Loading...
2010-01-13 SRA MinutesSRA January 13, 2010 Page 1 of 11 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday January 13, 2010, at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairperson Michael Brennan, Robert Mitnik, Michael Connelly, Russell Vickers Members Absent: Conrad Baldini Others Present: Director of Planning and Development Lynn Duncan and Community Development Planner Natalie Lovett Recorder: Lindsay Howlett Chairperson Michael Brennan calls the meeting to order. Executive Director’s Report Parking Study: Duncan announces the second public meeting for the downtown management parking study, will be held at 120 Washington Street, on Monday, February 1st from 6:00 – 8:30pm. She explains that an order was submitted to City Council this week to authorize a right of entry agreement with New Boston Adventures to create a new public parking lot across form the Old Salem Jail. Additionally, she states, the plan shows a driveway and turn around, approved, to be located in the green space, with the assumption there would be valet parking for the new restaurant. She adds that there are approximately thirty seven spaces that the public can use short term during the day. Duncan states, should City Council approve this, it will come to the SRA and DRB for approval of the details. Old/New Business Development Project Review 1. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail): Update on restaurant status Richard Beck states that the Carriage House is built and finished and that construction is on schedule. Additionally, interior wall are going up in the Jail Keeper’s House and the kitchen is being installed this week and should be completed in mid February. He adds the Jail has a new synthetic slate roof; windows, new floor plates and the residential units are being framed out. Beck further states the Restaurant marketing is moving forward and that they have been getting a lot of interest. Twenty tours have been given to interested parties, three of whom are seriously considering the space but have a concern regarding the amount of available parking. Beck offers the SRA to visit the site whenever they would like. SRA January 13, 2010 Page 2 of 11 2. 281 Essex Street (Latitude): Discussion and vote on proposed ground floor use Attorney George Atkins speaks for the applicant stating that the economics of renting space has become much more difficult in the recent years. He adds they are very close to obtaining a rental of the space that may fit into the definition of restrictions. Atkins describes Unit C3 as an eight hundred square foot space that fronts on Essex and Crombie Street. Atkins adds they have a potential tenant who is an independent real estate broker, with a twist. Atkins explains the potential tenant would like to set aside a portion of the space for various artists of the community to display their art using the space as an office with a retail nature. Atkins states he is asking, on behalf of the applicant, for an exception to the use of the space in order to have a artist gallery on the first floor and near the reception area and an office in the basement. Connelly affirms he knows this potential tenant has another office with a similar setup. Duncan reminds the SRA this is a request for an exception to a use change. Vickers: Motion to approve the request to change the use of Unit C3 to the proposed use, a real estate office with an artist gallery, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 4-0. Sign, Awning, and Lighting Review 3. 196 Essex Street (Café Valverde): Discussion and vote on proposed signage and awning Duncan states the DRB recommends approval with a few conditions; wall sign to be centered both vertically and horizontally, the awning shall be black with street number in cream color. Mitnik: Motion to approve the design changes as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0. Approval of Minutes: November 4, 2009 Annual and Regular Meetings. Duncan suggests a few amendments to the Regular Meeting minutes and Howlett notes the change. Vickers: Motion to approve the meeting minutes as amended, seconded by Connelly. Passes 4-0. No edits for the Annual Meeting Minutes. Mitnik: Motion to approve the Annual meetings minutes, seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0. SRA January 13, 2010 Page 3 of 11 Public Meeting on 5 Broad Street Reuse Feasibility Study: 6:30 pm Presentation, discussion, and public comment Audience of approximately 23. Chairperson Brennan calls the meeting to order. Duncan explains to the public how the first meeting discussed possible re-uses for 5 Broad Street, such as residential, mixed use and relocation of the city hall annex. LDa researched and explored how these options could fit into the building given all of the restraints of the existing conditions. Lefleche reiterates that LDa is going to show the reuse studies that they came up with that they thought were appropriate for this building. He also states that he will recap the November 4, 2009 public meeting. LDa recaps the November 4, 2009 public meeting. T. LaFleche reviews the process for the study. He reiterates that they studied the site focusing on constraints and responsibilities. They studied the current use pattern and evaluated the existing building conditions with regard to zoning and historic programs and regulations. Based on public feedback at the first public meeting and their analysis, the following three reuse scenarios were selected for further consideration: Scenario 1: Residential: