Loading...
2025-03-12 SRA Meeting MinutesSRA March 12, 2025 Page 1 of 6 City of Salem, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority Date and Time: Wednesday, March 12, 2025, at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Napolitano, Dean Rubin, Christine Madore, Glenn Larose, Christopher Dunn Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner, Tom Daniel, Executive Director Welcome and Introductions New Member: Glenn Larose Ms. Napolitano welcomed and introduced Mr. Larose to the SRA. Executive Directors Report Mr. Daniel updated the SRA on discussions that Planning staff have had with the PEM. Decals that were installed by the PEM were installed in error, and museum staff will not be doing so again. He reported that the PEM is looking to do a signage and wayfinding package, but that is not happening this year. The window signs put up in the area facing the pedestrian mall will be coming down as well. Ms. Newhall-Smith reported on the sign manual revisions. Comments have been gathered. She also met with the Commission on Disabilities, who did not have any suggested edits. She has added the prohibition on vinyl wraps and temporary signage and included guidance on window painting. Ms. Newhall-Smith will review it again with Ms. Owens and Mr. Daniel, and then share with the DRB subcommittee, and finally again with the full board. Ms. Newhall-Smith reached out to the contractor for the shade structure for Charlotte Forten Park and asked that he start as soon as possible to avoid any overlap with Anthem. She also reported on a positive meeting held with Anthem to address any of the hiccups that occurred last year. Ms. Newhall-Smith reported that Roseadela’s closed at their choice. Not Your Mama’s is a new vegan restaurant that will be opening. Front Street Coffee is reopening under new management. The Tipsy Cowboy is also now open. Trade House on Derby Street will be opening soon. Mr. Rubin reported that the inflatable bus at Harrison’s may still be up. The shade structure at Charlotte Fortin Park is expected to take 10-12 weeks. Ms. Newhall-Smith will check the contract with Anthem to see what flexibility there may be for the future. She said this was a pilot project and wanted to discuss what worked and what did not going forward. Design Review Board Membership Reappointment: Paul Durand VOTE: Rubin made a motion to continue Mr. Durand’s participation in the DRB for as many years as permissible. Second: Madore Roll Call: Larose, Madore, Napolitano, Dunn, and Rubin. 5-0 in favor. SRA March 12, 2025 Page 2 of 6 Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 32 Derby Square: Small Project Review – Review of DRB Recommendation regarding the addition of exterior handrail for accessibility. Don Mills was present to discuss the proposal: • Site plans were shared. • The previous plans showed the need for a level landing with a ramp with dual handrails on both sides due to the 5% slope, which was discovered late in the development of the construction documents. • The project was presented to the Architectural Access Board with the request for a variance. The Board permitted the curb cut to the less than 5% slope provided that they install a wall mounted railing on one side. • The DRB reviewed the draft of the drawing showing the recommended handrail. The applicant also proposed an option to the DRB that they could install a matching handrail on the opposite side for symmetry purposes. The DRB agreed that one railing would be appropriate. • The material of the rail will be metal and black. • Ms. Madore wondered whether it would be nice to have the second railing even with the curb. Mr. Mills said that the main part of the discussion with the DRB as symmetry was desired. There will be signage directing people to the accessible entrance. There were no comments from the public. • This is a City project. While it doesn’t require DRB or SRA approval, the City is running it through the process. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the project pursuant to the DRB’s recommendation. Second: Dunn. Roll Call: Larose, Madore, Napolitano, Dunn, and Rubin. 5-0 in favor. 2. 1 Sewall Street: Final Design Review – Review of DRB Recommendation on the proposal to utilize approximately 5,600 square feet of exterior rooftop space for exercise opportunities and play space for the YMCA’s early learning and school-aged children. Ms. Madore recused herself from the review and vote. Abby Gorden was present to discuss the proposal: • Images and rendering, including elevations and maps, were shared which showed the proposed rooftop playground. • The scope of work includes the rooftop playground, extended stairs, and elevator for accessibility and egress. • The scope of demolition includes removal of mechanical equipment from the roof. • There will be zones/small fence in between the areas designated for early childhood education and after school programming. • The new vestibules will be clad in a standing seam metal panel which will be antique bronze to complement the brick building. SRA March 12, 2025 Page 3 of 6 • A black wire, 10’ anti-climb fence will be used. Playground material will be a poured rubber surface. Two wood slat shade structures are required programmatically. Similar wood slats would be used to enclose the existing air handling units and fencing between the two units. • The applicant plans to color match the seam metal paneling to create a less distracting view. • The applicant is also working to incorporate bright colors in keeping with the YMCA color book. • Children will never be left unsupervised on the playground. • Mr. Rubin expressed his support for black wire fence. • The applicant sent out letters to abutters. The main abutter is the church. It does not appear that there are abutters who will look down onto the playground. • Construction will be staged in a way to minimize programming disturbances. • The mechanicals will be shifted. