City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday April 13, 2011 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Michael Brennan, Russell Vickers, Robert Mitnik
Members Absent: Conrad Baldini, Robert Curran
Executive Director and City Planner Lynn Duncan
Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder: Lindsay Howlett
Chairperson Michael Brennan calls the meeting to order.
Executive Director’s Report
Daniel states Duncan sends her regards and regrets this evening. Daniel states the City Council meeting will be held on April 21st to discuss the outdoor seating ordinance.
Daniel states they had their fourth workshop meeting to discuss the Essex Street Pedestrian mall. Daniel states they will be applying later this month for a $100,000 NEA grant. Daniel adds the discussion has been great and has touched upon how the mall will be managed.
Daniel states the Parking Study working group presented the eleven recommendations to the Council last week. Daniel adds they asked for a few tweaks based on testimony from some of the surrounding residents. Daniel further adds they will be reconvening to vet those items and will go before the City Council next month.
Daniel states there were a group of planners in town yesterday from all over the country who were really glad to see a community doing so well despite the economy. Daniel adds this group was looking at lessons to bring back to their own towns.
Vickers asks if the Council discussed the one out of eight parking spaces.
Daniel responds the Parking Study’s objective is to have one out of eight spaces open per block.
Vickers asks if that was ever adopted.
Daniel responds it was actually adopted back in September as the outcome they wanted to see and since September they have been working on plans to get Salem there.
Old/New Business
Small Project Review
- 3 Lafayette Street (Mike’s Museum): Discussion of proposed temporary mural and signage
Mike Lash is present on behalf of Mike’s Museum. The board reviews a previously submitted signage and wall art proposal dated April 2, 2011 and April 3, 2011. The proposal includes sign drawings, a plan, and images of art.
Daniel states Lash is an artist, art dealer and former public arts director for the city of Chicago for thirteen years prior. Lash is moving to Salem and also looking to open a gallery in town. Daniel states Mike’s Museum is located in the Salem laundry building, on the right hand side along Lafayette street where there is currently just storage space. Daniel states there are two parts of the proposal.
Daniel states the first part is signage; somewhat a-typical where the windows will be displaying ever-changing art with a simple sign on the panel adjacent to the art. Daniel states another element to the signage proposal is a free standing sign that is currently located in the Laundromat parking lot. Daniel adds if it is permitted, Lash would like to use one side of the pre-existing panel to advertise his gallery.
Daniel states free standing signs are prohibited in this area but Daniel did some research and this sign likely predates the Urban Renewal Area.
Lash pointed out that he is technically not adding any sign area.
Daniel states this would require the SRA to affirmably state the free-standing panel as acceptable before it goes before the DRB.
Daniel states the second part of Lash’s proposal is to turn the large, currently blank garage door into a piece of art that would change on a monthly basis from April to October. Daniel states Lash would manage and fund that effort.
Brennan asks if it would be done by various artists.
Lash confirms yes and adds there would be no words, no graffiti style art but rather would be done by muralists. Lash adds the mural would face Artists’ Row and thinks this would be a nice way to get people to cross the street. Lash adds it would create some nice interest to the area as well. Lash clarifies the art would be confined to just the door area.
Lash states there are four spaces in this building, the Laundromat and three areas of storage. Lash states he will be in the brick building portion. Lash states he will enter through the door adjacent to the Laundromat.
Vickers thinks it is great.
Brennan asks where the large sign will be.
Lash states windows are great for art galleries and/or museums but in front of his windows he is going to building two 2’x8’ tall plywood panels facing out. Lash adds the signage would be silk screened on half of the panel, no more than 3’ wide, and the other half would feature art.
Lash adds there is no physical sign and is generally just a type face. Lash further adds he felt this approach was kind of museum-like and classic. Lash states he thinks it will be easy to recognize and traditional.
Brennan asks Daniel if there are any thoughts about approving the rotating art on the garage door.
Daniel responds this is similar to the art proposal for the utility box at Gulu Gulu. Daniel is recommending Executive Director Lynn Duncan look at the proposed art each month.
Lash anticipates every piece to have a pre-approved drawing and the artist would have to confine to the available size area. Lash prefaces the proposal by stating not everyone will like the art but hopes it will stir up conversation but not problems.
Brennan states the DRB will want to see more from the proposal, like the storefronts, sign and colors.
Vickers adds this proposal is interesting though because its signage is not on the outside, but rather on the inside of the building.
Daniel adds it is still signage though because it is visible from the street.
