City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday June 8, 2011 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Michael Brennan, Conrad Baldini, Robert Curran, Robert Mitnik
Members Absent: Russell Vickers
Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Executive Director and City Planner Lynn Duncan
Recorder: Lindsay Howlett
Chairperson Michael Brennan calls the meeting to order.
Executive Director’s Report
Duncan states they would like to defer the Executive Director’s Report as they have a number of items to discuss.
The board accepts.
Small Project Review
- One Salem Green (Salem Five Cents Savings Bank): Discussion of proposed pad mounted generator
Joseph Correnti, Joe Longo, Nick Caporale and Barry Mosher are present on behalf of Salem Five Cents Savings Bank. The board reviews plans previously submitted by Salem Five dated May 12, 2001 which include a letter, narrative description, timeline, drawings, plans, and photographs.
Daniel states the Salem Five Cents Savings Bank proposal went in front of the DRB first because of timing. Daniel adds they provided good feedback and comments but wanted to come forward tonight to give the SRA an overview of what they’re looking to do.
Correnti states the board is looking at an application for a pad mounted generator. Correnti states they started with the DRB and were able to save a few weeks in the overall project schedule. Correnti adds they want to get the SRA’s conceptual approval tonight on the plan. Correnti states they are certainly looking at the comments the DRB had made and will be going before them again in two weeks. Correnti states ultimately the SRA will get to see what they think will be a good final result.
Caporale states Salem Five needs the generator because they are currently operating 96 servers at 210 Essex Street which is not working well as a computer room as the areas are all split up and they have computer people all over the building.
Caporale states they are committed to One Salem Green where they currently occupy three floors and are expanding onto another where they will be putting a training room and a computer room. Caporale adds in order to have a computer room they are required to provide a backup generator to make sure their power is always up and running. Caporale further adds they currently have a generator for the bank building but they can’t share that with the OSG building, as they need a standalone power supply.
Mosher states the generator is proposed to be located on the backside of the elevator tower. Mosher adds the generators are 350kw diesel generator with base fuel tank in a sound enclosure. Mosher states they did a study of what the sound would be and after it would be less than what the sound is today. Mosher adds the other equipment in that courtyard would be off and the generator would be running and it’s actually quieter than it is today.
Mosher states they located the generator here because of the line of sight, can’t see from the street, tucked against the building. Mosher adds the DRB wanted them to look at different fencing options.
Baldini asks what the fencing would be like.
Mosher responds they have originally recommended a cedar fence but the DRB wanted to dress it up and tie it into the building more. Mosher adds they are currently working with an architect to develop the design of the fence and are reviewing different options.
Brennan asks if the only time the generator will be on is when the power goes out.
Mosher responds they are recommending it comes on once a month for testing and run about thirty minutes each time. Mosher adds the sound measurements they did were running at full load/worst case, when its running under no load it will be less decibels. Mosher further adds there are no residences adjacent to the area.
Daniel states the DRB was saying you have a nice building, treat the generator as part of the building rather than an add-on piece, secondly they were looking at the location of the generator in regards to sight lines, blocking of the pedestrian path and encroach upon two of the root systems of two of the trees. As a result Daniel states the DRB recommended looking at either end of the building for alternative locations.
Brennan states the SRA doesn’t have the right to allow obstruction of a city sidewalk.
Mitnik adds the nature of the concern of the City Council will be blocking a pedestrian way.
Mosher states the exception is this is not a city sidewalk.
Brennan asks if they are going to relocate the generator.
Correnti states the area they are referring to is all owned by Salem Five and wants to be clear on that.
Brennan responds it is clear.
Correnti adds there is a city committee that is looking at the courtyard and trying to improve it and they are working with them on that. Correnti states they were asked to look at the ends of the building and that’s undergoing. Correnti adds they will show the DRB all three options on the 22nd.
Baldini asks if the freeway will always be available.
Correnti responds absolutely. Correnti orients the board where the building is located and where the generator is being proposed while referring to the plans. Correnti reiterates they will have drawings of all three options and they will get the DRB’s opinions to see what they could do. Correnti wants to clarify these are not city sidewalks.
Duncan responds they appreciate the clarification and appreciate the participation of Salem Five in this endeavor the Mayor initiated to look at this area to see if something for exciting could go on. Duncan adds Bill Goldberg, the Green Land building owner was very interested and Lyceum was very interested in seeing if there was something that could be done to improve the area.
Daniel states the proposal can be referred back to the DRB and will then return to the SRA in July.