Multi family housing on all floors Scenario 2: Mixed Use : Multi family housing on part of ground floor, 2nd and 3rd level 2A – professional offices 2B - restaurant on ground floor Scenario 3: Relocate City Hall Annex T. LaFleche reviewed schematic plans for these three potential reuse alternatives. Scenario 1: - Available parking governs the reuse capacity: • Code requires 1 ½ parking spaces per residential unit • There are 25 existing spaces which would allow 16 total possible residential units. - Known Building Limitations: existing core, copula, skylights, windows etc. - These existing limitations confine the building to 15 viable units under Scenario #1 - A variety of unit types and sizes may prove to be most valuable. Ex: A 15 unit solution that has (5) 2 bedroom units and (4) 1 bedroom units and (6) studio units Audience Member asks: What is the population of Scenario #1 – Residential Use? SRA January 13, 2010 Page 4 of 11 Lefleche responds: Approximately 20 people; cannot know exactly how many people will occupy one bedroom (i.e. kids/couples etc.) Audience Member asks: Please define what is mean by the term accessible: Lefleche responds: Parking will be handicapped accessible per code (5% of the spaces = 1 unit) as well as the units’ bathroom, kitchen, door ways, etc. Lefleche walks the public through the schematic plans for Scenario #1. • Basement – ceiling height is only 7’ tall with the exception of the lower right quadrant. As a result only storage units for above tenant units, mechanical and electrical room will be located on this level. o Note: Bicycle storage was considered for the higher quadrant as well as an exercise room or even a game room – something that is common space for the building tenants to use. • First Floor – (4) 2 bedroom 1 bath units, approximately 1100 square feet each. Layout takes full advantage of windows and living circulation. o Note: (2) existing grand staircases to remain. Door on western entrance would be filled with new windows and would no longer function as an entrance. • Second Floor – (1) 2 bedroom 1 bath unit. Approximately 880 square feet. (6) Studio units of approximately 440-480 square feet. • Third Floor – (4) 1 bedroom 1 bath units. Approximately 850 – 1,100 square feet. o Note: There are dormers and slanted ceilings that led to the third floor layout. Audience member asks: How many square feet total is used for residential units? Lefleche replies: Approximately 14,000 square feet. The basement storage and bike area adds another 1,200 square feet. Audience member asks: Will there be a storage area in the basement for every unit? Lefleche responds: Graphically we are only showing twelve but we could sub-divide what we have shown to make the fifteen, yes. Audience member asks: Will there be laundry facilities in each unit? SRA January 13, 2010 Page 5 of 11 Lefleche responds: Yes. Audience member asks: What is the motivation for fifteen units- what would keep you from considering ten units? Lefleche responds: We chose to show the maximum use that the building could contain, while still providing diversity and character. Units could always be combined to make fewer, larger units. Duncan reminds the audience that this is not a set program – the city is not going to adopt a specific program for the layout of the space at this time. Duncan adds the charge here is to see what could fit within the building in regards to the restraints of parking and existing building conditions. An audience member comments: As a neighbor, it makes a big difference to me whether there are seven new units next door or fifteen. Duncan states in the interest of time, comments will be held until the end of the presentation. Lefleche states because the 5 Broad Street building was originally a school it benefits from very high floor to floor heights of approximately between 14’ – 16’ between the first, second, and third floors. Scenario #2-A: Lefleche explains that the second scenario combines residential and office use for the building. - Available parking still governs the reuse capacity. Lefleche states the plans for scenario #2 show: - (10) Residential units - requiring 1 ½ parking spaces per unit. - 2,000 square feet of office space – requiring 1 parking space per every 200 square feet of office space. • Basement – identical to Scenario #1. • First Floor – 2,000 square feet of office space on the western half of the building, (2) 2 bedroom/1 bath units of approximately 1,100 square feet on the east o West side parking entrance for office use only. Building core provided as designated path of egress for residents. o Layout was intended for small proprietors, but you can combine the offices to make larger / fewer office spaces. o Note: Per code, business use cannot cross over the building core corridor. This is to limit access to the residential uses. As a result the business use can only be located on the western half of the first floor. • Second Floor – (6) two bedroom units. SRA January 13, 2010 Page 6 of 11 • Third Floor – (4) one bedroom units. Scenario #2-B: Lefleche explains this scenario combines residential and restaurant use for the building. He adds that a restaurant will require more parking than the office use in Scenario #2-A. Available parking governs the reuse capacity: - Scenario assumes a 40 seat restaurant with 7-8 staff members – requires 14 parking spaces. - 11 parking spaces remaining for residential use- allows for 7 residential units. - Western side entrance for restaurant will require an ADA compliant