MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING
OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD ON JUNE 14, 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 Tuesday, June 14, 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: Michael Brennan, Michael Connelly, and Christine Sullivan. Also present were Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner, and Debra Tucker, Clerk.
Minutes
Mr. Connelly moved to approve the minutes of the minutes for the meeting held on May 10, 2006. Ms. Sullivan seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
Old/New Business
SMALL PROJECT REVIEW
17 Central Street (Old Police Station/Residences at Museum Place)
Judy Burke of Museum Place requested approval for the proposed installation of fence around her patio area in order to enclose it. She indicated that is would match the other fences and would be located near the Red’s Restaurant property.
Ms. Sullivan stated that she thought that the Planning Board had approved a fence already. Ms. Hartford presented the approved plans for review. She said that the change was due to the installation of transformers on the property. Ms. Burke said that there has been cut-through traffic and a more solid structure will provide security and privacy. There will be a gateway with access to the transformers. Ms. Sullivan asked Ms. Burke if she were paying for the fence, since the original plan called for the developer to install a fence. Ms. Burke said that she would be paying.
Mr. Luster said that the plan had lost the arch and that they had agreed to a fence in the back of the property. Ms. Sullivan asked if the plan should be referred to the Design Review Board. Ms. Hartford stated that smaller projects do not need to have review by the DRB
Mr. Connelly moved that the fencing plan for outdoor patio space submitted by Ms. Burke for 17 Central Street, Museum Place, be approved as submitted. Ms. Sullivan seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
17-21 Front Street
The Steve Goldberg and Micahel Lutrzykowski of H H Morant Architects appeared in order to discuss their renovation of the property at 17-21 Front Street. They proposed two dormers off the rear of the property, which would mimic the existing two dormers. This would gain light on the third floor. The plan calls for matching the existing slate roof and siding with the same materials. There will be true divided light windows and they would be adding a secondary entrance on the right, that would mimic the existing one on the left and would be a recessed bronze aluminum. The existing
six-panel door would be removed and replaced with the original aluminum storefront so that all three entrances would match. They would also like to bring the door back on the side of the building that had been changed to a window. This would allow for more flexible tenants being interested.
Chairman Brennan asked if the property fell under the Historic Commission’s jurisdiction. Ms. Hartford replied that it did not. Chairman Brennan recommended that such a large project be referred to the DRB for review. Ms. Sullivan stated that she had some issues.
Mr. Lutrzykowski noted that the wood shutters were deteriorating and said that the Goldbergs were requesting approval for replacement with vinyl. He added that if this were not approved, they would request removing the shutters altogether.
Ms. Sullivan stated that she did not want to see vinyl and that some architecture has been cluttered up with shutters and additions. Mr. Goldberg stated that he thought that the building looked better with shutters, but would eliminate them. Ms. Sullivan said that she would never vote for vinyl shutters. She added that they plan should go before the DRB for aesthetic judgment. She asked if there were a plan for lighting yet. Mr. Lutrzykowski replied that there was not one yet and that it would depend upon the tenants going into the building. Chairman Brennan said that the plan should automatically go before the DRB.
Ms. Sullivan said that Front Street is hugely significant in the City and with the RCG development plan. She said that the buildings are some of the most significant and most beautiful. Mr. Goldberg stated that they want to maintain them. They are resolving code issues such as sprinklers, stairs, etc. and adding flexibility.
Ms. Sullivan said that she wanted the DRB to review the railing at the landing and three new signs with lighting and the windows. Mr. Lutrzykowski said that each tenant would go before the board regarding signage and lighting. Chairman Brennan stated that the whole project would be reviewed by the DRB.
Ms. Sullivan moved that the redevelopment project for 17-21 Front Street be referred to the DRB for review. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
OUTDOOR CAFÉ PERMIT REVIEW
318 Derby Street (New Civilitea)
The proposed exterior lighting for New Civilitea at 318 Derby Street was presented for approval. Ms. Hartford reported that the DRB had recommended approval as submitted.
Ms. Sullivan moved to approve the proposed exterior lighting for New Civilitea at 318 Derby Street as presented with the condition that the exposed conduit be painted black. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
318 Derby Street (New Civilitea)
The proposed outdoor café for New Civilitea at 318 Derby Street was presented for approval. Ms. Hartford reported that the DRB had recommended approval.
Mr. Connelly moved to approve the proposed outdoor café for New Civilitea at 318 Derby Street as presented with the condition that the furniture is all black wrought iron and that the owner would be willing to re-configure or remove the outdoor seating if after review the board finds that it does not work. Ms. Sullivan seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
Ms. Hartford reported that Cornerstone Books has put up an outdoor café without approval. She will be working with them to rectify the situation.
