Loading...
2005-02-09 SRA MinutesSRA Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 1 of 6 MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD ON FEBRUARY 9, 2005 A regular 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, February 9, 2005 at 6:00pm. Chairman Michael Brennan called the meeting to order and on roll call, the following members were present: Michael Brennan, Michael Connelly, and Russell Vickers. Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, Valerie Gingrich, Staff Planner, and Debra Tucker, Clerk, were also present. (Christine Sullivan joined the meeting in progress.) Minutes Mr. Vickers motioned to approve the minutes from the special meeting held on January 4, 2005. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion. Motion passed (3-0). Mr. Connelly motioned to approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on January 12, 2005. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. Motion passed (3-0). New Business 1. There was no Executive Directors Report presented. SIGN REVIEW Project Approval 2. 247 Essex Street (Elite Physical Therapy) – Approval of the Design Review Board recommendation for the proposed signage at 247 Essex Street. Valerie Gingrich reported that the Design Review Board recommended approval as revised. The color was revised as per the sample. The lettering has been reduced in size and the actual sign will be the same size and shape as the one that is up. Mr. Brennan asked about the bracket size. Ed Harding of Elite Physical Therapy said that it is the same and the lettering has been decreased and the size ½” or 5/8” and the color is a historical color. Mr. Brennan asked that the sign be installed in one month’s time. They will have the sign sanded and repainted and the letters be put back on. Mr. Vickers motioned to approve the signage as proposed. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion. Motion passed (3-0). REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROJECTS 3. Old Salem Jail—Discussion of public comments from Community Meeting held on February 8, 2005. Peter Smith gave the Board the findings on the project so far. He reported that Andrea Gilmore, who is handling the historic research of the project, and the Structural Engineer were able to get into the barn today. SRA Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 2 of 6 He stated that the barn is in very poor condition. He added that the second floor is totally collapsed and there is very little left in the building. (Christine Sullivan joined the meeting.) Mr. Smith stated that he is surprised that the building looks as good as it does on the exterior. Mr. Smith explained the role of state agencies and that there is a preservation agreement on the Jailer’s house and probably the rest of the property. He stated that there will be reviews required by the local and State historic commissions. He added that there will be an additional level of review if someone elects to take federal historic tax credits by the National Park Service. Mr. Brennan asked how that would work if the barn is structurally at a point where the Building Inspector would condemn it and the SRA or developer had to take it down. Mr. Smith replied that this would have to be reviewed to see if it were structurally deficient. He stated that the various groups would have to sign off on it. He added that the building does not appear to be salvageable and there is not much historic fabric to be preserved. Mr. Vickers suggested that this be determined before the request for proposals is issued. Mr. Smith agreed and said that they will start the review. Mr. Smith answered Mr. Vickers that it is hard to give a timeline of review process, but he will ask Andrea Gilmore. Ms. Sullivan stated that the board is not in a hurry to tear down the barn if it is salvageable. She stated that it is important to know and the answers are needed quickly. She then asked that if the barn is not salvageable would this provide and opportunity to do something to make the site more economically feasible. Mr. Smith answered that they are not ready to answer that definitively yet because the issue is complicated. Mr. Smith answered Ms. Duncan that the team will make recommendations and that the local historic district will have the right to review those findings and they will make a decision. The state will potentially be involved. Ms. Sullivan asked that, assuming for the sake of discussion only, if the building didn’t exist would there be more opportunities to use the site. Mr. Smith replied that there is the possibility depending upon local review. Mr. Connelly said that this would change the footprint. Ms. Sullivan said that she is just asking questions and not taking a position. The poor condition would put the historic value under question. Mr. Vickers added that the larger question is the uncertainty. Mr. Smith said that last night’s meeting was a good meeting and that it was great to hear people’s interests and values about that location and the building. They had discussed the whole range—housing, office, retail, restaurant, hotel, museum, preservation, and the armory. Different uses were discussed as well as the potential market. Mr. Smith stated that any option will have high development costs to make the buildings safe and habitable no matter what the use since there have been years of deterioration. He stated that they heard people’s preferences for mixed use. Mr. Brennan stated that the common goal is to see that the building will be redeveloped and to make sure that developers are able to commit and provide mixed use. Mr. Smith said that one idea is of advertising when the building will be available, which would attract developers. Mr. Smith recommended advertising in the NE Journal and the Banker and Tradesman. Lynn Duncan agreed that early publicity would be good. Ms. Sullivan recommended advertising now. Mr. Brennan added that if they do write up something they would put it in both media. Ms. Sullivan suggested SRA Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 3 of 6 the real estate pages as well. Mr. Vickers asked if the scope of services would