MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING
OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2007
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, January 10, 2007 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, Robert Mitnik, and Russell Vickers. Also present were Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, and Tania Hartford, Economic Development Program Director.
Minutes
The minutes for the November 8, 2006 regular SRA meeting were presented. Mr. Baldini made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0, Mitnik abstained).
The minutes for the November 8, 2006 annual SRA meeting were presented. Mr. Connelly made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0, Mitnik abstained).
The minutes for the December 13, 2006 regular SRA meeting were presented. Mr. Vickers made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0, Mitnik abstained).
Old/New Business
Executive Directors Report
Ms. Duncan welcomed Bob Mitnik to the Board as the new member replacing Christine Sullivan. She also reported that a new clerk, Andrea Bray, would be starting this month for both the SRA and DRB. She noted that Ms. Bray has municipal clerking experience.
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW
1. Retail Market Plan
Ms. Duncan introduced Karl Seidman, Karl Seidman Consulting Services, and James Stevens, ConsultEcon. Both will be working on the Retail Market Plan. Ms. Duncan also acknowledged that two members of the Retail Market Plan Working Group were in attendance, Rinus Oosthoek and Mark Meche.
Mr. Seidman provided an introduction into the project and the project team. He stated that the project would be made up of three phases: Market Analysis; Strategy Development; and Action Plan with buy in from stakeholders. He noted that he did not want to develop a plan that would sit on a shelf and intended to include stakeholders that would help to implement the action plan.
Mr. Seidman explained the Market Analysis phase. He stated that they would look at both the supply side and the demand side for the downtown. He said that the demand side would draw data that was relevant to the market and would include a customer survey. Mr. Stevens explained that the supply side would include a business inventory. He said they would aggregate all the data and geo-code to help with leasing and recruitment downtown. He said they would also do a comparative analysis with other shopping areas.
Mr. Seidman stated that once all this data is compiled in the first phase, they will provide a summary report. Then, they will work with the Working Group on developing strategies. They will also start to get buy-in by way of focus groups to discuss what has been collected and the proposed strategies.
Mr. Seidman said that in the final phase of the project, they will develop an action plan that will be presented at a public meeting in order to get broader input. The final report will be submitted and then he will follow-up on the progress over the next year.
Mr. Brennan stated that Market Plans are somewhat controversial in their effectiveness. He asked if Mr. Seidman had seen successes. Mr. Seidman stated that the Market Plan developed for Brattleboro, Vermont was successful. He explained that there was no strong center for furniture businesses in the region and the study helped them to work toward becoming one. It helped them position themselves to attract those types of businesses. He said that they also strengthened their arts and cultural base. Overall, it helped the city find their niche. Mr. Seidman said that they are practitioners and want to translate what they learn into action steps.
Mr. Brennan said that two businesses have recently come and gone in the downtown. He gave the example of CF Tompkins Furniture business and Z Crepe Café. He asked if Mr. Seidman would look at why they left. Mr. Seidman said they could look at doing a focus group or interviewing those companies that have left.
Mr. Vickers asked the role of the Working Group in this process. Ms. Duncan stated that they are a smaller group that can meet informally to discuss the project and provide feedback, similar to the Jail Working Group. Mr. Seidman added that they will use these informal Working Group meetings to gain comments on the drafts and in the end will look to Working Group members to build support from their peers.
Mr. Vickers said they he encourages the Working Group to stay engaged.
Mark Meche added that it was an easy decision to select Mr. Seidman’s team and looks forward to working with him.
2. Old Town Hall Reuse
Ms. Duncan stated that they moved the public meeting to discuss Old Town Hall to February 27 in order to give staff more time to plan. She said that the date is tentative pending the availability of Old Town Hall and they would be getting back to the Board to confirm the date. She said they were also working on a legal opinion regarding uses for the Hall.
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW
3. 10 Federal Street – Discussion and vote of the Schematic Design Plans for the proposed expansion of the on-site parking garage.
Ms. Duncan provided an overview of the project approval process. She stated that the project to build a garage was already approved. She said the developer came back to the SRA with Schematic Design Plans to build a second deck on the approved parking garage. The SRA referred it to the DRB, who reviewed the project and came back with the recommendation before the Board tonight. She said the project will come back to the SRA for Final Design Approval and it will also require Planning Board approval with a formal public hearing. The Planning Board public hearing will follow the normal notification procedure of notifying all abutters within 200 feet of the project. The approval of the project tonight is for Schematic Design and they will still need final approval before the project is built.
