Loading...
2005-12-14 SRA MinutesSRA Minutes December 14, 2005 Page 1 of 6 MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD ON DECEMBER 14, 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, December 14, 2005 at 6:00pm. Roll Call Acting Chairman Russell Vickers called the meeting to order, and on roll call the following members were present: Conrad Baldini, Michael Connelly, Christine Sullivan, and Russell Vickers. Also present were Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner, and Debra Tucker, Clerk. New Business 1. Executive Directors Report – None Mr. Vickers took the items on the agenda out of order. PROJECTS Project Approval 2. Lappin Park Benches Tania Hartford reported that the Design Review Board reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed bench change for Lappin Park. She introduced Kate Sullivan of the Mayor’s Office to present the project. Ms. Sullivan explained that the proposal was to swap the City standard bench planned for Lappin Park with a new bench that met specifications of the Salem Police Department. The Police Department requested consideration of this in an attempt to deter skateboarders and loitering in the park. Ms. Sullivan described the bench and provided catalog pictures. The benches will be either two six foot and one four foot or three six foot black wrought iron benches with 3 armrest bars. The slats will run front to back rather than horizontally and the City seal will be applied on the ends of the bench. Ms. Sullivan commented that the City might want to use this new bench throughout the downtown. Ms. Hartford noted that there would be two benches in front of the statue and one at the side near the wall. The Design Review Board recommended approval as revised and submitted to the SRA. Mr. Baldini moved to approve the changes to the bench design for Lappin Park as recommended by the Salem Police Department and the Mayor’s Office and approved by the Design Review Board. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, and the motion passed (4-0). SRA Minutes December 14, 2005 Page 2 of 6 SIGN REVIEW Project Approval 3. 45 Lafayette Street (Cornerstone Books) Ms. Hartford presented the proposed signage for Cornerstone Books at 45 Lafayette Street for approval. There will be three wall signs and a hanging sign using the approved bracket for the Derby Lofts building. Ms. Hartford noted that the signs all fit in with the other signs and meets the specifications of the building. The Design Review Board reviewed the signage and recommended approval with the condition that the building sign band be measured to ensure the sign fits properly in the area. Mr. Vickers asked if there would be blade signs all around the Derby Lofts building. Ms. Hartford answered that there would be blade signs around the building per the approved sign plan. Ms. Sullivan commented that she thought this was great for Salem and that the Cornerstone Books owner persisted for two years and should be congratulated. Ms. Sullivan moved to approve the proposed signage for Cornerstone Books at 45 Lafayette Street as proposed and as approved by the Design Review Board. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion, and the motion passed (4-0). REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROJECTS 4. Church Street Parking Lot Ms. Duncan introduced Jim Hacker, City of Salem’s Parking Director, and Steve Burke, Edwards and Kelcey, to present the feasibility study performed by Edwards and Kelcey for the potential construction of a parking garage on the Church Street parking lot. She reported that the Mayor had asked Mr. Hacker to present the study results. She noted that the parking lot is within the Urban Renewal Area and under the SRA’s ownership, although it is operated by the City who collects parking fees at the lot. She stated that the idea is in the early conceptual phase and the study was concerning the feasibility of a parking structure. Ms. Duncan noted that the matter was originally to be presented at the last meeting, but due to a busy schedule was postponed. Mr. Hacker reported that he had been working on the initial information for a feasibility study for two years and was asked to study three versions of the parking structure. He then turned the presentation over to Mr. Burke. Mr. Burke presented the Feasibility Study for structured parking and office space. A provision was made for 500 parking spaces and 30,000 square feet of office space. He reviewed the site plan. Three alternatives for the site were found and they worked to maximize the footprint. Originally, option 1 was for 500 spaces on three levels with no office space. Option 2 was for parking and office space, which was oriented at the end of the site towards Washington St. Option 3 was for the same but with parking oriented to the St. Peter St. end of the lot. SRA Minutes December 14, 2005 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Burke stated that modifications were made and the plan was reduced to 478-480 parking spaces and 23,000 square feet of office space. There would be three floors of office space with an atrium. This was requested by the City. Mr. Burke stated that he had tried to preserve metered parking along Church St. He stated that Alternate