Loading...
2024-05-08 Meeting MinutesSRA May 8, 2024 Page 1 of 11 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, May 8 2024, at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Napolitano, Christine Madore, Cynthia Nina- Soto, Dean Rubin SRA Members Absent: Christopher Dunn Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner, Tom Daniel, Executive Director Recorder: Beth Forrestal Executive Director’s Report Mr. Daniel stated that he will forego the Executive Director’s Report given the length of the agenda. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. Washington Street at Essex Street: Small Project Review – Installation of two fences on the northern sidewalks at the intersection of Washington and Essex Streets Chief Lucas Miller and Lieutenant David Tucker, Salem Police Department, and David Kucharsky, Director of Traffic and Parking were present to discuss the project. Mr. Kucharsky shares that when Engineering Department was working on the reconstruction of North Street, Washington Street, and Summer Street there were discussions about removing or putting more formal pedestrian access in to help the police during the busier time of year. The proposed fencing design is similar to what is along 222 Derby Street. Chief Lucas stresses that the gates would be open on a normal day. Lt. Tucker says they are only closed when the officer are present. Mr. Rubin asks about the height of the fence and the width of the opening. Mr. Kucharsky says that it will be wide enough to meet ADA requirements. Mr. Rubin thinks wider may be better and that keeping it closed more frequently, rather than only in the presence of an officer, would potentially create a safer environment. Mr. Rubin also recommends trimming the tree on the south side of Washington Street to create safer conditions. Ms. Nina-Soto asks how far up the street the fencing goes and if pedestrians need to walk on the street to get access to cars. She is also concerned with limiting emergency response vehicles. Mr. Kucharsky says that the fencing stops before the first metered space on the south side and north side. Chief Lucas says there will be some measure to secure the gate. Mr. Kucharsky confirms that maintenance of the fence will be done by the Department of Public Services. Ms. Madore opposes the project as the downtown renewal plan is pedestrian oriented and if there are limitations to vehicular flow then it should be done to improve pedeestiran flow. Thinks that the fence creates a visual barrier. If the concern is the vehicle flow is a danger, then vehicular access should be limited, not the other way around. Feels that there is an opportunity to improve to realign the intersections. This could make a dangerous intersection. SRA May 8, 2024 Page 2 of 11 Public Comment: Robert Rogers, 9 Crombie Street: Encourages a different way to manage this problem. It looks like a dark barrier closing off the pedestrian mall. Kevin Marchino, Owner, Rockafellas: Thinks that what the city has been doing has worked well. Ms. Madore asks if Jersey barriers would work and still be temporary. Chief Lucas thinks it would be effective but would find it less visually pleasing. Madore thinks that the artist painted jersey barriers would be a good middle ground. Chair Napolitano asks on the timeline. Mr. Kucharsky that funds are to be allocated with the next fiscal year and plan to be installed in time for October. Mr. Rubin thinks that the DRB should be asked for an opinion. Mr. Daniel remind that the city project is exempt from SRA approval but that the DRB may have constructive comments. Ms. Napolitano says that given the permanence of the fence, she would like to see it go before the DRB. Chief Lucas asks if there was a lower fence, would that make the project more positive? Ms. Nina-Soto doesn’t think it is a matter of the height or style of fence, but the accessibility for the pedestrians. The permanence is the issue. Chair Napolitano agrees. Ms. Madore thinks this will not increase how pedestrians feel walking downtown. Mr. Rubin disagrees with Ms. Madore. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. Chair Napolitano requested the applicant attend a Design Review Board meeting to review the proposal. 2. 9 Crombie Street: Small Project Review – Review of DRB Recommendation for façade changes to single family home, including restoring the existing masonry, adding a second door, and installing new windows. Dan Ricciarelli, Seger Architects and Robert Rogers, homeowner, were present to discuss the project. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. SRA May 8, 2024 Page 3 of 11 VOTE: Madore made a motion to approve the project pursuant to the DRB Recommendation. Seconded by: Nina-Soto. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 3. 32 Federal Street: Schematic Design Review – Review of DRB Recommendation on the proposed changes to the exterior of the Superior Court House and the County Commissioners’ Building. Derek Hanson, WinnDevelopment, Michael Blier, Landworks, and John Seger, Seger Architects were present to discuss the project. Mr. Blier discussing the corner of Bridge Street and Washington Street and the “ urban window box” that the DRB preferred. This will create an extension of the buildings and a visual impact across the roadway. From the pedestrian view it will create a layered planting palette for interest. Mr. Segar discusses the other change recommended by the DRB. The center main entrance, the team is working on thow this vestibule (curtain wall) should work. We don’t want it to compete with the other buidins. The fenestration has been thinned out and photos have added to the plans to illustrate the effect. Mr. Rubin asks about the corner development. Staff writeup indicated that there will still discussions going on. Should there be movement on the corner itself. Coul changes be accommodated?DH says tht this is possible but the change were in response to Ms. Madore’s previous comments. And the DRB did not like ay tother iteration. Ms. Madore doesn’t want to hold the project back but feels this corner is important to the SRA. