City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday March 9, 2011 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Michael Brennan, Robert Curran, Conrad Baldini, Russell Vickers, Robert Mitnik
Members Absent:
Others Present: Executive Director and City Planner Lynn Duncan
Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder: Lindsay Howlett
Chairperson Michael Brennan calls the meeting to order.
Executive Director’s Report
Essex Street Pedestrian Mall Design Study:
Duncan states Mitnik and Vickers were at the Essex Street Pedestrian Mall’s third forum yesterday evening. Duncan and Daniel would like to suggest moving the regular SRA meeting in April to sometime before the fourth Essex Street Pedestrian Mall forum. Mitnik suggests a special meeting on March 30th, the board agrees.
Parking Management Plan:
The board agrees to hold the parking management plan presentation until after the discussions of the signage and small project proposals.
~
Sign, Awning, and Lighting Review
- 50 St. Peter Street (Great Escape Restaurant and Old Salem Jail): Discussion and vote on proposed signage
Shane Andruskiewicz, Jonathan Parkes and Christopher Slater are present on behalf of the Great Escape Restaurant. The board reviews the signage proposal dated March 4th. The proposal includes sign plans and photos.
Parkes states the goal of the proposed signage package is to direct the residents of Salem to the exhibit space and the restaurant.
Daniel summarizes each sign being proposed and what exceptions are being sought:
Sign A is defined as a free standing sign, purposed to increase the visibility from St. Peter Street; per the Urban Renewal Area guidelines free standing signs are prohibited. Sign A would require an exception from the SRA.
Sign B is a directional sign but contains the Great Escape logo and name. Sign B would require a exception per the Urban Renewal Area and would also need a variance to comply with the City Ordinance.
Sign C is adequate as proposed.
Sign D is defined as an A-frame sign which is required to be within ten feet from the building per the ordinance, however on this site that would not make sense. Sign D would require a variance for its proposed location.
Sign E is directing people to the accessible entrance at the exhibit space and the restaurant space and is adequate as proposed.
An additional ‘No Parking Sign’ is proposed to be mounted on a pole, at the mouth of the bypass road per the requirements from the city engineer and is adequate as proposed.
Brennan asks if patrons are currently using the service drive to drop people off or park in.
Andruskiewicz states yes.
Councilor Sosnowski states the city just passed an ordinance last month stating no parking allowed anytime tow zone in the problematic area which will begin to be enforced next month and will therefore not need a sign posted by the Great Escape.
Sosnowski states he would support the restaurant’s option to have a second entrance into the restaurant almost opposite to the Morency Building where a new sidewalk could be created.
Slater provides a sample of the aluminum sign and describes it as having simple text as to not distract from the existing architecture with gray color to compliment the existing building color. Slater adds one of the signs will clamp onto the fence and sign E will be mounted on the granite pier with screws. Slater further adds sign B and C would be mounted to the fence with a back plate and pressure mounted bolts.
Daniel asks about lighting on site.
Slater states it is his understanding at some point light will be added to shine on sign A.
Mitnik states the restaurant is hard to upon arrival and wonders if sign B should be further down the street, towards the corner instead of right next to sign C, to ensure patrons maintain the correct path.
Mitnik suggests a blade sign perpendicular to the fence to assist with turning that corner.
Brennan and Baldini agree.
Brennan agrees he is also not too keen on the placement of sign B.
Daniel states they would need at least 8’ height clearance for a blade like sign.
Slater states since the site drops that would likely be at eye level upon patron approach and agrees it is a good idea.
Additionally Mitnik is not sure what they will gain from sign A.
Brennan agrees.
Vickers agrees with the comment about the two signs being next to each other seeming redundant. Vickers thinks the need for sign A is worthy of further discussion.
Mitnik states he thinks it worth a walk through.
Baldini summarizes the discussions; the board agrees the signs are fine but they are more dissatisfied with the placements.
The board agrees.
The board suggests sign B to be located at the corner and be a two sided blade sign attached to the fence and thinks sign A won’t be visible by pedestrians and therefore may not be necessary.
Duncan states this proposal is a little different as they are seeking exceptions to Urban Renewal requirements.
Duncan states if the SRA approves exceptions to the Urban Renewal requirements for this proposal, the proposal would then go to the DRB for further approval. Duncan adds the Great Escape is proposing their need for the exceptions because it is not fully functioning as a downtown restaurant and there is still a need for additional signage
Baldini states sign A is for automobiles.
Daniel summarizes the exceptions being requested as:
- Sign A is a large sign attached to the fence which would be classified as a freestanding sign. Freestanding signs are prohibited in the urban renewal area.
- Sign B’s purpose is directional and is not a primary sign for the business but because it does have advertising on it, it counts as a third sign when only two are permitted per business. Additionally sign B could be considered freestanding and would require a variance from the ZBA.
Councilor Sosnowski asks Andruskiewicz if sign A is intended for pedestrian or automobile.
Andruskiewicz states both.
Sosnowski thinks Mitnik had a good idea about the location of sign B and suggests an ornamental bracket be used but suggests sign D would be better at this location. Sosnowski additionally suggests rotating the lettering ninety degrees on the existing vertical panel signs to aid in registering the restaurant’s name quicker.
Vickers asks what the matter is before the SRA.
Duncan states the SRA normally grants the exceptions for signs that require them and then the proposals are presented before the DRB who will work it out and send their recommendations back to the SRA for final approval. Otherwise, Duncan adds, the SRA could approve the signage package with any DRB conditions to prevent it coming back to the SRA for their second review.
Duncan adds part of this package would also need to go to the ZBA for an additional variance.
Vickers would like to see it back after the DRB reviews the package.
Vickers: Motion to agree to three exceptions; freestanding sign A, more than two signs per one business (sign B) and that sign D can be located more than 10’ from the door; package to go before the DRB and then return to the SRA for final review, seconded by Baldini. Passes 5-0.
~
Small Project Review
~
- 201 Washington Street ( Hawthorne Building ): Discussion and vote on proposed entrance
Alex Schnip is present on behalf of the Hawthorne Building. The board reviews the small project proposal dated February 10th, 2011.
Daniel states Schnip is seeking approval for a new entrance at 201 Washington Street to turn the space into a more usable retail space as opposed to a first floor office space.
Schnip adds it will look exactly like the existing Starbucks entry.
Daniel states the proposal has already been recommended by the DRB.
Baldini: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Curran. Passes 5-0.
Executive Director’s Report
Parking Management Plan:
Daniel presents the Parking Management Plan to the board.
Sosnowski responds it was a great presentation.
Sosnowski states the parking management plans answers the concerns of the folks living on Lynde Street. Sosnowski adds it sounds nice and he likes the idea.
Sosnowski adds he has been hearing mixed reports of how successful the Church Street lot, automated meter kiosk lot has been.
~
Adjournment
~
Curran: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Baldini. Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned.
| 