B was the preferred plan since it would encroach less on Church St. Mr. Burke noted that there is 300 square feet per car when building a parking structure. Ms. Sullivan asked why there wouldn’t be retail all the way down Church Street and why the choice was for office space. Mr. Hacker said that originally the thought was that the City offices could occupy the space but that this was before the City Hall annex space was leased. Ms. Sullivan noted that the old telephone company building was being increased in size and that The Essex condominiums are tall. She expressed concern that an opportunity could be lost and that the area needs to be a destination. She referred to the City of Newburyport as an example. Mr. Burke explained the details of the workings of a parking structure including the entrance and ramps and grading (6%) to get to the upper levels. Mr. Vickers asked if the cost for a parking structure is $12,500 per space. Mr. Burke replied that for 480 spaces, the cost is estimated at $6 to 7.5 million. He stated that there is just over 300 square feet per space required and the cost would be somewhere between $12,500 and $15,000 per space. Mr. Vickers and Ms. Duncan both noted that they have heard that the cost was $20,000 per space. Mr. Vickers added that the finish treatment would be of interest and would affect the cost. Mr. Burke replied that that would have some impact and that a brick treatment may make a $1,000 per space difference. Mr. Vickers said that there would be a lot of comment on the appearance and that it should be considered early in the process. Ms. Duncan asked about the office space size and if it would be used as a City Hall annex, office, or retail. Mr. Hacker replied that it would be approximately the same size as 120 Washington St. Ms. Sullivan asked who would own the building. Mr. Hacker said that this hadn’t been decided. Ms. Sullivan stated that the lot could be developed by someone else since the City is strapped for cash. She agreed that parking is needed desperately. Mr. Vickers asked why the primary criterion was 500 spaces and questioned if there had been a traffic study or analysis done. Mr. Hacker replied that when they started, they were looking for one level of above ground parking. When that was determined to be not economical, the concept was changed to three levels. He said that they could go higher, but he had been trying to keep to three stories. Parking was the primary concern. He would like to talk with the Mayor-elect to see what direction she would like to go. They were looking for input and expertise from the SRA. Mr. Baldini agreed that the original intent was for more parking. Mr. Vickers asked if the lot were developed by a third party what the projected demand would be. Mr. Burke replied that they had not been asked to consider that in the feasibility study. Ms. Sullivan thought that since the location was downtown a study was needed concerning the retail. She noted that the Old Salem Jail RFP was successful with nine interested parties. She thought that this would be an opportune time to study the market downtown further. SRA Minutes December 14, 2005 Page 4 of 6 Ms. Duncan wondered about the physical perspective and the view corridor and how to achieve this with a public/private partnership and said that she didn’t know if a decision had been made. Mr. Hacker said that they had not gotten that far yet. Ms. Sullivan noted that the old telephone building was growing with the new District Attorney’s office space and said that this could pose an interesting potential set of problems. Mr. Connelly asked how many existing garage spaces there were. Mr. Hacker said that there were 938 and added that there is an average of 1,600 cash transactions in January versus 16,000 in July in addition to the discounted users. Mr. Burke said that the new parking structure would most likely be pre-stressed, pre-cast and made offsite and delivered to a foundation and finished on site with the elevator installation done last. He said that if the project were started in February or March, it could be completed by October. He noted that different clients have different requirements and the timeframe could be flexible. Mr. Connelly questioned the fact that the City would lose the existing spaces during construction and asked if the existing garages could handle the overflow. Mr. Hacker said that he could accommodate the extra cars with the exception of Halloween. Councilor Sosnowski asked what the number of spaces on each level would be. Mr. Burke answered that it varies. He stated that with Alternate B the spaces on each floor were projected to be 118, 126, 126, and 80 with another 30 along the street. Councilor Sosnowski asked if they had considered going below grade. Mr. Burke replied that the cost would be prohibitive. He stated that different building codes would also come into play and would include requirements for sprinklers and ventilation. Councilor Sosnowski said that he agreed with the partnership idea and referred to the Peabody Essex Museum’s partnership of $300,000 at $30,000 a year for ten years. He also asked that the parking needs of the nearby elderly residents be considered and requested consideration of twelve spaces. Mr. Hacker