City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, at 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Michael Brennan, Conrad Baldini, Michael Connelly, Robert Mitnik, and
Russell Vickers
Members Absent:
Others Present: Executive Director and City Planner Lynn Duncan
Recorder: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Brennan calls the meeting to order.
Executive Director’s Report
Old Town Hall: Duncan states that the bathroom renovations are now complete and the restrooms are operating. She explains that Old Town Hall, through Gordon College, will be receiving the Cultural Facilities Fund and Partners in Preservation grants which, together with the approximately $174,000 match, will fund the repair of structural elements and the replacement of the heating system.
5 Broad Street: Duncan states that the Mayor requested that the SRA act in an advisory capacity to the City Council on the reuse of the Council on Aging building at 5 Broad Street. She notes that the City Council praised the SRA on the handling of the Old Salem Jail and the Old Town Hall and supported the SRA acting in this capacity. She explains that the building at 5 Broad Street is owned by the City and the first step of this process will be to hire an architectural firm to conduct a reuse study, including a condition assessment and a structural assessment. She distributes copies of the requests for proposals and states that six proposals have been received and they are in the process of reviewing them and plan to proceed by next Wednesday.
Duncan explains that the full process includes a public meeting to get input from the public and the neighborhood.
Brennan and Vickers agree to review the proposals from the architectural firms. Brennan defers to Mitnik so they may take advantage of his architectural knowledge. Duncan informs them that they will meet on Monday to review the architectural proposals stating that they can determine whether they need to interview or not.
Parking Management Study: Duncan reminds the board that this study is being funded by the SRA, and that Mitnik will represent the SRA on the working group. She states that the parking management study begins tomorrow morning. She describes the work of the firm, Nelson\Nygaard, as being data-based and they will be able to document their recommendations with the facts. She adds that there has been much discussion in Salem on parking, and Nelson\Nygaard will look at it from a management prospective and work with a broad based working group comprised of businesses, residents, and the parking director.
Old/New Business
Development Project Review
1. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail): Update on restaurant status
Duncan states that the buildings look great in terms of the progress being made.
Penn Lindsay says that the construction is progressing very well, and from the bypass road one can see through the building because it is completely opened up, and the steel roof joists have been installed. He adds that the other buildings are coming along at all stages of construction.
Regarding the restaurant, Lindsay explains that Charlie Perkins is now actively marketing the space and sending out information to restaurant operators around Massachusetts. He explains that two parties are already expressing interest, one is a Boston area chef, and the other party was unsolicited. He adds that the space is almost ready for showing and the ceiling has been opened to make 16-18 foot ceilings, lending a very dramatic look to the space.
Regarding the outdoor patio, Lindsay states that they are currently examining options for the finished layout, and he estimates that it will add another 1,000 square feet to the 3,000 square feet of interior space.
Duncan asks about the total estimate for seating and Lindsay states that there will be 80-100 seats inside and 30-40 seats on the patio. He reiterates that Charlie Perkins is actively marketing the space, acknowledging that the success of the Tavern has made this space more attractive to potential restaurant tenants.
Vickers asks about the timeline on the restaurant option.
Lindsay states that they need to have a restaurant operator in place one year from the closing date, which will be in April 2010. He adds that most potential tenants will not really look seriously at this opportunity until about six months in advance.
Small Project Review
2. 281 Essex Street (Latitude Building): Discussion of proposed wireless facilities
Carl Gehring, representing Verizon Wireless, states that these antennas are façade-mounted, and they were adjusted to be less than 12 inches from the wall. He explains that Verizon is making network upgrades which require some of the antennas to be swapped out for newer ones. Specifically, he states that the farthest antenna to the right will be moved left next to the other and a new antenna will replace the one that moves. He provides the dimensions for the new antennas and states that they went through the NEPA process because this building is near some historic structures.
Duncan states that the Salem Historic Commission requested they explore the possibility of centering the antennas on the façade.
Gehring states that they looked into this but they were unable to do this.
Baldini states that it isn’t noticeable from the street.
Mitnik states that this plan wasn’t designed, and they might be able to move one antenna onto the other side of the pilaster.
A resident, Kristen DeMaio, asks if these are mounted to the roof.
