Loading...
2017-12-13 SRA MinutesSRA December 13, 2017 Page 1 of 4 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room SRA Members Present: Chairperson Grace Napolitano, David Guarino, Dean Rubin, Russell Vickers SRA Members Absent: None Others Present: Tom Daniel – Director of Planning and Community Development, Tom Devine – Senior Planner Recorder: Colleen Brewster Chairperson Grace Napolitano calls the meeting to order. Roll call was taken. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 203-209 Essex Street (Hotel Salem): Project update on remaining façade restoration and related SRA approvals. Rich Cooper of Hotel Salem was present to discuss the project. Mr. Cooper stated that the hotel is open for business and the first floor restaurant will be open the week of December 18th, the basement level at the beginning of 2018, and the rooftop in the spring of 2018. There is still some exterior work to be done. The sign band is currently in production, lights have been installed in the alleyway, Reliable Paint will paint the metal cornice in the spring, and Murray Masonry will repoint the brick façade and decorative wave brick along the front façade in the spring. He will return to the SRA monthly to offer updates on the project. Mr. Daniel stated that the cornice above the sign band has been a challenge in the past and he’d like to know if there are any alternative approaches that could restore it. This type of restoration work occurs in other places and is an important and visible detail. Patti Kelleher, a Preservation Planner on staff, will research how best to handle that detail. The Board agreed with that course of action. Mr. Daniel asked if the rooftop has been fully constructed. Mr. Cooper replied that the deck is 75% complete and the railings have been installed; however, the kitchen equipment will be installed in the spring. New / Old Business Mr. Rubin noted that there is no mechanism in place for the SRA to enforce follow-through. An example being that Ledger has not installed the fence around their trash enclosure. The SRA’s time shouldn’t be wasted if the applicant doesn’t follow through. Mr. Daniel replied that the Building Department is the enforcement mechanism for the SRA. Mr. Devine noted that he will follow up with Ledger. Mr. Daniel stated that the Building Department informed the Hotel Salem that their Certificate of Occupancy was conditional upon the remainder of the work being completed and they would need to return to the SRA monthly with updates until the work has been completed to complete the SRA process. For any applicant, the SRA can send a letter but it’s the Building Department that enforces it. The two newly hired assistant building inspectors will help with the SRA’s strategy with enforcing the follow through of Board requested items is a lesser priority than life safety concerns. Mr. Daniel stated that Honeydew Donuts had their signage permitted several weeks prior and included another sign in their window that lit up and was not permitted. He spoke with the Building Department regarding the additional sign which they were already made aware of. The sign was removed that same day. Mr. Rubin asked about the new decals at the Witch City Mall window. Mr. Daniel replied he spoke to the Building Department regarding that issue and a letter will be sent to the owner. Mr. Daniel stated that Deb Greel and the Public Art Commission is looking into some alleyway activation behind Ledger. The art installation wouldn’t be permanent so it wouldn’t require an SRA review; however, there is a possibility that it could be replicated elsewhere. Mr. Guarino noted that the alley is very dark and as long as there are no right-of-way issues it would be a great idea. Mr. Daniel stated that regarding the District Court property, Diamond Sinacori has submitted to the Planning Board and will return again later in December. The project was also received well at a Rotary meeting the previous week. People were surprised by the lower than anticipated $425,000 asking price for the units, which is still high for Salem. There were many questions with the Federal Street side and the frontage, including about concern about where the right lane is added when traveling north on Washington Street and the sidewalk gets constrained. It an important corner and the curb like could get extended and the lane pushed further down to begin at the other side of Church Street, but that corner needs further study through the Planning Board process. He meets monthly with DCAM to discuss this project and they are feeling anxious about completing the project. September 2018 is the closing date to get the project started but it will need to be watched closely in case extensions are required via an agreement amendment. He believes DCAM would be willing to agree to an extension. Mr. Vickers asked if the mechanism has been worked out for the transfer. Mr. Daniel replied that it would be a simultaneous process that gets recorded in order and this would be made clear in the deed. This would theoretically happen in August or September of 2018. The Tax Increment Exemption Agreement is the biggest caveat in the process that goes before the City Council in January or February of 2018. Mr. Daniel stated that regarding the County Commissioner and Superior Court Buildings, the state stakeholders meeting will be held on Thursday, December 21st in DCAM’s office in Boston. The Registry of Deeds sent out a recent communication indicating that they have figured out what they could use, which would guarantee public access, although it is unknown whether the Secretary of the Commonwealth is willing to moderate. Mr. Daniel has reached out to the Secretary’s representative prior to Thanksgiving; however no information will be provided until the meeting. Mr. Vickers asked if the study by Stantec had been completed. Mr. Daniel replied yes and it has been uploaded to the SRA website. The result of the study was that if the Registry of Deeds were to move into the Superior Court Building, the remaining space wouldn’t be a feasible to development. Mr. Daniel stated that at the ULI Panel discussion, Panelist Sandi Silk was suggesting an alternative method for using the HDIP funds. At a Malden project they abated 100% of the taxes for 20 years, which is the maximum. The developer made a payment, other than a property tax payment, and that money was used to buy the condominium unit that will be the new City Hall space. DIF (District Improvement Financing) can be layered onto it for this area of downtown, to capture a percentage of the property tax increase, and the DIF can be used as a financing tool for a future parking structure. Mr. Daniel asked for the Board comments on the ULI Panel Discussion. Chair Napolitano stated that they provided wonderful feedback and their