2005-03-03 SRA Special Meeting MinutesSRA Minutes
March 3, 2005
Page 1 of 6
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD ON MARCH 3, 2005
A Special Meeting of the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) Board was held in the third floor conference
room at the City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, on Thursday, March 3, 2005 at 6:00pm.
Chairman Michael Brennan called the meeting to order and on roll call, the following members were present:
Michael Brennan, Christine Sullivan, and Russell Vickers. Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, Valerie
Gingrich, Staff Planner, and Debra Tucker, Clerk, were also present.
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROJECT
Old Salem Jail
Mr. Brennan introduced Steve Cecil and Peter Smith. Mr. Smith gave a brief historic review update. He
stated that he had received the historic assessment done by Andrea Gilmore of Building Conservation
Associates and the Structural Engineer’s report.
The members of the SRA discussed the status of the barn.
Mr. Smith stated that a meeting has been requested with Mass Historic for guidance and to find out their
position on the barn. He stated that the meeting has not been set yet.
Ms. Sullivan stated that Barbara Cleary had asked her about the barn and tax credits. Mr. Smith said that it
would apply to any use but condominiums. It would be a 20% tax credit.
Ms. Sullivan asked that if in order to have the historic tax credits that somebody has to go in shore up the
barn because that’s the way the rules read the board should be aware of that. Mr. Smith added that in a
historic review there really no iron clad rules. He stated that it is important to meet with Mass Historic now
rather than later on this matter.
A member of the public addressed the board concerning the public interest in keeping the jail the same. She
wanted to know what they could do to keep the building from being torn down. Mr. Smith said that the site
will not be torn down.
Mr. Brennan said that the site is an historic site and will be restored. He added that the project may end up
being condos but the market will determine what will be done there. He explained that independent
consultants were hired to do an historic and architectural assessment of the site, to look at the market, and
help come up with RFP. He added that the board will then decide what is in the best interest of the
neighborhood and the City.
Mr. Smith concluded the historic update. Mr. Brennan asked if the 20% tax credit had been investigated with
regard to keeping the barn. Mr. Smith said that it had.
Jim Treadwell asked about the historic question and the Assessor’s map and the possible boundary
discrepancy. He claimed that the burial ground extends out to St. Peter Street. Mr. Brennan informed him
that a survey would be done. Mr. Treadwell stated that the connection out to St. Peter St. could be of
historical significance and may have been a major entrance into the cemetery and also would support the
tourist industry.
SRA Minutes
March 3, 2005
Page 2 of 6
Mr. Cecil referred to a survey done a few years ago. He stated that this information was not seen on the
boundary survey. He added that no additional easement on a property between the jail and the church
property has been found so far. Mr. Brennan confirmed that they would continue to resolve the problem.
Mr. Cecil said that they would need to resolve the question. Mr. Vickers asked if there was a title survey. Mr.
Cecil answered that he did not know and none has shown up yet. He stated that the City had one done about
four years ago. Mr. Brennan noted that they will need to do a survey and title search. Ms. Duncan added that
they would do whatever it takes. The member of the public said that the Assessor’s map shows the boundary
goes to a City of Salem property.
Mr. Cecil went through the site layout of what might occur and what fits including the amount parking
available. He stated that there are a number of balancing points to understand. Site plan showed the jail,
jailer’s house, and barn as well as the future re-alignment of Bridge St. He spoke of basic assumptions about
what could occur. The baseline package would be a mixed use development, primarily composed of housing
probably condominiums with additional uses, which can take on a variety of forms depending on what the
market calls for such as live/work space, professional offices, artist studios, or a mixture. The majority
would still be housing, which was the baseline assumptions. Restoration would be to the Secretary of the
Interior standards. Looking at retaining or restoring the barn, however, there was found to be very little
remaining.
Mr. Cecil stated that more basic assumptions are that the bars on the windows could be removed; the roof
lines would stay the same. A lot of the exterior would need to be upgraded and be repaired/replaced for
example the windows.
The site capacity for parking was investigated. There may be other offsite options available, but that is not
part of the baseline assumption. There may be a possibility of parking in the courtyard.
