Loading...
155 WASHINGTON STREET- EDGEWATER CAFE 155 Washington Street Edgewater Cafe v o x J 155 Washington ' Edgewater Cafe 1111 �t"rc^ 1tL'l1GL o UPC 15350 No. 55C NASTINGO.MN i UPR WItiIC`A�n( Mu�a�N /+�M wDiDgow maharam Fabric 453701 WOOL SHEEN Width Repeat 54" Color 060 AUBURN Contents 100% WORSTED WOOL Edgewater planters Page 1 of I Kirsten Kinzer From: DeMaio, Ernest [edemaio@elkus-manfredi.com] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 9:16 AM To: Kirsten Kinzer Subject: RE: Edgewater planters Good morning Kirsten: I took a look at the Edgewater planters this morning. I'm not really in love with any of them, but rather than belabor the point, I think the original scheme - yellow sides with white trim - is the best of the options out there. Its not great, but I think the owner has given us everything we've asked for and I don't want to continue this endlessly. Please let him know we appreciate the extra effort he took to paint the sample planters. I'm sorry he did all that extra work only to return to the beginning again, but I had hoped the last option I asked for would be the best. Unfortunately its not. I hope I didn't create too much work for everyone. Best regards and happy weekend, Ernie From: Kirsten Kinzer [mailto:KKinzer@Salem.com] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:06 PM To: DeMaio, Ernest Subject: Edgewater planters Hi Ernie, Dennis of Edgewater Cafe called me to let me know that he has painted one planter per your recommendation. If you could take a look at it over the weekend, I'd appreciate it. If you need to get in touch with Dennis, his cell phone number is 978 884-7348. Thanks, Kirsten 9/25/2007 Salem ® Redevelopment Authority SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DECISION June 13,2007 155 Washington Street (Edgewater Cafe) — Amendment to outdoor cafe design SRA DECISION: At their meeting on June 13,2007, the SRA voted to approve the DRB Recommendation for the proposed amendment to the Edgewater Cafe outdoor cafe enclosure design. DRB RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on May 23, 2007, the DRB voted to recommend approval of the proposed planters with the following conditions: • Maintain a 5 foot sidewalk width on all sides of the outdoor cafe • Use a wider trim at the top of the planter • Push the planters against the building in the winter • Following the painting of one planter, a DRB member will review the trim color. The remainder of the planters shall be painted to match the DRB member's recommendation. PROPOSAL: The proposal includes replacing the existing flower pots,wooden posts and chains enclosing the outdoor cafe at 155 Washington Street with rectangular planter boxes. The proposed planters are painted wood and are 2 feet tall, 8 feet long and 1.5 feet deep. Five planters are proposed on the Washington Street side of the outdoor cafe and one G foot long planter is proposed on the Front Street side of the cafe. The proposed planters are painted off-white with dark green trim. Salem ® Redevelopment Authority DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION Alae 23, 2007 155 Washington Street (Edgewater Cafe) — Amendment to outdoor cafe design RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on May 23, 2007, the DRB voted to recommend approval of the proposed planters with the fcllowing conditions: • Maintain a 5 foot sidewalk width on all sides of the outdoor cafe • Use a wider trim at the top of the planter • Push the planters against the building in the winter • Following the painting of one planter, a DRB member will review the trim color. The remainder of the planters shall be painted to match the DRB member's recommendation. PROPOSAL: The proposal includes replacing the existing flower pots,wooden posts and chains enclosing the outdoor cafe at 155 Washington Street with rectangular planter boxes. The proposed planters are panted wood and are 2 feet tall, 8 feet long and 1.5 feet deep. Five planters are proposed on the Washington Street side of the outdoor cafe and one 6 foot long planter is proposed on the Front Street side of the cafe. The proposed planters are painted off-white with dark green trim. to the members of the DRB We are looking to improved the appearance of our outside dinning at the Edgwater Cafe 155 Nashington Street. Attached is my proposal which entails replacing the lower pots and white chain to flower boxes dimensions included. And nrith the approval of this project constuction on boxes will start mmediately. (hank you Dennis Moustakis Edgewater Cafe 9 Dawn Mineo,Arnfg"uw e n � .Lunch•Dinner•Private functions•Catering 15S Washington Stmei•Salem,Massachusetts 01970•978.740.4669 www.edgewmevrofe com 6� n RIM — -i lo t�- I i i i 1s- c.� I� I I j I /� ��jy IL ®-Fa\, � ` 11.1, T� ` ® 5 l �� �. �` \' \_.;` ` \�, ',� I a.,. �, _� _ S z �\ � = � ��:� , �> _ _�� - - ��- - _ ; ` `' � T _ �� �� �.�,. - � • �� Salem Redevelopment Authority DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PROPOSAL Mav 23, 2007 155 Washington Street (Edgewater Cafe)—Amendment to outdoor cafe design PROPOSAL: The proposal includes replacing the existing flower pots,wooden posts and chains enclosing the outdoor cafe at 155 Washington Street with rectangular planter boxes. The proposed planters are painted wood and are 2 feet tall,S feet long and 1.5 feet deep. Five planters are proposed on the Washington Street side of the outdoor cafe and one G foot long planter is proposed on the Front Street side of the cafe. To the members of the DRB We are looking to improved the appearance of our outside dinning at the Edgwater Cafe 155 Washington Street. Attached is my proposal which entails replacing the flower pots and white chain to flower boxes dimensions included. And with the approval of this project constuction on boxes will start immediately. Thank you Dennis Moustakis Edgewater Cafe nl �Lf 16 I i PAF . i1Pa ,•.• li '1 'r � - s � PO r 3xi U 31 U P_ v <xJ 1 i ,J i i _ _ _ � s ! � � � � � � � � � � f � I i � C� ' � I � � I i i i � I i � � 1 7 i I � � � i Its i I I ��jy a� . "� •�� •s • e.. ` i'� a4 _ �� n �` . •.. - M 7`; r � j el 1 �� � ��« - . . � r : ��: . . . ( . : . . . v: �.�y . , < � � . . . : \�a . . _ \?w . . , < � � � � � w � ° �% { $ . . - . . � \ � . <��/ � 2 - �,�\ � . > . � � . � � . ,.« . . . . 2a . < . © « _ »� � \ \��«s v : �}�\ � �\�ƒ ^ - , � . , .z �:��: , � 22»_ «_ «»:�» � [ � . . : � «© . . . : z ! � �§ . � ~ � ^ \w \ � � . \° \ � � �\ \ . � : � � � � . [ � \ \ � : � ^ ° ° . . � . \� ! � . : a �y�; . . \ ._ . y �� � � ^ � � � % � �:/� ~ � {. � � i � . � © J � � � { « « � ` � \ � , - - _ ƒ � . . � . «� � �2 . . . ��? � . . �y �. . : � . . , � � y . a x . . �e : . . . ' � v22 . . - . . . . w: . . . : �, y . . . . � § � ��� � � �\» �� � � � � �� . �\ � } \ a.. . � � ( � . �� I � � ` � � � \ ` . \ { � / [ [ ( [ ! .�: ( » { � ` \ � �\ , � \ � \ � } � ! � \ � \ � } [ : . , . . � : � > - ��. ©© . . . _... . � . . . . , � � © � +° - » i . �_ . . DRB Recommendation to the SRA Edgewater Cafe Address: 155 Washington Street Applicant: Edgewater Cafe (Dennis Mustakis) Architect: Winter Street Architects On April 23, 2003, the Design Review Board gave a positive recommendation for a proposed outdoor cafe,lighting and improvements to the rear of the building located at 155 Washington Street. The outdoor cafe consists of seven black metal tables and 28 black metal chairs located along Front Street. Proposed lighting includes a total of six (6)Nostalgia #8812VL1 light fixtures by Environmental Lighting fz)t Architecture,Inc. In addition, the applicant presented an amended architectural plan for the rear of the building. The revised plan includes new trim and aluminum siding to conceal the existing metal ductwork. SALEM REDEVELO?