MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING
OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2006
A regular meeting of the Salem Redevelopment Authority was (SRA) held in the third floor conference room at the City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, on Wednesday October 11, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Chairman Michael Brennan called the meeting to order, and on roll call the following members were present: Conrad Baldini, Michael Brennan, Michael Connelly, Christine Sullivan and Russell Vickers. Also present were: Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner and Melissa Pagliaro, Clerk.
Minutes
Mr. Baldini moved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on September 13, 2006. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion. Motion passed (5-0).
Old/New Business
Executive Directors Report
Ms. Duncan gave her report. She stated that New Boston Ventures declined the request by the show Ghost Hunters to film a show in the Salem Jail.
Ms. Duncan also reported that on November 8 SRA meeting, the Board will also hold their annual meeting and at that time there will be elections of officers.
Ms. Duncan asked that Ms. Hartford provide an update on the 18 Crombie Street project. Ms. Hartford reported that the project at 18 Crombie Street is still not completed with their construction and at this point they are beyond their deadline of September 30, 2006 set by the SRA. She noted that she is trying to touch base with the president of Habitat for Humanity of the North Shore and will ask them to attend the November SRA meeting to provide an update on the project. At that meeting, they can formally ask for another extension of their construction completion date.
Ms. Sullivan asked at what point does the SRA stop granting Habitat for Humanity extensions. Ms. Duncan replied that she does not see that there is a problem as they are continuing to make progress and working toward completion. Ms. Sullivan just stated that her concern is that they are not finishing the project. Mr. Brennan stated that he does not see an issue because they are continuously working.
Ms. Hartford said that she would try to get them into next months meeting to give an update.
Mr. Baldini stated that he is at the site about once a month. He said that for volunteers they are extremely dedicated to this project and are doing very well.
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW
Retail Market Plan
Ms. Duncan stated that the Request for Proposals (RFP) that was distributed to members has a slightly revised scope based on feedback received from representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and Salem Main Streets Program. Ms. Duncan noted that she thinks that this is a very strong scope of services.
Ms. Duncan went through the changes that were made to the revised Scope of Services. She stated that while the Scope lays a framework for what we are looking for in the Market Plan, she feels we should take advantage of consultant’s advice on their approach to the project.
Ms. Sullivan noted that the other studies done by groups such as Salem State College, Peabody Essex Museum, and local developers might cut down on time.
Ms. Duncan said she thinks it is a good idea. She stated that RCG would share any information they have with the City and will be providing to us in the next few days. She also said that we referenced studies that might have been done by Salem State College and/or the Peabody Essex Museum in the RFP and the consultants will be able to use that information, if it’s available.
Mr. Brennan questioned what a leakage analysis would entail. Ms. Duncan answered that it is to see why consumers may not be shopping in Salem and instead going elsewhere. It might also give an idea as to what might be missing or lacking in the downtown.
Mr. Vickers questioned the customer/business attraction section of the RFP. He asked if the targets are businesses or customers. Ms. Sullivan asked if they were talking about retail businesses. Ms. Duncan replied that yes it really is focused on retail businesses and that the RFP will be changed to clarify that point.
Ms. Sullivan said that last Saturday night she was downtown. She said that other than food establishments, Pampelmousse was the only business that was open. She stated that many areas are all filled with “witch” stuff. She said the residents do not shop at those type of businesses.
Mr. Vickers said that regardless if the customer is a resident or tourist, all he wants is a vibrant downtown. He stated that he wanted people to come here.
Ms. Duncan said she thought that Mr. Kearney of the Salem Main Streets Program had an interesting idea of bringing the consultant back to review the progress of the Market Plan and that idea is reflected in Task #7.
Mr. Vickers asked whether the membership of the Working Group had been established. Ms. Duncan said that it has not.
Ms. Hartford distributed the list of consultants identified who focus on these types of studies and plans. Ms. Duncan replied that this was a very broad list.
Ms. Sullivan asked if this is an acceptable amount of time to request proposals back and stated that she wants to get it done but does not want to discourage people from applying. Ms. Duncan suggested possibly doing interviews at the December meeting. Ms. Hartford said they could probably lengthen the time that we provide to people to submit their proposals.
Ms. Sullivan asked if we knew the top ten consultants on the list handed out. She stated that this is a very important project and we should have the best.
Mr. Vickers said that at this time that is not the important issue because it does not cost anything to get a proposal from the various companies.
Ms. Duncan said she can send out RFP to whole list or we can advertise and just send it out to those that respond. She said that all the firms from Salem are included.
Mr. Brennan said he thinks we should send notice and if they are interested they can contact us to get the proposal.
