MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING
OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 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, June 13, 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: Conrad Baldini, Michael Brennan, Michael Connelly, Robert Mitnik and Russell Vickers. Also present were Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, Kirsten Kinzer, CDBG Planner and Andrea Bray, Clerk.
Executive Director’s Report
Executive Director Lynn Duncan states that her group has been working with the Chamber of Commerce and the Main Streets Boards to interview potential managers for the downtown plan. She adds that on Friday Karl Seidman will present key information about the action plan related to the downtown study. Duncan says that the results of the survey are not quite finalized for the website
Old Town Hall Update:
Duncan says that Kirsten Kinzer, CDBG Planner, has conducted funding research and has located two possible sources of funds which are directed to some degree.
Kinzer, distributes a memo about the funding and explains that, in the past, the Massachusetts Historical Commission has provided funds, so that source is not available again. She describes the two fund sources:
1. The Massachusetts Cultural Facility Fund could grant up to $5M in funding, but the actual maximum amount available for this location is unclear. A 15-20 year lease is required to qualify for this grant which would be for capital improvements only. The main focus of this fund to increase the economic impact through tourism. The next funding period may not begin for 2 years.
2. The John Abigail Adams Arts Program could fund up to $100,000 and can not be used for capital improvements. Rather, this fund aims at developing new initiatives in art. The new funding period for this grant begins in the fall of 2007.
Kinzer describes the options for the format of the RFP.
1. The Board could first choose one of these two grant programs and wrap the criteria around the RFP.
2. The Board could allow applying organizations to peg their proposal to one funding source or the other, while providing evidence of conforming criteria to either grant.
3. Rather than requiring a large amount of capital investment in the first year, the Board could request proposals for phased projects in which the City partners with the selected organization to obtain a grant.
Kinzer asks that the Board make the decision about the direction of the RFP so that the City can move forward.
Vickers says that he supports #2 as a priority, and asks if the City is seeking an applicant subject to funding.
Duncan says that they are, in fact, seeking an applicant subject to funding qualifications unless someone comes in that is able provide all of the funding themselves.
Vickers says that he is in favor of option #2 even if the source is not yet committed, and the City can create some kind of interim arrangement until they can get the funding.
Duncan states that she would like to provide all of the funding information in the RFP and keep it open in terms of this criteria that we will receive.
Vickers says that we could accept proposals for many things but the assessment of the proposal will be based on whether their will be funding available for this use proposed.
Brennan says that this is a difficult RFP because the building needs at least $1M. He asks the Board members if they want to put out the RFP to see what is out there, and spend some time selecting a group and then working with that group on obtaining funding.
Vickers says that if an application has identified a potential funding source we will look at the viability of this funding source and work with the one we select to obtain this.
Kinzer suggests writing the RFP to leave both options open.
Duncan says that we need to keep the deed restrictions in mind, and these must also be clearly described in the RFP.
Connelly says that we don’t want to box the RFP in and limit the response to a small number of groups.
Old/New Business
Other Project Review
1. Downtown Salem: Discussion of Proposed Bike Racks
Duncan introduces Frank Taromina, DPCD staff for the Bike Path Committee.
Taromina introduces Jerry Judge, also with the Bike Path Committee.and Jeff Belling, Chairman of the committee. He speaks about the bike parking program and provides a map showing the proposed locations of the bike racks the Committe would like to install in downtown Salem.
Brennan says that the City is behind this. He asks if a bike can be placed on each side of the metered rack.
Taromina answers affirmatively and states that these racks work well in dense sections in the downtown area.
Brennan asks Taromina if he visited each site.
Taromina says that he did visit all of the sites and references the photos of all of these locations.
Brennan says that he loves the idea and he will vote for this, but he expresses concern about the parked bicycles impeding pedestrian traffic.
Judge says that they will keep the racks away from handicapped ramps, and the bikes cannot extend too far out from the meter.
Taromina says that the racks will be painted black with decals that say “bicycle parking”.
Brennan asks that they ensure that the racks are appropriately placed.
Mitnik says that the bikes will not rotate out from the racks.
Connelly asks if they thought about putting them at the MBTA station.
Taromina says that the racks must be on a public way and the City will need to approach the MBTA to have them installed.
Brennan says that he thinks that racks are already there.
Judge says that there is a bike rack there but it is an easy target for vandals and this discouraged the Bike Committee from considering placement of additional racks there. He adds that at one time there were bike lockers which were more secure, and they are no longer there.
Baldini asks if the $10,621 covers the entire project.
Taromina states that this amount is for this year.
