823with Seo 30 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSE'm 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SAI,EM.COM �coNo►T,t �s ?" CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • C rt �. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND �9��?Ml1VRl�• KimisiaRi.t.:YDRISCOLL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR LYNN GooNIN DUNCAN,AICD 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 DiRP.CtOR TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: May 25,2011 RE: Agenda—May 31,2011 Joint Hearing Please find the following in your packet: D Planner's Memo • ➢ Legal Notice ➢ Proposed Ordinance ➢ Materials for rezoning petition I have enclosed a petition to rezone the property at 111 Highland Avenue from R-1 (Residential One Family) to B-4 (Wholesale and Automotive),submitted by Dennis Cataldo of Cataldo Ambulance. As his cover letter states,Mr. Cataldo wishes to establish an ambulance station on the property. He has also submitted an elevation drawing and preliminary site plan for the property's proposed redevelopment. The legal notice for this rezoning petition is also enclosed. While not required by statute, the Planning Department has also sent a courtesy notice to abutters within 300 feet of 111 Highland Avenue. Zoning requirement The proposed use is considered by Tom St.Pierre (Building Commissioner) to fit under either General Services or Motor Vehicle Light Service. Neither is allowed in the R-1 zone,but would be allowed by right in B-4. B-4 has a required lot area of 6,000 square feet;this property is 8,808. Required frontage is 60 feet; the property has approximately 105 feet of frontage on Willson Rd. and 83 feet on Highland Avenue. The maximum lot coverage by buildings allowed in B-4 is 80; the proposed ambulance station, as shown in the preliminary plans,would occupy 25% of the lot. History of the propegy 111 Highland Avenue was once a larger lot containing what is now 111 Highland and 1 Willson Rd. The building on 1 Willson Rd. has historically been a single-family home. Under the same ownership was 107 Highland Avenue,which prior to 1972 contained a rug business with an apartment above it. In 1972, the • owner,Dr.Von Weiss,asked for and received a variance to convert it into a medical office. The building on 111 Highland Avenue appears to have been Joe's Super Service filling station. It later became an auto repair garage/used car lot. In September 2008, the lot was split in two via an ANR plan approved by the Planning Board,with the land containing the single-family house on its own lot,now 1 Willson Rd. In 1 June 2009, the Board of Appeals issued a Special Permit to change a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use (a medical office/pain clinic). This Special Permit has not been exercised to date, • and the structure is currently used for storage. Land use of surrounding properties I have enclosed a map showing the land uses of surrounding properties in order to put the petition in context. Also enclosed are a zoning map and another map showing the proximity between 111 Highland Avenue and the hospital. Legal opinion Assistant City Solicitor Robin Stein is currently working on a legal opinion for the Board. The opinion will specifically address the issue of spot zoning,which some Board members have asked about. I expect to have the opinion on Tuesday—if it is available before the hearing, I will send it by email. If not,Robin will brief the Board at the hearing. • • 2 0 CITY OF SALEM ' t PLANNING BOARD N Report to City Council June 6, 2011 ' w At its meeting on June 2, 2011, the Planning Board voted to recommend that the City Council accept the withdrawal of the petition to rezone 111 Highland Avenue from Residential One-Family(R-1) to Wholesale and Automotive (B-4). If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Lynn Duncan at the Department of Planning& Community Development at(978) 619-5685. Sincerely, Charles Puleo Chairman Cc: Mayor Kimberley Driscoll • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 . WWW.SAI,F,NI.COM . City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board (7 Pyr Date �_/ -2- Name NameMailing Address Phone # Email Page of SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 6/2/11 • A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,June 2, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Mark George, Christine Sullivan, Helen Sides, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clarke, and John Moustakis, Vice Chair Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm. Mr. Puleo announced the Board would be going into Executive Session in order to discuss litigation of the following item: Dzierzek et al. v. Salem Lafayette Development LLC et al. Essex County Superior Court Docket No. 2006-01881. Mr. Puleo noted the Board felt that discussion of this matter in open session could be detrimental to the court case. He says the Board will reconvene in open session after the Executive Session. Tim Kavanaugh made a motion to go into Executive Session, seconded by Mark George. All approved by role call vote 6-0 (Mr. Puleo, Mr. George, Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Sides, Mr. Ready and Mr. Kavanaugh in favor, none opposed). • The Board reconvenes in open session at 7:14 p.m. Approval of Minutes 5/19/11 Planning Board meeting minutes No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides motioned to approve, seconded by Mark George. Approved 6-0. Recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed amendment to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance to rezone the property located at 111 Highland Avenue (Assessor Map 14, Lot 199)from R-1 Residential One Family to B-4 Wholesale&Automotive Zoning District. Documents & Exhibitions: • Letter from Dennis Cataldo, Cataldo Ambulance, dated June 2, 2011 Tim Kavanaugh explained that since the public hearing had been opened, it technically has to be closed. Mr. Puleo read the withdrawal letter from the applicant. I Christine Sullivan made a motion to recommend to City Council accept the withdrawal from the applicant, seconded by Helen Sides. All approved 6-0. Old/New Business 1 Adjournment Helen Sides made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh. All approved 6-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 7:34 pm. Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 6/16/11 Revisions approved by the Planning Board 7/21/11 • 2 CITY OF SALEM r PLANNING BOARD CITY OF SALEM NOTICE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL May 31, 2011 7:00 P.M. Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board of the City of Salem will conduct a Joint Public Hearing with the City Council on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA, in accordance with Chapter 40A, Section 5, of the Massachusetts General Laws for the purpose of amending the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance by rezoning the property located at 111 Highland Avenue (Assessor Map 14, Lot 199) from R-1 Residential One Family to B-4 Wholesale ` • & Automotive Zoning District. The complete text and map of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance are on file at the office of the Department of Planning & Community Development, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and are available for inspection during regular business hours. nn Charles M. Puleo Chair ._7 V lJ q1� ` ;Mtkq pool d cn 6umc1eA 3 ^Tilt Sward" -. v • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM • SALEM PLANNING BOARD CITY COUNCILJOINT HEARING MEETING MINUTES 5/31/11 A joint hearing of the Salem Planning Board &the Salem City Council was held on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Those present were: Council President Jerry Ryan, Councilor Steven Pinto, Councilor Joan Lovely, Councilor Thomas Furey, Councilor Joseph O'Keefe, Councilor Michael Sosnowski, Councilor Arthur Sargent, Councilor Robert McCarthy, Councilor Jean Pelletier, Councilor Paul Prevey, Chuck Puleo, Planning Board Chair, John Moustakis, Planning Board Vice Chair, Mark George, Christine Sullivan, Helen.Sides, Tim Ready, Tim Kavanaugh, Lynn Duncan, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: Councilor John Ronan, Randy Clarke, Nadine Hanscom. Councilor Jerry Ryan opened the meeting at 7:08 pm. A Joint Public Hearing with City Council regarding a proposed amendment to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance to rezone the property located at 111 Highland Avenue (Assessor Map 14, Lot 199) from R-1 Residential One Family to B-4 Wholesale &Automotive Zoning • District. Documents & Exhibitions: ➢ Petition to rezone the property located at 111 Highland Avenue and accompanying materials ➢ Aerial photos of the property ➢ Plot plan dated 8/19/08 ➢ Draft Zoning Ordinance amendment ➢ Petition in opposition to proposed zoning change ➢ Memo from Assistant City Solicitor Robin Stein, dated 5/26/11, regarding spot zoning ➢ Memo from Leslie Limon on behalf of Northfields Residents, dated 5/31/11 Dennis Cataldo, Vice President and Petitioner for Cataldo Ambulance, explained that prior to this meeting he met with neighbors of the potential site on April 20`h to address noise concerns. At that meeting, Mr. Cataldo stated that he would take an ambulance to the location to exit the location with audible warning devices and he described his experience. There were some concerns expressed about turning on and off Wilson Street and Wilson Terrace. Additionally he contacted the Fire Chief regarding concerns about the traffic light to allow it to change upon approach of emergency vehicles. Mr. Cataldo described the property as a 2200 sq foot building and he stated that it would be in operation 24 hours & 7 days per week. He noted that he did not believe that the property was large enough to allow a single family house by right. He stated that they are the largest emergency operation in the Commonwealth. At the community 1 meeting, he provided aerial photos of other locations and proximity to neighbors and further stated that they have not had problems with neighbors at any of their other locations. Councilor Pelletier asked Mr. Cataldo to brief the members on noise issues. Mr. Cataldo described the current situation and stated that there would not be repairs of vehicles going on at this location. Councilor Furey asked if they have thought of other locations. Mr. Cataldo stated that they have been looking for other opportunities for property purchases that would be more centrally- located, however he hasn't found any that are considered as good as this location. Councilor Furey asked if they considered a non-residential location. Mr. Cataldo stated that their proposed use for this site is as good as any other, though the site is not currently zoned for this type of property. He described other properties as examples of how during the day, most ambulances are out on calls and not disrupting the neighborhoods. Councilor Lovely questioned Mr. Cataldo's comment that this property was undersized for a house, and Councilor Sargent supported her statement by stating that if it can't fit a house, it shouldn't fit a business either. He stated that his concern is that if the zoning is changed then there may be an opportunity for this business to be sold, and there would be any number of other businesses allowed by right. • Councilor O'Keefe asked if there have been time-distance studies from this location. Mr. Cataldo stated that those studies have not been done. Mr. O'Keefe stated that the average response time is about 4.5 minutes to which Mr. Cataldo responded that their average response time is 6.5 minutes while the national standard is 8 minutes. Councilor Ryan opened up the questions to the Planning Board. Mark George asked about the previous use of the property. Mr. Cataldo stated that it was in use over 6 years ago as a transmission service place. Mr. George explained that his concern is that there are single-family homes behind this location and asked what is this going to do the character of the area. Chuck Puleo, Planning Board Chair, stated that it was a gas station, then auto repair shop and later a transmission shop. Tim Ready asked how this location will be different from how the fire department operates down the street. Mr. Cataldo stated that from an operational standpoint,they provide universal coverage throughout the area. They do not respond typically from a central location like the fire department, they respond from the community. Mr. Ready asked if this location will be more of a storage lot rather than a central location. Mr. Cataldo stated that people will be surprised at how quiet it will be. Mr. Ready asked him to explain this further. Mr. Cataldo stated that ambulance drivers are very responsible about using sirens, and try to minimize their use due to how loud it is outside as well as how loud it is in the ambulance. He explained that • their location in Lynn has abutters that are closer than these abutters will be and he has never had a complaint in over 20 years of doing business. 2 • Councilor Prevey asked how the Canal Street property is zoned. Mr. Cataldo stated that he doesn't know how it is zoned as they acquired the lease when they bought Northshore Ambulance. He stated that the current building no longer meets their needs. Councilor Sosnowski asked Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, what is the zoning around this particular lot. Ms. Duncan stated that the parcels that are adjacent to the lot in question are zoned R-1. Mr. George asked what are the residents feeling about this. Councilor Pelletier stated that there are 101 signatures on a petition opposed to the business going in that lot. He further stated that the larger concern is that any business can come in after the zoning is changed. Ms. Duncan stated that there are various uses by right and by permit that could be used in this site. Mr. George asked if it was possible to allow all parties to benefit without a permanent change to the zoning. Ms. Duncan stated that they did believe that they only way to accommodate Cataldo Ambulance is to re-zone, however there may also be an option for a Special Permit for this site, and noted that a previous special permit issued for the property could possibly be extended under the new "Permit Extension Act," though they are looking into specifics on this. Ms. Duncan also shared a copy of the legal opinion written by the Assistant City Solicitor with the Council, and explained why this would not be considered "spot zoning'. Ms. Duncan also • noted that if a single-family house could not be built on that lot without dimensional relief from the Board of Appeals. Councilor O'Keefe asked if there is a need for this meeting based on the legal opinion. Ms. Duncan clarified that the memo means that the zoning could legally take place, that the Council could legally re-zone this. She reviewed the public hearing process for re-zoning and the . timeframes. Councilor McCarthy asked if Cataldo Ambulance bought the property and subsequently sold the property, would the zoning change remain in tact. Ms. Duncan stated that once it is changed then it is permanently changed. Councilor Sargent stated that he felt that changing the zoning would be disrespectful to the neighborhood. He stated that based on the spot zoning criteria, where it is allowable if there is a benefit to the community, would not, in the long run be a benefit to the neighborhood. Councilor Sosnowski stated that he is in favor of the company, but not sure if he is in favor of the site. He asked about the opposition in the petition submitted. He stated that he believes the proposal would constitute spot zoning. Issue is opened up for public comment • Council President Ryan asked for those to speak in favor to begin. No one came forward. 3 • Council President Ryan asked for those opposed to begin. John Lunt, 6 Greenway Road, lives approx 100 yards from the garage. He stated that the garage is not vacant and is used by the property owner. He noted that spot zoning is illegal in Massachusetts and that he was heavily involved in the petition against the re-zoning of the property. He stated that the information about spot zoning is very confusing, and further, that none of the cases presented in the legal analysis is comparable to the issue before the City Council and Planning Board. He stressed that they are not sending a message to businesses to leave the city, rather they are sending the message that this is not a good location for this business. The current location on Canal Street is more central. He feels the piece of property is being sold at a bargain to the detriment of the neighbors, with concerns about the effects on quality of life and health. Mr. Lunt stated that there is heavy traffic at 2:30 in the afternoon and in the morning; and when traffic is flowing freely then they drive upwards of 50 miles per hour. He states that the growth of the hospital has added to the noise significantly and Highland Avenue traffic is getting worse. He said the intersection of Highland, Wilson and Cherry Hill is the worst intersection in the city for an emergency vehicle to get through. He also called the fire department to find out how many calls they respond to per year, which is 6500. He said to make a fair comparison, he asked the audience to imagine the North Street fire station tripling activity. He said that the increased activity will be heard. In summation, this will be a dramatic decrease in quality of life for those in their neighborhood. He requests that the Council and Planning Board consider all of their concerns. • Stan Poirier, 8 Cottage Street, supports Mr. Lunt's arguments. He noted that from Wilson to Jackson Streets the properties are all R-Is and feels this is an illegal encroachment. He stated that this is the beginning of something that if it's allowed to go forward it will bring on more problems. He feels that it is going to affect the resale values. He strongly urges and recommends that this proposal be rejected. Roger Hastings, 3 Wilson Road, is one of the closest abutters to this property. He has mixed emotions because the plot is overgrown and would like to see something go there. He implores the Planning Board to look at the history of the lot and how it has been subdivided into two separate properties. He stated that an issue that has not been mentioned is the proximity to the schools. His daughter was almost killed by a woman on Highland Avenue pulling over for an ambulance. He said it is the wrong place for an ambulance company with kids in the area. He would like something to be done with the property, but just not this. Sandy Benson, 14 Greenway Road, stated that as a parent and a health care provider she is extremely concerned about the increased traffic. She noted that people cut through the area and there are kids walking to the school who are not paying attention to ambulances. She does value the benefit of an ambulance company but is concerned that they will be cutting through her neighborhood. It's a safety issue for all kids. • Leslie Limon, Northfields Representative, Mayor's Neighborhood Improvement Advisory Council, speaks to the impact of making this zoning change in perpetuity. She has no doubt 4 •t that the ambulance company will be a responsible neighbor. Her concern is that things change. In North Salem they have properties that are abutting a commercially-zoned property. She is concerned about what will be there in years from now. Mr. Lunt spoke again, stating that in looking at the spot zoning issue, he believes that it will end up in court. He states that if the City Council supports this measure, then he has to pay legal fees to his lawyers and noted that by paying city taxes he is also paying for the city to fight against him. Councilor Pelletier moved to close the public hearing. All approved. Chuck Puleo left the meeting at 8:33 pm. Councilor Pelletier reviewed the petition and stated that he could not support the zoning change. He recommended looking into a special permit. Councilor Prevey feels that this constitutes spot zoning. He rejects the Assistant City Solicitor's argument, and will not support it the petition. Councilor Sargent stated that he feels that if they change the zoning, that they will devalue the land. • Councilor Sosnowski recommends that this be put to a vote in the hopes that it fails. He thinks it is a good company doing business and hopes it finds another place to do business. Ms. Duncan clarified the Planning Board process, and says they will take up the issue at the next Planning Board meeting. Councilor O'Keefe asks if this constitutes a legal opinion. Ms. Duncan clarified that this is a full legal opinion. Councilor O'Keefe asks where this goes from here. Ms. Duncan answered through the President that the public hearing is closed, the Planning Board will meet to discuss this on 6/2, to make a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council can take it up at the next meeting. Councilor Pelletier stated that they will vote to send it to the Planning Board for their recommendations. Councilor Lovely stated that this is no slight to the Cataldo Ambulance Company, but she is concerned that this property will not always be with the Cataldo Ambulance Company. She is concerned that the parcel could be turned into something else and she does not support this. Councilor Pinto stated that he has concerns about this. While he feels that this is a good company, his concern is that if this isn't supported that it could come back as a special permit. He also noted that he doesn't support this. Ms. Duncan clarified that she has no control over if the Planning Board will vote on this on 6/2. 