City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday July 8, 2015 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: Lynn Duncan, Andrew Shapiro
Recorder: Jennifer Pennell
Chairperson Robert Mitnik calls the meeting to order. Roll call was taken.
Executive Director’s Report
Duncan commented that there are no updates to cover other than those that will be discussed later regarding the District Court project.
Old/ New Business
- Lappin Park (Salem Cyberspace): Discussion and vote on placement of six Adirondack chairs in Lappin Park. *This item was taken out of order from what was listed on the original agenda.
The proposal before the SRA included a photo of the chairs in Lappin Park along with a short memo.
Shapiro explained that the SRA had previously voted to place six Adirondack chairs on the pedestrian mall behind the Town Pump Fountain. Staff ultimately decided that the chairs might be more appropriate in Lappin Park and thus far the idea seems to have been successful. Shapiro also explained that there is a plan in place to secure the chairs at night. DPW would be handling locking and unlocking of the chairs to prevent theft and vandalism. Shapiro asked for the Board’s confirmatory vote on having the chairs located in Lappin Park.
Vickers: Motion to approve placement of the six Adirondack Chairs in Lappin Park.
Seconded by Baldini. Passes 4-0.
- 65 Washington Street (former District Court property): Discussion and vote on addenda to Request for Proposals (RFP).
Duncan noted that the deadline for submitting proposals, as approve d by the SRA, was extended until July 17th.
Duncan then explained that since then, three addenda were issued and that she was seeking confirmatory approval from the SRA on these addenda.
Duncan noted that addendum 4 responds to a developer’s question regarding whether it would be acceptable to provide a monetary contribution in support of affordable housing as opposed to providing affordable units on-site of a proposed project. The addenda notes that a contribution would be considered “highly advantageous,” as would 10% on-site units. Duncan then explained that with the CPA in place, which can fund affordable housing projects, that the proposal to provide a monetary contribution seemed reasonable.
Duncan explained that addendum 5 makes clear that the SRA would need the concurrence of the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) in the selection of finalists for the District Court site.
She continued by noting that addendum 6 further strengthens the notice issued in addendum 5 by stipulating that DCAMM must confirm concurrence to the SRA within 14 business days upon written notice of selection of finalists from the SRA.
Vickers confirmed whether all addenda had been issued.
Duncan responded noting that they had all been issued. Duncan asked if there were any concerns.
Vickers expressed that he would only have concerns if there were concerns being expressed by developers.
Duncan noted that she felt that the final addendum addressed any developer concerns on the issue of DCAMM requiring concurrence in selecting developers.
Vickers: Motion to approve addenda’s 4, 5, and 6.
Seconded by Baldini. Passes 5-0.
- 65 Washington Street (former District Court property): Discussion and vote on memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City of Salem / SRA and Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) for conveyance of the former District Court property.
Duncan explained that the SRA began work on an MOA between it, the City, and DCAMM for conveyance of the District Court property well over a year ago, but soon after, found out that legislation would be needed to ensure interested developers that the process had legal standing. The legislation passed prior to the finalization of an MOA; hence negating the need for the MOA.
Duncan explained that she later learned that DCAMM still wanted to execute an MOA because it still owns the building and felt a responsibility to be involved in the process of how the property would ultimately be conveyed and redeveloped.
Duncan noted that DCAMM has accepted the criteria section in the RFP and does not want to interfere with how the SRA goes about its selection process. As long as the developer selected is valid and has the financial wherewithal to carry out the proposed project, it does not appear that DCAMM would not have an issue with selection. Her main concern was with timing of concurrence, which is why the 14 day period for doing so was added in the MOA.
DCAMM does not want to participate in the discussion that will occur during public meetings and has no intention on weighing in on the evaluation or selection of finalists.
Mitnik questioned whether a special meeting would be called.
Duncan commented that proposals would come on July 17th. Therefore an August 12th meeting would be held to review and select finalists. Interviews for the top 2 or 3 may be needed and should be scheduled some time during the last week of August. A final vote could be taken at the September regular meeting.
Duncan then noted that she confirmed with DCAMM Deputy Commissioner Dana Harrell, that if the SRA did not receive concurrence from DCAMM within the prescribed 14 business days, whether that would constitute concurrence. His reply is that it would.
