MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING
OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 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, December 13, 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, and Russell Vickers. Also present were Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, and Tania Hartford, Economic Development Program Director.
Minutes
Ms. Hartford noted that the minutes for the November meetings were not complete but would be ready for a vote at the January SRA meeting.
Old/New Business
Executive Directors Report
Ms. Duncan gave her report. She stated that the Old Police Station project did close on the remaining unit a few weeks ago. She said that as part of the Agreement by the SRA to release the Certificate of Occupancy, the City held back an escrow account to ensure that the final punch list items are complete. She said that if the developer fails to complete those items, the City would take care of finding a contractor to complete them using the escrow account.
Ms. Duncan asked Ms. Hartford to provide the update on 18 Crombie Street. Ms. Hartford said that two of the SRA members, Michael Connelly and Michael Brennan, were present at the dedication of the house that prior Sunday. She said that it was well-attended and the family was overjoyed to be moving into the home. She reported that the closing is expected to take place within the next week or two and following that closing she would release the $5,000 escrow account to them with accrued interest.
Ms. Duncan reported that the decision on where to move the Registry has not yet been made. She said that it is important to keep the Registry downtown and the SRA has signed letters to the appropriate people that state the SRA’s support of keeping it downtown. Those letters will go out tomorrow.
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW
1. Retail Market Plan
Ms. Duncan explained that the Working Group for this project met when the proposals for the Retail Market Plan came in and decided to interview all four groups that submitted proposals. They did two days of interviewing and in the end they unanimously recommended Karl F. Seidman Consulting Group, with ConsultEcon and Bridgewater State College as subcontractors.
Ms. Duncan stated that Mr. Seidman is well-known in the field and had the best approach to the scope of work. She said that his proposal calls for a telephone survey of potential downtown customers, which will help give perspective on what might be missing in the downtown. She said that overall his scope and approach was the best.
Ms. Duncan further reported that the price for the proposal was $50,000 as was asked for in the RFP.
Mr. Vickers stated that as a member of the Working Group he was not able to attend all the interviews nor was he around for the final vote on the recommendation, however, he did go to Mr. Seidman’s interview and he would have been his choice had he voted. He said that he would ask that we have a blueprint for action moving forward and ensure that all the stakeholders be involved in the project early on. He said that it is more than just a study, it is an action plan. He said that he is very pleased with the recommendation.
Mr. Brennan suggested that the SRA voted to award a contract to Mr. Seidman subject to reference checks. Mr. Vickers moved to award Karl F. Seidman Consulting Services a contract to undertake the Retail Market Plan subject to reference checks. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0).
2. Old Town Hall Reuse
Ms. Duncan stated that the Old Town Hall Reuse project is an important one. She included a study done by Staley McDermot in 1996 for review by the Board. She would also like to schedule a public meeting in January to discuss potential reuses for the Hall. She said that the intent is to keep the Hall in public ownership but lease it out to a long-term user. She said the next step in the process for this project is to get public feedback on the project and would like to schedule a special SRA meeting on January 30.
Mr. Vickers asked if this meeting would be to kick around ideas for the reuse of the Hall. Ms. Duncan replied that it would be similar to the public meeting held for the Old Salem Jail where there was a public discussion about ideas for reuse of the property.
Mr. Brennan stated that this is a good project but will be a difficult one. He said that the report done in 1996 showed that the Hall needed approximately $1 million in upkeep and the leaser, who will most likely be doing the repairs, will not own the space.
Ms. Duncan stated that this is an important project. She suggested that the special meeting being held on January 30 at 7:00pm. The SRA agreed that this was a good night for the meeting.
Mr. Vickers stated that he would like to get some parameters from the Council on the eventual reuse of the space. Councilor Sosnowski replied that he would get some parameters from the City Council before the January 30 public meeting.
