City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday January 14, 2015 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Robert Mitnik, Conrad Baldini, Robert Curran,
Members Absent: Grace Harrington, Russell Vickers
Others Present: Executive Director and City Planner Lynn Duncan, Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner
Recorder: Jennifer Pennell
Chairperson Robert Mitnik calls the meeting to order. Roll call was taken.
Executive Director’s Report
Ms. Duncan noted that her report would not consist of any information other than updates in regards to the disposition of the District Court building and property. She explained that there would be no vote on the issue at this meeting because of the lack of time available to review the draft request for proposals (RFP) that has been developed, in particular the redevelopment goals and selection criteria.
Ms. Duncan also explained that the SRA and the City would have to reconvene with DCAMM in order to coordinate the disposition process, in terms of how things will unfold after a developer is identified and selected.
Old/ New Business
- Discussion and vote on the reappointment of Members to the Design Review Board:
a. Ernest DeMaio, III
b. David Jaquith
c. Glenn Kennedy
Shapiro explained that all three members up for reappointment have long tenures on the Design Review Board. DeMaio and Kennedy both work and live in Salem; Jaquith is the longest tenured member out of the three. All three members expressed a willingness to continue to serve.
Mitnik added an acknowledgement of their qualifications and his appreciation for all the work they had done for the DRB in the past.
Curran: Motion to reappoint.
Seconded by Baldini. Passes 3-0.
At this point, Chairman Mitnik decided to take consideration of some items noted on the agenda, out of order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review:
- 32 Derby Square (Old Town Hall): Discussion and vote on proposed restoration and replacement of windows.
Documents and Exhibitions:
- Scope of work
- Bid specifications
- Photos of existing conditions
- Elevations and drawings
Shapiro introduced Colleen Anderson, who was present on behalf of Gray Architects, Inc., which Shapiro noted the City had contracted for oversight of the Old Town Hall window restoration project.
Shapiro commented that the city has received a $20,000 grant to restore Old Town Hall’s windows from the MA Cultural Council. Concurrently the project was also awarded $46,000 from the City’s Community Preservation Act funding. Gray Architects have put together bid specifications for the proposal and the DRB voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project. The goal of the project is to restore all windows. Among the windows there are varying levels of work required to restore them to their original working order and appearance. Some windows are beyond a state of repair and will require replacement, which will be specified to match original form and appearance.
Baldini questioned whether every window required some level of work.
Shapiro responded noting that even the least affected windows would require some work.
Anderson commented that 10 to 15% of the windows will require large amounts of work and/or all out replacement.
Duncan commented that the project is currently underfunded. The total of $66,000 currently dedicated to the project will most likely not cover the entire cost of the project.
Shapiro confirmed Ms. Duncan’s assertion and continued by noting that the City would return to the Community Preservation Committee for additional funding to plug a shortfall after bids are received to determine an overall cost for the project.
Mitnik questioned if there would be a sequence of priority.
Anderson explained that a base bid was developed, representing the highest priority windows to be addressed. The base bid consists of the entire southern façade, which faces Derby Square, as well as most of the second floor windows.
Baldini: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB,
Seconded by Curran. Passes 3-0.
- 75 Lafayette Street (Keller Williams Realty): Request and vote on proposed signage.
Documents and Exhibitions:
- Sign permit application
- Design of sign
- Photo of existing storefront
Shapiro noted that the proposal is for the replacement of the current sign located on the building’s storefront due to a redesign of the realty company’s logo and typeface. Shapiro noted that the DRB requested that the proposed typeface and sign height to be lowered 2” so that the proposed sign would not hide the existing brick coursing directly above where the sign is proposed to be mounted.
Curran: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB,
Seconded by Baldini. Passes 3-0.
- 209 Essex Street, Rear (LEAP for Education): Discussion and vote on proposed signage.
