DRB Special Meeting
February 6, 2007
Page 1 of 6
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
February 6, 2007
A special meeting of the Salem Design Review Board (DRB) was held in the third floor conference room at the City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, on Tuesday February 6, 2007 at 6:00 pm.
Members Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, Paul Durand, David Jaquith, and Glenn Kennedy were present. Tania Hartford, ED Program Director, and Andrea Bray, Clerk, were also present.
Durand calls the meeting to order.
Projects Under Review
North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) Projects
1. 28 Goodhue Street – Continued review of the proposed development plans for a new four-story mixed-use structure at 28 Goodhue Street.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, representing North River Canal, LLC., introduces Tom Galvin, Architect, of Joseph Riggs Associates.
Galvin provides an overview of the latest design amendments for the project. He states that the fence will be a timber guardrail in conjunction with landscaping material which will create a barrier to the canal. He adds that the dumpster will be moved away from the canal. Galvin says that there will be planting beds, a veranda, and columns accentuating the front entrance to the residential units. He also points out that the building’s color scheme was changed in response to previous comments from the Board. The new color scheme will be more toned-down with a wheat color at the street level. Galvin explains that the developers are studying other siding materials to be used at the street level. Finally, he states that the roofing material was not changed and presented photographs of other
sites where the proposed roof shangles were used.
Blier expresses concern about the timber guardrail stating that this project will determine the course for future development along the canal.
Galvin states that the guardrail will be pressure-treated and that this is a budget decision. He adds that when coupled with vegetation and plantings, the guardrail will provide a barrier to the canal.
Durand expresses a concern about the safety hazards associated with a guardrail as opposed to a fence. He asks about the distance between the guardrail and the canal.
Galvins says that the guardrail will be about five feet away from the canal.
Blier states that he knows that the Board is putting Galvin in an unfair spot because the Board is looking beyond this project to all future development along the canal.
Correnti states that the public walkway is completely open at some points along the canal so having a guardrail will at least provide some security. He adds that, originally, the developers thought the chain link fence would provide a safety barrier and a litter barrier, but chain link is not allowed in the NRCC district.
Much discussion ensues about the fence.
Jaquith states that he is afraid of approving something that is not safe.
Durand asks if a photo of the guardrail is available.
Galvin points to the illustration of the path and the guardrail with vegetation.
Correnti asks how many years before someone else does something like this on the canal. He suggests that the DRB make no recommendation to the Planning Board about this.
Hartford states that the Planning Board is not qualified to determine the design for the fence to be used, and that the DRB must approve a design.
Durand suggests that the landscaping will carry this because of its simplicity.
Jaquith states that the planting beds along the front of the shops might be a deterrent for foot traffic into the retail space.
DeMaio agrees with Jaquith.
Jaquith asks to see the columns at the entryway once they have been designed.
Blier suggests altering the spacing of the trees to provide visibility to the building’s entryway. He asks if the species has changed.
Galvin states that it was dogwood and the deciduous trees have been eliminated, so now the trees will be evergreens.
Kennedy believes that the plantings will work well and that the developer has responded to the Board’s comments from the last meeting.
Galvin suggests placing the beds about 4 feet from the building instead of 10 feet as planned, to encourage foot traffic into the space.
Jim Treadwell reads a letter which states that a signed review should be part of this approval process.
Walter Power states that he wishes to see storefronts which are characteristic of Salem.
Durand asks Power to be more specific about the type of storefronts that he would like to see.
Jim Treadwell provides some pictures of storefronts.
Durand states that these storefronts will be inviting and now reflect Salem’s character.
Darrow Lebovici, of 122 Federal Street, presents a letter written by him and Martin Imm addressed to the DRB and cc’d to the Planning Board dated February 6, 2007. He reads the letter into the record (see attached).
Durand asks Lebovici to paraphrase this letter and express his major concerns.
Lebovici states that the central points are the industrial, commercial concept, the different types of material such as concrete or brick which would be more appropriate, and the size of the building.
Kennedy asks if the concern is the size in proportion to the style of the building.
Lebovici says that perhaps that is an issue. He goes on to state the there are some buildings which are former warehouses and factories which still have that character. He adds that he is specifically concerned about the suitability of style and materials in relation to the size.