Gehring states that they are on brackets and they do not come in contact with the roof.
Duncan states that the property manager at 218 Essex Street asked her to remind Gehring that he needs to go before the Board of Trustees for the Condominium Association.
Duncan states that the maximum increase of any of the dimensions for the new antennas is six inches. Given the timing and the nature of the change, the SRA could approve without sending to the DRB, if the board so desired.
Mitnik states that he would like to have the DRB weigh in on the symmetry and it is a nice gesture to have them see it.
Baldini states that it is such a small issue that it need not go to the DRB.
Vickers states that it is an existing design and all they are doing is changing out antennas, which are within inches in size.
Mitnik states that he would have made it symmetrical and he thinks it was a mistake.
Vickers states that if this were a new facility he would be more supportive of that but this is just a swap of equipment.
Duncan clarifies that the symmetry issue was raised recently and the DRB approved the plan as it is now without ever expressing concern about the symmetry. She iterates that this is an existing situation that was approved and the change probably doesn’t warrant going back.
Vickers: Motion to approve the change of the antennas as proposed without sending this to the DRB, seconded by Baldini. Passes 4-1. Mitnik votes in opposition.
2. 217-219 Essex Street (Eastern Bank Building): Discussion of proposed wireless facilities
Heather Carlisle, with Goodman Networks, presents the plan on behalf of Clear Wire, stating that they will be making the whole city of Salem a wireless hot spot, and they are targeting both residential and commercial customers for this seamless wireless technology. She adds that Sprint is a majority shareholder in the Clear Wire company.
Brennan asks if she needs to go through the NEPA process, and Heather Carlisle states that she is not aware that she needs to do this.
Carlisle says they are swapping out the antennas, replacing three of them and adding four backhaul antennas, mounting them to the stub tower on the rooftop.
Brennan states that you can’t see anything from Essex Street, but you can see it from the Farmers’ Market area if there are no trees there.
Duncan states that the difference between this and the previous application is that there are four new backhaul antennas being added. She says that the SRA could approve this subject to the DRB review and they won’t need to return to this Board.
Brennan asks if there are any stealth antennas and Carlisle states that they don’t have any stealth antennas but they could paint them or they could implement a stealth screen.
Mitnik states that the screen might make it appear bigger.
Mitnik: Motion to approve this plan, seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
Sign, Awning, and Lighting Review
4. 133 Washington Street (Puleo’s Ice Cream): Discussion and vote on proposed exterior lighting
Duncan states that this has been reviewed and approved with conditions by the DRB. She lists all of the DRB’s conditions:
- The owner will move the siren to align with the column;
- The fixtures will be spaced evenly across the white band;
- The fixtures will be centered vertically on the band; and
- The fixtures will be black
Brennan: Motion to approve this design as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 5-0.
5. 28 Norman Street (Georgia’s Pizza): Discussion and vote on proposed signage
Duncan states that there are two signs (one on the building and one on the pole) and this has been reviewed and approved with conditions by the DRB. She lists the conditions:
- The pole and bracket will be black’
- The sign contents will be shrunk to allow for a larger perimeter;
- “Georgia’s” will be brought down; and
- The name on the wall sign will be smaller.
Mitnik states that there is a sign on the pole that is not authorized.
Duncan states that the Land-O-Lakes sign is down.
Connelly states that this was considered a freestanding sign and it was not permitted in the SRA district.
Vickers states that they might wish to look into this.
Duncan states that staff can confirm this. She suggests an approval pending the determination of the legality of the freestanding sign.
Mitnik: Motion to approve this design with the recommendations by the DRB, pending the determination of the legality of the freestanding sign, seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
6. 281 Essex Street (Get in Shape for Women): Discussion of proposed signage
Duncan states that this has not yet been reviewed by the DRB, but this business is opening this month. She suggests approval pending DRB review and approval, or it could come back to the SRA in October. She adds that the screening is for privacy.
Vickers: Motion to approve this design, pending DRB review, seconded by Baldini. Passes 5-0.
Approval of Minutes – August 12, 2009 Meeting
Baldini: Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
Mitnik: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Connelly. Passes 5-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 7:14 p.m.
| 