`SENT AUTHORITY DESIGN REVIE-W BOARD Application for Design AD2roval4f- OTHER THAN SIGNS 1. Date of Application 2. Location of Building Number and Street Proposed work impacts upon _Derby Square Historic area, _Museum area, _Essex Mall, North residential area, _Peripheral area, _Significant; historic bldg. (Itemize) 3. Owner s , •a C}i'4F�C�hh k �l1 ry 57k- 4`l-7awe Name Telephone Number Address 4. Architect*/Engineer*/ Other Name Address Telephone Number 5. Type of Improvement New construction �teratlon _Demolition _Site work Addition Other - 6. Reason for Request' Security _Change of use Energy consery �hange of image _Safety _Change of busi **_Other 7. Level of Approval Requested -6concept Schematic design Final design Field decision Applicant must attach 3 copies of all schematic submissions (or in the case of originals, models, or mock ups, the original and two photos of the submission) 24 hours prior to the regularly scheduled DRB meeting to SRU staff_ (Do not.write belowthis line) Number of DRB members in attendance The vote was unanimous_ _Yes N1 DRB recommended action: Approval as submitted No action, advisory onl -Resubmit to DRB No action, inadequate submission. Approval subject to the following: DRB comments are attached. * A licensed professional architect or engineer is required for all constructio: other than ordinary repairs (p. 71 S.B.C.) or perforred on a building less th 35,000 cu. ft. enclosed space. - **If, in the appl_caut's view, the change is of significant economic importance, information including financial figures where applicable should be supplied on a separate attached sheet which will allow the Board to evaluate the proposal intelligently. ��� '" � � ���� � .. �; r ' r _ ,., .. r ��� ���� �� � � 'L - �,_• � '., � � .. �, r y ; vw , ' t. .^ �„ �.,. ;f, :^fA l:.r:r:`. i` � '�. 0 /04/03 FRI 14:40 FAX 9782824182 CYRB CORE DEPT @J 001 SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORM RECEIVED DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APR U c 2003 Application for Design Approval-OTHER THAN SIGNS DEPT.OF PLANNING B COM_M_UMTYD_ EVELOPMENT 1. Date of Application V 2. Location of Building e`c;[�)e_ c.; Ccs!t-a-- i5°i u Asn•�, k� i - Number and Street Proposed work impacts upon: _Derby Square Historical Area _Museum Area _Essex Mall _North Residential Area Peripheral Area Significant Historical Building(Itemize) c--, jtl 3. Owner S�rY. �1+� t� ASS -7fri &qy- 997 Name Telephone Number 54urts _ Z.a h Itss�l 19 Address 4. Architect*/Engineer*/Other: (Li m ri7h- 7-/, -`7375 NJ1e TelephoneNumber L �+h 1�)CT Uri R'►1 I�HY , Address 5. Type of Improvement: New construction --)—I Alteration Demolition Site work Addition Other 6. Reason for request: Security Change of use Energy Conservation �C Change of Image Change of Business ** Other 7. Level of Approval requested: Concept Schematic design Final Design Field Decision Applicant must attach 3 copies of all schematic submissions(or in the case of originals,models, or mock ups,the original and two photos of the submission)24 hours prior to the regularly scheduled DRB meeting to SRA staff. (Bo not write below this line Number of DRB members in attendance_. The vote was unanim usYes_No DRB recommended action: —Approval as submitted _No action,_advisory only Resubmit to DRB ,No action,inadequate submission Approval subject to the following: (DRB comments are attached.) * A licensee professional architect or engineer is required for all construction other than ordinary repairs(p. 71 S.B.C.) or performed on a building less than 35,000cu.ft. enclosed space. ** If, in the applicant's view,the change is of significant economic importance,information including financial figures where applicable should be supplied on a separate attached sheet which will allow the Board to evaluate the proposal intelligently. 6. All tables and chairs must be safely secured in a vandal proof manner or must be brought inside every night. The storage or security system must be approved by the SRA_ 7. All outdoor cafe permits will be issued to restaurants for a one season trial period. busing this time period restaurants will be closely monitored by all appropriate City departments and agencies to ensure that they comply with the provisions of this policy. Following completion of a satisfactory outdoor season,the SRA shall issue an outdoor cafe permit to the restaurant annually. 8. Outdoor cafe permits may be revoked by the SIP.for non-compliance with the provisions of this policy,at any time. By signing below,I certify that I have read and understand the provisions listed above and I agree to comply with all the requirements of this permit and any attached plans which are mandated by the Salem Redevelopment Authority- Signed and sealed this day of v I F99_3 Salem Redevelopment Authority Petitioner esdsralc�epam Z00 S.d3a axoD Hmu 99TVZ8Z8L8 IFA ZV:VT INA VO/VO/VO i OWI III! ...-�/ � a„,• . � i A - r ray r v u I- TU �I (--/101� 1M� C �r1s-c—O OCA 0—,eA s—IHw.Iesc a 8812NR8 8812VL1 ELA builds custom lighting. Wi?are able to modify our standardproducts, apply 113008NR5 specialfinishes,or provide thefactoryfor details. .); an assortment of lenses. Contact your ELA Rep. or -A 8813HP1 S"OurN ilecfural Calalap For larger Shea DIMENSIONS NO. MOUNTING 8810-1 Wall it" H4ht 4 41/2" 1 x 60w Cracked Hide(CH), 8810-3 Pendant it" '461/4" -- 1 x 60w Clay(CY), 8810-4 Post 23" 30" --- 1 x 60w Florentine White(FW), 8810-8 Dual Post 43" 30" — 2 x 60w Gold Antiquity(GA), 8812-1 Wall 12" 21" 15" 1 x 60w Hammered Pewter(HP), Frosted 8812-3 Pendant 12" '47" — 1 x 60w Midnight(MN), or Proof 8812-4 Post 23112 30" -- 1 x 60w Natural Russet(NRVa), P 8812-8 Dual Post 44" 30" — 2 x 60w Old Iron(OR), Glass 8813-1 Wall 12" 21' 15" 1 x 60w Rust(R), 8813-3 Pendant 12" '473/4' — 1 x 60w Sand Storm(SS), 8813-4 Post 2311" 30" -- 1 x 60w Verde 8813-8 Dual Post 44" 30" — 2 x 60w Village Greeenn (VL) 'Includes 3-Md. Mel.Bose Letups(by Oft* See Color Chart W Page 1, cw ENVIRONMENTAL LIGHTING FOR ARCHITECTURE,INC. • 17891 Arenth Avenue • City of Industry,CA 91748-1197 © (626)965-0821 • (800)423-6561 • FAX(626)965-9494 • www.ela-lightmg.com • e-mail:ela41tg@aol.com NOSTALGIA i 8810FW3 Ball&Swivel- Stem Lengths- This connection The pendant reduces stress on 8810NR8 mounted versions the stem during of the Nostalgia windy conditions. are available with standard 36", 24", and 12"stems. 8812SS3 P3008NR5 8813CY3 i' 881ORP1 ` ENVIRONMENTAL LIGHTING FOR ARCHITECTURE,INC. • 17891 Arenth Avenue City of Industry,CA 91748-1197 ® (626)965-0821 • (800)423-6561 • FAX(626)965-9494 • w .ela-lighting.com • e-mail:ela41tg@aol.com s^ CITY OF SALLM SNOF DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANLEY J.USOVICZ,JR. MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET•SALEN,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 JOSEPH P.WALSH,JR. TEL:978-745-9595•FAX:978-740-0404 DIRECTOR Memorandum To: Dennis Mustakis From: Don Giard Date: 4/9/03 Re: Outdoor Cafe Furniture Options I have enclosed some photographs of outdoor cafd furniture examples that were recently approved by the SRA. I would recommend that you bring these (and any other examples that you might have)with you when you meet with the SRA tonight. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thanks, Don Giard F 3�. I e . S a ® , $99 9s Bistro Set MOA t Enjoy a quiet afternoon arnl a cold drink With this charming bistro set. The steel-framed chair seats and backrests f^ 'r r,_ are accented with an all-weather resin in a I cert Wicker design. The tahletop is Hayes Olde tempered glass, providing a safe :uttl World Wasp Catcher scratch-resistant surface. 'rhis chemical-free I alternative to 3-Piece Bistro Set consists of: frnding off pests • 1-30" Round table with tempered glass top can also be used . 2-Wrought iron chairs with woven resin seats J., it home accent ' or vase. $10.98 d Salem ® Redevelopment Authority SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OUTDOOR CAFE PERMIT Preamble The Salem Redevelopment Authority encourages the development of outdoor cafes within the Heritage Plaza Fast and Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Districts to enhance the visitor and shopper experience in Salem and to assist in improving the economic viability of downtown businesses. This Permit process is designed to ensure that Salem's unique architectural and cultural features are protected as outdoor cafe's develop and to provide a consistent set of conditions for all outdoor cafe's. As such,the SRA shall allow outdoor cafe uses within the Urban Renewal District, subject to the following conditions: 1. All tables and chairs,as well as the surrounding area,must be maintained in a clean and safe manner. 