City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Salem Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday August 13, 2014 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Robert Mitnik, Conrad Baldini, Robert Curran, Russell Vickers, Grace Harrington
Members Absent:
Others Present: Andrew Shapiro
Recorder: Jennifer Pennell
Chairperson Robert Mitnik calls the meeting to order. Roll call was taken.
Executive Director’s Report
Andrew Shapiro noted that Executive Director Lynn Duncan was not able to be at this evening’s meeting but that he would provide a brief update on the status of the court complexes. He noted that based on feedback provided by the Board and the public at the last SRA meeting, a letter with specific recommendations for warm mothballing of the Superior Court Complex was drafted coming from Chairman Mitnik to the architecture firm handling providing such recommendations to the Commonwealth’s Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM). Mr. Shapiro noted that he would follow up with that firm to see if a copy of the final report could be shared with the Board.
Old/New Business
Shapiro commented that the SRA now has authority to move forward on the disposition of the District Court building because the legislature passed house bill 2838. Secretary Galvin is said to have interest in the Superior Court Complex, therefor the legislation to convey it to the SRA has not moved forward. Language in the District Court legislation regarding the SRA receiving half of the proceeds from any future sale of the property was removed, hence the SRA will not be the beneficiary of any proceeds, other than to cover certain costs associated with the disposition. Shapiro concluded noting that an request for proposals (RFP) would be drafted for the disposition of the District Court and that the Department of Planning and Community Development would hope to share it with the SRA in the coming
months.
Ms. Harrington inquired as to whether formal local approval of any conveyance was required. Shapiro responded by noting that DCAMM would not formally convey the property to the SRA until a development proposal was executed, which would occur at a later time. He noted that Lynn Duncan may be able to provide more information on the need for any such formal conveyance.
Ms. Harrington then referred to a memorandum of agreement (MOA) that had been drafted to facilitate the conveyance process. Shapiro noted that Ms. Duncan had questioned the need for an MOA after this explicit legislation had been drafted and passed.
Vickers commented that he did not feel an MOA would be needed given the clear nature of the legislation.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
~
- 24 New Derby Street (Artists’ Row): Discussion and vote on proposed new doors.
The submission under review before the SRA includes a proposal, drawings and photos.
Public Art Planner Deborah Greel was present on behalf of Artists’ Row.
Greel explained that she now oversees operations at Artists’ Row and works with tenants on any issues that may arise. The conditions of the buildings are such that doors must be replaced.
Greel noted that three sets of double doors would be replaced in the buildings. The doors would match the color of the buildings’ trim (raspberry) and be constructed of fiberglass. Doors will swing out 180 degrees. The DPW is currently working on the buildings. Greel noted that she does not have enough funding in the budget for wood doors.
Mitnik commented that he is familiar with these types of doors and that they come in a variety of panel styles and glass designs. Building Supply located on Tremont Street in Peabody carries many options at discounted prices.
Vickers noted that it would be nice to replace all of the doors in all of the buildings.
Greel explained that she would look at the budget and if it were possible to do so, she would.
Shapiro commented that this project has not been reviewed by the DRB. The doors are in need of repair as soon as possible; hence in order to perform the work expeditiously the applicant is seeking approval now.
Curran: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: Baldini, Passes 5-0.
- 83 Washington Street (Melita Fiore Cakes): Discussion and vote on proposed A-Frame sign.
The submission under review before the SRA includes a proposal, photos, a plan, and a cut sheet.
Shapiro explained that the applicant seeks to place a wood bordered chalkboard a-frame sign outside of her business. A plan provided shows that the placement of the sign would meet all of the appropriate clearances. The applicant has liability insurance and has met all of the requirements of the portable sign ordinance; the DRB recommended approval of the request.
Baldini: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB.
Seconded by: Vickers, Passes 5-0
- 177 Essex Street (Turtle Alley Chocolates): Discussion and vote on proposed A-Frame sign.
The submission under review before the SRA includes a proposal, a cut sheet, and photos.
