Loading...
2004-08-11 SRA MinutesSRA Minutes August 11, 2004 Page 1 of 6 MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD ON AUGUST 11, 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, August 11, 2004 at 6:00pm. Treasurer Michael Brennan called the meeting to order and on roll call, the following members were present: Michael Brennan, Christine Sullivan, and Russell Vickers. Lynn Duncan, Executive Director, 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 July 14, 2004. Ms. Sullivan seconded the motion. Motion passed (3-0). New Business 1. Executive Directors Report Ms. Duncan first welcomed Christine Sullivan to the Salem Redevelopment Authority. She then stated that the deed for 18 Crombie Street was transferred and the contract has been signed with the deleader, which is being paid by Community Development Block Grant funds. Ms. Duncan passed out copies of the schedule for completion of the project. Ms. Duncan passed out the draft of the action plan for the Old Jail Redevelopment Project. She updated the board stating that the jail discussion has returned to the City Council Committee in order to work out some unresolved issues. She explained that they met with Councilor Joan Lovely and members of Historic Salem, Inc. and they had several conditions that were worked through. Ms. Duncan explained that the first condition was that the Executive Director give quarterly reports to the council. The second was that if the SRA did not execute a Land Disposition Agreement within two years, the ownership of the parcel would return to the city. Ms. Duncan explained that the third condition was that certain landscape elements would be preserved. The fourth was that the property be secured, insured and maintained while in the possession of the SRA. Ms. Duncan stated that the last condition was that an advisory committee be formed. Ms. Duncan explained that there is no need for such a committee but they did agree to form a group of interested citizens who would be informed of the meetings and be able to make comments. Ms. Duncan went through the action plan for the Old Jail Redevelopment Project. Mr. Brennan asked about funds to do a market study. Ms. Hartford stated that the SRA has over $125,000 in the account from the sale of the Old Police Station. Mr. Vickers asked if the city council made any conditions regarding allowed uses, which would restrict the board. Ms. Duncan explained that the only issue regarding use is a lack of parking. SRA Minutes August 11, 2004 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Vickers stated that they should do a market study but they should also be creative and look at how developers could use public funds in order to offset costs and open windows for redevelopment options. Ms. Sullivan commented that there is an urgent need for a market study in the downtown and she hopes to see basic data for all of the downtown area come out of this market study. Ms. Duncan stated that the market study cannot treat the jail as an isolated site and they will look at the possibility of using public funds because it is a challenging site. Mr. Vickers commented that housing may get the best return but they want to do what is best for the site. Mr. Brennan suggested that the Charrette be part of the market study. Ms. Duncan agreed and stated that the market study can include the ideas from the Charrette. Mr. Vickers suggested that they prepare a draft scope for the market study in order to get the project rolling when city council transfers the ownership. Ms. Duncan stated that they can take certain preparatory actions, but they can’t start until the jail is transferred. Ms. Sullivan asked if the schedule kicks in when the council transfers the jail. Ms. Duncan stated that she is correct and they will have two years to execute a LDA. Mr. Brennan asked if the jail ownership would be automatically be returned to the city after those two years or if they have the right to take it back. Ms. Duncan stated that it will depend on the language of the transfer. Ms. Duncan asked if there is a member who is willing to attend meetings, during the day, regarding the jail. Mr. Vickers stated that he is available. Ms. Duncan stated that the next meeting is August 27 at 10am. Ms. Duncan added that since the SRA will have a full board at the next meeting, they should hold elections for a Chairman. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 2. 266 Essex Street – Approval of the Design Review Board recommendation of the alterations made to the approved Final Design Plans for the redevelopment of 266 Essex Street (former Bowman’s Bakery). Mike Lutrzykowski introduced the proposed changes to the project and Ms. Hartford stated that the Design Review Board approved the changes with the condition that the faux brick in the rear of the building be replaced with painted stucco. Mr. Vickers motioned to accept the DRB recommendation for approval of the changes to the Final Design Plans for 266 Essex Street. Ms. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed (3-0). SRA Minutes August 11, 2004 Page 3 of 6 3. 16 Central Street – Review of proposed amendment to the approved Final Design Plans for the redevelopment of 16 Central Street (Old Police Station). Bill Luster presented that proposal to change the window configuration of the elevation along Charter Street. He explained that prior to finding the oil, they were limited by the existing structure, but since they had to remove the building, they can now make improvements. Mr. Luster stated that the second proposed change is a cost issue. He explained that they would like to change the rear façade of the new wing, which cannot be seen from the public right of way, from brick to clapboards or semintitious clapboards. He added that they will be reconstructing this section because of the oil cleanup and the change in the material would help offset the cost of cleanup. Mr. Luster stated that they have sold eight units so far. Ms. Sullivan commented that she would like to see the before and after of the area in question. Ms. Hartford got the approved plans and Mr. Luster explained the changes. Ms. Sullivan stated that she likes the window changes. The members agreed that the changes are positive. Mr. Luster stated that they are six to eight weeks from drywall and windows, and people will be able to start moving in by January or February. Mr. Vickers motioned to refer the proposed changes to the DRB for design review. Ms. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed (3-0). Mr. Luster stated that they are at the point where they need to know which material they will be using in order to keep construction going. He stated that he submitted the materials late, but he would ask that the board consider an automatic approval when the changes are approved by the DRB. Ms. Duncan stated that the board has indicated that the changes are preferable, but they cannot give approval tonight. OTHER PROJECTS 4. Higginson Square – Review of proposed plans to remove the existing canopy in Higginson Square and replace it with landscaping. Kate Sullivan, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, and Deborah Greel, Program Manager for the Main Streets Initiative presented the proposal of taking down the canopy behind 133 Washington Street, which is a nuisance for the neighbors. Ms. Sullivan explained that they are proposing a more active use for the space and making it safer. Christine Sullivan asked why the canopy was originally placed there. Kate Sullivan stated that they do not know for sure but it could have been for the stationary company that used to be located there. Kate Sullivan explained that they would like to replace the canopy with plantings and an outdoor café by Café Grazziani. Ms. Hartford noted that a separate application would have to be submitted for the outdoor café. SRA Minutes August 11, 2004 Page 4 of 6 Michael Blier explained the drawings, which would create a planted area at the new residences at Lawrence Place and eventually be the home of an outdoor café. The members agreed that the proposal is a definite improvement. Mr. Vickers motioned to approve the proposal. Ms. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed (3-0). 5. 266 Essex Street – Approval of the Design Review Board recommendation for the proposed bench outside of the Barking Cat at 266 Essex Street. Ms. Hartford explained that the owner of the Barking Cat at 266 Essex Street would like to put a 48” wide and 32” tall wood bench on the sidewalk and the DRB recommended approval of the bench as submitted, with the condition that the location of the bench be centered on the mullion instead of the window. Mr. Vickers motioned to accept the DRB recommendation for approval of the bench at 266 Essex Street. Ms. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed (3-0). SIGN REVIEW 6. One Salem Green – Review of proposed waiver to the SRA Sign Manual for proposed signage plan for Salem Five Cents Savings Bank. 7. One Salem Green – Review of proposed signage plan for Salem Five Savings Bank at One Salem Green. Ms. Hartford introduced Mark Meche, representing Salem Five Cent Savings Bank. Ms. Hartford explained that they have been working with the applicants for some time and they have come to a proposal that is appropriate for the location, but the SRA regulations do not allow the proposed signage. She explained that the regulations only allow a directory sign for multi-tenants above the second floor and the applicants are asking for a waiver from the regulations to allow the three proposed signs with a directory inside the building. Ms. Hartford explained that the staff supports the waiver together with the proposed sign package. Mr. Meche stated that they read the sign regulations differently than the Planning Department and they believe that because the signs meet one criterion, they are allowed. He explained that the DPCD reads the ordinance as the one restriction trumps the other and makes the signs illegal. Mr. Meche explained the locations and layout of the proposed signs. Mr. Vickers motioned to approve the wavier and refer the signs to the DRB for review. Ms. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed (3-0). SRA Minutes August 11, 2004 Page 5 of 6 Final Approval 8. 85 Lafayette Street (Keller Williams Realty) – Approval of the Design Review Board recommendation for the proposed signage at 85 Lafayette Street). Ms. Hartford explained that the proposed 16” x 210” black aluminum sign with plastic letters covered in gold leaf is similar to those of Beverly Cooperative Bank. She stated that the sign has a different font with a black background. Ms. Hartford explained that the DRB recommended approval with the condition that the sign board be increased to 18” high with 10” letters and the addition of 6” inches to either side of the sign board. Ms. Sullivan motioned to accept the DRB recommendation for approval. Mr. Vickers seconded. Motion passed (3-0). 9. 247 Essex Street (Elite Physical Therapy) – Approval of the Design Review Board recommendation for the signage at 247 Essex Street. Ms. Hartford stated that the applicant, Ed Harding, is present and after receiving the violation letter from the SRA, he came into the office and asked how he can rectify the situation. The DRB recommended approval of the 24” x 59” hanging sign as it hangs now. Ms. Hartford stated that she asked the applicant to take the sign down until receiving approval, but the applicant stated that it is too difficult to take down. Mr. Harding apologized to the board and stated that he did not realize that he needed approval for the sign. He explained that he used the same bracket and the same size and shape sign. Mr. Brennan stated that he had a problem with the sign but he will defer to the other board members. He stated that the board can require him to take the sign down and come back with a new sign, or they can approve the sign. Mr. Brennan asked the material of the sign. Mr. Harding stated that the sign is cedar plank. Ms. Sullivan stated that she does not like the sign, but she does not want to be too picky. She commented that the sign is not a good marketing tool for their business because it does not look “elite”. Mr. Harding explained that he tried to stay basic with the sign. Ms. Sullivan commented that the sign is nice but it does not work on Essex Street in a historic downtown. Mr. Brennan asked how much the sign cost. Mr. Harding stated that the wood cost $400. Mr. Brennan stated that a sign says a lot about a city and this sign does not fit. He stated that he can keep the shape but the colors and font must be changed. SRA Minutes August 11, 2004 Page 6 of 6 Mr. Harding explained that he could not reuse the wood because the vinyl letters will not come off of the wood easily. Ms. Duncan suggested that the applicant utilize the Main Streets Storefront Improvement Program. Ms. Hartford explained that the program will give a 50% match for the cost of the sign, which will help offset his costs. The members agreed that the colors must be changed and the applicant can keep the sign up until a new sign is approved. They tabled the discussion following further review from the DRB. There being no further business, Mr. Vickers motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Sullivan seconded the motion. Motion passed (3-0). Meeting stands adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Gingrich Clerk