Loading...
2024-09-11 Meeting MinutesSRA September 11, 2024 Page 1 of 9 City of Salem, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, September 11, 2024, at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Napolitano, Dean Rubin, Christine Madore SRA Members Absent: Christopher Dunn, Cynthia Nina-Soto, Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner, Tom Daniel, Executive Director Executive Director’s Report Mr. Daniel reported that a number of restaurants and businesses are working to open in time for the September, October, and November season. He reported on a recent article about the work the City is doing to gear up for increased visitor-ship in the coming weeks. Ms. Newhall-Smith reported on the Anthem Group working on their build out. They had a concession structure in the park, which will hopefully be up and running soon. They have already been through the local licensing board and are now pursing the state licensing permit. She noted that the contractor for the shade structure may be pouring footings in September, along with conduit and trenching for the electrical work. The anticipated ship date for the structure is October 1st, though installation will not likely happen until November. Installation should take 5-6 days. Mr. Rubin asked about the products at the concession stand. Ms. Newhall-Smith shared that she believes Anthem uses Merrimack Valley Distributors who carry local beers. She added that the Charlotte Forten Memorial is underway. There is no date set yet for the dedication ceremony. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. Native Spaces Project: Review of project proposal to temporarily place 2’ x 2’ round ‘mural medallions’ on sidewalks at up to 35 locations throughout the Downtown in the form of exterior grade removable foil ground stickers Sarah Kanouse, Elizabeth Peterson, and Elizabeth Soloman were present to discuss the project. This project involves programming that the tribe is putting together around the conservation of the historic Salem deed of 1686. The tribe has been building a relationship with the City of Salem over the past several years. The City received funding for the deed’s conservation, and asked the tribe to produce programming from the perspective of the tribal members. The deed was signed 60 years after the settlement and the indigenous signatories made their mark on a separate piece of parchment which was later added to the deed. This occurred in the context of the replication of the royal charter trying to secure possession of land by treating it as private property. The deed ratified this transition, which was one-sided to the benefit of the colonists. Native Space is a co-created audio augmented reality program, which is location-based and offers indigenous perspectives on sites and themes of significance to the Massachusett people. A number of tribal members were interviewed, and funding was received from the New England SRA September 11, 2024 Page 2 of 9 Foundation of the Arts and Northeastern University. The tribe’s perspective is that a deed could not be valid because land cannot be owned. A simulation of the audio that people would hear was shared. People would scan a QR code to load a website to hear the audio, which would link to their location. There is also a desktop version. The QR codes would be installed on temporary foil mural medallions on sidewalks through five different areas which people can access through their mobile phone. The design was approved by the Public Art Commission. The decals would be 2x2’ installed where pedestrians enter a zone. The decal was designed by a native designer, CD Redwing. They are based on artifacts in the Harvard Peabody Museum and use colors and iconography that are significant to the tribe. They would like to launch the audio component on October 11th to coincide with the return of the deed, followed by Indigenous Peoples Day shortly after. Mr. Rubin said he believes this is a wonderful initiative and is supportive. In response to his question, Ms. Kanouse noted that it is not a linear project, and there is no order in which the sound is predetermined. Each is unique, and no two people are going to have the same experience. Audio content is distributed throughout the zone. It is intended that listeners continue to walk. Mr. Daniel asked if they could be smaller in size. Ms. Soloman felt if they were smaller, they would overlooked. Mr. Daniel believes there may be some conflicts with construction sites. Ms. Kanouse noted that the zones for the audio are related to places where either historical or archaeological records indicated a pre-colonial native presence. She said the precise locations of the medallions are negotiable. It is intended to be more of a public art project. Ms. Kanouse said she received the areas where there could be conflict and will review the list. Mr. Rubin wanted to ensure that the design is clear that you will hear stories, and not appear to be an advertisement. Ms. Madore inquired whether two decals were needed at Lappin Park as it is a highly trafficked area. Ms. Soloman noted that they are intended to be located where people enter the space. Ms. Kanouse said she was very open to collaborating on locations. Ms. Madore expressed concern about large tour groups that might linger over the decals. Ms. Peterson reported on the maintenance. She said they are providing financial support, and her staff will be watching over them, and repair/replace any damaged decals. She said after one year they are going to decide if the project will continue, and if so whether it will be more permanent or stay as temporary decals. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. SRA September 11, 2024 Page 3 of 9 Ms. Kanouse said she would ask the app developer if they could provide feedback on which locations are being listened to. Ms. Madore felt it would be useful to look at that data. Mr. Daniel clarified that this is a City-sponsored project. Mr. Rubin thanked the applicant and wished them success and asked that they take the comments they heard into consideration. 2. 227 Essex Street: Small Project Review: Review of DRB Recommendation for the proposed changes to the replacement bay window. Dan Ricciarelli, Seger Architects, was present to discuss this project. This proposal was before the SRA previously, then sent to the DRB. The SRA and DRB agreed that the subject window is more related to Washington Street than Essex Street with the tower element. It was agreed that the proposal should more closely reflect the window style presented on Washington Street. The DRB agreed it was preferable to install a vertical mullion and paint the entire window a creamy white color to match the others. There were no comments or questions from the Board. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. The estimated completion date is about two weeks. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the project as presented and approved by the DRB. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Napolitano, Madore, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. 3. 77 Essex Street: Small Project Review – Review of DRB Recommendation for the proposed facade painting. Derek O’Brien, Peabody Essex Museum, was present to discuss the project. Mr. O’Brien reported that he presented to the DRB to seek their feedback. He reported that the DRB approved the red paint color on the condition that the Kakawa storefront was also painted. Four color options were provided, which was narrowed down to two; a chocolate brown or the same red color as the Marine Hall Mercantile storefront. Mr. O’Brien’s preference would be to differentiate the two storefronts. Mr. O’Brien believes that the owners of Kakawa will be satisfied with either color as they were choosing colors that coordinated with their brand, and still within the City’s color palette. PEM would cover the cost to paint Kakawa’s storefront. SRA September 11, 2024 Page 4 of 9 Mr. Rubin opted for the storefronts to be painted in different colors to provide distinction between the two businesses. Ms. Madore noted that she does not have a strong preference but prefers them to be the same color. Mr. Daniel referred to the historic photos from the 1970s and believes that a uniform color is more consistent with what was done in the past, and what is done more often when there is a multi-tenant building. When there is distinction, it can distract from the building as a whole. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public Comment is closed. Ms. Napolitano leans toward the uniformity of the red, but believes the colors complement one another. Mr. O’Brien noted that PEM greatly prefers to have the shops differentiated if possible and noted the different façades further down the street. Glenn Kennedy, a member of the public, noted that the brown color makes the building feel less large, and fits better in the space. Mr. Rubin does not think the paint color negatively impacts historic context and does different the businesses which he would like to support. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the applicant’s proposal to repaint the two businesses as proposed with the dark brown for Kakawa and dark red for the Mercantile. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Napolitano, Madore, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. 4. 301 Essex Street: Final Design Review – Review of the DRB Recommendation for the construction of a three and one-half story addition above the existing building (known as Jerry’s Army & Navy Store) with twenty (20) residential units and twelve (12) onsite parking spaces and located inside the building at the first-floor rear with retail space fronting on Essex Street. There will be eight (8) parking spaces provided offsite. Dan Ricciarelli, Seger Architects, and Mike Becker, the owner, were present to discuss the project. Mr. Ricciarelli reported that the DRB unanimously approved the project. In response to Ms. Madore’s question about the windows and the potential conflict should the neighboring building construct an addition. Mr. Ricciarelli clarified that that there could be 10-15 feet in between the buildings if the abutter ever built up. Public Comment: SRA September 11, 2024 Page 5 of 9 No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the project as presented and consistent with the DRB recommendations. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Napolitano, Madore, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. 