MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING
OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 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, August 8, 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 was Kirsten Kinzer, CDBG Planner and Andrea Bray, Clerk.
Chairperson Brennan calls the meeting to order.
Old/New Business
Redevelopment Project Review
1. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail) – Discussion of request for closing date extension
Kinzer states that New Boston Ventures is moving closer to the goal of the closing but they need time to finalize the appraised value to the building. She adds that all of the subsequent dates will be moved in accordance with the new closing date. They are requesting a one month extension, which would move the final closing date to September 14, 2007. She adds that all of the subsequent deadlines would be extended as follows: submittal for building permit by October 17, commencement of construction by November 16 and completion of construction by November 19, 2009.
All members express concern about the delay.
Kinzer states that if the SRA does not extend, the closing is scheduled for August 15 and Lynn Duncan is on vacation until the end of that week so it will be very difficult to comply with the August 15 closing date.
Vickers states that this is the last extension that he will agree to without hearing from a representative from New Boston Ventures. He states that he will be looking for some explanation with any future requests.
Mitnik states that he is disappointed that no representative is here tonight.
Connelly states that this is a complicated project and the Board does not have any option but to extend the dates if they wish the project to move forward. .
Vickers: Motion to extend the closing date, seconded by Baldini. (Passes 5-0)
Development Project Review
2. 155-189 Washington Street (Salem News Building) – Discussion of proposed partial demolition
and
3. 155-189 Washington Street (Salem News Building – Discussion of Schematic Design Plans for the proposed redevelopment
Ward 3 City Councilor, Jean Pelletier speaks in favor of the demolition of this building and in favor of the redevelopment plans. He states that this building is currently in horrible condition and needs major changes. He adds that homeless people have been living in that building. Pelletier says that a six-month demolition delay on would be impractical because the developer would need to wait until February to begin the demolition.
Kinzer states that the Historical Commission will meet again next week and they will either waive or enforce the six-month demolition delay. She adds that the intention of the six month demolition delay period is to allow time to determine if this building can be saved.
Mitnik states that the building is seriously deteriorated and should be taken down.
Baldini agrees with Mitnik.
The Board agrees to hear both the issue of demolition and design of the redevelopment concerning concurrently.
Kinzer introduces Matt Picarsic and Alex Schnip from RCG.
Picarsic displays the plans and describes the design.
Vickers asks about the lot lines.
Picarsic points out the lot lines. He states that the building exterior will be brick and cast stone. He states that they need permission from the SRA to demolish the building, as well as a waiver of the six-month demolition delay from the Historic Commission.
Brennan asks if the area will be fenced.
Picarsic states that they will fence the area to secure the sight and clean it up.
Kinzer adds that the Planning Department has also recommended seeding any level areas.
Vickers asks if the fence could be pulled back from the property line to allow for some landscape plantings in there. Picarsic agrees to that.
Vickers asks about Van Ness Development.
Picarsic states that they owned the property before RCG and the property has been transferred to RCG.
Brennan asks if there are underground oil tanks on the site.
Picarsic states that there are no oil tanks in the ground but there are some above ground and there is some asbestos in the building.
Kinzer reads the following letters/email into the record:
Dated August 7, 2007, from the Members of the Marketplace Redevelopment Committee
Dated August 8, 2007, from Richard Pabich and Diane Pabich
Dated August 8, 2007, from Rinus Oosthoek, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce
Dated August 8, 2007, from Barbara Cleary, President, Historic Salem, Inc.
Connelly speaks in favor of the demolition stating that it is a case of addition through subtraction. He adds that the building is an eyesore.
Baldini and Mitnik agree with Connelly.
Brennan asks for a caveat that a fence and shrubs be installed within 4 months of demolition.
Vickers states that 4 months is a long time and he would like to see the fence sooner. He speaks in favor of the demolition.
Vickers: Motion to approve the partial demolition of the building with the following conditions:
§ If the proposed redevelopment has not received building permits within four months of the demolition, the site shall be leveled and exposed dirt shall be loamed and seeded.