5 • Councilor Pelletier stated that he does not believe it will pass. He does not believe in spot zoning. Council President Ryan stated that he was at the meeting with the neighborhood and noted that most neighbors did not support it. He is thinks the company is a great company, but he cannot support this zoning change. Mr. Cataldo stated that he appreciated the time that everyone has put into being there. He stated that he is fine with withdrawing the petition. He wants to be where the city wants them to be. They are a community friendly business. He hopes that they do find another appropriate bidder. Councilor Ryan asked City Clerk LaPointe if this has to go before the Planning Board if it is withdrawn, and City Clerk LaPointe stated no. Ms. Duncan asked Mr. Cataldo to submit his request to withdraw in writing. Councilor Sargent said he has not seen something like this before. He thinks Mr. Cataldo was very gracious. • Mr. Cataldo said that they are a family business, and this is how they will do business. Adjournment Council President Ryan made a motion to adjourn the meeting. All approved. Council President Ryan adjourned the meeting at 8:56 pm. Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 6/16/11 6 � CITY OF SALEM ffal PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING Ycu are hr diy nerifral dirt dx SalanPlammgBom!uddlhdd its r�sd&lulal nawg m Thursday,May 19,2011 at 7.00 pm at City HaIlAmes,Ram-313, 120 Washirg�tm Stmt amid MM.Pu/eq Clxiir MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 417111 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Public hearing:Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE,Salem MA(Assessors Map 3,Lots 74,75,and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. 3. Old/New Business r o K. Adjournment w N E-lad 1 �� �� �� "��c��3 �;�s•?ba3 ���rrt" ?' tj ,-tl, 9-Anis . deo// /a // T Kno YaurRigtm Urder dx CpenMxtingLawM.GL. c 39§23B arrl City Cirhmra Swim 2-2028&r*2-2033. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND P� ���MIN1ti W�1� KIGffiERu-.Y DRISCOLL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRGICfOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: May 12,2011 RE: Agenda—May 19,2011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda • D Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from 4/7/11 Notes on Agenda Items: Public hearing: Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem,MA(Assessors Map 3, Lots 74,75, and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. A similar subdivision plan was approved by the Planning Board in 2010. The decision approving this project is included in your packet. According to the applicant,he was required to obtain local approvals prior to applying for a curb cut permit from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. However,during discussions with MassDOT, the applicant was advised that the project could not be completed as originally approved because of problems with the configuration of the site driveway with the intersection of Olde Village Drive and Highland Avenue. The new proposal aligns the site driveway with this intersection. As a result of the realignment,the size and configuration of the house lots is different. Because of the changes in dimension, the project received new variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals earlier this year. This decision is also included in your packet. The plan was routed to Building,Engineering,Heath, Conservation and Fire Prevention Conservation Commission comments are enclosed. The Building Commissioner concurs with the proposal. The acting Health Agent responded that no additional Board of Health review is needed. I have not yet received comments from Fire Prevention. • David Knowlton,City Engineer,requested that the applicant detail the changes to the stormwater system, and recommended that these changes be looked at by a peer reviewer.The applicant's engineer,Scott 1 Patrowicz,has provided a letter,included in your packet,outlining these changes. I have not yet received comments from David indicating whether he still believes a review is needed. One last note on this project: During the hearings for the original project, abutter Wayne Silva,20 Barnes Circle, felt a fence was needed between his property and the project site. Mr. Silva was unable to attend the last meeting, and the fence was never included in the Board's decision or the approved plans. The applicant agreed to revise the plans prior to final endorsement to show an agreed-upon fence. However, the original plans were never endorsed. I would suggest a condition or a revision in the plans that addresses the fence. 2 • W CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD IN -2 A 9. Su Of NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION You are hereby rxati*dxu the SalemPl zrn.-g Bat d's rqJvIysd)x&dednrewg origirally sd for Thursday,May 5,2011 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Amx x,Rocm313, 120 Washirzgtwz Strad has bwn CANCELED dNe to a ladz cf aFida w a. C Yana M. Puq Chair at • A � AX'C 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM I CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOW altswo 2011 APR 19 A q: 08 CITY r'!- NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION You are hwby mofiai dmt dv Salem Mumig Bards rTmlady sdxddai new-% ongn-gy sdxduledfor Thursday,April 11,2011 at 7:00 pm at City Haff Arm,Rocm 313, 120 Washmgten StmA has been CANCELED due to a&& cfaWmb GWla M. Ptdeq Couir • ThIs mloo o "'.1tAcjej Buffeft ocartr city Hall on r,'/ /1, Zdii 24A it $14 of SK 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 * TEL: 978.745.9595 Far: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM • SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 5/19/11 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,May 19,2011 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo,Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Helen Sides,Randy Clarke,Tim Ready,and Tun Kavanaugh. Also present:Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk.Absent:Nadine Hanscom,and Christine Sullivan. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:06 pm Approval of Minutes 4/7/11 Planning Board meeting minutes No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Randy Clarke motioned to approve, seconded by Tim Kavanaugh.Approved 7-0. Public hearing: Application of PAUL FERRAGAMO for an Amendment to a Definitive Subdivision Plan for 405-419 HIGHLAND AVENUE, Salem,MA(Assessors Map 3,Lots 74, 75, and 76). The amended plan proposes a reconfigured site driveway and associated changes to the dimensions of the lots. Attachments &Exhibitions: • Application date-stamped 4/28/11 and accompanying materials • Plans titled"Definitive Subdivision Plan for a site at 405-427 Highland Avenue," dated 4/20/11 • • Email memo from David Knowlton,City Engineer,dated 5/19/11 George Atkins, 59 Federal Street,Salem,stated he represents Paul Ferragamo,the property owner,Scott Patrowicz, the site engineer,and Harry Gunderson,the site architect.Mr.Atkins reminded the Board of the previously approved plan,which was approved in 2010. The plan has since been amended due to the State's requirements relating to the location of the entryway,and includes changes to sewage and drainage requirements. Thus the applicant has come back before the Board as well as the Zoning Committee to get local approvals before presenting the amended plan to the state formally The applicant has informally asked the State what it will accept as appropriate changes,to which the State recommended moving the location of the entrance to the development as well as installing a light. The applicant agreed to move the entryway,and will move poles and equipment boxes due to the recommended changes. As a result of the proposed changes,there are dimensional site changes,including areas and frontages of the lots. Mr. Atkins reassured the Board that the plan will still be for an 11 lot residential subdivision but the sizes of some lots will be changing. Additionally,the applicant believes that this is essentially the same subdivision development. They met with the City Engineer and the Peer Reviewer,however,who both feel that the plan is not complete enough. The applicant is asking to continue this discussion to second week in June so they can present again to the Peer Reviewer, and report back at the June 16th meeting. This will then allow the applicant to get the necessary approvals before going before the State. Mr.Puleo asked if the state's only comments were to the location of the road. Mr.Atkins explained that this is the principal concern. Mr. Atkins pointed out changes to the plan that show a landscape easement to a neighbor,which also allows more room to get the roadway away from the house. He also noted that nothing has changed with the remaining abutters. Mr.Puleo asked if there were any other issues with the neighbors. Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,stated that there was one abutter who had concerns to which Mr.Atkins clarified that the abutter asked for a gate and fencing. John Moustakis asked about the other aspects of the plan revision that the State will be involved in. • Mr. Atkins stated that they will be tapping into the sewer system on Highland Avenue as well as the storm drainage system Mark George asked about the ledge and the existing traffic light. Mr.Atkins stated that there is a huge 1 • amount of ledge,thus the site has been engineered to better deal with the drainage.He also stated that they will be adding to the traffic light that is already there. Mr. George asked for an engineering explanation about the site. Scott Patrowicz,site engineer,explained that they are addressing the sheet flow rain issues that ran onto Highland Avenue,which the State is concerned about. They are creating water quality swales,as well as leeching and catch basins. These will then go into Gol-tech units,to attenuate the storms during typical rain storms as well as a"hundred year event". Mr. George asked if based on this plan,if there will be less flow and if cleaner water comes out,to which Mr.Patrowicz responded in the affirmative. He explained that they need at least a conditional approval from the Board in order to go to the State. Mr.Patrowicz stated that the City Engineer,Dave Knowlton,asked for more information in relation to the re-routing of the pipes. He further explained that the applicant is seeking a conditional approval on this plan so they can present this to the State again. Mr. Puleo asked to clarify that there will be no southbound traffic turning based on the light. Mr.Atkins said yes. Mr. Puleo asked about road maintenance and snowplowing,to which Mr. Atkins stated that this remains the same as the original application,which is the responsibilityof the homeowners association. Mr. Patrowicz said that he increased the area for the sand and snow to be removed to in the plan. Mr.Puleo asked if there was a conditional maintenance included in the original approval,and Mr.Atkins said yes. Mr.Ready asked to clarify that they are presenting this evening to ask for more time,to which Mr.Atkins said yes. He further explained that he would like to go forward but the City Engineer needs to approve these changes first. Issue is open?d up for public conmm TobyDiulis, 14 Bames Circle,spoke in support of the plan. • Mr. George asked what are the City Engineer's main concerns. Ms.McKnight stated that he feels that due to the changes he needs more information.,and that these changes were outlined in a letter to the Board. Mr. George asked Ms.McKnight to clarify if the primary concerns were around stormwater management. Ms.McKnight stated that this was correct as well as one issue about the sewer. Mr.Petrowicz identified specific issues,and explained the changes the applicant is proposing. Randy Clarke made a motion to continue to the June 16rh meeting,seconded by John Moustakis.All approved 7-0. Old/New Business Adjournment Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by John Moustakis. .All approved 7-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 7:28 pm Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 6/2/11 is 2 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board 6-nA .Doom Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email • Page of C4 �v CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby nwfied that the Salem Pla=rg Board will hold as rTdarly,sdzdidecl nwarg on Thursday,April 7, 2011 at 7:00 pm atCrtyHaIIAmxx,Rcorn313, 120 WaslnrgtonStn t Olwle M. Ptdco, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes ➢ 2/17/11 and 3/3/11 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Presentation: Salem Hazard Mitigation Plan. Sam Cleaves, Senior Regional Planner,Metropolitan Area Planning Council. 3. Request to Withdraw Without Prejudice: Continued Public Hearing- Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit,Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34,Lot 307),Salem,MA(proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory,and construction of a new mixed-use • building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). 4. Old/New Business 5. Adjournment Know Your Rights Under the Open M"LawJM.G.L. c 39§23B and City Ordimnx Sanaa 2-2028 do rgh 22033. im g0tx �. r? t R;,�i7i"I ',7e2 3o v2dll 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ..TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SAI,ErI.COM ���ONUIT,jq� yt� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS s DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND KiNasrsi.i*v DiusC0T1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (MAYOR LYNN GDONIN DUNCAN,AICD llua�:croe 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 0 FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: March 31,2011 RE: Agenda—April 7,2011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda • ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from 3/3/11 Notes on Agenda Ite Minutes Approval of the minutes from 2/17/11 were postponed at the last meeting. These were in your packet from 3/3/11. The draft minutes from 3/3/11 are enclosed in this packet. Presentation: Salem Hazard Mitigation Plan. Sam Cleaves, Senior Regional Planner,Metropolitan Area Planning Council Sam Cleaves will present a short PowerPoint on the Salem Hazard Mitigation Plan (approximately half an hour). He will address how the public can view and comment on the draft plan,which will be posted on the City's website,before it is submitted to FEMA for review. Request to Withdraw Without Prejudice: Continued Public Hearing- Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive- Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34, Lot 307),Salem, MA(proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). Joe Corrend has submitted a letter requesting to formally withdraw this application without prejudice. Attorney Correnti won't be attending the meeting. Notes on upcoming projects/activities We expect a submittal for the redevelopment of the Salem Oil& Grease (60 Grove Street) site soon,possibly • opening at the May 5 meeting. On a related note, the Planning Department will be undertaking transportation study of the North River Canal Corridor, since traffic is a chronic problem in this area, as 1 Board members have pointed out during reviews of other projects in the NRCC. The study is expected to offer several future scenarios with various long-term mitigation measures proposed. We also expect a Site Plan Review application for a gas station and convenience store on 175 and 183 Lafayette St. The project is currently before the Zoning Board of Appeals. • SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 417111 regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,April 7,2011 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313,Third Floor,at 20;Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were:John Moustakis,Vice-Chair,Randy Clarke,Mark George,Helen Sides,Nadine Hanscom,Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready. Also present: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: Chuck Puleo, Chair,and Tun Kavanaugh. John Moustakis opened the meeting at 7:05 pm and stated that the meeting is being recorded. Approval of Minutes 2/17/11&3/3/11 Planning Board meeting minutes 2/17/11:No comments or corrections were made bythe Planning Board members.Helen.Sides motioned to approve, seconded by Nadine Hanscom Randy Clarke abstained from voting as he was not present at the 2/17/11 meeting. All approved 6-0. 