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the project pursuant to the DRB’s recommendation. Second: Dunn. Roll Call: Larose, Napolitano, Dunn, and Rubin. 4-0-1 in favor (Madore recused). 3. 20 Central Street: Small Project Review – Review of proposal to repair existing stairs, walkway, and courtyard. The applicant wishes to be referred back to the DRB. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to refer the project back to the DRB as requested by the applicant. Second: Madore. Roll Call: Larose, Madore, Napolitano, Dunn, and Rubin. 5-0 in favor. 4. 288 Derby Street: Small Project Review – Review of proposal to construct a new accessible ramp and landing deck on the north side of the Salem Wax Museum building. Mark Meche, Winter Street Architects, and Kayla Lumbra were present to discuss the project: • Images, including existing conditions, were shared about this project which focusses on accessibility and egress. • Wheelchairs and baby strollers would roll backwards because the ramp was too steep. • The awning, rail, deck and knee walls have all been demolished. • Comments from the DRB were received, and many of them were applied. • The applicant is hoping to move forward as soon as possible. • Griffin Engineering will be addressing the retaining wall and paving. • A 3-D model was used to show the plan. • There will be a wooden board guardrail. The ramp will be an old looking brick. • A topographic survey has not been completed yet. • The applicant is hoping for approval for the ramp, stair, and deck. • Ms. Newhall-Smith inquired about DPS’ use of the gate and how often it’s accessed. • The applicant reported that they don’t know yet about the location of the retaining wall vis a vis the fence because they don’t have an accurate survey yet. The ramp is several feet short of the fence. • Mr., Daniel confirmed that there is not yet coordination on the parking and retaining wall. SRA March 12, 2025 Page 4 of 6 • Mr. Rubin asked whether a decision on the project would impact any part of the Phase 2 work. Mr. Meche does not believe so, and said they still need to go back to the DRB. • Mr. Rubin inquired about using steel posts instead of wood for long term safety and use. Mr. Meche said they might use wood wrapped steel. • Ms. Madore expressed surprise that they are not looking at the full package of the proposal. She also inquired about the awning. • Mr. Meche said has not heard about any plans for the awning to be replaced. • Ms. Lumbra said there is no plan to provide seating on the deck. • The parking lot is not open. • Ms. Lumbra said the museum is open seasonally, 9 months of the year. • The ramp needs to be open per code requirements. • Mr. Rubin expressed concern about access to the gate. He asked Mr. Daniel and Ms. Newhall- Smith if they can speak with DPS staff to understand the use of the gate. Ms. Newhall-Smith said she has reached out to Ms. Peterson to get an answer, but they haven’t been able to connect yet. • Mr. Meche said they could bring the bottom of the ramp closer to the sidewalk. • Mr. Rubin said he has reservations about making a decision until he understands the usage of the gate. • Ms. Napolitano suggested that since the applicant must go back to the DRB, they may want to wait until they have all their questions answered. Ms. Madore and Mr. Larose agreed. Mr. Larose noted his concern about constructing a permanent structure without a survey. • Ms. Newhall-Smith said they would have two weeks to resolve any outstanding issues including the pavement treatment, retaining wall, and gate. The meeting was open for public comment. Councilor Jerzylo expressed her support for the project and agreed with the board regarding the gate and retaining wall. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to refer the project back to the DRB with the additional consideration to come back for final review for the change in materials and ramps as presented. Second: Madore. Roll Call: Larose, Madore, Napolitano, Dunn, and Rubin. 5-0 in favor. 5. 