CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board, Special Meeting
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: Wednesday, October 1, 2008
LOCATION: 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Conference Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith,
Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Daniel, Economic Development Manager
RECORDER: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
1. 2 East India Square, Suite 119 (Rita’s Water Ice): Discussion of proposed outdoor café seating
Durand recuses himself from this issue. Voting members are DeMaio, Jaquith, Kennedy, and Sides.
Proprietor Cynthia Weaver states that the seating will almost be identical to the other tables and chairs in the area.
The members review the plans and agree that the design is good.
DeMaio: Motion to approve the seating design, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
2. 281 Essex Street, Unit 3 (Body Empowered Wellness): Discussion of proposed signage
DeMaio recuses himself from this issue. Voting members are Durand, Jaquith, Kennedy, and Sides.
Daniel states that Dale Gienapp is here to present the revised design.
Gienapp states that he has modified the design after getting information from the owner. He adds that the lettering will be the same as in the original plan, and the sign will be flat with a 3M coating on it.
Sides confirms that the steel plate will be painted the green color.
Kennedy agrees that the metal could be green or remain natural, and Durand suggests that the green may appear too heavy.
Gienapp clarifies that all the metal and the plate will be green.
Sides suggests that he go with the unfinished aluminum for the scrollwork and the plates.
Durand agrees that the bracket will be best in clear aluminum or silver.
Kennedy asks Gienapp if he would have any objections to having the metal be black.
Gienapp states that he would not object to black but he would prefer green.
Durand states that the black references things that are more appropriate for the sign bracket. He states that if he saw the other side of the building he might feel better about it. He says that he dislikes submissions without context and this has very little context except the immediate area.
Daniel states that the applicant is open to the black.
Jaquith: Motion to approve this sign as presented with the frame and mounting brackets in black, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
North River Canal Corridor Projects under Review
3. 72 Flint Street and 67-69 & 71 Mason Street (Riverview Place f/k/a Salem Suede): Discussion of proposed Schematic Design
Jaquith recuses himself from this issue. Blier arrives in time for this presentation. Voting members are Blier, DeMaio, Durand, Kennedy, and Sides.
Daniel clarifies that the Planning Board requested that the DRB review the design elements of this plan, specifically the massing and the design.
Attorney Scott Grover, representing Riverview Place, acknowledges that David Zion and Michael O’Brien (developers) are also here tonight, as well as Steve Livermore, the principal architect on the project. He requests that the DRB review the project in a way similar to the way they treat projects in the urban renewal district, which is to make a recommendation on schematic design initially, and then later a final recommendation on all of the design details.
Grover provides a history of the project, stating that it originally consisted of 184 units in the summer of 2007, and then later reduced down to 164 units, still in four buildings. He adds that it was finally approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals with 130 units permitted in three buildings and 13 of those units designated as affordable. He states that the project also went through a major design modification based on the comments from the neighbors and the DRB.
Architect Steve Livermore states that original project presented to the DRB had three buildings with 51 units, 57 units, and 22 units, respectively, and with almost all of the parking on the surface and much of that parking was in the front of the buildings. There was little pedestrian access from Mason Street down to the river, and the landscaping was intermittent. He adds that this was all changed as a result of the comments from the board.
Livermore explains that the new design which includes:
· A 196-car parking garage, which is two floors above grade and one partial floor below grade.
· The surface parking around the buildings has been reduced by about 100 cars.
· The vehicular access and pedestrian access has been taken up through the middle of the site. The pedestrian access continues up through to Mason Street.
· There is now a view from Mason Street down through to the canal.
· There is a 50-foot buffer between the Flint Street and the Mason Street properties.
· He changed the image of the buildings, so the appearance from North Street down Bridge Street would be that of a renovated mill, and from Flint Street and Mason Street the image is much more residential in nature.
Livermore shows several images of the proposed site, and describes each image.
