Loading...
2018-06-13 SRA MinutesSRA June 13, 2018 Page 1 of 9 1 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 93 Washington Street, First Floor Conference Room SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Napolitano, David Guarino, Dean Rubin, Gary Barrett, Russ Vickers SRA Members Absent: None Others Present: Tom Daniel, Executive Director Matt Coogan, Principal Planner Recorder: Colleen Brewster Chair Grace Napolitano calls the meeting to order. Roll call was taken. Projects Under Review Executive Directors Report: Daniel stated that; A. The Washington and Dodge Street project received approval from the Planning Board and construction will begin this summer. B. The Higginson Square alley lighting project is moving forward and will be installed this summer. It was determined that the planter at end of the alley is City owned. The City received a technical assistance grant through Mass Development to work with BAC students; although, they haven’t come to Salem yet to begin. C. East India Square: Matt Coogan is looking into opportunities with the Beautification Committee who will review the site for plantings this summer and will provide recommendations for next year. D. Witch City Mall: Mr. Coogan stated that he was in contact with Mr. Brett Marley and resent Mr. Marley the original documentation from the City. He hadn’t received any documentation from the City, so he will reach out to Mr. Marley again. If no action is taken by Mr. Marley the Building Department can issue violations. Mr. Rubin recommended that a time frame for the owner to respond be included. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 81 Washington Street (Mr. Crepe): Discussion and vote on outdoor café permit. Camille Souza, co-owner of Mr. Crepe, was present to discuss the project Ms. Souza stated that they are proposing 2 tables with 4 chairs, 2 chairs per table. Mr. Rubin noted that he is concerned with ongoing enforcement and shared photos of neighboring Opus’ outdoor seating that goes well into the sidewalk and has created a back-up of pedestrians trying to pass one another. There should be a 4-foot break between the end of table and the next obstacle. That can be reduced to less than what is required when tables are pushed away from the 2 wall for more elbow room, etc. The required 4-feet clearance should be honored by all tenants, by using either a single line of tables or smaller tables, and it should be enforced. Coogan stated that it has been reviewed by inspector and the DRB looked at seating and signage. Moving forward this distance needs to be maintained as designed. Mr. Daniel stated that the Building Inspector makes the determination and enforcement is also his issue. Opus changed their outdoor arrangement last year also. Building Inspectors have access as one of their core concerns for ADA compliance and the business owner need to be educated also. Mr. Guarino arrived. Mr. Daniel stated this is an important issue. Mr. Rubin noted that people enjoy space but these outdoor spaces need to be in compliance. The applicant asked for a copy of the photos Mr. Rubin brought to the meeting to be able to share with her employees. Chair Napolitano opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Napolitano closes public comment. Rubin: Motion to approve the outdoor café permit. Seconded by: Vickers. Passes 4-0. Mr. Barrett arrived. 2. 203-209 Essex Street (Hotel Salem): Project update on remaining façade restoration and related SRA approvals Sean Shea of Hotel Salem and Paul Durand, Architect from Winter Street Architects, was present to discuss the project. Mr. Daniel stated that the SRA receives monthly updates on the on-going repair work and requested further clarification on what the scope of work would be. It was clear that the work would not be done prior to the opening of their rooftop. They’ve entered into an escrow agreement between the City Treasurer, Redevelopment Authority and Hotel Salem to ensure that the work would be done. Hotel Salem is committed to completing the work, but will need to coordinate with masonry contractors and define a scope. Mr. Shea stated that he just received a proposal from Murray Masonry which he will review and respond to tomorrow. He will most likely go with them since they’ve previously work at the hotel and the work should start within 2-3 weeks. The proposal from Murray Masonry didn’t include how long it will take to complete but they would use lifts and not staging. More elaborate documents are needed for the work proposed. Mr. Coogan added that he will review the previous minutes to make sure the scope of work matches what was supposed to be done in the SRA and DRB minutes, so they can agree on the work that needs to be done. Mr. Shea noted that the mason noticed other damages on the façade in need of repair. 