DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006
A regular meeting of the Design Review Board (DRB) was held in the third floor conference room at the City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, on Wednesday September 27, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.
Members Michael Blier, Christos Christoudias, Paul Durand, David Jaquith and Glenn Kennedy were present. Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner, and Melissa Pagliaro, Clerk, were also present.
PROJECTS UNDER REVIEW
1. 50 Palmer Street
Ms. Hartford stated that the City required the applicant to come to the DRB for the project as part of their funding agreement.
Mike Whelen, Executive Director, Salem Harbor CDC, and Joe Luna, architect, presented the project.
Mr. Luna stated that based on the construction quotes received; they were coming in 25% over budget. He noted that some simplistic structural system changes had to be made in order to make the project work; however, the architecture of the building will remain the same and no significant changes to the exterior of the building will be made. This included some exterior changes to the original design, such as removing the balconies and eliminating the efface at corner of the building and using trim board. In addition, the condensing unit was taken out and the units will have self-contained heating units and no central air conditioning. Also, they are changing the manufacturer of the windows. He also stated that the landscaping budget was reduced by 50%.
Mr. Kennedy asked about the air conditioner sleeves and questioned if the color matched the color of the windows. Mr. Luna responded that they would match. He stated that they would prefer not to have individual air conditioning units but they could not make it work with the funding. They went with sleeves so that they could reduce the wear that would occur if the occupants put air conditioner units in the windows. Mr. Blier asked if each unit gets a sleeve for the air conditioner. Mr. Luna responded that each unit would have two, one in the front and one in the back.
Mr. Durand stated he was a little bit disappointed that they would not have central air conditioning and asked if there would be ceiling fans to circulate air. Mr. Luna answered that there would not be any ceiling fans. Mr. Durand asked if they could retrofit the HVAC in the future. Mr. Luna answered that it was possible but would depend on the cost. He said that cutting this piece out was not a huge savings but small cuts all over had to be made.
Mr. Durand asked if the color would stay the same on the corner of the building. Mr. Luna answered that it would.
Mr. Jaquith stated that all in all he is okay with the presentation and the changes.
Mr. Durand agreed that it has not changed much. He said that he wished the project did not have to change at all but has no issues with the changes.
Mr. Jaquith questioned if the windows were the same. Mr. Luna responded that the windows are the same. He also stated that the plan still works the same. He noted that he wished that there could be balconies but they have done the best they can and wants to see the project built.
Jim Treadwell, member of the public, asked if this location was in an area for the National Historic Register. Ms. Hartford stated that the project did not need approval from the Historic Commission. He asked if there were required to file a Section 106 review due to the federal funding going into the project. Ms. Hartford stated that this was outside the jurisdiction of the DRB and he could check with Jane Guy in the Department and Planning and Community Development for answers to these questions.
Walter Power, a member of the public and Chairman of the Planning Board, stated that he was a bit disappointed with the changes. He thinks that Congress Street needs to set the tone for the Point Neighborhood and this project does not set a high standard. He said that that initially he felt this project was approved too fast and now there are all of these changes that do not enhance the project.
Mr. Blier stated that he feels as though the modifications have not made a reduction in the project. He said that the designers have struggled to maintain as close to the original as possible.
Mr. Durand stated that he felt as though they could have ignored the air conditioning issues but did not. He said that they insisted that the issue was addressed now rather than having problems with deterioration later and, for the most part, the bulk of sleeves would be kept toward back of building.
Nina Cohen, staff of the Salem Harbor CDC, said that the Salem Harbor CDC wants high standards as well. She stated that she is very confident that this project is high standard and even though there will be no balconies it is a beautiful design.
Mr. Durand stated that the design is not one that has an appearance of affordable housing.
Mr. Durand agreed with Mr. Power but felt as though the bay window with roof is nice. He stated that sometimes to stay within the budget, changes have to be made. He stated that he was surprised the design stayed so close to the original.
Mr. Jaquith made a motion to approve the changes to the Final Design Plans. Mr. Blier seconded the motion. Motion passed (5-0)
Mr. Luna thanked the Board and stated that they hope to break ground within a year.
URBAN RENEWAL AREA PROJECTS
2. 71 Washington Street
Ms. Hartford introduced Joe Longo from Salem Five Bank to present the project. Mr. Longo stated that they would like to change the paint color of the exterior windows on 71 Washington Street from the existing teal blue color to a brown, darker than the existing facade color.
