Loading...
2003-06-11 SRA MinutesPage 1 of 7 MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD ON JUNE 11, 2003 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 11, 2003 at 6:00pm. Chairman Robert Curran called the meeting to order and on roll call, the following members were present: Conrad Baldini, Michael Brennan, Robert Curran, and Russell Vickers. Michael Connelly was absent. Joseph Walsh, Executive Director of the SRA, Don Giard, Senior Planner, Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner, and Valerie Gingrich, Planner were also present. Minutes The minutes from the May 7, 2003 meeting were distributed. Mr. Walsh stated that the vote on the minutes could be held until the next meeting to allow members time to review them. Discussion/Old Business Mr. Curran invited Mr. Nicholas Decoulas, attorney representing the Marine Arts Gallery, to speak regarding the pending issue of the screening of the wall at the Marine Arts Gallery. Mr. Decoulas distributed a letter to the Board members. Councilor Lenny O’Leary addressed the Board and asked that something be done with regards to the wall at the Marine Arts Gallery adjacent to the Peabody Essex Museum (PEM) Public Garden/Esplanade Project. Mr. Walsh provided a brief history of the issue before the Board. He stated that there was a condition put into the SRA’s decision that the PEM would return with a plan to address the exposed wall of the Marine Arts Gallery. The condition was open because at that time no one knew what the condition of the wall would be once the Empire Building was torn down. The PEM was to come back with a plan for the wall that meet the satisfaction of the SRA. Last summer the Board asked Mr. Walsh to write a letter asking the PEM to come back to the Board with a plan to address the condition regarding the wall. They came in with a plan in October suggesting that a landscaped screen for the wall was the solution. The Board sent that suggestion to the Design Review Board (DRB) for review. After one meeting the DRB stated that a landscaped screen was not an acceptable solution and suggested that a brick facade be installed instead. The PEM never returned to the DRB. Mr. Brennan asked under what rule or regulation does the PEM have to put up a suitable barrier. Mr. Walsh stated that approval of the PEM project was subject to this condition being met. The approval of the Public Garden/Esplanade Project is pending the satisfaction of this condition. Mr. Brennan asked if there was legal recourse. Mr. Walsh responded that any violation of the Urban Renewal Plan allows the SRA to appeal to Superior Court in order to enforce. Mr. Curran suggested that the Board send a letter to the PEM requiring them to come back to the SRA to address the plan that was rejected by the DRB and provide a plan that is acceptable. Page 2 of 7 Mr. Vickers moved that: The SRA draft a letter to the PEM asking them to respond to the comments made by the DRB, and send the responses back to this Board. Mr. Brennan seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0). Mr. Decoulas requested that a copy of the motion be sent to him. Discussion/New Business 1. Executive Director’s Report Mr. Walsh provided the Board with his report. • Mr. Decoulas on behalf of his client, the Marine Arts Gallery, has requested several documents from the public record including the original agreements between the SRA and the PEM and SRA meeting minutes with regards to that project. Mr. Walsh distributed the request and the response provided. He explained that he did not copy all the minutes that Mr. Decoulas requested for the Board but could get them copies if they wanted to read them. Mr. Curran questioned whether the request should be referred to the City Solicitor. Mr. Walsh stated that it was a fairly straightforward request for public documents and it was copied to the City Solicitor. • The developer of the Old Police Station is conducting additional soil testing in order to satisfy their bank. Therefore, the Land Disposition Agreement is still pending. In an effort to not let things linger, Mr. Walsh stated that he told the developer to come back to the Board if they have any additional concerns. • The city is doing some cosmetic work in the downtown that will include replacing benches, painting period lights, and replacing box lights with period lights. Mr. Walsh stated that the work does not required a Board vote, but in there is a larger restoration project envisioned for the downtown that will require a vote when it is finalized. • Mr. Walsh reported that at the last meeting he told the SRA that he would come back this meeting with an update on the red line. Since this time, John Roll, the City’s signage consultant, walked the existing red line with DPCD staff and he will be providing recommendations on reconfiguring the line. DEIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS 2. Lawrence Place (133-137 Washington Street)—Consideration of DRB recommendation for Schematic Design approval. The DRB recommended approval of the Schematic Design proposal. The proposal includes four new entrances along Front Street, new doors and windows, storefront windows, new Page 3 of 7 asphalt roof and five new skylights along the northern building elevation. In addition, the proposal includes new paint (black shutters and white trim). Mr. Walsh stated that because the building is not new, the difference between schematic design and final design will not be as drastic, but more details will be provided in the final design. Mr. Curran asked about the status of ownership of the building. Mr. Giard replied that the applicant, Salem Renewal, Inc., has not closed on the property, but it is a matter of technicalities and should move forward in the near future. Mr. Walsh assured Mr. C urran that the Board would not be in a position of voting on a building that is not yet owned by the applicant, but at the schematic level, it is fine to proceed. Mr. Brennan questioned the change from a slate roof to an asphalt roof. Mr. Giard responded that slate is expensive and it a high maintenance issue for the building. Mr. Brennan asked if they could repair the slate. Mr. Giard replied that it most likely beyond repair. Mr. Brennen stated that it was unfortunate that the building lose the slate roof. Mr. Walsh suggested that the Board recommend the project at the schematic level and request that the applicant take another look at roofing materials when they come back for final design approval. Mr. Curran agreed. Mr. Baldini moved to approve the recommendations of the DRB on the condition that the applicant reconsider the change of roofing material for the final design. Mr. Brennan seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0). 