Baldini: Motion to send this application to the DRB for recommendation, seconded by Mitnik. (Passes5-0)
Redevelopment Project Review
2. 50 St Peter Street (Old Salem Jail): Discussion/Decision on Deed and Transfer of Title for the Proposed Redevelopment
Duncan states that she has received a request for an extension of the closing date until July 16. She adds that he Building Permit deadline, construction commencement date and completion date would be extended by one month, in accordance with the new closing date. She says that the extension would allow more time for discussion of the deed.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, representing New Boston Ventures, says that the bank has found that this is a very unique property and the closing is taking a little more time than planned.
David Goldman explains that the City Council has granted their support for a liquor license. He adds that they are reworking utility areas and mechanical areas, moving utilities into the basement, and looking into building a small gymnasium facility. He states that he is optimistic that they will beat this timeline, because they have already submitted plans to the Building Department and the building permit is in the works. Goldman says they have no intension of waiting during the two-month period to start construction after the land closing, and that NBV is anxious to move forward. He concludes by saying that they intend to beat the two-year construction period.
Vickers asks if the “uniqueness” of this property has anything to do with the title or the project.
Correnti says it is just the overall review of the project being a mixed-use project. He adds that NBV has a commitment to seeing this project through to completion and the machinations of the underwriting for a project like this can take some time.
Connelly: Motion to adopt the 3rd amendment to the Land Disposition Agreement with the new timeline, seconded by Vickers. (Passes 5-0)
Duncan says the City Solicitor Beth Rennard is looking into an affordable housing restriction. She highlights the two areas of the deed which need further work, (1) the preservation restriction would need to be redrafted, and (2) the restriction for the public jail exhibit space needs clarification.
David Goldman says that they are considering using the jail cell exhibit as a private dining space in the evening.
Vickers clarifies that the LDA will be recorded. He asks if the conditions continue on after the units are sold.
Correnti states that some conditions do carry on and some don’t.
Vickers asks if the distinctions are clear.
Correnti explains that this is being permitted and developed as proposed and after the certificate of occupancy is issued some of the conditions will stop and some will continue in the deed.
Brennan says that there are currently no further actions needed by the Board.
Development Project Review
3. 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins Building): Discussion of final Design Plans for the proposed redevelopment
Attorney George Atkins describes the progress on this application, stating that it has been approved by the Planning Board and the appeal period is currently running. He states that the condominium association will be purchasing 20 passes from the parking garage. He adds that the City is studying the whole downtown parking pattern, and the developer has contributed $10,000 to this research.
Atkins states that the final design has some changes to the first floor space and they have delineated the retail and residential entries on the Cromby Street side. He says that the brick work specifications are submitted in this package and will go to the DRB.
Architect Keith Musinski explains that they have opened the entry on Essex Street, and the side elevation on Cromby Street will be brought back to more closely echo the original storefront design. He states the there will now be two styles of windows on the Cromby Street elevation which will differentiate the retail space from the residential space.
Mitnik says he believes that this whole front is masonry veneer and that the original columns are still in place under that.
Kieth Musinski says that he looked into that that they are hoping to find the original columns under the veneer.
Atkins speaks about the Verizon cell phone installation repainting timeline.
Kinzer says that must paint the jumper cables to match the fascia and the antennas to match brick by October.
Brennan asks if the purchasing of the 20 parking spaces by the condominium association will be written into the condo docs
Atkins responds affirmatively.
Baldini: Motion to send the Final Design Plans to the DRB, seconded by Mitnik.
(Passes 5-0)
4. 93 Washington Street (City Hall): Discussion of alterations to approved elevator addition
Duncan says that the elevator has been on the list of potential City projects for several years but they have not had funding until now. She states that the previous plans which maintained the ramp at the rear entrance have been changed and the new plans allow entry at the ground level.
John Seger from Gray Architects speaks about having a half-stopped elevator at grade to eliminate the need for the ramp. He explains that a vestibule will allow for immediate entry into the elevator off of the back courtyard. He adds that this addition creates a more inviting back entry and it is safer.
Mitnik questions whether this type of storefront will complement the traditional architecture of the area. He also questions whether the glassed area will be heated and cooled.
Seger says that the vestibule is acting as a buffer to the rest of the building, and will have an independent heating unit.
Brennan says that he would look to Mitnik to specify the various design aspects for the DRB to review.
Mitnik suggests specifying in the motion that the DRB look at the amount of glass and the appropriateness of the detailing.
Kinzer states that this design requires need Massachusetts Historical Commission review.
Duncan asks Kinzer if MHC will review this design after the DRB approval.
Kinzer responds affirmatively.
Mitnik: Motion to send this plan to the DRB with the above noted comments, seconded by Connelly. (Passes 5-0)
Small Project Review
5. 217-221 Essex Street (The Gathering and Digital Imaging Inc.): Discussion of proposed rear egress door
Architect John Seger explains that there currently is no rear egress, and the new design provides a new set of stairs inside the building with an internal landing and a new external door for 217 and 221 Essex Street. He adds that this will be the rear egress for the Gathering and Digital Imaging.