DeMaio states that this design is a vast improvement in the scheme, particularly in the way Livermore is working within the existing context to create massing that is sympathetic to the neighborhood, and to get back to the NRCC guidelines and the intent of the master plan.
DeMaio states that the commercial space in the basement of building 3, and perhaps Masons Street might want to be more residential in character, so the commercial use might migrate to the 67 unit building, either the west side of building 1 or the east side of building 2, where the public will be more likely to access them from Commercial Street or Bridge Street.
DeMaio states the landscaping might need the most work in order to extend the waterfront to Mason Street and to encourage permeability through the site. He suggests that Livermore consider how sidewalks or paving materials can encourage the passage of pedestrians from the neighborhood to the waterfront and make this area more pedestrian friendly.
DeMaio states that there might be some ways to create islands of green in the parking areas rather than have vast areas of pavement.
DeMaio states that it is important not to think of the Commercial Street extension to Flint Street as what could potentially happen, but to think of how the landscape connection to the building and the canal will be done when the buildings are first completed and then, if Commercial Street were to happen, to have in mind how that transition would be made.
DeMaio acknowledges that this project is precedent-setting for the North River and the DRB would like this project and all future projects to have a strong connection to the Canal.
DeMaio explains that there was great care in making each one of the buildings somewhat different from the other because the site has different personalities, as does the neighboring context. He encourages Livermore to consider having some variety in the texture, colors, and materials in each of the three buildings to give the project the look of having evolved rather than being placed here. He adds that a little differentiation will help to break down the scale and make each building feel more comfortable in context.
Sides expresses concern with the “awkward” transitioning of the exterior design on Building Two at the corner where the “residential” image changes to the “industrial mill” image. Additionally, she points to the fact that these buildings have parking underneath them which makes them feel less residential. She cites the buildings that are up on stilts.
Livermore states that they eliminated that as part of the project, but there is one piece that still has parking under, and he agrees to look at that.
Sides asks how the path from Mason Street on the other side of that building will look as you are walking down past it.
Livermore states that the grade climbs from the access road up almost a full level at the back of the Mason Street building so that the buildings, as they go up the new access road, will be on a hill. He offers to bring those elevations to the next meeting.
Sides asks if the elevation will change to look like a mill, and Livermore says that it will.
Livermore states that as you go up the access road you will have mills on either side, so the general intent that you are walking down a street that is renovated mills that are now residential buildings.
Livermore states that the people that are looking out of the rear of the Flint Street properties will be looking at landscaping and fencing, and they won’t look down at the parking. He adds that the surrounding area on Mason Street is more residential, so he was trying to make the buildings relate to the residences on this side of the property.
Kennedy states that he appreciates the improvement in the plan since the last meeting, particularly on the Bridge Street view. He states that the transition at the corner of Building Two is uncomfortable, even though he understands the reasoning. He asks Livermore to examine that more closely.
Livermore agrees to look at that corner.
Kennedy states that he likes the renovated mill look. He says that the open parking under the building doesn’t quite look finished.
Livermore states that they could make it into garages.
Kennedy mentions the transition from brick to the other material of the three stories, stating that he would prefer more brick.
Livermore states that he is trying to maintain some economy, therefore portraying a renovated mill rather than just a huge mill building.
Durand explains that there is a reason why we can’t build mill buildings today because of the economy and the lack of skilled craftsmen. He adds that these buildings do not have brick walls, but veneer walls, but the details in this plan are effectively portraying the character of the old mill buildings. He cites the extensive brick corbelling and arched windows as beneficial to this design. He then explains that, when the budget is tight, these details might have to come out of the design, and the building ends up looking like an imitation mill building without any character. He expresses concern about this happening in this case.
Having expressed his concern, Durand states that he would like to know what the materials are, what the brick construction will be, what the material is on top of that, what the siding is on the residential section, and the materials of the stone walls.
Livermore states that he does not have anything to show the DRB today regarding the materials. He adds that the brick walls will not be 16-inch brick walls and although they intend to do some corbelling it will be fairly simple corbelling work.