Mr. Jaquith suggested that the brown could be a hint darker than the chip presented. Mr. Longo stated that they have put up a sample of the color on one of the windows.
Mr. Durand suggested the Board go and take a look at the sample colors on the building before making a recommendation to the SRA. The Board did ask that they provide a sample slightly darker than what was presented.
Ms. Hartford asked if the detail on the building would remain. Mr. Longo responded that all the detail would remain the same and be touched up. He stated that the only thing that will change is the blue color.
Mr. Longo stated that they also would like to change the front doors to one that is more consistent with the others on the block. Mr. Jaquith stated that the doors should be looked at on-site as well.
The Board agreed to meet at Salem Five Bank at 71 Washington Street on Friday morning, September 29, 2006 at 8:15 am.
3. 120 Washington Street
Mr. Durand recused himself and left the meeting.
Ms. Hartford introduced the project and the applicant, Dave Steinberg, and his architect, Dana Weeder.
Mr. Steinberg stated that the plan is to construct five residential units in part of the space formally occupied by the Phoenix School. He noted that two of the units will have entrances off of Essex Street and three of will have entrances off of Barton Square.
Mr. Weeder explained that the Essex Street façade will not be touched. He says that the Barton Square side will consist of 1 townhouse and 2 flats, which will be entered off new proposed walkway. He noted that the new design elements are the trellis and the walkway. The walkway will be of a Brazilian cherry wood and the trellis will be white. There will be some landscaping building up on existing pads. The plan is to move the dumpster to its intended location on the other side of the parking lot.
The other exterior additions will be the lighting along the walkway. There will be no changes to the building other than three windows that will become doors. All other existing windows will remain.
Mr. Blier asked the reason for the trellis structure. Mr. Weeder responded that it is mainly aesthetics.
Mr. Blier questioned the old storefront and asked if this will now be residential. Mr. Weeder responded that it would.
Mr. Blier asked how they intend to control the issue of how the glass is shaded from inside for privacy. Mr. Weeder stated that they had not given much thought to that but will consider ideas. Mr. Blier noted that he feels that maybe there is not a problem now but that it could become one. Mr. Weeder suggested maybe installing shutters on the bottom half of the large windows.
Mr. Kennedy asked if there is any covering on top of the trellis. Mr. Weeder answered no.
Mr. Blier asked the material of the wall. Mr. Weeder answered stucco.
Mr. Kennedy highly recommended something to cover the windows.
Mr. Blier asked how trash removal would be handled. Mr. Weeder stated that the residents will use the existing dumpster that will be moved behind transformer across the parking lot.
Mr. Christoudias asked if they thought about lighting options. Mr. Weeder replied that the lights where the doors were more of a security issue. Mr. Jaquith suggested lighting at the trellis. Mr. Weeder replied that they could do that. Mr. Christoudias stated that he has concerns about there not being enough light while walking to building.
Mr. Blier asks if the parking spaces were already striped. Mr. Weeder responded yes.
Mr. Jaquith stated that the area is more or less quiet. He liked the idea of adding residential units in the location. He asked Ms. Hartford what approval they needed to take tonight.
Ms. Hartford responded that the Board could make a recommendation tonight on the project. She noted that this project does not require a two-step review of Schematic and Final Design Review so if they recommended approval it would be the last time they saw the project.
Mr. Blier asked if there would be interior shutters incorporated on the Essex Street units as well. Mr. Weeder stated that most likely there would not be because there are no residential units on ground floor. Mr. Blier stated that he thought the upper floor windows would warrant some type of half shutter as well seeing as the opening is so large.
Ms. Hartford recapped what the Board discussed: recommendation of approval with the condition that the applicant come up with revised drawings showing some screening of the large windows at both Barton Square and the second floor of Essex Street and present additional lighting at the trellis.
A member of the public, David Hart, asked if the project would be subject to a Section 106 review. Ms. Hartford stated that she would check with Jane Guy.
A member of the public, Walter Power, suggested using a Salem standard light for Barton Street side of building. Mr. Jaquith stated that he asked to see something in regards to lighting but will leave the type of lighting up to them.
Mr. Kennedy commented that the alignment of the trellis seems to fall in an odd area and questioned if it can be raised a bit. Mr. Weeder stated that he would revise the drawings to reflect that change.
Ms. Hartford asked for a representative of the Board to review the changes prior to submittal to the SRA. Mr. Blier volunteered to review the project.
Mr. Jaquith asked for a motion made to approve. Mr. Kennedy moved to approve the recommendation with the conditions stated. Mr. Christoudias seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0)
Mr. Durand returned to meeting.
4. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail)
Ms. Hartford stated that the Old Salem Jail project team asked to continue the DRB review until the next regular DRB meeting in October.
NORTH RIVER CANAL CORRIDOR PROJECTS
5. 75 North Street (Creations Architectural & Salem Kitchen And Bath)
The architect for the applicant, Richard Griffin, presented the changes made to the design since the last meeting with the DRB. He said that they incorporated all the changes suggested by the Board but the applicant would like to keep the awning over the Kitchen and Bath storefront because it was a fairly new expense.
Mr. Durand stated that the applicant gave the Board everything that was asked for except the awning and his feeling is that the awning would be okay to stay on the building.
Mr. Jaquith stated that noting the location of the building; he thinks it could be a lot better. He stated that, in his opinion, the shutters should go inside the trim. He thought the south elevation is the nicest. He suggested that the dormers are large and should have more glass. He also suggested that the signage have a different background. Mr. Jaquith apologized for missing the last meeting where this was discussed.
Mr. Griffin responded that the owner was very eager to have a 1-½ story addition and their desire for square footage is what drove the width of the dormers.
Mr. Durand asked if other windows had shutters if that would address Mr. Jaquith concerns. Mr. Jaquith responded that it might.
Mr. Griffin stated that there would be no residential use in the building. He said that the owner would use the space for his wood working shop and storage. He further stated that there might be a possibility in the future of leasing part of the space for commercial use.
Mr. Kennedy stated that he felt as though the previous comments from the board were addressed very well and does not have any other issues.
Mr. Jaquith pointed out that the gables and eves do not show on elevations. He stated that shutters or a wider trim with minimum clapboards might be better. He also noted that he does not have a big issue with the awning.
Mr. Durand stated that he respects Mr. Jaquith’s comments. He questioned if the Board required HVAC plans. Mr. Griffin stated that the HVAC would not be visible from the street.
Mr. Kennedy recommended that shutters be added on the south elevation because that side is very visible coming over the bridge.
Mr. Jaquith asked if the door to the wood working shop could be bought back a bit. Mr. Griffin stated that it could.
A member of the public stated that the chimney seemed out of place with the design and asked the reasoning. Mr. Griffin answered that the chimney is actually housing the elevator shaft, which will be a standard sized shaft.
Mr. Durand asked for a motion to approve with the conditions stated. Ms. Hartford clarified the conditions of the recommendation, which are as follows:
1. The first and second floor windows on the South Elevation have shutters that match the Front Elevation.
2. The windows in the roof peak of the South and North Elevations contain pediments and headers similar to the lower windows on the South Elevation.
3. The entry under the “Creations” sign should be recessed by 1-½ feet.
4. The gable ends on the dormers should stick out by 8 inches or more and the trim should measure 5 ¼ x 8.
5. The DRB prefers that the awning at the Kitchen and Bath store be removed but understands that the owner is not under an obligation to do so.
Ms. Hartford informed the Board that if they recommend approval, this will go straight to the Planning Board and would not come back to this Board for further approvals.
A member of the public, Walter Power, asked if there currently was an elevator at the building. Mr. Griffin said there was not.
The Board moved to approve the recommendation with the stated conditions. Motion passed (5-0).
6. 401 Bridge Street (Gateway Center)
Ms. Hartford introduced the representative for the developer, Mr. Gundersen, Gundersen Associates. He stated that the project has been in the planning stages for a long time. He explained that the parcel is very large and currently, the only building on site is a blue metal building. He stated that the property will be subdivided and this site will be 3 ½ acres. The developer will come back to the city in the future regarding development of the 1-¾ acres corner portion of the site.
Mr. Gundersen stated that the project falls into to new NRCC zoning requirements. He stated that the development team is trying to keep the plan as close to the NRCC requirements as possible.
He described the development proposal. There will be a 50-foot landscaped buffer zone between the residential zone and the development. He explained that the zoning also suggests that the building be placed on one of the streets of the zone and the proposed building will be placed on the property line on Bridge Street. Four or five curb cuts will need to be cut into entire parcel. Mr. Gundersen stated that the Bridge Street side of the building will have a colonnade for pedestrian traffic. There will be 233 parking spaces and the building will have 3 floors consisting of a total of 78,000 square feet. The use of the building will be mixed, with mostly office and a small portion of retail that will be approximately 10,000 square feet. There will be a dumpster at the rear of the parking lot which will
be enclosed. Recycling will be considered. A neighbor has suggested bike storage.