Correnti adds a conceptual approval from the SRA is what they’re looking for.
Baldini: Motion to grant conceptual approval and refer the proposal back to the DRB, seconded by Curran. Passes 4-0.
Sign, Awning, and Lighting Review
- One Salem Green (Salem Five Cents Savings Bank): Discussion of proposed signage
Joe Longo and Nick Caporale are present on behalf of Salem Five Cents Savings Bank. The board reviews a previously submitted signage package with details and images dated May 20, 2011.
Daniel states normally signs go before the DRB before coming here but they received it in time to put it on the SRA agenda. Daniel anticipates there would be very few if any comments from the DRB, so Daniel recommends the SRA approves the proposal subject to DRB review.
Daniel states the proposal is adding a new projecting blade sign on the Church Street side that indentifies the investment services office in One Salem Green.
Baldini states he has no issues with the sign.
Mitnik: Motion to approve proposal subject to DRB review, seconded by Baldini. Passes 4-0.
- 192 Essex Street (Angels Landing): Discussion and vote on proposed signage
Barbara Szafranksi is present on behalf of Angels Landing. The board reviews a previously submitted signage proposal with sign drawings, plans, and photographs.
Daniel states this is a sign proposal for Szafranski’s new location at 192 Essex Street. Daniel states there is a wall mounted sign, window lettering, a projecting blade sign, and an a-frame sign. Daniel adds the DRB has previously reviewed this and there were adjustments to the sign area, details around the lettering and window lettering that were made.
Daniel states Szafranksi has also included neon signs which as previously discussed are prohibited within the Urban Renewal Areas except for food establishments and lodging establishments. Daniel adds he told Szafranksi she was welcome to come tonight to the SRA to discuss these issues. Daniel adds Szafranksi also has a location on Central Street that has similar neon signs. Daniel further adds these signs on Central Street are not permitted. Daniel has explained to Szafranksi they will not permit prohibited things when going through the approval process and when an applicant comes in for approval this is the City’s opportunity to rectify the situation. This has been done with other businesses.
Daniel states in this instance they are looking at neon signage that is prohibited in both locations. Daniel adds the portable sign will still have four or five aura photos which for some reason is not included in tonight’s packet. Daniel confirms the potable sign will be flush against the building.
Szafranksi agrees.
Daniel states with the exception of the neon signage everything else conforms. Daniel recommends the sign permit not be issued until the neon signs are removed from the Central Street location and the Essex Street location.
Szafranksi states she was under the impression that anything on the inside of the building is something they could control and did not realize she needed a permit for those items. Szafranksi adds she thought it was anything on the outside of the building that required a permit which is what she is trying to do now. Szafranksi states she has gone all around the City where there are other neon signs and is more than happy to show photographs she has taken. Szafranksi states Fatima is an example of a business with a neon sign.
Duncan states Fatima is outside of the Urban Renewal Area.
Szafranksi states she did this because she wants to bring to the City a very soft store; her neighbor has a big alligator and shaky guy in the window and a neon open sign. Szafranksi states her signs are not bright colors, not blinking, very soft.
Duncan states the pink neon around the windows is really unclear if it’s part of the sign or part of the display. Duncan states Daniel’s recommendation to the SRA is to say the neon around the windows are display lighting and not part of the sign. Duncan adds they may say it’s okay to keep the pink around the windows.
Baldini is sure it was a great expense.
Szafranksi states it was $3,000 for each store and she never thought this would be a problem and apologizes.
Baldini suggests putting the signs in the back part of the store.
Szafranksi responds that would completely deplete the purpose but adds they could hang it a foot from inside the window.
Daniel states a sign is something that is visible from the public right of way that is regulated by the Urban Renewal Guidelines as well as City ordinance. Daniel adds if they put it on the back wall that is something that is part of the design of the interior but even if its 6” to a foot off the window it’s still considered a sign as it can be seen from the public right of way.
Szafranksi states she thinks it’s so unfair.
Daniel cites other examples of businesses that have installed neon signs where he has explained to them that sign is not permitted and they need to remove the sign. Daniel appreciates Szafranksi spent money on it and didn’t know it wasn’t allowed. He adds this happens with other businesses. They come in, go through the process and sometimes what they’ve purchased gets denied and it’s unfortunate. Daniel states it is something that happens and Szafranski isn’t the only one this has happened to; yet the regulations are in place for good reason.
Duncan states if Szafranski’s signs were to stay then certainly the new businesses and other businesses will start putting up more neon signs and there is a reason it’s prohibited in the historic downtown.
