APPROVED Special Meeting Minutes 8/19/2010
Salem Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
August 19, 2010
A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, August 19, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
Those present were Chuck Puleo, Chair, John Moustakis, Vice Chair, Mark George, Helen Sides, Tim Ready, and Tim Kavanaugh. Also present: Tom Devine, Interim Staff Planner. Absent: Nadine Hanscom, Randy Clarke, and Christine Sullivan.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of July 15, 2010 were reviewed. Mr. Devine stated that a change in the state’s open meeting law requires documents to be listed in the minutes and decisions to be attached.
There being no further comments, a motion was made by John Moustakis to approve the minutes of July 15, seconded by Helen Sides and approved 6-0.
Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit, Site Plan Review, and Drive-Through Facilities Special Permit for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34, Lot 307), Salem, MA (proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building with a pharmacy and drive-through facility). Attorney Joseph Correnti.
Public Hearing: Request of SALEM LAFAYETTE LLC for Planned Unit Development Special Permit and Site Plan Review for the property located at 135 LAFAYETTE STREET (Map 34, Lot 307), Salem, MA (proposed demolition of church and convent, renovation of school and rectory, and construction of a new mixed-use building). Attorney Joseph Correnti.
Mr. Puleo opened both hearings simultaneously. Mr. Devine said that the city has received a $1,000,000 Public Works Economic Development (PWED) grant from the state to do infrastructure work in the area around the St. Joseph’s site. The work, currently in design phase, will include improvements to the Dow/Washington/Lafayette and Harbor/Lafayette intersections. Although the work will provide the necessary traffic mitigation for the redevelopment of the St. Joseph’s site, the need for the work was identified in a 2005 downtown traffic study, prior to the redevelopment plans. This will go forward separately from the Planning Board review of the redevelopment. The city intends to hold two public meetings, with the first tentatively scheduled for early November. The public should sign in on
the attendance sheet in order to be notified of the exact date and time.
Joseph Correnti, attorney for the applicant, 63 Federal St., said there are two plans for the site presented simultaneously. We are not asking you to choose the one you like, but to approve both. We are opening the two hearings simultaneously, but we don’t expect both to conclude simultaneously. The plan without a pharmacy is simpler and very similar to what was previously approved. The plan with a pharmacy is newer and hasn’t been publicly presented. It includes a request for a Drive-Through Special Permit. We expect that to go longer, but we will ask to close first, if you are satisfied, with the plan without a pharmacy.
Peter Roche, development consultant for the applicant, presented PowerPoint slides. We have held our financing commitment together for 3 years and some of it is now at rick. We need to meet a September deadline to secure funding. We are in touch with Historic Salem, Inc. and other stakeholders. We intend to continue with the 106 process. Our goals are to bring in a vibrant anchor to the site, leverage private and public investment, revitalize the neighborhood with sensitive reuse of historic buildings, and to provide affordable housing. He showed the geographic context of the site.
Ed Bradford of The Architectural Team, Inc., showed existing conditions. It covers the whole block except for three existing buildings in the corner. The rectory and school will be reused while the church and convent are removed. Most of the site is a parking lot. He showed the proposed site plan. Most housing units are in the new building, and just 22 in the renovated buildings. We have a concept for a strong pedestrian street edge with retail consistent with the buildings to the north of the site. We propose a landscaped rear courtyard. It would be a total of 121 parking spaces. He identified access points to the site and images of the neighborhood context. We break down the 175 foot frontage into two kinds of fenestrations. He displayed renderings. The ground
floor rear units will have dedicated entrances and the rear design is to reflect The Point neighborhood.
Andy Truman, civil engineer for the applicant, said they plan to break up the pavement with landscaping and close off a curb cut to keep traffic on main streets. The Dow St. intersection curb cut is being coordinated with the current traffic study. We are proposing new landscaping and ornamental fencing around the edges. Utilities are being reviewed by the city. We will put in new stormwater infrastructure and will work with the City Engineer on all this.
Joe San Clement, transportation engineer for the applicant, said this is a great location. It is close to downtown and a half mile to transit. Only 80% of peak commutes are by auto. This is lower density that the previous project. He displayed vehicle trip generation for the non-pharmacy option. We anticipate 46 AM peak trips and 74 PM. That is 1 to 2 vehicles per minute during peak times. The previously approved uses would generate more. And this is conservative in light of the auto mode share and mixed use nature of the project. Some trips could be within the site, from a residential unit to the first floor retail. Mr. Puleo asked if there will be parking in front of the building. Mr. Clement said there is on-street parking. We are in excess of parking
requirements and it should be more than adequate to handle these uses. We will use transportation demand management to take advantage of the location with transit options. There will be a transportation coordinator who will make tenants aware of transit options. There will be bike storage and perhaps a shared car service. This is consistent with smart growth principles.
