Developer presents 3-story Monroe Street housing plan; board presses parking, utilities and staging details

Architect Joe Bettencourt presented the Peabody City Planning Board with a preliminary site-plan concept for a three-story building at 10–12 Monroe Street on behalf of applicant Joseph Salvaggio.

Bettencourt said the proposal would remove existing pavement and build a three-story structure with one ground-level parking story and two residential stories above. He told the board the design concept provides a single central corridor with three units on each side per residential floor; each unit is described as a two-bedroom unit of roughly 1,100 square feet, which would yield about 12 residential units across the two residential floors.

Bettencourt said the design aims to bridge the scale between lower-rise single- and two-family homes on Elm Street and a taller commercial building across Hardy Street; design elements the architect discussed included bays to break up facade massing, a mansard roof to reduce perceived height and mechanical screening, and added landscaping along proposed new sidewalks on Monroe and Hardy streets.

Board members raised three substantive concerns. First, several members questioned parking: one board member counted roughly 23 spaces and asked whether that met zoning-parking requirements; another board member noted the current plan shows spaces dimensioned at 9 feet by 17 feet while zoning requires 9 by 18, and asked staff to ensure the plans show the required 9-by-18 dimensions. Second, a member raised utility-clearance concerns, saying existing utility poles near the site have long-standing clearance issues and that resolving those could be costly; Bettencourt acknowledged prior on-site discussions and said the applicant is pursuing solutions. Third, attorney John Kelty and the applicant said they are pursuing a staging/laydown agreement with a neighboring property owner, George Glenys, and that they will provide notice to the concom regarding staging areas above protected elevations as discussed with planning staff.

Staff and board members said the project is still under review by city engineering staff (Bob Langley was named as the reviewer) and that no action was requested that evening; the presentation was provided to invite board questions and recommendations while plans are finalized. Board questions included requests for confirmed parking dimensions, a final parking count and engineered responses to the utility-clearance issues before the application returns for formal approval.

The board did not vote on the Monroe Street proposal; staff will circulate engineering comments and any peer-review materials before the item returns to the Planning Board.