Baldini states she has won half the battle as she can likely keep the pink borders as they are not considered signage.
Duncan agrees.
Szafranksi states they would only be turned on at night when they’re needed and adds she is trying to provide a nice store for the city. Szafranksi wants to open another store next year and doesn’t understand how she can get cut down like this.
Brennan states honestly if the SRA says yes to her neon signs then tonight they would need to change the sign law. Brennan states they can not say yes and say no to everyone else. Brennan adds there’s a reason for this ordinance in this area because it was getting blighted and there was neon all over the place. Brennan feels bad, but people have to do their homework. Brennan states if they say yes to this and then they will need to make it very clear they are allowing neon in the Urban Renewal Area and Brennan adds he is sorry but he could not vote for this to happen. Brennan adds neon has its place but it’s hideous in a historic district.
Baldini states he feels bad Szafranksi has spent all that money.
Szafranksi states their store is beautiful in the store; it’s light and airy and is all about angels and fairies.
Duncan asks if there is another way to bring light, perhaps Szafranksi could participate in the signage program and they could work with her for another alterative to bring light in. Duncan states they have a signage program where they will pay half of a sign up to a maximum so perhaps they could work with Szafranksi on another alternative.
Brennan asks where she is going to build her third store.
Szafranksi states it will likely also be somewhere downtown.
Brennan states if the third location is not in the Urban Renewal Area she could likely bring this signage there.
Duncan agrees.
Szafranksi asks where the Urban Renewal Area is.
Daniel states he could provide her a map and describes the boundaries.
Brennan states when he went to look at Szafranski’s signs he did also see the open neon sign and they have to go. There is no place for them in the Urban Renewal Area.
Baldini suggests putting the signs in the back of the stores or she gets involved in that program Duncan previously described.
Szafranksi states it’s a type of a storefront that could be easily ignored and she put them in so people could see her store. Szafranksi adds she was told she couldn’t put a website on her windows but adds if you walk down Essex Street everyone has their website on the windows. Szafranksi clarifies she is not going to put it on hers but she really feels very slighted.
Brennan states if it’s the rule it’s the rule. They have to say no and if they say yes to this then other people will come in and justifiably start saying one was allowed all should be allowed and that can’t happen. We have to get them off and that’s why they can’t say yes tonight.
Daniel states they are consistent in their approval process with websites but what happens is someone will just do it and we don’t know until someone complains. Daniel wants Szafranksi to understand in their approval process they are consistent and try to treat everyone fairly.
Duncan asks if gooseneck lights could work at this location.
Daniel states the condominium association has regulations about those types of things. Daniel adds the store does look nice as it was described.
Brennan asks what the DRB’s recommendation is.
Daniel states the DRB recommended modifications that have been made and the neon lettering is prohibited. Daniel thinks they are suggesting the pink border can be considered part of the display but the letters are clearly a sign and would need to be removed.
Brennan states that is a compromise because the border is a stretch because it is neon.
Baldini agrees.
Mitnik states he would like to review the ordinance himself.
Daniel reads the ordinance defining neon signs.
Baldini asks if it could fall under the category of entertainment. Baldini adds he feels really bad she spent so much money on it.
Daniel reiterates if her third business is outside of the Urban Renewal Area or between her other two stores there may be a another way to incorporate these signs inside the stores.
Szafranksi states placing the neon signs inside her store eliminated the purpose of those signs.
Duncan states with all of her other sign types she is able to advertise what she is offering at her store.
Curran states if this is classified as entertainment then this would be an allowable use.
Daniel responds that would be up to the building inspector to classify the service but adds in reading through the ordinance entertainment is more envisioned as a nightclub or theatre use.
Duncan agrees it would be up to the building inspector to make those decisions.
Daniel states if a national retailer came into town and wanted a neon sign they would also tell them no.
Duncan states they can have a discussion with the building inspector but the staff is saying this is not their interpretation of entertainment.
Mitnik asks about the zoning board of appeals.
Duncan responds Duncan responds that the SRA has separate jurisdiction in the Urban Renewal Area.
Szafranksi states in October and September they will be doing free things for the children and she is trying to bring things into the city children can do, not just adults.
Brennan recommends accepting the DRB’s recommendation.
Mitnik: Motion to accept the DRB’s recommendation, seconded by Curran. Passes 2-1 with Curran abstaining.
Mitnik states Szafranksi will need to take down the Séance and the Reading signs.
Daniel will speak with Szafranksi about participating in the signage program.
