Loading...
2010-07-14 SRA MinutesSRA July 14, 2010 Page 1 of 9 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday July 14, 2010 at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairperson Michael Brennan, Robert Mitnik, Conrad Baldini, Russell Vickers Members Absent: Robert Curran Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel, Executive Director and City Planner Lynn Duncan Recorder: Lindsay Howlett Chairperson Michael Brennan calls the meeting to order. Executive Director’s Report Duncan states that in addition to the jail exhibit operating hours on tonight’s agenda, there are two additional items: a request relative to the affordable artist live/work space and a change in the layout of the landscaped area in terms of a slight relocation of the proposed sidewalk. 1. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail): Discussion and vote on proposed jail history exhibit operating hours (refer to Old Salem Jail Ventures letters dated 7/1/2010, 7/12/2010, 7/14/2010, and staff memo from Tom Daniel dated 7/8/2010) Duncan states the previously submitted proposal to the SRA stated operating hours for the Jail exhibit would be from Monday – Friday 9:00 AM-11:00 AM. Duncan sent a response stating she did not think that would be acceptable to the SRA. Duncan states she expected someone to be here from New Boston Venture, but there may have been miscommunication between the partners. Duncan states New Boston Ventures submitted a revised proposal that has significantly expanded the exhibit hours; Monday – Friday 10:00-4:00 and Saturday 12:00-2:00. Duncan adds these hours seem reasonable and would provide access both for residents and visitors to the city. Duncan states the staff is concerned with the next provision of how to access the space. Duncan states New Boston Ventures has proposed using a key located at the Visitor’s Center in an attempt to protect the privacy of the tenants. Duncan further adds the problems they are experiencing now is that tour groups come on to the site, look into the windows of the Mc Intire building, and walk behind the building etc, all contributing to tenant privacy issues. David Goldman and Jonathan Parkes of New Boston Ventures arrive to the meeting. SRA July 14, 2010 Page 2 of 9 Duncan states from a staff perspective they are not sure that having a key to the jail exhibit is the answer to the problem of tour groups visiting the site. Goldman states it has been a little complicated trying to accommodate the need for the exhibit space being public and the privacy of the residents of the development. Goldman states the one open issue is how the key functions. Parkes states that tour groups should have a tour leader to make sure people aren’t just wandering around the property. As it is right now, there are sometimes tour groups at night standing by the carriage house windows. If there was a key, the tour leaders would know what to do and what not to do. They would not walk around the grounds. Mitnik asks what the key is for. How does it relate to the exhibit or the windows tour groups are looking in. He does not quite understand. Goldman clarifies that these tour groups aren’t going into the jail exhibit, but they are walking around the whole property. The question is how to manage access so that they have access to the actual exhibit space itself but aren’t wandering around freely. Brennan suggests one solution could be tastefully done signage directing people to the jail exhibit. They could talk to tour groups to look at the cemetery from Howard Street, and maybe wrought iron fencing could be added to keep them from getting up to the building. Vickers inquires if they’re looking for control and someone is administering a key wouldn’t they want the tour guides to go through some sort of training to understand the do’s and don’ts before they pick up the key? Duncan asks about individuals who want to access the Jail exhibit. Daniel states there are two separate issues currently being discussed. Daniel states one issue is the matter of the jail history exhibit and access to it. There’s a separate issue of tour groups coming to the property, regardless of an exhibit existing or not, and are strolling along as they have for years. They need to be educated that this is a private residence now and they are not welcome on the property. They can be informed that there will be access to a jail history exhibit. Duncan reiterates that they want to separate out the two issues; one being the key and the other being the tour guides. Duncan asks Goldman and Parkes if anyone from the Jail has yet spoken with the National Park Service about managing the key. Goldman states they are not sure. Mitnik suggests implementing a gate to provide a route for the people to go and when it’s not open the gate could be closed with signage detailing the exhibits hours. Mitnik adds this way it is very SRA July 14, 2010 Page 3 of 9 clear where you can and cannot go, and it clarifies which path is for public. Mitnik adds it will also provide security. Duncan states right now the sight is open so it would need to be looked at. Brennan states it’s a brand new site so we could nip it in the bud. Baldini thinks the best two ideas are proper signage and informing the guides. Vickers notes if they want the key, they will need to read the rules. Goldman states the idea to have iron posts/stanchions with a chain to delineate walk ways, combined with other ides, could be tasteful and functional. Duncan recalls a previous idea of the jail exhibit not having a lock but instead having some sort of magnetic door latch that would be open the hours of operation. Duncan adds she wonders why they have moved past that idea, what the problems were with that idea and if they can go back to that. Goldman responds at one point that would gain visitors access to the entire building but they have since resolved those issues internally by creating other doors. Goldman adds at this point it is for the peace of mind for the residents about securing the building. Duncan adds if the magnetic latches were on timers would that solve the problem, why are keys necessary. Duncan further states the keys to the jail are not going to stop people from walking around the property. Goldman states that he understands what they are saying and is somewhat confused about the need for the key himself, but it was a suggestion from the architect. Brennan states that without the architect present to explain the key idea, there is no point to discussing it further. Brennan adds that it seems keeping access as is with a timed magnetic lock makes the most