City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday November 4, 2009, at 6:00pm
(Immediately following the Annual Meeting)
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Michael Brennan, Robert Mitnik, Conrad Baldini, Michael Connelly
Members Absent: Russell Vickers
Others Present: Executive Director and City Planner Lynn Duncan
Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Penn Lindsay
Recorder: Lindsay Howlett
Chairperson Michael Brennan calls the meeting to order.
Development Project Review
- 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail): Update on restaurant status
Penn Lindsay describes the status of the project as three building all at different stages of construction. Lindsay states the carriage house is almost completed with the exception of finishes and heat. Lindsay states the deadline for completion is December 1st as this building is scheduled to be part of the holiday Salem walk. Lindsay describes the McIntire building as having new window sills and brownstone lintels to match the original, and it is almost entirely enclosed. Lindsay states the jail building is almost finished with demolition and the steel is in. Lindsay adds it is interesting to see the exterior walls standing with the new structure inside.
Lindsay continues to describe the restaurant progress as very positive as he passes out renderings of the space. Lindsay adds they have already had opportunity to tour potential tenants through the space and that they are right on schedule. Lindsay describes their intention to have an outdoor dining space of about 1,000 square feet and views this as a real selling point for the restaurant. Lindsay states they have met with Salem Chamber of Commerce whom has volunteered to help market Salem as a restaurant destination on the North Shore.
Brennan asks if the access road is still an issue. Lindsay responds they are looking at it right now and that the approved plans show a drive in from Bridge Street and a driveway that have not yet been constructed.
- 40 Front Street (Roost): Discussion of proposed signage
Daniel describes the new 1,000 square foot retail space held by Roost. Daniel states Roost is proposing a new blade sign and window decal for the space. Daniel adds the DRB was supportive of the proposal and recommends approval from the SRA as proposed.
Connelly: Motion to approve the DRB recommendation as presented, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 4-0.
- 81 Washington Street (Salem Five Retirement Services): Discussion of proposed signage
Daniel describes the new signage proposed by Salem Five Retirement Services as adding lettering in a small sign band. Daniel describes the revised proposal exhibiting slightly smaller lettering consistent with the DRB’s conditions. Daniel adds this will set the signage standards for new tenants of the building.
Baldini: Motion to approve the DRB recommendation as presented, seconded by Connelly. Passes 4-0.
Approval of Minutes: October 14, 2009.
Duncan suggests an amendment to the minutes and Daniel notes the change.
Mitnik: Motion to approve minutes as amended, seconded by Baldini. Passes 4-0.
Public Meeting on 5 Broad Street Reuse Feasibility Study: 6:30 PM
Duncan states the Public Meeting on the 5 Broad Street Reuse Feasibility study will be made up of a presentation, discussion and public comment. Duncan adds the project manager is Natalie Lovett.
Chairperson Brennan calls the public meeting to order.
Duncan addresses the public attendees of the project on hand and describes that the City Council made the SRA in charge of the disposition process for the property. Duncan further explains how the SRA will make recommendations to the City Council who will have the final decision on the disposition of the property.
Duncan states one potential reuse is for the city offices at 120 Washington Street to be moved there. Duncan states that the city has hired a consultant to perform a feasibility study to assess the existing conditions of the 5 Broad Street building and to recommend the building’s potential future use.
Brennan addresses the public to remind them at this stage we are here to discuss what the public and the neighbors want to see the new use to be. This input is very important to the SRA.
Duncan turns the discussion over to Treffle Lafleche of LDA Architecture and Interiors.
Lafleche introduces his team: Kyle Sheffield and Dean Hofelich.
Lafleche provides an overview of the history of the building and the neighborhood context. Lafleche describes the feasibility study as a funnel process where issues are dumped in, such as neighborhood, site, goals, and ideas from which viable options come. Lafleche explains further the next steps are to apply known constraints and to reconcile public views with the learned knowledge.
Lafleche refers to a graphic in the presentation that portrays the types of street parking. Lafleche adds there are 20 standard parking spaces on site and 5 handicapped in the 19,000 square foot lot.
Lafleche describes the building as constructed of load bearing masonry, heavy timber, wood floor and roof framing. Lafleche adds the east half on all floors above grade function as assembly areas. Lafleche states the building is not currently fire protected and the elevator does not meet accessibility requirements.
Lafleche explains they have studied the building’s current programming schedules to see the occupancy load to determine traffic and parking issues. Lafleche reports the following:
Monday: heavy use with overflow parking
Thursday & Friday: moderate use with full parking
Tuesday & Wednesday: light use with some available parking
Friday Evenings Sat and Sun: insignificant use with open parking
Lafleche adds the parking lot is open to the public at night between 5:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Lafleche describes the exterior building condition as fair to poor. Lafleche adds the sills and framing around the doors and windows are of brown stone that is deteriorated. Lafleche informs the public that all of the wood detailing on the roof is rotted out and will need to be repaired or fully replaced. Lafleche adds these are typical repairs when looking at an historical building.
