Loading...
2024-11-13 Meeting MinutesSRA November 13, 2024 Page 1 of 6 City of Salem, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, November 13, 2024, at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting SRA Members Present: Grace Napolitano, Acting Chair Dean Rubin, Christopher Dunn, Christine Madore Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner, Tom Daniel, Executive Director Executive Director’s Report There was no Executive Director’s report. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area The first item was taking out of order. It originally appeared as the fifth agenda item. 1.Sewel Street: Schematic Design Review – Proposal to utilize approximately 5,600 square feet of exterior rooftop space for exterior exercise opportunities and play space for the YMCA’s early learning and school-aged children. Acting Chair Rubin noted that he is a part-time employee of the YMCA but didn’t feel that this presented a conflict of interest and would not impact his review and deliberation on the application. Ms. Madore recused herself from the vote as she is a board member of the YMCA. Charity Lezama from the YMCA was present. She reported that the Y serves over 200 children a day in their childcare program, from infants to 6th graders. The Salem Y does not have a sufficient outdoor space for the children in the programs. Gillan Kazazz and Robert Freni from Adaptive were present. Images of the current playground, which is 1,100 sq ft. and serves 14 students at a time and the future playground which is 3,940 sq ft and would serve 52 students simultaneously were displayed. The future playground would include two climbing structures, space to run and a multi-use court. The YMCA building is lower than the abutting buildings and the rooftop space would be visible from the street. Roof equipment would remain and some would be shifted. Some equipment would be relocated. The play structure would be installed on a rubber surface. There would be a 10-foot anti- climb fence around the entire recreational area. The roof area would be divided by a fence into areas for different age groups. Illustrations and elevations were provided. Construction will take 6-9 months. Ms. Napolitano asked about balls and/or other objects going over the fence and hitting pedestrians. Ms. Kazzaz noted that 10 feet should be sufficient to prevent that. There won’t be any hoops on the open side. The fence will be two feet higher than is required by state law. Mr. Freni noted that in the winter, small amounts of snow will likely be shoveled to the side, but that they want to keep the snow away from the perimeter. If there is a significant storm, the snow will remain in place and the space won’t be used. All the children will be supervised at all times. Access SRA November 13, 2024 Page 2 of 6 will be via keycard for only licensed programs. Mr. Rubin noted that he was pleased to see the shade structures. The project team shares that extensive solar studies were conducted that drove the placement of the shade structures. Childcare programs end at 6pm, so use of the playground would cease at that time. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Napolitano made a motion to refer the project to the DRB. Seconded by: Dunn. Roll Call: Napolitano, Dunn, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. Ms. Madore re-joined the meeting. Ms. Napolitano left the meeting. Dean Rubin assumed the position as Acting Chair of the meeting. The following items are in the order presented on the agenda. 2.35 Church Street: License agreement to allow certain businesses to use a portion of the parking lot for the storage of dumpsters. Mr. Kucharsky was present to discuss the request. The intention of this agreement is to outline the use of the parking lot and where dumpsters can be stored. Ms. Madore noted the agreement had a clause about pest management. Mr. Kucharsky believes the users are sharing that requirement. He said if issues do arise, they will coordinate with the users. Mr. Rubin inquired about what would happen if businesses changed. Mr. Kucharsky said they would like new business to discuss the arrangement with all parties, and an amendment would be made to the agreement to address the new business. Ms. Newhall-Smith noted that a letter of support was provided from the Salem Five Director of Facilities. There were no other comments from the public. VOTE: Dunn made a motion supporting the agreement on the dumpsters to be there pending the fence design approval. Madore confirmed that the fence design would require DRB approval. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Madore, Dunn, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. 3.252 Bridge Street: Discussion of The Exchange’s curved wall mock-up Ms. Newhall-Smith reported that for the final approval of the Crescent lot, the development team was required to present how the curved wall proposed for the North River-façade façade would be constructed and look through a life-sized mock-up. Steve Prestejohn shared photos of the design, colors, and structures. The photo does not reflect the requested changes to the breaks, but Mrs. Newhall-Smith had a photo that showed the changes. Ms. Madore asked whether there were any issues with the material bending. Windover noted there were no issues, but the window trim provided challenges with geometry. The mockup has been out in SRA November 13, 2024 Page 3 of 6 elements for several months and has done well. Mr. Rubin expressed concern about the weather impacting the panels. The manufacturer was comfortable with the plan. Mr. Daniel inquired about the greater gap between the two colors shown in the photo. Mr. Prestejohn said that will gap will not be there. It was just during the mockup. They will work to provide an elevation rendering to illustrate accuracy. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Dunn made a motion to move the project forward to the DRB with the condition that a rendering showing the breaks be provided. Seconded by: Madore. Roll Call: Madore, Dunn, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. 