2. Restaurants must provide to the SRA,proof of liability insurance which covers the outside seating areas. 3. Restaurants must receive approval for outdoor tables from the Salem Licensing Board and the Board of Health. 4. The design of all outdoor tables and chairs, and trash receptacles,must be reviewed by the Design Review Board and approved by the SRA. 5. Seating areas must be of a size large enough to accommodate safe, easy and uninterrupted pedestrian travel, as well as access to and from tables. Since the size of tables and seating areas may vary,the SRA reserves the right to determine whether or not adequate space exists for the creation of an outdoor cafe. One Salem Green 0 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (508) 745-9595, Ext. 311 It Fax (508) 744-5918 04/04/03 FRI 15:19 FAX 0782824182 CYRK COKE DEPT 0001 & All tables and chairs must be safely secured in a vandal proof manna or must be brought inside every night The storage or security system must be approved by the SRA. 7. All outdoor cafe permits will be issued to restaurants for a one season trial period. During this time period restaurants will be closely monitored by all appropriate City departments and agencies to enure that they comply with the provisions of this policy. Following completion of a satisfactory outdoor season,the SRA shall issue an outdoor cafe permit to the restaurant annually. 8. Outdoor cafe permits may be revoked by the SRA for non-compliance with the provisions of this policy,at any time. By signing below,I certify that I have read and understand the provisions listed above and I agree to comply with all the requirements of this permit and any attached plans which are mandated by the Salem Redevelopment Authority. ] Signed and sealed this ` day of &v,.I f99 3 Salem Redevelopment Authority Petitioner esdlral�em I 09/1'2/2003 13:45 7818490111 PAGE 02/02 SIMSBURY Cl A A S S O C I A T E S REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED SEF 2 2 2003 September 22, 2003 DEPT.OF PLANNING& COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tanya Hartford Salem Planning Department Fax# 978-740-0404 Re: Edgewater Caf&vestibule at 155 Washington Street, Salem Dear Tanya, The plan change on the vestibule to use an existing vestibule in front of the Liberty Tax office is approved by the landlord. Sincerely, i Chfford F. o President Van Ness Development Corporation 09/.2/2003 13:45 7818490111 PAGE 01/02 SlJ?Z;5`b ury Associates, mc. . Facsimile I -ro: !l1-/t1 � 1yRf2T�D�rtro�l: COMPANY: .J DAl'G: FAX #: A PA0C-8: PHON I•:; Pf IONC: (781) 849-7722 ,,c II'you do nut rccci%•c all p�gcs of this transmittrl 13IC15C Contact rr (781) 849-772: xtt 133, CONIMENTS: mp ✓—�/ - 1lSrurrs ftt�rrrre: Ur�rurlrcc, rticerrucGencylr U�1S1 Phana(781) 80-7722 Fat (761)349-U1!! 1 - n 1 • � ipt �NI �r� � _ t V _ �•J I, I � W Salem ® Redevelopment Authority DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION Edgewater Cafe (155 Washington Street) - Amendment to Cafe Design PROPOSAL: The amendment to the original cafe permit includes using two (2) 8-foot umbrellas that sit inside planters and a white chain attached to four (4) planter bollards that cordon off the cafe located on Front Street. RECOMMENDATION: At their July 23, 2003 meeting, the Design Review Board recommended approval as submitted with the option of changing the material and color of the chain once the cafe is up. One Salem Green • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 �� : �. Vic, i � 4r :� T 1 �' r 1. •�• -� � � .- ' � L � , 1� � 3 G i � '� "y S � � _ �` ,. ��p��r ' �� � � � �� 4' 1� � p P � \` ..� � {�\ 1� I .nY \ iV - `i�_� � � � _ .�. ;; � *a' � _ � � � Y_ i' � �' .9 i RR� �x . J �.� •. � � � _ L �� � � - i ,c S t'' - :day. .�: Edgewater Cafe —Proposed Amendment to Cafe Design �r�►�r�w rr �r'r��� s S �� � ,,ems%.� * z 4§,� ��' e • , h fs ! a( i r' s � ` r a a H„. ( T He. Gr . L 0 � FFM FT7 Frame surround 4� tight to ductwork to provide plywood substrate. Now trim and siding to ------------- match existing. I F Cover existing sheet Frame surround metal with new tight to ductwork to aluminum siding to provide plywood / match existing substrate. New trim and siding to match existing. Existing aluminum siding Exterior Elevation @ Ductwork Exterior Elevation @ Ductwork Scab: Not to Scab Scale: Not to Scale Note: Drawing scale moy change when copied or faxed Edgewater Cafe 155 Washington Street, Salem, MA April 3, 2003 WINTER STREET ARCHITECTS , I N C . ❑0 FM _ FM Frame surround — r : tight to ductwork to provide plywood substrate. New trim and siding to '- match existing. is Cover existing sheet Frame surround metal with new tight to ductwork to aluminum siding to provide plywood match existing substrate. New trim and siding to match existing. Existing aluminum siding Exterior Elevation @ Ductwork Exterior Elevation @ Ductwork Scale: Not to Scale Scale: Not to Scale Note: Drawing scale may change when copied or foxed Edgewater Cafe 155 Washington Street, Salem, MA April 3, 2003 WINTER STREET ARCHITECTS , I N C . � Fm FM frame surround tight to ductwork to provide plywood substrate. New trim and siding to match existing. Cover existing sheet Frame surround metal with new tight to ductwork to aluminum siding to provide plywood match existing substrate. New trim and siding to match existing. Existing aluminum siding Exterior Elevation @ Ductwork Exterior Elevation 0 Ductwork Scab: Not to Scab Scale: Not to scale Note: Drawing scale may change when copied or faxed Edgewater Cafe 155 Washington Street, Salem, MA April 3, 2003 WINTER STREET A R C H I T E CTS , I N C. 0 FM FM Frome surround tight to ductwork to provide plywood substrate. New trim and siding to match existing. Cover existing sheet Frame surround metal with new tight to ductwork to aluminum siding to provide plywood b mulch existing sustrate. New trim and siding to match existing. FM FM Existing aluminum siding Exterior Elevation 0 Ductwork Exterior Elevation @ Ductwork Scale: Not to Scale Scale: Not to Scale Note: Drawing scale may change when copied or foxed Edgewater Cafe 155 Washington Street, Salem, MA April 3, 2003 WINTER STREET A R C H ITE CTS , I N C . Frame surround ILLUtight to ductwork to provide plywood substrate. New trim and siding to match existing. Cover existing sheet Frame surround metol with new tight to ductwork to aluminum siding to provide plywood match existing substrate. New trim and siding to match existing. Existing aluminum siding Exterior Elevation @ Ductwork Exterior Elevation @ Ductwork Scab: Not to Scab Scale: Not to Scab Note: Drawing scale may change when copied or foxed Edgewater Cafe 155 Washington Street, Salem, MA April 3, 2003 WINTER STREET ARCHITECTS , I N C. i � o FM FM Frame surround tight to ductwork to provide plywood FM FM substrate. New trim and siding to match existing. LLJ Cover existing sheet Frame surround metol with new tight to ductwork to aluminum siding to provide plywood bt match existing substrata. New trim and siding to match existing. Existing aluminum siding I Exterior Elevation @ Ductwork Exterior Elevation ® Ductwork Scab: Not to swig Not to Sole Note: Drawing scale may change when copied or faxed Edgewater Cafe 155 Washington Street, Salem, MA April 3, 2003 WINTER STREET ARCHITECTS , I N C. yam•, (' .:r � �� p �\ ;v C V m RAMP O II^ zo VGC VGC Z ; CO 0 C v' o .\t rn rnO Z x � Z �rn r- �+ \� OA FRpNT RASP m vcc Z Z (PUBLIC — T O � � � � VAR ID � - � TH o VALK a vcc Z _ ® O C CONCRETE Y WALK OP o 0 - P 90 00 8041 r rZ Z � / ' �� � � � D � � • Ln Ln 0 Ol•Z9 o m z o W o 15` 1 OOA OD • � O 0 w i ; = N fpm � � � N .0 W (A OO =i m C-1 Nc ;a row x z M STs` Lnz � c °�. II I � WNW will r - - - - I ' _ a "'Vwr, . ' E � r . t - r . 