Attorney George Atkins introduced the project and his clients, Spiros and Peter Flomp. He noted that his clients were committed to the downtown. The building at 10 Federal Street houses the District Attorney’s office and will be the new home to the Social Security office. They are hopeful that the Registry of Deeds will also be moving to the building. He said that for the sake of their building, they need to provide more parking for their tenants.
Mr. Atkins went through the plans for the project. He said they were sensitive in the plans on those abutting the project. He said it should not have a large residential impact due to the fact that it is an office use. He stated that they did get an easement from the Salem Housing Authority and it was approved with the condition of giving them some parking spaces, a walkway with lighting to their building, and some monetary compensation.
Mr. Mitnik asked whether the plan addresses safety security and snow removal or whether than would be addressed in the final plans. Mr. Atkins stated that these issues were taken care of in the first approval process. The snow would be moved off site. The site is very secure with the DA’s office being on-site.
Mr. Baldini stated that he feels this is a win-win for the city and the tenants of the building. He said that the Housing Authority is getting extra spaces and overall it will free up public parking spaces.
Mr. Brennan also noted that he thought it was a great plan.
Councilor Sosnowski said that he wanted to repeat what Attorney Atkins said about the Flomps being great developers. He said that the original plan called for giving the Housing Authority six parking spaces, which is on the Housing Authority land anyway. He said that he has problems with the plan. First, at 5:00pm the residents surrounding the site will only see shadows and deck. Second, there are not enough parking spaces for the elderly at the Housing Authority site. He said that parking is a big issue and suggests a partnership be formed with the Peabody Essex Museum, developers of the Jail, Court Expansion Committee, SRA, and the Salem Housing Authority to discuss parking options at the Church Street parking lot. He said he cannot support parking at this site.
Councilor O’Leary said that he followed this project for years. He said that 150 parking spots are going on-site and thinks it’s a good project. He said that they will wait for years to get parking done at the Church Street lot. He said the proposal is a good one for parking now.
Richard Poisson, member of the public, stated that he lives on Federal Street. He applauded the Flomps for the job they did on the building. He said that this proposal would take away more sunlight in the neighborhood. He said that it may be a win-win for Salem but it will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. He said he hopes that something can be done to stop or alleviate the impact of this project.
Jim Treadwell, member of the public, stated that the Urban Renewal Plan won awards on its stance on parking garages. He quoted parts of the plan where it states that the provision of parking is the responsibility of the municipality. He said that he applauds the DRB who looked at the project and requested all the elevations be submitted in the Final Design Plans. He questioned the safety of the project and emergency vehicle access. He said that he thinks its best to locate the extra 46 spaces elsewhere.
Leslie Poisson, 7 Ash Street, stated that when the project is built, she will look out of her home into a parking lot. She said that her son has asthma and this will just add more of an impact. She said it’s a shame to add to this development.
Mr. Mitnik said that he knows that Councilor Sosnowski had some information on sun angles but that does not mean much as written. It would be good to actually see the sun angles in computer generated drawings. Ms. Duncan clarified if he wanted to see the sun angles for the 2-story addition. Mr. Mitnik said that he did. He stated that he has a feeling it would add shadow within the shadow of the 5-story building that exists. Mr. Brennan added that he does not know much about shadows but did not think it would cast an additional shadow. Mr. Mitnik said that he agrees and it would be good to see that with the Final Design Plans. Mr. Atkins agreed to include shadow studies and drawings with the Final Design Plans.
Councilor Sosnowski stated that while the building might not cast a shadow, it is still very close to the residents on the street.
Ms. Duncan stated that they would add a fifth condition, in addition to the four noted in the DRB recommendation that would require a shadow study be done for both the 5-story building and the 2-story parking garage.
Ms. Duncan read the DRB recommendation:
At their meeting on December 20, 2006, the DRB recommended approval of the Schematic Design Plans for the construction of a two-level garage at 10 Federal Street with the following conditions that should be included in the Final Design Plans:
1. Elevations of all sides of the building that include the architectural features;
2. A lighting plan;
3. A landscaping plan that takes into account where the current trees are and any new trees that will be planted; and
4. Attention given to the relationship of the structure to the neighboring historic building.
Ms. Duncan explained the rest of the review process for the project at Final Design.
Mr. Baldini moved to approve the Design Review Board recommendation to approve the Schematic Design Plans for the project with the condition that a shadow study be included in the Final Design Plans for both the 5-story building and the 2-story parking deck. Mr. Mitnik seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0, 1 abstention).
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,
Tania Hartford
SRA staff
| 
