Loading...
2004-06-09 SRA MinutesSRA Minutes June 9, 2004 Page 1 of 5 MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD ON JUNE 9, 2004 A regular meeting of the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) Board was held in the third floor conference room at the City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 6:00pm. Treasurer Conrad Baldini called the meeting to order and on roll call, the following members were present: Conrad Baldini, Michael Brennan, and Russell Vickers. Denise S. McClure, Deputy Director of the Department of Planning & Community Development, Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner, and Valerie Gingrich, Clerk were also present. Minutes Mr. Vickers motioned to approve the minutes from the meeting held on May 12, 2004. Mr. Brennan seconded the motion. Motion passed (3-0). New Business Ms. McClure gave a report in the place of the Executive Director’s Report. Ms. McClure informed the board of a site visit to the Old Salem Jail for the City Councilors on June 15 at 5:00PM. She stated that it would be a good chance for the board members to take a tour of the jail if they have not yet done so. Ms. McClure stated that the City Council will schedule a meeting regarding the possible transfer of the jail to the SRA after the site visit takes place. Ms. McClure also stated that the board is a member short and the Mayor will be filling the position in the near future. She stated that the board will have to hold elections for the positions of officers of the SRA, but it makes sense to do that when the position is filled. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROJECTS 1. 18 Crombie Street—Review of the proposed Final Design Plans for the redevelopment of 18 Crombie Street Ms. Hartford introduced the applicant, Warren Sawyer of Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Sawyer stated that the final plans are in keeping with the previous plans and there have been no drastic changes. Ms. McClure stated that the department met with Mr. Sawyer and the architect, John Goff, and went over the plans and there are no major changes. She stated that the Land Disposition Agreement has a permitting completion deadline of July 30 and they want to meet it. She reviewed the project, which includes restoring the historic structure and property. She stated that the Design Review Board will look at the materials and architectural details of the project. Mr. Brennan asked if a family has been chosen to own the house. Mr. Sawyer stated that a family had not yet been chosen, but that they are in the process of selection. Ms. Hartford stated that the family will be selected after the closing. Mr. Sawyer stated that the family will be required to put in 300 hours of sweat equity. SRA Minutes June 9, 2004 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Brennan inquired as to the length of construction. Mr. Sawyer stated that they have one year to complete the project. He explained that they will be completed with the exterior of the house by fall and then continue to work on the interior through the winter. Mr. Vickers asked what has to be completed by July 30th. Ms. McClure stated that the applicant has to complete the permitting process by that date. Mr. Vickers motioned to refer the project to the Design Review Board for design review of the final design plans. Mr. Brennan seconded the motion. Motion passed (3-0). DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Amendments to Projects 2. 51-71 Lafayette Street—Review of the proposed exterior changes to the SRA Approved Final Design Plans for the project at 51-71 Lafayette Street (Derby Lofts). Ms. Hartford introduced the applicant, Mark Meche of Winter Street Architects, who explained that the proposal has not changed since the board saw it at the last meeting. He explained that the Design Review Board liked the changes and recommended approval. Mr. Vickers asked if they are having to do more work on the building than they initially thought. Mr. Meche stated that they expected to do this much work on the project. Mr. Meche stated that the board will see the project again for the review of signage when they have secured retail tenants. Mr. Brennan asked if they knew who the tenants will be. Mr. Meche stated that they do not know for sure. Mr. Brennan inquired as to the construction schedule. Mr. Meche stated that they lost three weeks, but they expect to make them up and are looking at getting units online in January. Mr. Brennan motioned to accept the DRB recommendation to approve the exterior changes to the project. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. Motion passed (3-0). Project Introduction 3. 289 Derby Street—Review of the proposed Final Design Plans for the redevelopment of 289 Derby Street. Ms. Hartford introduced Attorney Scott Grover, who explained that the plans have been submitted for final design review in order to start the other local permitting required. Attorney Grover explained that they will need to appear before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review and before the Conservation Commission. Attorney Grover stated that the plans are the same as the schematic plans that were previously approved by the SRA, but they submitted to start the process and go to the Design Review Board. He added that they have started the Chapter 91 permitting process as well. SRA Minutes June 9, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Brennan asked Attorney Grover to review the make-up of the building. Attorney Grover described the project, which includes 2,200 square feet of retail in the front ground floor, 1,900 square feet of retail in the rear ground floor, 38 residential condominiums on the upper floors, and below grade on-site parking. Mr. Baldini inquired as to the number of parking spaces. Attorney Grover stated that there are 1.5 spaces per unit. Mr. Brennan asked if the DEP waterways license will require access to the waterfront. Attorney Grover stated that it would and they will be combining their access with the adjacent Hess gas station to create a ten foot wide walkway to the South River. Ms. McClure added that the applicant will also be responsible for building their section of the harborwalk adjacent to the South River. Attorney Grover stated that there is a public courtyard located in the rear of the building and the project was designed with Chapter 91 in mind. Mr. Vickers commented that the coordination with Hess on the ten-foot wide walkway is nice. George Bellows, applicant, added that there are three different bodies that govern the location: local permitting, the harbor plan, and Chapter 91. He stated that the project was designed so that no variances are needed. Mr. Brennan inquired as to the construction schedule if all goes well. Attorney Grover stated that they are looking at spring of 2005 to start construction, because of the lengthy Chapter 91 process, which is at best case ten months from the application date. Mr. Vickers motioned to refer the project to the DRB for design review of the final design plans. Mr. Brennan seconded the motion. Motion passed (3-0). Final Approval 4. 