6 r' d Ilr, il'iT .i�. F 1 iI sur y Ic Jai. y N'w �t4 "xP7 ry I � r j4flr,lyl�p< . •��1 '�''�.."j1"4-��;f-r Amu ti ' t t ``L J w � 4 r r r tit z 1W, ,.' aE. r h' p a { r - R 1a`II }}`pp Y � '`E11 F 1 I VIP IR- '-` <; * ,.�� b�i�lr -.y�yt •v �.TE1� �Fj A, .�, h y� 1 1 z II r I � Y ' T 9 . F evYZ�fR r mmilk! ►S. � to -41 Ike I .21zC " r r ` I or iyr � � tia �� 11 t :■ 6 1 ,E °s� wo I t. R M11 'I I • �s � 1'�1�1 1 1• l f , ; 4 r � � I � I I y�� ~tifl'�4A4`~` - a.• q f A iit. I r'' ' W11 i� ]- ' f A'5.��•_ +,a? yrFi . r r � _ r 4i , 4ujy s JE- Z Construction Keynotespry m.Ode1iN.Wo..door.PaN mq//�� .Par Mia a uawnuu,.\"/Symbol Legend 1 I O O Cn � O A I CD Ca M%w t j t5 O 0 r 4 N � 7 K Q N O O w a in j i Space Plan 02 i4.. F.-0. Front Street o Rma SP.02 4- a L kL 1 3 0 f � 0 CU L v .b W SRA Minutes M=h 9,2006 Page 1 of 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HELD ON MARCH 8,2006 A Regular Meeting of the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) Board was held in the third floor conference room at the City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,on Wednesday,March 8,2006 at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call Chairman Michael Brennan called the meeting to order, and on roll call the following members were present: Conrad Baldini, Michael Brennan,Nlichael Connelly, Christine Sullivan, and Russell Vickers. Also present were Lynn Duncan, Executive Director,Tania Hartford,Economic Development Planner, and Debra Tucker, Clerk. Minutes Minutes for the February 8,2006 meeting will be presented for approval at the next meeting. New Business 1. Executive Directors Report RCG Downtown Development Lynn Duncan reported that RCG Associates,the firm currently proposing redevelopment of 90 Lafayette Street,was proposing a mixed use development for the downtown block that includes the Salem News building,Delande Lighting building,Salem Marketplace, and the SRA owned parking lot at Front and Lafayette Streets. Ms. Duncan stated that the Betsy Harper of RCG was appearing before the board in order to request access to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions as part of a subsurface investigation and to conduct an environmental assessment,which would include testing soil and water and environmental report. Ms. Duncan said that her recommendation would be to vote to authorize the Chair to sign the access agreements subject to the inclusion of indemnification clause as recommended by the City Solicitor and minor clarifications. Betsy Harper stated that they would need access for four days to do the borings for geotechnical analysis and to restore the site to its original condition. It would probably take ten days to get the report. Original reports indicate that there may be some environmental concern and they would like to determine the origin. The City Solicitor and RCG's lawyers would review the language. Chairman Brennan expressed concern over indemnification and the cost of cleanup and the City's responsibility. Betsy Harper stated that it would be up to the SRA as to whether it would want to request a copy of the report and whether they would want to know the results. Ms. Duncan said that the indemnification agreement would be for RCG to do the soil boring. Chairman Brennan said that the MBTA had a bad experience with a firm doing borings, finding an incredible amount of contamination,and backing out of the deal. This left the cleanup to the MBTA. Ms.Duncan said that she would ask the City Solicitor for an opinion. SRA Minutes March N,2006 Page 2 of 2 Betsy Harper said that the SRA would only have to act if they were told of the results. Chairman Brennan said that if contamination were found it would have to be reported. Ms. Sullivan added that if they knew there was a leaking underground oil tank buried,then the owner would have to do something. Ms. Duncan added that if it were a reportable quantity they would have to act as found out with problems at other City properties. Mr.Vickers commented that the SRA should be very careful. Chairman Brennan said that based on what he had read in the newspaper this would be a flagship development for the downtown area and that it would be reckless to allow the borings to go ahead at this point without a legal opinion. Ms. Harper stated that the land could not be valued without the geotechnical studies being done. Mr. Balduni recommended taking advantage of Chairman Brennan's experience and expertise. Chairman Brennan requested that he be present when Ms. Duncan scheduled a meeting with the City Solicitor in order to discuss the matter. Ms. Sullivan moved that the matter of RCG's request for permission to perform boring testing at the Derby Street/Front Street area as well as the indemnification agreement be referred to the City Solicitor for an opinion. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion,and it was approved (5-0). SRA Audit Ms. Duncan informed the board that the audit that members had requested is moving forward and will cover fiscal year 2006,which ends June 301h. The department will be obtaining price quotes,which will be brought to the board. Ms. Sullivan said that this was a great idea and that she heartily endorsed it. Mr. Vickers asked if the audit would include the loan portfolio. Ms. Duncan replied that it would be and audit of the SRA's assets-. Mr. Vickers said that the SRA had requested an audit four years ago and a comprehensive one was done. Ms. Duncan said that she would get clarification on the SRA loan portfolio. She added that the records- are also audited as a part of the City's auditing process. DFVELOPMENT PROTECTS Project Approval 2. 90 Lafayette Street Ms. Hartford introduced Winter Street Architects,who presented their revised schematic design of the mixed-use project proposed for 90 Lafayette Street. The project had been before the DRB twice and some modifications had been made. The project will be before the Zoning Appeals Board on March 29,2006 and has been continued with the Planning Board. Mr. Meche presented site plans and drawings and reviewed the previous plans for the benefit of the new members. Mr. Meche stated that the project had been before the Planning Board,which had made comments,and that there will be a public neighborhood meeting scheduled soon. Small specialty retail space is planned for the first floor storefronts. There are 31 parking spaces planned,21 of which will be inside the building. Entrance for parking will be made from Dodge Street Court. There is a right away along the alley between the Strega Restaurant building and 90 Lafayette Street. Mr. Meche reported that the Planning Board recommended some improvement to the alleyway and he is considering an ornamental gate. Mr. Meche indicated that there would be 30 units, 6 per floor. In response to the DRB's suggestions,he had articulated the windows and added mullions so that the appearance is not quite as flat. Ms. Hartford noted that this plan differs from the DRB proposal. Mr. Meche said that the only difference was the window setback and the detail change of inches. He said that he had spent more time rendering the drawings. SRA Minutes March 8,2(%)6 Page 3 of 3 Ms. Duncan clarified the DRB and SRA process concerning proposals,presentations,and approvals. She noted that when changes are made after the DRB has made its recommendation,it muddies the waters. Mr. Dleche responded that the changes were minor and said that the model is essentially the same. He thought that the project should be referred back to the DRB. Ms. Duncan answered that they would be referred back to the DRB during their Final Design Review. Ms. Hartford suggested that the board could approve the plans as submitted and approved by the DRB. Any changes could go back to the DRB for their review during Final Design Review. Ms. Sullivan noted that at the Planning Board meeting there was concern about