Durand states that they can agree now that this will look like the current plan and have all of the corbelling shown, but what will happen when the economy does not allow them to do this, and the building ends up looking nothing like this. He states that it might end up looking like a cheap housing project. He cautions everyone that this may be the reality. He suggests addressing the economy in the initial design.
DeMaio suggests that the board point out exactly what it is that they would like to have in terms of materials and construction for this project.
Durand agrees but states that he is trying to provide full disclosure.
Much discussion ensues regarding this point.
Durand asks the budget of the building.
Livermore states that it is $15-16 million.
Much more discussion ensues regarding this point.
Blier states that there is a big improvement in this new plan because he addressed the scale, and now the site planning makes sense. He states that the massing is strong. He adds that it creates a sense of community in the streets and an opportunity to create some beautiful pedestrian ways. He suggests that he work on the screening for the parking lot.
Blier states that the last time Livermore was here, he presented a plan with buildings that could have been anywhere, and parking that separated the development from the canal, and a pedestrian path that took you around the back side of the building and up to the street. He goes on to acknowledge that Livermore has reversed those issues, and made a really strong connection to the park to the canal through the center of your project, and addressed the issue of scale along Mason Street. He adds that the overall design is vastly improved. Blier states that the typologies on the site are the gabled roofs and the mill buildings of this site’s history and that seems like a reasonable jumping off point. He adds that, from a site plan point of view, the ways that LIvermore dispersed the architecture
across the site seems to make sense, and the parking is in the back off to the side, and the smaller buildings are up behind and the mill buildings are close to the canal. He says that the massing is relatively strong. He commends Livermore’s design strategy that creates community streets. He says that if you have the mill building facing the mill building you think of mill yards, and you could integrate beautiful pedestrian ways and vehicular ways that share a certain kind of landscape. He continues by stating that the other streets are residential connectors, and the screening presents other issues because there is a lot of fence. He expresses his desire to also see the site plan, which would help the board determine whether or not that central street is ADA compliant, or where the stormwater is going, as well as some other systems.
Livermore states that they have held off designing some of the engineering issues for the site until they have an idea that they are going in the right direction.
Durand states that the massing has been handled fairly well, and Livermore did a good job transitioning from the old neighborhood into the new neighborhood. He acknowledges that there are a lot of good things happening from the site planning perspective.
Durand opens to the public.
Ana Gordon of 167 Federal Street agrees that the schematic is vastly improved over the previous one, but she expresses concern about the increase of traffic in the area. She says that she likes the concept of the street going through the development. She objects to the veneer aspect of the shell and is concerned about the transition on the corner of Building Two from the “residential” to the “industrial mill” image.
Jean Arlander at 93 Federal Street states her family has owned the property on Federal Street since 1818, and that the Federal Street residents view themselves as the stewards of the North River Canal. She makes the following points:
· The scale of this project is incongruous with the abutting historic neighborhoods, because it is too dense.
· Current density in this area is 8 units per acre, and the density being proposed is 130 units per 4.14 acres, which is 31.4 units per acre.
· She cites an example of density in the Jefferson Apartments at Salem Station, which has 14.69 acres and 266 units, which equals 18.11 units per acre.
· The Massachusetts Smart Growth Policy is 20 units per acre.
· The proposed density is 2.5 times the density permitted by the North River Canal Corridor, which is 1 unit per 3500 square feet.
· By right this property can have 52 units.
She suggests one solution would be to remove one floor from each building. She says that this is a mixed-use district, and she would like to see more commercial retail in the area because it would generate jobs and increase the tax base with less stress on the human resources in the city.
Betsy Burns of 22 Beckford Street states that the density is inappropriate for this area. She expresses concern about the traffic. She concludes by saying that all of the concern about the construction, materials, the traffic could be addressed by reducing the density. She asks if the parking lot is okay to have within the buffer.
