Overlook Acres, LLC - Responses from the Developer (March 5 Planning Board Meeting)
At the April 2 Planning Board meeting, a very packed agenda required the board to limit public comment on this project, knowing that the project would be back before the board. Only 3 neighbors were able to contribute public comment. In addition, because of a time constraint placed on the applicant, they were not able to address the question that were raised by both board members and residents at the March meeting.
Below, you will find answers to those questions, prepared by the applicant, in order to keep information flowing between the developer and the neighborhood. They plan to continue to provide more answers to submitted questions in the interim period before their next date before the Planning Board. In normal times, a neighborhood meeting would be held to allow residents and the developer to engage in a conversation. These are not normal times, and the developer has agreed to accept public comments and questions as they come in from residents, and provide answers on a regular basis.
The developer has recently received the comments and questions from the April 2 meeting and will be providing answers next week.
To submit further comment or ask further questions, please send your email to ALL (4) of the following addresses: mwells@salem.com, tdevine@salem.com, overlookacre@gmail.com, and pmorsillo@salem.com. This will ensure that your comments and questions are received by the Planning Department for inclusion in the public hearing, by the developer, and also by me so that I can track questions and make sure things don’t slip through the cracks.
Please note: the developer is looking for comment on the linear park and playground shown in the new plans.
Here are the developers responses to questions and concerns raised at the March Planning Board meeting, as listed in my notes from the meeting:
The size/scale of the buildings were out of proportion for the neighborhood. The neighborhood is 1-family houses. The design should reduce the scale of the buildings.
While we appreciate, respect and have geared a tremendous amount of the design towards the interests of the residents of Barnes Rd, it cannot be overlooked that this property sits in a transitional zone which is intended for the type of housing that is the subject of this application. The residential neighborhood is zoned R2 and accordingly consists of single family homes. The subject property, immediately abutting Barnes road, is zoned R3. A multifamily housing district that allows up to 296 units of housing through special permit. Next to the multifamily R3 district, the property transitions into BPD, which is a district intended to promote industry and jobs but also allows for the PUD use. The abutting land uses to the east and north are industrial/commercial. Along the frontage on Highland, another zoning district for B2 must be considered. While this property has minimal frontage on highland ave, consideration to optimizing the commercial frontage was a significant part of the project design. Regarding the massing of the buildings along Barnes neighborhood, the primary concern and focal point was the building identified as building 2. The changes made to the plans include reducing that building from 4 stories to 3 stories, adding an underground parking garage, reducing the units from 84 to 66 and adjusting the grades around the building to better conform to the topography of the land, breaking the building into 2 buildings with a breezeway connector. Building 4 also abuts the Barnes neighborhood but sits further back behind the homes and is not visible from Barnes Road. This building was adjusted by breaking it into 2 buildings with a connector and adjusting the elevation of the building to minimize the cut slopes, thereby preserving a significantly larger existing tree buffer along the rear of the Barnes residents. Building 5, which is also visible from both Barnes and Highland, was reduced from 3 stories to 1 story and converted to 100% commercial with more open amenity space around the building (perhaps for a small café/lunch restaurant) and more walkable for the public access, specifically the adjacent Barnes neighborhood and Ravenna neighborhood across highland ave. in summary, we have always viewed this property, based on how it was zoned, as a transitional property between the single-family residences and the commercial/industrial areas of highland ave and Swampscott road.
The design did not utilize the natural topography. They were essentially moving blasted rock around the property to create 5 level pads, instead of designing smaller buildings along the natural topography of the site.
Significant adjustments were made to the site grading to address this concern. In fact, this was a large part of the extensive time effort that was invested in this plan iteration. The changes were significant, and a close examination of the plans will illustrate this. In general, the changes included:
Reducing retaining walls to a maximum of 10’ throughout the entire project.
Eliminating retaining walls where ever possible, notably behind building 3 and building 1.
Creating terraces between stepped retaining walls to allow for plantings and landscaping, breaking up the aesthetic appearance for residents of the project but also reducing the vertical cuts thereby better conforming to the topography of the site.