ramp. - Residents can enter from the front and rear doors. • Basement – identical to first scenario: storage, mechanical and electrical • First Floor – 2,000 square foot restaurant and (1) three bedroom unit. • Second Floor – (4) two bedroom units. • Third Floor – (2) three bedroom units 2 baths. Scenario #3: Lefleche states Scenario #3 focuses on relocating the City Hall Annex. The reuse was bas ed on the existing department space allocations and groupings. Current usage at 120 Washington Street includes: - Employees; 52-55 - Visitors: 80-90 visitors per day • Basement- Holds the same constraints as with the other scenarios: height of ceilings, windows, air flow o Basement is sub-standard workspace and is not recommended for office space. o Current storage at 120 Washington St can be relocated to the basement o Right lower quadrant with higher ceiling could contain a lunch room. • First Floor: (3) meeting rooms, Data Processing, Treasurer/Deputy Collector • Second Floor: Building and Planning Departments o Note: The Planning Department will be divided across the core stairway to accommodate all of its space needs. • Third Floor: Health and Engineering Departments SRA January 13, 2010 Page 7 of 11 LeFleche notes the overall square footage at 5 Broad Street is less than the current Washington Street location for the Annex program - 2 of the 9 departments at 120 Washington Street can not be accommodated at 5 Broad Street; Human Resources and Purchasing Department would have to be relocated LeFleche lists some additional findings; - Increased walking distance to City Hall will affect productivity - Walking distance to employee parking garage increases by 2 ½ times - 5 Broad Street has 25 parking spaces- more than 120 Washington St Overall Study Summary: LeFleche explains Scenarios #1, #2-A, and #2-B can be accommodated at 5 Broad Street. Scenario #3, relocation of City Hall Annex, cannot be accommodated. At this time the public is able to ask any questions. Councillor McCarthy asks: Is this presentation going to be available online? Duncan responds: Yes, we will post the presentation on the department’s website and reminds the public the first presentation is also available online. Audience member asks: Though two departments of the Annex cannot be accommodated, is it correct that the majority of the program can be accommodated at 5 Broad Street? Lefleche responds: Yes, you are correct but we were asked if the building’s program can be moved or not - there was no alternative to split the departments. Audience member asks: Will there be a cost analysis performed? Lefleche responds: A cost analysis is clearly an important stage and is the next logical step. Jim Treadwell of the audience asks: What drove you to consider a mixed use with a restaurant when we are having trouble with this mixed use compatibility downtown? Brennan responds: At the first public meeting, a restaurant scenario was mentioned by the residents. LDA therefore studied that option. SRA January 13, 2010 Page 8 of 11 Duncan adds the public was not interested in a retail use but was interested in examining a commercial use. Duncan further adds the SRA would welcome taking a step back to comment on the appropriateness of the reuses that were presented today. Duncan states one scenario suggested by one or two city counselors was to move the City Hall Annex. Another approach is selling the building to a developer and using the funds acquired to offset the cost of the new Senior Center. Audience member asks: What is the status of the new Senior Center? Duncan responds: The Planning Board will be having a meeting on Thursday January 21, 2010 at 7:00pm if you would like to know more about the new Senior Center. Duncan adds there are plans available for viewing in the Planning Department. Jeff Cox of 58 Endicott Street states he is very concerned about moving City Hall Annex to 5 Broad Street. People with disabilities would have a difficult time getting there from City Hall and, as a result, would be at a disadvantage. The move would result in a loss of practicality, efficiency and safety. Cox further states it would cost a tremendous amount of money to rectify this building for public use. Cox also states that he would like to see larger apartments offered in the building and that a residential use would fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. Barbara Austin of the audience states that the parking at 5 Broad Street is always a problem. If you have 15 apartments with 1 1/2 parking spaces per unit, realistically there would need to be additional parking for visitors and guests, etc. Austin adds that designated resident only parking on Broad Street is limited. Austin further states with 15 apartments and a restaurant, all of the street parking will be occupied and there will be a lot of added noise. Austin states she would not support a restaurant. Audience member asks: In the restaurant scenario who would own the restaurant space? Lefleche responds: That is a market driven issue and the unit would likely be sold as a condominium. Audience member asks: What if you used the old school building at 5 Broad Street as a school that teaches and celebrates the historic arts and trades in the community of Salem? Audience member further states that none of the scenarios are appealing. We are not taking into consideration the Historic District. Celebrating the uniqueness of the neighborhood should be moved up in priority. Duncan responds: Nothing that we have done to date would exclude the option of a