3 Mr. Shea stated that the zinc banner hasn’t been delivered or installed and it should have been installed today. He was given a new delivery date of Friday June 15th. It will be installed before the masonry work begins. Mr. Rubin asked if an occupancy permit had been issued. Mr. Shea stated that they opened the roof- top deck at 2PM today. Mr. Rubin noted that he lives nearby and music from soft open was loud and didn’t end until after 10:30PM. Mr. Shea replied that it may have been employees and the staff will learn what not to do in the future. Mr. Coogan stated that an application to update café seating and window signage was submitted, it included an addition of 2 patio heaters and a request to change the material of the perimeter chain from a leather stanchion rope to a plastic chain. There was also new signage, which is currently on one side of the entrance with a black background color. Several options are proposed several options, one on either side of the entrance with white background and black lettering. It still needs DRB approval. Mr. Durand stated that this is the same sign that was previously approved but without the “Hotel Salem.” They’ve increased in size to compensate and the lighter color will make them stand out. Two versions are requested is to see which will read better when installed. Mr. Daniel stated that the sign approvals now go through him as an SRA administrative approval after DRB review but other elements need SRA approval. Mr. Durand stated that the proposed lighting is already in the alley but will now wrap around the seating in the front. The alley is dark at night and the existing street lights don’t carry the light that far. They want to extend the existing alley lighting to the seating in the front of the building. There are existing string lights but want to run a weather resistant cable to the tree and branch out lighting from there. Mr. Shea stated that there is a door on the alley that the workers exit with drinks and trays. A patron can also use that door but the dark alley is a safety issue. Mr. Rubin asked why the alley lighting didn’t go all the way to the corner and if there was a city regulation for alley lighting. Mr. Shea replied that they stopped it where people are eating and it’s possible they thought that the interior lighting would reach outside. Mr. Daniel asked why a cable is needed and where it would be attached. Mr. Durand replied above the pedestrian mall façade and the cable will attach to the front left façade of the building and a ring around the existing tree. It will be above the glass and under the sign band where this is something they can attach to. They will protect the tree and will screw into it with a ring because they don’t want to install a light pole. Mr. Daniel added that he wants the Tree Warden to review it. Mr. Coogan stated that they will wrap around lighting to just one half of the front façade and string lights to the front of the building. Mr. Durand replied that the lighting will only be over the seating. Mr. Daniel noted that the lights will branch out off of tree. Mr. Rubin noted that this might set a precedent as the first building to add string lights to the front of the building. Mr. Guarino asked whether there are accessibility issues with heaters and they can be moved around. Mr. Durand replied not of they are spaced correctly. Mr. Rubin asked why there is a rope change. Mr. Durand replied that they wanted leather but it isn’t as weather resistant like they thought and plastic will last longer. Mr. Shea stated that he would like to return and present something different that what was submitted, that will work for October to help separate the crowd from their customers. Mr. Daniel asked Mr. Durand as Chair of the DRB and Mr. Vickers if either Board had any concerns with applicants using plastic chains. Both replied no but they felt it was a cheap and unattractive option. Mr. Coogan noted that the tables specified weren’t what was installed. Mr. Shea replied that he will take care of that and he’d like to eliminate the chain from the proposal so he can review alternatives. 4 Mr. Rubin noted that the signage is an improvement. Chair Napolitano opens public comment. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street. She’s on the Lorax Task Force, she supports the tree ordinance and nothing can be attached to trees. They have asked the public art planner to remove 10 signs attached to trees from Artists’ Row. The trees are costly to replace and she is working on an ordinance right now for their care and maintenance. The Tree Warden should definitely review this proposal. Chair Napolitano closes public comment. Guarino: Motion to send to DRB for review and to send it back to the SRA for another review. Seconded by: Vickers. Passes 4-0. 3. 