Mitnik asks if they can add detailing to the sides of the door as a way of carrying the arch down to the ground.
Seger agrees to do so.
Mitnik: Motion to send this plan to the DRB seconded by Vickers. (Passes 5-0)
6. 118 Washington Street Rear (Peabody Block Building): Discussion of proposed egress door
Matthew Picarsic, RCG, states that he wishes to subdivide retail space at the corner of Lapin Park into two spaces and provide one egress door with a corridor. He adds that the new door would be designated as an emergency exit for these two units.
Mitnik asks if the owner of the building can fix the exhaust fan on the building because it is too loud, and Picarsic says that he can look into it.
Picarsic asks the Board to grant conditional approval pending DRB review.
Baldind: Motion to approve this plan subject to DRB approval, seconded by Mitnik. (Passes 5-0)
7. 157 Washington Street (Passage to India): Discussion of proposed building alterations
Ward 3 City Councilor Jean Pelletier speaks in favor of this project and urges the Board to approve it.
Restaurant owner Hugh Kerr proposes to add a third doorway to the resturant which would be exactly the same size as the other two, thereby unifying the front elevation of the restaurant. He adds that this doorway will access an extension of Passage to India into the current function room of the Edgewater Café.
Brennan suggests bringing paint chips to the DRB and Kerr agrees to do so.
Vickers: Motion to send this plan to the DRB for recommendation, seconded by Connelly. (Passes 5-0)
Outdoor Café Permit Review
8. 157 Washington Street (Passage to India): Discussion of proposed outdoor cafe
Ward 3 City Councilor Jean Pelletier speaks in favor of this application. He says that one of the trees needs to be removed and the owner will pay for that. He asks that the Board approve the application.
Owner Hugh Kerr states that the alley behind the building is currently used as a dump and a bathroom. He says that there are 2-3 people living there. He explains that he has offered to partner with the City to clean up this area, landscape it and clean it every day, and to beautify the whole corner of the building.
Kerr describes the outdoor café, stating that it will have 30 seats, and one large tree will be taken down.
Mitnik asks why they must remove the tree.
Kerr states that there is a large mud area around it and it takes up too much space where the outdoor café would be locate, and it blocks the door to the building.
Mitnik suggests putting grating at the base of the other 2 trees and Kerr agrees to this.
Vickers asks if there will be enough room for pedestrian traffic.
Kerr explains the plans and says they will have enough room.
Duncan asks if there was ever another tree in the island. She suggests adding one or two trees to that island and Kerr agrees to look into it.
Connelly: Motion to send this plan to the DRB for review, seconded by Vickers. (Passes 5-0)
9. 155 Washington Street (Edgewater Café): Discussion/Decision on the DRB recommendation for proposed revision to approved outdoor café
Kinzer states that owner, Dennis Moustakis, has been to the DRB. She reviews the DRB’s recommendations which include:
§ Maintain a 5 foot sidewalk width on all sides of the outdoor café
§ Use a wider trim at the top of the planter
§ Push the planters against the building in the winter
§ Following the painting of one planter, a DRB member will review the trim color. The remainder of the planters shall be painted to match the DRB member’s recommendation.
Baldini: Motion to accept the DRB’s recommendations and approve the outdoor café, seconded by Mitnik. (Passes 5-0)
10. 118 Washington Street (Fresh Taste of Asia): Discussion/Decision on the DRB recommendation for proposed revisions to approved outdoor café
Kinzer states that the DRB reviewed and approved the posts and chains at the last meeting. She adds that the wood posts have concrete bases and both the posts and the chains are painted black. Kinzer explains that the DRB visited the site at the end of the last meeting and agreed on a new seating arrangement in which the chain extends diagonally from the corner of the building, aligning with the diagonal walkway through Lapin Park.
Owner Frandy Xu says that he appreciates the DRB’s input on this seating arrangement.
Baldini: Motion to accept the DRB recommendations and approve the amendment to the outdoor café, seconded by Vickers. (Passes 5-0)
Sign Review
11. 32 Church Street (Salem Wine Imports): Discussion/Decision on the DRB recommendation for proposed signage
Kirsten references the picture of a sign for a new wine store on Church Street while stating that the DRB recommended that they lighten the color of the scroll on the sign. She adds that it will be slightly smaller than shown in that image.
Brennan asks how it will compare in scale to the adjacent realtor sign.
Kinzer says that is will be smaller.
Vickers: Motion to approve the sign with the recommendations from the DRB, seconded by Connelly. (Passes 5-0)
Adjournment
Connelly: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Baldini (Passes 5-0)
The meeting is adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
| 
