City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday, February 11, 2009, at 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Michael Brennan, Conrad Baldini, Michael Connelly, Robert Mitnik
Members Absent: Russell Vickers
Others Present: Executive Director and City Planner Lynn Duncan
Recorder: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Brennan calls the meeting to order.
Executive Director’s Report
Old Town Hall: Lynn Duncan states that one of the Mayor’s initiatives is to get the bathrooms in the basement up and running, but the asbestos must be removed first, and Gordon College is doing that now. She adds that Gordon College is currently acting on their agreement to complete all of the tasks laid out in the lease, and they are now cleaning the wood floors.
Old/New Business
Presentation
1. Urban Land Institute Technical Assistance Panel Report on the Church Street Lot
Duncan introduces Allen Kieslich and Ira Baline with the ULI.
Kieslich says that this study happened because Salem requested that the ULI look at the Church Street lot and make a determination for its possible future use. He adds that the team spent a full day here and received a lot of public input, and in the afternoon they met internally and put together recommendations for what should be done with that lot. He states that they looked at several different alternatives and ultimately determined that it should essentially be a residential location, not a parking lot.
Kieslich explains that there was some concern about the management of the parking lot, as well as the general parking conditions throughout the downtown area, so the team recommended that the City initiate a comprehensive parking study.
Mitnik asks about having this lot be a mixed-use development.
Baline agrees that a mixed-use development is one of the two types of formats recommended. He adds that one concept for the property involves row houses and would be all residential, and the other concept is more dense (about 75 units) and functions as a live-work community, set up in a square plan with an open courtyard in the middle. He explains that with the mixed-use property an owner could use the ground floor as an office or a business and live upstairs.
Baline states that the team recognized the value of the public parking in that area so the recommendation includes retaining some of the metered parking at the east end of the site. He explains that because the real estate market has changed, a more unique product like a live/work situation might be more attractive, and by using this lot as residential, the City would realize additional tax dollars to provide more parking in better locations.
Baline acknowledges the City’s increased momentum on developing a parking garage at the MBTA commuter rail station.
Mitnik asks if they considered using this lot for public open space.
Baline says that they did, and they took note of the back side of the mall and the mall parking garage and noticed that there is a good piece of land there that is underutilized, and they could develop a link through the garage and through the shopping mall and create a nice urban space there. He adds that during the study they didn’t hear a desire for a green open space, and they were looking to maximize the value for the City.
Duncan states that the report does speak to the issue of retail not being the best use in that location.
Baline states that there isn’t a lot of foot traffic over there, and the garage and mall create a barrier to lively business and there are other properties in the city better suited for retail.
Brennan thanks the ULI representatives for coming and states that there was a lot of brainpower in this room and in one day they did a tremendous job. He adds that he likes the idea of the row houses because they allow people to flow through the property.
Brennan comments on how retail is now struggling, and that new retail came into the City in the past five years because the SRA and the City Council made it easier for developers and merchants. He explains that he would like to see more residential downtown to support the existing retail, and he doesn’t see a need for additional retail or office space at this time. He adds that institutional space is untaxable and the City doesn’t need another hotel right now. He states that there are some things that the SRA can do while waiting for the market to improve, such as look at improving the look of the garage, and do a comprehensive parking study.
Brennan commends the ULI representatives for the fine job done on this study.
Kieslich states that it was designed at a high level to generate ideas and concepts.
Brennan cites an example in Lynn where the power lines are being removed by the electric company, and says he would like to see the same happen at the electric company near the future Harborwalk.
Kieslich states that the focus is to move Salem forward over the next 20-40 years to generate grown and prepare the City for the people coming to the waterfront and the historic buildings. He explains that he can see Salem competing with Providence, RI for people commuting to work on the train. He says that the Salem waterfront is one of its greatest gems, and that Salem has a tremendous amount of potential.
Mitnik states that both of the residential designs are good alternatives. He adds that a lot of traffic is needed to support retail (about 20,000 cars passing each day).