65 Washington Street (District Court): Discussion and vote on small project review. Merrill Diamond (Developer), Jeff Hirsch (VP of Operations for Urban Spaces and Senior Project Manager), and Steve Tise (Architect), Boston Art consultants Suzi Hlavacek and Haley Foye (Project Manager) were present to discuss the project. Mr. Hirsch stated that they’ve completed their final design review with the DRB who appreciated their efforts and included their suggestions into the revised design. This is the final review with the SRA. The DRB’s review did result in some comments regarding; the medallions, views of East elevation, views and renderings of building interior courtyard, the 2nd floor terrace, and courtyard balconies. The views of Federal Street artwork and building integration still aren’t completed but they did review; the lighting plan, proposed fixtures, and the rooftop mechanical screening system. They also reviewed the building material samples; exterior brick, cast stone, window sills, lintels, metal panel system for the bays and 6th floor Washington Street balconies, roof top screening, a general overview of the Federal Street artwork and the building colors. The two banners frame the front entrance and are now a forest green color that integrates better with the other building colors. Mr. Tise stated that the earlier entry wasn’t distinctive and there is now a new is 2-story lobby with a canopy made of powder coated tube steel with floating glass above it. They gave the DRB details on illuminating the building and submitted several design revisions, and the exterior lighting is mostly LED. The 2 ramps lead to the First Floor which are screened with green planters. There has been concern with recessing the ramp alcoves so the entire rear wall of the ramp will be back-lit with polycarbinite panels. The medallions have a historical reference to mill type buildings and the 12”x12” square masonry insert will have a weathered copper patina. There are still stairs to commercial space and at the front of the building and the second ramp will be along Church Street. Mr. Hirsch noted that the 3,000 SF of retail space that can be broken into two 1,500 SF spaces. Mr. Diamond noted that the bay panels will be “Italian Rosewood.” Mr. Tise presented the rear courtyard view. The curved form is the ramp that connects the two levels of parking to be entered along Federal Street and will connect to the existing basement level. The roof of the ramp will be planted and a there is main activity terrace above at the second floor. Mr. Hirsch noted that the public spaces, terrace, and amenities are for condominium residents. Mr. Tise noted that the balconies are all interior except for at the top floor along Washington Street. Ms. Hlavacek stated that they’ve met with the Federal Street art working group and discussed their goals for the space. They wanted to capture the feel of the vibrant downtown area and their goals were to develop something that was; dynamic and contemporary, forward thinking for this prominent location which is the gateway to downtown, something to display the vibrancy of Salem, with place 5 making qualities, and sets a vibrant and exciting tone that can be experienced as pedestrian, motorist, and commuter, and is unexpected yet evocative of Salem. Ms. Hlavacek stated that they are specifying cut metals with a lighting component. There will be various textures but the design will be flush to the wall with a potential to wrap around the building. Ms. Hlavacek noted that the building has been re-branded over time. They started with a water theme but are moving towards abstract design with lighting. The proposed ideas were designed with Joe O’Brian an in-house graphic designer at Boston Art. There will be 9’x 11’ recessed niches along the wall, each with back-lit cut metal pieces that will slightly protrude from each niche. Samples of the powder coated panels and their colors will be presented in the fall. Mr. Hirsch noted that all the elements relate to one another and the branding. Mr. Tise noted that it will include a landscape plan along the Federal Street strip and the condominium association will maintain it, although it still needs City Councils approval. Two recessed seating areas will be integrated into that landscaped area and the recessed panels at those areas will be planted not sculptural. They will be making two art statements with the perforated metal screening elements, the first is to conceal the garage wall along Federal Street and the freestanding sculpture at the corner of Washington and Federal Streets that will be approximately 12-feet tall. One of the wall mounted panel will wrap around the front of the building and onto Washington Street. Mr. Guarino stated that they want a vote but info is still missing. Mr. Tise replied that they will present the final colors with the building prior to getting a building permit. Mr. Daniel asked for detail on the growth on the side of the building and if it will last through the winter months and for the wall treatment. Mr. Hirsch replied a vine of some type that a Landscape Architect to be