Loading...
2017-09-13 SRA MinutesSRA September 13, 2017 Page 1 of 9 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Harrington, David Guarino, Christine Madore, Dean Rubin, Russell Vickers SRA Members Absent: None Others Present: Tom Daniel – SRA Executive Director and Director of Planning and Community Development, Andrew Shapiro – Economic Development Planner Recorder: Colleen Brewster Chair Grace Harrington calls the meeting to order. Roll call was taken. Executive Director’s Report Daniel stated that a zoning petition went before the City Council and Planning Board at a joint public hearing in July, for four non-conforming properties (from Bunghole Liquors to Merry Fox Realty) to the east of the triangular island on Derby Street; relief was requested to rezone it to B5. At a subsequent meeting, the Planning Board indicated unanimous support for the rezoning but only if the urban renewal area boundary were amended to include the properties in the SRA district. Inclusion in the SRA district would address the public’s concern with design control and the possibility of the buildings being demolished and redeveloped to a higher height although there are some limitations on what can be done without seeking relief. At the Planning Board meeting, it was unclear how to condition a rezoning approval upon a future action to amend the urban renewal area. As a result, the Planning Board recommended denying the rezoning but noted they would support rezoning if the boundaries were amended. Subsequently, the City Solicitor suggested making it effective upon a future date. Daniel submitted a memo to the City Council indicating that an effective date for the rezoning of May 1, 2018 would provide enough time to amend the urban renewal area boundary if the Council would like to move forward with the rezoning. If the Council takes this action, the SRA will also need to approve amending the boundary. In addition, the process requires a public hearing and approval by the City Council, certification by the Planning Board of its consistency with the City’s plans, and approval by the City Attorney. The local process could be completed this calendar year and the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development would take 60 days to review and approve it. If DHCD approval was not received, the City Council could repeal their decision. Daniel stated that although the Design Review Board is an advisory entity created for the Redevelopment Authority, it also advises the Planning Board on projects proposed in the North River Canal Corridor. The Planning Board is interested in expanding that role to include the SRA September 13, 2017 Page 2 of 9 entrance corridors and an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to request that change will also go before the City Council at the September 14th meeting. Daniel noted that the Washington Street/Dodge Street project could return next month. Daniel stated that the Imagine Salem project is coming to a close and an updated report will be sent out in the next couple weeks. Daniel stated that the Zagster bike share will be adding 18 more bikes as well as new virtual hubs, not just bike racks. One will be added to the crescent shaped parcel near the MBTA lot and the Federal Street Rack will be moved to Armory Park during the month of October, but will return back to its existing location in November. Rubin asked if Zagster is still committed to the project in Salem. Daniel replied that Zagster is happy so far and its use will pick up with Salem State hub addition. They are also still looking to expand on sponsors. Daniel stated that the Bridge at 211 (First Universalist Church on Bridge Street) has merged its congregation with Unitarian Universalist Church and moved to Beverly. A non-profit is running the building and wants to turn it into an arts and cultural center. They are unsure of an approach to take. The SRA has a facade easement on the building and there is some restoration work to do. They want to get the word out about their future uses of the building for the community. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. Artists’ Row: Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. Shapiro stated that the plans were reviewed to redesign the Artists’ Row stalls and surrounding area. The SRA approved beige paint on the facades and brick ends which has been completed. The painting of super graphic signage to identify the buildings has been approved. This signage is a design change to rebrand Artists' Row and will not actually be permitted by the City. The applicant (student design class from Lesley University) had been asked to review the overall signage and clean up the appearance of the barn door, which has been installed. The new graphics would be on the outside entrance walls (Derby Street and Klop Alley.) A chalk board calendar will be placed at the bathroom barn door to allow stall occupants to show their schedules. The DRB recommends approval. Rubin noted that he is in favor of the more inviting design and applauds the DRB for their suggestions to improve the design. Daniel noted that The Public Art Commission, Deborah Greel, and Claudia Paraschiv through the Artist in Residence program, have had a dynamic year with self-marketing and art projects on site. SRA September 13, 2017 Page 3 of 9 Chair Harrington opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Harrington closes public comment. Rubin: Motion to approve proposed installation of signage as recommended by the DRB. Seconded by: Guarino. Passes 5-0. 