Mr. Gundersen stated that there has been a lot of discussion in the neighborhood about the landscaping plan. He stated that they agreed to put up a 6 or 8-foot wood fence all the way around the property. A 12-foot retaining wall will have a fence around that as well. He further added that they would be planting 12-foot high arborvitae and hemlock trees. Decorative honey locust trees will go in parking lot and pear trees will be planted along the sidewalk. There will be more natural landscape under the canopy.
Mr. Gundersen stated that the building will be steel framed. The interior space has not been configured. He stated that most likely it will be medical offices, with the close location to the hospital, and the current designs are for high ceiling to floor space.
Mr. Gundersen stated that the building material would be basic. The building will have brick veneer with a punched opening. Above and below the windows and roof will be cast stone, a 7 or 8-inch hardy plank. The roof will be metal, galvanized roof with curved zinc. The windows will be painted aluminum. All mechanical instruments on the roof will be enclosed.
Mr. Gundersen added that this is a very dense property and there will be no shadow to the residential properties.
Mr. Durand opened it up to public comment and no one responded. He then opened it up for discussion among the board.
Mr. Jaquith stated that the landscaping on the site plans appear to be unfinished on both ends. Mr. Gundersen responded that this was done intentionally because this is only Phase 1 of the project.
Mr. Jaquith stated that he admires the plan and the concern for neighbors. He stated that he lives on Flint Street and thinks the idea for usage is good. He stated that he wonders about the ideas for windows and thought the cap on the roof needed more detail. He also noted that he has a bit of concern about the entry, but other than that he likes it.
Mr. Blier asked if the driveways would be two-way. Mr. Gundersen responded that they will be two-way. Mr. Jaquith noted that there are driveway restrictions imposed by the Fire Department.
Mr. Christoudias stated that he agreed with most of Mr. Jaquiths thoughts. He did question what would go on the borders. Mr. Gundersen stated that the intention is to build another, similar building for mixed-use. He noted that one possible tenant is a bank. He stated that they would like to see a nice large building on that corner. Looking at a building in the 25,000 to 35,000 square foot range.
Mr. Christoudias asked what would be in between the two buildings. Mr. Gundersen said they want it to look continuous. As if there is no break in the property. It will look as though it is a single site.
Mr. Kennedy asked about signage on the building. Mr. Gundersen stated that there would be fairly discreet signage. That issue is about a year away and is hard to discuss not knowing whom exactly will occupy the building. There will be external lit signs. Ms. Hartford pointed out that signage must go before the DRB, whether it is during the project review or in the future. Mr. Durand thought that it was good to start thinking of that ahead of time.
Mr. Blier said that as a side note, he feels the Bradford pear trees might be hard to get in there. Making the sidewalks a tight place for pedestrians to walk. He suggests looking at another type. He likes the building being close to the street but he thinks those type trees will make it tight.
Mr. Durand thought maybe if the building was not so close there could be a compromise. He also asked if there was a storm water drainage plan.
Mr. Gundersen said that the plan was included in the package. He also spoke about the rooftop stating that with the residential elevation it will be hard for neighbors to see the roof. Most homes do not stand that high in the neighborhood. It is also in the proposal that the islands in the parking lot will have granite curbs with cobblestone.
Mr. Blier asked about site lighting. Mr. Gundersen answered that there is a lighting plan in the packet. He suggested possibly Salem standard lighting.
Mr. Blier commented that they might want to think about a tree other than Hemlocks.
Mr. Durand asked about the building lighting. Mr. Gundersen says that there will be lighting underneath the colonnade and some lighting will shine up the façade on either end.
Mr. Durand asked if power poles are going to go underground. Mr. Gundersen states that is a City problem and everything will be underground on their site. Mr. Durand stated that it is the developer’s problem and not the City’s problem. The poles take away everything this project has accomplished. He stated that his opinion is that the poles need to go. He understands there are costs but they are worthwhile.
Mr. Durand also stated that he is not really inspired by the building. He does not think that this project says a lot about Salem. He is disappointed that this is the project for an entrance corridor and wishes it were something better to represent our City. He stated that he would like to see this building lead Salem and the NRCC’s next designs. He noted that in his opinion, he finds it lacking.
Walter Power, member of the public, stated that he would like to see a building with a tower. He would like to see something more fitting for Salem as well. He has concerns about what will be put there during the next phase. He would like to see this building closer to Church and suggested ribbon glass be used to make it more interesting.
