Loading...
2014-06-11 SRA MinutesSRA June 11, 2014 Page 1 of 7 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday June 11, 2014 at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairperson Robert Mitnik, Conrad Baldini, Robert Curran, Russell Vickers Members Absent: Others Present: Executive Director and City Planner Lynn Duncan, Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Jennifer Pennell Chairperson Robert Mitnik calls the meeting to order. Roll call was taken. Executive Director’s Report Lynn Duncan provided updates on the disposition of the Superior and District Court buildings. She noted that Secretary of State William Galvin expressed interest in portions of the Superior Court complex and has requested that legislation move forward to allow the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) to work with the City on a disposition process for those portions. The City was not supportive of this action and expressed that to Senator Joan Lovely’s Office. Secretary Galvin did not show interest in retaining the District Court building, and a piece of legislation to move forward with its disposition has been passed out of committee. The Superior Court bill has not yet moved forward. Vickers asked whether it was likely that the District Court legislation be passed before the end of July. Duncan responded noting that it could very well be passed by the end of July. Duncan then updated the Board on filling Matthew Veno’s vacancy on the SRA. She noted that the Mayor has appointed Grace Harrington, who has been Chief of Staff to Representative John Keenan and will soon become Chief of Staff to Senator Joan Lovely. Given her position on these staffs, she may not be able to vote on the courts project. We anticipate that she will be appointed at the June 26th City Council meeting, and will be able to join the SRA in July. Old/New Business Urban Renewal Area Projects 1. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street, and 231-251 Washington Street (Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Discussion and vote on proposed development project – schematic design review. SRA June 11, 2014 Page 2 of 7 Matthew Picarsic and Seth Zeren were present on behalf of RCG. Picarsic began by covering the process that the applicant went through to get to this point. He noted that they had been to several Design Review Board meetings and had recently received schematic design approval. Picarsic continued by noting that several changes had taken place with respect to the design since last meeting with the SRA. In particular he noted that they moved away from a u-shaped design, have less uniformity between different parts of the development, and follow closer along the street edge. Picarsic noted that they are very excited about the plan; that the design remains feasible, and that they anticipate being before the Planning Board starting in July. Picarsic continued by noting that they are requesting flexibility with respect to programming for the development. This is so that they can respond to market demand as they move forward. As of now Seth Zeren then began to described the proposed development. He showed how the site plan had changed from the original design presented months prior. He noted that a hotel building occupies the North end of the site, transitioning over to a mixed-use building with ground level retail and office and residential above along Washington Street, and a primarily residential building at the West end of the site. A parking are in the back would have a “parking court” style at the exposed level. Zeren noted that the buildings would be quite prominent considering the setback that the Hawthorne Building next door provides. Features of the Dodge Street hotel building were described as follows: • Mass has been broken up with historic style detailing. • Awnings and pedestrian scale features. • Cube element introduces a more civic scale and modern approach. • Curb bump-outs to shorten pedestrian crossing distances and slow traffic. • Outdoor seating at corner of Washington and Dodge Street to create street life. • Raised crosswalk with a plaza to improve the pedestrian environment. • Dodge Street would become a two-way, straight, urban, street. • Substantial grade change. Planter bed has a 2’-0” reveal and continues until it becomes flush with the street edge at Washington and Dodge Street outdoor seating area. • Opened up another passageway through the site with an open-air stair connector between the hotel and the West building. Features of the West Building (along Washington Street) were described as follows: SRA June 11, 2014 Page 3 of 7 • Cast stone material against smooth panel system. • Mixed-use building • 15’-0” to 25’-0” wide pedestrian sidewalk • 5’-0” grade change with sunken plants set into wells to take up less space from the proposed sidewalk. • On-street parking and drop off locations become a buffer between pedestrian and traffic. • Paving treatments • Corner condition pulls back away from street edge. Lobby space with a plaza that provides access to parking levels. • Bicycle parking. • Pedestrian plaza acknowledges grade change with a raised wall, steps, and ramp. Features of the South Residential Building were described as follows: • Corner retail space at the entrance of the parking area • Stoops with raised platforms • Terraces • Many of the units to be live-work units Interior Parking: • One-way parking loop • 52 spaces in the parking court area currently, with more spaces throughout the parking structure. • Greenscape with low planting beds and terrace balconies along residential building. • Tree plantings in the parking court Vickers questioned whether there would be retail at the ground level of the parking court and whether the second level would be commercial. Zeren noted that the first level would in fact be retail and that the second level would be residential. Vickers asked about accessing Washington Street via the parking area. Zeren noted that one would use the open-air stairway connection. Zeren then went through several floor plan iterations showing the Board how the lobby space would integrate with the ground floor and how the parking area would work in terms of circulation. Picarsic noted that they are far along in the design process and on the verge of beginning construction documents. SRA June 11, 2014 Page 4 of 7 Duncan expressed her excitement for the project, that it had come a long way through the DRB process, and that the wrapping of the development up Washington Street, toward the Point would be good for the future of that neighborhood. Duncan continued by noting that proposed parking is designed for the most intensive use. Picarsic noted that they would be filing with the Planning Board as a planned unit development, which will mean that there are no strict parking requirements. He commented that even in a conservative estimation, with the number of proposed hotel rooms and residential units, that they are calling for more than 1 and a half times