in charge of designing. Mr. Tise replied that the façade will have a cast stone base, spandrels and columns. The recessed panel area will be a rough ceramic tile. Mr. Diamond noted that they need proposal for the sculpture to select colors, etc. that will be reviewed by all Boards. The artwork is simple, this building is transitional, but the artwork will be a contemporary link to Salem’s future but that will also fit into downtown Salem. Ms. Hlavacek noted that the panels will be back-lit with lighting only showing at the edge of the panels. They are considering grey panels which can be warmer in tone and the lighting will be white LED, but they will have samples fabricated to review. Mr. Diamond noted that they will eliminate the dark frames from around the artwork so the panels will be recessed and look as if they are part of the building. Mr. Hirsch noted that the LED up-lighting at the cornice will also be programmable. Mr. Rubin asked if the 3D art will be fully recessed into the depth of the panels or more since items extending from the façade would be a concern. Mr. Hirsch replied that the perforated panels will be half the depth and light can be seen through it. Ms. Hlavacek noted that the samples need to be seen in person for an accurate view. Ms. Hlavacek stated that local artist Peter Bradley Cohen is someone they are considering. Mr. Diamond noted that the artwork will tie into the branding of the building and the art working group goals were used to focus the proposed artwork. Chair Napolitano asked what type of greenery would be used during the winter. Mr. Daniel added that it is an important façade especially with the greenery. Mr. Hirsch noted that the previous landscaping plan indicated all of the plantings, some of the plantings will be evergreens but the type of vine is unknown at this time. Mr. Diamond noted that the greenery will look good throughout the year. Mr. Guarino asked what the recourse would be if the residents or Boards don’t agree with the treatment of that façade. Mr. Tise replied that a Federal Street neighbor is on the art working group. 6 Mr. Diamond stated that although the permit is not a public process they can have a meeting with everyone beforehand and field adjustments can be an open process so that everyone is happy with the end result. Additional time is needed to refine the finished product and to define the sculpture before it is ready to be presented again. They are not looking to diminish the SRA’s leverage; however, with the architect still working on the construction documents it will be months before they are ready to pull a permit. Mr. Vickers stated that he participated in art group meeting and many options were presented. They landed on goals and he believes the proposed is tasteful. Mr. Diamond noted that two members from art working group gave their praises at the DRB meeting for their input. Mr. Rubin stated that the artwork at the corner should be mindful of the historic nature of the City and hopefully the art working group listened to those concerns. Mr. Diamond agrees and noted that they will not create something that doesn’t work with the building. Mr. Daniel asked about the sidewalk treatment around the building and whether the DRB and Planning Board discussed it. Mr. Hirsch noted that they tried to complement existing sidewalk treatments but they vary downtown. The Planning Board reviewed and accepted their proposed brick in-lay design. Chair Napolitano opens public comment. Jessica Herbert, Chair of the Historic Commission. Concerned with the leap of faith and the developers wanting to keep things secret and artwork that can’t be approved at this time. Mr. Diamond replied that they are seeking approval of the architecture and they will return for final approval of the artwork. Ms. Herbert asked about treatment at the bay windows. Mr. Tise replied that the Longboard product is a panel and the color will be Italian Rosewood. They will use a traditional red brick manufactured by Redland, cast stone at base and column covers, column base, and lintels. Ceramic tile of various sizes will be installed at back of the recessed openings where the panel artwork will be installed, 10-foot high back-lit illuminated panels will be installed at the two ramps and the bottom 4 feet of the panel will have real branches integrated into the panels. At the interior of courtyard they will use cement siding that will reflect light and is easier to install. Ms. Herbert asked if the care of the proposed vegetation at the top of building and the Federal Street greenspace over time will be written into the condominium documents. The vegetation at Federal Street wall appears to be a planter box with evergreens and she suggested a living wall with plugs of plants so they can be easily replaced rather than hedging. Mr. Diamond appreciated her suggested and replied that the greenery upkeep will be written into the