Loading...
2024-10-23 Meeting MinutesDRB October 23, 2024 Page 1 of 4 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, October 23, 2024, at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Leeann Leftwich, Catherine Miller, Elizabeth Murray, Marc Perras, Sarah Tarbet, Kate Martin Others Present: Stephanie Owens, Senior Planner Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner Tom Daniel, SRA Executive Director & Director of Planning and Community Development Department Recorder: Christine Petryszyn Chair Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:00PM. Roll call was taken. Introductions Kate Martin, New DRB Member Ms. Owens introduced Kate Martin, who was elected by the SRA. Ms. Martin has experience working with the CPC. She is an architect at Treehouse Design and works on a variety of different projects, large scale, commercial, residential, etc. Signs in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 1 Derby Square: The Sea Wych Ken McTague was present to discuss the signage, which includes the following: • There is a new tenant in the building, but no additional room for a hanging blade sign, so working to repurpose the existing directory sign. • The new directory will have space for the additional tenants, including Sea Wych and one other tenant. • The building appears to be residential though it serves a commercial purpose. • It is a flat PVC sign with vinyl graphics. • Ms. Leftwich expressed concern about the legibility and asked if there was a way to add space around the mark. A color change may be of assistance. • Adjusting the font size and letter spacing may be able to improve legibility. • Mr. McTague suggested making “the” smaller and shortening the “W” to allow for less negative space. It is their logo so there is not much flexibility, and it is on all her branding. • Additional options such as changing, or dropping, the shadow were discussed. Shrinking the font may be also work. • Ms. Miller asked if the “entrance” text could be made smaller. • It was agreed that the DRB will need to see a new iteration prior to approval. Public Comment: DRB October 23, 2024 Page 2 of 4 No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. VOTE: Ms. Tarbet made a motion to continue to the next meetings. Seconded by: Miller. Roll Call: Leftwich, Martin, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 7-0 in favor. Presentation Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) History, Tom Daniel, SRA Executive Director Tom Daniel was present to provide a presentation to the members about the history of the SRA and the Urban Renewal District. The slides were compiled by Bill Tinti, a local land use attorney. Photos of downtown Salem in the 1960s were shared, which was in rough shape. After the North Shore Mall opened and the Washinton Street tunnel started, Salem lost 40% of its stores and over $1M in tax revenue between 1956 and 1962. During this time of concern in the community, the tool that the City turned to was Urban Renewal, which was a federal program used across the country to replace old buildings with new, flat, rectangular buildings for new development. The SRA was established in 1962. The original Urban Renewal Plan was presented to the public in March 1965. An expansive demolition project was completed. A large road was built through Salem. Residential uses were prohibited, as the thinking was the uses needed to be separated. There were a lot of people concerned about the demolition of downtown. The public process was as follows: July 3, 1966 HUD and National Trust issues advisory report approving plan December 1966 Public Hearings February 1967 City Council approves Plan June 1967 State approves Plan February 1968 HUD approves Plan September 1969 Demolition begins There were public hearings and protests, but ultimately the plan was approved. Demolition started in 1969. The plan called for 82% of the buildings in the central business district to be demolished, a large majority of which were found to have historic merit. Eighty-seven buildings were demolished, 250 families and 42 businesses were relocated. In 1970, Mayor Zoll was elected and accuses the SRA of being the pallbearers of downtown. In 1971, new members were appointed to the SRA and a stop was made to demolition, and reconstruction started. Today we see the mix of uses, and the pedestrian environment. The new SRA, with the DRB, was innovative, and took federal dollars intended for demolition, and used them as a preservation tool and worked to restore properties to their historic character that had been lost over time. DRB October 23, 2024 Page 3 of 4 In the 2000s, the SRA and DRB called for residential uses to be mixed into downtown. Zoning ordinances allowed for parking to be provided offsite for adaptive reuse, and onsite for new construction, which allowed for buildings to be reused. The 1972 Urban Renewal Plan had a 40-year term. In 2012 it was amended, essentially the same with its powers still in place, but without federal dollars. In 2012, the former plan was consolidated to address development design. Design standards were a concern, so a balance was struck between buildings that were 50 years or older, design guidelines were focused on Historic Commission and Secretary of the Interior design standards. For new construction, looking at design standards started. Ms. Newhall-Smith’s and Ms. Owen’s work was acknowledged in ensuring those standards are met. Mr. Daniel applauded the DRB for their work in maintaining those standards, and when they deviate from them, it is explained as to why. Materials need to be appropriate, durable, and aesthetically pleasing. In 2018, a community meeting was held with the City Council to identify/confirm the concerns and hopes for the northern end of downtown. There was work with the Urban Land Institute on new development approaches. The DRB is an entity of the SRA. The DRB can provide advisory opinions to the Planning Board depending on location. The SRA takes very seriously the stewardship of the downtown. Ms. Newhall-Smith emphasized the importance of the design guidelines in guiding applications, and expressed her appreciation to the service the DRB provides and the time that they take every month. Mr. Daniel noted the downtown boundary has been modified over time. The Urban Renewal Plan exists under MGL Cp. 121B. There are no discussions now to amend the plan and it is a process to do so. Municipal projects aren’t required to come before the SRA, but those projects are sometimes brought forward for input. Lapin Park is owned by the SRA, so that process is different. Ms. Newhall-Smith reported that the SRA voted 3-1 to prohibit temporary vinyl wraps on buildings in the Urban Renewal Area. A statement will be included in the sign manual. There were some suggested edits on the manual, and it will be reviewed by the Disabilities Commission. There will also be guidelines included for temporary seasonal window painting. She said it will be shared with downtown partners and technical assistance people. Ms. Miller noted that there are a few places to notify people, City Clerk, Chamber of Commerce, etc. that could be used. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area There are no projects to review. Projects Outside the Urban Renewal Area There are no projects to review. DRB October 23, 2024 Page 4 of 4 New / Old Business 1. Approval of Minutes: a. September 25, 2024 VOTE: Miller made a motion to approve the September 25th minutes. Roll Call: Roll Call: Leftwich, Martin (abstain), Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 6-0 in favor, with one abstention. 2. Staff Updates, if any Ms. Owns reminded the DRB that next month’s meeting will be on November 20th to account for Thanksgiving and it will be on a different Zoom link. There will be a co-posted meeting with the SRA on at 6pm on December 11th where Lappin Park will be discussed. The December meeting will be held on December 18th to account for the Christmas holiday and will be on a different Zoom link. Ms. Miller reported that the Black Craft signage was installed without any of the conditions the DRB made, and their tent is still in the handicap parking space. She inquired about what steps can be taken. Ms. Owens reported that the Building Commissioner said that when the lot is not being used for parking the handicapped spaces do not need to be maintained. The ticket booth is view as temporary Halloween structure and doesn’t need a specific permit. She reported that she has sent the business a letter saying that they need to provide an A-frame sign permit by the November meeting. Ms. Owens will reach out to them about the vinyl sign and painted name. Ms. Miller said she feels the ticket booth could be dangerous. Ms. Owens will share the Building Commissioner’s response with Ms. Miller. Upcoming Meetings 1. SRA: November 13th 2. DRB: November 20th Adjournment VOTE: Perras: Motion to adjourn. Seconded by: Leftwich. The meeting is adjourned at 7:11PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033