Lafleche describes the interior building condition as fair to poor.
The building’s structure is in decent condition with no visible signs of structural distress. There are a number of conditions where framing deficiencies do no meet current code regulations. They are technically grandfathered in if you do not change the building usage.
Lafleche notes the basement could use a few masonry improvements, joint hangers as the upper floors show some deflection but nothing major.
Lafleche adds that if an addition to the building were to occur and was more than 10% of the total building area, the building would need to be upgraded to current seismic regulations.
Lafleche describes the condition of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems.
Lafleche then notes the jurisdictions that would be involved with review of redevelopment proposals. He states the Salem Historical Commission has jurisdiction of this building and all proposed exterior alterations. They do not have jurisdiction over grade level improvements, terraces, walkways, curbing, storm windows, windows, or air conditioning – any interior work that does not affect the exterior or outward appearance.
The building is currently zoned as an R-2, but the current use does not conform to that. Lafleche adds the new use could apply for a special permit to change a pre-existing non-conforming use.
Lafleche states the current occupancy code allows 443 people and requires at least two exits.
Lafleche describes the building’s potential reuses as residential, multi family, office, merchant/retail, assembly, and educational. All of these uses will need a sprinkler system, and there could be a mix of uses.
One idea is to relocate the City Hall Annex to the building. The current City Hall Annex has 20,000 sf of offices, 50 employees, 80-90 visitors a day, three meeting rooms that accommodate groups of 10, 40, and 75. There are seven parking spaces behind the building and approximately six meetings at night each week.
Lafleche states potential private options include private offices, historic blding/museum, residential multi family (condominiums, apartments, dorms, hotels/motels), educational (daycare, college classrooms), and merchant retail as well as a mixed-use opportunity.
Lafleche asks the public what would be their ideal reuse.
The meeting is now open to public comments:
Mary Whitney of 356 Essex Street: Comments that the overall building ratings were fair/poor/poor – have you figured out yet a ballpark estimate of what it would take to restore this building?
Lafleche: No we have not yet because the potential uses impact the cost differently. At this time we do not want to throw numbers out that would color any good ideas. That will be addressed later in the study.
Duncan responds the second public meeting will have ballpark figures for the reuse options.
Brain Shaughnessy of 4 Broad Street: Comments that the parking lot is used by neighbors on weekends and during evenings and for snow emergencies.
Teasie Riley-Goggin of 9 Wisteria Street: Asks if the 5,500 square foot basement can be included in the overall tenant square footage as usable space.
Lafleche responds that 1/3 of the basement space is occupied with mechanical equipment. The head height in the basement does not meet current code requirements. This would involve pushing the floor slab down which is a cost issue, there is not an adequate amount of natural light into the space and overall it is not a space with comparable quality.
Grace Friary of 10 Broad Street: Asks if developers have yet approached Salem to inquire about this property.
Duncan responds the city has not yet requested proposals because we first want to hear from the neighbors. Duncan adds a couple of developers have off-handedly commented they would be interested.
Mary Whitney of 356 Essex Street: Asks where a library would fit into the user group chart.
Lafleche responds it would fall under assembly if it were public, or educational if it were private. Lafleche adds he suspects this use would require special structural loading requirements for which the building probably was not originally designed.
Teasie Riley-Goggin of 9 Wisteria Street: Asks if the senior center stayed there what it would cost. Was that option considered in the feasibility study?
Lafleche responds the extent of the renovation would likely be less than some other uses because the building would be accommodating the same basic use.
Duncan adds this discussion has already been debated and decided upon by the City Council with the conclusion of a new senior center to be constructed and purchased.
David Pelletier of12 Crombie Street: Inquires out of all the city properties that have been re-used, how many of them turned into housing in the last thirty years. Pelletier suspects 90% into housing in one form or another.
Brennan responds that at this time they can not confirm or deny that.
Duncan asks the public if they would like to see a retail use for the building. Response was no.
Will Peck of 27 Broad Street: Comments in the LDA’s presentation they mentioned painting the exterior. Does that include painting the brick?
Lafleche apologies for the confusion and states that would not include painting the brick.
Duncan asks the public in attendance how many people would like to see housing as a potential reuse for the building. General response was yes, but it was not unanimous.
David Pelletier of 12 Crombie Street: States if the re-use is decent, classy and appropriate for the building with the mix of uses then it will add character to the neighborhood.
Michael Blier of 8 Broad Street: Comments there is a continual decay of the adjacent cemetery and it is forgotten about due to its location being behind everything. He adds that if mixed use were the case where the ground floor had animation there could be a visual connection back to cemetery which would be somewhat helpful. Blier adds if there were residential tenants on the ground level in the back they would most likely close off transparency to the cemetery.