Adjusting first floor elevations and slab elevations to better conform to the topography and balance the cuts/fills
Adding garages under buildings 1 and 2 to allow for significantly less surface parking, and more flexibility with grading and open space.
Reducing fill slopes/rock slopes behind buildings 1, 3 and 4
Changing the grades around the buildings to better conform to the topography. At grade apartment access was eliminated in many locations and replaced with a deck/balcony.
There was too much impervious parking space. The suggestion was to find a way to include parking under all of the buildings, not just one.
Perhaps one of the most significant design changes from an economical perspective, underground parking was added to buildings 1 and 2. This change converted 126 parking spaces from the surface to the garage. Further, the density of the project was reduced from 324 to 298 for an overall reduction in surface parking of 161 spaces. This is a reduction of 1.33 acres of pavement (30%) from the initial design. This land area was reallocated as open/amenity space, notably the areas in front of building 1, building 5 and along Barnes road (linear parkway). The change allowed for greater flexibility with the site grading, introducing terraced systems and significantly less fill slopes than the initial design.
Question: how much of the untouched land is wetlands? They will calculate and return with an answer.
Not including the area along Barnes Rd, which is programmed for a new linear parkway, the undisturbed land area behind buildings 1, 3 and 4, left to remain in natural condition is approximately 5.4 acres. The area of the bordering wetland is approximately 2.7 acres. This is a 50% upland/wetland ratio for the preserved land. The design team is evaluating the potential of adding a walking trail around the bordering wetland that will appear in a future submission to the board.
There were questions about the 2 areas of wetlands, and how close the development was coming to them.
Another main objective of the design change was pulling work out of and away from the bordering wetland and also softening the impacts, and making more desirable, the area associated with the isolated wetland. The design was adjusted to maintain a 25’ buffer around the bordering wetland with the exception of the end of the finger-like projection which extends up to building 3. Building 3 was adjusted considerably to keep work out of the wetland, although working adjacent to it as depicted will have some, temporary impact that will be restored in kind. The impacts to the bordering wetland were reduced from approximately 800 sf to none. Around the isolated wetland, the issue was that the design encircled it with a retaining wall, limiting the environmental benefit of this non-jurisdictional resource. The addition of the underground parking garage and changes to the grading around building 1 resulted in a new design that has a retaining wall only along the cedar road and parking area drive, with a large, open area to replicate the filled wetland, and make it accessible and open for both wildlife access and public enjoyment.
Traffic - they noted that the project did not take any credits for public transit use, so they presented worst case numbers for car trips. It was also noted that the plan included un-bundled parking, which means that residents need to pay for a parking space, in an effort to reduce car ownership. Bike parking should be placed in the front of the property in a convenient location to encourage use. Bike lanes that are added to Route 107 must be separate from the road. The Route 107 Corridor Study, completed in 2016, shows a painted bike lane. This is not how the improvements will be done when 107 is redesigned. The road is simply too unsafe for anything but a bike lane that is elevated from the road, and separated by a granite curb and buffer of grass or other material. They were asked if they will provide public transit subsidies for residents to lessen car use. The developers will look into this, as well as provide more TDM details. TDM is Transportation Demand Management, which refers to methods of decreasing car usage in favor of public transit options. For example, will the management provide information on MBTA bus routes, city shuttle information, or provide methods of access to MBTA trains stations.
Bike parking was added to the plans.
Access and Intersection Improvements
Proposed conversion of the Site driveway at Barnes Road to one-way will ensure impacts to Barnes Road and Clark Street are avoided or minimized, limiting trips to only those exiting the property headed south on Route 107.
All site driveways and roadways are designed to accommodate Salem fire department apparatus.
Proposed access improvements will be designed to MassDOT standards, including the future separated bike lane; proposed improvements include a widening of Route 107 along the site frontage that exceeds that contemplated in the MassDOT design, allowing more than ample room for a separate bike lane along the site frontage. The timing of construction of a separate bike lane by MassDOT will occur after completion of the project, but is facilitated by the current design.
Barnes Road is a designated MBTA bus stop; the proposed intersection improvements can incorporate an enhanced bus stop waiting area that will be subject to MBTA design input during the MassDOT review process. This may include benches and/or a bus shelter.