Shapiro explained that the applicant seeks to place a white plastic based a-frame sign in front of her store located on the Essex Street Pedestrian Mall. He continued by noting that the applicant’s proposed placement of the sign meets all designated clearances, and that the sign is in compliance with the City’s portable sign ordinance. Shapiro noted that the DRB recommended approval of this project.
Vickers: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB.
Seconded by: Curran, Passes 5-0.
- 190 Essex Street (Coven’s Cottage): Discussion and vote on proposed signage.
The submission under review before the SRA includes a proposal, drawings, and photos.
Store owner Nicole Ball and sign designer Matt Gallant were present on behalf of Coven’s Cottage.
Shapiro noted that the proposal is for two signs; a blade sign and a flat building sign. The blade sign would be stained and have black carved lettering. A pentagram symbol would be carved at the bottom. The DRB asked if additional wood could be added to both sides to extend the small margins located on the blade sign. The applicant agreed to this.
The building sign would be placed above the storefront’s windows. The applicants worked with Glenn Kennedy to finalize this sign’s design, in particular, the removal of a curved piece at the top. Gallant explained that the revisions made sense given the amount of space they had to use above the windows.
Baldini: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB.
Seconded by: Curran, Passes 5-0.
- 90 Washington Street (Koto Japanese Grill and Sushi): Discussion and vote on proposed signage.
The submission under review before the SRA includes a proposal, cut sheets, and photos.
Shapiro noted that the proposal includes two signs; a blade sign and window graphics. The DRB recommended the addition of a red banner located behind the text “Koto” on the blade sign, in order to draw a connection to the window graphics, which have a red backing. The blade sign was moved up a foot so that it meets the 10’-0” clearance requirement above grade level. The font of the rest of the blade sign was changed at the request of the DRB to be consistent with the font used on the window graphics. The window graphics will run along the bottom of the windows. The DRB approved the project based on the conditions and changes discussed.
Harrington: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: Curran, Passes 5-0.
- 122 Washington Street (The Ugly Mug Diner): Discussion and vote on proposed signage.
The submission under review before the SRA includes a proposal, drawings, and photos.
Shapiro noted that the proposal includes
- 32” x 44.5” front door decal and transparent window graphic
- window decal, centered on the window located to the right of the entry 13.25” x 81.25”
- an additional mug logo on the window at the far right to be centered
- A-Frame sign with a wood border and chalkboard finish
- Lighted projection of a 3’-0” x 2’-0” mug stencil focused on the sidewalk, would be only displayed at night. Shapiro noted that this item is not considered part of signage.
- Paint the façade black and white. Green trim would become black.
Chairman Mitnik expressed concern about the lighted projection noting that it is difficult to see what it looks like and that it could set an unwanted precedent. This could also be a safety concern with pedestrians walking and passing vehicles that could be distracted by the light.
Harrington questioned if approval for the projection could be rescinded if negative effects occur. Curran noted that approving it and having the applicant spending money on its installation, only to later ask that it be removed could be problematic.
Shapiro recommended that the Board could approve the overall project without approving the lighted projection. The Board could request more information on the projection and consider it at that time.
Vickers: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB on the condition that the lighted projection not be approved and/or considered until the applicant provides additional information of for further review.
Seconded by: Baldini, Passes 5-0.
Minutes
Approval of the minutes from the July 9, 2014 regular meeting.
Chairman Mitnik noted that the Adriatic Restaurant’s last two window decals located towards the kitchen fill the whole window. This has never been approved by the DRB.
Additionally, he pointed out that tents were being set up on the Pedestrian Mall without SRA approval and that the photo shop in Museum Place Mall had a great deal of pictures filling up their windows – all of which had not been approved.
Shapiro noted that shop owners are allowed one 10x10 tent to be set up outside their respective shops, but that he would follow-up with the owners of Adriatic and the photo shop to see if the issues raised could be rectified.
Vickers: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: Curran, Passes 5-0.
Adjournment
Baldini: Motion to adjourn,
Seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 6:45 pm.
| 