Harrington suggested that that clarification should be added to the MOA.
Duncan agreed that the modification noting this would be made within provisions C and D of the MOA.
Duncan then reviewed the MOA as it currently stood, noting changes and additions made along the way since the SRA had last reviewed the document.
Vickers questioned whether DCAMM approving the finalist candidates would constitute ultimate approval of whichever of the finalists that the SRA selects.
Duncan said that it would.
Vickers: Motion to approve the MOA with modifications as discussed
Seconded by Harrington. Passes 5-0.
Vickers: Authorize chair to execute the agreement on behalf of the board.
Seconded by Baldini. Passes 5-0
Urban Renewal Area Projects
Grace Harrington arrived at 6:10pm to join the discussion
- 295 Derby Street (Speedway: former Hess): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage.
Heather Dudko with Philadelphia Sign Company was present on behalf of Speedway.
Dudko explained that the package before the Board includes all new signage for the gas station and that all Hess stations were changing over to Speedway.
The proposal includes:
- Refaceing the existing freestanding Hess sign to read Speedway and to add a new digital price board to replace the existing manual pricing. There would be no structural change to the free standing size (same physical size and height).
- Canopy letters would be replaced with the same size letters and same square footage.
- A six square foot internally illuminated wall sign to replace the existing wall sign on the convenience store.
Mitnik questioned why the DRB did not recommend the digital pricing format for the freestanding sign.
Shapiro noted that the DRB recommended a resubmittal of information for the digital sign that would call for a higher quality, more realistic looking digit. The DRB approved the rest of the proposal as presented.
Mitnik went on to note that the staff comment provided to the Board notes that digital pricing boards, specifically for gas stations, have been approved by the City in the past because of the variable nature of the pricing and to account for worker safety in having to change manual digits.
Duncan expressed that she was not aware that there were higher quality digital signage for these types of pricing boards. She asked whether Dudko had additional information to provide on this issue.
Dudko responded that the sign installer offers only one type of digital sign for the Speedway changeover project. She did provide an additional sheet that covered the specifications with respect to the intensity of light coming from the digital board.
Duncan expressed some concern noting that the specification sheets shows that the lighting will be between 3,000 and 4,000 nits. She wondered whether the lighting may be too bright.
Dudko again expressed that there is only one available specification to Speedway for the digital pricing, so if there is concern about its appearance and the SRA rejects it, they would opt to continue with manual pricing.
Mitnik noted that the LED signage is not as obtrusive as the backlit signage being called for on the rest of the proposal, therefore if the other signage would be approved, he would assume approve the LED signage as well.
Duncan pointed out that there is legal precedent allowing for the refacing or replacement of non-conforming signage that has been previously approved, with like non-conforming signage. Therefore, she questioned the SRA’s ability to deny the proposed internally illuminated signage.
Grace Harrington (at 6:10pm) then arrived and joined the discussion.
Duncan asked whether the intensity of lighting could be reduced.
Dudko noted that she was not aware whether it could be adjusted.
Shapiro then pointed out that the higher intensity of lighting, according to the specifications provided, would occur during the day, and that a lower intensity would be used at night.
Harrington asked how many other gas stations in the City have LED lighting for pricing.
Duncan responded noting that she did not know an exact number, but that approved LED pricing boards had not met resistance from neighbors in the past.
Curran: Motion to approve all proposed signage
Seconded by Harrington. Passes 4-1 (Vickers voted against).
- Cigarette Butt Recycling Units (City of Salem): Discussion and vote on proposed new labels and signage.
Julie Rose of the City’s Engineering Department and Susan Yochelson of Salem Sound Coast Watch (and the City’s Recycling Committee) were present on behalf of the City.
Rose explained that a professional graphic designer was hired to create more noticeable sticker for the cigarette butt recycling units in order to increase their usage and visibility.
Yochelson noted that high school student volunteers had done a survey of the units and identified ones that needed to be moved and noted their patterns of usage. She explained that cigarettes are often mistaken as biodegradable, but they are not, so it is important that they are recycled and do not ultimately end up as marine debris.
Yochelson noted that the DRB recommended a revision to the color selection, which is what is before the SRA this evening. The label is part of a larger campaign that would include meeting with stakeholders and local establishments where people often congregate and to post signs guiding pedestrians to where butt bin receptacles would be located (inside establishments).
