MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING
OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD ON MARCH 8, 2006
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, March 8, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Chairman Michael Brennan called the meeting to order, and on roll call the following members were present: Conrad Baldini, Michael Brennan, Michael Connelly, Christine Sullivan, and Russell Vickers. Also present were Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner, and Debra Tucker, Clerk.
Minutes
Minutes for the February 8, 2006 meeting will be presented for approval at the next meeting.
New Business
1. Executive Directors Report
RCG Downtown Development
Lynn Duncan reported that RCG Associates, the firm currently proposing redevelopment of 90 Lafayette Street, was proposing a mixed use development for the downtown block that includes the Salem News building, Delande Lighting building, Salem Marketplace, and the SRA owned parking lot at Front and Lafayette Streets.
Ms. Duncan stated that the Betsy Harper of RCG was appearing before the board in order to request access to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions as part of a subsurface investigation and to conduct an environmental assessment, which would include testing soil and water and environmental report. Ms. Duncan said that her recommendation would be to vote to authorize the Chair to sign the access agreements subject to the inclusion of indemnification clause as recommended by the City Solicitor and minor clarifications.
Betsy Harper stated that they would need access for four days to do the borings for geotechnical analysis and to restore the site to its original condition. It would probably take ten days to get the report. Original reports indicate that there may be some environmental concern and they would like to determine the origin. The City Solicitor and RCG’s lawyers would review the language.
Chairman Brennan expressed concern over indemnification and the cost of cleanup and the City’s responsibility. Betsy Harper stated that it would be up to the SRA as to whether it would want to request a copy of the report and whether they would want to know the results. Ms. Duncan said that the indemnification agreement would be for RCG to do the soil boring. Chairman Brennan said that the MBTA had a bad experience with a firm doing borings, finding an incredible amount of contamination, and backing out of the deal. This left the cleanup to the MBTA. Ms. Duncan said that she would ask the City Solicitor for an opinion.
Betsy Harper said that the SRA would only have to act if they were told of the results. Chairman Brennan said that if contamination were found it would have to be reported. Ms. Sullivan added that if they knew there was a leaking underground oil tank buried, then the owner would have to do something. Ms. Duncan added that if it were a reportable quantity they would have to act as found out with problems at other City properties. Mr. Vickers commented that the SRA should be very careful.
Chairman Brennan said that based on what he had read in the newspaper this would be a flagship development for the downtown area and that it would be reckless to allow the borings to go ahead at this point without a legal opinion. Ms. Harper stated that the land could not be valued without the geotechnical studies being done. Mr. Baldini recommended taking advantage of Chairman Brennan’s experience and expertise. Chairman Brennan requested that he be present when Ms. Duncan scheduled a meeting with the City Solicitor in order to discuss the matter.
Ms. Sullivan moved that the matter of RCG’s request for permission to perform boring testing at the Derby Street/Front Street area as well as the indemnification agreement be referred to the City Solicitor for an opinion. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0).
SRA Audit
Ms. Duncan informed the board that the audit that members had requested is moving forward and will cover fiscal year 2006, which ends June 30th. The department will be obtaining price quotes, which will be brought to the board. Ms. Sullivan said that this was a great idea and that she heartily endorsed it. Mr. Vickers asked if the audit would include the loan portfolio. Ms. Duncan replied that it would be and audit of the SRA’s assets. Mr. Vickers said that the SRA had requested an audit four years ago and a comprehensive one was done. Ms. Duncan said that she would get clarification on the SRA loan portfolio. She added that the records are also audited as a part of the City’s auditing process.
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Project Approval
2. 90 Lafayette Street
Ms. Hartford introduced Winter Street Architects, who presented their revised schematic design of the mixed-use project proposed for 90 Lafayette Street. The project had been before the DRB twice and some modifications had been made. The project will be before the Zoning Appeals Board on March 29, 2006 and has been continued with the Planning Board.
Mr. Meche presented site plans and drawings and reviewed the previous plans for the benefit of the new members. Mr. Meche stated that the project had been before the Planning Board, which had made comments, and that there will be a public neighborhood meeting scheduled soon.
Small specialty retail space is planned for the first floor storefronts. There are 31 parking spaces planned, 21 of which will be inside the building. Entrance for parking will be made from Dodge Street Court. There is a right away along the alley between the Strega Restaurant building and 90 Lafayette Street. Mr. Meche reported that the Planning Board recommended some improvement to the alleyway and he is considering an ornamental gate.