The intersection improvements offset any project impacts, improving circulation for U-turns, lengthening (doubling) vehicle storage for the left-turns at Highland/Barnes, enhancing signal timing, improving alignment to Ravenna and improving capacity relative to exiting conditions. Refer to attached (updated) Intersection Improvement Concept Plan. This represents an acceleration of the planned MassDOT improvements that are fully funded by the developer, thereby addressing a corridor need today rather than at a future date.
The project will undergo review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), including extensive input by MassDOT and other state agencies to include a detailed TDM program. The currently envisioned TDM program as outlined in the submitted Traffic Impact and Access Study (TIAS) include a range of programs that aim to reduce dependence on auto use, encourage walking/biking/transit use/car sharing/carpooling. Additional commitments by the developer will include the following:
Enhanced bus stop at Highland/Barnes Road (benches and/or shelter per design input from MBTA and MassDOT)
A bike share program for tenants that includes an on-site bicycle fleet that is available for sign-out by tenants for recreational use.
Other TDM measures are currently being evaluated by the design team. However, this submission was mainly focused on the site and building adjustments.
The design should create more of a street-like neighborhood, and less of a parking lot design.
Another notable change and benefit resulting from moving parking under the buildings, is flexibility to create a more neighborhood-like system of drives on the site. The design goal was to eliminate parking or only provide parking on 1 side of the driveway in areas between the buildings. Only the drives generally in front of the buildings have parking on both sides. Notably, the entrance to the site no longer has any parking spaces and a jog was added to the to the road to screen the parking in front of building 2. A uniform streetscape consisting of sidewalks, trees and other landscaping was programmed through the site, to make a cohesive experience when walking, biking or driving through the property. Further, the changes to the grading scheme improved the slope of the road network and sidewalks, limiting the slope to a maximum of 5%. Reducing the slope makes the property more walkable for residents but also more accessible from the public, Barnes neighborhood.
Streetscape Design Objectives:
1. Our goal is to create a cohesive neighborhood design. The streetscape consists of pedestrian scale/style pole lights with shade trees at 30’ O.C. Pathways are 5’ wide.
2. Street tree planting consists of a different species per street to avoid a monoculture planting and provide for some variation from street to street.
3. Where space is limited, and understanding the importance of street trees, we have utilized a columnar variety of tree (See building 3 for example).
4. Under-story planting is shown between building decks, at building entries, and at intersections to provide visual seasonal interest.
5. Along Highland and Barnes we are mindful of overhead utility wires which is why there are no proposed street trees.
6. Pole lighting is Dark Sky Compliant. 12’ tall at park 18’ tall at parking lots. All LED.
7. Retaining walls are now shown as terraced with planting in between.
8. In certain areas that are either steep or otherwise not usable, a low maintenance/low water native meadow seed mix is utilized in lieu of high maintenance lawn.
9. All sidewalks to be bituminous concrete with concrete sidewalks at building extents only.
10. 6 bikes per building or 12 racks total or 24 bikes
The park that the developers are giving to the neighborhood is actually very small (6,000-8,000 square feet), about half the size of Lappin Park.
The park was redesigned to consist of approximately 27,400 sf linear parkway connecting the proposed commercial building over 600 linear feet to a new 3,450 sf playground area. Playground area will consist of smaller play features suitable for a wide range of ages.
It was noted that the building dimensions don’t take the peaks of the roofs into account, so are in fact higher than 4 stories, which is against zoning.
All of the buildings comply with zoning with respect to height. Notably, building 2, which is the most visible building from the Barnes neighborhood, was reduced from 4 stories to 3 stories. The massing and heights of the buildings were designed to not exceed the roof lines of the adjacent dwellings. During the course of this process, the project will go through the Design Review Board. This extensive review is anticipated to further flush out and refine the building roof lines, facade treatments and other matters affecting aesthetics, massing and how this development will transition between residential to commercial and industrial areas. Several graphics have been included to depict he heights of the buildings.
They were asked about the time frame for development: phased or all at once? The intention is that the project happens all at once.
