Loading...
2025-06-11 Joint Meeting and Regular Meeting MinutesSRA June 11, 2025 Page 1 of 4 City of Salem, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority and Design Review Board Joint Public Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, June 11, 2024, at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Napolitano, Glenn Larose, Dean Rubin, Christine Madore, Christopher Dunn Design Review Board Members Present: Paul Durand, Marc Perras, Sarah Tarbet, Catherine Miller, Leeann Leftwich, Elizabeth Murray Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner, Stephanie Owens, Senior Planner Presentation: Lappin Park Redesign Project Michael Blier from Landworks Studio was present as was John Bobrek and Greg St. Louis from Bobrek Engineering. A presentation on the Lappin Park project was given to review the updated designs. Mr. Blair was present to discuss the latest design work that has come out of months of discussion. The agenda includes a recap of previous considerations, design development, stone paving, wall, and seating, a paving study and a planting study. A summary of the input was provided, including improving ADA access for storefronts, minimizing steps, adding ramps, reevaluating star shaped seating, inserting benches with anchors to prevent vandalism/theft. Requested additions included a bike rake, free library, and water fountain. There was feedback requesting that lighting fixtures be clarified and that electrical access be ensured for events and seasonal needs. Materials should match the nearby historic park. Brick or warming paving materials should be used to better complement historic context. The Samanatha statue should be repositioned for better circulation and visibility. Ground cover should be low maintenance. Stormwater concerns should be addressed with improved drainage. A snow removal/storage plan should be created. The initial development sketch and modified illustrative plan were shared showing some texture and color that identifies where the major park components are located. The plan shows the paving, ADA benches, planting beds for stormwater recharge, as well as the new location for the Samatha statue. Another image was shared showing the outdoor table and chair layout for restaurant use, which shows the pedestrian circulation through the area and locations where key design elements and potential public art locations could be as well as a holiday tree location. A rendered view of the updated plan was also shared showing the diagonal cut through, with no steps or stairs. There is a strong edge to the park along the street with multiple thresholds to the SRA June 11, 2025 Page 2 of 4 park. Additional renderings were shared that showed opportunities to integrate city programing and build on the synergies of the different restaurants and shops. Images of the proposed paving, wall, and seating were shared which were inspired by nearby locations. Some of the materials, including granite blocks, are available from nearby sites that are not being used. A paving study was conducted using reclaimed granite block inlay. Three different studies were shared, each using granite. The first plan has a concrete wrapper with reclaimed stone in the middle with boulders along the perimeter. The second is a variation with smaller, more cobblestone- like orientation. The third design proposed granite at the thresholds and concrete in the middle. The final design reviewed was an alternative cast-in-place concrete. The goal of the planting strategy was to combine the history of the urban landscape in Salem with a native based expression of past landscapes, while having seasonal interest throughout the year. The proposal includes Elm trees with smaller trees in the middle. Most of the plant materials are deciduous with interesting bark texture and branching habit. Seating areas around the perimeter are maintained. Images of the plantings were shared, and included red chokeberry, winterberry holly, sweet pepperbush, inkberry, and spicebush for proposed shrubs and small trees. Proposed trees include Red Maple and American Elm. Images of proposed lighting as well as ideas for public art installation were shared. Mr. St. Louis presented the proposed civil design on grading and opportunities to capture stormwater. He noted that there are several doorways around the perimeter of Lappin Park, some of which are private loading spaces and some of which are public access to restaurant space. He noted that there have been challenges with the grading. There are steep slopes approaching the steps at a number of businesses and the goal was to create ADA access through level landings or ramped landings for these businesses. The site is pitched to landscaping beds so that they have a natural water source. The plaza is going to have a large underground detention pond to collect water. The new system will have clean outs and access for maintenance. There are no railings as the grade is under 5% and they are trying to allow for as much seating as possible, but there are some areas which may require railings. Mr. St. Louis described the subsurface infiltration system which will be made up of a number of cut textile units to provide void space as well as crushed stone material. The plaza will slope towards the planters. The pavers will not be porous. There are no inlets in the plaza. The project is a low impact development style that will help the City achieve its MS-4 EPA permit requirements. All the cross slopes are roughly 1 ½ %. The tightest spot is at