City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday October 8, 2014 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Robert Mitnik, Conrad Baldini, Robert Curran, Russell Vickers, Grace Harrington
Members Absent:
Others Present: Executive Director and City Planner Lynn Duncan, Economic Development Planner Andrew Shapiro
Recorder: Andrew Shapiro
Chairperson Robert Mitnik calls the meeting to order. Roll call was taken.
Urban Renewal Area Projects
- 20 Central Street, Suite 111 (Salem Dental Arts): Discussion and vote on proposed signage.
Shapiro explained that the applicant is a dentist’s office on Central Street, next to the chiropractor office. The applicant would like to replicate the other signage present on the building’s exterior, which is a black smaltz background with raised gold leaf lettering. The applicant also proposes having her logo with some text on two windows – one in front and one on the side.
Shapiro noted that the proposed signage had been approved unanimously by the Design Review Board.
Baldini: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB,
Seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
Executive Director’s Report
Lynn Duncan reported that the Town Pump Fountain at Essex and Washington Street is nearing completion. It has been a challenging project. The last of the concrete installation was completed this week, which really ties in the old portion of the fountain with the new basin. The concrete still needs to be sealed.
Shapiro explained that the fountain basin would first be cleaned, then sealed.
Duncan continued by noting that there had been a delay because an incorrect lighting fixture had been ordered, and the contractor need to wait for a replacement. The correct lighting will work in both wet and dry conditions.
FY15 Community Preservation Plan: Request for Comment/Input:
Ms. Duncan introduced two Members of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) – Ed Moriarty and Kevin Cornacchio - that were present to discuss the FY15 Plan.
Mr. Moriarty explained that the CPC would connect with every City of Salem Board or Commission to explain their purpose and to seek input on projects or processes for the FY15 year. He noted that the CPC only approves projects with a clear intent that involves open space, recreation, or affordable housing.
Ms. Duncan reminded the Board that every year at least 10% of the available funding needs to be allocated for housing, another 10% for open space, and another 10% for historic resources. Obviously historic resources will always be a priority in Salem.
Moriarty provided Ms. Duncan with a list of projects that had been approved in the prior year, which Ms. Duncan read off for the Board:
- A $93,000 project for the North Shore Community Development Coalition to acquire housing at 52-60 Congress Street and 105-111 Dow Street for the purposes of rehabilitating the units in those buildings.
- Public library rear roof replacement
- Common Fence restoration
- A phased rehabilitation of Fort Pickering on Winter Island
- The restoration of Old Town Hall’s windows
- Restoration of Choate Statue
- The development of a pocket park at 15 Ward Street in the Point
- Improvements to the Salem Community Gardens
- Rehabilitations for Patton and Driver Parks
Duncan noted that not all of the funding for FY14 was allocated. There will be a second round, which will provide the opportunity to expend remaining FY14 funds, as well as FY15 funds. FY15 funding will also include a yet-to-be-determined matching amount from the State. Before any of this can go forward, it is a requirement that the CPC hold a public meeting and seek input from the public and local Boards about the coming year’s plan.
Mr. Cornacchio explained that the CPC does not have to expend its entire budget each year. This can be especially useful for open space acquisition, if larger amounts of funds need to be saved in order to purchase a parcel.
Vickers noted that it might be useful for the CPC to consider earmarking funds for future use within certain categories, like open space and recreation.
Duncan explained that the CPC has consciously stayed away from that approach in order not to prioritize between the three eligible categories, and rather to evaluate projects that are presented on an annual basis. Land acquisition can be so expensive and could take a very long time to save for, so other worthy projects might go unfunded in the interim.
Cornacchio expressed that he and Mr. Moriarty could report Mr. Vickers’ comment back to the CPC.
Ms. Duncan explained that it would be important for the CPC to ensure that future funds, even if they were set aside, remain flexible in terms of how they could be spent on the eligible CPA categories.
Ms. Harrington inquired as to how the funding decisions are made.
Mr. Moriarty explained that there is a comprehensive matrix and explanation of criteria that the CPC adheres to. Each project is ranked based on this criteria. Projects are pre-screened for eligibility.
Ms. Duncan pointed out that last year, the SRA had asked the CPC to consider projects within the Downtown Renewal Area and Entrance Corridors.
Chairman Mitnik suggested that all of the questions on the provided survey should be answered by the November SRA meeting, at which time the SRA could vote on each comment in order to have a consensus.