the 6-story height of the building and the effect of blocking light. Walter Power wondered if the petitioner had considered indenting the windows and adding shafts to let light in. Mr. Meche said that the client has decided that this is the approach that they would like. They have their eyes wide open concerning potential redevelopment of the Deschamps building. There was discussion concerning that if that building were raised in height,90 Lafayette Street would have to close off the windows to one of the interior rooms. Mr. Meche said that the developer understood this. Ms. Duncan wondered how that would affect the condominium owners. Betsy Harper of RCG said that the information concerning potential abutters rights and the fact that this could block their views would be stated in the condo documents. She said that her company had spoken with the owners of the Deschamps- building and that they have not made any decisions concerning their building. She noted that what would be needed was a 10 foot separation between the buildings and said that some sort of financial arrangement could be made. Mr. Meche said that they had coped with the issue of the alleys. Mr. Baldim said that the plan was good for the area. Ms.Duncan stated that any agreement with abutters would have to be provided to the SRA. Betsy Harper said that because of the timing,that probably would not happen. She added that this was an urban development project and that developers work these out all of the time. Ms. Harper said that there is still too much uncertainty on the part of the abutters,who are not ready. Ms. Duncan said that ultimately they would need to work with them. Ms. Harper said that they did not need to do anvthing and that the information would be put in the condo documents. Mr. Meche added that he thought that the plan would work. Any future change by the abutter might lead to the units being called 1+ bedroom units rather than 2 bedroom units. Chairman Brennan stated that this developer was the first one before the board and that in the future, the board might have to consider other requests. Ms. Duncan stated that if the neighboring building were built higher, then some windows at 90 Lafayette Street would have to be blocked up. Mr. Meche said that he had consulted the building code and that his plan works. Ms. Sullivan wondered if the value of the units would be diminished. Mr. Baldmi moved to approve the schematic design plans for 90 Lafayette Street as submitted to and recommended by the Design Review Board. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion,and it was approved (5-0). 3. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail) Ms. Hartford reported that the DRB met the day before and was satisfied with New Boston Ventures' schematic design for the mixed-use redevelopment of the Old Salem Jail at 50 St. Peter Street for approval. They did have comments to look at the roofline and the windows and had specified other items that they wanted to see modified in the Final Design Review of the project. Dan Riccardelli and Penn Lindsey presented the schematic design plans. Mr. Lindsey reported that they had received good comments from the DRB and had worked to incorporate them into the design. The developer had also met with Mass Historic,Historic Salem Inc.,and the Salem Historic Conunission. SAA Mmutcs March 8,2006 Page 4 aF4 Mr.Riccardelli noted the parking plan for the far end of the lot near the Church as well as the pedestrian access from St. Peter Street. There will be a car drop off between the old Jail and the new building and there will be tandem parking for the new building. Honey locusts are planned for the courtyard between the buildings. The fencing will incorporate the existing steel picket fence,which will be re-created and extended both front and back. The old chain link fencing will be removed from the property line at the cemetery and a privet hedge will be planted. The developers discussed the restaurant access area and load drop off as well as the valet site. There will be a small jail exhibit with memorabilia and photographs on the first floor of the old Jail building kith public access to provide mixed use at the first level. There will be three units at the first floor of the Jail, seven on the second level,and seven on the third level. The restaurant will be located in the addition portion of the Jail,which the developer thought would make a nice transition. Two units will have garden terraces. The attic space will have windows with great light at the gable ends. There w ll be duplex units on the second floor. The lower units will be approximately 1,100 to 1,200 square feet and the upper units will be larger at 14,000 to 15,000 square feet with storage in the attic. Ms. Sullivan asked how the entrance to the Jail building would work from the courtyard. Mr. Riccardel i answered that it would actually be at mid-level. One would walk down to the first floor or take the elevator to the upper levels. The hip roof over the addition will have the mechanical units for the whole building. There is a challenge to get the windows to work with the existing openings. There will be transom and awning windows set back. The jail bats will be re-used possibly on the Juliet balconies,which will be set back with French doors. The granite will be cleaned and re-pointed and refurbished. There will be Little physical change to the exterior with the exception of the windows. The Jail Keeper's House will house three units and they will add the ell back at the fust level. Entrance will be at the second level and there will be full basements with storage. The second level will use the roof of the ell as a deck. HSI thought that if the balustrade were done properly that this would be alright. They will use old photographs to replicate the portico. The 16 foot by 16 foot ell may be clapboard to tie it in to the barn since it had been wooden. The developers are looking into removing the skin of the barn,which is not original and is in bad condition, in order to get a better look at the structure to see what can be saved. The new building will be done in a more contemporary-vein based on comments that the DRB made to be less slavish to the idea of matching it to the other structures. The building will contain eight duplex units. There will be sunken terraces on the courtyard reachable from the first floor bedrooms,which will be on the lower level with the living areas located upstairs.The thud level will continue up to the roof. They will be matching the eaves lines to the Jail,which keeps the new building lower. The parking will not be underground. There will be dormers with Juliet balconies at the top level. Since all elevations are exposed,it is challenging. The light monitors on the roof are still being fine-tuned. The building will be clad in stone and not brick and the developers are looking at granite as the material. They are investigating salvage granite to match. They reported that they are picking up on the scale and proportion of the Jail windows. SRA Minutes Much 8,2006 Page 54 5 Mr. Baldini asked what the purpose of the light monitors was. Mr. Riccardelli answered that they would act like a skylight to bring light into the unit and that they were a more contemporary way to express the relationship to the Jail. Chairman Brennan said that he loved the idea. Ms. Hartford said that the DRB thought that the light monitor design was not quite there yet and recommended that they consider turning them slightly. She reported that there was a positive response to the idea. Ms. Sullivan recommended removing the two in the middle. Chairman Brennan thought that they were exciting and showed that the developer was thinking outside the box. Ms. Sullivan congratulated the developer and said that she loved the idea that HSI asked them not to necessarily replicate the existing structures. Mr. Riccardelli stated that they will be wrapping granite to the brick face on St. Peter Street and thought that it would