the loading zone, but given the private nature of its use, it can probably remain as not meeting the ADA threshold. In regard to the landscape plan, Mr. Perras expressed his preference for option #3 using the granite. He expressed concern over using a tree with berries with the new surface. Mr. Blair said the berries are winterberries and would be in the landscape beds. SRA June 11, 2025 Page 3 of 4 Ms. Murray inquired about the electrical design. Mr. Bobrek said they are 50% design have haven’t completed that level of design yet, but that they are open to input. He said they do have concerns about damage to the receptacles. In addition to the lights, they expect to have one or two boxes which will be locked for the electrical connections. He said some public bench manufacturers have built-in outlets and USB ports that can be utilized. Mr. Durand noted that he preferred option #1 as it felt like a better experience and focuses on the point of the project. The samples for the paver material are very smooth with a subtle texture and are completely accessible. Pallets and samples would be prepared once a design was chosen. Ms. Murray inquired about the cleanability and maintenance of textured stone/granite. Mr. Blair said he doesn’t think they recommend sealing them. He said they are probably less maintenance than concrete and brick in the long run. Mr. Bobrek added that the product would be set into a sand layer or stone dust with an emulsion making it rigid so that heavy equipment could be driven over it. The question over designating Lappin Park with a sign or art installation was discussed. Ms. Tarbet inquired shading in the park and if the shade trees covering the entire park might have a conflict with the holiday tree. Mr. Blair said they did a shadow study and given the size of the space, height of abutting buildings, and orientation of the park they are in good shape with shade. The Elm trees will grow fast and they are long lived. All three schemes have a granite wall around the perimeter, which is similar to the Armory Park edge and creates a continuous path for sight-impaired people who are moving through. All the planters have flushed edges. The project has not been fully funded yet, but Mr. Bobrek noted that they are working with the City on the next scope of work which would bring them to public procurement documents. Ms. Newhall-Smith said there is a request for that funding in the FY26 budget. There is no estimate yet. Mr. Dunn inquired about any requirements associated with moving the statue. Ms. Newhall-Smith said she reached out to TV Land as they are still the owners of the statue. TV Land is amenable to a relocation, but they do need to redo the agreement. Ms. Tarbet, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Leftwich expressed preference for the option #1 layout. Support was also expressed for the proposed lighting. A layout for irrigation hasn’t been completed yet but will include a hose bib and bubbler. The meeting was open to the public. Darlene Mellis, 115 Federal Street, found the contemporary lights glaring given the flood of light at eye level. She expressed preference for the down light of historic lamps. Jonathan Burke, 51 Lafayette Street, expressed support for everything done so far. He recommended making sure the landscaping on the two sides of the building doesn’t divide the space between the patios and restaurants, but rather that it activates the park. SRA June 11, 2025 Page 4 of 4 Katelyn Holappa noted that the site is a central location within the City, and recommended that more bike rack accommodations be provided and that adequate light for them are provided. Mr. Rubin asked what is needed to move the project forward. Ms. Newhall-Smith said Mr. Bobrek is going to pull together a scope and estimate to bring the project to 100% design, bid documents, etc. At which point, they know about the City Council’s decision and what outside grant funding they will seek. Ms. Madore expressed support for option #1, and appreciated that all the amenities she noted were included in the revised plan. She echoed Ms. Tarbet’s comments about the electrical plan and supply be included. Mr. St Louis said they would incorporate that into the scope. Mr. Bobrek said they have an electrical engineer on board, but would like to get a sense from the City as their anticipated electrical needs for the site. Ms. Newhall-Smith said she can pass on some ideas based on their experiences at Charlotte Fortin Park. Ms. Miller said it would be important to avoid needing a generator at events. Mr. Durand asked whether a private funding source could be considered if the project is more than the City Council wants to spend. Adjournment of Joint Public Meeting The DRB adjourned at 7:13pm. Roll Call: Durand, Perras, Tarbet, Miller, Leftwich, and Murray. 7-0 in favor DRB adjourned. The joint meeting with the DRB adjourned. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, Rubin, and Napolitano. 5-0 in favor. SRA adjourned. SRA June 11, 2025 Page 1 of 5 City of Salem, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Salem Redevelopment Authority Date and Time: Wednesday, June 11, 2024, at 7:15 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Napolitano, Glenn Larose, Dean Rubin , Christine Madore, Christopher Dunn Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner Design Review Board Reappointment VOTE : Rubin made a motion to approve Elizabeth Murray to the DRB for a term of three years. Second: Madore. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, Rubin, and Napolitano. 5-0 in favor. Ms. Newhall-Smith expressed her appreciation to Ms. Murray for her assistance with the sign manual revision. Executive Director’s Report There was no Executive Director’s report. Mr. Rubin inquired about the inflatable blow-up at Harrison’s. Ms. Newhall -Smith said she will need to have an in-person site visit on that matter. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 301 Essex Street: Schematic Design Review – Review of DRB Recommendation on the proposed amendment to the previously approved project that seeks to expand the square footage of the approved commercial space to the entire basement and ground floor, which wi ll require additional permitting via the Zoning Board of Appeals for the removal of the proposed ground floor parking spaces. Ms. Napolitano raised the issue of the changes in the make-up of the number of units in the building, specifically the micro-units and their functionality. Mr. Rubin said he has serious concerns. Ms. Napolitano said the exterior of the building is what is coming before them for review, but that if members have concerns about the functionality of the project as a whole, they can raise it on the front end of the discussion. Mr. Larose agreed, and said he doesn’t have many concerns about the exterior of the building, but does have concerns about the number of units that are under 400 sq. ft. Ms. Napolitano said it is her understanding that the City does not have any guidelines on micro-units. Mr. Rubin noted that he has experience with 500 sq ft. ADU’s . He expressed worry that these units will not help housing within the City of Salem in a serio us way. He worries they may be used more for Airbnb’s or corporations housing executives. He feels they are too small. He also SRA June 11, 2025 Page 2 of 5 expressed concern about the potential seasonal nature of the commercial spaces. Mr. Dunn and Ms. Madore both echoed those concerns about size and commercial tenancy. Dan Ricciarelli, Mike Becker, and Charissa Vitas were present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Ricciarelli said he disagreed with the comments about the size of the units, and that micro-units were supported by the previous mayor. He said there are a lot of people transitioning out of homes for various reasons, and that these are very affordable. He felt it was a good way to introduce young people to Salem. • He said the state controls the size of units and health codes and that they have not laid out the interior units yet. Planning Board and ZBA approvals will also be required. • Mr. Rubin wished to go on record that he supports the exterior design of the building. His concern is about who takes up the spaces. • Mr. Becker noted that he has brokered two buildings in Salem that had units at less than 250 sq. ft. which were intended for workforce housing. He also knows of others. • Ms. Vitas added that they are trying for less expensive, smaller housing which may target young people who may not need a parking spot in such a walkable area of the city. • Airbnb’s are not permitted in Salem as there is a municipal ordinance against them. • Mr. Becker said their intention was always have the project as a qualif y opportunity zone as a rental property. He said parking is important for condo buyers, but not as much for a shorter term, one-to-two-year lease arrangement s. He said the move away from parking in the building was the main motivat or for the change in unit type. He said one of the parties he is working with advised not to do parking under the building. They did not want to have the parking drive the project. • Mr. Ricciarelli noted that state code for a single occupant is 150 sq. ft. and 100 sq. ft. for each additional occupant. Roughly 50% of the building is micro-units. • Balconies are maintained on the 2nd floor. • Mr. Ricciarelli offered to come back and discuss the unit layout at a future meeting. • Rent is estimated at $1500 +/- for the smallest units. • Ms. Madore noted that they are not trying to follow any mayoral administration, they are focused on the livability of downtown and that they would like to see more detail on the layout of the floor plans, especially those that are below 300 sq. ft. She said if they are going to be SRO’s then they require common shared areas for tenants, which she would like to see. She was happy with the elimination of parking. • Mr. Becker said that i f the SRA is not going to recommend or approve the project then there is no point going forward with the Planning Board or ZBA. He expressed hesitancy in fully designing the interior uni ts. • Mr. Larose acknowledged the significant review that has been undertaken by board members in the past, but said they do need to feel comfortable with the project and ensuring that it serves the City of Salem. • Mr. Becker said he is looking for general support of the scheme. Mr. Ricciarelli noted that more information and opinions will come forward when the project goes through the ZBA and Planning Board process and will be valuable to the SRA. • Ms. Madore said she would like to hear the opinions of those two boards. • Ms. Napolitano acknowledged it is a chicken and egg problem , but that she and other members don’t feel like they have enough information to approve the project for the downtown, which is what they are tasked to do, beyond just the exterior of the building. SRA June 11, 2025 Page 3 of 5 • Mr. Becker said he would like to know if the consensus is to not support the micro-units. • Mr. Rubin