Documents and Exhibitions:
- Sign permit application
- Design of signs
- Photo of existing storefront
- Drawings
Shapiro noted that the proposal is for new signage that will have a teal/turquise background and text that reads “Leap For” and “Education” on two different flush mounted sign boards. The black type face will be raised. The format shall remain from the previous signage will remain the same.
Shapiro commented that a new blade sign would also be located on the opposite side as well.
Baldini: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB,
Seconded by Curran. Passes 3-0.
Old/ New Business (cont.):
- District Court Property: Discussion and vote on proposed redevelopment goals and criteria sections of request for proposals (RFP) for disposition and redevelopment of property.
Documents and Exhibitions:
- Draft redevelopment goals and selection criteria
Duncan explained that no vote would be taken on what was before the SRA tonight. She would be walking through the materials and would allow more time for review of the information.
Duncan noted that she would not recite all of the redevelopment goals but emphasized that economic and civic vitality, as well as economic value are vital goals to the City and the SRA. The SRA would entertain demolition of the existing former District Court building, as well as renovation. It is not considered a historic structure. Duncan also explained that recently passed legislation that was also signed by Governor Patrick allows the SRA to proceed with a disposition process for the District Court, but not the Superior Court complex. She noted that Secretary Galvin still appears interested in the Superior Court for future relocation of the Registry of Deeds.
Duncan noted that the developer that would ultimately be selected would need to be financially self-sufficient, insofar as not needing additional assistance from the City. We would like to encourage a mix of uses for the proposed development, in particular, retail and/or restaurant on the ground floor given the superb location of the property.
Of course, architecture would need to compliment the surrounding downtown buildings and parking would need to adhere to local zoning requirements. There is no parking required to be provided for commercial development, but parking would need to be provided for any residential uses.
Duncan commented that a request for sustainable building methods and materials have been incorporated into the RFP. The building should operate in a sustainable manner as well.
Councilor Bill Legault, who was present, questioned what exactly was meant by sustainable.
Duncan expanded upon it by noting that it could be in the form of a green roof, for instance, or other features that would perhaps make the building energy efficient.
Councilor Tom Furey, who was also present, commended the SRA on the past projects they had overseen and expressed his confidence that this project would also turn out quite well under their guidance. He also noted that this project could also pave the way for a new location for the City Hall Annex.
Duncan confirmed that this project could very well result in a new location for the City Hall Annex, but emphasized that the City Hall Annex might be used a catalyst for a future project that might be more challenging move forward.
Duncan then moved on to the proposed selection criteria. She explained that there would be six comparative criteria, the first of which would be developer qualifications. Developers would have to demonstrate that they are able to carry a proposed project forward. They would provide examples of their prior work. We will also require the developer to move forward with the project in a timely fashion.
Duncan noted that along with evaluating proposals against the criteria, the SRA would have an opportunity to interview the developers representing the top tier of submitted proposals.
With respect to financial benefit and self-sufficiency Ms. Duncan noted that the City and SRA would be repaid any necessary costs incurred during the RFP and disposition process. The rest of the proceeds would go to the State. We want to ensure that there is direct economic benefit to the City such as tax revenue, but we also want to ensure that the project will produce economic vitality in the downtown.
Compatibility with revitalization use goals encourages a mix of uses with an emphasis on the ground level having retail and/or a restaurant. Financial capability and project feasibility would measure the proposers’ ability to adequately finance a proposed project, and weather that project would be economically feasible.
Duncan concluded by noting that some more refinement to these goals and criteria would happen. The Planning Department would work with the Purchasing Department to develop the entire RFP document, and time would be allowed to the SRA for review and comment.
Councilor Furey questioned whether there were other examples of a state court such as this being turned over to a municipality for redevelopment, and what were the ultimate results of those developments.
Duncan explained that the District Court building probably is not a great candidate for adaptive reuse, and more likely would be knocked down.
Minutes
The minutes from the November 12, 2014 annual and regular meeting were reviewed.
Baldini: Motion to approve,
Seconded by Curran. Passes 3-0.
Adjournment
Baldini: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Curran. Passes 3-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 6:36 pm.
| 