Mr. Cecil stated that the short concrete retaining wall is not part of the historic granite wall. There could be
reasonably 9 cars parked there and adds to the overall capacity of about thirty-eight parking spaces in the
primary parking area.
The walkway to front entrance of the Jailer’s house and the granite wall could be retained. They have not
maximized every possible parking space because that would not be appropriate historically or for the overall
character.
The site layout was reviewed. The mixed-use portion has some aspects to it that contribute to various ways
that the buildings could be redeveloped. Mr. Cecil displayed and explained a diagram of alternatives.
The idea would be to renovate the entire complex and some units could have separate access to them. There
are a limited number of locations for doors due to the fact that the building was a jail. One scenario
described was a small architect’s office with unit entry into the live/work space. A separate entrance and
access to parking would still be necessary.
The old jailer’s house could be ground floor mixed use and upper floors condos as housing. The barn size
could be a small unit.
The jail’s upper levels pose the challenge of having a series of terraces with balconies that wrap around.
There are few windows. Someone could do ½ levels with mezzanine levels above because of the shallow
floor depth.
They had done a scenario matrix showing approximately 18 condos. Other scenarios were explored. The
floor plan would be similar. Many other uses generate the necessity for more parking. The footprint would
stay the same.
SRA Minutes
March 3, 2005
Page 3 of 6
One alternative had to do with the barn. If the barn were removed one could create some new housing at
the backside of the site, such as townhouses with parking in front.
Mr. Brennan stated the concern about the structural comments concerning the barn. It may not be wise to
put it out there that it is in dilapidated condition until the Structural Engineer looks at it. Mr. Cecil replied
that the Structural Engineer had evaluated it and put it in his report. Mr. Smith said that the concern was that
it was immediately unsafe and secondarily in saying that it would be demolished would compromise the tax
credits. Mr. Cecil said that if the barn were to be demolished, some new development could occur on the
site. Such a scenario may create more parking. It is one option as part of the analysis.
The request for twelve public use parking spaces was explored. It would reduce development by ¼ to 1/3 of
its potential. The site is not large enough to provide for redevelopment and parking and twelve spaces for the
public. There may be some surplus spaces, perhaps 3-4 spaces.
Underground parking was explored. Mr. Cecil explained that the lack of grade will make it more difficult.
They would not want to disturb the wall on the edge of the site. The ramping and entry would remove a
considerable number of the surface spaces and the net gain would only be 5-6 spaces. The cost is so large per
space that it couldn’t be recovered. The site is very small and tight with no grade changes and would make it
inefficient. The courtyard could be used.
Mr. Cecil stated that the jail structure could stay the same but would it would have to be brought up to code
including elevator, handicapped accessibility vertical circulation, elevator, stair towers, HVAC, plumbing,
windows, exterior, etc.
The damage inside jail keeper’s house and barn would have to be renovated. Unfortunately there would be
very little savings and it would be a very expensive project due to the reasons above. Building would not
comply as is.
Ms. Sullivan asked about the mixed-use scenario not showing mixed use in jail except for the end of it. Mr.
Cecil said that there are two floors at one end and approximately 15% mixed use. Mr. Smith added that it
would be about 4,000 square feet. Ms. Sullivan said that this would be furthest from downtown. Mr. Cecil
stated that this was because there are not a lot of doors. There is one main entrance near the parking lot. He
added that the floor-to-floor height is difficult. To make effective use of space one would likely have to make
use of a mezzanine. The internal condition of the building and the lack of windows and doors on the outside
suggested that the type of mixed use would occur in separate areas of the site.
Ms. Sullivan asked if the 9-foot ceilings are inadequate. Mr. Cecil answered that the dimension is 9 feet from
floor to floor. He said that someone could do something with just under 8 feet. If the floors were taken out
to the windows there would be an historic challenge and there would be very little light. Also the HVAC
systems for mixed use would be more difficult with such a low height. Housing use would be more readily
adaptable. There is a very tight floor-to-floor layout. A brick enclosed core contained the ventilation and
plumbing at the backside of the cells. It would be very costly to keep this tight floor-to-floor plan.
Mr. Smith added that the ceiling heights of 8 feet are not ideal for housing and that you would need to have
an open area between the first and second floors. Mr. Cecil said that the high windows were originally for
ventilation.