responded that they had explored underground parking spaces as well as office space on the roof. He said that it would bring on a whole set of problems and codes and that this was the reason that they didn’t pursue the idea. Warren Sproul, City of Salem Finance Director, requested that the long-term costs of operation including retirement and healthcare costs be built into the budget. He stated that in order for it to be profit making, or to break even, they should plan for the future. Jim Treadwell asked if there was an unmet demand and thought the idea needed analysis. Mr. Hacker said that there are currently about 165 parking spaces in the lot. Mr. Treadwell said that he was a Certified Planner. He said that there should be a way to come up with a logical plan for a City Hall Annex. He said that there were some buildings that may be coming onto the market such as the court buildings and Holyoke Insurance and thought that we may not need another office building. He asked if the environmental review process had been started yet. Ms. Duncan said that the project would become more of a joint project and was in the preliminary stages. The next step will be to bring in the planning function. SRA Minutes December 14, 2005 Page 5 of 6 Barry Neeley said that he lived downtown and did not agree with the concept of a new garage at the site. He noted that during snow removal the roof of the current garage closes and needs to be covered. He commented that he couldn’t see a new garage paying for itself, especially if the garage at the train station is built. He stated that people would not pay $10 a day to park. Mr. Neely concluded that the garage at the South Harbor is empty a majority of the time and therefore there was not a need for another one to be built downtown. Councilor Sosnowski asked that Riley Plaza and Klop Alley also be studied for parking feasibility. Ms. Duncan noted that convenience is critical. Mr. Burke said that counts are done to gauge demand for peak and off peak times and that demand should never exceed 90% of the supply. Ms. Sullivan said that peak traffic in Salem is between 2:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. She said that parking and traffic analysis as well as a marketing analysis should be done. 5. Old Salem Jail Ms. Duncan introduced the matter of the execution of the Letter of Intent with New Boston Ventures for the purchase and redevelopment of the Old Salem Jail Complex. She requested that the board authorize the Chairman of the Redevelopment Authority to execute the Letter of Intent on behalf of the board. Ms. Duncan noted that the first $30,000 non-refundable deposit is due upon execution of the Letter of Intent, which outlines the timeframe. The Land Disposition Agreement (LDA) would be the next document and the second $30,000 deposit would be due then. The Assistant City Solicitor is reviewing the changes to the document and Ms. Duncan recommended approval subject to this review and approval. Ms. Duncan reviewed the terms and conditions of the proposal to redevelop the Old Salem Jail. She noted that the purchase price is $100,000 and there are two $30,000 non-refundable deposits due which are not applied to the purchase price. Upon delivery of the deed $50,000 is due and $25,000 is due at 50% occupancy and the final $25,000 is due at final occupancy. In addition, 15% of the gross proceeds per unit in excess of $375 per square foot is to be paid upon the sale of all units in the development. The deadline to accept the Letter of Intent is December 30, 2005 and the commitment expiration for the LDA is February 28, 2006. Mr. Vickers noted that #5 of the special conditions states that the SRA may extend the date of closing. Ms. Hartford said that this would be defined in the LDA. Mr. Vickers asked if they need that modifier. Ms. Duncan replied that they would add a line to the LDA that will set the date of closing. Mr. Vickers noted that discussions might actually start before the February LDA date. Ms. Sullivan added that the developers seem anxious to start. Ms. Duncan noted that there is a schedule to follow including the Letter of Intent, the LDA, permitting, approvals, etc. Ms. Sullivan said that they could begin in December 2006 if the permitting goes well. Ms. Duncan commented that there are many approvals necessary. Mr. Connelly added that the developer could be seeking multiple approvals at the same time. Ms. Duncan agreed and said that the developer could be building the residential units while the curb cut approval is sought. Mr. Vickers stated that he hoped the project would be done well and expeditiously. Mr. Connelly moved that the board authorize the Chairman of the Redevelopment Authority to execute the Letter of Intent with New Boston Ventures for the redevelopment of the Old Salem Jail on SRA Minutes December 14, 2005 Page 6 of 6 behalf of the board subject to the review and approval by the Assistant City Solicitor. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion, and the motion passed (4-0). Adjournment There being no further business, Mr. Connelly motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion, and the motion passed (4-0). Meeting stands adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Debra Tucker Clerk