City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday April 14, 2010, at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Michael Brennan, Robert Mitnik, Michael
Connelly, Russell Vickers, Conrad Baldini
Members Absent:
Others Present: Director of Planning and Development Lynn Duncan and Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder: Lindsay Howlett
Chairperson Michael Brennan calls the meeting to order.
Executive Director’s Report
Duncan reports there is a letter from New Boston Ventures with the update on the restaurant. Duncan adds they are negotiating a lease with a potential restaurateur, and they hope to have a lease in place by the end of the month before the deadline with their lender.
Daniel adds they had their first open house for marketing the units and they had three thousand people show up. Daniel states currently there are six units leased.
Duncan states the third and final public meeting for the parking study for discussion of potential recommendations will be held on Tuesday, April 27th.
Daniel states since the last public meeting in early February there have been a series of briefings with various stakeholders who have provided feedback. Daniel adds that feedback has been forwarded to the consultants and has been incorporated into their report. Daniel states, there continues to be positive sentiments about it with businesses, Chamber of Commerce, and Main Streets. Daniel adds the final report will be coming in this week and they will proceed from there.
Duncan states that for the feasibility study at 5 Broad Street they do have a draft final report from which they have made a few minor edits. Duncan adds the final report of the study will be used to put together requests for proposals. Duncan further adds they will work closely with the SRA on the criteria. Duncan states they will need to figure out if the City Council is interested in getting a briefing on the feasibility study and if so, that may be the next step.
Brennan asks if the City is still a potential user of the building.
Duncan states that all of the departments do not fit but there, and two departments would need to be located elsewhere. In addition, it is not efficient for employees to access City Hall and if citizens need to go to city hall then to a department, it is unlikely they would walk and would need to move their car. It is not a good way for residents to have to conduct business with the City.
Brennan notes that before it goes out to bid, we need to know if the City wants to use it. If so, there is no need to go out to bid.
Duncan states at the last public meeting there were three City Council members who acknowledged it was not going to be a good place to move the City Hall Annex. Duncan wants to determine if the whole Council would like to get a briefing on it to make sure that everyone is in agreement.
Brennan asks to take a minute to acknowledge a great friend Michael Connelly who has resigned from the SRA due to having moved out of the city. Brennan adds for the record he was a great board member, did a great job, did his homework, and we will miss working with him.
Daniel states they do have a certificate for him from the Mayor.
Duncan will work with Mayor to get a new appointment.
Brennan states the need for an election of a new treasurer.
Daniel states there is at least one candidate, Russ Vickers to serve in that capacity.
Baldini: Nominates Russell Vickers to serve as new treasurer, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 4-0.
Development Project Review
Small Project Review
1. 141 Washington Street: Discussion of proposed removal of four chimneys
Richard Pabich is present to represent the trustees of the condominiums. Pabich states ever since the demolition of the old Salem News building about two years ago, the four chimneys at 141 Washington Street have begun to leak, and there is a real problem now. Pabich adds the trustees of the condominium think the best solution is to remove the chimneys and make the rooflines homogeneous.
Brennan states he reads four but can only see three and wants to confirm the count.
Pabich states you cannot see the fourth in this photo.
Brennan asks if the chimneys will be taken below the roof line.
Pabich replies they will be capped off, proper shielding and insulation will be installed and then the roof will be re-shingled.
Brennan states it has to be one of his favorite buildings in town and that his heart broke when he read the request. Brennan adds the importance of the architectural symmetry as well as having so many chimneys of distinction downtown. Brennan adds there are old pictures in this lobby and unfortunately a lot of these buildings are now lost.
Brennan states at a minimum he would like to get this to the DRB to have their input but his personal point of view is not to touch it and thinks Historic Salem would agree.
Pabich responds the cost weatherproofing 200 year old non-functioning chimneys are an annual fee of $1,600. He adds the cost of removing the chimneys is the same but is a one time cost. Pabich further adds that the condominium will be facing that kind of cost year after year if they stay, and this is a permanent solution.
Baldini states the he sympathizes with trustees of the condominium understanding it will be an ongoing problem as the chimneys will suck up the rain and bring it right down into the homes.
Vickers agrees that he is sympathetic of the problem. Vickers asks if the trustees for the condominium are the actual condo owners.
Pabich replies yes
Vickers responds since essentially these are the owners of the facility, if it were he, he would want a permanent solution.