209 Essex Street—Review of the Schematic Design Plans for the redevelopment of the facade at 209 Essex Street (Newmark Building). Ms. Hartford introduced the applicant, Mark Meche, who explained that he and his business partner, Paul Durand, would like to make improvements to their building. He stated that the proposal has not changed since the board saw it last time and there will be additional details in the final design stage. Mr. Vickers asked for a review of the project and Mr. Meche went over the proposed restoration work. Mr. Meche stated that they will be loaning the first floor space for a Salem State Art Show for thirty days. Mr. Baldini asked if the design details shown on the plan are existing. Mr. Meche stated that they are. Mr. Baldini asked the material of the detailing. Mr. Meche stated that it is sandstone. SRA Minutes June 9, 2004 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Meche explained that they are starting to price the materials and working on the final design drawings. He added that construction should take four months and will cost approximately $250,000. Mr. Brennan motioned to accept the DRB recommendation for approval of the schematic design plans, Mr. Baldini seconded the motion, motion passed (3-0). SIGN REVIEW Design Review Board Recommendations 7. 266 Essex Street (Barking Cat)—Review of proposed signage at the new storefront at 266 Essex Street (former Bowman’s Building). Ms. Hartford stated that the DRB recommended the proposal to hang a 42” x 42” hanging sign constructed of wood, to apply vinyl lettering to the windows and light the sign with white spotlight on the building with conditions on the size of the vinyl lettering on the windows. Ms. Hartford stated that the conditions were that the vinyl lettering on the windows be 3 i nches high; the vinyl letters on the door should be: Hours: 1 ½ inch letters with ¾ space, Words “Store Hours”: two inches high, Words “266 Essex”: 2 inches, Logo Graphic-12” x 12” clear; Font on the windows should be spaced appropriately; and the spec for the lights and scroll bracket need to be approved prior to installation. Ms. Hartford added that the applicant was not able to close on the commercial condominium prior to the meeting and therefore got the owner to sign the application. Mr. Brennan stated that he did not like the colors and added that the sign on the corner of Washington and Essex is bad. Ms. Hartford stated that the Physical Therapy sign was recently put up illegally and a letter will be going out to the owner. Mr. Brennan stated that the western side of Essex Street is not as good as the other side. Ms. Hartford commented that the hanging sign will be wood and will most likely not be as bright as shown on the drawing. The members agreed that the reconstructed storefront looks great. Mr. Vickers asked if the applicant will be in half of the first floor. Ms. Hartford stated that he would. Mr. Vickers motioned to accept the DRB recommendation for approval. Mr. Brennan seconded the motion. Motion passed (3-0). 8. 177 Essex Street (Samantha’s)—Review of proposed signage at 177 Essex Street. Ms. Hartford stated that the sign was put up illegally, but Mike Lutryzkowski, a friend of the applicant came in to seek approval of the sign. She stated that the proposal is for a 12’ x 14 ” wall sign made of wood with plastic letters painted gold. The letters are 10” on the upper case and 7” on the lower case. She stated that the DRB recommended approval as submitted. Mr. Brennan asked if they can fine people who do not get approval be fore putting up their signs. Ms. Hartford stated that the SRA does not have the ability to do so and the building inspector has not been enforcing the regulations. SRA Minutes June 9, 2004 Page 5 of 5 Mr. Brennan stated that the sign is great, but they need to get the board’s approve befo re installing signs. Ms. McClure suggested that when the applicant gets their recommendation from the DRB, the department will check on the signs to make sure they do not get put up and if they do get put up, they will inform the applicant that they will be denied by the SRA if the sign is not removed. Mr. Vickers motioned to accept the recommendation for approval. Mr. Brennan seconded the motion. Motion passed (3-0). 9. 103 Washington Street (Sacred & Folk)—Review of the proposed additional signage at 103 Washington Street. Ms. Hartford stated that the proposal includes the installation of a 20” x 20” wood hanging sign, painted dark green with gold leaf lettering, which will hang from a hand -carved wood horse. She stated that the DRB recommended approval with the condition that bracing rods must be reviewed and approved by the DRB prior to installation. Mr. Vickers asked if the sign will hang perdendicular to the building. Ms. Hartford stated that it would. Mr. Brennan asked the clearance from the sidewalk. Ms. Hartford stated that it is the same height as the Nostalgia sign next door and it is about ten feet. Mr. Brennan motioned to accept the recommendation for approval. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. Motion passed (3-0). There being no further business, Mr. Vickers motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Brennan seconded the motion. Motion passed (3-0). Meeting stands adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Gingrich Clerk