Scott Patrowicz, tyle="font-family:Calibri;font-size:8pt;color:#000000;">Aerial photo of the PUD area used to identify:

• Old marina building to be demolished and adjacent parking on the waterfront is where the new building will be constructed.
• Existing Eastern Bank remains.
• Existing hotel parking lot will remain and will be expanded.
• Existing parking lot south of Congress Street Bridge remains; it is currently very under-utilized.
• Identified location of Herbert St and the lot location which is available to the Pickering Wharf entities and will be utilized; it is a short walk from the existing hotel. Mr. Puleo asked if this lot is currently utilized for this? Atty Correnti affirmed it is.

• Mr. Patrowicz reviewed the next slide, a drawing of existing conditions. He pointed out key buildings (existing marina, South River, Finz Restaurant, existing hotel, Eastern Bank, Pickering Wharf shops and existing condos with their parking) and surrounding streets. Slide 3 shows PUD site area. The underlying zoning for the wharf is B5, this lot eligible for B5 and PUD treatment:

• PUD area has 3 main structures on 6 parcels of land; each parcel has interior lot lines. It is significantly more efficient and simpler to treat the PUD as one area rather than submit a complex set of individual requests for relief that could be required by the varied lots/parcels.
• Access to streets and utilities across the PUD area are all shared. The developer is treating this as one entity which allows for a more uniform treatment of landscaping and design across the PUD.
• Mr. Puleo asked if the original hotel building was a PUD? Atty Correnti advised no, it was it was a Site Plan Review for a B5, parcel (parcel 1A). Eastern Bank is a separate parcel and a tenant of Pickering Wharf.

• Atty Correnti resumed the presentation and advised that PUD ordinance requirements are met. The developer believes they meet both the letter and spirit of PUD requirements:

• Mr. Puleo asked if the existing hotel height includes the cupola? Atty Correnti advised no, the cupola may not be counted to meet zoning height requirements. There was lengthy discussion regarding the roof line and dormers of the existing hotel during the site review.
  

• Extending the water main to create a looped system which will improve water pressure and flow for the entire complex.
• Storm scepter will be installed to handle oils/greases from parking lot; catch basins will be deep-sup stations with hoods.
• New building will replace dirty parking lot water for roof water (cleaner).
• Utilize an existing private drain line out-falling to an existing discharge point; eliminates a point discharge into the South River.
• Sewer will utilize existing main which was planned in 1999, feeds into the main trunk line.
  

• Mr. Puleo asked about existing seawall, anything needs to be done? Mr. Patrowicz showed location of old granite wall and sheet pile wall which will stay. An extension of the harbor walkway (Harbor Plan) will be added over the sheet pile wall, and will be reviewed later by the architect. Mr. Puleo summarized there no proposed reconstruction of seawall. Mr. Patrowicz affirmed this is correct.
• Mr. Clarke asked about discharge point, route was shown by Mr. Patrowicz using the drawings. The existing catch basin in parking lot that drains through the sheet pile wall is being removed. Mr. Clarke pointed out a specific intersection which floods regularly.

• Mr. Sasso advised the specific location of the flood problem is Union Street and city property. City Council recently voted 11-0 in favor ofdiscontinuing this portion of Union Street to enable the developer to purchase.  It’s outside the PUD, must be fixed once it becomes part of Pickering Wharf. Atty Correnti and Mr. Sasso affirmed that once this part of Union Street becomes private property the owner will fix the problem.

• Atty Correnti concluded the utilities portion of the presentation. The developer is also going to the Conservation Commission as part of permitting process to seek an order of conditions.

• Mr. Patrowicz observed it is all impervious surface now, the proposed plan adds a small amount of landscaping which will help. Roof runoff instead of parking lot storm water will also help storm water management.
• Atty Correnti mentioned the Harbor Plan contemplates construction of this building (new proposed hotel building) on this site with this configuration, and accounts for it in the harbor plan. The applicant is not presenting any new development here that hasn’t been seen and previously referenced.
  