Ms. Sullivan asked if the RFP could be posted online. Ms. Duncan said that by doing it that way we have no control over monitoring who receives it and in the event that there are changes to the RFP we would have no way of contacting them.
Mr. Vickers moved to approve the RFP for the Retail Market Plan. Ms. Sullivan seconded the motion. Motion passed (5-0).
17 Central Street (Old Police Station/Residences at Museum Place)
Ms. Hartford stated that she did not hear from Bill Luster prior to this meeting. She said there does not appear to be any more progress on the project and she does not have a status at this time.
Mr. Brennan stated that he spoke with Bill Luster who told him that he has met with the people managing the building. He said the building lights are in and he is waiting to hear from the City electrician on the installation of the city standard lights. He further reported that the fence was done.
Ms. Hartford said there is an issue between Mrs. Burke and Mr. Luster about who is installing the doors. Ms. Sullivan asked if they were glass doors. Ms. Hartford said they are not because Mrs. Burke did not want glass but the doors that are being installed were approved by the SRA.
Mr. Brennan said that he would follow-up with Mr. Luster and have a report by the SRA meeting on November 8.
120 Washington Street
Ms. Hartford introduced the development team, David Steinberg of RCG and Dana Weeder of Winter Street Architects. She stated that the DRB reviewed the plans and approved the project with the following conditions: the trellis should either be moved higher or lower on the building to align better with the windows; the design should include lighting either on the wall beneath the trellis or in the ground under the trellis; and a window treatment, such as a shutter, should be included in the large window on Barton Square and at the second floor unit on Essex Street. Ms. Hartford said that the development team would walk the Board through these changes that were incorporated into the resubmitted drawings.
Dana Weeder, Winter Street Architects, said that the DRB asked that they put some screening on storefront windows along the first floor, facing Barton Square. He said that they proposed adding an applied film on the backside of the windows. He noted that the size of the windows made it to hard to install shutters. He said that he did speak with Michael Blier of the DRB, who was appointed to approve the screening, and he was okay with the proposed applied film.
Ms. Sullivan asked the point of the screening on the windows. Mr. Steinberg said that the purpose was so that people walking by the building could not see in at eye level.
Mr. Weeder stated that the second issue was the trellis. He noted that the DRB thought that it should align better with the windows. Mr. Weeder said that they chose to bring it to the top of the large windows.
Mr. Weeder said that the third issue that came out of the DRB was lighting under the trellis. He said that they added four exterior lights on backside of the vertical posts to illuminate the trellis and the ground. Ms. Hartford questioned if these were the same lights that were found around the rest of the building. Mr. Weeder said they were not. Ms. Hartford replied that the DRB did not approve a separate specification for these new lights.
Mr. Brennan stated that the SRA could vote to approve the project with the stipulation that the specification on the new lighting being installed under the trellis be approved by Mr. Blier of the DRB.
The SRA moved to approve the modifications to 120 Washington Street as approved by the DRB and with the condition that Mr. Blier of the DRB approve the specification on the lighting under the trellis. The motion was seconded. Motion passed (5-0).
143 Washington Street (The Distillery)
Ms. Hartford stated that the new flower shop on Front Street put out flower boxes that look great and the storeowners at The Distillery would like to install similar boxes. She said that the DRB reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the project with the following conditions: they are under the windows, except at the Picklepot Storefront where the boxes can be placed between the columns; and the boxes be placed every other window except at the Washington Street side of the ReMax Storefront where they should be placed under both windows.
Mr. Brennan asked if the window boxes would interfere with sidewalk traffic. Ms. Hartford said they would not block the sidewalk.
Mr. Connelly moved to approve the DRB recommendation for approval of the window boxes at The Distillery. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. Motion passed (5-0).
70 Washington Street (Salem Five Bank)
Ms. Hartford reported that Salem Five Bank wanted to change the light blue trim color on the building at 70 Washington Street to a darker brown. Ms. Hartford stated that the DRB asked that the color be a bit darker than the samples first presented. The color presented to the SRA tonight is the revised, darker version of the trim. Ms. Hartford stated that the owner also wished to change the doors on the building and they will be black. The DRB recommended approval of both items.
Ms. Sullivan said she likes the look of the brick that is being exposed under the stucco. She asked if they were putting the stucco back. Ms. Hartford said that the plan is to patch and repair the stucco and not to restore the brick.
Ms. Sullivan asked if keeping the brick was a possibility. Ms. Hartford stated that she would look into whether Salem Five was willing to keep the brick.
The SRA moved to approve the DRB recommendation for the exterior paint colors and new doors at Salem Five Bank. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. Motion passed (5-0).
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mr. Connelly moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion. Motion passed (5-0).
Meeting stands adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Pagliaro
Clerk
| 