be a good transition and were trying to use a mix of materials on site. Lead coated copper will be used to match the roof. Mr. Baldini commented that the SRA was privileged to have a project like this before them. Mr. Riccardelb said that the garage doors are still a work in progress since it was an important view. In order to break up the brick line, the old cell doors will be put on the horizontal and used as trellises. This will draw the eye around to the other buildings. Ms. Sullivan suggested camouflaging the light monitors with brick to make them look like chimneys. Chairman Brennan commented that the work was great and Ms. Sullivan thought it was wonderful. Mr. Baldini asked how many seats the restaurant would have. Mr.Lindsey replied that there would be 80 to 110. Mr. Connelly commented that the project was so far from one year ago when the redevelopment was just a concept. He added that if tliere were any doubt about the project,it should be gone now and thought that the plan was phenomenal. He asked what the timeline was. Mr.Lindsey replied that they have an aggressive schedule and are right on schedule. Ms. Hartford reported that the land disposition agreement had been executed and that they were under agreement with New Boston Ventures since they had received their commitment letter. Ms. Sullivan said that she did not want the light monitors to be busy and detract from the building. Chairman Brennan commented that three outstanding people had just been put on the DRB to review the project design. Ms. Hartford noted that the issue of the access from Bridge Street is a separate issue that will require more work and approvals. They will be working with Mass Highway over the next couple of months. Ms. Sullivan moved that the schematic design plan for the mixed-use redevelopment of the Old Salem Jail at 50 St. Peter Street presented by New Boston Ventures be approved as recommended by the DRB. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0). OUTDOOR CAFE PERMITS 4. 118 Washington Street(Fresh and Taste) Ms. Hartford introduced the owner of Fresh and Taste and his proposal for an outdoor cafe for the area facing Essex Street along Lappin Park Chairman Brennan asked if Lappin Park would be allowed to have this private cafe on public space. He asked if there was anything in the deed addressing this. Ms. Hartford answered that she would check on the SRA Minutes Much 8,2006 Pabre6of6 matter and check the property line. She indicated that he is in the process of obtaining approval from the Licensing Board and Board of Health. The owner said that he was planning on 28 outdoor seats at 7 tables. He said that there is 17 feet from the walkway. Mr.Vickers agreed that the department should ensure that this would not be encroaching on the park land and should find out if there are any particular restrictions or covenants. Chairman Brennan agreed. Ms. Hartford said that the matter of chair and railing approval would be heard by the DRB. The owner said that the tables and fencing will be moveable like Rockafella's and will be stored against the building each night. Mr.Vickers moved that the proposal for an outdoor cafe by Fresh and Taste at 118 Washington Street be approved as presented and recommended by the DRB pending confirmation that there are no restrictions by the Lappin Park agreement. Mr. Baldini seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0). OTHER PROTECTS 5. 118 Washington Street (Fresh and Taste) Ms. Hartford introduced the owner of Fresh and Taste and his proposal for external lighting for window awnings at 118 Washington Street. The lighting will be 5 black gooseneck lamps over the awning as nearby Taste of Thyme and O'Neil's have. There will be no lighting along the park side of the restaurant. The owner indicated that he would have candles on the outdoor cafe tables. He hopes to open by April 15th. Mr. Baldini moved to approve the proposal for external lighting for window awnings for Fresh and Taste at 118 Washington Street as recommended by the DRB. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion,and it was approved (5-0). 6. 155 Washington Street Jill McCarthy of the Simsbury Association requested approval to make temporary improvements to the dirt parking lot abutting Front Street. She said that it was a temporary solution as there are bigger plans for the block. She noted that an environmental report done at the beginning of 2005 showed that there is probably contaminated soil in the area. Her proposal calls for a 3"layer of stone packing from Aggregate. Since they need to abide by the consultant's report, the surface will be prepared by scraping back the loose dirt towards the bene,which will be seeded with grass seed. They would like the approval for 6 months or a year with the condition of the lot to be revisited then. Chairman Brennan noted that the board requested that something be done. He said that the lot is mud now and this would be an improvement. Mr. Baldini added that they have met the SBA's request and said that he had no problem with the plan. Ms.Sullivan asked if they are capping the lot was the bank alright with it. Ms. McCarthy said that they were. Ms. Hartford noted that this particular lot would probably be phase 4 of the larger development plan,which could be 8 to 10 years out. Ms. Sullivan added that this was not a solution for 8 to 10 years. Ms. McCarthy responded that RCG is looking into buying the property in June and that they would handle the matter then. Mr. Baldim moved that the plan proposed by the Simsbury Association to cap the parking lot on Front Street behind The Edgewater Cafe with the matter to be brought back to the SRA in six to twelve months with a permanent solution to the parking lot. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion,and it was approved (5-0). SRA Minutes March 8,2006 Page 7 of 7 SIGN REVIEW 7. 71 Washington Street(Salem Five Bank) Ms. Hartford introduced the proposal by the Salem Five Bank for changes to the proposed signage at 71 Washington Street,currently the Heritage Cooperative Bank. The sign is necessary for the merger of the banks and the name change to Salem Five Bank. The sign will be no taller than the existing sign and it will be mounted at the existing mortar joint. A projecting aluminum and acrylic sign with an analog clock will be moved beyond three oak trees for better visibility and will be externally illuminated. Three bronze plaques along Church Street will be changed to read Salem Five Bank as well. Ms. Hartford reported that the DRB recommended approval the proposed plan with size restrictions on the front wall sign. Ms. Sullivan moved to approve the proposal by the Salem Five Bank for changes to the signage at 71 Washington Street as recommended by the DRB. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion,and it was approved (5-0). Ms. Hartford informed the Salem Five Bank that if they were considering changing the exterior bank colors, that they must seek approval from the board. S. 6 Central Street (Wicked Goodz) Ms. Hartford presented the proposed signage plan for Wicked Goodz at 6 Central Street. The shop is a gift shop for teens and`tweens and tourists. The DRB approved the sign with modifications and it will be hung from the previously approved bracket. Mr. Connelly moved to approve the proposed signage for Wicked Goodz at 6 Central Street with changes as recommended by the DRB. Mr.Vickers seconded the motion,and it was approved (5-0). 9. 