City of Salem Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 29, 2014
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, May 29, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Chairman Puleo opened the meeting at 7:03 pm. ~
Roll Call
Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, Ben Anderson, Kirt Rieder, Tim Ready, Vice Chair, Dale Yale, Randy Clarke and Helen Sides. Absent: Bill Griset.
Also present: Dana Menon, Staff Planner, and Pamela Broderick, Planning Board Recording Clerk. ~
Approval of Minutes
May 15, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes
No comments or corrections were made by the Planning Board members. ~
Motion and Vote:~Tim Ready made a motion to approve the minute as written, seconded by Dale Yale. ~The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Ms. Yale, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Rieder) and none (0) opposed.
Regular Agenda
Project: Continuation of the public hearing for a petition requesting a Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and a Flood Hazard District Special Permit for the demolition of the existing Marina Building and the redevelopment of that site to include an expansion of the existing Salem Waterfront Hotel & Suites with associated parking and landscaping, and off-site parking at 13-15 Herbert Street and 25 Peabody Street.
Applicant: ~~~~~ THE SALEM WATERRONT HOTEL & SUITES, LLC
Locations: ~~~~~ 19 Congress St (Map 34, Lot 489); 23 Congress St (Map 34, Lot 447);
223-231 Derby St (Map 34, Lot 446; 235 Derby St (Map 34, Lot 445);
Congress St (Map 34, Lot 408); 13-15 Herbert St (map 35, Lot 321);
25 Peabody St (Map 34, Lot 436); The Remaining land of Pickering Wharf Condominium Trust (Map 34, Lot 408)
Documents and Exhibitions:
- Transmittal by Patrowicz Land Development Engineering dated 5/29/2014, including the following revised Site Plans dated 5/20/14: “Aerial View”, “Existing Conditions”, “PUD Site Area”, “Locus: 40 Scale”, “Parking & Traffic Circulation”, “Layout Dimensions”, “Grading (Earthwork)”, “Utilities”, “Notes & Details”, “Details”.
Page 1 of 6
- Report from BETA Group, Inc dated May 29, 2014, Re: “Proposed Salem Waterfront Hotel Expansion Peer Review of Traffic and Parking Assessment”
- Report from New England Civil Engineering Corp dated May 27, 2014, Re: “City of Salem RFQ O-37 – On-Call Civil Engineering Support Service, Task Order No. 6 – Salem Waterfront Hotel Expansion (Congress and Derby Streets), Salem, MA”
Chairman Puleo read brief correspondence from Attorney Joseph Correnti stating that he is no longer representing the applicant on this project.
Attorney George Atkins of Ronan, Segal & Harrington, 59 Federal Street, presented on behalf of the applicant. Other presenters included:
Tony Sasso, project manager, Salem Waterfront Hotel Expansion
Scott Patrowicz, Patrowicz Land Development Engineering, 14 Brown Street, civil engineer
Kim Hazarvartian of TEPP LLC, Salem, NH, traffic consultant
Peer Reviewers presenting:
Bill Ross, New England Civil Engineering, 120 Washington Street, civil engineering peer review
Ken Petraglia, BETA Group Inc., Norwood MA, traffic peer review
Atty Atkins introduced himself and key team members presenting. His introduction also highlighted the extensive history of the project and its direct links to the Salem Harbor Plan. Architects for the applicant have met with representatives from the Design Review Board and the Planning Board; there will be notable design changes, to be presented in detail at a future meeting. Highlights that affect tonight’s presentation include:
- Overhead connecting bridge between two wings of hotel will be removed.
- Building usage changes include elimination of all 14 residential units that were previously proposed.
- Building structure will be reduced to 5 stories (from original 6), and the 5th floor will have an additional 10 hotel rooms (rather than the 7 residential units originally proposed), for a total of 42 new hotel rooms.
- The Herbert Street Lot was a proposed parking solution for the residents of the 14 residential units originally proposed; this is no longer a factor as the residences have been eliminated.
TRAFFIC STUDY
Atty Atkins advised the applicant’s traffic study will be amended with the additional data from a parking count planned for this weekend as hotel is projected 100% and there is a wedding onsite. Updated data will be presented once available.
Atty Atkins provided the following key points:
- Golf cart usage between hotel and golf carts has been addressed with the Salem Police Department. If vehicles are registered, have license plates, and are insured, they can be used on public streets.
- The revised plan provides a total of 246 spaces in the PUD complex including the Congress Street lot and Eastern Bank spaces.
- The Municipal garage is expected to be used by event attendees.