- 24 New Derby Street, Unit 5 (Fished Impressions): Discussion and vote on proposed signage
The board reviews a previously submitted signage proposal with sign drawing, plans, and photographs.
Daniel states this is one of two new tenants at Artists’ Row. Daniel adds the DRB thought the sign looked great. Daniel states he catches an actual fish and presses it as an ink print. Daniel further adds he put in a partial wood floor to make it appear as a fish market.
Daniel adds the DRB recommends approval as submitted.
Duncan states he actually eats the fish after so they’re not wasted.~
Baldini: Motion to accept as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Curran. Passes 4-0.
- 24 New Derby Street, Unit 1 (Serendipitish): Discussion and vote on proposed signage
The board reviews a previously submitted signage proposal with sign drawing, plans, and photographs.
Daniel states this is the second new artist this year and the DRB recommended one small tweak that has already been incorporated to tonight’s proposal. Daniel adds she is a professional belly dancer, a weaver and a textile artist.
Brennan asks how the city finds these artists.
Duncan responds the planning department does a call for artists, it’s advertised and every year it’s more and more successful. Duncan adds they do enter into a lease agreement but they don’t charge in rent so in exchange they will put on shows and do exhibitions.
Daniel states it’s a great opportunity for families to go down and have a unique experience.
Duncan adds the farmers market really adds to the vitality of this area.
Baldini: Motion to accept as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Curran. Passes 4-0.
- 245 Derby Street (Scratch Kitchen): Discussion and vote on proposed signage
The board reviews a previously submitted signage package with sign drawings, plans, and photographs.
Daniel states they are taking over Derby Deli and the lettering is meant to look like a block of butter. Daniel adds everything is made from scratch. Daniel further adds the applicant proposed two options at the DRB meeting, green letters on a white background and white letters on a green background. Daniel states the DRB chose white letters on a green background to tie into the building better and reads better.
Curran: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 4-0.~
Minutes
Approval of the minutes from the May 11, 2011 regular meetings.
Baldini: Motion to accept, seconded by Curran. Passes 4-0.~
Executive Director’s Report
Urban Renewal Plans
Duncan states the Urban Renewal Plan needs to be updated because the Heritage Plaza East is expiring as of March of 2012. Duncan thanks Brennan for participating in reviewing the proposals of the consultants. Duncan states the Cecil Group was selected who did the reuse feasibility study of the Old Salem Jail as well as other work around the City. Duncan adds one of their strengths is they have done other urban renewal plans and adds the principal of the firm Steve Cecil will be the project manager and will attend all of the meetings which was definitely not the case with a few of the other proposals.
Duncan states they are moving ahead with a contract with them. Duncan further states she will need a representative in a working group to provide direction to the consultant as needed during the day, typically monthly.
Brennan states he will be gone unfortunately.
Mitnik volunteers.
Duncan states she did take to heart about Curran’s previous comment about extending every last dollar out of the SRA’s account so she has approached the Mayor about using $15,000 in the account to leave $5,000.. Duncan states she is going forward with that now unless she hears otherwise from the Mayor.
Baldini thinks that is a great idea.
Essex Street Pedestrian Mall
Duncan states they have submitted an application for $100,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts for the redesign of the pedestrian mall and expect to hear something this month.
Parking Management Study & Art Installation
Daniel states as part of the grant application part of it looks at a public art master plan which would have policies and procedures in place which the City really doesn’t have right now.
Daniel adds they are looking to continue the utility box art from last summer, looking for sponsors.
Daniel states they had an opportunity to install four sculptures for the summer and next week they will be installed.
Baldini asks what kind of material they will be made from.
Daniel responds they will be made from stainless steel and are contemporary pieces. Daniel states it’s an opportunity to test some things out this summer in regards to feedback and locations.
Duncan emphasizes those are temporary; they are just there to test the waters.
Daniel states the parking management plan is going back to the City Council meeting next week for what they hope will be the last meeting on it. Daniel states they had a really good meeting with the Essex Street Condominium Association in late May where they addressed residents’ concerns. Daniel adds they have been able to come up with various solutions and move forward. Daniel states other issues such as management of the parking garages during October and management of snow emergencies and will need to be addressed over the summer and will go back to the Council.
Duncan states they have recommended significant changes on this to respond to residents’ concerns and thinks they have made great progress responding to that and coming up with reasonable positions.
Duncan further states the Mayor did include $200,000 to the new technology and capital improvement program that still needs to be approved by City Council.
Adjournment
Mitnik: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Baldini. Passes 4-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:00 pm.
| 