perspective from the outside in, and with no preconceived notions about the areas of the City. She was surprised by their take on the Superior Court and County Commissioners Building which they didn’t find to be as big of a concern. The tax abatement mentioned by Sandi is an attractive tool for developers. She’s glad that several of the City Councilors were present for the discussion. Their traffic flow and parking concerns regarding the traffic all being downtown which helps create the congestion as well as their parking strategy feedback were valid points that she hadn’t previously considered. She and Mr. Vickers had a good discussion on how to prioritize the Superior Court and County Commissioners Building, through historic preservation, economic development, boosting taxes, etc., since historic preservation was a priority to many of the people the Panelists spoke to. It was a great overall experience. Mr. Rubin stated that he was intrigued by their ideas regarding a master developer. Mr. Vickers noted that half of their walkthrough was spent discussing that topic since he was a proponent for that concept of having a master developer. The Panelists’ issue is the matter of control and the visioning which has to come from the City. Mr. Rubin added that it was clear that the vision needs to be clearly defined in RFP’s and the two projects should be managed separately with a focus on those parcels. The ownership issue needs to be addressed with the Church Street parking lot to eliminate any future development issues. He was intrigued by the public input regarding the resource swapping and thinking outside of the traditional methods. The Board agreed that the people involved were comprised of very creative people that worked well together. Mr. Vickers stated the importance of a long term parking strategy with the potential of having to demolish the Museum Place parking garage and developing another long term use for that site. Mr. Daniel replied that a life study draft report of that parking garage is done and being finalized. Mr. Vickers noted that once complete it can be used to determine if money should be spent to extend its life or relocate it and construct a building in its place. Knowing what will be done with that site is important before moving forward with planning. He noted that of all the options and parcels considered, the Panelists put everything else aside and clumped the garage and Church Street lots and the Superior Count and County Commissioners building together as the main focus, which provided some clarity, although they still have legislative hurdles to overcome. At the garage site, if the museum were asked what they would prefer were placed across from them they would offer up some ideas as well. Chair Napolitano stated that the Panelists’ feedback on the RFP process and their two stage recommendation was interesting and will help them weed out developers and/or give them feedback to get them motivated to give us what we are looking for. It will also allow them to test the waters without putting too much money into the process which will be a win-win for both sides. Mr. Vickers stated that MassPort does a lot of pre-qualifications prior to RFP. Mr. Guarino stated that in terms of staff time the public meetings mean a longer process, and added that it was nice to see both the familiar and unfamiliar faces at the panel discussion. Mr. Devine added that he was impressed with the discussion that wasn’t acrimonious, the suggestion of moving the library, and the panelist’s thoughtful response to that suggestion. During the walk-through it became apparent how much development opportunity there is in downtown Salem. Mr. Daniel stated that the parking portion in terms of the life of the garage needs to be figured out and the Church Street lot is an obvious opportunity for a parking replacement. It was also recommended that the crescent parcel not be included but used as a parking resource. Mr. Daniel stated that regarding the County Commissioners Building, Mass Development has a program of real estate technical assistance program and submissions are due on Friday, Dec. 15th. The Planning Department has been waiting to submit a request for support with the RFP development until after the panel discussion. He spoke with the Tabernacle Church about being included. 5 Broad Street will also be included in that submission, although the court buildings are the focus. The process with a privately held property is unclear at this time and the hope is that Mass Development will help them figure that out. Mr. Rubin noted that there was an article in the Salem News regarding the Salem Waterfront Hotel addition. Mr. Daniel noted that Chapter 91 is a legislation to provide public accommodation to the waterfront, and the hotel has reduced their proposed addition from five floors to four. Flatbread and Notch are also subject to Chapter 91 so they both have to build their harbor walk out. The City is building a park at 289 Derby Street and the expectation is that the neighboring properties will build a cantilevered walk as well. Mr. Daniel stated that the PEM presented to the Historical Commission on Tuesday, December 12th to discuss modification to the Phillips Library buildings. The main controversy was that the main library would not be brought back to the buildings. Mayor Driscoll spoke with Dan Monroe of the PEM and he apologized for the poor handling of this development. There will be a public meeting in January to discuss their proposed plans. $9M is being spent on the building renovations and approximately $7M would be needed to make the building archival quality, but there are constraints with that so in Rowley they are renovating an approximately 120,000 SF facility to house the museum and library collections. Once the Rowley facility has been completed the entire collection will be come more accessible and conserved. They receive approximately 800 visitors a year and less than 300 of them are from Salem. The Peabody library facility has had more visitors in its 6 year presence, more than it had previously. It is believed that the PEM is considering collection items to possibly exhibit within the space for the public to view. The exterior work at the Phillips Library is within the Historical Commission and SRA’s jurisdiction. Chair Napolitano asked if the Peabody facility was suitable to house their collection. Mr. Daniel replied that although far, the Rowley facility will allow for a conservation area, lab, and housing of both collections, making this location more efficient. Minutes There are no minutes to review. Adjournment Rubin: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Chair Napolitano. Passes 4-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:00PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033.