Lash states he is trying to do a classy pop up gallery.
Brennan asks how Lash chose Salem as his next destination.
Lash states he followed his wife from Chicago, and because of the economy his roles for art have been cut in Chicago. Lash adds he had started Mike’s Museum in Chicago and his wife has since changed companies. Lash further adds they live in Malden but kept coming to Salem instead of Boston. Lash states there are no contemporary galleries in Salem. Lash adds Salem looked good, felt fresh, and is supported by a community that seems to be very open to various concepts. Lash further adds he thinks Mike’s Museum could fit in really nicely. Lash states it is a commercial gallery/retail business.
Vickers: Motion to approve the proposal with the inclusion of using the garage door for a new mural every month of which the DRB would review the murals art concept and the Executive Director will review the art, and to approve the free standing sign as proposed, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 3-0.
- 4 Central Street (1805 Custom House): Discussion of proposed walkway and retaining wall replacement.
Nick Driscoll is present on behalf of 1805 Custom House. The board reviews a previously submitted proposal dated March 23, 2011. The proposal includes a letter and plan drawings.
Daniel states this proposal is before the SRA because the existing condition surface is brick and the proposal is to change the brick surface to a broom-finish concrete. Daniel states the structure has begun to fail and is currently in the state where a delivery truck could hit it.
Driscoll adds there is a bow that shows about 50-60 brick on the verge of falling forward. Driscoll states he has done some small patch work in the last 5-6 years but the condition currently beyond the patching point. Driscoll adds the bricks on the walk do not have mortar in between them, just a sand or stone dust material swept in between. Driscoll further states that is why they are looking for a material change, to maintain the sides as brick and to change the top to concrete.
Mitnik states if there is any compressions the proposed wall will self support but if there is any settlement the wall may just go with it. Mitnik wonders if settlement occurs, what prevents the surface to tilt. Mitnik adds the drawings are by a civil engineer and not a structural engineer and thinks it should be looked at by a structural engineer.
Driscoll states there are rebar and ties into the wall and thinks the engineer on board may be structural as well but will confirm.
Mitnik asks what holds the wall against the existing building.
Driscoll states they wouldn’t want a cold joint with caulking up against the building as it wouldn’t bond. Driscoll confirms that is a question for their engineer.
Driscoll adds the real purpose for having concrete has to do with the integrity of wall as concrete is necessary for structural slab.
Mitnik would hope the building inspector would pick it up.
Daniel states he will bring it up to the Inspector and the DRB.
Mitnik – Motion to approve and refer to the DRB, seconded by Vickers – passes 3-0.
Sign, Awning, and Lighting Review
- 196 Essex Street (Café Valverde): Discussion of proposed portable sign
Daniel states last June the City Council adopted a portable sign ordinance.
Brennan states he visited the site and it is well within the permissible location. Brennan adds there are no obstructions and it is within the proper locations.
Vickers states the SRA should think about more standardization within this area. Vickers adds they will probably find others coming along and perhaps the board may want to explore some standardization.
Daniel states discussions have been had about identical a-frame signs vs. too radical in differences, but nothing has been concluded.
Mitnik states it’s not just a sign its street furniture. Mitnik adds he hates the white plastic things and if the frame was standardized, that would be similar to the City’s signage and street furniture regulations.
Daniel adds that is something the ordinance does not require and most of the businesses proposing on portable signs are those who have had always had portable signs.
Mitnik asks about the sign committee he served on.
Daniel states the City sign committee previously established by the Mayor to review the way-finding systems, still exists but has not met in a while because there has been no money to move forward with their next phase. Daniel adds that entity is looking for way-finding and these private business signs are beyond the scope of what that committee was set up for.
Daniel states there are some noted offenders who have had three or four signs posted but that is starting to go away.
Vickers: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 3-0.
Brennan notes he was coming over the bridge and on the right hand sign on top of the bridge is a beautiful Peabody Essex Museum sign. Brennan adds, and right behind it is an almost hand-painted huge white sign on North Street that reads ‘Witches Dungeon.’
Brennan asks if it can be removed.
Daniel states it is outside the SRA area and was apparently approved by a previous administration.
- 72 Washington Street (re-find): Discussion of proposed signage
The board reviews a previously submitted signage proposal dated March 23, 2011. The proposal includes photos and the sign drawing.
Daniel states the DRB liked the proposal and just wanted to add some more space to the bottom of the sign. Daniel adds they will be selling furniture and clothing, 50% of which is new and 50% of which is resold, not consignment.