sense. Brennan states in addition the second issue is people not even knowing there’s a jail museum on the site. Brennan suggests considering signage to assist with this issue. Brennan adds with great signage and some of the things Mitnik suggested earlier, the issue should be taken care of. Goldman agrees. Daniel adds a letter to the tour group operators stating this is now a private property would help and Daniel and Duncan will assist with that. Duncan asks if all the doors are electronic and on timers. SRA July 14, 2010 Page 4 of 9 Daniel clarifies then the front door could be set to hours of operation and people who knew that could access the exhibit without needing a key. Goldman will confirm that and present some proposals on signage and the other things discussed. Duncan states the signage will be a very important piece. The board could take a vote approving the hours and with it being open without the need for a key. Duncan asks if the board wants to see the signage plan back. Daniel suggests developing the signage plan quickly as the DRB meets at the end of the month and if the SRA were willing to say subject to DRB approval then that could get done very quickly as opposed to a meeting in August. Goldman suggests having the general public access limited to when the porter was on site. Goldman adds the porter is on site four days a week from 9:00-11:00 as stated in the original proposal. Duncan responds she does not think that would be acceptable. Duncan further states that it is the Salem residents who they are really trying to serve here and adds it is great that tour groups can go through. However, the focus is really on the residents. Goldman thinks the issue will resolve itself overtime and thinks they really need to control the tour groups. Duncan states she does not want to penalize the residents in order to address the problem with the tour groups. Goldman states he thinks they can just create signage and some sort of barrier to keep the public from walking around the back yard and that will resolve the issue. Daniel adds if New Boston Ventures is able to pull together the package by noon on Tuesday then they will be able to be on the DRB agenda for the July 28th meeting. Brennan suggests they focus on the signage for the private residences, paths for tour groups and something for the museum. Mitnik comments that the museum should really be open on a Saturday for people who work during the week and on Saturday should be open for more than two hours. Mitnik proposed the hours of the museum be Tuesday – Friday from 10-4 and Saturday 10-4. Mitnik reiterates that he would like to see more hours for people who work during the day and people who are here on the weekends and states that these hours would actually be fewer hours than proposed. Goldman states the hours were determined in response to the feedback they have received from their residents. SRA July 14, 2010 Page 5 of 9 Daniel states it was specified in the agreement to be daily which would really be seven days. Duncan asks if there is an exhibit created yet. Goldman states they are still working on the exhibit and it is not finalized. Goldman adds there is an old cell that can be looked at. Mitnik adds maybe the public path could work in conjunction with the restaurant. Goldman states the restaurant cannot be accessed from that side of the building. Brennan asks how many days will the museum be open. Duncan states daily is everyday including Sunday, but you could make a case that Sunday is more protected for private residences which would leave us with six days of museum operation. Goldman suggests trying six days and if they receive negative feedback they will adapt. Mitnik: Motion to approve museum exhibit hours as follows: The hours shall be 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Saturday. The lock on the entrance door shall be programmed to allow for entry to the exhibit space without requiring a key during the operating hours. The applicant shall erect signage indicating the operating hours and the access route to the jail history exhibit. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the DRB and SRA prior to installation, seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0. Brennan suggests talking with the tour groups after the signage is up and the paths are defined as it will be easier to tell them which routes to follow. Duncan responds depending on the timing of the signs, New Boston Ventures could move forward by sending a letter to the tour groups to try to cut that problem off sooner. Goldman asks for names of the tour group operators from Duncan. Duncan agrees to provide the information to them. Affordable Housing Unit: Goldman states they have attracted some artist interest but have not yet been able to rent it. Goldman adds they would like to keep it affordable but would like to open it up to the general public. Goldman further states as a result this unit would not count towards the state’s tally of affordable housing units in the city. Duncan states they initially explored the idea and discovered that the artist live/work space could not count towards city’s affordable unit count, but nonetheless they were happy to stay with the SRA July 14, 2010 Page 6 of 9 artist live/work space. Duncan states she is now wondering whether they could target that unit or set aside the unit for a Salem resident. Goldman states under the State’s rules you are allowed to open it up to a city resident, up to seventy percent. Duncan states if they could do an affordable unit that meets the State’s requirements to “count” and have preference to Salem residents, that would be an ideal scenario and should be explored. Duncan states the other part of this is there would still be an area in the Jail that could be maintained to display the work of a local artist. Goldman replies there is an area near the entry way that could be used for a local artist to display their artwork. Goldman adds they have not developed this idea to a full extent and will have to talk more in depth about it. Mitnik adds there will be security issues that will need to be considered with that idea. Duncan responds that the idea of displaying art at this location may or may not work as a result. Duncan asks if there is any area in the restaurant for the artwork. Duncan adds the board would need to determine if this is a make or break piece to the issue regarding the affordable unit. Baldini: Motion to approve Old Salem Jail Ventures LLC’s request to eliminate the requirement that the affordable housing unit be leased to an artist conditional upon the unit being