41 Lafayette Street: Extension of Premise for Outdoor Dining for Barrio – Review of design of outdoor dining area, which is nearly identical to the 2024 season, though with an additional on- street parking space for a total of three parking spaces being used. Kate Osborn was present to discuss the proposal: • The applicant would like to build a platform so that it is flush with the sidewalk. • Images and plans were shared. • Ms. Madore clarified that the specs for the deck are the same as the existing. The applicant said that they were. • Mr. Rubin inquired whether the City has conducted an analysis comparing lost revenue from the parking spaces to the tax revenue collected from the added dining. • Ms. Newhall-Smith reported that the City Council does require restaurants to pay rent for their use of parking spaces, so that there is some revenue from that. • Mr. Rubin said he wasn’t concerned about the lost parking. SRA March 12, 2025 Page 5 of 6 The meeting was open for public comment. Councilor Jerzylo asked whether the parking spot was in front of the restaurant. The applicant noted that it is not exact but also extends towards their garage door. She also asked about any resolution to complaints received regarding the outdoor speaker. The applicant said they were not going to have an outdoor speaker. Steven Martin, 51 Lafayette Unit 211, reported that the space is 20 feet from his living room window and bedroom window. He said the speaker is still up and he has been trying to work with the City Licensing Board and Police Department for the last two years over the severe noise issues. He said it is extremely loud, even with his windows closed. The applicant said they are moving the speaker to the far right, and it will shut off automatically at 10pm. Mr. Martin said he hopes the issue can be remedied. Mr. Rubin noted that he believes this is an issue, but that sound does not fall under the SRA’s jurisdiction. Ms. Napolitano and Mr. Daniel agreed. Jonathan Burke submitted a letter that is included in the project file. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the project, subject to a successful design review with DRB. Second: Madore. Roll Call: Larose, Madore, Napolitano, Dunn, and Rubin. 5-0 in favor. New/Old Business 1. Redevelopment of the Historic Courthouses and the Crescent Lot: Update on Project Status Mr. Daniel reported that they continue to meet every other week with DCAMM. Winn completed their permitting with the Planning Board Thursday, which includes residential use and mixed tenant/event space use. They are still exploring working with the Massachusetts National Guard, and there are still a number of issues outstanding such as funding, commitments, timing, etc. The Crescent Lot is going through a change in color treatment. They are not scheduling a site visit with everyone, but will notify the Board if they want to drive out on their own. Mr. Daniel, Ms. Newhall-Smith, and Mr. Durand will be going on site. There is a funding shortfall, and they are working to close that gap. There are questions regarding financing, funding structure, etc. There is no impact on this project with the MBTA Communities Law as Salem is compliant through their existing downtown zoning. 2. SRA Financials 3. In-Person Meetings, April 1, 2025 Ms. Newhall-Smith reported that Salem is committed to doing hybrid meetings to provide for more opportunities for public engagement. This will start April 1st. The hybrid meeting policy is included in the project file for this meeting. She highlighted the need for three board members to be in-person for a quorum. Members need to let the chair know 48-hours in advance is they need to be remote. She also asked that they please also notify her so that she can coordinate. The chair needs to be physically present. The chair will SRA March 12, 2025 Page 6 of 6 need to announce at the meeting who is remote. All votes will count. The policy includes a checklist which is helpful. The Planning Department is working to draft uniform guidance so that everyone knows what will be expected. They would prefer for the applicant lead to be in-person as well. There is no policy yet on action if an applicant is unable to attend. A state law allowing remote meetings is expiring March 31st. Mr. Rubin inquired as to what would happen if the technology fails. Mr. Daniel said the meeting could proceed if everyone needed is present, but the chair can decide to pause it. Members of the public can also provide written comments before a meeting. Mr. Daniel said it is a contentious issue. All meeting materials still need to be provided in advance. Ms. Newhall-Smith will continue to run things on her laptop. Mr. Daniel said there are pending bills that would extend the allowance for another year. 4. Other Approval of Minutes 1. December 8, 2024 a. Joint Meeting with the Transportation Commission Mr. Rubin provided comments that he suggested were ways to state the minutes more accurately and clearly, but no change to content. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the joint meeting minutes. Second: Dunn. Roll Call: Madore, Napolitano, Dunn, and Rubin. 4-0 in favor. b. Regular Meeting VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Second: Madore. Roll Call: Madore, Napolitano, Dunn, and Rubin. 4-0 in favor. 2. January 8, 2025 VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Second: Madore. Roll Call: Madore, Napolitano, Dunn, and Rubin. 4-0 in favor. Upcoming Meetings 1. DRB: March 26 2. SRA: April 9 Adjournment VOTE: Rubin made a motion to adjourn meeting. Seconded by: Madore Roll Call: Larose, Madore, Napolitano, Dunn, and Rubin. 5-0 in favor. SRA adjourned.