Pabich adds the issue has been reoccurring for years now and the condominium owners want to get rid of the problem.
Duncan asks Mitnik if he is aware of any alternative solutions.
Mitnik replies the chimneys are a significant part of what defines the building’s character. Mitnik adds he is aware the chimneys do not function but neither do the railings on the top of the building and that overall a lot of architecture character is non functioning. Mitnik adds if the chimneys are removed an apparent change in character will occur. Mitnik thinks there are probably other solutions then spending $1,200 a year for annual repairs.
Mitnik suggests having a mason look at the work needed and/or also a professional opinion before taking things in their own hands.
Pabich replies they have had masons look at it.
Mitnik states a lot of people say architectural details require new paint every year, so they just put aluminum over it then all of a sudden moldings are gone. Mitnik is trying to make a point to the character of the building being lost.
Pabich states there were three or four chimneys on Derby Square that were rebuilt in 1973 by the SRA and are now perfectly fine.
Mitnik suggests using through cooper flashing over the base of the chimney, close it off at the bottom and continue through. Mitnik adds if the water comes in through the brick, allow for weep holes.
Baldini comments that bricks can act like sponges every time it rains.
Pabich states maybe there is historical money that may be able to restore it.
Daniel confirms it will cost $400 a chimney every year for the annual maintenance cost.
Daniel asks to clarify that the problem has been since the Salem News building was demolished.
Pabich states there is no way to prove it but the demolition of that building did create a seismic event and ever since they have dealt with the leaks from the chimneys. Pabich confirms the chimneys were fine prior to the demolition of the Salem News building.
Mitnik states he does not know why they can’t cap the top and do the flashing.
Pabich adds the water is not coming from the top of the chimney openings but rather through the bricks as seen in the photos.
Duncan responds the bricks have not changed in the past two years however so it seems that something else must have changed, like the mortar or cracks but not the bricks.
Mitnik responds if the flashing goes all the way through the water will not be able to get into the building.
Pabich replies the chimneys are 30’ high and he does not quite understand how the flashing Mitnik describes could be done.
Brennan states they are so pro-downtown and this building is so fantastic and Historic Salem would agree. He suggests exploring another way to stop the leaks.
Vickers adds that there may be other people who may have ideas about what could be done as a fix as he is hearing some attempts at fixes have been unsuccessful.
Duncan suggests additional input from the Design Review board but also thinks it would be helpful to provide the SRA with additional information about what methods have been pursued in the past to fix the issue. Duncan adds perhaps there is an approach that has not been considered and that would be feasible. Duncan suggests forwarding this request to the DRB and perhaps further information could be submitted to the DRB about what methods have already been pursued.
Pabich states they can do that and have had roofers confirm it is not a roof problem.
Pabich states the solution is to take them down, or re-point them all at an astronomical cost for something that is non-functional. Pabich adds the cost to take the chimneys down is $1200 per chimney totaling $4800, per two estimates the condominium received.
Daniel states there are other options. He adds that there is aesthetic value to leaving the chimneys there and clearly there is economical value to the people living there and we have to work it out.
Brennan asks at a minimum can we send this to the DRB. Additional information from the DRB could be helpful.
Brennan asks who can they have review this issue.
Daniel replies as Duncan has proposed. If 141 Washington Street is able to document what they have already looked at for solutions and submit that to the Design Review Board and if Mitnik could put his idea on paper as well, then the Design Review Board could evaluate what had been done and explore another alternative and report back at the next meeting.
Brennan adds this issue needs to be sent to the DRB as it is pretty significant.
Mitnik: Motion to refer this to the DRB; seconded by Baldini. Passes 3-0; Vickers abstains.
- Café Valverde: Outdoor Café permit
Daniel states they went into the space previously occupied by Fuel. The DRB really liked the color; it ties well with their sign. The proposal is for three tables in front, and the alley is being cleaned up with three tables.
Brennan has no problem with the courtyard. Brennan states his only thought was that there was not enough information for him to understand it. Brennan states with the tables and chairs, it looked like it was so far out from the building that it would force people out from the side of the building onto the cobblestones and he thinks that would create a problem for people in wheelchairs. Brennan adds he thinks it is too far from out from the front of the building.
Daniel states it is similar to how Fuel had their seating and it is possible to walk around them without going onto the cobblestone inside the bollards.
Duncan clarifies the people would actually walk between the tables and the building and the tables are up against the cobblestone.