3/3/11:No comments or corrections were made bythe Planning Board members.Helen Sides motioned to approve, seconded by Mark George. Tim Ready and Randy Clarke abstained as they were not present at the 3/3/11 meeting. All approved 5-0. Presentation: Salem Hazard Mitigation Plan. Sam Cleaves, Senior Regional Planner,Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Sam Cleaves,MAPC,stated that he is working with FEMA to revise the North Shore Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan,as required bythe Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.They are looking at all natural hazards that are occurring within Salem,which is mostly related to flooding. Mr. Cleaves shared examples of the 2005 Plan with the Board,again stating that Ai�swill be updated. This is one of two public meetings that the government requires and the draft of the plan will be ailable online in the next few days and is open for public comment. Randy Clarke asked when they will meet with Fire and DPW. Mr. Cleaves stated that they will have a meeting with all members of Public Safety. Mark George asked if Salem is pan of FEMA's flood zones revision. Mr. Cleaves stated that the updates are a year overdue but revisions are supposed to be out the end of the summer. Mr. George asked if there are changes to Salem's map to which Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, said.that they have heard from the State that they won't be getting their updated maps until next year. Mr. Cleaves continued his presentation,explaining how the plan was developed and who it was developed in conjunction with. He stated that they review critical sites with the people in Public Safety, and there are 180 sites identified in Salem. John Moustakis asked if they are referring to houses or neighborhoods when they describe sites. Mr. Cleaves stated that they are not usually people's homes,but public facilities. Ms. Sullivan asked Mr. Cleaves to specify what the are facilities they are speaking of and Mr. Cleaves stated that it included sites requiring additional assistance,such as elderly housing,places of assembly,dams, communications facilities and sites that pose a risk,such as facilities with hazardous materials.Mr. Cleaves continued describing the locally identified areas of concern. He stated that they are focused on aging structures and flooding and used the South River Basin as an example of a high priority. He stated that they look at mitigation measures which include how wetlands are managed,as well as looking at wind-related measures in relation to trees. Mr.George asked if Mr. Cleaves sees an miti ation for Rosie's Pond. Mr. Cleaves states that he believes that Dave Knowlton wants to use a rant to continue Y:._ g g those repairs. Mr.Moustakis asked whyForrester Street is included in the plans,and Mr. George responded that it floods regularly. Mr.Moustakis noted that a role of the Planning Board is to correct problem areas that are part of a project. Mr. Cleaves pointed out that the 2005 plan identified issues on Highland Avenue.Ms. Sullivan asked if this is all being done in the hopes of getting a grant. Mr. Cleaves stated that these efforts are what makes them eligible for a grant that can help repair problem areas. Mr. George asked if this would be part of a general stormwater fee. Mr. Cleaves explained that for example, Gloucester charges stormwater fees in order to fix its infrastructure. Mr. George asked if he is seeing patterns of charges like this across communities,and Mr. Cleaves said no. He stated that every community is struggling with this and there is often resistance to additional charges. Mr. Cleaves reiterated that the plan will be up on the DPW website in the next few days, which, after receiving comments from the public,will be sent to MEMA and onto FEMA Mr.Moustakis requested that the oard receive information about the specific sites because they may be part of one of the projects they are reviewing. Mr. arke recommended that this be included in the packet that the Planning Board receives. Mr. Cleaves concluded his presentation by stating that if the Board has any further questions,please send them to Danielle McKnight and she will get them to Mr. Cleaves. Request to Withdraw Without Prejudice: Continued Public Hearing - Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review,and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the �roperty located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34,Lot 307), Salem,MA(proposed demolition of church and onvent, renovation of school and rectory,and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). Ms McKnight read a letter submitted by Attomey Joseph Correnti requesting to withdraw the application without prejudice. Attachments/Exhibitions: i Letter from Salem Lafayette Development LLC,by its AttomeyJoseph Correnti,dated March 10,2011 Randy Clarke motioned to close the public hearing, Christine Sullivan seconded. Nadine Hanscom abstained from voting,All approved 5-0. Christine Sullivan made a motion to accept the request to withdraw without prejudice and Randy Clarke seconded. Nadine Hanscom abstained from voting;All approved 6-0. Old/New Business Danielle McKnight stated that the Planning Department planned to pursue a traffic study for the North River Canal Corridor. Related to this,they are anticipating a filing to redevelop Salem Oil and Grease. Mr.Moustakis asked for an update on the project at 28 Goodhue Street and how this study will affect the project. Ms.McKnight stated that she hasn't heard any updates recently about 28 Goodhue. Mr.Moustakis recommended looking at possibilities for Goodhue St. again,especially in light of this upcoming traffic study. Mr. George asked if Salem Oil&Grease is a federal superfund site,to which Ms. McKnight stated that she didn't know. Adjournment Vdm y Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Nadine Hanscom. All approved 6-0. John Moustakis journed the meeting at 7:47 pm Respectfully submitted, Beth;Gerard,Recording Clerk Approved bythe Planning Board 5/19/11 r. ;ri r. 0 CITY OF SALEM r� PLANNING BOA - RD 08 April 26,2011 Salem Lafayette Development LLC C/o Joseph Correnti, Esq. 63 Federal Street Salem,MA 01970 RE: 135 Lafayette Street/Former St.Joseph's Church Site Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit • Dear Mr. Correnti: The Salem Planning Board met on Thursday,April 7, 2011 to discuss your request for a Withdrawal without Prejudice for the above referenced project at 135 Lafayette Street. The Board voted 6-0 to approve the request (John Moustakis, Tim Ready, Helen Sides, Christine Sullivan, Randy Clarke and Mark George in favor,none opposed, Nadine Hanscom abstaining). Sincerely, Cell Charles M. Puleo Chair Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETPS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 WWW.SAI,F,M.COM co CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD . 771 _ 07- NOTICE . .NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's meeting scheduled for Thursday,March 17, 2011 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Annex,Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been CANCELED due to a lack of agenda items. The Board has received from the applicant a request to withdraw the following item without prejudice and will vote on this request at its next regularly scheduled meeting on April 7, 2011: SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive- Through Facilities Special Pemut for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34,Lot 307), Salem,MA(proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). Attorney Joseph Correnti. REQUEST TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Ol a M. Paalm CJxair • Know Yoarr Rights Urder die Open Meeting LawM.G.L. c 39 5238 and City Ordinaax Sanaa 2-2025 thraagh 2-2033. f lis F+�i �4:"L��.� !'1"v T•—a:>i t f 'a�' a`i.'',1 4.:��v�9i`®��TSTY E:J 4f..y .izy 'Hall Ml 4A p A 04 s�,;�` r. - 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 . WWW.SALEM.COM • CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 711111 FFR al. Pj 1- 93 FILE ft CITY CLF! ,t �.,LEt1, P•tP,SS. NOTICE OF MEETING Ya'are he*ncyl dxu the Sa1&nPk n TBavd w#hdd is rtgldadysdx"d mwgmi Thunday,Manb 3,2011 at 7:00Pm at(iryHadArm,Ram31� � 37�, 120 WasbigpnStat as M. Prdeq Chzir MEETING AGENDA I. Approval of Minutes ➢ 2117111 Planning Board meeting minutes 2 Continued Ecom 1/V/11- Fomt A Application of DOROTHY MICHALOWSE1 for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control(ANF) to subdivide the property located at 84-86 DERBY STREET and 28 BECKET STREET(Map 41,Lot 64). 3. Old/New Business 4. Adjournment Tf0 w*9 P0946d 00 "OMd&l 800, " 8001"r City► Npa , = 01 din a 0C 26A a 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM ��caNOlr,�o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND `P�t)MfyE,lM'a�r KiMRE `RL EYDRISCOLL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - MAYOR LYNN GOOMN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECPOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx: 978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: February 9,2011 RE: Agenda- February-t7;3011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda • ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from 2/17/11 Notes on Agenda Items: Continued from 2/17/11- Form A.Application of DOROTHY MICHALOWSKI for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control(ANR) to subdivide the property located at 84-86 DERBY STREET and 28 BECKET STREET (Map 41, Lot 64). The original plan contained an error-the number of feet of new frontage was incorrectly noted on the summary of dimensions. We expect the applicants to bring a revised plan to the meeting with this corrected. Note about 135 Lafayette Street (St.Joe's) (which is scheduled to be on the agenda on March 16):At our last meeting,I incorrectly told the Board that final action needed to be taken on a Site Plan Review within 90 days of filing.In fact,action needs to be taken within 90 days of the close of the public hearing,which is still open (and continued to March 16,2011 at the applicant's request). Therefore,constructive approval is not a concern at this time. • 1 MEETING MINUTES 313111 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,March 3,2011 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, . Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo,Chair,Mark George,Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan,and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present:Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner.Absent:John Moustakis,Randy Clarke,Helen Sides and Tim Ready. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm Approval of Minutes of 2/17/11 postponed until the March 17,2011 meeting. Continued from 2/17/11: Form A-Application of DOROTHY MICHALOWSKI for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control(ANR) to subdivide the property located at 84.86 DERBY STREET and 28 BECKET STREET (Map 41,Lot 64). Ms.Michalowski presented a revised plan. Board members noted that corrections had been made and that the frontage was labeled appropriately and correctly noted on the chart of dimensions. Nadine Hanscom made a motion to approve the plan,seconded by Christine Sullivan. Motion passed 5-0 (Sullivan, Hanscom,Kavanaugh,George and Puleo in favor,none opposed). Board members endorse the plan. Attachments: ➢ Application form date-stamped 2/9/11 ➢ Plan titled"Plan of Land, 84-86 Derby Street,28 Becket Street,Salem,Property of Dorothy Michalowski, Thomas J.Kulak,&Akuura Kulak," prepared by Gail Smith,North Shore Survey Corp., and dated 4/7/10 Adjournment Nadine Hanscom made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Christine Sullivan. All approved 5-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 7:10 pm I Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner Approved by the Planning Board 4/7/11 • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Rod Date 3 / 3 Name Mailing Address Phone # Email � QO lnnP ,a s C- r�n� OS Mt • Page-L- Of� CITY OF SALEM r PLANNING BOARD Form A — Decision 28 Becket Street and 84-86 Derby Street On March 3,2011, the Salem Planning Board voted 5-0 (Charles Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Christine Sullivan, Nadine Hanscom, and Mark George in favor, none opposed) to endorse "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" on the following described plan: 1. Applicant: Dorothy Michalowski 2. Location: 28 Becket Street and 84-86 Derby Street (Map 41, Lot 64) 3. Project Description: The applicant requests to subdivide the property located at 28 Becket Street and 84-86 Derby Street so that each of the two existing structures is on its own, newly created lot. as shown on the plan titled "Plan of Land, 84-86 Derby Street, 28 Becket Street, Salem, Property of Dorothy Michalowski, Thomas J. Kulak & Akuura • Kulak,"prepared by Gail Smith, North Shore Survey Corporation, and dated April 7, 2010. Owners Dorothy Michalowski, Thomas J. Kulak and Akuura Kulak have all endorsed the application. Sincerely, Charles M. Puleo Chair Cc: J Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk w J 0 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SAL11 EM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TES.: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 • WWW.SA[,FM.COM MEETING MINUTES 3/3/11 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,March 3,2011 at 7:00 p.m.in Room 313,Third Floor, 16 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo,Chair,Mark George,Nadine Hanscom,Christine Sullivan,and Tun Kavanaugh. Also present:Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner.Absent:John Moustakis,Randy Clarke,Helen Sides and Tim Ready. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:05 pm Approval of Minutes of 2/17/11 postponed until the March 17,2011 meeting. Continued from 2/17/11: Form A- Application of DOROTHY MICHALOWSKI for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control(ANR) to subdivide the property located at 84-86 DERBY STREET and 28 BECKET STREET (Map 41, Lot 64). Ms.Michalowski presented a revised plan. Board members noted that corrections had been made and that the frontage was labeled appropriately and correctly noted on the chart of dimensions. Nadine Hanscom made a motion to approve the plan,seconded by Christine Sullivan. Motion passed 5-0 (Sullivan,Hanscom, Kavanaugh, George and Puleo in favor,none opposed). Board members endorse the plan. Attachments: ➢ Application form date-stamped 2/9/11 ➢ Plan titled"Plan of Land, 84-86 Derby Street,28 Becket Street,Salem,Property of Dorothy Michalowski,Thomas J. Kulak, &Akuura Kulak," prepared by Gail Smith,North Shore Survey Corp., and dated 4/7/10 Adjournment Nadine Hanscom made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Christine Sullivan. Allapproved 5-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 7:10 pm Respectfully submitted, Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner Approved by the Planning Board 4/7/11 I 1 • CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING Yau are lxra5y,zrifrea dw dx SalanPbmN Bond rr U hc1d its 7*ady sd%r4"mtwg on Thursday, February 17,2011 at 7.•00 pm at Oty Hall A mer,Room 313, 120 Watmt Cl--11=/)JMk Oxides M. PrdN MEETINGAGENDA Cy"ir I Approval of Minutes ➢ 2/3/11 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Continuation of Public Hearing:Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Pemrit, Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Pertnit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET(Map 34,Lot 307),Salem,MA(proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory,and construction of a new mixed-use building with a phamtacy and drive- through faciliro. Anomey Joseph Correnti. APPLICANT FO /FSTS TO CONTIN UE TO 11 ARr� CH 3. Form A Application of DOROTHY MICHALOWSKI for endorsement of a plan believed not to require . approval under Subdivision Control(ANR) to subdivide the property located at 84-86 DERBY STREET and 28 BECKET STREET (Map 41,Lot 64). 4. Old/New Business 3. Adjournment T r--t c7 1 --rD1 V fV W This ft*® p0gW on �ityla salern, Maas. on t 14 , q �OId 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM CONDI :. n CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner DATE: February 9,2011 RE: Agenda—February 17,2011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda • ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from 2/3/11 Notes on Agenda Items: Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit,Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34,Lot 307), Salem,MA(proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mined-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). Attorney Correnti has submitted a letter requesting to continue the matter.to March 17,2011. The applicant is still waiting to find out whether the mixed-use plan(primarily housing) the Board approved in 2010 will be funded. If it is not, they will be requesting review of the plan that includes the pharmacy. Rather than withdraw the pharmacy plan, they would like to keep it on hold to review next month,if necessary. Form A:Application of DOROTHY MICHALOWSKI for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control(ANR) to subdivide the property located at 84-86 DERBY STREET and 28 BECKET STREET (Map 41, Lot 64). Two buildings are on this single parcel. The applicant is requesting to divide the lot so that each building is on its own lot. The plan is entitled to ANR endorsement, since this would not be considered a subdivision under M.G.L. c. 41 section 81L. Zoning relief,including a waiver from frontage,is not required since both buildings pre-date 1962,which is when Subdivision Control was adopted in Salem (the building on 28 Becket St.was constructed c. 1901-1902,and the one on 84-86 Derby St. was constructed between 1911 and 1930). Splitting the lot as proposed will result in two smaller lots which,while nonconforming, are less nonconforming than a single lot with two buildings. After subdividing the lot as proposed,28 Becket St.will 1 have 24.5'of frontage instead of the total frontage of 66'it currently shares with 84-86 Derby St. The 55.5' frontage 84-86 Derby St. currently has will remain unchanged. The B-1 zone requires 60' frontage. • 2 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board "� nor Date am Mailing Address Phone # Email • J Page of MEETING MINU'T'ES 2117111 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,February 17,2011 at 7:00 p.m in Room 313, • Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo,Chair,Mark George,Helen Sides,Nadine Hanscom,Christine Sullivan,Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present:Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk Absent:John Moustakis,Randy Clarke. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:02 pm Approval of Minutes 213/11 Planning Board meeting minutes No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Helen Sides motioned to approve, seconded byMark George;Nadine Hanscom abstained from voting as she was not present at the previous meeting and Christine Sullivan was not present for the minutes review. Approved 5-0. Continuation of Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review,and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34,Lot 307), Salem,MA(proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive- through facility). Attorney Joseph Correnti. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO MARCH 17, 2011. Members questioned the timeline for continuing the request and noted that there was an article in the Salem News about funding received for the project. Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,said it is her understanding that the approved project had received funding, but the applicant was not currently withdrawing the pharmacy plan and had requested to continue to March 17. It was noted that Nadine Hanscom abstained from voting. Motion made to grant • the applicant a request to continue on March 17th by Helen Sides,seconded by Tun Kavanagh. All approved 6-0. Form A.Application of DOROTHY MICHALOWSKI for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under Subdivision Control(ANR) to subdivide the property located at 84-86 DERBY STREET and 28 BECKET STREET (Map 41,Lot 64). Dorothy Michalowski,28 Becket Street,Salem,explained that the property is one lot and they would like to split it. Mr. George and Mr.Kavanagh asked for clarification on the lot frontage. Mr.Puleo reviewed the plan and asked for clarification on specific areas of the site plan. Mr.Kavanagh stated that he sees a discrepancy in the plan in terms of the frontage measurements,which he thinks is just an error. Mr. George asked what the current use of the land is. Ms.Michalowski stated that it's mixed use. Mr.Kavanagh said that the measurements on the plan should reflect what is in the summary box at the top of the plan,which it currently does not. Mr.Kavanagh asked for clarification on the frontage on the bottom of the plan,which represents the Derby Street side of the property. He recommended that the plan be corrected to reflect the appropriate amount of frontage. Mr.Kavanagh asked if the corrected plan could be brought back for the Board to review and adjudicate on at the next meeting. Ms.McKnight asked that Ms. Michalowski sign an extension for final action so she can come back at the next meeting. Ms.Michalowski agreed. Ms.Michalowski reviewed the errors with Mr. George and said she would come back with the corrections. Nadine Hanscom made a motion to continue the issue until the March 3,d meeting and Christine Sullivan seconded. All approved 7-0. Adjournment Nadine Hanscom made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Christine Sullivan. All approved 7-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 7:50 pm. • Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 4/7/11 • • • oil* CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING Yau are hereby noqW dxa the Salem A mwg Bard u&U bdd in rtgdadysdaalulgl rrawg m Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 7:00 pm at Gry Hall Amyx,Rc=313, 12c0nWasbir�xat Street "�"` 'P'4tir/b2cic Oxide M. Palm C/azir . MEETING AGENDA 1 Approval of Minutes ➢ 1/13/11 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Request of Paul DiBiase for approval of new Tri-Party Agreement and release of current Tri-Patty Agreement for Strongwater Crossing(aka. Osborne Hills) Subdivision. 3. Public Hearing:Application of NEW CINGLI AR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, d/b/a AT&T MOBILITY for a Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit on the property located at 320 LAFAYETTE STREET, Salem,MA(Map 32, Lot 216). • 4. Old/New Business 5. Adjournment g - N Q- D IV Tmf lIOMCA p09led 0n °Offidlll 61fft City f Salem, Meta. a +���30 Na at ja"�� �m °° '°� 26A a = of a. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SALEM.COM vygd If O� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND G/T I ICIMBPRLF.:Y DRISCOLL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AK.P DIRECeOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner DATE: January 25, 2011 RE: Agenda—February 3, 2011 meeting Please find the following in your packet: • ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ Agenda ➢ Materials for Agenda Items ➢ Minutes from 1/13/11 Notes on Agenda Items: Request for approval of new Tri-Party Agreement and release of current Tri-Party Agreement for Strongwater Crossing (a.k.a. Osborne Hills) Subdivision—Paul DiBiase Mr. DiBiase is in the process of refinancing the subdivision. He would like to release the previous lender,Beverly Cooperative Bank, from the Tri-Party Agreement, and execute a new agreement with a new bank, Enterprise Bank. A copy of the document releasing Beverly Cooperative, and the new Tri-Party Agreement with Enterprise,were in your packet for January 6,when Mr. DiBiase was originally scheduled to come before the Board. However, the closing had not yet been completed at that time, and so he requested to attend the February 3 meeting instead. In order for the Board to approve the new agreement, the bank must be licensed to do business in Massachusetts. I have asked Mr. DiBiase to provide written documentation that this is the case with Enterprise Bank. I have not yet received this,but I expect to prior to the meeting. Public Hearing:Application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, d/b/a AT&T MOBILITY for a Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit on the property located at 320 LAFAYETTE STREET, Salem, MA (Map 32, Lot 216). The applicant proposes installation of two new antennas behind existing stealth walls and one antenna behind a new stealth enclosure, plus ancillary equipment, on the existing penthouse on the 1 roof of 320 Lafayette,Street. Additional equipment cabinets are proposed for the building's . basement. The application has been routed to Conservation, Health,Building, Engineering and Fire Prevention. Conservation responded that the project is outside Con Com jurisdiction; Health responded that no Board of Health review is required at this time; and Building concurs with the proposal. Fire Marshal Erin Griffin does not have an issue with the plans as long as any fire alarm equipment that may need to be installed (in penthouse or basement) is code compliant and FPB is contacted by the installer. The applicant has responded that the fire alarm system is already in place. I have not received comment from Engineering. • 2 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 2011 FED -I P 1: 29 Wireless Special Permit Decision C1 ,, For The Petition of SAI Communications on behalf of New Cingular Wireless ,. . d/b/a AT&T Mobility For The Property Located At 320 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA A Public Hearing on this petition was held on February 3,2011. The following Planning Board members were present: Chuck Puleo, Tim Kavanaugh, Tim Ready, Randy Clarke, Helen Sides and Mark George. Notice of this meeting was sent to abutters and notice of the hearing was properly published in the Salem News. The petitioner is requesting a Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit under Section 6.6, Wireless Communication Facilities (WFC), of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance,to allow for the installation of two .new antennas behind existing stealth walls and one antenna behind a new stealth enclosure,plus ancillary equipment,on the existing penthouse on the roof of 320 Lafayette Street,Salem,MA(Map 32, Lot 216). Additional equipment cabinets are proposed for the building's basement. The Planning Board reviewed the application and plans submitted and found that the petitioner addressed the requirements of this section for the issuance of a Special Permit. • On February 3, 2011,the Board closed the Public Hearing and the Planning Board voted by a vote of six (6) in favor, none (0) opposed, to grant the Wireless Communication Facility Special Permit for the location stated above,in accordance with the application dated December 22, 2010 and site plan last dated November 11, 2010 titled "AT8ff Site Number: MA3261, Site Name: Salem Lafayette Street, 320 Layette St.,, Salem,MA 01970" (Sheets T-1, GN-1,A-1,A-2,A-3,A-2 Rev. 2, and G-1 Rev. 2) and drawn by Hudson Design Group LLC, submitted and now part of the file. The Special Permit was approved with the following conditions: 1. The equipment shall be painted a color which reduces its visibility and allows it to blend with the existing rooftop equipment; the applicant, his successors or assigns shall maintain the appearance of the equipment. 2. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department are to be strictly adhered to. This endorsement shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing 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 that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of title. The fee for recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant. I hereby certify that a copy of this decision is on file with the City Clerk and that a copy of the decision and plans is on file with the Planning Board. Charles Puleo, Chair 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL: 978.745.9595 Fac: 978.740.0404 0 WWW.SAI,EM.COM City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board P(O.1�5 Bay& Date Name y rMailing Address Phone # Email • • Page of CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Notice of Decisions At a regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem Massachusetts, the Planning Board voted upon the following item: Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit application filed by NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC,d/b/a AT&T MOBILITY to allow the installation of two new antennas behind existing stealth walls and one antenna behind a new stealth enclosure,plus ancillary equipment, on the existing penthouse on the roof of 320 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA (Map 32, Lot 216). Additional equipment cabinets are proposed for the building's basement. Decision: Approved—Filed with the City Clerk February 7, 2011 • This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 9 and does not require action by the recipient. Appeals, if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. • APPROVED MEETING MINUTES 2/3/11 regular special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts. Those present were: Chuck Puleo,Chair,Mark George,Randy Clarke,Helen Sides,Tim Ready,and Tim Kavanaugh.Also present: Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk.Absent:John Moustakis, Nadine Hanscom, Christine Sullivan. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:11 pm. Approval of Minutes 1/13/11 Planning Board meeting minutes Mark George noted that on page 2, top paragraph,third line down, the public comment should state "decrease",not increase. Helen Sides noted that her comments on the bottom of page 3 should state that she is not a fan of blasting anywhere, but if it is going to take place, this is where it should take place. Further, she stated that Lowe's should be working harder to maximize sustainability and she hopes that the state requires them to do so. Mr. George noted a correction on the top of page 3 that the public commenter's address should be spelled"Fellsmere". No other comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Randy Clarke motioned to approve, seconded by Mark George. Approved 6-0. Request of Paul DiBiase for approval of new Tri-Party Agreement and release of current Tri-Party Agreement for Strongwater Crossing(a.k.a. Osborne Hills) Subdivision. Paul DiBiase,representing Osborne Hills Realty Trust and the owner of the property,is here to request permission to relieve Beverly Cooperative Bank from the Tri-Party Agreement, and assign Enterprise Bank as the new lender for the property. He explained that the reason why he is here again is because Beverly Cooperative Bank was not interested in financing the next phase of construction and Enterprise Bank is. He signed the mortgage and he does have a commitment to finance the second base. He reported that they have four reservations for the second phase and have built 15 homes in the first phase. Mr. deo asked if Beverly Cooperative Bank is out completely. Mr. DiBiase said yes. He stated that there is a new Tri-Party Agreement that has been executed. He shared Exhibit A,which is the surety,and explains that has not changed. He also noted that no other work has been performed to reduce that,but they do plan to install the street trees in the Spring and get the asphalt down as well. Mr. Puleo asked if that takes care of Conditions 1 &4. Mr.DiBiase said yes,there is only a small amount of vertical granite curbing to do;they will do the asphalt sidewalks and the driveways at the same time and the only thing left to do is the asphalt on the street. Exhibit A is the same exhibit that the previous bank signed off on. There is a release of the Tri-Party Agreement for Beverly Cooperative Bank which will relieve them of their duties,with respect to their surety. Mr. George asked where this differs with the original agreement. Mr. DiBiase said the agreement did not change,just the bank. Mr. Puleo asked if Phase 1 was split into two separate sections. Mr. DiBiase described the phases,and reminded the Board of their previous approval to split into Phase 2a and 2b. They have established a reasonable price structure and have four reservations for lots already. Motion to release Tri-Parry Agreement from the mortgage through Beverly Cooperative Bank made by Randy Clarke and seconded by Tim Kavanagh. All approved 6-0. Motion to approve new Tri-Party Agreement between the City, Mr.DiBiase, and Enterprise Bank,located at 222 Merrimack St Lowell MA, 01852,made by Randy Clarke, seconded by Mark George. All Approved 6-0. Documents and Exhibits: Tri-Party Agreement between Beverly Cooperative Bank,Paul DiBiase and the City of Salem, dated 4/28/10 ➢ Release of Tri-Parry Agreement between Paul DiBiase, City of Salem and TD Banknorth, dated 5/4/10 ➢ Tri-Parry Agreement between Paul DiBiase, City of Salem and Enterprise Bank, dated 2/3/11 ➢ Release of Tri-Party Agreement between Paul DiBiase,City of Salem and Beverly Cooperative Bank,dated 2/3/10 1 Public Hearing:Application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC,d/b/a AT&T MOBILITY for a Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit on the property located at 320 LAFAYETTE STREET, Salem,MA(Map 32,Lot 216). Frank Kelly,a Zoning Specialist from SAIQ Communications representing AT&T,22 Key Wadding Drive,Salem,NH stated that AT&T is planning on adding three new antennas to the property located at 320 Lafayette Street. The original antennas were added in 2006,and were enclosed within stealth elements. Mr. Puleo asked if the existing photo shows the antennas in the stealth elements that are already on the rooftop. Mr. Kelly stated that yes, they are proposing to add an additional stealth element to house one of the new antennas,and the other two will be housed within the existing stealth elements. Ms. Sides asked to be shown where they are planning to add the antennas. Mr. Kelly showed her on the picture the exact location of the proposed new antennas. Ms. Sides asked Mr. Kelly to clarify which antennas are existing now and what will be added. Mr. Kelly said that they are going to install antennas within the current stealth elements,so there will be only one additional box. Mr. George asked if there will be no effective visual change other than the one new box. Mr. Kelly answered in the affirmative, to which Mr. George then asked if that will conform with what is there now. Mr. Kelley said yes. Mr. Kelley explained that these are going to be exclusively for data transmission for the new 4G service. The new box will be very low on the rooftop and will not be visible from the ground. Mr. Puleo asked if there will be a new cabinet going on the roof. Mr. Kelly said there will be one cabinet in an equipment room on the first floor. He pulled out the plans to describe to the Board exactly where everything will go. Mr. Clarke noted that it will have to go in an equipment room and there will not be a visual impact. Issue opened up to the public for comment No one from the public was present. Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, asked Mr. Kelly to contact Lt. Erin Griffin from the Fire Department to discuss her questions. She stated that a condition would be included regarding adhering to the requirements of the Fire Department. Motion to close the public hearing made by Randy Clarke, seconded by Mark George.All approved 6-0 Mr. George asked if there have been any studies done on the harmful effects of these types of antennas. Ms. McKnight stat that after questions arose two years ago, they learned that the Federal Telecommunications Act prohibits municipalities from denying permits based on concerns about health risks; the local planning boards do have a say in visuals. Mr.Puleo noted that this meets the federal guidelines and doesn't pose a health risk according to the federal government. Mr.Ready pointed out that this has come up before and they have deferred to the Board of Health and the Federal Communications Commission, which doesn't satisfy the public's concerns, but that is what they have had to do. Motioned to approve the special permit made by Randy Clarke, seconded by Tim Kavanagh. All approved 6-0. Documents&Exhibits: ➢ Application date-stamped 12/22/10 and accompanying photographs Old/New Business None. Adjournment Helen Sides made a motion to adjourn the meeting,seconded by Randy Clarke. All approved 6-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 7:47 pm. Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board 2/17/11 00 2 4R CITY OF SALEM lAo, PLANNING BOARD Sic N 18 P 2: 21 rite r� NOTICE OF MEETING CANCELLATION Ycu am lxmlY natol dxa dx SalernPlarowlg Board i etiT ongirally sdj&Ued for Thursday,January 20,2011 at 7.00 p.m.at City HaUArarx,Roan 313, 120 Washir"Std has Ecru CANCELED. 71x=t mgdar Planning Bazrd nwtirC uid take p&w on Fehn+ary 3, 2011. OMAIS M. PrdeQ Chlir This Pie pONed 011 "Of"Cl8l S6l0etin Board' `City Hail Salem, Mass. on a "ata 1� Zo�i mi z:z1 P/-1wb Ch*030 iw ISA A 20 of W 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 4 WWW.SALEM.COM PO �n.o Cod Jf7th+, �113�N 4)M- s � CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD nA NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING You are lxnib)notoed dant the SalemPlarnT Boum udl hold aspemd rr�on Thursday,January D, 2011 at 7:00 pm at City Hall Aruxr,Room 313, 120 Wasb Stmt 'P-A'laruc CYxtrla M. Puleo, Chir MEETING AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes 1/6/11 Planning Board meeting minutes 2. Continuation of Public Hearing -Discuss and Vote: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440,460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lots 1,2,3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new,expanded Walmart store,expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attomey Joseph Correnti. Ww 3. Continuation of Public Hearing - Discuss and Vote: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. 4. Old/New Business 5. Adjournment TW P09%d onA �a,]lem, Mass. 7, / VI M1ypj�� . 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TEL: 978.745.9595 FAx: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM � 3 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetland and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision 440,460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4) January 18, 2011 Kennedy Development Group, Inc. C/o Joseph Correnti, Esq. Sera6ni, Darling & Correnti 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank •, Site Plan Review/Planned Unit Development On Thursday, March 18, 2010, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing under Section 7.3, Planned Unit Development, and Section 9.5, Site Plan Review, of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, at the request of Kennedy Development Group, Inc., for the properties located at 440, 460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4). The proposed project includes a new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, a new, expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store, improvements to Camp Lion, and a new municipal water tank. The Public Hearing was continued to April 1, 2010, April 15, 2010, May 6, 2010, May 20, 2010, June 3, 2010, June 17, 2010, July 15, 2010, September 16, 2010, September 30, 2010, October 21, 2010, November 18, 2010, December 2, 2010, December 16, 2010, January 6, 2011, and January 13, 2011. On Thursday, June 17, 2010, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing under Section 8.1, Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District (WFHOD), of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, at the request of Kennedy Development Group, Inc., for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lot 1). The proposed project includes a new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store. The Public Hearing was continued to July 15, 2010, September 16, 2010, September 30, 2010, October 21, 2010, November 18, 2010, December 2, 2010, December 16, 2010, January 6, 2011, and January 13, 2011. The Planning Board, ager numerous public hearings and review of submitted materials, hereby makes the following "Findings of Fact", attached as Exhibit A and hereby incorporated as part of this decision. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TFi,: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 0 WWW,SALF:M.COM k + The Planning Board also hereby finds that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of • Salem Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 7.3 Planned Unit Development, as follows: I) 7.3.1 Purpose— The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD), which incorporates retail, municipal, and outdoor recreational uses, meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan of the City of Salem. 2) 7.3.2 Applicability— The proposed development parcel is significantly greater than 60,000 square feet in area. The underlying zoning districts of the proposed development parcel are BPD (Business Park Development) and B-2 (Highway Business District), each of which are eligible districts for PUD treatment. 3) 7.3.3 Uses —The proposed uses, including retail, municipal, and outdoor recreation, are allowed in a PUD development. • 7.3.3.2 —The Applicant has submitted detailed engineering and architectural specifications, including drawings, photographs, and photo-simulations of the means that will be employed to protect abutting properties in both Salem and Lynn. Specifically: o The Applicant conducted a balloon test whereby balloons were floated at strategic locations at the height of the proposed Lowe's building. Photographs taken from numerous locations at ground level show sight impacts to be minimal from existing residential neighborhoods. o A 15-foot high sound/screening wall will be constructed behind the proposed Lowe's • building; o The proposed sound/screening wall will serve as a noise and visual buffer between the Lowe's building and loading docks and the abutting Lynn residential development; o The proposed sound/screening wall, along with the existing and proposed landscaping buffer between Lowe's and the abutting Lynn residential development, will serve to protect the health, safety, welfare and privacy of the residential development; o The elimination of the existing Camp Lion driveway, a revision to the originally submitted plans, has increased the buffer between the residential neighborhood in Lynn and the proposed Lowe's building. o The proposed Walmart loading docks to the rear will be located over 400 feet from the nearest residential abutter with significant differences in elevation and a continuing landscape buffer, which will serve to protect the health, safety, welfare and privacy of the abutting residents; o Walmart has agreed to limit truck deliveries to its building to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., with no overnight deliveries between 12:00 a.m. (midnight) and 6:00 a.m. • 7.3.3.3 — In the Business Park Development district, residential uses and associated improvements cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the parcel. There are no residential uses proposed. 4) 7.3.8 Decision . 7.3.8.1 - The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this Ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and it will promote the purpose of this section by: 2 a) Providing for a comprehensive, planned approach to commercial, municipal, and • recreational development of adjacent parcels on Highland Avenue. The proposed PUD will eliminate several existing curb cuts along Route 107 and coordinate traffic through a newly created signalized drive into the site that will be utilized by each of the proposed uses. b) In addition to providing vehicular access for the City of Salem water tower and the Camp Lion outdoor recreational facility, the proposed PUD will coordinate utilities access to each of the proposed uses. c) Providing for appropriate economic development on an existing commercial corridor, thereby generating tax revenue and creatingjobs. 