3. Rockafellas (231 Essex Street)—Consideration of DRB recommendation for proposed signage and awnings. Mr. Curran stated that he did not feel the Board could vote on this matter when the applicant has not asked for a change in use. Mr. Walsh provided background, stating that the building owners received a change in use by the SRA to use the first floor space as office space as opposed to retail. Since that time, they have arranged that the office will be on the second floor and the restaurant/retail will be located on the first floor. Mr. Walsh noted that the owners no longer need the change in use that they received because the use will be what it was originally. Mr. Walsh stated that there is now a question of whether the applicant can withdraw the change in use or be required to apply again. Mr. Curran stated that he thought that the applicant should have to apply again for a change in use. Mr. Vickers stated that the Board did indeed vote on the change and the change in use to office space is now in effect. Mr. Walsh suggested that a way around this would be that the Board provide preliminary approval to the items on the agenda, pending a change in use back to retail/restaurant. He stated that there would be a delay, but it would meet the Chairman’s concern procedurally. Mr. Curran stated that he wanted to make sure that the Board is doing the correct legal procedure. Mr. Giard asked whether the applicant could make a verbal request to change the use. Mr. Walsh stated that the SRA could not vote to change the use without the petition of the Page 4 of 7 building owner. Ms. Hartford stated that she is certain the building owner would be fine with any outcome as far as procedure goes and would support the change in use back to the original use. Mr. Brennan asked whether the Board could vote to rescind their previous vote. Mr. Walsh replied that they could. Mr. Brennan made a motion to reconsider the February 2003 vote for a change in use from retail to office on the first floor. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0). Mr. Brennan stated that the change in use from retail to office is in reconsideration and he made a motion to deny the change. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0). The DRB gave a positive recommendation for the proposed signage and awning proposal. The proposal consists of a new 16” x 44” wood hanging sign with black lettering on a white background, three (3) new black fabric awnings with open ends, window graphics and raised letters applied to the existing black metal canopy on Washington Street. The Design Review Board provided a positive recommendation for the proposal with the condition that the awning have a straight valance and that the hanging sign be adjusted to include a 9 -foot ground clearance. Mr. Brennan moved to approve the recommendation by the DRB. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0). 4. Fuel (196 Essex Street)—Consideration of DRB recommendation for proposed sign. Mr. Walsh stated that the applicants sign is already up and that it will come down if it is not approved tonight. He stated that there was a misunderstanding of “temporary” and the Board will be voting on the sign that is up. The DRB gave a positive recommendation for the sign. The proposal consists of a 2’ x 2’ metal sign attached to a black decorative metal bracket. Mr. Brennan stated that the sign looks fine, but there is an issue with the sign already being up. Mr. Curran stated that perhaps there should be something on the sign application stating that a sign cannot be put up until approved. Mr. Brennan agreed. Mr. Walsh stated that it is a violation of ordinance and perhaps it needs to be clear on the sign application, with bold letters, that installation of a sign prior to this process being concluded is a violation of ordinance. Mr. Walsh stated that he would look into whether there are stipulations or penalties for violations. Mr. Brennan moved to approve the recommendations made by the DRB. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0). 5. Salem YMCA (120 Washington Street)—Considerations of DRB recommendation for revised sign proposal. The DRB gave a positive recommendation for the revised sign proposal submitted for the Salem YMCA Child Care located at 120 Washington Street on the second floor. Page 5 of 7 The proposal consists of a 24” x 36” projecting wood sign with a black decorative metal bracket. At the request of the DRB, the applicant revised their submission to include a more simplified graphic lay-out, added a 1” black raised border, changed the background color from white to cream, and reduced the size of the logo by 20%. Mr. Brennan stated that the color and the border are terrific, however, he was concerned with the size of the sign and the fact that no other signs have a phone number. Mr. Curran stated that the sign is more of a billboard than a sign. Mr. Walsh described the proposed location of the sign. The sign would be right over the Taste of Thyme Cafe, which will be the new entrance. Mr. Curran stated that if the Board did not like it, that they should send it back to the DRB. Mr. Vic kers stated that the sign is too big. Mr. Giard compared the proposed YMCA sign with Troisi’s Restaurant sign, stating that he believed they are the same size. Mr. Vickers stated that the sign does not match the historic character of the street and the sign has not been changed enough to meet the test. Mr. Brennen moved to send it back to the DRB with the caveat that the colors are acceptable but the size and the phone number are the objection. Mr. Walsh suggested that he deal with the applicant in coming back with an acceptable design. Mr. Curran stated that there would be no vote and that it would be left on the table. 