Mitnik states it would be nice to maintain a minimum of a five foot walking area at these outdoor seating areas so that two people can walk past these tables. Mitnik adds the dimensions were very hard to read.
Vickers adds at the light post and sign he does not think one of the tables will fit as shown in the plans.
Brennan states that table is right where the lamp post is located.
Daniel replies the DRB discussed this plan and understood there would be adjustments made in the field so instead focused on the critical requirements of maintaining at minimum a 36” wide level surface which is shown.
Baldini asks if the plan is much different from other plans they have previously approved at this location.
Daniel replies no.
Duncan states the SRA approval should be clear to state a required minimum 36” wide access way between the building and the tables should be maintained.
Mitnik states the door opening outward into the access way will create a problem as there will be no room for people to walk around the door.
Daniel adds there are other areas in town where that issue occurs.
Mitnik replies it’s a liability problem.
Duncan proposes a wider width at the door opening. Duncan states part of the problem with the plan is it has been shrunk down and is hard to read.
Brennan adds there are more issues with the plan not showing the lights or the bollards.
Duncan suggests removing one chair may allow for a wider width at the door. Mitnik suggests turning the tables at 45 degrees which is thought to be a better idea.
Duncan responds there may be ways to move the table and chair to adjust for that on site.
Duncan opens the comments to the public present.
Jack Harris, co-chair of the Commission on Disabilities, states that part of the problem the Commission sees with the outdoor seating is maintaining that 36” walkway. Harris adds when you have tables in a situation like this, ultimately those chairs get moved around and the restaurant people need to make sure that access way stays clear. Harris states the second issue is when the doors open. Harris adds especially when people who are visually impaired follow the building line, they are apt to run into those doors. Harris states the Commission on Disabilities is going to start to recommend that those doors swing all the way open against the building side. Harris states they are highly aware of some of the restaurants requiring contiguous seating because of liquor licenses but they are also going to
try deal with that. Harris states the fourth issue is liability, ultimately if disabled people encounter some of these problems they can file a complaint with the state and if the state finds that complaint legitimate, in some cases they can levy fines against the restaurant of up to a $1,000 a day for that particular violation.
Brennan asks if they are given opportunity to correct that violation.
Harris replies yes.
Harris states the biggest problem now is fighting one state regulation against another and how that is going to fall down. Harris is sure the City will run into people filing complaints. The Commission on Disabilities recommends maintaining 36” clearance and ensuring the chairs do not get moved into that space.
Duncan asks to clarify the door swinging out all the way against the building vs. having it propped open. Harris replies he is referring to instances when the door is propped open and though it is not in violation of the clear 36” it will create a problem for disabled individuals trying to get by.
Mitnik references the accessibility guidelines requiring a five foot clearance at both means of egress dependant upon approach.
Duncan states the accessibility issue does not come under the SRA but rather under the building inspector who does enforce the Architectural Access Board code.
Duncan states they do not have the information to say if it is an accessible entrance or not.
Mitnik: Motion to approve the plan as submitted making sure it meets all the standards of the building codes for the state of Massachusetts. Seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0.
Duncan excuses herself from the meeting.
- Adriatic: Discussion and proposal of outdoor dining.
Daniel states the yellow existing planters were approved for the Edgewater, and the Adriatic plans to use them temporarily. Daniel adds eventually they would like to move towards a custom built metal planter. Daniel further states when they were at the DRB they were hoping to have them installed by this summer but it looks like that will be delayed.
Daniel adds the DRB recommended approving the existing ones and requiring they be repainted to match the building. When they are ready to switch over to the metal ones, they will need to come in with a detail of what that is.
Baldini: Motion as recommended, seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0.
- Mudd Puddle Toys: Discussion proposed signage and exterior paint
Daniel states last month the SRA reviewed new windows and a new door and today the Board is looking at their signage proposal. The DRB liked it because it was playful and fun and yet appropriate for the context. Daniel adds the blue umbrella on the blade sign will be a three dimensional piece. Daniel further adds the DRB had a couple of tweaks which have been incorporated into this design.
Vickers: Motion to approve proposed signage and exterior paint as proposed, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 4-0.
Approval of Minutes: March 10, 2010 regular meeting minutes.
Mitnik: Motion to approve the meeting minutes, seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0.
Daniel presented a conceptual review of a sign for the new business, Omen, that is not on the agenda. The SRA will review the sign in depth at the next formal meeting.
Adjournment:
Baldini: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0.
| 