7.3.8.2 - The mixture of uses in the planned unit development is determined to be sufficiently advantageous to render it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the districts. Specifically, the project incorporates a mixture of commercial, municipal, and recreational uses, providing substantial public benefit. • 7.3.8.3 - The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental impact. Specifically, a) The proposed PUD requires the cutting of existing trees and blasting on site, but also includes the planting of over 1,000 new trees and shrubs on site. b) The Applicant predicts that the Drainage Plans, as submitted, revised and reviewed, will improve the existing pre-development condition of the site and surrounding neighborhoods in regard to drainage. The Applicant's engineering work is complete and thorough, and their analysis and predictions are reasonable. • c) The Applicant presented information indicating that the project will have no adverse impacts to the Spring Pond water supply in Peabody. Their analysis is reasonable and satisfactorily addresses the concerns about potential contamination runoff being directed to Spring Pond. d) The proposed PUD incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) techniques for Walmart. e) The proposed PUD incorporates energy-saving and greenhouse gas initiatives for the proposed buildings. The Planning Board hereby makes the following findings pertaining to the Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Application: 1. The proposed uses comply in all respects with the Zoning Ordinance and particularly the PUD section of the Ordinance. 2. Portions of the site are located within the Wetlands District, as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed development does not include the storage of salt, chemicals or petroleum products, other than those materials packaged, stored and handled for retail sale and stored within the buildings and stored within the buildings and an above-ground double-walled fuel tank with interstitial leak detection monitoring, that is attached to and serves as the fuel supply for the emergency generator serving the Lowe's store. • 4. The floor levels of areas to be occupied by workers will be four feet or more above the seasonal high water table with no basement floor level being constructed in any building. 3 5. The project will be serviced by City sewer. There will be no on lot septic system. • 6. The Drainage Plans and design, as submitted, will improve the water storage capacity of the site and protect against pollution and contamination of such water supply and wetlands. At a special meeting of the Planning Board held on January 13, 2011, the Planning Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor(Charles Puleo, John Moustakis, Randy Clarke, Nadine Hanscom, Mark George, Tim Kavanaugh, Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, Helen Sides), and none (0) opposed to approve the Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and Wetland and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan Work shall conform to the plans entitled, "Planned Unit Development Application: Proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Center, Wal-Mart and Meineke Expansions, City of Salem Water Storage Tank, and Future Camp Lion Improvements, Highland Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts," prepared for Kennedy Development Group, prepared by Tetra Tech Rizzo and Bohler Engineering, dated February 19, 2010 and last revised October 18, 2010, and page C-2, Site Plan, and page C-5, Landscape Plan, last revised December 15, 2010; and the plan entitled "Proposed Screening Wall, Salem, MA," dated January 13, 2011, showing additional planting on the south side of the site. 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. 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. 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". It. All sidewalks, roadways, utilities, landscaping, etc. damaged during construction shall be replaced or repaired to their pre-construction condition, or better. . i. A Construction and Management Plan is to be submitted to the City Planner for appropriate distribution to Salem departments and the City of Lynn. 4. Fire Department 4 1 a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. The locations of all . fire hydrants shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of any building permit. 5. Building Inspector All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 6. Board of Health All work shall comply with the Board of Health decision and conditions dated October 13, 2010: 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. A copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. d. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. • e. The developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 21 E report. f The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. g. 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. h. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. i. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. j. 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. k. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. 1. 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 and as further • interpreted in the MA Department of Environmental Protection noise pollution policy and 310 CMR 7.10 . 5 m. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material • needed for the project. n. 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. o. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. p. Proposed food establishments must have their plans reviewed by the Health Agent prior to their build-out. q. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. 7. Utilities a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. The applicant shall have an engineer certify the utility plans for review by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. b. All electrical utilities for the site shall be underground. 8. Department of Public Services The applicant, his successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the Department of • Public Services. 9. 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 Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permit. c. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 10. HVAC If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site, it shall be visually screened. The method for screening the unit shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to installation. 11. Noise HVAC units shall be sufficiently buffered and the applicant shall take steps to further mitigate noise emanating from the HVAC units(s) if the Board of Health receives any complaints. 12. Landscaping a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans; detailed landscaping plan for the plan entitled "Proposed Screening Wall" dated January 13, 2011' is to be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permit b. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the applicant, his successors or assigns. The applicant, his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two- (2) year period. 6 c. Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced. The location of the trees • shall be approved by the City Planner prior to replanting. d. Final completed landscaping shall be subject to approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. i 13. Maintenance a. Refuse removal, recycling, 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. 14. As-built Plans a. As-built Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public Services prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. b. The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the City's use and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. c. A completed tie card, a blank copy(available at the Engineering Department) and a certification signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed in substantial compliance with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. 15. Violations • Violations of any condition contained herein 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. 16. Special Conditions: 1. Traffic a. Applicant agrees to provide up to $75,000 to MassDOT to undertake a study for the data collection, analysis and conceptual design of three intersections on Route 107 in Salem for the purpose of identifying alternatives for traffic mitigation for the intersections at Swampscott Road, Marlborough Road/Trader's Way, and Pep Boys/Market Basket Plaza Driveways. (See Exhibit B.) Further, the applicant agrees to provide$17,000 to the City of Salem for traffic engineering peer review related to this study. Said funds to be provided to MassDOT and the City of Salem, respectively, prior to issuance of any building permit. b. Applicant agrees to design and implement an exclusive right-tum lane on the Western Avenue southbound approach to Fays Avenue in Lynn, subject to the approval of MassDOT. In addition, applicant will replace the existing traffic signal equipment and have traffic signal timing changed to increase the amount of"green time"provided to the Western Avenue approaches during each signal cycle, subject to the approval of MassDOT. Applicant is to coordinate with/obtain necessary approvals from MassDOT. c. It is noted that as a potential alternative to address traffic concerns identified in the City of • Lynn, the applicant is proposing a two-way left turn lane on Western Avenue from Buchanan Circle to (approximately) the current location of the Camp Lion driveway. This reference is included herein to acknowledge that this alternative could be a requirement of MassDOT as part of the MEPA review process. It is not a condition of approval of the Salem Planning Board. 7 • d. All traffic and roadway improvements shall be implemented as approved by the State prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. e. Lowe's and Walmart are required to each join the North Shore Transportation Management Association (TMA) for a minimum period of three years. The cost for such membership shall be based on rates in effect at the time of this approval. Payment for the three year membership to be made prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Stormwater Management a. Applicant to inspect existing stormwater management system within the limits of the proposed Highland Avenue improvements during construction to identify any catch basins, manholes, or stormwater pipes that do not appear to be functioning properly. Catch basins, manholes, and stormwater pipes found to be in need of cleaning, repair, or replacement or that differ from the conditions identified on the existing conditions survey(i.e. smaller diameter pipe than shown on the plans) are to be reported to the Salem City Engineer and MassDOT prior to any action being taken. Said catch basins, manholes, or stormwater pipes will be cleaned, repaired, or replaced subject to the approval of MassDOT as part of the project improvements. Evaluation and cleaning to specifically include the catch basin at the outlet to the wetland located at the southeast property boundary, which is located approximately ten feet off Highland Avenue. b. Future developments at the Camp Lion facility must not exceed the impervious areas shown • on the approved plans in order to meet Massachusetts Stormwater guidelines. Furthermore, development of the camp site shall include stormwater treatment measures as stated in the project Drainage Report, dated November 23, 2010. c. Applicant is to submit an Operation and Management Plan for the stormwater management system, describing the frequency of cleaning (at least twice per year), and maintenance of the system, clearly defining the responsible party for maintenance, prior to the issuance of any building permit. d. The applicant is to contribute $60,000 prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy to the City of Lynn to be used by the City of Lynn toward drainage improvements, specifically including repair or replacement of a stormwater pipe identified in the Buchanan Circle neighborhood that is functioning improperly and contributing to Flooding conditions in that neighborhood, as identified in Paragraph g g ph _8 of Exhibit B attached hereto. 3. Deliveries to Walmart to be limited to the time period between 6 a.m. and 12 a.m. (midnight) consistent with current store operations. 4. Details, specifications, and design calculations for the retaining wall at Lowe's, including color, to be submitted to the City Engineer and City Planner for review and approval prior to start of construction. 5. Specifications for the sound barrier/screening wall, including color, located to the rear of the Lowe's store, are to be submitted to City Planner for review and approval prior to start of construction. 8 6. A sidewalk is to be constructed along Highland Avenue from the northernmost site driveway to • connect to the access driveway to facilitate a safer walking environment for pedestrians. The design of the sidewalk and pedestrian ramps to be ADA compliant. It is noted that the new signalized intersection at the site driveway will include a pedestrian phase to enable pedestrians to safely cross. The crosswalk will be moved from its current location, as recommended by MassDOT, to north of the access driveway. The sidewalk and new location of the crosswalk to be shown on revised plans. Revised plans are to be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit for Walmart. 7. The applicant will contribute $75,000 to the City of Salem toward the cost of improvements to the sewer pump station located on Highland Avenue in front of the site prior to the issuance of any building permit. 8. A bus pull off, shelter and waiting area shall be incorporated into the site plan on Highland Avenue in front of the Walmart project site for southbound buses. The pull off or turnout area for the bus, which is the start of the right-turn lane into the site, shall be wide enough so as to allow all traffic lanes on Highland Avenue to continuously flow once the bus comes to a stop. The applicant shall work with the MBTA and MassDOT to obtain the necessary approvals, easements, etc. for construction. Upon State approval(s), a specific site plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner showing proposed amenities, such as a shelter, cart corral, and trash receptacle as well as any changes to the parking field or landscaping of Walmart, if necessary. Bus pull off and associated amenities to be constructed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, assuming that all necessary State approvals are in place in a timely fashion, however in • no event will a non-issuance of approvals by the State delay the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy by the City. 9. Refuse removal, recycling, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the applicant, his successors or assigns. 10. The applicant, his successors or assigns shall be responsible for the maintenance and snowplowing of the entrance drive connecting to Highland Avenue. 11. A Clerk of the Works will be required to oversee the construction work. The Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the applicant, his successors or assigns. 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, Chair 9 l f • EXHIBIT A TRAFFIC The following findings include improvements proposed by the Applicant, all of which are subject to approval by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), who has jurisdiction over these applicable portions of Route 107 (Highland and Western Avenues) in both Salem and Lynn. 1. The existing main site driveway into Walmart will be closed. 2. A new site driveway providing full access/egress under traffic signal control with optimized phasings and timings for the entire project will be provided. 3. The north site driveway into Walmart will be modified to provide proper curb radii to current design standards. 4. Additional turning lanes and pedestrian accommodations at the new main driveway will be provided. 5. Improvements to the Highland Avenue southbound merge area into the City of Lynn will be provided by realigning the roadway, through the use of pavement • markings, and posted signs. 6. Western Avenue at Fays Avenue in Lynn will be slightly widened and re-striped on the southbound approach to provide a through lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. 7. New traffic signal equipment with optimized phasings and timings will be installed at the Western Avenue/Fays Avenue intersection. 8. Western Avenue between Buchanan Circle and the existing Camp Lion driveway will be re-striped to provide a two-way left-tum lane for left turns to/from the residential streets. 9. The City of Salem Planning Board retained BETA Group, Inc. ("BETA") as its peer review consultant on the traffic impacts and improvements associated with this project as proposed by the Applicant. 10. BETA reviewed, in detail, the "Traffic Impact and Access Study for Submission with EENF" proposed by the Applicant and prepared by the Applicant's traffic consultant, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. ("GPI"). 11. BETA prepared a detailed comment letter, dated May 5, 2010, to the Traffic • Study submitted by the Applicant. Exhibit A Page 1 of 5 1 � L • 12. In its comments and recommendations, BETA recommended, among other things, that the following actions be undertaken by the Applicant: a. Expand the study area along Route 107 further south into Lynn and further north into Salem; b. Provide additional automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts along Highland Avenue adjacent to the site to the City; C. Evaluate the sight distances at the Highland Avenue/Camp Lion driveway; d. Clarify calculations concerning Minimum Required Stopping Sight Distance; e. Revise the trip generation for the weekday AM peak hour. 13. In a Technical Memorandum dated September 2, 2010, GPI submitted a Response to Comments memorandum that addressed each issue and recommendation made by BETA, including implementation of the substantially expanded study area. 14. The City of Salem Department of Planning and Community Development coordinated a meeting with MassDOT and invited both the Applicant and BETA • to attend to discuss the Applicant's proposed improvements on Route 107, a DOT jurisdiction roadway("DOT Meeting"). 15. Subsequent to the DOT Meeting, the Applicant, BETA and the Department of Planning and Community Development reported to the Planning Board, at its regularly scheduled meeting on January 6, 2011, that an engineering corridor study along Route 107 between Swampscott Road and the Pep Boys traffic signal was recommended by DOT, to be funded by the Applicant, to help determine future improvements to Route 107. 16. The Applicant presented its proposed improvements, as revised, to the Planning Board on January 6, 2011, including a two-way left-turn lane to be constructed south of the Highland Avenue merge area, from the existing Camp Lion driveway, along Western Avenue to Buchanan Circle in Lynn. 17. Extensive comments have been received by the Planning Board from the public, including many residents of the abutting Lynn neighborhoods, concerning the existing conditions along Route 107 between Fays Avenue and the project site. 18. All conditions, recommendations, revisions and changes to Route 107 proposed by the Applicant and/or the Planning Board are subject to the approval of DOT for this state highway. Exhibit A Page 2 of 5 1 , • 19. The Applicant will submit to ongoing DOT jurisdiction in the state-required MEPA and MassDOT Section 61 processes for this project. DRAINAGE 20. The Applicant has submitted an extensive Drainage Report entitled "Drainage Report for proposed Planned Unit Development," dated November 23, 2010, prepared by Tetra Tech Rizzo and Bohler Engineering, as well as plans in the original Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Application and subsequent Wetlands Flood Hazard District Special Permit Application. 21. The documents submitted addressed, among other things, the following: - Intermittent stream reconstruction; - Cross-sections of the existing stream; - Pre-development Conditions Watershed Plan; - Post-development Conditions Watershed Plan; - Demolition Plan; - Grading and Drainage Plan; - Utility Plan. • 22. The City of Salem retained the services of New England Civil Engineering Corp. ("NECE") for Peer Review Services to be provided to the Planning Board on engineering and drainage matters for the project. 