• Two-way driveway at Congress St becomes one-way inbound (excepting limited use for outbound from Eastern Bank drive-thru), continuing to Wharf Road and Union St as a one-way street.
• Two-way on Derby Street west of the existing hotel stays a two-day driveway.
• Current access driveway inbound from Derby St becomes outbound (east of the existing hotel)
  

• Mr. Rieder asked if drivers will still be able to drive on the east side of Eastern Bank (drive-thru teller) and turn left onto Congress St. the Traffic Consultant affirmed yes.
• Mr. Clarke advised that current practice by hotel staff is to provide staff to control the driveway in front of the hotel onto Derby St, limiting use to outbound only and blocks non-hotel people from using this entrance. Mr. Sasso stated this practice has been discontinued; advised the Fire Department does not allow it.
• General discussion acknowledged the difference between hard construction and operational usage.
• Mr. Puleo asked Mr. Hazarvartian to describe traffic flow to new building:

• Consultant advised this is an operational question.
• Mr. Sasso explained; main lobby moves to front of new building (no longer existing building) with a drop off area in front. Inbound traffic will enter from Congress or Derby St and flows to new drop-off area. Self-park available at 83+14 spaces. Becomes an operational issue if there is a large event, valet parking will be offered based on expected volume. Hotel will use golf carts to ferry hotel guests to/from non-contiguous lots on Herbert Street and across the Congress Street bridge.

• Ms. Yale asked to know the capacity of the planned convention/conference center. Mr. Sasso advised 300 guests.
• Mr. Rieder asked for clarification regarding cross-hatched area on drawings near the new hotel entrance. Mr. Sasso advised this is valet only. An additional 14 spots will be created in front of the existing hotel building when the portcochere is demolished.
• Mr. Griset asked for clarification on the golf cart usage—are they being used on public streets? Mr. Sasso confirmed yes, they have license plates (registered and insured). The hotel currently has 2 carts. Pickering Wharf has 157 spaces at South Congress Street location with the ability to move guests via golf carts.
• Mr. Clarke clarified that every car must exit onto Derby St unless they sneak through Eastern Bank drive-thru. Mr. Sasso affirmed this is correct.
• Mr. Clarke recommended the applicant provide firm counts on current flows (in/outbound) on both the Congress St driveway and Derby St driveway.
• Mr. Hazarvartian offered the opinion that the overall site flow will not have much change in overall traffic numbers, only a shift in circulation.

• Mr. Puleo asked how many spaces in South Congress St parking lot, pointed out not all are usable at this time. Mr. Sasso advised there are 157 spaces there, some spaces temporarily unavailable because the lot is currently under-utilized. There are an additional 39 spaces at the Herbert St lot. 14 existing spaces will be demolished to make way for the new building, and 14 added back to hotel area (when portcochere demolished).
• Ms. Sides asked to know Eastern Bank parking capacity as this is a very busy bank that regularly exceeds their allotted parking. Mr. Sasso advised there will be 3 regular spaces and 1 handicapped space in front of the bank, reducing their handicapped from 2 to 1 space based on an analysis. Their lease is limited to 4 spaces. Mr. Rieder asked where the closest handicapped spaces are located in relation to the hotel. Mr. Hazarvartian advised there are 4 public spaces at the corner adjacent the hotel.

• Mr. Clarke stated the Board and the public need a full traffic analysis of this project. This presentation is incomplete and does not present all the needed facts of current circulation at this very important intersection.

• Signalized and right-turn lane added from South Congress onto Derby St.
• Trip generation calculations done to compare the existing conditions and traffic generated by the new buildings. The numbers were low; leading him to conclude that because the area is largely built-up already; traffic conditions will not notably change.
  

• Mr. Puleo suggested traffic metrics for the existing residences and the impact of adding more residences are a factor for consideration.
• Mr. Rieder agreed with Mr. Clarke’s request—the overall volume may appear below a statistical threshold requiring a full traffic analysis, but for those who live here this is a hot spot and a major intersection that affects Salem residents and residents of adjacent communities who use travel through this intersection daily.
  

• Mr. Puleo asked what function will occupy the first floor at the Congress Street end? Mr. Vincent advised this will be the residential entry and mechanical. Mr. Puleo observed the view of the water/boats from the downtown/Derby Street/Congress Street bridge perspectives will be blocked by the proposed building footprint.
• Mr. Puleo asked if the existing marina access remains. Mr. Vicent affirmed yes, noting there is a grade change along the waterside from the Congress Street Bridge to Finz Bar & Grille. Prompted by Mr. Puleo he confirmed the Harborwalk extension will connect to the existing walk adjacent to the Finz location continuing to the Congress Street Bridge.
• Mr. Clarke asked about a lighting plan and was advised it will be presented at future appearances before the Board. He expressed a concern that the existing Harborwalk from Finz to Capt’s Bar & Grille is very poorly lit and maintained.
  