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. VOTE: Madore made a motion to approve pursuant to the DRB Recommendation. Seconded by: Rubin. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 4. 30 Federal Street: Amendment to Final Design Review Approval – Proposal to phase the project and review design drawings for Phase 1, which includes installation of a new south door, new tenant sign, and a railing modification to accommodate egress at the new south entry door. Dan Ricciarelli, Seger Architects and Michael Becker, owner, were present to discuss the project. Mr. Ricciarelli says that they are introducing a new door facing Federal Street. There will be minor street modifications and the existing rail will be relocated. Current tenant has an existing sign they want to move. Phase two runs along Washington Street. Mr. Becker explains how much of a step down there is and the desire to make this ADA compliant. The separate door will also be beneficial. Mr. Ricciarelli says this is a portion of the SRA May 8, 2024 Page 4 of 11 project what they are seeking approval for. Mr. Becker is looking to get the door in for the tenant before the busy season. Mr. Rubin says that separate door makes sense. Questions if Phase 1 was approved, does it compromise anything in Phase two? Mr. Ricciarelli says it is more of a head start. The final phase has no fence as the courtyard is coplanar. Ms. Newhall-Smith ask if the door go into the torture museum and reminds that the windows on Washington Street is not part of tonight’s discussion. Mr. Daniel asks if they are thinking of changes colors and materials. Mr. Ricciarelli says that is already approved by the SRA and they will be going forward with it in Phases two. Ms. Madore asks about the project timeline and updated plan set. Mr. Becker says the structural engineer is working with the architect. Mr. Ricciarelli will forward when the set is complete. Mr. Becker says that the soil testing and the soil conditions are not good and this has set back finances and timeline. Public Comment: Pam Broderick, 28 Federal Street: Wants to clarify that the approach from Washington Street will be a ramp or stairs. Wants to object to the sign that will be above the door. There was a letter to the abutters on SRA letterhead for the meeting and there was an item misleading. Would like to know when it was approved. Abutters think last time this was approved in 2019. Mr. Ricciarelli say it will be on grade access for the door No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the request to separate the project into two phases and to refer the proposed Phase 1 to the DRB for review. Seconded by: Nina-Soto. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area – Outdoor Dining 1. 2 East India Square: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Village Tavern, continued from 4/10/24. Andrew Ingemi, and Alex Ingemi, owners, were present to discuss the project. Mr. Rubin has not read the applicant’s letter and wonders if there is value in sharing image of the applicant’s compromise. Mr. Daniel says that public services is looking to making in improvements in the area. Mr. Rubin says that a private business investing in public works isn’t usually done. Mr. Daniel says that the city will make improvement to maintain landscaping beds. Encourages the conversation to be around the outdoor dining. Mr. Daniel would like the board to lead the conversation toward conclusion. SRA May 8, 2024 Page 5 of 11 The many options developed by the SRA and city staff are shared. Ms. Nina-Soto is likely leaning to option two which allows opportunity to further activate the space. Ms. Madore is willing to consider option three but is reluctant to give up public space for private use. This is her compromise. Ms. Napolitano say options one through three work for her. Mr. Rubin is in favor of scenario four with a bit of extension but nothing as extreme as option five. Public Comment: Newhall-Smith received a comment letter from Jane Whitty, 11 Church Street: 2024-05-04 Whitty.pdf No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the outdoor dining area as shown in Scenario 4 of the April 25, 2024, memo from Kate Newhall-Smith to the SRA with an extension of the space along the area extending toward Essex Street. This extension shall encompass only the minimum area necessary to accommodate a host stand. The applicant shall only use unbranded umbrellas. Seconded by: Nina-Soto. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 3-1 (Madore). 2. 227 Essex Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Rockafellas Kevin Marchino, co-owner, and Sanir Lutfija, Segar Architects were present to discuss the project. Mr. Marchino walk through his proposal. They would like to continue the same configuration on Essex Street as in years past. They propose to continue the Washington Street seating as per the last 21 years. Ms. Napolitano asks if they will be purchasing non-logo umbrella. Things have been lax with COVID, most restaurants are not compliant, and it needs to be reined in. Mr. Marchino says that they have a fabric spray that will cover the logos and would be willing to try that. Mr. Rubin feels the fence on Essex Street is a little squeezed in. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. Mr. Rubin and Ms. Nina-Soto are both concerned with Essex Street side. Most pedestrians avoid cobblestones and this would limit pedestrian access to brick. Additionally, Ms. Nina-Soto thinks this combined with the fencing is not a good look. VOTE: Madore made a motion to approve pending successful completion of design review and with unbranded umbrellas. Seconded by: Rubin. SRA May 8, 2024 Page 6 of 11 Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 3-1 (Nina-Soto) 3. 227 Essex Street: Project Update: Bay window at Rockafellas Kevin Marchino, co-owner, was present to discuss the project. Mr. Marchino says that over years the window has been continued rot at the window and when the building was repointed they removed the window. Ms. Nina-Soto feels that it would be good to see a recreation of the bay window and have it be more appealing to the rest of the windows. Madore agrees and would like to see at least an alternative design. Mr. Daniel reminds the board that Rockefeller’s is out of compliance and need to come forward with a proposal. Marchino willing to work with SRA to make this look better. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to have the applicant return to the SRA within 90 days to present his best effort at a replica bay window and/or an alternative(s) window for the board to consider. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 4. 2 East India Square: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Red Line Café Aristidis and Juliana Tzavaras, owners, were present to discuss the project. Currently 240 square feet of outdoor dining. No proposed changes. Mr. Rubin is concerned about the sandwich board and ice cream cone impeding pedestrian traffic. Madore would like an improvement on the stanchions. Others have made an effort to make things more aesthetically pleasing. Would like the DRB input. Public Comment: Newhall-Smith received comment letters from: Dick Feyl, 11 Church Street, 2024-04-16 Feyl.pdf Jane Whitty, 11 Church Street: 2024-05-04 Whitty.pdf SRA May 8, 2024 Page 7 of 11 No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve pending DRB review with unbranded umbrellas and the relocation of the A-Frame sign and ice cream cone decoration out of the pedestrian path and sharing their preference for alternative stanchions and possibly adding planters to the area with the DRB. Seconded by: Nina-Soto. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 5. 2 East India Square: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining on Church Street and next to East India Fountain for Thai Place Sophon Naulpring of Thai Place was present to discuss the project. Church Street and Essex Street outdoor dining. Mr. Rubin asks about the movement of food from the restaurant to the fountain. Mr. Naulpring says that it is packed as takeaway and delivered to the table by the fountain. Hoping to figure out how to set it up to be a quick to go. Mr. Rubin clarifies that it is not tableside service, it is reserved take out. Madore doesn’t like the privatization of the public space for the takeout by the fountain. Thai Place says that this helps people go in the mall. Public Comment: Newhall-Smith received a comment letter from: Jane Whitty, 11 Church Street, 2024-05-04 Whitty.pdf Beth Rennard 2024-05-08 Rennard.pdf No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public Comment is closed. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the Church Street dining area pending successful completion of design review and with unbranded umbrellas, and to deny the proposal to install outdoor dining on the Essex Street pedestrian mall near the East India Fountain. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 6. 282R Derby Street – Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Paprika Grill Umut Bekler, owner, was present to discuss the project. Ms. Newhall-Smith communicated that the lattice fencing with signage wouldn’t be approved and a new set up is shared. Mr. Bekler shares idea for deck as their dining space is not attached to their restaurant and he would like to build a platform to even the ground level and be ADA compliant. It will also be more attractive than the current set up and he plans to add planters as well. SRA May 8, 2024 Page 8 of 11 Ms. Madore wonders why the ADA tables wouldn’t be accessible from the brick. Concerned about the curb for the existing area. Mr. Bekler was told by licensing that he couldn’t use the brick area but he would like to extend to this area. Mr. Bekler believes the ex-owner was using the area without permission and Ms. Mojica in Licensing was being cautious. Ms. Newhall-Smith says that if the application includes that area then he could get approved for more space. Mr. Rubin asks about the status of the fences and how space will be defined for the restaurant. Mr. Bekler says that he would like to have a small sign indicating Paprika Patio. But he is flexible with visitors using his tables as they are not attached to the restaurant. Mr. Rubin asks about trash and the neighbor between restaurant and patio. Mr. Bekler says they have a close relationship with their abutter and they see it as win-win. Regarding trash, they use environmentally friendly products and remind them to bring the trash back. Doesn’t want trash bins there as it will become messier. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public Comment is closed. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the proposal pending successful completion of design review and to support the inclusion of an additional table or two on the brick area next to the originally proposed dining area and with unbranded umbrellas. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 7. 283 Derby Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Witchside Tavern Mazen Mouhiddin, owner, and Brianna Mason were present to discuss the project. Current layout is shared. The setup stays up all winter. They use jersey barriers and planters. Ms. Madore asks that the bike lane be clear. Ms. Mason says it doesn’t go out into the bike lane. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public Comment is closed. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the proposal pending successful completion of design review and with unbranded umbrellas and ensuring that the bike lane remains clear. Seconded by: Nina-Soto. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 8. 203 Essex Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Hotel Salem Joseph Keefe, manager, was present to discuss the project. SRA May 8, 2024 Page 9 of 11 Looking to extend to the right side of their entrance in addition to the left. Essentially mirrors the left side and uses materials already approved. Ms. Nina-Soto asks about the relation of the tree to the outdoor dining. Mr. Keefe says they will be up against the tree line. Mr. Daniel asks what is going on with the area that just out where there previously was a tree. Mr. Keefe says that that they have never utilized the previous tree bed. Ms. Newhall-Smith says that a new mockup with a new plan showing exactly that they will use would be helpful. Ms. Madore asks why they didn’t the right side as well previously. Mr. Rubin says that is all they requested. Mr. Daniel says they talked about more of couch situation than tables and chairs but that never came to fruition. But it was never revised. Ms. Madore would like an improvement on the stanchions. Public Comment: Newhall-Smith received a comment letter from: Jane Whitty, 11 Church Street, 2024-05-04 Whitty.pdf No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment period is closed. VOTE: Madore made a motion to approve the project pending successful completion of design review and the submittal of a revised site plan eliminating the tables the hotel will not be using for outdoor dining and with unbranded umbrellas. Seconded by: Rubin. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 9. 120 Washington Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Gulu-Gulu Café Steve Feldmann, co-owner, was present to discuss the project. They have decided not to move forward with what they had during covid. They found it to be too far for the servers and are looking to return to what they were permitted for in 2007 but shifted a bit to the right to the end of the building. This adds two seats to Gulu-Gulu and zero seats to Flying Saucer. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment period is closed. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the project pending successful completion of design review and with unbranded umbrellas. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. SRA May 8, 2024 Page 10 of 11 10. 120 Washington Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Flying Saucer Pizza Company Steve Feldmann, co-owner, was present to discuss the project. This project was covered under number 9, Gulu-Gulu Café. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment period is closed. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the project pending successful completion of design review and with unbranded umbrellas. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 11. 76 Lafayette Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Howling Wolf Ross Thereault, owner, and Eric XXX were present to discuss the project. No changes from last year except for new, plain black umbrellas. Six tables, twenty-four seats. Mr. Rubin asks about the barrier between them and Couch Dog. Mr. Thereault say there will be a barrier as there was last year. Public Comment: Newhall-Smith received comment letters from: Jone Sienkiewicz, 51 Lafayette Street, 2024-04-26 Sienkiewicz.pdf Steven Martin, 51 Lafayette Street, 2024-05-01 Martin.pdf No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment period is closed. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the project pending successful completion of design review and with unbranded umbrellas and ensuring that the bike lane remains clear. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. Mr. Becker confirms the decision of the SRA and what is to be approved from the DRB. Mr. Rubin says that it is going back to DRB for Phase One review for the door. Ms. Newhall-Smith says that it is to review changes of Phase One. SRA May 8, 2024 Page 11 of 11 New / Old Business Redevelopment of the Historic Courthouses and the Crescent Lot: Update on Project Status: Update on Project Status: Ms. Napolitano suggested skipping this item given the late hour. Madore asked about the ARPA funding and a draw down schedule. Madore asks about Simard’s Barbershop. KNS not comfortable saying. SRA Financials: Received and filed. Other: None Approval of Minutes 1. Review of February 14, 2024, Regular Meeting Minutes VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano.4-0 in favor. 2. Review of March 13, 2024, Regular Meeting Minutes VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by: Nina-Soto. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. 3. Review of April 10, 2024, Regular Meeting Minutes VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. Adjournment VOTE: Rubin made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Madore, Nina-Soto, Rubin, and Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033