23. Upon its review of the submitted materials, as well as meetings with the Applicant's engineers, NECE submitted extensive comments and recommendations to the Board and Applicant on two separate occasions, including, but not limited to the following areas: a. Soils: Submittal of logs for test pits, borings and probes, for review. b. Impervious Area. Applicant to submit acreage with itemized calculations. C. Roof Runoff. Applicant to provide additional information on slope and break lines of roof to confirm runoff to be collected. d. TSS Removal. Applicant to revise TSS removal tables to reflect a different method of street sweeping (a more conservative removal rate). e. Water Quality Structures and Sizing. f Hydraulic Capacity of Pipes. Exhibit A Page 3 of 5 . g. Existing Drainage. Identify condition of structures in Route 107; expand study area further into Lynn. h. Maintenance. i. Subsurface Infiltration/Low Impact Development. Applicant to evaluate alternatives. j. Modifications to the existing drainage inlet structure located along the southeast property boundary to reduce the likelihood of clogging. k. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pump Station. Coordination with City Engineer required. 24. Through a series of meetings with NECE and presentation and submittals to the Planning Board, the Applicant has addressed each of the issues raised by the Board and its consultant, NECE. 25. Extensive public comment has been received by the Board during the public hearings concerning the existing drainage and runoff conditions of the site and the abutting neighborhoods in Lynn. • 26. Based on public comments from neighbors and actual observation of the site area, the Board finds that some flooding already occurs onto Route 107 and into the Buchanan Circle neighborhood in Lynn. 27. The Board received extensive comment from various City of Lynn officials, including officials from Lynn Water & Sewer Commission, confirming the flooding that occurs in the existing pre-development condition. 28. The Applicant, working with staff from Lynn Water & Sewer Commission, identified a stormwater pipe in the Buchanan Circle neighborhood that was functioning improperly and contributing to the flooding conditions. 29. The Applicant presented information indicating that the project will have no adverse impacts to the Spring Pond water supply in Peabody. This was reviewed by NECE, which found their analysis to be reasonable and addressed the concerns about potential contaminated runoff being directed to Spring Pond. 30. The Applicant, at the suggestion of the Board and NECE, incorporated "low impact development" techniques in the form of above and below ground stormwater infiltration areas for the Walmart store. 31. The applicant predicts that the Drainage Plans, as submitted, revised and • reviewed, will improve the existing, pre-development condition of the site and Exhibit A Page 4 of 5 • surrounding neighborhoods. NECE finds that the applicant's engineering work is complete and thorough, and their analysis and predictions are reasonable. • Exhibit A Page 5 of 5 • EXHIBIT B Draft Scope of Work Data Collection, Analysis and Conceptual Design of Alternatives: Three Intersections on Route 107, Salem, Massachusetts BACKGROUND MassDOT and the City of Salem are interested in operational and potential geometric improvements that would mitigate existing conditions and potential future impacts from the new Lowe's and expansion of Walmart in Salem south of the three locations,just north of the Lynn/Salem City Line. This document outlines a scope of services to perform a traffic study for three signalized intersections on Route 107 (Highland Avenue) in.Salem, Massachusetts, as follows: • Swampscott Road • • Marlborough Road/Traders Way • Pep Boys/Market Basket Plaza Driveways The three intersections will be analyzed for operational issues (delays, traffic signal design, and other deficiencies) and potential improvements requiring expansion into the existing right-of-way or beyond it. Of particular interest are the first two intersections, which operate in tandem as a pair carrying north-south volume between Swampscott Road and Marlborough Road in both directions. This tandem causes a shifting of traffic within a limited roadway segment on Route 107 causing merging and diverging of traffic with associated delays and operational inefficiencies. In the case of geometric improvements at this segment of Route 107 to correct for this problem, MassDOT is interested in developing and reviewing conceptual AutoCAD plans drawn over existing layout plans. OBJECTIVE This study will identify traffic operational and geometric improvements to address operational problems at three Salem signalized intersections, including developing conceptual plans and identifying right-of-way requirements for the alternatives that include geometric improvements. WORK DESCRIPTION • Task 1 Perform Field Reconnaissance and Collect/Gather Data Detailed data and information pertaining to each location will be collected. This will involve visiting each site and inventorying all relevant geometric, land use, and signal features. The three locations serve primarily Route 107 commuter trips and the shopping plaza driveways, which may have different peaking characteristics. For this reason, data collection will be done for weekday AM and PM peak hours and for Saturday midday. In addition, data may have to be collected for the intersection of one of the plaza's driveways with Route 107. Data will include: • 2-hour manual turning movement counts (MTMCs) during the AM and PM peak periods and midday(10 AM to 2 PM) Saturday • 24-hour Automatic Recorder Counts (ATRs) (to be requested from MassDOT Highway Division) at nine locations during three weekdays and a typical Saturday • Bicycle counts • Pedestrian counts • Transit vehicle counts • Signal timing data (MassDOT to provide traffic signal plans to review existing phases, timing lengths) • Queue lengths • • Crash data, including copies of crash reports to develop crash diagrams • Origin-destination pattern for Swampscott Road and Marlborough Road traffic by performing a short license plate or other form of survey • Geometric data (layout plans, lanes, curb cuts, sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian buttons, transit amenities) • Land use/zoning information • Jurisdictional/administrative system responsibilities Products of Task I Traffic flow diagrams, summaries of count, geometric, signal, and queue information, origin-destination data and analysis, safety analysis and crash diagrams, as well as land use and jurisdictional information, for the three intersections Task 2 Evaluate and Analyze Intersections Each intersection will be analyzed for capacity and delays analysis in order to determine the operational level of service at each intersection. Particular attention will be given to the evaluation of existing pedestrian signal phases, if any, or the need for them. Also, the origin-destination (north-south) traffic pattern between Swampscott Road and Marlborough Road will be identified in order to design effective traffic signal plans and geometric improvements at the two intersections and the Route 107 segment between . them. Analysis of crash diagrams will reveal the type of safety concerns that exist in the vicinity of the three intersections and the operational or geometric deficiencies that may be lacking in in that area. Field observations will yield a full understanding of the MassDO'I'Office orfransportation Planning Page 2 of 12/23/10 • operations of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians at each location. In addition to field observations, right-of-way plans will be reviewed, in case any minor widening or additional turning lanes are required. Products of Task 2 Reviews of traffic signal plans and right-of-way plans; summaries of existing operational level of service for typical weekday AM and PM peak hours and for midday Saturday, including delays and queues by lane group; assessment of safety issues; assessment of north-south traffic volume pattern using the Route 107 segment between Swampscott Road and Marlborough Road Task 3 Develop Improvement Alternatives and Associated Costs Based on the evaluation and analyses, potential improvement alternatives will be developed. Potential improvements would include retiming, traffic signal design, geometric improvements, traffic management, channelization, access management, arterial coordination of the three signalized intersections, and assessment of traffic control equipment for potential updates, and better processing of bus, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic. The cost of each improvement option will be evaluated (excluding right- of-way costs.) Conceptual geometric improvements will be drawn on existing layout plans using AutoCAD. Analysis will be performed with 2016 (No-Build and Build) • volumes, including Wal-Mart and Lowe's generated traffic upon occupancy. In addition to Wal-Mart and Lowe's trips, the 5-year growth rate will take into account an appropriate background growth rate. Product of Task 3 A summary of alternative improvements and associated present and future year assessment; conceptual AutoCAD designs of potential geometric improvements; and construction implementation costs, excluding right-of-way purchase, if any. Task 4 Recommend Improvements Based on the evaluation and analysis performed in Task 3, short- and long-term measures to improve operations at the three intersections will be recommended Product of Task 4 A summary of recommended operational improvements for the three intersections Task 5 Advisory Group Input Study will include seeking advisory group input via presentations at meetings e- mail exchanges, and telephone forms of interaction. The advisory group will consist of MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning Page 3 of 12/23110 MassDOT representatives from Office of Transportation Planning, Highway Division, District 4, and others; City of Salem officials, and City of Salem consultants. Product of Task 5 Preparation for meetings, including presentations, and other forms of interaction with advisory group members Task 6 Document All Findings and Recommendations Staff will document all study tasks in a technical memorandum for MassDOT's review. Product of Task 6 A technical memorandum documenting Tasks 1 through 5 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE It is estimated that this project will be completed 14 weeks after the notice to proceed is received. • • MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning Page 4 of 4 12/23/10 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board .Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email Lva� �,q,P�,L rf/6f�,� �� �e�rPS� LiiL�/� S9�in �19f1°�ys-arra (� �pmeuc� J-r��_:a Liberf� 3c, ohS Zun¢r t2yrl GI7Ff -7�(C =1GKU n Y,T-,� , nej Cis gL��s�i S l �;i -S ?A iG��.cL (fit lJ cell„ 23 d ?A2�1 Sc. lao.7s-�a�N6 a1106'- -obi ti'^o�ne.1� o'h e.�\ V Air � Co,�ay IM,�- e - r� LV&dii s Ne7`' l� arLv juAj60-c16-QAyj? 1 g Lac k �SoN MNcpR-viN � (,8 t�c12��2� ST 1.�/ne� �'�i -5lkq-zo�lz �iC�ICa/V/II�I,J� I.S /1�2�(i✓/7111e �� �� b� �8�9ag,3ay�-----.. _ Zc) �Grco,rw�So J /U, r��✓� 7P)( 67 Z to770 ! p 8 lee Vreet.,Sa1Pm 01970 Z422 QY1799-p7445 259,3 Lee. St ipM 97� 7yo-9� Page of _3 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board Q Date R Name Mailing Address Phone # Email u l of 7�� S9i da3o 003���. Page z of 3 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board N4LVL146 Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email l�,4 c3& dvz_Lg1--1 .�s7-I,��,� Page 3 of CITY OF SALEM gyp{ti PLANNING BOARD Notice of Decisions At a special meeting of the City of Salem Planning Board held on Thursday,January 13,2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313 at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Salem Massachusetts,the Planning Board voted upon the following items: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit, for the property located at 440,460, 462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), Salem MA, and request for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1). Project includes a proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store, new, expanded Wahnart store, expanded Meineke store, Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Decision: Approved - Filed with the City Clerk January 18, 2011 • This now is Eeing sero in con plianx with the Massa&wetts General L aus, Chapter 40A, Section 9 and does not require action by the recipient Appeals, if arty, shall be nude pwsuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and shall Ee filed ueitbin 20 data fiom the date zehiuh the decision urns filed?Kith the City Clerk. i MEETING MINUTES 1/13/11 A regular meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,January 13,2011 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313,Third Floor,at 120 Washington Street, Salem,Massachusetts. 'hose present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair,John Moustakis,Vice Chair,Mark George,Randy Clarke,Helen Sides,Christine Sullivan,Nadine Hanscom,Tim Ready,and Tim Kavanaugh.Also present:Lynn Duncan,Director,Department of Planning and Community Development,Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner,and Beth Gerard,Planning Board Recording Clerk. Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:17 pm. Approval of Minutes 1/6/11 Planning Board meeting minutes The minutes from the January 6,2011 meeting were reviewed. No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Nadine Hanscom motioned to approve, seconded by Randy Clarke.Approved 9-0 Continuation of Public Hearing—Discuss and Vote: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP,INC. for Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit,for the property located at 440,460,462, and 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3, Lots 1,2,3 and 4), Salem MA(proposed new Lowe's Home Improvement retail store,new,expanded Walmart store, expanded Meineke store,Camp Lion improvements and new municipal water tank). Attorney Joseph Correnti. Continuation of Public Hearing—Discuss and Vote: Request of KENNEDY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. for a Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit for the property located at 488 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 3,Lot 1), Salem MA. Attorney Joseph Correnti. Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street,representing Kennedy Development Group, stated that they have concluded their presentations,taking into consideration the comments of the Board, the public, the peer reviewers and the city. As stated last week,they said they would continue to look at the screening options between Apple Hill and Lowe's,and they spoke with Mr. emakis' (trustee of Apple Hill subdivision) office. They reported to the Board that they are going to be adding additional andscape screening in addition to what is already planned. They think it's a satisfactory solution to this issue,which will fill in the areas that need more filling in. Austin Turner,TertaTechRizzo, 1 Grant St,Framingham, distributed a screening plan that is based on the meetings they had with Mr. O'Neill,Mr. Demakis'engineer.They have added arborvitae,which will be spaced every 15 feet and has added trees. Mr. Puleo asked if they will be able to maintain these new plantings for two years,as required. Mr.Turner said yes. Christine Sullivan asked if the applicant has to replace them if they don't take root. Mr.Puleo said yes. Mr.Puleo asked if the plantings are within the property lines. Mr.Turner stated yes. Randy Clarke asked how many trees, and Mr.Turner stated that there would be between 80 and 100. Ed O'Neil,234 Park Street,North Reading,O'Neill Associates,speaking on behalf of Mr. Demakis,who could not attend, stated that they find that the proposals are appropriate and meet their requirements for screening. Mr. Correnti stated that they would be pleased to have the planting plan incorporated into the decision;and when they submit the final set, this will be a more detailed and part of the plan. Mr. Clarke asked if this will be part of the two year plant management requirement. Mr. Puleo said yes. Issue is opened up for public comment Dan Cahill,20 Belleaire Ave,Lynn, thanked the Board for opening the discussion to people of surrounding communities. He speaks on behalf of those in opposition and stated that they submitted a packet to the Board that details the opposition to the project. He stated that they are concerned about the impact of this project in terms of the traffic. They feel that they have not been given sufficient information about the traffic plan. He feels that there is no hope for those in Lynn;they are one way in • 1 and one way out. Additionally, they are concerned about the drainage plan, they are not sure if it's going to work until it's built. They are concerned about the environment; they are running out of space and the area is home to important species. They are also concerned about property values, specifically that the property values will decrease and will be shared amongst other rate payers in Lynn. He's also concerned about blasting; they don't know the schedule, and how this will take place. There are a lot of unknowns and he feels that this is going to be something that will impact us all forever. He submitted 875 petitions to the Board from the surrounding areas and would like to hope this will be taken into account as this is voted on. • William Trahant Jr.,Lynn City Councilor, thanked all of the Board members,and stated that it is an important issue to the neighbors in Lynn. He said that this neighborhood is a strong neighborhood. He is concerned about drainage. He stated that things have changed and they are afraid of what is going to happen when they start blasting the bedrock. He also stated his other concern which is the traffic;in particular the so-called"suicide lane"and they are concerned about this. Pat Liberti, 3 Lions Lane spoke in support of the development. Scott Wiseberg,Tanglewood Lane,Salem stated that they have been working with the developer since the beginning, and they support the project and looks forward to what the future holds. Craig Balleranio,Winsuperkit Road,Lynn,stated that he is definitely in favor of the project as it will save him on gas. Dave Pelletier, 12 Crombie St,Salem,asked if these buildings will be built with union labor;Mr. Puleo stated that this is not the role of the Planning Board to request the type of labor used on the project by an applicant. Katerma Panagiotakis, 150 Ocean St,Lynn stated that she would like to submit an online petition to protect the area,which was signed by 1,212 people globally. She also noted that the people who signed the petition are from Salem and are against this more than people from Lynn. The second thing that she would like to note is in regards to the Native American resources on the site,and the Aquinnah (Mashpee) tribe will be submitting documentation to the Board. Jim Rose,25 Linden St,Salem, stated that they are coming to a really outstanding design for this project,which will be great for Salem and the whole area. He further stated that the people of Lynn should focus on their own economic development. The design is great and this should move forward. • Mary Whitney,356 Essex St,Salem, states that she has a lot of concerns about the project, and doesn't believe that her concerns have been met,nor does she believe Mr. Correnti's claims. She read a quote from a book about statistics on shopping centers and the impacts on big box stores. Her two questions are what is the purpose of the Planning Board and what are the grounds to deny a permit. Lynn Duncan,Director of Planning,responded stating that the Planning Board has a few purposes: review proposed projects,conduct development review,and the Board will need to make certain findings in order to vote on this tonight. If the Board finds that this meets the criteria of planned unit development, then they could approve;if not, they will approve with conditions or deny. She stated that the site plan review is determining how to make it the best it can be and the criteria from the Zoning will guide this process as well. John Mondello, 276 Chatham St,Lynn, states that he is in favor of this project because it will put people in labor to work during the development and will put people to work when it's completed. Tim Fandell, 36 Hollis St,Scituate, and a representative of the North Shore Building Trades, states that he is in favor of this project and thinks it is an excellent project. He stated that he has observed an evolution in design in terms of traffic and drainage. He commented on the new drainage plan which is nothing like what was originally proposed. He feels that they have an engaged developer that has included the input from the Board and the public to�figure out how to address drainage issues. He also noted that the traffic issue showed once again that the developer stepped up to try to rectify the issue. He said that Highland Avenue has been a problem since he grew up on the North Shore,and the developer agreed to administer a study to meet the concerns of the people in the room. The developer has gone a long way to rectify long term solutions and standing on behalf of the North Shore Building Trades he is in favor of this project. • 2 Leslie Courtemanche, 90 Fellsmere,Lynn, said that she thinks it's funny that people call Highland Avenue ugly now, and it will be more ugly if this project is approved. She stated that what is behind the site now is a vast resource that has been used since 1945 as an open space park. She said that all over the world there are projects to protect open areas, and yet in our own backyards,we are destroying this rich environment;which is in not in harmony with state requirements. Galvin Anderson, 12 Concord Street,Lynn,read from a statement he prepared and he urged the board to continue the hearings. Joe Gill,222 Woodland North,Lynn, said that if people in support of the project still have questions,that it should raise red flags. He said that he works at Camp Lion,and the project will displace 400 kids during the summer. Mr.Puleo asked if he represented Camp Lion,and Mr. Gill stated that he does not,he is here tonight representing himself. Stacy Kilb,35 North Ave Salem,does not support this project,but commends the minute taker as she herself has to take minutes and she thinks the minute taker is doing a great job. Barry Nealy,Lynn St,Salem,congratulated the Board on doing a great job. He said that he has driven around the neighborhood, has been a boy scout, and wants it to be known that there will still be a camp. He stated that the Board is charged with taking care of Salem,what the developer is suggesting will improve the area. Mr. Ready noted that this board has demonstrated an expansive view to go out of their way to consider the folks of Lynn. John Moustakis made a motion to close the public hearing,seconded by Christine Sullivan. All approved 9-0. Ms. Hanscom asked how much of the natural landscape will be removed to build this. Mr.Turner stated that an approximation is about 12— 15 acres. Ms. Sullivan stated that Salem has a clear blasting ordinance which regulates the hours, etc,and asked if the ordinance would be distributed tonight. Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner, stated that it is available through the Fire Department. Ms. Sullivan recommended that this be made available and asked if the blasting ordinance includes the people in Lynn. Mr. Puleo responded that the ordinance includes a circumference of up to 300 feet. Mr. Clarke recommended sharing the ordinance with the Councilors and the Mayor of Lynn. Ms. Duncan stated that a copy of the dinance is available on the city website www.salem.com. Mr. Ready stated that there is an obvious concern for volume of traffic,and he asked if the Board has received anything from Lynn on their traffic solutions. He also stated that the uncertainty of storm flooding concerns is another issue. There is a water study that shows that they have completed an extensive review of the problem pipes. Tim Kavanaugh responded that the peer reviewer and engineer state that after the project is built the drainage will be better. Ms. Sullivan pointed out that there is a Target and Home Depot in town, and downtown Salem is booming more than what it has seen since the 1950's. The future is that there is an ability have a blend of types of businesses. Mr. Clarke said that he agrees and disagrees with Ms. Sullivan. He stated that he is not a fan of box stores but as the Planning Board we are here to see if they meet the PUD zoning conditions and site design requirements. He thinks the applicant has done a pretty fantastic job of dealing with people's concerns and they meet all the conditions. He noted that Planning Board only does one piece;there is the MEPA review, etc,and encourages the audience to continue to be part of this. He recommend that the Lowe's site do as much as possible in terms of solar paneling and green design. He stated that he thinks the screening changes are great and in terms of the improvement in drainage,he is convinced it will be better. He noted that the turning lane and the u-turn is a significant positive. The only thing he's not happy with is the overall size of the parking lot. Mr. Clarke thanked the people in audience for their participation in this process. Helen Sides said that she agrees with most everything Mr. Clarke said. She feels that Salem needs this project and needs the tax revenue. She said she is not a fan of blasting,but if it is going to take place, this is where it should be done. She said Lowe's should be working harder to maximize sustainability and hopes the state requires more of them in this respect. 3 Ms. Sullivan stated that she hopes that Lowe's would learn from Wal-Mart in this respect. She is really impressed by the use of recycled materials. They can do the same thing, they are powerful. Her last point is that this is about jobs. Mr. Puleo reviewed the Draft Decision with the Board. There was discussion about the proposed conditions. Tim Kavanaugh made a motion to approve the PUD special permit,wetlands special permit,and the site plan submitted, is seconded by John Moustakis and approved 9-0 (Puleo,Moustakis,Hanscom,Ready,Kavanaugh,Sides, Sullivan,Clarke and George in favor,none opposed),with the following conditions: The Planning Board, after numerous public hearings and review of submitted materials,hereby makes the following"Findings of Fact", attached as Exhibit A and hereby incorporated as part of this decision. The Planning Board also hereby finds that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 7.3 Planned Unit Development,as follows: 1) 7.3.1 Purpose—The proposed Planned Unit Development(PUD),which incorporates retail,municipal, and outdoor recreational uses,meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan of the City of Salem. 2) 7.3.2 Applicability—The proposed development parcel is significantly greater than 60,000 square feet in area. The underlying zoning districts of the proposed development parcel are BPD (Business Park Development) and B-2 (Highway Business District), each of which are eligible districts for PUD treatment. 3) 7.3.3 Uses—The proposed uses,including retail,municipal, and outdoor recreation, are allowed in a PUD development. 7.3.3.2—The Applicant has submitted detailed engineering and architectural specifications,including drawings, photographs, and photo-simulations of the means that will be employed to protect abutting properties in both Salem and Lynn. Specifically: o The Applicant conducted a balloon test whereby balloons were floated at strategic locations at the height of the proposed Lowe's building. Photographs taken from numerous locations at ground level show sight impacts to be minimal from existing residential neighborhoods. o A 15-foot high sound/screening wall will be constructed behind the proposed Lowe's building; o The proposed sound/screening wall will serve as a noise and visual buffer between the Lowe's building and loading docks and the abutting Lynn residential development; o The proposed sound/screening wall, along with the existing and proposed landscaping buffer between Lowe's and the abutting Lynn residential development,will serve to protect the health,safety,welfare and privacy of the residential development; o The elimination of the existing Camp Lion driveway,a revision to the originally submitted plans,has increased the buffer between the residential neighborhood in Lynn and the proposed Lowe's building. o The proposed Walmart loading docks to the rear will be located over 400 feet from the nearest residential abutter with significant differences in elevation and a continuing landscape buffer,which will serve to protect the health,safety,welfare and privacy of the abutting residents; o Walmart has agreed to limit truck deliveries to its budding to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.,with no overnight deliveries between 12:00 a.m. (midnight) and 6:00 a.m. 7.3.3.3—In the Business Park Development district,residential uses and associated improvements cannot exceed 50% of the land area of the parcel. There are no residential uses proposed. 4) 7.3.8 Decision • 7.3.8.1 -The proposed planned unit development is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this Ordinance and the master plan of the City of Salem and it will promote the purpose of this section by: a) Providing for a comprehensive,planned approach to commercial, municipal,and recreational development of adjacent parcels on Highland Avenue. The proposed PUD will eliminate several existing curb cuts along Route 4 107 and coordinate traffic through a newly created signalized drive into the site that will be utilized by each of the proposed uses. b) In addition to providing vehicular access for the City of Salem water tower and the Camp Lion outdoor recreational facility, the proposed PUD will coordinate utilities access to each of the proposed uses. • c) Providing for appropriate economic development on an existing commercial corridor, thereby generating tax revenue and creating jobs. 7.3.8.2-The mixture of uses in the planned unit development is determined to be sufficiently advantageous to render it appropriate to depart from the normal requirements of the districts. Specifically, the project incorporates a mixture of commercial,municipal,and recreational uses,providing substantial public benefit. 7.3.8.3 -The planned unit development would not result in a net negative environmental impact. Specifically, a) The proposed PUD requires the cutting of existing trees and blasting on site,but also includes the planting of over 1,000 new trees and shrubs on site. b) The Applicant predicts that the Drainage Plans, as submitted,revised and reviewed,will improve the existing pre- development condition of the site and surrounding neighborhoods in regard to drainage. The Applicant's engineering work is complete and thorough, and their analysis and predictions are reasonable. c) The Applicant presented information indicating that the project will have no adverse impacts to the Spring Pond water supply in Peabody. Their analysis is reasonable and satisfactorily addresses the concerns about potential contamination runoff being directed to Spring Pond. d) The proposed PUD incorporates Low Impact Development(LID) techniques for Walmart. e) The proposed PUD incorporates energy-saving and greenhouse gas initiatives for the proposed buildings. The Planning Board hereby makes the following findings pertaining to the Wetlands and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Application: 1. The proposed uses comply in all respects with the Zoning Ordinance and particularly the PUD section of the Ordinance. Portions of the site are located within the Wetlands District, as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed development does not include the storage of salt, chemicals or petroleum products,other than those materials packaged,stored and handled for retail sale and stored within the buildings and stored within the buildings and an above-ground double-walled fuel tank with interstitial leak detection monitoring,that is attached to and serves as the fuel supply for the emergency generator serving the Lowe's store. 4. The floor levels of areas to be occupied by workers will be four feet or more above the seasonal high water table with no basement floor level being constructed in any building. 5. The project will be serviced by City sewer. There will be no on lot septic system. 6. The Drainage Plans and design, as submitted, will improve the water storage capacity of the site and protect against pollution and contamination of such water supply and wetlands. At a special meeting of the Planning Board held on January 13,2011, the Planning Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor (Charles Puleo,John Moustakis,Randy Clarke,Nadine Hanscom,Mark George,Tim Kavanaugh,Tim Ready, Christine Sullivan, Helen Sides),and none (0) opposed to approve the Site Plan Review,Planned Unit Development Special Permit,and Wetland and Flood Hazard District Special Permit, subject to the following conditions: Conformance with the Plan Work shall conform to the plans entitled,"Planned Unit Development Application: Proposed Lowe's Home Improvement Center,Wal-Mart and Meineke Expansions,City of Salem Water Storage Tank,and Future Camp Lion Improvements, Highland Avenue,Salem,Massachusetts,"prepared for Kennedy Development Group,prepared by Tetra • 5 Tech Rizzo and Bohler Engineering, dated February 19,2010 and last revised October 18,2010,and page C-2,Site Plan, and page C-5,Landscape Plan,last revised December 15, 2010;and the plan entitled"Proposed Screening Wall,Salem, MA,"dated January 13, 2011, showing additional planting on the south side of the site. Amendments Any amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed necessary by the City Planner, shah be brought to the Planning Board. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 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. 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". It. All sidewalks,roadways,utilities,landscaping,etc. damaged during construction shall be replaced or repaired to their pre-construction condition,or better. i. A Construction and Management Plan is to be submitted to the City Planner for appropriate distribution to Salem departments and the City of Lynn. Fire Department a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department.The locations of all fire hydrants shall be* approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of any building permit. Building Inspector All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. Board of Health All work shall comply with the Board of Health decision and conditions dated October 13,2010: 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. A copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. d. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP,Form BWPAO6,must be sent to the Health Agent. e. The developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 21E report. • 6 f The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. g. 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. • h. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. i. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. j. 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. k. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. 1. 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 fine and as further interpreted in the MA Department of Environmental Protection noise pollution policy and 310,CMR 7.10 . in. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. n. 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. o. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. • p. Proposed food establishments must have their plans reviewed by the Health Agent prior to their build-out. q. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. Utilities a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. The applicant shall have an engineer certify the utility plans for review by the City Engineer,prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. b. All electrical utilities for the site shall be underground. 8. Department of Public Services The applicant,his successors or assigns shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services. . r 9. 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 Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of any budding permit. c.After installation,lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner,prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 30. HVAC If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site, it shall be visually screened. The method for screening the unit shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to installation. • 7 11. Noise HVAC units shall be sufficiently buffered and the applicant shall take steps to further mitigate noise emanating from the HVAC units(s) if the Board of Health receives any complaints. 12. Landscaping • a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans;detailed landscaping plan for the plan entitled"Proposed Screening Wall"dated January 13,2011,is to be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permit b. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the applicant,his successors or assigns.The applicant, his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two- (2) year period. C. Any street trees removed as a result of construction shall be replaced. The location of the trees shall be approved by the City Planner prior to replanting. d. Final completed landscaping shall be subject to approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Maintenance a. Refuse removal,recycling,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 qff site. 14. As-built Plans a. As-built Plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer,shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development and Department of Public Services prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. b. The As-Built plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer in electronic file format suitable for the City's use and approved by the City Engineer,prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. c. A completed tie card,a blank copy(available at the Engineering Department) and a certification signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed in substantial compliance with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy;as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. • 15.Violations Violations of any condition contained herein 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. 16. Special Conditions: 1. Traffic a. Applicant agrees to provide up to$75,000 to MassDOT to undertake a study for the data collection, analysis and conceptual design of three intersections on Route 107 in Salem for the purpose of identifying alternatives for traffic mitigation for the intersections at Swampscott Road,Marlborough Road/Trader's Way, and Pep Boys/Market Basket Plaza Driveways. (See Exhibit B.) Further,the applicant agrees to provide$17,000 to the City of Salem for traffic engineering peer review related to this study. Said funds to be provided to MassDOT and the City of Salem, respectively,prior to issuance of any building permit. b. Applicant agrees to design and implement an exclusive right-turn lane on the Western Avenue southbound approach to Fays Avenue in Lynn,subject to the approval of MassDOT. In addition,applicant will replace the existing traffic signal equipment and have traffic signal timing changed to increase the amount of"green time" .provided to the Western Avenue approaches during each signal cycle, subject to the approval of MassDOT. Applicant is to coordinate with/obtain necessary approvals from MassDOT. c. It is noted that as a potential alternative to address traffic concerns identified in the City of Lynn, the applicant is proposing a two-way left turn lane on Western Avenue from Buchanan Circle to (approximately) the current location of the Camp Lion driveway. This reference is included herein to acknowledge that this alternative could be a • 8 requirement of MassDOT as part of the MEPA review process. It is not a condition of approval of the Salem Planning Board. d. All traffic and roadway improvements shall be implemented as approved by the State prior to the issuance of any •' Certificate of Occupancy. e. Lowe's and Walmart are required to each join the North Shore Transportation Management Association (TMA) for a minimum period of three years.The cost for such membership shall be based on rates in effect at the time of this approval. Payment for the three year membership to be made prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Stormwater Management a. Applicant to inspect existing stormwater management system within the limits of the proposed Highland Avenue improvements during construction to identify any catch basins,manholes,or stormwater pipes that do not appear to be functioning properly. Catch basins,manholes, and stormwater pipes found to be in need of cleaning,repair, or replacement or that differ from the conditions identified on the existing conditions survey(i.e. smaller diameter pipe than shown on the plans) are to be reported to the Salem City Engineer and MassDOT prior to any action being taken. Said catch basins,manholes,or stormwater pipes will be cleaned,repaired,or replaced subject to the approval of MassDOT as part of the project improvements. Evaluation and cleaning to specifically include the catch basin at the outlet to the wetland located at the southeast property boundary,which is located approximately ten feet off Highland Avenue. b. Future developments at the Camp Lion facility must not exceed the impervious areas shown on the approved plans in order to meet Massachusetts Stormwater guidelines. Furthermore,development of the camp site shall include stormwater treatment measures as stated in the project Drainage Report,dated November 23,2010. c. Applicant is to submit an Operation and Management Plan for the stormwater management system,describing the frequency of cleaning(at least twice per year),and maintenance of the system,clearly defining the responsible • parry for maintenance,prior to the issuance of any budding permit. d. The applicant is to contribute$60,000 prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy to the City of Lynn to be used by the City of Lynn toward drainage improvements, specifically including repair or replacement of a stormwater pipe identified in the Buchanan Circle neighborhood that is functioning improperly and contributing to flooding conditions in that neighborhood,as identified in Paragraph 28 of Exhibit B attached hereto. 