condominium documents. No one else wished to speak. Chair Napolitano closes public comment. Mr. Hirsch noted that there will be a brick boarder and cross-lines through all of the new sidewalks to respect the brick banding tradition in the City. Landscape boxes will be added along Washington Street and the existing trees along Church Street will remain. Mr. Tise noted that the recessed ramp surfaces will change to 2” granite pavers as well as the stairs to the entrance. Vickers: Motion to approve the plans as submitted and recommended by the DRB, subject to a future meeting prior to the receiving of a building permit, for review and approval of the colors and artwork. Mr. Coogan stated that the DRB discussed and was supportive of having the working group look at the artwork again with a presentation of the art at the SRA. The DRB took the leap of faith and was in unanimous support of the project. The SRA’s review and approval of the panels and how the artwork is lit will be needed prior to issuing a permit. Mr. Vickers stated that he was part of that working group that reviewed the proposed art many times, and they did take the working group’s 7 advice. There was a separate process for the review of the artwork that really didn’t incl ude the DRB. Mr. Daniel stated that in the past the SRA reviews the location and scale of the proposed art but it’s the artists who makes the decision. This project will return to the DRB for review and approval of 100% Construction Documents and for the applicant to amplify any changes they want to make. Mr. Diamond added that they received approval for the preliminary application for the HDIP. Rubin: Motion to approve plans as submitted and reviewed by the DRB, subject to a final review and approval of the artwork prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Seconded by: Guarino. Passes 4-0 New / Old Business 1. 32-50 Federal Street (Superior Court and County Commissioners Building): General update Mr. Daniel stated that Rep. Tucker submitted legislation for the transfer of the property to the SRA without the explicit language that the Registry of Deeds needed to be included. The hearing was today and went well, and Sec. Galvin was not in opposition to the legislation. Secretary Galvin’s concern with the legislation is that there is nothing beyond “best faith efforts” of getting the Registry into the building, because there is no solution for the Registry of Deeds issue at this time. Sen. Lovely introduced her own legislation that was different than Rep. Tucker’s, but she was still in support of Rep. Tucker’s legislation. Chair Napolitano, Bill Tinti spoke on behalf of the Salem Partnership, Jessica Herbert spoke on behalf of the Salem Historic Commission, Alyssa Conary spoke on behalf of Historic Salem Inc, and letters were submitted by the PEM and many others showing the community support. There is 6 weeks left in this session to get it approved and they are cautiously optimistic. Mr. Guarino asked why there was separate legislation by Sen. Lovely even though she was in support of Sen. Tucker’s legislation. Chair Napolitano replied that Sen. Lovely filed legislation that would put the Registry in the Country Commissioners Building instead of into specific courtrooms within the Superior Court building; she was swapping out the courtrooms and the law library. She could get behind Sen. Tucker’s bill if the constraints were loosened so the Registry doesn’t have to go in that building. Sec. Galvin said he wouldn’t oppose it but is concerned with what happens with the Registry of Deeds if they aren’t accommodated. Mr. Daniel stated that they will work on issuing an RFP for the disposition of the properties once the legislation situation is clear. The City owned crescent shaped parcel across the street, Tabernacle Church, and Bridge at 211 can be added properties to an RFP, but the City’s goal is to move on the court buildings. Mr. Vickers asked if they had to sign the legislation before they start their summer hiatus in July. Chair Napolitano replied yes; however, they need a 2/3 vote because this is a land bill and any member can object when they aren’t in a session. City Councilor Madore asked if Sen. Lovely would withdrawal her bill. Chair Napolitano replied that Sen. Lovely only indicated that she would stand behind Sen. Tucker’s language, and the committee would either get behind Rep. Tucker’s bill or create a redraft. Sen. Lovely didn’t say she would withdrawal her bill, only that she would support his language. Having two bills on the same topic wanting two different things caused some confusion, but if she, as the Vice-Chair, can get behind that language the bill could move forward. Mr. Daniel noted that the mothballing is underway and the construction fencing is up but will come down when the crew is done. 8 2. 