Loading...
2005-03-09 SRA Special Meeting MinutesSRA Minutes Public Hearing March 9, 2005 Page 1 of 4 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD ON MARCH 9, 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 Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 7:00pm. 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 Mr. Brennan welcomed the audience to the final public meeting for the Old Salem Jail redevelopment project. Mr. Brennan introduced Steven Cecil of the Cecil Group and Peter Smith of Peter Smith Associates. Mr. Cecil presented a brief presentation to the public concerning the process of redeveloping the Old Salem Jail. The consultants have been focusing on receiving public comment, the goals of the SRA, investigating the existing conditions and site limitations, historic conditions and responsibilities, zoning, and possible uses. This process has been to help develop materials for the SRA to issue with the RFP so that developers can understand the site and conditions. Mr. Cecil reviewed that the jail is in good condition, the Jail Keeper’s house exterior has some damage from fire, and the barn is in bad condition. The Structural Engineer’s report has been received. Ideas were developed about how the site might be redeveloped. Market conditions will dictate, but the site is a special one. The market suggested condos as the very likely solution. The market is very strong. The project must be self-supporting. For mixed use, such as professional offices, live/work space, small shops, a coffee shop, etc. were explored. The site is located in the downtown area in the midst of a successful revitalization. The parking issue was evaluated. There will be implications. There is a future green space planned at Bridge St. as part of the bypass road project that will not be available to this project. The interior courtyard is a possibility as well as the front if the concrete portion of the wall were taken down. There may be a maximum of 38 spaces available. Parking options offsite may be available if a contractor were to look; however, this would not be a provision of the project. Underground parking would be too expensive an option with little net gain. A series of plans was developed from the baseline assumptions. Mr. Cecil reviewed the floor plans of the site. The assumption is that all buildings would be retained and remodeled to the Secretary of the Interior’s standards. The lack of windows and doors as well as the double height size of the windows will present challenges. A possibility is to create a mezzanine within the structure to take advantage of the full height of the windows. The floor-to-floor height of the levels is low. The structure will have to be brought up to code. Separate entrances will have to be created, although there are few doors on site. Mr. Cecil said that making a guess he would say that a certain percentage of the site could be mixed use and the rest would be housing; 15%-20% could be mixed use and 80% housing. He estimated that there could be 18 housing units. SRA Minutes Public Hearing March 9, 2005 Page 2 of 4 The parking required would be 36 spaces and 3 or 4 might be left for the use of the neighboring elderly housing units. Office or retail use would present the biggest problem with parking. The project will be very expensive to do. The site will have to be brought up to code. A special user may find a special use for the site. The cost of the redevelopment of the cell infrastructure would be high. It is hard to predict what could occur. The layout could be adaptable to a number of uses. If the barn were to be removed, other uses could be anticipated. The footprint could absorb some other use such as townhouses. The site is tight. Mr. Smith stated that the market is strong. There would have to be much renovation for retail, offices, and housing. The site is a good location. He referred to the Dedham Jail renovation as a good adaptive reuse. The project will be challenging and expensive. A newly built project would cost substantially less. Mr. Cecil said that they would be concluding with a report summarization. The SRA will use it and the other information provided in order to prepare an RFP and hope for proposals from qualified developers. All public comments will be included in the RFP. Chairman Brennan opened the meeting up for public comment. Paul Herrick asked what the cost study showed as a general range. Mr. Smith replied $5-$7 million. Mr. Cecil said that this was construction costs and soft costs. Spiros Flom asked what the actual internal square footage was. Mr. Cecil estimated it at approximately 30,000 square feet depending upon the reuse. Richard Pabich asked if they had considered a joint venture with the City on developing the Almy’s parking lot into a garage as a public/private venture. Mr. Cecil answered that the basic assumption was that offsite parking could be a parking solution, but that the City was not looking to subsidize nor was it to be tied into another project. This project is independent. Mike Sosnowski, Ward 2 Councilor, stated that he has requested that a study be done for the Almy’s lot as a separate project. Gabriel Cociolda asked about the size of the suggested 18 residential units. Mr. Smith answered that they estimated two bedroom units approximately 1,500 square feet in size. They took a midpoint in the market and that is the general size. Bill Luster asked if the residential units would be subsidizing the commercial units in a mixed use and residential scenario. Mr. Smith said that the developers had heard the public comment, which recommended the goal of mixed use. Miora Kiley asked if the historic restrictions on the Jailer’s House. Mr. Cecil stated that the standards are documented. There are some restrictions. Mass Historic specifies the requirements for the interior. A great percentage of it has been destroyed. Much of what remains is very badly damaged. Ms. Kiley asked about the potential of having a different interior. Mr. Cecil said that that would be possible. Matt