• Ms. Yale asked about use of existing building lobby, bar and smaller function rooms. Mr. Vincent confirmed the smaller function rooms will remain. Decisions have not been made about how best to utilize the lobby space and existing bar.
• Mr. Anderson for the routing of hotel deliveries to the east end of the building—will they be routed from Congress Street or Derby Street? He pointed out the 12-ft bridge clearance may not be adequate for box trucks.  Mr. Vincent agreed this issue should be explored.
• Mr. Anderson asked if the satellite parking lots are within 400-ft of the existing facility? Mr. Vincent advised they will check.
  

• Police and Building Departments both identified hours of construction operations are in conflict with ordinance.
• Conservation agent advised a letter of conditions is required from the Conservation Commission.
• Engineering Department has requested: a traffic study, peer reviewed civil engineering plan and a storm water management plan.
  

• Susan St Pierre advised this project has been through the MEPA process and received a certificate with no conditions.

• The landscape plan provides for low-spreading juniper which can take a snow load on the vegetative perimeter.
• The developer has agreed to add light bollards in parking lot corners.
• Utilities provided via existing water service off Highland Ave. The project will add a separate line for sprinkler system; 2-inch is all that is required.
• Interior plumbing will be adjusted to accommodate domestic service.
• Easement is on record for access to existing sewer line, which will be inspected. It is large enough to handle 8 units.
• Two catch basins for parking lot drainage need attention due to lack of maintenance. Will clean/repair as needed.
  

• Mr. Willwerth’s intention is to end up with a painted clapboard building.
• The plan includes clean-up of sofits/eaves; they hope to restore much of the period trim detail.
• The only windows scheduled for replacement are the big picture windows on the front side, first floor. Other windows are replacement vinyl windows which will remain. Until they remove the vinyl siding and aluminum trim they do not know how much replacement work will be needed.
• Entry way will be reconstructed and spruced up to provide a more residential feel.
• Mr. Anderson expressed a concern that some of the architectural detail will be lost if substantial replacement is needed. This site is on an entrance corridor which has a set of specific requirements whose spirit is intended to preserve our architectural heritage.
• Mr. Ready asked to know the year of original construction; Mr. Willwerth believes it to be the 1900-1910 period.
• Mr. Anderson asked when floorplans (simple) will be available; Mr. Willwerth advised about 2.5 weeks from now.
  

• site elevations that note the materials
• parking/circulation plan with entries/exits explained
• basic floorplan that enables the Board to evaluate the resident spaces

• Atty Grover noted that site plan review does not typically include floorplan approval. The Board clarified construction drawings are not required, just a rough layout.

• light fixture cuts
• landscape plan that specifies type of fencing and plant materials
• HVAC placement
• Overlay district requirements

• Mr. Rieder clarified there is no foot traffic from Goodhue to Boston Street along east side of the property line. Mr. Moreira affirmed and indicated any pedestrians that might be in the immediate area would be staff or others in an emergency situation.
• Mr. Puleo asked if all HVAC/mechanical are in the building. Mr. Moreira affirmed yes, and added the transformer and emergency generator must be placed outside per code requirements. There will be fencing to enclose these. There are currently no 3- dimensional renderings of this detail as of now.
• Mr. Rieder reminded the applicant team there had been a question about dimensions of the Boston Street sidewalk. Mr. Buie advised it is 6-ft from the property line to the edge of the curb, and that the sidewalk and curb is being extended to the Dunkin Donuts. The sidewalk is 5.5-ft with a 6-inch curbstone.
• Mr. Rieder asked for details regarding where trees will be located, in sidewalk tree pits? He explained that due to the dimensions of the sidewalk, tree pits will be limited to 2-ft to allow wheelchairs to pass, 2-ft tree pits are inadequate for street trees because of the size of the rootball. While trees at curbside are generally positive as they provide another layer vehicle protection, in this case he recommended the trees be located on the backside of the sidewalk in the lawn about 24-30 inches from the sidewalk edge.

• Atty Correnti advised there is a proposed Boston Street Improvement Program not designed yet—they want to coordinate with the City and complement this program.