Mr. Durand stated that in his opinion every high rise had that office module. This building does not have a lot of thought put in to it about what Salem means. He was hoping for something better and is wondering how this design can be better addressed in terms of Salem.
Mr. Jaquith suggested that the module become fairly rigid. He also stated that lighting and rhythm become important. He noted that the future building is more important.
Rita Markunes, member of the public, stated that the neighborhood likes the design very much. The neighbors like the industrial look. Lots of neighbors want something that “fits” into the neighborhood. It reminds them of what used to be there.
Councilor Mike Sosnowski joined in saying that neighbors did not want the Trophy building design. He stated that Mr. Gundersen has been through many, many different designs for this project. This is what the neighbors have asked for. It is what they want.
Mr. Durand stated he does not agree. He thinks that the neighborhood opinion is based on nostalgia. It is not bad, just ordinary. He feels that it is what the neighbors want so there is no competition or no threat to the neighborhood. He has tried over many years to make Salem better. He said that he has a vision and brings it to the various boards he serves on as well as in his career.
Mr. Durand stated that for an entrance corridor, it is too ordinary. He reiterates that this is just his opinion, which he feels strongly about but acknowledges that there is more than just himself on the Board.
Concilor Sosnowski asked if it was about the shape. Mr. Durand stated it is much more than just the shape.
Mr. Kennedy stated that he doesn’t disagree with the sentiment and also thinks it is ordinary.
David Hart, member of the public, stated that he himself is an architect and liked the fact that it is not a real flashy building. He thinks it just kind of sits and “hums”. Mr. Durand said he would like it to do more than “hum” and he thinks it is setting a precedent. Mr. Hart responded by saying the board should be giving direction to Mr. Gundersen on the entrance or some other point not on the meaning of the building.
Mr. Durand said that he board can criticize but should not design. That has come to from the architect.
David Hart states that the neighbors want a signature corner. The neighborhood is happy with this.
Mr. Blier noted that he thought that the criticism is in the process. He said it is not so much the building. We don’t know what is going to happen with the other building. We don’t know what our limitations will be when the next project comes around.
Mr. Durand stated that the applicant has this issue before us now and the board has to decide on it.
Mr. Christoudias stated that though he is not from Salem, he owns the Daniel Lowe Building. He pointed out other projects in other cities where you see a lot of old and new buildings mixed. He thinks the Church in the background compliments the new building. He expects a lot from the corner property but likes the design for this building.
Mr. Durand questioned if the board should approve the design or ask for more renditions.
Ms. Hartford stated that this will be the only time the DRB sees this project, as there is not a two-step review process for NRCC projects. She advised the Board that Planning meets on October 19, 2006 and they are looking for a recommendation before that meeting. She noted that they can hold a special meeting if they would like to see another rendition of the plans.
Mr. Durand stated that if the rest of the board is okay with this design “just humming” than it should be approved.
Mr. Kennedy suggested a few ideas such as single pane windows, more glaze and maybe more color.
Mr. Durand agreed and says he would like to see a building with a little more thought.
Mr. Jaquith states he does not mind the building “just humming” but does agree that some things could be notched up a bit.
Mr. Durand says he is not being offensive but he thinks it needs some more tweaking.
Mr. Gundersen says he would like to have the recommendations before October 19.
The DRB agreed to hold a special meeting on October 17 at 6:00pm.
A member of the public asked for clarification as to what the board wants Mr. Gundersen to do exactly.
Mr. Durand says that he does not need to do anything drastic. They would like to see bit of improvement.
Ms. Hartford confirmed that some of the specific things that Mr. Gundersen is to consider are the church end of the building, the sidewalk along Bridge Street and the electric poles.
URBAN RENEWAL AREA PROJECTS cont.
7. 143 Washington Street
Ms. Hartford stated that the applicant is looking to install window boxes at the building similar to the boxes at Fiddlehead. She noted that they would be a removable stand in front of the windows. The applicant is debating putting them under every other window or in between the windows, the same length as the columns.
The Board agreed that the boxes looked good every other window, except at the Washington Street facade, where the boxes should be placed at all the windows at the ReMax facade and between the windows at the Pickle Pot facade, the same length as the columns.
The Board recommended approval with the condition that the boxes be placed at every other window, except at the Washington Street facade, where the boxes should be placed at all the windows at the ReMax facade and between the windows at the Pickle Pot facade, the same length as the columns. Motion passed (5-0).
The Board agreed to approve the minutes at the next meeting.
Meeting adjourned.
| 