Mr. Cecil said that having a mezzanine would allow 16 feet in some areas. The ground floor reuse would be
challenging. Ms. Sullivan asked if they had in mind two sets of condos. If the first floor were retail or some
other mixed use then the whole condo plan would be skewed since the 18-foot height would not be there.
She asked if the fourth floor could be altered and the roof.
SRA Minutes
March 3, 2005
Page 4 of 6
Mr. Cecil said that it would be tough due to the fact that it is a short space. Windows would be cut in half
and the historic renovation would be an issue. Mr. Cecil discussed the challenges and HVAC and sprinkler
concerns that would have to be considered. He said that it could be done. The cost is the biggest concern
and this project would be very different than a downtown commercial building.
Ms. Sullivan said that the draw would be the jail and not the jailer’s house. Mr. Cecil said that the whole thing
could be mixed use. Mr. Vickers asked if the Structural Engineer had issued his report yet. Mr. Cecil said
that it was ready for distribution.
Ms. Duncan told an interested member of the public that this meeting was not a public meeting but a regular
SRA meeting and asked that the board be allowed to get through the information. If there is time after, the
board may take more public comment. She stated that the next public meeting will be on March 9th at 7:00
p.m. after the regular SRA meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Cecil stated that they will put together a report that would then be made available to the public in a few
weeks.
Ms. Duncan stated that this process was being done in order to understand realities of redeveloping the jail.
The idea was to see what the community would like to see, what is considered compatible with
neighborhood, and to look at with actual economics of restoration in a way that is consistent with historic
preservation standards. RFP’s will not specify what the plan should be. The reuse study will be available.
Criteria on preference based on ideas heard at meetings will be determined. They will receive proposals,
which will be reviewed by the SRA and then select a developer.
Mr. Brennan stated that the site will not be parceled off. The whole site will be developed.
Mr. Cecil commented that the findings are useful and describe in general what the next steps will be and what
the time frames will be in general. He recommended taking time to articulate the criteria for selection. For
example clarification that receiving the highest value may not be the best proposal, that there are no public
funds available from the City. He would like to have a brief presentation and then ask for questions and
comments.
Ms. Duncan said that this will answer the public questions and asked the consultants to put it into draft form.
Mr. Cecil stated that he will provide that input to the SRA before the final documents are prepared. Mr.
Vickers questioned the timing. Mr. Cecil said that they are in good shape. Ms. Duncan said that they will be
talking with Mass Historic, Historic Salem Inc., and an engineering review. Mr. Cecil said that there is still
homework to be done.
Ms. Duncan stated that there may be a small amount of time at the next SRA meeting and that this was the
special meeting. Ms. Sullivan stated that even though some issues were not resolved, the bulk was done. She
asked if the RFP can be started before all work is completed. Ms. Duncan answered that it can be started
while other issues are resolved. Mr. Cecil said that there is more work to be done. Ms. Sullivan said that the
schedule is ambitious.
Ms. Duncan said that a Phase I environmental site assessment was still needed. She presented three quotes
from Alliance Environmental Group, Woodard and Curran, and TRC Solutions, Inc. Public Services and the
Building Inspector gave input and all three were qualified. She recommended that the SRA select the Alliance
Environmental Group, who proposed the lowest price and the shortest time frame.
Ms. Sullivan moved that the proposal by Alliance Environmental Group for the Phase I environmental site
assessment at the old Salem Jail in the amount of $2,990.00 be approved and that a contract be entered into.
Mr. Vickers seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
SRA Minutes
March 3, 2005
Page 5 of 6
Ms. Duncan stated that they need to resolve the issue of doing a survey.
Mr. Cecil said that he had been approached by the survey company who had done a survey four years ago. A
copy of the survey was mailed to him. He wouldn’t rely on it since it was done four years ago. It had been
done for City of Salem for Planning Department four years ago. The survey is signed, certified, and official
and looked good. It contains better quality information than they have been able to find.
Mr. Vickers recommended that a complete survey and land and title search be done in order to go forward
with the RFP. Ms. Sullivan asked if it would have to be done again if it was already done. Mr. Brennan asked
why it would have to be duplicated. Mr. Vickers added that it should suffice if it was done to the correct
standards, although he recommended redoing it.