Mr. Meche indicated that there would be 30 units, 6 per floor. In response to the DRB’s suggestions, he had articulated the windows and added mullions so that the appearance is not quite as flat. Ms. Hartford noted that this plan differs from the DRB proposal. Mr. Meche said that the only difference was the window setback and the detail change of inches. He said that he had spent more time rendering the drawings.
Ms. Duncan clarified the DRB and SRA process concerning proposals, presentations, and approvals. She noted that when changes are made after the DRB has made its recommendation, it muddies the waters. Mr. Meche responded that the changes were minor and said that the model is essentially the same. He thought that the project should be referred back to the DRB. Ms. Duncan answered that they would be referred back to the DRB during their Final Design Review. Ms. Hartford suggested that the board could approve the plans as submitted and approved by the DRB. Any changes could go back to the DRB for their review during Final Design Review.
Ms. Sullivan noted that at the Planning Board meeting there was concern about the 6-story height of the building and the effect of blocking light. Walter Power wondered if the petitioner had considered indenting the windows and adding shafts to let light in.
Mr. Meche said that the client has decided that this is the approach that they would like. They have their eyes wide open concerning potential redevelopment of the Deschamps building. There was discussion concerning that if that building were raised in height, 90 Lafayette Street would have to close off the windows to one of the interior rooms. Mr. Meche said that the developer understood this.
Ms. Duncan wondered how that would affect the condominium owners. Betsy Harper of RCG said that the information concerning potential abutters rights and the fact that this could block their views would be stated in the condo documents. She said that her company had spoken with the owners of the Deschamps building and that they have not made any decisions concerning their building. She noted that what would be needed was a 10 foot separation between the buildings and said that some sort of financial arrangement could be made. Mr. Meche said that they had coped with the issue of the alleys.
Mr. Baldini said that the plan was good for the area. Ms. Duncan stated that any agreement with abutters would have to be provided to the SRA. Betsy Harper said that because of the timing, that probably would not happen. She added that this was an urban development project and that developers work these out all of the time. Ms. Harper said that there is still too much uncertainty on the part of the abutters, who are not ready. Ms. Duncan said that ultimately they would need to work with them. Ms. Harper said that they did not need to do anything and that the information would be put in the condo documents. Mr. Meche added that he thought that the plan would work. Any future change by the abutter might lead to the units being called 1+ bedroom units rather than 2 bedroom units.
Chairman Brennan stated that this developer was the first one before the board and that in the future, the board might have to consider other requests. Ms. Duncan stated that if the neighboring building were built higher, then some windows at 90 Lafayette Street would have to be blocked up. Mr. Meche said that he had consulted the building code and that his plan works. Ms. Sullivan wondered if the value of the units would be diminished.
Mr. Baldini moved to approve the schematic design plans for 90 Lafayette Street as submitted to and recommended by the Design Review Board. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0).
3. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail)
Ms. Hartford reported that the DRB met the day before and was satisfied with New Boston Ventures’ schematic design for the mixed-use redevelopment of the Old Salem Jail at 50 St. Peter Street for approval. They did have comments to look at the roofline and the windows and had specified other items that they wanted to see modified in the Final Design Review of the project.
Dan Riccardelli and Penn Lindsey presented the schematic design plans. Mr. Lindsey reported that they had received good comments from the DRB and had worked to incorporate them into the design. The developer had also met with Mass Historic, Historic Salem Inc., and the Salem Historic Commission.
Mr. Riccardelli noted the parking plan for the far end of the lot near the Church as well as the pedestrian access from St. Peter Street. There will be a car drop off between the old Jail and the new building and there will be tandem parking for the new building. Honey locusts are planned for the courtyard between the buildings.
The fencing will incorporate the existing steel picket fence, which will be re-created and extended both front and back. The old chain link fencing will be removed from the property line at the cemetery and a privet hedge will be planted. The developers discussed the restaurant access area and load drop off as well as the valet site.
There will be a small Jail exhibit with memorabilia and photographs on the first floor of the old Jail building with public access to provide mixed use at the first level.
There will be three units at the first floor of the Jail, seven on the second level, and seven on the third level. The restaurant will be located in the addition portion of the Jail, which the developer thought would make a nice transition. Two units will have garden terraces. The attic space will have windows with great light at the gable ends. There will be duplex units on the second floor. The lower units will be approximately 1,100 to 1,200 square feet and the upper units will be larger at 14,000 to 15,000 square feet with storage in the attic.