5. 288 Derby Street: Amendment to the Outdoor Dining Approval – Proposed amendment to the permitted outdoor dining area to include a pergola structure with a half wall around three sides and a roof. Tim Haigh, Bambolina, and Glenn Kennedy, Remade, were present to discuss this project. Mr. Kennedy described the various roof structures they looked at around Salem. He shared an image which was shared by Kim Driscoll during the early days of the pandemic, who noted that it was what outdoor dining should look like, which was a wood structure with a corrugated roof and is similar to what Mr. Haigh is looking to get approved. They propose to stain the wood structural elements a dark color. Mr. Rubin inquired as to whether the applicant was requesting a change in the outdoor café guidelines, and whether the SRA is the place to do that. He noted that it may require Planning Board or City Council approval. If the SRA were to approve it, it would involve permanent structures that were part of existing structures, property tax impacts, easements, etc. Mr. Kennedy noted that this is a temporary structure that would be taken down at the end of the outdoor dining season. Ms. Newhall-Smith noted that an approval would carry forward to next year, unless there was a change in design. Ms. Madore noted that many of the example designs that were shared were approved through the SRA process in a collaborative spirit. She said she was not opposed to the pergola, but that it did not come through the first approval process. She would like to see more goodwill and good faith is working with the SRA on this project. She expressed a desire for a guarantee that it will be removed at the end of the current season. Mr. Haigh responded that the Building Department will be doing a close and thorough inspection ensuring what is constructed matches what is approved in the application. Mr. Rubin clarified that if the decide to go back to using umbrellas, that would also trigger a change. Mr. Daniel and Ms. Napolitano noted that the project warrants referral to the DRB as they have not reviewed the project in its entirety. If the project changes from what was presented tonight, they would need to come back to the SRA. Public Comment: Three public comment letters were received: Gayle Sullivan, Tim Clark, and Pat Schultz. SRA September 11, 2024 Page 6 of 9 Steve Kapantis, Wisteria Street, noted Mr. Haigh was only restaurant owner who reached out to him to make improvements in regard to ADA compliance. He also noted that City of Salem has an overhead structure at its parklet on Washington Street that is in disrepair. Jim Economides expressed support for the project. Public comment is closed. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the project’s redesign of their outdoor dining space including the pergola, pending successful completion of the DRB review. It is understood that the structure will be treated as temporary and follow all associated requirements. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Napolitano, Madore, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. New/Old Business 1. Discussion: Temporary Murals and Temporary Window Art Paul Durand, Chair of the DRB, was present for this discussion. Ms. Newhall- Smith discussed the request from members for staff to pull together a group to start talking about guideline for temporary artwork/vinyl. She, and Stephanie Owens, met with staff from the PEM and with Paul and would like to seek feedback from the Board before continuing to move forward with this project. Mr. Rubin noted that he does not like the temporary vinyl murals, distracts from the historic architecture of the buildings, and worries what they will blossom into if other businesses use them. Ms. Napolitano is not expressly opposed, but feels they need very specific parameters and time limits. Mr. Durand expressed similar concerns. Art can be used to attract and advertise. He said it could be interesting but could also just be advertising. He thought it might be worth a test for one year. They also need to craft a regulation that can apply to all businesses. You could also limit an entity to one mural/year. It could be limited to an entry façade, street faces, or if there is a wall that doesn’t detract from the architecture. Review and approval by the DRB and SRA are controls. Ms. Napolitano noted that the regulations could be adjusted year to year if they find something is not working. Ms. Madore expressed concern that this could be a slippery slope regulating signage, content, etc. she felt any mural would be for the purpose of selling a service or product. She does appreciate the quality of the murals that the PEM puts up but is concerned about the equity issue. Mr. Daniel said there are a lot of issues that this raises, and if the Board isn’t comfortable pursuing it, then he will not ask staff to do the research. The PEM has had murals involving art in their collection, but some of the murals have just been designed for attracting visitors. SRA September 11, 2024 Page 7 of 9 Public Comment: Derek O’Brien, PEM, noted that he understood the complexity of the issues. But he raised the issue about