City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday, April 8, 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, and Russell Vickers
Members Absent:
Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Brennan calls the meeting to order. Executive Director Lynn Duncan is absent due to the Passover holiday.
Executive Director’s Report
Old Salem Jail: Daniel states that they are moving toward closing on Friday and part of this closing may slip until Monday. He explains that all documents are in order, and will be held until the financial closing occurs, and there are multiple closings associated with this transaction, including the closings for the tax credits, the financing, and the real estate. He adds that the City is working with the developer to plan a groundbreaking ceremony, and he will advise the Authority as soon has a date has been set.
Solar Trash Compactor Panels: Daniel explains that at the time that the trash compactors were installed the SRA proposed a program for sponsorship panels that conform to the City’s comprehensive signage program. He adds that the sign designer will work pro-bono to design the sign template, and all of the panels will use the same colors and be very simple.
Old/New Business
Sign, Awning, and Lighting Review
1. 87 Washington Street (Green Land Café): Discussion and vote on proposed signage and lighting
Daniel introduces Paul Bolden and states that there are two items to be discussed—signage and outdoor seating. The first item has already been to the DRB and was very well received. He adds that the DRB approved the design provided it is scaled down, and the sign bracket is mounted in the middle of the band, and the bolts painted black. Daniel explains that the window letters have been revised as a result of the comments from the DRB.
Bolden states the windows will not be blackened.
Baldini: Motion to approve the design, seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
Outdoor Café Permit Review
2. 87 Washington Street (Green Land Café): Discussion and vote on proposed outdoor café seating permit
Daniel states that this is just being introduced tonight and will go to the DRB from here. He explains that they wish to use 10 tables in back, and 3 smaller tables in front with stanchions around the tables.
Brennan asks if the land in the back is owned by the SRA.
Daniel states that part is owned by the Goldbergs and part is owned by the SRA. He shows the assessors map, which delineates the property lines.
Mitnik states that a 4-foot clearance is too small for people to walk by, and he thinks the minimum should be 5 feet.
Brennan states that all of the members are proponents of the outdoor café concept, but he agrees with Mitnik that there would not be enough room. He states that they might be trying to force something here that really doesn’t fit.
Vickers states that the measurement could be artificial, because there is additional space between the concrete and the tree.
Daniel clarifies that there has to be 4 feet of paved, level surface.
Brennan requests that the members visit the site on their own time and look at the space.
Vickers: Motion to forward the proposed permit application to the DRB with the comment that hey should look closely at the pedestrian access, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 5-0.
Other
3. Downtown Parking Study: Discussion and vote on proposed downtown parking study RFP
Daniel states one purpose of the study is to improve the way the parking system is managed and states that the study will examine pricing strategies as well as the current utilization of the parking to seek ways to use it more efficiently. Additionally, Daniel states that the study will look at areas that are underserved with parking and identify what additional parking might be needed when the Church Street lot is developed. He explains that the approach for this RFP is to follow a typical solicitation process for proposals, and form a working group, including Jim Hacker, Kate Fox from Destination Salem, someone from the Chamber, and a resident from downtown. He adds that the group would meet with the consultant that had been selected under the RFP, and the report will include a range of strategies for
actions—some requiring capital investments and others not.
Mitnik asks about the geographic scope of the study.
Daniel says that it will include the central development zoning district, which is all of the Redevelopment Area plus Pickering Wharf and up to the Point. He adds that hey have an inventory of those private parking spaces as well, and Shetland park has 2000 parking spaces.
Brennan asks if the City is committed to $25,000 and Daniel says the City is committed and the request is that the SRA commit an additional $25,000 to the study.
Brennan states that the SRA’s last large expenditures was for the study of the downtown and they spent $50,000, and he doesn’t know if they got a nickel’s worth of benefit from that study.
Daniel says that the study, led by Karl Seidman, was very valuable, and was utilized in many ways, because it included an action plan, resulting in the reestablishment of the Main Streets program. He adds that last fall Karl Seidman returned to do an evaluation and was impressed with Salem’s progress with the action plan, even though there is work that remains to be done on that. Daniel speaks at length about the benefit of the downtown study.
Vickers states that he thought that the downtown study was a good idea, and this parking study will provide good information for the City going forward.
Connelly states that he can understand the need for it but he can also understand that people will be skeptical of spending this amount of money when people are being laid off.
Daniel states that in a bad economy it is a great time to do the analysis and lay down the foundation so they can be ready to move ahead when the economy recovers.
Vickers agrees with Daniel. He asks if it is necessary that this consultant be here in October.
Daniel states that he makes an important point, and Jim Hacker has data specific to October.
There is some discussion about the verbiage for the motion and Brennan suggests that the motion state that the SRA will match the City’s contribution to a maximum total cost of $50,000.
Vickers: Motion for the SRA to support the study proposed in the RFP by matching the funds contributed by the City, to a maximum total cost for the study of $50,000, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 5-0.
4. DRB Member Reappointment: Discussion and vote to reappoint Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, and Glenn Kennedy to the Design Review Board
Daniel states that these three members all came on the DRB at the same time and their terms are expiring. They each expressed an interest in staying on the Board, and each brings value to the Board.
Mitnik speaks well of the members of the DRB and the other members agree.
Connelly: Motion to reappoint Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, and Glenn Kennedy to the Design Review Board, seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
Approval of Minutes – March 11, 2009 Meeting
Mitnik makes a suggestion for an amendment to the minutes and Daniel agrees to make the change.
Vickers: Motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Connelly. Passes 5-0.
Mitnik: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Connelly. Passes 5-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 7:00 PM.
| 