Ms. Sullivan asked how the entrance to the Jail building would work from the courtyard. Mr. Riccardelli answered that it would actually be at mid-level. One would walk down to the first floor or take the elevator to the upper levels.
The hip roof over the addition will have the mechanical units for the whole building. There is a challenge to get the windows to work with the existing openings. There will be transom and awning windows set back. The jail bars will be re-used possibly on the Juliet balconies, which will be set back with French doors.
The granite will be cleaned and re-pointed and refurbished. There will be little physical change to the exterior with the exception of the windows.
The Jail Keeper’s House will house three units and they will add the ell back at the first level. Entrance will be at the second level and there will be full basements with storage. The second level will use the roof of the ell as a deck. HSI thought that if the balustrade were done properly that this would be alright. They will use old photographs to replicate the portico. The 16 foot by 16 foot ell may be clapboard to tie it in to the barn since it had been wooden.
The developers are looking into removing the skin of the barn, which is not original and is in bad condition, in order to get a better look at the structure to see what can be saved.
The new building will be done in a more contemporary vein based on comments that the DRB made to be less slavish to the idea of matching it to the other structures. The building will contain eight duplex units. There will be sunken terraces on the courtyard reachable from the first floor bedrooms, which will be on the lower level with the living areas located upstairs. The third level will continue up to the roof. They will be matching the eaves lines to the Jail, which keeps the new building lower. The parking will not be underground. There will be dormers with Juliet balconies at the top level.
Since all elevations are exposed, it is challenging. The light monitors on the roof are still being fine-tuned. The building will be clad in stone and not brick and the developers are looking at granite as the material. They are investigating salvage granite to match. They reported that they are picking up on the scale and proportion of the Jail windows.
Mr. Baldini asked what the purpose of the light monitors was. Mr. Riccardelli answered that they would act like a skylight to bring light into the unit and that they were a more contemporary way to express the relationship to the Jail. Chairman Brennan said that he loved the idea. Ms. Hartford said that the DRB thought that the light monitor design was not quite there yet and recommended that they consider turning them slightly. She reported that there was a positive response to the idea.
Ms. Sullivan recommended removing the two in the middle. Chairman Brennan thought that they were exciting and showed that the developer was thinking outside the box. Ms. Sullivan congratulated the developer and said that she loved the idea that HSI asked them not to necessarily replicate the existing structures.
Mr. Riccardelli stated that they will be wrapping granite to the brick face on St. Peter Street and thought that it would be a good transition and were trying to use a mix of materials on site. Lead coated copper will be used to match the roof.
Mr. Baldini commented that the SRA was privileged to have a project like this before them.
Mr. Riccardelli said that the garage doors are still a work in progress since it was an important view. In order to break up the brick line, the old cell doors will be put on the horizontal and used as trellises. This will draw the eye around to the other buildings.
Ms. Sullivan suggested camouflaging the light monitors with brick to make them look like chimneys. Chairman Brennan commented that the work was great and Ms. Sullivan thought it was wonderful. Mr. Baldini asked how many seats the restaurant would have. Mr. Lindsey replied that there would be 80 to 110. Mr. Connelly commented that the project was so far from one year ago when the redevelopment was just a concept. He added that if there were any doubt about the project, it should be gone now and thought that the plan was phenomenal. He asked what the timeline was. Mr. Lindsey replied that they have an aggressive schedule and are right on schedule.
Ms. Hartford reported that the land disposition agreement had been executed and that they were under agreement with New Boston Ventures since they had received their commitment letter.
Ms. Sullivan said that she did not want the light monitors to be busy and detract from the building. Chairman Brennan commented that three outstanding people had just been put on the DRB to review the project design.
Ms. Hartford noted that the issue of the access from Bridge Street is a separate issue that will require more work and approvals. They will be working with Mass Highway over the next couple of months.
Ms. Sullivan moved that the schematic design plan for the mixed-use redevelopment of the Old Salem Jail at 50 St. Peter Street presented by New Boston Ventures be approved as recommended by the DRB. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0).
OUTDOOR CAFÉ PERMITS
4. 118 Washington Street (Fresh and Taste)
Ms. Hartford introduced the owner of Fresh and Taste and his proposal for an outdoor café for the area facing Essex Street along Lappin Park.
Chairman Brennan asked if Lappin Park would be allowed to have this private café on public space. He asked if there was anything in the deed addressing this. Ms. Hartford answered that she would check on the matter and check the property line. She indicated that he is in the process of obtaining approval from the Licensing Board and Board of Health.