The project will be completed in 1 phase of development, as fast as possible.
There were more questions about the wetlands. For the smaller one being filled in, where is the replacement wetland? How close are they from the edge?
The isolated wetland is not jurisdictional under the Wetlands Protection Act or Regulations or the Salem Wetlands Regulations. It is however jurisdictional under Federal regulations which limit filling of the wetland to 5,000 sf. The changes to the design of Building 1, most notably the addition, at great cost, of 60 garage spaces under building 1, enabled a redesign of the area around the isolated wetland to create a more open wetland with more open space around it. The area of the wetland that will be filled is approximately the same around 3,300 sf. However, the new design allows replication of this filled area immediately adjacent to the isolated wetland, instead of having to relocate this somewhere else. This design change will result in the preservation of the wooded area around the large wetland so it does not have to be cleared for replicated wetland. This design complies with the Federal requirements being well under the 5,000 sf threshold and will result in a larger, more uniform wetland system. The design of the wetland replication areas will be furthered in the next phase of design, in advance of an application to the Salem Conservation Commission.
They were requested to minimize the cutting of mature trees on the site.
The area of preserved woodland was increased by approximately ½ acre around the bordering wetland and between the site and residents along Barnes Road. Approximately 5.4 acres of land (upland and wetland) or 1/3 of the site will be preserved. In a future submission, the landscape architect and civil engineer will also be examining the possibility of preserving trees in the area of the proposed linear park. This area however consists of developed residential or previously filled/altered land so the improvements. The project currently proposes (200) Shade trees 3-3.5” caliper, (200) Ornamental trees – 8’ tall , (50) Evergreen trees – 8’ tall.
There was a question about the length of the cul-de-sacs. They may be too long.
There are 2 dead ends incorporated into the design. At Building 4, starting at the intersection at Building 3 to the center of the cul-de-sac, the length of the driveway is 824 feet. At building 1, front the easterly curb cut to the building 1 parking area to the center of the cul-de-sac, the length of the drive is 342 feet. the cul-de-sac turnarounds have a pavement diameter of 90 feet, matching the Salem Subdivision Regulation requirements for fire truck turnaround.
There were many questions about the retaining walls around the property. Some go as high as 26 feet, which is not permitted under the zoning code.
All of the retaining walls were either eliminated or reduced to a maximum of 10’. The reductions in parking and adjustments to the buildings slabs and grading were a significant driver behind this change. Where cut slopes exceeded 10’, a terraced retaining wall system was established that can be planted and landscaped.
A comment was made about the important work done by the wetlands to filter water in the area, about its use for flood control, and habitat. The design needs more permeable surface in order to retain the benefits of the wetlands.
The wetlands related component of this project has no impact on the sites limited benefits to flood attenuation and control. Currently, the site slopes towards the bordering wetland with no stormwater controls. While this is a natural, wooded condition, the steep slopes and shallow to bedrock conditions do not result in a high capacity to retain stormwater on site. Through the design changes in this submission, the proposed grading softens many of the steep slopes, and allows for the incorporation of incorporating stormwater controls and more ability to slow the rate of stormwater runoff from the site.
The plan is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, and needs to be smaller in scale. The density must be reduced.
As noted above, the site is a transitional zoning district which is abutted by not only the residents of Barnes road, but also developed and undeveloped industrial and commercial land. The R3 zoned land, through special permit, would accommodate up to 296 units of housing. While the feasibility of squeezing 296 units onto only the R3 land hasn’t been fully vetted, this point is mentioned solely to emphasize the fact that this property is zoned, and has been intended to be used for multi-family residential uses. Through this design modification, the density of the project was reduced from 324 units to 298 units of housing. This reduced some of the parking requirements for the project and in conjunction with the addition of 126 underground parking spaces, allowed for significantly greater flexibility in the design of the site and increased open areas. the open land of the current proposal, to be left as either improved open space or natural wooded areas, is a sizable 11.3 acres, or 67% of the land area to be left for open space. The prior submission included 10 acres of open land so the changes herein resulted in a 13% increase in open space.
