Salem Harbor Plan Implementation Committee
Harbor Plan Update Meeting
City Hall Annex (3rd Floor, 120 Washington Street)
September 11, 2007
7 to 10:15 PM
Meeting Notes
Committee Members present:
Fred Atkins (Chairman) Claudia Chuber Councilor Lucy Corchado
Doug Haley Peg Harrington Malia Griffin
Dolores Jordan Walter Power Annie Harris
Conrad Prosniewski Patricia Trap
Salem City Staff:
Kathy Winn (DPCD)
Frank Taormina (DPCD)
Consultants:
Captain Greg Ketchen (Fort Point Associates, Inc)
Jay Borkland (Apex Engineering, LLC)
State Officials:
Kathryn Glenn (Mass CZM)
Dennis Ducsik (Mass CZM)
Other Attendees:
Meeting agenda is attached.
Chairman Atkins opened this meeting of the Harbor Plan Implementation Committee (HPIC) with a review of the anticipated schedule for the remainder of the Harbor Plan update project. He then began committee discussion of individual items on a list of recommendations for the South Commercial Waterfront District (List is attached). He asked for the project consultant (Greg Ketchen) to briefly introduce each proposed recommendation for the committee.
1. I. Create 3 Sub-Areas with the South Commercial Waterfront District. The HPIC reached consensus to accept this recommendation.
2. II.A.(1) Remove the concept of Aggregate Treatment of Open Space that had been included in the 2000 Salem MHP for the area around the South River Basin but allow distribution of the 50% open space within a project site. A project site in this case would be defined as two or more adjoining parcels that are under common ownership or control at the time of the MPC update approval. The HPIC reached consensus to accept this recommendation.
3. II.A.(2) For Sub-Areas B and C, Require Full Compliance with Chapter 91 with No Substitutions. Remove the language from the 2000 Salem MHP that allowed a redistribution of the WDUZ to designated sites throughout the South River Basin and a reduction of the WDUZ width along the water’s edge to 20 feet. The updated MHP would require compliance with Chapter 91 regulations in determining the width of the WDUZ and maximum height of buildings within these two Sub-Areas (although new building heights would not be allowed to exceed zoning limits i.e. 70 feet for Sub-Area B and 45 feet for Sub-Area C). The HPIC reached consensus to accept this recommendation.
4. II.B.(1). WDUZ in Sub-Area A, Allow the Shoreside Width of the WDUZ to be Reduced to an absolute minimum of 20 feet along the water’s edge by either redistributing some of the more landward WDUZ (area as defined by Chapter 91) to create specified view corridors and pedestrian accessways (see attached graphic) from the nearest public street to the water’s edge or be offset by substantive improvements to the remaining WDUZ above that required by Chapter 91 that would significant improve the public’s use and enjoyment of the waterfront. For new development or site change of use, no parking would be allowed within the redistributed WDUZ. The HPIC voted nine (9) in favor and two (2) opposed this recommendation with the understanding that details of the
offsets still need to be defined and will be included in the MHP.
5. II.B.(2) Non-water-dependent Buildings will be Limited in Height to 70 Feet within Sub-Area A outside the WDUZ. This is consistent with existing municipal zoning but is greater than the 55-foot limit within 100 feet of the shoreline required by Chapter 91. The offset for this substitution will be to require additional open space above the 50% open space requirement under Chapter 91. The additional open space required will be calculated based on new shadow created by the building height over 55 feet. The HPIC reached consensus to accept this recommendation but with the stipulation that the newly required open space over the 50% standard not only be dedicated to support the public’s use of the project site’s waterfront but that at least half of
this newly required space be public/civic space for use other than just for public parking.
III. Amplification Requiring Dedicated Public Accessways. These include both the public accessways along the water’s edge (20 feet in width wherever feasible) and a 20-foot wide section of any redistributed WDUZ allowed under II.B.(1) above. The HPIC specified that there be no buildings or motorized vehicles allowed within these public accessways. The HPIC reached consensus to accept this recommendation.
Although there was general consensus supporting the proposed Waterfront Complex project, several Committee members expressed concerns over the design (or lack of specifics on the design) and proposed offsets. Among the concerns expressed were the additional floor being proposed that would extend out to the side of the building facing the South River creating a 66+-foot wall within 20 feet of the water’s edge (27 feet from the waterside edge of the harborwalk). Several committee members expressed a desire to see more complete exterior design renderings of the building elevation facing the South River before they would feel comfortable officially supporting the project. At least one committee member was concerned that the upper floors of the building were less hotel
and more private condominiums and the building should only be used for conference center, hotel rooms and other facilities of public accommodation rather than for private residences.
The next meeting was set for Tuesday, September 25, 2007 at 7 PM with the main agenda item being discussion of the Salem Wharf project proposed for the North Commercial Waterfront District.
| 