• Mr. Anderson advised there is an also an improvement plan for Goodhue Street and the project should coordinate with this as well.

• Atty Correnti advised they have seen proposed versions of the traffic improvement plan and are waiting to see the final.
• Mr. Moreira added the group working on the Goodhue Street area traffic improvement plan had not seen this site plan and proposed building. They are reviewing it now before they finalize the traffic improvement plan.

• Mr. Rieder recommended the trees proposed along Goodhue Street side be located streetside (vs. Boston St where they should be away from street due to space limitations for the root systems).

• Atty Correnti advised they will present revised details on street trees along Boston and Goodhue at the next appearance before the Planning Board.
  

• Main parking area bollards at each end of the lot and pole-mounted fixtures located between trees.
• Main entrance drop off area to feature a bench and lighting
• Retaining wall sconces
• Loading dock lighting.
  

• Mr. Anderson asked for details on the lower lot lighting and was advised they will be presented shortly.
• Mr. Clarke observed the City doesn’t have a transportation department to consolidate transportation comments. He suggested traffic cameras at major intersections are a feature that needs to be added as new projects come online. He suggested developers might be asked to add a camera(s) to provide video feed to the City, and asked Ms. Menon to investigate if the City could make this a requirement.  He offered this is not the correct forum for this suggestion, but this project is good illustration of the need.
• Mr. Anderson asked for color on metal panel and a sample was shown; described color as champagne, warmer neutral. He appreciates the revised color selection, but expressed he still has concerns with using metal on the exterior of the building in this neighborhood. He asked if the corner details are cut or folded. Mr. Buie advised it is a preformed piece. The goal is to be very fine with the detailing where the panel meeting the sofit, sills, corners, etc. The intention is to cleanly cap the parapet.
  

• The Chair read into the record two letters from James Treadwell of 36 Felt Street, Salem. His letters were addressed to the City Planner expressing his key concerns:

• Brick is not being used on the new building planned for this site despite the explicit preference for brick written into the NRCC plan.
• Asked if there was any effort to incorporate the existing FlynnTan sign into the new development.

• James Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, Salem—expressed several concerns and his dismay that the DRB is not holding new projects to the recommended standards as put forth in the NRCC and Mack Park Neighborhood Plan; particularly with their failure to insist on the use of brick on new building exteriors.

• The City’s traffic improvement plan for the Goodhue Street neighborhood has not been consolidated with the landscaping plan for this development. It is urgent these two projects are coordinated and that plan be presented in detail to the Planning Board including traffic study metrics.
• Zoning and entrance corridor requirements have not been fully addressed by the developer on this site.
• Asked whether the Conservation Commission be involved or not in the approval of this plan. Will they waive jurisdiction or present a review?

• Bob Griffin, civil engineer for the developer responded and indicated the current flood maps do not touch the site, but they expect the future map will touch a small portion of the site, and therefore Conservation Commission approval will likely be required; perhaps a limited scope such as an RDA.

• Asked who will analyze the sophisticated storm water management plan that is part of this project.

• Ms. Menon advised a civil peer review consultant has been engaged to review this aspect of the plan and is in process.

• Asked who will review the lighting plan.

• Mr. Puleo advised lighting will be reviewed by the Planning Board.

• Mr. Treadwell observed the design features of this project are not pedestrian friendly particularly on the Goodhue Street side of the site. He  singled out:

• Transformer and generator sited alongside a sidewalk
• Goodhue Street entrance if planned to be a public entrance should not be treated as a service entrance.
• Goodhue Street retaining wall alongside the sidewalk is enormous.
• Metal screen along garage and adjacent the sidewalk is not pedestrian friendly.

• Asked if the planned parking meets zoning requirements.
• Asked how they plan to verify the site is meeting requirement.

• Mr. Anderson asked if updated drawings will be available in advance of the next appearance before the Planning Board to enable members to study them in advance. Atty Correnti affirmed, yes. Ms. Menon advised it is helpful to receive an electronic copy in advance, and then several sets of hard copies available at the meeting.
• Mr. Clarke asked how many parking spaces planned for the garage. Atty Correnti clarified garage parking is for staff/tenants only.

• Mr. Clarke suggested audible/visual warning notice when vehicles exiting the garage to safeguard pedestrians.

• Guardrail detail drawing for the proposed vehicular barrier system.
• April 16 letter from Architect Thomas Galvin specifying new proposed materials.