Baline states that the traffic at the end of Washington Street is underutilized. Car trips in a city can be detrimental because you attract a certain kind of retailer (a national retailer), and there are parking demands too. He explains that in Salem, with the way the railroad station connects to the downtown, having good retail at the end of Washington Street can provide another reason for people to walk that way.
Duncan clarifies that the study drew no conclusion to make Washington Street a mall except on special occasions.
Kieslich says that it does have a certain pedestrian feel about it so they could pursue this on special occasions.
Baldini states that he likes the idea of the different alternatives listed and the different avenues that could be pursued.
Baline states that a parking study would evaluate the City’s parking, the quality of the parking and take into account more long term planning looking at the number of residents in the future. He explains that it is unusual that Salem has very dense residential districts, but there is still some demand for parking, and by contrast, in Boston people are used to not having parking. He adds that the psychology of the parking issue is beyond them but it would go into the report for the comprehensive parking study, and the demographic information might reveal a potential parking garage location that no one would think of.
Mitnik asks if a traffic study should be done.
Duncan says that they have had several traffic studies in the past and they need a parking management study.
Baline says that they considered having a parking garage in another place but that is up to the City to determine if and where to put in a parking garage. He says they could use student interns to determine where people live that own a car and do not have parking.
Duncan states that Salem is going through a change where some people are living downtown and without cars. She adds that she does not see the parking study being part of a larger traffic study at this time. She is encouraged with the talks with the MBTA where they will fund 30% design, and it will change the parking landscape in that area.
Baline says that the stimulus money could make it possible for more than one facility to become parking.
Connelly asks if they should conduct a process similar to the RFP for the jail just to see what ideas they might get for the Church Street lot.
Kieslich states that right now, with a bad economy, they would not get many proposals.
Baline states that it would better for the City to have an idea for the use of a property prior to issuing an RFP. He suggests advertising the land for a developer, perhaps subsidizing the development with the land itself to receive the tax dollars.
Duncan states that this is exactly what the city did with the Salem jail, and they held public meetings to talk about what people would like to see and put out the RFP stating that they wanted to see mixed-use. The price was not the primary criterion.
Baline states that there is an inherent inefficiency in having to use an existing building like the jail.
David Hart of 104 Federal Street, one of 63 architects in the city, says that one of his sons lived in Paris and he would like to see Paris in Salem. He agrees that it is a great concept to have a residential downtown. He explains that the Traditional Building Conference is held in Boston in the middle in March, and they are looking for a property to use to challenge the people to have a charrette, and this would be a good opportunity to put out a packet with parameters for this site so the conference members can have a day-long charrette.
Duncan asks him to let her know what he needs.
Hart says that he needs a site map, and Duncan agrees to help him.
Brennan thanks the ULI representatives again.
Sign, Awning, and Lighting Review
2. 221 Washington Street (Metro PCS): Discussion and vote on proposed signage
Duncan explains that there was not a representative from Metro PCS at the DRB meeting, only the man from the sign company, and the DRB approved a design that was different from the original one presented, and later the business owner changed the design again to only one sign without the colored panels. She states that the SRA could require the business owner to go back to the DRB, but that would hold up the approval for another month. She says that the DRB Chair, Paul Durand, reviewed the new proposal and stated that if this design was originally proposed he would have recommended approving it.
Brennan clarifies that the SRA is being asked to approve the current design as presented. He states that this whole building looks bad and he would like to work with the property owner in the spring to enhance the look of this place. He adds that he hates this sign design but the business is open, and the small blue sign is there, and the neighboring stores look worse.
Much discussion ensues as the members consider how to treat this application and the building as a whole. The discussion concludes with the members agreeing to approve the current design as presented and to approach the building owner at a later date to help him enhance the look of the building.
Baldini: Motion to approve this design as presented and have a dialogue with the landlord in the spring, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 4-0.
Approval of Minutes – January 14, 2009 Meeting
Connelly: Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 4-0.
Connelly: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Baldini. Passes 4-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 7:20 PM.
| 