Mr. Cecil said that it is resource that they were lucky to find. Ms. Duncan will have the staff research the
matter. The consultants will give Ms. Duncan a memo with survey contact information. Ms. Duncan said
that these are all issues that need to waded through and built into the time frame.
Mr. Vickers said that they should have a draft of the agreed upon terms or qualifications of bidders before the
RFP goes out. Mr. Vickers asked if this would be structured as an LDA or a different form of transfer. He
would like the board to understand it first. This is a legal question.
Ms. Duncan said that input from the City Solicitor would be sought. Mr. Brennan recommended that the
SRA do prequalifications of people. Ms. Duncan said that they had worked through those details already at a
previous meeting and that the consensus was that they shouldn’t do a 2-step process and drag the process
out. Ms. Duncan agreed that the draft of qualifications of bidders should be done.
Mr. Vickers said that a list of steps to be taken should be made. Ms. Duncan said that they can do that for
the next meeting. Mr. Vickers said that security and insurance are obligations that need to be taken on. Mr.
Brennan said that the property is insured under City. Ms. Duncan did ask if there was anything to do to
further protect the property. Mr. Cecil will get Ms. Duncan the names of people with expertise. He said that
some aspects would be reasonable but that it is not a significant concern. There has been relatively good
news so far about the existing conditions.
Mr. Vickers asked about the conditions regarding parking that were reflected or discussed by the City
Council. Ms. Duncan said that it was not public parking requested but parking for the elderly housing tenants
nearby. This will be one of the criteria and each criterion will be ranked. If a developer could provide this it
would be ranked as highly advantageous. Mr. Brennan said that this would be a special consideration. Mr.
Cecil said that it is best to leave door completely open for developers.
Mr. Vickers said that these would have to be figured into the form of transfer and that they need answers in
advance. Ms. Duncan said that it is helping to answer these by discussing them now.
Mr. Cecil said that is best to prepare in advance and it will make it simpler in the end when negotiating. Mr.
Vickers said that the board will have to provide for 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc. Ms. Duncan said if there were a
proposal that they really liked, they could work out the details. Mr. Vickers added that they do need the
surveys. Mr. Cecil info recommended including all of the meeting minutes. Ms. Duncan said that the
meetings have been valuable.
Ms. Duncan said that she will try to find the surveys.
A member of the public said that if the title search shows that there is no City of Salem land then it would
mandate a change Urban Renewal Plan and would require and amendment. He shared the map with Mr.
Cecil and Mr. Smith. They responded that there could be implications.
SRA Minutes
March 3, 2005
Page 6 of 6
A member of the public asked about the dimensions of part of the site behind the jail. This was a service area
and loading dock for the jail. He asked if this was dead space or if it could be used for parking and he asked
about part of the Jailer’s House. Mr. Cecil replied that the summer kitchen had been destroyed. Boundary
lines at the cemetery were reviewed. The area does not have enough width for turning around. To be used
for parking. It would probably end up as a landscaped area or small loading area or one parking space.
A member of the public pointed out that there is heavy growth along the back of the property and that that is
the area that is accessed most often. Ms. Duncan replied that the Building Department is caring for and
checking the area regularly and will be doing more to check the growth in the spring.
A member of the public asked about the Bridge St. bypass road and the green space. Mr. Brennan replied
that it is not jail property. The member of the public asked about exits and whether the occupancy code and
fire regulations would be affected as to the number of occupants allowable. Mr. Cecil said that there will have
to be two emergency egresses for each unit. Joining them would bring up complicated security issues. The
project will have to meet all codes.
Executive Session
Mr. Vickers moved that the board enter Executive Session for the purpose of discussing the purchase and
exchange based on pro forma analysis and the results and implications for the redevelopment of the Old
Salem Jail. Ms. Sullivan seconded. The motion passed (3-0).
Mr. Vickers motioned to exit Executive Session and return to the Special Meeting. Ms. Sullivan seconded,
and the motion passed (3-0).
Adjournment
There being no further business, Ms. Sullivan motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Vickers seconded, and
the motion passed (3-0).
Meeting stands adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra Tucker
Clerk