Lafleche asks the public in attendance if they see the cemetery as an amenity. Response was yes.
Grace Friary of 10 Broad Street: States the building should be an integrated part of the historic fabric of the community. Friary adds Salem did three tours on cemeteries this year. Friary states we could look at using historic buildings to house a revival of the building arts, mixed in with office space that goes naturally with the old school building use. The graveyard falls in with stone carving, educational use, and a privately funded museum – something that could produce income for the city of Salem.
David Pelletier of 12 Crombie Street: Comments we have three historic cemeteries that are minimally maintained. These cemeteries could become aesthetic assets to the adjacent properties and could be made more desirable to tourists. Pelletier states they should rethink the cemetery adjacency with Old Salem Jail as well.
Duncan responds it is an interesting comment to maintain the cemetery as an historical asset but requests the conversation be brought back to the building.
Duncan asks the public in attendance what they think about moving the city offices over to 5 Broad Street.
John Seager of 7 Chestnut: Comments he likes the idea of it being a civic building and sees it as appropriate. However because of the activity, people, and parking quantities he feels it really is a tough fit. Seager adds a senior living or rehab center could be a possible option as well.
Will Peck of 27 Broad Street: Comments there are no residential parking markings in front of his house and that it only goes up to Pickering.
Lafleche responds their team walked the streets and found the markings and totaled them up.
Brian Shaughnessy of 4 Broad Street: Comments there is a no truck restriction labeled on every street approaching the building with the exception of Summer Street. Therefore uses that require frequent and large deliveries would not fit well at this site.
Brennan responds oil trucks and UPS trucks can certainly deliver to houses in these areas.
Lafleche responds they will need to study this issue in greater depth.
Grace Friary of 10 Broad Street: Comments the preservation of a landmark equals tourism –loss of/erosion of a national landmark coincides with the loss of money into Salem – in regards to the potential retail use idea.
David Pelletier of 12 Crombie Street: Asks in the context of moving the city offices to 5 Broad Street, how much space do they utilize now?
Duncan responds approximately 20,000 square feet.
David Pelletier of 12 Crombie Street: Comments in the scenario of moving the city offices; the distance from City Hall would be awkward for both the staff and the public. By taking it out of the center of services, people who relied on adjacent restaurants and stores during the day for food and/or errands would not be able to support the local businesses as much. Sticking it off too far makes no sense and therefore this is not the best use for 5 Broad Street.
Brennan responds and asks Pelletier what is his personal preference for the building.
David Pelletier of 12 Crombie Street: Responds housing on the upper floors with a creative use involving an atmospheric public use on the first floor – perhaps a restaurant tied into vista of cemetery. This would fit well if done with enough class to create a major destination that’s different.
Teasie Riley-Goggin of 9 Wisteria Street: Comments she supports the Annex transfer and with the technology today you don’t need the proximity. Broad Street offers much more parking than 120 Washington Street.
Duncan responds there are times when physical adjacencies are required with paperwork such as meeting postings – walking over to city hall, having them stamp it and have it posted in that building. Duncan adds there are forms that need to be signed by the mayor and therefore there will be inefficiencies by removing the Annex from the center.
Will Peck of 27 Broad Street: States he agrees with Pelletier’s comments, that housing should play a role in building. However Peck is not as sure about a restaurant. The current parking issue is questionable in accommodating all of the potential patrons. Peck adds he is sad to see the senior center go and that he thought it was a good place for it being a very safe neighborhood for the elderly.
Lafleche asks the public in attendance, as neighbors if they use the assembly spaces in the building?
Michael Blier of 8 Broad Street: Responds though it has recently changed they used to vote there. Blier further comments he came to this meeting thinking the Annex move was strong but from the discussion it seems not as realistic. Shops and restaurants downtown would be affected negatively. The distance between the Annex and City Hall may be too great; the cross over on foot is not a great option which may encourage people to drive more. Blier agrees instead with the mixed use scenario.
Lafleche adds if 50% of the staff have to make a 10-15 minute walk to the city offices then that does not lend itself to efficiency.
David Pelletier of 12 Crombie Street: Comments the other residential developments in the Crombie Street area over time have turned the area into a nice neighborhood with really no problems. It has worked out quite well and has helped the businesses. There have been no problems like people originally feared.
Lafleche comments LDA will record and summarize the discussion that has taken place and then they will go into step four of the process – reconcile steps 1, 2 and 3 and public comments and apply to the potential reuses. They will develop the study further with more detail – could these reuses work given all opportunities and what are their strengths/weaknesses – and will then put cost to options and present to the public again.
Duncan states the second public meeting will be December 9, 2009 at the next SRA meeting.
Baldini: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 4-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 8:02pm.
| 
