Opus Cafe Permit Decision Salem
Redevelopment
Authority
Decision
87 Washington Street
Opus
Cafe Permit and Facade Modifications
Meeting Date: September 30, 2019
Members Present: Grace Napolitano, Chair, Gary Barrett, David Guarino, Dean Rubin, Russell
Vickers
Members Absent: None
Decision: At a regular meeting of the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA), upon a motion duly
made and seconded, it was unanimously voted to approve the Cafe Permit application and facade
modifications, as presented and conditioned herein.
Referenced Plans and Documents
1. Application package prepared by Peterman Architects. 10 Concord Crossing #230, Concord,
MA 01742, containing the following sheets:
a. Terrace Drawings, sheet A101, dated 8/20/19;
b. Street Plans and Elevations, sheet A102, dated 9/19/19; and
c. Photos, sheet A103, dated 8/20/19.
2. Design Review Board Recommendation dated 8/28/19.
3. Staff Comments dated 9/26/19.
Conditions of Approval
1. Consistencv with Approved Desiam/Plans: Should the applicant determine that the project as
designed, presented, and conditioned herein, is no longer feasible and/or desirable, he/she/they
shall return to the DRB to review proposed modifications prior to making changes in the field.
2. City Solicitor OLjinion: Site work to facilitate the installation of the rear patio fence shall not
commence until the applicant, in coordination with the Planning & Community Development
Department, obtains an opinion from the City Solicitor regarding the legality, liability, and other
concerns relative to the drilling into the concrete on the public way for the purpose of anchoring
the fence panels. Should the City Solicitor determine that the applicant needs to obtain
permission from the City in the form of an easement or similar legal document, he/she/they shall
obtain the required permission as determined prior to commencing fence installation.
3. Architectural Review of Folding Partition Door: The applicant shall supply an architectural review
of the proposed folding partition door on the rear facade to the Building Department when
applying for a building permit to perform the approved work. This condition is to ensure that the
proposed door meets all safety and building codes. Should a Building Inspector determine that
the proposed door does not meet applicable codes, the applicant shall return to the Board for
design review of an alternative prior to making any changes in the field.
4. Adequate Clearance:
a. Rear Patio: Prior to installing the perimeter fencing, the applicant shall provide information
to the Department of Planning and Community Development regarding the width between
the fence and nearby impediments on the public way. There shall be a minimum of 4-feet
of clearance to allow safe pedestrian passage and access. If at any time the clearance is
less than 4-feet, the applicant/owner shall remove said fencing and may reinstall it to meet
this condition.
b. Front Patio: While the patio seating at the front of the restaurant was not under
consideration in this application, the applicant depicted it when illustrating the proposed
front facade modifications. Like the rear patio seating, there shall be a minimum of 4-feet
of clearance to allow safe pedestrian passage and access from the perimeter of the
seating area to the edge of the sidewalk or any other impediments, i.e. tree wells, light
poles, etc.
Findings
1. Activation of Space: The patio improvements will activate this underutilized space and create a
warm and welcoming outdoor seating area for restaurant patrons.
2. Alterations to Rear Facade: The existing door system is not original to the building; the
proposed folding partition door will create more visibility into the restaurant, thereby further
activating the outdoor space and marrying the interior of the restaurant to the exterior.
3. Alterations to the Front Fa ade: The removal of the existing window system to the right of the
front entryway and the installation of a Nanowall folding partition will open the front of the
restaurant to the streetscape and create activity and liveliness.
Signature of the Salem Redevelopment Authority
By the signature below, I certify that this decision accurately reflects the actions of the SRA.
Tom Daniel, AICP Date
Executive Director