include marketing materials and graphics. He suggested a straight article that the project is coming down the tracks. Mr. Cecil joined the meeting. He added that if they created a buzz, there would be more awareness and could catch people outside the normal market. He commented that this could be coordinated with the Mayor’s office. Ms. Sullivan commented that this would be great and is important. Mr. Vickers said that this would be in addition to the consultant’s other work. He questioned the cost of $300.00 per square foot. Mr. Cecil explained that some minimum level of stability of the buildings would be required even just to restore the site for a tourist attraction. Mr. Vickers asked if it would be possible to get this quantified. Mr. Cecil replied that they could put something in to get the base costs, which will be significant. Vertical circulation, code compliance, electrical, plumbing, handicapped accessibility, sprinklers, energy standards, windows, roofing structure, and cupolas were all mentioned. Mr. Cecil stated that he will work something up to get an idea of how much of the cost would be just to bring the site up to minimum codes. Mr. Vickers said that it is important to get the information to help with understanding the uses and value of uses. Mr. Cecil stated that, no matter what is done to the site, it would change the use, since it will no longer be used as a jail. Ms. Duncan said that she thought the ideas were great and last night’s meeting was stimulating. She doesn’t want to lose sight of the ultimate goal of preservation. If it turns out that the only feasible use is condos, the process has been good. She stated that historic preservation of the property is the goal. She added that even if the project were to be 100% condominiums, the public use would still be the views of the jail, the features and the history of it. She said that although we may have other preferences the housing market might be the way that the community is able to preserve this piece of history. Ms. Sullivan stated that a proposal would have to make sense. She said that she is a pragmatist and that this has to make economic sense to work. The developer will have to have the money to finish the job. The building will have to be preserved. She would like to see the project started and finished. Mr. Brennan asked where the consultants would go from here. Mr. Cecil replied that they would review the reports from the structural engineer’s and the historic consultant. Mr. Cecil reviewed some of the findings so far. He said that the old jail is in pretty good shape, but does have a roof problem. He stated that some beams and floors would have to be repaired, but they should be ok. Some work will have to be done to make the structure earthquake resistant. The internal cell- block structure is solid granite, intricate and knitted together. The floor-to-floor heights may be able to be re-worked, as they are not quite as difficult as previously thought. The roof nails are rusting out and the entire roof will have to be removed and refastened or changed. He added that the exterior of the jail keeper’s house is in good shape. The window lintels were burned and destroyed on the inside. The exterior has deteriorated and may not be able to be salvaged and may have to be replaced. The interior had a fire in one end and would have to be reinforced, but that would be an interior hidden structure. Much of the existing interior structure damaged, destroyed, deteriorated. Mr. Cecil said that the barn structure is marginally competent. The recommendation may be to take it down and it may not be salvageable. It is in such poor condition and dangerous and may not stand. The foundation is concrete and they have not been able to see the inside of the slab. The concrete may have been put in to shore up the old foundation. The construction is simple and there is marginal historic merit. The wall foundation is right up against the cemetery below grade. SRA Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 4 of 6 Barbara Cleary asked what the date of the building was. Mr. Cecil replied that they are working on researching it. Mr. Cecil asked the board for direction. A base case and alternatives off of that will be determined. The notion of mixed use would be a reasonable first base case to start with. Housing will probably be a predominate part of the plan. Complimentary retail use may be possible. Depending on the value or depending competition there may be internal subsidies. If there is mixed use the question would be where would it occur. It may be difficult to site it in the old jail. Mr. Cecil cited separate entrances, noise, etc. May be able to reuse the barn shell or the jail keeper’s house. He added that a developer would try to keep the uses in separate buildings. In terms of the interior restoration the developer may have to recreate the interior. They will have to see what comes out of the study. There will be a variance whether the project is all housing or office. Townhouses may work. The floors could be 17 feet tall rather than 9 feet. Mr. Cecil said that they will create sub options to cover the “what ifs”. If the wall in the old exercise court could be interrupted, there could be 9 parking spaces in the courtyard. Mr. Brennan and Mr. Vickers replied to Mr. Cecil that the green space in front of the property is not SRA property and should not be considered for an additional 30 parking spaces. Mr. Vickers asked that the plans be kept inside the boundaries of what the SRA controls and owns. Mr. Cecil said that they couldn’t negotiate outside of the property. They will stay within the boundaries. Ms. Sullivan added that they couldn’t control the timing of other projects. Mr. Cecil asked what other offsite parking is available or can be made available. They would like to raise that possibility. Mr. Vickers said that parking is important. He added that one of the City Councilors at the meeting was looking to the SRA for some guidance. Other parking options should be considered that a developer might consider before submitting a proposal. Mr. Cecil said that they would look at the scale. The parking