what would be called for in terms of parking. Baldini commented that he applauds the mixed-use material selections and how distinguishable they are. Duncan pointed out that given the mix of uses, that the Planning Board would be looking to see that the development could accommodate the upper range of issues like parking. Picarsic acknowledged this and explained that they are in the process of filing an ENF with MEPA and as an example, are presenting several scenarios for water use, so that they can insure that the most intense user of water can be accommodated appropriately. Mitnik commented that he applauds how signage is articulated on the Washington Street side. It improved greatly from earlier designs. Shapiro then explained that the DRB voted to recommend schematic design approval with the condition that further details such as lighting, landscaping, and other design refinements be reviewed by the DRB, specifically at 100% design development, and 50% construction document levels. The SRA would review the building at the final design phase. Vickers asked the applicant whether that process would be manageable. Picarsic responded that it would. Duncan noted that having interim design review steps would allow the DRB to have input and review opportunities before 100% construction documents were developments and when changes or refinements would be less possible to achieve. Picarsic noted that he would be happy to provide further interim designs submitted to the DRB, to the SRA as well. Mitnik expressed a preference toward seeing documents when the DRB would review them, so that that the SRA could provide comments, if need be, as well. SRA June 11, 2014 Page 5 of 7 Vickers: Motion to approve with conditions for interim design document review steps as outlined and recommended by the DRB, Seconded by Baldini. Passes 4-0. 2. 227-231 Essex Street (Rockafellas): Discussion and vote on proposed awnings and signage. Shapiro commented that the proposal is for 2 new identical, black awnings, to draw attention to the restaurant’s Colonial Hall entertainment facility. One of the awnings would be located above the entrance on Essex Street, and the other above the entrance on Washington Street; both would read “Colonial Hall at Rockafellas.” Shapiro commented that the new awnings would have a dome shaped top condition. The proposal also calls for three existing black awnings on Washington Street to have a Rockafellas logo added to the bottom rims. The proposal was approved by the DRB with no further comments. Baldini: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, Seconded by Curran. Passes 4-0. 3. 155 Washington Street (Adriatic Restaurant and Bar): Discussion and vote on proposed folding doors/windows and outdoor seating furniture and fence. Shapiro commented that the proposal is for changes to the outdoor seating area on Front Street. The proposal includes removal of the fixed windows, which would be replaced with a window door system that allows for open-air dining for indoor seated patrons as well. Shapiro noted that the existing planter system would be replaced with a fixed black wrought iron looking fence. Vickers questioned whether the fence was permanently installed. Shapiro noted that it had already been installed and was drilled into the sidewalk. He had inquired with the Building Department for further comment on the matter. The fence would be removed from the sidewalk in the offseason. Shapiro continued by explaining that existing light fixtures would be replaced with wall sconces in a bronze finish about a foot down from the existing fixture locations. The DRB recommended that the conduit should be painted to match the building finish and that there should only be one junction box. Shapiro commented that the proposal also includes pole lighting, replacing existing outdoor chairs, adding two gas heaters, and an additional spotlight added to the signage. Mitnik commented that proposed pole lighting requires further information and detailing. The proposed fence should be approved pending approval by the Building Inspector. SRA June 11, 2014 Page 6 of 7 Vickers questioned how many glass window systems would be installed. Shapiro noted that there would be two new glass window systems installed along the Front Street side. Vickers: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB with additional conditions: • Do not approve pole lighting until further lighting detail is received. • Do not approve fencing unless it meets building code regulations. Seconded by Curran. Passes 4-0. 4. 24 New Derby Street/ Artists’ Row #4 (Marrow): Discussion and vote on proposed signage. Shapiro explained that the current sign would be painted over with the proposed design being presented and have a light grey background with a typewriter face. Vickers: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, Seconded by Baldini. Passes 4-0. 5. 24 New Derby Street/ Artists’ Row #5 (Double Exposure): Discussion and vote on proposed signage. Shapiro commented that the proposal is for a new 24”x30” sign that would be painted on both sides and hung at existing sign post locations. Shapiro noted that the proposal meets the city sign ordinance requirements. Baldini: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, Seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0. 6. 24 New Derby Street/ Artists’ Row: Discussion and vote on new proposed paint colors for Artists’ Row stalls. Shapiro noted that Artists’ Row proposes to repaint the existing siding located on the buildings. Paint finish color would be either Powell or Pittsfield Buff, resembling the trim color used on Old Town Hall. Shapiro commented that existing trim would not be repainted. Curran: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, Seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0. 7. 24 New Derby Street/ Artists’ Row: Discussion and vote on proposed A-frame signs. Shapiro noted that the proposal is for two A-frame signs to better acknowledge branding for Artists’ Row, located at each end of Artists’ Row. They should not impede on pedestrian access, especially given the amount of space on the sidewalks. Baldini: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, SRA June 11, 2014 Page 7 of 7 Seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0. Minutes The minutes from the May 14, 2014 regular meeting were reviewed. Vickers: Motion to approve, Seconded by Curran. Passes 4-0. Duncan commented that Old Town Hall previously managed by Gordon College for the past 6 years is no longer interested and will no longer conduct event booking. A concert that was booked in 2013 created concern for how events were being booked. Gordon College was not comfortable continuing their involvement with booking events. Old Town Hall events will be booked by the City, with building management to continue under Gordon College. After a temporary three month period, all management will fall under the City. Adjournment Baldini: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:37 pm.