SRA Minutes
April 11, 2007
Page 1 of 4
MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING
OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2007
A regular meeting of the Salem Redevelopment Authority was (SRA) held in the third floor conference room at the City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 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, Robert Mitnik, and Russell Vickers. Also present were Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, Kirsten Kinzer, CDBG Planner and Andrea Bray, Clerk
Chairperson Brennan calls the meeting to order.
Approval of Minutes: January 10, 2007, February 21, 2007, February 27, 2007, and March 27, 2007 Meetings
The members agreed to defer the approval of the minutes.
Executive Director’s Report
Retail Market Plan Update
Duncan states that the Downtown Retail Market Plan is going very well. A public meeting will be held next month to get input. Duncan says that they intend to implement the plan by having organizations/departments assigned to specific action items outlined in the report. She said that the consultant will also be coming back to check in on the status within a year of completing the report, which should be helpful in ensuring items are implemented.
Old Town Hall Update
Duncan states that Kirsten Kinzer has picked up the project. Duncan addresses the need for additional information on the building condition and maintenance costs. She states that the City has hired Cliff Ageloff of Essex Onsite Services, who is working on assessing the condition of the building, and John Watney of Structures North, who is looking at the structure of the building. As to the time schedule, Duncan says that Kinzer has researched a company called “Art Link” which provides technical assistance in managing projects such as this, and they intend to work with them as the group moves toward putting the RFP together. She adds that a draft of the RFP may be ready by the May meeting. Duncan states that the Old Town Hall is leased for various functions through the end of this year,
with organizations such as “Cry Innocent” which has scheduled 200 performances, the Salem Theatre Company, and the Salem On Your Toes company.
Old Salem Jail
Duncan states that the closing date is May 15, 2007, and building plans have already been submitted and will be seen by the DRB on April 25. She adds that there are still some reviews that must be finalized including one by the Massachusetts Historic Commission, and a review of the deed restrictions affecting affordable housing and public access to the jail exhibit.
Vickers asks the status of the restaurant tenant. Duncan says that they are looking for a liquor license for the site but otherwise no tenant has been identified. Vickers clarifies his question stating that there should be a restaurant and he would not want to see that plan dropped.
285 Derby Street: Discussion and vote on the DRB recommendation of the proposed plans for building improvements
Hartford introduces Richard Griffin, architect, and Tim Clark, property owner. She states that the DRB recommended approval of this design with conditions. She reads the DRB recommendation:
At their meeting on February 28, 2007, the DRB recommended approval of the project with the requirement that the panels above the mullions be transparent glass.
Richard Griffin shows the plans and explains that the ramp could not be moved to the middle of the two units because of the other tenant, as well as, the cost factor of taking down the entry ramp and revamping that area.
Duncan says that Department of Public Services has no problem with the ramp but she wants to check with the City Solicitor.
Connelly made a motion to approve the DRB recommendation conditioned upon obtaining appropriate approval from the City Solicitor for the ramp. Vickers seconded the motion. All members vote in favor. The motion passes 5-0.
275-281 Essex Street (C.F. Tompkins): Discussion of the wireless facilities installed on the exterior of the building
Hartford introduced Carl Gehring who represents Verizon.
Gehring speaks at great length about the failure to come before the SRA and the DRB prior to installation of the cell phone equipment, stating that he meant no disrespect and the whole situation was confusing at the time. He mentions he met with Durand in December 2005, and in February 2006 applied for a building permit, which was granted in March of 2006 for the entire installation (equipment on the roof and in the basement). He apologizes for the mishap and makes a suggestion for a way that the City could ensure that this does not happen again.
Gehring displays several photos and plans and explains the equipment that has been installed on the roof. He distributes several packets to the members, which have the same photos.
Duncan says that she is impressed with the amount of research that he has done on this issue. She explains that the SRA doesn’t come under the Building Inspector or the City of Salem, but has its own powers. She acknowledges that this can be confusing for someone from the outside. She states that this presentation is relative to the design issues and the reason for this meeting tonight is for the SRA to send this matter to the DRB for design approval. She adds that it is her understanding that Gehring was advised that Verizon needed to come before the SRA and DRB.
Mitnik agrees that this should go to the DRB.
Vickers states that he appreciates Gehring’s presentation and explanation and also wishes to send the issue to the DRB.
Connelly agrees with Vickers and states that he has seen the equipment and it is not something that jumps out, so he doesn’t expect any problem with the DRB, but he does not want to set a dangerous president.
Vickers made a motion to submit the plans to the DRB for comment. Connelly seconded the motion. All members vote in favor. The motion passes 5-0.
218 Derby Street (New Civilitea): Discussion and vote on the proposed public art to be installed on the sidewalk outside of the store.
Hartford introduces the owners of New Civilitea. They wish to put public art on the sidewalk in front of the shop. She adds that the piece would be a 5-foot teapot and some of their tables and chairs would need to be removed to make room for this feature.
Brennan asks if the art would be to the left of the front door and no more than 5 feet high. Lynn Potoff agrees that Brennan’s statement is true.
Vickers inquires about the type of material to be used for this feature. Potoff states that it would probably be vitreous glass because it is virtually indestructible.
Brennan asks if this piece of art is permanent. Hartford says that it would be bolted down to the sidewalk and would not be taken in every night, but it could be taken down without any destruction to the sidewalk. She adds that it is a similar concept to the Bewitched statue, and she believes that it does not need to go to the DRB.
Mitnik disagrees, stating that he believes that it should go in front of the DRB.
Duncan states that it is the call of this Board to determine if the DRB should see this.
Vickers says that this is just a proposal to put a piece of art up, and he doesn’t know what the DRB is supposed to do.
Brennan asks the board if they have any interest in seeing exactly what is going to be there. The members all agree that they wish to see an initial design before approval.
Duncan says that she doesn’t want to hold up this project but it would be a good idea if the SRA has some concept of this design prior to approval.
Brennan states that it would be a bit reckless to approve the art without seeing it.
Duncan expresses her approval of the shop owner’s initiative in commissioning this sidewalk art and states that it is innovative and exciting.
Connelly asks if a basic design would be ready by the next meeting.
Potoff says that it may not be ready until the June meeting.
Duncan asks Mitnik to explain why he would like DRB input.
Mitnik states that it is just like a sign or a symbol, which would always require DRB approval.
Potoff states that the art is meant to distinguish the store as not just a tea shop but also an art gallery, and by putting the art on the sidewalk it will bring people in to see the other art inside. She adds that the piece needs to be built of a material that can be thoroughly cleaned of graffiti, and secured in a way that it cannot be toppled through the glass window or dismantled and carried off.
Duncan says that it appears the Board is supportive but they want to see more. She asks Potoff to get back to her when a design is ready.
Connelly made a motion to adjourn. Vickers seconded the motion.
The meeting is adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
| 