4.32-34 Federal Street: Final Design Review – Historic preservation, restoration, and reuse of the historic court buildings and associated site improvements and landscaping. Joe Correnti, Derek Hansen, John Segel, Michael Blyer and Rich Whitehouse representing the Winn development team were present to discuss the project. Mr. Whitehouse, from VHB, was present to discuss the project site plans. They had improved the plans for Planning Board approval. It is currently in peer review. He reported that the parking approach has been refined. The main entrance has also been refined, with lighting, screening, and window wells for the basement units. Stormwater design is also underway with onsite management which may include a rain garden. Mr. Blyer from LandWorks Studio presented on landscaping. He reviewed the images and discussed wanting to make connections with the larger area and between both buildings and wanting to create a strong pedestrian corridor. The ramp was shifted three feet. The plan also includes a meeting area. Lighting is low level, meets building code while enhancing landscaping and building aspects. Mr. Seger discussed the planned up-lighting and presented additional photos, plans, curtain wall details, and the location of the additional condenser units. Ms. Madore requested clarity on the tower lighting. Mr. Seger believes there will be internal lighting, but that they haven’t finalized the lighting yet. She believes there are a lot of creative ideas for lighting the tower. Mr. Rubin inquired about the natural light of the basement units. Mr. Seger said they are limited by code. Rubin also expressed concerns about skateboarders and unhoused people using the walled area, though that hasn’t been an issue to date. Mr. Daniel inquired about the watering system for the vertical planting wall in the courtyard. Mr. Blyer said they haven’t designed that yet but plan to have low maintenance plantings. Mr. Seger said they are replacing the door and re-roofing the small building that provides a second means of egress. Mr. Hansen said that trash removal will likely be a scheduled pick-up. Mr. Rubin expressed concern about trash being wheeled through the courtyard. They are limited by the elevator location and use. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Madore made a motion to move the project forward to the DRB. SRA November 13, 2024 Page 4 of 6 Seconded by: Dunn. Roll Call: Madore, Dunn, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. 5. 73 Lafayette Street and 9 Peabody Street – Final Design Review – Review of Phase 1 of the project, which consists of the construction of a new building at the corner of Lafayette and Derby Streets with 19 age-restricted affordable housing units and approximately 2,300 square feet of first floor commercial space and a new 5-story building at 9 Peabody Street with 29 age restricted affordable housing units and 2,500 square feet of public space. Attorney Scott Grover was present to discuss the project, representing the South River Partnership, LLC. Ilene Vogel, Director of Real Estate at North Shore CDC and Jonathan Evans, principle architect at Mass Design Group were also present. Attorney Grover reported that the public enhancements are increased per the Chapter 91 requirements. Commercial space has decreased. There have been changes to the parking alignment. The size of the health center has decreased given funding constraints. The focus at this meeting is the housing component because the funding to support the residential component of the project is further along. The team will come back in the spring to discuss the health center component. Construction is expected to begin in the fall of 2025. Mr. Evans reviewed the schematics, existing conditions, and housing scope. He said the project has been thoroughly peer reviewed. He discussed the Public Art Plan, which includes a public gallery space, window box gallery, and mural location. The material palette was provided. Ms. Madore believes the project looks great. She asked for more details on the funding constraints. Ms. Vogel reported that it took a bit longer for the developer to determine the size and funding requirements for the health center. Mr. Evans said they wanted to understand what the future of that programming would be. The property management floor was eliminated. There are still three floors of residential. Answering Mr. Dunn’s question on bifurcating the approvals, Ms. Vogel noted that HUD and the low-income tax credit program wants to see permitting approvals in place for their grant award. The question was discussed about what happens if the health center is not funded. Ms. Vogel said the health center has to pay for the entire first floor, and those funds are in place. She said even if no additional funding was received for the health center, they would come back to the City and discuss options about additional residential units. The site improvements would happen regardless, since they are part of the Chapter 91 license. The funding for the site improvements is separate. Mr. Daniel expressed concern about the three buckets of funding, and that it would be helpful to see renderings of the site as the project is staggered. Ms. Vogel said that nothing will be demolished until the permitting and funding are in place. She said the health care center is committed to building the urgent care center as part of Phase 1. Mr. Evans said he could provide a schematic with the worst- case scenario in terms of buildout. Ms. Madore said she does not want to jeopardize the project. Ms. Vogel believes the health center funding will in place by the Spring. Chapter 91 licensing will be in place likely in the summer. Ms. Vogel reported that HUD wants to see the closing in the spring in 2025. She said during their regular meetings with HUD, they have been asking why these approvals are not in place. Ms. Vogel said they are currently in the mini-round which is for highly ready projects. Mr. Dunn said any SRA November 13, 2024 Page 5 of 6 changes would need to come back. Ms. Madore said it could be a major design change. Mr. Evans believes if the health center is scaled back, it would need to go back for other City approvals as well. Ms. Newhall-Smith and Mr. Daniel expressed concerns about the timing of the process for the first floor of the building. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Madore made a motion to refer the project to the DRB with the condition that renderings of the first-floor urgent care are included in the next iteration. Seconded by: Dunn. Roll Call: Dunn, Madore, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. New/Old Business 1. Redevelopment of the Historic Courthouses and the Crescent Lot: Update on Project Status No update was provided. 2. 2025 Meeting Schedule 3. SRA Financials Mr. Rubin inquired about the $30,000 for the Courthouse and wondered if it was possible that the funding would run out. Mr. Daniel confirmed that that is a possibility. 4. Other Mr. Daniel reminded the Board that the Charlotte Forten Memorial dedication is Saturday, November 16th at 1pm. Mr. Rubin thanked Ms. Newhall-Smith for the detailed staff notes. Approval of Minutes 1. October 9, 2024 VOTE: Madore made a motion to approve the October 9h minutes. Seconded by: Dunn. Roll Call: Dunn, Madore, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. Upcoming Meetings 1. DRB: November 20 2. SRA: December 11 Adjournment of Regular Meeting VOTE: Madore made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Dunn. Roll Call: Dunn, Madore, and Rubin. 3-0 in favor. Meeting adjourns at 10:30 p.m. SRA November 13, 2024 Page 6 of 6 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033