Loading...
2021-05-12 Meeting MinutesSRA May 12, 2021 Page 1 of 5 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Redevelopment Authority, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Napolitano David Guarino, Dean Rubin, Cynthia Nina-Soto SRA Members Absent: Russ Vickers Others Present: Tom Daniel – Director of Planning and Community Development Kate Newhall-Smith – Principal Planner Recorder: Colleen Brewster Regular Meeting Executive Director’s Report Mr. Daniel stated Mask Mandate: Last night the Board of Heath lifted the outdoor mask mandate so long as people are socially distant, they do not need to wear masks although they are still required indoors. The EDRR hosted a webinar last week about de-escalation and working with business owners about strategies for how to deal with customers that do not comply with the indoor mask mandate. Dave Greenbaum and Captain King of the Salem Police Department were present among other panelists. Employers biggest concern is the lack of employees, particularly in the hospitality industry. The Workforce Investment Board has indicated that many employees have left that sector and found work elsewhere. Some are collecting unemployment, the bonus unemployment funds will run out in August, and it is unknown how many people are not going to work because they are receiving unemployment, while others have health considerations to consider. They have been brainstorming ideas to assist and increase the employment prospects. Some of the concern has also applied to Federal immigration policies and visas, which is a larger issue. The college campus population has also been smaller. Many positions are open within Salem and an incentive program is being considered to help fill these positions. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 38 Norman Street: Schematic Design Review – Construction of a new mixed-use building with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses above, continued from 4/14/21, request to continue to June 9, 2021 Rubin: Motion to continue the application to the June 9, 2021, regular meeting as requested by the applicant. Seconded by: Nina-Soto Roll Call: Guarino, Nina-Soto, Napolitano, Rubin in favor. 4-0 SRA May 12, 2021 Page 2 of 5 2. 53 Charter Street: Modification to Approved Plans – Final Review and vote on exterior restoration of historic home Mr. Rubin made public that he is an abutter to the project and did not feel the need to recuse himself from the discussion. Jennifer Mello of Pomeroy & Co. was present to discuss the project. Ms. Mello stated that the previous plan was approved; however, they would like to eliminate the rear addition and return the house to its early 19th century appearance. The 2 over 1 window sashes will be replaced with 6 over 6, replicating the front portico that was gifted to the PEM in the 1920’s and is currently installed on another building. The windows will be manufactured by Marvin with simulated divided lite made of wood with black interior spacer bars and custom sills and casings. The number of windows on the facades will be reduced to match what is in the historic photos. They will replicate original moulding profiles and replace in kind where necessary. Aluminum gutters and downspouts will be added and painted to match the trim and siding. The owner would like to continue with the previously approved color palette. The deck will be added at a later phase of the project, and she would return to the Board for that review. Mr. Guarino stated that he is glad to see this going forward Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Vote: Rubin made a motion to approve the application subject to the DRB’s conditions. Seconded by: Guarino. Roll Call: Guarino, Nina-Soto, Napolitano, Rubin in favor. 4-0 3. 13 Barton Square: Small Project Review – Review of project and DRB recommendation for the construction of an exterior porch and deck Mike McGinn, owner, was present to discuss the project. Ms. Newhall-Smith stated that the DRB was happy with the submittal but requested additional details on the upper deck. Mr. McGinn noted that he is restoring the home and would like to add a porch and deck to the house. The DRB wanted the pressure treated wood to be wrapped in Azek, to apply trim painted to match the house and upgrade the balusters. Board member Helen Sides met with him on site and had no issue with what was proposed. Ms. Newhall-Smith noted that Ms. Sides sent her an e- mail confirming the revised drawings matched what the DRB requested and the work he’s completed to date has been done well. Mr. Rubin noted his appreciation when members of the community restore structures. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Vote: Rubin made a motion to approve subject to the DRB conditions. Seconded by: Nina-Soto SRA May 12, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Roll Call: Guarino, Nina-Soto, Napolitano, Rubin in favor. 4-0 4. 302 Essex Street: Small Project Review – Installation of new door with security door Sara Jane Kurpeski was present to discuss the project. Ms. Kurpeski stated that the salon has two front doors, and one has a large crack in one of the lower panels, repairs don’t last, it’s hard to lock, and it can easily be opened. They are proposing a full glass metal door with an iron security door. Mr. Rubin asked if both entry doors could be replaced so they match. Ms. Kurpeski replied that the contractor said the other door is metal and brand new; she would paint it to match the new door, although they are not opposed to replacing both doors if the total cost is manageable. Mr. Guarino agreed with matching the doors though noted that they will not match the other doors on the street. Ms. Kurpeski replied that the new door will match what the neighbors on the left have. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. The Board agreed that the DRB should consider whether all doors should match on the building. Mr. Rubin noted that he would be comfortable with allowing the applicant to follow what the DRB’s recommends. Mr. Guarino agreed. Ms. Kurpeski asked if that would require two security doors. Mr. Rubin replied that the DRB should weigh-in on that issue as well. VOTE: Rubin made a motion to approve based on the DRB’s recommendations. Seconded by: Nina-Soto. Guarino, Nina-Soto, Napolitano, Rubin in favor. 4-0 5. 118 Washington Street: Small Project Review – Façade renovations including painting, lighting, and material replacement Eugene Nigrelli, co-owner, was present to discuss the project. Mr. Nigrelli stated that they are taking over the Bistro 118 space that they are currently renovating. They want to maintain the exterior look to match the exterior of the building, but some wood trim is rotted, and they are proposing painted PVC for longevity, but will use wood if desired. They want the awnings to match the brick and to replace the single-entry door with a double door. The façade will be painted to match the existing building. Ms. Nina-Soto noted the visual differences between Azek and wood and requested the new trim be wood to match. Mr. Guarino agreed with Nina-Soto and the DRB’s opinion. He asked if there was sufficient room for a double entry door. Mr. Nigrelli replied yes and noted that the previous owner installed plywood over the sidelight so there is more room than there appears. The Board agreed with the proposed paint color and lighting wrapping the building over the awnings. Ms. Newhall-Smith requested that a sign package be included when this gets referred to the DRB. SRA May 12, 2021 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Nigrelli stated that working with Salem has been great experience and he’s grateful for the help he’s received. Mr. Daniel thanked Mr. Nigrelli the comments and asked if exterior seating is proposed along the park side of the building. Mr. Nigrelli replied yes, but not much because the interior space is so large. Mr. Daniel noted that the boards in the past have reviewed furniture and stations and would do the same in this case. Mr. Nigrelli noted that they plan to open in two months. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Vote: Guarino made a motion to refer the application to DRB for review. Seconded by: Rubin. Roll Call: Guarino, Nina-Soto, Rubin, Napolitano 4-0 in favor. New/Old Business 1. Redevelopment of the Historic Courthouse and the Crescent Lot: Update on Project Status: Mr. Daniel stated that the joint meeting was held last week with the SRA and City Council, and it went well. This was the kick-off community engagement portion of their work. SRA will review Schematic Design first. The LOI was finalized and executed. They continue to meet with the team design team weekly and since the April SRA meeting WinnDevelopemnt presented to the Harbor Plan Committee in regard to the North River. The Committee looked into regulatory issues for the basin area and Winn presented opportunities for connectivity and views as well as the trade-off with Ch. 91 height restrictions. In regard to the preservation restriction, DCAMM requested a small addition that’s being added and it will be recorded when closing happens. WinnDevelopment applied to CPC and received a recommendation of $200,000 which will be part of the multiple tiers of funding they are seeking. That recommendation will go to the Council this month. They will be visiting court buildings for more analysis as well as at the crescent lot. Matt Zahler and Attorney Shirin Everett from KP Law continue to work with them and are great resources. Mr. Rubin asked if there will be another design working group meeting. Ms. Newhall-Smith replied that WinnDevelopement will return to Windover to have them re-price the revised design to ensure it is financially feasible, if not the working group will meet again, and community engagement will help with that process. Mr. Guarino noted that it was a good group meeting with the City Council, the feedback was positive, and it was good to see community engagement too. He requested that any updates be forwarded to the Board so they can follow the project as they move along. 2. Charlotte Forten Park – Account Management: Mr. Daniel stated that they want to set up parameter for use of funds that are focused on programming at the park, since the SRA doesn’t want to oversee the use of the park. Ms. Newhall-Smith noted that they looked into the cost of programming public spaces whose costs could have a wide range. After speaking with John Andrews from Creative Collective and Julie Barry they determined that $5,000 would make sense and anything under that amount she and Mr. Daniel would review and approve administratively. Anything over that amount would come to the Board for review and approval. Use SRA May 12, 2021 Page 5 of 5 of funds would be added to their staff report each month so they can keep track of how the money has been spent. Vote: Rubin motion to authorize the Executive Director to approve utilization of funds up to and including $5,000. Seconded by: Guarino. Roll Call: Guarino, Nina-Soto, Rubin, Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. Meeting Minutes The minutes of the March 10, 2021, regular meeting were reviewed. Vote: Rubin motion to approve with Rubin’s edits. Second by: Nina-Soto. Roll Call: Guarino, Nina-Soto, Rubin, Napolitano. 4-0 in favor. Adjournment Vote: Rubin motion to adjourn Seconded by: Guarino Roll call: Guarino, Nina-Soto, Rubin, Chair Napolitano in favor. 4-0 in favor. Regular Meeting ended at 7:00PM Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033.