2. Washington Street (Church Court Condo Association): Discussion and vote on proposed replacement of roof shingles, siding, decks, and windows (small project review). Madore recuses herself as an abutter and leaves the room. Steve Pelletier, one of three Condominium Board trustees, and Thomas Daniel, of SPS and consultant to their contractor, were present to discuss the project. Shapiro noted that the DRB recommended approval of the windows, azek trim, and composite decking. There was a concern with the installation of vinyl siding so Everlast was approved, which is a quartz based product that’s maintenance free and can be painted. It would match the existing blue color and will have a 4 ½” exposure. Daniel noted that the vinyl ripples and the Everlast was selected because color is throughout the entire product and it will not change the look of the decks due to its method of installation. The 4 1/2" profile will work well with height of the building. Rubin asked if the change will be noticeable. Pelletier replied that chips and cracks won’t be visible; it will look like new cedar siding, and will achieve the shaded look of clapboards. Pelletier stated that the shingles will be the same, Max Def Colonial architectural shingle with red, black, and grey coloring. The railings will span the 12 feet again with no center post. The work will start in early October and should be complete by end of year. Chair Harrington opens public comment. Jessica Herbert, Chair of the Historic Commission. She stated that she spoke with Helen Sides of the Design Review Board who was under the impression that they had approved a smooth finish not a woodgrain. The HC always approves smooth finishes and some Hardi plank depending upon its proposed location. She suggested Boral, which is the synthetic product that Walter Beebee-Center, owner of Essex Restoration, SRA September 13, 2017 Page 4 of 9 uses. She suggested that additional window trim be applied on top of the Azek trim to soften the look of the windows. It is not within HC jurisdiction but it is an important and prominent building that should get special attention. Daniel replied that Boral is made of fly ash; water absorption will be an issue if cuts aren’t properly primed, expansion and contraction will also be a problem, and the color is not through and through. Daniel noted that the Everlast does not have a smooth finish option and all holes made in the white Azek trim will be screwed and plugged and will not require painting. The flat stock window casing will be 5 ¼”. Pelletier added that the Everlast is not cementitious and gives off no VOC’s. Daniel noted that if they were to use wood it would cost more and would require regular painting and maintenance. The product proposed, which requires minimal upkeep, would already have a large financial impact on the community. Shapiro noted that the smooth vs. woodgrain finish was not discussed at the last DRB meeting. Shapiro added that Sides suggested that wood would be problematic if they can't keep up with the cost of the maintenance of such a large building and she’d rather see an appropriate synthetic product installed that will last overtime. Rubin asked if the Boral was natural or synthetic. Hebert replied that it is 70% recycled material. Rubin stated wanting the siding to be wood because that’s what is historic is one matter but asking them to eliminate a synthetic material that resembles wood and suggesting that it be replaced with a synthetic material that is smooth seems false. Hebert replied that historic buildings were milled and painted to look smooth and suggests that the product that looks best be used. Vickers stated that the technology for these products is always evolving and the HC and DRB should discuss the differences since they are more familiar with those product details. The DRB was satisfied with the look so it should move forward. Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street and Historic Salem Board member. The DRB should debate over material finishes not the SRA, a replacement in kind should become a minimum standard because a material failure doesn’t necessarily mean replacement with a synthetic product. Meg Twohey. Believes this is precedent setting, urged the SRA to make a site visit, review alternatives, and give it back to the DRB to review because a decision doesn’t have to be made immediately. The SRA has the same standard as the HC so you can ask the applicant to have the HC review it. This decision could be a mistake for the district. Daniel noted that the decks are a safety concern. Pelletier added that the water damage is an ongoing issue and this project should be judged on at its own merit and the SRA has approved synthetics like hardie board in the past. SRA September 13, 2017 Page 5 of 9 Shapiro stated that the material packet notes some areas that have vinyl siding. A building on Federal Street has some synthetic materials on less visible facades and the DRB and SRA were satisfied at the time it was proposed and felt it was not detrimental to the downtown. Rubin noted that the DRB gave this project a unanimous approval. Chair Harrington closes public comment. Vickers: Motion to approve proposed replacement of roof shingles, siding, decks, and windows. Seconded by: Chair Grace Harrington. Passes 4-0. 3. 30 Church Street (East Regiment Beer Company): Discussion and vote (to refer to design review) on proposed signage and outdoor seating area (cafe permit) scheme. Scott Perry, part owner of East Regiment Beer Company and owner of the building since May 2016, stated that they are proposing an outdoor seating area with an awning and signage. A new deck and ramp will provide a smooth surface for handicapped patrons and access to the new first floor restrooms. The existing brick walk is not level and their architect recommended a deck similar to the one at the Lobster Shanty. Several awning designs will be considered as well as doors to the outdoor space. Rubin asked if the entire business would be outdoor only and seasonal with production space in the Basement. Perry replied yes and a four season awning would be installed. This concept of a Basement buildout for production and outdoor tasting room has been discussed with Building Commissioner Tom St. Pierre. Perry noted that there are two trees and a flower bed on the SRA property; they will keep the tree closest to Church Street for shade, and the Salem tree warden will make his recommendation on what can be done. Vickers asked where their property line was in relation to the building. Perry replied roughly two feet beyond that edge of the building and they have an easement to use the walkway. Daniel stated that cafe permits are issued for businesses that are proposing outdoor seating within the public right of way and this is beyond the typical request since some items will need to be removed. A license agreement will need to be in place for this use. Perry noted that the built up deck will not impede upon the public right-of-way for Salem Green. SRA September 13, 2017 Page 6 of 9 Madore asked why they are proposing this use in this area. Perry replied that as a start- up company they will start off with a small outdoor tap room to keep costs down, but would expand to the interior tower with a vertical brewery system once they qualify for a Massachusetts Business Development Loan. The state plumbing board gave them a variance to test but not operate the equipment. If they outgrow the space the Basement could remain as their pilot brewery and house their bright tanks. Vickers asked what will happen when they need more brewing space. Perry replied that this space will be a nano brewery that could expand into the first floor area or contract brew off- site and use a separate brewery. Madore asked if the public open space would be lost to the public indefinitely and if it could be reversed. The licensing would only be valid for a certain period of time and if the business is not successful they could be left with a vacant space with no activity. Madore noted that Far From the Tree needed to renovate and add restrooms to accommodate their expansion and if that were to occur this may not be the best location to accommodate that growth. Perry replied that the raised deck and awning could be removed and reverted back to a flower bed and brick walkway, the two small trees could be replaced, and the light pole isn't functional but could be moved to one side. Perry noted that there are two more bathrooms in the space that could be used and the tank sizes can change to work with whatever space is available. Daniel asked what the existing second door at Nick’s was used for and how. Perry replied a second egress that is rarely used but it will not be a shared deck space. Perry noted that the security process is being established to ensure no alcohol will be brought inside the building. Daniel suggested that the three points of entry to the patio may need to be reduced to one for more control, or at the very least, the Licensing Board may raise the issue of multiple points of entry. Perry replied that they are working with Tom St. Pierre to determine their means of egress. Shapiro noted that the canvas awning will have a steel frame and roll down plastic windows. Perry noted that a waist high shelf will be added at interior perimeter for patrons to place beers, some areas of the awning will be rolled up in the summer for an open feel, and the roof will remain for shading. Shapiro noted that more detail will be needed for DRB approval; window type, colors, shelf detail, seating, proposed images, etc. Madore voiced