has to be solved. The value of a parking space is $20,000.00 to $40,000.00 per space. Mr. Vickers said that the scope should speak to the parking issue and how it will affect the overall economics. Mr. Smith will run pro formas. A base case with “what ifs” using the Secretary of Interior standards will be developed. Mr. Smith said that the value of the location is relative to the value of parking spaces. He stated that spaces further from the site have less value. Ms. Sullivan asked about underground parking. Mr. Cecil replied that it is so expensive that he doesn’t believe that it would work. He did not think that it would be worth it. Ms. Sullivan asked about the old telephone company owners who are adding three floors levels and an underground parking deck. Mr. Smith estimated that parking spaces in the area sell for $25,000.00 per space. He stated that the telephone company building is much longer and wider of a building. Mr. Vickers added that those parking spaces are not under the building but next to it. Mr. Cecil brought up the issues of ramping, ventilation, stairways, and accessibility as adding to the astronomical cost. He stated that it would take more space than what is available. He said that there could be an area where parking could go and may be able to support a one level structure. Mr. Cecil stated that they will look for every possible idea and will get an answer. A parking deck could work but would look awful and ruin the value of the site. From a structural standpoint it would have to be underpinned so that adjacent structures won’t fall in. Mr. Vickers said that the original plan was fundamentally one base case with a lot of options. Mr. Cecil said that since they are using the Secretary of Interior standards, the exterior must remain the same. They will add the “what ifs” and show the plan with changes SRA Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 5 of 6 Ms. Sullivan asked if it wouldn’t be better to have tourist draw in the jail. Mr. Cecil said that it can be done, but it would be difficult and doesn’t think that this is going to be a place where someone would just stop in. It will be destination. Mr. Vickers asked what the next milestones were. Ms. Duncan said that the next meeting will be March 3rd and that the consultants have a lot of work to do before then. Mr. Brennan said that he thought it would be more beneficial to let them complete all of their work and present it at the next meeting. Ms. Duncan said that there might be a conversation needed before about the barn and she recommended a working daytime meeting. Mr. Cecil said that a memorandum would be sent. Ms. Duncan added that they would be getting information as they go along. Mr. Brennan directed them to contact Lynn Duncan. Ms. Duncan told Mr. Cecil that the Planning Department is working on the 21E site assessment aspect. Mr. Cecil said that he would be speaking to the Structural Engineer about mothballing the buildings and better buttoning them up. It is important to not lose more value if it can be protected. They will check. David Hart presented the idea that there are unique features inside the jail and recommended that they put in RFP if interior is taken out that it must be recorded. He said that money could be set money aside to fund this Jim Treadwell of the Northfields Neighborhood Association asked about the roof structure. He noted that a map that he had showed the property to be R3. He said that it should be recognized as residential. Some uses would have to be by special zoning. He referred to an assessor’s map concerning a cemetery parcel comes out to St. Peter’s St. between the church and the jail. Access way to the cemetery from St. Peter’s rather than Howard St. would make Howard St. residents happy. Mr. Treadwell added that signage would be important regarding mixed use. Parking is important. Barbara Cleary of Historic Salem asked when the appropriate time to confer with Mass Historic would be. She said that they would be the most restrictive. Lynn Duncan replied that it would make sense to do that. Mr. Cecil said that they would seek their services and that they get an interpretation from Mass Historic and that the jail keeper’s house would be significant. Mr. Smith added that there would be preservation restrictions. Mr. Brennan said that this was a good recommendation. Ms. Cleary said that Mass Historic would hold a complete restriction on the property. Ms. Duncan said that this was a good point and that the RFP would not be issued without clarification and that the board should at least deal with the issues that have been raised so far. She added that they shouldn’t propose anything we don’t know and Mr. Cecil said that he will pursue this and that he will speak with the historic consultant. They agreed that advanced discussions and clarity will reduce the unknown. Ms. Duncan agreed and added that it would aid in the SRA’s ability to review the proposals. Ms. Cleary asked that the board consider mixed use for the jail too and not just the barn and jail keeper’s house. Ms. Cleary spoke of historic tax credits. If any building is demolished it may make the whole property ineligible for tax credits. Mr. Cecil said that they are just guessing at this point and will do a “what if” and consider all. Tim Jenkins of 343 Essex St. said that he is involved with Historic Salem. He noted the problems with intrusion and vandalism and people living in jail. He has made an observation that the site was overgrown with sumac and weeds. He asked that the SRA work with the Cemetery and Shade Tree department to keep the growth under control. Ms. Duncan replied that she had spoken with the Building Commissioner and the Salem Police Department. The door has been welded and no one has gotten in. The fence has been and will continue to be repaired if broken. Mr. Brennan said that they would look into it in the spring. SRA Minutes February 9, 2005 Page 6 of 6 Adjournment There being no further business, Mr. Vickers motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed (4-0). Meeting stands adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Debra A. Tucker Clerk