Baldini: Motion to approve
Seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
- 148 - 150 Washington Street (Joshua Ward House): Discussion and vote on proposed exterior improvements. *This item was taken out of order from what was listed on the original agenda.
The proposal consisted of a full set of plans and drawings dated August 22, 2014 noting proposed improvements.
Dan Ricciarelli of Segar Architects and Todd Waller (developer) were present. Waller gave a quick overview of the history of the Joshua Ward House and its significance and noted that he was converting it into an 11 room boutique hotel.
Ricciarelli noted that the proposal is for:
- Brand new true divided light windows and frames to match original materials and profiles;
- Repointing where necessary;
- Slate roof to replace asphalt shingles;
- Refurbishing the existing fence;
- Taking out existing paving alongside of the building and replacing it with brick;
- Old foundation wall would be removed and replaced with a wall set further into the property;
- New accessibility opening located in the back of building for a chair lift;
- Balustrade at the top of the roof to be restored and a new balustrade to be constructed atop the roof of the addition in back;
Ricciarelli explained that the Boston pavers, which were approved by the DRB, turned out to have too orange a hue. He presented a material sample of an alternate brick to be used for the driveway.
Mitnik confirmed that the brick is a hard paver, and agreed that Boston paver tends to be too orange in appearance.
Shapiro inquired whether anything would be done to the plaque mounted on a rock on the front lawn of the property.
Waller said that he would not change the plaque at all, but might consider options to display differently or more prominently.
Duncan explained that there have been issues brought up with plaques in the past, therefore she recommended that the SRA’s decision be clear with respect to how the plaque be handled. She continued by suggesting that the SRA approve the project with the plaque situated as is, and if the applicant saw fit to adjust the plaque in any way, that they would have to return to present the Board with a proposal to be reviewed and approved.
Ricciarelli noted that they could return to present any potential changes to the plaque when they return for review of signage.
Vickers: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB with a clarification that the plaque would remain as-is, otherwise any new changes would need to be reviewed by the DRB and subsequently approved by the SRA, and that the brick sample presented at the SRA meeting be approved for use on the driveway.
Seconded by Baldini. Passes 5-0.
- 181 Essex Street (TBT Post): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage.
Shapiro noted that the original proposal before the DRB was for three signs located along the upper façade. The center blade sign shown in the materials before the SRA was approved by the DRB. The bracket that will be used for mounting the blade sign would be similar to the Pamplemousse sign bracket. Shapiro commented that the proposed sign would need to be mounted underneath the thinner coursing of granite. The DRB opted not to recommend the two additional signs proposed in the original proposal. They appeared to fit awkwardly within the granite coursing and did not feel that it fit well with the building’s façade.
Baldini asked what type of clothing the retailer sells.
Shapiro noted that it was both men’s and women’s clothing, made primarily from wool and alpaca.
Mitnik questioned the exact placement of the blade sign.
Shapiro explained that the DRB was comfortable recommending approval of the sign given that it would only be 3’ in height, and that they did not take issue with it potentially encroaching upon the window area beneath the granite.
Baldini: Motion to approve only the proposed blade sign as recommended by the DRB
Seconded by Harrington. Passes 4-0 (Mitnik abstained).
- 179 Essex Street (Salem Arts Center): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of window signage and A-frame sign.
Shapiro noted that the proposal is for two window sign decals to be located on both door side panels. A chalkboard A-frame sign was also approved by the DRB. A plan provided shows that 10’ of clearance will be provided around the a-frame sign.
Vickers: Motion to approve
Seconded by Curran. Passes 5-0.
- 118 Washington Street (Bistro 118): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of window signage.
Shapiro noted that the proposal is for three vinyl window signs. Two would be located on the front façade and another sign would be located on the window facing Lappin Park, closest to the corner of Washington Street.
Baldini: Motion to approve
Seconded by Vickers. Passes 5-0.
Minutes
The minutes from the June 10, 2015 regular meeting were reviewed.
Vickers: Motion to approve,
Seconded by Harrington. Passes 4-0 (Mitnik abstained).
Adjournment
Baldini: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Harrington. Passes 5-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:20 pm.
| 