Mr. Correnti said they are breaking here from the non-pharmacy option and what follows will be specific to the option with the pharmacy. Mr. George asked what the improvement will be for stormwater. Mr. Truman showed the site plan and said that currently there is a big parking lot that sheet flows to the corner of the site. The roofs of the buildings go into the storm sewer and we will correct that. In general, this will be a big improvement from a hydo perspective with a significant reduction of flow.
Mr. Moustakis asked to see the difference between current and past proposals. Mr. Correnti said they are similar, but the previous proposal was for 97 units and a six story building. The school and rectory remain the same and the site plan has improved curb cuts. The site is much simpler and less dense. Mr. Kavanaugh asked if there is any commitment from the applicant to improve Lafayette Park like in the past approval. Mr. Correnti said the prior decision talked about the developer contributing to maintenance and those discussions are ongoing. We think the park is a jewel in the rough and we would very much like to see it improved. Ms. Sides asked which way Harbor St. runs. Mr. Truman indicates that it is one-way westward.
Mr. George asked if traffic lights would be moved. Mr. Correnti said it will be addressed when they cover the pharmacy with its bigger traffic impact. Mr. Ready asked if there is any indication of what is underneath the asphalt. There is some idea that there may be a religious artifact there. Mr. Correnti said this was addressed in the last approval process. We would have to be sensitive to the possibility that there is a statue buried there and we would be willing to accept the same kind of condition regarding this as we had last time.
Ms. Sides said more consideration should go into the architecture. I think this should be reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) if the applicant is willing to do that. I have many questions about materials. The city should know more about a building itself at this location. Mr. Correnti said we are here now to answer questions. There is no doubt this is a significant property. Ms. Sides said she thinks the design has improved.
Issue is opened up to the public.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., said he would support the DRB seeing this, as it is across from the urban renewal area. I don’t like the concrete panels. Was there a curb cut on Lafayette in the last proposal? Mr. Truman answered affirmatively. Mr. Treadwell said the board should recognize that they are cutting into Lafayette St. and this could have a bearing on traffic. I would like to know what the increase in open space will be. I don’t think there is as much parking as the applicant claims. He read from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding historic preservation. I think the claim that there is nothing historically significant is false. The possible buried relic is notable. You don’t have to be on the national register to go under 106 review or
Massachusetts Chapter 9. The church was found to be eligible for the national register. I would like to know who in the historic establishment you are talking to. The 106 review includes public input, as does the state review. The proposal demolishes one of the North Shore’s few international buildings. The convent would be fantastic as Single Room Occupancy. I will talk later about MEPA, the environmental notification form, salvage, recordation, historical review of the area, and interpretive materials on the site. I don’t think the Planning Board wants to know that interested parties have been left out. I will also discuss the DRB, the statue, eligibility for the national register, PUD requirements, and compatibility with abutters.
Emily Udy, 7 Phelps St., Preservation Project Manager, Historic Salem, Inc., submitted a letter to the Board. She said we need to acknowledge that these are historic buildings and I look forward to commenting further along in the process. We urge the Board to put this before the DRB. We are curious about the correlation between the city’s and the applicant’s traffic studies. They should be done in conjunction. The mixed use strategy is very appropriate and desired. We appreciate the pedestrian environment along the street, but that will be diminished by the pharmacy. I am not here to debate the demolition of the church, but it is important to acknowledge its iconic and cultural status. The new building would be fine if built on an empty site. The site has only been
vacant for 5% of its life. Merely using brick is not enough. We would like a better specific design to reflect the textures found throughout the neighborhood. One idea is to reflect the church’s International Style. Units should be beautiful and made to last. We are concerned about the placement of mechanical equipment for the rectory and the school. There should be a strong street front with landscaping and we would like to see lighting chosen with care. As someone who fits the demographic of a potential resident, I think there should be expanded green space to make it a place where people can live. I have spent a lot of time walking through here, and there is not a lot of park land around it. There will be fewer parking spaces than adults living there. That should be looked at. Parking could be reduced if it is in excess of zoning to make it more amenable to residents. Breaking up the building like two
buildings is a good option, but the back of the building should match the front.
Joan Lovely, Councilor at Large, 14 Story St., said she supports this going to the DRB. I would like to have the PowerPoint on the website. Mr. Devine indicated that he can post it.