3. Deliveries to Walmaxt to be limited to the time period between 6 a.m. and 12 a.m. (midnight) consistent with current store operations. 4. Details,specifications,and design calculations for the retaining wall at Lowe's,including color, to be submitted to the City Engineer and City Planner for review and approval prior to start of construction. 5. Specifications for the sound barrier/screening wall,including color,located to the rear of the Lowe's store,are to be submitted to City Planner for review and approval prior to start of construction. 6. A sidewalk is to be constructed along Highland Avenue from the northernmost site driveway to connect to the access driveway to facilitate a safer walking environment for pedestrians. The design of the sidewalk and pedestrian ramps to be ADA compliant. It is noted that the new signalized intersection at the site driveway will include a pedestrian phase to enable pedestrians to safely cross. The crosswalk will be moved from its current location,as recommended by MassDOT, to north of the access driveway. The sidewalk and new location of the crosswalk to be shown on revised plans. Revised plans are to be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit for Walmart. 7. The applicant will contribute$75,000 to the City of Salem toward the cost of improvements to the sewer pump station located on Highland Avenue in front of the site prior to the issuance of any building permit. 9 8. A bus pull off, shelter and waiting area shall be incorporated into the site plan on Highland Avenue in front of the Walmart project site for southbound buses. The pull off or turnout area for the bus,which is the start of the right-turn lane into the site, shall be wide enough so as to allow all traffic lanes on Highland Avenue to continuously flow once the bus comes to a stop.The applicant shall work with the MBTA and MassDOT to obtain the necessary approvals, easements,etc. for construction. Upon State approval(s),a specific site plan shall be submitted for review and approval b the City Planner showing proposed amenities, such as a shelter, cart corral,and trash receptacle as well as any changes to the parking field or landscaping of Walmart,if necessary. Bus pull off and associated amenities to be constructed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, assuming that all necessary State approvals are in place in a timely fashion, however in no event will a non-issuance of approvals by the State delay the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy by the City. 9. Refuse removal,recycling,ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the applicant,his successors or assigns. 10. The applicant,his successors or assigns shall be responsible for.the maintenance and snowplowing of the entrance drive connecting to Highland Avenue. 11. A Clerk of the Works will be required to oversee the construction work. The Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the applicant,his successors or assigns. ' EXHIBIT A TRAFFIC The following findings include improvements proposed by the Applicant, all of which are subject to approval by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), who has jurisdiction over these applicable portions of Route 107 (Highland and Western Avenues) in both Salem and Lynn. 1. The existing main site driveway into Walmart will be closed. . 2. A new site driveway providing full access/egress under traffic signal control with optimized phasings and timings for the entire project will be provided. 3. The north site driveway into Walmart will be modified to provide proper curb radii to current design standards. 4. Additional turning lanes and pedestrian accommodations at the new main driveway will be provided. 5. Improvements to the Highland Avenue southbound merge area into the City of Lynn will be provided by realigning the roadway,through the use of pavement markings,and posted signs. 6. Western Avenue at Fays Avenue in Lynn will be slightly widened and re-striped on the southbound approach to provide a through lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. 7. New traffic signal equipment with optimized phasings and timings will be installed at the Western Avenue/Fays Avenue intersection. 8. Western Avenue between Buchanan Circle and the existing Camp Lion driveway will be re-striped to provide a two- way left-turn lane for left turns to/from the residential streets. 9. The City of Salem Planning Board retained BETA Group, Inc. (`BETA") as its peer review consultant on the traffic impacts and improvements associated with this project as proposed by the Applicant. • 10 10. BETA reviewed, in detail, the "Traffic Impact and Access Study for Submission with EENF" proposed by the Applicant and prepared by the Applicant's traffic consultant,Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. ("GPI"). 11. BETA prepared a detailed comment letter, dated May 5,2010, to the Traffic Study submitted by the Applicant. 02. In its comments and recommendations, BETA recommended, among other things, that the following actions be undertaken by the Applicant: a. Expand the study area along Route 107 further south into Lynn and further north into Salem; b. Provide additional automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts along g 1 Highland Avenue adjacent to the site to the City; C. Evaluate the sight distances at the Highland Avenue/Camp Lion driveway; d. Clarify calculations concerning Minimum Required Stopping Sight Distance; e. Revise the trip generation for the weekday AM peak hour. 13. In a Technical Memorandum dated September 2, 2010, GPI submitted a Response to Comments memorandum that addressed each issue and recommendation made by BETA, including implementation of the substantially expanded study area. 14. The City of Salem Department of Planning and CommunityDevelopment coordinated a meeting with MassDOT and invited both the Applicant and BETA to attend to discuss the Applicant's proposed improvements on Route 107, a DOT jurisdiction roadway("DOT Meeting"). 15. Subsequent to the DOT Meeting, the Applicant, BETA and the Department of Planning and Community • Development reported to the Planning Board, at its regularly scheduled meeting on January 6, 2011, that an engineering corridor study along Route 107 between Swampscott Road and the Pep Boys traffic signal was recommended by DOT, to be funded by the Applicant,to help determine future improvements to Route 107. 16. The Applicant presented its proposed improvements, as revised, to the Planning Board on January 6, 2011,including a two-way left-turn lane to be constructed south of the Highland Avenue merge area, from the existing Camp Lion driveway, along Western Avenue to Buchanan Circle in Lynn. 17. Extensive comments have been received by the Planning Board from the public, including many residents of the abutting Lynn neighborhoods, concerning the existing conditions along Route 107 between Fays Avenue and the project site. 18. All conditions,recommendations,revisions and changes to Route 107 proposed by the Applicant and/or the Planning Board are subject to the approval of DOT for this state highway. 19. The Applicant will submit to ongoing DOT jurisdiction in the state-required MEPA and MassDOT Section 61 processes for this project. DRAINAGE 20. The Applicant has submitted an extensive Drainage Report entitled "Drainage Report for proposed Planned Unit Development," dated November 23, 2010, prepared by Tetra Tech Rizzo and Bohler Engineering, as well as plans in the original Planned Unit Development ("PUD' Application and subsequent Wetlands Flood Hazard District Special Perot Application. • 11 21. The documents submitted addressed,among other things, the following: - Intermittent stream reconstruction; - Cross-sections of the existing stream; • - Pre-development Conditions Watershed Plan; - Post-development Conditions Watershed Plan; - Demolition Plan; - Grading and Drainage Plan; - Utility Plan. 22. The City of Salem retained the services of New England Civil Engineering Corp. ("NECE") for Peer Review Services to be provided to the Planning Board on engineering and drainage matters for the project. 23. Upon its review of the submitted materials, as well as meetings with the Applicant's engineers, NECE submitted extensive comments and recommendations to the Board and Applicant on two separate occasions,including, but not limited to the following areas: a. Soils: Submittal of logs for test pits,borings and probes, for review. b. Impervious Area. Applicant to submit acreage with itemized calculations. C. Roof Runoff. Applicant to provide additional information on slope and break lines of roof to confirm runoff to be collected. d. TSS Removal. Applicant to revise TSS removal tables to reflect a different method of street sweeping (a more conservative removal rate). e. Water Quality Structures and Sizing. f. Hydraulic Capacity of Pipes. g. Existing Drainage. Identify condition of structures in Route 107;expand study area further into Lynn. h. Maintenance. i. Subsurface Infiltration/Low Impact Development. Applicant to evaluate alternatives. j. Modifications to the existing drainage inlet structure located along the southeast property boundary to reduce the likelihood of clogging. k. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pump Station. Coordination with City Engineer required. 24. Through a series of meetings with NECE and presentation and submittals to the Planning Board, the Applicant has addressed each of the issues raised by the Board and its consultant,NECE. 25. Extensive public comment has been received by the Board during the public hearings concerning the existing drainage and runoff conditions of the site and the abutting neighborhoods in Lynn. 26. Based on public comments from neighbors and actual observation of the site area, the Board finds that some flooding already occurs onto Route 107 and into the Buchanan Circle neighborhood in Lynn. • 12 27. The Board received extensive comment from various City of Lynn officials, including officials from Lynn Water & Sewer Commission, confirming the flooding that occurs in the existing pre-development condition. 28. The Applicant, working with staff from Lynn Water & Sewer Commission, identified a stormwater pipe in the Buchanan Circle neighborhood that was functioning improperly and contributing to the flooding conditions. • 29. The Applicant presented information indicating that the project will have no adverse impacts to the Spring Pond water supply in Peabody. This was reviewed by NECE,which found their analysis to be reasonable and addressed the concerns about potential contaminated runoff being directed to Spring Pond. 30. The Applicant, at the suggestion of the Board and NECE, incorporated "low impact development" techniques in the form of above and below ground stormwater infiltration areas for the Walmart store. 31. The applicant predicts that the Drainage Plans, as submitted, revised and reviewed, will improve the existing, pre- development condition of the site and surrounding neighborhoods. NECE finds that the applicant's engineering work is complete and thorough,and their analysis and predictions are reasonable. EXHIBIT B Draft Scope of Work Data Collection,Analysis and Conceptual Design of Alternatives: Three Intersections on Route 107,Salem,Massachusetts BACKGROUND MassDOT and the City of Salem are interested in operational and potential geometric improvements that would mitigate existing conditions and potential future impacts from the new Lowe's and expansion of Walmart in Salem south of the three locations,just north of the Lynn/Salem City Line. This document outlines a scope of services to perform a traffic study for three signalized intersections on Route 107 (Highland Avenue)in Salem,Massachusetts,as follows: • Swampscott Road • Marlborough Road/Traders Way • Pep Boys/Market Basket Plaza Driveways The three intersections will be analyzed for operational issues (delays, traffic signal design,and other deficiencies) and potential improvements requiring expansion into the existing right-of-way or beyond it. Of particular interest are the first two intersections,which operate in tandem as a pair carrying north-south volume between Swampscott Road and Marlborough Road in both directions. This tandem causes a shifting of traffic within a limited roadway segment on Route 107 causing merging and diverging of traffic with associated delays and operational inefficiencies. In the case of geometric improvements at this segment of Route 107 to correct for this problem,MassDOT is interested in developing and reviewing conceptual AutoCAD plans drawn over existing layout plans. OBJECTIVE 13 This study will identify traffic operational and geometric improvements to address operational problems at three Salem signalized intersections,including developing conceptual plans and identifying right-of-way requirements for the alternatives that include geometric improvements. WORK DESCRIPTION Task 1 Perform Field Reconnaissance and Collect/Gather Data Detailed data and information pertaining to each location will be collected.This will involve visiting each site and inventorying all relevant geometric,land use,and signal features. The three locations serve primarily Route 107 commuter trips and the shopping plaza driveways,which may have different peaking characteristics. For this reason, data collection will be done for weekday AM and PM peak hours and for Saturday midday. In addition,data may have to be collected for the intersection of one of the plaza's driveways with Route 107. Data will include: • 2-hour manual turning movement counts (MTMCs) during the AM and PM peak periods and midday (10 AM to 2 PM) Saturday • 24-hour Automatic Recorder Counts (ATRs) (to be requested from MassDOT Highway Division) at tune locations during three weekdays and a typical Saturday • Bicycle counts • Pedestrian counts • Transit vehicle counts • Signal timing data (MassDOT to provide traffic signal plans to review existing phases, timing lengths) • Queue lengths • Crash data,including copies of crash reports to develop crash diagrams • Origin-destination pattern for Swampscott Road and Marlborough Road traffic by performing a short license plate or other form of survey • • Geometric data (layout plans,lanes, curb cuts, sidewalks,crosswalks,pedestrian buttons, transit amenities) • Land use/zoning information • Jurisdictional/administrative system responsibilities Products of Task I Traffic flow diagrams, summaries of count,geometric, signal,and queue information,origin-destination data and analysis, safety analysis and crash diagrams,as well as land use and jurisdictional information, for the three intersections Task 2 Evaluate and Analyze Intersections Each intersection will be analyzed for capacity and delays analysis in order to determine the operational level of service at each intersection. Particular attention will be given to the evaluation of existing pedestrian signal phases,if any, or the need for them.Also, the origin-destination (north-south) traffic pattern between Swampscott Road and Marlborough Road will be identified in order to design effective traffic signal plans and geometric improvements at the two intersections and the Route 107 segment between them. Analysis of crash diagrams will reveal the type of safety concerns that exist in the vicinity of the three intersections and the operational or geometric deficiencies that may be lacking in in that area. Field observations will yield a full understanding of the operations of vehicles,bicycles, and pedestrians at each location. In addition to field observations,right-of-way plans will be reviewed,in case any minor widening or additional turning lanes are required. Products of Task 2 • 14 Reviews of traffic signal plans and right-of-way plans;summaries of existing operational level of service for typical weekday AM and PM peak hours and for midday Saturday,including delays and queues by lane group;assessment of safety issues;assessment of north-south traffic volume pattern using the Route 107 segment between Swampscott Road and Marlborough Road Task 3 Develop Improvement Alternatives and Associated Costs Based on the evaluation and analyses,potential improvement alternatives will be developed. Potential improvements would include retiming, traffic signal design,geometric improvements, traffic management,channelization,access management, arterial coordination of the three signalized intersections, and assessment of traffic control equipment for potential updates, and better processing of bus,pedestrian,and bicycle traffic.The cost of each improvement option will be evaluated(excluding right-of-way costs.) Conceptual geometric improvements will be drawn on existing layout plans using AutoCAD.Analysis will be performed with 2016 (No-Build and Build) volumes,including Wal- Mart and Lowe's generated traffic upon occupancy. In addition to Wal-Mart and Lowe's trips,the 5-year growth rate will take into account an appropriate background growth rate. Product of Task 3 A summary of alternative improvements and associated present and future year assessment;conceptual AutoCAD designs of potential geometric improvements;and construction implementation costs,excluding right-of-way purchase,if any. Task 4 Recommend Improvements Based on the evaluation and analysis performed in Task 3,short- and long-term measures to improve operations at the three intersections will be recommended Product of Task 4 A summary of recommended operational improvements for the three intersections Task 5 Advisory Group Input Study will include seeking advisory group input via presentations at meetings e-mail exchanges, and telephone forms of interaction. The advisory group will consist of MassDOT representatives from Office of Transportation Planning, Highway Division,District 4,and others;City of Salem officials, and City of Salem consultants. Product of Task 5 Preparation for meetings,including presentations,and other forms of interaction with advisory group members Task 6 Document All Findings and Recommendations Staff will document all study tasks in a technical memorandum for MassDOT's review. Product of Task 6 A technical memorandum documenting Tasks 1 through 5 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE 15 It is estimated that this project will be completed 14 weeks after the notice to proceed is received. Old/New Business Adjournment �i Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Nadine Hanscom. All approved 9-0. Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:42 pm. Respectfully submitted, Beth Gerard,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board with edits 2/3/11 16