said he is not keen on small units, but did hear what the applicant was saying about the need to provide housing for the workforce; that a server at a Salem restaurant cannot afford to live in the City. He added that he was trying to be open-minded about a population of workers who would be comfortable working to work and living in such a small space that is affordable for them. He would like to understand how many micro-units are in Salem now. • Mr. Becker noted some other locations in Salem where units under 400 sq. ft. sold very quickly. • Mr. Rubin noted that the Salem Housing Authority may be a good advocate for the project. He said he supports the exterior of the building. • Mr. Dunn said he is not supportive of under 400 sq. ft. units. • Ms. Madore wanted to clarify that if the applicant wants to address affordability , then call the units SROs and come up with common areas that would make the building livable. She wanted to understand what they are doing to reduce the cost of rent and wondered whether there could be a commitment to offer below market rent and/or income restricted. Information on how the building will be affordable and livable is important. She doesn’t see baby boomers downsizing to 300-450 sq. ft. apartments. She would like to see more information on the floor plan, that the city needs quality housing. She also said the Board needs to know more about commercial tenancy. She wants to know the ceiling height, bed location, standing shower, kitchen, etc. She expressed concern about the precedent the SRA may be setting and the message given for downtown. • Mr. Larose is supportive of housing, but seconded Ms. Madore’s concern about precedence and livability and wanting to know how the space is laid out. • Mr. Dunn inquired about other municipalities setting minimum size guidelines on apartments. Ms. Newhall-Smith said she knows that Boston has set guidelines, but is not sure what other North Shore towns have created. She believes most towns are using the State Building Code and Sanitary Code. • Mr. Dunn asked if the density is what is needed to make the project viable, or are they responding to something else. Mr. Becker said it was combination of the two. He said they are very focused on design and layout. • Ms. Napolitano noted that Boston sets their micro-unit guidelines at 400 sq. ft. She said she is concerned about approving the project without understanding the functionality of the building and setting a precedent without enough knowledge on what the size guidelines should be. She said she leans toward a 400 sq ft. minimum size. She said she is not supportive of the 288 sq. ft. size. • Mr. Ricciarelli said he didn’t think they were prepared to discuss layout and unit size at this meeting. He said they would like to come back with more detail and precedent. He thought the focus of this meeting was the SRA’s mission to support to more retail, exterior design, and to have parking off site. • Ms. Napolitano said she raised the issue early in the meeting because she knew there were concerns about functionality . There were no comments from the public. SRA June 11, 2025 Page 4 of 5 • Mr. Becker noted that it’s difficult to sell condos in Salem without parking. He said the DRB is happy to have the commercial retail instead of parking. • Mr. Rubin reiterated that he was happy with the exterior, and was okay with no parking if they receive the variance. His concern was having the wrong commercial tenants. He said he would be very frustrated if seasonal businesses occupied those spaces. • Mr. Dunn said his only concern is the size of the units. • Ms. Madore offered a prescriptive direction for businesses that serve the neighborhood such as a small grocer. They do not want to see souvenir shops. • Mr. Becker said he has not had any interest from a grocer. Loading space in this area is an issue. • Ms. Napolitano said she is not supportive of a unit less than 350 sq. ft. at this time. VOTE : Rubin made a motion to continue the application to the next regularly scheduled meeting with the focus of discussion on what a sample unit may look like in the different square footage ranges, one of each, for smaller units up to 500 sq. ft. as it will be laid out in the building. Second: Larose. Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, Rubin, and Napolitano. 5-0 in favor. New/Old Business 1. Redevelopment of the Historic Courthouses and the Crescent Lot: Update on Project Status Ms. Newhall-Smith noted they are plugging away on the various documents needed to understand what the closing will look like. The team will be coming back to provide an update to the Board and talk through some items with the Board, hopefully in July or August. 2. SRA Financials 3. Other Meeting Minutes 1. May 14, 2025 VOTE : Rubin made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Second: Dunn Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, Rubin, and Napolitano. 5-0 in favor. Mr. Rubin noted that he will not be at the July meeting. There will be a quorum. Mr. Rubin will work to send along his thoughts on the updates via email to Ms. Newhall-Smith. He added that he will look at the properties and may do his own outreach to the Housing Authority and Harborlight Homes to try to better understand residential unit sizes. Upcoming Meetings 1. DRB: June 25 2. SRA: July 9 SRA June 11, 2025 Page 5 of 5 Adjournment VOTE : Larose made a motion to adjourn meeting. Seconded by: Rubin Roll Call: Dunn, Larose, Madore, Rubin, and Napolitano. 5-0 in favor. SRA adjourned.