§ As soon as is practical after demolition, a DRB approved fence and landscaping shall be installed along the perimeter of the site.
Seconded by Baldini. (Passes 5-0)
Vickers states that the design plans are consistent with the type of development that the Board wants.
Connelly: Motion to send the plans to the DRB, seconded by Mitnik. (Passes 5-0)
Other Project Review
4. Lappin Park (Virginia Moustakis Memorial) – Discussion of proposed memorial
Joanne Scott from the Board of Health speaks about this memorial, stating that Virginia Moustakis worked in the Health Department for many years. She distributes a photo of the memorial, and a letter from many former Board of Health members. She adds that the funding is available for this memorial. She states that it is a planter which will have flowers in the top. She displays a diagram which shows the exact location of the memorial in the Lappin Park.
Brennan states that he wonders why the proposed location for this memorial has changed after the City Council approved it. He expresses concern about the newly proposed location in Lappin Park.
Baldini asks if it can be placed behind City Hall.
Scott states that they looked at a lot of different places in the City and that the original preferred location in the Washington Street traffic median was rejected by the Public Works Department. Richard Rennard, DPW director, is concerned that a memorial in the median will be knocked over by snow plows.
Kinzer asks for recommendations for an alternate location.
Mitnik states that it should be close to where she worked.
Kinzer states that she worked in this building, 120 Washington Street.
Vickers states that he supports Scott’s efforts for the memorial but the proposal seem a little rushed and the Board needs more time to consider the precedent of locating a memorial in Lappin Park.
Mitnik states that there were public hearings for the statue and they should have the same process.
Vickers expresses desire to have some standard for any additions at the park.
Kinzer asks Scott if she would prefer to continue this application for this location or to propose a new location. She asks if she would be granted permission to put the planter in the median.
Brennan states it could be hit by a plow if it is in the island.
Vickers states that he is sensitive to this because it is in Lappin Park and the last issue for this location required a great deal of time.
Connelly states that the Board is in supportive of this memorial if it turns out to be in Lappin Park or another approved location.
Brennan expresses concern with setting precedent for other requests for memorials in Lappin Park. He adds that snow plows haven’t harmed any of the trees in the median and he doesn’t foresee any harm coming to the planter if it is there.
Kinzer suggests working with Dick Rennard to use an acceptable base for the memorial in the island.
Vickers states that the City needs design guidelines for Lappin Park so they will know how to use this site in the future.
Vickers: Motion to approve the memorial in the Washington Street median, seconded by Mitnik. (Passes 5-0)
Scott requests permission to return to the SRA in the event that the finished guidelines for Lappin Park allow for any additional memorials. The members agree to this.
Small Project Review
5. 75-87 Washington Street – Discussion of proposed façade alterations
Owner Bill Goldberg speaks about the plans for the building, stating that it needs a face lift. He says that they will install new windows, central air, and refurbish the stained glass windows. He adds that the second and third floors will be used as office space, and the first floor will be upscale retail. He describes the plans for the revisions to the building. He says the he would like to remove 6 trees from the front of the building.
Members discuss removing the trees.
Kinzer states that Lynn Duncan is not in favor of removing the trees but is in favor in trimming the trees to improve visibility.
Vickers states that tree removal is a sensitive matter however Mr. Goldberg’s proposal will make this building a showcase.
Goldberg states that he would like to have one or more restaurant with outdoor seating in the back. He asks the Board to consider all of the changes as a complete package.
Vickers states that this is not the board’s decision tonight to determine the number of trees which will be removed. He adds that the board’s decision tonight is to send this to the DRB for review and recommendations.
Much discussion ensues about the removal of the trees.
Kinzer states that the DRB will not be able to approve the removal of trees without seeing designs for planters mentioned by Goldberg as a replacement for the trees. She adds that the outdoor café permit will require a separate application by the restaurant owner in the future. She says that when the signs are being replaced, all of the new signs must go through the DRB.
Connelly: Motion to send these plans to the DRB for Schematic Design review, seconded by Vickers. (Passes 5-0)
6. 2 East India Square (Museum Place Mall, Suites 113-119) – Discussion of proposed façade alterations
Owner Brett Marley states that the existing space that once housed the Social Security office will be divided into four retail spaces. Tenants include a food use, handmade crafts, and clothing. There is still one open space.