Tessie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria St., asked if there is someone to contact regarding historic issues. Mr. Treadwell said interested parties have to notify the state. Mr. Correnti said he would make sure the city has that address.
Wilson Tejada, Lafayette Hotel Manager, 117 Lafayette St., said people are forced out of our property if they need to live with a family member, since we can only allow people to live alone. I hate when I can’t help these people. We need a project like this to help the community. People don’t have money for high rent.
Shirley Walker, 51 Lafayette St., asked how long it will take before people move into the building. Mr. Roche said they will probably have occupancy in the spring of 2011. Mr. Correnti said they expect a one year construction timeline.
Mr. Bradford presented the alternate plan with a pharmacy. It is similar but has a larger footprint. The first floor occupies the courtyard area, with roof space instead for the community. The units around the courtyard are gone. The new building would have 45 residential units rather than 54. The pharmacy drive-through needs a special permit. The rear of the building is different and there is loading access for the pharmacy.
Mr. Puleo asked where the dumpsters would be located. Mr. Bradford said they would be inside the loading dock. Mr. Puleo asked about the scheduling of deliveries. Mr. Bradford said all services will be happening here in the rear. Mr. Puleo said he is concerned about blocking traffic. Mr. Truman noted that a whole truck can fit inside. Mr. Puleo asked if the drive through has the adequate space for stacking in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Truman answered affirmatively. Mr. George asked what the estimated traffic increase will be with the pharmacy. Mr. Correnti said they wish to cover that at a future hearing. Mr. Truman shows that utilities are roughly the same for both proposals, but the pharmacy would bring a slight increase in impervious area.
Mr. Ready ask what the pharmacy hours would be. Mr. Correnti said we don’t know that yet. Ms. Sides said she finds the two programs significantly different. The drive through changes the effect of the building. It cuts off people who live there from their parking. Filling in the courtyard doesn’t put the courtyard on the second floor; it is a roof. It is an extremely non-urban gesture to have the drive through.
Issue is opened up to the public.
Mr. Treadwell said this plan is entirely different. What will you do with all the delivery trucks besides the one you fit inside? The drive through will bring traffic into the interior of the development. It is essential that we retain the church’s spire. We don’t want to see the wrecking ball on the crucifix. It should be saved in mitigation.
A member of the public said the destruction of St. Joe’s is a terrible sin because it is great architecture. In Europe they keep their vacant churches. This building was built with great care and you can see the steeple all over the city. They could use the other three buildings for housing. I saw the buried statue and I have pictures of it. I regret that the church itself is going to demolish this building.
Robert McCarthy, Ward 1 Councilor, 153 Bay View Ave., said he appreciates Historic Salem, Inc.’s comment about how the site has only been vacant for a small part of its life. Anger shouldn’t be placed at the Board or the developer. We want to thank the developer for sticking with this project. It will be a good neighborhood addition. I hope this will move forward. Questions about the removal of the crucifix and the disposition of the statue are valid. This developer does quality developments. They have an onsite presence to ensure that properties are maintained will.
Mr. Moustakis asked whether the statue could be placed somewhere on the property if it is in good condition. Mr. Correnti said we understand the concern and there was a condition for this in the last approval. We will accept a similar condition. It has to be handled in a certain way. Mr. Ready recognized the good faith of the developer on this matter in the previous review.
Lucy Corchado, head of The Point Neighborhood Association, 1 Chase St., said she regretted the closing of the church. But the area is becoming an uninviting blight. We can bring back families and recreate community and vibrancy. The developer is responsible and has worked with neighbors. I support the petition. I like the first option better, but the developer has shown how they can positively impact the neighborhood.
Thomas Furey, Councilor at large, 77 Linden St., said both plans can be a win-win for Salem. It will add to the vibrancy of downtown with a mix of uses. When it is all done, it will enhance the whole city. I am looking forward to seeing it in reality.
A member of the public said it is sad to see the church go, but this will bring an improvement and we have to move forward.
A motion was made by John Moustakis to continue both Public Hearings at the September 16 meeting, seconded by Mark George and approved unanimously.
Old/New Business
None
Adjournment
A motion was made by Tim Kavanaugh to adjourn, seconded by Helen sides, and approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tom Devine
Interim Staff Planner
In addition to the applications before the Board and related materials, the following documents are referenced in these minutes and are available at the Department of Planning and Community Development.
Planning Office for Urban Affairs PowerPoint Presentation dated 8-19-10
Letter from Historic Salem, Inc. dated 8-18-10.
Approved by the Planning Board on September 16, 2010.
| 