103 Washington Street (Modern Millie) Ms. Hartford presented the proposed signage plan for Modern Millie at 103 Washington Street. The shop is a gift shop selling vintage items. The DRB approved the sign with modifications and it will be hung from the previously approved bracket. Mr. Connelly moved to approve the proposed signage plan for Modern Millie at 103 Washington Street with changes as recommended by the DRB. Mr.Vickers seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0). Adjournment There being no further business,Mr.Baldini motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion,and the motion passed (5-0). Meeting stands adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Debra Tucker Clerk SIMSBURY A S S O C I A T E S REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT February 27, 2006 Tanya Hartford City of Salem Planning & Community Development FAX (978) 740-0404 RE: 155 Washington Street/Front Street Parking Lot- Temporary Treatment Dear Tanya: Please consider this letter our formal request to make temporary improvements to the dirt parking lot at the above address. The current use of this lot creates an unacceptable condition, exposing topsoil that could be mixed with urban fill, (containing trace amounts of contaminants such as lead). The topsoil evidently needs to be maintained in a condition that minimizes disturbance of the soils, but still allows continued usefulness of the lot. ISSUE: Based on site inspections of the property, our consultant has advised we treat this condition with a simple, 3 or so inch layer of stone-pack. This material is nothing more than a common mixture of stone dust/crushed stone and clay. It packs down hard and creates a very stable solid surface. This structural improvement will significantly minimize rainwater puddling, as well as eliminate any disturbance of the soils caused by vehicle movement, or inadvertent transfer/removal of trace soils from the property onto City Streets or elsewhere. SOLUTION: A small machine will prepare the work area by scraping and moving the loose topsoil to create one of two conditions. Depending on specific site conditions as machine work progresses,the grade of the lot will either be lowered at the edges of the lot enough to allow existing structural components(sidewalks, pavement etc...) to naturally contain the stone-pack, or topsoil will be use to create small raised burms for the same effect. Any exposed soils not covered by a layer of stone-pack will be seeded with grass seed to prevent erosion. (i.e. any small burms necessarily created to contain the material,and also any small square footage not used for parking) TIMING/PROPOSAL: We propose to perform this work immediately upon approval, so that we may notify our consultant it is complete. This work is the minimum scope of work in order to produce a satisfactory condition, easily maintained for the duration before comprehensive development plans hopefully proceed later this year. The lot will be rendered nearly maintenance free and should even realize an aesthetic benefit to the exiting condition. However, in no way do we propose this to be a permanent condition for this lot. This is merely a pragmatic and economical solution for keeping the soils undisturbed until we can move forward on more thoughtful plans. Development proposals in the works for this entire lot contemplate extensive changes eliminating this parking lot all together. We only request permission to maintain this stone pack lot for the next six months to one year. Additionally, the soils will not create a mess and the lot will look and stay better maintained in the meanwhile. On behalf of Van Ness Development Corp. and Simsbury Associates, Inc. I request permission to move forward with the above mentioned temporary application of a layer of stone-pack over the dirt parking lot on Front Street. The board's consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated. Regards, r ill Giovannucci VP Operations Simsbury Associates. Inc., Manager Pez, K,,,7) S9z- s893 �I=FrE KF"") �107 February 17, 2006 Mr. Bill Giovannucci Simsbury Associates, Inc. 14 Storrs Avenue Braintree, MA 02184 RE: Notice of a Condition of Significant Risk Former Salem Evening News 155 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts RTN 3-10849 Dear Mr. Giovannucci: Coler & Colantonio, Inc. is writing this letter to inform you that a Condition of Significant Risk currently exists at the above referenced property. Coler & Colantonio, Inc. was hired by Van Ness Development Corporation in February of 2005 to address a Response Action Outcome (RAO) Screening Review/Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) Summary Compliance Review Notice sent to Kenneth Newbegin of The Salem News Publishing Company in April 2002. The Notice stated that an error in the AUL, which was placed on the property in March of 1995, must be corrected within 180 days of the date of Notice. While attempting to rectify this error, a representative of Coler& Colantonio, Inc. visited the property on March 10, 2005 and noted that the northeastern corner of the property, along Front Street, was no longer landscaped or paved, as required by the 1995 AUL. The AUL stated that impervious areas and/or landscaped areas must be maintained in order to maintain a condition of No Significant Risk at the property. The conditions at the time of Coler & Colantonio, Inc.'s visit, therefore, represented a condition of Significant Risk to health, safety, public welfare, or the environment due to exposure to oil and/or hazardous materials. As shown in the attached email, Mr. Clifford Boyle, President of Van Ness Development Corporation, had been notified by March 11, 2005 that the unpaved/unlandscaped area of the property required cover. The email also shows that Coler & Colantonio, Inc. contacted Van Ness Development on several occasions during the following months to check the status of the property. Coler& Colantonio, Inc. was informed that the commercial tenant of the property required approval from the Salem Redevelopment Association (SRA) to make alterations to the property and was in the process of obtaining this approval. Coler & Colantonio, Inc. has recently been informed the northeastern comer of the property still remains uncovered. It is the opinion of Coler & Colantonio, Inc. that this represents a condition of Significant Risk to health, safety, public welfare, or the environment and that actions should be taken immediately to restrict access to the soils at the property vial the installation of a gravel or other form of impermeable cover, even if these measures are temporary until a more permanent solution can be implemented. Please contact the undersigned at (781) 982-5429 with any questions. Very truly yours, COLER& COLANTONIO, INC. Mark A. Germano, LSP Division Manager—Environmental Services t` gong'.^�_- Y 1 w • ' ' Mr..rI . t �4 v '� 5 Salem ® Redevelopment Authority MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Salem Redevelopment Authority FROM: Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner SUBJECT: Edgewater Cafe DATE: July 1, 2005 Attached please find information regarding a proposed parking lot behind the Edgewater Cafe. The owner is looking to surface the existing dirt lot to make it a permanent parking lot. The Board should be aware that the owner currently is in violation of the decision by the SRA for the installation of the hood system in the rear of the building. As you may recall, the hood system installed by the owner was not in compliance with the original decision of the SRA. In May 2003, the SRA required the business owner to cover the hood system with clapboards to match the existing building. The business owner covered the hood system with plywood but he has not complied with the decision to cover the wood with clapboards and paint it to match the existing building. Please feel free to contact me at (978) 745-9595 x311 or thartford@salem.com should you lia\c any questions or concerns regarding this project. 