Planning Board Meeting Notes- March 5, 2020
The Planning Board meeting last Thursday night was filled with Ward 3 and 4 neighbors who were interested in the Overlook Acres, LLC initial presentation before the board. The presentation included a 25% site design, including layouts for the 5 residential buildings, traffic study and environmental study information.
The meeting began with an update from Tom Daniels, the City Planner. He explained that because of the number of projects coming before the board over the next several months, along with other issues that must be reviewed by the Planning Board, including the new ADU and Inclusionary Zoning Ordinances, the city is freeing up some of Mason Wells time to better support the board. The city also has an Engineering Clerk of the Works job posted. Tom also talked about Highland Avenue, a state controlled road. MassDOT has a RFP out for an Engineering Design Firm, and should have one selected by August. The solution for traffic traveling along the Swampscott Rd/Highland Ave/Marlborough Rd zig-zag has not yet been resolved. Public participation in the design will happen along the way, usually at two times: 25% design and 75% design complete.
Tom Daniels also talked about the upcoming Highland Avenue Corridor Study, recently funded by the city council. This study will look at available and soon-to-be available land along the corridor to determine what it can realistically be used for, in order to develop a vision for the corridor. The whole process should take about 6 months. He then discussed the process for submission of development projects. Applications are filed with the city and departments receive the plans to review and send comments to the Planning Board. Studies and reports are submitted by the developer, and in most cases, the studies are peer reviewed by a 3rd party engineer, chosen by the city but payed for by the developer. He underscored the fact that each proposal requires a lot of data and information, and a lot of work by the Planning Department and the Planning Board.
Overlook Acres, LLC
Overlook Acres, LLC was the first item on the agenda. They are requesting a Site Plan Review and PUD (Planned Unit Development) Special Permit. The development contains a commercial component, and a public component (sidewalks along the length of Barnes Road, upgrades to the intersection of Highland Ave and Barnes Rd, land for a public playground). The designer is Morin-Cameron Group. Scott Cameron presented the layout of the project, 5 buildings plus a smaller Club House with a pool for the residents. One building will have retail on the first floor with residential units on the top 2 floors. They are including at least 1.5 parking spaces plus some commercial spaces. Solid waste storage will be near Cedar Road. They stated that the undisturbed area of the property is at 60%. They are still working on water, sewer, and storm water designs. Sewer water will need to be pumped out of the property because of the elevation change from Highland Ave to the back of the property.
Segar Architects did the building design, which will be a mix of 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units, each with their own deck or patio. All buildings will have elevators. The 4 buildings that are purely residential will be 4 stories high, and the commercial/residential building will be 3 stories. The Club House/Administration building will be 1 story.
The Traffic Study Plan was done by MDM. They reported using MassDOT guidelines to determine the site generated trips. These guidelines utilize land use to project, and this is an industry standard. They focused on AM and PM commute times. In the morning, the majority of car trips are exiting at Barnes Road. 40% are projected to turn left to Lynn, and 60% turn right towards downtown Salem. Because of projected turns onto other crossroads, they estimate an additional 43 cars continuing downtown and 44 additional cars continuing towards Lynn during the AM commute.
For the afternoon commute, the majority will be returning to the property, with a projection of 50 cars from the south (Lynn) and 50 from the north (downtown Salem).
They plan to realign Barnes Road to improve the intersection; widen Highland Avenue by pushing back the sidewalk in order to improve U-turn capabilities at the intersection, create a bike lane and sidewalks along the length of the property, create a longer left turn queue lane on Highland Avenue to increase the number of cars that can easily turn into Barnes Road, and modify the light signal phase, again to improve access to and from Barnes Road.
They requested that the Planning Board refer the project to the Design Review Board (DRB) for approval.
There were many comments and question from the Planning Board, and I will try to highlight the most important here:
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.
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.
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.
It was noted that the design seemed to be for efficiency of cost, not blending with the neighborhood.
Question: how much of the untouched land is wetlands? They will calculate and return with an answer.
There were questions about the 2 areas of wetlands, and how close the development was coming to them.
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.
The design should create more of a street-like neighborhood, and less of a parking lot design.
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.
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.
They were asked about the time frame for development: phased or all at once? The intention is that the project happens all at once.
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?
They were requested to minimize the cutting of mature trees on the site.
There was a question about the length of the cul-de-sacs. They may be too long.
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.
A comment was made about the important work done by the wetlands to filter water in the area, about it’s use for flood control, and habitat. The design needs more permeable surface in order to retain the benefits of the wetlands.
The plan is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, and needs to be smaller in scale. The density must be reduced.
Comments from the public:
There is a lot of contaminated land on the site, but no mention of it during the presentation.
Traffic on Highland Avenue is difficult now. Emergency vehicles have trouble getting through intersections because of the volume of traffic. This has become even worse since Lynn hospital closed and more ambulances transport patients to Salem Hospital.