5 Broad Street (Council on Aging): Background on property study and overview of disposition process. Mr. Daniel stated that 5 Broad Street is outside of the Urban Renewal area but the City declared it as excess property in 2010 and was part of the plan for the Community Life Center. The disposition of the property hasn’t occurred but the CLC is being constructed on Bridge Street, so this property will be available for disposition. City Council declared the property as surplus and the SRA has been tasked with running the solicitation process. Mr. Coogan stated that they will create an RFP based on 30B procurement law, similar to the process with the District Court property. There will be a property appraisal done in the next couple of weeks. The lot configuration indicated that the old school building and the cemetery are one 2.6 acre lot that will be split up through and an ANR process by the Planning Board next week. The 5 Broad Street lot will become a little less than a half an acre with the school building and 25 parking spaces. The RFP would be submitted by the end of month, and he hopes that by the September SRA meeting they will have bids and staff recommendations for the SRA to review and provide a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Vickers noted that because the SRA doesn’t own the property it must follow 30B procurement law. Councilor Madore asked if this property can be added like the Tabernacle Church is being added to the County Court and Commissioners buildings. Mr. Daniel replied yes, and mentioned the archdiocese submitted a letter to the City Council asking for assistance using zoning overlay tools for the reuse of school buildings such as St. James and St. Anne’s. 5 Broad Street has a permitting path through the ZBA due to the change of a non- conforming use, and the overlay would work for this also. He is looking to develop an Adaptive Use Overlay District to facilitate the reuse of historic properties like school buildings and 5 Broad Street. They would work off of a model ordinance developed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in collaboration with the Urban Land Institute (ULI), based off of model reuses from other parts of the country. There would be a public meeting to present it prior to submitting it to the City Council and this is a tool that can be used in the future. They are also looking into the HDIP zoning that was proposed last year, when 5 properties were looking at and the Tabernacle Church became the 6th. Many in other parts of the City showed interested in being included, and they think they will also include 5 Broad Street in that zone. Ms. Herbert asked if a senior housing component was possible at 5 Broad Street because it is an increasing need that should be addressed within the City. Mr. Daniel agreed and noted that at a future meeting he will share an informative video on the nation’s current housing crisis. There will be an affordable housing component requirement and they will look for proposals that maximize affordability. Adaptive reuse is one of the Sec. of the Interior Standards and LDA Architecture and Interior did a re-use study of the building with specific interior and exterior recommendations from HSI. Ms. Herbert noted that the building will come before the Historic Commission for review. Tim Jenkins, 18 Broad Street. A study of housing needs projected that the City’s highest need was for senior housing. The existing Ruane Housing Facility is largely senior housing and it would be beneficial to include that in the RFP as a highest component. The building is in deplorable shape with; glass falling out of windows particularly over what being used as the main entrance, the rear ramp is also in a state of disrepair, basement flooding, gutters deteriorating, etc. and he recommend to the City that the building be secured. The City has allowed it to deteriorate which has impacted the neighborhood. With the overlay district, since all 3 properties were schools and he asked if those areas can be broadened, to avoid spot zoning. Other Items 9 Ms. Herbert asked about the movement with PUA letting St. Joseph’s school come on the market. Mr. Daniel replied that they are working with the Planning Office of Urban Affairs to get those buildings reused. Mr. Rubin asked about the timing of adding of reflective tape to the Essex Street Pedestrian Mall by the police. Mr. Daniel replied that that is up to the police. Minutes The minutes from the April 11, 2018 regular meeting were reviewed. Rubin: Motion to approve April 11, 2018 minutes with Daniel’s and Rubin’s edits. Seconded by: Guarino. Passes 4-0. The minutes from the May 9, 2018 regular meeting were reviewed. Rubin: Motion to approve May 9, 2018 minutes with Daniel’s and Rubin’s edits. Seconded by: Guarino. Passes 4-0. Adjournment Guarino: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Rubin. Passes 4-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:10PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033.