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW
3. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail)
Ms. Hartford went through the DRB recommendation and their review process for the project. The recommendation is as follows:
At their meeting on December 6, 2006, the DRB recommended approval of the
Final Design Plans for the construction of a mixed-use development at 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail) taking into consideration the design intent discussed with the DRB on the final modifications to Building D and with the following conditions:
1. Project Description – The description of the project must conform to the project description described in the memo submitted by New Boston Ventures, LLC on July 31, 2006 taking into account any changes made through the DRB review process.
2. Construction Plans – The final site construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the DRB prior to a building permit being issued. They must conform to the plans submitted and approved by the DRB.
3. Landscape Plan – The final landscape plan must conform to the plans dated October 19, 2006, submitted and reviewed by the DRB.
4. Construction/Building Materials – The construction and building materials must conform to the materials presented to the DRB and approved by the DRB on November 15, 2006.
5. Exterior Elevations – The exterior elevations must conform to the plans submitted August 9, 2006 for Buildings A and B and dated November 8, 2006 for Building D and November 29, 2006 for Building C.
6. Site Plans – The site plans must conform to the plans dated August 15, 2006, submitted and reviewed by the DRB.
7. Lighting – The lighting must conform to the lighting specified in the lighting plan submitted to and approved by the DRB on December 6, 2006 and in accordance with the Electrical Site Plan and Schedule dated November 7, 2006.
8. Signage Plan – The signage plan must be submitted to the DRB for review prior to installation.
She then introduced the development team – Penn Lindsay, New Boston Ventures, and Dan Ricciarelli and Cindi Giugliano, Finegold Alexander.
Mr. Lindsay explained the permitting process that the project had undergone to date. He said that they received Planning Board approval the week prior and have meet on a regular basis with the Historic Review team. He said that overall they feel it is a good project.
Mr. Ricciarelli went through went through the plans for the project and the changes that had been made since the SRA saw the project last. He explained that the site plan changed slightly to accommodate the fire department. Due to this change, they did lose one parking space in the area off Bridge Street. He also explained that the Barn was reviewed by a structural engineer and it was determined that it would need to come down and rebuilt. He went through the plans for the access road of from Bridge Street and explained that it is planned and ready for construction.
Ms. Giugliano then went through the design elements of the building, including the materials and lighting plan. She stated that the team took most of the comments made by the DRB and the historic review team and they are incorporated into the Final Design Plans.
Mr. Vickers asked how many units were in the new building. Mr. Lindsay replied that there were eight.
Mr. Baldini asked when they would be breaking ground on the project. Mr. Lindsay replied that they would break ground in April or May of 2007. Mr. Baldini asked how long the project is anticipated to take. Mr. Lindsay replied 14 months.
Mr. Brennan questioned if Mass Highway was okay with the changes to the bypass road plans. Mr. Lindsay said that they approved the plan for the access road off from Bridge Street. Ms. Duncan stated that it was still unknown from Mass Highway on when they would be doing their work on this area of the project. She said that there is some question on the utilities in that area and whether they need to be upgraded. She said that should the utilities need to be upgraded she wants that to happen before Mass Highway completes work in that area. Ms. Duncan stated that no work would begin on the project until the development team owns the site but the burden is on them to take care of the utility issues.
Ms. Duncan also stated that another piece of the project is the eventual design of the new landscaped area off Bridge Street that will be created with the bypass road project. She said that the development team is working with some community volunteers to look at potential designs for that area and they will bring it to Mass Highway for approval.
Ms. Duncan also reported that the development team has applied to the Salem Historic Commission for a demolition delay for the Barn. Mr. Ricciarelli noted that they did walk the site with the Jail Historic Review team a few weeks ago and at that point they were still discussing peeling the skin off the building and possibly keeping some of the structure. He said that since that time they talked further with their structural engineer who now feels it is not salvageable but will be rebuilt in its original footprint.
Ms. Duncan clarified that they had not had a discussion with the Massachusetts Historical Commission about tearing down the building. Mr. Ricciarelli said they had not.
