CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: Wednesday, February 4, 2009
LOCATION: 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Conference Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith, Helen Sides
MEMBERS ABSENT: Glenn Kennedy
OTHERS PRESENT: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
RECORDER: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Durand calls the meeting to order.
Jaquith is present only for the approval of the Metro PCS signage and the approval of the minutes.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
1. 221 Washington Street (Metro PCS): Discussion of proposed signage
Jim Butler from Amerisign presents the proposal for the sign stating that it is a plain sign, which will be placed flat against the wall, fastened with drop hangers, made of aluminum, with a 1x1 aluminum frame, and the letters will be in vinyl, and it will be unlit. He adds that it is a national logo sign, and the background is blue.
Blier asks why there are two signs, and Butler states that it is because there originally were two stores in that building.
Daniel states that there are three entrances doors, two of which are used.
Sides asks which one is the entry and Butler presumes that it is the middle door.
Butler states that the vinyl lettering will be ¼ inch deep and mounted on foam tape or silicone.
The members express concern about the location of the signs.
DeMaio agrees that there should not be two equal logos and suggests that, with the one on the right, the blue band extend the whole length of the signs. He adds that the blue is not part of the sign square footage.
Jaquith confirms that by right he is allowed to have two signs.
Butler suggests having all blue on the right so there would be no gray, and on the left there would be blue with no copy on it.
Daniel confirms that they are taking all three storefronts.
Durand states that there are a few ways to do this, and if there is some unifying blue background it would appear more contiguous. He also suggests doing something on the glass.
DeMaio asks if this is the only signage that they are requesting or will they come back to request additional signage.
Butler says that he doesn’t believe they will come back but they might post hours and numbers on the door.
DeMaio states that any additional signage for the doors or the glass should be presented tonight. As an alternative, he suggests that the board approve this tonight while specifying that there will not be any additional signage on the glass or elsewhere. DeMaio adds that fastening materials should be painted to match the sign.
Butler clarifies that he will use drop hangers, which will be hidden. He shows a detail of the fasteners.
The members agree to fill the right side with all blue.
Sides states that the dimension of the blue should be equal in height throughout the sign.
Blier states that the data that carries across should be consistent.
Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed signage at 221 Washington Street with the following conditions:
- the blue colored panels shall be installed across all three storefronts at the same elevation and be 34” high;
- there shall only be one sign and it shall be located above the main entrance;
- the sign lettering shall be raised off the panel; and
- the applicant will need to submit a new sign permit application if they decide to add window lettering.
The motion is seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0.
North River Canal Corridor Projects under Review
2. 72 Flint Street and 67-69 & 71 Mason Street (Riverview Place f/k/a Salem Suede): Discussion of proposed Schematic Design
Scott Grover, Representing River Place, LLC, states that the design team has worked diligently to address the concerns from the board.
Chris Huntress presents the landscape plan. He states that many changes have been made and he reviews these changes. On the main boulevard from Mason Street down to the river, he states that they have changed the pavement material to crushed granite, and added a curb line that wraps and returns to define the pedestrian area and break down some of the scale. He adds that streetlights will line the path and they added a terrace at the end with benches and streetlights, and a sidewalk along the edge of the river.
For the area in back of building #2, Huntress states that there was some concern about the view, so they made a minor realignment along the entry drive to gain a 12 foot landscape buffer. He explains that there is now one garage entrance along the back of the building where there previously had been individual garage entrances, and the balance of the building has been given over to landscaping material. He states that the trash dumpster has been eliminated from building #2, and the remaining dumpsters will be screened.
Huntress states there is a possibility of curb returns and they can reconfigure the area to tie into Commercial Street.
DeMaio asks if there is a recorded map that shows where the future location of Commercial Street is. He wonders how Commercial Street would go by the corner of one of the buildings. He confirms that this is something that the board has been asking for since day one. He adds that the extension of Commercial Street, whether it happens immediately of not, is a big part of the plan.
DeMaio explains that there are several issues to be considered: (1) the issue of physically getting the street to fit, and (2) how will that look, and where the walkways and benches will be, and how that will relate to the canal. He states that there needs to be some thought as to how that will be done in the future, should Commercial Street be extended.
