Planning Board Report to Council regarding Zoning Amendment to Section 9.5.2, 9.5.3, and 9.5.6 (SPR) CITY OF SALEM
s
PLANNING BOARD
Report to City Council
June 20,2017
At its meeting on June 15, 2017 the Planning Board met to discuss the proposed amendments to
Section 9.5.2 Applicability, Section 9.5.3,Application and Section 9.5.6 Review Criteria of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Board members in attendance (Chair Ben Anderson, Vice Chair
Matt Veno,Carole Hamilton,Bill Griset,Noah Koretz and Kirt Rieder)made a recommendation by
vote on each individual item, as delineated herein.
9.5.2 Applicability:
• 9.5.2(2) Residential structure containing one (1) or more residential dwelling units.
The Planning Board voted unanimous) 6-0 to recommend the ro osed Chan e be denied.
o There was consensus among the Board that reducing the threshold to one (1)
residential unit would be overreach. The Board discussed whether less than 6 made
sense but could not find a compelling reason to vary from the existing threshold.
• 9.5.2(3) Salem Redevelopment Authority Development Project Reviews.
The Planning Board voted unanimously f6-0)to recommend the proposed chan2,e be denied
o "Salem Redevelopment Authority Development Project Reviews" is not defined. In
addition, projects within the urban renewal area that meet the threshold for a Site
Plan Review are already subject to site plan review. The Salem Redevelopment
Authority is capable of reviewing smaller projects that do not meet the threshold for
a Site Plan Review.
• 9.5.2(4) Planned Unit Developments.
The Planning Board voted unanimously (6-0]to recommend the crowed change bed
o Planned Unit Developments are already subject to site plan review.
9.5.3 Application
• 9.5.3(2) (Location and dimensions of all parking areas...).
The Planning Board voted unanimously (6-0)to recommend the tMosed chame be approved
o The Board noted that it makes since to include this in the ordinance since it is
information they typically ask the applicant to provide.
• 9.5.3(4) (Location,function,photometric intensity...).
The Planning Board voted unanimous)~ (6-0] to recommend the Pmosed change be att�rnved
o The Board noted that it makes since to include this in the ordinance since it is
information they typically ask the applicant to provide.
• 9.5.3(5) (Location,type, dimensions and quantities of landscaping...).
The Planning Board voted unanimourl}_(6-0) to recommend the pMtored chart get be 4mved as amended
herein:
- Location, type, dimensions and quantities of landscaping and screening
including retaining walls and fences;
• 9.5.3(6) (Current and proposed locations and dimensions of utilities...).
The Planning Board voted unaizimoush (6-01 to recommend the m�osed chan4e be rr raved as amended
herein:
- Current and proposed locations, dimensions, and screening of utilities including:
water, storm water, sewer, drainage, drain inlets, drainage tanks, back flow
preventors, manholes, hydrants, gas, electrical, telephone, wireless
communication facilities, HVAC-related mechanicals, transformers, switchgears,
generators, intake and exhaust features including: ventilation, stacks, fans,
louvers,steam, and recycling and other waste disposal locations;
• 9.5.3(7) (Location and dimensions of snow...).
The Planning.Board voted ztnarzimousli-(6-0)to recommend thelpt-moss ed cbange be etyoved..
o The Board noted that it makes since to include this in the ordinance since it is
information they typically ask the applicant to provide.
• 9.5.3(8) (Location of all existing natural features...).
The Planrzing .Board voted unanimous& (6-0) to recommend the j)ro-osed ebagge be rt.Prroved as amended
herein:
- Location of all existing natural features, including ponds, brooks, streams,
wetlands,street trees,and existing vegetation up to the curb line;
• 9.5.3(9) (Topography of the site...).
The Planning Board voted(5-11 to recommend the broposed claanAe be rOpmiy
o The majority of the Board concurred that many plans are already submitted with one
(1) foot contour lines, and that there is not an additional cost to create plans with
one (1) foot contours. This was not unanimous. The Chair recommended that this
change be denied, for the reason that requiring that level of detail is not necessary for
every site plan review,and noted that the board should ask for this further detail on a
case by case basis.
9.5.6 Review Criteria
• 9.5.3(3) (Adequacy- of traffic circulation for all modes of transit, consistent with Salem's
Complete Streets policy).
The Planning Board voted urranimowA, (6-0) to recommend the "Cotzersterzt with Salem's Complete
Strzets 4olicr': be stricken and afk'prove the change as amended herein:
- Adequacy of traffic circulation system for all modes of transit.
• 9.5.3(8) (Adequacy of the methods and storage dimensions for disposal of sewage, refuse,
recycling,and other waste).
The Planning Board voted unanimoL�IL(6-0)to recommend the�rroposed chatgge be 4p ved.
• 9.5.3(11) (Adequacy of pedestrian circulation...).
The Planning Board voted unanimously (6-0)to recomv.,end the-protored change be derried
Page 2 of 3
• 9.5.3(14) (Subsections 2 and 4...).
The Planning.Board voted unaniwg l�(6-0)to recommend the 4mpos� ed change be denied
The Planning Board fully supports the Complete Streets Policy. In making the recommendation to
deny the language relating to the Complete Streets Policy (Sec. 9.5.3 (3, 11, and 14), the Board
considered what makes sense to include in the zoning ordinance regarding the Complete Streets
Policy under Section 9.5 for Site Plan Review. As was stated at the joint public hearing, the Traffic
and Parking Commission does not have approval authority. The board recognized that the Traffic
and Parking Commission is charged with implementing the Cites Complete Streets Policy, which
applies to the public rights of way. The purpose of the Complete Streets Policy "is to accommodate
all road users by creating a roadway network that meets the needs of individuals utilizing a variety of
transportation modes." The Policy "directs decision-makers to consistently plan, design, construct,
and maintain streets to accommodate all anticipated users including, but not limited to pedestrians,
bicyclists,motorists,emergency vehicles,and freight and commercial vehicles."
Unless the private development proposal is impacting a public right of way, the Complete Streets
Policy does not apply.
In addition, other specific policies are not called out in the ordinance. Specifying the Complete
Streets Policy would create an internal inconsistency.
Thus, rather than having the Complete Streets Policy referenced in 9.5, the Board plans to modify
the Site Plan Review application to note that impacts to the public right of way would be reviewed
by the Director of Traffic and Parking for consistency with the Complete Streets Policy. The
Director of Traffic and Parking would be required to provide comment with 35 days and may
choose to solicit input from the Traffic and Parking Commission. (Note: The Director of Traffic
and Parking was involved in developing this recommendation and concurs with it.)
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Tom Daniel, AICP,
Director of Planning&Community Development,at 978-619-5685.
Yours truly,
i
Ben Anderson,Chair
CC: Cheryl LaPointe,City Clerk
Page 3 of 3