6. Derby Deli (245 Derby Street)—Consideration of DRB recommendation for proposed sign. Mr. Curran stated that this is another where the sign is up and it was never approved. The DRB gave a positive recommendation for a proposed sign application submitted by Derby Deli, Inc. for the building located at 245 Derby Street. The proposal consists of a 32” x 10’ wood hanging sign attached to an existing metal canopy. The proposed sign includes white lettering on a dark green background. Mr. Giard stated that the old sign was recovered with the green color to reflect new ownership. Mr. Walsh asked Mr. Giard the color of the original sign. Mr. Giard responded that it matched the canopy. Ms. Hartford stated that the sign was black with white letters and it had a different font. The Board agreed that the color of the sign is offensive. Mr. Giard explained that the sign is the old sign that has been recovered and it could be taken down and recovered. Mr. Walsh asked Mr. Giard whether the applicant was aware that the sign is up at his own risk right now or would the applicant be surprised if he had to take it down. Mr. Giard stated that he did not think it would be a surprise. The Board agreed that the color is too bright and that it is not the color that was approved by the DRB. Mr. Walsh stated that it is a city-owned facility and the tenant is there as a city leaseholder. Mr. Vickers stated that it is a city building and that the Board has a responsibility. Mr. Curran stated that the Board should tell the applicant what they like. The Board agreed that a black sign, like the original, would match the building. Mr. Walsh sugge sted that he take Page 6 of 7 care of the problem and Mr. Curran agreed that Mr. Walsh should let the applicant know what the Board would like to see there. 7. Essex Condominiums (Essex Street)—Consideration of DRB recommendation for new windows The DRB gave a positive recommendation for a proposed window replacement project at 11 Church Street. The proposal includes the installation of new operable window units at five locations facing the interior courtyard of the building. The new windows would consist of double hung aluminum windows approximately 4’-9” wide by 4’-10” high. Mr. Baldini moved to approve the recommendation made by the DRB. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0). PROJECT INTRODUCTIONS 8. Rockafellas (231Essex Street)—Project introduction for proposed outdoor cafe along Washington Street David Killop and T. Kevin Marchino, owners of Rockafellas, presented the tables and chairs they would be using for their outdoor café. They stated that there would be 12 tables which are 30 inch round by 30 inch high and dark green Corian (stone/marble look) which is very heavy. The chairs are black wrought iron soda fountain chairs. The proposed seating area will accommodate 36 people. Mr. Walsh asked the applicants to describe how they would block off the tables and chairs. Mr. Killop stated that they would want to keep a pathway to the main entrance and split the tables on both sides closest to the building. He stated that they would secure the bounds of the cafe with stands and either rope or chain. The chairs would be secured by wire cable to tie them together at night as done in Boston. Mr. Brennan asked how far would the café would extend from the building. Mr. Marchino responded that it would be a total of 13 feet from the building. Mr. Killop stated that the tables and chairs would act as a buffer on the corner of Essex and Washington Streets. Mr. Walsh explained that the café permit process starts with the SRA, but there are many more approvals that are needed. He stated that the Board would just be approving the idea of an outdoor café, and then it would go to the DRB for review. Mr. Vickers stated that it seems to be a good idea, but all problems cannot be foreseen and therefore, asked if any recourse could be taken if there were problems. Mr. Walsh explained that the café permits are renewed every year and therefore, it will be a one-year trial period. Mr. Brennan moved to approve the concept of an outdoor cafe permit and send it to the DRB. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0). Page 7 of 7 OTHER BUSINESS 9. Salem Marketplace (Front Street)—Proposed changes to exterior building colors Mr. Walsh explained that the tenants of the Marketplace requested to repaint the buildings with a different color scheme. He stated that the process is the same as the one taken in 1999. He noted that the members of the DRB have reviewed the colors and a majority approved of them. Ms. Hartford presented the Board with the proposed color scheme, consisting of the existing green roof, fossil walls, tusk trim, and french roast doors. She stated that the tenants of the Marketplace choose the colors and are therefore in favor of them. Mr. Vickers moved to accept the recommendation of the DRB. Mr. Brennan seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0). There being no further business, Mr. Baldini moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0). Meeting stands adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Gingrich Department of Planning & Community Development