Durand explains that the Board members are not the designers of the project, only the critics, and it is not fair for the Board to be overly critical of the project.
Lebovici states that this building is precedent-setting and that the DRB’s job is to critique the design which is subjective. He explains that he understands that the job of the Board is difficult.
Durand explains that this project does not have the funding that some other major projects have had, and the Board needs to be cognizant of that while reviewing the design.
Lebovici asks if this building’s cost would be higher or lower than the self-storage building.
Durand states that he would not hold up the self-storage building as an example for anything and that this project is doing well with its given budget. He adds that the self storage building is a much less expensive project.
Jaquith states that the industrial parti in this area may be gone forever, and that the original building that was there may have been better than this, but now that it is gone, this new plan will work in that space.
Lebovici asks if this discussion were taking place at the first meeting would it have been possible to suggest something else.
Jaquith states that it may be true but the review process has to start early. He cites an example where the review process began quite late with the Peabody Essex Museum.
Lebovici asks what the neighbors could do to accomplish a better design in the future.
Durand spends time justifying the Board’s decision to approve this design.
Lebovici summarizes with three points: 1. he understands that he makes his request without knowing the exact outcome, 2. he appreciates the work of the Board, and 3. he appreciates his opportunity to have this discussion.
Durand explains that he felt that is was better to do something that this designer wants to do rather than force him to do something different. He adds that he wants to work with each architect’s vocabulary without getting into their personal aesthetic. Durand explains that if an architect is forced to do one particular style, he may do that style badly, so by allowing the architect to choose his style, at least he will do it well.
Walter Power states that he takes a different perspective because the current site has a devastated landscape as a result of a fire, and this building will influence all of the future buildings in this area.
David Hart, of 104 Federal Street, agrees with Power.
Blier explains that the massing of the building is doing exactly what the older building would have done but is using a different style.
Kennedy states that the DRB cannot select the style of building that should be built.
Lebovici states that it might be possible for the DRB to show the developer some possible styles which are historical to the area and suggest that the developer use these styles. He adds that if the developer chooses to do something different, it better be good.
Durand explains that it is difficult to legislate every aspect of a development, as is done in Nantucket which he believes is over-legislated.
Durand asks for more comments.
Hartford reviews the Boards recommendations for the approval, which are:
1. The plans and materials presented tonight, including the roofing material
2. The treatment of the water table
3. The landscaping plan as of the most recent design
4. The guardrail approved in concert with the screen plantings
5. The signage must be approved as it evolves
6. The construction drawings must be approved
DeMaio expresses his desire to see a masonry treatment at the storefront level, stating that Azak is plastic and looks like wood from a distance but up close it doesn’t feel real and it doesn’t hold up to wear at the street level. He adds that he rarely sees it used at the street level on a project of this size.
Durand agrees with DeMaio.
Galvin states that they are looking at a precast concrete to be used at the water table.
Hartford asks the Board members if they are approving the new color palette.
Durand says that the color palette works better with the precast concrete.
Hartford asks if they want precast masonry at the storefront level.
DeMaio says he wishes to see anything on the storefront level in a masonry material.
Hartford asks Correnti and Galvin to forward the color palette to her office.
Treadwell points out that this is part of the entrance corridor zoning which has a limitation on size.
Jaquith: Motion to approve this design with the recommendations listed, seconded by DeMaio. All members are in favor. The motion passes 5-0.
2. Approval of Minutes
September 27, 2006 – Approval
Blier: Motion to approve, seconded by Kennedy. The motion passes 4-0-1, with DeMaio recusing himself as he was absent.
October 3, 2006 – Approval
Blier: Motion to approve, seconded by Durand. The motion passes 2-0-3, with the others recusing themselves as they were absent.
October 17, 2006 – Approval
Jaquith: Motion to approve, seconded by Kennedy. All members are in favor. The motion passes 5-0.
November 15, 2006 – Approval
Kennedy; Motion to approve, seconded by DeMaio. The motion passes 4-0-1, with Blier recusing himself as he was absent.
December 6, 2006 – Approval
Jaquith; Motion to approve, seconded by Blier. All members are in favor. The motion passes 5-0.
3. Adjournment
Jacuith: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Kennedy. The motion passes 5-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
| 
