Loading...
2016-PLANNING BOARD �U 4. 9TOZ sleiialeA Suil@@A PJeOGUGIUUeld anosA~``, Jy � � i Planning Board Public Hearing Guidelines City of Salem March 23, 2016 Introduction and Context Welcome to this public hearing for the City of Salem Planning Board. The Planning Board is composed of nine volunteer citizens who are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council for five-year terms without compensation. The Planning Board reviews proposed projects that require its approval, such as special permits, site plan, and subdivisions, and operates within statutory constraints. The Planning Board has regular meetings on the first and third Thursday of the month and holds special meetings as needed, depending on the workload. All the meetings are open to the public and the Planning Board encourages public attendance and participation. Notification: Notification of the Planning Board's public hearings will be given in accordance with statutory requirements and the City's public notice requirements. Arrival: Copies of these Guidelines will be available at the beginning of each Planning Board meeting. There will be opportunities to speak at some time during the course of the hearing, which may last more than one meeting. Responsibility of Chair: The Chair will introduce the project and describe the public hearing format and guidelines, as stated below. Public Hearing Format • The purpose of a public hearing is to allow the public to ask questions and to comment on the proposed development. It brings to the Planning Board all possible germane facts, information, and opinions, which may be of assistance to the Planning Board is making a decision. • The project proponent will present his/her proposal, followed by questions and comments from Planning Board members. Then the Chair will open the floor up to questions and comments from the audience. • Planning Board members are here to listen and will not engage ih any dialog with members of the public once the public hearing is opened, except however to answer procedural questions or ask for clarification if comments or questions are unclear. • When people are speaking, others should give them their courteous attention. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with their views, one should refrain from responding with applause or booing. Such responses waste valuable time, they fail to add weight to comments, and they interfere with the orderly conduct of the meeting. Please remember that Planning Board members are local residents too, and they deserve your consideration as volunteers and neighbors. 1 • It is the objective of Planning Board to conclude all public hearings by 10:00 p.m., and, therefore, an attempt is made to keep each public hearing to a specified time limit. Public Comment Guidelines • The Chair will call on audience members to stand and speak from their seat. • The time limit for questions and comments is three (3) minutes or at the discretion of the Chair. Personal or legal representatives may speak on another person's behalf; however, the time limit is the same without respect to the number of people he or she may be representing. • If public comment will be aided by visual and/or an audio recording, such visual aid and/or audio recording shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development by noon on the day of the meeting. Said materials are subject to the 3 minute time limit at the discretion of the Chair and will be reviewed by staff prior to the meeting for appropriateness and relevance to the subject of the application under review. • Everyone will be given an opportunity to speak_before anyone may speak for a second time. • Each person speaking shall state his or her name and address. If the speaker is a personal or legal representative, he or she should state the name and address of the person or persons that he or she is representing. • All comments shall be addressed to the Planning Board Chair and must be connected to the issue at hand. • People should avoid repeating what others have said. They should simply indicate their agreement and move on to other points. • Once the Planning Board votes to close the public hearing, no further comments from the audience will be taken. The Planning Board will discuss and vote on the project in an open meeting. Written Comments: Comments may always be submitted in writing. There is no limit on the length of written comments. As such, written comments provide an additional opportunity to communicate views in depth. Written comments may be submitted even if someone has commented at the hearing. Written comments must be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to the next public hearing in order to be considered by the Planning Board. 2 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD BIb DEC 13 P 27'50 NOTICE OF MEETING f.ILE.# CITY CLERK, SALEM.MASS You am bemby notified that the Salem Plamung Board will be bolding a Pmbh'e Hearing on Thursday,December 15,2016 at 7Wpm at 00,Hag Annex,Room 313, 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA Ben J.Anderson, Chair REVISED*MEETING AGENDA (*Item E added to the agenda) I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: Sl Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24,Lots • 1,2,88,19,216,218 220;and Map 14,Lot 129), Applicant: NORTHSHORE MEDICAL CENTER INC. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stomiwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and reputposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space,internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. B. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 % Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26,Lots 73,74,79) Applicant: JUNIPER POINT 9 SOUTH MASON STREET LLC Description: A continuance of a public heating for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two-story concrete industrial budding at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when Y City of Salem Plaming Board Agenda for December 15,2016 Page 2 of 3 completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. C. Location: 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Ave. (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) Applicant: 2 PARADISE RD.LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Vesuvius Restaurant building. The project will include demolition of the existing structure at 539 Loring Avenue,expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen,and construction of a new street level,cafe-style restaurant and second floor office space. D. Location: 60 &64 Grove Street and 1,3,and 5 Harmony Grove Road (Map 16,Lots 237,236,377,239 and 378) Applicant: MRM Project Management, LLC for the project lmown as Grove Street Apartments (f/k/a Legacy Park at Harmony Grove Apartments) Description: The applicant requested a continuance to the regularly scheduled ! meeting on THURSDAY,JANUARY 19, 2016 of a public hearing for j application of, to amend the previously approved Site Plan Review, • Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision dated December 11,2014, for the property located at Specifically, the application proposes to modify the condition.requiring restoration of the office building located at 60 Grove Street due to its unsafe condition and to instead demolish the building and temporarily create a landscaped open space until specific commercial development plans are developed. No changes are proposed to the total square footage or footprints of the buildings or number of dwelling units in the project The 60 Grove Street property is to remain commercial in nature. REVISED**ITEM ADDED TO THE AGENDA: E. Location: 55 Highland Avenue and 1 Powder House Lane (Map 24,Lots 220 and 219) Applicant North Shore Medical Center,Inc.,f/k/a Salem Hospital,and City of Salem Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to convey Parcel A,an unbuildable lot,from the Salem Hospital to the City of Salem and convey Parcel B, an unbuildable lot, from the City of Salem to the North Shore Medical Center, Inc., with each parcel to be incorporated into the larger contiguous lots. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Planning Board Meeting December 1,2016 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 0197D • PHoNE 978.619.5685 • FAx 978.740.0404 • City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for December 15,2016 Page 3 of 3 III. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Iv. ADJOURNMENT Knowyour ngbta under the Open Meeting LawM.G.L c. 30A 18-25 and City Ordinancey 2-2028 tbrough j 2-2033. i i This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on DSC 13, 26pb at a:5s'Pm in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 , PHONE 975.619.5655 - FAX 97$.740.0404 6 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD im DEQ- g - NOTICE OF MEETING FILE # CITY CLERK,SALEM, MASJ You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will be holding a Public Hearing on Thursday,December 15, 2016 at 7.•OOpm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Ben J.Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24,Lots 1,2,88, 19,216,218 220;and Map 14,Lot 129) Applicant: NORTHSHORE MEDICAL CENTER INC. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. B. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 % Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26,Lots 73,74, 79) Applicant: JUNIPER POINT 9 SOUTH MASON STREET LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two-story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the thtee-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along • with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for December 15,2016 Page 2 of 2 • completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. C. Location: 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Ave. (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) Applicant: 2 PARADISE RD. LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Vesuvius Restaurant building. The Project will include demolition of the existing structure at 539 Loring Avenue, expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen, and construction of a new street level, cafe-style restaurant and second floor office space. D. Location: 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1,3, and 5 Harmony Grove Road (Map 16,Lots 237,236,377, 239 and 378) Applicant: MRM Project Management, LLC for the project known as Grove Street Apartments (f/k/a Legacy Park at Harmony Grove Apartments) Description: The applicant requested a continuance to the regularly scheduled meeting on THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2016 of a public hearing for application of, to amend the previously approved Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision dated December 11, 2014, for the property located • — at. Specifically,the application proposes to modify the condition requiring restoration of the office building located at 60 Grove Street due to its unsafe condition and to instead demolish the building and temporarily create a landscaped open space until specific commercial development plans are developed. No changes are proposed to the total square footage or footprints of the buildings or number of dwelling units in the project. The 60 Grove Street property is to remain commercial in nature. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Planning Board Meeting December 1,2016 III. OLD/NEW BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT IZiramyour rights under the Open Meeting Lain M.G.L c. 30A J 18-25 and City Ordinance f 2-2028 through J This �&6 posted on "Official Bull e in Boar�I" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on /(Q_ d, o2oJ6 in accordant§with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 • FAX 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.COM NODI CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 TOM DANIEL,AICP DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: December 8, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — December 15, 2016 Please find the following in the December 15th dropbox file: I. Aaenda A. December 15. 2016 • II. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS A. North Shore Medical Center (SPR, Stormwater Permit) 81 Highland Avenue; 108 Jefferson Avenue; Old Road; 1 Dove Avenue; 79 Highland Avenue; 55 Highland Avenue; And 57 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); (Map 24 Lots 1, 2, 19, 88, 216, 218, 220) The applicant submitted revised landscaping plans. A draft decision can be found here. Please note that the applicant is still reviewing this decision. B. Mason Street (SPR, NRCC, FHOD) 9 South Mason St. and 3A Buffum St. Extension, 23 Mason St., 23 % Mason St., and 23R Mason St. (Map 26, Lots 73, 74 and 79) This project is scheduled for the December 20th DRB meeting. The project engineer is currently working on addressing the comments in the civil peer review letter dated October 19, 2016. C. Vesuvius (SPR) • 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Avenue (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —December 15, 2016 Meeting Page 2 of 2 The City Engineer issued comments on November 3rd, which are incorporated • into this draft decision. The applicant has met with the City Engineer, according to the applicant several conditions have been satisfied or found are no longer necessary. Said comments are crossed out in the draft decision. 'Please note the City Engineer has not yet verified these comments can be deleted. I will provide you with an update on this matter at the meeting. The draft decision can be found here. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 15t 2016 Draft meeting minutes can be found here. IV. Old/New Business • Page 2 of 2 C OT � / Q .. qQ� City of Salem – Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board _Planning Date —122-152-2016— Name 12 /_15_/_2016_Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Jam,✓ �3r�✓1 V/7�j io/ Mx✓-r wi9'7u.�.-.✓ • Page of Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Page of I Approved Meeting Minutes December 15, 2016 Page 1 of 5 • City of Salem Planning Board Approved Meeting Minutes Thursday, Dec 15,2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,December 15,2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313, Salem,Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opens the meeting at 7:03 pm. I. ROLL CALL Tbose present men:Chair Ben Anderson,Vice Chair Matt Veno,Bill Griset,Helen Sides,Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton, Kirt Rieder,Tony Mataragas and Noah Koretz Absent:none Also in attendance:Tom Daniel,AICP,Director of Planning and Community Development;Amanda Chiancola Staff Planner; and Stacy Kilb, recorder II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1, 2, 88, 19, 216, 218 220; and Map 14, Lot 129) Applicant: NORTHSHORE MEDICAL CENTER INC. • Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. Presenting for the applicant is Attorney Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. He describes changes to the project that have occurred and feels the Plan is a robust investment in the City. Mary Jo Gagnon, Senior VP, is also present, as is the Project Engineer, Justin Mosca from VHB and Kristin Kolick from Attorney Correna's office. Attorney Correnti notes that there is a condition in the decision regarding a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) being negotiated between the hospital administration and the Mayor's office. While not directly related to this Board, it will benefit the community, neighborhood,and hospital. No further presentations are being made but any additional questions will be answered tonight. Amended and revised landscaping plans have been submitted. The Chair opens to the Board but there are no questions, so the Chair opens to the public. There are no comments. A motion to close the public comment period is made by Bill Griset, seconded by Noah Kong and passes unanimously. 9-0. • The Chair reviews the Draft Decision. Discussion occurs under the Traffic Mitigation section; the applicant will join the North Shore Transportation Management Association (NSTMA) but the language is suggested to be amended to a TMA rather than the Approved Meeting Minutes December 15, 2016 Page 2 of 5 North Shore specifically,in case there is another equivalent entity that does similar work in the future, such as a• city TMA. Language is suggested and discussion occurs. Currently, the language of the Decision states said the NSTMA membership shall be continuous and in good standing for 5 (five) years unless otherwise approved by the Board. Staff suggests a three year membership. Carole Hamilton does not agree with a sunshine date on the membership. Ms. Hamilton notes that the NSMC is the largest employer in the city, and she feels that the Hospital should be required to maintain its membership indefinitely. Attorney Correnti states that the cost of membership, at $7,500 per year, comes out of the Hospital's already-strained budget and not the $207-million budgeted for this project's capital improvements. It is money that must be "found" every year, in addition to the $15,000 per year dedicated to the bike share program (also with a three-year cap). Mary Jo Gagnon states that she does not have the authority to dedicate the funding for TMA membership, from her budget,indefinitely. It is noted that as the condition is currently written, the Applicant could appear before the Board if continuing its membership in the TMA is too burdensome. The Board notes that they would also be disinclined to allow them to discontinue membership, so it may be best to leave the three year cap in place and revisit the issue then. Chair Anderson asks how tangible benefits to the City may be detemnined for Hospital membership in the TMA and Tom Daniel outlines. Also of note is the fact that the other large area employers who are either members or set to join the TMA, including the City of Salem, the future Whole Foods in Beverly, an office development near the NS Music Theater, Footprint Power Station and the Gateway Center, are also operating under caps to their participation in the program. Ms. Hamilton explains that the larger the pool of employees involved, the more benefits the* TMA is capable of offering. Although outside the purview of this Board, Attorney Correnti notes that the Hospital administration is discussing providing more than $2 million through the CBA. It is suggested that, while a 10-year cap on TMA membership would be idea. A 5 year cap, equal to that of Footprint, would be more realistic. Attorney Correnti feels that a 5-year cap would be acceptable to the applicant. It is hoped that the Hospital will see some benefits to membership, and will continue indefinitely, as TMA membership. Kirt Rieder speaks to the Hospital's mission of reaching out to the community and enhancing the quality of life for all, especially as this project will have repercussions on a regional level due to the closure of Union Hospital and movement of activity here to Salem. Thus, he hopes that the hospital would continue their membership after the 5 years. Other comments on the Draft Decision: 13(D) City Engineer: Amanda Chiancola outlines the review process; it is a condition better related to the Community Benefits,so is being removed from this Decision. 18(A) Kirt Rieder asks for clarification on violations leading to revocation of the permit in years to come, for example, after occupancy. Amanda Chiancola notes the timelines the applicant will be held to, but the Board would need to speak to City Solicitor about what happens if an applicant is found to be in violation of their permit after they are already operating. This must be part of a larger discussion on enforcement. Chair Anderson revisits traffic mitigation; seven of the nine members (Ben Anderson,Matt Veno, Kirt Rieder Noah Koretz, Bill Griset, Dale Yale, and Tony Mataragas) would approve of a cap of five years for the Hospital's membership in the TMA,while Carole Hamilton and Helen Sides favor a continuous membership. Approved Meeting Minutes December 15, 2016 Page 3 of 5 • A motion to apLrove site blan review, witb an amendment to Section 8(A)allowing for a 5-year cad on memberrW in the TMA is made by Kirt Rieder, seconded by Matt Veno and4asses in a roll call vote with Ben Anderson Kitt Rieder Carole Hamilton Matt Veno, Helen Sides, Bill Griset, and Naab KoretZ n) in favor and Dale Yale and Tony Mataragas (2) abstaining due to missed meetings. B. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffurn Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 1/2 Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26, Lots 73, 74, 79) Applicant: JUNIPER POINT 9 SOUTH MASON STREET LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two- story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. Attorney Joseph Correnti, Bob Griffin, Project Engineer, and Kristin Kolick are present. Attorney Correnti describes progress on various aspects of project. The applicant has been before the Design Review Board (DRB) and will appear before them again with additional finished architectural and landscape plans. Landscape • plans as they are will be presented tonight, along with Civil Engineering, Drainage and stormwater management. Of twelve items brought up in New England Civil Engineering's peer review, ten have been addressed; the final two have not yet been submitted and the applicant will return in January. Bob Griffin presents. • Overview • Existing Conditions: Outlines questions answered re issues raised previously • Proposed site layout: Porches added to main industrial building, some changes to other porches, • Fire Truck Path • Drainage Plan: Changes in flow and mitigation are described • Existing Flood Zone Elevation 10.0 • Proposed Flood Zone Elevation 10.0—pathways out are outlined • Sewer&Water Plan • Electric &Gas Plan: Gas will be extended from South Mason St. to provide gas heating to homes • Landscape Plan o Approximately 18 trees needed per zoning, they are proposing around 32 so well above the zoning requirements o Perennials proposed in snow storage areas o Tree species are discussed o Mr. Rieder asks the applicant to identify the density and pot sizes o Zalcovas should be swapped for an Elm hybrid • o Rosa Rugosa are invasive—prohibited species,Viburnum is OK but Burning Bush is not • Architectural Plans o Changes to concrete building: flat roof remains,one story being added,porches added Approved Meeting Minutes December 15, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Grading, fill conditions and topography are discussed. The Planning Board will require that potential • purchasers be notified of Flood Hazard Overlay District (FHOD) issues. All finished floors are well above flood elevation. Chair Anderson opens to the public but there are no comments. A Draft Decision will be sought for Jan. 5 pending Civil Engineering peer review and DRB final recommendations. A motion to continue to the Jan. 5 2017 meeting is made by Noah KoretZ seconded by Dale Yale, and carrier 8-0, with Tony Matarap s no longer present. C. Location: 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Ave. (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) Applicant: 2 PARADISE RD. LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Vesuvius Restaurant building. The project will include demolition of the existing structure at 539 Loring Avenue, expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen, and construction of a new street level,cafe-style restaurant and second floor office space. Presenting for the applicant is Attorney Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. There is no presentation this evening, as it was concluded at the last meeting, and amended plans were submitted at that time. A draft decision is being sought this evening. Chair Anderson opens to the Board but there are no questions for the applicant and no members of the public to comment. • A motion to close the tublic hearing is made by Tony Mataragas, seconded by Matt Veno, and-Passes 9-0. Chair Anderson reviews the Draft Decision. A motion to 4prove Site Plan Review is made by Noah KoretZ seconded Matt Veno, and carries with all in favor. 9-0 D. Location: 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1, 3, and 5 Harmony Grove Road (Map 16, Lots 237, 236,377, 239 and 378) Applicant: MRM Project Management, LLC for the project known as Grove Street Apartments (f/k/a Legacy Park at Harmony Grove Apartments) Description: The applicant requested a continuance to the regularly scheduled meeting on THURSDAY,JANUARY 19, 2016 of a public hearing for application of, to amend the previously approved Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision dated December 11, 2014, for the property located at. Specifically, the application proposes to modify the condition requiring restoration of the office building located at 60 Grove Street due to its unsafe condition and to instead demolish the building and temporarily create a landscaped open space until specific commercial development plans are developed. No changes are proposed to the total square footage or footprints of the buildings or number of dwelling units in the project. The 60 Grove Street property is to remain commercial in nature. Tony Mataragas leaves at 8:23PM. A motion to continue to the Jan. 19. 2017 meeting is made by Matt Veno seconded by Dale Yale, and carries 7-0, with Tony* Mataragas not present and Noah Koret�abstaining. Approved Meeting Minutes December 15,2016 Page 5 of 5 • E. Location: 55 Highland Avenue and 1 Powder House Lane (Map 24, Lots 220 and 219) Applicant: North Shore Medical Center, Inc., f/k/a Salem Hospital, and City of Salem Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to convey Parcel A, an unbuildable lot, from the Salem Hospital to the City of Salem and convey Parcel B, an unbuildable lot, from the City of Salem to the North Shore Medical Center, Inc., with each parcel to be incorporated into the larger contiguous lots. This item is heard second, after the Hospital. Attorney Kristin Kolick presents the ANR plan. City Council voted to allow Mayor Driscoll to authorize transfer of the deed of Parcel B, park land, whose location is described as is legislation. The City will acquire a parcel belonging to the NSMC. This is an ANR because there is no decrease in frontage. Frontage and requirements are described. Ms. Kolick describes the importance of Parcel B as it is located in what will be the new roadway. Matt Veno asks about a particular area and Ms. Kolick describes. Noah Koretz states for the record that on a previous NSMC project, he fled a 23 (B) 3 form as his agency is a conduit bond issuer to this project,but he can impartially evaluate the project. A motion to endorse a plan for which Approval is Not Required is made by Helen Sides seconded by Matt Vena and passes in a roll call vote with Ben Anderson, Kirt Riederr, Carole Hamilton,Matt Veno, Bill Griset Tony Matarapar Dale Yale Helen Sides. and Noah Koret-(9)in favor and none( obbosed • APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Planning Board Meeting December 1,2016 A motion to approve the December 1. 2016 minutes with minor amendments, is made by Bill Griset seconded by Matt Veno and carries4tb all in favor. 8-0 Carole Hamilton comments on the NSTMA, wondering if Board would like to have Andrea come in and present on the organization. That is desired;Amanda Chiancola will reach out to her. This was triggered by the traffic peer reviewer for the NSMC as traffic mitigation. A motion to adiourn is made by Noah Koretb seconded by Carole Hamilton, and carnes with all present in favor, 8-0 The meeting ends at 8:30 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 //wwwsalemcom/planning-board/webforms/planning-board- 2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 01/05/2016 • Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 tbrougb 5 2-2033. CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 'SALEM.MASS. Site Plan Review Decision CITY CLERIC December 22,2016 On Thursday, May 19, 2016, the Planning Board of the City of Salem a Public Hearing for a Site Plan Review Permit on the site located at 81 Highland Avenue(Map 24, Lot 1); 108 Jefferson Avenue(Map 24, Lot 88); Old Road (Map 24, Lot 19); 1 Dove Avenue (Map 24, Lots 216 and 218); 79 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); 55 Highland Avenue (Map 24, Lot 220); and 57 Highland Avenue (Map 24, Lot 2); and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37 for the construction of a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to the existing campus. The plans were modified since the project was initially filed, such that the front lobby on the north side of the Davenport building was removed from the project. • The Public Hearing was continued to June 2, 2016, June 16, 2016, July 21, 2016, November 17, 2016, December 1, 2016 and December 15, 2016. The Public Hearing was closed on December 15, 2016. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on December 15, 2016, the Board voted by a vote of seven (7) in favor (Ben Anderson, Matt Veno, Carole Hamilton, Bill Grisey Kirt Rieder, Noah Koretz, Helen Sides) in favor and none (0) opposed, to approve the application of NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance; Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37 for the property located at 81 Highland Avenue(Map 24, Lot I); 108 Jefferson Avenue(Map 24, Lot 88); Old Road(Map 24, Lot 19); 1 Dove Avenue (Map 24, Lots 216 and 218); 79 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); 55 Highland Avenue (Map 24, Lot 220); and 57 Highland Avenue (Map 24, Lot 2), specifically, the approval is for a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building resulting in an addition of 113,585 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to the existing campus, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan a. Work shall conform with the following plans: "NSMC Campus Consolidation Project', 81 Highland Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts," prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc., sheets C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4.1, C-4.2, C-4.3, C-4.4, C-4.5, C-5.1, C-5.2, C-5.3, C-5.4, C-5.5, C-6.1, C- 6.3, C-7.1, C-7.2, C-7.3, C-7.4, and L-2.1 dated July 15, 2016 and revised November 10, 2016 and sheets L-1.1, L-1.2, L-1.3, L-1.4, L-1.5, dated July 13, 2016 and revised November 10, • 2016 and December 7, 2016, Site Lighting Plans prepared by Bard, RAO and Athanas sheets 1 SL001, S1,002 and SL003 dated November 8, 2016, and Exterior Elevations prepared by • Shepley Bulfinch Sheets A001 and A002 dated March 29, 2016 2. Amendments a. 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. Community Benefits Agreement a. The Applicant and the City are negotiating a Community Benefits Agreement ("CBA") to address additional impacts and betterments concerning the project. The Applicant and the City shall negotiate such CBA in good faith. 4. Landscaping a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans. b. Final completed landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved plans and shall be subject to approval by the City Planner prior, for consistency with such plan, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. I c. Maintenance of all landscaping on the site shall be the responsibility of the Applicant, its successors or assigns, and any tree or shrub that does not survive shall be replaced. 5. Lighting • a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way. b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Electrician for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. Maintenance a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the developer,his successors or assigns. b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site. 7. Conservation Commission a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Conservation Commission b. The applicant shall receive all necessary approvals from the Salem Conservation Commission. 8. Traffic Mitigation a. The applicant shall become a participating member in the North Shore Transportation Management Association (NSTMA)prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy in order to reduce vehicle traffic on local streets and reduce vehicle emissions in the study area. Evidence of NSTMA membership shall be provided to the Planning Department, and said membership shall be continuous and in good standing for 5 (five) years unless otherwise approved by the Board. 2 • b. A wayfinding plan shall be submitted to the Planning Board or Planning Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. c. The Developer/Owner shall be responsible for implementing the northbound direction lead phasing at the Dove Avenue intersection, up to $4,000 prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy d. The sidewalk in front of 108 Jefferson Avenue shall be repaved to meet all code requirements for safe pedestrian access. e. Along the Highland Avenue and Jefferson Avenue property lines, the applicant shall repair and replace curbing where necessary, restripe the crosswalks and install ADA compliant crosswalks where missing. f. The Developer/Owner shall annually contribute $15,000 for three years to the City of Salem Bike Share Program and/or bicycle infrastructure in the City. The first contribution shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 9. Board of Health a. The owner shall comply with the following specific conditions issued by the Board of Health: i. 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. ii. 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 confirms that the site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use. iii. A copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. iv. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, Form BWPA06, must be sent to the Health Agent. V. The developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 2 1 E report. vi. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. vii. 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 exterminator's survey report, treatment plan and treatment reports to the Health Agent. viii. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. ix. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. X. 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. xi. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for fire fighting. xii, 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 nearest abutting residential property line. 3 xiii. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. P J xiv. 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. xv. The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District. xvi. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. 10. Fire Department a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. 11. Building Inspector a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 12. Utilities a. Underground utility installation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 13.City Engineer a. The applicant shall submit a "'Minage Alteration Permit for review and approval by the City • Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. b. The applicant shall provide the city engineer with an operation and maintenance manual for the stormwater retention pond located on North Shore Medical Center(NSMC) complex property at the corner of Highland Avenue and Powder House Lane. The manual shall be approved by the city engineer prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy c. The applicant shall complete additional soil borings in areas of proposed sub-surface infiltration units and submit the boring information to the City Engineer with revisions to the proposed infiltration system as required based on the presence of shallow ledge or groundwater. The infiltration system design shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. Clerk of the Works a. A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the applicant, his successors or assigns, as it is deemed necessary by the City Planner. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties acknowledge the Project shall be subject to controlled construction, which requires oversight by licensed engineered and architects. Accordingly it is the understanding of the Board, the City Planner and the Applicant that the Clerk of the Works is expected to oversee and review all civil/site improvements related to the project located within the public way, including all utility connections to publicly owned infrastructure. It is also mutually understood that the expense associated with the Clerk of the Works shall be for a reasonable number of hours and at a customary rate of service. b. The applicant shall submit a construction plan to the City Planner prior to starting work. 4 • c. The construction plan will be incorporated into the Clerk of the Works Task Order. No work shall start prior to an approved task order for these services. 15. Construction Practices a. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: i. 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. ii. 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 construction of the project. iii. The operation of tools or equipment used in construction or demolition work shall occur in accordance with Salem Ordinance Section 22-2 (51• Construction and Blaster 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. iv. All provisions in the City of Salem's Code of Ordinance, Chapter 22, Noise Control, shall be strictly adhered to. V. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. j vi. 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. vii. No street shall be closed without prior approval of the City Planner, unless deemed an emergency by the Salem Police Department. viii. The applicant shall promptly notify the Board of Health of any environmental condition encountered during construction that may adversely impact the abutters to the site. ix. All construction will occur on site; no construction will occur or be staged within City right of way. Any deviation from this shall be approved by the City Planner prior to construction. x. Any roadways, driveways, or sidewalks damaged during construction shall be restored to their original condition by the applicant. xi. All construction vehicles and equipment left overnight at the site must be located completely on the site. xii. 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. xiii. A construction traffic management plan and schedule shall be submitted to the Department of Planning & Community Development for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 16. Project Delays • a. The developer, his successors or assigns shall notify the City Planner if work on the site ceases for any reason for a period of six (6) months. In this event, the applicant shall be required to 5 appear before the Planning Board and report to the Board the reason(s) why work has ceased at . the project and a schedule of when work will begin again at the site, as well as a date of final project completion. If substantial work has not commenced on the site, as deemed by the Board, and such work is not anticipated to begin within two (2) years of the date of the Planning Board's original decision, the applicant shall notify the Board and, prior to the two- year anniversary of the issuance of the permit, shall request an extension of the permit from the Board. Applicant shall provide in such request any and all materials the Board may require to make a determination on the extension request, including but not limited to: studies, reports or new plans, at the applicant's expense, as requested by the Board and deemed necessary by the City Planner. 17.As-built Plans a. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. 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 the final Certificate i of Occupancy. { c. A completed tie card, a blank copy (available at the Engineering Department) and a t certification signed and stamped by the design engineer, stating that the work was completed in i substantial compliance with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to . the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. 18.Violations a. Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy of this decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty (20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record is recorded on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner or applicant, his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering. Ben J. Anderson Chairman .i 6 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD MR DEC 22 P 4: 55 FILE FORM A-DECISION CITY CLERK,SALEM, MASS, 55 Highland Ave. and 1 Powder House Lane On December 15, 2016 by a vote of five (9) in favor (Chau Ben Anderson, Kirt Rieder, Carole Hamilton, Matt Veno, Bill Griset, Helen Sides, Noah Koretz, Dale Yale) and none (0) opposed to endorse "Approval under Subdivision Control Law Not Required"for the property located at 55 Highland Avenue and 1 Powder House Lane and shown on the following described plan: "Plan of Land 55 Highland Avenue Property of Salem Hospital Highland Hall Office Condominium, 1 Dove Avenue property of North Shore Medical Center, 1 Powder House Lane property of City of Salem,"dated,April 28,2016. Applicant: City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, City Hall, Salem, MA 01970 and North Shore Medical Center, Inc., 81 Highland Avenue,Salem,MA 01970 Location: 55 Highland Avenue and 1 Powder House Lane (Map 24,Lots 220 and 219) Description: Convey Parcel A of Map 24, Lot 220, an unbuddable lot, from the Salem Hospital to the City of Salem and convey Parcel B of Map 24, Lot 219, an unbuildable lot, from the City of Salem to the North Shore Medical Center, Inc.,with each parcel to be incorporated into the larger contiguous lots. • Deed of property records in Essex South District Registry. i Sincerely, I d�b I C-*D— Ben J.Anderson Chau Cc.: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 101b NOV 23 P 12: �5b NOTICE OF MEETINrr FILE ` ITY CLERK. SALEM. MASS. You are hereby notied that the Salem Planning Board nill be holding a Public Hearing on Thursday,December 1,2016 at 7.•OOpm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Ben J.Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 19 & 23 Congress St. 223-231 & 235 Derby Street; the parking lots at 13-15 Herbert St. and 25 Peabody St. and the remaining land of Pickering Wharf Condominium Trust(Map 34,Lot 408) Applicant: THE SALEM WATERFRONT HOTEL& SUITES, LLC Description Request for an extension to commence construction authorized by the July 23, 2014 Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard District Special Permit and • o. Planned Unit Development Planning Board Decision for the Salem Waterfront Hotel. CL 0B.B. Location: 93-95 Canal Street (Map 33,Lots 164, 165) c 6W. Applicant: SCHIAVUZZO REALTY,LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance a Nt with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review and a m yY Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Sec. 8.1 Flood Hazard w Overlay District. Specifically, the applicant proposes to repurpose the o v existing building and convert the candy factory into eight (8) residential O of° units. a p C. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buff nn Street Extension; and 23 Mason �. Street (also including 23 % Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) a (Map 26,Lots 73, 74,79) a d N Applicant: JUNIPER POINT 9 SOUTH MASON STREET LLC d N w °r° Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard =S H Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the o is '? c c y N o North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in " y accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: tc. j tj Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. " • Specifically, the applicant'proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two-story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, i i City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for December 1,2016 Page 2 of 2 expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. D. Location: 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Ave. (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) Applicant: 2 PARADISE RD. LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Vesuvius Restaurant building. The project will include demolition of the existing structure at 539 Loring Avenue, expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen, and construction of a new street level, cafe-style restaurant and second floor office space. E. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave;55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24,Lots 1,2, 88,19, 216, 218 220; and Map 14,Lot 129) Applicant: NORTHSHORE MEDICAL CENTER INC. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Special City Council/Planning Board Joint Meeting November 16, 2016 B. Regular Planning Board Meeting November 17,2016 III. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Deliberate and vote on recommendation for the zoning map amendment to include Jefferson Avenue as a designated corridor in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. B. Deliberate and vote on recommendation for the zoning map amendment to include Paradise Road as a designated corridor in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. IV. ADJOURNMENT • Knowyour righty under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L a 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance J 2-2028 through J 2-2033. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 9788.740.0404 . WWW.S.ALEM.COM coa b CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 TOM DANIEL,AICP DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: November 23, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — December 1, 2016 Please find the following in the December 15t dropbox file: I. AGENDA A. December 1. 2016 • II. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS A. Waterfront Hotel Extension (PUD, FHOD Special Permit) 19-23 Congress Street 221-231& 235 Derby Street, the parking lots at 13-15 Herbert Street and 25 Peabody Street and the remaining land of the Pickering Wharf Condominium Trust (Map 34, Lot 408) An extension request of the July 23, 2014 Planning Board Decision can be found here. The original decision and previous extension requests are in your dropbox for reference. B. Former Candv Factor (SPR, FHOD Special Permit) 93-95 Canal Street (Map 33, Lots 164, 165) The City Engineer is reviewing the concerns raised by the Planning Board in regards to the floodplain. The Engineer's analysis will be distributed to you under a separate cover. C. Mason Street (SPR, NRCC, FHOD) 9 South Mason St. and 3A Buffum St. Extension, 23 Mason St., 23 % Mason St., and 23R Mason St. (Map 26, Lots 73, 74 and 79) No update. • City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—December 1, 2016 Meeting Page 2 of 2 • D. Vesuvius (SPR) 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Avenue (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) No update. E. North Shore Medical Center (SPR, Stormwater Permit) 81 Highland Avenue; 108 Jefferson Avenue; Old Road, 1 Dove Avenue; 79 Highland Avenue; 55 Highland Avenue; and 57 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); (Map 24 Lots 1, 2, 19, 88, 216, 218, 220) The civil peer reviewer, Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering (NECE) reviewed the updated plans and determined there is no impact to the stormwater management report or NECE's review comments issued on July 20, 2016. Given that the scale of the project has been reduced, the traffic analysis from the applicant remains the same. As such an updated review of the traffic analysis was not requested. The last traffic peer review letter was issued on August 31stand can be found here. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft minutes for the following meetings will be distributed under a separate • cover. • November 16th Special Joint Planning Board/City Council Meeting • November 17`h Regular Planning Board IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Deliberate and vote on recommendation for the zoning map amendment to include Jefferson Avenue as a designated corridor in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. B. Deliberate and vote on recommendation for the zoning map amendment to include Paradise Road as a designated corridor in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. • Page 2 of 2 g City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet a � Board _Planning_ g Board Date _12 /_1 /_2016 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Slellz 0140 Wbe978-354-259$ IS �c�y- Nt, GIZG�i' IRI'!_ • • age of Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail , Page of Approved Meeting Minutes December 1, 2016 Page 1 of 7 • City of Salem Planning Board Approved Meeting Minutes Thursday, Dec. 1, 2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,December 1, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313, Salem,Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opens the meeting at 7:03 pm. I. ROLL CALL Those parent were:Chair Ben Anderson,Bill Griset, Helen Sides (arriving late),Matt Veno,Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton, Kirt Rieder (arriving late),Tony Mataragas, Noah Koretz (9) Absent:None (0) Also in attendance.Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner,and Stacy Kilb,recorder Several items aro taken out of order REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: Location: 19 & 23 Congress St. 223-231& 235 Derby Street; the parking lots at 13- 15 Herbert St. and 25 Peabody St. and the remaining land of Pickering Wharf • Condominium Trust (Map 34, Lot 408) Applicant: THE SALEM WATERFRONT HOTEL & SUITES, LLC Description Request for an extension to commence construction authorized by the July 23, 2014 Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard District Special Permit and Planned Unit Development Planning Board Decision for the Salem Waterfront Hotel. Presenting for the applicant is Attorney George Atkins of 65 Congress St. He states that an extension was requested last summer due to Chapter 91 issues, which have since been resolved but the project is now subject to further sub-approvals that have not yet happened. Several other issues are outlined and an extension of a year is being requested. Kirt Rieder arrives at 7:04PM. Chair Ben Anderson opens to public comment. There is none. A motion to approve an extension of the SPR. FHOD Special Permit and PUD to Jan. 23, 2018, is made by No Koretb, seconded by Bill Gnset and passes in a roll call vote with all (Ben Anderson. Dale Yale, Matt Veno, Toni Magmas,as. Bill Gnset, Kiri Rieder, Carole Hamilton. and Noah Koutz)and none opposed. B. Location: 93-95 Canal Street (Map 33,Lots 164, 165) Applicant: SCHIAVUZZO REALTY,LLC Description:A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard Overlay District . Special Permit Sec. 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. Specifically, the applicant proposes to repurpose the existing building and convert the candy factory into eight (8) residential units. Approved Meeting Minutes December 1, 2016 Page 2 of 7 Attorney George Atkins of 65 Congress St. presents for the applicant. Board members were concern re about the flood hazard zone at the last meeting; actions that have been taken since then aanswer The City Engineer working with the applicant has answered many of the questions, but the applicant realized there was an error to the first floor level of the building as submitted. Elevations are outlined. Communications from all parties have been submitted. Slightly amended site plans have been provided. HVAC condensers will be on the roof, and there are some changes to the landscaping plans, as well as a proposed condition for inclusion in the decision, to provide for a notice of the flood zone by including the special permit decision in the registry of deeds. Measures taken to mitigate flooding issues are described, as is how some other Board concerns were addressed. Amanda Chiancola reads David Knowlton, the City Engineers, comments into the record, `7 comfortable that as long as the current building codes are followed by the applicant, the proposed improvements in the AE flood done should be fine. For the specific concerns listed by the chair, I think the applicant should be requested to prepare a response." Amanda also reads a comment from the City Building Official, Tom St. Pierre, "I have reviewed Ken Bouffard's Engineering report and agree with his findings. The State Building code covers construction in the flood tion and I checked with Plumbing Inspector, Dennis Koss, and he confirmed that no oil and water separator would be required." Kirt Rieder cites the late delivery of the additional materials, stating it is difficult to review project changes on such short notice. He also comments that the tree proposed by the applicant, Acer platanoides (Norway Maple) is still listed on the landscape plans, though it is prohibited in Massachusetts. The applicant states that the tree is actually a Crimson King. Mr. Rieder informs him that a Crimson King is a Norway Maple. Kirt Rieder also inquires about emergency response vehicle access, and Mx. Atkins elaborates. He asks that the final determination of types of material and plantings to be used left to the discretion of the City Planner as a condition. Chair Anderson thanks the applicant for being so responsive. He is comfortable with the project. Matt Veno asks about the species of trees Kirt Rieder would recommend, and he says that the City does have a Est of recommended trees, so whatever the Planning Dept. would like to recommend is fine. Arty Atkins says the tree they planned is listed online in list of acceptable trees; this is unfortunate and will be corrected. Chau Anderson opens to the public, but there are no comments. Chau Anderson reviews the draft decision. Plans will be revised as per discussion. Amendments/Conditions: p. 2 (C): Appropriate tree species will be planted as per City Planning Dept. recommendation; they must be able to withstand periodic inundation. A revised landscaping plan will be submitted for review and approval prior to building permit issuance.. Added condition 3(b) A revised landscaping plan that contains appropriate street trees that can withstand periodic inundation shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to Building Permit issuance. Site specific condition regarding flooding will be added under a separate header. Amanda Chiancol reviews the proposed condition: Flood Plain Mitigation Approved Meeting Minutes December 1, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Due to the property being located in a FEMA designated 100 year flood zone the following actions shall be undertaken by the applicant to mitigate the effect of any potential flooding: a. Installation of three infiltration systems for the capture and controlled drainage of storm water on the property; b. Removal of basement windows and replacement with solid fill material; c. Location of heating and air conditioning mechanical in living units and roof which axe all located above the flood plain elevation; d. Location of incoming electrical panel on second floor of structure; e. Creation of separate electrical circuit for any basement electrical lighting and GFI plugs; f. Installation of a new water line to street main; g. Video inspection of sewer line to street main and replacement if required by the City Engineer; and h. Reconstruction of rear exit stairs to rear of lot which is above the flood plain elevation Logistics of where to add the language are discussed. Noah Koretz notes a minor amendment to the Health point. Kirt Rieder asks about another landscaping point; the condition must be clarified. Trees and shrubs: "In perpetuity, or replaced as necessary"will be added. All Board members vote in favor of dadn,g the tublic hearing 8-0 A motion to 4tmve Decision is made by Carole Hamilton seconded by Tony Mataragas and passes unanimous) to l� • C. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 '/2 Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26, Lots 73, 74, 79) Applicant: JUNIPER POINT 9 SOUTH MASON STREET LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two- story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. Attorney Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. presents for the applicant. A continuance to the Dec. 15, 2016 meeting is requested and Mr. Correnti states that they intend to continue working with the Design Review Board regarding building architecture and landscaping, and their Civil Engineer will work with the City engineer and peer reviewer to address issues. A motion to continue to the Dec. 15, 2016 meeting is made by Dale Yale seconded by Matt Veno and passer u itb all in favor, 8-0. • D. Location: 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Ave. (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) Applicant: 2 PARADISE RD. LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Approved Meeting Minutes December 1, 2016 Page 4 of 7 Vesuvius Restaurant building. The project will include demolition of the existing struc at 539 Loring Avenue, expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen, and constru=V a new street level, cafe-style restaurant and second floor office space. Mr. Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. presents for the applicant. Previous comments from the Board have been taken into account. Bob Freddo, owner,and others involved in the project'are also present. Bob Griffin, Civil Engineer, presents: • Project Site • View from Paradise Rd • View from Loring Ave • Existing Conditions • Proposed Site Layout—Changes to landscaping and utilities are outlined. Some City testing will be done and applicant will inform City if any old pipes are found. Use of Tech Paper 40 for rainfall data sets is outlined Kirt Rieder asks about an area of curbing and Mr. Griffin outlines. He also outlines the situation of the bollards; they would have to come back before the Board if the bollards discourage business and need to be removed. Landscaping along Paradise Rd. is discussed. Laura Rutledge,Landscaping Improvements • Lighting & Landscaping Plan — trees and perennials added, patio area is now smaller and has additional plantings 0 Kirt Rieder notes that public comment from Councillor Dibble has been received. Mr. Rieder feels that a long range view should be taken, and hopes that shade trees will be emphasized. There is additional discussion regarding plantings, patio materials, and the bollards. The Chair makes some suggestions regarding the bollards and also curbing along Paradise Rd. in order to create a cleaner edge, however this might hinder snow removal. Discussion of snow removal follows. A loading space has been added and is now shown on the site plan as well. Joel Silverwatch,Architect • North and South Elevations • East and West Elevations— o Middle section is now stone to anchor both bookends and provide division of buildings, also extends to base of new building; color of addition is also changed. o Changes to upper windows are outlined. Lighting has been added and is described. False, reflective opaque windows will be installed along Vesuvius, along with canopies. The Chair agrees that these changes are positive and thanks the applicant for taking Board suggestions into consideration. Attorney Correnti feels that progress has been made and states that the presentation is concluded. . Chair Anderson opens to the public but there are no comments. Approved Meeting Minutes December 1, 2016 Page 5 of 7 A motion to continue to the Dec. 15. 2016 meeting is made by Bill Griset seconded by Tow Mataragar and passes with all in favor. 8-0. E. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1, 2, 88, 19, 216, 218 220; and Map 14,Lot 129) Applicant: NORTHSHORE MEDICAL CENTER INC. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. This item is taken last on the agenda. All board members are present for the discussion. Shelley Bisegna, project manager,Justin Mosca Civil Engineer, and Mary Jo Gagnon, Executive VP are present.Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. begins the presentation, outlining progress and amended plans. Bob Norton was present then. Elimination of lobby area buildout was a significant change; other improvements remain the same. • Mary Jo Gagnon, Executive VP, presents. She refers to access issues raised at the last meeting due to the many entrances to the hospital. Of the thirty-two (32) entrances, twenty (20) are always locked, accessible only in emergencies or by staff with cards. There are twelve (12) patient entrances. She states that they are planning to hire a wayfinding consultant per the Board's suggestion, as this aspect of the project has become much more critical now that the new lobby will not be built. An advisory committee will be involved in the process. She notes that the majority of patients and people coming for first time visits are directed by physicians, so it behooves the NSMC Salem Hospital campus to make sure the info in the physician's offices is better than what they have today. Justin Mosca from VHB, Civil Engineering: • Agrees to install the modern Handicap symbol, provided it is in compliance with applicable regulations • The civil peer reviewer had no further comments to the revised project • Revised parking/grading in one area is outlined. Steve Diderian,Landscaping,responds to issues previously raised by the Board: • Increase use of shade trees: will be presented in final plans • No pear trees: will be presented in final plans • Zalcovas will be eliminated; Kitt Rieder says that the applicants can infill if some are already present. Native or adaptive is fine. Kitt Rieder compliments everyone on being exceptionally responsive and also positive. This has been a • model for how many of these projects should come through. • Fence desired by the Board to be small grid chain mesh, is being taken under advisement. Kitt Rieder discusses. Approved Meeting Minutes December 1, 2016 Page 6 of 7 Chau Anderson asks if revised plans will be submitted before the 15s'. Attorney Correnti responds yes, and discusses progress on plans and logistics. Attorney Correnti notes that they are willing to acceo wayfinding as a condition as it will require a large amount of time and effort. The Board responds that they would not want to rush the wayfinding plan, as it is very important. Chair Anderson opens to the public, but there are no comments. A motion to continue to the Dec. 15. 2016 meeting is made by Ki'rt Riederr, seconded by Camle Hamilton and asses n itb all in favor 9-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Special City Council/Planning Board Joint Meeting November 16,2016 This item is taken before item (E) Highland Ave. A motion to aApmve the Nov. 16, 2016 Joint Meeting minutes is made by Camle Hamilton seconded by Noab Koretz. and passes 5-0 wth Matt Veno, Kiri Rieder and Dale Yale abstain. B. Regular Planning Board Meeting November 17, 2016 A motion to g4rove the minutes aitb minor modifications is made by Noah Korrtb seconded by Camle Hamilton and passes 5-0 vatb Dale Yale,Matt Vena. and Tony Mataragas abstaining. II. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Deliberate and vote on recommendation for the zoning map amendment to include Jefferson Avenue as a designated corridor in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This Board supports the Jefferson Ave. designation. Clarification of where this designation would apply is provided. Amanda Chiancola reviews points of the ordinance. Chau Anderson notes that features of the ordinance are intended for aesthetic purposes. There was some concern in the public comment from a gentleman regarding setbacks on smaller lots, but he feels this will not be an issue. Helen Sides arrives at 8:21PM. Amanda Chiancola lists the current Entrance Corridor streets as listed in the ordinance. A vote to recommend that the City Council 4�rove �erson Ave. as a designated colyidor in the Entrance Corridor Overlay Dana Passes and Passes unanimousl�. B. Deliberate and vote on recommendation for the zoning map amendment to include Paradise Road as a designated corridor in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Bill Griset asks for clarification of the segment; he does not understand the utility of the change. Councilor Dibble simply wanted to include it as an entry corridor. Chau Anderson generally supports the designatior� Noah Koretz clarifies the location of the designation Approved Meeting Minutes December 1, 2016 Page 7 of 7 A motion to recommend that the City Council approve Paradise Rd as a designated corridor in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is made by Tony Mataragas, seconded by Carole Hamilton, an.dPasses unanimous III. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn is made by Matt Veno, seconded by Kid Rieder, and carries with all in favor 9-0 The meeting ends at 8:46 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://www.salem.com/planning-board/webforms/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 12/15/2016 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Lw M.G.L c. 30A If 18-25 and City Ordinance J 2-2028 tbmugh J 2-2033. • t CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD �s Site Plan Review Decision CITY GLEFiK,SALEM.MASS December 12, 2016 On Thursday, September 15, 2016, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 and a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit in accordance with Section 8.1 for the site located at 93-95 Canal Street (Map 33, Lots 164, and 165) for the renovation of the existing structure on 93-95 Canal Street(a former candy factory) into eight(8)residential units. The Planning Board hereby makes the following findings pertaining to the Flood Hazard District Special Permit Application: 1. The proposed use will comply in all respects to the uses and provisions of the underlying • district in which the land is located. a. The property is located in the Residential Two-Family Zoning District. The structure was previously a legally nonconforming candy factory, and the applicant received a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 30, 2016 to change this nonconforming use to another, less detrimental, nonconforming use(eight residential units). 2. There are adequate convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets and property, particularly in the event of flooding of the lot(s) or adjacent lot(s) caused by either overspill from water bodies or high runoff. 3. Utilities, including gas, electricity, fuel, water and sewage disposal, will be located and constructed so as to protect against breaking, leaking, short-circuiting, grounding or igniting or any other damage due to flooding. The Public Hearing was continued to October 3, 2016; October 20, 2016; November 3, 2016; November 17, 2016; and December 1, 2016. The public hearing was closed at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on December 1, 2016, and the Board, based upon the plans submitted and evidence presented at the public hearings, voted by a vote of 8 (eight) in favor (Chair Ben Anderson, Matt Veno, Carole Hamilton, Kirt Rieder, Bill Griset, Noah Koretz, Dale Yale and Kirt Rieder) and none (0) opposed, to approve the application of the SCHIAVUZZO REALTY, LLC for a Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, subject to the following conditions: •1. Conformance with the Plan a. Work shall conform with the set of plans entitled, "Proposed Site Plan 93-95 Canal Street," Sheets 1-2, prepared by Civil Environmental Consultants dated July 13, 2016, revised September 6, 2016; October 31, 2016; November 11, 2016; and November 29, 2016 and plans entitled, "Residential Condominium 93-95 Canal St" Sheets A-0.1, A-1.1, and A-2.0, prepared . by Curtis DiBenedetto and Associates, dated September 1, 2015, revised October 7, 2016; November 3, 2016; and November 28, 2016. 2. Amendments a. Any amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed necessary by the City Planner, shall be brought to the Planning Board. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 3. Landscaping a. 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 or be replaced as necessary. b. A revised landscaping plan that contains appropriate street trees that can withstand periodic inundation shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to Building Permit issuance. c. Final completed landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved plan described under condition 3(b) and shall be subject to approval by the City Planner prior, for consistency with such plan,prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. Lighting . a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way. b. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Maintenance a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site. 6. Board of Health a. All Board of Health requirements shall be strictly adhered to. b. 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. c. 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 certifies that soil and ground water on the entire site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use. d. The developer shall adhere to a drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. • e. 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 f. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. i • g. The developer shall submit to the Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. h. 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. j. 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. k. The developer shall disclose in writing to the Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. 1. The resultant establishment(s) shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its operations in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health. m. The developer shall notify the Health Agent when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that above conditions have been met. n. The developer shall.install grease traps, to contain grease in gray water, prior to it entering the city sewer system in developments with 10 or more units and in compliance with the requirements of the City Engineer • o. Salem sits in a Radon Zone I and the risk of radon entering buildings is extremely high. Therefore, the installation of radon mitigation systems is required. 7. Fire Department a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. 8. Building Inspector a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 9. Utilities a. Underground utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. b. Water meter sizing calculations from the license plumber shall be submitted to the City Engineer with a listing of fixture for review and approval by the City Engineer. 10. City Engineer a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit from the City, the applicant shall demonstrate that the City's water system has the capacity and condition to accommodate the flow requirements of the proposed development. The applicant shall provide a letter that demonstrates adequate capacity and condition for each system, prior to issuance of a building permit by the City. Any deficiency identified in any system shall be corrected by the applicant, at the applicant's expense, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. Any excavations on Canal Street shall be back filled with Controlled Density Fill (CDF) and meet existing pavement depths. c. Water System i. A Licensed Plumber shall provide a letter to the Engineering Department stating that the • condition of the existing water service pipe for fire protection on the property are adequate to be reused for the proposed development. ii. A Licensed Professional Civil Engineer shall provide a letter to the Engineering Department stating that the City water mains to serve the proposed development have adequate flow and pressure. Back-up data, including engineering calculations and the results of hydrant flow tests, shall be included in the letter. d. Sewer System i. A Licensed Plumber or Contractor approved by the Engineering Department, shall provide a letter to the Engineering Department stating the condition of the existing sewer service pipes on the property are adequate to be reused for the proposed development. A video inspection of the sewer service will be necessary to understand the current condition of the pipe to determine if they are still in good condition to be reused for the proposed development. A copy of the video and logs shall be submitted with the letter. ii. A building inspection and dye testing program shall be completed to confirm the sewer service from the proposed development is connected to the correct system in the City street. This inspection shall be schedule with the city consultant directly and result of this inspection and testing shall be submitted to the Engineering Department. e. The applicant shall coordinate with the City Engineer to review any service piping that extends to the street encountered during construction of the foundation and/or site work that were not • shown in the site utility plan. Existing utility services encountered onsite that have not been abandoned shall be discontinued in accordance with the City of Salem Engineering Department requirements,prior to building permit issuance. 11. Clerk of the Works a. A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the applicant, his successors or assigns, as it deemed necessary by the City Planner. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties acknowledge the Project shall be subject to controlled construction, which requires oversight by licensed engineered and architects. Accordingly it is the understanding of the Board, the City Planner and the Applicant that the Clerk of the Works is expected to oversee and review all civil/site improvements related to the project located within the public way, including all utility connections to publicly owned infrastructure. It is also mutually understood that the expense associated with the Clerk of the Works shall be for a reasonable number of hours and at a customary rate of service. 12. Construction Practices a. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: i. All provisions in the City of Salem's Code of Ordinance, Chapter 22, Noise Control, shall be strictly adhered to. ii. 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 construction of the project. iii. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. J ` • iv. 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. V. 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. vi. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site must be located completely on the site. vii. All construction will occur on site; no construction will occur or be staged within City right of way. Any deviation from this shall be approved by the City Planner prior to construction. viii. Any roadways, driveways, or sidewalks damaged during construction shall be restored to their original condition by the applicant. 13.As-built Plans I a. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. 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 the final 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, staring that the work was completed in substantial compliance with the design drawing must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. 14. Violations a. Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. 15. Flood Plain Mitigation a. Due to the property being located in a FEMA designated 100 year flood zone the following actions shall be undertaken by the applicant to mitigate the effect of any potential flooding: i. Installation of three infiltration systems for the capture and controlled drainage of storm water on the property; ii. Removal of basement windows and replacement with solid fill material; iii. Location of heating and air conditioning mechanical in living units and roof which are all located above the flood plain elevation; • iv. Location of incoming electrical panel on second floor of structure; V. Creation of separate electrical circuit for any basement electrical lighting and GFI Plus; vi. Installation of a new water line to street main; vii. Video inspection of sewer line to street main and replacement if required by the City Engineer; and viii. Reconstruction of rear exit stairs to rear of lot which is above the flood plain elevation. 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. Ben J. Anderson Chairman • • CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Mb DEC 12 A Report to City Council FILE# CITY GLERK:SALEM, MASS': December 12, 2016 At its meeting on December 1, 2016 the Planning Board voted to recommend approval of amending the City of Salem Zoning Map by adding Jefferson Avenue as a designated corridor with the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The Planning Board voted, eight (8) in favor (Ben Anderson, Matt Veno, Dale Yale Kirt Rieder, Carole Hamilton, Tony Mataragas, Bill Griset and Noah Koretz) and none opposed, to recommend the proposed zoning amendment with the above listed findings. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please feel free to contact Tom Daniel,Director of Planning&Community Development, at 978-619-5685. Yours truly, i Benj.Anderson, Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe,City Clerk • CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 5 FIReport to City Council CITY CLERK,SALEM, MASS: December 12, 2016 At its meeting on December 1,2016 the Planning Board voted to recommend approval of amending the City of Salem Zoning Map by adding Paradise Road as a designated comdor with the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The Planning Board voted, eight (8) in favor (Ben Anderson, Matt Veno, Dale Yale Kirt Rieder, Carole Hamilton, Tony Mataragas, Bill Griset and Noah Koretz) and none opposed, to recommend the proposed zoning amendment with the above listed findings. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please feel free to contact Tom Daniel,Director of Planning&Community Development,at 978-619-5685. Yours truly, Ben J.Anderson,Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe,City Clerk • -� 0 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD December 12, 2016 101b DEC 12 A 8� 15 The Salem Waterfront Hotel & Suites, LLC CITY GLERFI cA#EM. MASS- c/o George W. Atkins III Ronan, Segal &Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 19& 23 Congress St. 223-231 & 235 Derby Street; the parking lots at 13-15 Herbert St. and 25 Peabody St. and the remaining land of Pickering Wharf Condominium Trust (Map 34, Lot 408) Decision of Planning Board to grant request for a six (6) month extension to commence construction authorized by the July 23, 2014 Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard District Special Permit and Planned Unit Development Planning Board Decision for the Salem Waterfront Hotel. The Salem Planning Board met on Thursday, December 1, 2016 to discuss your request for the approval of a one (1) year extension to commence construction authorized by the January 23, 2018 Site Plan • Review,Flood-Hazard District Special-ftmnit and Planned Unit Development Planning Board Decision for the Salem Waterfront Hotel. A letter submitted by Attorney George W. Atkins, III, on behalf of The Salem Waterfront Hotel & Suites, LLC, date-stamped November 22, 2016 requests approval to extend the permits granted by the Planning Board. The petitioner states that the additional time is necessary in order to obtain additional state permitting, arrangement of financing, preparation of construction drawings, and issuance of a building permit. The action required is expected to be completed within the requested extension period. The Planning Board voted eight (8) in favor(Chair Ben Anderson, Matt Veno, Noah Koretz, Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton, Tony Mataragas, Bill Griset, and Kilt Rieder) and none (0) opposed, to grant the approval of the requested one (1) year extension of the Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard District Special Permit and Planned Unit Development Decision dated July 23, 2014. This determination shall become part of the record for this project. If you require further information, please contact Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner, in the Department of Planning& Community Development at(978) 619-5685. Sincerely, I •Ben J. Anderson, Chairman Salem Planning Board Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk CITY OF SALEM r PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING ASV 10 P I?' 5 CITY CLERK SALEM. MASS. You air hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will be holding a Public Hearing on Thursday,November 17,2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Ben J.Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; I Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1,2, 88, 19,216,218 220;and Map 14,Lot 129) Applicant: NORTHSHORE MEDICAL CENTER INC. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance • with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. B. Location: 93-95 Canal Street (Map 33,Lots 164, 165) Applicant: SCHIAVUZZO REALTY,LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Sec. 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. Specifically, the applicant proposes to repurpose the existing building and convert the candy factory into eight (8) residential units. C. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 '/z Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26,Lots 73, 74,79) Applicant: JUNIPER POINT 9 SOUTH MASON STREET LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard • Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with .the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Noy 10 2016 at AFI in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for November 17,2016 Page 2 of 2 • accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two-story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. D. Location: 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Ave. (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) Applicant: 2 PARADISE RD. LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Vesuvius Restaurant building. The project will include demolition of the existing structure at 539 Loring Avenue,expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen, and construction of a new street level,cafe-style restaurant and second floor office space. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • A. Special Planning Board Meeting September 19,2016 B. Special Planning Board Meeting September 27, 2016 C. Regular Planning Board Meeting November 3, 2016 III. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Receive and File: M.G.L. Chapter 91 license application for the Electric Transmission Line Maintenance/March Court, in accordance with the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 9.10(d). IV. ADJOURNMENT Knowyour righty under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance J 2-2028 through J 2-2033. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 W W W,SALEM.COM .conmlr Al CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS -° DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 Tom DANIEL,AICP DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: November 10, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — November 17, 2016 Please find the following in the November 17th dropbox file: I. Agenda A. November 17. 2016 • II. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS A. North Shore Medical Center (SPR, Stormwater Permit) 81 Highland Avenue; 108 Jefferson Avenue; Old Road; 1 Dove Avenue; 79 Highland Avenue, 55 Highland Avenue; And 57 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); (Map 24 Lots 1, 2, 19, 88, 216, 218, 220) Revised plans for the hospital can be found here. A memo from the project engineer regarding revisions to the Stormwater Plans can be found here. B. Former Candy Factor (SPR, FHOD Special Permit) 93-95 Canal Street (Map 33, Lots 164, 165) The applicant informed me that revised plans will be submitted on Monday. C. Mason Street (SPR. NRCC. FHOD) 9 South Mason St. and 3A Buffum St. Extension, 23 Mason St., 23 % Mason St., and 23R Mason St. (Map 26, Lots 73, 74 and 79) 1 have not received new information for this project. D. Vesuvius (SPR) 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Avenue (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) • I have not received new information for this project. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—November 17, 2016 Meeting Page 2 of 2 r III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Please find the minutes below for the two special meetings on the rezoning of the FW Webb and former Universal Steel site: • Special Planning Board Meeting September 19, 2016 • Special Planning Board Meeting September 27, 2016 Here are the minutes from the regular Planning Board meeting on November 3'd Minutes from the special meeting on November 16th will be on your next agenda. IV. Old/New Business Your dropbox contains a M.G.L. Chapter 91 license application from New England/National Grid for the replacement of an existing electric transmission in the vicinity of March Court Salem. This is a "receive and file" item, no action is required. • • Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING FILE l# CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board and Salem City Council will hold a joint public hearing on Wednesday,November 16,2016 at 6:00pm at the Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington Street Ben J. Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. ACTION ITEMS A. A joint public hearing with the City Council on the proposed Zoning Map Amendment to add Jefferson Avenue as a designated corridor in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. B. A joint public hearing with the City Council on the proposed Zoning Map Amendment to add Paradise Road as a designated corridor in the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. III. OLD/NEW BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT Knowyour rigbts under the Open Meeting Lam M.G.1- c. 30A f 18-25 and Ci Ordinance 2-20 28 throw h ty ,� g �2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall,Salem, Mass. on NOV 10 2616 at 12; IJ—PM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. e.c'umm4 g v � City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet allBoard Planning Board Date 11 / 17 / 2016 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail LCD S �ccCLa ,s c,*w ??70—rqj}A 5tieih/ 6i9ena 81 wltl�JOLe 978'-354-25y? J.i57)r/ /�J'GA /�/ v.K.��7 57 Laq7Eti70r.-/ G/7-9ZY-/77v Jo 8l til�.d 478 ,3s _aon'44 Page of Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail i Page of CIT7'OF SALEM i NOTICE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLANNING BOARD I AND CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16,2016,6:00 P.M. The Planning Board will hold a joint public hearing with the City Council on,Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington St.,Salem,MA in accor- dance with Chapter 40A, Section 5, of the Massachusetts General Laws for all persons interested in the pro- posed amendments to the Zoning Map by adding Jefferson Avenue as a designated corridor with the Entrance Corridor Overlay District ` and also adding Paradise Road as a designed corridor with the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The proposed Zoning map amendments are on file and avail- able for review during normal busi- ness hours at the Department of Planning & Community Develop- + ment,City Hall Annex,120 Washing- ton Street,Salem,MA. Ben J.Anderson,Chair Planning Board SN-1112, 1119116 �, CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD n -{ o nm M p City of Salem X„ Notice Dm N Joint Public Hearing Notice 3 D of the Planning Board and City Council a ,o November 16, 2016, 6:00 P.M. w U. D The Planning Board will hold a joint public hearing with the City Council on Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington St., Salem, MA in accordance with Chapter 40A, Section 5, of the Massachusetts General Laws for all persons interested in the proposed amendments to the Zoning Map by adding Jefferson Avenue as a designated corridor with the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and also adding Paradise Road as a designed corridor with the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The proposed Zoning map amendments are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning & Community Development, City • Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Ben J. Anderson, Chair Planning Board Salem News: 11/2/2016 & 11/9/2016 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L a 30A 9 18-25 and City Ordinance,i 2-2028 through,i 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hail, Salem, Mass. on //Id//(. at Gi!jJ�i.N/ . in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, • Sections 18-25. ;, CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Im OCT 2'1 P 12 4W NOTICE OF MEETIF sal EM Mnss. You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will be holding a Public Hearing on Thursday,November 3, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Ben Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: PEM 161 Essex Street (Map 35, Lot 303) Applicant: PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review. A Specifically, the applicant proposes the partial demolition of existing • M buildings and the construction of a 37,950 square foot addition primarily W O. within the footprint of the Asian Garden, in addition to site improvements GMM including a garden and utility work. m � B. Location: 93-95 Canal Street(Map 33, Lots 164, 165) m Applicant: SCHIAVUIZZO REALTY,LLC � Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance m OS with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Sec. 8.1 Flood Hazard r- c Overlay District. Specifically, the applicant proposes to repurpose the 90 C existing building and convert the candy factory into eight (8) residential CO N U units. R V dC. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffutn Street Extension; and 23 Mason p m Street (also including 23 '/2 Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) m N (Map 26,Lots 73, 74, 79) = y Applicant: JUNIPER POINT 9 SOUTH MASON STREET LLC p w t Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard ca = N ;0 Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the U ) North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; • Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for November 3,2016 Page 2 of 2 the existing two-story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, • expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. D. Location: 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Ave. (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) Applicant: 2 PARADISE RD. LLC Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Vesuvius Restaurant building. The project will include demolition of the existing structure at 539 Loring Avenue, expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen, and construction of a new street level, cafe-style 'restaurant and second floor office space. F. Location: 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1,3, and 5 Harmony Grove Road (Map 16, Lots 237,236,377, 239 and 378) Applicant: MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS GROVE STREET APARTMENTS (F/K/A LEGACY PARK AT HARMONY GROVE APARTMENTS) Description: A public hearing for application of, to amend the previously approved Site • Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision dated December 11, 2014. Specifically, the application proposes to modify the condition requiring restoration of the office building located at 60 Grove Street due to its unsafe condition and to instead demolish the building and temporarily create a landscaped open space until specific commercial development plans are developed. No changes are proposed to the total square footage or footprints of the buildings or number of dwelling units in the project. The 60 Grove Street property is to remain commercial in nature. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Joint City Council &Planning Board Meeting September 19,2016 B. Regular Planning Board Meeting October 20, 2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Vote on the 2017 Planning Board Meeting Schedule B. Planning Board Discussion of community preservation needs, possibilities and/or resources, evaluation criteria, priority projects or other comments related to CPA funding in Salem. Written comments from the board will be provided to the CPC. V. ADJOURNMENT • Knomyour righty under the Olen Meeting Lam M.G.L. c. 30A 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 through If 2-2033. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACEusErrs 01970 PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 . WWW.SALEM.CON1 • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS I I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MmBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 TOM DANIEL,AICD DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: October 27, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — November 3, 2016 Please find the following in the November 3rd dropbox file: I. Agenda A. November 3, 2016 • II. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS B. PEM (SPR) 161 Essex Street(Map 35, Lot 303) Recommended conditions from the City Engineer can be found here. The Engineer's conditions have been incorporated into a draft decision, which can be found here. C. Former Candy Factor (SPR, FHOD Special Permit) 93-95 Canal Street (Map 33, Lots 164, 165) At the October 20th meeting the Planning Board commented on the screening materials, i.e. opposition to PVC on the roof and recommended minimal screening with a simple/industrial look. A dark color (matte black was suggested) rather than a light color. A detail of the windows was requested and the board asked that the project engineer comment on the FHOD findings (Section 8.1.4 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance). The City Engineer provided comments that can be found here. The applicant is working on addressing said comments. I will send you a draft decision after the outstanding items outlined above • have been addressed. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—November 3, 2016 Meeting Page 2 of 3 • D. Mason Street (SPR, NRCC, FHOD) 9 South Mason St. and 3A Buffum St. Extension, 23 Mason St., 23 % Mason St., and 23R Mason St. (Map 26, Lots 73, 74 and 79) The traffic peer review can be found here, and the civil peer review can be found here. Both the traffic and civil peer reviewer will attend the November 3rd meeting on November 3rd to present their findings and answer questions. The City Engineer, the Civil Peer Reviewer and I met with the project's Civil Engineer to review the civil peer review comments. I am expecting revised civil plans prior to the meeting on November 3rd to address the issues outlined in the civil peer review letter. Since the project site is partially within the NRCC, a recommendation by Design Review Board is required before the Planning Board can vote on a decision. The project is on the DRB's October 26th agenda. E. Vesuvius (SPR) 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Avenue (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) Department Comments for this project are pending. F. Salem Oil & Grease (PUD Amendment) • 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1, 3, and 5 Harmony Grove Road (Map 16, Lots 237, 236, 377, 239 and 378) Per the request of the board, the approved PUD and the minutes from the Planning Board hearings on this project have been uploaded to your dropbox and can be found here. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The below sets of minutes will be distributed under a separate cover for review at the November 3`d meeting. i. Joint City Council & Planning Board Meeting September 19, 2016 ii. Regular Planning Board Meeting October 20, 2016 The minutes from the September 26th special meeting will be on the November 17th agenda. IV. Old/New Business A. 2017 Planning Board Meeting Schedule The draft 2017 Planning Board Meeting Schedule can be found here. Please • note that Planning Board meetings are held on the first and third Thursday of Page 2 of 3 City f C ty o Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—November 3, 2016 Meeting . Page 3 of 3 each month. The August meetings are typically cancelled to coincide with the City Council schedule. Also, the first meeting in October is typically cancelled. B. Planning Board Discussion of community preservation needs, possibilities and/or resources, evaluation criteria, priority projects or other comments related to CPA funding in Salem. Written comments from the board will be provided to the CPC. As an example, here is the 2016 report on Funding Recommendation to for the City Council. Page 3 of 3 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board 1��ann� 4 Date 11 / 3 / 2— Name Mailing Address Phone # Email J 7y�{-37 � � 5kA) Ver -12 0 CIA, � iLLL (e2�_sa�-, �� (5A' Ll fy�I��n� 5j/�at7�e �Pl-2Yg, 6Y+9 Ca*, • Page of Approved Meeting Minutes November 3, 2016 Page 1 of 9 City of Salem Planning Board Approved Meeting Minutes Thursday,November 3,2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,November 3,2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313,Salem,Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opens the meeting at 7:03 pm. I. ROLL CALL Those present were:Chair Ben Anderson, Bill Griset, Helen Sides, Matt Veno, Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton, Kirt Rieder,Tony Mataragas and Noah Koretz Absent:none Alm in attendance:Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner,and Stacy Kilb,recorder II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: PEM 161 Essex Street (Map 35, Lot 303) Applicant: PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review. Specifically, the applicant proposes the partial demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a 37,950 square foot addition primarily within the footprint of the Asian Garden, in addition to site improvements including a garden and utility work. Here for the applicant is Bob Monk, PEM, Director of Facilities. He has reviewed the draft vote and will comply with the conditions set forth therein. Kirt Rieder asks what street tree species will be on Charter Street and Mr. Monk states that they are going to replace or mike up the gingko trees, the landscape architects are suggesting a hybrid elm, but a detailed plan will be submitted. Chair Anderson commends the development team and the design team on the project. This project shows the thoughtfulness put into its design and will benefit the area. Mr. Monk also praises the SRA and DRB for their input. Kirt Rieder echoes the Chair's sentiments, and spoke to the project's Landscape Architect about trees, and he believes that she should definitely choose them, as he has great confidence that in them. Matt Veno asks about a letter from a Council Member received late today, regarding screening of dumpsters. The dumpster is not allowed to be visible from a public way. Mr. Monk comments that the loading dock will partially screen it and landscaping will screen it from the neighbors. The dumpster is completely enclosed, but it is visible at the approach as you enter the driveway. Logistics of dumpster location are discussed. The Chair proposes adding a condition to the decision that a proposed solution be submitted to the Planning Department; Amanda Chiancola opines that there should also be consultation with a Planning Board member. Mr. Monk agrees to this condition. Chair Anderson opens to public comment,but there is no public input. A motion to close the pnblir hearing is made by Tony A4a6aragar, seconded by Carole Hamilton, and passes with all in aoor, 9-0. Approved Meeting Minutes November 3, 2016 Page 2 of 9 The Chair reviews the draft Decision with the Board. . Kirt Rieder comments on guaranteeing trees for two years, feeling that this time frame is inadequate, in general, not specifically related to this project. A short discussion on how to address the issue in this particular instance ensues. The trees will be placed within the City's right of way, and then turned over to the City. Normally the city would maintain them, though in this case the PEM intends to maintain them with its own irrigation system. The Planning Board notes that they are okay with the landscaping/maintenance condition for this project. The topic of landscaping/tree maintenance for projects in general will be further discussed under old/new business. A motion to arove site plan review is made by Kirt Raederr, seconded by Helen Sides, andAasses unanimously. 9-0. B. Location: 93-95 Canal Street (Map 33, Lots 164, 165) Applicant: SCHIAVUZZO REALTY, LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Sec. 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. Specifically, the applicant proposes to repurpose the existing building and convert the candy factory into eight (8) residential units. The applicant requests to continue to the Nov. 17,2016 meeting. A motion to continue to the Nov. 17, 2016 meeting is made by Noah KoretZ seconded by Bill Griset, and asses� unanimously 9.0. C. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 '/2 Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26, Lots 73, 74, 79) Applicant: JUNIPER POINT 9 SOUTH MASON STREET LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two- story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. Presenting for the applicant is Attorney Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. At the last meeting, site layout and building configurations were presented and feedback received. Since then, the applicant has filed with the Design Review Board and has presented to them, and will return there again to address their comments. They hope to return with those results in December, however in the meantime they have a traffic peer and Stormwater peer review. Both peer reviewers will present tonight. is Approved Meeting Minutes November 3, 2016 Page 3 of 9 • Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering presents his Stormwater peer review letter dated October 19`h. The applicant has not responded to the letter, but has met with the project engineer and the City Engineer to go over the comments. • Clarification of demolition is requested • Grading and drainage should be resubmitted for clarity • The site has one way in and one way out. • The project is in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. (FHOD). The project as designed has up to 2 feet of water in parking area and driveway; Engineer informed Mr. Ross that they are going to revise the grading, said plans have not been submitted ye. It is noted that the street itself has the same issue. • Related concerns that buildings will be partially submerged basements and questions on how the underground utilities will be protected • Existing sewer pipe on S. Mason St. • Drainage in southeast comer—applicant will research • Pre-and post-runoff evaluations done at river,not at point of discharge Bob Griffin states that issues can be addressed without significant changes to the plan. He describes where the water would inundate the site in a flood event. They are in a location where fill cannot be placed in such a manner as to not displace water to adjacent sites; this has been done. Flood storage must be provided; after hearing Mr. Ross's comments, they reduced the area submerged while flood storage onsite met the requirement; however, plans must be cleaned up. The crawl spaces will still be used for flood storage but the parking lot has been raised slightly and access to the site will be dry. The new plan • should meet all regulatory standards. In the event of a flood utilities will be protected because electric, telephone, natural gas, etc. are underground, and the transformer will be set on a pedestal. Kirt Rieder asks about the elevation in the southeast corner;water will be deeper than 2 feet in this area. Kirt Rieder comments that they are crawl spaces under the buildings,not basements that will flood.They are built to handle water. Regarding the pressure test on the fire flow/water system, the process is in progress. Information on utilities will be added to the plan. Several monitoring wells are on the site, but will be abandoned as they will not need to monitor the site moving forward. Mr. Griffin addresses Pre-and Post- runoff scenarios. Whatever cannot infiltrate may worsen flooding conditions, and they hope to show it is not a significant change,but it is one they cannot address at this time. Kirt Rieder notes that the minimum number of trees required is proposed, but feels there should be more in order to improve the site. Peat is also not the preferred species; dogwood and river birch are not shade trees. Smaller shade trees should be planted to make this part of the neighborhood. Noah Koretz asks why applicants plan pear trees if they are not acceptable. Kirt explains that they are inexpensive, showy, and in-demand, so that is what the nurseries produce. They are actually banned in many cities, such as Cambridge. They are also sterile and have no habitat value. Gary Hebert,who is with Stantec consulting,reviews the Traffic Impact Study. • Trip generation estimates appear to be accurate • Trip distribution pattern appears reasonable • • Parking appears to be a few spaces shy of what is required under zoning, but will be adequate for the numbers expected, so no increase is necessary • Emergency access showed slight encroachment on one parking space;this has been addressed Approved Meeting Minutes November 3, 2016 Page 4 of 9 • Buffum St. extension; entering will be tight given parking,but is possible • • No crash issues in the area • Mr. Hebert notes that the MBTA is very close,probably a 5 minute walk, so this is a good area to locate residences,also because of its proximity to downtown Kirt Rieder asks if there are requirements on any level that new developments have flood-proof egress; Mr. Griffin does not think so but Mr. Hebert will research this. Mr. Griffin outlines how the encroachment on the parking space was addressed. Current zoning is mostly NRCC with one smaller area in an industrial zone, which requires fewer parking spaces, so no relief is required. Dale Yale asks about a path to the train station. Mr. Griffin states that discussions have occurred with adjacent property owners to make arrangements. Mark Trainos of 91 Bridge St. Salem states that there may be access between the two buildings or through the All Creatures parking lot. Residents would like an access point from School or North Streets as well. Mrt Rieder asks about prevailing zoning; most of the site is NRCC so he asks about required setbacks. Mr. Griffin points out the setbacks and notes that they will need to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for the use but it was suggested that they go before the Planning Board first. Because one of the existing buildings does not conform, they will keep and expand it. This is a consideration. Kirt Rieder observes that some of the other units seem close to the perimeter of the site; Mr. Griffin responds that they are about 5-10 feet,in general, from the property lines, though the decks are closer to� the fence (3.4 feet at the closest). Kirt Rieder also asks about proposed vs. vertical granite curb but Mr. Griffin is not sure;it may be sloped granite at the end of the parking spaces but he will look into it. Chair Anderson opens to the public but there are no comments. One letter was received from Eric Papetti, regarding the cut-through path; he would like the Board to pursue this opportunity. A motion to continue to the Nov. 17, 2016 meeting is made by Dale Yale, seconded by Matt Vena, and passes with all in favor, 9-0. D. Location: 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Ave. (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) Applicant: 2 PARADISE RD. LLC Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Vesuvius Restaurant building. The project will include demolition of the existing structure at 539 Loring Avenue, expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen, and construction of a new street level, cafe- style restaurant and second floor office space. Presenting for the applicant is Attorney Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. Additional details on the plan are being presented tonight; comments from the last meeting will be addressed. The architect,Joel Silverwatch, and the landscape architect, Laura Rutledge, are also present, as is Bob Freddo, owner. Comments were also• Approved Meeting Minutes November 3, 2016 Page 5 of 9 • received from City Engineering; Bob Griffin is site engineer, but those comments have not yet been addressed. Bob Griffin outlines changes to the site layout. • Building remains the same,but a patio has been added to the back for outdoor seating • Bollards have been added to prevent cut-through traffic; there will be a single entrance for Vesuvius and another for the restaurant/office • Brick along the edge of the building will be replaced with landscaping in one area • Grading and drainage remain the same,and will be reviewed with City Engineer Matt Veno asks about the brick area that will be replaced with landscaping,and Ms. Rutledge elaborates that it is just paving. These items were just prepared today,so the Board does not yet have these plans. They will be submitted. Laura Rutledge,Landscape Architect • Planting&Landscaping plan • Tree species • Planting schedule table All brick between the concrete sidewalk and the building will be removed on the Loring Ave. side. Two trees proposed are on a neighboring property so negotiations are in progress, assuming the Board likes this • proposal. Chair Anderson asks about the lack of an adequate loading area, and Bob Griffin elaborates. Deliveries occur early in the morning,which works well with deliveries coming in through the parking lot in the rear. The Chair asks about loading from Loring Ave., and is concerned about trucks parking near the intersection; the ordinance requires adequate loading facilities so he feels issue will need to be further explained or studied. The Chair does not want to see large box trucks parked on Loring Ave, offloading at the door and causing a traffic problem at the busy Loring Avenue intersection. If they are only loading before or after business hours, it would not be as concerning, but he has a larger concern with loading during business hours. Mr. Griffin answers that loading will occur early in the morning during business hours; it happens at 9 or 10 AM, before lunchtime and that the parking lot and Loring Ave. are both used today for this purpose without inconveniencing anyone, but the issue will be further examined by the applicant, and he will provide a schedule of what is currently happening. Carole Hamilton asks about material for the patio; surface materials have not yet been determined but may be scored concrete or pavers. Carole Hamilton asks the applicant to look into using something pervious to allow infiltration. She also continents that they are essentially paving over the entire residential lot, she would like to see some infiltration. Ms. Hamilton also recommends that the locust trees around the patio be replaced as they provide no shade. Bob Griffin describes the catch basins and infiltration system so he is not concerned about stormwater changes due to the installation of the patio; however, Carole Hamilton still recommends the area should be pervious. This would also give them an opportunity to add a tree to the patio. Kirt Rieder agrees with Carole that more permeable surface materials allow more water to be available to tree roots,which would help it qualitatively. Mr. Rieder says that he agrees with comments made at the last meeting about viewing the site holistically • from a landscaping standpoint, and he looks favorably upon the negotiations with neighbors but feels that the applicant should go further. The applicant should consider the opportunity at the comer- which is maintained by the City. Mr. Griffin comments that the Paradise Road strip is too challenging to add vegetation; the site is difficult from a landscape perspective. Discussion continues regarding parking, snow Approved Meeting Minutes November 3, 2016 Page 6 of 9 storage and landscaping. Kirt Rieder makes several suggestions, feeling the applicant should add additional* landscaping to the corner area owned by the City,which the restaurant currently maintains. Mr. Griffin says he will talk to the City about adding landscaping there. Mr. Rieder points out that approximately 80% of the comer is owned privately, only 20% is owned by the City. Materials between Paradise Road and the site are discussed. Bob Freddo comments that the original owner installed irrigation. However, there is no room for snow storage. He wants to block the corner because cars cut through Paradise Road. The Chair comments that any opportunity to improve the corner of Loring and Paradise should be taken; if they are proposing bollards then they should consider additional landscaping and close off the curb cut. Kirt Rieder notes that you could probably run six trees along the back edge of the restaurant. Ms. Rutledge comments on trees and sight lines from the road to the restaurant. Mr. Rieder comments that shrubs at the corner probably exceed the site lines of a driver, a tree would not block that but shrubs will. Therefore, there are opportunities for another 6 to 8 trees, which would be less expensive than what is proposed. Noah Koretz asks about the bank lot directly south, which is treeless. He suggests that they be careful with the outdoor seating as it is not a universally good thing, in a suburban environment they need to make special considerations to ensure that it is comfortable. It should feel protected, as an oasis, protected both from a safety standpoint, comfort and enjoyabdity standpoint. He cites the Daily Harvest in Danvers as an example of a good precedent that they can look at.The stockade fence should also be considered. Matt Veno asks about landscaping near Paradise Road and Ms. Rutledge elaborates that perennials are proposed near the sign. The board comments it would be a great place for a tree. Joel Silverwatch,Architect, presents: • • Existing building will remain as stucco • Elevations, Exterior materials of addition o Two-story building with a stucco exterior o White ban between floors which is a recessed panel o The parapet will screen the roof equipment Tony Mataragas asks why stucco is proposed. He personally prefers other materials over the stucco which looks outdated. Mr. Silverwatch explains he wanted the projects to de together cohesively. Discussion of the exterior materials and colors ensues. Some Board members are concerned that the red stucco from the current Vesuvius does not line up with the white segment between the floors of the new construction. The red line corresponds with the top of the windows at Vesuvius,but the windows are hidden under an awning. Chair Anderson suggests recessing the West side Eke they did the East side, but Mr. Silverwatch is not sure this is possible. Additional suggestions for the transitional area (kitchen extension) are made. Kirt Rieder asks about the flag pole. Chair Anderson asks the applicant to check the square footage of glass on the second floor against code requirements. Helen Sides suggests some changes for the white areas, feeling they need more detail. Building mounted lighting is planned, along with one new light pole in the adjacent lot. The Chair asks about patio lighting; that will be planned but is not yet shown. Kirt Rieder notes that the patio is snow storage so that may be incompatible, but Mr. Griffin feels both usages can be accommodated, though he will look into it. Locations of the wall pack light fixtures should be shown on the next iteration of the plans. Helen Sides recommends adding a panel to the base level of the building to protect the corners. It would also provide rhythm along the street level and openings. Chair Anderson agrees with Ms. Sides, and asks the applicant to give it more thought as it may cost more upfront,it will save the owner money in the long run when taking maintenance/repairs into consideration. Approved Meeting Minutes November 3, 2016 Page 7of9 . Chair Anderson opens to the public and Steve Dibble of 74 Moffatt Rd.,Ward 7 Councilor, approves of the improvements. He feels the West and East elevations should be considered as one, and suggests that it be shown on the plan as one. He also makes suggestions regarding street trees. Rather than bollards, he feels the opening should just be closed off. A traffic study of Vinnin Square through Canal St. is being done. The State has recommended that the City work with business owners to combine driveways and allow traffic to flow through adjacent parking lots. He also comments on the loading door in the addition; it should not be used for that purpose as use of the current Vesuvius door already blocks the right turn lane. As an Entrance Corridor project,this is not subject to DRB review; SRA and NRCC projects must go before that Board. Councilor Dibble feels that the wall on Loring Ave. should be improved, but trees will help. Landscaping on Paradise Rd. side is well done, but he feels that some trees could, in fact, be added along Paradise Rd. The same should be done at adjacent properties. He also mentions that trees should be required to be maintained,left in place,and replaced if they do not survive. Kirt Rieder echoes Councilor Dibble's comment about the bollards, that that strip should become an extension of landscaping along the front, meeting up to the City corner. Councilor Dibble comments that the segment on Paradise Rd. filled with rocks, which he estimates at 4-5' wide, should have curbing and landscaping. If no curbing, there should be bollards and the Commission should require two trees there. Kirt Rieder asks if the City requires wheel stops or other impediments. Attorney Corrend states that the applicant will return with revised landscape and architecture plans. Attorney Correnti must convince the owner that these changes will not substantially raise his costs; Board concerns will be addressed but the small business should be able to thrive as well; three others have failed in this location. This location is tougher than they thought. All suggestions will be considered and the City will be consulted on how to handle this Entrance Corridor area in a comprehensive manner. Kirt Rieder speaks to reducing costs and mentions reducing the square footage of the outdoor patio, replacing some of it with a vegetated surface. A motion to continue to the Nov 17. 2016 meeting is made by Noah KoretZ seconded by Helen Sider and carrier unanimously. 9-0. F. Location: 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1,3, and 5 Harmony Grove Road (Map 16, Lots 237,236,377,239 and 378) Applicant: MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS GROVE STREET APARTMENTS (F/K/A LEGACY PARK AT HARMONY GROVE APARTMENTS) Description: A public hearing for application of, to amend the previously approved Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision dated December 11, 2014. Specifically, the application proposes to modify the condition requiring restoration of the office building located at 60 Grove Street due to its unsafe condition and to instead demolish the building and temporarily create a landscaped open space until specific commercial development plans are developed. No changes are proposed to the total square footage or footprints of the buildings or number of dwelling units in the project. The 60 Grove Street property is to remain commercial in nature. The applicant requests to continue to the Dec. 15, 2016 meeting. • A motion to continue to the Dec. 15, 2016 meeting is made by Tony Mataragar, recorded by Bill Griret and passes 8-0 Noah Kowith ret�,secured. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approved Meeting Minutes November 3, 2016 Page 8 of 9 A. Joint City Council &Planning Board Meeting September 19, 2016 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Carole Hamilton, and passes 8-0 with Noah Koret not voting as be was nol present. B. Regular Planning Board Meeting October 20, 2016 A motion to 4hrove the minutes with minor mod cations is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Dale Yale, and passes 7-0 with Carole Hamilton and Kirt Rieder abstaining. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Vote on the 2017 Planning Board Meeting Schedule A motion to approve the schedule is made by Noah Koret-5, seconded by Carole Hamilton, and passes unanimously. 9-0. B. Planning Board Discussion of community preservation needs, possibilities and/or resources, evaluation criteria, priority projects or other comments related to CPA funding in Salem. Written comments from the board will be provided to the CPC. Matt Veno will have more information at the next meeting C. Review of standard condition requiring two year maintenance of trees planted Amanda Chiancola notes that the current condition is challenging as it does not have teeth for enforcement. She cites an example of a recent project on Highland Ave. She is seeking ideas from this* Board. Currently,it is uncertain what the consequences are for project developers/owners whose projects are no longer in compliance with conditions set forth by the Board, whether they are regarding trees or other items. Typically letter is sent to the property owner requesting compliance, and that usually resolved the issue. The Historical Commission, which can place alien on noncompliant properties reported to it by the Building Inspector. An option to have the City replace the trees and put alien on the owner's property until the trees are paid for will be looked into. The Chair asks for an opinion from the City Solicitor on what to do in the case of site plan review violations. It is noted that future conditions should indicate when the time period for maintenance should start; it currently does not say but should begin when the certificate of occupancy is issued. Carole Hamilton opines that no specific time frame should be mentioned;maintenance of trees and landscaping should be for the life of the site plan. Other conditions do not expire, and neither should this one. Dale Yale asks about the subdivision regulations with regards to the street trees; easements are signed by developers but again, are not enforceable. D. Email Accounts Amanda Chiancola notes that Board members should have received an email from the Mayor, encouraging them to sign up for a Salem Email account. She outlines the process and recommends doing this. V. ADJOURNMENT • Approved Meeting Minutes November 3, 2016 Page 9 of 9 . A motion to adjourn is made by Tony Mataragas seconded by Helen Sider and carries mitb all is favor, P-0 The meeting ends at 9:23 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://www.salemcom/planning-board/webforms/planning-board- 2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 11/17/2016 Knomyour rights under the Open Meeting Lrw M.G.L c. 30A 18-25 and City Ordinance 2-2028 through 2-2033. • OleCITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Site Plan Review Decision November 10, 2016 On Thursday, September 15, 2016, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing for a Site Plan Review Permit on the site located at 161 Essex Street (Map 35, Lot 303) in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a 37,950 square foot addition primarily within the footprint of the Asian Garden, in addition to site improvements including a garden and utility work. The Public Hearing was continued to October 20, 2016, and November 3, 2016 and closed on November 3, 2016. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on November 3, 2016, the Board, based upon the plans submitted and evidence presented at the public hearings, voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor (Ben Anderson, Matt Veno, Carole Hamilton, Helen Sides, Dale Yale, Noah Koretz, Kirt Rieder, Bill Griset, and Tony Mataragas) and none opposed, to approve the application of the Peabody Essex Museum for a Site Plan Review, subject to the following conditions: • 1. Conformance with the Plan a. Work shall conform with the set of plans entitled, "Peabody Essex Museum Expansion," sheets PB-100, PB-101, PB-102, PB-103, PB-104, PB-200, PB-201, PB-202, PB-203, PB-204, PB- 205, PB-206, prepared by Ennead Architects, LLP dated September 1, 2016; sheets C-100, C- 200, C-300, C-400, L-100, L-101, prepared by Nelson Byrd Woltz dated September 1, 2016 and revised September 15, 2016; and sheets LL-101 and LL-102 prepared by George Sexton Associates dated September 1, 2016. 2. Amendments a. 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. Trash Enclosure a. The trash enclosure shall not visible from Charter Street, or any other public way. A revised plan that demonstrates compliance with this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the staff planner with consult of a Planning Board prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. Landscaping . a. A revised landscaping plan, that substitutes the Ginkgo trees along Charter Street with an adaptable species of shade trees shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and 1 Community Development subject to approval by the City Planner prior, to building permit • issuance. The City Planner will consult with a Planning Board member when reviewing the revised landscaping plan. b. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans. c. 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. d. 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. e. 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. 5. Lighting a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way. b. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Maintenance • a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site. 7. Board of Health a. All Board of Health requirements shall be strictly adhered to. 8. Fire Department a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. 9. Building Inspector a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 10. Salem Redevelopment Authority a. All requirements as set forth by both the Salem Redevelopment Authority and its Committee, the Design Review Board, shall be strictly adhered to. 11. Utilities a. Underground utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to • the issuance of a Building Permit. 