120 Washington Street • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 7 Lunch • Dinnei• Private Functions•Calmiing / June 8, 2005 To the Board Members of the SRA, The Edgewater Cafe would like to improve the rear parking lot of 155 Washington Street which faces Front Street. By doing so the earth needs to be levelled and lynpac needs to be laid down and evenly spread out. The map provided will give a better idea of the surface area and locatior of the landscaping needed. This is by the order of the landlord which under the agreement with the Edgewater Cafe in which our lease states that it is our responsibility to comply and maintain the lot.The reason for the Edgewater asking permission is because the surface will be changing from dirt to lynpac which is a non permanent surface. Thank you, Dennis Moustakis Owner, Edgewater Cafe 155 Washington Street•Salem,Mossachuse%01970 • 978.740.4669 • www.edgewatercafe.com _ _ � \ ° o FR rLSVT= �� STREET `- w (PUBLIC - VARIAB - -'� - - - 1 Z/VI = v1 = w - LE WIDTH) ,s I \\\�\�t ci _ = ii x,, IZ-6 — — — — - - - - - - - 1 QP�\ 12' RCP �j f� Jo J _ 18' RCP �� 15 RCP - -_ _ - - - - = zw — — 15 RCP ^ — — o Jo J J T CONCRETE — r=VGCY � 'OtT T TJ0 JO v Jo�ot �WALK 3 'LN P ^• 63.64ICK WALK J ® Jo J o-Zu z w_A . 1 m o x�� �* D CUUI ,xf.N- II I n 54 o inx� O ' Oz ° Sir A,o n Njrn zov n to 05 Ln Z .0 y p z co 0 CON Imr O J m N Z X fi Q o v f O Xm O � Z nco co Z I rn I o f*1 z Ma En o,�ri J ° CIO ¢ �• Q i 1 1'OD z Ln JO 4r - I I 0 o r, ILn ° JI J O J J OI m 3N015 03HSfkiO J 2 A JO° 6 \ 0 I �0 M z ,ate Salem ® Redevelopment Authority August 5,2005 Mr. Dennis Moustakis, Owner Edgewater Cafe 155 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 Dear Mr. Moustakis: On July 27, 2005, the DRB reviewed your application for the improvements to the rear parking lot at 155 Washington Street. The Board has continued your item and is requesting that you submit the following in order for them to make a design recommendation to the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA): • A drawing of the improvements that is definitive and shows the actual layout of the parking lot and any improvements you will be making to the lot; • A sample of the curbing you will be using to contain the materials you are using on the lot; • A landscape plan; and • Photographs of the existing site. The DRB will meet again on August 24, 2005 at 6:00pm. If you would like this project to be placed on the agenda for this meeting you should submit the requested materials by Friday, August 12,2005 at 12:OOpm. Please contact me at 978/745-9595 x311 should you have questions regarding this matter or the requested material. Sincerely yours, M GIHartford Economic Development Planner cc: Salem Redevelopment Authority Members Lynn Goonin Duncan, Executive Director, SRA Design Review Board Members 120 Washington Street • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 r (4W conch• Dinner• Private Functions t�O June 8, 2005 To the Board Members of the SRA, The Edgewater Cafe would like to improve the rear parking lot of 155 Washington Street which faces Front Street. By doing so the earth needs to be levelled and lynpac needs to be laid down and evenly spread out. The map provided will give a better idea of the surface area and location of the landscaping needed.This is by the order of the landlord which under the agreement with the Edgewater Cafe in which our lease states that it is our responsibility to comply and maintain the lot. The reason for the Edgewater asking permission is because the surface will be changing from dirt to lynpac which is a non permanent surface. Thank you, Dennis Moustakis Owner, Edgewater Cafe 155 Washington Street• Salem,Massachusetts 01970 • 978.740.4669 • www.edgewatercafe.com NVJ"= INV OUT-2.95 XBRIC II ° Y CONCRETE oil 3 -� I I•N ��,I I � ° I S' _I I COBBLE S STONE v tib MAP X — SIGN ') PLANT R LOBSTER SHAD M1 Y IOry SOO'20'44" 1 STORY BRICK , E 6V1 ONC. ► x MAP do u �Pq n < ON ICA—LI 3 I I la \. SIGNOR 4ti ' 0� �o S�4 1 I � I I ` RNy--9.31 a 12' 1 (D SHEk'F-2.18 all pli GRASS CRIL oil tw i l IM IN_5501 c v DIRT PARKIN'G"AREA + ' 111 II M.OUT=31 I = •�;-= INV.OUT=3.4 1 0 BOOK 1248 PAG 585 r 111' 0 PARCEL. W1 I1 � ° f ° CON NVQ �1 SII RIM=10.05 STEP I~1 ti INV.IN=3.23 rll INV.OUT=3. 3 \ ' CON 3W = II I \ WAL CHAIN NK FENCE ' X 4" LANDS TIMBER E'' II II IT. RIM-9.35 CIO ° WAY C0 •'=' — INV.=7.84 ibM1 3 II I ® �P WAT Jo' wwE) / II ' - - - - - e > 11 CHIMNEY a IO m l l �� I I � v l l I w I I I BOX AROUND SUPPORT -N,, 1 iI I I I IN RESTROOM t48' WIDE \ 1 I I I I 3 STORY Salem ® Redevelopment Authority MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Salem Redevelopment Authority FROM: Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner/( SUBTECT: Edgewater Cafe YY���� DATE: July 1, 2005 Attached please find information regarding a proposed parking lot behind the Edgewater Cafe. The owner is looking to surface the existing dirt lot to make it a permanent parking lot. The Board should be aware that the owner currently is in violation of the decision by the SRA for the installation of the hood system in the rear of the building. As you may recall, the hood system installed by the owner was not in compliance with the original decision of the SRA. In May 2003, the SRA required the business owner to cover the hood system with clapboards to match the existing building. The business owner covered the hood system with plywood but he has not complied with the decision to cover the wood with clapboards and paint it to match the existing building. Please feel free to contact me at (978) 745-9595 x311 or thartford(asalem.com should you have any questions or concerns regarding this project. 120 Washington Street • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 INV.IN=4. MHr' J4 LV 1 44 L INV.OUT=i 25 95 N/F CITY OF SALEM II ERIC 1 W V.IN1 2438 ' 3 I I X-WgJCq INV.OUT=0.99 CONCRETE - SHELF=1.81 I S" ° / RIM=10.56 C088LE L'atIIX II ^ STONE ^ _V 'L ,o SIGN p p SALEM RIM=9.59 ✓J \` I ro PLANTER _ .•'LOBSTER SHANTY` -� MARKETPLACE INV.IN=4.40 I I h INVAN=3.40 w \ II ° `S00'20'44"E 1 STORY BRICK INV.OUT=3.29 \ *. o V ROOF �' N89'39'1 6"E 0 3 I{{yyI I °�� MAP k p ONG. k - _ OVERHANGH[STO C509BEEII�I ^' p SIGN RYc,•4 '°° ° k1'�x NC. 141.1 h 'IY f II ) ox A'LK-' _ 9' ° 1 I r ° ^„ -RIM=9.96^ �_0 BRICK *39'1 6"W I e} INV.=1.31 `r '!O K'ALL�. 12.00' f0 SHSLF•=2.19 M 0x GRASS p TRANSFORMER AR 1 STORY BRICK METAL V ROOF II "Vi Kll m ^ CRUSH TRASH FENCE IM=9.95 ,^ �TOAIE ENCLOSURE OVERHANG 1 STORY BRICK .IN=5.01 S00' I " 0 11} II. I irrvour3�a' DIR PT`1ARKna�-AREAS a cGp'cRFt2044 62.00' $00'20'44"E 7p. RIM-10.17 II G=v E"' /. . ERIC-K CU - INV.IN=0.26 w O N � '- INV.OUT=0.26 �!7a- 0 TRUST SHELF=1.61 f aR//� II v� 1 1• ROOF WALK p p TEE Il 1// III m h 0 ' qo o j OVERHANG p II}' _ BOOK 1248 PAGg 585 x I m BOOK 1248 PAGE 585 5 BOOK 1248 PAGE 585 18 � ° o o PARCEL ,tom i PARCEL III i g PARCEL II II I o "II x BITUMINOUS CONCRETE 1T � Toil 1// RIM=10.05 �� ° CONC. 4h ^ L� •1 INV.OUT=33 \ I )3 INV.OUT-3. ^ STEPS CONC. CHAIN NK FENCE \ WALK ^ w c4 a 3 II X 4" LANDS L'lcPE TIMBER ^ RIM-10.99 I ° ° o I 2 STORY BRICK II I I p p MAP 34 LOTS 423, 425 & 426 3� Q II I WAY cIT o 32,461 Sq.Ft. I o°® 4"GI =& - RIM=9.35 3 STORY BRICK 0.745 AC.t { Q I I t�,o , % -- -_`��P -ATE 10' WIDE) INV.=7.64 0 / ,o It il° `m •- _ i RIM--9.46 / SECOND INV.IN=8.47 / AS / FLOOR ^o INV.OUT=8.2 CHIMNEY I r ONLY ,O ,o o 9 c+ •o, 01TUMIr U5 'UST O m I o _ _ _LOA ,p CONC E I I �' I I ' y 1 A FUEL TANK I V � w d ^' ' //// '�/ � `O BIT. C NERA'TOR� , IN SHED DOIKG corkit I BOX AROUND SUPPORT C p p 3I a IN RESTROOM 1 .48' WIDE \ I 3 STORY ' RIM=9.57 IRNV=B 42 / II93 BRICK ' INV.=7.77 w II II o I I BOOK 1248 PAGE 585 / I h II I x BUMP DOWN IN-::--�I 3 STORY WOOD FRAME PARCEL I It ' it CEILING 0.84' G 5 RIM=11.42 N II II II 8 OG WIDE INV.IN=3.25 V. N I EIT. 41 INV.OUT=3.08 w Fit D Q, CONIC. x " I 581'08'00"W 0.53' BIT. OIL FILL CONC.- It ONC. IW \ N33'36 02 E I ` II I Im 8.00' 2•%2• ` y/ RIM=11.72 6I^�° 41 , - �° -0 N 2 '55"W PULL 127.46 WALK CONC. CONCRETE I I ^ X [i}-- 101.73 \ PARK CONCRETE PAD po wV=1.72 I I 11 N10'0419 W WA PILASTF,RR eENCH G IIIJJJ °ry vcc p SHELF=2.64 w II > I ` --E--�1--}EjE E ^ " E ` S� VC ^^ ^ COBBLE. ••` o CONCRETE ^ , w o ti �I' + ^o . h �° ° ° oF+ po , . Ey TONE o ° �' :� l ° ^� yC GG+n PARKING h(�RyICpK ^ .o VCC .o T SHRUBS ^ A SPRINKLER 3 Z q \IIx i BRICK T „ T RIM=10.83 w & MULCH n �- `DRASS BOX \� qa II INV=4.08 METER (TYP.) r \ G q K \ 6"GAS G ^ G p N W IIcOBB ^1 II h �" ^ `_ BITUMINOIIS r�NORFTF vC'-