118 Washington Street (Fresh Taste of Asia)
The proposed outdoor cafe by Fresh Taste of Asia for the area along Lappin Park was discussed. Ms. Hartford reported that the DRB as well as the Board of Health and Licensing Board had approved the plan. The owner will be using a chain similar to the one used at Rockafella’s since he will be serving alcohol, although he was not able to get a sample. The owner indicated that he might replace the chain with a fence next season. Ms. Hartford asked the owner to contact her when the chain comes in before installing it.
Mr. Connelly moved that the plan for an outdoor café by Fresh Taste of Asia for the area along Lappin Park be approved as presented with the condition that the SRA staff approve the chain and that the owner appear before the board at the end of the summer season in order to discuss a permanent solution. Ms. Sullivan seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
SIGN REVIEW
Project Approval
144 Washington Street (Gangi Printing)
Discussion and vote on the revised Design Review Board recommendation of proposed hanging sign.
The proposed signage plan for Gangi Painting at 144 Washington Street was presented for approval. Ms. Hartford reported that the DRB had recommended approval of the modified plan and the color, design, location, and size. Ms. Sullivan commented that it was a vast improvement and that she appreciated the pain and suffering that the owner went through.
Ms. Sullivan moved to approve the revised signage for Gangi Printing of 144 Washington Street. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
72 Washington Street (Crunchy Granola Baby)
Ms. Hartford reported that the Design Review Board recommended approval of the proposed signage and window boxes for Crunchy Granola Baby of 72 Washington Street. The DRB had requested changes to the door signs and a modification to the window boxes.
Ms. Sullivan said that she thought that it was a great name and idea. Chairman Brennan asked if the owners had done any marketing. They responded that they had performed email surveys. Mr. Connelly noted that they had found their own need.
Mr. Connelly moved that the proposed signage and window boxes for Crunchy Granola Baby of 72 Washington Street be approved as presented. Ms. Sullivan seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
Federal Street/St. Peter Street
Ms. Hartford informed the board that St. John’s Church was planning to honor Monsignor Ladislaus Sikora with a plaque at the corner of Federal and St. Peter Streets at a June 24th dedication. She said that she did not have the details yet on an exact location and that it may actually be outside the SRA jurisdiction. She asked that the board vote to approve the plan with Planning staff approval.
Ms. Sullivan moved that the plaque at the corner of Federal and St. Peter Streets to honor Monsignor Ladislaus Sikora of the St. John’s Church be approved pending Planning department staff approval of the plaque and location. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW
17 Central Street (Old Police Station/ Residences at Museum Place)
Ms. Hartford stated that at the last meeting board members had recommended that unit owners of 17 Central Street as well as the developers be invited to this meeting to discus outstanding issues and proposed exterior improvements to the approved Final Design Plans for the project. There are nine outstanding items. Chairman Brennan addressed them one at a time.
1. Landscaping plan: The as built plan was submitted but Mr. Luster said that there will be changes due to the location of a Mass Electric vault in the back parking lot. He stated that some of the changes were already approved when the vault was approved.
2. Dumpster fencing: Mr. Luster reported that the dumpster location will be amended for access. There will be four- two yard dumpsters. He said that the owner of Red’s restaurant had approved the plan and the residents will review it. He asked that the Planning Department, Red’s and the unit owners set up a meeting to review and approve the plan.
3. Period lighting: Mr. Luster reported that two pole lights were ordered and that the poles will take 8-12 weeks and the lamps will take 4-6 weeks. He will request that the City Electrician install these and be paid by the developer rather than hire a contractor.
4. Picket fence at the arch: The fencing will be installed.
5. Exterior building lights: Mr. Luster stated that there are nine “boat” lights planned. The plan had called for metal halide lamps. The unit owners and Mr. Luster discussed the lighting. Mr. Luster said that he would like the unit owners to decide. Ms. Hartford noted that the City Planner should have approved the lighting change when installed. She noted that the specification must be submitted.
6. Parking lot lighting plan: Mr. Luster reported that there should have been two lights installed and somehow they missed that. He said that now that the lot is paved he did not want to tear it up and recommended additional lighting be mounted on the carriage house. Ms. Sullivan said that she recalled at the Planning Board meeting she remembered discussing the lighting and security.
Ms. Hartford said that she had checked the Special Conditions Permit and the final lighting plan was to be two period lights with no second location specified. Mr. Luster thought that the residents should decide. Chairman Brennan asked that the matter be made a part of the discussion with the tenants. Residents indicated that they were concerned for safety and that cars had been broken into. Mr. Luster indicated that the pole lights had been ordered and could be installed within five days of receipt.
7. Signage: The signage could be removed or submitted for approval. The sign was in the specification but not in the plans. Mr. Luster said that it would be removed.