2 12. City Engineer Sa. All work shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit from the City, the applicant shall demonstrate that the City's water, sewer and storm drain systems have the capacity and condition to accommodate the flow requirements of the proposed development. The applicant shall provide letters demonstrating adequate capacity and condition for each system, prior to issuance of a building pen-nit by the City. Any deficiency identified in any system, shall be corrected by the applicant, at the applicant's expense, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. a. Water System i. A Licensed Plumber shall provide a letter to the Engineering Department stating the condition of the existing water service pipes on the property are adequate to be reused for the proposed development. ii. A Licensed Professional Civil Engineer shall provide a letter to the Engineering Department stating that the City water main to serve the proposed development has adequate flow and pressure. Back-up data, including engineering calculations and the results of hydrant flow tests, shall be included in the letter. The site utility plan shall be revised to show location of existing water service connection to the City water main. b. Sewer System i. A Licensed Plumber or Contractor approved by the Engineering Department, shall provide a letter to the Engineering Department stating the condition of the existing sewer service pipes on the property are adequate to be reused for the proposed development. A video inspection of the sewer service(s) will be necessary to understand the current condition of the pipe to determine if they are still in good condition to be reused for the proposed development. A copy of the video and logs shall be submitted with the letter. ii. A Licensed Professional Civil Engineer shall provide a letter to the Engineering Department stating that the City Sewer System to serve the proposed development has adequate condition and capacity to accommodate existing and proposed sewer flows. Back-up data, including engineering calculations and the results of all sewer inspections and existing sewer flow measurements, shall be included in the letter. A video inspection of the sewer system, from the point of connection to the City sewer to the 48-inch trunk sewer in Derby Street will be required to understand the current condition of the sewer system to determine if it is in good condition to accommodate flows from the proposed development. A copy of the video and logs shall be submitted with the letter. Continuous flow measurements in the existing sewer shall be taken to understand the current capacity of the sewer system and to confirm the additional flow from the development can be accommodated. Results of the flow measurement shall also be included with the letter. The site utility plan shall be revised to show location of existing sewer service connection to the City sewer system. • c. Storm Drain System 3 i. The applicant shall submit revised plans to the Engineering Department showing how the runoff from the new impervious area of the development will be • handled (using the newest rainfall data approved by MassDEP vs TP40). Keeping in mind that runoff should stay in the property and be recharged to the ground to the maximum extent possible. This plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of building permits. ii. If 100% recharge to groundwater cannot be obtained, the applicant shallprovide the following: 1. A Licensed Plumber or Contractor approved by the Engineering Department, shall provide a letter to the Engineering Department stating the condition of the existing drain service pipes on the property are adequate to be reused for the proposed development. A video inspection of the drain service(s) will be necessary to understand the current condition of the pipe to determine if they are still in good condition to be reused for the proposed development. A copy of the video and logs shall be submitted with the letter. iii. A Licensed Professional Civil Engineer shall provide a letter to the Engineering Department stating that the City Storm Drain System to serve the proposed development has adequate condition and capacity to accommodate existing and proposed drain flows. Back-up data, including engineering calculations and the results of all drain inspections and existing drain flow calculations and flow measurements, shall be included in the letter. A video inspection of the drain system, from the point of connection to the city drain to the nearest trunk drain will be required to understand the current condition of the city drain system to determine if it is in good condition to accommodate flows from the proposed development. A copy of the video and logs shall be submitted with the letter. Calculations of existing flows shall be performed and continuous flow measurements in the existing drain shall be taken to understand the current capacity of the drain system and to confirm the additional flow from the development can be accommodated. Results of the flow calculations and measurements shall also be included with the letter. The site utility plan shall be revised to show location of proposed drain service connection to the City nearest drain system. d. A building inspection and dye testing program shall be completed to confirm the sewer and drain services from the proposed development are connected to the correct system in the City street. This inspection shall be schedule with the city consultant directly and result of this inspection and testing shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of building permits. e. The applicant shall coordinate with the City Engineer to review any service piping that extends to the street encountered during construction of the foundation and/or site work that were not shown in the site utility plan. Existing utility services encountered onsite that have not been abandoned shall be discontinued in accordance with the City of • Salem Engineering Department requirements, prior to building permit issuance. 4 13. Clerk of the Works a. A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the applicant, his successors or assigns, as it deemed necessary by the City Planner. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties acknowledge the Project shall be subject to controlled construction, which requires oversight by licensed engineered and architects. Accordingly it is the understanding of the Board, the City Planner and the Applicant that the Clerk of the Works is expected to oversee and review all civil/site improvements related to the project located within the public way, including all utility connections to publicly owned infrastructure. It is also mutually understood that the expense associated with the Clerk of the Works shall be for a reasonable number of hours and at a customary rate of service. 14. Construction Practices a. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: i. All provisions in the City of Salem's Code of Ordinance, Chapter 22, Noise Control, shall be strictly adhered to. ii. 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 construction of the project. iii. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00 • PM. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. iv. 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. V. 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. vi. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site must be located completely on the site. vii. All construction will occur on site; no construction will occur or be staged within City right of way. Any deviation from this shall be approved by the City Planner prior to construction. viii. Any roadways, driveways, or sidewalks damaged during construction shall be restored to their original condition by the applicant. 15. As-built Plans a. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. 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 the final Certificate of Occupancy. 5 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 the final Certificate of Occupancy; as well as, any subsequent requirements by the City Engineer. 16. Violations a. Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy of this decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty (20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record is recorded on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner or applicant, his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering. Ben J. Anderson Chairman • i 6 • , CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 201b OCT 19 P 2--08 FICITY CLERK SA AIFm NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will be holding a Public Hearing on Thursday, October 20,2016 at 7.•OOpm at City Haff Annex, Room 313, 120 Wlashington St., Salem,MA Ben Anderson, Chair REVISED1&2 MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: PEM 161 Essex Street(Map 35,Lot 303) Applicant: PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review. • Specifically, the applicant proposes the partial demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a 37,950 square foot addition primarily within the footprint of the Asian Garden, in addition to site improvements including a garden and utility work. B. Location: 93-95 Canal Street(Map 33,Lots 164,165) Applicant: SCHIAVUZZO REALTY,LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Sec. 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. Specifically, the applicant proposes to repurpose the existing building and convert the candy factory into eight (8) residential units. C. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24,Lots 1,2, 88, 19,216, 218 220; and Map 14, Lot 129) Applicant: NORTHSHORE MEDICAL CENTER INC. Description: *REVISION: The applicant requested a continuance to the regularly scheduled meeting on THURSDAY NOVEMBER 17, 2016 of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review,in accordance with the Salem Zoning • Regular Agenda Item C revised on October 18,2016 to note a continuance request 2 Regular Agenda Item D revised on October 19,2016 to note a continuance request City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for October 20,2016 Page 2 of 3 • Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. D. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffu n Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 % Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26,Lots 73, 74,79) Applicant: Juniper Point 9 South Mason Street LLC Description: *REVISION: The applicant requested a continuance to the regularly scheduled meeting on THURSDAY NOVEMBER 3, 2016 of the public heating for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two- story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. E. Location: 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Ave. (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) Applicant: 2 PARADISE RD. LLC Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Vesuvius Restaurant building. The project will include demolition of the existing structure at 539 Loring Avenue, expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen, and construction of a new street level, cafe-style restaurant and second floor office space. F. Location: 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1,3, and 5 Harmony Grove Road (Map 16,Lots 237, 236,377,239 and 378) Applicant: MRM Project Management,LLC for the project known as Grove Street Apartments (f/k/a Legacy Park at Harmony Grove Apartments) Description: A public hearing for application of,to amend the previously approved Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Flood Hazard • District Special Permit Decision dated December 11, 2014, for the property located at. Specifically, the application proposes to modify the condition requiring restoration of the office building located at 60 Grove Street due to 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 W W W.SALEM.COM City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for October 20,2016 Page 3 of 3 • its unsafe condition and to instead demolish the building and temporarily create a landscaped open space until specific commercial development plans are developed. No changes are proposed to the total square footage or footprints of the buildings or number of dwelling units in the project. The 60 Grove Street property is to remain commercial in nature. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 1,2016 B. September 15, 2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS CPC is requesting that the ZBA discuss and provide written comments on community preservation needs, possibilities and/or resources, evaluation criteria,priority projects or other comments related to CPA funding in Salem. V. ADJOURNMENT Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 thmugh J 2-2033. • This notice po.�ted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 6t7r /?I 9-eJ6 at a,.O� PM,n accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - PHONE 978.6719.5685 FAX 975.740.0404 WWW,SALEM.COM Y , CITY OF SALEM a PLANNING BOARD _101b OCT I I P 1: 4q CITY CLERKLSALEMa M S NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will be holding a Public Hearing on Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 7.•OOpm at City Hall Mnex, Room 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Ben Anderson, Chair REVISED* MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: PEM 161 Essex Street(Map 35, Lot 303) Applicant: PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review. Specifically, the applicant proposes the partial demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a 37,950 square foot addition primarily within the footprint of the Asian Garden, in addition to site improvements including a garden and utility work. B. Location: 93-95 Canal Street (Map 33,Lots 164, 165) Applicant: SCHIAVUZZO REALTY, LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Sec. 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. Specifically, the applicant proposes to repurpose the existing building and convert the candy factory into eight (8) residential units. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1, 2, 88, 19,216,218 220; and Map 14,Lot 129) Applicant: NORTHSHORE MEDICAL CENTER INC. Description: *REVISION: The applicant requested a continuance to the regularly scheduled meeting on THURSDAY NOVEMBER 17, 2016 of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management • Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for October 20,2016 Page 2 of 3 Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, • renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. C. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 'A Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26,Lots 73,74,79) Applicant: Juniper Point 9 South Mason Street LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. D. Location: 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Ave. (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) Applicant: 2 PARADISE RD. LLC Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Vesuvius Restaurant building. The project will include demolition of the existing structure at 539 Loring Avenue, expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen, and construction of a new street level, cafe-style restaurant and second floor office space. F. Location: 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1,3, and 5 Harmony Grove Road (Map 16, Lots 237,236,377, 239 and 378) Applicant: MRM Project Management,LLC for the project known as Grove Street Apartments (f/k/a Legacy Park at Harmony Grove Apartments) Description: A public hearing for application of, to amend the previously approved Site Plan Review,Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision dated December 11, 2014, for the property located at. Specifically, the application proposes to modify the condition requiring restoration of the office building located at 60 Grove Street due to its unsafe condition and to instead demolish the building and temporarily create a landscaped open space until specific commercial development plans • are developed. No changes are proposed to the total square footage or 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHl1SE'17S 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 VVWW.SALEM.COM City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for October 20,2016 Page 3 of 3 footprints of the buildings or number of dwelling units in the project. The 60 Grove Street property is to remain commercial in nature. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 1, 2016 B. September 15, 2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS CPC is requesting that the ZBA discuss and provide written comments on community preservation needs, possibilities and/or resources, evaluation criteria,priority projects or other comments related to CPA funding in Salem. V. ADJOURNMENT Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A 9 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on QCl- / 7, 02 d/g at / � 4 q P4 accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, 1MASSACHUSEI-CS 01970 - PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 WW W.SALEN000M .� CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1016 OCT 13 P 4' 01 Fit F # CITY CLERK. SALEMMASS. NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will be holding a Public Hearing on Thursday, October20,2016at 7.00pm at CityHallAnnex, Room 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Ben Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: PEM 161 Essex Street (Map 35,Lot 303) Applicant: PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance • with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review. Specifically, the applicant proposes the partial demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a 37,950 square foot addition primarily t( within the footprint of the Asian Garden, in addition to site improvements CV) including a garden and utility work. 7E d o L B. Location: 93-95 Canal Street (Map 33,Lots 164, 165) muU Applicant: SCHIAVUZZO REALTY,LLC .c—N 0 Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance cn with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review and a mom- w Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Sec. 8.1 Flood Hazard 3 Overlay District. Specifically, the applicant proposes to repurpose the O u existing building and convert the candy factory into eight (8) residential O o 1° units. o m 0 Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 E Highland Ave;55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24,Lots CD _c 1, 2,88, 19, 216,218 220; and Map 14,Lot 129) 0m x N Applicant: NORTHSHORE MEDICAL CENTER INC. u to a oo Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review,in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a o ; " Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of C = o g � Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a d new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby • F- U AN expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for October 20,2016 Page 2 of 3 • parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. C. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 '/z Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26,Lots 73, 74,79) Applicant: Juniper Point 9 South Mason Street LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Pemuts associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two-story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. • D. Location: 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Ave. (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) Applicant: 2 PARADISE RD. LLC Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Vesuvius Restaurant building. The project will include demolition of the existing structure at 539 Loring Avenue, expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen, and construction of a new street level, cafe-style restaurant and second floor office space. F. Location: 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1,3, and 5 Harmony Grove Road (Map 16,Lots 237,236,377,239 and 378) Applicant: MRM Project Management,LLC for the project known as Grove Street Apartments (f/k/a Legacy Park at Harmony Grove Apartments) Description : A public hearing for application of,to amend the previously approved Site Plan Review,Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision dated December 11, 2014, for the property located at. Specifically, the application proposes to modify the condition requiring restoration of the office building located at 60 Grove Street due to its unsafe condition and to instead demolish the building and temporarily create a landscaped open space until specific commercial development plans are developed. No changes are proposed to the total square footage or • footprints of the buildings or number of dwelling units in the project. The 60 Grove Street property is to remain commercial in nature. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.COM City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for October 20,2016 Page 3 of 3 • III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 1,2016 B. September 15, 2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS CPC is requesting that the ZBA discuss and provide written comments on community preservation needs, possibilities and/or resources, evaluation criteria,priority projects or other comments related to CPA funding in Salem. V. ADJOURNMENT Knowyour rigba under the Open Meeting L1w M.G.L a 30A J 18-25 and City Ordinance 2-2028 tbrougb 2-2033. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSE7rs 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 W\VW'.SALEM.COM �ONDIT CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 TOM DANIEL,AICD DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner DATE: October 14,2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting—October 20,2016 Please find the following in the October 20. 2016: • October 20, 2016 Agenda ■ PEM-No new information ■ 93-95 Canal Street ■ Northshore Medical Center- no new information • Mason Street SPR ■ 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Ave. ■ 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1 3. 5 Harmony Grove Road REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS A. PEM- 161 ESSEX STREET At this time I am waiting for comments from David Knowlton, City Engineer to review the proposed utility plans for the site. There are no new documents for this project. B. 93-95 CANAL STREET At the last Planning Board meeting, the Board requested design changes to the building facade to make the building look more industrial rather than residential. The petitioner has provided revised plans and a proposed lighting fixture cut sheet here. Please also note that David Knowlton, City Engineer,is reviewing the proposed utility plans for the site. C. North Shore Medical Center (SPR, Stormwater Permit) 81 Hi gbland Avenue, 108 Jefferson Avenue; Old Road; 1 Dove Avenue; 79 Highland Avenue; 55 Highland Avenue;And 57 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); (Map 24 Lots 1, 2, 19, 88, • 216, 218, 220) City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —October 20, 2016 Meeting Page 2 of 3 Please note that the petitioner has requested a continuation to the November 17, 2017 • meeting due to ongoing nerotiations of the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement with the CL . D. MASON STREET (SPR, NRCC, FHOD) 9 South Mason St. and 3A Buffum St. Extension, 23 Mason St., 23 ''12 Mason St., and 23R Mason St. (Map 26, Lots 73, 74 and 79) This project involves the redevelopment of and expansion of an existing two-story concreted industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of new parking landscaping throughout the parcels. A portion of the development site is located within the NRCC and the AE Flood Zone, as such necessitates a special NRCC permit and a FHOD special permit. I anticipate that I will receive a traffic peer review letter and civil peer review letter by Monday, October 17 for review by the applicant and Board. There is no additional information from the applicant at this time. E. 2 PARADISE ROAD and 539 LORING AVE A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Vesuvius Restaurant building. The project will include demolition of the existing structure at 539 Loring Avenue, expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen, and construction of a new street level, cafe- style restaurant and second floor office space. The application information is located here. F. 60 &64 GROVE STREET and 1, 3, and 5 HARMONY GROVE ROAD Applicant: MRM Project Management,LLC for the project known as Grove Street Apartments (f/k/a Legacy Park at Harmony Grove Apartments) A public hearing for application of, to amend the previously approved Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision dated December 11, 2014, for the property located at. Specifically, the application proposes to modify the condition requiring restoration of the office building located at 60 Grove Street due to its unsafe condition and to instead demolish the building and temporarily create a landscaped open space until specific commercial development plans are developed. No changes are proposed to the total square footage or footprints of the buildings or number of dwelling units in the project. The 60 Grove Street property is to remain commercial in nature. The application information is located here. • Page 2 of 3 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —October 20, 2016 Meeting Page 3 of 3 • APPROVAL OF MINUTES ✓ September 1, 2016 ✓ September 15. 2016 ✓ September 19. 2016-joint Meeting ✓ September 26, 2016 (pending) Old/New Business CPC is requesting that the ZBA discuss and provide written comments on community preservation needs, possibilities and/or resources, evaluation criteria, priority projects or other comments related to CPA funding in Salem. • • Page 3 of 3 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet BoardI�Y�1 Date Name Mailing Address Phone # Email � —AA— 74 ,4 37) '7 c,k_/dIV) • Page of CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1016 SEP 2q P 5o 5q FILE:# CITY CLERK,SALEM;MASS. Public Hearin Notice City of Salem Planning Board Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of MRM Project Management, LLC, for the project known as Grove Street Apartments (f/k/a Legacy Park at Harmony Grove Apartments)to amend the previously approved Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision dated December 11, 2014, for the property located at 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1, 3, and 5 Harmony Grove Road (Map 16, Lots 237, 236, 377, 239 and 378). Specifically,the application proposes to modify the condition requiring restoration of the office building located at 60 Grove Street due to its unsafe condition and to instead demolish the building and temporarily create a landscaped open space until specific commercial development plans are developed. No changes are proposed to the total square footage or footprints of the buildings or number of dwelling units in the project. The 60 Grove Street property is to remain commercial in nature. The public hearing will be held on Thins, October 20, 2016 at 7:00 PM, at 120 Washington St., 3rd floor,room 313, in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Dept. of Planning & Community Development, 3`d Floor, 120 Washington St., Salem, MA. Salem News: October 6, 2016 and October 13, 2016 Know Your Rgbts under the Open Meeting Iaw M.G.L c. 30A 9 18-25 and City Ordinance g 2-2028 tbmugb 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on $g V,,.,y4,- 'Al aotu at -5-; �G PM in accordance with MGL Cap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 - WWW.SALEM.COM CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Mh SEP 29 P City of Salem FILE # Planning Board f1TY CLERK SALEM,MASS. Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of 2 PARADISE RD. LLC for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Vesuvius Restaurant building. The project will include demolition of the existing structure at 539 Loring Avenue, expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen, and construction of a new street level, cafe-style restaurant and second floor office space at 2 PARADISE ROAD and 539 LORING AVE (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) The public hearing will be held on Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 7:00 PM, in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning & Community Development,Third Floor, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. • Ben Anderson, Chair Planning Board Salem News: October 6,2016 and October 13,2016 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on gtP1e , Zvi A, dbIV at 5 . Q�l in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ' PHONE 97$.619.56)85 FAX 978.740.0404 ' WWW.SALEM.COM Meeting Minutes—October 20, 2016 Page 1 of 8 City of Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes Thursday, Oct. 20, 2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313, Salem,Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opens the meeting at 7:00 pm. I. ROLL CALL Those present were:Ben Anderson, Noah Koretz, Helen Sides, Dale Yale, Tony Mataragas, Bill Griset and Matt Veno (arriving late). Absent.- Kirt Rieder and Carole Hamilton Also in attendance:Amanda Chiancola Staff Planner, and Stacy Kilb,recorder II. Approval of Minutes This item is taken out of order while waiting for Matt Veno to arrive. A motion to approve the Sept 15 minutes is made by Helen Sider. seconded by Tony Mataragas and passes;Pith all in favor 6- 0. • A motion to approve the Sept. 1 minutes is made by Noah KoretZ seconded by Dale Yale, and passes with all in favor, 6-0. Matt Veno arrives at 7:05PM III. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: PEM 161 Essex Street (Map 35, Lot 303) Applicant: PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review. Specifically, the applicant proposes the partial demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a 37,950 square foot addition primarily within the footprint of the Asian Garden,in addition to site improvements including a garden and utility work. Presenting for the applicant is Bob Monk of the Peabody Essex Museum (PEM). The applicant would like a draft decision, but it was just received by the Board as of 5PM today and has not been reviewed, so the Chair is not comfortable voting. Engineering comments were received by email but were also not reviewed yet. A motion to continue to the Nov. 3. 2016 meeting is made by Bill Griset seconded by Helen sides, and carnes unanimously 7-0 B. Location: 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33, Lots 164, 165) Applicant: SCHIAVUZZO REALTY, LLC Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Sec. 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. Specifically, the applicant proposes to repurpose the existing building and convert the candy factory into eight (8) residential units. Meeting Minutes—October 20, 2016 Page 2 of 8 Presenting for the applicant is Attorney George Atkins, 65 Congress St. This is to address comments made at • the previous,initial meeting. Revised plans have been submitted but the Proposed Elevation plan is submitted again as there was an error. The Board had suggested maintaining the industrial/commercial appearance of the structure; changes are described. It will complement the building next door. Screening material has been added to the roof and a roof plan has been submitted. Materials for screening, fencing and the shingles are displayed. Different trees have also been selected and the landscaping plan amended. Other minor changes to landscaping are described. Discussed at the last meeting was the fact that proposed are 3 bedroom units; the Board had felt that 2- bedroom units would be more appropriate, however the client feels they must have three bedrooms to be economically viable. The 3'd bedroom could be used as an office, playroom, etc. It will be described as such to improve marketability and flexibility. Basement plans have been submitted; the only remaining small room will be a common area. They have also met with the Conservation Commission, who issued a negative determination. A miscommunication with the City Engineer's office must be resolved; additional materials will be provided to them.An approval and draft decision will be sought at the next meeting. Helen Sides comments that these are improvements, and notes she is opposed to the PVC on the rooftop, as it will draw more attention than the units themselves would. The most successful thing on rooftops is that the enclosure be minimal, dark, and not fence-like. • Leo Schiavuzzo, building owner, describes the mechanical items on the roof. They will not be visible from the street, but possibly from an adjacent building. Helen Sides suggests putting a structure that would confine them;it should have a matte finish,industrial looking, to make it look industrial and simple for abutters. Existing shingling will remain except where current shingles are damaged. Current shingles are painted and the new ones will be painted to match; the entire building will be repainted. Frank Curtis,Engineer, describes what it will look like. Helen Sides opines that the proportion of the glass is off, the applicant will look into it. A detail of the windows will also be provided. Lighting on the building is described. Chair Ben Anderson asks about the zoning; it is a B-4 district with no residential units allowed but the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) approved a change from one nonconforming use to another. Regarding the site plan: The Chair asks about the dumpsters; none are planned; totes will be in an enclosed area noted on the landscape plan. ECOD (Entrance Corridor Overlay District) allows one curb cut. Two lots are being combined. The Flood Hazard Overlay District (FHOD) is discussed, safety and ease of movement during floods is questioned; where is the flood overlay location? Attorney Atkins shows the board the map of the flood line from the FEMA map. A storm drainage system has been developed to capture what does come across the site; they must also conform to the curb cut requirements of the City Engineer's office, which is redoing all of Canal Street. The Chair notes that the ECOD specifies granite. The Chair comments that they may be cutting off one exit in the event of a flood, and asks why not connect• the driveway so that at least one drive always works. But after reviewing the FHOD map he notes that since Meeting Minutes—October 20, 2016 Page 3 of 8 ! the flood line is behind the building, both exits would flood. This is due to the desire to have less traffic meeting up. Stormwater management is further discussed. The Chair also asks if utilities have been designed for a potential flood;Attorney Atkins states there will be no change as they are using existing facilities, but they can consider suggestions or get more information. The Chair notes that he is reading directly from the FHOD requirements. Existing utilities should be designed for the potential flood; those items should be considered per the applicant's engineer. Attorney Atkins states that the building has been there a long time and existing facilities have not flooded. Additional information will be presented at the next meeting. The Chair reads directly from Section 8.1.4(2)and(3) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, and asks the applicant to have his engineer comment on said requirements: 8.1.4(2) There are adequate convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets and properly,particularly in the event of flooding of the lot(s) or adjacent lot(s) caused by either overspill from waterbodies or high runoff. 8.1.4(3) Utilities, including gas, electricity,fuel, water and sewage disposal, shall be located and constructed so as to protect against breaking, leaking, short-circuiting,grounding or igniting or any other damage due to flooding. Chair Anderson opens to public comment, but there are no comments. Matt Veno comments that he appreciated the responsiveness of the applicant and feels that the project looks better since the last meeting. A motion to continue to the Nov. 3. 2016 meetin4 is made by Noah Koret-, seconded by Bill Griset, and carries 7-0 . C. Location: 81 Highland Ave;108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave;55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1, 2, 88, 19, 216, 218 220; and Map 14, Lot 129) Applicant: NORTHSHORE MEDICAL CENTER INC. Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. Joseph Correnti represents the applicant, and is requesting a continuance to the Nov. 17`h meeting. A motion to continue to the Nov 17. 2016 meeting is made by Matt Vena seconded by Tony Magmas as and-basses with all(7) in favor and none(Obosed. D. Location: 9 South Mason Street,3A Buffum Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 '/2 Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26, Lots 73, 74, 79) Applicant: JUNIPER POINT 9 SOUTH MASON STREET LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem • Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two- story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story Meeting Minutes—October 20, 2016 Page 4 of 8 residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new • townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. Here for the applicant is Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. A continuance is requested as peer reviewers have been appointed by the City for civil and traffic review,which are ongoing. Also, a filing has been made with the DRB and they will meet next week, so there is not much to discuss tonight. A motion to continue to the Nov. 3 2016 meeting is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Bill Gnset, and passes with all(7) in favor and none (0goosed. E. Location: 2 Paradise Road and 539 Loring Ave. (Map 21 Lots 231 and 232) Applicant: 2 PARADISE RD. LLC Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Sec. 9.4 Site Plan Review of the Salem Zoning Ordinance for a proposed addition to the existing Vesuvius Restaurant building. The project will include demolition of the existing structure at 539 Loring Avenue, expansion of the Vesuvius Restaurant kitchen, and construction of a new street level,cafe-style restaurant and second floor office space. Here for the applicant is Atty. Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal St. This is located in Vinnin Square, the Vesuvius Restaurant. Bart Fredo, principal at Vesuvius, is also present. Basically, this is a building addition that would not normally require site plan review since it is only 8,300 square feet; however, as it is ECOD, any new construction over 2,000 square feet requires a site plan review. • There are two components to the project, an extension for the kitchen and a new addition, an attached two story structure. Minimal permitting will be required; ZBA permits were acquired for extension of a nonconforming structure and of a wall. The project was well received. Bob Griffin, Civil Engineer,presents details of the project,including: • Project Site: parking, traffic • View From 2 Paradise Rd • View from Loring Ave. • Existing Conditions • Proposed Site Layout • Proposed Grading&Utilities • Building Elevations • Floor Plans Matt Veno asks what the thinking is behind the two buildings being adjoined. Mr. Griffin elaborates that it is to maximize use of the lot; it also allows green space,providing a potentially usable courtyard as seasonal seating. They looked at options of connecting the driveways but it did not add parking or leave a reasonable area for outdoor searing. Matt Veno comments that he likes that they are moving the new portion of the building up to the street edge, in line with Vesuvius. This is replacing an existing nonconforming use with a conforming use in the B2 district. Helen Sides discusses the plantings and comments on a lack of trees on the corner. Particularly in the summer time,• it feels like a long distance because it is very bare. It is calling for some planting relief. This could really be improved with trees. Helen Sides would like Kirt Rieder's input. The Chair comments that as the project is in the ECOD Meeting Minutes—October 20, 2016 Page 5of8 there are not enough trees as required, he thinks they need 9 or 10. The trees should be spread out based on the number of parking spots. Since this is one building, a combined lot then this is one development which necessitates meeting the landscaping requirement for the ECOD. The Chair also suggests they check the width of the curb cuts to ensure compliance with the ECOD, 24 feet is the maximum. The Chair askes the applicant to address the curb cuts. Landscaping to separate the project from adjacencies is also required and he echoes Helen Sides' comments. Landscaping should address the whole project, not just the new addition; make it feel like one development. Bob Griffin reiterates that existing conditions must be taken into account so they should move forward with an open mind. Chair Anderson says while his is happy to keep an open mind; he reiterates that they are not honoring the spirit of the ordinance. He also asks some questions about the building's architecture,which feels like an afterthought. He asks for material of the building/trim work to be labeled on the plans. The separation between the addition and the existing building is awkward, it feels funny. Arty Correnti responds that the architect will come in November to address these comments. Chair Anderson opens to the public. Councilor Steve Dibble of Ward 7, 74 Moffat Rd., comments on the cleanliness of the business, how good the service is, etc. He supports demolition of the old house out back, and spoke in favor previously on a beer and wine license with a condition of 11PM,but this is still pending before state. However, he has several concerns about the project. He objects to the types of trees proposed, feeling they will not thrive next to a parking lot. The crab apples have low branches and the pear will be short lived. He suggests a big • tree with an overhead canopy that will last. He appreciates Chair Anderson's comments regarding the lack of trees. Councillor Dibble suggests the board include some kind of mechanism in the decision that will require the lawn and plantings to be maintained, so if the trees die in 10-20 years, they have to be replaced. On the Paradise Road side, that is route 1A, the main corridor into Salem. He would like to see at least two trees planted there. Bollards might be needed for the handicap sign, to protect those trees. He also feels that the existing building fagade does not have much interest (on the Loring Ave side), as it is a blank wall. He asks about doors on the south side which does not correspond to the floor plan. Bob Griffin clarifies that the "doors" on the South side are, in fact, full height windows,which will be clarified by the architect at the next meeting. A motion to continue to the Nov. 3,2016 meeting is made by Helen Sider seconded by Matt Veno, and caner with all in favor 7-0. F. Location: 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1,3, and 5 Harmony Grove Road (Map 16, Lots 237,236, 377, 239 and 378) Applicant: MRM PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC for the project known as Grove Street Apartments (f/k/a Legacy Park at Harmony Grove Apartments) Description: A public hearing for application of, to amend the previously approved Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Decision dated December 11, 2014, for the property located at. Specifically, the application proposes to modify the condition requiring restoration of the office building located at 60 Grove Street due to its unsafe condition and to instead demolish the building and temporarily create a landscaped open space until specific commercial development plans are developed. No changes are proposed to the total square footage or footprints of the buildings or number of dwelling units in the project. The 60 Grove Street property is • to remain commercial in nature. Meeting Minutes—October 20, 2016 Page 6 of 8 Attorney Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. represents the owners, MRM development, on the Salem Oil & Grease site. This is the amendment to the plans to address the building that remains out front, at 60 Grove St., referred to as the Office Building. Bob Griffin,project Engineer,presents a brief Power Point. Parallel permitting steps are occurring: Salem Historic Commission and Chapter 91 have approved the project change,and it was also approved by MEPA. • Project Site • 2014 Development Plan — Originally wanted to renovate 60 Grove St. for Commercial, but now planning to demolish it and use as green space until further planning can be done (parking issues). Building is derelict. • Views from various perspectives off Grove St. • Temporary Open Space Bob Griffin outlines their progress; they had requested a minor modification but the Board had decided an application was in order. There is some confusion on the part of the Board as to whether or not the percentage of commercial space that was promised will remain, and that the nature of the project has changed. The Board is concerned whether the commercial development slated for that particular area will,in fact,ever occur. Attorney Correnti clarifies that the owner of the project, MRM Development, will not be developing it. They never intended to do the actual building, only to permit the project. They originally had a building partner who has since departed. The parcel in question is part of the larger project and will never be dedicated to anything but commercial usage. No building is shown yet since the owners have no developer to work with on design. The three proposed apartment buildings will remain exactly as previously presented. The ONLY change is to • the building at 60 Grove St. Attorney Correnti explains that one sentence is all that must be modified in the original decision; it stipulates that the building there must be rehabbed, but this is simply not possible given its condition. Thus, potential buyers are driven off when they see that renovation must occur (Condition 20F) on a condemned building. No bank will take on the project, either. The building is falling down and must be removed; the DEP is onsite examining what is coming off the building in the meantime. This building is the only thing holding up the project. While several Board members indicate that they would feel comfortable moving forward after Attorney Correnti's clarifications, Chair Anderson would like additional time to review. Attorney Correnti feels that this is an onerous request, as he already presented this request in July and was told to come back and re-file,which he did three weeks ago. Matt Veno asks about post-demolition viability of commercial development on the parcel in question. Parking constraints are described so the narrow segment will remain as landscaping no matter what. Currently a 17,000 square foot building is in place, but a smaller building with ancillary uses to the apartment complex could potentially be built. Some examples would be a residential gym, food service establishment, or meeting rooms. The area that must be counted towards the percentage of commercial usage in the project is measured as a percentage, not as square footage of a building. Amanda Chiancola describes The City's Interactions Regarding This Project So Far; BUILDING Commissioner, Thomas St. Pierre had wanted to comment on the structure as it is red-tagged, but has not yet done so. Attorney Correnti states that all public safety officials have said that the building must be torn down.• Bob Griffin confirms this, noting that the building is considered a nuisance/safety issue. Waivers for a demolition delay have been obtained, and Attorney Correnti again reviews the other approvals that have been Meeting Minutes—October 20, 2016 Page 7 of 8 obtained. He reiterates that the building is a poison pill to the project, and notes that he can't specify what the exact commercial usage will be as no developer will come on board and make plans with the building and the condition that it be renovated in place. Chair Anderson opens to public comment. Councilor Steve Dibble of 74 Moffatt Rd. Ward 7 Councillor. He is familiar with the property. He asks about a path along the Canal and Mr. Griffin elaborates. Is the bike path deeded to the City? The owner is obligated to maintain it. He also asks about zoning and notes that need for commercial development is here. He wonders if Building#3 could be switched so commercial development/parking issues could be more easily resolved Rosemary O'Connor of 111 Mason St. comments that she is in favor of demolition. She is also concerned that it may not resurface as commercial development, but project must move forward. If this is holding up something new coming in, she hopes they vote for it. Tricia Meyers of 14 Beaver St. was not aware that one entrance was removed from project, and is concerned about traffic. Why not use this property and make another exit out?Attorney Corrend explains that this would require building a bridge, which would require additional filings to MEPA, Chapter 91, etc. It is already permitted so not what we are being asked to review. Joan Sweeney of 22 Silva St. and Friends of North River asks about a pile of dirt in front of the building. Mr. Griffin elaborates. There is ongoing demolition; a relocated material cell will not be constructed. She is also concerned about the need for commercial development. She feels the building underwent "intentional decay" • but it must be demolished. The Chair states the procedural options. Noah Koretz comments that he had re-filed a 23(b)(3) appearance of conflict disclosure stating that he can vote on the project; however, given the nature of the requested changes, he is no longer comfortable voting, thus will recuse himself. While other Board members feel that demolition is urgent and probably should have been requested at the outset, the Chair is still not comfortable voting in favor as he would like to review the original PUD approval and minutes from those meetings. As the applicant would require all six remaining Board members to vote favorably, and a denial would be worse than a continuance,Attorney Correnti requests a continuance to the Nov. 3 meeting. A motion to continue to Me Nov. 3 2016 meeting is made by Matt Veno, seconded by Tony Mataragas. and-parses 6-0. Noa) KoretZ abstaining. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS The Community Preservation Commission is asking for Planning Board comments on CP needs, etc. Matt Veno comments that they are gathering more information from relevant Boards etc. and this has been discussed,but the Board has no comments at this time. V. ADJOURNMENT • A motion to ad ourn is made by Tony Mataragar, seconded by Helen Sides, and wit)all Q in favor and none(_O)o posed. The meeting ends at 8:56 PM. Meeting Minutes—October 20, 2016 Page 8 of 8 For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at http://www.salem.com/planning-board/webforms/planning-board- 2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 11/3/2016 Knowyour rigbtr under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 tbrough g 2-2033. • • CITY OF SALEM a PLANNING BOARD 1116 SEP 23 A % CLElfi(: 514.11, MASS. NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, September 27,2016 at 7:00pm City Hall Annex,Room 313, 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA Ben Anderson, Chair AMENDED MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. AGENDA A. Deliberate and vote on recommendation for the rezoning of the parcels at 293 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26, Lot 634) from North River Canal Corridor to B-4 Wholesale &Automotive Zoning District; and the former Universal Steel site at 297 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26, Lot 635) from R2 Residential Two-Family to B-4 • Wholesale&Automotive Zoning District. III. OLD/NEW BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 118-25 and Cita,Ordinance ff 2-2028 through ff 2-2033. This notice Posted on "Official Bulletin Boar " City Hall, Salem, Mass. on d at Cj H 4 Ar, in accordance With MGL Ch3a�l� Sections 18-25. P. 30A, • .v tr CITY OF SALEM • PLANNING BOARD 241b SEP 22 A c '11 1~iLE tl. NOTICE OF MEETING PITY CLERKEM,:MASS You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold a joint public hearing on Tuesday,September 27,2016 at 7:00pm City Hall Annex,Room 313, 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA Ben Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. AGENDA A. Deliberate and vote on recommendation for the rezoning of the parcels at 293 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26, Lot 634) from North River Canal Corridor to B-4 Wholesale &Automotive Zoning District; and the former Universal Steel site at 297 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26, Lot 635) from R2 Residential Two-Family to B-4 • Wholesale &Automotive Zoning District. III. OLD/NEW BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT Know-Your rights under the Open Meeting Lam MG.L c. 30A ff 18-25 and City Ordinance 2-2028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. onat Sections 18-25in accordance With MGL Chap. 30A, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT K[MBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 4 FAx:978-740-0404 TOM DANIEL,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Tom Daniel, AICP, Director Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner DATE: September 26, 2016 RE: Special Public Meeting — September 27, 2016 We have prepared this memorandum to address Planning Board members' questions prior to Tuesday's special public meeting. • Background FW Webb has been in operation at 293 Bridge Street for over 60 years. They would like to expand and modernize their current facility and grow in Salem. In order to do so, they need additional land, specifically the former Universal Steel site at 297 Bridge Street. Because the Universal Steel site is zoned R2,which does not permit FW Webb's use, the property needs to be rezoned to B4. On January 26, 2016, the first rezoning proposal was presented at a joint public hearing of the City Council and the Planning Board. On February 9, 2016, the Planning Board recommended to the City Council that the rezoning be approved. The City Council did not approve the rezoning, and in response to community concerns, FW Webb greatly modified their original development proposal. The current development proposal includes an approximately 16,000 square foot (8,000 square foot footprint) addition to FW Webb's building at 293 Bridge Street. They would like to acquire the former Universal Steel site to provide a loading dock, access,laydown area, and parking. Again, because the Universal Steel site is zoned R2,which does not permit FW Webb's use, the property needs to be rezoned to B4. As was the case in February 2016, the matter before the Planning Board is to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the rezoning of two parcels. At its core, this is the same matter the Planning Board considered at the beginning of the year; the difference is that one of the parcels has changed. Previously, the Planning Board recommended rezoning of the Universal Steel and Alpha Auto parcels from R2 to B4. The subject parcels are now the Universal Steel (R2) and FW Webb (NRCC) parcels. Because the facts of the current matter are so similar to those of the . February consideration,we have attached documents used in the earlier decision-making process. City of Salem: Planning Board Memorandum —9/26/2016 Page 2 of 3 January and February 2016 Documents: • - Lynn Duncan's memo to the Board Regarding joint Hearing - Lynn Duncan's memo to the Board regarding questions from joint hearing - Legal Opinion from City Solicitor on Spot Zoning - Opinion from Zoning Enforcement Officer - Audio from Joint Hearing of January 26, 2016 - Minutes from Joint Hearing - Planning Board Recommendation to City Council Current Request Formally, the request is to amend the Zoning Ordinance to rezone the parcels at 293 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26,Lot 634) from North River Canal Corridor to B4 Wholesale&Automotive Zoning District; and the former Universal Steel site at 297 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26,Lot 635) from R2 Residential Two-Family to B4 Wholesale&Automotive Zoning District. (Please note that Beckford Way will not be affected.) The Planning Board has until September 6, 2016 to make a recommendation. Current Conditions and Zoning of 297 Bridge Street(Universal Steel) This property is currently used as a municipal parking lot and within the R2 Zoning District. The R2 Zoning District allows for the following uses by-right: single-family residences, two-family residences, child care facilities, agriculture, municipal, education,religious purposes,golf courses, historic buildings open to the public, and museums. • This parcel has lost its non-conforming use status which means there is no legal mechanism to allow for redevelopment of the site that does not conform to the current zoning district. Because of the Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) recorded on this property deed, none of the uses allowed by- right within the R2 Zoning District can occur on this property. Without rezoning the parcel, there is no viable reuse of the,site due to the above limitations. In addition, there is a prohibition to pass over from a more restrictive parcel to a less restrictive parcel. Thus, there is no opportunity for the commercial use located at 293 Bridge Street to be accessed by passing over 297 Bridge Street as currently zoned. Current Conditions and Zoning of 293 Bridge Street(FW Webb) This property is currently used for the sales and storage of building supplies (as determined by the Zoning Enforcement Officer) and located in the NRCC Zoning District. Under Sec. 8.4.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, storage,warehousing and wholesale distribution facilities are prohibited except as an accessory use. This use is only allowed by-right in the B4 and Industrial zoning districts. Rezoning 293 Bridge Street from NRCC to B4 will mean the expansion project will not be considered by the Design Review Board. However,the project will be subject to Site Plan Review and the Planning Board's oversight of that application. Rezoning 293 Bridge Street will bring the more-than-60-year use into alignment with City zoning. Moreover,given that the FW Webb expansion necessitates the rezoning of 297 Bridge Street to B4, . all of Webb's property will be covered by the same zoning district. City of Salem: Planning Board Memorandum—9/26/2016 Page 3 of 3 293-297 Bridge Street Properties Together By rezoning both 293 and 297 Bridge Street, FW Webb will be able to retain existing jobs and expand in Salem. In addition, the former Universal Steel site will become a tax-generating property. Deed Restriction Although it is not part of the Planning Board's purview,it is worth noting that in addition to significantly modifying their development proposal, FW Webb has agreed to a deed restriction on both 293 and 297 Bridge Street. The specific language is still being developed,but the deed restriction would prevent any B4 use other than FW Webb's use for a period of 50 years. The deed restriction would prevent vertical construction on the Universal Steel site and would also benefit to abutters.The City's land disposition will control the deed restrictions. For your reference, the B4 Zoning District allows for the following uses by-right: child care facilities, agriculture, municipal, education,religious purposes, banks, professional offices,general service establishments,golf courses,historic buildings open to the public,medical and dental offices, motor vehicle light service,motor vehicle and boat sales, service and rental;museums, personal service establishments,restaurants (drive-in or fast food, no alcoholic beverages),retail stores except department stores, sale and storage of building supplies,publishing and printing, and wholesale, warehouse, or distribution facilities. • • g, Y City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet n Board Date 9 2- / 2 Name Mailing Address Phone# E-mail neVv e,, I Z-gc.vty s Sf G7k Jyy-o4/,� .ba�9y�eF?��CQ��nai/• Ctzr C �� b Clews D1te- u&� S- -t�jy� � 1 Ri 1hdivaJ `�- �,G1ll� � o�'�'S 6c� "�3- ��53 ��-e�C��Q1�,.tgiJ_S@MRC•Cdh Page of DRAFT Meeting Minutes—September 27, 2016 Page 1 of 9 • City of Salem Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes Special Meeting Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2016 A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Tuesday September 27, 2016 at 7:OOpm at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313, Salem,Massachusetts Chair Anderson calls the meeting to order at 7:OOpm I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Chair Ben Anderson,Vice Chair Matt Veno,Kirt Rieder,Bill Griset,Helen Sides and Carole Hamilton Absent..Tony Mataragas,Noah Koretz and Dale Yale Alco present. Tom Daniel,AICP,Director of Planning and Community Development and Erin Schaeffer Staff Planner II. REGULAR AGENDA Consideration of a petition to amend the City of Salem Zoning Map for the parcel of real • property situated at 293 Bridge St and 297 Bridge Street zoned NRCC and R-2, respectively. Both Parcels are to be rezoned to Business Wholesale and Automotive (B-4). Tom Daniel, Director of Planning and Community Development comments that a couple of letters from the public have been circulating. Mr. Daniel reads a letter into the record from Attorney Joseph Correnti,which is addressed to him, `7t has come to my attention that a three-page letter addressed to the Planning Board bas been submitted by the neighbors and others concerning the Planning Board's deliberations in this re.Zoning petition. Asyou know, the public heating on this matter was closed on Monday, September 19, 2016 during the joint Cite CoundIl Planning Board hearing in City Council Chambers. The matter was then referred to the Planning Board for its deliberation recommendation. The board met on September 19b and continued its deliberation to this evening. Because the public heating has been closed the Planning Board is prohibited from taking further submittals from the public. I trust that this letter has not been distributed to the board members, but if it has please note our strenuous objection to this procedural flaw. Not only would this be fundamentally unfair to the property owners and others who may wish to further comment but in reading the letter I find it to be illegally flawed and incomplete. Please instruct the board to disregard all materials or correspondence received after close of the public bearing on September 19°, signed Joseph Correnti." DRAFT Meeting Minutes—September 27, 2016 Page 2 of 9 • Mr. Daniel echoes the comment that the Chair made, that there is not public testimony now, and notes that if the board members have received letters, the letters cannot be part of the Planning Boards discussion either because the hearing is closed. Mr. Daniel described the materials provided to board earlier in the year, and says they are still relevant. As such, staff has provided that information to the board members again. He then summarizes a letter prepared by staff in response to questions by the board members: - Zoning Commissioner determines the proposed use is "sales and storage of building supplies." o That use is only permitted as of right in B4 and Industrial Zones - Why can't Webb expand its nonconforming use to the Universal Steel site? o The Universal Steel site, which is zoned R2, is vacant and no longer has a non- conforming use. You cannot extend a non-confonning use to the R2 zone that is not currently there. - What about accessing Webb across the property as it exists today as R2. o That's not allowed because you are accessing a less restrictive lot over a more restrictive. Where R2 is just residential, and Webb is a legal non-conforming use. Case Law shows you can't access that property over the residential property. Mr. Daniel provides the Clark Ave subdivision as an example, he explains it has an industrial property, and neighbors were concerned of that property being developed with an industrial use. But in fact, it can't be developed with an • industrial use because the access to the lot would be across residential lots. That is similar to this project. - What if you rezone the Universal Steel parcel as NRCC, so both properties are zoned NRCC? o Since the Webb use is prohibited in the NRCC, so you are passing over a more restrictive property to a less restrictive. - Mr. Daniel comments that he has looked at this every which way he can, and as new suggestions or ideas are proposed he explores them with the City Solicitor and other city staff. Ultimately, there just is not a way to get this use permitted other than B4 where it is permitted as of right. The other question that comes up is, why not change NRCC to allow this type of use in NRCC. This could be done; it would allow this use throughout the whole NRCC district rather than just limiting it to this one parcel, which opens up another set of concerns and issues. The question of design review has come up, in that the NRCC zoning district would ensure that the proposal that comes in is subject to design review-which is true. This is lost with the B4 rezoning. But what you have before you is a Site Plan Review,which is an opportunity to have some control over the design. Webb has significantly modified their original proposal; they are proposing an 8,000 square footprint approximately 16,000 square feet in total, and the universal steel site is used for access, laydown and loading. They have tried to address the neighbors' concerns which have been demonstrated through the change to their design, and offer a deed restriction to prohibit vertical construction on the Universal Steel site for 50 years. They are also looking at a use restriction on both properties, to limit it to just Webb uses. Their goal is to add on and grow in • DRAFT Meeting Minutes—September 27, 2016 Page 3 of 9 Salem while meeting the neighbors' concerns. A working draft of the deed restriction is summarized: - No build on universal steel site - 50 year use restriction on both the FW Webb property and the Universal Steel site - Abutters that would be benefited by the deed restriction - If something happens and Webb goes away in less than 50 years, and there is not another user that comes in that conforms to the uses allowed under the deed restriction, rather than waiting for the full 50 year time period to expire, the party could come in before the city and request a rezoning to NRCC or whatever subsequent zoning to NRCC there is at that time. It is an effort to maintain some level of assurance in the future that if Webb goes away and there is not a new owner that fits within the deed restricted uses, that there is a mechanism for someone to utilize the property in a way and the community is not left with a vacant building. Helen asks, if the site was rezoned to NRCC, would that go into effect immediately, or what would the timing be? Mr. Daniel responds that a zoning amendment would need to be processed, before the City Council and public comment so it is a several month process. Mr. Rieder asks could the use be rezoned to NRCC, but necessitates a special permit by the Planning Board. Mr. Daniel responds yes, that would be the similar process to amending the • ordinance then you carve out that it is a special permit. Matt Veno follows up on that comment asking if you could craft the special permit such that there are a series of criteria that need to be specifically met in order for the Planning Board to approve that permit, e.g. square footage. Part of his concern is the broader application of this use across the district, which he personally would not like to see anywhere else in the district, thus questions whether it is feasible to put together a series of criteria to limit the applicability of a special permit. Mr. Daniel responds it seems to be possible, but it is a matter of determining what the criteria would be and running it through the analysis. However, he notes that he is not an expert on this and if you craft a use that is too limited you run into issues there so he is unsure how to get to what you're wanting, unless the use is acceptable on other properties. Mr. Veno comments that he has gone back and forth on this project. This is a complex zoning issue, specifically a complex project because of the zoning issues. There does not appear to be an easy neat solution. The Webb use is not new. If it was a new use that was being proposed for a new development, he would probably not support it. But this is a current use that has been there for decades. It was rezoned without the acquiescence of the property owner, so questions whether it was right to include them in the NRCC in the first place. But we are trying to figure out how to accommodate the slight expansion of a current use onto an adjacent property. The circumstances here are just unique he uses the analogy that it as a square peg in a round hole. We have had a square peg for decades (Webb), he believes are important to the economic development to the city, e.g. keeping the vibrant commercial tax • base among other things. This makes him more receptive to the creative solution that has been put forward. DRAFT Meeting Minutes—September 27, 2016 Page 4 of 9 Kirt asks how the board could redefine the parcels as similar to a PUD, to achieve a net gain. Chair Anderson responds it would have to be rezoned. Mr. Daniel concurs; yes it would require a rezoning. The matter before the board is rezoning two properties to B4, if it is something other than that,it is starting the process over again. The PUD is a means for the property owner to do their project. It is not the board's determination to do that, it is a tool that they could apply for to meet their building development objectives. What they are looking at doing does not require a PUD to do their project. Chair Anderson explains his struggles with the project: - He has gone back and forth on his opinions on the rezoning request (not necessarily on the project). - In broad brush terms he questions to himself, why are we trying to put a B4 adjacent to NRCC and a R2 neighborhood- it doesn't seem to make sense. BUT then he thinks about FW Webb who has been here for 60 years. This company has employees, and is looking to invest in the city. He looks at thoughts and proposals from the previous rezoning effort and the building proposed, and the resistance from the neighborhood. He thinks about what the applicant has done to reshape the project in response to that. He looked at the City master plan from 1996, what the city has been trying to do. The complexities of the zoning are mind boggling; it is a difficult issue to wrap his head around. He thinks the potential realization of the master plan which discusses maintaining existing businesses and tax base. It is an issue where he feels we have a • project and process in front of us with a property owner that wants to invest and stay in the city. The property owner has been responsive to a lot of the concerns,especially with the new proposal which is much smaller than what was previously asked for. He describes the new project compared to the previous proposal. It appears to him that if the board does not seriously consider changing the zoning, they would be stepping on the toes of businesses in Salem, including a business that is serious about staying in the city and investing here. He is confident in the site plan review process that if we the rezoning is approved, the board could address neighborhood concerns,as they have with other projects. The individuals on the board are very capable of working with FW Webb to craft a project that is good for the city. This was demonstrated on other projects the board has pushed developers for things they may not have been thinking of which has resulted in better projects for both the city and the developer. At this point, based on what's in front of the board, and the opportunity the city has to develop a vacant site in way that will collect tax revenue, maintain a business, and keep jobs in the city, his tendency is to support the project to rezone the site. Carole Hamilton comments that she also has gone back and forth on this petition. This application has stumped her for a couple reasons: - It is an expansion of a zone that clearly the NRCC zoning wanted to eliminate. As a nonconforming (which it is now) it has restrictions so the existing use can stay but in the future it would get developed in a way that conforms to a NRCC district. But this proposal before the board is to expanding a B4 district, a use, making it a by right use • where it is currently a non-conforming use now,and expanding it. In addition,it is laying DRAFT Meeting Minutes—September 27, 2016 Page 5 of 9 • on deed restrictions that don't go into effect in 50 years. The people affected by a by- right use in the B4 district in this area will not get design review. While this board does a good job in dealing with design review as part of site plan,it is not part of zoning. Mr. Rieder clarifies that the activity use limitation (AUL) does not sunset, it is in perpetuity. Mr. Daniel confirms. Ms. Hamilton responds, but the B4 zone allows certain uses by right. Chair Anderson also notes that they can petition to change the AUL. Thus, Ms. Hamilton comments that she is struggling with saying yes to this. Helen Sides comments that she is also struggling with saying yes to the rezoning application, largely from the design review standpoint. The board has been making efforts to discuss the need to expand the oversight of the DRB. She explains that she has sat on many boards to help businesses through this process when they do not naturally have to have the DRB involved, and that is a lot of pressure for a couple people to decide when it should be seen by the entire design review board. While she does trust the Planning Board can review the design due to the number of qualified people on the board,it is not really what they there for;it is what the design review board is for. She also notes that this is a different proposal than the first one, and these are different things to consider. Chair Anderson responds, the lots have shifts, the board is being asked to rezone the Webb site and the Universal steel site rather than the alpha auto site. Ms. Sides comments that it is not clear to her that B4 is appropriate. Tom Daniel asks if the core of her concern is the design review • aspect, Ms. Side replies,yes- and forfeiting the NRCC. She explains that the NRCC has value. The board has seen many projects developed with the NRCC in a positive way. While it is taking a while for the project to be built, she has seen the positive aspects to the design review with every one of those projects in the NRCC, and it is tough to say give it up on this project. It is on a really important corner entering the city. She clarifies that she does believe the board can handle the project through site plan review, but it is tough to give up the opportunity for design review through the DRB when it has been such an important part of the development of the everyone one of the other NRCC projects. Mr. Daniel comments that he has reflected on the role of the DRB relative to the NRCC. He supposes that the DRB is the design expertise, so the city relies on them. But wonders if that could be augmented, i.e. to have a peer review of the architectural design as part of the site plan review process. Ms. Sides responds that a few years ago when the city extended the master plan they were under the gun and didn't have enough time to consider the opportunity to expand. But one of the major things they wanted to consider was expanding the SRA district, (downtown). Mr. Veno states that this is not an entrance corridor within the ECOD overlay. He thinks expanding the scope of the DRB is a further discussion he would like to have, applying it to entrance corridors is one way to do that. Mr. Rieder says his feeling is if the proposal before them was can we switch everything to NRCC with Planning Board discretion to approve or disapprove this permitted use, it would be a much faster discussion. But that is not what they are being asked to vote on. For him, this is not a • Greenfield; it was a steel warehouse up until not so long ago. It is not a tear down of residential houses. The legal opinion on is it or is it not a spot zoning seems to answer that question. He is DRAFT Meeting Minutes—September 27, 2016 Page 6 of 9 curious as to what the new proposal is. It has been referenced several times,but the board has not seen it, so he has not conception of what the proposal is. He explains that it is very odd and counterproductive to the applicant's effort to persuade approval. Mr. Daniel responds that he also has not seen a detailed proposal either. It has been a conceptual, "this is an 8,000 square foot piece." Chair Anderson comments that he has not seen the proposal either, but has just heard discussions about it. Mr. Rieder asks if the board can approve with DRB as a contingency, mandating that it must be part of the approval. Mr. Daniel replies that the board is making a recommendation to council, and they can include the considerations that they feel are important. Chair Anderson comments that he questioned to himself, is putting a B4 next to R2 and NRCC setting a bad precedent for the future? But in looking at the city zoning map, there are instances within the city that have a B4 next to a residential zoning. Other board members respond that this is true of every city. Chair Anderson replies it seemed initially and emotionally difficult, but understanding that it exists today and it seems to work in other areas relives some of the angst. But he kept going back to the master plan,and thinking about the strides the city made since 1996. The Chair then reads recommendations from the Master Plan to elaborate the important pieces for the development of the city in economic development for that decade: - The city is working hard to retain its remaining industries. - City government depends on businesses. Back then is was 53% of the tax revenue. o He notes that he does not have the exact number of what it is now but senses it is something similar;Mr. Veno suggests it is probably a good deal lower. - The committee was especially concerned about improving the business climate by retaining existing businesses and attracting new ones, and pointed to a perception of high business taxes as a liability. - Some goals and strategies include: o Existing firms retained o New businesses attracted o Contamination issues resolved at vacant sites ■ He believes the city has worked hard to do at this site o Strength existing businesses downtown ■ He comments that this parcel is not downtown,it is very close o Eliminate problem properties Chair Anderson says he keeps going back to the business owner we have adjacent to the site, and the efforts they have put to remain in the city and money they are willing to invest in the city. He questions,what could happen on the site if this is not rezoned. Maybe an R3 with a PUD, but that could result in a denser development. So in looking at what is in front of the board today and the potential and benefit to the city and the effect that it will have on the neighborhood. Without understanding or seeing a plan he feels this is a better project for the city and that neighborhood as it stands today. He is confident that as a board, they can deliver a project along with the property owner that will be a benefit for the city and the neighborhood. • DRAFT Meeting Minutes—September 27, 2016 Page 7 of 9 Bill Griset comments he sat on a Planning Board for a community that was at best antagonist to business, and watched great businesses that operated in the Town of Reading be chased away. When he fust moved to Salem what drew his interest to this Planning Board is that this community does not chase business away, nor is it in opposition to business. This community welcomes, strengthens and helps business owners grow their businesses. He notes that in any city there is always friction with a neighborhood in which the business is located. Given that this business has been operating for 60 years, long before the NRCC, long before those concerns, it strikes him that the conceptual project brings with it less intrusion on the neighborhood. He would like to see the DRB have input, the DRB has changed the nature and quality of projects in the city. But he is reluctant to do something to discourage this business. While he recognizes the rezoning it is not tidy, he is supportive of it. He was initially concerned about spot zoning but not anymore. He is generally supportive of the project. Mr. Rieder comments that he thinks it is important to see a site plan since they are asked to look at a draft deed restriction which raises all sorts of questions. For instance, restriction of structure- should it be habitable structure, climate controlled structure... it is unclear what structures are being restricted. Loading dock-it is unclear whether it is a loading dock for 17 trucks,wb55 trucks or box trucks. He explains that he is asking these questions and raising these issues is he would like to see something graphic, so he can weigh in on what the appropriate limitations should be and he would like to have a great deal of understanding/comfort that the "structure" is not a 3 story tall habitable structure. He would expect to see more fine grain editing. Mr. Daniel responds that the deed restriction is still be negotiated. The board is not voting on the deed restriction as it is not their purview. It is here as a courtesy to understand the intent. Mr. Veno comments that while the draft deed restriction is not before the board for any action,as part of the boards overall opinion on the rezoning they could express an opinion as to what should be included or added to the draft deed restriction. Mr. Rieder feels that the deed restriction is the carrot to get the rezoning approved. Mr. Daniel views it differently; he says that the matter before the board is the rezoning, period. While other considerations are that they added in the deed restriction to address neighbors' concerns. If the board has things they would like the City Council to consider, such as the design review or additions to the deed restriction, the board can raise those as part of the recommendation tonight. Chair Anderson says he would generally be supportive of recommending the DRB review. Kirt says he would go a step further and say not recommending, but requiring, Ms. Sides agrees and elaborates that it should be more than a subcommittee of the DRB, it should be the full DRB. Chair Anderson clarifies that the board cannot require, they can recommend then the City Council will take it into consideration. Mr. Daniel comments that he is not certain how the "requirement" of DRB review would be put into effect since it is not currently required in the ordinance. As such, he suggests that the board express their intent behind the recommendation. Mr. Daniel explains that the intent is important because if there is no legal mechanism to implement it as a "requirement" there is something more than just a site plan review, such as his earlier idea of an augmented peer review. • DRAFT Meeting Minutes—September 27, 2016 Page 8 of 9 Mr. Rieder is not in favor of the augmented review suggested by Mr. Daniel. Mr. Rieder explains that the intent behind the suggestion of a required DRB review is consistent with more than 9 months of discussion on other topics before the Planning Board they have been looking for opportunities to expand the DRB's overview to specifically improve projects on very highly visible avenues into the City. Chair Anderson asks if the board is being asked to come up with the final language tonight, or will the board make suggestions that will be brought back to them for review. Mr. Daniel recommends doing the work tonight. He explains that there is a means to elaborate on additional thoughts in the recommendation, as they did in February. Chair Anderson asks the board members if any of them have a recommendation to add before going forward with a motion. Mr. Daniels suggests that the board look at the recommendation from February as a guide. Mr. Veno says his motion would be that the City Council adopt the rezoning as proposed with recommendations. He suggests that paragraph 2 from the February decision be included in the recommendation. Staff Planner Erin Schaeffer reads said paragraph into the record, `7t allows commercial redevelopment in a historically industrial area; (2) conforms to the City's Master Plan; (3) preserves and expands senaces from a company that has providedplumbing supplies to local contractors in the Gq, for decades; (4) increases the tax revenue through new growth on two underperforming lots historically used for commercial enterprises;(5)creates additional jobs for area residents;(6) retains existing jobs that are threatened; (7) properly tiones a lot that has not been remediated for residential use and would otherwise remain vacant and underntih.Zed." The last statement of that paragraph is discussed: "and (8) maintains public access between Beckford Way and Bridge Street." Ms. Schaeffer explains that this is not part of the zoning consideration before the board. Mr. Griset comments that it is relevant and important to the board.As such, Chau Anderson says it should be added to the list of recommendations. Additional recommendations are discussed: • The Planning Board strongly recommends the City Council require DRB design review concurrent with the Planning Board's site plan review. The DRB's recommendation would be made to the Planning Board before site plan review was completed. The intent of this design review recommendation is to ensure quality design on this site. This recommendation is consistent with recent Planning Board discussion of expanding design review to key corridors in the City. • The Planning Board requests that there be a 50-year restriction on construction of habitable structures. o The board notes that the deed restriction should be measureable but not too restrictive. Matt Veno made a motion, seconded by Bill Griset to recommend approval of the reZoni�nn of parcels at 293 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26, Lot 634)from North Diver Canal Corridor to B4 Wbolesale Automotive Zoning District:and thefarmer Universal Steel site at 297 Br dge Street(Assessor Map 26. Lot 635,�from B2 Residential . DRAFT Meeting Minutes—September 27, 2016 Page 9 of 9 TWo-Family to B4 Wholesale &Automotive Zoning District because the 4robosed_PnZLpromotes the Public wel are for the-following reasons: (1) It allows commercial redevelopment in a historically industrial area; (2) conforms to the City's Master Plan: (3)preserves and expands seances from a company that bas Proinded dsu umbing pplies to local contractors in the City for decades: (4) increases the tax revenue through new growth on two under2erforming lots historically used for commercial enterprises: (5) creates additional iobs for area residents., (6) retains vdsting iobs that are threatened;and(7)Praper/ Zones a lot that has not been remediated for residential use and would otherwise remain vacant and underutilized In making this recommendation. the Planning Board made note of the following - Public access between Beckford Way and Bridge Street will be maintained - The Planning Board strongly recommends the City Council require DRB design review concurrent with the Planning Board's site Plan review. The DRB's recommendation would be made to the Planning Board before site Plan review was completed The intent of this design review recommendation is to ensure gualityy design on this site This recommendation is consistent with recent Planner Board discussion of expanding design review to key corridors in the Cites - The Planning Board recommends the language of the deed restriction clearly indicate there is a 50-year restriction on construction of habitable structures on the former Universal Steel site 293 Bridge Street. The Planning Board voted, seven n) in favor o(the motion (Ben Anderson Matt Veno Bill Griset Kart Rieder Helen Sides. Carole Hamilton) and none opposed to recommend the 4gposed Zoning amendment with the above listed findings. A motion to adfourn is made by Kart Rieder, seconded by Carole Hamilton and Passes with all in favor. The meeting ends at 8:08pm. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://www.salem.com/planning-board/web forms/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner Approved by the Planning Board on XX/XX/2016 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law MG.L c. 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance f 2-2028 through 2-2033. • CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD N1h SEP 2q A 90 25 Report to City Council REVISED FILE:# September 27,2016 CITY CLERK, SALEM MASS. At its meeting on September 27, 2016 the Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the rezoning of the following real property situated at 293 Bridge Street (Map 26 Lot 634), currently zoned North River Canal Corridor (NRCC), to be rezoned Business Wholesale and Automotive (B- 4) and a 52,491 s.f.portion real property situated at 297 Bridge Street, (Map 26 Lot 635) as shown as Lot 1 on a plan entitled "Plan of Land 297-305 Bridge Street, Salem" prepared by North Shore Survey Corp. dated July 12, 2016, currently zoned Residential Two-Family (R-2), to be rezoned to Business Wholesale and Automotive (B-4), because the proposed project promotes the public welfare for the following reasons: (1) It allows commercial redevelopment in a historically industrial area; (2) conforms to the City's Master Plan; (3) preserves and expands services from a company that has provided plumbing supplies to local contractors in the City for decades; (4) increases the tax revenue through new growth on two underperforming lots historically used for commercial enterprises; (5) creates additional jobs for area residents; (6) retains existing jobs that are threatened; and (7) • properly zones a lot that has not been remediated for residential use and would otherwise remain vacant and underutilized. The Planning Board voted, six (6) in favor (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Veno, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Sides, Ms. Hamilton,Mr. Griset) and none opposed, to recommend the proposed zoning amendment with the above listed findings. In making this recommendation,the Planning Board made note of the following. • Public access between Beckford Way and Bridge Street will be maintained. • The Planning Board strongly recommends the City Council require DRB design review concurrent with the Planning Board's site plan review. The DRB's recommendation would be made to the Planning Board before site plan review was completed. The intent of this design review recommendation is to ensure quality design on this site. This recommendation is consistent with recent Planning Board discussion of expanding design review to key corridors in the City. • The Planning Board recommends the language of the deed restriction clearly indicate there is a 50-year restriction on construction of habitable structures on the former Universal Steel site (293 Bridge Street). If you have any questions regarding this matter,please feel free to contact Tom Daniel,Director of Planning&Community Development,at 978-619-5685. Yours truly, Ben J.Anderson,Chau Cc:Cheryl LePointe "cam . CITY OF SALEM a PLANNING BOARD 1016 SEP -8 P b: 2tt NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLE FILE EM, MASS. You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board null be boldiing a Public Meeting on Monday, September 19, 2016 at 7.•00pm at City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington Street Ben Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A public meeting of the Planning Board to deliberate and make a recommendation to the City Council on an amendment to the City of Salem Zoning Map to rezone 293 and 297 BRIDGE STREET (Map 26, Lots 643 and 635) to a B-4 Zoning District excluding Parcel B. Said properties currently he within the Residential Two-Family (R-2) and NRCC Districts. III. OLD/NEW BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 through � 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bull tin BBggard" City Hail, Salem, Mass. on SCP E 1 16 at in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Approved Meeting Minutes—September 19,2016 Page 1 of 2 City of Salem Planning Board Approved Meeting Minutes Special Meeting Monday, Sept. 19, 2016 A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Monday, Sept. 19, 2016 at 8:10PM at City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts to consider a petition to amend the City of Salem Zoning Map for the parcel of real property situated at 293 Bridge St and 297 Bridge Street zoned NRCC and R-2, respectively. Both Parcels are to be rezoned to Business Wholesale and Automotive (B-4). Chair Anderson calls the meeting to order at 8:10PM. Present are: Chair Ben Anderson,Vice Chair Matt Veno, Carole Hamilton,Helen Sides,Kirt Rieder,Dale Yale and Bill Griset Chair Ben Anderson comments: He had positively recommended a zoning change previously, with the understanding that it was a rezoning of one parcel, but this is different (2 parcels, 1 NRCC, 1 R2). His concerns with this proposal include: • "Spot zoning" — compatibility with the master plan, public benefit, compatibility with • surrounding uses. He is concerned with the reasoning for support at this point and would like to see City Solicitor's determination as to why the City feels it is NOT spot zoning, which the Board does not have. • He does want to see Webb stay but is concerned about consistency in this Board's decisions, feeling that this steps outside that consistency. There may be a simpler way to do this and he is not ready to vote yet. Carole Hamilton comments that this is "zoning by deed restriction," which concerns her, as it is reverting back to a district that allows substantially more than the existing zoning or what Webb actually is. She is also concerned that the amount of NRCC zoned area would be decreasing. Matt Veno is also not ready to take action tonight,as the Board has not had sufficient time to review the new proposal. He also feels that, as NRCC zoning has now been in place for 12-13 years,it may be time for a broader review, at the City level, to find out what works, what doesn't, and to make possible adjustments. He is uncomfortable with this project and the use restrictions in the deed. He will have a list of questions for petitioner and City solicitor before voting. Dale Yale also feels that she needs more time, but asks about the deliberation timeline. The Board has 21 days to make a recommendation, but does not meet until Oct. 20". Chair Anderson suggests a special meeting. Helen Sides supports Chair Anderson's suggestion of a special meeting. • Approved Meeting Minutes—September 19, 2016 Page 2 of 2 A motion to continue to the Special meeting. date 7BD, is made by Kit Rieder, seconded by Dale Yale, and passes unanimously. A motion to adfourn is made by Matt Vena, seconded by Helen Sides, and passes with all in favor. The meeting ends at 8:22PM. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://www.salem.com/planning-board/webforms/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb,Recording Clerk Approved b the Planning Board on 11/17/2016 PP Y g Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance§2-2028 through 2-2033. • • CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD Nlf1N CPQ' Y FILE #i CITY 6LEltft, SALEM,MASS City of Salem Notice Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and City Council September 19, 2016 The Planning Board will hold a joint public hearing with the City Council on Monday, September 19, 2016 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington St. second floor, Salem, MA in accordance with M.G.L Ch. 40A, S.5, to consider a petition to amend the City of Salem Zoning Map for the parcel of real property situated at 293 Bridge Street, (Map 26 and Lot 634), currently zoned North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) and a 52,491 square foot portion of real property situated at 297 Bridge Street, (Map 27 Lot 635), currently zoned Residential Two Family (R-2). Both parcels are to be rezoned to Business Wholesale and Automotive (B-4). • Please note that the Planning Board will hold a special public meeting on September 19, 2016 at approximately 7:00pm, after the joint public hearing, to make a recommendation to City Council. The complete text of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is on file at the office of the City Clerk 93 Washington Street, or the Planning Department, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and are available to review during regular business hours. Ben Anderson, Chair City Clerk Ad dates in Salem News 9/5/16 & 9/12/16 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on SEP 0 8 2016 at Lo:l4?-F in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 120 WASHINGTON STREE`C, SALEM, VIASSACHUSET7's 01970 - PHONE 978.619.5635 FAX 978.740.0404 - WWW.SALEM.COM a v , CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1816 AUG 30 A ID 20. 111,x; N Y4LER}4Y SXLEM, MASS. City of Salem Notice Joint Public Hearine of the Planning Board and City Council September 19, 2016 The Planning Board will hold a joint public hearing with the City Council on Monday, September 19, 2016 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington St. second floor, Salem, MA in accordance with M.G.L Ch. 40A, S.5, to consider a petition to amend the City of Salem Zoning Map for the parcel of real property situated at 293 Bridge Street, (Map 26 and Lot 634), currently zoned North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) and a 52,491 square foot portion of real property situated at 297 Bridge Street, (Map 27 Lot 635), currently zoned Residential Two Family (R-2). Both parcels are to be rezoned to Business Wholesale and Automotive (B-4). Please note that the Planning Board will hold a special public meeting on September 19, 2016 at • approximately 7:00pm, after the joint public hearing,to make a recommendation to City Council. The complete text of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is on file at the office of the City Clerk 93 Washington Street, or the Planning Department, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts, and are available to review during regular business hours. Ben Anderson, Chair City Clerk Ad dates in Salem News 9/5/16 & 9/12/16 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AUG 3 0 2016 at/4020 AY in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ' PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 ' WWW.SALEM.COM Meeting Minutes—September 19, 2016 Page 1 of 6 City of Salem Planning Board City Council Meeting Minutes Joint Public Meeting Monday, Sept. 19,2016 A joint public hearing of the Salem Planning Board and the Salem City Council was held on Monday, Sept. 19, 2016 at 6:OOPM at City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts to consider a petition to amend the City of Salem Zoning Map for the parcel of real property situated at 293 Bridge St and 297 Bridge Street zoned NRCC and R-2, respectively. Both Parcels are to be rezoned to Business Wholesale and Automotive (B-4). The meeting opens the meeting at 6:00 pm. I. ROLL CALL Planning Board Members present Chair Ben Anderson,Vice Chair Matt Veno, Helen Sides,Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton, Kirt Rieder and Bill Griset Absent-Noah Koretz and Tony Mataragas Councillorspresent President Josh Turiel,Thomas H. Furey,Jerry Ryan,Elaine Milo,Heather Famico,Stephen P. Lovely,David E. Eppley,Beth Gerard, and Stephen G. Dibble Absent: Robert K. McCarthy • Also in attendance:Mayor Kimberley Driscoll;City Solicitor Beth Rennard;Tom Daniel,AICP,Director of Planning and Community Development; Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner and Stacy Kilb,recorder II. REGULAR AGENDA Mayor Driscoll makes a presentation on the property. The team from F.W. Webb (Webb) is also present. The proposal is to re-zone both the lot known as the Universal Steel lot and the building lot where the current F.W. Webb is located to B-4.At present the Universal Steel lot is zoned R2 and the F.W. Webb lot is zoned NRCC. The original plan, which faced staunch opposition, would have demolished the original building. This plan will instead add a retail showroom and office space. The change in zoning would allow Webb to operate as they do now, and as they plan to after the addition. Under current zoning ordinance, there are not many districts that would allow wholesale, retail and office space on the same location, but B-4 is one. The proposed is a smaller scale plan with the project further from abutters,but it will still allow Webb to grow and do business here in Salem. A no-build deed restriction will be placed on the Universal Steel parking lot for at least a 30 to 50 year time frame. It is felt that this will address the concerns about what will happen to the property should Webb no longer operate there, as well as maintain Salem's ability to be attractive to business. Webb will also go before the Planning Board for site plan review in order to address issues under the purview of that Board. FW Webb Counsel Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. represents the petitioner. He reiterates that there will be a time when the Universal Steel parcel is put out for acquisition and that FW Webb will try to obtain it; as it undergoes rezoning and permitting, a no vertical build deed restriction from the City will be coming from Webb for consideration, which they agreed to. There will be language for placement of footings and a ramp, but no vertical building. Attorney Correnti says that the applicant needs the Universal Steel lot to comprise this site. It has been asked if rezoning is necessary and if the work could be done under a variance or special permits, but it is not possible as Meeting Minutes—September 19, 2016 Page 2 of 6 there is no variance or special permit that would allow the industrial building wholesale/retail use in an R-2 M residential zone. Also, a residentially owned parcel may not be driven over to access a commercial property, thus, rezoning is necessary for the project to move forward. Atty Correnti comments that Webb's has been attentive to various concerns raised and has heard that the concern is not with the current operation or Webb's proposed operation, but what happens if Webb's leaves. That might not fit the intended goals of the city or the neighborhood as there are other uses in the B-4 zone that some find obnoxious. To address this, Webb will propose to add both building and use deed restrictions. Use of the site will be limited to "Webb use," which will be defined in the deed. Thus, the site must always be used in the same manner. When that use ceases there will be no other B-4 uses allowed, as restricted by the deed the City will proffer to Webb via the Universal Steel Lot. Attorney Correnti re-emphasizes that the rezoning to B-4 is absolutely necessary so that they can have a project site but offer deed restrictions as an attempt to address the concerns in the event that the Webb use ceases. Councilor Eppley asks if this joint body and City Council chooses not to rezone, what is Webb's intent for the project? Atty Correnti responds that Webb cannot go forward if there is no rezoning because they cannot use the Universal Steel site and project cannot go forward. Councilor Dibble: Asks if the use restriction will be on both properties. Attorney Correnti elaborates that it will be on the project site which will encompass both. The "no vertical construction" restriction will be defined to the Universal Steel lot so they can build on the other side. Councillor Dibble asks if the restriction will the use restrict prohibit other things on the 4", 5" floor of the building such as offices. Mayor Driscoll responds that these are additional protections built in to address/respond to residential concerns while supporting an existing business. The Mayor notes that Webb's is working hard to do respond to neighborhood concerns, and she is hopeful that the • rezoning will move forward. The standard no build restriction is 30 years, they are proposing 50 years. Councillor Dibble asks if the use restriction can be worded to allow the rental of the top floor to lawyers. Attorney Correnti responds, yes additional uses could be carved out. Although he does not know if that would be likely while the Webb operation is ongoing. The applicant does not want to look into exceptions before putting the rules. Councillor Dibble encourages the applicant to do so, he opines that the downtown could grow through this building. Councilor Lovely follows up on the office exceptions, and asks if they would require an amendment. Attorney Correnti responds that he believes professional offices are permissible under the B-4 designation. Councillor Dibble comments that he would like to see some language that would allow said uses,if not would be prohibited during the 50 year use restriction. Attorney Correnti reiterates that if that is a unanimous feeling, they could discuss it but does not want to get into carving out individual uses. The Mayor clarifies that offices are allowed in B-4. The uses that will be not allowed per the use restriction are things in B-4 that people might found objectionable. Office use is not something that people would find objectionable. The intent is to allay fears of what might happen if Webb is not there, not to make the process confusing. The City wishes to allow Webb to do business but ensure that the characteristics of the area do not change if they should go away. Councilor Dibble comments that he heard it as only Webb use,with everything else excluded. Arty Correnti responds that his characterization was broad, but they could craft it as suggested. Councilor Lovely asks for more details about the 50 year restriction and not in perpetuity. Arty Correnti responds that 30 years is a minimum per State statute and then often times there are 20 year increments of extensions. The 50 year was thought to be reasonable to cover concerns, and allows a limited time where at some point, it can change. A discussion of how this restriction can be changed occurs. Airy Correnti questions why one would want to restrict• it in perpetuity when the parities may leave and you could rezone it to something more friendlily. Meeting Minutes—September 19, 2016 Page 3 of 6 • The mechanism for removing the deed restriction is discussed. Arty Corrend explains that all parties would have to agree, and then you would have to draft a document that would remove it and record it with the registry. The deed restriction would be in chain of title. Councilor Furey congratulates Webb and the City on the process and says they must look at the overall vision. He cites several other projects he considers successful and is in support of the Webb project. Councilor Famico asks if after the 50 years if the use restriction automatically goes away. Arty Correnti responds yes. Councillor Famico comments that she would artist spaces to be allowable. Additional allowable uses are discussed. Arthur Sargent is also concerned that the deed restriction and/or zoning designation could be changed, and wonders how to afford residents the protection they need. Attorney Correnti states that deed restrictions are one of the most common means to limit uses on sites, and that they do offer real protection. Supermajorities of the City Council and Planning Board could change things, but this is true of anything. He outlines the logistics of deed restriction and reiterates that it is a well recognized tool, a powerful and enforceable mechanism. Arthur Sargent comments that abutters could better benefit from the restriction if it was listed on their deeds. Attorney Correnti agrees,noting that the applicant would like more time to flesh out the concept. •Chair Anderson asks about: 1. Compatibility with City's Master plan? 2. What is the public benefit? 3. Compatibility with surrounding uses? Atty Correnti outlines his thoughts on these questions. In general, the project fits in with the City's Master Plan to protect businesses. This will benefit the public. As a tax-paying business, it will expand to provide more jobs and remain in the City, sending a positive message to other businesses considering locating here. This shows to the business community that we have an existing business that we want to keep and grow here. Compatibility with surrounding uses: There are four or five different zoning districts within several hundred feet of this project, so it is difficult to say that it is compatible with them all, but the current use of the site has been what it is for many years, and has been a good neighbor, so an 8,000 square foot addition to the building to allow the business to continue on is compatible. Thus,the NRCC would be fortunate to maintain a decent neighboring business like this. Matt Veno asks about the current NRCC status of the parcel; the City Solicitor comments that it was previously zoned industrial. Helen Sides comments that this is outside the jurisdiction of the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) and is concerned about the lack of design review oversight as this is an important,visible site for the city. Attorney Corrend understands those concerns but feels that the Planning Board has good oversight on site plan review. The applicant does expect this to get a thorough review and understands the sensitivity of the location. •Mayor Driscoll apologizes that she must leave early as she has a school committee meeting but notes that with many City Councilors and the City Solicitor is present, Salem is well represented. President opens to public testimony. There are no comments in favor of the project. Meeting Minutes—September 19, 2016 Page 4 of 6 IN FAVOR: None OPPOSED: Public testimony by email,opposing the project,is read into the record. Submissions were received from: • Darrel L. • Barbara Cleary • Emily Udy,Historic Salem Inc. • Jane Arlander The Chair asks those commenting to be brief and concise, and limit their comments to new points that have not been discussed. • Chuck Von Brunns of 3 River St. —Opposed • Lou Ceriani,no address given -Opposed • Barbara Cleary, 104 Federal St. - Opposed • Carole Coss, 7 Middle St. - Opposed • Joe Scifus, 358 Federal St, 10 Derby Square - Opposed • Justin Whittier 10 River St.,President,Federal St. Neighborhood Assoc. - Opposed • Meg Twohey, 122 Federal St. - Opposed • Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St. - Opposed • • Brett(No last name given) 17 '/2 River St. - Opposed • Constance Arlander, 91 Federal St. - Opposed • Anne (No last name given), 10 River St. - Opposed • John Carr, 7 River St., 9 North St. - Opposed Concerns of those opposed to the project: • Timing of the zoning change. Several opponents are concerned with costs associated with the Universal Steel Parking Lot remediation and payments to Mass Development. They believe that,if the property is sold before Oct. 2017, the City would have to pay Mass Development$500,000;if after that date,it would not. • It is suggested that the whole site be zoned NRCC, and there are complaints of "spot zoning." It is also suggested that Webb simply seek variances and special permits to accommodate their project. • The deed restriction would not be sufficient. They would at least like to see the language of the deed restriction before it goes into effect. • Voluntary submission to design review will be inadequate. • Some believe that Webb has threatened to take their business elsewhere if the zoning change does not work out in their favor. • Such a zoning change sets a bad precedent, and also that whatever is decided can be changed in the future. Some indicate that if this zoning change goes through they will appeal. • The Board and Council may not yet have enough information to vote, as specifics such as contamination issues, size, design, loading ramps, etc. have not yet been provided. Neither they not the public have had sufficient time to review the issue at hand,as well. • B-4 may not represent the best use of the area, or other properties on Bridge St., and does not enhance or• complement other districts; there are also concerns that the B-4 zoning designation could expand. • The potential appearance of the project and how it will negatively impact what Salem visitors see upon entering the City Meeting Minutes—September 19, 2016 Page 5 of 6 The President has some comments: • As this is a public process, the deed restriction language can be made available and circulated once the City Council has a chance to review it • Any comments or issues the neighbors have would be addressed through their Ward Councilors,Councilors at Large, or the City Council, not through an extension of the public hearing, as the deed is tied to the sale of the property • Logistics are discussed; the deed will be considered thoroughly before sale of the property. The City Solicitor, Webb and the public will all be reviewing it, working under the assumption that it would be seen prior to a final vote. Rezoning to B-4 will not expedite or facilitate development; the applicant will still require special permits. Councilor Dibble explains that he is the reason this meeting was called,as he suggested moving the development to the other side of the building. The applicant had originally wanted to build on the Universal Steel lot,and Councilor Dibble wanted to save the public walkway and prevent that lot from being dug up. He is concerned by the comments raised as he believed that they were nearing a resolution, however he still has some concerns, namely: • What happens to the EPA Use Restriction on the former Universal Steel lot if the two are merged? Confirm that a park or school could not be built there. • What are the exact figures and timeframe for Mass Development payback? • Can the vote be contingent upon approval of Deed restriction? (President of Council states this is not possible, the only vote before the Council tonight is to close the public hearing and recommend the matter to the Planning Board) •Beth Rennard, City Solicitor, clarifies: • As per precedent set by case law, the deed restriction would protect the City and direct abutters. Language on how to incorporate the existing parcel is under development. • Regarding the Mass Development repayment, there is a tax lean of$207,000 on top of that repayment. She outlines additional logistical issues that would draw out sale of the property • Regarding contamination, the merger would not affect what is covered by zoning and the description of the cap and materials would remain on the description. • As for the question of spot zoning, timelines have been discussed. • The deed restriction will be in before the next meeting so the Council and City Solicitor will have time to review language;it is acceptable not to act until it has been reviewed no matter what the recommendation is. Arthur Sargent suggests putting the issue in Committee. He feels the Universal Steel lot should be retained by the City. Attorney Correnti responds to the suggestions and comments made. If the Universal Steel lot were to be zoned NRCC, the applicant would have requested that, but zoning ordinance prohibits the very use they are seeking in an NRCC zone. He understands the sentiment, but the law gets in the way. The project does not enjoy grandfathered use. Projects cited by opponents were either permitted or specially permitted, options which are not available to the Webb project. They are in no way getting a "free ride" or expedited review,as has been insinuated. Councilor Lovely suggests that NRCC zoning could be amended to allow that use, but B-4 is a cleaner, easier solution. Attorney Correnti reiterates that B-4 is the ONLY district that permits the Webb use. 0 Meeting Minutes—September 19, 2016 Page 6 of 6 Councilor Famico asks if the project could be required to appear before the Design Review Board; the City Solicitors states that that would be mixing land use and zoning law, which are two separate issues though they sounds the same. The applicant hears the sentiment and will consider how to do it. Councilor Ryan asks about the deed restriction and the Council President elaborates. Councilor Famico clarifies that after this hearing, the item goes to Planning Board, and there is no public comment during that process; they have 21 days to make a recommendation. A motion to close public heating is made by Councilor Famico, seconded by Councilor Gerardd, and passes with all in favor. A motion to refer the matter to the Planning Board is made by Councilor Famico, seconded by Councilor Gerard. and passes witb all in avor A motion to adjourn is made by Councilor Furey, seconded by Ben Anderson, and passes with all in favor. The joint meeting ends at 8:05PM For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://www.salem.com/planning-board/xvebforms/planning-board- 2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb,Recording Clerk • Approved by the Planning Board on 11/3/2016 Knowyour tights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A§ 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 through 5 2-2033. s sv�.cd CITY OF SALEM •`�� '`` PLANNING BOARD 1016 SEP —8 P 4: 53 FILA ;l NOTICE OF MEETING CITY cLER s46—nAss. You am hen¢y notified fbat?he Salem Planning Board twill be holding a'Publa'c Heating on Thursday,September 13,2015 at 7.•OOpm at City Ha11 Armea;Room 313, 120 Irlashinglon St.,Salem,Mf1 Ben Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 14 Bertuccio Ave. (Map 24,Lot 105) Applicant: Nathan Jacobson Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan iii accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots; and a • Storm-water Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre. B. Location: 14Bertuccio Ave (Map 24,Lot 105) Applicant: Nathan Jacobson Description: Board discussion and vote on anapplication forendorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR). C. Location: 61 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24;Lots 1, 2, 88,19,216, 218 220;and Map 14,Lot 129) Applicant: North Shore Medical Center,Inc. Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site P1an.Review, in accordance with the Salem 'Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stotinwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front 1,obby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 1:19;734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility, infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. S.• li City of Salem Planning Hoard Agenda for September 15, 2015 Page 2 of 3 D. Location: 70-92 'A Boston St. (Map 15,Lot 299 & Map 16,Lot 139) • Applicant: 139 Grove Street Realty Trust Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special.Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stornwater Management Permit in ,accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail, space with parking provided on the site. E. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street .Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 ''/s Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26,Lots 73, 74,79) Applicant: Juniper Point 9 South Mason Street LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Cana] Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two-story concrete industrial budding at 9 South Mason Street,. r expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffoon Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and .landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. F. Location: PEM 161 ESSEX STREET (Map 35,Lot 303) Applicant: PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with, the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review. Specifically, the applicant proposes the partial demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a 37,950 square foot addition primarily within the.footprint of the Asian Garden, in addition to site improvements including a garden and utility work. G. Location: 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33,Lots 164, 165) Applicant: SCHIAVUZZO REALTY, LLC ' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 5 LENl, :til aSSAGItISEM'S 01970 • PHONE 975.619.5685 FAX 978,740:041141 WWw.SAALE;M.COM Y City of Salem Planning Hoard Agenda for September 15,2016 Page 3 of 3 • Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Lotting Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Sec. 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. Specifically, the applicant proposes to repuipose the existing building and convert the candy factory into eight (8) residential units. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 1,2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Circle Hill Subdivision- Ken Steadman request for Tri-Party Agreement and release of lots for construction of Circle Hill Subdivision. V: ADJOURNMENT Kirmvyour right:under the Open Meeting Lav M.G.L e.. 30A 18-23 and City Ordinance 22028 through Q 2-2033. • s 1 This notice posted on "Officia ' ulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on At q ,j3 p/� in accordance th MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. h r r • 1:20 1i A)IfM31- ON STREET, S 1 F15. X'lASS 1'I3f 51i'i i;")01.9 0 ' RHONE.978.619.W5 FAX 978.740.(W(m � \V49WS LEn9.C(k'�1 i 7 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND y,, w COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT °�P1TN6 D� KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TRLE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 TOM DANIEL,AICP DIRECTOR REVISED STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner DATE: September 14, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — September 15, 2016 Please find the following in the September 15 dropbox file: ■ Sept. 1, 2016 Agenda ■ Bertuccio Subdivision (See description below) ■ 14 Bertuccio Ave ANR ■ North Shore Medical Center (Continued) • ■ Flynntan Redevelopment (Draft Decision Added for review) ■ Mason Street SPR ■ PEM ■ 93-95 Canal Street ■ Circle Hill Subdivision- Tri-Party Agreement Added for Review REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS A. 14 Bertuccio Ave Subdivision The petitioner has refused the request of the Planning Board to provide a geotechnical peer review. B. 14 Bertuccio Ave ANR (Map 26, Lot 105) This item is an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval' under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide Lot B from Lot A. The plan can be found here. A copy of the application can be found here. A planning board is required by the subdivision control law to endorse an ANR • plan unless the plan depicts a subdivision. Pursuant to MGL c. 41, § 81L, a The provisions for an endorsement that approval is not required(ANR)can be found in MGL Chapter 41, Section 81P. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —September 15, 2016 Meeting Page 2 of 4 "subdivision" is defined as "the division of a tract of land into two or more lots." • When a plan does not constitute a subdivision, a waiver of frontage is not necessary. See Corliss v. Planning Bd. of Milton. C. North Shore Medical Center(SPR, Stormwater Permit) 81 Highland Avenue; 108 Jefferson Avenue; Old Road; 1 Dove Avenue; 79 Highland Avenue; 55 Highland Avenue; And 57 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); (Map 24 Lots 1, 2, 19, 88, 216, 218, 220) Please note that the petitioner has requested a continuation to the October 20, 2016 meeting due to ongoing negotiations of the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement with the City. D. Former Flvnntan Site (NRCC, SPR, FHOD, Stormwater Permit) 70-92 % Boston St. (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) Draft Decision is here. Please be prepared to vote on this item. The applicant has provided a response to VHB civil/stormwater management peer review letter here. The applicant has provided amended civil site plans here. The applicant has provided a peer review traffic response here. • The applicant has provided amended landscape plans and site plans here. The applicant has provided amended Fire Access plans here. The Conservation Commission approved the subject project on August 11th with the conditions that are listed on the cover letter with the Determination of Applicability, which can be found here. E. Mason Street (SPR, NRCC, FHOD) 9 South Mason St. and 3A Buffum St. Extension, 23 Mason St., 23 % Mason St., and 23R Mason St. (Map 26, Lots 73, 74 and 79) This project involves the redevelopment of and expansion of an existing two- story concreted industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of new parking landscaping throughout the parcels. A portion of the development site is located within the NRCC and the AE Flood Zone, as such necessitates a special NRCC permit and a FHOD special permit. • Page 2 of 4 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—September 15, 2016 Meeting Page 3 of 4 • Application Documents are hyperlinked below: • Application • Project Narrative • Environmental Impact Statement • Traffic Assessment • Architectural Plans • Civil Plans • Stormwater Management Plan The City is working to contract with civil and traffic peer reviewers on behalf of the Planning Board for this project. F. PEM 161 Essex Street This petition is for a Site Plan Review. The applicant proposes the partial demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a 37,950 square foot addition primarily within the footprint of the Asian Garden, in addition to site improvements including a garden and utility work. • A copy of the application and project narrative are located here. Plans are located here. Additional renderings are here. G. 93-95 Canal Street This petition is for a Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit. Please note that the petitioner also needs to meet the standards of an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. A copy of materials are located here. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes- Need to be deferred with permission from the Planning Board for approval at the October 20, 2016 meeting. • Page 3 of 4 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —September 15, 2016 Meeting Page 4 of 4 Old/New Business • A. Circle Hill Subdivision- Tri-Party Agreement request for a release of three (3) lots for the construction of Circle Hill Subdivision. See letter of request here. Please note that the surety bond will be to the amount of $25,300 and not $18,000 as there are two (2) street light poles that need to be installed in addition to the items listed See tri-party agreement draft here. • • Page 4 of 4 y/ NDI 4. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • ', °° DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 TOM DANIEL,AICP DIRECTOR REVISED STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: September 1, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — September 1, 2016 Please find the following in the September 1 dropbox file: Sept. 1, 2016 Agenda ■ 297 Bridge Street ANR ■ 67, 69-71 Hawthorne Street ANR ■ North Shore Medical Center • ■ Bertuccio Subdivision ■ Flynntan Redevelopment ■ Mason Street SPR ■ July 21, 2016 Draft Minutes ■ Sophia Road Re-Endorsement ■ Clark Ave. Subdivision REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS A. 297-305 Bridge Street (Form A ANR) (Map 26, Lot 635) This item is an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval' under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide a portion one (1) lot into an unbuildable parcel. The plan can be found here. A planning board is required by the subdivision control law to endorse an ANR plan unless the plan depicts a subdivision. Pursuant to MGL c. 41, § 81L, a "subdivision" is defined as "the division of a tract of land into two or more lots." A parcel labeled as "not buildable," as Parcel B is on the proposed plans, is not considered a "lot" within the meaning of the subdivision control law. See Bloom v. Planning Bd. of Brookline. When a plan does not constitute a subdivision, a waiver of frontage is not necessary. See Corliss v. Planning Bd. of Milton. The provisions for an endorsement that approval is not required(ANR)can be found in MGL Chapter 41,Section 81P. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—September 1, 2016 Meeting Page 2 of 5 B. 67, 69-71 Hathorne St. (Form A ANR) • (Map 25, Lots 476 and 477) This item is an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to swap land between two neighbors. Figure 1 below, yellow depicts the existing property line, blue is proposed. The swap would occur by dividing 192 square feet from Lot 477 (Gomez) creating unbuildable Parcel A, then merging Parcel A with Lot 476 (Tobin); and dividing 279 square feet from Lot 476 (Tobin) creating unbuildable Parcel B, merging Parcel B with Lot 477 (Gomez). Figure 1 o.. _ run m own .ow, / PAGE 103 I. DO fi'STO (AOE q-4 —'5 (SEI) 36.W'R) tno kR 0. A t N 37.