Kinzer states that these doors are identical to the existing doors on the adjacent storefronts and recommends sending this item to the DRB with a conditional approval from the SRA.
Baldini: Motion to approve these alterations subject to DRB approval, seconded by Connelly. (Passes 5-0)
7. 191-211 Washington Street/33 New Derby (Hawthorne Building) – Discussion of proposed awnings and sign brackets
Matthew Picarsic of RCG, describes the plans for fabric awnings at the storefronts facing Washington Street.
Connelly confirms that there will be no writing on the awnings.
Mitnik express objection to the different colored awnings stating that it looks like a carnival.
Vickers: Motion to send the proposal to the DRB, seconded by Baldini. (Passes 5-0)
8. 120 Washington Street (Peabody Block building) – Discussion of amendment to approved Final Design Plans
Kinzer states that this proposal is to relocate the existing dumpster and screen it with a fence.
Baldini: Motion to approve, seconded by Mitnik. (Passes 5-0)
9. 90 Lafayette Street – Discussion of proposed façade alterations
Picarsic states that this is the Old Dracula’s Castle building, and they wish to attract some retail to that site. He states that they will not install the awning but will replace it with one line of brick. They will install storefront windows and a second entrance leading to the second floor. In the future, the second floor of the building may become residential.
Mitnik states that the pediment doesn’t fit with the rest of the building.
Baldini: Motion to send to the DRB, seconded by Mitnik. (Passes 5-0)
Outdoor Café Permit Review
10. 118 Washington Street Rear (Upper Crust Pizza) – Discussion and vote on DRB recommendation for proposed outdoor café
Kinzer states that the DRB approved this outdoor café with the new table design.
Owner Michael Buchalter states that the tables and chairs are silver and they are sturdier than the ones at the Gulu Gulu Café. He adds that they are sharing the middle stanchions.
Mitnik: Motion to approve the outdoor café, seconded by Vickers. (Passes 5-0)
Sign Review
11. 75 Lafayette Street (West Coast Video) – Discussion and vote on DRB recommendation for proposed signage
Kinzer states that the DRB has approved this awning with the condition that the arch at the top of the awning follow the bottom course of bricks. She adds that the orange and yellow are corporate colors.
Connelly: Motion to approve this design, seconded by Vickers. (Passes 5-0)
12. 320 Derby Street (Chulamama) – Discussion and vote on DRB recommendation for the proposed signage
Kinzer states that this is a maternity clothing store and is partnering with a company that sells baby carriages. The DRB has recommended approval of the blade sign and window decals as submitted.
Baldini: Motion to approve the blade sign and window decals, seconded by Mitnik. (Passes 5-0)
13. 322 Derby Street (Rouge Cosmetics) – Discussion and vote on DRB recommendation for the proposed signage
Kinzer states that this is next to the Chulamama store.
Brennan asks if the building sign will be internally lit.
Kinzer states that this will be internally lit but the box is opaque so it differs from the translucent signs. She adds that the DRB loved this proposal and they placed the condition that there be no visible electrical conduit on the facade. She adds that this design is dramatically different than a typical internally lit sign.
Vickers: Motion to approve the building sign and blade sign, seconded by Connelly. (Passes 5-0)
Bernnan notes that the building sign was approved because it differs dramatically from the typical internally illuminated box sign. This approval does not set a precedent of approving all internally illuminated signs.
Other Business
14. Approval of Minutes: January 10, February 14, March 14, and April 11 meetings
Chairperson Brennan tables the vote on these minutes until the next meeting.
Baldini asks about the many plants in front of the store on the Essex Street Pedestrian Mall. He states that the owner should reduce the number of plants because it is taking up too much public space.
Vickers suggests that Kinzer call her and speak to her about it.
Kinzer agrees and states that they should do the same for Fiddlehead on North Street.
Connelly: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Vickers. (Passes 5-0)
The meeting is adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
| 