The owner said that he was planning on 28 outdoor seats at 7 tables. He said that there is 17 feet from the walkway. Mr. Vickers agreed that the department should ensure that this would not be encroaching on the park land and should find out if there are any particular restrictions or covenants. Chairman Brennan agreed. Ms. Hartford said that the matter of chair and railing approval would be heard by the DRB. The owner said that the tables and fencing will be moveable like Rockafella’s and will be stored against the building each night.
Mr. Vickers moved that the proposal for an outdoor café by Fresh and Taste at 118 Washington Street be approved as presented and recommended by the DRB pending confirmation that there are no restrictions by the Lappin Park agreement. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0).
OTHER PROJECTS
5. 118 Washington Street (Fresh and Taste)
Ms. Hartford introduced the owner of Fresh and Taste and his proposal for external lighting for window awnings at 118 Washington Street. The lighting will be 5 black gooseneck lamps over the awning as nearby Taste of Thyme and O’Neil’s have. There will be no lighting along the park side of the restaurant. The owner indicated that he would have candles on the outdoor café tables. He hopes to open by April 15th.
Mr. Baldini moved to approve the proposal for external lighting for window awnings for Fresh and Taste at 118 Washington Street as recommended by the DRB. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0).
6. 155 Washington Street
Jill McCarthy of the Simsbury Association requested approval to make temporary improvements to the dirt parking lot abutting Front Street. She said that it was a temporary solution as there are bigger plans for the block. She noted that an environmental report done at the beginning of 2005 showed that there is probably contaminated soil in the area.
Her proposal calls for a 3” layer of stone packing from Aggregate. Since they need to abide by the consultant’s report, the surface will be prepared by scraping back the loose dirt towards the berm, which will be seeded with grass seed. They would like the approval for 6 months or a year with the condition of the lot to be revisited then.
Chairman Brennan noted that the board requested that something be done. He said that the lot is mud now and this would be an improvement. Mr. Baldini added that they have met the SRA’s request and said that he had no problem with the plan. Ms. Sullivan asked if they are capping the lot was the bank alright with it. Ms. McCarthy said that they were. Ms. Hartford noted that this particular lot would probably be phase 4 of the larger development plan, which could be 8 to 10 years out. Ms. Sullivan added that this was not a solution for 8 to 10 years. Ms. McCarthy responded that RCG is looking into buying the property in June and that they would handle the matter then.
Mr. Baldini moved that the plan proposed by the Simsbury Association to cap the parking lot on Front Street behind The Edgewater Café with the matter to be brought back to the SRA in six to twelve months with a permanent solution to the parking lot. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0).
SIGN REVIEW
7. 71 Washington Street (Salem Five Bank)
Ms. Hartford introduced the proposal by the Salem Five Bank for changes to the proposed signage at 71 Washington Street, currently the Heritage Cooperative Bank. The sign is necessary for the merger of the banks and the name change to Salem Five Bank. The sign will be no taller than the existing sign and it will be mounted at the existing mortar joint. A projecting aluminum and acrylic sign with an analog clock will be moved beyond three oak trees for better visibility and will be externally illuminated. Three bronze plaques along Church Street will be changed to read Salem Five Bank as well. Ms. Hartford reported that the DRB recommended approval the proposed plan with size restrictions on the front wall sign.
Ms. Sullivan moved to approve the proposal by the Salem Five Bank for changes to the signage at 71 Washington Street as recommended by the DRB. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0).
Ms. Hartford informed the Salem Five Bank that if they were considering changing the exterior bank colors, that they must seek approval from the board.
8. 6 Central Street (Wicked Goodz)
Ms. Hartford presented the proposed signage plan for Wicked Goodz at 6 Central Street. The shop is a gift shop for teens and ‘tweens and tourists. The DRB approved the sign with modifications and it will be hung from the previously approved bracket.
Mr. Connelly moved to approve the proposed signage for Wicked Goodz at 6 Central Street with changes as recommended by the DRB. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0).
9. 103 Washington Street (Modern Millie)
Ms. Hartford presented the proposed signage plan for Modern Millie at 103 Washington Street. The shop is a gift shop selling vintage items. The DRB approved the sign with modifications and it will be hung from the previously approved bracket.
Mr. Connelly moved to approve the proposed signage plan for Modern Millie at 103 Washington Street with changes as recommended by the DRB. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0).
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mr. Baldini motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, and the motion passed (5-0).
Meeting stands adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra Tucker
Clerk
| 