�]'(G) ° 52 Nµg0pppp ]e'(D) A32'Jp^ I/(SEn ylEO 58952'OS'E - AO.BJ'(0 Tr 2E ROD SA 7 TOBIN PARCEL e (3,70It S.F.) R7B! SF. 0,6'BACK • (R"I :, S.F T) l a l GOMEZ (EKCIUDING PARCE (4,0381 S.F.) L 8& Y INCIUNNG PARCEL A (RESULTANT T LOT) x 41251 S.F. h (EXCLL NG PARCEL A Z. .V$ Ru= INCLUDIND.PARCEl B e 88_h a V2' a I.R00 ° �• - i $ g (SET)' 9.0' gC ' (NEID) 3.A' A.8LUM. 081. COR. NNYL 'NORTH SNORE' IT 33 NO '001 u c NN „ 6o O M m P 2 STORY 2 STORY WOOD FRANC YAW fRAUL y ' DWELLINC r, DWLLUNG m � f PARCEL A 1941 S.F. � CDN. 069-71 OLD 95 /87 COR8'(A NTL. 9]A'(C . D. 0.7 3.5' c «4L68'» «40.40'» �c ro J6YU) ABOUT 36.00' _I _ x Afi.OB'6V(N W NAIL 59UC0'00'W NAIL B'8. N909000 W 1/2'L—D (SET) (�) R.R.SmKE (SET) 2.91' (FO) A planning board is required by the subdivision control law to endorse an ANR • plan unless the plan depicts a subdivision. Pursuant to MGL c. 41, § 81L, a Page 2 of 5 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —September 1, 2016 Meeting Page 3 of 5 • "subdivision" is defined as "the division of a tract of land into two or more lots." A parcel labeled as "not buildable," as Parcel B is on the proposed plans, is not considered a "lot" within the meaning of the subdivision control law. See Bloom v. Planning Bd. of Brookline. When a plan does not constitute a subdivision, a waiver of frontage is not necessary. See Corliss v. Planning Bd. of Milton. C. North Shore Medical Center (SPR, Stormwater Permit) 81 Highland Avenue; 108 Jefferson Avenue; Old Road; 1 Dove Avenue; 79 Highland Avenue; 55 Highland Avenue; And 57 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); (Map 24 Lots 1, 2, 19, 88, 216, 218, 220) A response to the traffic peer review and Planning Board concerns are here. A response to the civil peer review is here. Please note that the petitioner has requested a continuation to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, September 15. D. Bertuccio Ave. (Form C Subdivision) 14 Bertuccio Avenue (Map 24, Lot 105) • The 135 day deadline for the board to take final action was extended from July 30th to September 8, 2016. The Planning Board must either 1) grant another extension request or 2) take final action at the next meeting on September 1, 2016 in order to meet the final action deadline. If not the project will be deemed approved. Jill Mann, our land use attorney contracted with the City, has provided the following general information on Subdivision Control Law decisions and Waiver Decisions here. The applicant has a revised set of plans here. The applicant has revised the number of waivers requested here. The applicant has provided a response to NECE's civil peer review letter here. The applicant has provided a response to Stantec's traffic peer review letter here. • 2 Per MGL Chapter 41,Section 81(U),the failure of a planning board either to take final action or to file with the city or town clerk a certificate of such action regarding the definitive plan submitted by an applicant within 135 days after such submission,or such further time as may be agreed upon at the written request of the applicant,shall be deemed to be an approval thereof. Page 3 of 5 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—September 1, 2016 Meeting Page 4 of 5 E. Former Flynntan Site (NRCC, SPR, FHOD, Stormwater Permit) • 70-92% Boston St. (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) The applicant has provided a response to VHB civil/stormwater management peer review letter here. The applicant has provided amended civil site plans here. The applicant has provided amended landscape plans and site plans here. The Conservation Commission approved the subject project on August 11th with the conditions that are listed on the cover letter with the Determination of Applicability, which can be found here. Please note that the petitioner has requested a continuation to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, September 15. F. Mason Street (SPR, NRCC, FHOD) 9 South Mason St. and 3A Buffum St. Extension, 23 Mason St., 23% Mason St., and 23R Mason St. (Map 26, Lots 73, 74 and 79) This project involves the redevelopment of and expansion of an existing two- • story concreted industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of new parking landscaping throughout the parcels. A portion of the development site is located within the NRCC and the AE Flood Zone, as such necessitates a special NRCC permit and a FHOD special permit. Application Documents are hyperlinked below: • Application • Project Narrative • Environmental Impact Statement • Traffic Assessment • Architectural Plans • Civil Plans • Stormwater Management Plan APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. July 21, 2016 • Page 4 of 5 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —September 1, 2016 Meeting Page 5 of 5 . Old/New Business A. 3 Sophia Road (Form A- ANR) Map 4, Lot 25; Land Court Plan 11802-38) The Planning Board endorsed an ANR plan located at 3 Sophia Road on March 17, 2016. The subject property is registered land, thus needed to be approved by the Land Court prior to certification. Land Court has since approved the plans; however, Land Court required additional notes be added to meet their technical filing requirements. This is not a new application. As noted in the letter from Attorney Scott Grover, there have been no changes to the lot lines or dimensions. The applicant requests that you re-endorse the plans that now have the land courts notes. A comparison of the previously endorsed plans, and the plans submitted for re- endorsement are located in the dropbox file, and will be distributed at the meeting. A copy of the endorsed plan is here. A copy of the land court plan to re-endorse is here. B. Clark Ave. Subdivision • Endorsement of a Definitive Subdivision Plan that the Planning Board has previously approved. There are no changes to the number of lots or conditions required by the Planning Board Decision. This is not a new application, but rather a plan that has subsequently been reviewed and approved by the Land Court, with some minor Land Court edits, that is now being presented to the Planning Board for signature in final form. Plans are here. NEXT MEETING FYI The Peabody Essex Museum filed a Site Plan Review on August 11th, in time for the September 1 meeting. However, the applicant requested that the hearing for this item be opened on September 15th rather than September 1St. More information regarding the project will be provided in the staff memo for your next meeting. But if you are interested reviewing the plans prior to then, they are available here. • Page 5 of 5 i��eae�TA� Qi S" City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet • IG � y i Board Date / /_ 20 � b Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Pob n 'CAy,V\ppo 1S&6,l .Ave GQ cx�cQ 'v� 22 r-kuwt,, x 15?� Z :1,5 (gowdfou" trld�z 64 M C'�ta2 rS2 l;7--_rA cvtc-i-n - 7W4 -/ `lIi i 1 /7 Ytu� 1J�{" � �ielt�'fG� S'�' b�oGt4 pce Meed M LR�(L'�A/n �� �rl�n/�tJ �fJQ W CI�-�G -9�i(c Mc�¢�klinseanrn trJ�w•,� Y7 �y ?� jZ- 12 Page of i CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 2016r"..Uu 12 A10: 2�i Public Hearing Notice C IY ` City of Salem Planning Board Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of Peabody Essex Museum for the property located at 161 Essex Street (Map 35, Lot 303) for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review. Specifically, the applicant proposes the partial demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a 37,950 square foot addition primarily within the footprint of the Asian Garden, in addition to site improvements including a garden and utility work. The public hearing will be held on Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 7:00 PM, in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning& Community Development, Third Floor, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. • Ben J. Anderson, Chair Planning Board Publication Run Dates in Salem News: 9/1/2016 & 9/8/2016 on "Official Bulletin Board" elaii, Sr,, Mass. on Ip'.d fr AM accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, • Know Your Rzghtr under the Open Meeting Ilan M.G.L c. 30A 78-25 and City Ordivauce 2-2028 through 2-2033. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - PHONE 975.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 - WWW.SALEM.COM CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 31 A. * 24 Public Hearing Notice FSA City of Salem Planning Board Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of SCHIAVUZZO REALTY, LLC for the property located at 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33 Lots 164, 165) for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Sec. 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant proposes to repurpose the existing building and convert the candy factory into eight(8)residential units. The public hearing will be held on Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 7:00 PM, in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning & Community Development, Third Floor, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. • Ben J. Anderson, Chair Planning Board Publication Run Dates in Salem News: 9/1/2016 & 9/8/2016 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AUG 3 1 2016 at /(1,Z/ 4H in accordance with MGL Chap. 30& Sections 18-25. • Know Your Fights under the Open Meeting Lam M.G.L c. 30A ff 18-25 and City Ordinance 2-2028 through 2-2033. 120 WASHINGTON SnzEE7, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAx 978.740.0404 • www.SALEm.coM Meeting Minutes—September 15, 2016 Page 1 of 12 City of Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes Thursday, Sept. 15, 2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,September 15,2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313,Salem,Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opens the meeting at 7:00 pm. I. ROLL CALL Those present were:Chair Ben Anderson, Carole Hamilton, Noah Koretz, Matt Veno, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Dale Yale,Tony Mataragas and Bill Griset Absent..None (Bill Griset arrives at 7:11PM after Old/New business,which is taken first and Tony Mataragas arriving late) Also in attendance:Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner,and Stacy Kilb,recorder II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 14 Bertuccio Ave. (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: Nathan Jacobson Description:A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre. Mr. Eric Jacobson presents. He has not heard from the Civil Engineer and believes this is all that remains. He has taken into consideration what the Board said at the last meeting, and will again decline the review of the Geotechnical survey that the Board offered. He feels the three experts he has had present are adequate. Erin clarifies to the Board that Civil Engineer review has been put on hold as the response of not moving forward with geotechnical review as requested so Civil engineer has stopped work, so is not complete for that reason. Chair Ben Anderson does not agree with the applicant, and states that the peer review is important to understand the issues related with the site. The actions the applicant can take tonight are to request a continuance,request that the Board vote on the project or to close the public hearing. Chair Ben Anderson states for the record that a letter from Carol Michaud has been received. He notes that further public comment should be limited to issues not yet covered. Bill Griset wonders what the precedent is for an applicant declining the peer review. The Chair states that the applicant has the right waive it, but it is up to the Board to determine if they have enough information to make a decision.This has not happened in the Chair's term but he cannot speak for before that. Matt Veno asks Erin Schaeffer asks about the decision not to proceed with the Civil Engineering review, as the geotechnical review was declined by applicant. Ms. Schaeffer outlines the protocols and progress,now halted. Meeting Minutes-September 15, 2016 Page 2 of 12 Tony Mataragas arrives at 7:17PM. • The Chair opens to the public but requests that they limit comments to new input. Clifford Goodman of 22 Bertuccio Ave says that, if by some injustice, the project is approved; he wants to bring up the option of a contingency bond to cover the cliff falling, etc. in order to address concerns. City Councilor Steve Lovely of 14 Storey St. has been speaking with neighbors, and notes their concerns. He is concerned that the Board is asking for but not receiving additional information from the applicant. Chair Ben Anderson comments that he has pause with the project due to the following sections of the subdivision regulations that he reads into the record: If during the public hearing process the Salem Planning.Board has not received sufficient information to determine if the definitive subdivision plans comply witb the subdivision regulations, it has the authority to refuse to grant approval, provided the board has a reasonable basis to believe that additional information is necessary to make a determination That the definitive subdivision plan complies with the subdivision regulations. As far as waivers are concerned, the Chair personally feels that the applicant has responded to concerns,but he has difficulty tying the project to the public benefit. In general the applicant has been responsive. Chair Anderson reads the purpose section of the subdivision regulations: They[the subdivision regulations) have been enacted for the purpose of protecting the safety, convenience and welfare of the inhabitants of the cities and towns in which it is, or may hereafter, be put in effect by regulating the laying out and construction of ways in subdivisions providing access to several lots therein, but which have not become public ways, and ensuing sanitary conditions in subdivisions and in proper cases parks and open areas. Chair Anderson also reads: `7f the Board modifies or disapproves a plan it shall state, in its vote, the reason for such action." There is no need to indicate reasons for approval, however if there are concerns, specific reasons for Board member objections shall be provided, should a vote not approving the project occur this evening. Chair Anderson notes that according to the subdivision regulations, The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be considered part of the rules and regulations. `7n reviewing the statement[the Environmental Impact Statement], the City boards will consider the degree to which water is recycled back into the ground, the maintenance and improvement of the flow and quality of surface waters;the preservation orpromotion of wildlife refuges, historic sits, Chair Anderson notes that this is the part he is concerned with: "unique rm-&features. botanical and archaeological features, existing or potential trails and accesses to open space areas;and the health and safety of the inhabitants of the area." This statement gives him pause, because this site does have unique geological features. He as he previously stated he feels that the EIS is incomplete. As such he needs additional information, not receiving the information is important enough to sway his decision. Procedures are discussed again. Meeting Minutes—September 15, 2016 Page 3 of 12 • The applicant feels that the concern is that there might be an issue that has not been addressed, not that there is a known issue. He notes that the Board of Health did not hire its own peer reviewer and the Chair responds that the Board of Health's input can be taken as a recommendation but will not sway this Board's decision. Mr.Jacobson feels that his engineers were highly qualified and that the Board should have enough information to make a decision. He feels the project will be beautiful, with the "Rolls Royce" of sidewalks, and that it is a safe and reasonable development. He does not believe the Board could be persuaded by hiring yet another engineer to review. A discussion of the main objective and logistics of peer review, both in general and as related to this project, follows. Mr.Jacobson feels that the process has not been fair to his project. Chair Anderson states that all comments have been repeated multiple times, and Kirt Rieder notes again that this is a thorough process, and that the Board learns by listening over multiple meetings, so topics are not closed just because they are not discussed at the first meeting;members need time to process information then come back to discuss it further. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Noab Koretz seconded by Bill Gnis 4 and Passes witb all in favor. 9-0. Chair Anderson gives the applicant an opportunity to continue, which he declines. The Chair seeks a motion for approval, however Matt Veno makes a notion to DISAPPROVE the project. Chair Anderson notes that a motion must be in the affirmative, then can be denied by a vote of"no," and also notes that just because a Board member makes or seconds the motion,it does not mean that they actually approve of the project. • Matt Veno withdraws the motion to disapprove the project. A motion to 60rom a De znitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven Q residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow or activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre, is made by Matt Veno and seconded b� Carole Hamilton. Matt Veno comments that he is disappointed by the way this whole process has moved forward, reiterating as he has stated in past meetings that project approval has nothing to do with the Board members' personal opinions of whether the project is good or bad, but rather, whether it complies with the relevant ordinances. He feels that information was lacking but that, despite his personal feelings about the project, he could be persuaded if adequate analysis were provided. 04osed to the Proiect are: Carole Hamilton, Noah Koret- Matt Veno, Helen Sides, Dale Yale, and Bill Greet(7 with none 0 in avor. Tony Mataragas and Kirt Rieder were absent at relevant meetings so were ineligible to vote. B. Location: 14 Bertuccio Ave (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: Nathan Jacobson Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law(ANR). • Form A requires a signature. Mr. Jacobson outlines the division of the first lot at this address. There is sufficient frontage on Francis Ave. and Bertuccio Ave. The Chair has no questions. Meeting Minutes—September 15, 2016 Page 4 of 12 A motion for endorsement of the Plan is made by Matt Veno, seconded by Carole Hamilton. and Masses uatb all(9)in favor and• none (0obhosed C. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1, 2, 88, 19, 216, 218 220; and Map 14, Lot 129) Applicant: North Shore Medical Center, Inc. Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Pemut in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. *THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUATION TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON THURSDAY OCTOBER 20".2016 Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. represents the project. They are nearing the end of the process, working on final details. They are requesting a continuance to allow time for the City to work on final conditions and details of the project. A motion to continue to the October 20. 2016 meeting is made by Noab KoretZ seconded by Bill Griset, with all(9)i favor and• none( o44osed. D. Location: 70-92 '/2 Boston St. (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) Applicant: 139 Grove Street Realty Trust Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. Presenting for the applicant are Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. He states that the project is ready for Board review and describes progress thus far. Chris Sparages,Project Engineer,begins the PowerPoint presentation. A PowerPoint presentation outlines the following points: * Layout plan: additional green spaces, parking, sidewalk, Fire Dept. connections/access, Conservation Commission negative determination obtained • Tanya Carrier from the architectural firm reviews comments from the Design Review Board (DRB)6 and subsequent changes to the building,including: Meeting Minutes—September 15, 2016 Page 5 of 12 o Retail space relocated to Goodhue St., projected out from main bldg. and lowered finished floor to sidewalk level o Added trash room on end of parking garage o Relocated garage entrance to side of building o Views from Goodhue St. presented. o Material on bays is a lighter board and batten rather than brick;color also changed o Central area redesigned to be more cohesive but still have a distinctive canopy o Upper floor site plan: • Moved community room • Views from Boston St. • Townhouse roofs lowered, now also a different style (hip roof) for scale/proportion to other building • Changed bay materials on Boston St. side of apt. complex • Proportion of chimneys changed—enlarged • View of Boston St. entrance circle • Revised Elevations of apt complex—window types and sizes are now varied • Townhouse exterior changes Noah Koretz asks if there was a letter of recommendation from the DRB;Erin Schaeffer has it and give is to him. Katya Pasadlo,Blair Hines landscape architect, outlines changes to landscaping,including • Outside retail store • • Revision to parking lot plantings • Modifications in response to garage entrance changes • Pedestrian sidewalk and landscape changes to Goodhue St. doors • Staircase down to circle has been removed • Unit paving in contrast to concrete paving of public sidewalk • Blue Spruce substituted for white pine on western side of lot • Wood guard rail ended at end of parking next to retaining walls • One street tree removed, as she did not know sidewalk would be improved. The Chair asks about changes and Ms. Pasadlo outlines. • Transformer relocated to Goodhue St. Matt Veno asks about stair access from Boston St. to the circle and wonders why it was removed, as he thought it was a nice feature. Mr. Correnti states that it was designed upon a suggestion earlier on, but the City's peer reviewer pointed out that if they do that it must be made accessible, which is correct, but it would have had to be a large switchback ramp that would not have worked aesthetically or practically. Matt Veno also follows up, asking if you worked here but wanted to go to tattoo parlor, for example, next to the townhomes,you would have to walk all the way down to the curb cut. Unfortunately, that is correct. Kirt Rieder asks about the Yd street tree that is no more; could it be relocated to the area of lawn behind the sidewalk adjacent to the birch? Ms. Pasadlo says it could be. The Conservation Commission gave permission to build the project; demolition has occurred on the remaining •buildings. Chair Anderson compliments the applicant and design team on their work. He cannot vote this evening but states that it has been a pleasure to see this, a collaborative project that will benefit the City. Meeting Minutes—September 15, 2016 Page 6 of 12 Tony Mataragas comments that Boston St. has traditionally been a dull street, and this project will bring some light and attractiveness to it. Matt Veno thanks the applicant for responding to the Board's comments regarding the use of the retail space and reiterates his feelings that it is consistent with the "urban village" envisioned in the NRCC mixed use Master Plan. The Chair opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the-Public hearing is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Carole Hamilton, and passes 9-0. Noah Koretz asks about continuing the sidewalk on Goodhue St. down to the motorcycle shop; this is shown on the current plan but is not reflected in writing in the decision. Mr. Sparages reiterates that the applicant is committed to extending it and it is in the current plan,thus it does not need to be referenced in the decision itself. The Board has no comments on the decision. A motion to approve the Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the Nortb River Canal Corridor Neigbborbood Mixed Use District in accordance uatb the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review: Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District: Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District;and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance witb Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37, specifically far the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two-stog concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the tbree- stoa residential building at 3A Bu um Street Extension:and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and lan"inn througbout the site. The 4M ect when com4leted will total 29 residential units in four buildings witb all associatedparking. on siteis made by Kart Rieder, seconded by Tony MatanUas, and passes in a roll call vote with Carole Hamilton. Noah Koret; Matt Veno. Helen Sides, Klrt Rieder, Dale Yale. and Bill Griset Q in favor and none (0)obhosed Chair Ben Anderson and Tony Mataragas are not voting as they have missed meetings at which this project was presented. E. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 '/2 Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26, Lots 73, 74,79) Applicant: Juniper Point 9 South Mason Street LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two- story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. Here for the applicant is Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. He states that this is the second meeting for this project; and overview was previously provided and Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering reviewed the site specific features. This is a previously industrial site in multiple zones and multiple uses. This is NRCC so theye will be going before the DRB. We continue to see multi-million dollar investments coming into the area. Meeting Minutes—September 15, 2016 Page 7 of 12 • Giles Ham will provide traffic analysis this evening. The City is in the process of hiring a peer review consultant so more will be provided later as well. Ryan McShera, project Architect,will also present. Giles Ham provides traffic assessment, and will work with the peer review consultant. All relevant analysis has been done. Buffum St. extension is a relatively narrow road with parking on both sides but is not very busy. Outlined elements: • 2016 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes • Trip Generation summary • Trip Distribution Map • Summary of Recommendations Mr. Corrend outlines the previous comments on width of the roadways. The Applicant is also in discussions with the fire dept. and the City peer reviewer will also comment on any issues. Chair Anderson asks about the counts of 13-20 cars per hour on Buffum St. No distinction is made but between residential and commercial traffic, but most likely that figure is for commercial. Mr. Ryan McShera of Red Barn Architecture reviews the relevant points of the project: • Existing and proposed structures • Neighborhood context,Buffum St. and NRCC • New Building design • Existing Building design . • New and Activate Residential Neighborhood Mr. Correnti states that this concludes the formal presentation, and that the applicant would like to work with peer reviewers in the next 6 weeks, and with Design Review. Noah Koretz reiterates his comments from the previous meeting, that it is a great site and an opportunity to repurpose the industrial building, but that the applicant should "own" the industrial building, and make it distinctive. Helen Sides, who is also on the DRB, agrees with Noah Koretz and cautions the applicant on making the structures, appear"historic," as modem materials would be plastic, not wood, so the interpretation would be different. The landscape plan is not complete at the moment; there will be a future presentation covering landscaping and civil engineering. Kirt Rieder feels that a greater density of shade trees should be provided for residents, and asks that a more appropriate species than pear trees be selected. Snow storage is briefly discussed. Matt Veno agrees with Noah Koretz on maintaining the uniqueness of the industrial building, and feels that today's features should be emphasized, rather than trying to blend the re-ornamented building with those surrounding it. Chair Anderson echoes the other board members' view that this is a unique building and an opportunity to showcase it. Chair Anderson opens the public but there are no comments. A motion to continue the October 20 2016 meeting it made by Noah Koret&, seconded by Dale Yale, and fusses unth all(9)in favor and none (0)obbosed. Meeting Minutes—September 15, 2016 Page 8 of 12 F. Location: PEM 161 ESSEX STREET (Map 35, Lot 303) Applicant: PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review. Specifically, the applicant proposes the partial demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a 37,950 square foot addition primarily within the footprint of the Asian Garden,in addition to site improvements including a garden and utility work. A 23 (B) 3 form has been filed by Noah Koretz, as his agency is a conduit bond issuer to this project, but he can impartially evaluate the project. Thus far, the applicant has met with the Design Review Board, Historic Salem, and the Salem Redevelopment Authority. Steven Chu presents first, outlining: • Elevational, Essex St. This is the best, smallest version of all studies. Ultimately decided to do scheme most respectful to existing buildings that have historic buildings, museum is a collection of houses as well as art, so must respect scale of houses and Essex St. facades. • Basement plan: because of existing soil conditions,there will not be a full basement • Ground Floor Plan: 5000 square feet per floor,with 3 floors, playing off East India Marine hall as a scale of reference. The museum has always used this as reference for floor heights. Work will be done on East India Marine (EIM) hall itself. Three building elements in the garden will be demolished as will a single story structure behind other buildings to make room for another garden. The applicant wants to bring back the elevation of East India Marine Hall to distinguish it. They will restore the facade • which will be internalized and protected. Pulling the addition away from EIM hall means have room for a needed atrium. • Second Floor plan: skylight will be dropped to this floor, attempting to create non gallery space in order to provide views in and out, not have a blank facade on Essex St. to engage it • Third Floor • Architectural elevations — Chelmsford granite will be used but it has a split rock face to-distinguish it. Mark Streeter,landscape architect, presents: • Charter Street Service Area,PEM Garden,Essex Street • Frontage on Essex St. Will frame East India Marine hall with Ginkos because of its upright habit, hardy tree good in urban environments, more details provided about trees. Paving will be in kind and over sand based soil to provide continuous root zone and soil value;will be irrigated. • Rendering of frontage/facades, one small historic building will be moved to other side of EIM hall. Group entry (not a public entry) will be provided here.ADA ramp is now interior. • Night View • Proposed garden, takes into account history and mission of PEM, hybrid of garden history overlaid with free form/organic garden traditions of Asia,horticulture also relates to that story • Garden species • Charter St. landscape/service area. As little hardscape as possible has been used. Tried to provide screening but still open-ness. Street trees will be added along with an evergreen hedge. PEM has consulted neighboring residents re screening. Utility company needs access to their equipment so it 0 cannot be covered. • Charter St. views l Meeting Minutes—September 15, 2016 Page 9 of 12 David Conway, Civil Engineer, outlines that portion of the project. This project has very light impact on the ground, with impervious surface only increased by 3,000 square feet. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) cited not much impact,as no large underground infrastructure is involved. Noah Koretz compliments the applicant on the presentation. He asks about some buildings to the west and the applicant elaborates. Office spaces will be consolidated at this location and others will be retail space. Noah Koretz opines that the use of granite/textural treatment is exactly what he was talking about in the last presentation,making the project contextually appropriate while maintaining its uniqueness/modernity. This is seconded by Kirt Rieder. Helen Sides asks about tree placement. Tree placement is discussed regarding the possibility of opening Essex Street to traffic, part time (they correspond with the existing trees today). Kirt Rieder is pleased with the changes to the screening of the transformers. He sees the screened transformers in the renderings which are helpful, but they are not annotated anyway. Mr. Rieder asks that the petitioner confirm,as what's out there today are four enclosures and the plans only show two. Mr. Streeter explains that the current existing switchbox and transformers were intended to be temporary; the wood structure was installed when they were headed in the direction of a much larger project, and the other transformers are on an old electrical service- 41/50 which will be upgraded to 13/8. Therefore, the bulk of the structure off Charter Street will be underground. One will be a splice box that will connect the service to the museum and the other will be the transformer itself. Even if money were the issue, the current service wouldn't power the museum in its expanded form. Noah Koretz asks about the Yin Yu Tanghouse. That area becomes lawn again with the exception of the installation of trees that do not currently exist. Kirt Rieder asks about street trees on both Charter and Essex Streets, he is happy the street trees are coming back. Initially he was concerned about structural soils; as he assumed it would be cu structural opposed to sand based, but the applicant has disabled much of his criticism. While the trees that are slated to be removed are not the greatest, they are the best trees along Essex Street. Concerned that the new trees may not accelerate and thrive as much as they should.Were other options considered,e.g. deep root. Mr. Rieder comments that irrigation is a great move. He suggests that the applicant forgo the metal ring and place a fully accessible service. While Mr. Rider is a proponent of Ginkgo's, he is concerned we are overpopulating with Ginkgos,we may be at the tipping point of too many Ginkgo trees. Mr. Streeter notes they are cognizant of this believes Ginkgo trees are appropriate on Essex Street, but they are open to another species on Charter Street. Mr. Rieder agrees. The trees taken down on Charter were large canopy shade trees, and the best trees along there, thus suggests an Oak or something that could handle the drought to break up the species. Mr. Streeter comments there were a lot of Honey Locus along Charter and London Plain Trees. Mr. Rieder leaves it to the applicant to include something underutilized (not Honey Locus). He suggests that the applicant should plant trees of New England or Asia that are adaptable. He also comments that the garden is not big enough (should be 3 times larger), but the applicant must work with what they are given. He feels there will be a lot of vegetation in a small spot, further editing will probably be required the process continues. Chair Anderson opens to public comment. Dean Rubin, a 17 Central St. abutter, affirms that the applicant has been wonderful in letting residents know of the plans,reflecting concerns on landscaping,and states that the community is supportive of them. •Noah Koretz asks how the garden space is accessed from the interior of the building and Mr. Streeter outlines pedestrian flow. Meeting Minutes—September 15, 2016 Page 10 of 12 A motion to continue to the October 20. 2016 meeting is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Dale Yale. and Passes with all(9)in A favor and none Qq)gaosed. G. Location: 93-95 CANAL STREET (Map 33, Lots 164, 165) Applicant: SCHIAVUZZO REALTY, LLC Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 Site Plan Review and a Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Sec. 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. Specifically, the applicant proposes to reputpose the existing building and convert the candy factory into eight (8) residential units. Here for the applicant is Mr. George Atkins of 65 Congress St. He describes the project as a conversion of a building used as a candy factory since 1935. The family, the Corcums, would like to sell the building for development. Frank Curtis is also present, as the engineer. Mr. Atkins provides a history of the site as a B4 automotive zoned site. Originally a third story was proposed, but the idea abandoned after speaking with Ward Councilor Turiel and neighbors, due to privacy and parking issues. There is no change in footprint but one change to the rear of the second floor. A change of nonconforming use was presented to the ZBA and approved with variance required for parking. Councilor Turiel and the neighbors had issues with parking; drainage and multistory buildings occupied in rentals to students. Mr. Atkins states that Mr. Schiavuzzo has no connection to Salem State University, no secret plans to make it a dorm. This is presented as a residential condominium. A supplemental submission has been made: a rendering from Canal St. is provided and the next two items are a site plan showing landscaping not in the original plan set. The project is now compliant with the number of� trees required by zoning ordinance. There may be an error in elevations.The correction is noted. The site plan is the result of a merger of two lots. The site is described and drainage discussed; the applicant will go before the Conservation Commission seeking a negative Determination. The City Engineer will review the project in lieu of peer review. A supplemental lighting plan will be provided. Also an easement will be filed upon completion of the project to accommodate the use of the shared driveway by residents of this project and the abutter. All snow storage will be temporary, as the site is too small to store snow on. One parking space is designated for this purpose;it will be controlled by Trustees. Elevation and floor plans are straightforward. The project is designed to satisfy the demand for housing for young families and people who want to work in Salem; the location is ideal for that. He outlines development, current and potential, in the area, and additional reasons why it is ideal for that demographic. He cites a study done for the Planning Department that shows the need for housing in Salem as very high. Councilor Turiel wanted the applicant to address the loss of commercial space, but the need for housing trumps that requirement. Mr. Atkins would like the Board's preliminary thoughts. Kirt Rieder asks about parking spaces and trees, and the applicant elaborates. He makes some suggestions on trees, which are normally installed by the applicant then given to the City. The applicant may work with the Planning Department on that matter. Some Board members comment on the exterior, that the buyers would look for an "urban industrial" feel, and that the project should be indicative of what the building is used for today. It is felt that the applicant may have better luck marketing one and two bedroom condos to empty nesters or younger couples, rather than three bedrooms to families. There is a distinct lack of outdoor amenities in the area so it would not appeal to the Meeting Minutes—September 15, 2016 Page 11 of 12 latter. There is a need for more three bedroom residences in Salem, but the Board is not sure this is the proper location for them. The developer notes that young couples were using the 3`s bedroom as an office in his other projects. However, Helen Sides feels that larger spaces would suit the height better, with an open floor plan and industrial sized windows; it would be a great space for commuters. Noah Koretz reiterates his feelings that the building should be showcased, not hidden. Kirt Rieder agrees, opining that it could be marketed as Salem Candy Company Condominiums;giving it an identity that others cannot compete with. Carole Hamilton echoes the concern about the lack of space for 3 bedroom units. If there is no appropriate outdoor space,kids will play in the street—in this case,Canal St. Elevations are further discussed. Additional concerns: • Exterior materials should be listed • Plans should be annotated and material samples presented • Information about heating, cooling and fans,and how the units will be screened, should be provided Mr.Atkins again reassures the Board the units will not be rented to students and outlines the controls for that. Chair Anderson opens to the public but there are no comments. • A motion to continue to the October 20. 2016 meeting is made by Helen Sider seconded by Dale Yale and passes with all(9)in favor and none Q0 gaosed. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 1, 2016 Not available; to be reviewed next meeting IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Circle Hill Subdivision- Ken Steadman request for Tri-Party Agreement and release of lots for construction of Circle Hill Subdivision. This item is taken first. Ken Steadman is present and states that confusion about the subdivision has been resolved, so he is requesting that the three lots in question be released. Utilities are all installed, and lighting is in the process of being installed. Only the finish asphalt and sidewalk remain. Erin Schaeffer states that the bond is for $25,300 to ensure completion of the work outlined; the City Clerk of the Works has sent a letter to the Planning Department stating that the work outlined does remain; the City Planner agrees that the bond is a good amount to cover the cost of the remaining right of way for any repairs. A motion to release the lots is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Matt Veno, and passes in a roll call vote with Ben Anderson. • Carole Hamilton,Noah Koret- Matt Veno, Helen Sides Kiri Rieder and Dale Yale(Z)in favor and none( aosed Bill Griset arrives at 7:11 PM. Meeting Minutes—September 15, 2016 Page 12 of 12 V. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adiourn is made by Kist Rieder, seconded by Dale Yale. and mitb all(9 in favor and none (0)obposed. The meeting ends at 10:07 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://www.salem.com/planning-board/webfortns/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb,Substitute Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 10/20/2016 Knomyour rights under the Open Meeting Lam M.G.L c. 30A f 78-25 and City Ordinance )f 2-2028 tbmugb 5 2-2033. • • m CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 181b SEP 22 P ir. 58 CLERK:SALEM.MASS. Decision September 15, 2016 Site Plan Review and Special Permits under the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District and Flood Hazard Overlay District On April 21, 2016, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) to allow the removal of three (3) structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two (2) separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site located at 70-92 '/z Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 299 &Map 16, Lot 139). The petitioner requests the following Special Permits to reflect the plans as referenced: • 1. Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.5 (4.4) of the NRCC to allow multi-family residential uses as primary uses in townhouse, row house, flats or multi-story arrangements. 2. Special Permit per Sec. 8.1.4 to allow construction within the Flood Hazard Overlay District. The Public Hearing was continued to May 5, 2016, May 19, 2016, June 2, 2016, June 16, 2016, July 7, 2016, July 21, 2016, September 1,2016 and September 15, 2016. In considering approval of the NRCC Site Plan Review, the Planning Board finds that the development meets the goals of the North River Canal Corridor Plan, as stated in the Salem Zoning Ordinance, as follows: 1. Create appropriate development while preserving our historic neighborhood character: The proposed project was unanimously recommended for approval by the Salem Design Review Board (DRB) on June 22, 2016. The DRB's role is to review proposals to ensure they are designed to complement and harmonize with adjacent land uses with respect to architecture, scale, landscaping and screening. In a recommendation letter to the Planning Board dated June 30, 2016 the DRB details how the applicant satisfactorily addressed design issues. • O' 2. Address transportation issues for existing and new developments: . The use of the site does not result in a significant increase to traffic volumes. Pedestrian improvements along Grove Street to encourage the urban village concept, the curb cut was strategically placed with enough site distance from adjacent development and due consideration to Boston Street traffic. Design elements for the ease and safety of pedestrian access to and around the site have been integrated into the plans. 3. Enhance the public realm in keeping with our unique neighborhood character: The proposal improves the sidewalks and the streetscape experience along Boston Street, Goodhue Street, and Grove Street in front of the project site. Accordingly, the project will enhance the public realm in keeping with the unique neighborhood character. In considering approval of the NRCC Special Permits, the Planning Board finds that based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project complies with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Master Plan, as follows: I. Redevelops a key site in the NRCC, the former Flynntan site. 2. Supports the creation of an "Urban Village," as articulated in the Master Plan. The proposed development adds to the vitality of the area through its active, mixed-use development, including housing and retail. 3. Buildings are appropriate in scale and meet the height requirements of the NRCC zoning. 4. Improves the sidewalks and pedestrian environment on Boston, Grove and Goodhue Streets along the project site through improvement of sidewalks and landscaping. • 5. The NRCC vision statement states, "Create new housing opportunities that encourage a range of housing types and affordability". The proposed housing includes 10% affordable units. NRCC Special Permits and Density Bonus The Planning Board considered the requested Special Permit under the NRCC Mixed Use District, Section 8.4.5(4.4), Residential Uses: Except by Special Permit, Multifamily residential uses as primary uses in townhouse, row house,flats or multistory arrangements: a. Multifamily residential uses abut a residential use. A multifamily use totally surrounded by nonresidential uses is not permitted. i. The subject property is located directly across Goodhue Street from 28 Goodhue Street, another apartment building. In addition, there are residential uses located on the abutting northwest parcels. As such, the multifamily use abuts residential uses. b. The board finds that the multifamily residential uses retain first floor commercial use along the street. i. A commercial retail space is located on the first floor of the Goodhue Street side of the building. c. Each unit shall have a separate exterior first floor entrance if located within 100 feet of a residentially used parcel in an abutting zoning district. • d. The multi-family building as proposed is within 100 feet of a residentially used parcel in an abutting zoning district. The townhouses each have first floor entrances. 2 • The Planning Board considered the request to grant five (5) Density Bonus housing units under the NRCC Mixed Use District, Section 8.4.11(2): a. Pursuant to condition 8.a. Affordable Housing Units, five (5) housing units will be set aside as affordable housing units. A density bonus of five (5) housing units will not exceed 25 percent of the maximum number of units permitted, and the density bonus is not, in the aggregate, more than one and one half of the maximum number of units permitted in the district. Therefore, the Planning Board awards five (5) density bonus units. Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Pursuant to Section 8.1.2.2.(a) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, the FHOD includes all special flood hazard areas within the City of Salem designated as Zone A, AE, or VE on the Essex County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by the FEMA. A small portion of the site is within Zone AE. Therefore, in considering approval of the Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, the Planning Board hereby makes the findings for the portion of the site within the FHOD pertaining to the Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Application as follows: a. The proposed uses comply in all respects to the uses and provisions of the underlying districts in which the land is located. • i. The subject property is located in the North River Canal Corridor, an area designated for urban village of mixed uses. The project complies in all respects to the uses and provisions of the underlying district in which the land is located. b. There is adequate convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets and property, particularly in the event of flooding of the lot(s) or adjacent lot(s) caused by either overspill from water bodies or high runoff. i. The proposed stormwater management system is effective for mitigating the peak flow rates of runoff from the limit of the watershed analysis for 2, 10, 25, and & 100 year storm events. ii. All utilities are designed based on standard engineering practices and applicable standards. Utilities, including gas, electricity, fuel, water and sewage disposal, shall be located and constructed so as to protect against breaking, leaking, short- circuiting, grounding or igniting or any other damage due to flooding. c. Where the proposed use will be located within a coastal high hazard area (Zone VE on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps), the Planning Board shall also find the following conditions to be fulfilled: New structures or substantial improvements shall be located landward of the reach of mean high tide. The support of new structures or substantial improvements shall not be, in whole or in part, by the use of fill. i. There are no proposed uses within the VE zone as mapped by FEMA on the site. • 3 • The Public Hearing was closed on September 15, 2016. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on September 15, 2016, the Board voted seven (7) in favor (Matt Veno (Vice-Chair), Carole Hamilton, Bill Griset, Dale Yale, Kirt Rieder, Noah Koretz, Helen Sides) in favor and none opposed, to approve the application of 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37 for the property located at 70-92 '/2 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139). Specifically, the application is for the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two (2) separate buildings and a 736 square foot commercial retail space with parking provided on the site, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plans a. Work shall conform to the following Project Plans listed below with architectural design plans and illustrative landscape plans entitled "River Rock Residences & Retail 70-92 '/2 Boston Street, Salem, MA" prepared by Khalsa Design and Blair Hines Design Associates for LAR Properties, LLC; Civil Plans entitled "River Rocks Residences, Goodhue Street & 70-92 '/z Boston Street Salem, MA, prepared by William & Sparages. • Sheet Title Prepared By: Last Revised: Cover River Rock Residences & Khalsa Design Inc. 9/16/2016 Retail A -020 Proposed Site Plan @ Khalsa Design Inc. 9/16/2016 Garage Level A-021 Proposed Site Plan @ 1 s' Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 Floor A-022 Enlarged Site Plan @ Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 Goodhue St. Entry A-100 Schematic Garage Floor Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 Plan A-101 Schematic Is'Floor Plan Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 A-101 Schematic 2 Id Floor Plan Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 A-102 Schematic 3` Floor Plan Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 A-104 Schematic Roof Plan Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 • 4 • Sheet Title Prepared By: Last Revised: A-105 Townhouses-Schematic Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 Floor Plans A-3000 North &West Elevations Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 A-301 South &East Elevations Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 A-302 Townhouse Exterior Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 Elevations A-303 Enlarged Exterior Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 Elevations A-400 Site Section Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 AV-1 Neighborhood Photos Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 AV-2 Perspective Views Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 AV-3 Perspective Views Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 AV-4 Perspective Views Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 AV-5 Locus Plan Khalsa Design Inc. 8/25/2016 L-1 Proposed Residents at 70- Blair Hines Design 9/16/2016 92 Boston Street Salem, Associates • MA Illustrative Landscape Plan L-2 Boston Street Residences Blair Hines Design 8/25/2016 Salem, MA Associates Tree Plantings L-3 Boston Street Residences Blair Hines Design 8/25/2016 Salem, MA Associates Fences, Greenscreens, Seatwalls Civil Plans: Sheet Title Prepared By: Last Revised: C-1 Location Plan William & Sparages 8/24/2016 C-2 Existing Conditions Plan William & Sparages 8/24/2016 C-3 Site Plan William& Sparages 8/24/2016 C-4 Layout Plan William& Sparages 8/24/2 y016 C-5 Layout Plan William & Sparages 8/24/2016 • 5 . Sheet Title Prepared By: Last Revised: C-6 Utility Plan William & Sparages 8/24/2016 C-7 Photometric Plan William & Sparages 8/24/2016 C-8 Details Plan William & Sparages 8/24/2016 C-9 Details Plan William & Sparages 8/24/2016 C-10 Details Plan William& Sparages 8/24/2016 2. Amendments a. Any amendments to the site plan shall be reviewed by the City Planner and if deemed necessary by the City Planner, shall be brought to the Planning Board. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 3. Landscaping a. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans. 4. Lighting a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way. b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Electrician for review and approval • prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Maintenance a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off site. c. Maintenance of all landscaping shall be the responsibility of the applicant, his successors or assigns. d. The applicant, his successors or assigns, shall guarantee all trees and shrubs for a two- year period. 6. Design Review Board a. The applicant shall submit final construction plans to the Design Review Board (DRB) for its review prior to the issuance of a building permit. b. A detailed plan for site and building lighting, to include both specifications and locations of lighting fixtures, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development for review and approval by the DRB prior to issuance of a building permit. c. All plans, materials and color samples shall be in accordance with those submitted and • approved by the DRB on June 22, 2016. 6 d. The owner, developer or assignee shall apply for a sign permit through the Department of • Planning and Community Development for DRB review. All future changes to signage and/or proposed installation of signage for retail tenants, shall be reviewed and approved administratively by the Department of Planning and Community Development. All signage shall conform to the City of Salem's Sign Ordinance and NRCC zoning code requirements. 7. Conservation Commission a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Conservation Commission b. The applicant shall receive all necessary approvals from the Salem Conservation Commission. 8. Affordable Housing Units a. Five housing units shall be set aside as affordable housing units. The Applicant shall place an Affordable Housing Restriction on these five (5) housing units in the form acceptable to the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). The restrictions shall be in accordance with the eligibility criteria for DHCD's Subsidized Housing Inventory for the purpose of ensuring that the five (5) dwelling units will be restricted as affordable housing for households whose annual incomes are eighty percent (80%) or less of Area Median Income ("Low Income Households") with a sales or rental price affordable to said households as determined by DHCD for a period of ninety nine (99) years from the date of the original conveyance. The Affordable Housing • Restriction(s) shall be registered with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. 9. Traffic Mitigation a. Proposed plans and details of the mitigation measures below are to be submitted for review by the City Engineer, City Electrician, City Planner, and the Traffic Division of the Salem Police Department. b. The owner shall reconstruct the sidewalk along the Boston Street frontage with concrete prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. c. The owner shall provide one (1)bicycle parking space for every ten (10) vehicle spaces. 10. Maintenance of Stormwater System a. Applicant is to submit an Operations and Management Plan for the stormwater system, including a narrative describing the frequency of cleaning and maintenance of catch basins and Stormceptors and clearly define responsible party for maintenance,prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. Board of Health a. The owner shall comply with the following specific conditions issued by the Board of Health: • 7 • b. 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. c. 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 confirms that the site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use. d. A copy of the Licensed Asbestos Inspector's Report must be sent to the Health Agent. e. A copy of the Demolition Notice sent to the DEP, Form BWPAO6, must be sent to the Health Agent. f. The developer shall give the Health Agent a copy of the 21 E report. 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 exterminator's survey report,treatment plan and treatment reports 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. 1. 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 nearest abutting residential 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. 12. Fire Department a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. b. The developer/owner shall review locations of hydrants and fire department connections • with the Salem Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 8 • c. Developer/owner shall prepare a Fire Apparatus Access Plan for review and approval of the Salem Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. d. The developer/owner shall install pavers at grade in the Boston Street turnaround, in accordance with the Fire Apparatus Access Plan, dated August 24, 2016, by William & Sparages, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Building Inspector a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Inspector. 14. Utilities a. Underground utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 15. City Engineer a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer. b. The Developer/Owner shall amend the Operation & Maintenance Plan in the stormwater report to include inspection and maintenance of catch basins to four (4) times per year prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. c. Developer/Owner shall conduct testing of stormwater runoff from the site twice (2) a • year and document findings to demonstrate compliance for five(5) consecutive years that the stormwater management system complies with Final Pathogen TMDL of the North Coastal Watershed (CN 155.0). Findings of each test shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. If findings demonstrate non-compliance, the Developer/Owner shall implement alternative mitigation measures and demonstrate compliance. d. Developer/Owner shall provide an electronic copy of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) to the City Engineer and Department of Planning and Community Development Conservation Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. e. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall coordinate with the City Engineer to review any service piping that extends to the street encountered during construction of the foundation and/or site work. Existing utility services encountered onsite that have not been abandoned shall be discontinued in accordance with the City of Salem Engineering Department requirements, prior to issuance of building permit. f. The applicant shall submit a final roof design for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. The final plan shall show that the roof runoff will be collected by proposed roof drains and will discharge directly into the existing drainage system. 16. Clerk of the Works a. A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the applicant, his successors or assigns, as it deemed necessary by the City Planner. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties acknowledge the Project shall be subject to controlled construction, 9 • which requires oversight by licensed engineered and architects. Accordingly it is the understanding of the Board, the City Planner and the Applicant that the Clerk of the Works is expected to oversee and review all civil/site improvements related to the project located within the public way, including all utility connections to publicly owned infrastructure. It is also mutually understood that the expense associated with the Clerk of the Works shall be for a reasonable number of hours and at a customary rate of service. b. The applicant shall submit a construction plan to the City Planner prior to starting work. c. The construction plan will be incorporated into the Clerk of the Works Task Order. No work shall start prior to an approved task order for these services. 17. Construction Practices a. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: i. All provisions in the City of Salem's Code of Ordinance, Chapter 22, Noise Control, shall be strictly adhered to. ii. 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. iii. 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. iv. All construction will occur on site; no construction will occur or be staged within City right of way. Any deviation from this shall be approved by the Department of Planning& Community Development prior to construction. V. A construction traffic management plan and schedule shall be submitted to the Department of Planning & Community Development for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. vi. Any roadways, driveways, or sidewalks damaged during construction shall be restored to their original condition by the applicant. vii. 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. viii. 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. ix. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located completely on the site. X. All construction activities shall be in accordance with the "Salem Police Station Construction Management Plan". 10 • xi. All construction shall take place under the direction and supervision of a Licensed Site Professional in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. xii. The applicant shall promptly notify the Board of Health of any environmental condition encountered during construction that may adversely impact the abutters to the site. 18. As-built Plans a. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. 19. Violations a. Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy of this decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty(20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record is recorded on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner or applicant, his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering 24�' I — Matt Veno Vice Chairman • 11 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD UIL SEa ?q P Z. US Form C—Definitive Subdivision Decision FILE ti CITY ClEftl(, SALEM,MASS. 14 Bertuccio Avenue (Map 24,Lot 105) September 15, 2016 Nathan Jacobson C/o Benjamin Osgood 13 Branch Street, Suite 111 Methuen,MA 01844 RE: Decision of the 14 Bertuccio Avenue Definitive Subdivision—Form C On April 7, 2016, the Salem Planning Board opened a public hearing for a proposal submitted by Nathan Jacobson (hereafter referred to as "applicant") to allow the construction of a roadway and associated utilities to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwatet Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre of land within the City of Salem. In the course of review, the plans evolved such that the subdivision was reduced to six (6) residential lots. The public hearing was • continued on April 7, 2016;April 21, 2016; May 5, 2016; May 19, 2016;June 2, 2016;June 16, 2016; July 7,2016;July 21,2016;September 1,2016. At the September 1, 2016 meeting, the applicant requested a continuation and an extension to allow the Board to take final action after the 135 day time period. At the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on September 15, 2016, the Planning Board closed the public hearing and voted on the petition at the request of the petitioner. The rules and regulations governing the Subdivision of Land in Salem, Massachusetts were enacted for the purpose of protecting the safety, convenience and welfare of the inhabitants of the city and were put into effect to regulate the layout and construction of ways in subdivisions providing access to the several lots therein, but which have not become public ways, and ensuring sanitary conditions in subdivisions and in proper cases parks and open areas. The Salem Planning Board, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony,makes the following findings: 1. The definitive subdivision plans do not conform to Salem's Subdivision Regulations as waivers of the subdivision plans were requested. 2. The Salem Planning Board did not receive sufficient information to ensure safe construction of all ways and infrastructure. 14 Bertuccio Avenue Form C Subdivision September 15,2016-2 • 3. While the applicant provided information on the industry standards and general procedures of blasting, the Planning Board found that the applicant did not provide specific information requested on the unique geological features of the site. Subsoil investigations were not performed to verify the underlying soil stratums (Environmental and Community Impact Statement dated March, 2016). The Board requested additional site specific environmental and geological information and a geotechnical peer review. The Board found that subsoil investigations of the unique geological features of the site were necessary to determine whether the proposed blasting of the ledge could be done without the detriment to public safety and welfare. The petitioner also requested the following waivers: i. A waiver request from Section IV.A.l.f to allow the centerline radius of 126 feet and 134 feet respectively,which is less than the 230 feet required. u. A waiver request from Section IV.A.4.a to allow a dead end street 950 feet long, as measured from the Bertuccio Avenue and Francis Road intersection to the end of the cul-de-sac,which is longer than the 500 foot maximum. iii. A waiver request from Section IV. Right-of-Way Improvements Policy to allow: a. A plan without street trees at the entrance into the subdivision for the first 60' feet,where 3'h in. caliper trees are required 30 ft. on center. iv. A waiver request from Section IV.A.2.a to allow: • a. A sidewalk width of four (4) feet wide rather than the required five (5) foot width where there are proposed cutouts for tree locations. b. A street width of thirty-nine (39) feet at the entrance, where the existing street width of forty (40) feet is required. Chapter 41, Section 81R provides that the Planning Board may in any particular case, where such action is in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law,waive strict compliance with its rules and regulations. The Board found that the petition did not demonstrate that the approval of the requested waivers serve a better public interest than the Subdivision Control requirements. Specifically, the petitioner requested a street that is narrower than required, a dead-end road almost twice the maximum length, the elimination of street trees at the entrance into the subdivision and a sidewalk width that does not comply with ADA standards. While the petition proposed to provide benches and a seating area in the subdivision, the Board finds that this public benefit is not directly related to the impacts of the waivers requested. The Planning Board voted none (0) to approve and seven (7) (Ben Anderson (Chau), Matt Veno, Bill Griset, Noah Koretz, Helen Sides, Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton) opposed, to approve the request for an endorsement of a Form C Subdivision Plan and Stormwater Management Special Permit. The Form C Definitive Subdivision and Stormwater Management Special Pemrit are denied. • 14 Bertuccio Avenue Form C Subdivision September 15,2016-3 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 is such appeal has been file, and it has been dismissed or denied, is recording in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded 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 and plans are on file with the City Clerk and a copy is on file with the Planning Board. Sincerely, Ben J.Anderson,Chair Salem Planning Board • This notice pos!ecl my "Official Bulletin Bn; rd at ° City Hall, Salem, Mass. on p�,SuJr aT d-,(.' CITY OF SALEM a' a,� in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. PLANNING BOARD I016 AUG 25 P Z 32 €1TY gLEft , SAL M.MAss: NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board nnll be holding a Public Hearing on Thursday, September 1,2016 at 7.•00pm at CityHa/1 Annex,Room 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Ben Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 297-305 Bridge St. (Map 26,Lot 635) Applicant: City of Salem Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law • (ANR), proposing to divide a portion of one (1) lot into an unbuildable parcel. B. Location: 67 and 69-71 Hathome St. (Map 25,Lots 476 and 477) Applicant: Patrick and Janis Tobin,Jose and Altagracia Gomez Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide 192 square feet from Lot 477 creating unbuildable Parcel A, merge Parcel A with Lot 476; and divide 279 square feet from Lot 476 creating unbuildable Parcel B, merge Parcel B with Lot 477. C. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1,2,88, 19,216,218 220;and Map 14,Lot 129) Applicant: North Shore Medical Center,Inc. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and • parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for September 1,2016 Page 2 of 3 • D. Location: 14 Bertuccio Ave. (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: Nathan Jacobson Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre. E. Location: 70-92 '/2 Boston St. (Map 15,Lot 299 & Map 16,Lot 139) Applicant: 139 Grove Street Realty Trust Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units • within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. F. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buff rm Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 % Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26,Lots 73, 74,79) Applicant: Juniper Point 9 South Mason Street LLC Description: A public hearing for all persons interested in the application of JUNIPER POINT 9 SOUTH MASON STREET LLC for the property located at 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 '/2 Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26, Lots 73, 74 and 79) for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two- story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 • residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 W W W.SALEM.COM City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for September 1,2016 Page 3 of 3 • III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. July 21,2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Location: 3 Sophia Road (Map 4, Lot 25;Land Court Plan 11802-38) Applicant: 26 Walker Road LLC,3 Sophia Rd, Salem MA 01970 Description: Re-endorsement of a plan to divide one (1) lot with one existing building into two lots that the Planning Board previously endorsed does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), there are no changes to the lot lines or dimensions. This is not a new application, but rather a re- endorsement of plans that now include technical notes that were required by land court. Location: Clark Ave. Subdivision (Map 6,Lots 7, 8, and 9) Applicant: NSD Realty Trust Description: Endorsement of a Definitive Subdivision Plan that the Planning Board has previously approved. There are no changes to the number of lots or conditions required by the Planning Board Decision. This is not a new application, but rather a plan that has subsequently been reviewed and approved by the Land Court,with some minor Land Court edits, that is • now being presented to the Planning Board for signature in final form. V. ADJOURNMENT Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A f 18-25 and City Ordinance J 2-2028 through j 2-2033. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • PHoNE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 . WWW.SALEM.COM �LONUIT CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS o DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISC.OLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAx:978-740-0404 TOM DANIEL,AICP DIRECTOR REVISED STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: September 1, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — September 1, 2016 Please find the following in the September 1 dropbox file: Sept. 1, 2016 Agenda ■ 297 Bridge Street ANR ■ 67, 69-71 Hawthorne Street ANR • North Shore Medical Center • Bertuccio Subdivision ■ Flynntan Redevelopment ■ Mason Street SPR ■ July 21, 2016 Draft Minutes ■ Sophia Road Re-Endorsement ■ Clark Ave. Subdivision REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS A. 297-305 Bridge Street (Form A ANR) (Map 26, Lot 635) This item is an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval' under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide a portion one (1) lot into an unbuildable parcel. The plan can be found here. A planning board is required by the subdivision control law to endorse an ANR plan unless the plan depicts a subdivision. Pursuant to MGL c. 41, § 81L, a "subdivision" is defined as "the division of a tract of land into two or more lots." A parcel labeled as "not buildable," as Parcel B is on the proposed plans, is not considered a "lot" within the meaning of the subdivision control law. See Bloom v. Planning Bd. of Brookline. When a plan does not constitute a subdivision, a • waiver of frontage is not necessary. See Corliss v. Planning Bd. of Milton. The provisions for an endorsement that approval is not required(ANR)can be found in MGL Chapter 41,Section 81P. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—September 1, 2016 Meeting Page 2 of 5 B. 67, 69-71 Hathorne St. (Form A ANR) • (Map 25, Lots 476 and 477) This item is an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to swap land between two neighbors. Figure 1 below, yellow depicts the existing property line, blue is proposed. The swap would occur by dividing 192 square feet from Lot 477 (Gomez) creating unbuildable Parcel A, then merging Parcel A with Lot 476 (Tobin); and dividing 279 square feet from Lot 476 (Tobin) creating unbuildable Parcel B, merging Parcel B with Lot 477 (Gomez). Figure 1 01m rLAN � m NI 10, IRm, L pp 6'S10 (AOE 'cRp 5/R' RADE I.p n .5 A ( a SNFp SR9'S3'05'f 10,83'(C .ROD 3E EIC 10.10'(A) (SET) GE TOIN PARCEL 8 (3,701± S.F.) t �S 0.6'RACK (RESULTANT LOT) I§ I- GOMEZ 3,6141 S.F. (4,038± S.F.) (EXCLUDING PARCEL 6 @ <' INCLUDING PARCEL A (RESUOLTA B LOT) 41251 S.F. H (EXCLUDI!NNG PARCEL A n^ ^ INaUDc PARDEL B gii a V1 g S LR00 ° 9J0'(a) z 8 (SETT 9.0' , G G a.0 'ELI) — 3.4L w. c� COR. NNYL 'N0 R1N SNORE- 59(Iv700'W 1 3'1' I.ROO (N) 3 g90'00'E c� o $rlm$oJX NM nen '^• '^ < [ 9^m P 2 STORY W FR"E x DDWWELLLIINGE UWELUNC 7 N s Y ml o y PARCEL A a 151±S.F. ! r OR. y n 9se'a )8] N R. MIL BD. 0.] ].5' «10,10'»( ) ry 9 m O6'(0) 1 _ 1ABOUA)(NEID) 36.00' NAZI 580'CO'00'W NNL y, 6� N90G0'00'W i/3'LP00 (SET) (f'O) R.R.S (SET) 2.91' (M)) A planning board is required by the subdivision control law to endorse an ANR • plan unless the plan depicts a subdivision. Pursuant to MGL c. 41, § 81L, a Page 2 of 5 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—September 1, 2016 Meeting Page 3 of 5 "subdivision" is defined as "the division of a tract of land into two or more lots." A parcel labeled as not buildable, as Parcel B is on the proposed plans, is not considered a "lot" within the meaning of the subdivision control law. See Bloom v. Planning Bd. of Brookline. When a plan does not constitute a subdivision, a waiver of frontage is not necessary. See Corliss v. Planning Bd. of Milton. C. North Shore Medical Center(SPR, Stormwater Permit) 81 Highland Avenue; 108 Jefferson Avenue; Old Road, 1 Dove Avenue; 79 Highland Avenue; 55 Highland Avenue; And 57 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); (Map 24 Lots 1, 2, 19, 88, 216, 218, 220) A response to the traffic peer review and Planning Board concerns are here. A response to the civil peer review is here. Please note that the petitioner has requested a continuation to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, September 15. D. Bertuccio Ave. (Form C Subdivision) 14 Bertuccio Avenue (Map 24, Lot 105) The 135 day deadline for the board to take final action was extended from July 30th to September 8. 2016. The Planning Board must either 1) grant another extension request or 2) take final action at the next meeting on September 1, 2016 in order to meet the final action deadline. If not the project will be deemed approved. Jill Mann, our land use attorney contracted with the City, has provided the following general information on Subdivision Control Law decisions and Waiver Decisions here. The applicant has a revised set of plans here. The applicant has revised the number of waivers requested here. The applicant has provided a response to NECE's civil peer review letter here. The applicant has provided a response to Stantec's traffic peer review letter here. • Z Per MGL Chapter 41, Section 81(U),the failure of a planning board either to take final action or to file with the city or town clerk a certificate of such action regarding the definitive plan submitted by an applicant within 135 days after such submission,or such further time as may be agreed upon at the written request of the applicant,shall be deemed to be an approval thereof. Page 3 of 5 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —September 1, 2016 Meeting Page 4 of 5 E. Former Flynntan Site (NRCC, SPR, FHOD, Stormwater Permit) 49 70-92 % Boston St. (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) The applicant has provided a response to VHB civil/stormwater management peer review letter here. The applicant has provided amended civil site plans here. The applicant has provided amended landscape plans and site plans here. The Conservation Commission approved the subject project on August 11th with the conditions that are listed on the cover letter with the Determination of Applicability, which can be found here. Please note that the petitioner has requested a continuation to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, September 15. F. Mason Street (SPR, NRCC, FHOD) 9 South Mason St. and 3A Buffum St. Extension, 23 Mason St., 23 % Mason St., and 23R Mason St. (Map 26, Lots 73, 74 and 79) This project involves the redevelopment of and expansion of an existing two- story concreted industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of new parking landscaping throughout the parcels. A portion of the development site is located within the NRCC and the AE Flood Zone, as such necessitates a special NRCC permit and a FHOD special permit. Application Documents are hyperlinked below: • Application • Project Narrative • Environmental Impact Statement • Traffic Assessment • Architectural Plans • Civil Plans • Stormwater Management Plan APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. July 21, 2016 Page 4of5 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —September 1, 2016 Meeting Page 5 of 5 Old/New Business A. 3 Sophia Road (Form A- ANR) Map 4, Lot 25; Land Court Plan 11802-38) The Planning Board endorsed an ANR plan located at 3 Sophia Road on March 17, 2016. The subject property is registered land, thus needed to be approved by the Land Court prior to certification. Land Court has since approved the plans; however, Land Court required additional notes be added to meet their technical filing requirements. This is not a new application. As noted in the letter from Attorney Scott Grover, there have been no changes to the lot lines or dimensions. The applicant requests that you re-endorse the plans that now have the land courts notes. A comparison of the previously endorsed plans, and the plans submitted for re- endorsement are located in the dropbox file, and will be distributed at the meeting. A copy of the endorsed plan is here. A copy of the land court plan to re-endorse is here. B. Clark Ave. Subdivision • Endorsement of a Definitive Subdivision Plan that the Planning Board has previously approved. There are no changes to the number of lots or conditions required by the Planning Board Decision. This is not a new application, but rather a plan that has subsequently been reviewed and approved by the Land Court, with some minor Land Court edits, that is now being presented to the Planning Board for signature in final form. Plans are here. NEXT MEETING FYI The Peabody Essex Museum filed a Site Plan Review on August 11th, in time for the September 1 meeting. However, the applicant requested that the hearing for this item be opened on September 15th rather than September 1s`. More information regarding the project will be provided in the staff memo for your next meeting. But if you are interested reviewing the plans prior to then, they are available here. s Page 5 of 5 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet ? �o� Board V-\ o <a_; -C` Date 9 Zo\ (o Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail ec f-iaacdr Ae oro 0 2z r--(-j6-(,0 Ad V 557Z2 95 �biy-�Vcctio Aug- M(L 1 Vh`! f3i3r, - °174, 979- bf-47 QAA1Ee - r oS ,>,1 ELa 97e?- 979-00 yo b T a�t�,orX�r® c,»,CaU�tye r� ��rs�oW A/7 XYd f��37 nomr Page of R CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 101b h,UG 12 A D 28 Public Hearin Notice ei1 Y City of Salem Planning Board Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of JUNIPER POINT 9 SOUTH MASON STREET LLC for the property located at 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 'h Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26, Lots 73, 74 and 79) for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two-story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. The public hearing will be held on Thursday, September 1,2016 at 7:00 PM, in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 *Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning&Community Development, Third Floor, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Ben J. Anderson, Chair Planning Board Publication Run Dates in Salem News: 8/18/2016& 8/25/2016 This notice posted on "Official Bulleti:, Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass, on f')vSUNI- ld , 0�0)V at 10 1 13ra in accordance with MG _. Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Know Your Rights under the Open Meeting law M.G.L. c. 30A J 18-25 and City Ordinance g 2-2028 through 2-2033. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 - WWW.SALEM.COM Meeting Minutes—Sept.1,2016 Page 1 of 9 City of Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes Thursday, Sept. 1,2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313, Salem,Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opens the meeting at 7:05 pm. I. ROLL CALL Those present were:Carole Hamilton,Dale Yale,Helen Sides,Matt Veno,Noah Koretz,Ben Hamilton Absent:Tony Mataragas,Kirt Rieder,Bill Griset Also in attendance:Erin Schaeffer,Staff Planner,and Stacy Kilb,recorder II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 297-305 Bridge St. (Map 26, Lot 635) Applicant: City of Salem Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR),proposing to divide a portion of one (1) lot into an unbuildable parcel. • Noah Koretz recuses himself. Tom Devine Senior Planner for the City of Salem Department of Planning and Community Development presents the application. Mr. Devine outlines that one area of the lot will be divided into an unbuildable parcel in order to allow an abutter who has been informally using it to access his property for turnaround, to have a chance to purchase it via public auction to formalize its use. Carole Hamilton asks about encroachment on city property by chain fink fence. Mr. Devine explains that it depends on the future use of property. Matt Veno asks if there is a curb cut/access or changes to the portion of lot that encroaches onto the city owned parcel. Mr. Devine identifies that access area,and notes that the informal curb cut will stay in place. No public comment as this is not a public hearing. Motion to endorse the application by Matt Veno, seconded by Dale Yale and carnes mitb Chair Ben Anderson, Matt Vena Helen Sides, Yale, Carole Hamilton all in favor. B. Location: 67 and 69-71 Hathorne St. (Map 25, Lots 476 and 477) Applicant: Patrick and Janis Tobin,Jose and Altagracia Gomez Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide 192 square feet from Lot 477 creating unbuildable Parcel A, merge Parcel A with Lot 476; and divide 279 square feet from Lot 476 creating unbuildable Parcel B, merge Parcel B with Lot 477. • The applicant is not present at this time. Board has reviewed the plans and Chair Anderson entertains questions, Ms. Sides asks if this was one of the houses that was in a fire, but it is not. Erin Schaeffer explains that the petitioner is looking to do a land swap or equal amounts. This cannot be held until the next meeting Meeting Minutes—Sept.1, 2016 Page 2 of 9 due to protocol of an "approval not required" vs. subdivision. No extension has been requested but would prefer to hear a presentation. Chair Anderson comments that he is confident that this is not a subdivision. Motion to endorse the application by Helen Sides, seconded by Dale Yale, and carries with 5 in favor (Dale Yale. Ben Anderson, Noah KoretZHelen Sides, Carole Hamilton. and 1 opposed [Matt Veno,), C. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1, 2, 88, 19, 216, 218 220; and Map 14, Lot 129) Applicant: North Shore Medical Center, Inc. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. The applicant has requested a continuation to the Sept. 15 meeting. Motion to continue to the Suit. 15, 2016 meeting is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Dale Yale, and passes unanimously 6.0. Boll call vote. D. Location: 14 Bertuccio Ave. (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: Nathan Jacobson Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre. Clifford Goodman,Eric Jacobson,Robyn Jiannopolo submitted public comment for record' Eric Jacobson presents. The project engineer submitted plans addressing comments. The applicant would like extension to Sept. 15 meeting to allow them to address concerns. Mr. Jacobson submitted a letter from his attorney stating waivers sought and how they are safe and access for road meets code; he was not sure if that was made clear so letter submitted. Mr. Veno asks if the petitioner has considered or reconsidered their decision not to proceed with a board- found peer reviewer for blasting. Mr.Jacobson feels that the engineer he supplied was highly credible,more so than the one the Board was recommending. He feels that his blast specs were accurate and does not feel additional peer review is necessary. Chair Anderson comments he has followed project from beginning, it has changed substantially; in general concerns of peer reviewers have been addressed. Though physically tight, it meets the requirements. In general he supports the waivers presented EXCEPT FOR: 1) must define where street lights are, and 2) geotechnical peer review. Chair Anderson reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and* subdivision regulations in detail. He feels EIS is incomplete thus he cannot make judgement to support project without another opinion on safety as he feels additional information is necessary to make a Meeting Minutes—Sept.l, 2016 Page 3 of 9 determination on whether the project complies with the subdivision regulations. Unusual geologic conditions and safety are mentioned in the subdivision regulations and both can be alleviated if another opinion is sought. He agrees with suggestion for continuance. He cannot speak for other Board members but that is how he feels. Mr.Jacobson comments that if Board says they need the peer review to make a sound decision, he will move in that direction, but if they do and it creates a bigger headache, what will be reviewed? The peer reviewer's estimate said he would be working with applicant and he did not understand that. Chair Anderson replies that the City, the Board and applicant all need clarification. Matt Veno comments that whether hiring that expert gets them closer to approval or not will depend on their findings. Redundancy is the point of peer review. If the peer reviewer does not agree, then concerns will be identified. Applicant feels there has been no clear progress in the conversation. Developer had meeting with neighbors, claims they said they were given the wrong facts from the beginning. Chair Anderson states that process — board members evaluate project on a meeting by meeting basis, and they may not formulate opinions until close to the end of the process, so as a Board, must ensure safety of the public so it does take time. It is not something that would occur in just a couple meetings as there is a dense project in a dense neighborhood. Mr.Jacobson reiterates that he believes an additional peer review will confirm what his engineer has said. He does not understand what is included in the peer review. Chair Anderson suggested that Mr.Jacobson contact Erin Schaeffer to further discuss. Chair Anderson opens to the Board. Helen Sides agrees with Chair Anderson; we count on and need those peer reviews; it is an important piece for the Board to know the project has been evaluated by experts. Noah Koretz also agrees; if the peer review goes well, redundancy is the best outcome, the point is that we get a check on the issues that are concerning the Board. He and Ms. Hamilton feel that it has been made abundantly clear that a peer review is necessary. Chair opens to public comment but states that comments should be limited to new items, not a rehash of those that have come up in the past. Please hold repeat comments for a potential continuance or another meeting. Clifford Goodman, 22 Bertuccio Ave, is still concerned about drainage but now, from an ex-resident, a geologist, the Mayor and Amanda were sent an email, what was originally described as granite base of ledge was gabro diorite, more porous and susceptible to fissures. He would like to see peer review as well, says Board should mandate it for safety,Board should view the email. Ken Wilson, 18 Bertuccio Ave, has seen that email but no credentials of that geologist. Peter Lupo 24 Bertuccio Ave. Mr.Jacobson said neighbors were confused by Board; they were not confused; neighbors are NOT agreeing with this project, they do not feel misinformed. Mr. Jacobson states that 32 Bertuccio Ave were present, treated them poorly at first, then they expressed what they wanted to see and found a happy medium. He offers to sit with neighbors again,is willing to work with them. Steve Szpak, 27 Bertuccio Ave, said was on vacation when meeting took place, otherwise he would have been . there. A continuance and a project extension to September 15th are requested by the petitioner. Carole Hamilton comments that the request would require the Board to have a decision on the 15ffi or an extension request Meeting Minutes—Sept.1,2016 Page 4 of 9 which puts them into a corner because they would need to write the decision at the meeting, and the information needed to act will not be available for the 15`h.As such, she suggests that the extension request be substantially taking out of September and way into October. Logistics and protocol are discussed. They will not be under geotechnical peer review contract in the next 2 weeks. Continuation of Board's time to act, can't draft and decide at a meeting, not fair to Board explains Carole Hamilton. Ms. Hamilton suggests that the project be extended to Oct. 30th (the next meeting is October 20`h, but the city will need time to file any decision made that date. The Board does not know if Oct. 30 is enough time for peer reviewer to do review. If more time is needed,the petitioner may request and additional extension. Matt Veno comments that he still has serious concerns with this project as expressed in prior meetings; it is not up to him to make a decision regarding permitting. There are laws and statutes that are applied to materials presented and Board feelings about a project can lead them in a different direction. He does not have predisposition. Even if he did think it was a lousy project (he is not saying he thinks it is lousy) he would have vote in favor if the petitioner demonstrates that the project is in compliant with the statute. It is Board's job to do the analysis. A motion to continue the public bearing to Sett. 15 2016 is made by Carole Hamilton, seconded by Dale Yale and basses unanimously 6-0. Roll call vote. A motion to extend the Planning Boards deadb'ne to make a decision to Oct. 30 is made by Carole Hamilton and seconded b• Dale Yale and-basses unanimously 6-0. Roll call vote. E. Location: 70-92 '/2 Boston St. (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) Applicant: 139 Grove Street Realty Trust Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. The applicant requests to continue to the next meeting on Sept. 15,2016. A motion to continue the trviect to S lember 15. 2016 is made by Noab Koret� seconded by Helen Sides and basses unanimously 6-0. Roll call vote F. Location: 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 '/2 Mason Street and 23R Mason Street) (Map 26, Lots 73,74, 79) Applicant: Juniper Point 9 South Mason Street LLC Description: A public hearing for all persons interested in the application of JUNIPER POINT 9. SOUTH MASON STREET LLC for the property located at 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Extension; and 23 Mason Street (also including 23 '/2 Mason Street and 23R Meeting Minutes—Sept.1,2016 Page 5 of 9 • Mason Street) (Map 26, Lots 73, 74 and 79) for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment and expansion of the existing two-story concrete industrial building at 9 South Mason Street, expansion of the three-story residential building at 3A Buffum Street Extension; and construction of two new townhouse style buildings along with parking and landscaping throughout the site. The project when completed will total 29 residential units in four buildings with all associated parking on site. Here for the applicant is Mr.Joseph Correnti, Attorney, of 63 Federal St. Also present are Bob Griffin, Site and Civil Engineer. The project is located in the NRCC so it will go before DRB, architecture and the traffic analysis will be presented at a future meeting. Giles Hamm (not present) is traffic consultant. The project consists of 3 parcels,4 buildings,29 units and 2 zoning units in Flood Hazard Overlay District. There is an existing building on the site, and a 3 story residential building, those 2 buildings will be rehabbed and contain units,and two new buildings will be constructed. Powerpoint Presentation highlights: • Site location (map view) • Project Site (satellite views,will be a subdivision) • Proposed building footprints and layout, 55 parking spaces for 29 units; addition of green space. Units will be sold as condominiums.All parking for project is onsite • Neighborhood Context View • Current view and artist's rendering • Building#1 Front Elevation • Building#1 Current Condition,Architect preliminary rendering • Existing residential building and proposed architect preliminary rendering (3A Buffum St.) • Proposed building on corner of lot The petitioner has had several conversations with Councillor Gerard, Ward 6. There have been 2 neighborhood meetings, one with the Mac Park Neighborhood Association and a neighborhood meeting for immediate abutters at the Salvation Army hall which is adjacent to the site and hosted by Councillor Gerard. This is an industrial use both historically and presently, so they feel the project will be an improvement. It is a transit oriented development project with an easy walk to the train and downtown Salem. Bob Griffin presents civil engineering aspects of the site: • 1874 Atlas Map • 1906-1938 Atlas Map. o Chapter 91 is applicable to this project and will affect the design. The lower half of the site is within Chapter 91 jurisdiction so work will be done in phases. Clip. 91 requires public access to waterways, but there is no waterway on property. There is over 100 feet from the canal and the site is land locked. Proposed use is non-water-dependent so no issues are expected. Meeting Minutes—Sept.1,2016 Page 6 of 9 o Zoning lines are shown as NRCC and industrial zoning. Residential uses are in the industrial zone and industrial uses are in the NRCC zone, so the petitioner will be bringing the project to the Zoning Board. o In total the parcel will be about 1.3 acres in size o Previous uses are described; underground storage tanks have been removed and remediation has been done; heavy metals have been found onsite (ash and arsenic). An LSP has been contracted to remove existing contamination; not done yet but nearing completion. • Proposed layout; 34%greenspace,41% pavement,25% building on site. • Parking thresholds for units in the NRCC zone is 2 spaces per unit; the 3A Buffum Street property is industrial which requires 1.5 spaces per unit. It adds up to 55 spaces, the plans meet the requirement. • Snow storage is described. Test pits confirmed Ch. 91 line of fill soils, so designed... • Drainage plan. Infiltration fields are outlined, as is treatment of runoff from parking lots. All standards are being met; currently there is no storm water control on the property • Fire Truck path;sprinklers and a hydrant will be installed • Existing Flood Zone Elevation 10; must go before Conservation Commission due to riverfront area and in flood zone. Must make sure no fill that occupies flood storage is placed is only requirement. More flood storage will be provided compared to today,via crawl spaces and flood openings in buildings. Compensatory flood storage requirements are being met • Sewer&Water Plan Chair Anderson asks if storm drains flow into Canal; they eventually do. Chair Anderson opens to public. . Paul and Kathy Brown of 21 Mason St. ask if the only access to this development is the short end of Buffum St.? That is correct; Buffum St. extension. Mr. Brown is concerned that Buffum St. ext is narrow, gets even worse in winter. He would also be more comfortable with it if access could also be from Mason Street down through the finger with two buildings. Attorney Correnti says that only curb cut will be on Buffum St. extension but South Mason St. and Water St. will also lead to the development, and traffic analysis will be presented in the future. Two buildings on the narrow finger; they are existing multifamily dwellings; they will retain them but would need to demolish to use that finger for access to the site, so they will be kept as residential. Joan O'Connor Mason & South Buffum, agrees that Buffum St. extension is too narrow, opines that people have to move out of the way if a fire truck comes by.Water St. is also narrow does not have sidewalk. Sheila of 9 Mason St. also describes the area. Emily Udi, on behalf of Historic Salem; "Yay!" This is the first NRCC project that fits the NRCC and she could not be more thrilled, regarding retention of historic buildings, density. Commends developer,comments on Historic Salem thinks that details in the design could be more celebrated. Ms. Udi also lives at 8 Buffum St. so 2"d comment is as a neighbor, spoke to Mark, she does not speak for him but feels there could be pedestrian access from Buffum St. to Commercial Street. Ms. Udi believes Leslie's retreat park was meant to be a Chapter 91 amenity, but is not accessible from North Salem. Pedestrian access would be very much used by neighbors and commuters to and from North Salem. Brad Chandler 8 Barstow St. agrees with Emily Udi, also comments on need for improvement on pedestrian • access. Will be discussed during traffic planning? Also plans should take into account alternative ways of planning traffic,e.g. access to commercial St. , also potentially using one-ways on Water St. and Buffum Ext. Meeting Minutes—Sept.1, 2016 Page 7 of 9 Bart Hoskins, 22 Larchmont Rd. here as part owner of All Creatures Veterinary Hospital, comments on that facility. All Creatures is adjacent, back side faces existing concrete building, dog run along fence line, comments that development should be sensitive to the fact that there may be dogs out there, doesn't want to hear from residents that that needs to stop. Encourages a good vegetation screen to shield dogs from people and vice versa. Also regarding public access, the NRCC plan had hopeful plans for access points to Commercial St. as it is a long walk around. Historically between All Creatures and the Bioengineering building, there was an open walkway, it was not encouraged or discouraged, when he and his wife opened the animal hospital, her builder said homeless people lived around HVAC, so they fenced it off to limit access, got vandalized. So sensitive for need for access, supportive of plan overall, but tricky b/c if they grant easement or make it official, could give up property value if they want to sell. Amenable to having a close-able gate they can determine when it is closed and open. Also worried about dumpsters, but those were on an older plan. Also a 21E question: refinanced on animal hospital, assessment that prior owners regarding contamination, would like LSP judgement that low level was there,DEP saw a missing piece,kept it from being closed. Mike Becker 38 Buffum St. loves the plan, is a vast improvement, buildings in keeping with style and architecture, echoes Emily Udi. Bob Griffin addresses 21 E issues: goal is to have property transferred to residential use with no AUL. The LSP works for property owner, not developer, but will be resolved soon. Have also heard request for access soon, but the property does not have access to Commercial St. so it will require partnering up with cooperative property owners. Carole Hamilton asks about the parcel to be subdivided- will they be able to provide off street parking once there is a curb cut?Mr. Griffin responds,yes will be able to work it in. Noah Koretz asks if this is the same developer who built town houses on South Mason St. Attorney Correnti responds no, they are different. Juniper Point is doing wonderful renovations along Bridge St. (across from coffee time). Mr. Koretz says it is a really cool development site, kudos for taking on the complexity, encourages them to think more creatively about it in terms of how they reuse the industrial building and how other elements play off it. Use the industrial piece in the middle is a transition, use it as a selling point and make it feel like it fits in with the stuff to the north and south. There is an opportunity to do something interesting and special. What is proposed is taking away what's interesting about that building. Examples are Maxwell Green in Somerville, Fountainhead properties in Manchester, Richmond, VA. these play off what used to be there but make it modern as well. Helen Sides chimes in with an example of the trolley building off of Webb St. using industrial building for residential. Koretz comments that that sells now. Mr. Brown asks about 2 existing properties; they are rentals. Will be converted to condos? Yes, they will probably sell the two-amily on Mason St., developers will move to single family on back to be onsite. Mr. Brown is glad something is being done there,and thinks this is a classy project. Bart Hoskins notes that developer has been in touch with his wife,whose vet hospital it is, so there is ongoing discussion regarding access. Also mentions that he is on the Conservation Commission, so restricted his comments. • Motion to continue to Seat. 15 is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Carole Hamilton motion carries aitb Cbair Anderson, Matt Veno,Noab Koret.-, Helen Sides, Dale Yale. and Carole Hamilton all in favor. Meeting Minutes—Sept.1,2016 Page 8 of 9 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES is A. July 21, 2016 A motion to 4Prove the minutes is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Dale Yale andAasses unanimously.All are in favor. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Location: 3 Sophia Road (Map 4, Lot 25; Land Court Plan 11802-38) Applicant: 26 Walker Road LLC,3 Sophia Rd, Salem MA 01970 Description: Re-endorsement of a plan to divide one (1) lot with one existing building into two lots that the Planning Board previously endorsed does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), there are no changes to the lot lines or dimensions. This is not a new application, but rather a re-endorsement of plans that now include technical notes that were required by land court. Letter received from Scott Grover; there are no changes to plans. Land court had technical notes added to the plans. Motion to re-endorsement of Nan is made by Noah Korztg, seconded by Helen Sides. Motion carries with Ben Anderson, Matt Veno, Noah KoretZ Helen Sides, Dale Yale. and Carole Hamilton all in favor. Location: Clark Ave. Subdivision (Map 6, Lots 7, 8, and 9) Applicant: NSD Realty Trust Description: Endorsement of a Definitive Subdivision Plan that the Planning Board has previously approved. There are no changes to the number of lots or conditions required by the Planning Board Decision. This is not a new application, but rather a plan that has subsequently been reviewed and approved by the Land Court, with some minor Land Court edits, that is now being presented to the Planning Board for signature in final form. This item is heard out of order, after item B. Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. represents the applicant. He describes the project some changes to the roadway as approved are being made. Rich Williams, project Engineer,is also present. Mr. Williams outlines the changes made by the land court; changes were made to bearings and distances on the perimeter. Some minor lot frontages were affected,but not enough to mention. A motion to endorse the ANR is made by Matt Veno, seconded by Carole Hamilton, and carries all in favor 6-0 via mil call vote. V. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn is made by Dale Yale, seconded by Carole Hamilton and carries all in favor 6-0. The meeting ends at 9:02PM. 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: httu://,,vww.salem.com/planiung-board/webforms/planning- • board-2016-decisions Meeting Minutes—Sept.1, 2016 Page 9 of 9 Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb,Substitute Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 10/20/2016 Knomyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c 30A f 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 through 5 2-2033. • • � = CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 20Ib JUL I U P 2 5' NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLE You are hemby nmified dmt the Salem Plammig Board will be hddinga Public Hearing on Thursday,July 21, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington SL, Salem MA BenAruler m Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 18 Thorndike Street(Map 37,Lot 38) Applicant: DeIulis Brothers Construction Co., Inc. Description: Review and vote on the request to release Lot 5 from the Thorndike Street Subdivision Covenant to Secure the Construction of Ways and Installation of Municipal Services. • B. Location: 14 Bertuccio Ave. (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: Nathan Jacobson Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre. C. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1,2, 88, 19, 216, 218 220;and Map 14,Lot 129) Applicant: North Shore Medical Center, Inc. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility • infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for July 21, 2016 Page 2 of 2 • D. Location: 14 and 16 Almeda St. (Map 14,Lot 116 and Map 14, Lot 117) Applicant: Town and Country Homes, Inc. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. E. Location: 70-921/2Boston St. (Map 15,Lot 299 &Map 16,Lot 139) Applicant: 139 Grove Street Realty Trust Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • A. July 7,2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Location: 40 Circle Hill Drive (Map 9,Lot 255; Land Court Plan 856-J, Lots 56, 57, 59 and 60) Applicant: Bartlett& Steadman Development Corp. Description: Update on the status of construction of the Circle HE Subdivision. V. ADJOURNMENT Knowyour rights under the OpenM"LawM.GL. c 30A § 18-25 and City Or&wnx§ 2-2028 97tuo§ 2-2033. This net a posted on "Off, 'al B UetjnrBoarrd" , City w Salem, Mass. on ►f (j( 4 �,'S1 at in accordancdWIR GL Chap. 30A, • Sections 1 28. X 20 WASI..N( :0N SIT„1;7, SALE,.]. MASSMM:S-- J9 0.1910 • PHONE '918.610.%M FAX 979 !10.OJIN NDI pp9�ls • "i �� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �MINL� KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-74o-0404 STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: July 14, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting —July 21, 2016 Please find the following in the dropbox file: ■ Agenda for July 21, 2016, Regular Meeting ■ Planner's Memo Regular Agenda Items - Thorndike - Bertuccio Subdivision - North Shore Medical Center - Almeda - Flynntan Redevelopment - July 7, 2016 Draft Minutes Old/New Business - Circle Hill Update REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS A. 18 Thorndike St. (Form C Subdivision) (Map 37, Lot 38) Review and vote on the request to release Lot 5 from the Thorndike Street Subdivision Covenant to Secure the Construction of Ways and Installation of Municipal Services. B. Bertuccio Ave. (Form C Subdivision) 14 Bertuccio Avenue (Map 24, Lot 105) The Planning Board must take final action at this upcoming meeting on July 21St meeting in order to meet the current July 30th action deadline, or extend the 135 day deadline. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —July 21, 2016 Meeting Page 2 of 3 New public comments can be found here. The civil peer reviewer, Bill Ross of NECE is currently reviewing the Updated Stormwater Report. A review letter from the peer reviewer will be distributed to the board upon receipt. I have requested proposals for a Geotechnical engineer to peer review the feasibility and effects of blasting; we do not have a peer reviewer under contract yet. 15 North Shore Medical Center (SPR, Stormwater Permit) 81 Highland Avenue; 108 Jefferson Avenue; Old Road; 1 Dove Avenue; 79 Highland Avenue; 55 Highland Avenue; And 57 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); (Map 24 Lots 1, 2, 19, 88, 216, 218, 220) Please find updated project materials hyperlinked below: 1 Project Narrative 7/14/2016 Revised Plans 7/14/2016 Civil Peer Review Letter Dated 6/28/2016 - Applicant's Response to Civil Peer Review Comments 7/14/2016 • - Stormwater Updates 7/14/2016 - Environmental Impact Statement 7/14/2016 Traffic Peer Review Letter Dated 6/15/2016 - Applicant's Response to Traffic Peer Review Comments 7/14/2016 16 Almeda St. (Form C Subdivision) 14 and 16 Almeda St. (Map 14, Lot 116 and Map 14, Lot 117) A draft decision for the project can be found here. 17 Former Flynntan Site (NRCC, SPR, FHOD, Stormwater Permit) 70-92% Boston St. (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) DRB recommendation can be found here. Please find updated project materials hyperlinked below: Civil Peer Review Letter Dated 6/2/2016 Traffic Peer Review Letter Dated 6/9/2016 APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. July 7, 2016 10 Page 2 of 3 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —July 21, 2016 Meeting Page 3 of 3 Old/New Business A. Update on Circle Hill (Form C Subdivision) 40 Circle Hill Drive (Map 9, Lot 255; Land Court Plan 856-J, Lots 56, 57, 59 and 60) This item was on the July 7th Planning Board meeting agenda, at that time the applicant was asked to submit an extension request and provide the Planning Board an update on the status of construction. According to the applicant, the remaining items left to complete the road are as follows: 1. Installation of approx. 100 feet of sloped curb and sidewalk. 2. Installation of approx. 150 feet of wooded guard rail. 3. Finish course of asphalt on roadway. The applicant expects to complete road, curb and sidewalk projects this fall. At the July 7th Planning Board meeting this item was continued for two reasons; 1) the Board would like to know the outcome of the order of conditions which will be heard by the Conservation Commission tonight July 14th; and 2) the board would like to pursue adding a condition to the extension that requires the contractor to submit a surety bond prior to any additional work occurring. However, the applicant withdrew the extension request, as it is not needed pursuant to the amended permit extension act: The original subdivision/flood hazard Special Permit was filed 12-1-2009 and the extended to 12-1-2013. Per the amended permit extension act Section 173 of Chapter 240 of the Acts of 2010 and extended by Sections 74 and 75 of Chapter 238 of the Acts of 2012, any permit existing during the "qualifying period" (8-15- 2008 to 8-15-12) automatically extends for four years beyond the otherwise applicable expiration date, which in this case will be 112112-12017 Page 3 of 3 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board ��A�nl►�� Date Name Mailing Address Phlone�y# Email Qu�u�r� ,Ylianlolu 12a wu�ni�� S-4 q Ig•�I-I.S05 cQChianiolG���WI • Co -ynI cA . 8�l38� tt!3o7 AAA?Solve! h-A .(oM =� t.��r ' � a 2 r i a �� � ' 9 76 -s��l 'Sa56 qnQ/1S �' �al,"� ' `�v1 lZ 7,9 S2i -, eV OP wW0.Y' (Pi 62 W 1ltSotn St Cbl a� yen izoln ./tsi m �2f pub„/ern Wa R1�/l� 0 L-Ys7/o CLrLMEI d(0000. Page of Meeting Minutes—July 21, 2016 Page 1 of 10 • City of Salem Planning Board Approved Meeting Minutes Thursday,July 21,2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,July 21,2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313, Salem,Massachusetts. Vice Chair Matt Veno opens the meeting at 7:01 pm. I. ROLL CALL Those present were Noah Koretz,Bill Griset (arriving late),Vice Chair Matt Veno,Dale Yale and Helen Sides,Kirt Rieder,Carole Hamilton Absent. Chair,Ben Anderson,Tony Mataragas Also present. Amanda Chiancola,Staff Planner,and Stacy Kilb,Planning Board Recording Clerk. II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 18 Thorndike Street (Map 37, Lot 38) Applicant: DeIulis Brothers Construction Co., Inc. Description: Review and vote on the request to release Lot 5 from the Thorndike Street Subdivision Covenant to Secure the Construction of Ways and Installation of Municipal Services. Here for the applicant is Patrick DeIulis for Pasquanna Developers, Inc. Mr. DeIulis describes the subdivision and the progress. All municipal betterments were associated with lots 1-4 and are described. They have been completed. A cash security is still being held, and no improvements other than the homes and utilities are associated with lot 5. An as-built of installation of utilities is the only item left, but cannot be completed until the house on Lot 5 is built. Mr. DeIulis would like a release and the cash security will stay on deposit until all work is computed. A motion to approve the reguest to release Lot 5 is made by Helen Sides seconded by Dale Yale, and carnes in a roll call vote with 6 O att Veno.Noah Koret� Carole Hamilton, Kiri Rieder, Dale Yale. and Helen Sides)in favor and none( goosed. B. Location: 14 Bertuccio Ave. (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: Nathan Jacobson Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre. Voting eligibility is discussed as several Board members have missed meetings at which this project was an agenda item. Vice Chair Veno opens the item. At a previous meeting, it was decided that the City of Salem would hire its . own geotechnical engineer for peer review; it was felt that, though the applicant could recommend one, it could represent a conflict of interest. Nonetheless, the applicant, Nathan Jacobson,introduces the engineer he has hired to review the blasting portion of the project,Mr. Kanayo Lala. Carole Hamilton asks for clarification and Mr.Jacobson states that he is not accepting the City's peer review (which would have been at his expense) Meeting Minutes—July 21, 2016 Page 2 of 10 since, after today,a total four experts will have spoken on this matter. Kirt Rieder asks about the protocol and the difference between this Board recommending vs. requesting a geotechnical peer review,and what progress was made on the City's attempt to hire a geotechnical engineer for that purpose. Amanda Chiancola was not aware before this point that the applicant was not going to accept the City's peer review,but that is his choice. Mr.Jacobson outlines current progress; a peer review letter regarding storm water management was received; there are eight outstanding issues which he says will be resolved. In this presentation he will also show some ideas for developing an open space at the top of the cul.-de-sac, which will benefit the community. He is also planning to hold an open, public meeting where neighbors can attend as a group, rather than meeting with him one on one. Bill Griset arrives at 7:25PM. Mr. Lala describes the site and the ledge. He outlines his background and qualifications, as well as previous projects he has consulted on that involved similar situations. He outlines the blasting plan on the site plans and describes elevations as well as the blasting procedure.The blasting on this project will create vibrations far below those allowed by Mass Highway standards; it will be one quarter of what is allowed. Vice Chair Matt Veno asks if the Mass Highway standards account for nearby structures and Mr. Lalo states that they do. Additionally, the homes in question are further away than on previous projects he has worked on. Vice Chair Matt Veno speaks for himself but opines that the primary concern of the Board was maintaining the stability of the cliff and the impact of nearby blasting. Mr. Lalo again outlines the distances of the cliff from the blast sites and measures taken to avoid damage. A trial blast will be done before work begins in earnest, and adjustments can be made. He, as the engineer, would work with the blaster. Vice Chair Veno comments that part of the Board's selection process of a peer reviewer is to understand his or her training and credentials, and would like to know if Mr. Lalo's training was specific to blasting. Mr. Lalo describes his education, which he describes as very thorough, in India. He claims to have built very large homes up to 30,000 square feet. Kirt Rieder comments that the Board is not in a position to evaluate Mr. Lalo's credentials and experience. Mr. Lalo states that there are only three geotechnical engineers in the state that are licensed as such, and that every structural engineer is a geotechnical engineer by definition. He has received training regarding blasting within his engineering training, and has supervised blasting but never performed it himself. Vice Chair Matt Veno asks if Mr. Lalo conducted a specific inspection of the cliff face,or if he viewed it from afar. He feels that this expert is not credible as this analysis has not been done, and he has not heard specific credentials regarding blasting, nor learned anything new. The purpose of the Board specifically hiring a geotechnical engineer for peer review is to understand the stability of the ledge and how it will be impacted by blasting. Mr. Jacobson wonders why this issue of peer review is only coming up at this point, despite discussion in previous meetings. Discussion about timing ensues. Helen Sides asks for clarification about the locations of blasting, there are only two places, and blasting is only required if the ledge is more than 2' deep. Half the cul-de-sac requires blasting. • Mr. Jacobson speaks to Ben Anderson's comment on how to benefit the community. He shows renderings that illustrate a seating area overlooking the City. Mr. Jacobson disagrees with the concept of a park since Meeting Minutes—July 21, 2016 Page 3 of 10 neighbors do not want additional traffic. Thus, he is proposing places to sit on private land but the public will have access. Benches and potentially a lookout area with plantings could be installed at the closest place of the cul-de-sac to cliff; there are some options as there will be an easement for neighbors to access the cliff. He reassures the Board that anyone at this lookout will not be able to see into the yards below. There will be a fence and the homeowner's association can be responsible for maintenance, and he can require that nothing be planted to obstruct the view. It will be handicapped accessible. Kirt Rieder comments about a discrepancy between the number of trees on the plans vs. the ones shown in the renderings; Mr.Jacobson did not expect each tree to literally be counted, but Kirt Rieder replies that that is the job of this Board. Vice Chair Matt Veno comments that Chair Ben Anderson had originally raised the suggestion of benches but is not here to give feedback;he himself does not feel strongly either way. Helen Sides says that Chris Burke of the Parks and Recreation Commission originally brought up the possibility of a lookout,and she appreciates attempt to implement that idea. Vice Chair Matt Veno is concerned about the proximity of the lookout to the ledge, though he understands there will be a fence. He is also still concerned about the visibility of the yards below from the lookout. The applicant replies that the location shown is the best one, though another could be chosen. Arborvitae would provide visual barriers to the homes below without obstructing the view. Mr.Jacobson wonders if people will come at night to throw things off the ledge, and how they can balance the risks with the needs of the community. Vice Chair Veno is interested to hear about the outcome of the conversation with neighbors once it occurs. Vice Chair Veno opens to the public for comments. Bob Dube of 18 Francis Rd. states that the engineer did not go to the base of the cliff, and he is still concerned by how loose and cracked the rocks are. Robyn Giannopolo of 15 Bertuccio Ave. is concerned about the lack of objective peer review on this project, and that it is being done for profit with no concern for residents. Linda Wilson of 18 Bertuccio Ave.,whose parents own 14 Bermccio Ave. and are the ones who sold the land, feels that not everyone is making money, and she is unsure what the Board desires regarding a geotechnical engineer. She feels that they would just like to be"done." She reiterates that this is private property. Scott Maglaughlin of 14 Francis Rd. agrees with Bob Dube regarding the rocks. He is also concerned about the impact of water movement from a vernal pond at the top of the area. Steven Szpak of 27 Bertuccio Ave. agrees that the developer has the right to develop in accordance with the City's current rules. However, they are requesting a waiver. He wonders why rules are in place if they will be waived without a compelling reason. Kara Meindel of 14 Hodges Court will be moving to 32 Bertuccio Ave. and is concerned about getting insurance on interior belongings,etc. that could be damaged due to the blasting. Chris Shane of 28 Calabrese St. also feels that, while it is within the owner's rights to sell the land, he is . concerned about the project itself. He feels that the developer is under agreement and wants their money's worth. He wonders about the market value of the property and if there is another way that can be realized. Vice Chair Veno says that that discussion would be more appropriately had with developer, and is not under the purview of this Board. Meeting Minutes—July 21, 2016 Page 4 of 10 Peter Lupo of 24 Bertuccio Ave. questions the distances of the blasting, which can be reviewed by Mr. • Jacobson at the upcoming public meeting. Mr. Lupo would rather see Salem Woods acquire the property. Mr. Jacobson describes the blasting and the inspections that will occur before, during and after it. Proper compensation can be made for any items damaged. Vice Chair Matt Veno notes that the board has received public comment from Kelly Porter, Robyn Giannopolo and Clifford Goodman. As this-pM ect's current deadline isTuu,1130 D, a motion to extend the deadline for final action to Sept. 8, 2016 is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Noah Koret;, and Passes 5-0 with Kirt Rieder abstaining. A motion to continue to the 4 t. 1. 2016 meeting is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Bill Griset, and Passes 5-0 with Kiri Rieder abstain% C. 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave;79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1,2, 88, 19,216,218 220; and Map 14, Lot 129) Applicant: North Shore Medical Center, Inc. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review,in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking• modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. Here for the applicant are: Kristen Kolick, attorney, of 73 Federal Street, who will respond to the civil engineer's comments and will present regarding the fagade,etc. Justin Mosca of 101 Walnut St.,Watertown,will address civil design addressing comments. Bill Ross for peer review is also present. Steve Diderian and a landscape architect are also present. Justin Mosca presents the following PowerPoint slides: • Overall site plan • Site Layout Changes—ED Entrance • Site Layout Changes—Dove Ave (one fewer parking space due to increased turn radius) • Site Layout Changes—Walkway to Highland Hall • Civil Peer Review (New England Civil Engineering Corp). Comments have been addressed to the satisfaction of the peer reviewer and City Engineer. There are several requested conditional approval items outlined,including: o Drainage alteration permit o Soil test pits at proposed infiltration o Sanitary sewer mitigation at existing syphon. Flow is not increasing. Bill Ross, Peer Reviewer, states that the 25 comments were spread across many different aspects of the plans, and he concurs with them being addressed. Two additional questions were resolved as well. While there were Meeting Minutes—July 21, 2016 Page 5 of 10 0 also questions about a detention pond, no agreement on what or who will pay for it was reached, but discussions continue,so he will report back at the next meeting. Vice Chair Veno asks about the location of the syphon and Mr. Ross points it out on the map from the June 22 letter. Mr. Mosca states that mostly refinement is required on the civil engineering end. Steve Diderian,landscape architect with VHB,outlines: • Overall Site Plan • Highland Avenue—Existing Conditions • Highland Avenue—Proposed Improvements • Highland Avenue—Axelrod Entrance • Highland Avenue—Lot A Frontage • Highland Avenue—Lower (ED) Entrance • Jefferson Avenue—Existing Conditions • Jefferson Avenue—Dove Avenue Intersection • Jefferson Avenue—Employee Parking • Representative Campus Planting—Dove Ave. • Representative Planting—Macomber/Phippen Angela Watson from Sheppley Bullfinch at 2 Seaport Lane Boston shows renderings of the following viewpoints: • Ambulance Bay—Day View • Ambulance Bay—Night View • Main Lobby—From Highland Avenue • Main Lobby—Day View • Main Lobby—Night View Noah Koretz is concerned about pedestrians cutting across the driveway to get to the entrance,but Ms. Watson cites the placement of the door and Mr. Mosca cites topography that will guide pedestrians toward the door. There can be uplighting installed on the walkway;there are lights proposed but it is unclear what type. Helen Sides urges Shelley Bisegna to consider upgrading the parking lot on the opposite side of the road, but it is leased and there is not much room for planning. Kirt Rieder appreciates the renderings and comments on the relationship between wayfinding and viewing the front door of the hospital. He would like to see more shade trees as they are what will last on the campus. They would in fact be preferable over the detention pond as that cannot be blocked. Kirt Rieder also comments that the white "fence" may be a guardrail and is concerned about the applicant investing in a black metal fence, which would be good for scale/detail but may get damaged during snow removal. Regarding street trees, he is still hoping for more transformative plantings along Route 107, and wonders if the applicant can reduce parking and insert street trees to provide vertical relief, shade, and a change in scale. He approves of shade trees along walkways but they have no overhead utilities except at Dove Ave, so can do columnar and shade trees there. He would like to see more upper level vs.ground level vegetation. • Vice Chair Matt Veno opens to public comment. Meeting Minutes—July 21, 2016 Page 6 of 10 Alma Pelletier of 3 Horton St. asks if there has been a traffic study and if traffic will be discussed at another* meeting and wonders about its impact. Amanda Chiancola does have an applicant-provided traffic study that has been peer reviewed. Amanda explains that there has been some back and forth between the applicant's traffic engineer and the civil engineer, and the traffic related discussion is still on going. Amanda will share traffic info with Ms.Pelletier.Judy Weir 24 Willson St. is also interested in traffic. A motion to continue to the Sept. 1 st meeting is made by Noah Kong, seconded by Helen Sides, and carrier 7- D. 14 and 16 Almeda St. (Map 14, Lot 116 and Map 14, Lot 117) Applicant: Town and Country Homes, Inc. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering and George Belleau, the applicant is also here. Progress on the project and the permitting process is described; all comments from the City Engineer have been addressed. There was also a response to a letter from an abutter,Mr. Harlow-Powell. Vice Chair Matt Veno opens to the public and Mr. Donald Harlow-Powell of 12 Almeda St. outlines his concerns: • Discrepancies in footage • Discrepancies in the width of the street • Turnaround for trucks and vans • Types of houses • • No lighting currently proposed • Sight lines There was also an issue raised regarding a motor home parked in front of their house; Maria Hamilton of the same address feels the comments are unfounded. Mr. George Belleau, the petitioner, comments that Mr. Harlow s Powell's swimming pool is half on his property and his lawn takes up 3/4 of the lot, so this is why Mr. Harlow-Powell cannot envision where the houses will go. There will be no slabs used. Homes will be traditional colonial; there is no plan yet but they will be high quality. George Fallon of 36 March St. has discussed some of these issues with Mr. Hamilton. He states that he saw a motor home in front of Mr. Harlow-Powell, which remained there for about a month, hooked up to an electrical cord. He questions why Mr. Harlow-Powell is so concerned about truck turnarounds if he feels comfortable taking up that width of the street for that length of time. He cites another area where trucks must back up and opines that the age of the City is just something that has to be accommodated, as prior decisions were made many years ago. Bob Griffin describes the width of the road; it will not be reconstructed but will only be widened in the portion in front of the 2 lots. Easement is provided so turnaround on the properties is provided, but that will go away when Almeda St. is developed. He also comments on the footage; there will be some repaving which makes up the difference. The Vice Chair reminds Mr. Harlow-Powell to restrict his comments to the plans for this project. Mr. Harlow- Powell is still concerned about the street and the lack of turnaround. A motion to close the public bearing is made by Noab KoretZ seconded by Bill Griset and-passes in a roll call vote with all(Z)in favor• (Matt Veno.Noah KoretZ Carole Hamilton, Kirt Rieder, Bill Griset, Helen Sides and Dale Yale)and none (0)gZosed Meeting Minutes—July 21, 2016 Page 7 of 10 • The Fire Department has no issues with the turnaround,its concerns having been addressed by the turnaround built to roadway standards and the acquisition of a temporary easement from the property owner. Kirt Rieder asks about the language in one of the waivers for sidewalks and granite curbing; this is not required under this application but the decision leaves the option open for the road extension to accommodate a crosswalk and sidewalk. Carole Hamilton asks about homeowner maintenance of a retaining wall; the deeds will require that the owners maintain their portions of the wall until such time as the road is transferred to the City. The condition is revised. A motion to aOrove the Form C-Deinitive Subdivision, as cond:'tioned is made by Noah Koret., seconded by Bill Griset and carries in a roll call vote nntb Matt Veno. Noah KoretZ Carole Hamilton Kart Rieder, Bill Griset Helen Sides and Dale Yale (Z)in favor and none (0)op posed A. Location: 70-921/2 Boston St. (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) Applicant: 139 Grove Street Realty Trust Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District, Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a • Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. Here for the applicant is Mr.Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. Also present: Kristin Kolick Anthony Roberto Ken Staff,VHB Chris Sparages,project Engineer Peer Reviewer for the City of Salem Mr. Chris Sparages of Williams and Sparages review the revised plan. Differences between the plans are shown. Changes incorporated: • Entrance off of Boston St. moved 25' further away from Dunkin' Donuts to achieve site distance as per peer review • Goodhue St. — moved entrance on Beaver St; previously using existing City curb cut, now moved and widened entrance • Garage parking spaces are wider with improved traffic flow(9'x 19') • Cars will enter garage straight on rather than having to make a 90 degree turn • Improved access to proposed dumpsters for private hauler . • Addition of access for pedestrians from Boston St. Accessible route added from existing sidewalk • Additional green spaces created, some parking spaces are eliminated from 108 (for 2 spaces per unit plus retail). Now proposed is additional green space between parking and Dunkin' Donuts and 5 fewer spaces there; the Beaver St. side will have 2 fewer parking spaces with additional green space on Both sides of the Meeting Minutes—July 21, 2016 Page 8 of 10 lot/driveway. Inside the garage, there are 5 fewer spaces. This means there is a total of 12 fewer spaces for. ag re rand total of 96 spaces. Zoning requires 106 spaces but the applicant believes that the flow and additional g P 9 P green spaces are improvements. • Retail space reduction and moved to Goodhue St. side • Parallel parking spaces on Goodhue St. lot (9'x22') • Another entrance to the building has been added on the Goodhue St. side;it is ADA compliant and next to the retail • The sidewalk will be extended up to Witch City Cycle but this is not yet rendered on the Plan; it will be added Attorney Correnti comments on the reduction in parking spaces. The developer is putting himself in a variance- required situation because this is a better plan. This Board as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) have consistently commented that the requirement that there be two parking spaces per unit is "overparked," and the developer trusts that they can make the case for a variance from the ZBA. They must prove a hardship and Vice Chair Matt Veno suggests that the topography of the site makes development difficult. The developer would very much like to see this project done right. Noah Koretz asks about the pedestrian entrance next to the retail on Goodhue St. Mr. Sparages outlines the reconfiguration of the initial plan. Chris Sparages responds to the peer review comments from VHB. Additional review has been done with back and forth between himself and the peer reviewer. Work continues on remaining items and another revised plan will be developed next week. Timing of the letters is discussed. Many items were addressed in the storm water report. Ken Staffer, Peer Reviewer from VHB, outlines the outstanding issues. Mr. Sparages indicates that several items were contentious and that Mr. Staffer had said he should defer to Dave Knowlton, the City Engineer. For those items the applicant agreed to accommodate the suggestions as there would be little difference. Ken Staffer agrees that the changes, especially to the garage access, are significant, and also comments that the parking requirement is high for this type of use. He hopes the Board will support the applicant's request for a Variance when they appear before the ZBA. His comments/concerns: • Would like clarification on the retail space. The relocation makes sense but accessibility is unclear • Stairway on Boston St. is most likely acceptable to the ADA but the Mass. AEB is very stringent about "equal access" so they may balk • Consider a guard rail or fall protection on retaining walls for parking Larger storm water issues have been resolved. Ken Staffer feels that runoff will be handled adequately, but some calculations should be checked. Helen Sides and Vice Chair Matt Veno express their approval of the project in its current iteration. The Vice Chair wonders if there is precedent for this Board to express that approval and suggest that the ZBA grant the variance. Amanda Chiancola states that the Planning Board may write a memo to the ZBA in support of the variance. She notes that the Design Review Board has also issued a favorable recommendation to the Planning Board on June 20. Noah Koretz adds that language in the decision should reflect that these plans were a response to Planning Board concerns, and that this Board endorses them. Mr. Correnti outlines the outstanding issues and comments on the . timing of the meetings of the two Boards. Meeting Minutes—July 21, 2016 Page 9 of 10 •A motion to continue to the Suit. 1. 2016 meeting is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Kdrt Rieder. and Passes with all in favor, 7-0. There are no public comments. III. OLD/NEW BUSINESS • 40 Circle Hill Drive (Map 9, Lot 255; Land Court Plan 856-J, Lots 56, 57, 59 and 60) This item is heard after the minutes as Bill Griset is still not present. Amanda Chiancola outlines the progress and items needed;an extension was provided. Still needed: • Installation of 100' of sidewalk • Guardrail • Asphalt Discussion was previously tabled as the Board was awaiting the outcome of a Conservation Commission decision, and that Commission was also adding a condition requiring the contractor to secure a bond before work could begin. A new Order of Conditions was issued on July 14`s by the Conservation Commission. This project does not require an extension request due to the amended Permit Extension Act as cited. Permits extend automatically until Dec. 1, 2017. • • Other discussion: The Board discusses the inadequacies of the current zoning requirements regarding parking. As the issue arises with every development, they would like to address this and list it as a desired zoning change. Vice Chair Matt Veno comments that this Board should formulate a list of zoning issues and figure out the logistics of raising them to the City Council. Amanda Chiancola will add this as new business for the Sept. 1" meeting. However, she does have a list of items she would like the Board to review, and asks them to hold off until after her return in October, as she will not be available in September. Subdivision regulations and zoning updates can be explored at the same time. Attorney Joseph Correnti announces that the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted the requested variances and special permit for the High Rock Gateway Center. This is the first time a special permit for shared parking has been entertained; the concept is referenced in the zoning ordinance, but no guidelines are provided for how to apply it. The applicant reviewed the guidelines of other cities, drafted a memo, and worked with this Planning Department. Last night's meeting was the end of the municipal permitting process, and the applicant will continue to work toward obtaining state level permits. Attorney Correnti comments that the developer took a risk in appearing before the Planning Board before the ZBA, as it is not required to work in that order. He notes that the developer of the Flynntan site has also done this. The Chair of the ZBA noted his appreciation for the developer of the CLC working with Planning first, as many of the ZBA's questions were already answered through site and plan review. As a result, the applicant required two fewer variances than they were originally intending to request. Attorney Correnti outlines the logistics of the shared parking concept; Noah Koretz and Carole Hamilton note that this usage is ideas as the residents will park at night and those going to the CLC will park during the day. • IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. July 7,2016 Meeting Minutes—July 21, 2016 Page 10 of 10 This item is taken next, out of order, as Bill Griset has not yet arrived. A motion to approve the minutes with minor modification is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Noah Koretb and pas er 5-0 with Carole and Kirt abstainine V. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn is made by Bill Griset, seconded by Noah Koret,and the motion carries with all present in favor. 7-0. The meeting ends at 10:18PM. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://www.salem.com/planning-board/web forms/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 09/01/2016 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 through 2-2033. • • y CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1016 AUG _2 A 8. 35 CITY i:;.,.:- i' r Form C—Definitive Subdivision Decision 14 and 16 Almeda Street (Map 14 Lots 116 and 117) August 2, 2016 Town and Country Homes, Inc. C/o George Belleau 532 Lowell Street Peabody, MA 01960 RE: Decision of the Almeda Street Road Extension Subdivision —Form C On September 17, 2015, the Salem Planning Board opened a Public Hearing for a proposal " submitted by Town and Country Homes, Inc. (hereafter referred to as "applicant") to allow • the construction of a roadway and associated utilities to service two existing undeveloped lots on Almeda Street (Assessor's Map 14, Lots 116 and 117). At the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on July 21, 2016, the Planning Board closed the Public Hearing and by a vote of Seven (7) in favor, (Matt Veno, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Carole Hamilton, Dale Yale, Bill Griset and Noah Koretz) none (0) opposed to approve the subdivision plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan a. Work shall conform to the set of plans containing sheets Cl through C3, P-1, and D1 through D2, entitled, "Definitive Plan, Almeda St. extension, Map 14 Lot 116 and 117 Salem, Massachusetts", prepared Griffin Engineering, 495 Cabot Street, 2°d Floor, Beverly MA, dated August 27, 2015; revised June 2, 2016, and June 7, 2016. 2. Endorsement of the Plans a. 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. b. Prior to endorsement of the plans, the following items must be submitted for approval by the Planning Board: • Almeda Street Extension August 2,2016-2 i. A covenant to secure the construction of ways and installation of municipal • services, including required description of mortgages and assents of mortgagees. ii. Acceptable form of grants of easements, if applicable. iii. 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 Essex South Registry of Deeds. 3. Amendments a. 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 approval of the Planning Board. 4. Subdivision Regulations ' a. 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. 5. Waivers a. In approving the Plans, the Board is hereby granting the following waivers of the • Subdivision Rules and Regulations: i. A waiver from Section IV A.4.1 to allow a dead end street longer than 500- feet. The current length of Almeda Street is approximately 650-feet and the proposed plan will add 80-feet of roadway for a total of 730 feet including a 35' x 20' hammerhead turn around area. ii. A waiver from Section IV. A.Le to allow the centerline radius of the proposed roadway extension to be 130 feet, which is less than the 230 feet required. The proposed radius is required due to the layout of the existing right-of-way. iii. A waiver from Section IV.A.2.a to allow a waiver from the requirement to install sidewalks and granite curbing as the roadway extension will primarily be used by the occupants of the two (2) proposed residences and there are not currently existing sidewalks.. b. In the judgment of the Planning Board, the granting of the above waivers is in the public interest and consistent with the intent of the subdivision control law. 6. Transfer of Ownership a. Within five 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 • Almeda Street Extension August 2,2016-3 • 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. 7. Security (Section III(B)(5) of the Subdivision Regulations) a. 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. b. 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 run with the land, and shall state that such ways and services shown on the approved plans dated August 17; 2015, and revised June 2, 2016 and June 7, 2016; shall be provided to serve any and all lots before any lot may be built upon or conveyed, other than by mortgage and • deed; and/or i. 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 Engineering Department. 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. ii. Time Frame If such ways and services are not completed within two (2) years of the date of endorsement of the plan, approval of the plan may be rescinded unless an extension is granted by the Planning Board. The Planning Board acknowledges that the timeframe and completion of the entire subdivision is • anticipated to be two years, and will not unreasonably withhold extensions. Almeda Street Extension August 2, 2016-4 8. Site Specific Conditions • a. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for either lot, the applicant shall provide payment to the City of Salem, in the amount of $20,000, for water system improvements. The payment shall be submitted to the office of the City Engineer. b. The property owners of 14 and 16 Almeda Street shall be responsible for the maintenance of the portion of the new retaining wall in front of their respective properties, until such time the roadway is accepted by the City. Responsibility of the retaining wall shall be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. - c. The applicant shall submit a retaining wall plan, stamped by a structural engineer, for review and approval by the City Building Inspector prior to building permit issuance. d. Prior to endorsement of the plans, the applicant shall submit a plan to the Planning Board for review and approval that shows the potential ability of the City to construct in the future, a five (5) foot sidewalk, a six (6) inch granite curb, and three (3) foot grass strip along the frontage of 14 and 16 Almeda Street. e. The driveway at 16 Almeda Street(Map 14, Lot 114) shall be constructed to roadway standards in order to accommodate a fire truck. f. The property owner shall record a temporary easement to allow the Fire Department- to turn around on 16 Almeda Street (Map 14, Lot 114) that shall remain in place until Almeda Street is extended, should. that occur. The applicant shall prepare the easement plan easement plan to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds, of which, • copies of the recorded plan will be provide to the City of Salem Engineering and Planning Departments before any work can commence. 9. Salem Conservation Commission a. The applicant shall receive all necessary approvals from the Salem Conservation Commission prior to commencement of any work. 10.Board of Health g. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City of Salem Board of Health. h. The applicant shall provide the City Health Agent the name, address and telephone number of the project manager who will be on site and directly responsible for the construction of the project. i. 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 certifies that the soil and ground water on the entire site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use. j. The developer shall adhere to the drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. • Almeda Street Extension August 2,2016-5 • k. The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area prior to construction, demolition, and/or basting and shall send a copy of the exterminators invoice to the Health Agent. 1. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. m. The developer shall submit the City Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. n. The developer shall submit the City Health Agent a written plan for the containment and removal or debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable excavation material generated during demolition and/or construction. o. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for firefighting. p. Noise levels from the resultant establishments 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 at the property line. q. The developer shall disclose in writing to the City Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. r. The resultant establishment(s) shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its operations in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health. s. The developer shall install grease traps, to contain grease in gray water, prior to • entering the city sewer system in developments with 10 or more units and in compliance with therequirements of the City Engineer. t. Radon mitigation systems shall be installed. u. The final construction shall comply with all requirements of the Massachusetts State Sanitary code and a potable water supply that meets potable water standards of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. v. The developer shall notify the City Health Agents when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that the above conditions have been met. 11.Fire Department. a. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City of Salem Fire Department, including temporary access during construction. 12.Building Inspector a. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City of Salem Building Inspector. 13.Office of the City Engineer a. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Office of the City Engineer. • Ahneda Street Extension August 2,2016-6 14.Utilities a. The applicant shall have an engineer certify the utility plans for review by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any Building permit. The utility plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Office of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. b. All utilities shall be installed underground, except electricity, cable tv and phone. c. Any utility installation for housing lots shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 15.Street Lighting a. No street lights are required. The Owner shall coordinate with the electric company and the City Electrician regarding the installation of street lighting within the Subdivision prior to the issuance of a building permit b. Street lights if installed shall be outfitted with LED bulbs. The street lighting shall be the responsibility of the Applicant until such time as the City accepts the street. 16.Pre-Construction Conference a. 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. 17. Construction Practices a. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: i. All construction shall be carried out 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. ii. No work shall commence before 8:00 AM on weekdays and Saturdays. No work shall continue beyond 5:00 PM. There shall be no work conducted on Sundays or holidays. Inside work of a quite nature may be permitted at other times. iii. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday — Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. There shall be no drilling or blasting, or rock hammering on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. iv. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on abutters. Advanced notice shall be provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to commencement of construction. • Almeda Street Extension August 2,2016-7 • V. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not leave direct and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave the site. vi. 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. vii. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site must be completely located on the site. viii. A Construction Management Plan and Construction Schedule shall be submitted by the applicant to the Building Inspector for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Including in this plan, but not limited to, shall be information regarding how equipment will be stores, a description of the construction staging areas and its location in relation to the site, and where the construction employees will pack their vehicles. 18. Construction Traffic c. 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. • d. 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. e. Any roadways, driveways, or sidewalks damaged during construction shall be restored to their original condition by the Owner. f 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. 19.Clerk of the Works a. A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the applicant, his successors or assigns, as it deemed necessary by the City Planner. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties acknowledge the Project shall be subject to controlled construction, which requires oversight by licensed engineered and , architects. Accordingly it is the understanding of the Board, the City Planner and the Applicant that the Clerk of the Works is expected to oversee and review all civil/site improvements related to the project located within the public way, including all utility connections to publicly owned infrastructure. It is also mutually understood that the expense associated with the Clerk of the Works shall be for a reasonable number of hours and at a customary rate of service. b. The applicant shall submit a construction plan to the City Planner each season, prior . to starting work. Almeda Street Extension August 2,2016-8 c. The construction plan will be incorporated into the Clerk of the Works Task Order. . No work shall start prior to an approved task order for these services. 20.As-built Plans a. 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. 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 the final Certificate of Occupancy for the subdivision and/or the acceptance of any streets. 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 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. 21.Violations a. Violation of any condition contained within this decision may result in revocation of • this permit by the Planning Board.. 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 is 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 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 and plans are on file with the City Clerk and a copy is on file with the Planning Board. Sincerely, W k, /k Matt Veno, Vice Chair Salem Planning Board �* CITY OF SALEM K PLANNING BOARD 1016 !urt 30 P S: 00 NOTICE OF MEETING C"Y You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will be holding a Public Hearing on Thursday,July 7, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Wlarbington St., Salem;MA Ben Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 14 Bertuccio Ave. (Map 24,Lot 105) Applicant: Nathan Jacobson Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre. B. Location: 70-92 % Boston St. (Map 15,Lot 299& Map 16,Lot 139) Applicant: 139 Grove Street Realty Trust Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. This notice posted on "Oficial Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JUN 3 0 2096 at -5!ob pH in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-15. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for July 7,2016 . Page 2 of 2 C. Location: 40 Circle Hill Drive (Map 9, Lot 255;Land Court Plan 856-J,Lots 56, 57,59 and 60) Applicant: Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp. Description: Update on the status of construction of the Circle Hill Subdivision, and vote on an extension request of the subdivision approval and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit. D. Location: 14 and 16 Almeda St. (Map 14,Lot 116 and Map 14,Lot 117) Applicant: Town and Country Homes, Inc. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. E. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave;55 Highland Ave;and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24,Lots 1,2,88,19,216,218 220;and Map 14,Lot 129) Applicant: North Shore Medical Center,Inc. Description: The applicant requested a continuance to July 21, 2016 of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 16,2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of an expanded role for the DRB V. ADJOURNMENT Knomyoiar rights under the Open Meeting Ilan M.G.L c. 30A ( 18-25 and City Ordinance g 2-2028 through 2-2033. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAx 978.740.0404 WWW.SALEM.COM v�.CONDIT, �'s "/ ' �. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND �rmuEoa�'e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT YIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAY:978-74o-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: June 30, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting – July 7, 2016 Please find the following in the dropbox file: • Agenda for July 7, 2016, Regular Meeting ■ Planner's Memo • Bertuccio Subdivision - Traffic/Safety Peer Review • - Revised Plans • Flynntan Redevelopment - DRB Recommendation r— - -Revised Plans (will be submitted.under_se_parate_ cover) ■ Almeda Subdivision - Draft Decision ■ Update on Circle Hill Subdivision - Planning Board Form C Decision F—Memo_from mCCoWactor-(will be submitted under separate cover) • North Shore Medical Center - Continuance Request - Civil Peer Review ■ Draft Minutes June 16, 2016 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS A. Bertuccio Ave. (Form C Subdivision) 14 Bertuccio Avenue (Map 24, Lot 105) A traffic/safety peer review memorandum can be found here. The peer reviewer will be at the meeting on July 71h to present. The applicant submitted revised • plans, which can be found here. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —July 7, 2016 Meeting Page 2 of 4 1 also note that the Planning Board must take final action by the July 21St • meeting in order to meet the current July 30th action deadline, or extend the 135 day deadline. B. Former Flynntan Site (NRCC, SPR, FHOD, Stormwater Permit) 70-92 % Boston St. (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) The applicant informed staff that revised plans will be submitted. Said plans will be submitted under a separate cover. On June 22, 2016 the Design Review Board made a favorable recommendation of the project to the Planning Board, which can be found here. C. Almeda St. (Form C Subdivision) 14 and 16 Almeda St. (Map 14, Lot 116 and Map 14, Lot 117) A draft decision for the project can be found here. The Planning Board must take final action at the meeting next week in order to meet the current July 12th deadline, or extend the 135 day deadline'. D. Update on Circle Hill (Form C Subdivision) 40 Circle Hill Drive (Map 9, Lot 255; Land Court Plan 856-J, Lots 56, 57, 59 and • 60) In 2009 the City of Salem Planning Board approved a Form C application and Wetlands Flood Hazards Special Permit to allow an extension of 40 Circle Hill Road into a new cul-de-sac serving three new single-family house lots. In 2011, the Planning Board extended the approval through 2013. Abutters of the Circle Hill subdivision have reached out to the City with concerns relating to the timeline of construction, which has been delayed since November, with the exception of one day in April when the contractor paved Circle Hill Road. According to the clerk of the works, the remaining work for this project includes installation of the top (finish) course of asphalt for paving, 100 feet of sidewalk and 100 feet of curbing. The Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions for the project expired. The applicant will need to file with the Conservation Commission before starting construction again. Due to the length of time that has occurred since construction has taken place, the contractor was asked to report to the Planning Board the reason(s) why work has ceased at the project and a schedule of when work will begin again at the site, as well as a date of final project completion. That memo will be distributed to the Planning Board upon receipt. ' Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law(M.G.L)Chapter 41, Section 81(U),the failure of a planning board either to take final action or to file with the city or town clerk a certificate of such action regarding the definitive plan submitted by an applicant within 135 days after such submission, or such further time as may be agreed upon at the written request of the applicant, shall be deemed to be an approval thereof. Page 2 of 4 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum July 7, 2016 Meeting Page 3 of 4 The applicant would have to file an application with the Conservation Commission today to be heard at the July 14th meeting, which is the last scheduled meeting until September. E. North Shore Medical Center (SPR, Stormwater Permit) 81 Highland Avenue; 108 Jefferson Avenue; Old Road; 1 Dove Avenue; 79 Highland Avenue; 55 Highland Avenue; And 57 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); (Map 24 Lots 1, 2, 19, 88, 216, 218, 220) The applicant is has requested a continuance to the July 21s` meeting. The civil peer reviewer, New England Civil Engineering (NECE), has prepared a status letter for the Planning Board, which can be found here. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 16, 2016 Old/New Business A. Discussion of an expanded role for the DRB • Discussion Recommended by Planning Board Members of the Planning Board have expressed interested discussing an expansion of the Design Review Board (DRB) jurisdiction to include 1) projects over a certain size and 2) projects within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District ECOD . Overview of the Design Review Board The DRB is an advisory board that reports to both the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) and the Salem Planning Board. The DRB has jurisdiction on projects located in the Urban Renewal Area .and in the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) District. In these areas, an advisory opinion from the DRB must be obtained prior to the Planning Board making a determination. The "advisory opinion" is herein referred to as "design review." The Planning Board could suggest that any project obtain design review; however, the board cannot require design review for a project that falls outside of the DRB's jurisdiction. Expanding the jurisdiction of the DRB would require a Zoning Text Amendment. Entrance Corridor Overlay District Pursuant to Section 8.2.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the . ECOD is to: 1) Protect and enhance the major entrance ways into the City; and, 2) Ensure that such areas are improved in a manner which is in the best interest of the City. Requiring design review appears to promote the purpose of the Page 3 of 4 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —July 7, 2016 Meeting Page 4 of 4 ECOD. Three different approaches to expanding the DRB's jurisdiction are • outlined below. 1) All site plan reviewed projects in the ECOD a. The trigger for a site plan review in the ECOD is 2,000 square feet, or 6 or more residential units 2) All commercial site plan review projects in the ECOD a. Not include residential 3) Only site plan review projects in the ECOD over a certain size a. This would ensure the amendment would not result in a financial burden for small projects In order to help evaluate what an appropriate size trigger would be for DRB review, the square footage of a few Planning Board projects are shown in the table below. I note that the projects listed below are enumerated in order to establish a frame of reference, and are not all in the ECOD. Name Location Square Feet CVS Jefferson & Loring 12,900 Irving Gas Station 319 Highland Ave 5,534 Veterinary Office 20 Commercial Street 5,000 McDonalds Traders Way 2,500 • Community Life Center not built yet Boston & Bridge 12,373 Mixed-use Office/Retail not built yet) Lafayette/West 24,388 Projects beyond the Entrance Corridor Overlay District If the Planning Board advises that the SPR regulations be amended to include design review for projects beyond the ECOD, staff suggests limiting some zoning districts from design review. For example, it is not as critical to have design review for an industrial building on Technology Way. For that reason, staff recommends that Industrial and Business Park Development zoned parcels not be subject to design review. The board should also consider whether design review should be limited to development of a certain size outside the ECOD, and if it should include residential uses outside the ECOD. For example, the Planning Board recently approved the adaptive reuse of the existing structure used as school on 114 Derby Street, into six residential units. Should that type of project require design review? • Page 4 of 4 0h� . City of Salem Meeting Sign-In Sheet f a E Date ZcMc, Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail �tcf 30 t J T�� ;x 6,%4cL;ri '?7 r- i �3KE. �,3�valorc �L2i �Cc�� r { . (7j , 7a'_ � L��vat��'4 J 4 22, (.. t 'r/ k...f i �"l. V'^' i t✓ C.., 77 r1lt E l d 4l, Z. 12. si'L.fIES 079�, ;` ` .,�oL.f , ,+i_.tr.�i '�'r �n.lu =:c.o�^., �. v %da, )v:?z; D,St3 0 t � k <,To. A }nom {j`j v - " i�. r Parc or s Meeting Minutes—July 7, 2016 Page 1 of 9 • City of Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes Thursday,July 7, 2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,July 7, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313, Salem, Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opens the meeting at 7:14 pm. I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Chair Ben Anderson, Noah Koretz, Bill Griset,Vice Chair Matt Veno,Tony Mataragas (leaving early), Dale Yale and Helen Sides Absent. Kirt Rieder, Carole Hamilton Also present. Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner, and Stacy Kilb,Planning Board Recording Clerk. II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 14 Bertuccio Ave. (Map 24,Lot 105) Applicant: Nathan Jacobson Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem • Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre. Here for the project is Ben Osgood representing TTI Environmental. The traffic memorandum will be reviewed and the City's peer reviewer will report first. A public comment letter from Chris Schoen, who is opposed to the project,is entered into the record. Alan Cloutier with Stantec provides the traffic review. A memorandum addressing all the points raised was received by TTI today. Comments included: • Right of way footage • Sharp curves in the road/steep grades/site distance as originally proposed. All three are interrelated. Applicant agrees to reduce the grade to 9%; winter maintenance will be critical. Sharp curves artificially lengthen the road and reduce the grade; they also help regulate the speed on the road. However, some trees will block the view.Trees will be moved. This is acceptable. • Parking on Bermccio Ave. close to the driveway; no parking should occur within 20' of a road. Signage will be installed and the applicant should communicate with the homeowner in question. • Missing sidewalk segment on the original plan: the developer was trying to protect a Norway Maple, but this left a gap. Options are described for maintaining sidewalk continuity (removal of the tree, going around, etc.). The crosswalk would then be moved. • Dead End sign: not absolutely necessary • • Sign Post detail: will be taken care of • Guard rail will be changed Meeting Minutes—July 7, 2016 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Cloutier's notes that the traffic review was limited to activity site distance,it does not include an analysis c• capacity impacts. Mr. Osgood mentions the response letter; he feels the comments were not major. Changes have not yet been made to the plan pending discussion with the Board. • He is not certain that the trees around the curve between station 1+75 and 3+00 will block views. An alternative proposed by Mr. Osgood is to relocate the tress to the other side of the sidewalk with an easement for them. • There is a large Norway Maple along the sidewalk of the entrance. This type of tree generally does not do well in residential settings; they only last about 60 years and additionally are an invasive species. He would prefer to remove it and replace with three native species that would last longer and look better. • The guard rail should be wood in this residential setting. He does not feel the street warrants the guard rail but is advisable due to the drop off 15' away. • He describes the profile and the proposed grade changes. A 10% grade was proposed to keep the cut down; they can revise the grade to 9%. The biggest change at 9%will be 1.8' of cut. • He also notes that they can adjust the signs. • The Board requested a profile of what the street would look like from behind one of the houses; this is shown. Eves of the house may be visible from the yards of the neighbors below. • Artist renderings are also shown Stormwater revisions were recently submitted to the peer reviewer, and are pending a response from the peer reviewer. The applicant admits it took a little while longer to get all the corrections to him. If the applicaj, cannot resolve the comments by the next meeting they would request a continuance. Chair Anderson has some concerns. He states that he is speaking for himself, not the Board, and raises the following issues: *While proposed changes should technically resolve any runoff or drainage issues, he is uncertain whether the project should move forward from a moral standpoint, he is concerned about the following items: o Number of waivers requested-included the Road length waiver from 500 feet to 900 feet o Density of the development in this small area- could have a quality of life effect on the neighborhood o Blasting. Chair Anderson would like a second opinion and states that the City has been searching for a geotechnical engineer to review. o The Board has requested public amenities in other projects, for example parks and paths; none has been requested yet but he wonders if the developer would consider reducing the number of homes to install something Tony Mataragas is also concerned about the blasting and would also like a second opinion. He is also concerned about the density of the area. Matt Veno cites his extensive comments from the last meeting, and continues to be very concerned about this project, in particular the road length waiver. He does not see how the project provides a benefit per the subdivision control act. He acknowledges that it is a difficult site, and applauds their efforts but they are trying to do a lot. He also feels blasting may present an unacceptable level of disruption to existing residents. He would also like a second opinion, as an expert could convince him. But the letter submitted by the applic� from a blasting expert is not compelling. Meeting Minutes—July 7, 2016 Page 3 of 9 • Dale Yale shares the concerns expressed and also comments that there is a 9% slope on a street the City will need to maintain with sanding and salt and so forth; cars will probably also go faster than 15mph and it would be difficult to enforce, so speed is a safety concern. Noah Koretz asks about geotechnical peer review; no reviewer has been found yet but the search will continue. Mr.Jacobson has someone in mind but feels that their person would represent a conflict of interest. Bill Griset also feels the City should independently find a geotechnical peer reviewer. Matt Veno states that the root of his concern is the application of the subdivision control law, particularly as it relates to the waivers and does not feel that this project satisfies the requirements of the subdivision control law. Mr. Osgood disagrees and outlines the subdivision control laws and zoning requirements along with the specs for his project. The lots meet the zoning sizes,which are twice as big as the lots in the neighborhood. He feels that the proposed density of 15,000 square foot lots will not be detrimental to the 5,000 square foot lots in the neighborhood. Roadway slope is within the requirements and a 1' reduction in the right of way still follows the spirit of the law. He feels adhering to the letter of the law does not serve the property owner, who should be allowed to use their property and benefit. The developer has not ruled out public amenities on City land. He cites a nearby Park. He feels this residential project in a residential area is not detrimental. • Chair Andersons opens to the public. Cliff Goodman of 22 Bertuccio Ave. is still concerned about drainage. Despite revisions presented last time, he comments that the slope on elevation has changed. He is concerned about this affecting the length of time the retention pond will hold the runoff. Peer engineering review is not present but Mr. Osgood will respond at the end. Linda Wilson of 18 Bertuccio Ave. which is the largest lot on the street, thus she has the biggest frontage and backage to the plan and is in favor of this plan. Her parents own 14 Bertuccio Ave. and are the ones selling this property, however she would still be in favor if that wasn't the case. Her parents let everyone enjoy the hill for 26 years. She states her parents are not selling their home, they want to stay and enjoy it, and they are just selling the deadspace up there. She feels that the concerns raised by the neighbors are unfounded and the items being addressed are being blown out of proportion. The only thing up there now is a homeless camp which is a moral issue. She feels the project provides the public an opportunity to walk up there and enjoy the view, perhaps there will be benches. She states that the developer has attempted to meet with neighbors but none were interested. Steve Szpak of 27 Bertuccio Ave. replies that he did see the email asking to meet with the developers, and that he was willing to do so. He observes that many residents of the street see drivers who do NOT realize it is a dead end, and try to reach the football field, thus he feels that the dead end signage is needed. The property line has also not yet been staked, as requested. He also asks what the purpose of the laws is if they are going to be waived. • Audrey Welling of 17 Bertuccio Ave. states that she also responded to Steve Lovely and was willing to meet with the developer, and had opened her home to have the developer and others view the area. Meeting Minutes—July 7, 2016 Page 4 of 9 Travis Meindel of 14 Hodges Court reads from a letter he has already submitted. He is concerned that the pl• is not complete and that several changes have yet been addressed, but his main issue is with the loss of green space. Unmanaged open green spaces should be preserved for posterity, and so that children have easy access to it for educational purposes Ken Wilson of 18 Bertuccio Ave. points out that the land in question is not available for people's children. It is privately held land, not public, and they have held off putting up no trespassing signs. He asks why people think they have the right to walk on it. Others have been rude, threatening to take the land by adverse possession. Mike Janoppolo of 15 Bertuccio Ave. comments that public development should enhance the experience for existing residents, and the proposed project does not. In a City that can be inclusive and welcoming, the goal should be more affordable housing. Peter Lupo of 24 Bertuccio Ave. wonders where the water line for the new homes will come to. The Engineer will respond at the end. Mr. Lupo also is also concerned about the pumped water from basements adding to the detention pond, and feels it should be accounted for. Kara Meindel of 14 Hodeges Court will be moving to Bertuccio Ave. and is concerned about the slope and safety of residents and drivers. Linda Wilson reiterates that this is private property. Mr. Osgood responds to the public comments. He outlines how drainage is determined. Pre- and po• development conditions are analyzed and the rates must be the same. They use a detention pond to do this. It holds the water briefly, allowing it to build up then drain slowly. Runoff into the intersection has been reduced. Therefore, the presumption is that there will be no impact. He also discusses groundwater recharge; there is a lot of bedrock so not much recharge here. It will be roughly the same volume as in the predevelopment condition, as per regulations. Re roadway and its safety: he cites the standards that it must meet. This has a 15mph design speed; curves make it safer. No design can account for freak accidents, such as someone hitting the gas instead of the brake, as mentioned by one resident. He describes the water delivery as an existing 8" line and hydrant on Bertuccio Ave.; it is uncertain how far beyond the hydrant the line goes; that will be determined for both water and sewer. That will be done as part of the subdivision. Public property issues: he agrees that this is private property that can be developed as the developer sees fit, however reiterates that the developer is willing to provide some amenities, such as a path connecting to the school/open land. Mr. Peter Lupo is still concerned about blasting,water, etc. and claims that Ms. Wilson was rude. The Chair states that one option discussed at previous meetings were surveys of properties; the Board can condition requiring the Developer to repair any damage that occurs. Some insurances and security can be b into the decision. Mr. Travis Meindel is also concerned about the age of the infrastructure and demand on the water line; the Chair reminds him the City Engineer will review all documents before issuing a permit. Meeting Minutes—July 7, 2016 Page 5 of 9 • Kelly Bordeaux of 28 Bertuccio Ave asks about the fire hydrant;would another need to be added? Mr. Osgood outlines the additional hydrants proposed to meet the requirement. Water lines in the subdivision will be new; mains can break (even new ones) and can collapse if fire dept. pulls out too much water. He feels this will not be an issue. Matt Veno asks Amanda Chiancola about the requirement that a dead end street be no longer than 500' and that this one will be 950'. He asks where the 500' requirement comes from; Ms. Anderson responds it is a local law. Matt states that while he is sympathetic to the owner's family and their right to develop private property, this Board must operate within the constraints of the law. The petitioner has a right to seek a waiver. The board is bound to consider the waiver consistent with the subdivision control law. It is not this Board's purview to decide if it is a good or bad development that is not their job. In order to be clear on what the board is using as a framework for the waiver he cites Section 81R, Chp. 41 of the Mass General Law: "A planning board may in any particular case, where such action is in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law, waive strict compliance with its rules and regulations...." Mr. Veno believes that the beginning of that sentence is the core, as the board judges the waiver on whether it is: 1. In the Public Interest, and 2. Consistent with the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law • He then cites the purpose of the subdivision control law pursuant to MGL Section 81M of Chp. 41: "The subdivision control law has been enacted for the purpose of protecting the safety, convenience and welfare of the inhabitants of the cities and towns in which it is, or may hereafter be, put in effect by regulating the laying out and construction of ways in subdivisions providing access to the several lots therein, but which have not become public ways, and ensuring sanitary conditions in subdivisions and in proper cases parks and open areas." Therefore, the board's job is to make sure what is being proposed is not inconsistent with that purpose, and within the public interest. He is not convinced that this project meets those two requirements. Waivers have been granted in the past, for example, for the Clark Ave. subdivision, but that was a different project that included public amenities,it was not so jammed in and did not have so many issues and concerns of abutters. A motion to continue to the Lulv 21. 2016 meeting is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Dale Yale, and passes with all present in amr, 7-0. B. Location: 70-92 '/2 Boston St. (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) Applicant: 139 Grove Street Realty Trust Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem • Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 Meeting Minutes—July 7, 2016 Page 6 of 9 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space wi• parking provided on the site. Tony Mataragas leaves the meeting at 8:20PM. The applicant is working on responses to civil engineering and traffic reviews. A motion to continue to the W/ 21, 2016 meeting is made by Bill Griset, seconded by Matt Veno, and4asses with all present in favor, 6-0. C. Location: 40 Circle Hill Drive (Map 9, Lot 255; Land Court Plan 856j,Lots 56, 57, 59 and 60) Applicant: Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp.PP P Description: Update on the status of construction of the Circle Hill Subdivision, and vote on an extension request of the subdivision approval and Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit. Ken Steadman presents. He reviews the plan, describing progress thus far. He will appear before the Conservation Commission next week to extend the Order of Conditions; after that the subdivision will be completed, adding sidewalks and curbing, as well as a guard rail. Chair Anderson asks about the need for yet another extension; he is concerned that completion is not yet in sight and bond has not been submitted. He would be more confident if the developer were to issue bond. Some concerns were also raised by the neighbors about the lack of ongoing activity and sot materials being stored onsite. Mr. Steadman apologizes, stating that his company handles all its own excavation. They will complete the roadway by September and plan to develop the lots by September 2017 (the length of the extension). He would prefer to hold off on completing the asphalt until heavy excavation is complete. Current materials being stored are stones from blasting,which have been crushed for gravel, and one container. The Chair states that he obtained some information from the City solicitor re the requirement of a bond as a condition of the extension; he got initial response but not a full one. Chair Anderson says that the developer may continue to another meeting to get that information, or as a Board, they can vote on an extension. Matt Veno asks about the bond element and the Chau elaborates: the Bond starts clock ticking for developer, who can't sell the property until bond is in place and released; it is as insurance that development will be completed. Additional discussion about the bond and procedural issues ensues. A motion to continue to the 1uly 21. 2016 meeting is made by Matt Veno, seconded by Helen Sides. and Masses nntb all Present in famr. 6-0. D. Location: 14 and 16 Almeda St. (Map 14,Lot 116 and Map 14, Lot 117) • Applicant: Town and Country Homes, Inc. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. Meeting Minutes—July 7, 2016 Page 7 of 9 • Because there are only 6 Board members present, the applicant requests to continue to the next meeting. A motion to continue to the fly 21, 2016 meeting is made by Matt Veno, seconded by Helen Side and-Passes nitb all Present in favor. 6-0. E. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1, 2, 88, 19, 216, 218 220; and Map 14,Lot 129) Applicant: North Shore Medical Center, Inc. Description: The applicant requested a continuance to July 21, 2016 of the public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. The applicant requests to continue to the next meeting as they are working on a response to comments received. A motion to continue to the fly 21, 2016 meeting is made by Dale Yale, seconded by Helen Sides, and passes witb all Present in favor, 6-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 16, 2016 This item is taken first on the Agenda as a Board member will be arriving late. A motion to apptvve the June 16, 2016 of minutes, witbPVosed amendments. is made by Noah Koret;, seconded by Helen Sides, and carries nrith all present in favor, 7-0 (Chair Ben Anderson, Noah Koret�, Bill Griset, Tony Mataragas. Dale Yale, Helen Sides,Matt Veno). IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS Discussion of expanded role of the Design Review Board (DRB) Amanda Chiancola describes the roles of DRB, which is an advisory Board to the Salem Redevelopment Authority and the Planning Board. If this Board is interested in expanding the role of the DRB, it would need to determine what such an expansion would include, for example, size and location of projects, or perhaps a certain overlay as a threshold for requiring applicants to appear before the DRB. She suggests that considering the entrance corridor overlay district would be a good starting point for the discussion. The DRB has not yet discussed this matter. Comments/Concerns of the Board members: . • As the City has been able to become more selective about allowing projects to move forward, they have been able to request that developers appear before the DRB, but they do not have to do so. Developers may also meet with a modified DRB of two members. That is an informal process that helps, but it is not enough, Helen feels that the process should be transparent and involve all Board members. In Cambridge it is all entrance corridors, and in Wellesley it is all projects no matter where they are over a certain size,which Meeting Minutes—July 7, 2016 Page 8 of 9 is wonderful control to oversee any project that is not a house. She does not expect DRB to take on mo work or meet twice a month to handle a larger load. Although it adds another layer of review, she feels tha the review is invaluable, and that all DRB-reviewed projects had positive outcomes, and developers were grateful for the input. Residents have wondered why the DRB does not have more oversight. • Noah Koretz feels the role of the DRB would be hugely beneficial, as he has witnessed cases in his line of work where design review in critical corridors of the Haverhill has to be a goodwill conversation with the developer, but there is no oomph behind it. He acknowledges that we are blessed in Salem to have boards comprised of professionals with design expertise, but asks Helen about DRB turnover, as he is concerned that design review is only as good as the people on the board. Helen Sides feels that even if the board had turnover, there are enough qualified and interested individuals in Salem and moving to Salem to fill the Board and effectively provide professional input, so she has no fear of having qualified people available to participate. • Noah Koretz also comments that there should be two triggers one is specific corridors, and one is any project over x number of square feet. While he sees the appeal of a quick and easy permitting process for developers for cities that are not as desirable for development right now, but he does not believe Salem has that problem. In addition, developers are benefiting from the process since they are getting access to consultants on these boards that are making their projects better. As long as the city has this good market where adding this extra step is not a burden for developers and there is a sufficient pool of qualified people to be Board members,he is in favor. • Helen Sides comments that she is on the DRB but is not representing the DRB since it is not appropriate for her to summarize what the DRB thinks. She also notes the limitations of the Planning Board's jurisdiction, which generally does not extend to design, and that the design review expertise should stay within the realm of the DRB. People attend DRB to hear about design, while people attend Planning Boa to hear about site plan review. 10 • Chair Anderson generally agrees with what has been said, and supports requiring DRB review of entrance corridor overlays. But to a point, specified among square feet. Smaller residential development may not be able to afford it. He has heard that developers find the extra review expensive, as it increases the cost and Performa of development. Which in his mind are good things, but he worries the about the effect of too much design oversite, e.g. attracting developers and getting the reputation of the city being difficult to getting permitted and approved. He would potentially be supportive of entrance corridor overlays at a certain square footage since those corridors are very important to the City, but not extending it beyond that. Certainly commercial development, he is not sure about residential, or what size development should trigger design review. • Dale Yale recommends consistency with SPR triggers, e.g. over 6 residential units. • Noah Koretz comments he is more comfortable with a size trigger rather than use because he does not want to discourage developers from building commercial in the entrance corridor. • The pros and cons of requiring DRB review of projects over a certain square footage vs. a certain usage are discussed, as is the balance between streamlining the permitting process for developers while ensuring that projects are well designed. • Helen Sides comments that the Master Plan was previously renewed in the 11`' hour, but the definition of "downtown"was not expanded. She feels it would be great if it were expanded. • Matt Veno asks about the procedure and it is clarified by Amanda Chiancola. He would also like the perspective of the City Council regarding the reputation of Salem as a City that has a difficult permitting process (if so). • Amanda Chiancola outlines the next steps to begin the discussion with the DRB. • Meeting Minutes—July 7, 2016 Page 9 of 9 0 V. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adiourn is made by Helen Sides, seconded by,Matt Veno and the motion carries with all-msent in/avor, 6-0. The meeting ends at 9:OOPM. 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://-,vww.salem.com/planning-board/web forms/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb, Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 7/21/2016 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L a 30A J 18-25 and City Ordinance J 2-2028 through J 2-2033. Tiis m 'Ice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" Salem, pjlass. on U I�I Etta 30A, CITY OF SALEM W accordance with MGL Chap. E,�ANNING BOARD 9 P 2: 31 CITY L E P7,",! NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby noe�W that the Salem Plarm7g Boa ni udl be U4 a Public Hearing m Thursday,June 16, 2016 at 7.OOpm at City Hall Annex, Room 31.3, 120 Washington St, Salem MA Ben A rxknor; Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL Il. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1,2, 88, 19, 216,218 220;and Map 14,Lot 129) Applicant: North Shore Medical Center, Inc. • Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zonig Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. B. Location: 14 and 16 Ahneda St. (Map 14, Lot 116 and Map 14, Lot 117) Applicant: Town and Country Homes, Inc. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. C. Location: 70-92 '/2 Boston St. (Map 15,Lot 299 &Map 16,Lot 139) Applicant: 139 Grove Street Realty Trust Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 • North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the . applicant proposes the City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for June 16,2016 Page 2 of 2 • redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parldng provided on the site. D. Location: 1, 3 and 5 Harmony Grove Rd., 60 and 64 Grove Street Applicant: MRM Project Management, LLC Description: An insignificant change request to the previously approved Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development, specifically to allow the demolition of the existing structure at 60 Grove Street with that space remaining designated for future commercial use on the site. I11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 2, 2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of an expanded role for the DRB V. ADJOURNMENT • Knorr rxrr rights under the Open Meeting LawM.G.L. c 30A 5 18-25 and Cty Ordinance§ 2-2028 drrough§ 2-2033. • 0 on Sall rl, SAL:.l NIASSACa,'KtTS 0.1.970 �3cnP 9"x.619.5685 FAX 978.1 0.0404 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • o DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND � � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL - MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 019770 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD DIRECLOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: June 9, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — June 16, 2016 Please find the following in the dropbox file: ■ Agenda for June 16, 2016, Regular Meeting ■ Planner's Memo • North Shore Medical Center ■ Flynntan Redevelopment • - Civil Peer Review - Traffic Peer Review ■ Almeda Subdivision - Memo from City Engineer Re: funds for water system improvements - Revised Plans Submitted 6/9/2016 ■ 1, 3 & 5 Harmony Grove Rd. and 60 & 64 Grove Street (Salem Oil & Grease) - Insignificant Change Request - Planning Board Amended Decision, dated December 11, 2014 ■ Draft Minutes - June 2, 2016 • Discussion of an expanded role for the DRB REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS A. North Shore Medical Center (SPR, Stormwater Permit) 81 Highland Avenue; 108 Jefferson Avenue; Old Road; 1 Dove Avenue; 79 Highland Avenue; 55 Highland Avenue; And 57 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); (Map 24 Lots 1, 2, 19, 88, 216, 218, 220) Ken Petraglia of BETA, is peer reviewing the traffic impact and access study. The peer review report will be distributed under a separate cover. Mr. Petraglia will be at the meeting on June 16th to present his review. • City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —June 16, 2016 Page 2 of 5 B. Former Flynntan Site (NRCC, SPR, FHOD, Stormwater Permit) • 70-92 % Boston St. (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) Kenneth Staffier of VHB provided this letter summarizing their peer review of the civil plans and Stormwater permit. Kenneth will be at the meeting to present his review. Alan Cloutier of Stantec has provided a traffic impact study/peer review of the project, which can be found here. Mr. Cloutier will be at the meeting to present his review. C. Almeda St. (Form C Subdivision) 14 and 16 Almeda St. (Map 14, Lot 116 and Map 14, Lot 117) This is a continuation of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. The public hearing for this project was first opened on September 17, 2015. Since the applicant has been requesting continuances while working towards addressing the following concerns: 1. Whether the two subject lots are dimensionally pre-existing nonconforming lots along an accepted public way or if they have merged under common ownership, and • 2. Almeda Street does not contain a water main. The subject property is located approximately 600 feet from the closest water main on Highland Avenue. Wells are proposed to provide water to the subject lots. On January 7, 2016, the City Solicitor prepared this legal opinion, in which she finds there is sufficient evidence in the record to support that the two lots have not merged. On June 2, 2016, the City Engineer prepared this memo, in which he recommends that the applicant pay $20,000, for water system improvements to resolve the City's concerns regarding water supply to the subject lots. On June 9, 2016 the petitioner submitted revised plans which can be found here. A retaining wall is proposed along the eastern edge of the Almeda Street right-of-way. The applicant is also proposing to install a drainage pipe and outlet on city-owned land, which will require an easement and approval from the City Council. The petitioner requests the following waivers from the Salem Subdivision Regulations: a. A waiver from Section IV A.4.1 to allow a dead end street longer than 500- feet. The current length of Almeda Street is approximately 650-feet and the • proposed plan will add 80-feet of roadway for a total of 730 feet including a 35' x 20' hammerhead turn around area. Page 2 of 5 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —June 16, 2016 Page 3 of 5 • b. A waiver from Section IV. A.1.e to allow the centerline radius of the proposed roadway extension to be 130 feet, which is less than the 230 feet required. The proposed radius is required due to the layout of the existing right-of-way. c. A waiver from Section IV.A.2.a to allow a waiver from the requirement to install sidewalks and granite curbing as the roadway extension will primarily be used by the occupants of the two (2) proposed residences and there are not currently existing sidewalks. The 135 day deadline' for the subject project has been extended five times. The current deadline for the Board must take final action is July 12, 2016, unless the applicant requests another extension of the 135 day deadline. I also note that per the City's Conservation Agent, the project will require an order of conditions from the Conservation Commission. D. Salem Oil & Grease (Request for Insignificant Change of Planning Board Amended SPR, PUD Decision) The applicant is requesting an insignificant change of the previously approved Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development, specifically to allow the • demolition of the existing structure at 60 Grove Street with that space remaining designated for future commercial use on the site, as described in this letter. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 2, 2016 Old/New Business A. Discussion of an expanded role for the DRB Discussion Recommended by Planning Board Members of the Planning Board have expressed interested discussing an expansion of the Design Review Board (DRB) jurisdiction to include 1) projects over a certain size and 2) projects within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District E( COD). • Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law(M.G.L)Chapter 41,Section 81(U),the failure of a planning board either to take final action or to file with the city or town clerk a certificate of such action regarding the definitive plan submitted I y an applicant within 135 days after such submission, or such further time as may be agreed upon at the written request of the applicant,shall be deemed to be an approval thereof. Page 3 of 5 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —June 16, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Overview of the Design Review Board • The DRB is an advisory board that reports to both the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) and the Salem Planning Board. The DRB has jurisdiction on projects located in the Urban Renewal Area and in the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) District. In these areas, an advisory opinion from the DRB must be obtained prior to the Planning Board making a determination. The "advisory opinion" is herein referred to as "design review." The Planning Board could suggest that any project obtain design review; however, the board cannot require design review for a project that falls outside of the DRB's jurisdiction. Expanding the jurisdiction of the DRB would require a Zoning Text Amendment. Entrance Corridor Overlay District Pursuant to Section 8.2.1 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the ECOD is to: 1) Protect and enhance the major entrance ways into the City; and, 2) Ensure that such areas are improved in a manner which is in the best interest of the City. Requiring design review appears to promote the purpose of the ECOD. Three different approaches to expanding the DRB's jurisdiction are outlined below. 1) All site plan reviewed projects in the ECOD a. The trigger for a site plan review in the ECOD is 2,000 square • feet, or 6 or more residential units 2) All commercial site plan review projects in the ECOD a. Not include residential 3) Only site plan review projects in the ECOD over a certain size a. This would ensure the amendment would not result in a financial burden for small projects In order to help evaluate what an appropriate size trigger would be for DRB review, the square footage of a few Planning Board projects are shown in the table below. I note that the projects listed below are enumerated in order to establish a frame of reference, and are not all in the ECOD. Name Location Square Feet CVS Jefferson & Loring 12,900 Irving Gas Station 319 Highland Ave 5,534 Veterinary Office 20 Commercial Street 5,000 McDonalds Traders Way 2,500 Community Life Center not built et Boston & Bride 12,373 Mixed-use Office/Retail not built et Lafayette/West 24,388 • Page 4 of 5 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum lune 16, 2016 Page 5 of 5 Projects beyond the Entrance Corridor Overlay District If the Planning Board advises that the SPR regulations be amended to include design review for projects beyond the ECOD, staff suggests limiting some zoning districts from design review. For example, it is not as critical to have design review for an industrial building on Technology Way. For that reason, staff recommends that Industrial and Business Park Development zoned parcels not be subject to design review. The board should also consider whether design review should be limited to development of a certain size outside the ECOD, and if it should include residential uses outside the ECOD. For example, the Planning Board recently approved the adaptive reuse of the existing structure used as school on 114 Derby Street, into six residential units. Should that type of project require design review? • • Page 5 of 5 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board 6mfz� Date �1�/ l ,� / Zbl(.0 Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Jo\lcf Lcf T 5l x-74(!- li o Ilse J✓S7I.J /��.q YfK� !O�w,vc..,�r f w,➢-7ttiM�:� co py is; r,/ { .Sti2 ��Y QISeaHa gl N9�ia„o' WVe ,Sq le ti, y�8-3S� - asy� $b5egna� Gb��ner�Q� r� Gz�j: eA(�OW Page of Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Page of Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 1 of 15 • City of Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes Thursday,June 16,2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,June 16, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313, Salem,Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opened the meeting at 7:00 pm. I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Chair Ben Anderson, Helen Sides,Kirt Rieder,Noah Koretz,Dale Yale,Carole Hamilton Tardy: Vice Chair Matt Veno,and Tony Mataragas Absent: Bill Griset Also present.Amanda Chiancola,Staff Planner, and Colleen Anderson, Substitute Planning Board Recording Clerk. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 2,2016 Carole Hamilton made a motion to 4 mve the June 2. 2016 meeting minutes, was seconded by Noah Koret;Land the motion passed unanimonUl (1-0). • III. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 1,3, & 5 HARMONY GROVE ROAD;60& 64 GROVE STREET Applicant: MRM MANAGEMENT, LLC Description: Insignificant change request to the previously approved Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development, specifically to allow the demolition of the existing structure at 60 Grove Street (former Salem Oil & Grease) with that space remaining designated for future commercial use on the site. Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street,Salem,represents the applicant. Other presenters include: • Robert Griffin; Site Engineer & Project Engineer; Griffin Engineering Group, LLC, 100 Cummings Center#224g,Beverly,MA 01915 Documents and Exhibitions: • Written report from Griffin Engineering Group regarding the present state of the building Arty Correnti states that the site is currently under demolition and ongoing remediation for several years, since Site Plan Review was approved. A DEP appeal, Ch. 91 license, MEPA, etc. has occurred in that time and the site is currently being prepared for construction. One of the Planning Board conditions was to rehabilitate the 60 Grove Street building, with a proposed commercial use. The use will remain commercial although Griffin Engineering Group has determined that the rehab of this building is not feasible. . Mr. Griffin states that the building was constructed in 1900 and used as office/industrial space but has gone unused for at least 10 years. The roof and floors have large holes, the structure has shifted away from the canal, the foundation had cracked and has defects, there is no internal bracing, mold and moss Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 2 of 15 are growing throughout the building, which has led to its present unsafe condition. For extreme* expenditure the building could be rehabbed although there is practical way of saving the structure. Chair Anderson inquiries about the square footage of the building. Mr. Griffin replies approximately 15,000 gross SF. Chair Anderson inquires if a commercial building is proposed in the future would that need to come back before the Board. Mr. Griffin replied yes. Ms. Sides, the only present Board member involved with the previous decision, states that there was much discussion regarding the PUD and the amount of office space, that many felt was being squeezed into the project. She finds this to be a significant change. The removal of the building takes away almost all of the commercial space and she questioned who will construct a new building to fulfill the condition. Leaving an empty space is unacceptable as the buildings future use was an important part of the development. Arty Correnti states that they accepted to condition to rehab the building and that was always the intent, however; this particular building is too extreme to rehab. The commercial use of 60 Grove Street will remain, as that was always the intent of the board and of the developer. In the future a building will need to be erected and an amendment to the plan will come back before the Board. Ms. Sides asks who will construct the new building; Atty Correnti replies that this project will be sold to a development partner; the new developer will build it out. The development partner is not going to let a half-acre site right on the street sit vacant;it will be developed as a commercial building. • Ms. Sides states that it was clear years ago that rehabbing the building would be tough and expensive but that was the agreement and it effected the approval. Ms. Sides is not in favor of the property being sold with the only obligation being to tear down the building and not build anything, which makes it a different project. Mr. Rieder is familiar with the site, and notes the site looks challenged and assumes it probably looked challenged in 2012. He is perplexed that the applicant does not have anything to show the board members who might not be familiar with the site, as showing the board something would have helped their argument. Mr. Rieder asks the applicant to clarify if they are asking to clear the site in advance of selling the site to another developer. Mr. Griffin replies that one of the issues they are faced with is that the Fire Department, Building Department, Police Department want this building torn down. It is a nuisance that is falling down on its own and has been red-tagged. Mr. Rieder statues that he is concerned that the building will be torn down and the site will be turned into a parking lot, which would be a bad move. Mr. Rieder asks what abilities the board has to ensure the lot does not become a parking lot for the next x number of years. Chair Anderson replies that there is a path to that but that is not before them this evening. This evening the board is being asked to vote on whether removal of the building is an insignificant change. Vice Chair Veno arrives. Chair Anderson askes Ms. Sides if the previously approved rehabilitation of this building was supposed to be concurrent with the construction of the remaining housing project. Ms. Sides replies yes, the percentage of commercial use on the site was always a concern, this lot could now be vacant for years and it seems hopeful that it could become commercial. Mr. Rieder asks if saying yes will allow the0 residential construction with no commercial because it is not clear if the original decision stipulated that the two must be built concurrently. Chair Anderson noted that the approvals limit it to commercial and Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 3 of 15 approving the insignificant change does not give a time limit on the commercial development. Other avenues are available if the Board doesn't approve the insignificant change. Arty Correnti notes that the calculation for qualification of the PUD & BPD, residential vs. commercial, is based on land area. The building itself is not included in that calculation and the land area will remain commercial. There is nothing unique in the decision about that building other than it saying the building will be rehabbed. Another building can be constructed to fulfill all the PUD requirements. Chair Anderson states that the development of commercial spaces needs to be proven. Atty Correnti states that this project must also be approved by the Historic Commission, and he can get more specifics on future plans from the owners and this discussion can be continued. Mr. Koretz proposes that visuals also be brought to the next meeting. Mr. Koretz states for the record that Mass Development has a Brown Fields Loan in this project, he filed a 23(b)(3) disclosure with the Mayor's office, stating that he can objectively and fairly deliberate on this matter. Ms. Hamilton fails to see why a vote on whether or not this is an insignificant change is being voted on, regardless of whether a proposed/potential building is shown to them. The Board should be able to make this determination on whether this request is insignificant or not, which will give the applicant direction. Vice Chair Veno states that he would like the applicant to return with a refined presentation to give the Board a clearer sense of the future of this site since different people are now on the Board from when this project was last presented. Mr. Koretz agrees with Vice Chair Veno. Vice Chair Veno made a motion to continue to thew 7, 2016 meeting, was seconded by Dale Yale and the motion fails (4 in favor3 in opposition) Tony Mataragas arrives. Carole Hamilton maker a motion to approve an insi ni want ebanj�e for 1.3, dam'S Harmony Grove Road, was seconded b� Helen Sim, and the motion fails (3 in favor 4 in opposition). B. Location: 70-921/2 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 299& Map 16, Lot 139) Applicant: 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST Description: A continuance of a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. Attorney Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem,represents the apphcant. Other presenters include: • Chris Sparages,P.E.;Project& Civil Engineer;Williams & Sparages, 189 North Main Street, Suite 101,Middleton, MA 01949 • Kenneth Staffier;Peer Reviewer,VHB, 101 Walnut Street,Watertown, MA 02481 Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 4 of 15 • Alan Cloutier; Peer Reviewer, Stantec, 5 Burlington Woods Drive Suite 210 Burlington MA• 01803-4542 Documents and Exhibitions: • Goodhue Street& #70-92 'h Boston Street, Salem,MA—Peer Review Response • DEP memo regarding precipitation analysis methods Atty Correnti states that the project has been before the DRB and will return for a second DRB meeting later in the month and introduces the Civil Engineer,Mr. Sparages. Mr. Sparages states that this is the third Planning Board appearance; the plans and drainage report were sent out for a peer review that Mr. Kenneth Staffier,P.E. of VHB commented on through a letter dated June 1, 2016 and will present his findings. They have been working on addressing those findings but do not have revised plans to submit at this time, but have submitted a letter to the Board explaining how those findings are being addressed. They are also coordinating with the City Fire Marshall regarding fire apparatus access on the site and finalizing hydrant locations, and the City Engineer regarding the ongoing demolition and cutting and capping existing utilities. A revised set of site plan will be submitted to the Planning office and Mr. Staffier. Mr. Staffier of VHB, conducted the site and civil review for the project, and outlines his comments and concerns: • Storm water & utilities and if they meet the City regulations — additional information is required to make that determination • • Site hydrology analysis o Rainfall analysis —TP 40 has been superseded by Noah Atlas 14. DEP uses TP 40 as their standard, but new data should be analyzed using the latest in hydrological analysis modeling, NOAA Atlas 14, to determine the pipe sizing and network system. o Soil types —Type B was chosen and studied but soil report indicates that Type A should be used • Various technical items needing clarification • Test pits need verification to confirm consistency during construction • TMDL for the north coastal watershed • Proximity of infiltration systems to the retaining walls on site, there is a minimum setback to maintain the strength and stability of the retaining walls • Coordination of cutting and capping of utilities with the City requirements • Verifying hydrant locations and connection location with fire department • General Site Plan&Engineering Review o Accessibility especially from Boston Street o Beaver Street driveway entrance is in close proximity to intersection creating potential vehicular conflicts o Width of Beaver Street driveway doesn't meet minimum requirements for a 2 lane road o Access to garage, two 90 degree turns, is tight for 2 way traffic and requires an analysis of turning movements o Fire apparatus access plan and Fire Dept. approval o Snow storage, currently along retaining walls and in the dog park, should be relocated away from the retaining walls Mr. Sparages responses to VHB comments and concerns: Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 5 of 15 • • Rainfall data — DEP provided a memo stating that TP 40 analysis should still be used for hydrological analysis unless the applicant chooses otherwise was submitted to the Board. If regulations don't require it they would rather not re-analysis the data. o Chair Anderson stated that Ms. Chiancola will verify this with the City Engineer • Existing conditions soils — Some test pit data has been provided but a large amount of soil data wasn't submitted and needs to be provided. o B soils were chosen but A soils were suggested,which will make it more difficult to mitigate the proposed condition if there is less runoff leaving the site and additional impervious conditions are being created. Addition soils data will be tested and provided to Mr. Staffer. Chair Anderson asks when additional data will be provided to Mr. Staffer. Mr. Sparages replies one week prior to the next meeting. Atty Correnti states that the project underwent a Site Plan Review 2 years ago for a medical office building, and at that time the City was working on a comprehensive North River Canal Corridor Traffic analysis, which resulted in the current intersection in front of 28 Goodhue Street. The applicant has used the City's data for this site had hired the same company to analyze this site. Mr. Alan Cloutier of Stantec, worked on the previous study, and stated that this study has been revised based on current neighborhood and traffic numbers. The onsite driveway and neighborhood were reviewed to study the traffic impact. The area is mostly residential with some commercial usage and residential numbers generate less traffic. • • Peak morning hours: 40 trips = 12 entering and 28 exiting (less than 1 car per min.) • Afternoon: 79 trips = 46 entering and 33 existing(more than 1 car per min.) Traffic coming and going from the site is less than what was determined 2 years ago because this is a slightly different project. Level surface analysis of intersections that border the site were reviewed both with and without the project, and it was determined that there would only be a slightly higher impact to the traffic —a few extra seconds spent at intersections. The impact wasn't significant enough to add anything on site to help with traffic flow, however; some improvements can be done in the area if the City chose to purse them. Internal,parking, and site driveway review generated more comments from their office. Parking:Average for residential units = 64-84 spaces to be utilized. The site can provide 102 spaces. The following list of comments and improvements was recommended: • Driveway location on Boston Street. It is currently 170 feet from the Bridge Street intersection and 100 feet away from the Dunkin Donuts driveway. The recommendation is to move the driveway an additional 25 feet away from the Dunkin Donuts driveway because Dunkin Donuts proximity to the street poses a conflict in terms of the minimum site distance requirement. • The Architectural drawings differ from the Civil in terms of the Beaver Street Driveway. The architectural drawings show two separate driveways and the civil shows a shared drive. The shared curb cut should be separated or widened because the opening is shown as approximately 15 feet wide. • The proposed garage spaces are shown at 7 '/2 feet wide which is too narrow • • Some of the turns going in and out of the garages are very sharp for passenger vehicles, fire apparatuses, etc. • Can the dumpster be accessed by a trash truck? • Where will moving vehicles park- Goodhue Street? Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 6 of 15 • The sidewalk and driveway need more detail so the sidewalk crosses the driveway so cars have too drive over a raised sidewalk. • There is no pedestrian access from Boston Street, except for the townhouses. • Will the sidewalk along Boston Street be new? • The new sign should be further away from the road as to not interfere with sightlines. • Insure that bicycle racks are on site. Atty Correnti states that he will review all items and will address them with the peer reviewer. Chair Anderson states that the project would be better if the items were addressed, especially as they relate to: • Safety and sightlines from the driveway. • Comfortable entrance and exit from the parking garage for residents • Parking space usage—the City s requirement is 9 feet x 18 feet. Vice Chair Veno stated the Boston Street egress is of particular concern and he encourages the recommendation of the peer review even if it is a modest number of feet is added, would be a significant improvement, and should be added despite the impact it may have on the site parking. Chair Anderson opens public comment. No public comment. Helen Sides made a motion to continue to the IL U/ 7. 2016 meeting, Was seconded by Dale Yale, and the motion passed* unanimonLIX (8-0,! C. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: REVISION: The applicant requested a continuance to June 2, 2016 of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering Group represents the applicant,Mr. Balou. Mr. Griffin states that the proposed is an 80 foot extension of Almeda Street, off Highland Avenue. Almeda Street is currently 650 feet long with 6 or 7 existing homes, and two additional homes are proposed on the new extension. The Planning Board approved a 250 foot extension in 2004, and the additional 80 feet will be built in a similar manner but would be slightly wider with a hammer head at the end. Land characteristics in the area: • Smooth terrain with some drop off past the existing road • Some ledge which will'require removal • Concrete retaining wall along the right side at the end of the existing road • A pool and guardrail on the left side of the end of the road that is half on the owners' property, which will need to be removed. Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 7 of 15 • The two lots involved were created in 1919 that do not conform to the R1 requirements, but because they are over 5,000 SF and have over 50 feet of frontage, they are both legal lots. The City Attorney made an opinion in October of 2015 that the 2 lots were merged for zoning purposes, but George Belleau's attorney determined that that was not the case. The City Attorney made a second opinion in January of 2016 that the lots were not merged. This lead to the delay with their September application. The second delay was with the differences in opinions on how best to supply water to these houses. Some wanted a water main extended from Highland Avenue. The last three houses on Almeda Street have wells and the houses closer to Highland Avenue are possibly served by copper lines from Highland Avenue, although; there is a lack of records to confirm that. Mr. Belleau offered to put in a dry section of water line for the City to utilize, but after some discussion with the City, Mr. Belleau has offered $20,000 to the City for utility improvements on Almeda Street, as well as a well on each new lot as a water supply. The 18 foot street will be widened to 21 feet with a 20 foot by 35 foot hammerhead turnaround. A low 50 foot retaining wall will be added to eliminate the need for any regrading as well as a tree box filter to treat storm water. Both houses will be served by a public sewer system that will connect at the end of Almeda Street. Some waivers have been requested for sub-division regulations for • 1 —Length of a dead-end street: Adding 80 feet onto an existing 650 foot street = 730 feet • 2 — Center line of sub division requires a 230 foot radius and Almeda Street has 130 feet. The 1919 layout of Almeda Street is being used. • 3—Roadway construction requirements similar to the 2005 plan • o No sidewalk o No granite curbing o 20 foot wide right-of-way Mr. Belleau adds that the $20,000 will be used for the water system at the City's discretion and not necessarily on Almeda Street. Ms. Hamilton askes how much further does the 1919 layout extend. Mr. Griffin replied that he did not know but the road continues past the lake and Almeria Street West has some developments on it although there are some existing barriers keeping the two roads from being connected, such as an electrical sub-station. Ms. Yale asks if this project needs to be filed with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Griffin replied yes,and added that the lots are within 100 feet of the wetlands. Mr. Rieder asks that Mr. Griffin speak to the wetlands to the lower left of the 2 lots. Mr. Griffin replied there is a wetland at the bottom of the hill and the grade drops off rather steeply, but their lot lines are above that.drop off, but it is in proximity to the two lots. Chair Anderson outlines his concerns: • Right-of-way improvements policy of the City's sub-division regulation. In the requested waiver this looks to be a sub-division of 2 lots with a possible expansion, not a sub-division of 2 lots with no expansion. What prevents future developers from continuing the addition of lots, • especially when curb requirements are being waved. o Mr. Griffin replied that there is no way to further divide the lots. The only extension is the road. There is adequate room for curbing and sidewalk if the Board requires the land to be reserved. Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 8 of 15 • Hammerhead at the dead end extension as it relates to the water service and fire department* comments. • Mr. Griffin replies that they asked that turning area be created which is what the hammerhead provides, if an apparatus can reach within 50 feet of the house sprinklers are not required to which this project complies, the water service connection has been addressed and agreed upon by the City. Because of turning radiuses and possible private property damage, the driveways will be constructed with the same requirements as the street. • The waiver to allow the centerline to be less than the required 230 feet is based on the right-of- way, but the condition exists. Chair Anderson asks if the construction of the homes was known at this time, architectural style, materials proposed, etc. Mr. Griffin replies that nothing has been submitted on the houses but they will conform to the City zoning requirements and will be 2 story colonial style houses consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Koretz asks why a hammerhead is proposed instead of a circle. Mr. Griffin replies that a circle would need more area than is available, and a hammerhead is listed in the sub-division regulations, and will improve the existing 18 foot wide dead-end. Chair Anderson opens public comment. Stephen Lovely, Ward 3 Councilor. There is a need for homes in the City and he is in favor of this• project. Ms. Chiancola states that revised plans were submitted to the City Engineer but they have not received comments in response but they should receive them by the July 7, 2016 meeting. Mr. Belleau states that plans dated,June 2"d, were given to the City Engineer prior to him writing the letter. Only one revision was made after the June 2"° plans were submitted and that was a comment from Ms. Chiancola regarding moving a pipe off of City property and into the right-of-way that the City Engineer hasn't had a change to address. Chair Anderson replied that a draft decision will be made on July 7`h by the Board. Naafi Koret,�made a motion to continue to the uly 7, 2096 meeting, was seconded by Carole Hamilton, and the motion barred unanimorul/(8-0) D. Location: 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE; 108 JEFFERSON AVENUE; OLD ROAD; 1 DOVE AVENUE; 79 HIGHLAND AVENUE; 55 HIGHLAND AVENUE;AND 57 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 24, Lots 1, 2, 88, 19, 216, 218 220; and Map 14, Lot 129) Applicant: NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review,in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. • Attorney]oseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street,Salem,represents the applicant. Other presenters include: Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 9 of 15 • • Vinod Kahkiri,P.E.;Traffic Consultant;VHB, 101 Walnut Street,Watertown,MA 02481 • Kenneth Petraglia,P.E.; City of Salem Independent Traffic Peer Reviewer;V.P. of Beta Group; 315 Norwood Park South, 2nd Floor,Norwood, MA 02062 Arty Correnti states that at previous meetings the campus presentation was presented by the Civil Engineer, Architect, and Landscape Engineer. The traffic and parking on campus will be presented tonight by Mr. Vinod Kalikiri. Transportation&Parking Study Mr. Kalikiri, Senior Project Manager,licensed professional engineer and professional traffic engineer, and traffic engineer of record for this project and has been working with NSMC since that began their master plan project. The traffic study is from April 16". Mr. Kahkiri states that three main topics will be discussed. • Overview of the Traffic Study and off-site impacts o Overflow o Roadways o Sidewalks o Traffic signals o Intersections and their proximity to the campus • • On-campus access and circulation o Access in and out today and any future changes associated with the campus expansion • Parking o Existing and how it is used o Utilizing future parking associated with the campus expansion Off-site traffic impacts: The April 2016 comprehensive study includes both the vacant Spaulding building and new spaces, and there are several opportunities for enhancements. The ongoing study by Mass DOT— Highland Avenue / Rt. 107 Corridor Study starts in Lynn and extends to Boston Street in Salem, and this study includes the scope and limits of the Mass DOT findings including: • Critical locations within the corridor • Campus entry and exit points (the focus of the study) The study is broken down into three components: • Scoping — look at record information, meet with City staff, transportation characteristics, and understanding what occurs in this area • Data collection and analysis — Safety and transportation (vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, transit, etc.) analyzing it to determine what is occurring today • Analyze future conditions within the project and determine off-site impacts and how to resolve any issues on-site The limits of the jurisdiction is Greenway Road to the South West of the hospital; everything South of it is under Mass DOT jurisdiction and everything North is City of Salem jurisdiction. They have met with • the Planning Department as well as Planning and Community Development, to ensure that the study is consistent with the City's' expectations and the future DOT study. The Planning Dept. wanted to ensure that the multiple peaks of traffic flow and volume; 1) morning commutes &school start, 2) school release which coincides with hospital shift changes, and 3) evening commutes were addressed and how they Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 10 of 15 impact the neighboring intersections, were included in this study. Several traffic guards are at multiple • intersections that help manage traffic and add to the safety during peak school hours. This data was collected in May of 2014 reflect when Spaulding was still in operation at NSMC campus. Data collected includes; traffic, speed, truck traffic, heavy vehicles, crash data, roadways and traffic signals and their settings, and Highland Avenue planning level data going as far back as 2009, to use in and compare with the more recent Mass DOT Highland Avenue data. The City's Peer Reviewer submitted a letter stating that this data used in this analysis is sufficient. The schematic site plan indicates that all three existing curb cuts/access points on Highland Avenue and Jefferson Avenue are being maintained and no new curb cuts are proposed or anticipated,although a new internal driveway will connect the Highland Avenue side of the campus with the Jefferson Avenue side, to assist with traffic flow and circulation. Yellow indicates: the new building, white: parking, and grey: existing buildings on the campus. The new building will house a new Emergency Department, two.floors of in-patient beds, a new lobby area - Davenport, the first floor of the Spaulding building will be integrated with the Emergency Department, the second to the fifth floors of the Spaulding building will support a new Psychiatric Department partially relocated from Union Hospital in Lynn and partially an existing department on the NSMC campus and already within the Spaulding Building. The Traffic Study incorporates trip generation and traffic flow using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidelines, which analyzed both the morning and evening peak hours. The current 2 way traffic flow is approximately 1,900 vehicles per hour on Highland Avenue and 1,200 vehicles per hour on Jefferson Avenues. The future projections estimated an additional 120 trips at both peak hours, split over the three entrances, which appears to be a 60 /40 split between the two sides, and also. incorporates how traffic moves around the campus and the flow of the two existing employee parking lots off campus on Jefferson Avenue. Union Hospital Non-Ambulance Traffic: 16,000 visit per year. Approximately 5,000 of those cases would be directed to NSMC, based on the level of care needed, but could be treated at Urgent Care Centers. Vice Chair Veno asked how much control there is over how many non-emergency ambulance trips will be transferred to NSMC. Ms. Mary Joe Gagnon, of NSMC replied that the NSMC is working with Lynn on a Determination of Need (DON), to figure out the urgent care program for Lynn but that could take a year or more to finalize. Half of the volume is level 4 & 5, meaning non-urgent care, but they will accept all ambulance traffic. Vice Chair Veno stated that these are data assumptions and stated that the numbers seem optimistic. Mr. Kahkiri noted that industry data based on similar uses was being used to estimate the numbers. Salem receives on average 44 ambulance visits per day and Union Hospital 22. Not all of those ambulances will be directed to NSMC, only approximate 13 (roughly 1 every couple of hours) and only Levels 1+2 and 3. Ms. Gagnon added that not all of those ambulances will require sirens. Mr. Koretz asked which direction the ambulances will travel to get to the new Emergency Department and where will ambulances not going to NSMC go? Ms. Gagnon stated that the other ambulances will go to either Lahey in Peabody or Melrose/Wakefield. Mr. Kahkiri stated that all vehicles would need to drive through a series of parking lots from Highland Avenue, to get to the new internal driveway and new ambulance loading bay on the Jefferson Avenue side of the campus. Emergency Room visitors or those dropping off a non-ambulance patient can drop off the patient,park in one of the lots and walk back to the Emergency Department. Ambulances would• enter from wluchever access point is easiest for them to travel. Ms. Sides noted that the intersection at Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 11 of 15 • Jefferson, Jackson, and Hathorne Streets is getting progressively worse and adding more ambulance traffic could be problematic and also requires some study. Mr. Kalikiri stated that pedestrian access has been a significant focus of the project. The red dashes lines on the site plan represent the existing sidewalk to and from the Highland and Jefferson Avenue entrance. The yellow areas are the new pedestrian sidewalks to Highland Avenue, along the new internal driveway, to Jefferson Avenue, and to various entrances of the buildings on campus to help improve pedestrian walkability. Mr. Kal kiri stated that there are numerous lots both on and off the NSMC campus. The common complaint is that there is not enough parking along the Highland Avenue lots, depending on the time of day; morning and evening commute times, shift changes, and during the peak times of hospital use — 10AM and 2:30PM. The two off-campus lots on Jefferson Avenue are overflow lots, primarily used by employees. There is no active enforcement of these designated parking areas. Parking data collected show that at LOAM there are between 400—600 spaces available, and at 2:30PM there are between 370— 660 spaces available, although they are not all in areas where they are needed, and patients or visitor are leaf searching for parking during those times. The goal of the parking management plan is to improve the connectivity, circulation, parking availability, and pedestrian access. Operational changes planed are: • Unify medical and administrative parking areas • Relocate administrative parking on Highland Avenue to the Jefferson Avenue side of the campus. • • Lessen the staff increase since some of them are already on the campus and will be consolidated into the Spaulding Building • Reduce parking in front of the ED and Children's Medical Center • Place visitor and patient parking in the Highland Avenue parking lots • Keep the valet parking at the Main Entrance • Consider valet parking at the ED entrance Mr. Kalikiri stated that there some questions regarding walking distances between the parking lots and the current Emergency Department and how that might change when it moves to the Jefferson Avenue side of the campus. Existing: • MSCH &ED parking to ED entrance: approximately 110 feet • Lot A to ED entrance: approximately 340 feet (when cutting through the multiple isles of traffic and that distances will increase if pedestrians follow the sidewalk routes) Proposed: • Handicapped to ED entrance: 150 feet • ED parking to ED entrance: 190 feet • Additional ED parking to ED entrance: 200 feet The sidewalks adjacent to the building to the ED entrance will be covered, there will be crosswalks, and accessible ramps proposed. The pedestrian environment will be improved through the distances traveled and walking surfaces provided. The parking lots will be grouped in terms of use: 0 Patients &visitors Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 12 of 15 • General staff • Mixed use: Patients,visitors &medical staff Before Spaulding closed there were 1,953 parking spaces across the campus and after the completion of this project there will be 2,025 parking spaces. The site plan indicates an 88 space loss which was determined based on the footprint of the project. When comparing the campus as a whole to when Spaulding was in operation, there is a net gain of 72 parking spaces. The campus is comparable to industry standards for parking for a campus of this size. The parking data will be provided to the peer reviewer. Chair Anderson outlines his concerns: • Will be a connection to Wilson Street, as it was referenced several times in some of the documentation. Mr. Kahkiri replied no, it was an incorrect reference. Mr. Shelly Bisegna, of NSMC, added that there is a road, Old Road, to their rear parking lot but there is a gate that they have committed to the City will remain closed at all times because residents were concerns that it would be used as a cut-through. It is only opened for City and fire department purposes. • Ambulances coming from Union Hospital in Lynn were answered • Concerning the connector road: It seems very close to the newly renovated Bertram Field. How will that disturbance to Bertram Field be handed, and requests a site cross section at that point in relation to the building, sidewalk, roadway, retaining wall, and the field. Mr. Kalikiri replied that there is land swap planned with the City and a cross section can be provided. Atty Correnti stated that there is no agreement with the City but that part of Bertram Field is • dedicated park land and that needs to be reviewed by the City Council and voted on by a home ruled decision. The matter would then be reviewed by the Parks & Recreation Commission, and they would need to recommend a land swap. The home ruled decision would then be voted on by the State legislature, which would occur in months from now. This would be a condition of the Planning Board and the proposed plan includes the swapping of that land. If it is approved, the hospital would gain approximately 11-1,200 square feet of land and the City would gain just under 6,000. • Is the off-site parking is leased or owned? Mr. Bisegna replied that the 108 Jefferson Avenue lot is owned by the NSMC. The 65 Jefferson Avenue lot is owned by a neighboring business, EMR Drywall, and houses 197 spaces. As of August 1" an additional small lot will be leased that will house 37 spaces. • In terms of employees walking from those off-site lots, the sidewalks, especially in front of 108 Jefferson should be repaved to meet all code requirements for safe pedestrian access • Crosswalks should be added across Jefferson Avenue on both side of the Dove Avenue entrance. Mr. Pertanian noted that there are employee shuttle with a covered pick-up area from the off-site lots. • ED, pedestrian, and ambulance access. Pedestrian access should be closer to the ER entrance to provide safer access and a 300 foot seems too far. Mr. Bisegna replied that they would like to get the pedestrians closer but wetlands to the South are limiting their options. The proximity of hospital departments pushed the ED to this area of the site. Grading challenges exist along the internal driveway, and the longer ambulance route from Highland Ave creates gentler turns for ambulance passengers. • The main entrance driveway is confusing and a straight shot to the main entrance from Highland Avenue would eliminate the confusion and create a clearer path for vehicles. It is dangerous to have pedestrians crossing through multiple parking lots and across driveways with no clear Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 13 of 15 definition of where they should be going. Mr. Kafikiri replied that there are site line implications involved with moving the lower Highland Avenue curb cut. • Higher number of accidents at signaled intersections than normal and how that can be mitigated. Mr. Kalikiri replied angled accidents occur because there is a lack of adequate clearance times between the yellow and red lights. Beta Group implied that there could a be a trade off by taking time off the green light and adding it to the red to allow additional time for cars to clear the intersection. This corridor is part of the more comprehensive DOD Corridor Study that will point out these types of adjustments and tweaks can be made in the meantime. • Will the Parking management plan be made available to the Planning Board? Ms. Gagnon replied that numerous parking changes will be made during the 3 years of construction. The NSMC would need to make a management decision to implement final parking changes, but they can be clarified for the Planning Board. Mr. Rieder stated that not redeveloping the various Highland Avenue parking lots is a missed opportunity to simplify the pedestrian route, transforming the space, and create a new campus image. Wayfinding should be clear and easy to determine. (Mr. Rieder made reference to the Cleveland Clinic.) Ms. Gagnon replied that a new landscaping plan is underway from the Highland Avenue side of the campus. Chair Anderson added that parking zones for each building would be great to see, not a mass of parking lots with no clear direction. Mr. Koretz added that the visual sequence of arrival needs to be thought out. Peer Review • Mr. Petraglia stated that much of the information presented has not provided and is not reflected in the Peer Review. Based on the April 2016 Report Mr. Petraglia outlines his comments, concerns and recommendations: • The study area was appropriate and traffic times were collected well • Crash history: combination or angled crashes and rear collisions creates a confusion because North and South bound traffic are timed separately but also overlap. A recommendation to alter the traffic signal timing or adding more a delay can improve the crash history • Corridor improvements recommendations along Highland & Jefferson Avenues; provide pedestrian bicycle lanes, striping on shoulders, wheelchair ramps are non-existent or not ADA complaint, replace missing curb cuts, provide ADA compliant crosswalks, & repair sidewalks along the property lines • Public transportation information is accurate • Future traffic information is accurate • Trip generation: Recommends conducting counts in and out of the entrances during AM and PM peaks to develop actual rates and not ITE rates which come from across the country. • Trip distribution and assignments: Conducted from circle and corridor analysis but there is no recognition that Jefferson Avenue will have less traffic and less delay, when it could become the more popular entrance. • Capacity and queuing analysis: There is a possibility that delays could back into other intersections • A parking discussion was not in the report, how many will be parking,where,and is there enough parking • • Transportation Demand Management (TDM Measures): Will traffic stress be reheved? Will carpooling become an incenting program and rewarded with better parking spots? Will shift Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 14 of 15 changes occur off peak periods? They will reduce traffic woes without doing anything structural to the road. • Site Plan: ED parking is on average 200 feet away from the ED entrance • Is in favor of the color coding parking proposal suggested by a Planning Board member • Mr. Petraglia noted that there is more excess width on Jefferson Avenue that could provide bicycle lanes. Mr. Kalikiri stated that he Nvill have responses to these concerns at the next meeting. Chair Anderson opens public comment. Senator Joan Lovely, 14 Story Street, speaking as a concerned neighbor rather than as her elected role, lives 3 blocks away from the hospital on the Jefferson Avenue side. Ms. Lovely is concerned with the impact on the residential neighborhood and traffic flow into Salem and around the hospital once the Lynn campus closes, and will continue to attend these minutes as the project unfolds. Jefferson Avenue is 2 lanes but Highland Avenue is 4, so she is interested in how the traffic flow will impact both sides of the campus. Ms. Lovely is in favor of the comment regarding the project having a better face on both sides. Judith Ware, 24 Wilson Street. Concerned with traffic cutting through the densely populated neighborhood,which is an existing problem, especially with speeding drivers that do not obey stop signs. Wilson Street is hard to turn off of and many take the side streets. Is hopeful that signage will direct people up Highland or straight down Jefferson,when Union Hospital closes. • Chair Anderson asks who gives ambulances direction when they are en-route to hospitals. Ms. Gagnon replied that drivers make the decision regarding routes but the NSMC has a traffic liaison that will deal with traffic patterns. Ward 3 Councilor Steve Lovely, 14 Story Street. Speaking as a neighbor and as an elected official. Echoes Mrs. Ware's concerns. As a City Councilor in 1983 one of his actions was to close off Old Road, it has been closed since then. Bob Norton is committed to keeping it closed but Mr. Lovely is concerned with the long term goals of this project. Mr. Lovely is also concerned with drivers cutting through the neighborhood. The hospital should bear some responsibility to partner up with us and contribute to improvements of the entrances and sidewalks that will be affected by what he feels will be a great deal of an increase in traffic, especially on Jefferson Avenue. The sidewalks which are in disrepair and should be improved so that they are safe for pedestrians. Councilor Lovely asked if the 107 Traffic Group has been consulted, asked if the 2014 report was being used, and encouraged someone from the project team attend the next 107 Traffic Group Meeting. Mr. Kalikiri replied that they do have access to their data and the 2014 report was used because that was when Spaulding was still occupying the building. Councilor Lovely stated that the study has no money to contribute so the Board and State Council should ensure that all hospital entrance improvements are implemented. Councilor Lovely noted that he grew up in the area and knowing access to the hospital believes the impact on Jefferson Avenue is being undersold, especially with talk of South Salem Train Station off of Colonial Road that will increase pedestrian traffic. The flashing pedestrian light along Jefferson Avenue will need to change. A project of• this magnitude needs a lot of contribution from the hospital. Meeting Minutes—June 16, 2016 Page 15 of 15 Kirt Feder made a motion to continue to the-Lulv 7. 2016 meeting was seconded by Helen Sides and the motion passed unanimouLly (8-0). IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of an expanded role for the DRB Tabled until the next meeting. V. ADJOURNMENT Carole Hamilton made a motion to adiourn, was seconded by Tony Mataragas, and the motion carried with all in favor 8-0 The meeting ended at 10:25PM. 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://w\vw.salem.com/planning-board/web forms/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Colleen Anderson, Substitute Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 07/07/2016 Knowyour rights ander the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-20281hrorgh 5 2-2033. • CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD a NOTICE OF MEETING n NYata?r, e&mhy non*that 6e SalemPlamwgBoanl w1l be hddrnga PuhlicHazmg on Thursday,June 2, 2016 at h00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, a 120 Washington Sc, Salem MA J BenAndenon Clair ~ MEETINGAGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: City Property in front of 50 St. Peter St. (Map 35, Lot 179) Applicant- City Of Salem Description: Discussion and vote on the design of proposed City owned surface parking lot in front of the Old Salem Jail. • B. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 55 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1, 2, 88, 19,216, 218 220; and Map 14,Lot 129) Applicant: North Shore Medical Center, Inc. Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. C. Location: 14 Bertuccio Ave. (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: Nathan Jacobson Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater • than one acre. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Viexi d-le iol(e at y ,v, eN in accordance with MGL Chan, 30A, Sections 18-25. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for June 2, 2016 Page 2 of 3 • D. Location: 70-92 '/2 Boston St. (Map 15, Lot 299 &Map 16,Lot 139) Applicant: 139 Grove Street Realty Trust Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential'dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. E. Location: 160 Bridge Street(Map 35,Lot 35) Applicant: John R. Keilty, Esquire Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR),proposing to divide one lot with two buildings on it into two lots. • F. Location: 19 & 23 Congress St. 223-231 & 235 Derby Street; the parking lots at 13-15 Herbert St. and 25 Peabody St. and the remaining land of Pickering Wharf Condominium Trust(Map 34, Lot 408) Applicant: The Salem Waterfront Hotel&Suites,LLC Description Request for a six (6) month extension to commence construction authorized by the July 23, 2014 Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard District Special Permit and Planned Unit Development Planning Board Decision .for the Salem Waterfront Hotel. G. Location: Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Applicant: Osborne Hills Realty Trust Description: Discussion and Vote on the Request for Bond Reduction for Phase III of the Osborne Hills Subdivision H. Location: 14 and 16 Almeda St. (Map 14, Lot 116 and Map 14, Lot 117) Applicant: Town and Country Homes, Inc. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 5,2016 • B. May 19,2016 120 W:asr h< ;7N S RFEi, S.,1..E47 N SSSAI H sE rs 01970 • PHONE 978.61G S685 FA,x 9?8?40.0404 City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for June 2,2016 Page 3 of 3 • IV. OLD/NEWBUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT Knowyow rights under the OpmMeenngLawM.G.L. c. 30A § 18-25and City 0a"nx§ 2-2028d)?*§ 2-2033. • 10 WAS]-K( ON $1R F1, SA1.,E.1"1. �AA&11(1111USH,17s U1470 PHONE 978.6190685 FAX 478 740.040 V1,Vv IV's 1.11IFNICOM ' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • ,3 q DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DAISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIREcfOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: May 26, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — June 2, 2016 Please find the following in the dropbox file: • Agenda for June 2, 2016, Regular Meeting • Planner's Memo ■ Parking Lot Design in front of Old Salem Jail ■ North Shore Medical Center • ■ Bertuccio Subdivision - Letter from the Mayor - Department Comments - Public Comments ■ Flynntan Redevelopment ■ Bridge Street ANR • Salem Waterfront Hotel Extension Request ■ Osborne Hills Bond Reduction • Almeda Subdivision ■ Draft Minutes - May 5, 2016 - Mav 19, 2016 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS A. Parking Lot Design City Property in front of 50 St. Peter St. (Map 35, Lot 179) This project is a surface parking with seventeen (17) metered parking spaces on the City property in front of the Old Salem Jail site. As this is not a site plan review, the project is unique in that it is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board per a condition from the City Council rather than by ordinance. • The City has hired BETA Engineering Group Inc. to develop plans for the parking lot. The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the plans titled: Old City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—June 2, 2016 Page 2 of 5 Salem Jail Parking Improvement Plans (3 sheets) prepared by BETA, dated . May 16, 2016 at their May 25'n meeting. The DRB suggested that the plans_ . include one or more bicycle rack, and for a sidewalk to be designed around the trees currently proposed to screen the parking area (i.e. in the green space, as opposed to only in/alongside the parking- lot). BETA is currently preparing revised plans to reflect the DRB's comments, which will be presented to you at the meeting on Thursday. The City Engineer, David Knowlton, will be in attendance at the meeting next week to present the revised plans. The revised plans will be brought back to the DRB in June. I also note that since the Planning Board approval is required per City Council Vote rather than by ordinance, the Planning Board can make a decision prior to the DRB's recommendation. B. North Shore Medical Center(SPR, Stormwater Permit) 81 Highland Avenue; 108 Jefferson Avenue; Old Road; 1 Dove Avenue; 79 Highland Avenue; 55 Highland Avenue; And 57 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); (Map 24 Lots 1, 2, 19, 88, 216, 218, 220) BETA Group Inc. will be peer reviewing the Transportation Impact and Access • Study. New England Civil Engineering (NECE) will be peer reviewing the civil plans and the Stormwater Management Permit. C. Bertuccio Ave. (Form C Subdivision) 14 Bertuccio Avenue (Map 24, Lot 105) The applicant has not submitted new information. According to the applicant they have prepared an additional survey and made revisions to the plans which will be submitted by Tuesday next week, and presented at your meeting on Thursday. The Mayor provided a second letter to the developer, which can be found here. Department Comments can be found here. Several new public comments from abutters have been received for this project. I also note that the applicant is requesting that the board waive' the following sections: 1. Section IV, A, 1, f: a. Minimum roadway centerline radius shall be 230'. i. The Proposed centerline radii are 126' and 134' respectively. 2. Section IV Right-of-Way Improvements Policy: MGL Section 81R authorizes a Planning Board to waive any of their rules and regulations adopted • pursuant to the Subdivision Control Law. Before waiving any of their rules and regulations, the Planning Board must find that granting the waiver is in the public interest and not inconsistent with the purpose of the Subdivision Control Law. Page 2 of 5 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —June 2, 2016 Page 3 of 5 • a. Sidewalks and grassed strips shall be installed on both sides of the roadway for subdivisions with 3 to 6 lots. i. Sidewalks and grassed strips are only proposed on one side of the roadway at the entrance into the subdivision. b. Street Trees 3% in. caliper, 30 ft. on center are required for subdivisions with 3 to 6 lots. i. No street trees are proposed at the entrance into the subdivision. 3. Section IV, A, 2, a: a. Minimum Sidewalk width shall be 5'. i. The proposed sidewalk is 4' wide. b. "In instances where existing street widths are greater than 36 feet the existing width shall be met. i. The existing Bertuccio Avenue right of way width varies, measuring around 40 feet in width. The proposed roadway width at the entry is 39 feet; the remaining width of the road extension is 40 feet. 4. Section IV, A, 4, a: a. Dead end streets shall not be longer than 500 feet. i. The proposed dead end street is over 950 feet long, as measured from the Bertuccio Avenue and Francis Road intersection to the • end of the cul-de-sac. Pursuant to Section IV(A)(1)(a), all streets in the subdivision shall be designed so that, in the opinion of the Planning Board, they will provide safe vehicular travel. The City Engineer has flagged the sight distance available as a concern, given the steep ledge wall that is anticipated as needing further investigation. The Planning Board has requested a traffic peer review, due to the site distance concern at the entry along with the numerous waivers requested to accommodate the entrance into the subdivision. Stantec will be under contract soon to peer review the safety of vehicular traffic with a focus on the entrance into the subdivision. D. Former Flvntann Site (NRCC, SPR, FHOD, Stormwater Permit) 70-92 % Boston St. (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) Stantec will be peer reviewing the Transportation Impact and Access Study. VHB will be peer reviewing the civil plans and Stormwater Management Permit. E. 160 Bridge St. (Form A, ANR) 160 Bridge Street (Map 35, Lot 35) • 160 Bridge Street is approximately 8,156 square feet and contains two separate tandem buildings. This is a Form A application proposes to divide 160 Bridge Street into two lots, with one structure on each lot. Frontage for the two lots is located on Bridge Street, access to each lot is provided by easement. Page 3 of 5 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —June 2, 2016 Page 4 of 5 • According to the applicant, the division of the tract of land shown of the accompanying plan is not a subdivision because two or more buildings were standing on the land prior to June 18, 1962, the date when the Subdivision Control Law went into effect in the City of Salem and one of such buildings remains standing on each of the lots as shown and located on the accompanying plan. Please find the following hyperlinked documents for your reference: - Form A Application - Form A Plan - Unofficial Property Card (approx. year built noted as 1850) - ANR Handbook F. Salem Waterfront Hotel (Extension Request of SPR, FHOD & PUD) 19 & 23 Congress St. 223-231 & 235 Derby Street; the parking lots at 13-15 Herbert St. and 25 Peabody St. and the remaining land of Pickering Wharf Condominium Trust(Map 34, Lot 408) The applicant is requesting a six month extension of the Planning Board decision for the Water Front Hotel, which is set to expire on July 23, 2016. • Please find the following hyperlinked documents for your reference: - Planning Board Decision - Extension Request & Chp. 91 License G. Osborne HillslStrongwater Crossing Osborne Hills Realty Trust submitted a Surety Bond reduction request in the amount of$112,640, leaving a balance in the surety of $46,364.00. Please find the following hyperlinked documents for your reference: - Form C Decision - Previously Approved Surety Bond Reduction - Surety Bond Reduction Request - Cost Estimate for Remaining Work from Clerk of the Works In the cost estimate from the Clerk of the Works, the clerk confirmed that the Phase III work described in the letter from the developer has been completed. This includes the granite curb, driveway inlets, sidewalks and street trees and lot grass. 2 Pursuant to MGL Chapter 41 Section 81L, ...the division of a tract of land on which two or more • buildings were standing when the subdivision control law went into effect in the city or town in which the land lies into separate lots on each of which one of such buildings remains standing, shall not constitute a subdivision. Page 4 of 5 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —June 2, 2016 Page 5 of 5 • According to the Clerk of the Works, the quantities and amounts highlighted in the Remaining Phase III Surety Bond appear reasonable for the work remaining. There are two small areas of sidewalk that may need remediation; however, the Clerk of the Works recommends that the amount remaining in retainage would be sufficient to address this work. H. Almeda St. (Form C Subdivision) 14 and 16 Almeda St. (Map 14, Lot 116 and Map 14, Lot 117) The applicant has not submitted new information. The lots are dimensionally pre-existing nonconforming lots along an accepted public way that is currently unpaved. The application is for a Definitive Subdivision proposal to construct a roadway to serve two, (2) existing undeveloped lots. Almeda Street does not contain a water main. The subject property is located approximately 600 feet from the closest water main on Highland Avenue. Wells are proposed to provide water to the subject lots. . The petitioner also requests the following waivers from the Salem Subdivision Regulations: a. A waiver from Section IV A.4.1 to allow a dead end street longer than 500- feet. The current length of Almeda Street is approximately 650-feet and the proposed plan will add 80-feet of roadway for a total of 730 feet including a 35' x 20' hammerhead turn around area. b. A waiver from Section IV. A.1.e to allow the centerline radius of the proposed roadway extension to be 130 feet, which is less than the 230 feet required. The proposed radius is required due to the layout of the existing right-of-way. c. A waiver from Section IV.A.2.a to allow a waiver from the requirement to install sidewalks and granite curbing as the roadway extension will primarily be used by the occupants of the two (2) proposed residences and there are not currently existing sidewalks. The applicant is proposing to install a drainage pipe and outlet on city-owned land, which will require an easement and approval from the City Council. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 5, 2016 B. May 19, 2016 Page 5 of 5 gONDlTq City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board X10.\1011 Y� Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail os C E d 1 J PS Q� `�2 ft/Guc`o �S� Zeis Oo �s S W41. -2t/ ��lfi/�c �� AvF 9�g-�ysa� yas m 640j5-Av Gw Q errs em. °�''j Y1f�iaVt o t5 �er�t i� ��l 0 1 2 �_ J�j // l �u��`7 /�� DdUL(CGd �12 Q9s��-'/ -% Q�ICs oreRb@Ueii2p�.�ikc* CNV^OO l (��TA �$( 2SS l9 �0_ 11� ro 1: Ia I VLC CUK� cel 313Lo Z4 Page of Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail . Page of l Meeting Minutes—June 2, 2016 Page 1 of 9 • City of Salem Planning Board Approved Meeting Minutes Thursday,June 2, 2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,June 2,2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Room 313, Salem,Massachusetts. Vice Chair Matt Veno opens the meeting at 7:14 pm. I. ROLL CALL Those przsent were: Chair Ben Anderson (arriving late), Noah Koretz,Bill Griset, Carole Hamilton,Vice Chair Matt Veno and Tony Mataragas Absent:, Dale Yale, Kirt Rieder, Helen Sides Also present: Amanda Chiancola,Staff Planner, and Stacy Kilb,Planning Board Recording Clerk. II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: City Property in front of 50 St. Peter St. (Map 35, Lot 179) Applicant: City Of Salem Description: Discussion and vote on the design of proposed City owned surface parking lot in front of the Old Salem Jail. • David Knowlton, City Engineer and Chris Roy from BETA Group present the project. Currently, only an access road and walkway exist. The proposed 17-space parking lot is described. There will be one handicapped space. They have received some input from the Design Review Board (DRB), and will be receiving more review from them; the project must also go before the Conservation Commission. The DRB requested a stone dust path,which will be added. Landscaping is described. Eight trees will be removed and replaced. The entire area will be ADA compliant. Six bike racks will also be installed. Tony Mataragas comments that this is an excellent idea, that parking is desperately needed at that location, and he approves of the walkway. Matt Veno wonders, procedurally, the reasoning why this project is before their Board and it is explained as being heard in order to meet a requirement of the City Council. Chair Anderson comments that the walkway should include benches. David Knowlton concurs. Matt Veno asks about some of the spaces next to the cemetery retaining wall; measures will be taken to protect it. Noah Koretz asks about circulation and Mr. Knowlton elaborates, citing the limitations of the site. Pavement materials are described. Matt Veno asks about the road width; it is 15'. Width as related to angled parking came into play in another project. Chair Ben Anderson opens to the public. Polly Wilbert of 7 Cedar St. is concerned about snow removal as it relates to the retaining wall and cemetery. Mr. Knowlton does not feel it will be an issue. A motion to close pnbbc comment is made by Tony Mataraga_s, seconded by Noah Koreh„ and parrer with all present in favor. 6- 0. A notion to approve the NgLea it made by Carole Hamilton seconded by Bill Griret, and-Passes ivitb allpresent in favor 6-0. Meeting Minutes—June 2, 2016 Page 2 of 9 B. Location: 81 Highland Ave; 108 Jefferson Ave; Old Rd; 1 Dove Ave; 79 Highland Ave; 550 Highland Ave; and 57 Highland Ave (Map 24, Lots 1, 2, 88, 19, 216, 218 220; and Map 14, Lot 129) Applicant: North Shore Medical Center, Inc. Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. Attorney Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. presents for the applicant; also here are Shelly Bisegna, Mary Jo Gagnon and Justin Mosca. Procedurally, Attorney Correnti asks about Board member attendance; he would like to present after the next applicant as they wish to have as many Board available to vote as possible, and at least one will be arriving late. This item,when taken later,includes the following PowerPoint presentation and board discussion: An overview of the project was previously provided. Tonight's presentation will be regarding the civil engineering plans,provided by Justin Mosca of VHB, as well as Steve Doderian from VHB presenting on landscape architecture. Mr. Mosca presents the site designs,including: • Site layout • Overall site plan • New Emergency Department (ED) & Dove Ave. — Layout: parking and circulation. Matt Veno asks about sidewalks and Mr. Mosca elaborates. • Driveway and Upper Parking—Layout: reconfiguration, parking, accessible walkway • Main Entrance—Layout: reconfiguration,wayfinding signage, accessible pedestrian route Grading and Stormwater • Overall Site Plan: Stormwater,grading • New ED and Dove Ave — Grading: drainage features and rerouting, connections, mitigation, grading, stormwater treatments and recharge • Driveway and Upper Parking — Grading: logistics of accessibility, blasting as excavation (Matt Veno comtnents that it will be a challenge) • Main Entrance—Grading: front lobby area,grading from Highland Ave., stormwater flowage • Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs): Outline Site Utilities • New ED and Dove Ave— Site Utilities: existing and relocated water and proposed water, electric and sewer; Fire Chief is in agreement with access and hydrant locations. • Main Entrance—Site Utilities • Meeting Minutes—June 2, 2016 Page 3 of 9 • Landscape Architecture by Steve Derdiarian • Overall Site Plan: Existing conditions, intent of landscape to provide an entrance experience, logistics of plantings • New ED and Dove Ave—Landscaping: Mostly native, some ornamentals, seating area • Driveway and Upper Lot—Landscaping • Main Entrance — Landscaping: lends visual organization and direction, adding greenery, making the area pedestrian-friendly; examining making improvements to Highland Ave side Chair Anderson is concerned about parking, especially the reduction of 88 spaces. He would like to know how many spots are adjacent to the ED. Also the combination of the two hospitals into one may lead to a need for a larger area for emergency parking. The plaza between Davenport and the new ED seems to be a foreboding space. The applicant Nvill need to work to make it an inviting space, so that it will be used. The Chair feels that the front driveway to the new building entrance seems convoluted, with too many ways off of the main entry. Options for clarifying are discussed; the proposal seems to make sense as described but does not show well on the plans. A street view/rendering from ground level will be provided to give a more realistic perspective. Carole Hamilton is also concerned about parking, in particular the distance to the ED entrance. Valet parking will continue to be offered for the majority of the hospital. Carole Hamilton comments on the difficulty of getting from the ED to Highland Hall, for example, if a patient is not ambulatory but is referred to a doctor there. She opines that the hospital should offer internal transportation of patients within the complex, and suggests that they are very close to needing a parking garage. Traffic and parking • will be reviewed in more detail at the next meeting. The Chair reiterates his concerns about the amount of parking. Matt Veno comments on the history of this space, frustrated at the piecemeal nature of these issues. He is disappointed at the closure of the Cardiac Surgery Unit (CSU) and wonders how it-,vill impact both the broader programming of the site and the material impact on this particular proposal. Mary Jo Gagnon is uncertain, as health care and budget issues change often. She comments that the CSU could only accommodate eight patients to begin with, and the change, possibly to a private suite,will reduce staffing demands as compared to the CSU. Chair Anderson opens to the public. Steven Lovely, Ward 3 Councillor, is also disappointed that the CSU will be closed. Others are also disappointed. He echoes Matt Veno's comments, and wonders about landscaping on Jefferson Ave. and Dove Ave. Ellen Pelletier of 3 Horton St. wonders about traffic and parking. She is also concerned about landscaping and makes the applicant aware of the fact that cars have been parked on the sidewalk on the other side of Jefferson Ave. Another concern is sewerage. However, she approves of the fact that acute and psychiatric services will all be together. Polly Wilbert of 7 Cedar St. comments on the loss of accessible parking for those taking themselves to the ED. She is also concerned about pedestrian access from the bus stop to the main entrance; Mary Jo Gagnon highlights a sidewalk/crosswalk. A different perspective will be provided at the next meeting to • show how traffic and pedestrians will circulate. Meeting Minutes—June 2, 2016 Page 4 of 9 Noah Koretz compliments the applicant on their clear visual presentation and encourages them too continue in this vein. A motion to conlimte to the Inne 16, 2016 meeting is made br Matt Veno, seconded btu Noah Koren; andt)asses with all twsent in favor. 6-0. C. Location: 14 Bertuccio Ave. (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: Nathan Jacobson Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre. Ben Osgood from TTI Environmental, Civil Engineer, presents. He distributes revised plans. Comments from the review engineer were received at the last meeting and how those are being addressed is described; a letter detailing changes was just submitted today and has not been peer reviewed or seen by this Board yet. Test pit findings are described. Street layout has been revised,including roadway and sidewalk widths and strips. Existing trees have been surveyed and are outlined. The sidewalk has been modified to accommodate a large maple they would like to save. Street lights are also shown on the utility plan. Chair Anderson asks for more detail and Mr. Osgood elaborates. The local utilities will dictate the design and exact placement of those. • Existing utility issues have been addressed. The applicant will need to investigate where a water main ends. The Engineer was concerned about existing drainage as a whole, so two catch basins have been added. Additional details on drainage and utilities have been provided but more work on drainage is needed to satisfy the peer reviewer. Snow storage is described;it will be provided near the cul-de-sac. Stormwater management details have been adjusted;issues included: • Relocation of the retention pond to a lower elevation; it has the same outlet location but is less steep • Access for the pond via an easement from Francis Rd. • Groundwater recharge has been increased by a little over 1%, so is very similar to predevelopment condition • Soil type: It is type B so concerns will be addressed with soil testing Outstanding issues: • Traffic review must be completed • Arsenic in the ground at Bertram Field (see docs on DEP website). A schematic of the field and areas of concern is provided. There are 250' between this site and the contaminated soil. Arsenic can only be moved with sediment or by wind/dust, however there would be a plume. No reportable contamination was found on the applicant's site. • A letter from a blasting company re the ledge/susceptibility to damage is submitted. E.C. Akerley Corp does not have any concerns. This is an independent review by a local blaster, a separate company from the one that presented at the last meeting. This is the company that will most• likely be on the job doing the blasting. Meeting Minutes—June 2, 2016 Page 5 of 9 • Noah Koretz asks about a certain lot and Mr. Osgood elaborates. Installation and location of the new catch basins is described, as is drainage to and from the detention pond. Noah Koretz also asks about the access to the retention pond; it will not be a road but a graded area. Topography is still too steep for an actual road up Francis St. Neighbors were concerned about seeing heavy equipment on the site; a backhoe was onsite for test pits, not for construction. Pits were backfilled. Matt Veno has some overall comments on the project. He is not convinced that the benefits of the project outweigh the disruption it will cause, both during construction and because of site access once completed. He does appreciate a letter from a separate professional blasting company, which will allow him to reassess. However, he still also has concerns about drainage and flooding. He visited the site on a dry day, but there was water coming through the cliff wall. Experts Nvill have to demonstrate that there is no additional burden. His main concern is safe access through neighborhoods, especially at the pinch point at the end of the extended road. Specifically,Mr. Veno cotmnents on the two waivers being sought: • The project must be in the public interest, and not inconsistent with the subdivision control law. The purpose of that is to ensure safe and reasonable vehicular traffic through a neighborhood. He feels that the pinch point logistics do not meet that requirement. • The second waiver is for the extension of a dead-end road beyond 500'. This also does not allow for safe vehicular access. The logistics of other projects (for example, Clark Ave.) were different; those of this project may be so limiting as to make it prohibitive. • He also cites concerns from the neighbors;while many are not under this Board's jurisdiction, the • relevant waivers above are of concern. Chair Anderson suggests to applicant that they could address Mr. Veno's concerns by using software to show the fire truck turn radius at the corner in question. That will prove if it is a safe turn or not. Carole Hamilton comments that turn radius may not necessarily equate to safety. The Chair concurs but provided that as one possible way the applicant could address a portion of the above comments. Mr. Osgood replies that roadway cross section is in compliance with regulations, so meets the bylaws. The waiver being requested is minimal, only one foot from 40' to 39', and merely affects a planting strip. He believes the layout of the roadway and ability of emergency vehicle to access does speak to safety. Grading is within the parameters of the subdivision control law. He describes the logistics of the site. Traffic peer review will also address some items. Tony Mataragas also expresses concerns about this project, feeling that it is cramped and that drivers who speed up Bertuccio Ave. now will continue to do so on the extension. He questions the practicality of the project as well. Noah Koretz asks for clarification of the letter from Akerley Corp., wondering about their methodology and the logistics of their site visit. Those are unclear. The applicant comments on what he saw. He feels that blasting in general, from what he has seen,does not cause damage. He cites regulations and describes the blasting process. He can request more detail than what is in the letter. Noah Koretz also shares the concerns of Matt Veno and Tony Mataragas, commenting that there may be a reason the site was not developed the first time around. Mr. Osgood states that it is all residential, in an already residential area, • and feels there will be no decrease in safety. Meeting Minutes—June 2, 2016 Page 6 of 9 Matt Veno adds to Noah Koretz's comment about the letter from E.C. Akerley at, which indicates that* no further assessment or mitigating steps are required. However, previously it was indicated that a detailed assessment of the cliff must be done, thus he does not have confidence in the letter. Chair Anderson comments that a 2"d opinion or review of letter should be sought. Chair Anderson comments on some concerns raised in letters from residents of the neighborhood: Lights at Bertram Field Removal of existing trees Mr. Osgood elaborates. The existing fence is off-property and a new one is not proposed. Chair Anderson wonders about the sidewalk being against the property line and how to mitigate the light from Bertram Field. Mr. Osgood offers some options such as planting of additional trees. The Chair suggests making an effort to mitigate. He has also not heard anything about the types of homes proposed and wonders about architecture, materials, etc. so is requesting further details in future meetings. They will be provided. The Chair also suggests flagging the property lines adjacent to the neighbors. Chair Anderson opens to the public. Clifford Goodman of 22 Bertuccio Ave. is especially concerned about the retention pond, as it is behind his home. He questions its new elevations and how it will be maintained. He still has concerns about blasting. Mr. Osgood cites stormwater management requirements, which require that ponds drain in 72 hours or less; typically they drain in 12 hours or less. He outlines logistics and other requirements, includingo infiltration rates. Kurt Welling of 17 Bertuccio Ave wonders how additional catch basins will help. Mr. Osgood reiterates that they were added at the suggestion of the peer reviewer, and will still keep water in the system rather than flowing down the street. Mr. William Legault of 2 Ward St. is pleased that explosives are being addressed, but describes his history and that of another project at which there was blasting damage. He is very concerned about blasting. Bob Camai of 10 Francis Rd. comments on ledge in his backyard,which sheds shards of rock. Water also comes out of the ledge on a regular basis. He is also concerned about blasting and offers access to his property to anyone wishing to examine the ledge. He comments that his property line goes beyond the top of the ledge Bob Dube of 18 Francis Rd, is concerned about blasting, and submits a photo of water coming out of the cliff for the record. He comments on how the ledge appears different from various perspectives. Chris Shane of 28 Calabrese St. is also concerned about drainage and flooding, as well as the loss of habitat and green space. Beth Souza-lois of Bertuccio Ave. comments on the indifference of the developer to the needs/concerns of the community. She wonders about arsenic on Bertram Field. She states that she has overheard the applicant joking about the logistics of the site and how people should slow down. She strongly feels this Board should not grant the requested waivers, as the City is planning open space and• this land should be set aside for a greater purpose. Meeting Minutes-June 2, 2016 Page 7 of 9 . Barry Jordan of 25 Bertuccio Ave. asks about the test pits and possible erosion from the field. The Chair comments that grade and elevation will not change, and that the applicant will temporarily shore up the area during work but not ultimately change the road Peter Lupo of 24 Bertuccio comments that the slope is very narrow. The Chair comments that the Board and local permitting authorities will rely on an engineer to design it. Steven Lovely, Ward 3 Councillor, comments that the neighbors would like to see this project better the neighborhood and increase property values, but feels that they will have issues given the many concerns raised. Arthur Sargent, Council at Large, comments that this is an ancient quarry which has already been disturbed years ago, and that future blasting will impact the ledge, which may not be as strong as it appears. Letters from the public include: Carol Michaud of 12 Francis Rd. Bill Griset also has concerns about the project, many as mentioned tonight, however, addressing the comments of Ms. Souza-Zois, cites the fact that while the fust applicant was the City of Salem, this is a private applicant whose intent is to make a profit. Both applicants must use the same process but will not have the same intent. If a private applicant can safely and legally use the land, they should be allowed to do so. It has not been shown to him that they can do those things. • The Chair suggests continuing to the July 7 meeting in order to give the applicant time to address the concerns raised tonight. A motion to continue to theLuly 7, 2096 meeting it made by Noah KoretZ, seconded by Carole Hamilton, and passes witb all present in favor, 6-0. D. Location: 70-92 i/z Boston St. (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) Applicant: 139 Grove Street Realty Trust Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. Attorney Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. requests a continuance due to the absence of some Board members. A motion to continue to the tune 16, 2016 meeting is made by Noah Koret,- seconded by Carole Hamilton, and basses with all Prevent in favor, 6-0. Meeting Minutes—June 2, 2016 Page 8 of 9 E. Location: 160 Bridge Street (Map 35, Lot 35) • Applicant: John R. Keilty, Esquire Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide one lot with two buildings on it into two lots. This item is heard after Item F. Here for the applicant is John Keilty, 40 Lowell St. Peabody, MA. I-Ie cites the reasoning for the endorsement; both structures were built in 1850 and have remained on a single lot. A division of the lots would be advantageous from a mortgage acquisition standpoint. Easements for access are provided. Parking is outlined. There will be no construction and no other changes. Matt Veno asks for clarification; it is one lot being divided into two. Carole Hamilton asks about frontage for the second lot; there is none,but adequate access through easements will be provided. A motion to endorse lbe plan is made ly Noab Korey, seconded by Matt Veno, and passes 5-0, mitb Carole Hamilton not voting. F. Location: 19 & 23 Congress St. 223-231 & 235 Derby Street; the parking lots at 13-15 Herbert St. and 25 Peabody St. and the remaining land of Pickering Wharf Condominium Trust (Map 34, Lot 408) Applicant: The Salem Waterfront Hotel & Suites, LLC Description Request for a six (6) month extension to commence construction authorized by the July 23, 2014 Site Plan Review Flood Hazard District Special Permit and Planned Unit Development Planning Board Decision for the Salem Waterfront Hotel. • This item is heard after the Item A (City Parking Lot). Attorney George Atkins, 59 Federal St, represents the developer. The applicant has been trying to obtain a Chapter 91 license in order to proceed with the project; supposedly the license is in process but it is a lengthy one. The applicant requests another six months to begin construction for this reason. A motion to gpbrove lbe extension is made by Mall Vena, seconded by Bill Grisel, and passes with all present in favor 6- 0 G. Location: Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Applicant: Osborne Hills Realty Trust Description: Discussion and Vote on the Request for Bond Reduction for Phase III of the Osborne Hills Subdivision Here for the applicant is Paul DiBiase, Trustee. He describes the development and progress thus far; Phase III is 7 homes out of 131. A tri-party agreement was reached and is outlined. A reduction for street lighting was previously granted. This reduction is being requested for granite curbing, driveway inlets, street trees, etc. Work was examined by Clerk of the Works/FST who made a recommendation. Some areas of sidewalk may need to be re-graded, but the Clerk of the Works has approved $112,640 leaving a balance of$43,000 for final pavement, as-built plans plus 10% retainage. A motion to approve lbe bond reduction is tirade by Noah Koret seconded by Malt Veno, and parses evitb all present in anon 6-0 Meeting Minutes—June 2, 2016 Page 9 of 9 . H. Location: 14 and 16 Almeda St. (Map 14, Lot 116 and Map 14, Lot 117) Applicant: Town and Country Homes, Inc. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. This item is heard after the Item E. The applicant requests to continue to June 16. A motion to continue to lane 16 is made by Matt Veno, seconded by Tong Mataragas and passes with all present in favor III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 5,2016 B. May 19,2016 This item is taken first on the Agenda as the Chair arrived late (7:16PM). A motion to approve the May 5 2016 of minutes is made by Noah Koretz, seconded by Bill Griset and passer with all present in dvor. 5-0. A motion to 4brove the May 9. 2016 of minutes, with proposed amendments it made by Carole Hamilton seconded by Bill Griset, and carries with all twxent in favor. 5-0. Bill Griset wonders about the appropriateness of rewriting the intent of the minutes; they are meant to accurately reflect what was said. Noah Koretz comments that the points he made were not in the minutes. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT A motion to ad iourn is made by Bill Griset, seconded by Carole Hamilton and the motion carries with all present in favor. 6-0 The meeting ends at 9:47PM. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://www.salem.com/planning-board/web forms/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 06/16/2016 Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 through J 2-2033. • CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD June 6, 2016 FILE iP The Salem Waterfront Hotel & Suites, LLC GdTY CLEPK, S;:L E_M, MAS' c/o George W. Atkins III Ronan, Segal & Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 19 & 23 Congress St. 223-231 & 235 Derby Street; the parking lots at 13-15 Herbert St. and 25 Peabody St. and the remaining land of Pickering Wharf Condominium Trust (Map 34, Lot 408) Decision of Planning Board to grant request for a six (6) month extension to commence construction authorized by the July 23, 2014 Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard District Special Permit and Planned Unit Development Planning Board Decision for the Salem Waterfront Hotel. The Salem Planning Board met on Thursday, June 2, 2016 to discuss your request for the approval of a six (6) month extension to commence construction authorized by the July 23, 2014 Site Plan Review, • Flood Hazard District Special Permit and Planned Unit Development Planning Board Decision for the Salem Waterfront Hotel. A letter submitted by Attorney George W. Atkins, III, on behalf of The Salem Waterfront Hotel & Suites, LLC, date-stamped May 23, 2016 requests approval to extend the permits granted by the Planning Board, for an additional period of six (6) months. The petitioner states that the additional time is necessary in order to obtain a Chapter 91 License, and that the owner is currently in the process of obtaining a Chapter 91 License. The action required is expected to be completed within the requested extension period. The requested six-month extension would commence on July 23, 2016, which is the expiration date of the current Decision. The requested extension would expire on January 23, 2017. The Planning Board voted six (6) in favor (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Veno, Mr. Koretz, Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Mataragas, Mr. Griset) and none (0) opposed, to grant the approval of the requested six (6) month extension of the Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard District Special Permit and Planned Unit Development Decision dated July 23, 2014. This determination shall become part of the record for this project. If you require further information, please contact Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner, in the Department of Planning & Community Development at (978) 619-5685. Sincerely, i • ' 7 Ben J. Anderson, Chairman Salem Planning Board Cc: Chervl LaPointe_ Citv Clerk -� . CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD `sdLE 0 CITY CLER'', rsLEM, June 6, 2016 Osborne Hills Realty Trust Arm. Paul DiBiase P.O. BOX 780 Lynnfield, MA 01940 RE: Partial Surety Bond Release Request for Phase III at Strongwater Crossing (Osborne Hills) Dear Mr. DiBiase: • The Salem Planning Board met on Thursday, June 2, 2016 to discuss your request for the partial reduction of the surety bond for Phase III for the Osborne Hills Subdivision located off Marlborough Road. The Planning Board voted by a vote of 6-0 in favor (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Veno, Mr. Koretz, Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Mataragas, Mr. Griset) and none (0) opposed, to grant the partial reduction of the surety bond request. This determination shall become part of the record for this project The Salem Planning Board approved the requested partial reduction of the surety bond for Phase III,with the following stipulations: Partial Reduction of Surety Bond 1. The Phase III surety bond shall be reduced from $159,004.00 to $46,364.00, which includes a 10%roadway construction contingency in the amount of$17.364.00. If you require further information, please contact Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner, in the Department of Planning& Community Development at (978) 619-5685. Sincerely, I • Ben J. Anderson, Chairman Salem Planning Board Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 . PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 ' WWW.SALEM.COM CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD JUN -b P I: Ob FORMA- DECISION M On June 2, 2016 by a unanimous vote of five (5) in favor (Chair Ben Anderson, Matt Veno, Tony Mataragas, Noah Koretz, and Bill Griset) to endorse "Approval under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" for the property located at 160 Bridge Street and shown on the following described plan: "Subdivision Plan of Lan located in Salem, MA" prepared by Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc. for L &J Realty Trust, dated, May 12, 2016. 1. Applicant: John R. Keilty, Esquire, 40 Lowell Street, Peabody,MA 01960 2. Location: 160 Bridge Street (Map 35,Lot 35) 3. Description: Map 35, Lot 35 is to be divided into two lots. Both parcels will contain a building that has been standing since the subdivision control law went into effect in the City of Salem. .Deed of property records in Essex South District Registry. Sincerely, t Ben J. Anderson Chair Cc.: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk i CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1016 MAY 14 P b., 03 011Y CLE-, ^; NOTICE OF MEETING You aye hereby rxiifid that the SalemPlamungBcard vill be hddiTa PubhcHearmg m Thursday,May 19, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex,Room 313, 120 Washington St, Salem MA Ben ArnlenN Chair REVISED' MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE; 108 JEFFERSON AVENUE; OLD ROAD; 1 DOVE AVENUE; 79 HIGHLAND AVENUE; 55 HIGHLAND AVENUE; AND 57 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 24, Lots 1,2, 88, 19,216,218 220; and Map 14,Lot 129) • Applicant: NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem c Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Storrnwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances CL A Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new cc o cC31-C Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby M � expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and s parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility m Q infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. B. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street(Map 0 0 15,Lot 305) = H c Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC o U Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special yE -- 'Q c vi Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood CL ar a Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem d tn� CO Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard .2. =o c Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit o cc- , c =`yc o associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor •H V m to Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for May 19,2016 Page 2 of 3 • amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retad on the comer of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. C. Location: 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET, 5-7,and 11 WEST AVENUE (Map 32 Lots 231,232,233, 234) Applicant: 331 LAFAYETTE STREET,LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the construction of a three-story 24,388 square foot mixed use commercial building with retail on the fust floor and offices on the upper floors. An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. D. Location: 70-92 1/2 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) • Applicant: 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST Description: A continuance of a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. E. Location: 162 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lots 1 and 2) Applicant: 162 FEDERAL STREET, LLC Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR),proposing to merge 12,025 square feet of Lot 2 with Lot 1. F. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. . Description: REVISION: The applicant requested a continuance to June 2, 2016 of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. 20 WASY'.nO .Ov SCR E2, SALENJ, 11ASSAciiris Tls 01970 ' PHONE 973.619.5685 FAX I7 740.0404 City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for May 19,2016 Page 3 of 3 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May5,2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT Kwwyaur rims under the 0pen Meting LawM.G.L. c 30A § 18-25 and City 0n imnx§ 2-2028 d5muh§ 2-2033. • 20 WASLINt. ON S'11RH 1, S A.:ra MASS vCHlTSi;ln's 01970 PHONE: 978.619.5685 FAX 978.7-'10,0-104 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" /wCity Hall, Salem Mass. on K d� � l i CITY OF SALEM at S7oipi in accordance 1th MG�L C4hap. 30, ' PLANNING 8-25. PLANNING BOARD Zoie MAY 12 P s. 0 i LLjlf7, ..�'.Lr.r , ;A NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notifted that the SalemPlamringBoard will be boUrga PublicHezmg on Thursday,May 19, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Wasbington St, Salem;MA Ben Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE; 108 JEFFERSON AVENUE; OLD ROAD; 1 DOVE AVENUE; 79 HIGHLAND AVENUE; 55 HIGHLAND AVENUE; AND 57 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 24, Lots 1, 2, 88, 19,216, 218 220; and Map 14, Lot 129) • Applicant: NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. B. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street(Map 15,Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor • Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for May 19,2016 Page 2 of 3 • amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. C. Location: 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET, 5-7, and 11 WEST AVENUE (Map 32 Lots 231,232,233,234) Applicant 331 LAFAYETTE STREET, LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the construction of a three-story 24,388 square foot mixed use commercial building with retail on the first floor and offices on the upper floors. An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. D. Location: 70-92 1/2 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) • Applicant 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST Description: A continuance of a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. E. Location: 162 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lots 1 and 2) Applicant 162 FEDERAL STREET, LLC Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to merge 12,025 square feet of Lot 2 with Lot 1. F. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. • Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. 10 WASIt vG-ON SIIEE , J.,L.:�, 1[1SSAC1A SETFS 01910 - Piio_N,,_ 97$.619.5685 FAX 918 7 0.0401 WWW.SA'LE1 C0M City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for May 19,2016 Page 3 of 3 • III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 5, 2016 IV. OLD/NEWBUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT Knowyxff rights under the OpmM&vTLawM G.L. c 30A § 18-25 and City Cndmnx§ 2-2028 dii* 2-2033. • • 20 WAST IINUIMN SIREET, SALEM, MASSACIRISEITS 01970 - PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978 ?0.040c. . VV14 W's Ill'-]mfo%I C � • � , . IN. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN Ci00NIN DUNCAN,AICD DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: May 12, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — May 19, 2016 Please find the following in the dropbox file: ■ Agenda for May 19, 2016, Regular Meeting • Planner's Memo ■ North Shore Medical Center • Gateway Center/CLC • - Civil Engineer Responses to NECE ■ Lafayette St. and West Ave. - Stantec Peer Review Letter Dated May 12, 2016 ■ Flynntan Redevelopment - Illustrative Landscape Plan Submitted Mav 12, 2016 • 162 Federal Street ■ Almeda Subdivision ■ Draft Minutes - May 5, 2016 I. Roll Call II. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS A. North Shore Medical Center 81 Highland Avenue; 108 Jefferson Avenue; Old Road; 1 Dove Avenue; 79 Highland Avenue; 55 Highland Avenue; And 57 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); (Map 24 Lots 1, 2, 19, 88, 216, 218, 220) This is a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new emergency department/inpatient beds building, a new front lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, • landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. A Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—May 12, 2016 Page 2 of 4 • Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37 is also required for disturbance of more than 1 acre of land. The City has requested that the BETA Group conduct traffic peer-review and New England Civil Engineering (NECE) conduct civil engineering peer-review services. We anticipate that they will be under contract shortly. B. Gateway Center & CLC 401 BRIDGE STREET(Map 25, Lot 74) And 44 Boston Street(Map 15, Lot 305) A draft decision will be distributed to you under a separate cover. Design Review Board • The project received an affirmative vote to recommend approval to the Planning Board, by the Design Review Board (DRB) on May 10th. The recommendation will be distributed under a separate cover. • The DRB recommended that the project come back to the DRB for final approval of construction documents, construction mock-ups of final materials, and a signage plan. • The DRB also recommended that location(s) for public art be identified and that a corner residential unit on the ground floor be converted to retail. ADA Parking Spaces • • At the Planning Board meeting on May 5th, an abutter questioned the whether the site was in conformance with the required ADA compliant parking spaces. • According to the Thomas St. Pierre, the City's zoning enforcement officer and building official, seven (7) spaces are required, one (1) of which must be van accessible. • The plans show fourteen (14) ADA compliant parking spaces. As such the proposed site is in compliance with the number of ADA compliant parking spaces. Traffic • The mitigation measures proposed in the Stantec Traffic Peer Review Report dated January 18, 2016 will be incorporated into the draft conditions of approval. • The recommended modification to the driveway layout was not included as a condition of approval, as the developer has not agreed to that condition. At the Planning Board meeting on May 5th, the applicant explained that the sidewalks along the parking lot on the south side of the property that connect to the pedestrian paths will be raised. The applicant noted that the raised crosswalks will slow cars and emphasize pedestrian movement. • City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—May 12, 2016 • Page 3 of 4 Engineering • The applicant provided a response to the civil engineer, which can be found here. These documents are currently being reviewed by Bill Ross of NECE. • Conditions of approval recommended by NIECE, in their April 6th letter have been incorporated into the decision. Retaining Wall and Wooden Fence • The Planning Board asked the applicant to provide further information regarding the condition of the retaining wall, and clarify whether a wooden fence is actually proposed. C. Development of Former Flynntan Site 70-92% Boston Street(Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) The applicant submitted an illustrative landscape plan and perspective view of Boston Street entrance, which can be found here. The Landscape architect will present the landscaping plans at this meeting. The City has requested Stantec (formerly FST) conduct traffic peer-review and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) conduct civil engineering peer-review services. • We anticipate that they will be under contract shortly. D. New Commercial Building on LafayetteMest 331-335 Lafayette Street, 5-7, And 11 West Avenue Stantec provided traffic and peer review services for this project. At the previous meeting the applicant presented revisions to the plans based on comments from the peer reviewer, e.g. the parking spaces were angled about 5 degrees. The response from the peer reviewer can be found here. The peer reviewer will be at the meeting to present their findings. Recommended conditions in the peer review letter have been incorporated into the draft decision, which will be distributed under a separate cover. This dropbox link contains the following information, which was submitted per the request from the Planning Board on May 5th. Hardcopies of the files in the q 9 dropbox will be distributed to you at the meeting. o The Paint Numbers of the proposed colors o Samples of building materials/colors o Identify building materials on elevations ■ It was noted that the Planning Board prefers bronze light fixtures o Show the capstone graphically on the elevations ■ It was noted that small size tudor finish ground materials are • preferred. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—May 12, 2016 Page 4 of 4 • E. 162 FEDERAL STREET ANR (Map 26, Lots 1 and 2) Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to merge 12,025 square feet of Lot 2 with Lot 1. Plans for the project can be found here. F. 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET Subdivision Application (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) New materials have not been submitted for this project. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES U S A. May 5, 2016 IV. Old/New Business • • 5 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet \7� o Board �IAn�nl Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail W v. Da w-es r T e/soce 476- 7V,1. 9-P,4-4 "wchAE2_ea�� 2 Arna2,aL 1)2 478 04-6d93 J 2u 53e!/(o)L'C(1--c e w1 lt4S4.4 VA-B Coe?- &07- Z7 z7 Cups Lw�rr V64 is �P 1-Cr� 1 - z��� Glovef� �yA6•w„-� 1 X02 f.�rc� �lfi'-7YYz�7as- C�Qv{�'nlr.� 1,0i7 - yl3- i zo y /7y A 4aAt, f 5 i q78 7Yy -763 t� oeto9�� Y, Pa4Aiv%N-,vT.n C(,A- 91)-SIC)--(dDbj 620)0y_l na(C� a�.cpvv-� sArS 97 g 7yy-04/� dna: ca, Page of Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Page of A--'rvnnym,m u........... Publl'�Nearing Notice City of Salem Planning Board i Will hold a public hearing for all I persons interested in the application Int NORTH SHORE MEDICAL GEN- Ti.INC.for the property located at 811108 J ffer on Avenuhlnd Avenue eM( Map 24, LLot ot 88); Old Road (Map 24, Lot 19); 1 Dove Avenue(Map 24,Lots 216 and 218); 79 Highland Avenue(Map 14, Lot 129);55 Highland Avehue(Map 24, Lot 220); and 57 Highland Ave- nue (Map 24, Lot 2)for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Sa- lem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review;and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem. Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the appli- cant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in'. an addition of 199,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal drive- way and parking modifications, Ilandscape and hardscape improve- ments and utility infrastructure mod- ifications to their existing campus. 1 The public hearing will be held on Thursday,May 19,2016 at 7:00 QPM,in Room 313,Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachu- setts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department i of Planning &Community Develop- j iment, Third Floor, 120 Washington 'Street,Salem,MA. . - Ben Anderson, r Chair Planning Board 'SN-5/5,5/12/16 t CITY OF SALEM s- PLANNING BOARD 1�Ib APA 28 P 01 Public Hearing fotia City of Salem Planning Board Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. for the property located at 81 Highland Avenue (Map 24, Lot 1); 108 Jefferson Avenue (Map 24, Lot 88); Old Road (Map 24, Lot 19); 1 Dove Avenue (Map 24, Lots 216 and 218); 79 Highland Avenue (Map 14, Lot 129); 55 Highland Avenue (Map 24, Lot 220); and 57 Highland Avenue (Map 24, Lot 2) for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. The public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 7:00 PM, in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Kington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the lication and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning& Community Development, Third Floor, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Ben Anderson, Chair Planning Board Publication Run Dates in Salem News: 5/5/2016 & 5/12/2016 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City liall, Salem, Mass. on APR 2 R 2016 at 1J01 P/f in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 120 WA-sii'i.Nu ToN Suu F ,, Sid-F.lAl, MASSPDIUSF.Tis 0'1970 PHONE 978.619.5685 i.u%978.740.0404 l wS 5r'u; 1,l.)Ir Meeting Minutes—May 19, 2016 Page 1 of 12 • City of Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 19, 2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,May 19,2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313, Salem,Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opened the meeting at 7:02 pm. I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Chair Ben Anderson,Helen Sides,Kirt Rieder,Noah Koretz,Bill Griset,Dale Yale,Carole Hamilton,Vice Chau Matt Veno and Tony Mataragas (arriving late) Absent None Also present.Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner, and Stacy Kilb,Planning Board Recording Clerk. II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 81 HIGHLAND AVENUE; 108 JEFFERSON AVENUE; OLD ROAD; 1 DOVE AVENUE; 79 HIGHLAND AVENUE; 55 HIGHLAND AVENUE;AND 57 HIGHLAND AVENUE (Map 24, Lots 1, 2, 88,19, 216, 218 220; and Map 14, Lot 129) • Applicant: NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review, in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a new Emergency Department/Inpatient Beds building, a new front Lobby expansion, renovation resulting in an addition of 119,735 square feet and repurposing of 119,734 square feet of interior space, internal driveway and parking modifications, landscape and hardscape improvements and utility infrastructure modifications to their existing campus. Mr. Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St,. Attorney, presents an introduction for the campus expansion plan, and describes their progress thus far. They have appeared before the Conservation Commission and will be appearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals, as any projects at the Hospital are required to present there. Mr. Correnti also mentions a proposed land swap with the City of Salem due to the logistics of the internal driveway. Mr. Bob Norton, 138 Bridge St., Manchester, is the CEO of the Hospital. He outlines the reasons the expansion is necessary. There is a growing need in the population served, and consolidation of Union Hospital of Lynn has also prompted the need for expansion. Salem will thus be the main location, a hub for inpatient care for the area. Mary Jo Gagon, Senior VP for hospital operations presents details of the North Shore Medical Center Expansion Project. Ms. Gagnon introduces Shelly Bisegna, Director of Project Management, as well as the rest of the team. The need for expansion due to the proximity of Lynn and closure of Spaulding is detailed in a PowerPoint presentation. A new building will be added; that part will include the Emergency Room. It will also include an Observation Unit and two new inpatient floors. The Spaulding building will contain part of the new Emergency Department;Pediatric,Geriatric and Adult Psychiatry units will also be there. Meeting Minutes—May 19, 2016 Page 2 of 12 • Additional components are also outlined. These include a new front lobby, renovation of the old emergency department, a new MRI, and reconfiguration of the driveway. A bird's eye view of the current site is shown. The proposed access road is pointed out; this is where the land swap with the City will come into play (a small corner of a park near Bertram Field will be cut off). A schematic of the proposed project is shown. Ms. Gagnon describes the reasoning for why Mechanical is on Level two. Site circulation for ambulances is described. Emergency Dept. (ED) visitors may also use that road though it is not intended as a main way in. A schematic of the ED layout is provided. The Davenport entrance is shown, and contrasted with the proposed entrance. How patients would access the various areas is described. Additional slides and descriptions include: Existing Davenport 4 (The "Wind tunnel") Experience Front Lobby Plan Diagram Site Circulation—Visitors Proposed Davenport 4 Entrance Experience Angela Watson describes the design elements and materials via the following slides: Proposed Davenport 4 Entrance Experience New Front Lobby Elevations View Coming up Dove Ave View from Central Utility Plant ED Building Texture • New ED/Beds Building Elevations Full Civil Engineering and Traffic presentations are forthcoming; the City will also put in place peer reviews of those. Attorney Correnti concludes the overview. Helen Sides approves of a larger entrance on Jefferson Ave.,but would also like to see the parking area there updated. Kirt Rieder agrees with the above, feeling that the arrival experience overall could be much improved, and that landscaping along the Highland Ave. side would be a wise investment. He cites Salem Harbor Station (Footprint) as a good example,and Liberty Tree Mall as a negative example. Carole Hamilton asks about the views from Davenport; the higher floors will still have a good view. Matt Veno thanks the applicant for investing in the community and like Kirt Rieder, agrees that it is an important resource. He asks about changes in ambulance arrivals; Highland Ave. and Jefferson Ave. will now both have entrances. He also asks about parking; the new building is going into a grassy area, but while there is a net loss of 88 spaces,ways to mitigate that will be explored; also the closure of Spaulding has impacted parking. Employee parking will also be reviewed. Chair Ben Anderson asks about changes in traffic patterns on Highland Ave. and Jefferson Ave.; there will be much more on the latter. He also indicates the importance of wayfinding during construction. Kirt Rieder also comments that wayfinding will be equally important after construction is completed, and wishes them to discuss parking utilization today vs. in the future. Chair Anderson wonders how the closure of the hospital in Lynn will impact traffic here in Salem. Mr. Norton says that there will still be an emergency room presence in Lynn. Ms. Gagnon also describes other logistical factors that will affect traffic. Chair Anderson opens to public comment. Meeting Minutes—May 19, 2016 Page 3 of 12 William Legault describes previous efforts to renovate Bertram Field/Shaugnessy and the fact that it was difficult to deal with the Shaugnessy crew. Also, the applicant must be aware of the visual effect the facilities will have on nearby residents. He asks that they make campus attractive along all streets it faces. Polly Wilbert of 7 Cedar St. is concerned about building infill and fire suppression. Councilor at Large and Planning Board liaison Gerry Ryan thanks the hospital staff for their investment. He wonders about the land swap and Attorney Correnti confirms that it will require an act of the Legislature, as the Park Department, rather than the school,now has control of Bertram Field. Tricia O'Brien, Executive Director of Parks, Recreation, and Community Services, states that this is on the agenda for New Business to be discussed on Tues. May 24. Nina Cohen of 22 Chestnut St. agrees with Mr. Rieder; additionally she would like to see easily accessible bike paths and walkways as well as a path system and seating areas for employees who wish to go outside on breaks. Noah Koretz was advised by state ethics commission to submit a 23(b)(3) disclosure as he now works for Mass Development, the conduit bond issuer financing for Partners, North Shore Medical's parent company. He has nothing to do with that process, and filed the notice with the Mayor's office and signed an affidavit stating he can perform his duties without conflict. . Helen.rides made a motion to continue to the June 2. 2016 meeting was seconded 6v Kirt Rieder, and the motion Passed 8- 0 with all in avor. (lone Mataragas not-yet resent. B. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. • Mr. Joe Correnti, 63 Federal St., Attorney, presents for the applicant. Mr. Correnti feels that the few remaining issues from the last meeting have been resolved. Peer Review is complete and those requests will come up as conditions on the decision. No further presentation is being made; nor are there further Meeting Minutes—May 19, 2016 Page 4 of 12 amendments to the plans. A draft decision had been requested at the last meeting but any questions the* Board has will be answered. Chair Ben Anderson comments on the project in general, outlining the progress, input and comments made by numerous entities. He feels it has been thoroughly reviewed, and commends the petitioner on his responsiveness. He feels project is far improved, in a process that was lengthy but effective. He feels that the project adheres to the following criteria from the NRCC master plan vision statement: • Creates and Urban Village and Gateway to downtown • Improves sidewalks and the pedestrian environment • Includes a landmark budding • Attracts uses that will serve the local markets and complementary to existing businesses • Places new buildings close to the street • Supports improvements to existing properties • Provides shared-use parking He believes the project meets Section 8.4.1: • Creates appropriate development while preserving our historic neighborhood character; • Addresses transportation issues for existing and new developments; • Enhances the public realm in keeping with our unique neighborhood character. This project encourages the best use for the North River Canal Corridor physically, economically,* environmentally, and socially while promoting the best interests of the residents of the city. He believes the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood. • The project is a benefit to the city because Community needs which are served by the proposal; • Traffic flow and safety,including parking and loading; • Adequacy of utilities and other public services; • Neighborhood character; • Impacts on the natural environment including view; and • Potential economic and fiscal impact, including impact on City services, tax base, and employment. Having reviewed the criteria for site plan review he believes the project meets the following: • Adequacy of parking facilities and number of parking spaces proposed for each development; • Adequacy of loading facilities; • Adequacy of traffic circulation system; • Adequacy of access points and routes to and from the land parcel to adjoining streets and ways; • Adequacy of type and amount of external lighting to be provided on the parcel; • Adequacy of type, quality and quantity of landscaping to promote an aesthetically pleasing • environment and to properly screen the development from adjacent land uses; • Adequacy of type,quality and quantity of vegetative screening to protect adjacent and nearby land parcels from structures not aesthetically pleasing or wholly compatible with such parcels; Meeting Minutes—May 19, 2016 Page 5 of 12 • • Adequacy of the methods of disposal of sewage,refuse and other waste; • Adequacy of the method of surface drainage across and from the site; • Adequacy of the method of water distribution to and from the parcel and its structures; • Adequacy of pedestrian circulation systems to and from parking areas and structures; • Adequacy of protection or enhancement of natural areas; • Compatibility of the architecture of structures with architecture of surrounding or nearby buildings. Having considered all the above he feels this proposal is a benefit to the City and he plans on supporting it. (Tony Mataragas arrives at 8:01PM) Chair Anderson opens to public comment. Joyce Wallace of 172 Federal St. asks about ram pile driving and protection for abutters. The applicant states that the foundation has not yet been designed but vibration monitoring will occur if needed. Ken Wallace of 172 Federal St. asks if existing houses will be videoed if damaged, and also comments that there is a retaining wall that should be monitored. • John Russel of 16 Memorial Drive feels there is a need for this project to go through. Seniors deserve better than the current Center, and need is growing every year. Programs and staff exist but need a better space. Elaine Milo of 181 Marlborough Rd, City Council and Liaison for the Council on Aging (COA), thanks the Board for their service. She ehoes the comments of the Chair and supports the project, as it has evolved and needs to move forward. She also agrees with Mr. Russel. Kay Walsh of 5 West Terrace outlines her background and reads a letter of support outlining the need for this project to go through. She had studied the need for a new Senior Center and submitted a proposal for one as far back as 1989-93. It is long overdue. Two letters of public comment were received from Linda Coffill and Meg Twohey, et. al. and have been entered into the public record. A recommendation from the Design Review Board has also been received. Jerry Ryan, Councillor at Large of4 Nichols St. had originally voted against this particular site, but is now fully in support of this project as it is much improved over the original plans. He cites the need for this project going back as far as 1976 and asks about the time frame for completion. Atty Correnti states that additional permitting is required as Conservation Commission approval is needed. There is a Zoning Board appeal,plus state permits must be completed but work on site prep etc. can continue as the processes go on. Tonight's approval is a huge step toward moving forward with the above items. • Patricia Zato of 10 Andrea St. works on the Age Friendly Initiative. Salem wants to be certified by the WHO as an age-friendly City. She describes what they need to do to put together a plan,which be sent in by end of Oct. Thus,it is extremely important that this go through tonight. Meeting Minutes—May 19, 2016 Page 6 of 12 • Toni Gaspard of 180 Federal St. would like assurances from the City that abutters will be supported and their historic homes protected. Matt Veno asks about the creation of the foundation, piling, etc. and oversight of that since details are not before this Board tonight. Lynn Duncan suggests wording for conditions requiring that once designed,plans for the foundation and building be submitted to the City Planner, so these questions may be addressed. She suggests they be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. Lynn Duncan also suggests conditioning the monitoring of the retaining wall during construction, and submission of a report to the City Planner prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. Matt Veno also comments that he has a long history with this project,as outlined by Councilor Ryan. He describes the process in detail. He views it through the North River Canal Corridor Master Plan. While there will never be a "perfect project," in any case, this project does reflect the vision of NRCC Zoning and Master Plan,in his opinion. He is in strong support of the project. Chair Ben Anderson reviews the Site Plan Review Draft Decision by sections and pages. Comments/questions/highlights: Item number 2 stricken—request to allow eating/drinking establishment withdrawn 4: Fence height-wording change p. 2: dates updated . p.3 (b): Clarifies Commercial use along the street p. 4 (a) Ms. Chiancola clarifies Matt Veno asks about DEP standards and Commercial use but Carole Hamilton points out that they are higher for residential. Carole Hamilton asks what is being requested of the ZBA. The following variances/special permits are being sought: • Curb cut • Building entrance • Mechanical equipment • Density/minimum lot area per dwelling unit • Buffer zone parking(still under analysis) Design Review Board: Kitt Rieder asks where it says there shall be retail vs. if it is feasible on the ground floor. The DRB review is outlined and reasoning for the retail location explained. It will be in one of two places. Kirt Rieder asks about crosswalks, and painting of these is part of the package that includes pedestrian signal implementation and improvements. A minor change "Design and location, including crosswalks, are to be submitted..." is made. Lynn Duncan states that CLC is exempt because Salem is already a member of the North Shore• Transportation Management Association. Meeting Minutes—May 19, 2016 Page 7 of 12 • There is some discussion on a Board of Health item re noise level increases on p. S. Attorney Correnti has made an amendment, explaining that the boilerplate language would not be of use to abutters as the way it is worded, the noise level could be taken on Bridge Street at the property line. The wording now reflects that they will instead be taken at the nearest abutting residential property line, in order to actually protect the residents. Carole Hamilton wonders if the residents of the actual new units will be affected by the noise levels. There will be a management company to address any issues that come up, but Attorney Correnti feels that the state-of-the art equipment will not cause any problems. He points out that residents of the new building are abutters of the CLC so this would also apply to them, for noises made by that budding's equipment. City Engineer (e) Conditions have been addressed, thus this item is no longer necessary. Atty Corrend submits an email from the Fire Marshall confirming that a meeting with the project engineer has taken place and fire apparatus can access the site. The requirement for this submission shall be stricken because it has been obtained. The letter is read into the record. Clerk of the Works: This is a new condition relating to subdivisions/phasing/seasonal work, so not applicable to this project;the term"each season" has been removed. Ms. Duncan suggests adding the two conditions mentioned above here: • To address questions about how many piles: Information on construction approach to be submitted to the City Planner once the foundation is designed, including number of piles and confirmation that the Applicant will monitor vibrations during construction; to be submitted prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Regarding the retaining wall: Applicant to submit photos documenting the condition of the retaining wall from the Applicant's side of the wall to the City Planner prior to the start of construction; monitor the condition of the retaining wall during construction; and submit monitoring report to the City Planner to confirm that it is still in satisfactory condition prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Chair Anderson opens to the public. Meg Twohey of 122 Federal St. asks about the building height and gets clarification. She is also concerned about the Activities and Use Limitation on the site, but the Board feels that the language is such that the site may be developed residentially. Barbara Cleary of 104 Federal St. asks for clarification that the food establishment mentioned in item l lq was deleted. She also asks about the density bonus; there will be the same ttotal number of units (53 more than allowed) but the request for the variance will be reduced by 12. Dana Andrews of 155 Federal St., asks about tide gates; they are to prevent the water from the North River from coming in and will stop water from coming back onto Bridge St. and upstream areas. . Caorle Hamilton made a motion to close twblic comment. )vas seconded by Dale Pale, and the motiontasses with all in favor, 9-0. Meeting Minutes—May 19, 2016 Page 8 of 12 Matt Veno made a motion to approve thetrojecl as listed, was seconded by Carole Hamilton, and the molion passed in a • troll call vote will)Ben Anderson.Matt Veno, Kirt Rieder, Noah Koret.;, Carole Hamilton, Dale Yale and Helen Sides all infavor71--0). Bill Grisel and Tory Mataragas were not eligible to vote as they missed more than one meeting in which thisproiecl was discussed. C. Location: 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET, 5-7, and 11 WEST AVENUE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232,233,234) Applicant: 331 LAFAYETTE STREET, LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the construction of a three-story 24,388 square foot mixed use commercial building with retail on the first floor and offices on the upper floors.An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. Scott Grover, Attorney, represents the apphcant, Robert Burr, the Developer. Open items re building materials and landscaping have had plans submitted, and additional visuals are provided now. The Peer Review Engineer is also available to present. Scott Cameron,Civil Engineer,reviews the materials. Kirt Rieder asks about two of the materials which are both listed as the wall cap and discussion of granite vs. concrete ensues. The applicant asks for the Board's clarification and Mrt Rieder outlines what is conventional. The applicant will consider any requests for changes that the Board makes. Mr. Rieder suggests that all of the cap be granite, as it would be more appropriate. Scott Cameron checks in with the developer,who agrees to make the change. • Stantec peer reviewer Alan Cloutier describes the logistics of the parking lot and the space. Certain spaces will propose difficulties. The Board wonders if the number of spaces will be reduced if they are angled. Mr. Cameron states that this is not a perfect site, and it has it challenges. The parking must be made to work without seeking dimensional relief. It meets zoning requirements. Some slight improvements were made but most people will be using the lot every day so will be familiar with it. He describes the changes made and feels this is an optimized use of the site. Mr. Cloutier does note that any further changes would reduce the number of parking spaces. Attorney Grover notes that ZBA would not allow a parking variance, so the building size was actually reduced in order to comply with the parking requirements. The house remaining on the property also constrained the parking for the project. Chair Anderson thanks the petitioner and believes it will be a successful project. Attorney Grover also appreciates the Boards efforts. Carole Hamilton asks about the proposal for a right turn only lane; it was peer reviewed previously. She believes a right hand tum there will not work, but the road will be expanded to accommodate via the granting of an easement. Mr. Cameron outlines the design process and highlights the easement. This is listed as a condition in the decision. Chair Ben Anderson opens to public comment. Joyce Kenney of 285 Lafayette informs the board that on Wed. 335 Lafayette St. will be going under* auction, so that the developer can make a bid. Meeting Minutes—May 19, 2016 Page 9 of 12 • Polly Wilbert of 7 Cedar St. comments on the right turn lane. She hopes it will NOT be a right turn on red, as drivers cannot see who is coming from the left. She would like signage indicating"no turn on red." She is also concerned about the angle of the curb cut on Lafayette, but it is 90 degrees to the street. She also wonders about someone going the wrong way to exit the parking lot. The petitioner outlines how these issues and other parking lot issues will be addressed. Noah KoretZ made a motion to close the public bearing, was seconded by Helen Sides, and the motion passed with all in .favor, 9-0. The Chair reviews the Draft Decision. Kirt Rieder comments on Landscaping adding a point(d) with the following language: d) The planter retaining wall capstone, as illustrated in Landscape Details, shall be a 3" thick monolithic granite slab. Dale Yale adds what will become item 13 to be inserted before the as-built plans: Standard Clerk of the Works condition: The developer shall fund a clerk of the works for inspectional services; the applicant agrees. Kert Rieder made a motion to iorove the t)4Lect ro osal as amended, was seconded by Carole Hamilton, and the motion bussed unanuvous&in a roll call vote vvitb Cbair Ben Anderson, Helen Sides, Kert Reeder, Noah Kormt , Bill Griset, Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton,Matt Veno, Vice Chair and Tony Mataragas in favor. (9-9) • D. Location: 70-92 '/z BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) Applicant: 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST Description: A continuance of a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. Attorney Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. represents Lar properties. An overview has been previously provided so tonight's presentation will feature design and landscape architecture. Civil engineering will also be reviewed. The Peer Review process is also commencing. Rich Sparages presents a Civil Engineering overview, referencing the plan as presented at the last meeting. The location of the Boston Street entrance and its proximity to Dunkin Donuts and the intersection is discussed at length. Traffic Review will provide additional perspective. Matt Veno has mixed feelings about the traffic circle and wonders if a second entrance/exit could be added to address some issues. Mr. Sparages states that the grade difference from Boston St. to the property prohibits them from doing that. Noah Koretz asks for clarification about the circle, asking is it necessary • since emergency vehicles should be able to access the buildings from the street since they both have street frontage. Noah Koretz had previously asked if it was even necessary to get fire truck onsite if both buildings have street frontage. Chair Ben Anderson comments that the fire Dept. will want to pull up to front entrance for a variety of reasons. Mr. Sparages also notes there is retail space on the interior side. Meeting Minutes—May 19, 2016 Page 10 of 12 Also there are height and grade issues. An entrance/exit further from the intersection was considered, but• would leave a "dead end" where residents would have to turn around if they found all spaces filled, so the circle eliminates that logistical challenge. Noah Koretz feels very strongly that the second, larger building should have its front oriented toward Goodhue Street and the developer's other apartments there. He comments that an inward facing site is not conducive toward the "urban village" feel indicated in the North River Canal Corridor Master Plan. Atty Correnti asks for clarification on Noah Koretz's suggestions. While he notes that the setup is not ideal, Kirt Rieder feels that it is more conducive to have both buildings facing Boston St., given all of the constraints of the site. Matt Veno comments that an urban street edge is one issue to be addressed, most fulfilled when the building has a front on the street edge, but Kirt Rieder points out that it should be noted which street the "front" faces. Additional discussion ensues. Attorney Correnti notes that some measures have been taken re facades and it will be vetted through the Design Review Board. Tanya Carrera, the Architect, states that design has been submitted to the DRB and will be undergoing further review. The landscaping of the entrance circle is shown and it is described. Renderings of additional views are shown. Chair Anderson points out a discrepancy in the sidewalk, which currently ends in the middle of Goodhue* St. It will be extended to the edge of the applicant's property (beyond that they have no control). Additionally, extensive discussion ensues regarding the possibility of having the larger building facing Goodhue St. Noah Koretz feels very strongly about this. Chair Anderson comments that the Fire Department will have to weigh in but that in his experience they access buildings from the front. Mr. Sparages notes that it is obvious where front are, people will need to drop off, pick up, etc so circle is needed for proper circulation. Tony Mataragas comments that he is OK with the circle but while it makes sense for the renter/buyer not to have dead end parking, the proposed location of the entrance may not benefit street traffic. Noah Koretz says that the front of each building for pedestrians should be on the street edge that each building abuts. The point is to redefine where the front of each building is. Blair Hines, Landscape Architect, describes those plans. He reiterates the challenges of the elevation discrepancy between Boston St. and Goodhue St. Landscape architecture should address those streets, foster residential living, and provide mitigation to abutters. He describes how those awns will be achieved. He notes the benefits of the circle and outlines the Goodhue St. garage lot entrance. Fencing and wall options are described. Chair Ben Anderson asks about the intention of the retail use; the applicant is not certain what type of business will be there but feels, along with the Board, that it will probably not be successful. The possibility of putting the retail on Goodhue St. is discussed, though the City requested that it be on Boston St. Extensive discussion on this matter ensues. While the applicant is including a retail component to meet an obligation, the Board feels that it should no be an afterthought. It is not meant to be an imposition, and should be well thought out to benefit the City and its residents. Meeting Minutes—May 19, 2016 Page 11 of 12 • Attorney Correnti states that the applicant will explore the concepts suggested; they have already explored multiple options before coming up with this one. He acknowledges that the project may be able to be improved, but much effort has gone into it. The issues have now become clear to the applicant and they will present other options. Current Zoning does not work on this site. That is the root of the issue. Right now they do not need a parking variance, and would like to maintain compliance as a variance would be difficult to obtain. Kirt Rieder notes that entry cannot be shifted due to elevations of Boston St. and the site interior. Helen Sides comments on the ideal setup of a certain set of townhouses in South Boston and approves of pulling this project back from an extremely busy location. She also agrees that retail there would not work. It will probably be internally used as office space. Tony Mataragas comments that it has been mentioned that Goodhue St. should be made two-way; he wonders if that would open more options. There is additional discussion of how to create the "urban village" feel envisioned by the NRCC, and of how to relate this to other nearby buildings. Chair Anderson comments that with upcoming development of additional housing, there is lots of potential. He suggests adding an entrance to the large building on Goodhue St., for two entrances. Chair Anderson opens to the public but there is no public comment. Jerry Ryan of 4 Nichols St. comments on how difficult the site is. While he understands mayor wishing the retail to be on Boston St., all other businesses are adjacent to the street whereas this one is set back. He thanks the developer for investing in Salem. Helen Sides made a motion to continue to the Pune 2 2016 meeting was seconded by Noah KoretZ, and the motion gassed unanimously (9-0,! E. Location: 162 FEDERAL STREET (Map 26 Lots 1 and 2) Applicant: 162 FEDERAL STREET, LLC Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to merge 12,025 square feet of Lot 2 with Lot 1. Attorney Scott Grover represents the project. He has requested extensions of site plan review previously but does not believe it needs to be extended again. The developer of the convent into 8 residential condominiums must also acquire an adjacent parcel from the Archdiocese to accommodate access and parking. The piece in question will be exchanged for release of an easement. A simple Form A approval is hereby requested to separate lot 1 from the Archdiocese and merge it with 162 Federal St. Carole Hamilton asks about depiction of parking for the site plan for the convent; Attorney Grover comments that parking was previously directly against the building, which lead to the agreement to acquire the site. There is now greenscaping proposed with parking farther away. The site plan was approved based on acquisition of the parcel. • Bill Griset made a motion to endorse the plan, was seconded by Dale Yale, and the motion Passed unanimous/(9-0,j: Meeting Minutes—May 19, 2016 Page 12 of 12 F. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: REVISION: The applicant requested a continuance to June 2, 2016 of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. Twev Mataragas made a motion to continue to the Tune 2. 2016 meeting, was seconded by Helen Sides, and the motion Dossed unanimously (9-0) III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 5,2016 Tabled until the next meeting. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT Tony Mataragas made a motion to adjourn, was seconded by Matt Veno, and the motion carried with all in favor. 9-0. The meeting ended at 10:48PM. 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://�vww.salem.com/planning-board/webforms/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb,Substitute Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 06/02/2016 Kvowyoar rghts under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance J 2-2028 through 5 2-2033. • CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 2016 MAY 2b P 3: 02 CITY _�i, rill._':. Site Plan Review Decision 331-335 Lafayette Street, 5-7 & 11 West Avenue (Map 32, Lots 231, 232, 233 and 234) May 26, 2016 331 Lafayette, LLC 75 Nanepashment Street Marblehead, MA 01945 RE: Site Plan Review-331-335 Lafayette Street, 5-7 & 11 West Avenue On Thursday, March 17, 2016, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing regarding the application of 331 Lafayette, LLC for a Special Permit pursuant to Section 9.5 of • the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Site Plan Review, for nonresidential construction over 10,000 square feet located at 331-335 Lafayette Street, 5-7 West Avenue and 11 West Avenue (Map 32, Lots 231, 232, 233 and 234). The project includes the construction of a three-story 24,388 square foot mixed use commercial building with retail on the first floor and offices on the upper floors. An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. The Public Hearing was closed on May 19, 2016. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on May 19, 2016, the Board voted by a vote of nine (9) in favor (Ben Anderson, Matt Veno, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Tony Mataragas, Noah Koretz, Carole Hamilton, Dale Yale, Bill Griset) in favor and none (0) opposed, to approve the application as complying, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan a. Work shall conform with sheets C1-C4, D1-D3, L-1 and SLA of plans entitled, "331 Lafayette Street, Mixed-Use Commercial Building"prepared by The Morin-Cameron Group, Inc., dated May 4, 2016; sheets Al-A7 of plans entitled, "331 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA" prepared by Pitman & Wardley Architects, LLC, dated May 5, 2016 the Elevation Plan prepared by Pitman & Wardley Architects, LLC, dated May 12, 2016; and the Materials and Colors Plan prepared by James K. Emmanuel Associates dated May 10, 2016. • 1 2. Transfer of Ownership • a. In the event of the transfer of the site as a whole, within five (5) days of such transfer, 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 a. 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. b. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 4. Construction Practices a. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: b. All provisions in the City of Salem's Code of Ordinance, Chapter 22, Noise Control, shall be strictly adhered to. c. 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 construction of the project. • d. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. e. 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. 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 left overnight at the site must be located completely on the site. 5. Office of the City Engineer a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the required documentation to the City Council for the easement depicted on the project plans for the proposed turning lane on West Avenue. • c. A final erosion and sediment control plan with the construction scheduling, construction phasing, location of material stock piles, equipment storage and 2 I refueling areas shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to • building permit issuance. a. The applicant shall provide an engineered plan to the City Engineer that verifies the final service size and locations of the sewer service and grease trap prior to the issuance of building permits. The size and type of grease trap shall meet all current state and local regulations, and be approved by the city engineer prior to issuance of building permits b. The design of utility crossings shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of building permits. c. The calculation of sewer invert elevations shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. d. The project MEP engineer shall conduct a hydrant flow test, and submit the results to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. Fire Department a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. b. The building shall be equipped with a full automatic fire sprinkler system, if required by Massachusetts fire safety code. • 7. Building Commissioner a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Commissioner. 8. Utilities a. Plan for utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 9. Department of Public Services a. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services. 10. Board of Health and Health Department a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Board of Health and Health Department. b. Adequate trash storage must be provided based on the number of units and collection frequency. 11. Maintenance • a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the applicant. "Refuse removal' includes recycling, which shall be the responsibility 3 of the owner, his successors or assigns. The owner shall provide adequate facilities to • ensure all users are able to recycle their trash. Owner is to enter into a contract with a company of the owner's choice to arrange pick-up of recyclable material. A copy of this contract is to be submitted to the City Engineer. b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off- site. 12. Lighting a. Light trespass onto adjacent parcels/rights of way shall be avoided as indicated on the photometric plan. b. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed by the City Planner,prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. 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. 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. d. Planter retaining wall capstone as illustrated in landscape details shall be a three (3) inch thick monolithic granite slab. 14. Clerk of the Works a. A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the applicant, his successors or assigns, as it deemed necessary by the City Planner. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties acknowledge the Project shall be subject to controlled construction, which requires oversight by licensed engineered and architects. Accordingly it is the understanding of the Board, the City Planner and the Applicant that the Clerk of the Works is expected to oversee and review all civil/site improvements related to the project located within the public way, including all utility connections to publicly owned infrastructure. It is also mutually understood that the expense associated with the Clerk of the Works shall be for a reasonable number of hours and at a customary rate of service. b. The applicant shall submit a construction plan to the City Planner each season, prior to starting work. • c. The construction plan will be incorporated into the Clerk of the Works Task Order. No work shall start prior to an approved task order for these services. 4 15.As-built Plans a. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. 16. Violations a. Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans has been filed with the City Clerk and copies are on file with the Planning Board. The Special Permit shall not take effect until a copy of this decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that twenty (20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that if such appeal has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record is recorded on the owner's Certificate of Title. The owner or applicant, his successors or assigns, shall pay the fee for recording or registering. I Ben J. Anderson Chair • 5 ,W UW , CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1016 MAY 26 p FORM A- DECISION 150& 162 Federal Street On May 19, 2016 by a unanimous vote of nine (9) in favor (Chair Ben Anderson, Matt Veno, Kirt Rieder, Helen Sides, Noah Koretz, Carole Hamilton,Bill Griset,Dale Yale,Tony Mataragas) and none (0) opposed to endorse "Approval under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" for the property located at 162 Federal Street and shown on the following described plan: "Plan of Land 150 & 162 Federal Street, MA" dated, September 2, 2016. 1. Applicant: 162 Federal Street,LLC 2. Location: 150 & 162 Federal Street (Map 26,Lots 1 and 2) 3. Description: The Form A combines 12,025 square feet of Map 26, Lot 2 with Map 26, Lot 1. No new parcels were created with this Form A application. Weed of property records in Essex South District Registry. Sincerely, k47*�— Ben J.Anderson Chair Cc.: Cheryl LaPointe,City Clerk • !�� T CITY Or SALEM 1. .n ' PLANNING BOARD 7910 APR 28 P 1 NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby nMM that tle SalemPlamwgBaxrd will be hddvga Public Hearing on Thursday,May 5, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 WashiT m St, Salem MA BenAndersory Uair MEETING AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street(Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special • Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCQ A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. B. Location: 14 BERTUCCIO AVENUE (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: NATHAN JACOBSON Description: A public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the • Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for May 5,2016 Page 2 of 2 serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre. C. Location: 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET, 5-7, and 11 WEST AVENUE (Map 32 Lots 231,232,233,234) Applicant 331 LAFAYETTE STREET, LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the construction of a three-story 24,388 square foot minced use commercial building with retail on the first floor and offices on the upper floors. An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 21, 2016 i IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. . V. ADJOURNMENT Kngwycur rights w7der the Open M"LawM.G L. c 30A § 18-25 and City Orrlirrance§ 2-2028 rhrao� 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on APR 2 R t at 1201 Pk in accordance with MGL hap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • x;WA qN ION S FRE,ET, SAUI ,% IASS A(�!PUS", 1S 0 19710 - >i 97&6 19.51685 FAX 07S'.7,fo.0404 1,\WWS.A3.EN1,.COM ��ui+solis�;' I ' CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ' a DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 0 FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: April 28, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — May 5, 2016 Please find the following in the dropbox file: • Agenda for May 5, 2016, Regular Meeting ■ Planner's Memo ■ 14 Bertuccio Avenue (Form C) - Letter from the Mayor . - New Public Comments • 331 Lafayette Street (SPR) - Revised Plans ■ Draft Minutes - Regular Planning Board Meeting April 21, 2016 - Special Joint Planning Board/City Council Meeting April 21, 2016 I. Roll Call II. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. 401 BRIDGE STREET- GATEWAY CENTER/CLC (NRCC, FHOD, SPR) The civil peer reviewer, Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering (NECE), issued a comment letter dated April 6, 2016. The traffic peer reviewer, Gary Hebert of Stantec, issued a comment letter dated January 18, 2016. The applicant is working towards updating the Civil Plans per the comments from Mr. Ross and responding to the traffic mitigation recommendations in Mr. Hebert's letter (mitigation measures start on page 9). The Design Review Board reviewed revised plans at their meeting on April 27, 2016 (last night) and provided additional comments to the applicant. The applicant is working on responding to those comments. Page 1 of 3 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—4/28/2016 Page 2 of 3 • 2. 14 BERTUCCIO RD (FORM C) A site visit is scheduled for today (April, 28, 2016). New England Civil Engineering (NECE) has been hired to peer review the Civil Plans and the Stormwater Management Permit. NECE is working towards completing a comment letter for the Planning Board by May 5tn The applicant has been made aware that the Planning Board prefers to receive materials at least one week in advance, and may withhold from commenting on new information and/or plans that are distributed less than a week prior to the meeting. The project engineer informed staff he would prefer to get the peer review letter then make the revisions to address all comments received. As such, there the applicant has not submitted new materials or information for this project. The Mayor provided the developer this letter regarding this project. In addition, new public comments have been submitted since the last meeting, and can be found here. The City Health Agent has informed me that this project will be on the May 10, 2016 Board of Health agenda. The Health Agent has been made aware of the abutters concerns relating rodents leaving the site as a result of blasting and construction. Staff suggested that the applicant present a construction management plan to the Board of Health that describes how this issue will be addressed. I also note that the applicant is requesting that the board waive' the following sections: ■ Section IV, A, 1, f: Minimum roadway centerline radius shall be 230'. The proposed centerline radii are 126' and 134' respectively. ■ Section IV Right-of-Way Improvements Policy: Sidewalks and grassed strips shall be installed on both sides of the roadway for subdivisions with 3 to 6 lots. Sidewalks and grassed strips are only proposed on one side of the roadway. • Section IV, A, 2, a: Minimum Sidewalk width shall be 5'. The proposed sidewalk is 4' wide. ■ Section IV, A, 4, a: Dead end streets shall not be longer than 500 feet. The proposed dead end street is over 950 feet long, as measured from the Bertuccio Avenue and Francis Road intersection to the end of the cul-de-sac. MGL Section 81 R authorizes a Planning Board to waive any of their rules and regulations adopted pursuant to the . Subdivision Control Law. Before waiving any of their rules and regulations,the Planning Board must find that granting the waiver is in the public interest and not inconsistent with the purpose of the Subdivision Control Law. Page 2 of 3 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—4/28/2016 Page 3 of 3 3. 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET (SPR) In response to comments from the Planning Board and the Public, the applicant has prepared revised plans. The revised plans can be found here. Stantec, formerly known as FST, has been hired to peer review the Civil and Utility Plans and comment on the traffic impacts. Stantec is working towards completing a comment letter by May 5th. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. April 21, 2016 IV. Old/New Business • • Page 3 of 3 gONUI q� City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet G. Board Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail �d ?144e %A;.Z& -` d3 .- P1<�il oeG esus r $-1kq-0705 �y � � � ' cJow-( ,rbs Arlwi 93 Fea1eroj S tea— 978 �7NN a9/G , 9/hail.c�Yi �X -�2 berio rcG c) Ate ;N( 257 72f ,vdd(uv 4za, U gjeA- 4cu'o A✓-e— ZL.eS i u_X Vete('yn. ne't y'7� 836 �� zz 2-Z24TV22 �!�°� y417 J'in Fed&4 up /7 7?3- Wel 9 ve lJiv✓ r to �` 3^ )�Prrc/cC� O /4VP F79-7yS-6 7 f 7 P cw777 /66 nn �v�re� 27k 7Yy—L9sq C� c(w_8@_Mce lc� 71��. � 7 ISei f �cc',ei A,/e 79 -7 5.S-2e�V. 63Lg(V,"V c. cir'i Atd-cr5 g3 i-r0.ncr, p,& 4> r 7 41 «ICY S,e.D,b� -7� ccs.. F 0 c, vk c�esr4z�>, Page of Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail . Page of Meeting Minutes—May 5, 2016 Page 1of10 City of Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 5, 2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,May 5,2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Room 313, Salem, Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opened the meeting at 7:02 pm. I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Chair Ben Anderson,Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder,Noah Koretz, Bill Griset,Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton,Matt Veno,Vice Chair and Tony Mataragas Absent: None Also present:Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner, and Stacy Kilb,Planning Board Recording Clerk. II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. A Civil Engineering presentation is made for the applicant by William Bergeron of Hayes Engineering. Attorney Joseph Correnti will also present Mr. Bergeron believes all of the Board's concerns have been addressed, and he reviews the changes. Site hydrology was previously described and is outlined again. Concerns that have been addressed included sea level rise, drainage on adjoining lands, and determination of land subject to coastal storm flowage. A revised grading plan is presented; water will now flow through the site and catch basins are • pointed out. Existing and proposed drainage are shown. Improvements are described, as are changes to stormwater treatment. Meeting Minutes—May 5, 2016 Page 2 of 10 Discussions with the fire' department are outlined and accommodations for their turnaround are• described. The fire department was also concerned about water connections, so hydrants have been added/moved closer to the front doors of the buildings. The logistics are described. Sewer connections and the Utility Mitigation Plan are reviewed again. Drainage is revisited and a drainage easement is mentioned. Drainage overflow and a sidewalk connection were also concerns; what is now proposed is an ADA-compliant sidewalk and smaller grade change. The lighting plan has not changed. A snow storage plan is proposed; this was a concern of the fire department as well. Some storage will be on islands but some parking spaces are designated to temporarily stockpile snow during severe storms, until it can be removed offsite. Vegetation has been designed to accommodate the snow storage. No interior design has occurred yet. The logistics of roof drainage connections and landscape irrigation for the islands are still up in the air, so the applicant would like those to be conditioned as part of the draft decision. The addition of a sidewalk and landscaping to an island are described. Parking spaces were shortened to 17' to accommodate these. Chair Anderson asks for clarification on the timing of changes; they occurred as the result of a meeting with Bill Ross,peer reviewer for Civil Engineering approximately two weeks ago. He still needs to review these plans. The traffic peer review is in progress but not completed; the applicant will respond. Kirt� Rieder asks about the flood stage illustration and Mr. Bergeron outlines the elevations and grading. Blair Hines, Landscape Architect, reviews the landscape plan. He feels the Plan is appropriate for residential living and the Community Life Center. Native plantings will line Bridge St. with flowers, colored foliage, and berries for birds. Street trees and ornamental shrubbery are proposed along Boston St. Mitigation of the impact of the development on residences to the south has been considered; a series of deciduous and evergreen trees is proposed along the southern edge, and there is pedestrian access. Garden spaces and trees proposed for the entrances and other outdoor spaces are described. A space near the front of the residential section is proposed, including colored concrete and saw-cut joining for interest. Landscaping on the interior islands of the parking lot is described. Snow storage accommodation is outlined. Pedestrian access has been addressed via a linkage to Bridge St.; sidewalks have also been added in the parking lot. Raised crosswalks also slow cars and emphasize pedestrian movement. Chair Anderson asks about potential repair to the retaining wall on the eastern part of the site;Mr. Hines is aware of some trees at the top that must be removed. Mr. Bergeron describes the original wall and states that the top few rows have been dislodged. It will be examined more closely. Chair Anderson also asks about the proposed fence; it is proposed along the property lines but the one pictured was to be along the outdoor space of the residence building, without being significant enough to create a sense of barrier. The perimeter fence is described in more detail. It will be a wooden fence along the southern and eastern sides of the site. Grading changes and potential fencing heights are discussed. Chair Anderson is concerned that the fence may have been acting as a retaining wall for some properties. He also asks about snow storage and the pedestrian path;it will not block it. • Chris Semoline, Architect, presents that plan. He describes the exterior materials and appearance. They will be appearing before the Design Review Board on Tuesday. Kirt Rieder asks about the side wall and Meeting Minutes—May 5, 2016 Page 3 of 10 • Mr. Semoline elaborates. Kirt Rieder requests clarification;it will be provided. Chair Anderson asks about the panels under the windows,and Mr. Semoline describes. Harry Gunderson of Gunderson Associates presents. He has worked with the CLC Design Committee and Design Review Board. He describes building elevations and geometry. The entrance rendering is shown and details described.Various other perspectives and details are shown. Joseph Correnti, project Attorney, speaks. He summarizes the progress in the process so far. Chair Anderson opens to the public. Tom Furey of 36 Dunlap St. and Councillor at Large, outlines his family history and feels that this is an opportunity to transform the area into a "Gateway Center." He suggests making Goodhue St. two-way; also to encourage Dunkin Donuts to move to Peter Copelas' laundry location. It is a dangerous intersection no matter what mode of transportation is taken. It would make the area more friendly for bikes and pedestrian. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. asks for an update of environmental issues, including the Enivronmental Impact Review (EIR), Chapter 91 Application, and change in Activities and Use Limitation (AUL) to allow a residential structure on the site. She also supports Dunkin Donuts moving but feels they should go into the new Gateway Center. • Attorney Correnti describes the progress on the EIR and Chapter 91 license; they are waiting for the MEPA process and site plan adjustments must be taken into account. They will file with MEPA once the Planning Board process is complete; after MEPA, they will file with Chapter 91. The AUL has been drafted but not recorded; the existing one will be amended. Ken Wallis of 172 Federal St. asks about handicapped parking requirements. He asks about dedicated parking and handicapped parking for the residence and the CLC and about space requirements for handicapped spaces. Mr. Bergeron outlines the requirements; six are required, fourteen are proposed,and all are van-accessible spaces. Six are in front of the CLC, and eight (four plus four) in front of the residential area. He describes those and other changes made after feedback was received. Mr. Wallis opines that there seem to be two few spaces,though the requirements are met according to state code. Lynn Duncan, director of Planning and Community Development, will check with the Building Inspector for compliance. Meg Twohey, 120 Federal St., also asks about parking. She asks about allocation for each part of the project, and how many vans will be parked onsite at night. There is no parking allocation on site. It is shared parking across the entire site. The number of vans will be determined by the Senior Center; parking and overnight parking locations will be determined by the City. Ms. Twohey asks about spaces for the CLC; there are 275 spaces on the site. Ms. Duncan reiterates that the spaces will be shared as they will be used at different times of day. Jennifer Firth of 3 Carpenter St. asks about pilings that will be driven onsite and the building masses above the footprints. Mr. Bergeron outlines; an engineered foundation is required. No piles will be • driven; they will be augured with vibration and solidified with concrete to stabilize the soil. He also describes the size of the buildings,which are on the site plans. Meeting Minutes—May 5, 2016 Page 4 of 10 Justin asks how the fapade is compatible with the historic neighborhood, and how usage and density are• compliant with NCRR. Joseph Correnti states that all of this has been discussed in prior meetings, and Chair Anderson reminds the public that minutes from prior meetings are public records, and that this project is in front of the Design Review Board as well. Nothing has been "waived," and the project is still under review. Ann Whittier of 10 River St. wonders what the parcel is zoned. It is zoned NRCC. Mr. Steve Dibble, Salem City Councilor, asks the Board to review the number of spaces that would be serving the Senior Center. He opines that,if seniors find many taken, it may make sense to have reserved parking for them during a certain set of hours while the Senior Center is open, then shared overnight. Noah Koretz commends the applicant on the shared parking model. He believes the site is over parked given the use so there should be space; segregation would be overkill. Matt Veno asks how any parking issues that may arise in actual use will be resolved. Attorney Correnti explains that in the rare case of a very large event, during the day it will most likely not be an issue as spillover can go to other spaces in the shared lot. However, if it is a night time event when more residents are home, other options such as parking at the church next door will be explored. The new facility will be an upgrade from the old one, though, and it was not designed around accommodating those one or two events. Matt Vena made a motion to continue to the May 19. 2096 meeting, vas seconded by Noah KorefZ and the motion bassed unanimously in a roll call vote with Chair Ben Anderson, Helen Sides, K1rt Raeder. Noah KoBill Griset, • Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton,Matt Vena, Vice Cbair and Tony Mataragas in favor. Attorney Correnti states that the applicant is finished with all presentations and hopes to seek a decision at the next meeting. B. Location: 14 BERTUCCIO AVENUE (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: NATHAN JACOBSON Description: A public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre. Presenting for the applicant is Ben Osgood from PTI Environmental. Nathan and Eric Jacobson are also present. Mr. Osgood has prepared a new plan showing the consolidation of lots; concerns about blasting will be addressed. He described some changes to the lots, street, sidewalks and planting strips. The only waiver required is for the center line radius and width of the right-of-way. The width of the extension and Bertuccio Ave. are described. The Engineer's peer review letter was received earlier this evening, it has not been thoroughly reviewed yet but will work with Engineer to resolve any issues, including drainage and ledge. Kirt Rieder asks about the cul-de-sac distances and Mr. Osgood elaborates. A waiver for dead end roadway length is also required. Dale Yale also asks about the length of the road; the Fire Department • approves and buildings must be sprinkled. Kirt Rieder asks about the survey of existing trees along Bertram Field;it will be provided but is not yet done. Meeting Minutes—May 5, 2016 Page 5 of 10 • Andy Dufort from Maine Drilling and Blasting is present to address concerns of the neighbors. Chair Anderson outlines the concerns raised at the last meeting,and Mr. Dufort provides a detailed description of the blasting process. Highlights include: • Pre blast survey details • Blasting process is regulated by the state • Maximum vibration levels allowed • Visual inspection of the ledge in question • Blasting will occur daily for an estimated duration of 10-20 days; specific dates are not yet determined • If homeowners provide contact information, they may receive notification of blast times • The blasting process: o Drill bore holes o Load bore holes with explosives and connect with timers (blasts will go off incrementally, milliseconds apart) o Cover with blast bags (each weighing 11,000 lbs, two layers per hole) o Sound blast horn o Blast goes off o Blast is inspected o "All clear"whistle is blown • Security measures to include guards at potential entry points,in communication by radio • If material is dislodged from the ledge, the applicant would be responsible for the cost and actual • remediation, but would need access to the homeowner's property. If remediation is not allowed or blasting is not possible,a backhoe or hammer would need to be used instead Kirt Rieder asks about the material and dimensions of the sidewalk and planted strips there. Mr. Osgood elaborates; they meet the bylaws. There is a conflict in City code, so Mr. Osgood outlines how this is addressed to accommodate the size of the root balls of the trees proposed. It is not ideal. Kirt Rieder would like a better strategy before voting. Bill Ross, Peer Reviewer for Engineering, speaks. No one has had a chance to review his letter, however he has requested additional info which he describes: • Ledge profile • Street lights • Buried utilities • Existing drainage/inadequacy of catch basins • Proposed drainage—add'1 info needed • Stormwater management—calculation questions • Proposed detention basin—receives more water faster,but releases it more slowly;info on soils is needed • Building up of slope and soil types • Groundwater on site and locations of ledge • Runoff from ledge and changes to site via blasting (do ledge profiling) • Potential control measures • • Permit paperwork not yet received Kirt Rieder asks about wetlands; there are none onsite. Meeting Minutes—May 5, 2016 Page 6 of 10 Matt Veno asks about the detention pond and material at the base; Mr. Ross elaborates on the potential• increase in groundwater. The material under the detention pond will be determined. The process for designing infiltration and drainage is described. Mr. Ross describes some of the difficulties with the calculations. Chair Anderson asks about the fence and landscaping; the applicant describes the mitigating screen. The Chair suggests that a sight section be provided in that area to provide a better idea of property lines, the neighbors, and the ledge. Kirt Rieder comments on the difficulty of planting in ledge; a mound of added soil may be used. Matt Veno asks about the detention basin and the residences along Bertuccio Ave.; further information will be fleshed out moving forward. Helen Sides comments about the sidewalks and the planting edge; the applicant is willing to accommodate by making a narrower sidewalk and wider planting strip. Chair Anderson opens to the public. Cliff Goodman of 22 Bertuccio Ave. is concerned about the detention pond, subsoil, groundwater, and how it will impact his property. He is also concerned about insects that may be attracted to standing water. He also questions how far the blast vibrations will go, as the type of soil underneath is still uncertain. Mr. Osgood outlines the process that will be followed; the area will be engineered and stabilized. Mr. Osgood clarifies the proposed slope and rate of rainwater absorption. It can only stay in the retention pond less than 72 hours so mosquitoes will not be an issue. Mr. Dufort describes the process for determining how the ground will react to blasting. Mr. Lupo of 24 Bertuccio Ave. asks about soil types; porous soil would be loamy sand. Mr. Lupo states • that the area is mostly clay; the area will be tested to accommodate that. Water from the detention pond will be piped into the municipal drainage system. Mr. Lupo has concerns about the City drainage system; Mr. Osgood will work with the City Engineer to determine the sufficiency of drainage, and outlines how flow rates are determined. Robert Dube of 18 Francis Rd. invites the Board to do a site walk in his yard. He also asks about overhanging rocks on the ledge that could fall hours or days later than blasting. He also states that most houses on Francis Rd. were built on a wet area,which flood in rain events. He is concerned about the re- routing natural groundwater that will happen. Mr. Dufort says that if blasting is not safe, it will not happen. Blasting damage is instantaneous and he does not feel that rocks will "teeter" for a long period of time after. The Chair has seen some of these rocks and they will be reviewed. Mr. Osgood states that they will have a better idea of what is there after testing, and will have their geologist explore. Mr. Dube has pictures of water coming out of the ledge, as well as litigation on the water table in the area, that he is willing to present to the Board. Beth Sousa-Zoiss of 32 Bertuccio Ave. has examined the subdivision regulations, spoken to the City Engineer, and is concerned about width requirements vs. what is proposed. She is also concerned about bats that live in a cave on the cliff. Four species of cave-dwelling bats are endangered in MA; she contacted DFW Pat Huckery, who will set up a site visit in the future, however this could take a few months as they are understaffed and it is their busy season. Bats are seen flying out in the evenings. Steve Szpak of 27 Bertuccio Ave is disappointed that the tree survey has not been done. He describes the • trees and how they block noise and light from the field. Also, the turning point to the road is narrow with no way to mitigate vegetation removed. Mr. Osgood states that it is expensive to survey; the peer review Meeting Minutes—May 5, 2016 Page 7 of 10 • was required first in order to most efficiently use their resources. They are being asked to mitigate lights from a school they have nothing to do with. This would be a City issue. Carole Hamilton comments that an application to Planning Board must be complete, and that the first plan this Board received was not,as it showed seven lots, though only six are now planned. She still feels that the plans are not complete and that the applicant should not be complaining of an expense when an incomplete plan is submitted. Mr. Osgood states that he knew he could not provide everything needed, but Ms. Chiancola felt it would be helpful for them to come before the Board tonight. Drainage is not insufficient but needs clarification. Paul L'Heureux of 24 Lafayette Place, director of Facilities for the Salem School Dept. is concerned about several issues,including: , • Placement of the access road parallel to Bertram Field • Slope • Proximity of lots to a detention pond on the Collins Middle School parcel/blasting • Dirt and noise mitigation in the case of use of a hoe ram • Blasting interfering with pedestrian and vehicular traffic during arrival and dismissal • He requests two notices by phone, 30 minutes and 5 minutes prior to blasting, and that blasting be delayed if it is determined to pose a danger to teachers, staff or students. Chair Anderson asks Mr. L'Heureux to submit his concerns to this Board and to the Planning . Department in writing. Mr. Osgood is unable to address all of these concerns as this is the first time he has been made aware of them. There is further discussion on coordination and safety,and Mr. L'Heureux comments that the new lighting is focused on the field so there should be little light pollution. Matt Veno asks Mr. L'Heureux about the detention pond and he elaborates. Beth Sousa-Zoiss comments that she hears the sounds of the kids on the field, and she does not mind, but she does appreciate the trees on the site. She opines that the access point should be the house lot off of Francis St,which would mitigate a lot of issues. Cliff Goodman also comments on the stormwater report, and asks about access for maintenance of the retention pond or forebays. Bill Ross,Peer Reviewer, elaborates. Chris Burke of 65 Broad St. mentions the school retention pond and some issues it was having. A trench was built along fence line to remediate. Runoff was incorrectly judged, so he feels it is difficult to do with ledge. Kirt Rieder asks about the slope of the road and sight distance for vehicular traffic, and Mr. Osgood states he will clarify in a memo. Kirt Rieder feels that traffic should also be peer reviewed. The Board recommends this as the applicant is asking for a variance. The City Engineer has flagged the sight distance issue but Board will request traffic peer review. Tony Mataragas comments on the possibility of changing the access point and timing of getting a ladder • truck to the development. That access point was considered but the road would be too steep. Kirt Rieder asks about another area on lot 5, and Mr. Osgood clarifies. Chair Anderson closes the public comment period. Meeting Minutes—May 5, 2016 Page 8 of 10 • Dale Pale nmde a motion to continue to the June 2. 2016 meeting, nas seconded by Tony Mataw as• and the motion passes, 8-1 with Carole Hamilton oi�hosed. C. Location: 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET, 5-7, and 11 WEST AVENUE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232, 233, 234) Applicant: 331 LAFAYETTE STREET, LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the construction of a three-story 24,388 square foot mixed use commercial building with retail on the first floor and offices on the upper floors.An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. Here for the applicant is Scott Grover, Attorney, representing Bob Burr. At the April 7 meeting, landscaping and the design of the plaza were reviewed. Design changes to the building and responses to the City's peer review have been addressed since then. Attorney Grover is hoping for a decision at the next meeting. Scott Cameron, Civil Engineer, now presents on site layout, and Peter Pittman will discuss budding design issues. Minor adjustments made to site layout are outlined. Changes to the parking lot and measures taken to improve circulation are described. Zoning requirements have been met, but convenience of usage has also been considered. Responses to other comments have also been documented. Kirt Rieder asks about the flow of traffic in the parking lot and Mr. Cameron elaborates. Kirt Rieder also comments on the extension of the hand rail out into the public way and discusses the issue with Mr. • Cameron. Kirt Rieder approves of the pavers and recommends a small size with a Tudor finish. He does not approve of the historic light fixtures;Noah Koretz agrees. Mr. Pittman reviews building design. The Design Review Board has been consulted and changes to the exterior color scheme have been made and are described. Awnings will also be installed. Helen Sides would like to know the exact color from Waters & Brown; samples will be obtained. She also agrees that less historic lighting would be ideal; the applicant asks her to describe but the Board doesn't have anything specific in mind. Mr. Pittman describes how they came to their choice. Technical requirements as well as aesthetics were considered. The applicant is willing to consider a bronze color option for the lights. Chair Anderson asks about materials and Mr. Pittman describes and will elaborate upon them in writing for the next submission. The Chair also asks about design changes to elevations; there are no significant changes other than to show the location of the lighting,which is reviewed. Helen Sides asks about the color of the awnings; they will be canvas and Kirt Rieder is concerned about fading. He also asks about downspouts; they are galvanized aluminum. Mr. Burr describes the site walls and capstones. ICtrt Rieder asks about the height of the light fixtures and Mr. Pittman elaborates. Chair Anderson outlines the Board's requests: • Color samples • Materials noted prior to next submission Chair Anderson opens to the public. • Meeting Minutes—May 5, 2016 Page 9 of 10 President of Historic Salem Jennifer Firth requests that, because some buildings are being taken down, the Board please consider design in context of surrounding buildings, especially on the residential side. She would like to see it match the neighborhood. Tom Furey of 36 Dunlap St, Councdor at Large, comments that the current buildings are an eyesore. He feels this project is better; he does not approve of Park Towers but this project fits into the neighborhood. He thanks the developer and the Board for their efforts. Helen Sides made a nmtion to continue to the May 19. 2016 meeting ivas seconded by Kirt Rieder and the motion parser unanimously. 9-0. Attorney Grover would like a draft decision a t the next meeting;it will be reviewed the week prior by the board and available to the applicant at the next meeting. A Traffic and Civil Engineering peer review report will be presented at the next meeting regarding this project. The Peer Reviewer comments on his progress thus far. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 21,2016 Carole Hamilton made a motion to iorove the Atvi121 2016 minutes of the regular Planning Board meeting with • minor edits, was seconded by Dale Yale, and the motion-passes unanimously 9-0 Kirt Rieder made a motion to arove the Aril 21. 2016 minutes of the Joint hearin-C of Me Planning Board and City Councill, was seconded by Carole Hamilton, and the motion passes unanimously. 9-0 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. A discussion of the role of the Design Review Board and expansion of that role was tabled to tonight, but recommends that the issue be tabled to a future meeting, TBD after a discussion with the Planning Director occurs. The proposed discussion in related to an expansion of the role of the DRB; rather than only reviewing projects for a certain area, it may be helpful to have them also review entrance corridor projects and those over a certain size. B. Kirt Rieder comments on the discrepancy between zoning to code and what this Board requests. Ms. Chiancola recommends amending the subdivision regulations. The regulations themselves state that they should be reviewed periodically, but this was last done in the 1980's. A comprehensive review is required, but is not possible now as there will be many projects before this Board over the summer. Ms. Chiancola will bring this up again in the fall. C. There is no August Board meeting. V. ADJOURNMENT Helesn Sides made a motion to adiourn was seconded by Dale Yale and the motion carried with all in favor, 9-0 The meeting ends at 10:OOPM. • 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: Meeting Minutes—May 5, 2016 Page 10 of 10 ham://ww-w.salem.com/planning-board/wcbforms/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb, Substitute Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 06/02/2016 Knawyour rzgbis under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 tbrougb 2-2033. • • This not ;� posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City tia,.+ .ialem, Mass. on Pyn (r at ,4 Aj ' in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD zoib APES 21 P 4: 18 CITY NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby nayW that the SalemPlamrrrrgBaml will be hddinga Public Hearing on Thurs day,April 21, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washing m St, Salem;MA BenAndeaory Chair REVISED' MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: REVISION: The applicant requested a continuance to May 19, 2016 of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. A. Location: 14 BERTUCCIO AVENUE (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: NATHAN JACOBSON Description: The applicant requested a continuance to May 5, 2016 of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre of land. B. Location: 70-92 r/] BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) Applicant: 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the • redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling Krrota your rights under the Open Making LawM.G.L. c 30A § 18-25 and City Ordinarx§ 2-202813irasgli§ 2-2033. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for April 21,2016 Page 2 of 2 • units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. C. Location: 114 DERBY(Map 41 Lot 14) Applicant 114 DERBY STREET NOMINEE TRUST Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Section 9.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reflect the plan for the property located at 114 Derby Street (Map 41,Lot 14). The applicant proposes to convert the existing structure presently used by the City of Salem School Department to six (6) residential dwelling units with nine (9) exterior parking spaces. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 7, 2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Vote on the request to release the eight (8) remaining lots in the Witch H& Subdivision. B. Deliberate and vote on recommendation of an amendment to the City of Salem Zoning • Ordinance Section 10.0,Definition of a Tasting Room V. ADJOURNMENT Knowyaur rights wzder the OpmM"LawM.G L. c 30A § 18-25 an d Crty Ordmnx§ 2-2028 dyrm0§ 2-2033. • 1 Gt ASr:N(�UN SFR E r S kt;ENt N1,SS, ' r s. rrs 01970 • PHO.NE. 978.Ci1M685 F; x 97,33' .0404 . SvP✓YdsrU:r.;n.CQvt Ti: Gt' p f CITY OF SALEM. City daa, Salem o I ty� avt& d:a� ..gg;am� p t at pM in accordance with MGL Cha 3i PLANNING BOARD161b 118-25. 16'6 APR 14 P 2 21 _M' NOTICE OF MEETING You am hereby n0fied that the SalenPlanningBand will be h&6Ta PulalicHeanrg on Thursday,Apri121, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington St, Saler;MA Ben Andenor4 Qair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: A continued public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. • A. Location: 14 BERTUCCIO AVENUE (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: NATHAN JACOBSON Description: The applicant requested a continuance to May 5, 2016 of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre of land. B. Location: 70-92 1/2 BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) Applicant: 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with° Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the properly, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with • parking provided on the site. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for April 21, 2016 Page 2 of 2 • C. Location: 114 DERBY(Map 41 Lot 14) Applicant: 114 DERBY STREET NOMINEE TRUST Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Section 9.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reflect the plan for the property located at 114 Derby Street (Map 41,Lot 14). The applicant proposes to convert the existing structure presently used by the City of Salem School Department to six (6) residential dwelling units with nine (9) exterior parking spaces. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 7, 2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Vote on the request to release the eight (8) remaining lots in the Witch Hills Subdivision. B. Deliberate and vote on recommendation of an amendment to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 10.0,Definition of a Tasting Doom. V. ADJOURNMENT • Know)w nghts m7der the Open M"LawM.GL. c 30A § 18-25 and City Opt imna,§ 2-2028 tbrouugbi§ 2-2033. • O W ,:4Ei:nGION, SFREE 1, S+[.:M, MASSA','.! ,S+ TS 01910 PHONE 918.6195685 Fax 978.740.0404 f _ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ��rotxt.� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GoONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: April 14, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — April 21, 2016 Please find the following in the dropbox file: ■ Agenda for April 21, 2016, Regular Meeting ■ Planner's Memo ■ 14 Bertuccio Avenue (Form C) - Letter from the Mayor - New Public Comments • - Continuance Request • 14 & 16 Almeda Street (Form C) ■ 114 Derby Street (SPR) ■ 70-92.5 Boston Street (NRCC, SPR, FHOD) ■ Draft Minutes - April 7, 2016 • Release of 8 Remaining Lots in the Witch Hill Subdivision - Release of Lots Agreement I. Roll Call II. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. 14 BERTUCCIO RD (FORM C) The applicant submitted a request to continue to the regularly scheduled Planning Board hearing on May 5. The continuance is requested because the applicant prefers to have the next board meeting after the Planning Board Site Visit, and would like to have received comments from the Stormwater Peer Reviewer' prior to their next meeting. New England Civil Engineering (NECE) is currently peer reviewing the Stormwaler Management Permit and utility • plans for this project. Page 1 of 4 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —4/14/2016 Page 2 of 4 The Mayor provided the developer this letter regarding this project. In addition, new • public comments have been submitted since the last meeting, and can be found here. 2. 14 & 16 ALMEDA STREET (Form C) The applicant's Engineer met with the City Engineering Department on Monday, April 11 to discuss review the project plans. Revised plans have not been submitted. 3. 70-92% BOSTON STREET (NRCC, SPR, FHOD) This Site Plan Review (SPR), Flood Hazard Overlay District (FHOD) Special Permit, Stormwater Management Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) Neighborhood Mixed Use District are requested for the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site. The subject application includes the removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. Pursuant to Section 8.1.2(a) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, the FHOD includes all special flood hazard areas within the City of Salem designated as Zone A, AE, or VE on the Essex County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by the FEMA. As shown on Figure 1 below, only a small portion of the site is within Zone AE. . Therefore, the review should be focused and limited to that portion of the site. Figure 1: FHOD Maps ao A } vAN ' ll 4. 14 DERBY STREET (SPR) This is a Site Plan Review (SPR) for the conversion of the old Settlement House across the street of the House of the Seven Gables. The Conversion of this structure is from a school used by the City into six (6) residential units. On March 16, 2016, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a favorable decision for a Variance from Lot Coverage and a Special Permit to alter a non-conforming structure. The applicant's representative met with City Staff at a One Stop meeting on • Tuesday, April 12 to review the project. The City Engineer noted that the drainage Page 2 of 4 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —4/14/2016 Page 3 of 4 should not flow off the site into the street, and recommended either pervious coverage or infiltration basins. The applicant is working on addressing that concern. A few City Departments comments on the snow storage area, which does not appear to be large enough. In response the applicant suggested including the requirement of snow storage removal in the condominium documents, which the City Departments considered to be a good alternative. The comments received by the City Departments thus far can be found here. Although the City Departments have not all provided written comments yet, based on the limited comments at the one stop meeting it appears that project should have all comments in by April 21. Therefore, the project could be ready for a Planning Board vote on April 21. 1 also note that the subject property is located in the Historic Commission's jurisdiction, and is scheduled to be heard at the April 20`h Historic Commission public hearing. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. April 7, 2016 IV. Old/New Business 1. Release of 8 Remaining Lots at Witch Hill • This item is a request to release the eight remaining lots of the approved subdivision located at Witch Hill in order to begin Phase III of construction. The eight (8) remaining lots along the segment of Nurse Way identified with red markings in Figure 2 below. Figure 2: Phase III of Witch Hill Subdivision OIL F i ` 7 Seven of the eight are scheduled for the April 14`h Conservation Commission • meeting, as they require a Notice of Intent. One of the eight lots is located outside Page 3 of 4 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—4/14/2016 Page 4 of 4 of the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction, as such does not require a notice of intent. The developer previously entered into a tri-party agreement that included a deposit in the amount of $500,000 that covers all three phases. Phase I and II are substantially complete. A breakdown of the remaining work for the subdivision is enumerated in the Completion Summary Letter from the developer. The Planning Board Form C Decision and subsequent revisions to the change can be found here. The approved project plans for this segment of road can be found here. 2. Zoning Amendment- Definition of a Tasting Room Deliberate and vote on recommendation the following amendment to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 10.0, Definition of a Tasting Room: Delete: "A tasting room may not be greater than thirty-three (33) percent of the main building's gross square footage." Replace with: "A tasting room may not be greater than fifty (50) percent of the main building's gross square footage. A seasonal tasting area, e.g. patio or deck, shall not be Included In calculating the tasting room's square footage for purposes of • zoning compliance; however, the square footage of seasonal_tasting_areas_is app licable,to building, sanitary and.other,relevant codes.' Please note that the yellow highlighted portion is a recommended revision from the initial language based on feedback from the Zoning Enforcement Officer. This change will be recommended on the floor at Council Chambers. • Page 4 of 4 City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board '�lanni Date �l Name Mailing,Address Phone # E-mail ( L)� p4aLZ14eF eZi ,c e, �I /J✓/ LKCJ i� �`�"LA-i-A'7 r�.7"7"iz. /�/�i!�' g'29-' 2(os_-Yd 3d- S,4ia-,i K/z tilt.Cr _� i - irk �J_O:OIA �� . o(, c I � u�, KJal .ca� �f�s ac es 1�9N �1�1�� 976-539 8cbS cspasa_ggs�WseJ � � t6 S qkw e R�y lfi 'l: SA-Fffl-d ST Mao -I l -6iek /� J✓4l p,(1 M JT kf CNsir� a�2P�D, � 7 • Page of Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail , Page of Public Hearing Notice, City of Salem Planning Board I Will hold a public hearing f6r all �. persons interested in the applicat)n of 114 DERBY STREET NOMINEE TRUST for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Section 9.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reflect +i the plan for the property located at 114 Derby Street(Map 41, Lot 14). The applicant proposes to convert the existing structure presently used by the City of Salem School Depart- ment tosix (6) residential dwelling units with nine (9) exterior parking spaces. The public hearing will be held on Thursday,April 21, 2016 at 7:00 i PM,in Room 313,Third.Floor at 120 a ( Washington Street in accordance f with Chapter 40A of the Massachu- setts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and e available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning&Community Develop- at ment, Third Floor, 120 Washington O Street,Salem,MA. Ben Anderson,Chair P Planning Board SN-4/7,4/14/16 i r - Public Hearing Notice City of Salem. Planning Boar Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of 114 DERBY STREET NOMINEE I TRUST for a Site Plan Review in ! ii accordance with Section 9.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reflect the plan for the property located at J 114 Derby Street (Map 41, Lot 14), The applicant proposes to convect the existing structure presently used by the City of Salem School Dep%' ment to six (6) residential dwelling units with nine (9) exterior parking spaces. The public hearing will be held on Thursday,April 21,2016 at 7:00 j PM,in Room 313,Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachu- !!( setts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning &Community Develop- ment, Third Floor, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Ben Anderson,Chair Planning Board SN-4/7,4/14/16 I( s. . t CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD a1h � I �_ Public Hearing Notice CITY C w`. LF r tt City of Salem Planning Board Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of 114 DERBY STREET NOMINEE TRUST for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Section 9.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reflect the plan for the property located at 114 Derby Street (Map 41, Lot 14). The applicant proposes to convert the existing structure presently used by the City of Salem School Department to six (6) residential dwelling units with nine(9) exterior parking spaces. The public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 7:00 PM, in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning& Community Development, Third Floor, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. • Ben Anderson, Chair Planning Board Salem News: 4/7/2016 & 4/14/2016 This notic r ^.::>±f:? en rlletin Board„ City Hall, Sit, 'fTl " . V 1 t�^1 1d1)I(F at TIP-A in M >f:.ia� .,. wi MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-T';. 120 R`Fslll�%rox S f.i f S ,.i.EM, i I,SSr,CHUSE-ris 01970 • Pxo� .978.6.9.5685 Fnx 978.740.0404 i Public�,earing Notice City.of Salem Planning Board Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the applica- tion of 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST for the property located at 70-92+h Boston Street(Map 15,Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) for a She Plan Review, Flood Hazard Over- layDistrict Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North -River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Sa- lem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review;Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District;Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neigh- borhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37.Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevel- opment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three struc- tures on the property,the construc- tion of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the she. The public hearing will be held on Thursday,April 21,2016 at 7:00 PM,in Room 313,Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachu- setts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning &Community Develop- ment, Third Floor, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Planning Board Ben Anderson,Chair - SN- 4p,4/14/16 ' Public Hearing Notice l - City of Salem +l+f Planning Board Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the applica- tion of 139 GROVE STREET REALTY, TRUST for the property located at, 70-921/2 Boston Street(Map 15,Lot 2' & Map 16, Lot 139) for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Over- lay District Special Permit, Speciale Permits associated with the North, River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Sa- lem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5, She Plan Review;Section 8.1 Flood'. Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4' North River Canal Corridor Neigh- borhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37.Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevel- opment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three struc- tures on the property,the construc- tion of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a t commercial retail space with parking ¢ provided on the site. The public hearing will be held o on Thursday,April 21,2016 at 7:00 vi PM,in Room 313,Third Floor at 120 cl Washington Street in accordance Yc with Chapter 40A of the Massachu- ar l setts General Laws. A copy of the I application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning &Community Develop- ment, Third Floor, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Ben Anderson,Chair Planning Board SN- 4/7,4/14/16 SN } CITY OF SALEM r T' PLANNING BOARD 'Biy APA -1 A II: 3q fi Public Hearing Notice CJTY _ ' "�• ;" �' City of Salem Planning Board Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST for the property located at 70-92 %2 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 299 &Map 16, Lot 139) for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. The public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 7:00 PM, in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the AWlication and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of arming & Community Development, Third Floor, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Ben Anderson, Chair Planning Board Publication Run Dates in Salem News: 4/7/2016 & 4/14/2016 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on APR - 7 2016 at //. j� / in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 120 CCr.St1i'V(jro e$TL r ., SALIN, N1ASSAC1i1JS1,,n 01970 - PHONE 978.619.568) Y,; X 97/&740.0404 Vrs. ,;a t N1'.C-X-) ., Meeting Minutes—April 21, 2016 Page 1 of 7 • City of Salem Planning Board Approved Meeting Minutes Thursday,April 21,2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,April 21,2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313, Salem,Massachusetts. Vice Chair Matt Veno opened the meeting at 7:14pm. I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Noah Koretz,Bill Griset,Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton, Matt Veno,Vice Chair and Tony Mataragas,-late: Kirt Rieder. Absent: Ben Anderson, Chair, and Helen Sides Also present: Amanda Chiancola,Staff Planner, and Stacy Kilb,Planning Board Recording Clerk. II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: A continuance of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. • Applicant requests to continue to the May 19 meeting and also for the Board to vote on a project extension of the 135 day deadline to July 12, 2016. Noah Koretz asks for the reasoning behind requests for continuance and details are outlined. Progress is being made with revisions to the plans, and the petitioner has met with the City Engineer. A motion to continue to the May 19. 2016 meeting and to grant the PnZ ect extension of the 135 day deadline to-Luly 12. 2016 is made by Noah Konyt4 seconded by Bill Griset and-passes wit)all in favor, 6-0. B. Location: 14 BERTUCCIO AVENUE (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: NATHAN JACOBSON Description: The applicant requested a continuance to May 5, 2016 of the public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow fox activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre of land. The petitioner requests to continue to May 5"'.According to the applicant, they have received comments from the initial hearing and site visit, and wish to respond to the peer reviewer regarding stormwater management. A motion to continue to the May 5. 2016 meeting is made by Dale Yale seconded by Tony Mataragas and-basses with all in favor, 6-0. • Meeting Minutes—Apri121, 2016 Page 2 of 7 C. Location: 70-92 1/: BOSTON STREET (Map 15, Lot 299 & Map 16, Lot 139) Applicant:. 139 GROVE STREET REALTY TRUST Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit, Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review; Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District; Section 8.4 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District; and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance with Salem Code of Ordinances Chapter 37. Specifically, the applicant proposes the redevelopment of the former Flynntan site consisting of removal of three structures on the property, the construction of 50 residential dwelling units within two separate buildings and a commercial retail space with parking provided on the site. Attorney Joseph Corrend of 63 Federal St. represents the applicant. He mentions a previously proposed development for this site, which got fully permitted but did not move forward. Anthony Roberto represents the ownership group,Lar Properties LLC,which also operates Goodhue Properties, a nearby residential site just behind this one. Attorney Correnti describes the topography of the site and options explored for development. He compliments the City on the improvements to the Grove/Goodhue St. intersection. This will be a residential development with a small commercial component. All parking requirements are contained on the site. A mix of housing and unit styles will be implemented. This is a main building with a second townhouse component along Bridge St. They have reached out to the neighborhood and the Ward 4 Councilor. They have also met with the Gallows Hill and Mack Park Neighborhood Associations. • Chris Sparages,Civil Engineer,presents,as does Tanya Carrera,Architect. Anthony Roberto, one of three principals for Lax Properties, comments on the process he went through for the Goodhue Street Apartments. All units are full with a waidist. The commercial side is a struggle but he feels further developments to the area will help. Chris Sparages,Project Engineer,presents a PowerPoint. He outlines the location and logistics of the site, as well as its history. Three large buildings remain and existing conditions are described. Noah Koretz asks about the parcel on the corner;it is Dunkin Donuts and Witch City Cycles. Soils were found to be sandy,which ties into stormwater management design. Mr. Sparages describes Boston Street and the sidewalk, as well as elevations. The site slopes down from Boston St. toward Goodhue St. A very small part of the area is in the floodplain, requiring a special permit and filing with the Conservation Commission, though the resource will not be filled. The area in question is to be a dog park. There are six existing curb cuts on Boston St. and some areas with no curbing on Goodhue St., though there are some access points there. The City created a driveway access on Goodhue St. with its reconfiguration and that will remain one of the vehicular access points for the site. Mr. Sparages shows the proposed layout of the project and outlines. There will be a three-story apartment building with 44 units and parking underground,and six townhouse style units along Boston St. Two parking spaces for each unit will be provided. There will be one entrance in and out of the Boston Street side, at an existing curb cut. A circle will accommodate a ladder truck. 100 parking spaces for the residential components are proposed, and 8 parking spaces are proposed for the commercial part of the project. The rear of the building can be accessed via the• entrance on Goodhue St.The townhouses will have six garage spaces. Meeting Minutes—April 21, 2016 Page 3 of 7 • Proposed grades are outlined; the parking lot is at a 1-2% grade. The proposed dog park along Goodhue St. is described,as are some retaining wall and a terraced garden area. Stormwater management efforts proposed are described. Stormwater management standards are being met with catch basins and three underground infiltration chambers. The drainage design is similar to that of the previously proposed plan to simplify peer review. They will tie into existing utilities for water, sewer and fire suppression. Tanya Carrier reviews the proposed architecture, first outlining the nearby existing buildings. Townhouse buildings are closer to Boston St. as they are smaller scale, while the larger building is nearer to Goodhue St. The proposed architecture mimics what is already in the area. Parking spaces on Goodhue St. that were recently added in the reconfiguration of the intersection belong to the City. Ms. Carrier gives a brief overview of the landscape plan, which will be presented at a later date by a landscape architect. The garage plan of the main building is outlined. There will be 46 spaces in the garage. The layout of the buildings is described. It is a mix of one and two bedroom units. Space for two retail units is planned for the first floor. The three-bedroom townhouse units are described. Noah Koretz asks about the underground parking and if there are limitations on digging due to topography of the site. Mr. Sparages elaborates, describing the elevations. How the spaces take advantages of the grade change,which goes from 38' to 10',is described. Topography of the existing conditions is described. Pedestrian entrances for the town houses are on the street with garage entrances around the back. Noah Koretz asks about the sidewalk on the South side of the street and Mr. Sparages elaborates on the existing sidewalk on • Goodhue St. That will not be changed and no additional sidewalk is proposed beyond where it ends. There is a crosswalk to the other side of the street, though, that continues to Boston St. Noah Koretz opines that it should continue to the end of the street on both sides. He also wonders about the roundabout and the dog park and questions if they are really the best use of that open space, citing the nearby Leslie's Retreat dog park. Mr. Sparages and Mr. Koretz further discuss the fire truck turnaround. Mr. Koretz would like to see further details in cross section but comments that he does not approve of the "faux historicism" architectural style proposed. He feels that new structures should make an impact while fitting in with the scale of existing development, but not mimicking existing historic structures. Bill Griset agrees and a discussion of architecture ensues. Vice Chair Matt Veno comments that this has been a topic of debate, and while he agrees, often nearby residents do want to see new architecture match the existing. Mr. Koretz feels that this firm should be able to accommodate the Board's desires. Attorney Correnti anticipates presenting to the Design Review Board the fourth week in May. Tony Mataragas also believes there should be a sidewalk on the South side of Goodhue St., as the additional housing will create a more pedestrian environment. The Board supports the applicant discussing the City right-of- way and the sidewalk. Tony Mataragas also feels that a dog park is not necessary. Vice Chair Matt Veno is concerned about the Boston St. access and egress, as it is very close to the major intersection of Boston, Bridge and Proctor Streets and discussion on additional options for the access points continues. The Vice Chau acknowledges that there is no simple answer, but that their solution is one of the more problematic ones. • Carole Hamilton also comments on the entrance, and opines that a dog park onsite to accommodate late-night dog outings is desirable if dogs will be welcomed into the residences. Meeting Minutes—April 21, 2016 Page 4 of 7 Vice Chau Matt Veno's questions for future meetings: • • Petitioner should provide a more detailed vision for the commercial space, as the nearby commercial space on Goodhue St. suggests it is a challenge • Provide details on conversations with the owners of Dunkin Donuts, referring to the North River Canal Corridor Master Plan (NRCC) (Attorney Correnti comments that these begin and end with "drive through.") • The "urban village concept" referred to on that plan should be the overriding vision for design if not site plan Noah Koretz and the Vice Chau do feel that this is moving toward that "urban village" feel and acknowledge that the grade changes make site development difficult. Vice Chair Matt Veno opens the meeting to public comment. Rosemary O'Connor of 111 Mason St. states that the developer was very well received at the Mack Park Neighborhood Association meeting last month. Neighbors approved of the design as it matches the neighborhood; other designs nearby were not so popular. She agrees with the need for a dog park and opines that Goodhue St. should be made two-way. Vice Chair Veno states she should express her opinions on architecture to the Design Review Board. Daniel Sousa of 83 Boston St. echoes Arty Corrend's comments. I-Ie appreciates the project,including the dog park, but also feels the design could be made to stand out more. He also opines that the proposed entrance/egress will not pose a problem, however currently residents on the odd side must park across Boston St., on the even side. They may be able to work with the City on that issue. William Sousa of 83 Boston St. approves of the design as it is and feels that the entrance/exit proposed will pose a problem, as will possibly inadequate parking for the commercial space, depending on what type of business moves in. He is in favor of moving parking for Boston St. residences to the same side of the street as the houses. Michael Kusik of 19 Putman St. wonders why two parking spaces per unit are required if the desire is to promote an urban context,walkability, etc. He feels the applicant has tried to reflect the neighborhood and has succeeded. Units will be dog-friendly. Zoning is at issue in that regard and Vice Chair Veno comments that the Master Plan has called for flexibility with parking spaces for this site, acknowledging that topography will make it challenging. Vice Chau Veno would be open to sacrificing parking to address other amenities. The applicant comments that the proposed number of spaces is not ideal and would prefer 24 fewer spots. They are not currently planning to request a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, but the Vice Chair comments that it is a route they should consider, as this Board is requesting that they do it. The applicant notes that there are no studio apartments within any NRCC project proposed, as the requirement would be for two parking spaces regardless. The development at 28 Goodhue St. was a test; they did not seek a variance so there are two spaces per residence,with 45 units and 90 parking spaces. On average, only 48- 50 are being used at one time. Mr. Kusik comments that walkable cities, ridesharing, self driving cars, etc. will diminish need for personal cars. Vice Chau Matt Veno comments that there is a need to find the correct balance. Kirt Rieder arrives 8:48PM and agrees that new architecture "should be of its time." . Meeting Minutes—April 21, 2016 Page 5 of 7 • Jane Froncki of 5 Safford St. approves of the design. She agrees that Goodhue St. should be made two-way again but is concerned about tractor trailers coming down Beaver St. She requests signage for no trucks to go down her street. She is advised to speak to her Ward City Councilor. Joan Sweeney of 22 Silver St. approves of the project but is concerned about the historic house on the corner of Grove St. and Boston St.,which was built in 1790 as Daniel Fry's Tavern,adjacent to site and near the tattoo parlor. She provides documentation on historic nature. Bill Griset mages a notion to continue to the May 19. 2016 meeting. is seconded by Noah KoretZ and the motion carrier with all in favor, 7-0. D. Location: 114 DERBY(Map 41 Lot 14) Applicant: 114 DERBY STREET NOMINEE TRUST Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Section 9.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reflect the plan for the property located at 114 Derby Street (Map 41, Lot 14). The applicant proposes to convert the existing structure presently used by the City of Salem School Department to six (6) residential dwelling units with nine (9) exterior parking spaces. Attorney Scott Grover represents Larry Freye and Joe Skomurski; Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects will also present. This is the team redeveloping the convent on 7 Howard St. This is barely at the threshold for site plan review as it is 6 units. Attorney Grover describes the "Settlement House" owned by House of Seven Gables. It has been used mostly for school purposes; now the City leases it for an alternative high school but the Gables would • like to sell to fund other projects. They hope to close before the end of June. Mr. Grover describes the two distinct buildings, the original Federal building and a 1980's addition. There are five parking spaces along Turner St. This would have six residential condominium units with nine parking spaces in compliance with zoning ordinance. There will also be substantial enhancement to the landscaping. Arty Grover describes the existing setup and proposed landscaping. The Zoning Board of Appeals has issued a variance, though relief was minimal. Use and density are allowed, however a coverage variance was required. An alteration of a nonconforming structure was also approved. This project was very well received by abutters and the Neighborhood Association. This is also in the Derby St. Historic District, so has been before the Historic Commission. All proposed changes were approved so this Board is the final step. Vice Chair Matt Veno asks for clarification as to the site orientation and Attorney Grover elaborates. Dan Ricciarelh of Seger Architects presents the plans in more detail, including layout and footprints of each unit, elevations and restoration. This is not a three story unit; it was once converted to a gym so the upstairs units will have 16' ceilings. Exterior views are shown and described. The Vice Chair comments, and other Board members agree, that this is exactly what was discussed in the conversation regarding design in the last project, that it should reflect but not match exactly what is in the abutting area. Dale Yale confirms that these are condominiums. Noah Koretz comments that he likes that they are being creative with small projects such as this. Kirt Rieder approves of the project and thinks the applicant has "very persuasive • graphics" and opines that the Board should share them as an example with less accomplished applicants. Kirt Rieder approves of the project in general but requests that the pear trees be replaced with another species that will last longer and be less.... fragrant. Meeting Minutes—April 21, 2016 Page 6 of 7 • Vice Chair opens to the public but there are no comments. The Board has received one letter from Kara McLaughlin, Executive Director, House of Seven Gables, which is read into the record. She is in support of the project. ]Grt Rieder makes a motion to close the public bearing is made, is seconded by Dale Yale, and the motion carrier evith all in favor, 7-0. A draft decision is before the Board. The only change requested is the substitution of the pear trees. It can be conditioned. The applicant previously participated in a one-stop meeting where lots of police, fire, and engineering input was received, so their feedback is built into the draft decision. They will work with the building department to satisfy their minor concerns, but the Planning Dept. has no unresolved issues. Amanda Chiancola outlines the City Engineer's comments and recommendations, which are conditioned. Plans will go back before City Engineer for approval pre construction. All units are on Derby St. Vice Chair Matt Veno reviews the draft decision with the Board, calling out items that are not standard,including: • Sewer lines • Snow storage—snow will be removed offsite;logistics are described • HVAC units on roof with screening if visible • Trees —Replacement of five pear trees (replace all pear trees with another species), to be sent to Kirt Rieder and confirmed by Amanda Chiancola, staff planner. A revised landscaping plan including this change is to submitted to the Planning Department and confirmed by a staff planner before a the Planner signs the• Building Permit routing slip. Carole Hamilton maker a motion to approve. isseconded bby Krt Rieder, and the notion carries with all in favor, 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 7,2016 A motion to approve the minutes from the April 7. 2016 meetin4 with a few minor corrections, is made by Noab Koret� seconded bi,Bill Griset, and passes unanimoeuG,. 7-0. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Vote on the request to release the eight (S) remaining lots in the Witch Hills Subdivision. Kiat Rieder is not present for this item. George Atkins of Steadman Development presents. He outlines the development and progress so far; all requirements for release have been met, such as prior phase completion, completion of trails, and an ongoing process for wetlands replication conditioned by the Conservation Commission. Two parcels within the subdivision have been transferred to the Park and Recreation Commission. A motion to release 8 lots for phase 3 is made by Noah Kore seconded by Carole Hamilton, and the motion carries with all • in amr, 6C0. Meeting Minutes—April 21, 2016 Page 7 of 7 • B. Deliberate and vote on recommendation of an amendment to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 10.0, Definition of a Tasting Room. Discussion of how square footage should be used in percentage calculation occurs. Alternate language is proposed to help clarify the ordinance. Procedural issues and jurisdiction are discussed. Possible interpretations made by the Building Inspector are discussed. This is an evolving process, but it may make sense to approve this as is so breweries may continue,but allow for changes. Vice Chair Matt Veno suggests recommending adoption of amended ordinance as presented, expressing that the 50%limit seems unnecessary and problematic; Noah Koretz opines that if this is easier to do business in Beverly than Salem, that is not good. The Vice Chair also opines that we also recommend that the City offers some clarity on the definition of"main building" and Bill Griset suggests they examine the issue of adding square footage of all buildings on lot and using that number. A motion to recommend adoption of the ordinance as presented is made by Carole Hamilton, seconded by Noah Koreg, and parses unanimou ly. 7-0. In making this recommendation. the Planning Board unanimously recogn es that this is an evolving issue, and notes thefollowing for future consideration: 1. The definition of the `ivain building"should be clarified The board recommends that in a case where there are multi buildings on one site, cumulative gross square footage of all buildings on the site shall be used to calculate the percentage. • 2. The percentage requirements are likely to be unnecessau�given other regulatory oversde. The Planning Board urges that the City Council consider eliminating the percentage requirement in the future. V. ADJOURNMENT Dale Yale maker a motion to adjourn, is seconded by Tony Ma gm as, and the motion caries with all in favor. 7-0. The meeting ends at 9:56 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:/hvww.salem.com/planning-board/webforms/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb,Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 05/05/2016 Knowyour rgbtr under the Open Meeting I-am M.G.L c. 30A 5 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 through 5 2-2033. • : CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD iG!b APR 25 A IIS Il CITY LL......, Site Plan Review Decision 114 Derby Street(Map 41, Lot 14) April 25, 2016 114 Derby Street Nominee Trust 343 Essex Street Salem,MA 01970 RE: Site Plan Review-114 Derby Street On Thursday, April 21, 2016, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing regarding the application of 114 Derby Street Nominee Trust for a Special Permit pursuant to Section 9.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Site Plan Review, for a six-unit residential • development located at 114 Derby Street(Map 41, Lot 14). The project includes the renovation of the existing structure on 114 Derby Street (existing structure presently used by the City of Salem School Department) into six residential units, with nine(9)exterior parking spaces. The Public Hearing was closed on April 21, 2016. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on April 21, 2016, the Board voted by a vote of Seven (7) in favor (Matt Veno, Dale Yale, Tony Mataragas, Bill Griset.Kirt Rieder, Carole Hamilton) in favor and none opposed,to approve the application as complying, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan a. Work shall conform with the. Site Plan, Landscape Concept Plan and Elevations entitled, "114 Derby Street Nominee Trust,"prepared by Seger Architects, Inc., dated March 30, 2016, and Plot Plan entitled, "114 Derby Street" prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc.,dated March 30, 2016. 2. Transfer of Ownership a. In the event of the transfer of the site as a whole, within five (5) days of such transfer, 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. • 1 3. Amendments a. 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. b. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 4. Construction Practices a. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: b. All provisions in the City of Salem's Code of Ordinance, Chapter 22, Noise Control, shall be strictly adhered to. c. 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 construction of the project. d. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance.with all local and state regulations. e. 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. £ 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 left overnight at the site must be located completely on the site. 5. Office of the City Engineer a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer. b. A Licensed Plumber shall provide a letter to the Engineering Department stating the condition of the existing water pipes to make sure they are adequate robe reused for the proposed condos. This letter shall be submitted to the Engineering Department. prior to the issuance of building permits. c. A video inspection of the sewer service will be necessary to understand the current condition of the pipe to determine if still in good condition to be reused for the proposed condos. A copy of the video and logs shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of building permits, d. A building inspection and dye testing shall be completed to confirm the sewer and drain services are connected to the correct system in the street. This inspection shall be schedule with the city consultant directly and result of this inspection and testing •' 2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of building permits. • e. Applicant shall correct any deficiencies found from the inspections and testing that are required per conditions 5c and 5d. f The applicant shall submit plans to the Engineering Department showing how the runoff from the new impervious area will be handled. Keeping in mind that runoff should stay in the property and recharge to the ground to the extent possible. This plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. Fire Department a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. b. The building shall be equipped with a full automatic fire sprinkler system. 7. Building Commissioner a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Commissioner. 8. Utilities a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. • 9. Department of Public Services a. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services. 10. Board of Health and Health Department a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Board of Health and Health Department. b. Adequate trash storage must be provided based on the number of units and collection frequency. 11. Maintenance a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the applicant. "Refuse removal' includes recycling, which shall be the responsibility of the owner, his successors or assigns. The owner shall provide adequate facilities to ensure all users are able to recycle their trash. Owner is to enter into a contract with a company of the owner's choice to arrange pick-up of recyclable material. A copy of this contract is to be submitted to the City Engineer. b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off- site. • 3 c. 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. • 12. Lighting a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way. b. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed by the City Planner,prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13.HVAC a. If an HVAC unit is located on the roof, the City Planner will inspect the installed equipment and report back to the board after the site inspection. If the Planning Board determines it is.necessary to visually screen the equipment based on visibility from the abutting property lines and/or visibility from the public,right of way, the method for screening the unit, including colors and materials, shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 14. Landscaping a. A revised landscaping plan that substitutes the pear trees for an alternative tree species shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development subject to approval by the City Planner prior, to building permit issuance. The City Planner will consult with a Planning Board member when reviewing the revised landscaping plan. • b. All landscaping shall be done in accordance with the approved set of plans.. c. 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. d. 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. e. 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. As-built Plans a. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. 16.Violations • 4 a. Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. 1 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. I v O Matt Veno Vice Chair 5 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1016 APR I4 P 2: 21 NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board and the Salem City Council will be holding a Joint Public Hearing on Tuesday,April 21,2016 at 6:00pm at City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington Street Ben Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. ACTION ITEM A joint public hearing with the City Council on a petition to petition to amend the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 10.0, Definition of a Tasting Room by deleting: "A tasting room may not be greater than thirty-three (33) percent of the main building's gross square footage." And replacing it with: "A tasting room may not be greater than fifty(50) percent of the main building's gross square footage. A seasonal tasting area, e.g. patio or deck, shall not be included in calculating the tasting room's square footages." III. OLD/NE W BUSINE SS IV. ADJOURNMENT Knowyeff ngits tt&r the Open M"L=M.GL. c 30A 4 18-25 and City Or"nx§ 2-2028 tbiv#§2-2033. This notice posted on "Or, Bulletin Board" City Bali, Salem, Ma^' 1 l `�,dv l[Q at ,Z�,�} 14 It, with P:i Ci>. Chap. 30A, Sections `IP • CITY OF SALEM NOTICE ,JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLANNING BOA!D AND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 21,2016,6:00 P.M. The Planning Board will hold a joint public hearing with the City Council on Thursday,April 21,2016 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,City Hall,93 Washington St., Salem, MA in accordance with Chapter 40A,Section 5,of the Mas- sachusetts General Laws to con- sider the following petition to amend the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 10.0, Definition of a Tasting Room by deleting: . . "A tasting room may not be great- . ) er than thirty-three (33) percent of I - the main building's gross square footage." And replacing it with: "A tasting room may not be greater than frfty (50) percent of the main building's gross square footage. A seasonal r tasting area,e.g.patio or deck,shall not be included in calculating the •tasting room's square footage." The purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. The complete text of the pro- posed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is on file at the office of the Department of Planning& Com-munity Development, City Hall An-nex, 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts,and are available for e inspection during regular business's hours. Ben Anderson,Chair Planning Board SN—40,4/14/16 I CITY OF SALEM NOTICE ' JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITYCOUNCIL APRIL 21;2016,6:00 P.M. The Planning Board will hold a �r joint public hearing with the City Council on Thursday,April 21,2016 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,City Hall,93 Washington St., Salem, MA in accordance with Chapter 40A,Section 5,of the Mas- sachusetts General Laws to con- sider the following petition to amend 1. the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Section 10.0, Definition of a Tasting Room by deleting: "A tasting room may not be great- er than thirty-three (33) percent of the main building's gross square footage." And replacing it with: "A tasting room may not be greater than fifty (50) percent of the main building's ,gross square footage. A seasonal .tasting area,e.g.patio or deck,shall not be included in calculating the tasting room's square footage." The purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. The complete text of the pro- posed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is on file at the office of the Department of Planning& Com-munity Development, City Hall An- nex,120 Washington Street,Salem, i Massachusetts,and are available for ' inspection during regular business i hours. Ben Anderson,Chair Planning Board SN—4/7,4/14/16 CITY OF SALEM \m+J PLANNING BOARD 20Ih APR - CITY C! City of Salem Notice Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and City Council April 21, 2016, 6:00 P.M. The Planning Board will hold a joint public hearing with the City Council on Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington St., Salem, MA in accordance with Chapter 40A, Section 5, of the Massachusetts General Laws to consider the following petition to amend the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 10.0, Definition of a Tasting Room by deleting: "A tasting room may not be greater than thirty-three (33) percent of the main building's gross square footage." And replacing it with: "A tasting room may not be greater than fifty (50) percent of the main building's gross square footage. A seasonal tasting area, e.g. patio or deck, shall not • be included in calculating the tasting room's square footage." The purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. The complete text of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is 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. Ben Anderson, Chair Planning Board Ad to run on: 4/7/2016 &/4/14/2016 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall. `i.dem, P�Ra�;s. on f)s,.ik � 'Lo lte at �lf in ac,corclance with NIGL Chap. 30A, Sectiuii 1L'-25. City of Salem Approved Minutes Joint Public Hearin of the Planning Board and City Council April 21, 2016, 6:00 P.M. The Planning Board will hold a joint public hearing with the City Council on Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington St., Salem, MA in accordance with Chapter 40A, Section 5, of the Massachusetts General Laws to consider the following petition to amend the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 10.0, Definition of a Tasting Room by deleting: "A tasting room may not be greater than thirty-three (33) percent of the main building's gross square footage." • And replacing it with: "A tasting room may not be greater than fifty (50)percent of the main building's gross square footage. A seasonal tasting area, e.g. patio or deck, shall not be included in calculating the tasting room's square footage." The purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on theproposed amendment. The complete text of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is 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. A joint public hearing of the Salem Planning Board and the Salem City Council was held on Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. at City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. City Council president Josh Turiel opened the meeting at 6:00 pm. Roll Call Planning Board: Matt Veno, Vice Chair, Kirt Rieder, Dale Yale, Bill Griset, Noah • Koretz and Carole Hamilton, Tony Mataragas. Absent: Ben Anderson, Chair, Helen Sides City Council: Arthur Sargent Councilor at Large; Thomas Furey Councillor-at-Large; Elaine Milo Councillor-at-Large; Robert McCarthy Ward 1 Councillor; Heather Famico Ward 2 Councillor; Stephen Lovely Ward 3 Councillor; David Eppley Ward 4 Councillor; Josh Turiel Ward 5 Councillor; Beth Gerard Ward 6 Councillor; and Stephen Dibble Ward 7 Councillor. Absent: Jerry Ryan Councillor-at-Large Also present: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner, Lynn Duncan Director of Community Planning and Development, Elizabeth Rennard, Esq., City Solicitor, Mayor Kim Driscoll, and Stacy Kilb, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Lynn Duncan presents. This amendment would provide more flexibility for the breweries and wineries that have opened since zoning was put in place, and those that will be opening soon. The ordinance was silent on seasonality before, and the revision will expand the definition, increasing the square footage. A seasonal, outdoor patio or deck would not be included in that square footage. Exact wording regarding coding, as per the City Solicitor's recommendations, is outlined. Councilor Famico asks what this would mean for plumbing and building codes, and what other changes are required. Ms. Duncan elaborates; outdoor seating counts toward all of the other codes, such as number of restrooms required. This would be the same as for a restaurant that has an outdoor seating area. Councilor Famico also wonders about collaboration between the Fire and Building Departments. Mayor Driscoll elaborates on • the fire and building codes, and how"one stop meetings" are now held. Fire and Building Departments have a collaborative relationship. Councilor Famico supports the outdoor seating. Councilor McCarthy comments on the code and how an increase in size will trigger certain changes/compliance issues. That is most likely the Building Inspector's concern. Any assembly places must conform. Councilor Dibble asks about the need to limit the size of the outdoor seating area. Ms. Duncan states that the size of the outdoor seating is not included, so becomes part of site plan review. This is due to its seasonality; building codes must still be met including this space, however, and this will constrain its size. Councilor Dibble confirms that they do not need to concern themselves with square footage; he feels that is a gray area and wonders if it should be linked to size of building. The City Solicitor comments on procedural and zoning ordinance issues. The original intent was to allow small breweries to make and share their product while not going above and beyond liquor license quotas to create bars. Councillor Dibble expresses his concern about the potential size of the outdoor seating areas; if not limited, there could be an unacceptably large number of patrons there. Mayor Driscoll comments that the current system is too cumbersome and even if it is • streamlined, breweries will still need to come before the relevant licensing boards, which will keep them in check. The City Solicitor comments on the approval of floor plans; while Councillor Dibble is in support, he is still concerned that a loophole is being created, but the various regulatory checks are outlined again. Councillor Famico asks about portapotties; they may only be brought in for a particular event. Kirt Rieder asks about the definition of seasonality; the term "patio or deck" suggests an outdoor location, however if indoors would be considered part of the 50% calculation. The Building Commissioner would determine square footage vs. chairs/standing room. Councillor Eppley suggests "and an exterior seasonal tasting area is permissible" as an addition. The hearing is opened to public testimony, beginning with those in favor of the proposed changes to the ordinance. In favor: Chris Loring of 19 Carlton St., Notch Brewery. Mr. Loring describes how this change • will affect brewery operational models; it will impact smaller breweries, which rely more on their retail areas, more. Many such breweries grow quickly, benefitting everyone. He comments that the percentage square footage is somewhat self-regulating, as production must meet demand. He says this hybrid model is new and adds that wholesaling is not as profitable, emphasizing the importance of the retail end of the business. He describes some of the obstacles he faced during the permitting process; all permits were obtained, but then the building department claimed an additional restroom was needed as outdoor seating was not included in the ordinance. Mr. Loring comments that some in City think this is a new use, but it is similar to what has happened for centuries. He describes his family history and how much it means to him. He also mentions "fear of a bar." While these breweries are not restaurants, they will offer snacks since it is the responsible thing to do. They are trying to showcase their craft and to be called a"bar" is somewhat insulting. Denise Snape of 38 English St. is the owner of Far from the Tree Cider. She is also in support of the change, and describes her facility and the permit that they currently have. They are not a bar or restaurant, having no kitchen. The goal of a tasting room is to connect the producer with the consumer. She also describes her permitting process and how she also was met with some resistance regarding the outdoor seating. She is in favor of the amendment, however believes it should have NO square footage mentioned, as that is detrimental to small producers. She outlines her setup and buildings, which are is somewhat unique. She does not wish to add another restroom, but only to allow people to sit outside. She describes how their business has benefitted Salem. Salem Chamber of Commerce representative spoke in support of the ordinance, and feels this enhances the industry. The local restaurant scene is in support as they complement each other. Paul Gentilly of 25 Rowell Ave, Beverly, opened Gentilly Brewing Co in that city, and had a good experience there. He describes the process and the zoning of his business and how it fits in. The main purpose is to make beer, while the tap room is to serve beer as an auxiliary. The Planning Board and building code were concerned with design, and no percentage was involved. He worked with an architect to design space that could work as a brewery and tap room. He also mentions the self regulatory aspect of the business. A certain square footage is needed to make beer to serve in the taproom. Without the taproom, or if a limit imposed on it, he would not have had a business. He mentions his excellent turnout and the fact that he is making a profit after 7 weeks. The business will grow and he is manufacturing downtown. The taproom itself could not exist without the brewery, but a brewery is not economically feasible without a taproom as wholesale to restaurants is not profitable. There is no public opposition. • Matt Veno asks about the rationale behind the existing and proposed percentage. The City Solicitor elaborates. Models around the country were explored. Space should be allowed for customers to enjoy the products, and 50% seemed to be a reasonable number, while excluding seasonal outdoor seating areas in order to meet building code. Noah Koretz asks about rationale for having any percentage limit at all, given that two people said it itself is limiting and one said 50% makes it difficult. He also comments on how this number seems arbitrary. Lynn Duncan responds that the 50% is proposed to keep a balance between manufacturing and the tasting room. Ms. Duncan also discusses procedural options for changing the proposed amendment. All changes made to would need to fit within the four corners of the article. The amendment was advertised as 50%; therefore, changes beyond 50% cannot occur at this meeting. It may be preferable to pass it "as is"to avoid delaying the development of the businesses in question, then revisit later, than to start the process over again. The setups of the various breweries are described. The two Salem brewery owners state that while not ideal, they can work with the proposed amendment. It is unclear if seeking a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be an effective measure they could take if they wanted more space. • Mayor Driscoll comments that this ordinance is new and involving, the amendment was meant to attract and help these types of businesses. The initial fears of the bar room issue was a mechanism that led to the original percentage. We thought we were being helpful be increasing the percentage, and we do not want to have unintended consequences. She describes how its development progressed and feels that although it has room for improvement, the amendment should be passed tonight and changed later if need be. Councillor McCarthy moves to close the public hearing, is seconded Councilor Eppley, and all are in favor. Councillor McCarthy moves to pass the matter to the Planning Board, is seconded Councilor Eppley, and all are in favor. Moves matter moved to Planning Board, seconded by Councillor Eppley, all in favor. Councillor Furey motions to adjourn, is seconded by Councillor Eppley, and all are in favor. The hearing ends at 7PM. 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: • htty://www.salem.com/nlanning-board/webforms/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb, Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 05/05/2016 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance§2-2028 through §2-2033. m CITY OF `kL,EM PLANNING BOARD K2 A 101; 16- Report to City Council' April 22, 2016: At its mee@tng on April 21, 2016the Planning Board voted to,recommend approval of ainernding The Clw of Salem Zotnng:Ordinancie Section 10;0,Definition of a'rasting Room by deleting: i `:1 tasting rpom may not be greater than tbirry-three ,33) percent of the main building's grass sgilare Footage"and replacing a vc7thi n e I "A tasting room may not be greater than fifty (50) percent of themain 'building's gross square footage, Ali cxterioc.seasonal tasting area,e.g patio or deck, shall;not be included in calculating the g tasting roost's square footage tot putpose's of zoning: compliance, however, the square footage of seasonal tasting areas is appltcabTe to building, sanitary and(Aberreler a.it caries." The 1.'.lani3ing Board,voted, Seven, (7) ill-favor (Afn Veno, ills. Yale, Mr. Rieder, Ms. 1 I'am lion, illi. g biararagas, Mn Griser and Mr. Koretz) .and none= opposed, to recommend the proposed zoning amtn endeni as it was referred tothe planning Board from the City In making this,ec6mmendation,'the Planniog Board unammoushr tecognizea:that this is an evolving t i issue.and notes the following for future connideration,bl the City Council: 1. 1'he definiuon�ol the "main building" should be clarified. Specifically the bcard:cecommends that in a case,to which there are inn Itiple btiildntgs. ori one. site, curnutataue. grtos, square � a 3 Footage of all buildings can the Site shall be used to calculate the percentage. ^_. The percentage requirements are likely to be unnecessary given oilier regulaton, oversee,% t The Planning Board urges the City Council to consider eliminating the percentage a �requirement:in the furure. if i oultave ,inv questions regarding flus i atter,please rael free to;contact Lunn Dun'c2h,Director sof Plamung cC Community Development,at 9.77B-6 1 9-3685. 1 Yours tntlg,, Llatt Veno, Vice Chair, i i f CC! (:heipi Lapointe,:Cily Clerk: F r t r F t r� �> CITY OF SALEM. PLANNING BOARD 2016 MAR 31 P 351 NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CU_ You am hereby rwifed that the SalernP&m=gBcard will be hddmga Public Hearing on Thursday,April 7, 2016 at 7:00)m at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Wasbingtw Sc, Salem,MA BmAnkncry Chir MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street(Map 15,Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special • Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Muted Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the comer of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. B. Location: 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET, 5-7, and 11 WEST AVENUE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232,233,234) . Applicant: 331 LAFAYETTE STREET, LLC This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on MAR 3 1 2016 at 6:51 PM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for April 7,2016 Page 2 of 2 Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the construction of a three-story 24,388 square foot mixed use commercial building with retail on the first floor and offices on the upper floors. An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. C. Location: 14 BERTUCCIO AVENUE (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: NATHAN JACOBSON Description: A public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre of land III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 17, 2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of expanded DRB project review V. ADJOURNMENT Kwwycwn&Y w7der the Open Ming LawM.G L. e 30A § 18-25 and City Oyli nx§ 2-2028 tlnvugh§ 2-2033. • 120 W;,SF Nr;"ON STR E:, SAI i'_M, 1I1�S.v<ai .ti ;rS 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAA 978.74'0.0404 V'VWWA SAS FNt.COM l' 1 . CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS (z "' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 0 FAx:978-740-4404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: March 31, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting —April 7, 2016 Please find the following in the dropbox file: ■ Agenda for April 7, 2016, Regular Meeting ■ Planner's Memo ■ Gateway Center/CLC (NRCC, SPR, FHOD) ■ Lafayette St. and West Ave. (SPR) . ■ 14 Bertuccio Ave. (Form C) • Draft Minutes March 17, 2016 I. Roll Call II. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. 401 BRIDGE STREET, and 44 Boston Street (NRCC, SPR, FHOD) For your reference, please find the below summary of the items that are pending review for this project: • Drainage a. The applicant has submitted a hard copy of revised plans, and a revised drainage analysis. I am working on uploading an electronic copy of said plans to your dropbox. b. The revised plans and drainage analysis are currently under peer review by Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering (NECE). If Mr. Ross is able to complete the peer review by April 7, he will be in attendance at the Planning Board meeting with a recommendation and or comments regarding the revised plans for the Planning Board. • City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—3/31/2016 Page 2 of 4 • • Grading a. Revised grading plans were submitted on March 17, which are currently being reviewed by the City Engineer. I will distribute said comments from the City Engineer to you upon receipt. • Traffic a. On January 21, 2016 the City's traffic peer reviewer, Gary Hebert, of Stantec, presented the traffic peer review. b. In the peer review report, it was concluded that the VAI Traffic Study was conducted acceptably in accordance with typical and MassDOT traffic impact and access study guidelines. c. Further the report noted that the development of the Gateway Center site would benefit from the implementation of traffic mitigation measures described in the report, and deferred to the Salem Planning Board to decide whether said traffic mitigation measures and clarifications cited in the peer review report should be pursued. d. I have asked the applicant to provide a response to the traffic report that outlines their response to the peer reviewer's suggested mitigation measures. Given that the April 7 meeting will likely consist of a discussion regarding the Civil Engineering Plans (grading and drainage) I anticipate that the response to the traffic report will be provided to the Planning Board for discussion at a . future Planning Board meeting. • Architectural Plans a. The project team presented revised architectural plans to the Design Review Board (DRB) on March 23, 2016, and they are currently working on altering the plans per the DRB's comments. • Landscaping a. The applicant is preparing landscaping which will be reviewed by the Planning Board at a future meeting. Please note that the DRB will also be reviewing these plans. • 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET, 5-7, and 11 WEST AVENUE (SPR) On March 24, 2016, 1 provided the applicant the letter hyperlinked herein with a summary of the comments received thus far for this project. The Department Comments received thus far can be found here: Department Comments. The Planning Board suggested that the applicant could submit plans to the DRB for feedback. In the alternative, since this project does not require DRB approval, the applicant has reached out to ask Board Member Helen Sides to provide feedback on the design elements prior to the bringing the plans back to the full board. Additional comments from Board members since the March 17 meeting can be found here: Board Member Comments. At the Planning Board meeting on March 17, 2016, a member of the public • commented that there are three specific trees along West Avenue that are not City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—3/31/2016 Page 3 of 4 allowed to be removed, per the conditions issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA issued the following three Special Conditions in the ZBA decision dated February 3, 2016: Special Conditions: 1. The existing structure and residential dwelling at 11 West Avenue will remain. 2. The fence and vegetative buffers shall be maintained by the petitioner, his successors or assigns. 3. This decision requiring the buffer between the approved proposal and the residential properties shall be recorded in the chain of title on the deed of the property. According to the Special Conditions, a vegetative buffer between the approved proposal and the residential properties shall be maintained. However, the ZBA but did not prohibit the removal of specific trees. • 14 BERTUCCIO RD (FORM C) This application consists of a Definitive Subdivision Plan of a 3.5 acre parcel of land for the construction of a roadway to serve residential lots, and a • Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre of land within the City of Salem. Lot Nos. 7 and 8 have frontage of existing public ways (Francis Road and Bertuccio Avenue respectively). However, the applicant noted that in event that the proposed site plan is altered, it would be easier to make changes to a single application; as such the applicant chose to include these lots in the Form C application rather than process them as a separate Form A application. I also note that it makes sense for these lots to be included as part of the Form C application because the drainage easement for the subdivision overlaps these lots. Lot Nos. 2, 4, and 5 do not appear to comply with the required 100 foot lot width'. The applicant could either,1) reconfigure and/or reduce the number of lots to comply, or 2) apply for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please find the hyperlinked comments from: • Conservation Agent • Building Commissioner • Mass-In-Motion Program Coordinator • Fire Department Pursuant to Section 10 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance,Lot Width is measured at the rear of the required front yard depth parallel to the right of way. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—3/31/2016 Page 4 of 4 • DPCD • Public Comments Departments pending comments: • City Engineer - New England Civil Engineer (NECE) Corp. has been hired to conduct a peer review of the Stormwater Management Report and the utility plans submitted by the applicant. • Board of Health • Police Department • School Department III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. March 17, 2016 IV. Old/New Business • • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet Board �� n I� Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail �y -To r.YO` RA,Hill 60-D SA SEM Ste . v-%%WiC_O 73, 246 2$0U t.cc 15� C�, N t/ILL./} DL^t lgSREsrST Sacch ` Z� 8 � 530SS h;/(H 4 `� , ./. cd,, ✓-cam � 9 �` �n��� ��9��� ,�����" 2—)E Spy-624 U `2 17 - 775-Wjn, IeS/iele ✓Ps�pe e Pay Lff O 16-)N2 'ST `QN " ti as �='tnf� �.1.5 �7� 7y\- D��� La�G�� J R/ ` ) tl -7 f) �� 1 Cl/I�. r� ��o L4� Qtn ZZ f32r tUC�;'v #,(z2 �1S 5°Co�o(rrwi J*cC�heh Szpo_K Q, ? RQ/4,)rc'10li-ile � �K- 7Y1 -81st S..SzPaK\6 u col 406rAZ 23 12 vF L4-(Y I-r< 7�- 7r lr — cc g77Y`✓` 67gz UZ�oZ55� �err . � !- 7 iel Z-7 fnJ oi ( �C�{ UCr u y" (l7 W KS_61� gb,w �,2o jL5,'a,�.c � c uv� Page of Name n Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Pr-e a�- &t/4-L4 ccib fi-K a lees (rere2l, 15 Ic V-tycc tOA'' 780aa -j &0,7� Q° a to 41 v) a�U D ,rf� M�L�ty�l�& bob 04be 2-Z) BI-,22/4ol.coh cl lv -i-W/( Q ? 1, NIrjG (VhAl) 1-Zc4N_/ tO R7g7yyo/ 7t, tk,4v.6op.eV�� ��T K f�li�Lt#ccy C# 4� EJ6 Si 9 7-IL( /7 L/S1 -)4-( 4-f 6ift� 6 LA-4(2 71 c 7r)yy-73/S A.L @Sa[w,, dlo, l /9 f i 8evhtceio l�v-e. �(14f (0019!017 Gr 0 ilC met cdLn 9 I r<r/a � Gllf- 9)9sid7 �(� �7— Ij �f'ca.i�� • Page of CITY OF SAiF_M PLANNING BOARD iWill hold a public hearing for all ' persons interested in the application of Nathan Jacobson for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem.Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a road- way to serve seven (7) residential lots,and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec.37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land dis- turbance greater than one acre of j land within the City of Salem. The 4 proposed development is located at 14 Bertuccio Avenue, Assessors Map 24,Lot 105. The public hearing will be held on Thursday,April 7,2015 at 7.00 PM,in Room 313,Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachu- setts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on Tile and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning &Community Develop- ment, Third Floor, 120 Washington j Street,Salem,MA .Ben Anderson,Chair Planning Board - SN—3/24,3131/16 CITY OF SALEM � r x PLANNING BOARD 2016 MAR N A 9: 10 PITY CLR t. : <.L_ i, I IAS'S. City of Salem Planning Board Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of Nathan Jacobson for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre of land within the City of Salem. The proposed development is located'at 14 Bertuccio Avenue, Assessors Map 24, Lot 105. The public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 7, 2015 at 7:00 PM, in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning & Community Development, Third Floor, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. • Ben Anderson, Chair Planning Board This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City trail, Salem, Mass. on MAR 2 4 2016 at 1'. ID A;M in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 120 ; ,S.^L.FM N'JAS,�nCnrsr,rr:, 0197C T'HONE 978,619.5685 1'AY97n.,40.040 ��ti�ws-.[E ,-t.corrr Meeting Minutes—Apri17, 2016 Page 1 of 8 • City of Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes Thursday,April 7,2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,April 7,2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313, Salem,Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opened the meeting at 7:08pm. The Chair introduces Tony Mataragas,a new Board member. Councilor at Large Thomas Furey and Ward 4 Councilor David Eppley are present. I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Ben Anderson,Chair, Noah Koretz,Bill Griset,Dale Yale,Carole Hamilton,Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder,Matt Veno, and Tony Mataragas Also present:Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner, and Stacy Kilb,Planning Board Recording Clerk. II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC • Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Cotmnunity Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the comer of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. A Civil Engineering presentation on the drainage plan and landscaping for the Gateway Center is made by Peter Ogren.Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. represents the applicant. Drainage and grading were the main issues,but Mr. Correnti feels they are being resolved. The applicant has also been before the Design Review Board and has received comments on the plans,which architects are addressing. They will return before the DRB in April. • Peter Ogren presents the Plan. Tony Capachietti is also present. Mr. Ogren outlines the previous Sylvania site. A comparison of the previously approved and amended plans is made. A reduction in total impervious space has been made; there is also a reduction in runoff volume but an increase in the building space. There are also Meeting Minutes—April 7, 2016 Page 2 of 8 fewer parking spaces. Site hydrology is outlined;it is very complex. Several studies are outlined. Elevations • and data used for flood determinations are described. DEP and MEPA Concerns: • Sea Level Rise • Drainage on Adjoining Lands • Determination of Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage Mr. Ogren feels that these have been addressed;he outlines changes to the grading plan,including raised crosswalks that do not dip below the 100-year flood elevation. Other drainage features remain the same. The area that would be flooded in a 100-year event is shown. Existing drainage is shown and described,as is proposed drainage. The project is subject to Stormwater Management, and the Treatment Plan is outlined. It exceeds the 80% reduction in TSS that is required; 89%will be removed.Tidegates at the outfalls are also described. Other utilities on the site are described. A Utility Mitigation Package is described: • Sewer contribution of$21,903 • Water Line: Check function of existing gates,replace if necessary • Drainage improvements: Replace partially blocked culvert • Tide-Flex Valves: Located on project discharges;another may be added Site lighting has been added and submitted,and is outlined. There will be no overlap of light onto Federal St. as there is a retaining wall and lights are all downcast.A Project Summary is outlined. Landscape architect Karya Podsiadlo of Blair Hines Design presents. There are several"unifying themes" • throughout the site, as described.All plants, trees and shrubs selected are adapted to the specific conditions on this site. Native shrubs and trees will be used. Easy access for pedestrians is maintained throughout the site. Double plantings are planned for the Southern side along Federal St. as a buffer. Outdoor spaces are outlined. They will be concrete but will have special saw cut patterns to distinguish them. Bill Ross,Peer Reviewer for the City,presents. He summarizes the process. Since Oct. 6h, there have been meetings re grading and floods. He outlines all plans and letters exchanged thus far. The majority of the old issues have been resolved, and there are a few new comments,with progress being made on an agreement regarding drainage. Kirt Rieder asks for clarification on landscaping. He feels the plan is impossible to read; he approves of the plants suggested. He notes the saw cuts/scoring patterns and wonders if there will be colored concrete.There will be colored concrete,which Ms. Podsiadlo describes.A full sized set of black and white plans is available for Board members,and Ms. Podsiadlo shows a larger colored copy for the Board to review. Kirt Rieder feels the colors should play off the building. Kirt Rieder also asks about the criteria for grading the parking lot,and Tony Cappachietti describes the slopes. Mr. Rieder also comments that certain areas seem steep. This can affect accessibility for those with mobility issues,whether or not it is an accessible route. Mr. Capachietti states that certain parking spaces were designed to accommodate drainage;others are ADA compliant. Mr. Rieder asks about riprap on the Bridge St. sidewalk and Mr. Capachietti outlines the slope and elaborates. The state of the retaining wall along Federal St. is discussed; the applicant will look into the structural integrity• of the wall. Meeting Minutes—April 7, 2016 Page 3 of 8 • Matt Veno makes some observations re use and scale. He is concerned that the project does not maintain the "urban village" concept as suggested in the Master Plan for this area. Kirt Rieder is still concerned about pedestrian accessibility and suggests removing additional parking spaces to create a planting bed to make the space more amenable. The option will be explored. Chair Anderson opens to the public with reminders of the new guidelines which are now in place. PollWilbert of 7 Cedar St. asks the Landscape Architect about snow storage and whether the landscaping is Y P g P g compatible with that. Ms. Podsiadlo thinks that it should be but Kirt Rieder disagrees;in some cases snow may need to be removed. Teasie Riley Goggin of 9 Wisteria St. is concerned about the adequacy of the infrastructure in the area, as well as whether the Master Plan will be adhered to by the developers. Mr. Correnti outlines the sewer capacity, the peer review process and how each developer views his or her project on an individual level,but works with the Master Plan to determine the "big picture." The infrastructure is already in place and for each project the City points out how the project could improve that infrastructure. Nina Cohen of 22 Chestnut St. thanks the Board for its thoroughness. She asks about the Bridge St. sidewalk, and Ms. Podsiadlo and Mr. Ogren elaborate. Ms. Cohen asks about guidance provided by the Master Plan, concerned that the purpose was to was to create a new district that would be attractive to residents, but that is not happening. • Joyce Walace of 172 Federal St. asks how the construction, specifically the driving of piles,will affect abutters. She would also like the petitioner to examine the retaining wall and claims it has been replaced twice. Public comment has also been received in writing from Nina Cohen, to be entered into the record. A motion to continue to the May 5,2016 meeting is made by Bill Griset, seconded by Kit Rieder, and passes with all in favor, 9-0. B. Location: 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET, 5-7, and 11 WEST AVENUE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232, 233, 234) Applicant: 331 LAFAYETTE STREET, LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the construction of a three-story 24,388 square foot mixed use commercial building with retail on the first floor and offices on the upper floors. An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. Attorney Scott Grover represents Bob Burr, the developer. Most concerns have been addressed re landscaping and design of the plaza, so those elements are the focus tonight.James Emanuel,Landscape Architect, presents. Helen Sides is also working with the architect on design. Attention should be paid to conserving and planting trees; and additional 11 or 12 trees,larger than those previously proposed,will be planted. • Enhancements include: • Corner plaza: o Breaking up the area visually—options are described. Meeting Minutes—April 7, 2016 Page 4 of 8 o Planter/retaining wall should allow access into plaza space while creating a sense of enclosure . o Special soil medium will be used to allow trees room to grow o Bus stop will be accommodated with a bench o As street slopes down,plaza should be level with the building and walls to terrace up to plaza should complement the building. • Larger specimen trees will be planted;varieties are outlined • More trees will be planted • Perimeter fence and evergreens there are described • Trash enclosure is described • Hand rails will be installed on the steps Kirt Rieder asks about the steps connecting the plaza to the sidewalk; one set was eliminated. Handrails are outlined. Structural soil will be used under the entire plaza. Mr. Rieder approves of the addition of shade trees but comments on the types of trees used in one area that should be replaced by Elms to provide canopy.The applicant will consider. Chair Anderson asks about the design of the retaining walls along Lafayette St; these should be a higher level of finish than on the building. Re the removal of the stair in the corner, he wonders if it will be a pinch point for exit in an emergency. The Building Department should review to make sure it meets code. Kirt Rieder questions the applicant's placing of trees on their property and whether this is in lieu of street trees. Amanda Chiancola will follow u but it is felt that the trees as proposed have a better chance of P> P P surviving than street trees would. Mr. Emanuel outlines the fight fixtures,which may be revisited as some board members do not feel they are • completely appropriate. Stairs and the street walls are outlined in more detail. Kirt Rieder offers some possible suggestions re the trees and the stairs. Options will be explored. Chair Anderson opens to the public. Chris Burke of 65 Broad St. thanks the Board for planting Elm trees. He asks about placing Elm trees on Lafayette St. and describes locations of Elms in Salem previously. Polly Wilbert of 7 Cedar St. shared a fist of trees from Ron Malionek of City Shade Tree Dept. She is concerned about the arching canopy and feels it should be replaced where possible. The Board has also received written comments from Joyce Kenney of 285 Lafayette St. Francis Rigieri of450 Lafayette St. asks about a Grand Elm and a Horse Chestnut on the property. There is some question as to which trees these are and if the developer will hire an arborist to assess their condition;he will not as one of them is in the middle of what will become the parking lot,and is slated for removal. Mr Rigieri wonders about the tree's status on the Endangered Species List. Mr. Rigieri also asks about a previous deal in Aug. 2014,which did not take place, about a supposed oil tank whose location was not known. The Board will look into his request for information on this matter. Steve Dibble,Ward 7 Salem City Councilor,was opposed project originally, but now feels Mr. Burr has made pleasing changes, though he does not go far enough. He comments on his desire for Dutch Elm Disease resistant Elm trees and asks about the turning lane on West Ave;it and the support post for the new light are shown on this plan. Meeting Minutes—April 7, 2016 Page 5 of 8 • Mr. Dibble also asks about shields for lights, from parking lot so light projects down to pavement. These will be LED lights where you can direct the light very precisely. A photometric plan has been submitted. A motion to continue to the May 5, 2016meetingis made by Carole Hamilton, seconded by Dale Yale, and passes with all in favor, 9-0. C. Location: 14 BERTUCCIO AVENUE (Map 24, Lot 105) Applicant: NATHAN JACOBSON Description: A public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations to allow the construction of a roadway to serve seven (7) residential lots, and a Stormwater Management Permit in accordance Sec. 37 of the Salem Code of Ordinances to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre of land. Christopher Iannuzzi,Project Engineer,presents. He gives an overview of the project after having received comments from abutters and the City. He describes the site;all the proposed lots for a fully compliant subdivision,however some waivers are being requested including one for sidewalks and one for the center line radius of the roadway. A waiver for the extension of the dead end road,Bertuccio Ave,is also being sought. One house has been eliminated from the plan, so instead of the seven lots referenced above, there will be six, with five houses on the Bertuccio Ave. extension and the sixth on Francis Rd. • Mr. Iannuzzi describes the area as having lots of bedrock and thus requiring excavation and blasting. I-Ie describes the blasting as being performed by licensed professionals,precisely,with the operation is monitored before, during and after by the state. He also comments that Massachusetts state law dictates that nearby structures must receive surveys prior to,during,and after blasting. He outlines additional blasting details. The stonmwater management policy and mitigation provided are described. A retention basin has been designed but is not shown. Outfall from detention basin will be piped into discharge on Francis Rd. There will also be some drainage easements on the site. City standards for a cul-de-sac are reviewed. They will work with the Fire Dept. on hydrant placement, etc. There is a utility plan which is shown. All utilities will be in the roadway. Chair Anderson comments that stormwater will be peer reviewed. He is concerned that the road to the cul de sac is steep. The road will be curbed and all runoff captured. The grade meets the City standard as well. Chair Anderson asks about the sidewalk being on just one side; this is to reduce imperviousness but is simply a client preference. The Chair also asks about the landscape plan and Mr. Iannuzzi elaborates. The applicant will work with the City and a landscape architect to decide on types of plants. Helen Sides asks about center fine radius. It must be smaller than required in order to accommodate the shape of the site. Chair Anderson opens to the public. • Mary Elizabeth Zois of 32 Bertuccio Ave. is concerned about the extension of the roadway as well as the blasting. She is also concerned about the sidewalk and pavement widths, and suggests that the developer Meeting Minutes—April 7, 2016 Page 6 of 8 instead move the point of access from the end of Bertuccio Ave. to the property off of Francis St. This would • make it safer for emergency vehicles and allow for fully accessible sidewalks. Mr. Iannuzzi outlines the current regulations and the minimum width for accessibility. The access point cannot be moved as it would decrease the density of the project, but he will work with the Planning Board and the City to address other comments. Cliff Goodman of 22 Bertuccio Ave is concerned with drainage and the responsibility of maintaining the retention pond. Chair Anderson comments that the City will have its Engineer review the design. Mr. Iannuzzi outlines the DEP requirements for system design and reassures Mr. Goodman that there will be no increases downstream and that the pond will meet the 72 hour draw down requirement. Curt Welling of 17 Bertuccio Ave. has security concerns re construction and asks about fencing. The Chair comments that the applicant must submit a construction control plan,which will be part of public record so these issues will be addressed. Scott McLaughlin of 14 Francis Rd. comments on the cliff that borders many properties on that street. He is concerned about blasting and the impact to that ledge. Mr. Iannuzzi reiterates that blasting will be precise and adjacent properties monitored. Mr. McLaughlin wonders who will remove any boulders that fall. He is also concerned that the development will attract bikers, etc. who will come through the area;Joe Abesandra with TTI elaborates on security measures. Mrs. McLaughlin,who also resides at 14 Francis Rd.,is very concerned about students falling off the cliff onto the properties below. Homeowners at the new development would be responsible for keeping trespassers off their property after construction is complete;during construction there is a control plan which is described. • Julie Hart of 21 Francis Rd. is concerned about water coming onto the adjacent properties and Mr. Iannuzzi elaborates on how this will be addressed. She is also concerned about rodents; this will be addressed by the construction control plan, but this is not a protected area. Robyn Gianoppolo of 15 Bertuccio Ave.,is concerned about safety with regards to the traffic and kids playing outside. She also complains of poor snow removal by the City;it gets plowed in front of her house, then melts into her basement. She is concerned it will get worse. Mr. Iannuzzi outlines traffic calculations of an additional 54 vehicle trips per day; traffic control will be provided. He suggests Ms. Gianoppolo speak to the Police Dept. and City Engineer re cars running into the field at the end of the road and snow removal. Snow removed from the development will be stockpiled there. Mike Janiac of Puritan Rd. is opposed to the development as being extremely disruptive to residents. He is very concerned about blasting and the cliff that borders the homes on Francis Ave. Kelly Porter of 28 Bertuccio Ave asks about wooded area behind her house. She is concerned about wildlife and vermin, as well as the hours for construction. Leslie White of 16 Calabrese St. asks about the route the heavy equipment will take, and Mr. Iannuzzi outlines. Chair Anderson reminds him to check the ordinances, as he believes construction cannot commence until 8AM. Chris Burke of 65 Broad St. expounds upon the virtues of this open space, and states that some land would be* saved if the lot at the top of the circle could be eliminated. He also suggests that this could be an acquisition using CPA (Community Preservation Act) funding, so the developer could be compensated that way. There is Meeting Minutes—April 7, 2016 Page 7 of 8 also the historic Ancient Way, the original trail from Flint St. to Broad St. used to bring livestock to what is now Salem Woods,along the fence at Bertram Field. Roger Barbrick of 23 Bertuccio Ave. is also concerned about traffic and blasting. Steve Szpak of 27 Bertuccio Ave. is concerned about the buffer between football field and street. He would like to see trees added back in the landscaping plan. He wonders who will do the pre-and post-blasting surveys on nearby homes, and also why the entire parcel can't be preserved. A letter from Kevin Theriault, formerly of 30 Bertuccio Ave., dated April 5, 3016 is read into the record. He is opposed to the project.Wildlife, drainage, and loss of this natural area are his concerns. Nilla Majahalme of 10 Calabrese St. asks about the height of the houses and potential repercussions to homes further away from the blasting. She wonders about road placement and suggests other entrances. Mr. Iannuzzi describes the reasoning for the access point, the homes,and requirements for blasting surveys. He reiterates the precision of blasting and cites the relevant law. Loss of habitat is coincidental to the project, as this is not an area that has rare, endangered or protected species or habitat. Kurt Welling of 17 Bertuccio Ave asks about red tailed hawks. The Planning Board can request a wildlife survey. Kathy Bimball of 26 Francis Rd. is concerned about blasting,which will occur directly belind and beside her. • Blasting locations are elaborated. The slope of driveway off Francis Ave. is described. Cliff Goodman of 22 Bertuccio Ave. asks about equipment for excavation. Once it is on site,it will stay up on the hill. It would be difficult to change the access point as he suggests. Mr. Iannuzzi outlines the procedure for filing complaints after construction. The Chair reiterates that there will be other hearings where questions can be heard. The buffer zone at end of street between field will be preserved. Residents claim there are trees but Mr. Iannuzzi says the area is open. Chair Anderson concludes the public portion of this hearing and outlines additional information that will be presented at future hearings. Written comments have been received and entered into the record from: Robert Dubee Kevin Therriault Barry Jordan Clifford Goodman (two separate letters) Jennifer Gerais The Planning Board requested that the applicant provide an existing tree survey. The applicant requested a continuance to April 21". Kirt Rieder points out a conflict that will need to be addressed re sidewalks and root balls of trees. • A motion to continue to the April 2T'meeting is made by Bill Griset, seconded by Matt Veno, and passes unanimously 9-0. Meeting Minutes—April 7, 2016 Page 8 of 8 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 17,2016 A motion to approve the minutes from the March 17, 2016 meeting, with a few minor corrections, is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Matt Veno, and passes unanimously, 9-0. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of expanded DRB project review This item is tabled until the May 5`h meeting. V.ADJOURNMENT Kitt Rieder makes a motion to adjourn, is seconded by Carole Hamilton, and the motion carries with all in favor, 9-0. The meeting ends at 10:02 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: • htto://www.salem.corn/planning-board/web forms/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb, Substitute Recording Clerk- Approved by the Planning Board on 04/21/2016 Knowyour righty ander the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A J 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 through f 2-2033. • CITY OF SALEM � - ' PLANNING BOARD 2016 MAR I I A 9: S9 I LE NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby WOW that dx SalemPlararing&ard gill be hcidinga PublicHeanng on Thursday,March 17, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington St, Salerrs MA BenAnderso; Chair REVISEDI&2 MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street(Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special cPermits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood e� Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem "E C. Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard mupOverlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit C J associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use --O District (NRCQ Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a M _ Special Permit per Sec. 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story w arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC. A Oo o Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground c ui `o level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the O 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be g m amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place yc on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to CL d r construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a 4) N C� two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the w __ y comer of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and c w o landscape layout. H =am Ft- U Atm Regular Agenda Item E added to the Agenda on March 14,2016. 2 Regular Agenda Item B revised on March 17, 2016 to note a continuance request. • City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for March 17,2016 Page 2 of 2 B. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on April 21, 2016. A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. C. Location: 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET, 5-7, and 11 WEST AVENUE (Map 32 Lots 231,232, 233,234) Applicant: 331 LAFAYETTE STREET, LLC Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the construction of a three-story 24,388 square foot mixed use commercial building with retail on the first floor and offices on the upper floors. An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. D. Location: 3 SOPHIA ROAD(Map 4, Lot 25) • Applicant: 26 WALKER ROAD LLC Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide one (1) lot with one existing building into two lots. E. Location: 162 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(R2 Zoning District) Applicant: DANIEL BOTWINK Description Request for a six (6) month extension to commence construction authorized by the September 25, 2012 Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Planning Board Decision for conversion of a former convent to eight (8) residential units. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. February 18, 2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion on Board Hearing Guidelines V. ADJOURNMENT • Kfrwwyarr rights under the Open M"L=M.G.L. c 30A § 18-25 and City Or iwnx§ 2-2028 tl)M*§ 2-2033. h)Wrsr• NU.ov S'MHEF, SUINI, MASSAC S -rS 01970 • Piio.N 91&6.19.5685 FAX 978.740.04 A CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING , l CITY it-E'" ;: ,`;L'IDI, hi .i`. You are hereby nmfieddwt dae SalonPlamiiTBoanl wU bs haldvga PublicHezring on Thursday,March 17, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 31.3, 120 Washingwn St, Salem MA Ben AndenoA Chair REVISED'MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street(Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site • Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCQ Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the comer of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. • Regular Agenda Item E added to the Agenda on March 14,2016. ,} City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for March 17,2016 Page 2 of 2 B. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES,INC. Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. C. Location: 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET, 5-7, and 11 WEST AVENUE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232,233,234) Applicant: 331 LAFAYETTE STREET,LLC Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the construction of a three-story 24,388 square foot mixed use commercial building with retail on the first floor and offices on the upper floors. An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. D. Location: 3 SOPHIA ROAD(Map 4, Lot 25) Applicant- 26 WALKER ROAD LLC Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide one (1) lot with one existing building into two lots. • E. Location: 162 FEDERAL STREET (Map 25 Lot 112)(R2 Zoning District) Applicant: DANIEL BOTWINK Description Request for a six (6) month extension to commence construction authorized by the September 25, 2012 Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Planning Board Decision for conversion of a former convent to eight (8) residential units. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. February 18, 2016 This nr ': posted on "Off ial Bulletin Board" / IV. OLD/NEWBUSINESS Cit, Salem, Mass. or� l y OV16 at 3•.,61 M in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, A. Discussion on Board Hearing ej 8_25 V. ADJOURNMENT Knowyow rights under the Open MceCingLawM.G.L. c 30A § 18-25 aril City Ordiname§ 2-2028 thr*§ 2-2033. • G W .SF y,i.C:G STRE-I t, S.+IT3M, MASSACIT 01970 40_ 4 . 1 .0404 }� CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1016 MAR I O P 1: 48 NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLE You are hereby r eel Haat the SalemPlamwgBoard udl le hoWvga PulixHazmg on Thursday,March 17, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washmgton St, Salem MA Ben Animory (lair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET(Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street(Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site • Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCG A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. B. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Ma 14 Lot 116 and Ma 14 Lot 117 P P ) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES,INC. • Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for March 17,2016 Page 2 of 2 C. Location: 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET, 5-7,and 11 WEST AVENUE (Map 32 Lots 231,232,233,234) Applicant: 331 LAFAYETTE STREET,LLC Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the construction of a three-story 24,388 square foot mixed use commercial building with retail on the first floor and offices on the upper floors. An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. D. Location: 3 SOPHIA ROAD(Map 4 Lot 25) Applicant: 26 WALKER ROAD LLC Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement'of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide one (1) lot with one existing building into two lots. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Febmary 18, 2016 • IV. OLD/NEWBUSINESS A. Discussion on Board Hearing Guidelines V. ADJOURNMENT Knowyow rights wider the O enMu?tingLawM.GL. c 30A § 18-25 an d Qy Orz=rm§ 2-2028 tlm0§ 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bullet' Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on IQ at / ,'Al? PAn ai.cordance with M L Clap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • ?O tiV,4Sfvh rlo+v Sett-r,l SALi3M M�,SSACHUs_,i rs 0197(1 PHOINE978.612685 FAX )78.740.(404 \4WWSALENLC111 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • �� "! DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN Ci00NIN DUNCAN,MCP DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: March 10, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — March 17, 2016 Please find the following in the dropbox file: ■ Agenda for March 17, 2016, Regular Meeting ■ Planner's Memo ■ Gateway Center/CLC ■ Almeda Subdivision • ■ Lafayette St. and West Ave. ■ Draft Minutes - February 18, 2016 ■ Sophia Road ANR • Planning Board Meeting Guidelines 1. Roll Call II. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) Revised grading plans are being prepared in response to comments from the DEP with an updated first floor elevation. The applicant anticipates having these plans ready early next week, prior to the Planning Board meeting. After the City Engineer and the Planning Board review the grading plans, the applicant will submit revised drainage plans, which will be reviewed by New England Civil Engineering (NECE), the City peer reviewer. The applicant anticipates revised drainage plans will be ready for your first meeting in April. The project team anticipates they will be ready to submit revised plans to the • DRB for the March 23 meeting. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—3/10/2016 Page 2 of 4 • 2. 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) — Subdivision Application New materials have not been submitted for this project. The lots are dimensionally pre-existing nonconforming lots along an accepted public way that is currently unpaved. The application is for a Definitive Subdivision Plan approval to construct a roadway to serve two (2) existing undeveloped lots. Almeda Street does not contain a water main. The subject property is located approximately 600 feet from the closest water main on Highland Avenue. Wells are proposed to provide water to the subject lots. On October 20, 2015 the City Engineer requested revisions and clarifications. The applicant has not provided a response to the comments from the City Engineer. On January 14, 2016, the City Engineer provided a memorandum to the Planning Director that recommends the project include an extension of the existing water main. The petitioner also requests the following waivers from the Salem Subdivision Regulations: • a. A waiver from Section IV A.4.1 to allow a dead end street longer than 500- feet. The current length of Almeda Street is approximately 650-feet and the proposed plan will add 80-feet of roadway for a total of 730 feet including a 35' x 20' hammerhead turn around area. b. A waiver from Section IV. A.1.e to allow the centerline radius of the proposed roadway extension to be 130 feet, which is less than the 230 feet required. The proposed radius is required due to the layout of the existing right-of-way. c. A waiver from Section IV.A.2.a to allow a waiver from the requirement to install sidewalks and granite curbing as the roadway extension will primarily be used by the occupants of the two (2) proposed residences and there are not currently existing sidewalks. The applicant is proposing to install a drainage pipe and outlet on city-owned land, which will require an easement and approval from the City Council. I also note that the third extension of the 135 day deadline, for the subject project ends on March 18, 2016. Therefore, you must take final action at your Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law(M.G.L)Chapter 41, Section 81(U),the failure of a planning board either to • take final action or to file with the city or town clerk a certificate of such action regarding the definitive plan submitted by an applicant within 135 days after such submission, or such further time as may be agreed upon at the written request of the applicant, shall be deemed to be an approval thereof. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—3/10/2016 . Page 3 of 4 next regularly scheduled meeting on March 17, 2016, unless the applicant requests an extension of the 135 day deadline. 3. 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET, 5-7, and 11 WEST AVENUE The project before you is a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 for a new commercial building. The project spans over the following four parcels on the corner of Lafayette Street and West Avenue: Map 32, Lots 231, 232, 233 and 234. The four parcels will be combined pending project approval. The total area of the project site measures under an acre at 42,062 square feet. On January 20, 2016, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) approved a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.2 Nonconforming uses of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to change the existing nonconforming use of multifamily residential units to another nonconforming use of mixed use commercial office/retail, a Special Permit per Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures to alter a nonconforming structure and Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table of Dimensional Requirements to exceed the maximum height and front yard setbacks, subject to conditions. The ZBA Decision is hyperlinked herein for reference. • The Conservation Agent has noted the subject property is not located within Conservation Commission jurisdiction. The Fire Department Concurs with comments as noted on their review sheet. Comments are pending from the following City Departments: Public Health, Building Commissioner, City Engineer and Mass in Motion. 4. 3 SOPHIA ROAD This item is for a discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approva12 under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide one (1) lot into two lots. The subject property is located in the R1 zoning district, which requires a 100 foot minimum frontage. As shown in the chart below, the two new lots will meet the minimum lot frontage requirements. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ZONING DISTRICT R REQUIRED LOT A LOT B PROPOSED PROPOSED MINIMUM LOT AREA 15,000 S.F. 15,015 S.F. 29,178 S.F. MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE 100' 136.50' 244.28' MJNIMUM LOT WIDTH 100' 110.00' MfNIMUM FRONT SETBACK 15' 15.7' MfNIMUM SIDE SETBACK 10' 43.4' MINIMUM REAR SETBACK 30' 65.0' • 2 The provisions for an endorsement that approval is not required can be found in MGL Chanter 41,Section 81P. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—3/10/2016 Page 4 of 4 • III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. February 18, 2016 IV. Old/New Business 1. Discussion of Planning Board Policies and Procedure as they relate to Public Presentations I made edits to the Draft Public Hearing Guidelines based on the discussion from the February 18` meeting. The edited document is in your dropbox for your review and discussion. • v�.CONDIT �\ 5, City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet IIC i o Board Pian (1 i C) Date 201W Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail n -�9 77;A 44ell — l76 �7"c4c- ,/ 93 - 97F 711U- 0916 bo/muosinP.^nlnlncynrn�, roK (,V cs� / < q �-2 q( -4`83s -74(- 4-e �- 00,e "> /;x/k ed 57— 7q-17&3 Dou-y jjw I L6 v I =At- sr. 9�g Sys �oiX w Ger z Page of Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail • Page of city of Salem, Planning Board '. Will hold a public hearing for all p�'.c�ons interested in the applica- tion of 331 IAFAYETTE, LLC for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Section 8.5 of the Salem Zon- ing Ordinance to reflect the plan for . the property located at 331-335 La- w fayette Street,5-7 West Avenue and 11 West Avenue(Map 32,Lots 231, 232, 233 and 234). The applicant proposes to construct a three-story 24,388 square foot mixed use com- mercial building with retail on the first floor and offices on the upper floors.An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. The public hearing will be held on Thursday, March 17,2016 at 7:00 PM,in Room 313,Third Floor at 120 1. Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachu- setts General Laws. A copy of the 1 application and plans are on file and r. available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning S Community Develop- ment, Third Floor, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Ben Anderson,Chair Planning Board SN-3/3,3/10/16 f ' CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1016 MAR -3 A 9. 1 I CITY CLEF!,K, S iLEM, MASS, Public Hearing Notice City of Salem Planning Board Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of 331 LAFAYETTE, LLC for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Section 9.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reflect the plan for the property located at 331-335 Lafayette Street, 5-7 West Avenue and 11 West Avenue (Map 32, Lots 231, 232, 233 and 234). The applicant proposes to construct a three-story 24,388 square foot mixed use commercial building with retail on the first floor and offices on the upper floors. An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. The public hearing will be held on Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 7:00 PM, in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning&Community Development, Third Floor, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. • Ben Anderson, Chair Planning Board Salem News: 3/03/2016 & 3/10/2016 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" O/6 City Hall, Salem, Mass. on at 9. il>9� in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. 120 WASHINGTON SITEF.T. SALEM, MASSACHUSMS 01970 • NoN—n 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 • wvw.sAt,Fktccw Meeting Minutes—March 17, 2016 Page 1 of 8 • City of Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes Thursday,March 17,2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Room 313, Salem,Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opened the meeting at 7:04pm. I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Ben Anderson, Chair, Noah Koretz, Bill Griset, Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, and Matt Veno Also present: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner, and Stacy Kilb,Planning Board Recording Clerk. II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15,Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC Description:A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) •Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. Attorney Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal St. represents the applicant and provides an update. Grading and civil engineering plans will be presented tonight. They are the result of many meetings with various state agencies. The City Engineer and a peer reviewer have also seen the grading plan. In this project, the grading and drainage plans are separate and the latter will be presented at the next meeting. He describes the process of site design. Peter Ogren, site engineer,is also present, as are David Sweetzer of High Rock and Tom MaGarragill of C3. Architectural plans are also progressing and the process for finalizing those is described.A plan may be submitted at the April meeting and Design Review is being sought from that Board. There have been many revisions to the original plan. •Peter Ogren provides additional details. Meetings and discussions with both the DEP and MEPA have occurred for a variety of reasons. Those agencies had a few concerns,including sea level rise, drainage on adjacent lands, and a determination of Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. Elevations are described and discussed. Current flood elevation is 10.81'with the first Meeting Minutes—March 17, 2016 Page 2 of 8 floor being at elevation 12.11'. Sea level rise predictions over the next 100 years vary, making things difficult. Th® current grading plan and basic drainage are outlined and provide safe access for pedestrians and vehicles to and from Boston St. Free flow of water across the site is maintained. Flooding of the area is described. If the 10.81' flood elevation is ever reached, free pedestrian and vehicle access should still be maintained. Mr. Anderson asks about floodwater depths and Mr. Ogren states that it would get much deeper (over 3') at Bridge St. He outlines additional details of the flooding of the area. Both types of flooding refer to water rising from the river to the land (storm surge and high tide). Flooding of the North River is described and Mr. Ogran states he has never seen water come over the wall of the canal. The DEP has not made a decision on this grading plan and neither has MEPA,but the applicant still feels prepared to move forward. A mitigation package has also been developed with the City Engineer and City reviewer. Mr. Ogran describes this as a former Sylvania site; there was capacity for water and sewer and those features are described. Mitigation features include: • Sewer contribution- $21,903 • Water Line—Check of existing gates;replace if not functioning • Drainage improvements—Replace partially blocked culvert; this may have been contributing to the reports of flooding at Walgreens. The existing culvert will be abandoned and a new one built. It will no longer be located under the building. • Tide-Flex Valves—Will be located on project discharges; this will prevent backflow from project drainage Mr. Ogran believes that final designs can be made at this point. Grading and drainage, along with other aspects of the site plan, are being determined. • Mr. Rieder asks about slope on the grading plan and Mr. Ogran clarifies; he believes it is 1%but Mr. Rieder notes that the plan indicates it is 3%. Grades are described and Mr. Ogran will find out what the maximum grade is. He feels 3.5%is reasonable. Mr. Rieder asks about slope along Bridge St. and Mr. Ogran believes it is a 2:1 slope. He describes the reasoning. Mr. Rieder points out the difficulties of keeping the slope stable at that ratio. Mr. Rieder also asks about overland flow at the rear of the site and Mr. Ogran outlines elevations at that area. One of the DEP's concerns was water being trapped on adjacent properties;this has been addressed. Access was also an issue that was addressed. Chair Anderson opens to the public. Polly Wilbert of 7 Cedar St. ask about flooding on the site. Mr. Ogran clarifies that there will be flooding on the driveway onto Bridge St.; thus, the only access would be off of Boston St. He also points out that there would be 3-5' of water on Bridge St. so it would not be advisable to go that way anyway. Ms. Wilbert asks about snow storage and parking during flood events. Mr. Ogran states that flooding is only an issue during high tides and describes the snow storage. If necessary, snow will have to be removed offsite. She asks about the plow-ability of the area. Mr. Ogran states that this is a common way to do it;residents may be asked to move their cars or some visitor spaces may be kept open for storage. Snow is inevitable and will be dealt with by management. Chair Anderson asks the applicant to bring the same presentation to the April Th meeting. Public comment has also been received from Jennifer Firth,President of Historic Salem. It will be entered into the record. A motion to continue to the April 7°meeting is made by Noah Koretz, seconded by Bill Gdset, and • carries with all in favor(8-0). Councilor Famico requested materials,which she will distribute to Fed. St. Neighborhood Assoc. Meeting Minutes—March 17, 2016 Page 3 of 8 •B. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. Amotion to continue to the April 21st meeting is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Dale Yale, and carries 8-0. A motion to extend the 135-day deadline to May 10, 2016, is made by Bill Gtiset, seconded by Matt Veno, and carries 8-0. C. Location: 331-335 LAFAYETTE STREET, 5-7, and 11 WEST AVENUE (Map 32 Lots 231, 232,233, 234) Applicant: 331 LAFAYETTE STREET,LLC Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the construction of a three-story 24,388 square foot mixed use commercial building with retail on the fust floor and offices on the upper floors. An existing two-family home on the site will remain in its current use. D. Location: 3 SOPHIA ROAD (Map 4 Lot 25) Applicant: 26 WALKER ROAD LLC Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR),proposing to divide one (1) lot with one existing building into two lots. Representing this project is Scott Grover,Attorney, and Robert Burr,Developer. Mr. Grover outlines the project •and its location. He describes the parcels and businesses currently on them. The site also spans three different zoning districts. The plan is to demolish the businesses along with the six unit residence; the two-unit dwelling will be rehabilitated and maintained as such. A three story,mixed use commercial building will be put up;it will be predominantly retail on the first floor and office on the upper floors. Significant public input has been received. Total square footage has been reduced and the number of variances required has been reduced to two; one for height and one for front yard setback. Scott Cameron, Civil Engineer, outlines the engineering aspects of the project. He presents the site plan. Existing and proposed conditions are outlined. 12,000 square feet of footprint and 26,000 square feet of area are proposed. Soil conditions have been assessed and taken into account in drainage design. Drainage is described. Curb cuts and current parking scenarios are described. There is an easement for Verizon conduits on the property. The total footprint area of the main building is 8,000 square feet with a gross floor area of 24,000 square feet. There will be 72 parking spaces in compliance with the zoning ordinance. The exit and entrance are both one way. There will be a plaza in front of the building. There will be spaces for bicycle parking. Proposed curb cuts,parking and overall areas of landscaping are described. Previous input of the Zoning Board is described;the City will be granted an easement and West Ave.will be widened to provide a dedicated turning lane. The grading and utility plan is outlined; there will be no increases in storm runoff into municipal drainage. Details are outlined. A subsurface leaching system to handle roof runoff will be installed;it will also reduce sheetflow and help with winter ice issues. The parking lot is ADA compliant. Grading and the proposed front plaza are described. Trees and landscaping are described, as are utilities. A landscape plan with schedules of plantings is •provided. Ginko and Red Maples, along with a Linden tree, are proposed along with some Birch. Lights are described. Floor plans are briefly shown and described. Stormwater management, Operation and Maintenance Plans,Locus Figures, etc. are provided. Meeting Minutes—March 17, 2016 Page 4 of 8 Chair Anderson compliments Mr. Cameron and the applicant on their community outreach. Carole Hamilton as if a right turn on red would be allowed at that intersection; that will be at the discretion of the City but has not y been determined. Mr. Veno suggests not allowing a right turn on red, and having a green arrow. Ms. Hamilton comments that having a right turn lane does not make sense if you can't make a right turn on red. Mr. Cameron comments that the sight lines will be vastly improved and describes some previous calculations and traffic scenarios. Mr. Koretz asks for clarification about bicycle parking; there would be two racks in separate locations, with 5-8 bikes per rack. Kirt Rieder asks about the zoning requirement for the setback. Mr. Grover outlines the current setbacks;there are two front yard setbacks, and 15' are required.The existing buildings do not conform as they are on the street; reasoning for the setbacks proposed is elaborated upon. Specific details on the plaza have not been fleshed out at this time, and Mr. Rieder encourages the applicant to carefully consider landscaping, as he sees a lot of "unmitigated concrete"in that area. He urges them to consider unit pavers to break down the scale of the large building. Landscape architecture is remiss since small ornamental trees are proposed in a neighborhood that has large specimens. The specific cultivar of trees should be considered since some grow very large (specifically, the Ginko should match what is prevalent in the neighborhood). Mr. Rieder suggests some species that would be appropriate. He feels the planters are"suburban" and do not create a good scale or image for the project, and encourages the development team to make the vegetation more substantial, reducing the scale of the plaza to ensure the health of the trees. He would like to see more canopy trees in the parking lot as well. Parking requirements are discussed; the 72 provided is the minimum required by code.The applicant feels that this would be consistent with demand, however. Carole Hamilton asks if street trees will be removed; three or four on West St.will be removed to accommodate the widening of the lane. Kitt Rieder comments on the trees• and opportunity to add street trees. He encourages investing in trees, rather than shrubs, to make the project "timeless."Mr. Burr asks about his vision for the plaza;Mr. Rieder elaborates. Planter boxes are not good for trees. He is also concerned about the steps. A seat wall would be a good idea. Carole Hamilton is also in favor of acknowledging and accommodating the bus stop. Matt Veno is in favor of the creation of this space,but is concerned about it being an active space for seating with cars coming by as they do. Planters have been proposed as a barrier. Transforming the steps into some sort of seat wall would help with that. Matt Veno also compliments the developer on his work with the neighborhood. Chair Anderson appreciates the effort to mimic the architecture of the neighborhood but asks about some issues with this being an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Driveway width and dumpster enclosures are among his concerns. Setback of the enclosures of the latter are good,but equipment siting is unclear;he assumes it is on the roof but would like to see a roof plan. This was part of the reason for the height variance. Granite curbing is just on the main roadways;precast will be used on the site and is described. Chair Anderson would like more information on the screening fence. He asks some additional questions about fence height and Mr. Cameron elaborates. A variance or special permit may be required if a 6' height is desired; the applicant may keep it at 4' to avoid that but the issue will be examined further. Chair Anderson comments on the steps on the plaza and the need for railings;the logistics of that area are described and discussed. Helen Sides comments on hand rails in front of Tavern in the Square. Planters and trees are further discussed; the number and caliper of trees should be clarified. Chair Anderson approves of the LED lights but is unsure of the type of fixture, feeling that there may be some available that are more historic and in t� character of the area. Mr. Cameron asks for further clarification but it is up to the applicant and designer to decide. Mr. Burr is concerned about the impact of uplighting on the immediate abutters. Entryways will need to be illuminated so that must be addressed. Meeting Minutes—March 17, 2016 Page 5 of 8 •Chair Anderson asks for more details on materials to be used on the building,as well as colors. Elevations, window materials, trim, and cornices,as well as shingle type and color, should all have more detail provided. Chair Anderson opens to the public. Joyce Kenney (285 Lafayette St.) comments on three trees, not shown on the maps, that are located on West Ave. She states that the Zoning Board of Appeals has ruled that they may not be cut down. Mr. Grover is not aware of this condition in the ZBA ruling, and the condition will be investigated before the next meeting. Councilor Josh Turiel, of Lafayette St,Ward 5 Councilor is here. He comments on the process;it started out roughly but the project has been changed favorably prior to this site plan review. He indicated his support at the ZBA meeting but still has some concerns. This is a substantial improvement over the original design, however he does not feel it suits the Lafayette St. entrance corridor. It does not"fit" as the entrance to the neighborhood. Landscaping should also be considered. It should encourage life and activity;he hopes for thriving retail uses as what is there is neighborhood retail today. He feels other neighborhood retail that will be good replacements should be considered. Victoria Nado of 26 West Ave,is in support of this project, but would also like to see thriving retail and businesses,but this will depend on City Council changing the zoning code,which is antiquated. She comments that rubber sidewalks are"interesting" and will allow for tree growth. She envisions a pocket park with a modular design that can change seasonally. The area will lose a honey locust tree so that may be a good West Ave. replacement. The other two trees are old apple trees; she has not seen bloom but has seen fruit. Ms. Nado thanks ,,replacement. the developer for being open and responsive. Polly Wilbert of 7 Cedar St., representing the South Salem Neighborhood Association as its president, speaks. They are focusing on a longer term campaign to preserve/replace trees on Lafayette St. She describes their efforts and those of the Shade Tree Department. She also comments on the fact that there will be a new signal purchased using mitigation money from Salem State University, for the intersection of Lafayette St. and Loring Ave. She states that the new poles are very large and it will be helpful to know where they, along with the poles for the new lighting fixtures,will go. She also comments on the possibility of a right tum arrow after the reconfiguration is complete, and the progress on bidding for that.The Complete Streets program is providing money for a protected bike lane,and the bus stop will interfere with that,but beyond that area, she feels it should be constructed and should be kept in mind. The South Salem Neighborhood Association has also expressed concerns about jaywalking, and if the planters preclude that,it would be good.Traffic making a left hand turn is also a concern. Polly Wilbert of 7 Cedar St., speaking as a private citizen,is concerned that the project mirrors the current setting as it is adjacent to a historic district. She is concerned about windows and colors and does not want it to be like Salem State University, or have a suburban look and feel. The project should reflect the character of this mainly Victorian neighborhood. This project is not required to go to the Design Review Board but Helen Sides suggests that the developer come before the DRB for feedback. She comments on the colors, materials and scale proposed. Councilor Turiel comments on the bike path issue and the corner. The pilot program is for a separate bike lane separated by a curb/buffer space. He comments on traffic flow on Lafayette St. and hopes the pilot will be .successful and bike bath will be expanded. He also comments on Salem State's mitigation contribution; some is for redesign and re-signalization of that intersection. He describes the details. Some placements are not quite final due to the bicycle lane reconfiguration, but the bid should be out again soon. Meeting Minutes—March 17, 2016 Page 6 of 8 John DeCamp of 10 West Ave. comments that the parking lot goes behind 11 West Ave. He comments on the • Horse Chestnut tree behind 11 West Ave. and hopes the parking lot does not require cutting it down. He also comments on the Honey Locust and apple trees along West Ave. He hopes widening of West Ave. will stop before the Honey Locust need to be cut down. They would screen his dining room from the new building Alexandra Pinheria Shields, of 7 Bristol St. purchased that location, then found out about this project. 11 West Ave. will be saved,but she is concerned about the security and privacy of her yard once the area is cleared. Her concerns: What kind of barrier will be erected along their property for their privacy and that of other residents along left side of Bristol St.? She is concerned about the location of the dumpsters Her daughter goes to bed at 7:30 so she is concerned about light fixtures will be 12' from her window. Locations on light fixtures? Chair Anderson comments: Fixtures are cutoff so there will be no spillage of light into adjacent yards. Scott Cameron clarifies that the yard area will be maintained along with existing trees in that yard area. It is a 50'wide parcel.Actually this is a neighbor's house, not the yard at 11 West, that abuts her; she is NOT an abutter to this project. Mr. Cameron provides more details about dumpster placement. It will be more towards the center of the parking lot,behind a screened enclosure. Chair Anderson limits input to one more question. • Greg Zaweslack 13 West Ave. compliments the developer and feels that keeping 11 West Ave was a good decision. He likes the idea of a 6' fence separating the development from his property. He is concerned about the elevation of the site compared to his property and runoff The height of buffering plantings should be sufficient to block his view of the parking lot. Scott Cameron states that these issues were explored at length and describes mitigation factors such as a catch basin that will be installed. The buffer zone is 5.5' and there will be a fence plus Arbor Vitae,which will grow to 15-20' high. The landscape plan is further discussed. Mr. Burr would like to modify the plans slightly to accommodate a new transformer. Kirt Rieder approves of more elms and oaks. A motion to continue to the next meeting is made by Kirt Rieder, seconded by Noah Koretzand passes with all in favor, 8-0. D. Location: 3 SOPHIA ROAD (Map 4 Lot 25) Applicant: 26 WALKER ROAD LLC Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide one (1) lot with one existing building into two lots. Scott Grover,Attorney,represents the applicant. He describes the location of the neighborhood. This is a typical ANR plan with no variances required for the new lot being created. There will be one lot of 15,000 square feet and 136' of frontage, and a new, larger lot of almost 30,000 square feet and 244' of frontage. Access will be along Sophia Rd. • Kirt Rieder asks about the buildings in Lot 25 and Mr. Grover thinks they are sheds. However, they are not on the plan and the intention is to remove them after subdivision. Discussion of these structures follows. Location and buildings are described. Meeting Minutes-March 17, 2016 Page 7 of 8 • The Board has no comments. A motion to endorse the plan, which does not, in fact, require approval, is made by Carole Hamilton, seconded by Dale Yale, and passes unammouslyin a roll call vote with Ben Anderson, Kirt Rieder, Helen Sides, Dale Yale, Bill Griset, Carole Hamilton, Noah Koretz, and Matt Veno in favor, 8-0. E. 162 Federal St. Bequest for 6 month extension. Noah Koretz comments that the current owner hasn't closed yet, so he recuses himself. Scott Grover,Attorney,presents again. He describes history of the property. Closing has not occurred since, even though the site itself is clean, a leaking underground oil tank leached materials which then migrated to 150 Federal Street, and the DEP will not close out the case. The property is under agreement with the same person who bought the rectory. Extensions have been requested previously,but this should be the last one. The Zoning Board of Appeals has granted extensions of their variances and the owner plans to proceed with the project as permitted. Chair Anderson asks about the holdup and Mr. Grover elaborates. Contamination originated on this property and migrated to 150 Federal St. This site is clear. Lahey (the previous owner of this address) has responsibility for the ongoing remediation (monitoring is all that is occurring as of now). Construction would have to be started within 6 months for the permit to be enforceable. Chau Anderson opens for public comment. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. asks about a rumored lawsuit of the Archdiocese against Lahey. Mr. Grover is not aware of one,but it is possible. Meg Twohey of 122 Federal St. asks about purchase of parking from Archdiocese. The permits require that piece to be part of the project. The building was purchased from Lahey and the back parcel from the Archdiocese. Chau Anderson closes public comment. A motion to approve is made by Matt Veno, seconded by Carole Hamilton, and carries 7-0, with Noah Koretz recused. III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 18, 2016 A motion to approve the minutes, with minor edits,is made by Kirt Rieder, seconded by Helen Sides, and passes unanimously 8-0. IV.Old/New Business 1. Discussion of Planning Board Policies and Procedure as they relate to Public. �pecific wording for clarification is suggested. Timing of submission/review of materials for conciseness and germaneness, subject to a three minute limit or an extension at the discretion of the chair etc. is discussed. Meeting Minutes—March 17, 2016 Page 8 of 8 Bill Griset comments that adopted rules must be followed rather than accommodating a group in a "mob setting.". The public must be accommodated, but in an orderly fashion. That is point of these rules. Meg Twohey asks if these rules have been published. They have not. They will be posted by the City and here at the meeting room,but this is not a public hearing with opportunity for public comment. The rules can be amended if they are not working out, and they are guidelines, not regulations. A motion to adopt the public hearingguldelines is made by Carol Hamilton, seconded by Bill Griset, and carries with all in favor 8-0. Rules will be sent to Board Members, and posted at next meeting. CinemaWorld has submitted an Environmental Notification Form for MEPA. Site review and due dates are discussed;Amanda Chiancola will Dropbox the materials. Amanda informs the board that there is a Citizen Planner training in Worcester on Saturday. V. ADJOURNMENT Dale Yale makes a motion to adjoum,is seconded by Mrt Rieder, and the motion carries with all in favor, 8-0. The meeting ends at 9:32 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: htm://www.salem.com/planning-board/webforms/planning-board-2016-decisions Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb, Substitute Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 04/07/2016 Knowyour ti ,gbts under the Open Meeting Law M.G. c. 30A g 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 through g 2-2033. CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD March 18, 2015 Z91b MAR 21 P 2: 33 Daniel Botwink CITY c/o Scott M. Grover Tinti, Quinn, Grover& Frey, P.C. 17 Congress Street, Suite 414 Salem, MA 01970 RE: 162 & 150 Federal Street (Map 26, Lots 2 & 96) Decision of Planning Board to grant request for a six (6) month extension to commence construction authorized by the September 25, 2012 Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Planning Board Decision for conversion of a former convent to eight(8) residential units. The Salem Planning Board met on Thursday, March 17, 2016 to discuss your request for the approval of a six (6) month extension to commence construction authorized by the September 25, 2012 Site Plan Review and Flood Hazard District Special Permit Planning Board Decision for conversion of a former convent to eight(8) residential units. A letter submitted by Attorney Scott M. Grover, on behalf of Daniel Botwink, on March 14, 2016, requests lowance to extend the permits granted by the Planning Board in a Decision date-stamped September 25, 012, for an additional period of six (6) months. The petitioner states that additional time is necessary in order to close a new purchase agreement. The delay in closing is due to an oil leak that had spilled onto the adjacent property located at 150 Federal Street and the ongoing monitoring by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The sale of the property is scheduled to occur on March 28, 2016 and there will no longer be any contingencies in the agreement. The requested six-month extension would commence on March 25, 2016, which is the expiration date of the current Decision. The requested extension would expire on September 25, 2016. The Planning Board voted seven (7) in favor (Ben Anderson- Chair, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Dale Yale, Bill Griset, Matthew Veno, and Carole Hamilton) and none (0) opposed and one (1) abstained due to ineligibility (Noah Koretz), to grant the approval of the requested six (6) month extension of the Flood Hazard District Special Permit and Site Plan Review Decision dated September 25, 2012. This determination shall become part of the record for this project. If you require further information, please contact Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner, in the Department of Planning& Community Development at(978) 619-5685. Sincerely, pan J. Anderson, Chairman lem Planning Board Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk Page 1 of 1 . , CITY OF SALEM 0 PLANNING BOARD FORM A- DECISION 1016 MAR 21 P 2: 33 3 Sophia Road ! E CITY f.LL." On March 17, 2016 by a unanimous vote of eight (8) in favor (Chair Ben Anderson, Matt Veno, Kirt Rieder, Helen Sides, Noah Koretz, Carole Hamilton, Bill Griset, Dale Yale) and none (0) opposed to endorse "Approval under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" for the property located at 3 Sophia Road and shown on the following described plan: "Plan of Land 3 Sophia Road, Salem, MA for 26 Walker Road LLC" dated, February 11, 2016. 1. Applicant: 26 Walker Road LLC, 3 Sophia Rd,Salem MA 01970 2. Location: 3 Sophia Road (Map 4,Lot 25) 3. Description: Map 4, Lot 25 is to be divided into Parcel A and Parcel B, each parcel with a frontage on Sophia Road. Deed of property records in Essex South District Registry. Sincerely, I Ben J. Anderson Chair Cc.: Cheryl LaPointe,City Clerk • CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 70% FEB 25 P b! 33 FILE CITY CLER;'. Sr-�Lc1T. fSt:S Meeting Cancellation Notice You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board's regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, has been cancelled due to lack of items on the agenda, given that all Applicants have requested continuances. CONTINUANCE REQUESTS: Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC Description: The Applicant has requested continuance of the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled planning board meeting on MARCH 17, 2016 for • amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi- family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to, the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two- story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the comer of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. This notice posted on "Offic�' I ulletin Board" Ben Anderson, Chair City had, Salem, Mass. on r;691 aj� 4OlG Salem Planning Board • at {O'.3JPjVjnaccordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-26_ CITY OF SALEM k `e PLANNING BOARD 701b FEB I l P 12: 5q Ft.E NOTICE OF MEETING CITY C! You am hereby not#W that the SalemPlaroungBoard will be bddinga PublicHamg on Tbursday,February 18, 2016 at 7 0LO)m at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washingtwz St, Salem MA Ben Andersm Chair REVISED* MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street(Map 15,Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC Description: REVISED* The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on March 3, 2016 for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCQ Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically,the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. Sec 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi- family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRC C. A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NROC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center,a two-story building,and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the comer of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" • City Hall, Salem, Mass. on FEB 17 2016 at /4,1_10 PH in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for February 18,2016 Meeting Page 2 of 2 • B. Location: CLARK AVENUE (Map 6,Lots 7, 8, and 9) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations and a Cluster Residential Development Special Permit per Sec. 7.2 Cluster Residential Development of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roadway to serve twenty six (26) residential lots,and a Stormwater Permit in accordance with the Salem Code of Ordinances Sec. 37. C. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: REVISED" The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on March 17,2016 for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. D. Location: 186-190 MARLBOROUGH ROAD(Map 10 Lot 32) Applicant: HENRIE REALTY TRUST Description: A public hearing for a Waiver from Frontage Requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow less that the required 100 feet of frontage. • E. Location: 186-190 MARLBOROUGH ROAD(Map 10 Lot 32) Applicant: HENRIE REALTY TRUST Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide one (1) lot with three existing buildings into three lots. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 21,2016 B. February 4,2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Planning Board Policies and Procedure as they relate to Public Presentations B. Tactile Dome Paver Material V. ADJOURNMENT Krraryow rights wzder dx ObertMeeftngLawM.G.L. c 30A § 18-25 and City(7rd=nx§ 2-2028 through§ 2-2033. • 0\L;4St h' ':).N S1x l t SALE11, A11SSr c7t L i'1;S 01970 • NoiYr 978.619.5685 FAX 978:;40.0404 W WT.S:ALfi\LCOYI CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING 201b FEB I I P 2: 05 FILE CITY CLERK, SA,i, I. mA"'S. Ycu aye hereby n#id that the Sale nPlararingBozrd ud1 be hddinga PtaicHam-ng on Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex,Room 313, 120 Washir"St, Salem;MA BenAnimory Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25,Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street(Map 15,Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC • Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Pemnit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mired Use District (NRCQ Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. Sec 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCG A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinldng place on the premises to reflect the newP lan.. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail .on the comer of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. • This notice posted on."Officj�L�ylletiy a par 11 City Hall, Salem, Mass. on TV with MGL 30A, at 2,Uo—i�'`7 in accordance w Sections 18-25. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for February 18,2016 Meeting Page 2 of 2 B. Location: CLARK AVENUE (Map 6,Lots 7, 8,and 9) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations and a Cluster Residential Development Special Permit per Sec. 7.2 Cluster Residential Development of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roadway to serve twenty-six (26) residential lots, and a Stormwater Permit in accordance with the Salem Code of Ordinances Sec. 37. C. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. D. Location: 186-190 MARLBOROUGH ROAD(Map 10 Lot 32) Applicant: HENRIE REALTY TRUST Description: A public hearing for a Waiver from Frontage Requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow less that the required 100 feet of frontage. E. Location: 186-190 MARLBOROUGH ROAD(Map 10 Lot 32) • Applicant: HENRIE REALTY TRUST Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide one (1) lot with three existing buildings into three lots. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January2l, 2016 B. February4, 2016 IV. OLD/NE W BUSINE SS A. Discussion of Planning Board Policies and Procedure as they relate to Public Presentations B. Tactile Dome Paver Material V. ADJOURNMENT Kw your rights umler dx Opm M"LawM.G.L. c 30A § 18-25 and Ctty Onhmnx§ 2-2028 thra*§ 2-2033. • 20 W SII'ING,ON SrK_1-TSALEINf_ ' + ,SSACHII,SerrS 01970 • PHotit 97&.6.19.5685 RAN 978.740.0404 WWW.SA;,rn.co ti �ut+mla'" CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • y' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: February 12, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — February 18, 2016 Please find the following in the dropbox file: ■ Agenda for February 18, Regular Meeting ■ Planner's Memo ■ Gateway Center ■ Clark Avenue Cluster Subdivision . - Draft Decision ed ■ Alma Subdivision - New Public Comment ■ Marlborough Road - Waiver of Frontage Application - Marlborough Road ANR Application ■ Draft Minutes - January 26, 2016 - February 4, 2016 ■ Planning Board Meeting Guidelines I. Roll Call II. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) 1 have not received new materials for this project. I will update you via email when the applicant informs me what the project team anticipates discussing at the meeting. The applicant is currently working with the State to determine the acceptable elevation for the site. 40 City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —2/11//2016 Page 2 of 4 2. CLARK AVENUE (Map 6, Lots 7, 8, and 9) — Cluster Subdivision • Application A draft decision is located in your dropbox, per the edits made at the meeting on February 4, 2016. Said edits are listed below. • Ensure the decision calls out the landscaping plan. o See revision to Condition 1(a). • The board agreed to a waiver of the two sidewalks having a width of less than 5 feet in place thereof of a 4' sidewalk and a grass strip of at least 3.5'. o See Condition 5(a)(iv). • Trail segments will be cleared by manual cutting of brush and tree saplings no greater than 3 inches in size. o See Condition 11(b). • The address of the "certain rock" shall be identified in the decision. o See Condition 12(d). • Condition No. 14(c) regarding the Clark Ave/Clark Street intersection should be omitted as it is already discussed in the previous condition. o Removed. • Include a note on the Fire Dept. Condition that there shall be temporary • Fire Department access during construction. o See Condition 16(a). • Include a condition that requires the street lights to be outfitted with LED lights. o See Condition 18(b). • The applicant and the board discussed condition 18.c. regarding the phasing of street light installation. The applicant will recommend language for a condition for the board to review at the next meeting. o See the updated language proposed for Condition 18(c). 3. 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) — Subdivision Application I have not received new materials for this project. The lots are dimensionally pre-existing nonconforming lots along an accepted public way that is currently unpaved. In addition to the request for a Definitive Subdivision Plan approval to construct a roadway to serve two (2) existing undeveloped lots/ Almeda Street does not contain a water main. The subject property is located approximately 600 feet from the closest water main on Highland Avenue. Wells are proposed to provide water to the subject lots. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—2/11//2016 Page 3 of 4 On October 20, 2015 the City Engineer requested revisions and clarifications. The applicant has not provided a response to the comments from the City Engineer. On January 14, 2016, the City Engineer provided a memorandum to the Planning Director that recommends the project include an extension of the existing water main, as further described in the Memorandum located in your dropbox. The petitioner also requests the following waivers from the Salem Subdivision Regulations: a. A waiver from Section IV A.4.1 to allow a dead end street longer than 500- feet. The current length of Almeda Street is approximately 650-feet and the proposed plan will add 80-feet of roadway for a total of 730 feet including a 35' x 20' hammerhead turn around area. b. A waiver from Section IV. A.1.e to allow the centerline radius of the proposed roadway extension to be 130 feet, which is less than the 230 feet required. The proposed radius is required due to the layout of the existing right-of-way. c. A waiver from Section IV.A.2.a to allow a waiver from the requirement to install sidewalks and granite curbing as the roadway extension will primarily be used by the occupants of the two (2) proposed residences and there are not currently existing sidewalks. The applicant is proposing to install a drainage pipe and outlet on city-owned land, which will require an easement and approval from the City Council. I also note that the second extension of the 135 day deadline' for the subject project ends on February 23, 2016. Therefore, the Board must take final action at their next regularly scheduled meeting on February 18, 201.6, unless the applicant requests an extension of the 135 day deadline. 4. 186-190 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (Map 10 Lot 32) —Waiver of Frontage The applicant is requesting a Waiver from Frontage Requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow less than the required 100 feet of frontage. One parcel is proposed to be divided into three parcels, each with 50 feet of frontage. Plans are located in your dropbox. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved a dimensional Variance for relief from minimum lot frontage. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law(M.G.L)Chapter 41,Section 81(U),the failure of a planning board either to take final action or to file with the city or town clerk a certificate of such action regarding the definitive plan submitted by an applicant within 135 days after such submission, or such further time as may be agreed upon at the written request of the applicant, shall be deemed to be an approval thereof. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —2/11//2016 Page 4 of 4 S. 186-190 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (Map 10 Lot 32) — ANR Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR). The applicant is requesting an endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR) as the petitioner proposes to divide one parcel with three buildings into three separate lots on each of which one of such buildings remains standing. Each lot will have a frontage and access from Marlborough Road, a public way. The frontage of each of the lots will be 50 feet, which is less than required 100 feet. Therefore, the ANR relies on a favorable decision of the waiver of frontage. Enclosed are the application and plans for review. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 26, 2016 2. February 4, 2016 IV. Old/New Business 1. Discussion of Planning Board Policies and Procedure as they relate to Public Presentations At the meeting on February 4, 2016 the Chair had asked that this item be put on the agenda for discussion under New Business. I uploaded Draft Public Hearing Guidelines to your dropbox for your review and discussion. These guidelines were last discussed in 2010, but were never adopted. 2. Tactile Dome Paver Material I am looking into whether there is a process to consider alternative materials that would last longer, such as cast iron and if this is an issue that the Planning board could have any influence on. I will report my findings to the board at the meeting. • City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet �O�Mm�no% Board Date a / l a O I (P Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail I 16 w, SA�fj 51bntl ;:� A-UL2 21s (5Lp y gCCo ad '�� F-MICq UOQ( 6yFFW S7 -uol n ,pkwc6� Ole Page of Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Page of r - PUBLIC'HEARING NOTICE CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of HENRIE REALTY TRUST request- ing a waiver of frontage require- s .ments of the Subdivision Control ` Law located at 186-190 Marlbor- ough Road(Map 10 Lot 32){R1 Zon- ing District). The public hearing will be held on Thursday, February 18, 2016, i at 7:00 P.M. at 120 Washington St., 1 I 3rd floor, room 313, in accordance ( with Chapter 40A of the Massachu- setts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Dept.of Plan- ning & Community.,Development, 3rd Floor, 120 Washington St., Sa- lem,MA. Ben Anderson,Chair '.. SN-2/4,2/11/16 Planning Board 4 I ., 1 Jr PUBLI4 HEAHkt NOTICE CITY OF SALEM. PLANNING BOARD will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of HENRIE REALTY TRUST request- ing a waiver of frontage require- ments .of the Subdivision Control 1, Law located at 186-190 Marlbor- ough Road(Map 10 Lot 32)(R7 Zon- ing District). ' The public hearing will be held I on Thursday, February 16, 2016, f t at 7:00 P.M. at 120 Washington St., 3rd floor, room 313, in accordance 1 with Chapter 40A of the Massachu- setts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Dept.of Plan- ning & Community Development, 3rd Floor, 120 Washington St., Sa- lem,MA. Ben Anderson,Chair Planning Board SN—2/4,2/11/16 CITY OF SALEM - � PLANNING BOARD 101b �tb C11 Y Public Hearing Notice City of Salem Planning Board Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of HENRIE REALTY TRUST requesting a waiver of frontage requirements of the Subdivision Control Law located at 186-190 Marlborough Road (Map 10 Lot 32) (Rl Zoning District). The public hearing will be held on Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:00 PM, at 120 Washington St., 3`d floor, room 313, in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Dept. of Planning & Community Development, Yd Floor, 120 Washington St., Salem, MA Ben Anderson, Chair Planning Board Ad Run Dates Salem News: 2/4/2016 & 2/11/2016 Remit Bill To: Henrie Realty Trust PO Box 431 This notice posted on "Official-Bulletin Board" Topsfield, MA 01983 City Hall, Salem, Mass. on _ 4 2016 at -:3&PM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, (978) 887-8856 Sections 18-25. 120 WASIENG ON SIIEET, S,ALE61, MASSACHSEFFS 01970 -PHONE 978.619.5685 PAX 978.740.0404- W',VW.SA],-Dj1.00-9 DRAFT Meeting Minutes—February 18, 2016 • Page 1 of 5 City of Salem Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 18, 2016 A public hearing of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, February 18,2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 313, Salem,Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opened the meeting at 7:00 pm. I. ROLL CALL Those present were: Ben Anderson, Chair,Noah Koretz,Bill Griset,Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder,and Matt Veno (arriving late, 7:25), Also present: Amanda Chiancola,Staff Planner, and Stacy Kilb,Planning Board Recording Clerk. II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC Description: REVISED*The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on March 3, 2016 for amendments to • the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two- story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. A motion to continue to the March 3 2016 Planning Board meeting is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Dale Yale, and the motion carries with all in favor. B. Location: CLARK AVENUE (Map 6, Lots 7, 8, and 9) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the • Salem Subdivision Regulations and a Cluster Residential Development Special Permit per Sec. 7.2 Cluster Residential Development of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roadway to serve twenty-six (26) residential lots, and a Stormwater Permit in accordance with the Salem Code of Ordinances Sec. 37. DRAFT Meeting Minutes—February 18, 2016 Page 2 of 5 Mr.Joseph Correnti,Attorney, of 63 Federal St.,represents the applicant. Two weeks ago, drawings had • been finalized and issues of lightings, sidewalks, and, tree lawns were finalized. There is no presentation this evening as the Board has final drawings,and additional drawings for construction will be submitted as the project progresses. Kirt Rieder states that no landscape plan was available at the last meeting;it has been submitted since. Amanda Chiancola states that it is part of the set,and is not reprinted but is noted on Condition 1A. Chair Anderson discusses the Form C Decision. Items of comment/concern to the Board: • Lighting: Arty Correnti comments that item 18C still has the original wording. Chair Anderson read into the record the revised condition, "The Owner shall coordinate with the electric company and the City Electrician regarding the installation of street lighting within the Subdivision." • Blasting: This has changed from 300 feet to 250 feet. Arty Correnti notes a minor change to line two,which should read "NSD Realty Trust, hereafter referred to as `the applicant."' A motion to yWrove the Form C-D efinitdve Subdivision, Cluster Residential Development S4ecial Permit and Stornnvater Permit as conditioned is made by Mall Veno seconded by Helen Sider and carries 8-0 witb Ben Anderson Noab KoW,-, Bill Griset, Dale Yale Carole Hamilton, Helen Sides Klrt Rieder and Matt Veno in favor. • Chair Anderson reads the decision into the record. C. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: REVISED*The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on March 17, 2016 for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. A motion to grant the 135 day deadline extension on March 18, 2016 is made by Bill Griset, seconded by Kirt Rieder, and is approved 7-0 in a roll call vote with Ben Anderson,Noah Koretz,Bill Griset,Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton,Helen Sides, and Kirt Rieder in favor. Board members do not recall details of this presentation and feel that the applicant may need to present again. Carole Hamilton asks if March 18°i allows enough time for a decision; the applicant would need a decision or another extension. A motion to continue to the March 17 2016 meeting is made by Dale Yale, seconded bit Bill Griset and parses 7-0 tvith Ben Anderson, Noah Koretz, Bill Griset, Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton, Llelen Sides and Kist Raeder in favor D. Location: 186-190 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (Map 10 Lot 32) Applicant: HENRIE REALTY TRUST Description: A public hearing for a Waiver from Frontage Requirements of the Subdivision Control Law to allow less that the required 100 feet of frontage. This and the following item will be voted on separately. George Atkins, attorney, of 59 Federal St., presents the project. There are three residences on a single lot in an Rl district. He explains the reasoning DRAFT Meeting Minutes—February 18, 2016 • Page 3 of 5 for the second item. Basically, the division of one lot into three will not constitute a subdivision. The applicant has already gotten variances from the Zoning Board,having met all traditional standards. It is a unique piece of land due to both its shape and low elevation. A large wet area to the rear is not usable, and there is a lot of ledge. Inability to separate the lots would be a hardship, and there is no harm to the surrounding district as there is no change in use. Mr. Atkins feels that a waiver is not necessary as conditions for a subdivision are being waived for something that is not a subdivision. Chair Anderson asks if there are two lots; one exists today with all three residences on it. Sid Farber of 16 Rockdale Ave. asks if this is the same issue as the last two times [at previous City meetings such as the ZBA]. This is the same issue as before the ZBA; the applicant will not build on wetlands. Amanda Chiancola clarifies that the Board is being asked to waive frontage requirement from 100' to 50' per lot. A motion to close the lwblic beating is made Iry Carole Hamilton, seconded br Bill Griset, and passes unanimously. 7-0. A motion to Waive the frontage reauh-ement hrom 900'4�50'is made by Bill Griset and seconded by Carole T)e motion carries 7-0 with Ben Anderson, Noah KoretZ Bill Griset, Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton, Helen Sides, and I&I Rieder in avor. E. Location: 186-190 MARLBOROUGH ROAD (Map 10 Lot 32) • Applicant: HENRIE REALTY TRUST Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR),proposing to divide one (1) lot with three existing buildings into three lots. Arty. Atkins has nothing to add. There is some discussion of lot shape as dictated by the building placements. The Chair opens to public and Sid Farber of 16 Rockdale Ave. requests additional clarification,which the Board provides. No building will take place in the wetlands behind his house,and the footprint of the new building will remain mostly on the same footprint as the existing one in the middle. Arty Atkins adds that the Conservation Commission approved that construction, and moving construction further back would require more permits from that Commission, this Board,and the ZBA. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Helen Sides, seconded by Dale Yale, and carries 7-0 with Ben Anderson, Noab KoretZ Bill Gnset, Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton, Helen Sides and Ktrt Rieder are in favor. A motion to endor re said Plan is made by Carole Hamilton, seconded by Noah Koret.- and carries 7-0 wit)Ben Anderson, Noah Koret5, Bill Griset, Dale Yale, Carole Hamilton, Helen Sides and Kirt Raeder in favor. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 26,2016 A motion to 4i rove the Ian. 26 minutes made by Dale Yale, seconded by Caivle Hamilton, and carries with all in favor' B. February 4,2016 A motion to approve the Feb 4 2016 minutes is made by Helen Sider, seconded by Klrl Rieder, and carries with all in war -0. DRAFT Meeting Minutes—February 18, 2016 Page 4 of 5 • IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion of Planning Board Policies and Procedure as they relate to Public Presentations Amanda Chiancola has found draft guidelines from 2006 that were not adopted. Guidelines for presentations are outlined;members have a copy. The Board would simply vote on these guidelines to adopt them. The City Solicitor has no issues re the Sunshine Ordinance or City policies. However, she recommends waiting until the next meeting to vote if there are amendments. There is extensive discussion regarding the public "presentations" at the previous joint Council and Board meeting. Board member thoughts and comments were: • Board is uncomfortable with performances that may take over such meetings • Suggestions: o Require that such elaborate presentations be identified prior to the meeting. If more than the suggested three minute limit (see below) is needed, the Board requires a valid reason prior to the meeting,if possible. o Materials, especially videos, should be previewed by the Board to ensure that they are on topic, and may be excluded if not. o Impose a three minute time limit on each comment. The Chair will have some discretion in extending this limit,but that would be on a case-by-case basis. It is felt that such limits are • reasonable, especially if many or a large number of neighbors share the same comments. o Visuals, such as a video presentation,could be allowed as long as they are within the time limit o The applicant should present the project;comments should be limited to those relevant to the particular project being reviewed. If comments deviate or the commenter goes over the allotted time, the Chair may interrupt to keep them on topic and keep the meeting running smoothly. o Post clear guidelines, once adopted,on a sign outside the meeting room, so they may be referred to as needed. • None of this is in any way meant to discourage public comment,but grandstanding is not appropriate and Emits should be in place to make sure that all members of the public have the opportunity to provide their input, as some may need to leave early. This will allow the board to hear novel input. The need for the public to be heard must be balanced with the need of the Board to run an orderly meeting. • The merits and disadvantages of having a list of a list of those who intend to comment at the meeting, prior to the meeting, are discussed. Any guidelines put in place should help those with comments to not repeat each other;if they will be collaborating, th s will encourage them to be more concise. • Amanda Chiancola will make the suggested edits to the draft document and present it at the next meeting. B. Tactile Dome Paver Material Amanda Chiancola presents, having this issue with the City Engineer,whose purview it is to review materials for these domes,which are installed for vision impaired. He has not familiar with cast iron as a material for these but is open to it or other materials as recommended by this Board. Kirt Rieder comments that cast iron is standard for other Cities; Cambridge definitely uses them. Kirt Rieder also clarifies that re this Board requiring applicants to use certain products i.e. metal fence vs. chain link, how do we require a certain material• for this item?This could be done as a condition per approval of City Engineer. V. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT Meeting Minutes—February 18, 2016 Page 5 of 5 VI. ADJOURNMENT motion to adiourn is made by Noah Koret:- seconded by Dale Yale, and all are in favor(8-0). The meeting ends at 8:05PM. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://www.salem.com/node/2186/minutes/2016 Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb, Substitute Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on XX/XX/2016 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance§2-2028 through§2-2033. CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD ZUlb FEU 19 A 10: 19 Decision f Li_ =,c Waiver from Frontage eITxC�E_, ii, 5:,!:C;;.ii:',s: . 186-190 Marlborough Road A Public Hearing on this petition was opened on February 18, 2016 and closed on that date with the following Board Members present: Ben Anderson, Carole Hamilton, Noah Koretz, Bill Griset, Dale Yale,Kirt Rieder, and Helen Sides. HENRIE REALTY TRUST requests a waiver from frontage requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81R, to allow less rather than the required 100 feet of frontage. The Planning Board voted by a vote of seven (7) in favor (Ben Anderson, Carole Hamilton, Noah Koretz, Bill Griset, Dale Yale, Kirt Rieder, and Helen Sides), and none opposed to grant the waiver from frontage requirements for 186-190 Marlborough Road. The Waiver from Frontage is granted for the property located at 186-190 Marlborough Road. • because there are 3 existing homes on this property, as shown on the plans titled, "Plan of Land Located in Salem, Mass., 186-190 Marlborough Road," dated December 31, 2015, prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation. 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. I Ben J. derson, Chair 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, it 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 shallpay the fee for recording or registering. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 975.740.0404 . WWW.SALEM.COM t , CITY OF SALEM e PLANNING BOARD Rib B 19 A 10-- FORM 0.FORM A- DECISION CITY 186-190 Marlborough Road On February 18, 2016 by a unanimous vote of seven (7) in favor (Ben Anderson, Carole Hamilton, Noah Koretz, Bill Griset, Dale Yale, Kirt Rieder, and Helen Sides), and none opposed to endorse "Approval under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" for the property located at 186-190 Marlborough Road and shown on the following described plan: "Plan of Land 186-190 Marlborough Road, Salem, MA property of Henrie Realty Trust Marie Gagnon,and Matthew Gagnon,Trustees" dated,November 18,2015. 1. Applicant: Henrie Realty Trust, P.O. Box 431,Topsfield,MA 01983 2. Location: 186-190 Marlborough Road (Map 10, Lot 32) 3. Description: Map 10, Lot 32 is to be divided into Lot 1,Lot 2, and Lot 3 each parcel with a frontage on Marlborough Road. A Waiver from Frontage was also granted by the Planning Board on February 18, 2016 to allow 50 feet of frontage on each lot instead of the required 100. Deed of property records in Essex South District Registry. Sincerely, Ben J.Anderson Chau Cc.: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk • i@DCITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD FEBjoib 22 H! - ; CITY CLE;?h. Form C—Decision Definitive Subdivision Decision, Stormwater Permit, and Cluster Residential Development Special Permit Clark Avenue (Map 6 Lots 7, 8 and 9) February 22, 2016 Serafini, Darling and Correnti, LLP C/o Attorney Correnti 63 Federal Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE: Decision of the Clark Avenue Subdivision—Form C (Map 6, Lots 7, 8, and 9) On September 17, 2015, the Salem Planning Board opened a Public Hearing for a proposal submitted by NSD Realty Trust (hereafter referred to as "applicant') to allow the • construction of a roadway to serve twenty-six (26) residential lots on Clark Avenue, Assessors Map 6, Lots 7, 8, and 9. The public hearing for the Definitive Subdivision, Form C and Cluster Residential Special Permit was continued to October 15, 2015. At the October 15, 2015, public hearing the Salem Planning Board opened a Public Hearing for the proposal of a Stormwater Permit to allow for activity that results in a land disturbance greater than one acre of land within the City of Salem for the subject subdivision. The Cluster Residential Special Permit and Stormwater Permit were continued to the November 19, 2015, December 3, 2015, December 17, 2015, January 7, 2016, January 21, 2016, February 4, 2016, and February 18, 2016. At the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on February 18, 2016, the public hearing for the Form C-Definitive Subdivision, Cluster Residential Development Special Permit, Stormwater was closed and the Board voted Seven (7) in favor, (Ben Anderson, Matt Veno, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Carole Hamilton, Dale Yale, and Noah Koretz) none opposed, to approve the project. Furthermore the Board finds that all standards for the issuance of the Special Permits has been met by the Owner and that the Plan is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and would not result in a net negative environmental impact. The Board finds that the subdivision meets the purposes of cluster residential development because the plan is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance to protect and promote health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city and will not result in a net negative environmental impact. The Board • finds that the subdivision meets the purposes of residential development because it promotes the more efficient use of land in harmony with existing natural features. Clark Avenue Subdivision February 22,2016—page 2 of 11 • The Board recognized that the building lots created and the buildings to be constructed thereon may have dimensional controls and density regulations varying from those otherwise permitted by the ordinance or by-law and the approvals are subject to the allowing conditions and waivers and/or relief: 1. Conformance with the Plan a. Work shall conform to the set of plans containing sheets 1 through 11, entitled, "The Woodlands", and prepared by Williams and Sparages, 189 North Main Street, Suite 101, Middleton, MA 01949, dated August 17, 2015, and revised September 4, 2015; November 10, 2015; December 7, 2015; and January 22, 2016 and the landscaping plans entitled, "Clark Avenue Entry Perspective" and `Entry Planting Plan" dated December 2, 2015 prepared by LeBlanc Jones Architects, Inc. 2. Endorsement of the Plans a. 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. Prior to endorsement of the plans, the following items must be submitted for approval by the Planning Board: i. A covenant to secure the construction of ways and installation of municipal • services, including required description of mortgages and assents of mortgagees. ii. Acceptable form of grants of easements, if applicable. iii. 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 Essex South Registry of Deeds. 3. Amendments a. 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 approval of the Planning Board. 4. Subdivision Regulations a. 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. 5. Waivers • a. In approving the Plans, the Board is hereby granting the following waivers of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations: Clark Avenue Subdivision February 22,2016—page 3 of 11 i. Section IV A.4.a: Maximum Length of Dead-end Streets is waived to allow a • length of 1089.03 feet based on the requirement for the installation of sprinkler systems in the dwellings. ii. Section IV A.Lf.: Minimum centerline radii of two hundred thirty feet for a curved street. iii. Section IV: Right of way improvements which require street trees to be 3.5 inches caliper, 30 feet on center, in place thereof allow 2 trees per lot. iv. Section IV A.2.a.: Minimum width of sidewalk for a minor/deadend street 5 feet, in place thereof allow a 4 foot concrete sidewalk with a grass strip of no less than 3.5 feet on each side. b. In the judgment of the Planning Board, the granting of the above waivers is in the public interest and consistent with the intent of the subdivision control law. 6. Transfer of Ownership a. Within five 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. • 7. Security (Section M(B)(5) of the Subdivision Regulations) a. 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. b. 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 the land, and shall state such ways and services shown on the approved plans dated August 17, 2015, and revised September 4, 2015; November 10, 2015; December 7, 2015 and January 22, 2016 shall be provided to serve any and all lots before any lot may be built upon or conveyed, other than by mortgage; and deed; and/or i. Endorsement of Approval with Bonds, Surety or Tri-Party Agreement • Clark Avenue Subdivision February 22,2016—page 4 of I 1 • 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 Engineering Department. 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. ii. Time Frame If such ways and services are not completed within two (2) years of the date of endorsement of the plan, approval of the plan may be rescinded unless an extension is granted by the Planning Board. The Planning Board acknowledges that the timeframe and completion of the entire subdivision is anticipated to be two years, and will not unreasonably withhold extensions. 8. Homeowner's Association • a. The Draft Home Owners Association 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; ii. Ownership and/or maintenance of the trail system and open space (if the open space and trail system are not to be owned by the City of Salem). iii. Ownership and/or maintenance of walls located in the subdivision that are not situated on the lots in the sub-division. b. The City of Salem reserves the right to enforce the responsibilities and requirements of the Homeowner's Association documents. 9. Open Space a. Open Space as shown on the Plans and consisting of approximately 1.95 acres shall be perpetually preserved as open space. The Open Space shall be placed in a corporation or trust owned or to be owned by the owners of lots within the subdivision with provisions for limited easements for recreational use by residents of • the City of Salem; provided that such ownership shall vest the Board sufficient rights to enforce compliance with restrictions imposed by the Board as a condition of its Clark Avenue Subdivision February 22,2016—page 5 of 11 • Cluster Special Permit. The easement documents shall allow for passive, non- motorized recreation and shall empower the City at its discretion, to make improvements to the trail system. b. The open space shall be opened for public use upon the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the final dwelling or at such an earlier time as mutually agreed to by the applicant and the Board. 10. Salem Conservation Commission a. The applicant shall receive all necessary approvals from the Salem Conservation Commission prior to commencement of any work. 11.Trails a. Prior to the release of the final Certificate of Occupancy, the trail for the open space will be laid, flagged and completed by the Owner. The path shall consist of woodchip surface as it will have the least impact on the natural setting. b. Trail segments will be cleared by manual cutting of brush and tree saplings no greater than a 3 inch caliper to facilitate passage. All materials cut or cleared shall be chipped and left in place. No earthmoving, grading or mowing will occur. Small brush will be cut and dispersed into the underbrush for wildlife habitat value. No tracked vehicles or mechanical equipment (other than chippers, clippers, toppers, and small chain saws • for the clearing) will be employed. c. Signage identifying the open space area is to be installed at the trailheads. Sign design and proposed location shall be submitted for approval to the City Planner prior to installation. 12.Safety Improvements a. The applicant has agreed to paint a crosswalk which will lead from the end of the sidewalk on the northeasterly side of Clark Avenue to the sidewalk on the southwesterly side of Clark Avenue (which continues to the intersection with Clark Street). The exact location shall be approved by the City's Police Safety Officer. b. The applicant has also agreed to paint a center line on a portion of existing Clark Avenue to guide motorists through the bend. The striping and signage shall be installed as shown on the "Proposed Traffic Marking & Signage Plan", dated February 1, 2016, prepared by Williams & Sparages. c. The applicant has agreed to repair the sidewalk as needed at the northerly end of Clark Avenue from the end of the existing granite curbing on Clark Avenue northerly to the intersection of Clark Avenue and Clark Street. d. The applicant shall work with the City and remove a the rock at 1 Clark Avenue and realigning the fence impeding sight distance on Clark Avenue once the City obtains • approval from the private land owner. Clark Avenue Subdivision February 22,2016—page 6 of 11 • 13.Board of Health a. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City of Salem Board of Health. b. The applicant shall provide the City Health Agent the name, address and telephone number of the project manager who will be on site and directly responsible for the construction of the project. c. 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 certifies that the soil and ground water on the entire site meets the DEP standards for the proposed use. d. The developer shall adhere to the drainage plan as approved by the City Engineer. e. The developer shall employ a licensed pesticide applicator to exterminate the area prior to construction, demolition, and/or basting and shall send a copy of the exterminators invoice to the Health Agent. f. The developer shall maintain the area free from rodents throughout construction. g. The developer shall submit the City Health Agent a written plan for dust control and street sweeping which will occur during construction. h. The developer shall submit the City Health Agent a written plan for the containment and removal or debris, vegetative waste, and unacceptable excavation material generated during demolition and/or construction. i. The Fire Department must approve the plan regarding access for firefighting. j. Noise levels from the resultant establishments 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 at the property line. k. The developer shall disclose in writing to the City Health Agent the origin of any fill material needed for the project. 1. The resultant establishment(s) shall dispose of all waste materials resulting from its operations in an environmentally sound manner as described to the Board of Health. m. The developer shall install grease traps, to contain grease in gray water, prior to entering the city sewer system in developments with 10 or more units and in compliance with the requirements of the City Engineer. n. Radon mitigation systems shall be installed. o. The final construction shall comply with all requirements of the Massachusetts State Sanitary code. p. The developer shall notify the City Health Agents when the project is complete for final inspection and confirmation that the above conditions have been met. • Clark Avenue Subdivision February 22,2016—page 7 of 11 • 14.Drainage Infrastructure Improvements a. The applicant shall complete drainage improvements at the intersection of Clark Avenue as depicted on the plan entitled "Proposed Drainage Improvement Plan in Salem, MA" dated December 16, 2015, revised January 27, 2016, prepared by Williams & Sparages. The drainage improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including temporary pavement of the trenches, within ninety (90) days of work starting on the proposed subdivision site. Temporary paving shall remain and be maintained by the applicant, until the proposed subdivision is ready for final overlay at which time all final offsite overlay paving will be performed in conjunction with the final overlay of the subdivision. b. The pavement replacement program applied to Clark Avenue shall consist of I%2 inches of overlay paving per the limits of the Williams & Sparages plan referenced in paragraph a. above. Final grading of the top mix shall promote stormwater conveyance to the newly installed and existing drainage facilities on Clark Street and not cause any issues with existing driveways. Pavement will take place in conjunction with the final overlay being performed within the Woodlands Subdivision. c. If deemed necessary, prior to beginning the drainage improvement work the applicant shall file a Request for Determination of Applicability with the Salem Conservation Commission and a Notice of Intent. . 15.Sewer a. The applicant shall pay One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) to the City for the performance of an Infiltration and Inflow Identification and Removal program for the approximately 2,700 linear foot sewer system to which the proposed subdivision shall discharge sewerage. This $100,000 payment equals a contribution of$3,846.15 per house in the proposed subdivision of 26 homes. b. Payments by the applicant to the City shall be made in accordance with the following schedule: i. $ 25,000.00 payable prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first house lot; ii. $ 25,000.00 payable prior to the issuance of a building permit for the eighth house lot; iii. $ 25,000.00 payable prior to the issuance of a building permit for the sixteenth house lot; and iv. $ 25,000.00 payable prior to the issuance of a building permit for the twenty- fourth house lot. • Clark Avenue Subdivision February 22,2016—page 8 of 11 • 16.Fire Department a. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City of Salem Fire Department, including temporary access during construction. 17.Building Inspector a. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City of Salem Building Inspector. 18.Lighting a. Street lighting shall be in conformances with the plan dated August 17, 2015, and revised September 4, 2015; November 10, 2015; December 7, 2015 and January 22, 2016. b. Street lighting installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Electrician. Street lights shall be outfitted with LED bulbs. The street lighting shall be the responsibility of the Applicant until such time as the City accepts the street. c. The Owner shall coordinate with the electric company and the City Electrician regarding the installation of street lighting within the Subdivision. 19.Noise • a. HVAC units shall be sufficiently buffered and the applicant shall take steps to further mitigate noise emanating from HVAC units if the Board of Health receives any complaints. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the guideline for reviewing such noise is that the broadband sound level should not increase by more than 10 dB (A) above the ambient levels measured at the property line. b. The method of screening HVAC units shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to installation. 20.Pre-Construction Conference a. 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. 21.Construction Practices a. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: i. All construction shall be carried out 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. Clark Avenue Subdivision February 22,2016—page 9 of 11 • ii. No work shall commence before 8:00 AM on weekdays and Saturdays. No work shall continue beyond 5:00 PM. There shall be no work conducted on Sundays or holidays. Inside work of a quite nature may be permitted at other times. iii. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday — Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. There shall be no drilling or blasting, or rock hammering on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. iv. The pre-blast survey shall be extended to include the existing subsurface drain. V. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on abutters. Advanced notice shall be provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to commencement of construction. vi. All construction vehicles shall be cleaned prior to leaving the site so that they do not leave direct and/or debris on surrounding roadways as they leave the site. vii. 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. viii. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site must be completely located • on the site. ix. A Construction Management Plan and Construction Schedule shall be submitted by the applicant to the Building Inspector for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Including in this plan, but not limited to, shall be information regarding how equipment will be stores, a description of the construction staging areas and its location in relation to the site, and where the construction employees will pack their vehicles. 22.Blasting a. The applicant or argent shall distribute the flyers entitled, "Facts for Massachusetts Property Owners about Blasting" to all abutters within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the blasting area. 23. 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. 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. • Clark Avenue Subdivision February 22,2016—page 10 of 11 • 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. 24.Progress Reports a. Upon the request of the Planning Board, the owner shall submit reports of the progress of the subdivision's completion. 25.Clerk of the Works a. A Clerk of the Works shall be provided by the City, at the expense of the applicant, his successors or assigns, as it deemed necessary by the City Planner. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties acknowledge the Project shall be subject to controlled construction, which requires oversight by licensed engineered and architects. Accordingly it is the understanding of the Board, the City Planner and the Applicant that the Clerk of the Works is expected to oversee and review all civil/site improvements related to the project located within the public way, including all utility connections to publicly owned infrastructure. It is also mutually understood that the expense associated with the Clerk of the Works shall be for a reasonable number of hours and at a customary rate of service. • b. The applicant shall submit a construction plan to the City Planner each season, prior to starting work. c. The construction plan will be incorporated into the Clerk of the Works Task Order. No work shall start prior to an approved task order for these services. 26.Utilities a. The applicant shall have an engineer certify the utility plans for review by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any Building permit. The utility plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Office of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. b. All utilities shall be installed underground. c. A plan for sidewalks shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. d. The applicant shall install concrete sidewalks with vertical granite curbing throughout the subdivision, according to the approved plans. e. Any utility installation for housing lots shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. • Clark Avenue Subdivision February 22,2016—page 11 of 11 27.As-built Plans a. 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. 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 the final Certificate of Occupancy for the subdivision and/or the acceptance of any streets. 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 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. 28.Violations a. Violation of any condition contained within this decision may result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board. • 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 is 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 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 and plans are on file with the City Clerk and a copy is on file with the Planning Board. Sincerely, Ben J. An 2)rhair Salem Planning Board i CITY OF SALEM • PLANNING BOARD ij�JAN 7P ID U• 99 NOTICE OF MEETING �;: 1_ ; ,CIT.YiK' SA L; i You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will be holding a Public Hearing on Thursday, February4,2016 at 7.00pm at CityHall Annex, Room 313, 120 Wa hington St., Salem,MA Ben Anderson, Cbair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULAR AGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC Description: REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCEof a public hearing until February 18, 2016 for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, • Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use oDistrict in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning CO) Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review,Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay b CL District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated 0 m U with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, die applicant requests ay con Special Permit per Sec. Sec 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story CN M �_ arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests Q3 amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A v v Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground 0 C level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be 0 @ v amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place -p on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to wconstruct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a Ln od a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the co comer of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. o AN C N �� V i— U to N City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for February 4,2016 Meeting Page 2 of 3 • B. Location: 7 HOWARD STREET (Map 35, Lot 180) Applicant: HOWARD STREET NOMINEE TRUST Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the conversion of a convent into six (6) residential dwelling units with six (6) parking spaces on the adjacent property by an easement. C. Location: CLARK AVENUE (Map 6,Lots 7, 8, and 9) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations and a Cluster Residential Development Special Permit per Sec. 7.2 Cluster Residential Development of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roadway to serve twenty-six (26) residential lots, and a Stormwater Permit in accordance with the Salem Code of Ordinances Sec. 37. D. Location: 11 HERBERT STREET (Map 35,Lot 320) Applicant: BLUE WATERS VERO, LLC Description: The Planning Board will discuss and vote to consider consent to allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to hold a public hearing for all parties interested in the reapplication of BLUE WATERS VERO, LLC, seeking Special • Permits from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two- Family Residential Structures and a Variance per Sec. 5.1 Off- Street Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling unit to a two-family dwelling unit and associated parking at the property of 11 HERBERT STREET (Map 35 Lot 320)(R2 Zoning District). In particular, the Planning Board will consider whether the reapplication for the Variance request has been a specific and material change in the conditions upon with the previous unfavorable action was based. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 21, 2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Location: 50 ST. PETER STREET (Map 35, Lot 179) Applicant: OLD SALEM JAIL VENTURES Description: An insignificant change request to the previously approved Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development, specifically to allow one additional unit in Phase II, increasing the number of units from 13 to 14 units. The additional unit results from a third floor 3-bedroom unit being divided into a 2-bedroom unit and a 1-bedroom unit. The total units would increase from 39 to 40, with the total onsite parking remaining at 36 spaces. Offsite parking will increase from 7 to 8• spaces. There will be no exterior changes g 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 W W W.SALEM.COM City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for February 4,2016 Meeting Page 3 of 3 to the building and the total bedroom count in the project remains the same. B. Deliberate and vote on recommendation for the rezoning of the parcels at 297 Bridge Street, a portion of Beckford Way, and 311 Bridge Street from R2 Residential Two- Family to B-4 Wholesale &Automotive Zoning District. V. ADJOURNMENT Knomyour rights under the Open Meeting Lan/MG.L c. 30A g 18-25 and City Ordinance J 2-2028 througb Jl 2-2033. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 W WW.SALEM.COM ? CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE.978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: January 28, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting — February 4, 2016 Please find the following in the dropbox file: ■ Agenda for February 4, Regular Meeting • ■ Planner's Memo ■ Gateway Center - Continuance Request ■ Clark Avenue Cluster Subdivision - Revised Plans - Seethe Memorandum from Williams & Sparages dated January 28, 2016 for a description of the revisions - Project Engineer's Opinion on previous Traffic Impact Assessment - Plant List ■ 7 Howard Street - Comments from City Departments - Draft Decision ■ 11 Herbert Street - Original Application - ZBA Decision - Reapplication ■ Board Deliberation and Vote on Recommendation to Council on Rezoning of 297 Bridge Street, a portion of Beckford Way, and 311 Bridge Street - Lynn's Presentation from Joint City Council/Planning Board Meeting ■ Old Salem Jail Insignificant Change Request - Timeline of Previous Approvals ■ Draft Minutes . - January 21, 2016 I. Roll Call II. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS City of Salem: Planning Board • Staff Memorandum —01/28/2016 Page 2 of 5 1. 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) The applicant has requested a continuance to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on February 18, 2016. According to the continuance request, the applicant is working with the state to determine the acceptable elevation for the site. The applicant anticipates these plans will be ready in time for the February 18th meeting. CLARK AVENUE (Map 6, Lots 7, 8, and 9) The applicant has submitted revised plans (located in your dropbox) to address outstanding issues discussed at the January 21, 2016 Planning Board meeting. The revised plans have been routed to the City Engineer for review, and I am currently reviewing the plans. I anticipate having a draft decision ready for your review at the meeting. Additional outstanding issues that have been resolved include: Hydraulic Testing • - The City Engineer approved the hydraulic testing results. Access to Open Space Two Sheet 6 of the revised plans show a second path to Open Space 2 that is within the designated open space area. Traffic Mitigation - Williams & Sparages, the project engineer concluded in their dated December 16, 2015 that the 2006 traffic study can be relied on for the subject project. - Per response letter from the applicant dated January 5, 2016, the applicant agreed to safety mitigations which I will incorporate as conditions into the draft decision. Mosquito Control - The previous subdivision decision included a condition from the Board of Health that required "The drainage system for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Northeast Mosquito Control and Wetlands Management District." On October 15, 2015, the Board of Health reviewed the current subdivision application and voted to issue a list of condition. Given that the above condition was not identified in this most recent list of conditions by the Board of Health, I recommend not including • it as a condition in your decision. _ Please be advised that the following waivers are requested from the City of Salem Subdivision Regulations: City of Salem: Planning Board • Staff Memorandum —01/28/2016 Page 3of5 i. Section IV A.4.a: Maximum Length of Dead-end Streets is waived to allow a length of approximately 1,089 feet based on the requirement for the installation of sprinkler systems in the dwellings. ii. Section IV A.1.f.: Minimum centerline radii of two hundred thirty feet for a curved street. iii. Section IV: Right of way improvements which require street trees to be 3.5 inches caliper, 30 feet on center, in place thereof allow 2 trees per lot. iv. Section IV A.2.a.: Minimum width of sidewalk of 5 feet for a minor/dead end street, in place thereof allow 3.5 foot concrete sidewalk in order to allow a grass strip of no less than 4 feet. 2. 7 HOWARD STREET (Map 35, Lot 180) This is a Site Plan Review application to convert an existing convent into six (6) residential units with six (6) parking spaces on the adjacent property by an easement. A Site Plan Review is required in accordance with Sec. 9.5.2(2) of . the Salem Zoning Ordinance. A draft decision is included in your dropbox. 3. 11 HERBERT STREET (Map 35, Lot 320) This is a reapplication of a petition that was unfavorably acted upon by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) within a two (2) year period'. The Board is asked to consider whether there is a specific or material change in the condition upon which the previous unfavorable action of the ZBA was based. If the Planning Board finds that there is a specific or material change, the ZBA will hold a public hearing on the repetitive petition. Your dropbox contains copies of the original application submitted on August 25, 2015, the corresponding ZBA Decision dated September 30, 2015, and the reapplication submitted on December 28, 2015. A summary of said documents is provided herein. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A Section 16, No appeal, application or petition which has been unfavorably and finally acted upon by the special permit granting or permit granting authority shall be acted favorably upon within two years after the date of final unfavorable action unless said special permit granting authority or permit granting authority finds, by a unanimous vote of a board of three members or by a vote of four members of a board of five members or two-thirds vote of a board of more than five members, specific and material changes in the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was based, and describes such changes in the record of its proceedings, and unless all but one of the members of the planning board consents thereto... City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—01/28/2016 Page 4 of 5 Original Application ■ Variance Relief from Sec. 4.1.1 Table Dimensional Requirements for minimum lot area and minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and ■ Sec. 5.1 Off-Street Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling unit and associated parking. Per the petitioner's statement for the Variance request in the original application: ■ The premise is zoned and was previously used as a two-family dwelling. ■ The previous owners converted the residence into single-family dwelling for tax purposes. ■ The dwelling is still divided as a two family, and is separately metered. ■ Should the ZBA not allow relief from the zoning requirements, the petitioner will need to convert the two family nature of the existing home into a single- family dwelling which would result in a significant financial hardship. ■ The property would be a single-family home in a two-family neighborhood. . On September 16, 2015, the ZBA made the findings that the project does not meet the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance per the findings that: 1. There are no presented special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building, or structure involved generally not affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not create a substantial and unique hardship to the petitioner as a financial hardship caused by the petitioner does not meet the standard requirements for a legitimate hardship and does not directly correlate with any unique circumstances that especially affect the land, building or structure involved. 3. The desired relief may not be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating the intent of the district or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance. Reapplication: ■ Special Permit pursuant to Sec. 3.3.3 and 3.3.5 for less than the minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —01/28/2016 Page 5 of 5 ■ Variance Relief from Sec. 5.1 Off-Street Parking Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling unit and associated parking. Per the petitioner's statement for the Variance request in the reapplication: ■ The requested relief is a minor variance from the ordinance parking regulations to allow two (2) of the three (3) required parking spaces and does not create an inconsistent use in the residential district. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 21, 2016 IV. Old/New Business 1. Insignificant Change Salem Jail Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review . An insignificant change is requested to the previously approved Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development, specifically to allow one additional unit in Phase II, increasing the number of units from 13 to 14 units. The additional unit results from a third floor 3-bedroom unit being divided into a 2-bedroom unit and a 1-bedroom unit. The total units would increase from 39 to 40, with the total onsite parking remaining at 36 spaces. Offsite parking will increase from 7 to 8 spaces. There will be no exterior changes to the building and the total bedroom count in the project remains the same. A timeline of the previous approvals is located in your dropbox for reference. 2. 297 BRIDGE STREET (Map 26, Lot 635), a portion of BECKFORD WAY (Map 26), and 311 BRIDGE STREET (Map 26, Lot 618) Deliberate and vote on recommendation to City Council for the rezoning of the parcels at 297 Bridge Street, a portion of Beckford Way, and 311 Bridge Street from R2 Residential Two-Family to B-4 Wholesale & Automotive Zoning District. Lynn's presentation from the joint City Council/Planning Board meeting (with notes) is located in your dropbox. Further information will be provided under a separate cover. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS � T o DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND • �c; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE;978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM To: Planning Board From: Lynn Duncan, AICP, Director Cc: Amanda, Chiancola,Staff Pla ner Re: Universal Steel site rezoning Date: January 29, 2016 In response to questions raised at the public hearing and follow up questions from Planning Board members, I offer the following information: • 1. Spot Zoning—You should receive the legal opinion from Beth Rennard, City Solicitor,over the weekend as to why this rezoning is not spot zoning based on case law. 2. Classification of the proposed use—Tom St. Pierre, Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement Officer, has determined that the proposed use is classified as"sale and storage of building supplies". You will receive his determination under separate cover. This use is allowed by right in the B4 zoning district. I note that this use is not allowed in B2. 3. NRCC—From the City's Zoning Map you can see that the NRCC zoning district was not extended to the south section of Bridge Street past the proposed Gateway Center site other than the existing Webb's site. This section of Bridge Street was not rezoned as part of the process and the 1965 zoning of R2 was maintained. Across from the Universal Steel site,while rezoned to NRCC, there are no developable parcels as the land is owned by the MBTA. (link- htto://www.salem.com/sites/salemma/files/uploads/zoningmaa pdf) Not discussed at the public hearing is the fact that the NRCC district allows a diverse mix of uses by right. In addition to one and two-family dwellings,the following uses are allowed by right: laboratories engaged in research, experimental and testing activities; manufacturing of biotechnology and pharmaceutical products, including fabrication, assembly and finishing work; operation and expansion of existing business if in compliance with performance standards set forth in Section 8.4.3.0, and light manufacturing of products other than biotechnology and pharmaceutical. II I have been asked whether the proposed use is consistent with the NRCC Neighborhood Master Plan. The Master Plan recommends residential development in scale and character with the . historic neighborhood on this section of Bridge Street, noting that some of the older homes on Federal and Essex are large and recommending consideration of options for condominium units with similar footprint and massing. As discussed above, there was no rezoning in response to the Master Plan for this south section of Bridge Street, other than Webb's. It is critical to note that when the Master Plan was completed in 2003, we did not know that residential use would be prohibited on the Universal Steel site, which could have changed the Plan recommendations. While the Webb proposal is not consistent, a parking lot is also NOT consistent with the NRCC Master Plan. Webb's proposal does comply with design guidelines in the NRCC zoning that buildings be located on the street edge. The Planning Board could certainly work to improve the design of the building and site through the site plan review process 4. Land disposition process—As I noted at the public hearing, I would expect Council to vote on the rezoning at the same time and consistent with its other votes on the project. If favorable, the City would execute a Land Disposition Agreement(LDA)with Webb's(Sun King LLC)that controls what is built on the site. The land would not be actually sold until they have all their permitting in place. If Webb's does not proceed for whatever reason, the City still maintains ownership of the parcels, and could choose to rezone. S. Additional zoning questions— a. Could the project be permitted through ZBA variances? The City does not allow use • variances so this could not be permitted under R2. Also, since the non-conforming use of Universal Steel has been abandoned for more than 2 years, it cannot be permitted as a change of a non-conforming use. b. Could the parcel be rezoned to B2 and the applicant seek a height variance? With the determination that the use is best classified as "sale and storage of building supplies", B2 is no longer a viable approach because this use is not allowed in B2. c. Could restrictive covenants regarding uses be placed on the parcel? This could not be done through rezoning. d. Could the project be done as a PUD?—R2 zoning does not allow PUD. e. Clarification on fast food drive-throughs—It is worth underscoring that certain uses that concerned the neighborhood, such as fast food drive-throughs, could only be permitted through a special permit from the Planning Board with a detailed traffic impact analysis required. Further, there are specific performance standards that are required (see Section 6.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.) 6. How is safety ensured during construction given the existence of contaminants in the soil?-The LSP from Alliance Environmental, who is working on the proposed Webb site for the applicant, will attend the City Council hearing on February 4th to describe the safety plan put in place when working on a site such as this. I will try to get this information in advance for the Planning Board. I also note that EPA through its TOSCA division tightly controls the way the construction work will be allowed to proceed. EPA is currently reviewing the proposed plan. -2- T,. CITY OF SALEM LEGAL DEPARTMENT 93%VAsHINGPON STR=— ♦SALEM,MnssncHusam 01970 Tr-2-978-745-9595.rmc 978-744-t279 KimBERLEY DRII;com ELIZADETTi RENNARD,rsQ. VicroRIA CALDWELI.,rsQ. MAYOR CITY SOLICITOR ASST.CITY SOLICITOR brennard@sA=.com vcaldwell@salem.com To: Salem Planning Board cc: Salem City Council C� From: Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. Date: February 1,2016 Pursuant to a request from the Chairman of the Planning Board,set forth below is a legal opinion relative to spot zoning and the proposed rezoning of 297 to 311 Bridge Street. • Issue.Does the proposed rezoning of 297 to 311 Bridge Street from R2 to B4 constitute "spot zoning"? Facts. City proposes to rezone 297 through 311 Bridge Street from R2(residential 2 family)to B4(business highway). These parcels have been zoned R2 since the adoption of the 1965 codification of the zoning ordinance and map.The parcel at 311 Bridge Street,an automobile sales and service station,is owned by a real estate affiliate of F.W. Webb.The parcel at 297 Bridge Street,the former site of Universal Steel,was acquired by the City of Salem through a tax taking. A portion of Beckford Way located between 297 and 311 Bridge Street is also proposed to be rezoned to B4. The property at 297 Bridge Street has undergone environmental remediation to address PCB contamination on the site,at a cost of over$3 million,paid for by a combination of funding from the Federal Environmental Protection Agency(EPA),the City,Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(DEP) through a creditor's trust fund, and a loan from MassDevelopment. The remediation conducted and the activity use limitation (AUL)on the site do not allow for residential development unless finther substantial remediation is conducted. Following the cleanup performed by EPA,the City paved 297 Bridge to provide temporary commuter parking during the construction of the MBTA parking garage. This garage opened in late 2014.The lots to be rezoned front on Bridge Street and are located directly across from commercial freight rail • lines which lie in front of a dog park and pedestrian walkway at Leslie's Retreat Park.To the rear of the lots,facing Federal,River and Beckford Streets, are multi and single family dwellings which are part of a local historic district(the parcels to be rezoned are not within the district, except for 2007 square feet located at the rear adjacent to 30-32 Beckford Way). Within 500 feet in either direction from the parcels,the properties fronting on this section of Bridge Street include small businesses, specifically auto sales,auto repair and carpet sales.In examining the building permit records for these sites,the majority of these businesses were erected or remodeled by either variance or special permit • after 1965. In February 2015,the City issued a Request for Proposals(RFP)for the sale of the 297 Bridge Street lot.' The City received one proposal to purchase the site from an affiliate of F.W. Webb, Sun King, LLC. Sun King, LLC proposed to construct a new F.W.Webb facility to replace the existing facility at 293-295 Bridge Street.As reported by the City Planner at the January 26,2016 public hearing,this proposed 40,000 s.f.,two-story plumbing sales and supply business will keep F.W. Webb's business in Salem,maintain 14 existing jobs and provide approximately 8-10 new jobs, add commercial tax revenue, and redevelop an underutilized parcel at 311 Bridge Street. In addition,the City Planner reported that the 1996 Master Plan includes this area as a"focus area"as a part of downtown where economic and institutional development is encouraged. The plan states that economic development goals and strategies are intended to increase economic diversity,preserve and promote existing economic strengths and focus particularly on downtown development and re- development of vacant sites. Specifically, 1. Retain existing firms and attract new business attracted 2. Redevelop vacant public and private sites 3. Determine environmental status of vacant sites 4. Pursue state and federal assistance for environmental cleanup 5. Promote use of programs to encourage cleanup and reuse of sites • At the joint public hearing with the City Council on January 26,2016,residents of the neighborhood to the rear of the parcels to be rezoned spoke in favor of keeping F.W. Webb in Salem,but not in the proposed location. Residents raised concerns of lower real estate values,views of a"box" store from their properties,the development plan's inconsistency with the abutting McIntire Historic District and North River Canal Entrance Corridor zoning,and re-opening of a contaminated site. In addition, three Salem business owners, some of whom are residents also, supported the rezoning as it allows a Salem business to remain in the community,further remediates the site and increases commercial tax revenue. And finally,written comments provided through the City Clerk are attached hereto for your review. Analysis: Illegal spot zoning occurs only where there is "a singling out of one lot for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character,all for the economic benefit of[or detriment to] the owner of that lot,"Lanner v. Bd of Appeal of Tewksbury, 348 Mass. 220, 229(1964)(emphasis added). However, it is acceptable for a zoning amendment to benefit or harm a landowner,provided that the zoning also advances a valid public purpose.See Bd. of Appeals of Hanover v. Hous.Appeals Comm., 363 Mass. 339, 3 61-62(1973)."Once it is established...that the amendments have a substantive relationship to the promotion of the public welfare,the amendments are not, by definition, spot zoning." W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. Cambridge City ' A small portion of the lot was put out for bid separately. Sun King, LLC was the • successful bidder. Council, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 559, 570(emphasis added). Massachusetts Courts have sustained zoning amendments when the change is reasonably related to public convenience and welfare and calculated to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the city."Peters v. City of Wes�fteld,353 Mass. 635, 640 (1968). Massachusetts Courts have determined that the public welfare is furthered when: ➢ A company's presence in the community is to be preserved.Numerous cases illustrate that maintaining a business in the community furthers the public welfare. For example, the Su- preme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held, in Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Inc. v. Reading, 354 Mass. 181, 186(1968), that a zoning amendment that benefited a corporation by allowing them to expand was valid when it offered benefits to the community. Also, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in Raymond v. Building Inspector of Brimfield, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 38 (1975), upheld a zoning amendment of a non-conforming industrial use rezoned from agricultural-residential to industrial as it allowed the company to expand. ➢ The general public receives considerable benefit- tax revenue, services and jobs. Public welfare and convenience is also served when the community receives a benefit in the form of increased revenue, improved availability of services and job creation. In Rando v. Town of North Attleborough,44 Mass.App.Ct.603(1998),the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld a zoning amendment that added commercial land to compensate for losses in such land, in- creased the town's tax base, the availability of retail services and employment opportunities. And, in Lanner v. Board of Appeal of Tewksbury, 348 Mass. 220, 228-229 (1964), the Su- preme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that a zoning amendment was valid where resi- dential property rezoned to business zone provided business services to the community. ➢ Commercial development is achieved.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has found that zoning amendments which encourage development are not spot zoning. See Shannon v. Building Inspector of Woburn, 328 Mass. 633, 636-638(1952) where an amendment of a zoning ordinance changing property from a residential zone to a manufac- turing zone was valid when likely to attract modern manufacturing plants needed by a city. Other cases with similar findings include Barrett v. Building Inspector of Peabody, 354 Mass. 38, 42 (1968) (rezoning residential parcels to business to accommodate new shopping plaza needed for community was valid);Martin v. Rockland, i Mass. App. Ct. 167, 169(1973)and Sullivan v. Acton, 38 Mass.App. Ct. 113, 117(1995)(cases holding that commercial devel- opment is a proper public goal that is appropriately achieved through zoning). Conclusion: City officials have presented facts sufficient to support a finding by the City Council that the pro- posed rezoning promotes the public welfare,and is thus not spot zoning,because it allows commer- cial redevelopment in an old industrial area, conforms to the City's Master Plan, preserves and ex- pands services from a company that has provided plumbing supplies to local contractors in the City for decades, increases the tax revenue through new growth on two underperforming lots historically used for commercial enterprises, creates additional jobs for area residents,retains existing jobs that are threatened,and properly zones a lot that has not been remediated for residential use and would otherwise remain vacant and underutilized. �OAID evil77,7 \ '�' City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet • AN ) Board Q 1 Date Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail I jo1c-r �inhls lo1�c qbf- S '78/-a a! - 'lacy �s�.yizr r-- �� 's c" • • Page of V Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail Page of Meeting Minutes—February 4, 2016 Page 1 of 13 • City of Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 4, 2016 A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts. Chair Ben Anderson opened the meeting at 7:01 pm. Roll Call Those present were: Ben Anderson, Chair, Matt Veno, Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Dale Yale, Noah Koretz and Carole Hamilton.Absent: Bill Griset Also present: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner, and Stacy Kilb, Substitute Planning Board Recording Clerk. Action Item Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET(Map 25,Lot 74)and 44 Boston Street(Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC Description: Continuation of the public hearing for the petition for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and • Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. Sec 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. Chair Anderson advised the applicant has requested a continuance until Feb. 18 2016. ROLL CALL Motion and Vote: Helen Sides made a motion to continue the public hearing to February 18, 2016, seconded by Matt Veno. The vote was unanimous with six (6) in favor (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rieder, • Ms. Yale, Mr. Koretz, Ms. Hamilton, Ms. Sides, and Mr. Veno)and none(0)opposed. Meeting Minutes—February 4, 2016 Page 2 of 13 Location: 7 HOWARD STREET Applicant: HOWARD STREET NOMINEE TRUST Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the conversion of a convent into six (6) residential dwelling units with six (6) parking spaces on the adjacent property by an easement. Att. Scott Grover represents along with Larry Fray. There is nothing further to present but they would like to discuss the draft decision. Motion and Vote: Matt Veno made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Dale Yale. The vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor and none (0)opposed. Chair Anderson clarifies that the applicant has seen this; it has been and some proposed comments have been submitted. Edits: • No questions on conformance with the plan. • Transfer of ownership: edit to the first sentence. Mr. Grover states that the revision was to reflect that would be sold as individual units, but the original wording suggested that the Commission notified of the sale of each unit; this clarifies that it should be notified only if the • building as a whole is sold. • Amendments: n/a • Construction practices: standard conditions • Office of City Engineer: n/a • Fire dept.: n/a • Building commissioner, utilities, Dept. of Public Service, Board of Health, Health Dept, Maintenance: n/a • Rieder comments that there is a duplication with landscaping on 11-c, which is similar to 14-c; the only difference being duration, there is no objection. • Lighting: Mr. Grover explains that no actual lighting plan has been submitted as proposed lighting is limited. The only other lights in addition to the street lights will be lights on the buildings. Locations are indicated along with specs as part of application package. • HVAC: Is proposed for the middle of building, and will be low, not visible from the public way but a trellis or screen would actually draw undesired attention to it. The applicant will screen from the public way if necessary but does not want to be obligated to do so; Chair Anderson requests a site visit walkthrough and adds the wording, "if needed." o Mr. Veno asks if there are abutters who may view the HVAC system from elsewhere other than the public way, and if it can be screened for them. There is a suggestion to remove "from public way" and add, "if necessary at the discretion of the Board." Ms. Sides comments that it is important that an evaluation is done since sometimes screening is worse than the equipment. Ms. Chiancola will do a final inspection and report back to board. • Landscaping: n/a Meeting Minutes—February 4, 2016 Page 3 of 13 • • As built plans: n/a • Violations: n/a ROLL CALL Motion and Vote: Helen Sides made a motion to approve the chances, seconded by Noah Koretz. The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor(Mr. Anderson, Mr. Veno, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder Ms. Vale, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and none (0)opposed. Location: CLARK AVENUE(Map 6, Lots 7,8 and 9) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: A public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations and a Cluster Residential Development Special Permit per Sec. 7.2 Cluster Residential Development of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roadway to serve twenty-six (26) residential lots. Atty Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, Salem, presented for the applicant.Other presenters included: • Rich Williams; Civil Engineer; Williams & Sparages, 189 North Main Street, Suite 101, Middleton MA 01949. • Nick Meninno, president Meninno Construction, 76 Oakville Street, Lynn 01905. Since the last meeting, revised plans have been submitted. Re walkways, tree plantings, sidewalks, etc.: • the applicant has tried to tie in all outstanding issues in this final plan. They have met with the City Engineer to review the offsite mitigation since Bill Ross, who did peer review for the onsite, had concerns that are now addressed. Offsite drainage and pavement issues as well as street work have now been addressed with City Engineer. The original draft decision was made in 2006 so some conditions no longer apply. Rich Williams outlines steps taken since the last meeting, including a lighting design and the addition of street lights, which will be placed 200-225' apart, typical for street lighting. Otherchanges: • Updated plan to reflect open space path material to be mulch. • Revised plan to show 4' sidewalks, the ADA minimum (3.5' was proposed) • Layout and number of street trees have been updated and are described. • Two other plans, including a revised intersection of Clark St. and Clark Ave, have been submitted. There will be additional paving of Clark Ave. and an additional drain on the underside. • A map consistent with the old decision and traffic study of locations of stop signs, which do not exist yet on Barnes Ave.and Barnes Circle, has been proposed. Chair Anderson asks for reasons for condition and revision of stop signs. It was noted in 2007 that there should be stop signs at the intersections of the streets and that they don't exist in this neighborhood and it was agreed that they should be added.The applicant will add one at their intersection as well as a • painted line in the center line of Clark Avenue to the intersection of Clark St. and Clark Ave. to control traffic. Meeting Minutes— February 4, 2016 Page 4 of 13 Chair Anderson asks if there was any agreement on the boulder and Mr. Mennino states that Dave • Knowlton, City Engineer, agreed that he needs to work it out.The applicant will remove the boulder and clean up the site, but a large part of it is on private property. Mr. Knowlton will work with the homeowner as the applicant feels it is more appropriate for a City official rather than a developer to address this with them. Mr. Veno asks about the planned layout of the stop signs, road, and centerline painting, and cites the recent history around center line road striping. People were not aware it was coming and he wonders if residents are aware and approve of this upcoming change. Mr. Correnti says they are not aware. The proposal is based on a sight distance issue on the corner, from the original proposal. Mr. Rieder comments that the applicant had said 40' cross section right of way is imperative; Mr. Correnti replies that this is based the required right of way width as per subdivision codes. Mr. Rieder says it does not align with the minimum tree/lawn strip requirements. Ms. Chiancola indicates that planning staff discussed and reviewed the proposal of the narrower sidewalk and suggested that it not be narrowed to less than 5' as it may not been functional. Other options discussed were a one way sidewalk (on only one side of the development), or a paved sidewalk. Mr. Rieder comments that this issue is one of dimension, not materials, and feels that being a cul de sac, there will be less pedestrian traffic than downtown. Pedestrian sidewalks and the necessity of sidewalks on both sides are discussed. A 4' sidewalk would meet ADA requirements and several board members feel it would be sufficient, given the level of foot traffic and the fact that current sidewalks in the area are overgrown and much narrower than 4', yet still • serve their purpose. Sidewalks on both sides are preferable, even if they must be narrower than 5'. Chair Anderson opens to the public: Mr. Dennis Colbert, 37 Clark St. had submitted a question re street lighting: will it be LED to match the rest of the City.They will be LED lights. Chair Anderson reads a letter from Mr. William G. Miller, Regional Council, into record: Aggregate Industries operates a nearby quarry where blastings may be heard and felt by residents. They would like all deeds for conveyance to include language regarding this. Motion and Vote:Noah Koretz made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Carole Hamilton. The vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor and none (0)opposed. Mr. Rieder comments that the applicant may want to consider cast iron tactile domes at the curb cuts, as the plastic ones are easily damaged by snowplows. (Tactile domes are the sets of bumps placed at curb cuts and the edges of train platforms). The Chair opens to the public again and Ms.Joyce Kenney comments that she has felt the tactile domes at Salem State, on a corner. Draft conditions: • Meeting Minutes—February 4, 2016 Page 5 of 13 • • Some items require approval from the City Engineering Dept.; they have been verbally discussed with the applicant but will need to be confirmed. • A landscape plan is not included but will be identified • Conformance with plans: n/a • Endorsement of plans: n/a • Amendments: n/a • Subdivision regulations: n/a • Waivers: #4 will be added for the width of the proposed sidewalk to be waived from 5' to 4' rather than 3.5'concrete, with grass strip a of 3.5' • Transfer of ownership: n/a • Security: n/a • Endorsement of approval with comment: n/a • Endorsement of approval with binds: n/a • Timeframe: 2 year limit • Homeowners Assoc: Ms. Yale asks if there is the intention of the city to take over the trail or open space. This is not the intent of City, but usually falls upon the homeowners association. • Open Space: n/a • Conservation Commission: n/a • 11b Trails: Mr. Rieder asks about the caliper size of trees in the trail to be removed; the applicant will defer to the board and it is decided that 3" is an acceptable size. • Safety improvements: Mr. Rieder recommends adding the address of a certain rock. Ms. Chiancola thinks it is 1 Clark Ave. but will verify and add the address. Logistics of its removal are • discussed and it is reiterated that the City Engineer will follow up with the homeowner and the applicant. • Board of Heath: n/a • Drainage infrastructure improvements: The applicant has met with the City Engineer to discuss conditions; Ms. Chiancola still requires the exact language from the Engineer. • Sewer: Mr. Correnti states that this entire paragraph (14C) can be removed. Mr. Mennino states that it was previously agreed that the developer would pave intersection of Clark Ave. and Clark St. up to the corner. However, in a meeting with Dave Knowlton,they agreed to pave all of Clark Ave., including up to Woodland Rd., not stopping at the granite curb. Thus, this paragraph is redundant and will be removed. • Fire dept: n/a • Building inspector: n/a • Lighting: A condition will be added to indicate that this will be LED lighting; Mr. Rieder and Mr. Veno suggest wording. o Logistics of the lighting are described and discussed, along with timing of its design re certificates of occupancy. o #C under lighting does not make sense for street lights so will be removed, as lights are meant to light the right of way; light spilling onto private property is unavoidable. o The Commission has concerns about the timing of the development and installation of the lighting; the applicant is concerned about the wording, which indicates that lights must be installed rather than simply a plan being submitted, reviewed and approved prior to construction. Having lights installed prior to construction is not a condition that . the applicant has seen before, and is very burdensome. National Grid also has a say in where, how and which types of lights can be used, so the applicant is at their mercy. Meeting Minutes—February 4, 2016 Page 6 of 13 Timing and sequencing are further discussed. Chair Anderson suggests inspection for • safety prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. • 16: Fire Department access is again discussed as homes may be occupied before the cul-de-sacs are built; it is determined that temporary access is required during construction so this is added to the conditions. • Noise: n/a • Preconstruction conference: n/a • Construction practices: n/a • Time constraints: n/a • Blasting:Though not related to public comment, it is related to construction.The whole area will be blasted before any homes are occupied. • Construction traffic: n/a • Progress reports: n/a • Public works: n/a • Utilities: n/a, though Mr. Rieder asks why sidewalk and curbing falls under utilities. This is perhaps because they involve the City Engineer. Sidewalks are already on the plans. • As built plans: n/a • Violations: n/a Mr. Rieder comments that the landscape plan is not included but must be referenced. Ms. Chiancola comments on the changes in the plan and Mr. Rieder states that they must be part of the set, or, as indicated by the applicant, referenced in the document. Ms. Yale asks if it is possible to add language about blasting as requested in the letter from Aggregate; • Atty Correnti states that they would not find that condition acceptable; he has never seen an abutter request such conditions. This goes public input, and Aggregate is seeking deed restrictions which would impair the developer's ability to market the property. The Commission agrees that having such deed restrictions in the Registry would be highly irregular and would not include it as a condition. It is up to buyers to review the map. Noah Koretz made a motion to continue the public hearing to February 18, 2016, seconded by Kirt Rieder. The vote was unanimous with six (6) in favor (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Koretz, Ms. Hamilton, Ms. Sides, and Mr. Veno)and none (0)opposed. Mr. Correnti states that the applicant has nothing further to present, and will look for a revised decision from the Board with the above changes. He clarifies that the public hearing has been closed, which it has. Location: 11 HERBERT STREET(MAP 35, LOT 320) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: The Planning Board will discuss and vote to consider consent to allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to hold a public hearing for all parties interested in the reapplication of BLUE WATERS VERO, LLC, seeking Special Permits from Sec. 3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures and 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two- • Family Residential Structures and a Variance per Sec. 5.1 Off- Street Parking Meeting Minutes—February 4, 2016 Page 7 of 13 • Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of a single-family dwelling unit to a two-family dwelling unit and associated parking at the property of 11 HERBERT STREET (Map 35 Lot 320)(112 Zoning District). In particular, the Planning Board will consider whether the reapplication for the Variance request has been a specific and material change in the conditions upon with the previous unfavorable action was based. This item is heard after Howard St. George Atkins at 59 Federal St. represents for the petitioner. He had asked if sufficient Board members were present; all but one member of the Board must be present. 8 members constitute a "membership" and he will require 7 votes for this matter. This is a rare presentation. He outlines the procedure as allowable under statute 40A. It is summarized in a memo by the City Solicitor's memo summarizes. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) denied a petition in September, but Mr. Atkins feels that a number of errors were made both in the form of the presentation, and in the presentation itself. It was originally presented as a request for variances, whereas he feels a special permit is more appropriate as this is a nonconforming lot, but the use is allowed. Normally, a petitioner would not be able to present to the ZBA for another two years, but in this case, since a different relief is being requested, Mr. Atkins would be able to present to the ZBA before the two year prohibition, provided he is approved by this Board first. The statutory procedure requires this Board to approve "specific and material changes" in the new petition so that Mr. Atkins can go before ZBA again to present the same. Errors in the previous presentation to that Board also allow or permit him to go back within two years, as supported by case law. • Mr. Atkins describes the property as a house off of Derby St., built-in 1850. It is an R2 zone in a 2960 square foot lot, and the building has a footprint of 1000 square feet. It is currently being used as a single family home, but the petitioner would like to convert it to a two-family, on two floors, thus there is no change in footprint. However, a "change of use" requires 7500 square feet per unit, and that is not achievable in this case. Three parking spaces are required as well; that is possible but two of them must be tandem, hence his presentation to this Board. The statutory procedure requires this Board to approve specific and material changes in new petition so that he can go before ZBA again to present the same errors in presentation to Board also allow/permit him to go back within two years, as supported by case law. The original presentation had some errors and omissions: The original application before the ZBA had indicated that there would be four parking spaces, all in tandem, and a very small passageway between the parties. Two plans were presented, one for three parking spaces and one for four, the latter of which was marked "preferred." Omitted were the facts that: • The owner would create two condo units, allowing control over parking • Each unit would be very small, under 500 square feet,thus designed for single people or a young couple starter home, so the number of parking spaces would not increase. • Support from the neighborhood (via a petition) was brought in, and the rationale was that this is one of the few locations that has off street parking, a benefit. • Meeting Minutes—February 4, 2016 Page 8 of 13 Ms. Chiancola clarifies the timeline and what has occurred so far.The Planning Board must now decide if • this petitioner has submitted sufficient information showing "specific and material changes" to be made to the project. If there are specific and material changes, the petitioner may resubmit to the ZBA within the two-year period. Mr. Rieder observes that the number of spaces is irrelevant; the configuration is such that cars will have to pull in and back out into the street no matter what. Mr. Atkins states that the ZBA thought four spaces would result in very narrow area between the house and cars. Ms. Chiancola asks him to outline specific material changes. Mr. Atkins reiterates that he is now requesting a special permit rather than a variance. Mr. Veno opines that this doesn't affect parking but Mr. Atkins disagrees, since that was the majority of the petition. Specifically,the only proposal submitted shows three parking spaces with two being tandem. Ms. Yale asks for clarification and Mr.Atkins outlines the setup of the three spaces in question. Mr. Veno asks about the prior, unfavorable ruling from the ZBA. It is unclear whether they ruled as they did on the "preferred" setup of four spaces or the "alternate" of three. This, then, is a change of requested relief. Chair Anderson states that this originally was a two family home when built, became a single family, and the petitioner would like to make it a two family again.The Building inspector has seen the property and did confirm that it was originally a two family. Ms. Hamilton asks about parking and the reasoning for denying the variance, and wonders if this is a • substantial change to the application that now satisfies the requirements. Atty Atkins thinks it does and outlines the requirements for a variance, which are higher than those for a special permit. Mr. Rieder comments that the material change is the reduction from four parking spaces to three, however, he notes that the petitioner will still have to pave over an area sufficient for four cars, so there could still be four spaces. He suggests instead leaving the fourth space unpaved. Ms. Yale notes that approval from this Board will only allow the petitioner to appear again before the ZBA, not that they will necessarily be granted relief. Atty Atkins reminds the Board that the ZBA will also have to agree to allow him to present again, then must consider the issues. He would like the opportunity to give a more fair presentation. Mr. Rieder comments that it would help him to NOT show a car next to fence but closer to Street in his illustration, since it runs counter to Atty Atkins' argument. He will change this. Chair Anderson opens to the public. Mr. Elliot Shea of 10 Herbert St. is in favor of the project, stating that the off street parking the project would provide is a "bonus"for local residents,as parking violations in the area is not enforced. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Matt Veno, seconded by Dole Yale, and passes unanimously with all(7)in favor and none(0) opposed. • Meeting Minutes—February 4, 2016 Page 9 of 13 • Mr. Veno asks about current area of proposed parking. Mr. Shay outlines. Mr. Rieder asks about a tree in the area; Mr.Shay indicates that it does not interfere with the driveway. It is unclear who owns it. ROLL CALL Motion and Vote: Dale Yale made a motion to to approve the project as showing specific material changes related to the request for a special permit vs. variance for two family, as well as specific material changes for the requested relief from the variance for tandem parking, and also a substantial change from evidence presented at original ZBA meeting, thus the petitioner should be allowed to appear before ZBA prior to 2 years. The motion is seconded by Matt Veno but does NOT carry with six (6) in favor (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Veno, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Koretz) and one (1) (Ms. Hamilton)opposed. Approval of Minutes January 21,2016 Regular Meeting Minutes No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Motion and Vote: Carole Hamilton made a motion to approve the January 21, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes, seconded by Helen Sides. The vote was unanimous with all(7)in favor and none (0)opposed. Old/New Business • Location: 11 HERBERT STREET(MAP 35, LOT 320) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: An insignificant change request to the previously approved Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development, specifically to allow one additional unit in Phase II, increasing the number of units from 13 to 14 units. The additional unit results from a third floor 3-bedroom unit being divided into a 2-bedroom unit and a 1- bedroom unit. The total units would increase from 39 to 40, with the total onsite parking remaining at 36 spaces. Offsite parking will increase from 7 to 8 spaces. There will be no exterior changes to the building and the total bedroom count in the project remains the same. Here for the applicant is Mr. Joe Correnti of 63 Federal St. He states that this has been a successful project; now this is phase 2, with the building approved to be built but not yet built.The 13`h or top unit was supposed to be a three bedroom 2,145 square foot unit; they would like to change it as it may not be as marketable as previously thought. It is an extra unit requiring extra parking. It is a PUD, so parking is determined by this Planning Board; there will be onsite parking and parking passes in the municipal garage within 500' of the site will be purchased and is allowed under zoning. This is an internal change only, as they need 14 units up from 13.The Board has no questions. Motion and Vote: Matt Veno made a motion to approve an insignificant change request, seconded by Helen Sides. The vote was unanimous with all(7)in favor and none(0)opposed. Meeting Minutes—February 4, 2016 Page 10 of 13 • Deliberate and vote on recommendation for the rezoning of the parcels at 297 Bridge Street, a portion of Beckford Way, and 311 Bridge Street from R2 Residential Two-Family to B-4 Wholesale & Automotive Zoning District. The Board has received a new public comment which cannot be read into the record as public hearing has been closed, and also the Chair reminds public that there can be no more comments from those present for this reason. Chair Anderson opens to the Board and comments that he has thoroughly examined the request and condition for rezoning. Not all comments from the City Council hearing were related to the rezoning, so he is trying to consider only those that were relevant. In looking at this site, related specifically to the rezoning request with the understanding that that the site is a vacant lot not generating revenue,that it is in residential district but has not been used as a residential property, and it was commercial/industrial until 1965, he notes that there is a fair amount of precedent. He personally feels the site does merit a change in zoning. Lynn Duncan arrives at 8:5113M. Chair Anderson outlines his concerns: • Building size and orientation, specifically related to loading and accommodation to residents • Architectural design • Scale • Quote for remediation • Contaminants on site • However, he personally feels that the Licensed Site Professional (LSP) and other professional's onsite will follow procedures so as to design the project well in relation to the safety of the neighborhood and future users, re issues specifically related to rezoning. He is also confident that this Board can address the concerns of the neighbors voiced in the City Council meeting. Mr. Veno outlines his comments and concerns: • This may be considered "spot zoning" and whether or not it is allowable. This was addressed by the City Solicitor and he feels confident that it is not illegal spot zoning and would hold up in court. • The state of property, with its legacy of industrial use, contaminants, and status as Brownfield site, make it inappropriate to be zoned residential and developed as such. • The current use as a parking lot is not in the best interest of public welfare, and the proposed use is the most appropriate. • The plan is consistent with the NRCC master plan. However, that plan indicates the revitalization of this area as residential, but either the planners were not aware of or did not consider the condition of the property that make it not developable as a residential property. Chair Anderson comments that residential development could be done but the cost would be prohibitive. Mr. Veno feels that the benefits to the City and merits of the petition provide real value to the City re its commercial tax base. He reiterates that it will also meet the more specific requirements of the NRCC master plan. He also agrees that all of Chair Anderson's concerns re the impact on the • Meeting Minutes—February 4, 2016 Page 11 of 13 • neighborhood as brought up at the Public hearing can be addressed by this Board. For all those reasons, he is not only comfortable but enthusiastic that this is the way the project should go. Mr. Koretz agrees with Chair Anderson and Mr. Veno, and states that he believes the applicant did not present a design that was"conceptually appropriate" and that they should seriously consider doing that. He believes it does not make sense to keep the site residential. He is generally in favor of the project, but to the extent that last week's comments were actually about zoning, there is a valid concern that if the area is rezoned as requested and the deal falls through, what is allowed to be built as-of-right may not fit in with the neighborhood. He wonders if, in that case, this Board could again rezone the area, not necessarily back into residential, but perhaps R2 or another category less objectionable to the abutters. Ms. Sides wonders if, that would be necessary since in that case, the next petitioner would have to undergo the same scrutiny anyway. Ms. Sides feels that this location on Bridge St. is very important to different Contractors; if they moved to another suggested location it would move their business. She would not approve the building as presented, and wishes they could include Design Review, but that is beyond the scope of this Board as the board does not provide the scrutiny that the DRB provides. She notes that topography is working in our favor, and the building will not be jammed up against people's houses and feels the imagery presented that showed that was extremely misleading and unprofessional" she was insulted by it. She understands what true perspective looks like and its value. Also another issue was the public way. Ms. Sides is enthusiastic about the zoning change, as a business belongs on that corridor, and Zoning should also be changed on Bridge St. Neck. Mr. Rieder asks about the flood zone as compared to that of the Gateway site. Many comments and suggestions at last meeting led him to itemize questions re contamination mitigation and its effect on construction techniques. Flood and construction techniques speak to height, and in an R2 sone a 35' tall structure could be built but contamination forces that off. The petitioner is asking for 35'. Parking falls under site plan review but segues into the issue of right-of-way and the disposition of Beckford Way. The City can let go of the public way and cede to being used by another. (9:05 on recording) Public access can be maintained either through ownership by the City or some other way. Mr. Rieder asks if this Board can condition its approval on design or site plan review, but that is beyond its scope. Chair Anderson indicates that, if the project makes it thru City Council AND this Board's recommendation is positive, it can have those discussions, but the Planning Board is not being asked to review it this evening. Lynn Duncan reiterates that this Board can only make a decision on zoning alone. If the current plan does not move forward, the Planning Board would still be in favor of revisiting the issue of determining the most appropriate zoning district for that parcel, provided it remains in City Control. That comment can be added. Further Discussion: • Wording should be included to indicate the reasons the Board supports this change, including the public benefit to acknowledge why it is not spot zoning. Meeting Minutes—February 4, 2016 Page 12 of 13 • Design review may not explicitly be part of any condition, however Mr. Veno feels that a • statement should be included that when/if this project comes before us for site plan review, given the public hearing circumstances, this Board would likely include design review as part of that process. • Ms. Yale comments that this Board can address issues such as noise, buffering of views, etc. and she feels Webb would be amenable to suggestions and will want to enhance the building on the corner. • Mr. Rieder mentions the omission of discussion re maintenance of public access to the site, which could be molded through site plan review. Ms. Duncan states that it is not part of zoning but is a requirement of the RFP (Request for Proposals). Vehicular and pedestrian access must be maintained but are not part of rezoning. She also says that in terms of process, assuming votes are favorable and the petitioner can move forward, it would allow the Mayor to enter into a land disposition agreement that would hold Webb's to those requirements stated in the RFP, such as price and public access easement (which may change during site plan review). The City would make sure that when the transfer of deed was done, that access and utilities easement would be put in place. Mr. Rieder agrees but states that continued public access would be another positive (#8) bullet point to add to the list.That would address the fear of"walling off"of Beckford way. Ms. Duncan says provide public access to the rear of 30 and 32 Beckford. Also Veno says replace "old" with "historically." Ms. Yale says clarifies that this was historically an industrial area, not "historic" in that sense of the word. Matt Veno made a motion to recommendation approval of the rezoning from R2 Residential Two-Family to B4 Business Wholesale and Automotive for the following parcels: 297 Bridge Street(Assessor Map 26, Lot 635), a portion of Beckford Way(Assessor Map 26), and 311 Bridge Street(Assessor Map 26, Lot 618) because the proposed project promotes the public welfare for the following reasons: It allows commercial redevelopment in a historically industrial area; (2) conforms to the City's Master Plan; (3) preserves and expands services from a company that has provided plumbing supplies to local contractors in the City for decades; (4) increases the tax revenue through new growth on two underperforming lots historically used for commercial enterprises; (5) creates additional obs or area residents 6 retains existing bbs that are threatened 7 ro erl zones 1 f , ( ) gl . ( )p p V a lot that has not been remediated for residential use and would otherwise remain vacant and underutilized; and(8)maintains public access between Beckford Way and Bridge Street. The motion is seconded by Carole Hamilton and carries with all(7)in favor(Mr.Anderson, Mr. Veno, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and one (0)opposed. Other: Pam will no longer be recording minutes, so the Chair recommends a thank you gift. Meeting Minutes—February 4, 2016 Page 13 of 13 • Several Commissioners have commented on public presentations; Chair Anderson would like to put that topic on a future agenda so it cannot be discussed at this meeting. Items for discussion would include criteria for format, policies and procedures.This item will be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Rieder asks about how to move forward re tactile dome pavers and comments that many other cities require cast iron. The vacant Planning Board slot will soon be filled. Adjournment Motion and Vote: Dale Yale made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Helen Sides. The vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr. Anderson, Mr. Veno, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and none (0)opposed. The meeting ends at 9:26 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://www.salem.com/node/2186/minutes/2016 Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb, Substitute Recording Clerk • Approved by the Planning Board on 02/18/2016 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A § 18-25 and City Ordinance § 2-2028 through §2-2033. CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 20I6 FEB I l P 12: 59 FllF j, PITY CI_Ef 'K. 5:1' 7i. 1's.AL:5. February 9, 2016 Old Salem Jail Ventures, LLC C/o Joseph Correnti, Esq. 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 50 St. Peter Street, Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Decision of Planning Board to grant a Request for Insignificant Change — To allow one additional unit in Phase II, increasing the number of units from 13 to 14 units. The Salem Planning Board met on Thursday, February 4, 2016 to discuss your request for the approval of an Insignificant Change to the previously approved Site Plan Review and Planned Unit Development Special Permit to allow one additional unit in Phase II, increasing the total number of units from 13 to 14 units. The Planning Board voted by a vote of 7-0 in favor; Mr. Anderson (Chair), Mr. Veno (Vice • Chair), Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Mr. Koretz, Ms. Hamilton and Ms. Yale and none (0) opposed, to grant the approval of the Insignificant Change to allow one additional unit in Phase II, increasing the number of units from 13 to 14 units. The additional unit results from a third floor 3-bedroom unit being divided into a 2-bedroom unit and a 1-bedroom unit. The total units would increase from 39 to 40, with the total onsite parking remaining at 36 spaces. Offsite parking will increase from 7 to 8 spaces. There will be no exterior changes to the building and the total bedroom count in the project remains the same. This determination shall become part of the record for this project If you require further information, please contact Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner, in the Department of Planning& Community Development at(978) 619-5685. Sincerely, Ben J. Anderson, Chairman Salem Planning Board • Cc: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk feeCITY OF SALEM rLANNING BOARD 101h FEB _1 A 8: 59 V=SLE ;e Site Plan Review Decision 7 Howard Street(Map 35, Lot 180) February 9, 2016 7 Howard Street Nominee Trust 343 Essex Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: Site Plan Review-7 Howard Street On Thursday, January 21, 2016, the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing regarding the application of 7 Howard Street Nominee Trust for a Special Permit pursuant to Section 9.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, Site Plan Review, for a six-unit • residential development located at 7 Howard Street (Map 35, Lot 180). The project includes the renovation of the existing structure on 7 Howard Street (a former convent building) into six residential units, and associated parking on the adjacent property by easement. The Public Hearing was closed on February 4, 2016. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on February 4, 2016, the Board voted by a vote of Seven (7) in favor (Chair Ben Anderson, Vice Chair Matt Veno, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Noah Koretz, Carole Hamilton, Dale Yale) in favor and none opposed, to approve the application as complying, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the Plan a. Work shall conform with the Site Plan entitled, "Proposed Site Plan for 7 Howard Street and 26 St. Peter Street Located in Salem, Massachusetts,"prepared by LeBlanc Survey Associates, Inc., dated December 24, 2015, Site Plan entitled, "7 Howard Street Site Plan" prepared by Seger Architects, Inc., dated December 31, 2015 and Elevations prepared by Seger Architects, Inc., dated December 30, 2015. 2. Transfer of Ownership a. In the event of the transfer of the site as a whole, within five (5) days of such transfer, 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. 1 3. Amendments • a. 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. b. Any waiver of conditions contained within shall require the approval of the Planning Board. 4. Construction Practices a. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: b. All provisions in the City of Salem's Code of Ordinance, Chapter 22, Noise Control, shall be strictly adhered to. c. 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 construction of the project. d. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday-Friday between 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. Blasting shall be undertaken in accordance with all local and state regulations. e. 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. 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 left overnight at the site must be located completely on the site. 5. Office of the City Engineer a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer. b. The applicant shall schedule a building inspection (internal and external) and required dye testing with the city engineer (city consultant to perform the inspection and testing) to a.) confirm sewer service is connected correctly to the sewer main in the street, and b.) confirm roof drain, and/or basement sump pumps, from building are not connected to sewer. c. Applicant shall correct any deficiencies found from the inspections and testing. d. Applicant shall internally inspect the sewer service leaving the building to confirm it is in good working condition and can accommodate the proposed flow. • 2 e. Applicant shall review tv inspection video with city engineer and make any upgrades or improvements necessary to ensure the service is in good condition. • f. Applicant shall inspect the condition and pipe material of the existing water service. If the pipe is found in poor condition, or not copper material, the applicant shall replace the existing water service, from building to the water main in the street, with copper pipe that is sized correctly for the proposed building water-use. g. The applicant shall submit plans of the 6 proposed parking spaces to the City Engineer and the Building Inspector to determine compliance with prevailing standards for entry and exit provisions, curbing and drainage, per city ordinance 38- 62. 6. Fire Department a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Fire Department. b. The building shall be equipped with a full automatic fire sprinkler system. 7. Building Commissioner a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Building Commissioner. 8. Utilities a. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the • issuance of a Building Permit. 9. Department of Public Services a. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Department of Public Services. 10. Board of Health and Health Department a. All work shall comply with the requirements of the Salem Board of Health and Health Department. b. Adequate trash storage must be provided based on the number of units and collection frequency. 11. Maintenance a. Refuse removal, ground maintenance and snow removal shall be the responsibility of the applicant. "Refuse removal" includes recycling, which shall be the responsibility of the owner, his successors or assigns. The owner shall provide adequate facilities to ensure all users are able to recycle their trash. Owner is to enter into a contract with a company of the owner's choice to arrange pick-up of recyclable material. A copy of this contract is to be submitted to the City Engineer. • b. Winter snow in excess of snow storage areas on the site shall be removed off- site. 3 c. 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. 12. Lighting a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way. b. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. HVAC a. If an HVAC unit is located on the roof, the City Planner will inspect the installed equipment and report back to the board after the site inspection. If the Planning Board determines it is necessary to visually screen the equipment based on visibility from the abutting property lines and/or visibility from the public right of way, the method for screening the unit, including colors and materials, shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 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. As-built Plans a. As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy. 16. Violations a. Violations of any condition shall result in revocation of this permit by the Planning Board, unless the violation of such condition is waived by a majority vote of the Planning Board. • 4 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. I 7 Ben J. Anderson Chair • 5 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 20Ib FEB —9 A 8: 59 Reapplication CITYG'LGfti . :;`,i 11 Herbert Street(Map 35, Lot 320) February 9, 2016 Blue Waters Vero, LLC 65 Salem Street Woburn, MA 01801 RE: Reapplication— 11 Herbert Street On Thursday, February 4, 2016 the Planning Board of the City of Salem opened a Public Hearing regarding the application of Blue Waters Vero, LLC for the Planning Board to consider • whether the reapplication for the Variance request has been a specific and material change in the conditions upon with the previous unfavorable action was based. The Public Hearing was closed on February 4, 2016. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held on February 4, 2016, the Board voted by a vote of Six (6) in favor (Chair Ben Anderson, Vice Chair Matt Veno, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Noah Koretz, Dale Yale) in favor and one (1) opposed, (Carole Hamilton)to approve the application. Given that one member was absent and one member opposed the approval,the petition is denied. Ben J. Anderson Chair • 1 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1016 FEB -9 A 8: 59 Report to City Council r 11-E r CITY CLEPAK S'r',L EE. February 9,2016 At its meeting on February 4, 2016 the Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the rezoning from R2 Residential Two-Family to B4 Business Wholesale and Automotive for the following parcels: 297 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26, Lot 635), a portion of Beckford Way Assessor Ma 26 and 311 Bride Street Assessor Ma 26 Lot 618 because the proposed-project ( P ), g ( P ) P P P 1 promotes the public welfare for the following reasons: (1) It allows commercial redevelopment in a historically industrial area; (2) conforms to the City's Master Plan; (3) preserves and expands services from a company that has provided plumbing supplies to local contractors in the City for decades; (4) increases the tax revenue through new growth on two underperforming lots historically used for commercial enterprises; (5) creates additional jobs for area residents; (6) retains existing jobs that are threatened; (7) properly zones a lot that has not been remediated for residential use and would otherwise remain vacant and underutilized; and (8) maintains public access between Beckford Way and Bridge Street. • The Planning Board voted, seven (7) in favor (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Veno, Ms. Yale, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Sides, Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Koretz) and none opposed, to recommend the proposed zoning amendment with the above listed findings. In making this recommendation, the Planning Board made note of the following: • If the proposed project does not proceed, the Board would be supportive of revisiting the issue of what the most appropriate zoning district is for these parcels. • The Board acknowledged that they have issues with the design as shown in the renderings by the applicant. However, the Board is confident that they will be able to address said issues during the Site Plan Review process. • The Board noted that although the NRCC Master Plan envisioned residential development for this site, residential development is not allowed on these parcels and a business is appropriate for this corridor. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please feel free to contact Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning& Community Development, at 978-619-5685. Yours truly, f • Ben J. Anderson, Chair CC: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD tole JAN l9 p 3: 31 �rnt� NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board and the Salem City Council will be holding a Joint Public Hearing on Tuesday,January 26,2016 at 6:30pm at City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington Street Ben Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. ACTION ITEM A joint public hearing with the City Council on the proposed rezoning of the former Universal Steel site at 297 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26, Lot 635), a portion of Becldord Way (Assessor Map 26), and the former Alpha Auto site at 311 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26, Lot • 618) from R2 Residential Two-Fanilyto B-4 Wholesale &Automotive Zoning District. III. OLD/NEW BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT Knowyaurrightswider tlxOpen M"LawMGL. c30A418-25 and Cay Ordirenx§ 2-2028through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Off ici�I BulleAN tin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 2016 at 3:ao p)-4 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS o DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Lynn Duncan, Director DATE: January 20, 2016 RE: Joint Public Hearing —January 26, 2016 • This joint public hearing with the City Council is on the proposed rezoning of the former Universal Steel site at 297 Bridge Street(Assessor Map 26, Lot 635), a portion of Beckford Way (Assessor Map 26), and the Alpha Auto site at 311 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26, Lot 618)from R2 Residential Two-Family to B-4 Wholesale & Automotive Zoning District. 297 Bridge Street is a vacant underutilized parcel that was formerly used by Universal Steel to store and process scrap metal, and was recently remediated through a lengthy coordinated process with multiple agencies. The portion of Beckford Way that is proposed for rezoning is an unimproved narrow parcel of land. It is located between 297 Bridge Street (formerly Universal Steel) and 311 Bridge Street (formerly Alpha Auto). The subject properties are within the R2 zoning district. The R2 zoning district allows, for the development of single-family, two-family residences, child care, agriculture, education, religious purposes and a golf course by right. However, according to the Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) recorded on the property deed, residential and institutional uses, including lodging house, day care, and nursing homes are inconsistent with maintaining a condition of no significant risk, which means that these uses may not occur on the property. • Please refer to Section 3.1 of the Salem ZoningOrdinance for a complete list of use regulations in each Zoning District. City of Salem: Planning Board Memorandum —01/20/2016 Page 2 of 3 • ,Rezone 3 parcels from R2:to 134 jr" I M id f 4 � Without rezoning, there is no viable reuse of the site. The City has been clear • throughout the cleanup and public meeting process that the City's intent was to redevelop this blighted, old industrial site into a commercial use and put it back on the tax rolls. Rezoning is necessary in order to accomplish that goal. In February of 2015, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP)for the sale of the former Universal Steel Site. The RFP notes that the City will work with the proposer to rezone the property to a zoning district appropriate for the proposed development. The City received only one response to the RFP from Sun King LLC, an affiliate of the F.W. Webb Company. The proposal is for a retail showroom, office, and warehouse for F.W. Webb Company. The City has been working with F.W. Webb Company to find another location in Salem to expand their business for several years, but has not been successful. As discussed above, this proposed development is not allowed under R2 zoning, but is allowed under 134. Please see the following two presentations for more detailed information on the redevelopment of the site and the proposal from F.W. Webb Company: hftp://www.salem.com/sites/salemma/files/uploads/universal steel informational prese ntation 01062016.pdf hftp://www.salem.com/sites/salemma/files/uploads/fw webb presentation to council is n 6 2016 O.Pdf • City of Salem: Planning Board Memorandum—01/20/2016 • Page 3 of 3 There will not be a vote of the Planning Board on January 26 on the rezoning. After the close of the public hearing, the Planning Board has 21 days to vote to make a recommendation to Council. • r- City of Salem Notice Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and City Council January 26,2016,6:30 P.M. The Planning Board will hold a joint public hearing with the City Council on Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 6:30 P.M.in the City Council Chambers,.City Hall, 93 Washing- ton St., Salem, MA in accordance with Chapter 40A,Section 5, of the Massachusetts General Laws for the Purpose of amending the City of Sa- am Zoning Ordinance by rezoning the following properties: the former Universal Steel she at 297 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26, Lot 635), a portion of Beckford Way(Assessor Map 26),and the former Alpha Auto site at 311 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26,Lot 616)from R2 Residen- be[ Two-Family to B4 Wholesale i & Automotive Zoning District. The purpose of the public hearing is to 4 provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the pro- posed amendment. The complete text and map of the i proposed amendment to the Zoning ! Ordinance are on file at the office of the Department of Planning&Com- munity Development, City Hall An- nex,120 Washington Street,Salem, ; Massachusetts,and are available for inspection during regular business hours. Ben Anderson,Chair I SN-1/12.1/19/16 Planning Board i City of Salem Notic6 �d ry• Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and City Council January 26,2016,6:30 P.M. ,o+ The Planning Board will hold a o, joint public hearing with the City Council on Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 6:30 P.M.in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washing- ) - ton St., Salem, MA in accordance with Chapter 40A,Section 5, of the Massachusetts General Laws for the r, purpose of amending the City of Sa- -r•: lem Zoning Ordinance by rezoning ,I the following properties:the former1 acl Universal Steel site at 297 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26, Lot 635); a portion of Beckford Way(Assessor, Map 26),and the former Alpha Auto pn site at 311 Bridge Street (Assessor, Map 26, Lot 618)from R2 Residen-1, tial Two-Family to B-4 Wholesale ,r;• & Automotive Zoning District. The, purpose of the public hearing is to r- , provide interested parties with an ai- opportunity to comment on the pro-`. ..,- posed amendment. The complete text and map of the J,. proposed amendment to the Zoning • Ordinance are on file at the office of the Department of Planning&Com- , munity Development, City Hall An- nex, 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts,and are available for •„' inspection during regular business •h, hours. Ben Anderson,Chair Planning Board j _ SN,-1/12.1/19/16 y: k CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1016 JAN 12 A 9� 52 V I L E t CITY CLE,71,K, City of Salem Notice Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and City Council January 26, 2016, 6:30 P.M. The Planning Board will hold a joint public hearing with the City Council on Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 6:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington St., 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 following properties: the former Universal Steel site at 297 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26, Lot 635), a portion of Beckford Way(Assessor Map 26), and the former Alpha Auto site at 311 Bridge Street(Assessor Map 26, Lot 618) from R2 Residential Two-Family to B-4 Wholesale & Automotive Zoning District. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. • 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. Ben Anderson , Chair Planning Board Ad to Run Dates in Salem News: January 12 and January 19, 2016 This notice posted on "Offi I Bulletin Board" City Hail, Salem, Pwa,s. un lx / A L at 9 5.9 g in accordanc with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Know Your Rtghts under the Opev Meeting Law M.G.L c. 30A§ 18-25 and City Ordinance 5 2-2028 through 2-2033. 10 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ' PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 ' WWW.SALEM.COM City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 26, 2016 Page 1 of 9 • City of Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes Thursday,January 26,2016 A joint public hearing of the Salem Planning Board and the Salem City Council was held on Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. at City Council Chambers, City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. City Council president Josh Turiel opened the meeting at 6:44 pm. Roll Call Those present were: Ben Anderson, Chair, Matt Veno, Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Dale Yale, Bill Griset, Noah Koretz and Carole Hamilton. Absent: None City Council: Arthur Sargent Councilor at Large;Thomas Furey Councillor-at-Large;Jerry Ryan Councillor- at-Large; Elaine Milo Councillor-at-Large; Robert McCarthy Ward 1 Councillor; Heather Famico Ward 2 Councillor; Stephen Lovely Ward 3 Councillor; David Eppley Ward 4 Councillor; Josh Turiel Ward 5 Councillor; Beth Gerard Wad 6 Councillor; and Stephen Dibble Ward 7 Councillor. Also present: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner, Lynn Duncan Director of Community Planning and Development (CPD) and Pamela Broderick, Planning Board Recording Clerk. • Action Item A joint public hearing with the City Council on the proposed rezoning of the former Universal Steel site at 297 Bridge Street(Assessor Map 26, Lot 635),a portion of Beckford Way(assessor Map 26,) and the former Alpha Auto site at 311 Bridge Street (Assessor Map 26, Lot 618) from RZ Residential Two- Family to B-4 Wholesale&Automotive Zoning District. • Director Community Planning& Development slide presentation • Applicant slide presentation President Turiel advised attendees this joint public hearing is focused specifically on the zoning aspects of the parcels under discussion.There is an advance sign-up sheet for the public comment portion of the meeting; individuals who have signed up will be heard from first. He expects the public hearing process on the remaining agenda items to continue beyond this session. The record reflects public comment received in writing to date. Chair Anderson introduced the members of the Planning Board in attendance. Mayor Kim Driscoll addressed the meeting by acknowledging the level of public interest in this project. She offered some background, reminding the Council and Board this was a brownfield site abandoned by the prior owner with a significant back tax bill. The City was able to seize the property and • subsequently met with the neighborhood to discuss clean-up and temporary use as a parking lot, pending redevelopment. From the beginning, the City plan has been to rehabilitate the property and City of Salem –Planning Board Meeting Minutes–January 26, 2016 Page 2 of 9 then offer it for redevelopment. Many residents at the time of takeover asked for assurances the • parking lot would be temporary. She is dismayed there has been a negative reaction from some citizens with regard to the current redevelopment proposal. She also noted the site would require more investment to bring clean-up to residential use levels. The City wants to be thoughtful about the redevelopment which is why the property has not been put up for auction. The Mayor also noted the occurrence of commercial businesses abutting residential lots happens frequently in Salem and is successful. Lynn Duncan, director CPD, presented the technical information with regard to the site and redevelopment proposal.There are three (3) parcels to be rezoned: • Portion of Beckford Way located between Universal Steel and Alpha Auto—not currently paved or maintained. • 297 Bridge Street (formerly Universal Steel now a temporary parking lot) • 311 Bridge Street (Alpha Auto) Previously an industrial site, clean-up efforts on the Universal Steel site date back to 2007; the effort gained strength when the City took over the site in 2012. The temporary parking lot opened in 2014 after the Environmental Protection Agency completed the initial remediation work in September 2013. The City issued an RFP in February 2015 and received one proposal from an affiliate of F.W. Webb for a showroom and office building. Ms. Duncan provided the following overview about the proposed redevelopment and location: • The proposed new showroom is approximately 39-40,000 square feet. • Site is zoned R2, abutting residential buildings. • • Other commercial use businesses not consistent with R2 zoning on the Bridge Street corridor were indicated on a map displayed a slide. • Across the street is the MBTA rail line and Pan Am railyard. Ms. Duncan continued the review by offering a brief overview of the applicable zoning districts: • R2: by right allows residential single family, two-family, childcare, agriculture, education, religious purposes(partial list). • B4: by right allows a bank, professional offices, personal service, restaurant with no alcohol, retail, wholesale warehouse with distribution, vehicle services/sales and and storage building supplies (partial list). She reviewed the process for the Planning Board to provideinput on this matter: After the close of the public hearing the Planning Board has twenty-one (21) days to vote on a recommendation to the City Council or the matter automatically reverts to Council without further discussion. At the Planning Board meeting deliberations will not be open for public comment. Ms. Duncan offered key benefits the City sees to rezoning the parcels: • Keep a long term business/employer in Salem, • Redeveloped, the site will begin generating tax revenue, • Revitalize this section of Bridge Street. Ms. Duncan advised it is not practical to retain the R2 zoning for the Universal Steel site as the deed is restricted by an AUL (Activity and Use Limitation). Residential redevelopment would require extensive City of Salem– Planning Board Meeting Minutes–January 26, 2016 Page 3 of 9 • additional remediation to clean up the site sufficiently to remove the AUL; the economics are prohibitive. Applicant Presentation Atty Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street, presented on behalf of the applicant. He explained that Sun King LLC is the realty arm of FW Webb. • Robert Mucciarone;Treasurer, F.W.Webb • Robert Matvichuk manages the Salem location • Andrew McBeth, president, Greenleaf Construction Aided by a slide presentation, Mr. Matvichuk opened the applicant presentation. F.W. Webb opened in Salem in 1944, moved to present location in early 1950s. The company has always provided building supplies and has grown substantially over the years. Older photos from the company's early days in Salem show the types of adjacent businesses were similar. In the past few years they have done extensive renovations to the interior of the existing building and installed a new roof. Their clientele includes institutions like Salem Hospital and Salem State University as well as tradesmen who service individual families. They have feedback from contractors and homeowners that a showroom is needed—people now want to browse and see examples before committing to the purchase of new fixtures. Current facility has no showroom and very small counter area. Their space limitations create a very inefficient environment as there is no room for more modern materials handling. Adding the new showroom/office space would enable redevelopment of the warehouse facility into a more efficient, modern business. • Andy McBeth, Greenleaf Construction, continued the slide presentation and reviewed specifics of the proposed plans. Highlights include: • First floor 26,693 square feet (13,855 reserved for warehouse/counter and additional 12,838 square feet for self-serve materials access for tradesmen) • Second floor, 13,000 square feet (showroom, office/training for tradesmen) • Showroom/office building is 2 stories high • 5 neighbors are close to existing docks, the docks are moving slightly away from current position. • 3-4 tractor-trailer deliveries per week, 2 are their own trucks • 2 box trucks currently deliver from this location, this will continue • No truck traffic after 4pm or on weekends • Wholesale component of building for contractors who can choose their materials and pay at counter. • Showroom building for customers and contractors; includes training room for plumbers. Council/Board Discussion • Councillor Sargent asked to know when the City would actually see revenue from this project. Concerned about how the cost of additional clean-up will be provided and managed. Clean-up has a substantial impact on. The City's experience with several other sites was to find more extensive clean-up required than initially expected. o Mayor Driscoll indicated the applicant is paying full market value for the site, appraised value is $990,000. It is clear based on conversations with the EPA there may be additional clean-up costs to develop the site; likely to be in the six figure range.The City City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 26, 2016 Page 4 of 9 has a precedent of offering an assist to hold the current tax and defer tax increases over • a period of years to compensate for the additional costs of clean-up rather than reducing the purchase price to include the cost it will take to clean the site, as she prefers to have the money upfront. This would come before the Council for a decision. In this case the City has done substantial investigative work with the EPA and has a fair idea of what is in the ground and where. Mayor Driscoll noted they will never be in a negative with the sale and reminded the Council that the site would be also collecting tax revenue. In addition, there will be covenants and protections in place given that we are a good faith purchaser as a municipality. • Councillor Ryan asked if the loss of current parking spaces and that revenue poses a problem. o Mayor Driscoll advised we have utilization reports for City garages/lots and the MBTA. We are not at capacity excepting busy October weekends and extended snow emergencies last year.The MBTA garage has not been at full utilization other than a few days in October. She also noted the City expects to realize income from this sale that could be used to improve sidewalks and other amenities on this part of the Bridge Street corridor. In 11 months the garage raised approximately$15,000. o Finance Director, Sarah Stanton noted that the $15,000 is prior to deducting the cost of operations and maintenance (striping, cost of kiosks). o Mayor Driscoll noted that a parking lot is not allowed in the R2 zoning. • Councillor Eppley clarified with council president that the focus of this agenda is to address the zoning issues; respectfully suggested other questions related to the project be held until the appropriate time. • Councillor McCarthy asked Ms. Duncan to explain why a B4 zoning is requested not something • else and what is the maximum size allowed for B4. o Ms. Duncan advised the Webb proposal was for rezoning to B4 to allow for wholesale/warehouse. McCarthy asked if this allowed in another zone. o Ms. Duncan confirmed yes,wholesale/warehouse allowed in B2. o Ms. Chiancola confirmed the difference is height; B4 height limit is is 45 feet, B2 height limit is 30 feet. o Ms. Duncan noted the proposed height is 35 feet. • Councillor Milo asked to confirm Design Review Board is not required for B4 projects. o Ms. Duncan concurred; Design Review would be required for urban renewal or NRCC corridor zoning.The Planning Board will conduct a site plan review. • Chair Anderson asked if the rezoning is contingent upon sale of the property. If the deal falls through will the zone remain B4 or revert back to R2? . o Lynn advised the PB will make its recommendation to Council within 21 days. She does not envision a case where the parcel is rezoned and the sale does not go through. Council would be expected to act on zoning/sale issues together. • Mr. Rieder asked to clarify the restrictions imposed by the AUL. It precludes any residential on the site? o Ms. Duncan replied,yes. No residential housing, park,childcare, multi-family, etc. President Turiel opened the meeting to public comment ]speakers called in first come order on the sign-up sheet]: • Lou Sirianni 6 Botts Court; deferred to Josiah Fisk and Vicki Sirianni as they have a slide • presentation. City of Salem –Planning Board Meeting Minutes–January 26, 2016 Page 5 of 9 • • Josiah Fisk 358 Essex Street; concerned about scale of the proposed building for this location. Developed drawings based on publicly available information, offered slides to show mockups of the building from Bridge Street and other angles. Compared the scale of the building to adjacent residences. Also compared the building footprint against surrounding residential buildings. This proposed building footprint is roughly equal to the footprint of all the residences on River Street. Also mentioned HVAC units on the top of the building would be very visible from Federal Street and McIntire District. He spoke to the value of the McIntire District to our tourism. o Councillor Eppley asked for clarification regarding the footprint of the building—asked if Fisk did a comparison of the number of residences against the current Webb warehouse. He also asked if the group had done a study to look at the former Universal Steel building height and footprint. Mr. Fisk replied, no. o Mr. Fisk advised the negatives are not about Webb they have been good neighbors,they are a good company. The objections are based on the specific location they have identified for their new building. o Councillor Dibble spoke to the Fisk drawings and asked for a particular photo to be taken down as it does not correctly represent scale, pointing out the relationship of street lights and other features are distorted. • President Turiel advised comments should be focused on zoning only at this particular meeting. • Vicki Sirianni 6 Botts Court; the proposed building is half the size of Target in terms of square footage. The NRCC extends to this parcel. NRCC allows R2 and NRCC mixed use zoning designation with its own requirements. The NRCC Master Plan has not been discussed in relation to this project. The Plan calls for significant visual elements/improvements, improved • walkability of the neighborhood, residential development in scale and character with the historic neighborhood and buildings of a similar footprint and mass. on the southern edge of the zone. Appropriate light industrial suggested. The Webb proposal as it stands is not permitted within the NRCC per the Master Plan. Additional improved uses for B4 include: fast food, drive- through businesses, motor vehicle body work, motor vehicle sales are other possible uses. Should Webb change their business plan they will have property zoned B4 to put on the market. Spoke against B4 zoning for this parcel as it is inappropriate and incompatible with the NRCC overlay district. This is a zoning plan designed to accommodate a proposal rather than a proposal submitted in accordance with the RFP. Spoke in favor of the long view; it took 100 years to create the urban blight we are cleaning up, 25 years to develop a vision and a plan. • President Turiel advised the public only regular public comment will be heard without aid of projectors. • John Carr; advised the administration has talked this evening for 75 minutes, in addition to a January 6,2016 meeting that did not include public comment. The administration and applicant have been allowed slide presentations. He served on the NRCC committee 2002-2003 to create innovative zoning along the corridor from the train station to the Salem/Peabody line. A professional city planner was hired to serve on this committee, which was subsequently adopted into the Salem zoning code. The Webb facility is currently zoned NRCC, the other two parcels are zoned R2. The proposal from Webb is to put the property in escrow, income is not forthcoming right away. Offered that the movement to rezone these parcels is driven solely by the Webb,proposal which is not the preferred way the City should be doing business. • Darrell Lebovici 122 Federal Street; sent a letter in opposition to the project.This is not the right • plan for this location and it violates the intent of the NRCC Master Plan. This proposal does not City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 26, 2016 Page 6 of 9 belong next to a historic neighborhood. The NRCC was created to facilitate development of • these brownfields parcels in a manner complimentary to the surrounding neighborhoods. • Meg Twohey 122 Federal Street; spoke against the proposal and suggested this is spot zoning which is illegal. The AUL prohibits even the use Webb is planning. This is a highly contaminated site. There is no provision for design review under B2 or B4 zoning. Certainly not the level of review for NRCC zoning. • Carol Carr 7 River Street; her home is approximately 225 years old. This street was initially very run down with buildings covered in asbestos and aluminum siding. In the forty plus years they have lived on the street, the neighborhood has been reclaimed one house at a time. Residents planted the street trees and added flowers/landscaping. She noted the significant change in the North River Canal itself over the past 50 years. She spoke against the proposal as it is incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood; bringing noise, vehicle exhausts and reduced residential property values. • Tim Jenkins 18 Broad Street; slide presentation; Webb has 16 distribution/warehouse/showroom facilities in MA and 11 supply stores. He noted B4 by right zoning limits businesses to no more than 50% wholesale use. The new building is about 2.5 times the size of the current building Webb has. Salem is their only MA location not located in a commercial district. Most of their facilities do not abut residential districts, and most are located adjacent similarly sized facilities. Spoke against this proposal for this location, abutting a National Historic District. • Lynda Jenkins 18 Broad Street; distributed letter from Barbara McCleary; read excerpts into the record against the proposal citing incompatibility with the NRCC Master Plan and the spot zoning nature of the proposal. Zoning changes have long range impact beyond any single owner. . Encouraged the City to work with Webb to find a more appropriate site. • Jan Eschauzier 15 1/5 River Street; bought their home near the blighted part of Bridge Street based on the vision offered by the NRCC Master Plan. Spoke against the proposal to rezone as incompatible with the NRCC Master Plan. Spoke in support of Webb and asked the City to continue to work with them to find an alternate location. Spoke in favor of keeping Beckford Way as a direct link to Leslie's Retreat Park. • Fred Biebershiner; spoke in opposition to the proposal for the site development due to floodplain, 35-foot high building might be higher once elevated. Existing Webb building to be redeveloped how? Parking not available to convert this building to residential or office. City is trading the problem of the Universal Steel parcel for redevelopment of the Webb warehouse. • Lisa Spence Derby Street; read from a letter that she submitted to council which spoke in opposition to redeveloping the parcel. Concerned about uncapping the brownfield on this highly contaminated site. EPA stopped cleaning up the site because they ran out of funding not because it was cleaned up. Soil data from this site is extremely contaminated with high levels of toxic chemicals. Cited multiple clean-up hazards for residents during any construction on the site. She critiqued the estimated clean-up costs in the Webb proposal in great detail and submitted how these costs could balloon substantially; in her estimate slightly over$1 million. • Jim Kearney 1 %: Cambridge Street; spoke in opposition to this proposal for this site as it is not compatible with the NRCC Master Plan. The proposal to rezone this property will damage the health of adjacent residents and the value of their property. • Justin Whittier 10 River Street; spoke in favor of Webb as a Salem employer, and against their proposal for the parcel. The rezoning is incompatible with the NRCC Master Plan. The planned • retail usage in the Webb proposal is not allowed in B4 zoning. B4 allows 80% lot coverage and is City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 26, 2016 Page 7 of 9 designed for small lots and small buildings such as hair salons and mechanics. The zoning will outlast any single site owner; do not give up on the NRCC Master Plan. • Andrew Carr 7 River Street; has a 3D video model demonstrating the dimensions of the proposed building. After discussion among City Councillors, the video was presented. Mr. Carr is opposed to the proposed project based on scale and mass and offered that it is incompatible with the NRCC Master Plan. • Liz Nugent 12 River Street; abutter spoke against the proposal as incompatible with the NRCC Master Plan. Considers the view of the North River Canal, Leslie's Retreat Park and residences something to be preserved.An oversized warehouse is too much for this neighborhood. • Peter Nugent 12 River Street; abutter spoke against the proposal and the change in zoning. Concerned about the flooding that continues to occur on Bridge Street and how that impacts any construction on this site as well as stirring up contaminated soil. Has already lived through the EPA work on the site with hazard notices posted on their house to stay inside on certain days when soil was being removed. Concerned about pipe storage on the property adjacent River Street. • Dan Madigan 14 River Street; spoke favorably of FW Webb as a supplier of specialty products and local employer. Wants an appropriate development of the parcel in question but this proposal is incompatible with the neighborhood and the NRCC Master Plan. Wants to see more of the NRCC Master Plan realized. The adjacent neighborhood is very committed to this vision contributing labor and materials to improve the streetscape. Spoke of the importance to respect the character of a neighborhood. Disappointed in the aggressive vision of the City leadership on • this issue. President Turiel invited members of the public who did not sign up in advance to comment: • Teasie Riley Goggins 9 Wisteria Street; spoke in favor of preserving neighborhoods and against spot zoning. Spoke against rezoning these parcels. • Robert Liani owns Coffee Time Bakery, 96 Bridge Street; spoke in favor of the proposal because Salem should be more than a bedroom community. Bridge Street has been a commercial street for many years. The proposed project is an improvement over Universal Steel. Mentioned the value of having commercial property within the City; pays a higher tax rate and less dependent on City services. Not fair argument to compare residential footprints to a commercial footprint. • Patrick Bulus 16 North Street; spoke in favor of the proposal. None of the recent NRCC projects have been permitted on by right basis. Perhaps the NRCC zone needs review. Spoke in favor of supporting a business that wants to grow. • Dave Vitero of Peabody; a former Salem resident and FW Webb employee now lives in Peabody. He spoke in support of the proposal. • Flora; spoke in support of the proposal because the site cannot be used for residential purposes and wants to see the parcel cleaned up. Hopes the redevelopment of this site will also require City to deal with long-term issues here like flooding and street lights. • Ann Whittier 10 River Street; width of a street and scale are critical in determining the character and neighborliness of a residential neighborhood. Spoke in opposition to the proposal due to the anticipated decline in property values. Also does not want to disturb the cap on contaminated soil. Encouraged FW Webb to move away from the historic flood plain to a better commercial location. City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 26, 2016 Page 8 of 9 Continued Board/Council Discussion: • • Councillor Sargent spoke to the value of long-term planning and vision that preserves neighborhoods and manages growth. We should not change zoning to favor developers over home owners and constituents. To rezone this parcel sends the wrong message to future home owners who may be considering Salem. • Councillor Eppley moved to close the public hearing; there was a procedural discussion about keeping the public hearing open. o City Solicitor Elizabeth Rennard advised the hearing could not be continued to the regular Planning Board Meeting as this is a 'oi int public hearing of City Council and Planning Board. o Ms. Duncan stated this hearing should be closed or continued to a specific time/date for a joint hearing. Public comment at the Planning Board would be illegal as both bodies would need to meet together to continue to hear comment. • Councillor Furey spoke in favor of the project; Salem needs to keep local businesses like Webb. • Councillor McCarthy noted the Planning Board recommendation is unknown, but at that time the Council will have further opportunity for discussion. The zoning decision will not be made until several more steps in the process have been completed. Council has the option to refer the Planning Board recommendation to committee for further discussion. • Councillor Famico observed that when the Planning Board recommendation comes back to Council there will be opportunity for public comment. • Mayor Driscoll spoke with appreciation for the individual comments in support of neighborhoods. Advised this feedback is helpful to the process, the administration supports • neighborhoods as well.There is a need to clarify the zoning.The existing Webb building is NRCC but the sites in question have been R2 since the 1960s. City Solicitor has clarified the proposed change is not spot zoning. The City wants to get the zoning right. Looking for middle ground to be sensitive to neighborhood resident needs and find the best utilization for this City property. Thanked everyone for participating in the first step of the process. • President Turiel read into the record a list of written comment in favor and against the proposed zoning change; he advised this feedback will be available on the City website. Councillor Eppley's motion to close the public hearing was seconded, the vote was unanimous in favor. Councillor McCarthy made a motion to refer the matter of rezoning the referenced parcels from R2 to B4 to the Planning Board for recommendation, seconded by Councillor Furey. The vote was unanimous in favor. Old/New Business None Adjournment President Turiel adjourned the joint public hearing at 10:30pm. City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 26, 2016 Page 9 of 9 For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://www.salem.com/node/2186/minutes/2016 Respectfully submitted, Pamela Broderick, Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 02/18/2016 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A § 18-25 and City Ordinance § 2-2028 through§2-2033. • tl eve CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1016 JAN 21 P 2: r2 NOTICE OF MEETING CITY -f You are lx*=ro frail that the SalemPlamw gBoard zaill b hddinga Joint PuU Hearing on Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington St, Sale7r3 MA BenAndma,4 Chair REVISED" MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street(Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site • Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. Sec 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC:- A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. • This notice posted on "Offic!�tB1�Iletjn04GBoard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. or. N L 00 ZZ at ?!.5 Z?Min accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for January 21,2016 Meeting Page 2 of 2 • B. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: REVISED' The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on February 18, 2016 for a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. C. Location: CLARK AVENUE (Map 6,Lots 7, 8, and 9) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations and a Cluster Residential Development Special Permit per Sec. 7.2 Cluster Residential Development of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roadway to serve twenty-six (26) residential lou, and a Stormwater Permit in accordance with the Salem Code of Ordinances Sec. 37. D. Location: 7 HOWARD STREET (Map 35, Lot 180) Applicant: HOWARD STREET NOMINEE TRUST Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the conversion of a convent into six (6) residential dwelling units with six (6) parking spaces on the adjacent • property by an easement. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January7, 2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Location: 43 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36, LOT 238) Applicant: SKOMURSKI DEVELOPMENT, LLC Description: Planning Board review of architectural plans for the duplex located on Lot 5, in accordance with condition no. 15 of the Decision dated June 24,2015. B. Planning Board Processes Discussion on Planning Board processes including: 1) Submittal of meeting materials; 2) Continuances; and 3) Sequencing of permitting through various boards. V. ADJOURNMENT Kn wyow rights wider the Open Ma�tingLawM.GL. c 30A § 18-25 and City Ordzmrxe§ 2-2028 tlmxigh§ 2-2033. • ?0 W;,Blunt FON STRI rt, S..—ENI, 1rASSA"'x:,. -rS 01970 - PHONh 975,619.5655 Ftk 975.140.0404 • A �aAvs:;t:r•.n�.caA,t 4 CITY OF SALEM. PLANNING BOARD ,NS 201blA� 1U Pb' 1U NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLQ `,1' E You are hereby ra#W that the Salem Planning Board w E be h"ga Joint Public Hearing on Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 7.00pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington St, Salem;MA Ben Andersory Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. REGULARAGENDA A. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street(Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCQ Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. Sec 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story minced-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. This notice posted on "Officia `11 in Board" J • City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AN 9 2016 at &,*14-?J4 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for January 21,2016 Meeting Page 2 of 2 B. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES,INC. Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. C. Location: CLARK AVENUE (Map 6, Lots 7, 8, and 9) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations and a Cluster Residential Development Special Permit per Sec. 7.2 Cluster Residential Development of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roadway to serve twent}-six (26) residential lots, and a Stormwater Permit in accordance with the Salem Code of Ordinances Sec. 37. D. Location: 7 HOWARD STREET (Map 35, Lot 180) Applicant: HOWARD STREET NOMINEE TRUST Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the conversion of a convent into six (6) residential dwelling units with six (6) parking spaces on the adjacent property by an easement. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • A. January 7,2016 IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Location: 43 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36, LOT 238) Applicant- SKOMURSKI DEVELOPMENT,LLC Description: Planning Board review of architectural plans for the duplex located on Lot 5, in accordance with condition no. 15 of the Decision dated June 24,2015. B. Planning Board Processes Discussion on Planning Board processes including: 1) Submittal of meeting materials; 2) Continuances; and 3) Sequencing of permitting through various boards. V. ADJOURNMENT Krrowyour70ts under the Open Mee ingLawM.GL. c 30A § 18-25 and City Ordinance§2-2028 through§ 2-2033. 20 V,M1:.n, .C,n S1'a ct S .E.I , NIASSACx SETIs 01970 - P o.�F3 978.619.=685 FAX 978.740.0404 1 av W\k.SA1,FNr.COM e CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 4 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-74o-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICP DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: January 14, 2016 RE: Planning Board Meeting —January 21, 2016 Please find the following in the dropbox file: • Agenda for January 21, 2016 regular meeting ■ Planner's Memo ■ Gateway Center • o Cover Letter o Revised Plans Submitted Jan. 14, 2016 ■ Almeda Street Subdivision o City Solicitor Opinion dated January 7, 2016 o Department Comments o Memo from City Engineer Re. Water Main ■ Clark Avenue Cluster Subdivision o NECE Second Comment Letter o Applicant Response to Staff Comment Letter ■ 7 Howard Street o Department Comments o Application and Architectural Plans ■ Draft Minutes o January 7, 2016 ■ 43 Bridge Street o Waiver from Frontage and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Decision o Plans I. Roll Call II. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS • p .. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—01/14/2016 Page 2 of 6 • A. 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) The applicant has submitted revised site plans, which are located in your dropbox. A cover letter is also located in your dropbox that outlines the revisions. We are providing Gary Hebert, our Traffic Peer Reviewer, with a copy of these plans. A hard copy of these plans will distributed to you at the meeting. B. ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) This is a continuation of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. According to the applicant, the lots are dimensionally pre-existing nonconforming lots along an accepted public way that is currently unpaved. In response to the documentation submitted by the applicant, the City Solicitor has provided an updated legal opinion dated January 7, 2016 that the lots have not merged. Almeda Street does not contain a water main. The subject property is located approximately 600 feet from the closest water main on Highland Avenue. Wells are proposed to provide water to the subject lots. • I also note that the applicant is proposing to install a drainage pipe and outlet on city-owned land, which will require an easement and approval from the City Council. On December 17, 2015, the Planninlq Board approved the applicant's request to extend the project decision deadline to January 25, 2016. Therefore, the Board must take final action on January 21, 2016, unless the applicant requests a second extension. Status of Department Comments Please find the below summary of the Department Comments. The comments are located in your dropbox for further information. City Engineer On October 20, 2015 the City Engineer requested revisions and clarifications. The applicant has not provided a response to the comments from the City Engineer. On January 14, 2016, the City Engineer provided a memorandum to Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law(M.G.L)Chapter 41, Section 81(U),the failure of a planning board either to take final action or to file with the city or town clerk a certificate of such action regarding the definitive plan submitted • by an applicant within 135 days after such submission, or such further time as may be agreed upon at the written request of the applicant,shall be deemed to be an approval thereof. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum —01/14/2016 . Page 3 of 6 the Planning Director that recommends the project include an extension of the existing water main, as further described in the Memorandum located in your dropbox. Fire Prevention The Fire Department has commented that the proposed project will pose problems in the future due to the distance of the development from the City water supply. According to the Fire Department, a definitive answer to an adequate connection to the city water supply should be answered prior to approval. The Fire Department noted that turning on private property will cause damage to the property. Staff suggests that should the Planning Board approve the project, a condition should be included that requires 1) the property owner to record a temporary easement to allow the Fire Department- to turn around on private property that shall remain in place until Almeda Street is extended, should that occur and 2) for the driveway at 16 Almeda Street be constructed to roadway standards in order to accommodate a fire truck. Board of Health • The Board of Health reviewed the subdivision application at its regular meeting on October 13, 2015 and voted to issue a list of conditions located in your dropbox. C. CLARK AVENUE (Map 6, Lots 7, 8, and 9) A Subdivision and Cluster Development was approved for 25 lots in 2008 (herein referred to as Chapel Hill). The Chapel Hill decision is located in your dropbox for reference. The Chapel Hill decision has since expired. The primary difference between the proposed plan and the Chapel Hill project is the new roadway layout. Updated comments from New England Civil Engineering Corp. (NECE), the peer reviewer of the Stormwater Management Report, can be found in your dropbox. Bill Ross, the peer reviewer from NECE will be at the meeting. The applicant has provided a response dated January 5, 2016 to the staff comment letter dated October 28, 2015. Per Response to Item 4, the applicant is requesting that the completion date of the Infiltration and Inflow Identification (ll Study) to be after the issuance of the first 10 occupancy permits and not prior to the issuance of certificates of • occupancy. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—01/14/2016 Page 4 of 6 • However, the City Engineer recommends that the II Study be completed and approved by the city engineer prior to the issuance on any certificates of occupancy2. The City Engineer also recommends that the decision include include language that the City Engineer must approve the offsite drainage plan, including limits of curb to curb pavement on Clark street, prior to construction. I follow up with you on this issue after I clarify with the City Engineer when this is required. According to the applicant's response letter, the total net open space (between both Open Spaces) is 85,000 sq. ft., which complies with the required 75,054 sq. ft. Staff suggests that a more efficient use of land would be to designate the access trail to Open Space No. 2 as open space, and lay it out in such a way to avoid the need for reconfiguration when the vacant lot is developed. As noted on Sheet No. 1 of 11, the following three waivers are requested: a. Section IV A.11, requires a minimum centerline radii of two hundred thirty feet for curved street. b. Section IV A.4.a., requires a dead-end street to not exceed 500 feet in length, and in place thereof, allow a length of 1089.03 feet. c. Section IV, right of way improvements policy which requires street trees to • be 3.5 inches caliper, 30 feet on center, an in place thereof allow 2 trees per lot. D. 7 HOWARD STREET (Map 35, Lot 180) This is a Site Plan Review application to convert an existing convent into six (6) residential units with six (6) parking spaces on the adjacent property by an easement. A Site Plan Review is required in accordance with Sec. 9.5.2(2) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. No changes are proposed to the building footprint. The exterior alterations are limited to the addition of exterior lighting fixtures, balconies, as shown on the elevations and replace the windows and doors. The proposed landscaping plan delineates new plantings around the site, a lawn area in the south and west yards and the addition to six foot tall wood fence along the perimeter of the side and rear property lines. Three of the six units will have patios, as shown on the landscape plans. New utility connections will be made to the existing utility lines in Howard Street, as shown on the Site Plan. Snow storage is proposed within the four foot wide landscape strip between the parking spaces and the building located at 26 St. Peter Street. 2 01072016 Updated Engineering Comments • City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—01/14/2016 Page 5 of 6 On December 16, 2015, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) approved a Special Permie per Sec. 3.3.3, Nonconforming Structures of the Salem zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming structure and alter it for a substantially different purpose and Variances for relief from Sec. 4.1.1, Table of Dimensional Requirements from lot area per dwelling unit, side yard setbacks and a Variance for relief from Sec 5.1, Table of Parking Requirements to allow less than the required parking spaces subject to the terms, conditions and safeguards set forth in the ZBA Decision dated December 30, 2015. The project has been routed to the City Engineer, Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Building Commissioner and the Fire Department for comments. In addition, a notice of Filing has been given to the City Clerk, Police Department, Department of Public Services, and the School Department in accordance with Section 9.5.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Conservation Commission The City of Salem Conservation Agent determined the project is outside the Conservation Commission jurisdiction. • Fire Department The Fire Department noted that a full automatic fire sprinkler system will be required. The applicant has informed staff that the plan is to install a full automatic fire sprinkler system. Nevertheless, staff recommends including a condition of approval in the decision that requires the full automatic fire sprinkler to ensure compliance with the Fire Department requirements. Building Commissioner- pending comments City Engineer- pending comments Board of Health - pending comments W. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 7, 2016 IV. OLD AND NEW BUSINESS s htto://www.salem.com/sites/salemma/files/uploads/boa 7 howard street stamped decision 12302015.pdf City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—01/14/2016 Page 6 of 6 A. 43 BRIDGE STREET (Map 36, LOT 238) On June 24, 2015, the Planning Board endorsed an Approval Not Required (ANR) to divide the property into five (5) lots for the construction of four (4) single-family homes and one (1) duplex. In addition, the Planning Board approved a Waiver of Frontage Request and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit in accordance with Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. Condition No. 15 of the Waiver from Frontage and Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit Decision states: "The developer shall submit preliminary plans with detailed architectural information for the proposed duplex on Lot 5 to the Planning Board for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Lot 5 is within an Entrance Corridor Overlay Zoning District per Section 8.2 Entrance Corridor Overlay District(ECOD) of the Salem Zoning Ordinance." The applicant has submitted detailed architectural information for review and approval by the Planning Board. B. PLANNING BOARD PROCESSES • Discussion on Planning Board processes including: 1) Timeline and submittal of materials; 2) Discussion on expectations for continuances; and 3) Discussion on the sequencing of permitting through various boards. I am seeking advice from City Solicitor regarding this topic. I will provide you with a supplemental memorandum regarding under a separate cover prior to the meeting. ONInn � \ CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • � DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND s COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMRERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TEL:978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNC.AN,AICP DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM To: Planning Board From:Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner Re: Old/New Business on January 21, 2016 Agenda: Planning Board Processes Date: January 21, 2016 At the Planning Board meeting on January 7w, the board requested that the following Planning Board processes be discussed under Old and New business at the January 21, 2016 meeting: 1) continuance requests; 2) submittal timeline of meeting materials, and 3) the permitting sequence through various boards. In response to this discussion, I have outlined staff recommendations, followed by a policy for your review which is located at the end of this memo. The goal of the draft policy is to institutionalize the guidelines of the Planning Board. I note that the draft policy proposes a flexible process where collaboration with the applicant is proposed rather than rigid requirements. The goal is to ensure that the best possible new development and redevelopment is achieved in accordance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance and Massachusetts General Laws. Continuance Requests The Board suggested a requirement that continuance requests must include an explanation of what will be discussed at the next hearing, and that the agenda specify the topic(s) for discussion. The City Solicitor has provided the attached opinion regarding the continuance requirements suggested by the Board as they relate to the Sunshine Ordinance and Open Meeting Law. According the enclosed opinion from the City Solicitor on this matter, "the description of the matters to be discussed should be broad enough to encompass what the applicant plans to present and any other discussions or presentations that may be needed or planned." This is because the board's discussion is limited to what is posted on the agenda. ' Pursuant to the local sunshine ordinance the full meaningful agenda or subject matter of every open meeting shall • be added and/or linked to the meeting calendar and viewable by the public at least 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting. Further, no meeting or hearing may be held on any matter except pursuant to an agenda posted on the meeting calendar and viewable by the public, as provided in Article XIV. Staff recommends the topic for discussion at the future public hearing be identified in the minutes rather than on the agenda. The draft meeting minutes are usually available on the City website on the Wednesday following the meeting. This would provide transparency, while also allowing the board the flexibility to have discussion outside the specific topic that the applicant identified for the meeting. Policy rather than Requirement Staff recommends that the Board establish a policy that the applicant identify what is anticipated to be presented at the next meeting, as well as an overview of what the project team is working on, including the remaining items that still need to be discussed. This would provide the Board and public with an overview of what is to be expected, while also providing the applicant flexibility. Submittal of Meeting Materials The Board suggested that receiving materials at a meeting, or less than a week in advance, does not provide the board, staff or the public adequate time to review the materials prior to the meeting. While we encourage applicants to submit materials in advance of the meeting, that is not always feasible. When significant new material is presented at the meeting, the Planning Board is not expected to act at that meeting. In addition, you have the option of stating that you reserve the right to withhold comments on the submitted materials submitted until the next meeting. Since a decision would not made in the situation where materials are provided at the board meeting, staff recommends encouraging the applicant to make their best effort to submit meeting materials within a week of the meeting, but not require it. Permitting Sequence The board discussed setting up a default permitting sequence. However, as noted in the attached memorandum from the City Solicitor, the applicant has the legal discretion to determine the order of the permitting process. As such, this matter is not included in the policy below. DRAFT POLICY Staff proposes to work in partnership with the applicant at an administrative level to implement this policy. Staff will contact the applicant of each item on the meeting agenda in advance to request the information outlined herein. • Page 2 of 3 • Continuance Requests If the applicant is going to request a continuance of sa public hearing on the Planning Board agenda, the applicant shall provide the following information as part of the continuance request, to the degree feasible: - The reason for the continuance request - An overview of what the project team is working on - What the project team anticipates will be presented at their next meeting There may be a situation where the applicant plans to present a certain topic, but for reasons beyond their control, they are not prepared to do so. The project team may present an alternative topic if this occurs. In addition, the applicant will not be restricted to only presenting the topics previously identified. Submittal of Meeting Materials The applicant shall make all reasonable effort to submit an electronic copy of all meeting materials at least one week prior to the project's scheduled hearing date so that the material may be included in the Planning Board packet. If materials are anticipated to be submitted later, staff will request that the applicant provide an overview of anticipated material and when it will be received. Staff will also ensure that the applicant • is aware that the Board may choose to withhold comments if they have not had sufficient time to review the new material • Page 3 of 3 u Y��ON`Tq�U'e QTY OF SALEM LEGAL DEPARTMENT -F KIMBERLEY DRIscou 93 WASHINGTON STREET 4 SALEM,MASSAOUSETIS 01970 MAYOR ']IL:978-745-9595 4 FAX-978-744.1279 Elizabeth Rennard,Esq. Victoria Caldwell,Esq. GrySolicitor Asst.Grysoh6tor brennatd©salem.com vcaldweU@salem.com Date: January 21, 2016 To: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner�E� From: Elizabeth Rennard, City Solicitor Re: Open Meeting Law and City Ordinance In response to your inquiry relative to the Planning Board's request to change the current practice of drafting agenda items on public notices to include only the specific topic planned for discussion, e.g. presentation of traffic study for x project" and a phrase "and among other things," I offer the following guidance. First; I have reviewed various Planning Board meeting notices and find that the agenda items listed meet the requirements .of both the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law and the City • Ordinance (attached). As you know, the City Ordinance incorporates the Open Meeting Law and provides more specific requirements relative to public meeting notices. Public meeting notices, posted 48 hours in advance of the meeting, must have a full, meaningful agenda or subject matter items listed. An agenda item that is meaningful is one where it is sufficiently clear and specific to alert a person of average intelligence and education whose interests are affected by the item that he or she may have reason to attend the meeting or seek more information on the item. The current drafting of agenda items meets the definition of a meaningful agenda because the descriptions of the matters to be discussed are broad enough and as specific as possible to encompass what the applicant plans to present and any other discussions, votes or presentations that may be needed or planned. My concern with the proposed change is that there may be a situation where the applicant plans to present a certain study, but for reasons beyond their control, they are not prepared to do so. If the agenda does not include any other subjects described in a "meaningful" way that may be presented or discussed, the Board will not be able to take up any matter except that certain study. The phrase "among other things" would not be deemed to meet the test of describing the discussion in a "meaningful way". This could result in delay and inconvenience for constituents and the applicant. Please also note that the City Ordinance also provides that no board may take final action on any matter except pursuant to an agenda published on the meeting calendar and viewable by the public. Failure to include a matter on an agenda published pursuant to this ordinance shall be grounds for invalidating any public hearing, approval, disapproval or other final action on such matter. 1 hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns. City Ordinance, Chapter 2 • Sec. 2-2028. -Agendas. (a) Except in the event of an emergency, as defined by the Open Meeting Law, the full meaningful agenda or subject matter of every open meeting of the city council, a city board, committee or other multiple-member body, shall be added and/or linked to the meeting calendar and viewable by the public at least 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting. Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall not be included in the calculation of time under this.article. In the event of an emergency, the agenda for such emergency meeting shall be added to the meeting calendar as soon as practicable. A description is meaningful if it is sufficiently clear and specific to alert a person of average intelligence and education whose interests are affected by the item that he or she may have reason to attend the meeting or seek more information on the item. The description should be brief, concise and written in plain, easily understood English. Agendas published in other areas of the website shall be considered "added to" or"published on" the meeting calendar if the agenda is accessible to the public through a website link on the meeting calendar." (b) No public hearing may be held on any matter except pursuant to an agenda published on the meeting calendar and viewable by the public, as provided in this article. No board, committee or other multiple-member body may take final action on any matter except pursuant to an agenda published on the meeting calendar and viewable by the public. Failure to include a matter on an agenda published pursuant to this article shall be grounds for invalidating any public hearing, approval, disapproval or other final action on such matter; except that the following actions may be taken even if the matters are not included on an agenda published on the meeting calendar pursuant to this article: • (1) Decisions by the city council to accept"late-filed"(after noon two days prior to a regular meeting of the city council) ordinances, and "first readings" and referral to committee for such late-filed ordinances; (2) Review of correspondence, including decisions by the city council to reject appointments by the mayor; (3) Decisions about employing consultants to review applications or projects, or to otherwise advise the board, committee or multiple-member body; and (4) Authorization for a department to pay bills that are otherwise lawfully incurred. (c) All meeting agendas shall be maintained on the city website and available to the public through the meeting calendar for at least three years after the meeting. (d) If a computer outage or technical problem occurs, the filing of a paper copy with the city clerk shall be deemed compliance with this article. However, all posting required by this article shall be completed within 48 hours of the restoration of the computer system. (e) Each board, commission or committee shall ensure that all notices and agendas for regular and special meetings shall include the following notice: "Know Your Rights Under the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L.A. c. 39 § 23B, and City Ordinance [Code] sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. • • QTY OF SALEM WJE?,;, 4 LEGAL DEPARTMENT RFS/MiN6D" 93 WAStnNG MNSMET a SALEM MASSACIiUSEM 01970 MEL:978-745-9595 o Fa 978-744-1279 KInmERLtYDRism[t ELrzAaeniRENNARD,EsQ. VicroluAGLD%su, 4 Es . MAYOR CTIYSOLICrrOR ASST.QTY S011aTOR bmnnardd@salem.com waldwell®salem.com July 28, 2015 Salem Planning Board 120 Washington Street Salem,Massachusetts Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board: t am responding to City Planner Lynn Duncan's request for a legal opinion as to whether • an applicant can be required to follow a specific sequence relative to the permitting process; specifically, can the applicant be required to obtain variances from the Board of Appeals prior to submitting a special permit application(s)to the Planning Board. I understand that this question is in response to the filing of a requested amendment of the previously approved special permits issued for the Gateway Center by the Planning Board; and, further, that the applicant will be seeking variances from the Board of Appeals, as well. It is my opinion that the applicant has the legal discretion to determine the order of the permitting process. The Planning Board and Board of Appeals, respectively,have specific legal jurisdiction. The order of the permit review does not diminish either Board's legal authority. Neighborhood concerns will be heard fully by both boards. Any approval by the Planning Board will be specific to its jurisdiction; the Board of Appeals will have full legal authority in regard to any requested variances. Sincerely, Elizabe•b Rennard ��OND1Tg4\ City of Salem — Meeting Sign-In Sheet �n T L O Board ?�NOI R Date CIYI / 1 / 2 ol(o Name Mailing Address Phone # E-mail s + Lffns :366iSdSQ.Linnr� �a UaNyens Q7� jo�'l a,),20 LaaGP-4 de✓x,Car 0,7 l3"cq -N �r2T iS Bivuasf, SailzjOd r �4t _ (e AlECE q 79 h iyl�i ✓C��iLkl�^I/) 4 C r Page of city of Saiem Will ho dlano Board cE Persons interestetl lin the a in for al,' Of 7 HOWARD STREET NO NhEEI TRUST for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Section 9e e t in .Salem Zei oning Ordinance to reflect) the plan for the property loted at: ca 7 HOWARD STREET(Map 35 Lot 180). The applicant proposes tol I convert the existin (6)residential unit 9wdh convent into six j mg spaces on the adjacent property by an easement. The public hearing will be held on Thursday,January 21 2 P , 016 at 7: M,m Room 313,Third Floor at 120' Washington Street in accordance with Ge serer 0 of the chu- 'as application and plans are oe A n file and' available for review during normal business hours at the Department; of Planning&Community Develop meet, Third Floor, 120 Washington) Street,Salem,MA, Ben Anderson,Chair! BN-1/7,1/14/16 Planning Board 0CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 2016 JAN -1 A S. 49 CITY GL€i 1%, S,il._ti, 1•0i-.S5 Public Hearing Notice City of Salem Planning Board Will hold a public hearing for all persons interested in the application of 7 HOWARD STREET NOMINEE TRUST for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Section 9.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reflect the plan for the property located at 7 HOWARD STREET(Map 35, Lot 180). The applicant proposes to convert the existing convent into six(6)residential units with six (6)parking spaces on the adjacent property by an easement. The public hearing will be held on Thursday,January 21,2016 at 7:00 PM, in Room 313, Third Floor at 120 Washington Street in accordance with Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. A copy of the application and plans are on file and available for review during normal business hours at the Department of Planning& Community Development,Third Floor, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. • Ben Anderson, Chau Planning Board Salem News: 1/7/2016 & 1/14/2016 This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JAN 0 7 2016 at f.'0AY in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAx 978.740.0404 WWW,SALEM.COM City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 21, 2016 • Page 1 of 11 City of Salem Planning Board Approved Meeting Minutes Thursday,January 21,2016 A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday,January 21, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts. Chairman Anderson opened the meeting at 7:13 pm. Roll Call Those present were: Ben Anderson, Chair, Matt Veno,Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Dale Yale, Noah Koretz and Carole Hamilton.Absent: Bill Griset. Also present:Amanda Chiancola,Staff Planner, and Pamela Broderick, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Regular Agenda Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET(Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: REVISED*The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on February 18,2016 for a Definitive Subdivision to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. Chair Anderson advised the applicant has requested a continuance to provide time to meet with the City Engineer and prepare an appropriate response to comments.The applicant has also requested an extension of the project decision deadline to February 23. ROLL CALL Motion and Vote: Helen Sides made a motion to continue the public hearing to February 18, 1016, seconded by Dale Yale. The vote was unanimous with seven(7)in favor(Mr.Anderson, Mr. Veno, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and none(0)opposed. ROLL CALL Motion and Vote: Helen Sides made a motion to extend the project decision deadline to February 23,2016, seconded by Carole Hamilton. The vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr. Anderson, Mr. Veno, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and none(0) opposed. Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET(Map 25,Lot 74)and 44 Boston Street(Map 15,Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC Description: A continuance of the public hearing for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: • City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 21, 2016 Page 2 of 11 Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District.The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District(NRCC)Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically,the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. Sec 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use.The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC:A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer.A Special Permit per Sec.6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center,a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. Atty Joseph Correnti,63 Federal Street, Salem, presented for the applicant.Other presenters included: • Two architectural teams: o Chris Semmelink, LEED,AP,The Architectural Team, 50 Commandants Way,Chelsea, MA 02150 o Harry Gundersen,owner,Gundersen Architects,20 Central Street#2,Salem • William Bergeron PE, Hayes Engineering Civil Engineering, 603 Salem Street,Wakefield,01880 • Giles Ham PE,Vanasse&Associates, Inc.,35 New England Business Center Drive Ste 140, • Andover01810 • Traffic Peer Reviewer:Gary Hebert PE,Stantec Consulting Services (FST), 5 Burlington Wods Drive Suite Ste 210, Burlington 01803 • David Sweetser, principal, High Rock Bridge Street, LLC; 70 Walnut Street,Wellesley, MA 02481 Atty Correnti opened the presentation and advised the revisions to the plan being presented tonight do not include building elevations, but do show revisions to the proposed building footprints. Mr.Semmelink presented slides illustrating changes to the site plan and proposed buildings. Highlights included: • Eliminated the corner tower and pass-through arch feature. • Reduced height of the residential/retail building from to four to three stories to comply with current zoning,58 feet high;eliminating two variance requests. • Footprint is slightly bigger to accommodate the units. • Building is situated closer to Bridge Street allowing for better use definition in the parking areas and additional landscaping. • Entrances/exits to the site have not changed. • Raised walkways added in the parking lot to slow down traffic within the site. • Defined outdoor areas for the buildings. • Adding a small number of 3-bedrooms and studios to the use mix, including 1 and 2 bedroom units as the majority of units. • Power lines on Bridge Street will be removed. • Widened pickup aisles to be van-accessible. . City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 21, 2016 • Page 3 of 11 • Moved entrance off of Bridge Street due to the elevation of the site. • Effort to introduce more green space in the parking lot using a variety of treatments. Atty Correnti pointed out the readjustment of the parking fields takes into account different use patterns.The drive aisles have been redesigned to protect the front door of the Community Life Center (CLC). Mr. Sweetzer addressed the Board to announce the residential units will be marketed as condominiums rather than rental units. Apartments are certainly viable but it appears there is a market here for condominiums.There will be a need to implement assigned parking to enable condo sales to go forward. They have consulted local realtors who endorse the decision to market this development as condominiums. Harry Gunderson Associates working on the CLC design, continued the presentation to review changes to the CLC. • Location of the building is the same orientation as previously presented with slight adjustment. • Moved it toward Bridge Street as a result of eliminating power lines,and slightly east. • Added considerable surrounding green space. • Idea of turning the CLC perpendicular to original placement was explored and discarded due to parking and service access to the building, and a priority to keep the Bridge Street entrance as far East/North as possible and away from the Bridge Street elbow curve. Board Discussion of Revised Site Plan: Several Board members commented favorably on the changes and thanked the applicant for responding to feedback. Matt Veno, reminded everyone the NRCC Master Plan looks for an urban village; he hopes for a significant feature in the design process will find a suitable replacement for the tower feature. Looking for how the NRCC vision of an urban village is realized in the revised plan. He is looking for appropriate scale and hopes there will not be a monolithic building here. Traffic Study Peer Review: Gary Hebert,Stantec, presented the traffic peer review. He visited the site on September 22, 2015. He has reviewed this data,the VAI traffic study conducted June 2015 and public comment all compared to the latest revised site plan. Highlights of his review include: • Apartments generate more traffic than condominiums • Am peak hour=92 trips • PM peak hour= 154 trips • Daily 1636 trips • These numbers are all down from the previous site plan. Overall projected trip generation is roughly 55-65% lowertraffic than assumed in 2012 NRCC Study. On-Site Mitigation Recommendations: • How will trucks, including fire, use the site and access the three(3) loading docks;truck access will need to be timed.Applicant needs to respond with dimensions and details. City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 21, 2016 Page 4 of 11 • • Recommends a minor adjustment to parking layout to further reduce cut-through traffic which would make speed humps unnecessary.A landscaped curb bump-out midway on the south side of the parking lot/property line. • Site plan should be updated to show specific locations of these amenities:exterior bike facilities, car share, car charging stations. • Regarding Bridge Street sight lines for the driveway location,the current dimension is 445 feet of intersection sight distance. Keep driveway where it is proposed gives the safest sight line. Off Site Mitigation Recommendations: • Re-time Boston/Flint Streets signal to improve LOS rating from "F'to"D". • Re-time Boston/Bridge Street signal,add count-down pedestrian signal heads and reduce eastbound queues. • Monitor traffic adjacent the site after opening. • Work with City to pursue major enhancements to Boston/Bridge Street intersections and corridors. Ensure design does not preclude possible future Boston/Bridge Street enhancements including possible addition of a third westbound approach lane by designating potential site easement adjacent to north side of Boston Street. o Gateway entrance on Boston Street designed to block Pope Street drivers looking for a cut-through. o Pope/Boston Street crashes slightly below average at 0.47 per year. o Four(4) pedestrian countdown signals planned for the Boston/Bridge intersection. Summary,current plan generates considerably less traffic than the plan that was approved in 2009 for this site. Board Discussion Traffic Peer Review: • Board clarified there is an existing cross walk at Proctor Street that will remain for a total of six (6) pedestrian countdowns. Mr. Hebert agreed. • Board clarified that updated details on site grades will be addressed at a future meeting. Atty Correnti agreed. • Board asked Mr. Hebert if the rear parking lot design will drive traffic to the Boston Street entrance rather than using the Bridge Street entrance.And if so,does this affect traffic counts for Boston Street. Mr. Hebert replied he does not believe the design will cause drivers to favor the Boston Street driveway over the Bridge Street driveway. • Board asked for Mr. Hebert's professional opinion of the adequacy/best practices regarding handicapped spaces for a senior center—are six spaces adequate for this CLC? Mr. Hebert Replied he needs to research details including the planned use/capacity of this CLC before venturing an opinion. Ms. Duncan advised the planning department will also research current information on comparable senior centers. Chair Anderson opened the matter to public comment: • David Eppley 69 Boston Street,Ward 4 Councillor;forthose living West of the intersection,why isn't there an additional crosswalk and signal on the west side of the Boston/Bridge intersection?There are a large number of commuters in this neighborhood walking to the train. City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 21, 2016 • Page 5 of 11 o Mr. Hebert agrees this is an issue and should be addressed as part of a larger plan for this corridor and intersection. He agreed to review the specific question. • Nina Cohen 22 Chestnut Street; pedestrians in Bridge Street crosswalk are not visible to Boston Street traffic turning right onto Bridge Street. Suggested a no turn RED at this intersection. Have visibility studies been done? o Mr. Hebert advised the traffic delays created by limiting this right turn would be substantial.Traffic engineerfor the developer should address this question. o Mr. Semmelink observed the corner visibility will be opened up with removal of the fence and proper landscaping. • Peter Eschauzier 15%: River Street; Proctor Street is supposed to be "no through traffic' as far as Pope Street. Enforcement of this posting would mitigate traffic. o Heather Famico 195 Essex Street, Ward 2 Councillor;stated her understanding that "no through traffic" cannot be enforced.Signage is there as a deterrent only. • Jennifer Firth 3 Carpenter Street; asked to know the personality of the building envisioned by the developer;targeting investor/rental or owner occupied?What is the projected size of the units? o Mr. Sweetzer responded they have not focused on this detail yet. o Atty Correnti advised the breakdown of units/square footage will be presented at a future meeting. • Jerry Ryan 4 Nichols Street,Councillor at Large;agreed a crosswalk is needed on the west side of the Bridge/Boston intersection. Asked for clarification of turning lanes at for north/west bound Boston Street. o Mr. Hebert advised no left turning lane needed for Proctor,volume does not warrant it. One lane for through traffic and right turn onto Bridge Street is current proposal. o Mr. Ryan regularly sees traffic violations occurring at Proctor, Pope and Boston Streets. • Lou Sirianni 6 Botts Court;spoke in favor of turning the position of the CLC building on the site.. He pointed out Jefferson Station as an example;one controlled entrance. He contends the exit onto Bridge Street is dangerous and warrants a signaled intersection/entrance. His suggestion is to turn the CLC building perpendicular, and move the entrance to the elbow at Bridge Street and make it a signalized entrance. o Chair Anderson advised this forum is not an appropriate place to present an alternative plan and encouraged Mr. Sirianni to send his drawings and suggestions to the Planning Department. • Jan Eschauzier 15%: River Street;concerned about seniors coming out of the Bridge Street entrance turning left onto Bridge Street.Asked to know if there have been studies specific to senior citizens and slowed reaction times. o Mr. Hebert advised the sight line studies are very conservative but do not provide specific data on seniors. He did not recommend a right-only exit here because there is enough sight line distance,and the traffic on this street goes in spurts. • Mary Wood 29 Courtney Street, Beverly; asked for clarification of the drop off in front of the CLC.She is concerned about the safety of groups of people waiting for pickup or being dropped off. o Mr. Bergeron (Hayes Engineering)advised the space at the front doors can accommodate two vans side by side. In addition there are adjacent spaces sized to accommodate more vans,with full-width aisles and wider parking spaces. City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 21, 2016 Page 6 of 11 • Chair Anderson ended the public comment on this topic and advised this applicant will be continued to a future meeting. • Ms. Famico,Ward 2 Councillor, asked to know the best way for the public to communicate to the developer questions they were unable to ask. She also requested an electronic copy of the slides. • Chair Anderson informed the audience that all unasked questions would be best sent to the Planning Department in writing,for distribution to Planning Board members and the developer. • Ms. Duncan confirmed planning staff will make the slides available. Ms. Duncan asked to know what topics the developers hope to address at the February 4th meeting. Atty Correnti advised they will respond to traffic issues raised;and will present more information on landscaping and site issues. Hoping to have site grading and engineering plans updated for this meeting. Board asked to know applicant's next appearance at Design Review Board (DRB).Atty Correnti replied they expect to present at the regularly schedule DRB meeting the end of February;they are in ongoing discussions with them. Elevations will not be ready by Planning Board February 4 meeting. Motion and Vote: Matt Veno made a motion to continue the public hearing to February 4, 2016, seconded by Dale Yale. The vote was unanimous with seven(7)in favor(Mr.Anderson, Mr. Veno, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Vale, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and none(0)opposed. Location: CLARK AVENUE(Map 6, Lots 7,8 and 9) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations and a Cluster Residential Development Special Permit per Sec. 7.2 Cluster Residential Development of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roadway to serve twenty-six(26) residential lots,and a Stormwater Permit in accordance with the Salem Code of Ordinances Sec. 37. Documents and Exhibitions: • Revised Plans previously submitted at December 17, 2015 Planning Board o Drainage Improvement Plans dated 12/16/2015 o Index Plan "The Woodlands' Subdivision dated 12/07/2015 o Definitive Plan"The Woodlands" Sheets 1-2, dated 12/07/2015 o Definite Plan& Profile Sheets 1-2,dated 12/07/2015 o Topographic Plan Sheets 1-2,dated 12/07/2015 o Detail Sheets 1-4, dated 12/07/2015 o Drainage Improvement Plan dated 12/16/2015 o Watershed map revised 11/10/2015 • NECE Comment Letter(engineering peer review)dated November 24, 2015 • Applicant Response to NECE from Williams&Sparages dated December 7,2015 • 2nd NECE Comment Letter(engineering peer review) dated December 30,2015 Atty Joseph Correnti,63 Federal Street, Salem, presented for the applicant.Other presenters included: City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 21, 2016 . Page 7 of 11 • Rich Williams;Civil Engineer; Williams&Sparages, 189 North Main Street,Suite 101, Middleton MA 01949. • Nick Meninno, president Meninno Construction,76 Oakville Street, Lynn 01905. • Tom Pascuccio, project manager Meninno Construction, 76 Oakville Street, Lynn 01905. • Engineering Peer Reviewer: William Ross, P.E. Principal Engineer, New England Civil Engineering Corporation, 120 Washington Street Suite 202E,Salem. Atty Correnti advised the applicant has been working with the civil peer review engineer and City Engineer to move the project forward. Civil Engineering Peer Review Mr. Ross advised a thorough review of utilities and storm water management has been conducted. Massachusetts storm water policy has four main standards: • No additional untreated outfalls as a result of a project • Post-runoff cannot exceed pre-runoff • Site runoff must have good quality—suspended solids removed • Groundwater recharge The revised plan does meet the intent of the state stormwater management policies. Conditions from City Engineering department are recommended for inclusion in any decision. Chair Anderson requested the applicant address open items from the December 30 comment letter. Mr. Williams provided the following updates: • Items 9-11 open space trail:to be cleared in place and mulch path created from cleared material. o Mr. Williams suggested a final set of drawings could be provided to the Planning Board; they will submit shortly after tonight's meeting and they will be the same version of plans being presented to the Conservation Commission. • Item 13-14 sewer infiltration: working with City Engineer to resolve this. • Item lighting detail: National Grid will do the design with developer once there is an approved sub-division. o Ms. Chiancola advised the planning staff recommends a lighting plan be included, subject to notes from the utility. Mr. Williams agreed a plan will be provided. o Mr. Pascuccio advised the prior decision had a condition for lighting. • Snow storage: Board asked if any change to what has been indicated. Mr.Williams advised it is not practical to do a subdivision snow plan. Board clarified the City will accept the street and so be responsible for plowing it. o Mr. Ross observed some drainage catch basins at the end of a cul de sac will be blocked by snow storage;this is common. o Mr. Williams observed that during melt,the runoff will move to the catch basin under the snowbanks. o Mr. Mennino suggested the standard arrow on the pavement 10 feet off curb be added to indicate location of a catch basin; agreed by the Board. • List of trees suitable for planting to be provided,3.5" caliper at breast height: the landscape architect will produce it.The issue is quantity and species. o Mr. Pascuccio advised 43 trees are planned for the street. • City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 21, 2016 Page 8 of 11 • o Mr. Williams advised the plan is forthe Clark Avenue sidewalk constructed at 4'with a slightly wider grass plot for tree planting. o Mr. Mennino confirmed the plan is for 3.5" caliper trees to be planted before sidewalk installation to accommodate the root balls per recommendation of the landscape architect who has also suggested a 4-foot wide sidewalk with slightly larger tree lawn. He asked for Board feedback on this. o The Board reminded the applicant there is a standard of one tree per thirty feet of strength length. o After extended detailed discussion of the trade-offs related to sidewalk width,sidewalk materials, preferred tree lawn capacity and other details the Board and applicant agreed to the following: • Applicant to install two(2)street trees per lot in a tree lawn four(4)feet wide, after installing concrete sidewalks on both sides of the street at a width of 3.5 feet each. • Board will consider granting a waiver of the requirement for one tree per thirty feet. • Applicant will update the site plan to indicate accurate street tree placement. Board Discussion: Ms. Hamilton asked to see a feature made of the open space,such as a children's set rather than just incorporate the space into backyards.This was raised at the applicant's first meeting.She asked for applicant response to this request. Mr. Rieder noted that based on the topography and the adjacent conservation land, a passive trail would be more appropriate for this site. o Atty Correnti stated the space feature is the trail, passive recreation. He observed that additional features can be a maintenance burden on the home owner association in future years. The applicant believes the trail is sufficient. Chair Anderson opened the matter to public comment: No questions from the audience. Chair Anderson read into the record written correspondence received: o Denis Colbert 37 Clark Street;wrote to Planning Board to suggest the developer be required to install LED street lights. Mr. Mennino agreed to this suggestion. Atty Correnti advised their next meeting will include a revised plan with all notes and details for the Board.The applicant hopes the Board will entertain a draft decision at the next meeting. Motion and Vote: Noah Koretz made o motion to continue the public hearing to February 4,2016, seconded by Kirt Rieder. The vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr.Anderson, Mr. Veno, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Vale, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and none(0)opposed. Location: 7 HOWARD STREET(Map 35, Lot 180) Applicant: Howard Street Nominee Trust • City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 21, 2016 Page 9 of 11 Description: A public hearing for a Site Plan Review in accordance with Salem Zoning Ordinance Section 9.5 to allow the conversion of a convent into six(6) residential dwelling units with six (6) parking spaces on the adjacent property by an easement. Atty Scott Grover of Tinti,Quinn, Grover& Frey, P.C., 27 Congres Street Ste 414,Salem; presented for the applicant. Other presenters included: • Dan Ricciarelli,Seger Architects 10 Derby Square, Salem Atty Grover provided a brief overview of the project. St.John the Baptist Church convent is a 1960's style building that has not been used for many years.The Zoning Board of Appeals(ZBA)granted relief to convert the building to residential use.The site is located in R3 district which allows multi-family use but the lot is undersized to current code.The ZBA also issued a variance to allow six(6) residential condominium units, all dwelling space above grade. Parking is a unique problem for this site. Arch diocese granted a permanent usage easement for six(6) spaces. A variance of 1.5 spaces per unit was granted by ZBA with a requirement the association purchase annual parking passes in the garage. Mr. Ricciarelli continued the presentation supported by drawings to illustrate building features and changes. Highlights include: • Yard surrounding the building will be used as a common area with patio. • • Asphalt parking lot will be replaced and landscaping added at perimeter. • Steel picket gates to control lot access,will be locking. • Solid wood fence will be installed on the property line, existing chain link being removed. • Concrete block wall at back of property will be taken down. • Trash area enclosed with gate,sized to accommodate recycling and trash bins. • Patios will not be dedicated,common space. • Elevations will remain the same,cleaning the masonry. Windows are odd sized and locations, will lower sills and regularize these. • New windows,single pane casement,vinyl. • Painting exterior brick a charcoal gray. • Lighting at entrance,existing street lights provide lighting to the parking area. • Mechanicals will be rooftop, one per unit. Board Discussion: The Board asked if the trash area is large enough to accommodate the twelve(12) recycling/trash containers required by the City. Mr. Ricciarelli confirmed the space is large enough to accommodate them all. Chair Anderson opened the matter to public comment: There were no questions or comments from the public. Mr. Grover advised the applicant expects to discuss comments from building inspector and engineering, at the next meeting,and hopes the Board will consider a draft decision at that time. • City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 21, 2016 Page 10 of 11 Motion and Vote: Noah Koretz made o motion to continue the public hearing to February 4,2016, seconded by Carole Hamilton The vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr.Anderson, Mr. Veno, Ms.Sides, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and none(0)opposed. Approval of Minutes January 7,2016 Regular Meeting Minutes No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. Motion and Vote:Helen Sides made a motion to approve the January 7, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes, seconded by Matt Veno. The vote was unanimous with seven(7)in favor and none(0)opposed. Old/New Business Location: 43 BRIDGE STREET(Map 36, Lot 238) Applicant: Skomurski Development,LLC Description: Planning Board review of architectural plans for the duplex located on Lot 5, in accordance with condition no. 15 of the Decision dated June 24, 2015. Dan Ricciarelli, Seger Architects 10 Derby Square, presented for the applicant. Drawings were used to illustrate elevations planned for new house on this visible lot. The exterior design echoes existing simple Federal styles on Bridge Street and the surrounding neighborhood. Highlights include: • • Duplex with Nantucket double stair entrance • Hardy plank siding • 6 over 6 windows to match what else was done on Planter Street; planning black frames/sash. • Trim will be 5.5 Azek material Board Discussion: The Board was collectively in favor of the design and complimented the developer and architect on their work for this highly visible lot on an entrance corridor. Motion and Vote: Dale Yale made o motion to approve the architectural plans for the duplex located on lot 5, seconded by Carole Hamilton. The vote was unanimous with seven (7)in favor(Mr.Anderson, Mr. Veno, Ms.Sides, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Yale, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and none(0)opposed. Planning Board Processes Discussion on Planning Board processes including: 1)Submittal of meeting materials; 2) Continuances; and 3)Sequencing of permitting through various boards. Documents: • Legal Opinion Re Agenda Topics from City Solicitor Elizabeth Rennard, dated January 21,20165 • Legal Opinion Re Permitting Sequence from City Solicitor Elizabeth Rennard, dated July 28, 2015 City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 21, 2016 Page 11 of 11 • Memorandum from Staff planner Amanda Chiancola dates January 21, 2016"Planning Board Processes" Ms. Chiancola summarized the City Solicitor opinions in these key points: • If published agenda describes the project too narrowly the Board risks violation of local sunshine ordinance if discussion moves beyond description. • The applicant has the legal discretion to determine the order of the permitting process. Staff Recommendations for Process: • Planning Board members and/or staff will question the applicant regarding specifics of their next meeting appearance and those details will appear in the minutes rather than the agenda which will assist both Board members and the public. • Submittal of Materials stays flexible but Board members are reminded they may withhold comment until ready.Staff will work with applicant to try to get materials in advance. Applicants must understand that any given meeting Board can ask questions about previously discussed topics. o Board noted that applicants must understand late submissions can result in delays while staff and Board take the needed time to review submittals. The Board accepted the staff recommendations and collectively thanked the planning staff for their efforts to streamline and improve the process. • Adjournment Motion and Vote: Helen Sides made o motion to adjourn,seconded by Kirt Rieder. The vote was unanimous with seven(7)in favor(Mr.Anderson, Mr. Veno, Ms.Sides, Mr. Rieder, Ms. Vale, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and none(0)opposed. Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:30pm. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA PlanMin/ Respectfully submitted, Pamela Broderick, Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 02/04/2016 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance,¢2-2028 through§2-2033. • CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD i016 JAN -1 r 12 28 NOTICE OF MEfflki You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,January 7,2016 at 7:00pm at City Hall Annex,Room 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Ben Anderson, Chair REVISED* MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • December 17, 2015 III. REGULAR AGENDA Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET,LLC • Description: REVISED* The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on January 21, 2016 for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. Sec 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" • City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JAN 0 7 2016 at tz. z 8PN in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for January 7,2016 Meeting Page 2 of 2 Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET(Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES,INC. Description: REVISED* The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on January 21, 2016 for a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. Location: CLARK AVENUE (Map 6,Lots 7, 8, and 9) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: REVISED* The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on January 21, 2016 for a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the.Salem Subdivision Regulations and a Cluster Residential Development Special Permit per Sec. 7.2 Cluster Residential Development of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roadway to serve twenty-six (26) residential lots, and a Stormwater Permit in accordance with the Salem Code of Ordinances Sec. 37. Location: 18 WARD STREET,22 WARD STREET,24 WARD STREET (Map 345, Lots 359,358,357) Applicant: MARCELO CABRERA AND EDWARD CROWLEY • Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide one (1) lot, then merge the divided lot with its two (2) respective abutting lots. One lot will be eliminated, two lots will be increased in size, and no new lots will be created. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT Knowyour rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A g 18-25 and City Ordinance f 2-2028 through.IT 2-2033. • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • PHONE 978.619.5685 FAX 978.740.0404 . WWW.SALEM.COM 1 }y CITY OF SALEM. 1,4 PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF MEETING 101b JAN -5 A q- 38 You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its r s. I L al&M 6"#on re$f4ar, ' c i'L Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 7:0Opm at City Hall Annex,Room 313, 120 Washington St., Salem,MA Ben Anderson, Chair REVISED' MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • December 17, 2015 III. REGULARAGENDA Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC Description: REVISED', The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on January 21, 2016 for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Pemrit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCQ Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Pemrit per Sec. Sec 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCQ A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the comer of Boston and Bridge Street with aniassociated revised parking and landscape layout. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JAN 0 5 2016 at `).3YAM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for January 7,2016 Meeting Page 2 of 2 • Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. Location: CLARK AVENUE (Map 6, Lots 7, 8, and 9) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations and a Cluster Residential Development Special Permit per Sec. 7.2 Cluster Residential Development of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roadway to serve twenty-six (26) residential lots, and a Stormwater Permit in accordance with the Salem Code of Ordinances Sec. 37. Location: 18 WARD STREET,22 WARD STREET, 24 WARD STREET (Map 345, Lots 359, 358, 357) Applicant: MARCELO CABRERA AND EDWARD CROWLEY Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide one (1) lot, then merge the divided lot with its two (2) respective abutting lots. One lot will be eliminated, two lots will be increased in size, and • no new lots will be created. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT Kmwyarf nghts wrier dx Open McrtirgLawM.GL. c 30A S 18-25 and City Grkmrx § 2-2028 dyta i S 2-2033. _ (i5'LruEf-.`, SL=hi, O]t)%O PIIONF<)ik.6.i9.?685 ('w)7/ ."i 0.()4Od • eauws�� ,F.rv..rom 7 CITY OF SALEM PLANNING BOARD 1115—DEC 31 - A 10: 51 NOTICE OF MEETINGCITY [ is -. You are hereby notified that the Salem Planning Board will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,January 7, 2016 at 7:00pm at City Hall Annex,Boom 313, 120 Washington St., Salem, MA Ben Anderson, Chair MEETING AGENDA I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • December 17, 2015 III. REGULARAGENDA Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC • Description: A continuance of a public hearing for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. Sec 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the comer of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. • Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. City of Salem Planning Board Agenda for January 7,2016 Meering Page 2 of 2 Location: CLARK AVENUE (Map 6, Lots 7, 8, and 9) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: A continuance of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations and a Cluster Residential Development Special Permit per Sec. 7.2 Cluster Residential Development of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roadway to serve twenty-six (26) residential lots, and a Stonnwater Permit in accordance with the Salem Code of Ordinances Sec. 37. Location: 18 WARD STREET,22 WARD STREET,24 WARD STREET (Map 345, Lots 359, 358, 357) Application: CITY OF SALEM Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law(ANR),proposing to divide one (1) lot,then merge the divided lot with its two (2) respective abutting lots. One lot will be eliminated,two lots will be increased in size, and no new lots will be created. IV. OLD/NEW BUSINESS • V. ADJOURNMENT Knowycur rights t"er the OpenM"L=M.G.L. c 30A § 18-25 and City Ordimrxe§2-2028 thm#§2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall,Salem, Mass. on K 3 1 2015 at in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • 0 WASH. I FON STREELT, SALEM, MASSA011181FTFFS 01970 - PHONE 97,8.619.5685 PAN 978.;40.0404 • VYW\k'.SALMIi COVt • CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS c DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET ♦ SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELE:978-619-5685 ♦ FAX:978-740-0404 LYNN GOONIN DUNCAN,AICD DIRECTOR STAFF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner DATE: December 31, 2015 RE: Planning Board Meeting —January 7, 2016 Please find the following in the dropbox file: ➢ Agenda for January 7, 2016 regular meeting ➢ Planner's Memo ➢ 401 Bridge St. (Gateway Center) — New Public Comment • ➢ Almeda — Department Comments — New Public Comment ➢ Clark Avenue — NECE Comment Letter Dated December 29, 2015 ➢ Draft Minutes — December 17, 2015 I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. December 17, 2015 II. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. 401 BRIDGE STREET (Map 25, Lot 74) and 44 Boston Street (Map 15, Lot 305) 1 have not received new materials for this project. The applicant is currently working on responses to comments by the Planning Board, the DRB and the Civil Engineer Peer Reviewer. 2. ALMEDA STREET (Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) • This is a continuation of a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision Plan to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. According to the City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—12/31/2015 Page 2 of 5 applicant, the lots are dimensionally pre-existing nonconforming lots along an • accepted public way that is currently unpaved. Status of Department Comments Please find the below summary of the Department Comments. The comments are located in your dropbox for further information. Fire Prevention The Fire Department noted that turning on private property will cause damage to the property. Staff suggests that should the Planning Board approve the project, a condition should be included that requires 1) the property owner to record a temporary easement to allow the Fire Department- to turn around on private property that shall remain in place until Almeda Street is extended, should that occur and 2) for the driveway at 16 Almeda Street be constructed to roadway standards in order to accommodate a fire truck. Almeda Street does not contain a water main. The subject property is located approximately 600 feet from the closest water main on Highland Avenue. In light of this, the Fire Department has commented that the proposed project will pose problems in the future due to the distance of the development from the City • water supply. According to the Fire Department, a definitive answer to an adequate connection to the city water supply should be answered prior to approval. City Engineer The City Engineer has provided comments to the applicant which are located in your dropbox. The applicant has not provided a response to the comments from the City Engineer. Board of Health The Board of Health reviewed the subdivision application at its regular meeting on October 13, 2015 and voted to issue a list of conditions located in your dropbox. Waivers Please be advised the applicant is requesting the following waivers of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations: a. A waiver from Section IV A.4.1 to allow a dead end street longer than 500- feet. The current length of Almeda Street is approximately 650-feet and • City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—12/31/2015 • Page 3 of 5 the proposed plan will add 80-feet of roadway for a total of 730 feet including a 35' x 20' hammerhead turn around area. b. A waiver from Section IV. A.1.e to allow the centerline radius of the proposed roadway extension to be 130 feet, which is less than the 230 feet required. The proposed radius is required due to the layout of the existing right-of-way. c. A waiver from Section IV.A.2.a to allow a waiver from the requirement to install sidewalks and granite curbing as the roadway extension will primarily be used by the occupants of the two (2) proposed residences and there are not currently existing sidewalks. 3. CLARK AVENUE (Map 6, Lots 7, 8, and 9) A Subdivision and Cluster Development was approved for 25 lots in 2008 (herein referred to as Chapel Hill). The Chapel Hill decision is located in your dropbox for reference. The Chapel Hill decision has since expired. The primary difference between the proposed plan and the Chapel Hill project is the new roadway layout. Revised plans and a response to the comments from the Stormwater Peer • Reviewer, Bill Ross, from New England Civil Engineering (NECE) were distributed at the Planning Board meeting on December 17, 2015. The electronic version of said plans and the response letter are located in your dropbox. Mr. Ross reviewed the revised plans and the applicant's responses letter. An updated comment letter from Mr. Ross dated December 30, 2015, is located in your dropbox. Mr. Ross will be at the meeting on January 7, 2016 for a discussion of the Stormwater Management Plan. The offsite drainage improvements submitted at the last Planning Board meeting are currently under review by the City Engineer. The Conservation Commission continued their public hearing to the regularly scheduled Conservation Commission hearing on January 14, 2016. Also, the Conservation Commission is going on a site visit to the subject property on January 9, 2016 at 12:30. A Planning Board Site Visit notification has also been posted for those that are interested. If your schedule permits it, I encourage you to join the Conservation Commission on this site visit. As noted on Sheet No. 1 of 11, the following three waivers are requested: a. Section IV A.1.f., requires a minimum centerline radii of two hundred thirty • feet for curved street. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—12/31/2015 Page 4 of 5 b. Section IV A.4.a., requires a dead-end street to not exceed 500 feet in • length, and in place thereof, allow a length of 1089.03 feet. c. Section IV, right of way improvements policy which requires street trees to be 3.5 inches caliper, 30 feet on center, an in place thereof allow 2 trees per lot. The purpose of a cluster subdivision is to promote a more efficient use of land in harmony with its natural features. Accordingly, the zoning ordinance requires at least twenty (20) percent of the total tract area be set aside as common land and shall consist of usable open space. Per the zoning ordinance, such useable common land shall not contain more than fifty (50) percent wetlands or slopelands, nor shall it include streets, ways and parking areas. According the plans, the total tract area is +/- 750,538 square feet; therefore, 150,108 square feet of the area must be open space, and 75,054 square feet of the open space cannot include wetlands, slopelands, streets, ways or parking areas. I have asked the applicant to provide a breakdown of the net open space to demonstrate that at least 75,054 square feet is useable open space that does not contain wetlands, streets, ways or parking areas. The plans note that Open Space No. 1 (the northern Open Space) is approximately 168,388 square feet. Of that area, approximately 44,100 square • feet is wetland, leaving 124,288 square feet. I have not received the slope breakdown; however, if the remaining area does not consist of more than 49,234 square feet of slopes, the Open Space No. 1 would meet the minimum required useable open space. Nevertheless, I have contacted the applicant to express concern with the access trail to Open Space No. 2. The public benefit of the useable open space is typically accomplished via a trail system within the required Open Space. The trail provides access to Open Space, but it is not itself part of the open space. If Open Space No. 2 is required to meet the minimum standards set forth in the zoning ordinance, staff suggests that a more efficient use of land would be to designate the access trail as open space, and lay it out in such a way to avoid the need for reconfiguration when the vacant lot is developed. However, in running the open space calculation above, it appears that Open Space 2 may be a "bonus." I also note that the 135 day deadline' for the subject project is January 9, 2016. Therefore, the Board must take final action at their next regularly scheduled Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law(M.G.L)Chapter 41,Section 81(U),the failure of a planning board either to take final action or to file with the city or town clerk a certificate of such action regarding the definitive plan submitted • by an applicant within 135 days after such submission, or such further time as may be agreed upon at the written request of the applicant,shall be deemed to be an approval thereof. City of Salem: Planning Board Staff Memorandum—12/31/2015 Page 5 of 5 meeting on January 7, 2016, unless the applicant requests an extension of the 135 day deadline. 18 WARD STREET, 22 WARD STREET, 24 WARD STREET (Map 345, Lots 359, 358, 357) This is an ANR plan involving parcels. The vacant middle parcel (22 Ward Street) is proposed to be divided into two, and then the two portions will be merged with the adjacent parcels. As such, one lot will be eliminated, two lots (24 Ward Street and 18 Ward Street) will be increased in size, and no new lots will be created, no development is proposed. �ioNtll'tsg9 City of Salem - Meeting Sign-In Sheet 1 s Board Ranhiw Date QI�1 /_�/ 2 A-0 Name Mailing Address Phone # E- j(�'l �ce,(o rbc ecce 1OC, � -r '77P - ,�3'6 7 07 Page of City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 7, 2016 • Page 1 of 6 City of Salem Planning Board Meeting Minutes Thursday,January 7,2016 A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street,Salem, Massachusetts. Chairman Anderson opened the meeting at 7:27pm. Roll Call Those present were: Matt Veno, Vice Chair, Helen Sides, Kirt Rieder, Noah Koretz and Carole Hamilton. Absent: Dale Yale, Bill Griset and Ben Anderson. Also present:Amanda Chiancola,Staff Planner, and Pamela Broderick, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Approval of Minutes December 17,2015 Regular Meeting Minutes Minor corrections were made by the Planning Board members. • Motion and Vote: Helen Sides made a motion to approve the December 17, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes as amended, seconded by Kirt Rieder. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor and none (0)opposed. Regular Agenda Location: 401 BRIDGE STREET(Map 25, Lot 74)and 44 Boston Street(Map 15, Lot 305) Applicant: HIGH ROCK BRIDGE STREET, LLC Description: The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on January 21, 2016, for amendments to the approved Site Plan Review, Flood Hazard Overlay District Special Permit and Special Permits associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District in accordance with the following sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance: Section 9.5 Site Plan Review, Section 8.1 Flood Hazard Overlay District. The applicant requests the following Special Permit associated with the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC) Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.13 North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District). Specifically, the applicant requests a Special Permit per Sec. Sec 4.0 of the NRCC to allow a multi-story arrangement of a multi-family residential use. The applicant requests amendments to the following approved Special Permits of the NRCC: A Special Permit per Sec. 8.4.12 Retail Use of the NRCC to allow ground level retail use to be amended from the original decision to exceed the . 3,000 gross square feet for one retailer. A Special Permit per Sec. 6.0 to be amended from the original decision to allow an eating and drinking place on the I City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 7, 2016 Page 2 of 6 • premises to reflect the new plan. The applicant proposes to construct two separate buildings including the Community Life Center, a two-story building, and a five-story mixed-use residential/retail on the corner of Boston and Bridge Street with an associated revised parking and landscape layout. Vice Chair Veno advised the applicant has requested a continuance. Board Discussion Ms. Hamilton asked to know deadline for applicant to submit materials for an appearance before the Planning Board. • Ms. Chiancola advised there is no deadline; applicants may submit materials at the meeting. • Ms. Hamilton asked if this applicant has submitted any materials to staff since their previous appearance before the Board. Ms. Chiancola advised no additional materials have been received from the applicant since their last appearance. • Ms. Hamilton suggested the continuance be extended for a month to allow the applicant time to prepare materials. Ms. Chiancola advised the applicant is working on comments for the DRB (Design Review Board) and comments from the engineering and traffic reviews but the applicant is ready for the next meeting. • After discussion, the Board collectively agreed the applicant should demonstrate substantial progress before being scheduled on the Board agenda. Key discussion points included: o Mr. Rieder expressed concern that applicants are allowed to submit material at the meeting rather than in advance. Particularly for large or technically complex projects the • Board should be given adequate time to review the information to prepare informed questions. o Mr. Rieder reported on Cambridge policies that require materials submission 30 days in advance. o Ms. Sides noted that for this project, there are many unresolved matters. The Board may not be able to consider anything further about this site plan until the positioning of the buildings is made clear. o Mr. Koretz suggested the project be continued under the stipulation that the applicant provide a substantive presentation at the next meeting. o Ms. Chiancola advised the Board the applicant had a presentation for this meeting, but requested a continuance when they learned two Board members would be absent. Going ahead with the presentation would have disqualified one Board member from voting on this application due to rules regarding attendance and voting eligibility. • The Board asked to know the topic planned for this meeting; Ms. Chiancola replied this information was not communicated. o Ms. Hamilton noted the applicant should address the board on specific issues. o Vice Chair Veno recognized comment from Ward IV Councillor David Eppley (69 Boston Street #2). Mr. Eppley spoke in favor of improvements to the process for applicants. If there is any way the City Council can be helpful in putting in place a formal process to define requirements for applicants, please communicate it to the City Council. He echoed the concern that any process changes should have enough flexibility to better manage large/technically complex projects and still address smaller/simple projects in an efficient manner. • City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 7, 2016 Page 3 of 6 o Vice Chair Veno deferred to the Chair a suggestion that the Board take up the matter of improving process at the next meeting, and that the need for a continuance vote might trigger an instruction from the Board that the applicant must provide a an understanding of what information will be presented at the next appearance. This should provide more transparency to the public and better support for Board member review. o The Board asked to know if there is a limit to the number of continuances on a given application. Ms. Chiancola advised the limitation is a timeframe from point of submission. She will research the specifics and update the Board. Vice Chair Veno instructed planning staff to advise the applicant the Board expects to hear a substantive presentation on January 21st. If they are not prepared they should advise staff a week in advance so the delay can be communicated. He then called the vote on this motion. Motion and Vote: Helen Sides made a motion to continue the public hearing to January 21 2016 seconded by Kirt Rieder. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor(Mr. Veno Ms. Sides Mr. Rieder Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and none(0)opposed. Location: 14 and 16 ALMEDA STREET(Map 14 Lot 116 and Map 14 Lot 117) • Applicant: TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, INC. Description: The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on January 21, 2016 for a public hearing for a Definitive Subdivision to construct a roadway to serve two existing undeveloped lots. Vice Chair Veno advised the applicant has requested a continuance. Board Discussion Vice Chair Veno instructed planning staff to advise the applicant the Board expects to hear a substantive presentation on January 21st. If the applicant is not prepared he should advise staff a week in advance so the delay can be communicated. Motion and Vote: Carole Hamilton made a motion to continue the public hearing to January 21 2016 seconded by Kirt Rieder. The vote was unanimous with five(5)in favor(Mr. Veno, Ms. Sides Mr. Rieder Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton) and none (0)opposed. Location: CLARK AVENUE(Map 6, Lots 7,8 and 9) Applicant: NSD REALTY TRUST Description: The applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on January 21,2016 for a Definitive • Subdivision Plan in accordance with the Salem Subdivision Regulations and a Cluster Residential Development Special Permit per Sec. 7.2 Cluster Residential City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 7, 2016 Page 4 of 6 isDevelopment of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a roadway to serve twenty-six (26) residential lots, and a Stormwater Permit in accordance with the Salem Code of Ordinances Sec. 37. Vice Chair Veno advised the applicant has requested a continuance. Board Discussion It was noted this applicant previously provided technical data at the meeting, not in advance. • Ms. Chiancola advised the peer reviewer is ready to present comments on the requested stormwater permit. • A site visit is scheduled for Saturday, January 9, 2016, 12:30— 1:OOpm. Meet at the open space between lots 13 and 21. • Ms. Chiancola advised the deadline for action on this project is January 9, 2016. Without a decision on the project or an extension the project is automatically approved.The applicant has asked for an extension to February 26, 2016. The Board collectively agreed this project should not receive automatic approval. Vice Chair Veno instructed planning staff to advise the applicant the Board expects to hear a substantive presentation on January 21st. If they are not prepared they should advise staff a week in advance so the delay can be communicated. Motion and Vote: Kirt Rieder made a motion to continue the public hearing to January 21, 2016, and . approve a request to extend the deadline for action to February 26, 2016, seconded by Carole Hamilton. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor (Mr. Veno, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and none(0)opposed. Location: 18 WARD STREET,22 WARD STREET,24 WARD STREET(Map 345, Lots 359, 358 and 357) Applicant: Marcelo Cabrera and Edward Crowley Description: Board discussion and vote on an application for endorsement of a plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law (ANR), proposing to divide one (1) lot,then merge the divided lot with its two (2) respective abutting lots. One lot will be eliminated, two lots will be increased in size, and no new lots will be created. Documents and Exhibitions: • Plan of Land prepared by North Shore Survey Corporation, 14 Brown Street, Salem; dated 12/30/2015 The applicants were in attendance and responded to Board requests for clarification. Marcelo Carbrera 30 Clark Street,Salem Edward Crowley 18 Ward Street, Salem Board Discussion: • City of Salem —Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 7, 2016 . Page 5 of 6 The Board asked for clarification about lot ownership and division. Mr. Crawley advised the lot to be divided (22) is not a buildable lot. Mr. Carbrera owns this lot and one adjacent. He is selling half of one lot to his abutting neighbor, Mr. Crowley. The Board asked to know about curbing. Mr. Crowley and Mr. Carbrera advised there is an existing curb cut in the middle of lot 22. There is a curb line but no curb stone. There was a house there at one time which burned. The Board advised the applicants as no improvements are being presented at this time, there is no current requirement to address the lack of curbstone. Motion and Vote: Noah Koretz made a motion to endorse the plan believed not to require approval under the Subdivision Control Law(ANR), proposing to divide one(1)lot, (22 Ward Street)and merge this divided lot with its two respective abutting lots to increase their sizes(18 and 24 Ward Street), with no additional lots created; seconded by Helen Sides. The vote was unanimous with five (5)in favor(Mr. Veno, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and none(0)opposed. Old/New Business The Board requested a New Business agenda item be added for the January 21, 2016 meeting to discuss Planning Board Processes, including: • • Discussion on the timeline and submittal of materials • Discussion on expectations for continuances • Discussion on the sequencing of permitting through various boards. o The order in which projects are presented/reviewed with the various City Departments has no default sequence. This matter warrants careful consideration and review to accommodate large and small, complex and simple projects in a manner that benefits the community's best interests. o Ms. Hamilton noted that some communities have adopted policies where some Boards will not hear an applicant until the project has passed through other relevant Boards. o The board acknowledged the legal opinion from the City Solicitor regarding the permitting sequencing. However, considered discussion of a default permitting process that could be modified as needed to fit various projects. o The Board noted it might be advantageous to the Board to invite the City Solicitor to participate in this discussion. Motion and Vote: Helen Sides made a motion to add an agenda item to the January 21, 2016 meeting under Old/New Business; Discussion of the 1) submittal of materials prior to a meeting; 2) continuance requests, 3) endorsement of a sequencing of permitting; seconded by Noah Koretz. The vote was unanimous with five(5)in favor(Mr.Veno, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton)and none(0)opposed. Adjournment • City of Salem—Planning Board Meeting Minutes—January 7, 2016 Page 6 of 6 • Motion and Vote: Helen Sides made a motion to odiourn the meeting, seconded by Carole Hamilton. The vote was unanimous with five (5) in favor ( Mr. Veno, Ms. Sides, Mr. Rieder, Mr. Koretz and Ms. Hamilton) and none (0)opposed. Vice Chairman Veno adjourned the meeting at 8:15pm. For actions where the decisions have not been fully written into these minutes, copies of the decisions have been posted separately by address or project at: http://www.salem.com/node/2186/minutes Respectfully submitted, Pamela Broderick, Recording Clerk Approved by the Planning Board on 01/21/2016 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A § 18-25 and City Ordinance § 2-2028 through§2-2033. • CITY OF SALEM ' PLANNING BOARD FORMA DECISION 18, 22, and 24 Ward Street On January 7, 2016 by a unanimous vote of five (5) in favor(Vice Chair Matt Veno,Kirt Rieder,Helen Sides, Noah Koretz, Carole Hamilton) and none (0) opposed to endorse "Approval under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" for the property located at 18, 22, and 24 Ward Street and shown on the following described plan: "Plan of Land 18-20, 22, 24 Ward Street, Salem, MA for Edward Crowley and Marcelo & Gloria Cabrera" dated,December 30, 2015. 1. Applicant- Edward Crowley, 18 Ward Street,Salem MA 01970 and Marcelo Cabrera, 24 Ward Street, Salem,MA 01970 2. Location: 18, 22, 24 WARD STREET (Map 34,Lots 359, 358, 357) 3. Description: Map 34, Lot 358 is to be divided into Parcel A and Parcel B. Parcel A is to be joined with Lot 1 and become one contiguous lot and Parcel B is to be joined with Lot 2 and become one contiguous lot. Deed of property records in Essex South District Registry. Sincerely, V UAko Matt Veno Vice Chair n Gc.: Cheryl LaPointe, City Clerk o a= •