Huntress indicates the line on the plan and states that it is a future curb line and there is landscape and walkways on both sides of what will be Commercial Street. He adds that the plan would be to have those walkways remain if Commercial Street is constructed.
DeMaio asks how they will connect to abutters. He clarifies that there will be a walkway at least along the waterside.
Huntress states that there will be a sidewalk that will connect all the way down Commercial Street.
DeMaio asks if there will be a walkway on the opposite side of Commercial Street connecting all of the properties on Commercial Street.
Huntress points to the walkway and states that the walkway extended on the opposite side.
Much discussion ensues regarding about Commercial Street.
DeMaio clarifies that he asked them for a plan that shows what this development would look like with the existence of Commercial Street. He cites the specifications of the Master Plan.
Blier agrees that it would be clearer for the board to see a plan that shows the existence of Commercial Street.
Durand states that this connection may not be something that is very desirable, because he sees it as a cut-through, and that is not what the board wants. He adds that it is really tight and it might look encroached upon.
DeMaio agrees that it might be too tight. He asks if those trees will be able to survive being that close to a roadway.
Blier confirms that they are maple trees.
Huntress states that the trees could survive beside the roadway.
There is discussion about the possible construction method for the road.
Blier clarifies that they would benefit by having an actual drawing of the roadway.
DeMaio states that the mater plan defines the space between the canal and the surrounding neighborhood to serve as a catalyst for development of this district in the future. He adds that it is imperative to consider how that connection may be made even if it is years off. He explains that he is not looking for a completed plan, but something that shows the relationship between the road and the existing buildings, and he is still skeptical that the final version of this will be successful.
Huntress clarifies that the pedestrian walkway would be on the canal side of the street. He adds that this would fit fine if developed similar to what has been built elsewhere.
Livermore states that the design of the building takes into account the existence of Commercial Street and it will work well if they sheet pile near it.
Sides states that she is not so worried about the proximity of that building, and the bigger issue is the amount of building there is on this site, as it is incredibly dense.
Blier states that the street edge with maples and spruce in between creates a mass, and on the other hand on Flint Street the landscaping creates a thick dark edge, so they could add another maple there to set up a cadence. He adds that the fronting in front of the parking bays is a big improvement. He says that the connection along the pedestrian way to the canal should be as clear as the connection is to Mason Street.
Blier describes the feel of each pathway and states that upon entering the pathway to the water “you hit a wall” and it doesn’t make a clear connection. He adds that they are almost there and they need to take this a bit further. He suggests organizing the trees differently. He asks if there was ever a sidewalk connection to the vehicular route off of Mason down into the site.
Livermore states that there was not and the intent would be for a different pedestrian connection. He indicates the place for that on the plan.
Blier states that he shares Helen’s nagging concern about density.
The discussion returns to the Commercial Street possibility.
Durand states that the extension of Commercial Street might cause a traffic problem, but they will consider that issue at a later time. In the meantime the board still needs to see a plan of the project with the existence of Commercial Street.
DeMaio states that it was the intention of the plan to have more commercial space on the ground floor and residential space above. He cites the master plan, and states that limited commercial space is in Building #3 and that makes very little sense to him, because he is seeing Commercial Street as the possible main corridor in the future.
Edward Nilsson of 262 Essex Street, a member of Historic Salem, Inc., expresses concern about the density, and the lack of open space. He suggests changing the floor in the parking garage from sloped floors to flat floors in order to fit 258 cars in the garage, and 55 cars could be removed from the left hand corner of the property so that the area could become green space.
Durand states that he believes his plan would help. He asks Olson if he designed this and Olson says yes.
DeMaio states that if the parking were no longer surface parking the question would be how would one access the garage. He asks if that would encourage people to access the garage on Mason Street as opposed to Flint Street.
There is much discussion on this point and Durand states that they should look at this.
Mary Whitney of 356 Essex Street states that there is a lot of roof space and if the roof is flat they could put green space on the roof.
Steve Livermore presents the changes to the architecture, stating that pages 6 and 7 contain the basic changes made since the last meeting. He says that they have added detail sheets in response to Durand’s concerns about how they would build this design. He adds that they included the details for the screening on the flat roofs.