Page 2 of 6
Atty Atkins pointed out the B5 zoning for this site (and Congress Street lot) includes instructive provisions, and quoted: “Nonresidential uses in the B5 District shall not be required to provide off-street parking since the community will accept the responsibility for nonresidential parking in this district.” The elimination of the 14 residential units from the new hotel building eliminates the requirement for additional parking spaces. Also, when parking is required, “The parking facility must be less than 1000-ft from the proposed development, the distance to be
- measured in a straight line…” both the municipal garage and the Congress Street lot meet the 1,000-foot requirement.
Salem traffic peer review presented by Ken Petraglia who identified the following issues:
- No analysis was done of the Derby/Congress intersection because the TEPP report assumed the number of additional trips generated will be insignificant. BETA agrees with this.
- The proposal to modify the Congress Street drive to one-way inbound will increase traffic through the Derby/Congress intersection by restricting exits to Congress Street, and introduce more pedestrian conflicts on Derby.
- Proposal to change direction to one-way outbound (to Derby Street) for the driveway to the east of the existing hotel building produces conflict with no traffic flow advantage.
- Overall mobility and traffic circulation would be better if the current traffic flow was kept in place.
- Trip generation in the TEPP report was done correctly. The TEPP report proposed that overall trips would be reduced by use of public transit, Mr. Petraglia disagrees with this, but the impact on total trip generation is still not significant.
Board discussion resulted in the following concerns and requests:
- Board verified that the parking count planned for this weekend will be peer-reviewed. The Board also suggested that traffic flow through the site and intersection be observed (including any pedestrian conflicts) while the parking count is conducted.
- Parking supply must be updated to reflect the revised plan (eliminating Herbert Street lot and the 14 residential units). The total parking supply goes from 285 to 246 spaces.
- Use of the Congress Street Lot:
- Board asked if the Congress Street lot continues to be available to patrons of other Pickering Wharf businesses or is it limited to only hotel guests.
- Mr. Petraglia reported the applicant has a 15-year lease on the lot (renewable) and has control of how it will be used. If this lot is limited to hotel-only, existing users will be displaced which may impact Derby Street as drivers seek alternate parking.
- Ms. Menon reported that she had spoken with Captain Brian Gilligan of the Salem Police Department, who stated that as long as the golf carts have license plates issued by the State, the golf carts can be legally operated on the road. The Board pointed out that golf carts would be prohibited from turning left out of the driveway at Congress Street if the direction of the driveway is changed.
Mr. Petraglia concluded his presentation with final recommendations:
- Parking count be conducted (now planned for this weekend)
- Suggested the applicant offer mitigation for the ADA non-compliance of the route from the hotel to the Herbert Street Lot; specifically, the Derby Street crosswalks are ADA non-compliant
Page 3 of 6
- (no curb cuts). Making these crosswalks ADA-compliant might be part of mitigation, and appropriate as the crosswalks are adjacent the applicant’s property.
Mr. Sasso addressed the rationale of the proposed changes to internal traffic flow. Traffic has been using the private property roads as a cut-through from Union Street to Congress Street and other drivers trying to avoid the lights at the Derby/Congress intersection. The proposed changes are intended to protect the pedestrians on private property. The hotel will use the bank exit onto Congress Street for the golf carts. The hotel entrance car queue is about 8 cars. Mr. Sasso confirmed that if the Congress Street driveway was used for two-way traffic, there would still be room for a car queue at the hotel entrance.
Further Board discussion addressed the following:
- Board discussed restricting the driveway east of the existing hotel building onto Derby (one-way outbound) to right-turn on Derby only. This would eliminate some of the pedestrian/traffic queue concerns on Derby Street.
- The Board discussed various options for maintaining 2-way traffic on the Congress Street driveway while slowing any potential through-traffic on the site.
- Board asked if applicant has any data on accidents/injuries on the private property. Mr. Sasso advised there are no statistics in hand.
- Board asked about existing speed tables on the property -they were identified on the plan, one was noted as missing from the submitted plans.
- Mr. Sasso affirmed the private driveway directly in front of the existing hotel building will remain two-way;
Atty Atkins observed that the only outstanding issue on this topic is the parking count study. The Board indicated a preferencethat the Congress Street driveway remain two-way. Atty Atkins reminded the Board of the B5 district zoning ordinances that are applicable with regard to parking. Board reminded the applicant a PUD is being requested and supersedes zoning.
Mr. Hazarvartian, traffic engineer for the applicant, concluded the traffic study presentation and observed that even if you don’t take vehicle reductions for patron use of public transit, the parking spaces required by the proposed building are 197. The applicant is offering a total of 246 spaces between Congress Street lot (157 spaces) and onsite parking at the complex.
Board indicated there needs to be a condition in the decision to expressly prohibit use of the Herbert Street lot for PUD purposes.