There is concern about the dumpsters. Neighbors don’t want to be woken up at 4 AM while dumpsters are being emptied.
Neighbors don’t want the new access road onto Barnes Road, which will bring too much traffic into the neighborhood.
There is concern about destruction of the wetlands, and the very large size of the project.
There shouldn’t be more development on Highland Avenue until MassDOT fixes the road.
There is concern that the lengthened turn lane on Highland Avenue still isn’t adequate for the project and existing neighborhood. People will use Ravenna Road as a cut-through to cross Highland Avenue for quicker access to Barnes Road.
There is concern about the flooding at Walmart, caused by too much development.
There was a concern about the placement of the access road directly across from 2 homes. This will cause car headlights to shine into living rooms.
The pool is very close to Barnes Road. What are the hours of operation?
There was a request to ban rock crushing on-site if the project goes forward.
There was a concern that construction vehicles will utilize Barnes Road, which should not be allowed.
There was a concern about the width of Barnes Road, which in many places is too narrow to easily allow cars to pass each other in both directions. Also, there are no sidewalks. These are huge safety concerns.
There was a concern that residents from the new development would utilize Barnes and Clark to access Dunkin’ Donuts, which is happening already.
Many concerns about the blasting that will be required for the project. Also, the neighborhood was not designed for this increased level of traffic.
There was a safety concern regarding cars blowing through the red light on Highland, putting those turning left from Barnes Road in peril. This is an ongoing frustration for many.
The Public Hearing will be continued to April 2. They all agreed that it is too soon for a referral to the the DRB.
I am very pleased that the Planning Board highlighted the disconnect of this project with the rest of the neighborhood. For me, this is exemplified by the playground land, which has no access for residents of the development. This playground should be a place for all of the residents, from the existing neighborhood as well as the new development, to meet and get to know each other. Everything about this initial design gives the feeling of creating an island of residential units on Highland Avenue, connected to nothing. This project should build on the feel and scale of the existing neighborhood, and connect in a meaningful way. Easy bike and pedestrian access should be allowed throughout, without having to go to Highland Avenue. Safe pedestrian and bike access should be created within the new development, especially for young children.
Salem needs more housing, but the design needs to fit in with the existing neighborhood and land. Creating housing that utilizes renewable energy would be a huge benefit, and a model in the city. Most importantly, the design should bring pride, to the neighborhood and to the rest of the community. The current design is uninspired and generic. I am looking forward to the updated design.
St. James School and Immaculate Conception School
The next item on the agenda was the 160 Federal Street (St. James School) and 13 Hawthorne Blvd (Immaculate Conception School) reuse design, but the North Shore CDC. These are the first projects to come to the board from the Municipal and Religious Reuse Ordinance.
The St. James School will be redesigned to include studio, 1- and 2-bedroom units, with a 55+ housing preference. There will be an elevator added. There will be ample parking for the project in the lot at the rear of the building. Also, the Bridge Street side of the building will be designed as the main access to the building, with the mail room and entry lobby at this entrance.
The Immaculate Conception School will be redesigned to include studio, 1- and 2-bedroom units. They will keep the auditorium for use by the creative community, and preference will be given to members of the creative community. There will be no resident parking spaces; residents can purchase parking passes at either garage. The very few on site parking spaces will be used for loading/unloading for residents and for visitors. There will not be an elevator because it could not be fitted into the building.
The CDC will investigate a local preference for residents. If they can do it, it would only apply to the initial leases, not in perpetuity.
Both of these buildings will be deeply affordable. 28% of the units will be market rate; 72% will be affordable, as follows:
Market Rate: 4 studio; 9 1-bedroom; 4 2-bedroom (total: 17)
<60% AMI: 14 studio; 13 1-bedroom; 2 2-bedroom (total: 29)
<50% AMI: 6 1-bedroom; 1 2-bedroom (total: 7)
<30% AMI: 5 1-bedroom; 4 2-bedroom (total: 9)
This translates to the following projected rents at 60% AMI:
Studio at 60% AMI - up to $1245 allowed. Projected rent: $919 + $100 for utilities
1-bedroom at 60% AMI - up to $1333 allowed. Projected rent: $969 + $123 for utilities
2-bedroom at 60% AMI - up to $1600 allowed. Projected rent: $1153 + $157 for utilities
For 50% and 30% AMI, the rents dip significantly lower.
Public comment included concern about the lack of parking available in the garage on Derby Street now. Adding more people with parking passes will make this worse. It was noted that the units at Immaculate Conception will be marketed as car-free living. Also, the parking passes do not guarantee a parking spot.
I am very excited about both of these projects. The units will use as much of the existing features as possible, preserving black boards in the schools as well as cabinets and windows and high ceilings. The location of the St. James building to the Community Life Center is a huge perk, and the reason for creation of the 55 and older preference at that site. The pathway to construction will be long though, in order to secure funding required to do the projects.