Discussion on draft RFP for redevelopment of District Court property:
Ms. Duncan reminded the Board that the RFP being discussed only includes the District Court, and not the Superior Court. She noted that they would be walking through draft redevelopment goals and criteria for proposal selection.
Ms. Duncan then began to read off a list of redevelopment goals for the site. She explained that somewhere in the RFP it would state that the SRA would entertain demolition of the existing structure to make way for a new development – although it would not be required.
The issue of economic value presents a bit of a challenge. She read off the goal noting that net proceeds of a sale of the property would go to the State, minus any expenses the SRA incurred during the sale and proposal process.
Mr. Vickers questioned whether the RFP need to explicitly state where proceeds were going. He did not feel as though it should matter to a developer or anyone submitting the proposal.
Ms. Duncan agreed that it may not be appropriate, but that the issue is relevant to evaluation criteria.
Vickers went on to note that the language should somehow say that the highest bidder in response to the RFP might not necessarily be selected. Selection would be based on a number of factors, including the quality of development. He also explained that whatever the sale price would be, it would have to be able to cover the cost of expenses incurred by the SRA during this process.
Ms. Duncan mentioned that she wondered whether they might need to hire someone to review the proposals.
Shapiro questioned whether an appraisal might need to be done.
Ms. Duncan thought that might be interesting, and Mr. Vickers noted that it would be good to know the evaluated monetary value of the property before selling it.
Duncan noted that the SRA has funds available to it to hire an appraiser. She then reiterated that economic value for the project would be in terms of tax base enhancement, economic contribution, and sale/purchase price. She continued by noting that she would remove references about proceeds going to the State and the SRA’s costs needing to be covered.
Vickers asked that the last sentence of the third paragraph be removed.
Duncan noted that instead of stating that mixed-use scenarios are preferred in residential development proposals, she would edit the RFP to state that mixed-use scenarios are preferred generally.
Shapiro commented that removing the description “gateway site” might be appropriate given that the parcel and building is already situated in the downtown.
Mitnik commented that it might be interesting to include more criteria regarding green space. He explained that he had recently seen a development in Korea that integrated a series of green roofs.
Duncan remarked that that thought was interesting and perhaps it would be appropriate for the RFP’s to call for the integration of “green” or sustainable building standards. It should be stated somewhere in the goals section.
Vickers commented that the proposals should include a comprehensive timeline or schedule for how the sale and development of the property should occur.
Duncan responded saying that a timeframe document could be added to the required documents to be submitted.
Duncan then directed the Board to examine the development criteria. She pointed out that the least desirable proposals as judged against the criteria would be labeled “not acceptable.” Under categories, the wording about costs of the SRA needing to be covered, will be removed.
Duncan noted that the economic and civic vitality are the most important criteria for the project, and the direct value paid for the property is secondary – this will have to be reflected in the criteria.
Duncan also noted that mixed-use projects should be designated a rating of highly advantageous, whereas projects that are not mixed-use would be regarded simply as advantageous for the compatibility with revitalization use/goals criteria.
On the subject of quality of proposed development plan, Mitnik suggested that the style of architecture does not necessarily have to be historic in nature, but should just complement the downtown environment. Historic architecture should not necessarily be mimicked.
Mitnik also commented that architectural drawings or renderings should be provided at an appropriate scale, so as to fairly represent what is being proposed. All submissions should be held to a consistent standard.
Duncan commented that she would look at what had been required for the Old Salem Jail proposal process and would see if the scale that was requested there was appropriate – she would share it with the Board.
Duncan then noted that with respect to the site plan, she would consider a proposal to include a building pulled back away from the street with parking in front, to not be acceptable.
Vickers remarked that he had spoken with developers in the past and had heard interest in acquiring properties adjacent to the District Court to redevelop it in conjunction with others.
Mitnik commented that the Church Street lot behind the court could be an interesting opportunity to combine projects.
Duncan explained that it would be logistically difficult and stressed that the two were separate projects. She then asked the Board to provide any additional comments via email to either her or Mr. Shapiro. She said that they would look into the cost and execution of an appraisal for the property.
Vickers: Motion to approve the Director of Planning and Community Development to seek out a firm to perform an appraisal on the District Court property, not to exceed $2,500,
Seconded by Curran. Passes 5-0.
Minutes
The minutes from the September 10, 2014 regular meeting were reviewed.
Vickers: Motion to approve,
Seconded by Baldini. Passes 5-0.
Adjournment
Baldini: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:05 pm.
| 