CIVIL ENGINEERING PEER REVIEW
Atty Atkins reported that most items from the peer review report were resolved at a recent meeting. Still unresolved is the matter of a 36” drainage pipe under the applicant’s property that is connected to the city storm water drainage system (shows on old city maps). The city says Hawthorne Blvd and Charter Street drain through this. There is no record of easement or taking by the city—so if this pipe is in place and in use by the city it is there illegally. The applicant considers the matter of the pipe to be a city issue as the drainage for the property is being addressed differently. The applicant’s observations are that there is not enough flow out of the pipe to indicate it is in use. Drain is thought to run under the
Page 4 of 6
marina building scheduled for demolition. Needs to be examined by camera and excavated after demolition. Applicant has agreed to meet with whoever is appropriate to get more information.
Bill Ross, New England Civil Engineering—previously presented storm water management and utility review on this project. Applicant has requested a change in his review scope; 1) that the storm water management review be presented to the Conservation Commission and 2) the presentation to the Planning Board focus on utilities and connection to city utilities only. Mr. Ross offered the following key points:
- Main concern is the drainage 21-inch outfall on Wharf Road/Union Street and the condition of this drainage system—whether it can handle more flow. Applicant has changed flow for the roof and redirected it to the existing 12-inch drainage outfall, to avoid increasing flow to the existing 21-inch outfall serving Union Street. His report includes a recommendation at that the architect confirm that all the roof flow from the new building can be feasibly redirected to the 12-inch drainage outfall.
- Mr. Ross raised concern that the sanitary flow from both hotel buildings could be accommodated by an existing 8-inch sewer pipe. The applicant’s engineer issued a statement that the existing and proposed sewer pipe to Derby Street can handle the peak flows from the combined (existing and proposed) project. There is no concern for any off-site impacts.
- Revised plans no longer offer an extended pipe through the sheet pile to improve the flow of the 36” outfall. This item is pending resolution and there is some difference of opinion of whether the city or the applicant is responsible for fixing it. The pipe cannot be fully explored by camera due to changes in pipe materials and diameter. Mr. Ross indicated the drain clearly exists and is in use; but the exact location and route of the pipe is unclear. The Board can set a condition that this issue be resolved by negotiation between the city and the applicant. Atty Atkins stated that at one point the city asked the applicant to replace the pipe; the applicant opted to delete the mitigation proposed on the January plan and it was removed.
Scott Patrowicz, civil engineer consultant for the applicant, continued the presentation and reported his firm had a productive meeting with city engineers and Bill Ross, resulting in great suggestions which have been incorporated into the revised plan presented tonight.
Atty Atkins offered this summary of next steps:
- Applicant’s architects are meeting with Design Review Board, and redirecting roof flow
- New site plan will be presented to the Planning Board on June 5
- Applicant has filed with the Conservation Commission and will be presenting to them in June.
After discussion, Mr. Anderson made the following suggestions to the applicant for the revised plans:
- Condo parking lot east of the new building is not screened from the new loading area. Mr. Patrowicz advised there is a 2-ft retaining wall. The Board suggested there be fencing or landscape screening so hotel trash pickup would be less visible and audible from the condos.
- Turrett gateway feature seems to be incomplete without an obvious purpose. Mr. Anderson asked if it would be illuminated. Suggested they consider installing sculpture or some emblem indicative of the history of the wharf—something to draw people in to the space and activate it.
- North face of the new building to the left of the entrance (entrance) seems to be somewhat dead and needs to be activated; suggested the addition of benches and landscaping.
Page 5 of 6
- Requested rough renderings that would show the revised building from several viewpoints:
- Congress/Derby intersection
- coming down Hawthorne Blvd
- from the existing Pickering Wharf complex
Mr. Clarke asked what conditions were in the original 1999 decision regarding maintenance of the current Pickering Wharf walkway; its lighting, landscaping, benches and trash receptacles. Particularly he thought it would be helpful to the Board to know if there were specific conditions attached to the decision that impacted this part of the complex.
Chairman Puleo opened the hearing to the public for comment:
No comments from the public.
Motion and Vote:~~Ben Anderson made a motion to continue the public hearing to Jun 5, 2014, seconded by Randy Clarke. ~The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Ms. Yale, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Rieder) and none (0) opposed.
Old/New Business
Mr. Puleo reported the Jefferson Station apartment complex does not participate in trash recycling. As it is private property this is not a requirement; he wondered if the city can reach out with some encouragement.
Adjournment
Motion and Vote:~ Randy Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Dale Yale. The vote was unanimous with seven (7) in favor (Mr. Puleo, Mr. Ready, Mr. Anderson, Ms. Sides, Ms. Yale, Mr. Clarke, and Mr. Rieder) and none (0) opposed.
Chairman Puleo adjourned the meeting at 8:45pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Broderick, Recording Clerk
Approved by the Planning Board on 6/5/2014
Page 6 of 6
| 