Grover states that one of the conditions that was imposed with the special permit was that there would be limited activity within the buffer, and parking was allowed to be there.
Mary Whitney of Essex Street states that they are moving in the right direction, but it is still not in line with the vision of the master plan for the North River Canal Corridor. The vision was that at some point it would be pleasant to walk along the North River. She states that the project is too oversized, and the parking in the buffer is inappropriate. She adds that the pedestrian ways need work to look more attractive, and there is not an ample amount of green space on the site, and this will have a negative effect on the North River because the land slopes toward the river. She states that they need to look at the total effect on the North River profile, and that there should be more commercial use on this site. She requests an elevation depicting eye level views from the sidewalk and
would like to see a shadow study with the impact on the houses.
Emily Udy, representing Historic Salem Inc, states that this is precedent-setting, and agrees with the board members that they must pay attention to the materials. She says that Building Two should have a cohesive look on both sides. She explains that they are not necessarily looking for a project that looks historically accurate but one that responds intelligently to the context. Udy states that parking under Building Two with the columns looks bad, and if any thing in the landscape could shield that it would be good. Regarding the Mason Street buildings, Udy says that it is nice that those buildings can be seen from the street but the decks look bad and should be more like porches.
Nick Nowak of 356 Essex Street stresses the importance of the DRB’s vigilance in working with the project to ensure that the development conforms to the vision for the North River Canal Corridor.
Rich Laperchia of 7 and 9 Oak Street states that his concern for the building was the traffic, even though this plan has improved since the last time. He expresses concern about the Flint Street/Mason Street/Bridge Street traffic.
Cheryl Callaghan of 14 Oak Street states that these changes represent a large improvement and expresses concern about the traffic and emphasizes the importance of paying attention to the materials.
Mark Callaghan of 14 Oak Street expresses concern about the infrastructure surrounding the site, i.e., the water main, sewer line, and traffic.
Ward 6 City Councilor Paul Prevey of 26 Tremont Street states that he is opposed to the density of the project. His chief concern is the impact of the traffic. He acknowledges that, from a design standpoint, it is a vast improvement from where it was before. He commends Grover and Livermore for meeting with the community and making these changes. He states that he appreciates the board’s insight, and thanks the board and emphasizes the importance of making sure this project fits into the neighborhood without destroying the neighborhood.
City Councilor Steven Pinto of 55 Columbus Avenue states that the traffic issue was addressed and it was found that more commercial use creates more traffic. He states that the design has improved greatly. He states that he would like to see this project happen. He is hopeful that a design can be agree upon.
Grover states that this project is still in the middle of site plan review with the Planning Board and looking at some larger issues which will help the traffic in that area. He explains that the traffic experts are saying that this project will not add much to the traffic in this area. He requests that the board consider this plan in two phases, first the schematic approval and then the final design. He explains that hey have been at the Planning Board for 5 months so far.
Kennedy asks Daniel if he knows how they were approved for this density.
Daniel states that he doesn’t have the details of the Zoning Board hearings, but the decision from the Zoning Board allows for 130 units and 309 parking spaces.
Grover states that according to the zoning, if this were a commercial project, a building over 300,000 square feet could be built on that property by right.
Blier expresses concern about approving the schematic design without having seen any site plan.
Durand states that some of the concerns that were brought up tonight must be addressed before he can make a decision. He states that he has reservations about some of the issues that were discussed tonight. The other members agree.
Much discussion ensues regarding the nature of the information that is currently available vs. what will be needed to make a decision.
Durand cautions the public about having this development become too small because the quality will be poor, given the economics of the project.
Betsy Burns asks if scale is within the review purview of the DRB.
Durand responds that scale is within the DRB’s purview and adds that the proposal has very good scale. The proposed buildings meet other buildings well and the proposal works with the topography.
Grover says that the comments tonight have been extremely helpful.
Sides: Motion to continue this hearing until the next meeting, seconded by DeMaio. Passes 5-0.
| 