temporary ground murals on the ground that are part of a City-sponsored indigenous awareness project. He noted that they are a non-profit, and everything they do goes back to their mission of serving the City of Salem. He said they are talking with an indigenous artist about doing a temporary mural for Salem 400. Brian Ruciano agreed with Mr. Rubin, but also appreciated Mr. O’Brien’s perspective. He noted that he sees installations from all over the world and believes most of them are related to advertising. Mr. Rubin notes that he sees the Native Spaces Project as a public art initiative, as historical perspective offered in a creative way. It was agreed that the Board should spend some time thinking and visualizing about how this may affect the City. 2. Redevelopment of the Historic Courthouses and the Crescent Lot: Update on Project Status Mr. Daniel reported that there is an amendment to the courthouse application because the number of units could go up to 15. There has been a redesign to the drainage on the Crescent lot. That project needs to go back to the Conservation Commission and Chapter 91. Additional funding is being sought through the North Shore Home Consortium for the courthouses, and tenant prospects for the Superior Court. The partner search is ongoing. 3. SRA Financials Received and filed. 4. Other No other topics were discussed. Approval of Minutes 1. August 14, 2024 VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the August 14th minutes, with corrections to the two dates noted. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Napolitano, Madore, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. Upcoming Meetings 1. DRB: September 25 2. SRA: October 9 Adjournment of Regular Meeting VOTE: Rubin made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Napolitano, Madore, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. SRA September 11, 2024 Page 8 of 9 ANNUAL MEETING Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Annual Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, September 11, 2024, at 8:15 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Napolitano, Dean Rubin, Christine Madore SRA Members Absent: Christopher Dunn, Cynthia Nina-Soto Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner, Tom Daniel, Executive Director 1. Annual Report and Financial Report Mr. Daniel reviews the Annual Report: • License Agreements with East Regiment and Turners • Previously permitted projects included 30 Federal and 23 Summer • Ongoing discussions with the PEM • Storefront improvements • Mr. Daniel acknowledged the strong work that Ms. Newhall-Smith has done since 2020 in outdoor dining, which was echoed by the Board members. • The DRB lends its design expertise to the Planning Board. • The Old Town Hall project, which is a core area of the downtown and the renewal area. Mr. Daniel acknowledged the strong work of Julie Barry, Senior Planner for Arts and Culture. • Meeting regular with the Chamber of Commerce, Destination Salem, Salem Partnership, North Shore Alliance for Economic Development, and MassHire. In terms of membership changes, Mr. Daniel reported the following: • Dave Guarino stepped down from the Authority and Chris Dunn took his place. • In the DRB, Glenn Kennedy and Michael Sullivan both stepped down. Mr. Daniel acknowledged their decades of service. Elizabeth Murray and Leeann Leftwich have joined. The financials are detailed in the report and include ongoing legal and consulting costs associated with the courthouse project that are funded via WinnDevelopment, and the second account is associated with Charlotte Forten Park. 2. Fiscal Year 2025 Goals Mr. Daniel described the 2025 goals which include: • Continue work from the 2018 Downtown Vision, which is primarily the work on the Courthouses and the Crescent Lot and the parking study • The Financial Policy was completed, but there continues to be more work to do on board management and structure. • Updating the sign manual • Progress with Charlotte Forten with the memorial and shade structure SRA September 11, 2024 Page 9 of 9 Mr. Rubin inquired as to whether the SRA should review the goals more regularly, identify roadblocks, how can projects happen more quickly. Ms. Madore said she feels like she engages with staff between meetings and that the Board should feel comfortable in proposing an agenda item. Ms. Napolitano feels the onus is the Board to request updates they are interested in hearing. Ms. Madore noted that she understands, as a trained planner, the projects take time. She suggested that perhaps a quarterly in-person meeting could be helpful. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the goals as submitted. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Napolitano, Madore, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. 3. Election of Officers: Chair, Vice Chair, Treasurer VOTE: Rubin made a motion to accept the slate of elected officers as presented. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Napolitano, Madore, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. 4. Adjournment VOTE: Rubin made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Napolitano, Madore, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033