Loading...
2015-03-11 SRA MinutesSRA March 11, 2015 Page 1 of 4 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday March 11, 2015 at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairperson Robert Mitnik, Conrad Baldini, Robert Curran, Grace Harrington Members Absent: Russell Vickers Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Jennifer Pennell Chairperson Robert Mitnik calls the meeting to order. Roll call was taken. Executive Director’s Report Andrew Shapiro explained that Executive Director Lynn Duncan was not able to attend the meeting. He extended her regards and noted that there would be no formal executive director’s report. Old/ New Business 1. 126 Essex Street (Crowninshield-Bentley House / Peabody Essex Museum): Discussion and vote on proposed temporary public art installation concept. Documents and Exhibitions: • Cover letter • Photos with captions and text • Site Plan Bob Monk was present on behalf of the Peabody Essex Museum. Monk noted that the proposed public art project would be staged on the front lawn of the Crowninshield-Bentley House located at 126 Essex Street. The art project would be titled “Stickwork,” and would be a sculpture constructed of sticks and saplings. The artist, Patrick Dougherty, has produced this type of artwork before. Monk stated that saplings would be used for the construction of the sculpture and would be obtained from various sites around Essex County. The project is proposed to begin in May with a 3-week development phase. Stickwork would be open to the public and last somewhere between 12 and 18 months. Monk commented that should wear and tear occur earlier the project would be decommissioned. He stated that a fence would enclose the artwork so that access would be controlled with security on site. Baldini asked whether the site would be free of charge for admission. Monk stated that it would indeed be free. SRA March 11, 2015 Page 2 of 4 Shapiro noted that this proposal did not get reviewed by the DRB for a recommendation because proposed art installations typically do not get reviewed by the DRB. The SRA should consider this project as a concept given that one or more aspects of it may be different when it is ultimately constructed. Baldini: Motion to approve, Seconded by Curran. Passes 4-0. 2. District Court Property: Discussion and vote on draft request for proposals (RFP) for disposition and redevelopment of property. Shapiro noted that the final draft of the RFP has not changed much since the last time it was provided. The cover sheet outlines major additions to the proposal. They include: • Site Plan: [Additional provision within this category] The site plan should reflect consideration of the City’s Complete Streets policy and incorporate pedestrian and bic ycle accommodations, as feasible. Mitnik asked for clarification on how bicycle planning should be addressed with respect to the Complete Streets policy. Shapiro explained that bicycle planning could call for the installation of bike parking on-site or inside the building, or it could ensure that bike paths are accessible to the site. • Housing Diversity – If a development incudes residential units, (a) ten percent (10%) should be affordable to households earning a maximum of 80% of area median income; and (b) there should be a reasonable number of three-bedroom units. • Public Art – The development should incorporate public art on site, or should provide a contribution to the city for the purpose of installing public art downtown. Shapiro also noted that with the RFP itself would be the following documents that would appear as appendices: • District Court Legislation • Locus Map • Parcel Map • The Deed from 1975 • Construction Plans • The District Court Building Analysis from 2012 • An Existing conditions Report • The Downtown Renewal Plan Mitnik stated that he had a few comments about the RFP. In particular he noted that he felt the criteria on section D currently appear watered down. There seems to be more importance placed on bicycle planning than sustainability. Mitnik stated that sustainability should be SRA March 11, 2015 Page 3 of 4 encouraged to the greatest extent possible. Sustainable building materials and methods should both be acknowledged in the RFP. Baldini noted that he agreed with the Chairman’s comments. Shapiro noted that he would be happy to make those changes to the RFP in order to strengthen language with respect to sustainability. Mitnik added that sustainability of a proposed project should be judged and considered as an advantageous proposal, in addition to a highly advantageous proposal. In the current version of the RFP, the language referencing sustainability is dropped after the “highly advantageous” qualifications. Mitnik questioned if an existing structure that becomes renovated in the downtown would still require 1.5 cars per a residential unit as is required for new construction. Shapiro noted that any residential units added to a new or used building should require the 1.5 spaces per unit parking requirements. Mitnik expressed that he thought that this would be a high price for a developer to pay if it were to develop a residential project. Harrington asked whether the RFP considers whether an adaptive reuse of the existing building is favored or less favored versus tearing the building down and having a new building constructed. Shapiro explained that no scenario is favored over another, but that the RFP expresses the City and SRA’s willingness to have new construction take place. Mitnik expressed a concern that a proposal that the SRA ultimately selects is then rejected by the local Zoning Board of Appeals if it requires a variance or special permit to move forward. Shapiro explained that proposals reviewed by the SRA would be schematic in nature and that there would be time after a proposal was selected, for the developer to discuss the feasibility of having a certain development scenario go forward and gain local board approvals. Shapiro noted that the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) is reviewing the draft and might have minor changes after tonight. The RFP will be released on March 18th, and proposals will be due June 17th. Harrington asked whether after proposals are submitted, that the SRA would be ranking them. Shapiro responded noting that the SRA would rank proposals based on the criteria in the RFP. Mitnik then asked if Councillor Furey, who was present, had any questions. Furey commented that the site in question used to have a gas station. It then became a courthouse. He noted that SRA March 11, 2015 Page 4 of 4 he thought it would be difficult, given the layout of the site and the condition of the building, for the site not to be redeveloped with a new building. Harrington: Motion to approve issuance of the District Court Request for Proposals, conditional upon adding the language provided by Chairman Mitnik regarding the sustainability of the project and to allow for minor edits to be made resulting from review by DCAMM. Seconded by Curran. Passes 4-0. Minutes The minutes from the January 14, 2015 annual and regular meeting were reviewed. Baldini: Motion to approve, Seconded by Harrington. Passes 4-0. Adjournment Curran: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Baldini. Passes 4-0. Meeting is adjourned at 6:30 pm.