Brennan states the signage is keeping within the sight lines of the other signs.
Mitnik: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Vickers. Passes 3-0.
- 118 Washington Street (Café Polonia): Discussion of proposed signage
The board reviews a previously submitted signage proposal dated March 23, 2011. The proposal includes photos, a plan, and cutsheet.
Daniel states one of the portions of the proposal is to install a menu board adjacent to their entrance, and the other a portable sign. Daniel adds the menu sign is a simple wooden box, in keeping with the interior aesthetic of their restaurant, and is to serve their customers walking by.
Daniel states the DRB has noted the top insert panel shown on top of the proposed a-frame sign would not be permitted per the ordinance. Daniel adds this proposed a-frame sign is actually smaller than most of the other portable signs out there. Daniel further adds the placement of the sign would not be on the grass but instead on the sidewalk.
Brennan states Upper Crust has taken some liberties in that area, with their bike, and an a-frame sign sometimes on the grass.
Daniel states Gulu Gulu has stopped putting theirs on the grass.
Brennan states they are going to have possibly three a-frame signs; Gulu Gulu, Upper Crust, and Café Polonia in a city park and asks if there is such things that are not allowed in a city park. Brennan adds three a-frames can begin to look like urban clutter in a small area like that and asks if the other two will come in shortly for a-frame permits.
Daniel responds if the building department starts enforcing the ordinance than yes.
Brennan states he will start enforcing the ordinance.
Mitnik thinks there needs to be a five foot clearance in front of the businesses and does not have a problem with the portable signs as long as they are on the sidewalk with enough clearance.
Brennan asks what Mitnik thinks about a consistency of style among these three.
Mitnik responds he has no issue with their differences, and thinks someone could make the argument that having a business in a park isn’t park-like either. Mitnik adds once there is a business there, keep it like an urban street.
Vickers adds maybe that is the distinction. Vickers asks about benefit to standardize the portable sign frames.
Mitnik responds you could say that but each has their own planters and all are in fairly good taste and therefore it does not bother him.
Daniel states the table and chairs each business have are also different to reflect each business.
Vickers asks the purpose of the a-frame sign.
Daniel states it would list the specials of the day.
Mitnik states a-frame signs are not designed to the extent of the planters and furniture and that’s the problem.
Daniel adds this one is not a white background but instead will have a chalkboard background.
Vickers suggests challenging the DRB, asking if there is a need for some quality standards we would want to use judging this or future signs; should there be a standard when thinking of the proximity of them. Vickers further suggests having some guidance or agreeing to follow none.
The board agrees.
Vickers: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, explicitly in terms of sign design and location, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 3-0.
- 50 St. Peter Street (Great Escape Restaurant and Old Salem Jail): Discussion of proposed signage
The board reviews an updated proposal previously submitted dated March 23, 2011. The proposal includes photos and the sign renderings.
Daniel states they dropped the large sign on the fence and embraced the SRA’s idea for a perpendicular sign. Daniel adds they also removed the sign going up the steps from their proposal.
Daniel states there is a blade type sign coming off the post on their property but seen from St. Peters Street, hanging eight feet above sidewalk. Daniel adds it is not large, but the proposal does not include the dimensions, it may be three feet in length.
Daniel adds there will be a simple directional sign at the stairway up from St. Peter Street and the access driveway off of Bridge Street would have a large post with a sign that states ‘Drop-off and Pickup only.’
Daniel states the restaurant would like to take the signs put up by the city down, and instead put up this nice sign and add no parking to it.
Daniel states the handicapped access path sign was removed from the granite application and instead moved to its own post. Daniel states the last portion of the proposal includes an a-frame sign to be located in the front driveway area, with the same design as proposed in the first review, though it is not included in tonight’s packet.
Vickers recalls they previously approved it being more than ten feet from the building.
Vickers: Motion to approve the recommendation from the DRB, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 3-0.
- 144 Washington Street (The Urbane Cyclist): Discussion of proposed signage
The board reviews a previously submitted signage proposal package dated March 23, 2011.
Daniel states The Urbane Cyclist has just moved onto Washington Street and they are planning to relocate their blade sign from its old location and to have simple lettering on the building that matches the building standard. Daniel states it looks great and is really visible now.
Mitnik: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Vickers. Passes 3-0.
Minutes
Daniel states he neglected to include the meeting minutes in the board members packets and will cover them next meeting.
~
Adjournment
~
Vickers: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 3-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:07pm.
| 