her concern with an expansion in regards to the residential neighbors and stated that more information regarding the proposed concept is needed. This project will set a precedent. She asked if a tap room was essential to the business. Perry replied yes, that is how the majority of micro-breweries survive in their early stages. SRA September 13, 2017 Page 7 of 9 Rubin stated that he wants to see excitement and energy in that corridor but has concerns with an easement that has a 30 year minimum. Vickers noted that a full understanding of the terms of the deal with the SRA that owns that land needs to be determined. Perry replied that their Attorney Scott Grover will contact Andrew Shapiro so that he may begin working on a preliminary agreement. Shapiro stated that the City doesn't want a long term agreement, they would prefer a license rather than an easement, and an internal meeting will be needed to discuss the matter further. Daniel added that all concerns need to be identified, such as length of an agreement and opportunity to expand, because this has never been done before. Chair Harrington requests a memo from the City regarding what can and cannot be done. Perry noted that he has no timeline to adhere to yet and are still trying to determine the process. Vickers noted that the Tavern in the Square’s approval process to place tables and chairs was a similar and lengthy process. If the business is successful it could impede the walkway if a line to enter the space forms. Perry stated that they must also get a special permit from the Zoning Board to be zoned for a micro-brewery and a pouring permit. They have received Federal approval but the State approval is dependent upon receiving local approval. Daniel added that the ZBA is aware of the other required approvals. Madore asked if this was a historic building. Shapiro replied that is not known at this time and since no demolition is being proposed there is no concern with the building because the proposed awning and decking won’t be tied to the building. Chair Harrington opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Harrington closes public comment. Harrington: Motion to continue. Seconded by: Rubin. Passes 5-0. New / Old Business FY18 Community Preservation Plan: Request for Comment/Input Shapiro stated that each year the CPC asked for other boards’ comments/input on priorities, criteria, general parameters of the plan, if they have anything to add, etc. The language that SRA September 13, 2017 Page 8 of 9 references City properties was discussed internally; SRA properties could be included in this language so that they could potentially be the beneficiary of CPA funds. Shapiro noted that the SRA has no buildings just properties. The addition of a balustrade at the Bridge at 211 was an SRA funded project that also included a facade easement. As a non-profit building it might not be as highly ranked, but the Board may want to suggest advocating that projects within the Urban Renewal Area be considered more highly. A comment letter was drafted for the SRA to review to consider submitting. All comments can be submitted up until October 27th. 65 Washington Street (District Court): General Update Daniel stated that Andrew, Russ, Steve Zimmerman, Deborah Greel, and he had a meeting with the developer and their public art consultant in August. They must still file a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application with the Planning Board and need to get approval from the City Council for the tax increment exemption agreement. A meeting to discuss the sequencing of that process will occur the week of September 18th. 32-50 Federal Street (Superior Court and County Commissioners Building): General update Daniel stated that a DCAMM sponsored feasibility study is continuing and they are expected to present its findings at the October meeting. Stakeholders will have another group meeting at the end of September. The legislation complications haven’t changed but this study could lead to steps that modify the legislation. Gail Rosenberg of DCAMM has proven to be a great support and a strong partner in this process. On November 13th an Urban Land Institute Technical Assistance Panel will meet during the day. The panel will be looking at downtown redevelopment opportunities, which includes the courts. A special SRA meeting will be held at 6PM that night for a full group and public discussion, possibly at Salem Five. Joint SRA & DRB Meeting Daniel noted that the SRA annual meeting will take place the second Wednesday in November where the year in review report is presented. The following Monday would be the special meeting. Minutes The minutes from the August 9, 2017 regular meeting were reviewed. Harrington: Motion to approve the minutes with Tom Daniel's edits. Seconded by: Guarino. Passes 5-0. Adjournment SRA September 13, 2017 Page 9 of 9 Harrington: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Madore. Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:50PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033.