school. One of the next steps is to bring this information to the City Council. Duncan adds if we assume for the moment that the building will be sold- a developer could propose to use the building in that way – we would not want to limit proposals. Duncan further states that it is up to the private SRA January 13, 2010 Page 9 of 11 sector market place to come up with such a proposal and historic preservation will be important for any direction we move in. LeFleche adds a school would be a very program specific use. He adds it would be difficult to study because it would require a lot of speculation regarding how the building would be utilized. Tom Devine of 2 Station Road asks: Why are we moving the Senior Center out of the building? Duncan responds: We will not be discussing that issue at this forum. Audience member asks: What is the time frame for the decision making? Duncan responds: We are finishing up this study in the next month or so based on the input from this meeting. Duncan adds we would like to update the City Council and work with them to determine the next steps. Duncan adds that 5 Broad St will not be sold until the Senior Center has a place to move. The new Senior Center is just starting the permit process and will then require another 12-15 months to build. Helen Sides of 35 Broad Street asks: Are there any zoning issues with these scenarios? LeFleche responds: They all comply. Helen Sides of 35 Broad Street adds: I am opposed to the restaurant. It is a very residential neighborhood and should stay that way. I question the feasibility of tourist sites as they should be kept downtown. Also, I am more in favor of larger residential units as it is a strong neighborhood that could sustain much larger units. Sides requests that onsite parking be sufficient to accommodate guests. Audience member states: 1 Broad Street is a low profile building and I think 5 Broad Street could be too. TC Riley of 9 Wisteria Street asks: The SRA was called in to handle the reuse of the building study, will the report then go to City Council and will City Council then have a meeting? Duncan responds: If there is a decision by City Council to move forward with a private developer, the SRA will still be involved. Duncan adds the exact process the council uses will be up to them – ultimately if there is a decision to move forward we would be working on the Request for Proposals, similar to other SRA projects. Audience member states: We have not talked a lot about the City Hall Annex and I would like to ask that we make sure we have a consensus about the Annex relocation scenario. SRA January 13, 2010 Page 10 of 11 Audience member states: Both Salem State College and Gordon College are interested in moving into space somewhere in downtown Salem. Could we give some credence to that as a mix use in place of a restaurant or office space? Councillor Furey states: People like one stop shopping. The Annex relocating to 5 Broad Street would be very inappropriate in the 21st Century. Furey adds that the Annex should stay downtown, in proximity to City Hall. The neighborhood would entirely change if City Hall Annex was relocated there. Councillor Ronnan: Agrees with Councillor Furey. Broad Street is not a feasible location for the City Hall Annex. Councillor adds the District Court building on Washington Street would be much more appropriate for City Annex and presently there are no plans for that building. Dick Pavik states the District Courthouse is a more appropriate space for the Annex. Pavik adds a restaurant will not work at 5 Broad Street; it is too far from the center of the town and to look at10 Federal Street where there are offices to spare that are not renting. Brian Shaughnessy states: Scenario #1 seems to be the best. Shaughnessy proposes the Cit y consider an alternative use such as the school for historic preservation. Brennan responds the SRA received a lot of information to consider from tonight’s meeting. Brennan adds that the final proposal will need to be bankable for a developer. Duncan adds: Years ago the only proposal received for the Salem Jail was a children’s museum but it could not move forward due to financing. Financial feasibility of restaurant at this location would be difficult. Helen Sides of 35 Broad Street states: If 5 Broad Street does become a residential use it will have a lesser impact on the exterior of the building. Sides adds with any type of public use the exterior will have dramatic changes made to it. If it is a residential use it will look good in the neighborhood. Sides further states I would hate the building to not be taken care of by students and I don’t think that it is a great way for the city to make money either. Lefleche responds that based on the current studies the 15 units are substantially less of an impact to the neighborhood than the current Senior Center. Dan Finamore states: The building is currently being terribly maintained i.e. the cupola, no on-site dumpster, windows falling out etc. Finamore adds there is a big pedestrian walk way through the back space of the building that continues through the cemetery that should be preserved. We need to take into account all four sides of that building and the accessibility for traffic. Brennan thanks the public for coming to tonight’s meeting. SRA January 13, 2010 Page 11 of 11 Duncan states this is the final public meeting for this phase of the study. Duncan adds we will be working with the City Council to figure out how we are moving forward after this. Meeting is adjourned.