Caruso asked about mixed use and where the 18 condos would be put. Mr. Cecil said that they could be spread out. The units will need separate doors, but there could be a different use. SRA Minutes Public Hearing March 9, 2005 Page 3 of 4 Ms. Sullivan stated that this work was done to give guidelines to developers and to help them understand the site conditions. Bob Ciociola asked about the possible use by retaining the cells. Mr. Cecil answered that suggestions were made concerning a tourism reuse or a unique restaurant. There would be real limitations. Mr. Ciociola gave the example of a restaurant in Japan in an old jail. Mr. Cecil said that meeting code, installing mechanical systems, etc. will be expensive and the net savings is less than 10% of overall costs. Peter McSwiggin said that the first feasibility study found that not much could be done. A jail museum was considered. Preservation Ltd. was going to do minimal work in order to make the site safe for tourists to walk through. The theme was going to be a living jail museum and he said that this could still be done. Over time as money was made, more work could be done. Mr. Smith said that it is hard to do things half way and get a loan. Peter McSwiggin said that the work was going to be done on a volunteer basis. The plan was derailed due to the Children’s Museum, who did not end up coming up with the money. Attorney Charles Blaisdell asked the consultants to elaborate on the $5-$7 million estimate and whether this would be for a full build out or just to bring it up to code. Mr. Smith answered that it is a rough estimate of hard construction costs based on preliminary plans and estimates. Attorney Blaisdell said that he did not see it as a feasible residential project. Mr. Cecil said that with the floor plan the assumption was to keep the cellblock intact and to do the code work and to comply with the Secretary of Interior standards. The cost was estimated to be approximately $200 per square foot. Attorney Blaisdell asked about the jail reuse and gave the example of Alcatraz. He said that he thought that the condo market was saturated. He thinks that the town deserves history. Ms. Duncan said that the purpose of the reuse study was to look at the options. The consultants are telling the SRA that the condo market is very strong. They looked at many possible projects. A museum could be an option. It is hard to predict. The basic objective is to preserve the site elements as a piece of history. They are looking to redevelop the site and need to move the project ahead. The goal is to preserve the site. They will talk about the criteria for reviewing the proposals. Bill Luster asked if they have found a cultural reuse that isn’t deeply subsidized, such as Alcatraz, or if any examples exist. Mr. Smith answered that they had looked in the general sense and that in the context of public funding, they had not seen anything. Mr. Smith recommended market advertising and getting the word out about the project. Mr. Brennan said that they would market nationwide. Mr. Cecil outlined the key draft criteria of his March 9, 2005 memorandum. The seven areas identified were: economic and civic vitality, historic renovation, financial self-sufficiency, timely redevelopment, site character, compatibility, and architecture and new construction. Specific criteria will be developed from this. Miora Kiley asked if parking and fire lines had been laid out. Mr. Cecil said that they would be an important consideration. A member of the public asked about the Dedham Jail. Mr. Smith answered that it is all residential. Mr. Cecil said that the SRA need not take the highest price and will recommend that the developer who best meets the SRA Minutes Public Hearing March 9, 2005 Page 4 of 4 criteria be chosen. Ms. Duncan added that price wouldn’t be the driving force. The best proposal with the best reuse is the goal. Mr. Brennan said that they would continue the Phase I study and look at the existing survey plan and develop marketing tools with the consultants for the RFP. They will go national with the marketing. A time for review has not been determined yet. It is a complicated site. Peter McSwiggin asked about safeguards so that halfway through the project a developer wouldn’t go under. Mr. Brennan said that this would absolutely be protected. Staley McDermot asked if when the RFP was sent out if CAD drawings would be included. He also asked what the timetable for the RFP issuance was. Ms. Duncan said that she was hesitant to give an exact timeframe yet. They hope for the spring, which will be an ambitious schedule. There are still some issues to be worked through. Mr. Cecil answered that there are no CAD drawings available. Ms. Duncan added that the SRA would not expend funds for that. Mr. Vickers said that there were some past existing studies but no as builts. Ms. Sullivan referred to the fact that David Hart had made a video of the site and had offered to show it. Mr. Brennan suggested that they could possibly do that at the library. Ms. Sullivan said that the goal is to show the site as it is and put all of the information out there. The City Council is anxious to proceed. Barry Corrigan asked about the video. David Hart said that he would provide a 7-minute DVD, which he shot in April of 2004 and shows the flavor of the site not every nook and cranny. Paul Herrick referred to the City of Beverly and their redevelopment of the Edwards School and the zoning changes that were made first. Ms. Duncan answered that the SRA would be talking about that and will talk with the City Council. The site would have to be rezoned to B5. To facilitate the process and reduce the risks would be a good idea. Mr. Brennan added that this was a good point and is the intention of the board. Adjournment There being no further business, Ms. Sullivan motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Con nelly seconded the motion. The motion passed (4-0). The meeting stands adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Debra Tucker Clerk