Livermore describes the following changes that have been made to the plans:
- The terra cotta colored stucco will be used on building #1 for the chimney forms, the spandrills on the brick part of the building below the top of the building, and on the garage elevations on the north side and east side.
- They maintained arch windows on the brick buildings and eliminated the arches on all of the windows on the shingle and clapboard buildings.
- In an effort to eliminate service dumpsters, the have gone to an internal trash room on buildings #1 and #2. They still have one service dumpster in the back corner of the garage in building #1.
- They added 7 spaces to the parking garage to increase the landscape material on the Flint Street side.
- Building #2 will have stucco chimneys and spandrills.
- They added an internal 20-car parking garage on Building #2, to eliminate the open line of parking on the Flint Street side.
- In the lobby of Building #3, an elevator will provide handicapped pedestrian access from Mason Street down into the site.
- Steps are added to the Mason Street side of Building #3.
Blier questions the elevator access into the site.
Livermore states that this is the solution to the problem of accommodating handicapped access into the site.
Blier asks if this means that the lobby will always be open to the public.
Livermore states that they haven’t considered this and perhaps the lobby will be locked during late night hours.
Blier asks what the grade change is there and Livermore states that it will be about 7-8 feet so the ramp system would be extensive.
Sides asks about trash pick-up.
Livermore explains that in Building #1 there will be trash shoot into a central trash collection area.
Sides asks how they would use this system for recycling.
Livermore says that there might be a small area on each floor for the recycling to be picked up. He adds that the trash room would be on the lowest level. He adds that they have changed the color schemes to be neutral. He explains that the renderings are illustrated from the pedestrian point of view.
Sides states that the elevator idea seems like a disaster because she can’t imagine how it will be maintained.
Livermore states that the alternative would be to have a lift or an 80-90 foot ramp.
Durand opens to the public.
Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street wonders what this site will look like from Bridge Street.
Livermore calls attention to the renderings that illustrate the view from Bridge Street.
Durand states that he would like to see more detail on the Juliette balconies. He asks about the color of the metal shingles.
Livermore states that they will be gray.
Durand states that he would like a sample of that.
Livermore states that the Salem Oil and Grease has some metal shingles that are similar to the ones that he will use.
Durand explains that he has always asked that they diagram the quality of the aesthetics, and Livermore has done that. He adds that in light of the economy he wonders if this will be a phased project.
Livermore states that it will not be phased.
Durand asks if there will be a back-up plan for phasing this if it cannot be completed.
The developer states that he can phase it if he has to.
Durand clarifies that there will be parameters set for phasing if that must happen. He iterates that he would like to see samples of materials and window colors.
DeMaio states that he appreciates the work that has been done on Building #2 in bringing the massing of the building down to grade. He expresses concern about the metal shingles, citing the master plan, which stipulates natural materials.
Livermore says that he can provide some photographs.
DeMaio states that the key is that the building not appear metallic. He says there might be too many materials used in this project, and that it is important that they insure that there is cohesiveness of this design.
Livermore states that he has changed the surfaces so they don’t abut one another.
Sides says that she likes the juxtaposition of the materials.
Livermore states that he has oversized the cornices to create shadow lines.
Blier asks how the parking garages will be ventilated.
Livermore states that the windows will be open to meet the code requirement for an open garage.
Blier states that the porches on the Mason Street side of the building now look more like porches instead of decks.
DeMaio states that the screens on the roof should match the height of the equipment.
Livermore states that they are about 4 feet tall.
Durand suggests that they summarize the requests that have been made.
Daniel lists the following items:
- Provide details on the Juliette balcony.
- Provide identification of materials and colors, a color board.
- Provide an illustration of the proposed development of Commercial Street.
- Explore using a flat floor in the parking garage as a way to provide additional parking.
Sides: Motion to continue this item until the next meeting, seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0.
Alternate Meeting Date
Daniel suggests moving the April meeting up one week to the 15th and the members agree.
Approval of Minutes – January 8, 2009 Meeting
Sides: Motion to approve the minutes from January 8, 2009, seconded by DeMaio. Passes 5-0.
Sides: Motion to adjourn, seconded by DeMaio. Passes 4-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 8:00 PM.
| 