8. Front doors: The front doors were discussed. The plan had been approved with glass doors since the original intent was for a gallery space tenant. Residents have expressed security concerns and would like to replace the door with a green all-wood door with sidelights. Ms. Sullivan asked what the original doors had been. Mr. Luster said that they were double doors and did not meet code. Ms. Sullivan said that she was concerned with the design of the doors and would prefer that the DRB review the plan. She added that they were the capstone and that the façade was beautiful.
Ms. Burke, the unit owner, said that anyone coming up to the door could see directly inside. She suggested two solid wood doors with brass pieces and a more secure doorknob.
9. Front entry scrollwork: This work has not been completed. Mr. Luster said that the work was supposed to have been done last week and that the contractor had assured him that it will be done.
Ms. Sullivan moved that the matter of the doors be referred to the DRB, that the developer meet with the residents regarding the lighting, that the developer meet with the residents and the owner of Red’s restaurant, that the sign be removed, and that the lighting plan be amended. There was no second to the motion.
The board thought that the white plastic “boat” lights should be replaced on the façade and that the City Planner should approve the locations. Members requested a progress report at the next meeting.
Ms. Sullivan moved that the matter of the door changes be referred to the DRB for review. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
Ms. Sullivan moved that the developer substitute additional lighting for the City standard. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
Mr. Connelly moved that the developer report to the SRA within two weeks with a resolution to the dumpster location and fencing and a resolution and time frame for the resolution to the scroll work at the front of the building. Ms. Sullivan seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
Ms. Sullivan asked that a representative of the Museum Place condominiums attend the next meeting. Mr. Luster stated that Dennis Electric would be at the site on Friday regarding the pole lighting in order to determine a location.
Resident Arthur Emery asked why the building lights on the sides at the passageway were changed. Mr. Luster replied that the wall sconce was approximately thirty feet away from where they were supposed to be installed and that they should have been located at the side common door. He said that it was a mistake and that he couldn’t explain it. He thought that it might be an error by the electrician.
Mr. Luster said that the drainage plan was shown on the as built plans. He will submit photographs.
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROJECTS REVIEW
RCG Proposal
An update on proposed market study for downtown was given by Ms. Duncan. Chairman Brennan and Ms. Sullivan are a part of the downtown group.
The Marketplace Committee continues to meet on an aggressive schedule. Ms. Duncan said that there is a very exciting urban design plan. The RCG response addresses many concerns such as visibility, accessibility, surface parking, etc. There will be a public meeting held on June 26. There is some question about fitting all of this on the site. Historic preservation will be discussed in order to save the facades of the historic buildings.
Ms. Sullivan said that it was brilliant what RCG had come up with and that they had thought it through. She said that the plan has substance and there has been a combined effort by RCG and Michael Blier’s firm. She noted a Tuesday meeting will be held at 8.
Ms. Duncan said that she will be planning for a public meeting and is waiting to hear back from RCG. She added that she thought that the plan presentation was simple, direct, and very good. The committee will make a recommendation to the Mayor and the City Council. There will be a meeting on June 28th in order to discuss this.
Downtown Market Study
Ms. Duncan reported that the Mayor convened a group of various stakeholders such as the Chamber of Commerce, the SRA, and the Main Streets Program on the market study. A downtown Manager could be located at the Chamber of Commerce office. Local banks may fund a portion and the City a portion through a block grant. The Mayor has committed to three years. The SRA portion would be the downtown market. The committee is still framing the scope of a study. The Mayor is also talking with the Peabody Essex Museum for a donation.
Ms. Sullivan said that if they could get a downtown manager funded then the market study becomes an important piece. She commented that the stars were aligned and this was a time when all sides want the study to move forward. Ms. Duncan noted that SRA funds would need to be expended.
Chairman Brennan said that he is not against funding a market study but that he is not convinced yet. He added that he has never seen one implemented and was not sure if he would vote for it.
Ms. Duncan stated that it would be helpful to have the Chamber at the table and that they need an up to date demographic study. She added that they would have to be careful about stating exactly what types of businesses that they would want, and noted that they would have to make sure space was available, if for example they noted the need for a supermarket but didn’t have the space available.
Ms. Duncan said that market study materials get outdated very quickly and recommended that they obtain a template that the Planning department or a downtown manager could update.
Ms. Sullivan said that they need guidelines for a manager to use. She gave the example of the redevelopment of the Old Salem Jail and the response received being due to the guidelines given. She believes that this would help generate more response.
Old Salem Jail Redevelopment Project
Ms. Duncan reported that the developer will be submitting design plans in August and will go before the Planning Board in September. Ms. Hartford said that the plan should come before the SRA in July or August.
July Meeting
The July meeting will be scheduled for July 19, 2006.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mr. Connelly moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Sullivan seconded the motion, and the motion passed (3-0).
Meeting stands adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra Tucker
Clerk
| 