leased to a Salem resident instead. If the unit can be set aside for a Salem resident and meet the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ requirements to count as an affordable unit, then the applicable process shall be followed. If not, then the unit shall go to a Salem resident even though it won’t be included in the Commonwealth’s tally, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 4-0. Daniel states the signage for the restaurant at the Old Salem Jail will be on the agenda for the next DRB meeting. Landscaping: Goldman states they are trying to figure out how to add a walkway while providing the access the fire department needs to the building. Daniel states the board is looking at handouts of the site plan that feature the new paths and driveway. Daniel adds the path gets very close to Bridge Street and seems not to make too much sense on the ground therefore it was thought to incorporate the four foot sidewalk into the eighteen foot driveway to allow for more green space. SRA July 14, 2010 Page 7 of 9 Goldman states they confirmed with the fire department and found they do not care as long as they have the width they need to bring the truck close to the building. Duncan asks if it possible to do a five foot wide sidewalk to make it more comfortable for two people passing by. Goldman states they are matching the existing sidewalk width constructed by Mass Highway. The board determines the site plan drawings they have are not to scale. Daniel states the sidewalk shown in black on the drawings is what is proposed. Daniel adds the proposal is to connect the existing four foot wide sidewalk to the new four foot wide sidewalk that would wrap around the turn around, the driveway to Bridge Street and tie back in again. Daniel states there will be more green space as a result. Mitnik reiterates a four foot sidewalk is not comfortable. Brennan asks what the objection would be to adding a five foot wide sidewalk. Goldman responds they think where it ties into the existing sidewalk would look awkward and the trees are already planted along the edge. Mitnik suggests why not make the driveway nineteen feet then. Duncan adds the problem now is there are already existing constraints from the trees. Baldini: Motion to approve redesign as presented, seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0. Daniel states it is subject to the fire department approving the revision. Old/New Business 2. 118 Washington Street (Café Polonia): Discussion and vote to authorize Chair to enter into license agreement for new ramp Daniel states this additional agenda item is to authorize the SRA to enter into a license agreement to occur between the SRA, property owner, and tenant for the construction of a handicapped access ramp on SRA property. The design was approved at the June SRA meeting. Vickers: Motion to authorize the SRA to enter into a license agreement to occur between the SRA, property owner and tenant, seconded by Mitnik. Passes 4-0. Small Project Review SRA July 14, 2010 Page 8 of 9 3. 32 Derby Square (Old Town Hall): Discussion and vote on proposed exterior vent (refer to DRB recommendation memo dated 6/23/2010) Daniel states as part of the grant funding that Gordon College received for Old Town Hall there is a new heating system being installed. Daniel adds as part of that project there just needs to be a vent coming out of the building in the location shown on the drawing. Daniel further states the DRB recommended approval. A question was asked about the fencing shown on one image. Daniel responds it was initially proposed to be an aesthetic piece but was recommended to be removed by the DRB. It was aesthetic but also had a deterrent function. Daniel adds through the course of the discussion at the DRB meeting, they determined the deterrent piece wasn’t really there and the aesthetic piece was worse with only one portion being implemented. Daniel states the final recommendation was to go without the fencing. Duncan reiterates the DRB felt one window location with the fencing and not all of the windows with it appeared awkward. Baldini: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0. 4. 24 New Derby Street (Artists’ Row): Discussion and vote on proposed painting of entrance walls (refer to DRB recommendation memo dated 6/23/2010) Daniel states one of the new artists in Artists’ Row is very motivated to make improvements to the Row at the entrance panels. Daniel adds the artist developed concepts of artwork to be painted at these locations that would define the artist space but also correct the existing punctuation error. Daniel adds the artist had a big idea to make this a community event, but was advised that would turn into a much longer project. Daniel states the artist received feedback from other artists about the image concepts. Brennan states he feels artists know best and would never force his thoughts on these types of things. Mitnik: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0. Sign, Awning, and Lighting Review 5. 233 Washington Street (Frankenstein’s Art): Discussion and vote on proposed signage (refer to DRB recommendation memo dated 6/23/2010) Daniel states the owner’s work in applying to be part of Artists’ Row and not being selected lead him to decide to open his own storefront. Daniel explains he takes photographs and other pieces of art and adds three dimensional elements to them. He is also a muralist. SRA July 14, 2010 Page 9 of 9 Daniel states the DRB tweaked the sign proposal and those changes have been incorporated in tonight’s package. Daniel adds there was a fair amount of discussion about the name of the business as it perhaps does not communicate very well what the business is, but nonetheless that is the name of their business. Mitnik: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Baldini. Passes 4-0. 6. 79, 83, and 87 Washington Street (Lightshed Photography Studio, Hip Baby Gear, Green Land Café): Discussion and vote on proposed signage (refer to DRB recommendation memo dated 6/23/2010) Daniel states these locations currently do not have lettering in the sign band and this is just completing the Kinsman block project. Daniel adds the lettering is consistent with the Salem Five Retirement Services signage. Mitnik: Motion to approve as recommended by the DRB, seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the May 12, 2010 regular meeting. Baldini: Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0. Adjournment Baldini: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Vickers. Passes 4-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:05pm.