Barbara Cleary, member of the public and Jail Historic Review Team, stated that they discussed having a meeting with the Jail Historic Review Team next week. Mr. Ricciarelli said that he would coordinate the meeting.
Mr. Connelly moved to accept the DRB recommendation. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0).
4. 10 Federal Street
George Atkins, attorney for the project, provided some background on the project. He stated that when the SRA approved the Final Design for the expansion at 10 Federal Street, they also approved a two level garage. He said that, to date, the garage has not been built.
Mr. Atkins went on to state that the owner of the property was able to locate the District Attorney’s office into the space, is hoping to have the Social Security office move to the building and have a strong bid in for the future home of the Registry of Deeds. In order to keep the building competitive, the owner would like to add a third level of parking onto the deck in order to add more spaces for the building. He said that this decision to add more parking will have an immense impact on their ability to house the Registry.
Mr. Atkins noted that Mayor Driscoll has a strong interest in keeping the Registry downtown and she has also mentioned exclusive parking for the Registry at the Almy’s lot. He said that for a number of reasons, it is important for the Registry to remain downtown.
Peter Gehrig, architect for the project, presents the plans. Mr. Atkins clarified that the current parking lot has 83 parking spaces and the addition of two decks would bring the parking on the site to 142.
Ms. Duncan clarified that this was coming in under Schematic Design Review and would require some design review by the DRB. She said that the SRA will then see it again in Final Design Review once the developer has finalized design of the additional parking decks.
Mr. Connelly asked if all the parking would be enclosed. Mr. Gehrig answered that the top deck would be open and some spaces on the middle level are not completely covered.
Mr. Vickers asked if excavation was necessary. Mr. Gehrig stated that some excavation would be necessary because the lot does slope toward St. Peter’s Street.
Mr. Brennan asked how many spaces were at the current Registry. Mr. Atkins replied that he did not know. Mr. Connelly stated that there was only a handful.
Mr. Atkins noted that another project is the state courthouse project which might include parking. Ms. Duncan replied that the court project is committed to 150 parking spaces at the MBTA lot.
Mr. Atkins noted that they are willing to provide valet parking in the new structure for the future restaurant at the Jail site.
Mr. Baldini moved to send the project to the Design Review Board. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0).
SMALL PROJECT REVIEW
5. 52 Charter Street (Old Police Station)
Arthur Emery, owner of the condominium at 52 Charter Street, presented the plans for the changes to the entry at his unit. He explained that he combined two original units into one unit and they are eliminating one of the doors. He said that as part of the project they are also taking away the existing clapboard surrounding the doorway and replacing it with paneling to make it look nicer. He said that the green doors will match the existing doors at the front of the complex on Central Street.
Mr. Baldini inquired as to the number of rooms in the unit. Mr. Emery stated that they have eight rooms.
Mr. Baldini moved to approve the project as submitted. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0).
SIGN REVIEW
6. 85 Lafayette Street (New Dimensions in Technology)
Ms. Hartford presented the DRB recommendation for the signage and lighting. The recommendation is as follows:
At their meeting on October 25, 2006, the DRB recommended approval of the project with the following conditions: the sign be enlarged on either side to be flush with the windows and that the enlarged space not have lettering; and the lettering on the sign be enlarged at least ½” to ¾”. The changes are reflected in the revised drawings submitted to the SRA dated October 31, 2006.
At their meeting on December 6, 2006, the DRB recommended approval of the revised lighting package to reflect four (4) gooseneck lights being installed, as opposed to five. The changes are reflected in the revised drawings submitted to the SRA dated October 10, 2006.
Mr. Connelly moved to approve the DRB recommendation for the signage and lighting. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0).
7. 10 Derby Square (Lavoie Group)
Ms. Hartford presented the DRB recommendation for the sign. The recommendation is as follows:
At their meeting on November 15, 2006, the DRB recommended approval of the project as submitted.
Mr. Vickers moved to approve the DRB recommendation for the signage. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0).
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mr. Vickers moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0).
Meeting stands adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Tania Hartford
SRA staff
| 
