CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: Wednesday, February 25, 2009
LOCATION: 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Conference Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, Helen Sides
MEMBERS ABSENT: David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy
OTHERS PRESENT: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
RECORDER: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Durand calls the meeting to order.
North River Canal Corridor Projects under Review
1. 72 Flint Street and 67-69 & 71 Mason Street (Riverview Place f/k/a Salem Suede): Discussion of proposed Schematic Design
Architect Steve Livermore presents the revised site plan stating he has reoriented the focus coming down the access road, and the terrace was moved over. He reminds the Board about the suggestion from Ed Nilsson pertaining to facilitating an increase in parking spaces in the garage. He confirms that he followed this suggestion by switching to flat plates with a central ramp which resulted in increasing the parking spaces to 252 spaces and reducing the surface parking to 38 cars.
Livermore reviews the recommendations from the last meeting, which are: (1) to modify the focus of the downhill side, and (2) to provide details for the Juliette balconies. In addition to these changes, he states that he removed the roof structure off of the top floor of the garage.
Livermore shows the color boards containing sample colors for brick veneer, stucco spandrels, sills, window frames and sub-frames, diamond aluminum shingles, and cornices. He shows the detail of the Juliette balconies, stating that they will be black, and that the gable will be in a hardy plank, and that trim and windows will be the same on all of the buildings. He shows the cream trim color and Harvard slate blend for the roof. He says that the rails on the residential building will be typical baluster rails.
Livermore shows the plan with Commercial Street going through the site along the canal.
He describes the revised parking scheme, confirming the reduction of surface parking down to 38 cars, with some near Flint Street, and with parking removed along the access drive and having only some recesses for drop off and short term parking on the central road so they can add street trees. He states that the queuing on the access to Flint Street is much better now.
Sides states that she is excited about the reduction in surface parking, she thanks them for that change.
DeMaio states that additional landscaping and the reduction in the paving is very helpful. He asks whether the garage would be accessed mainly from Mason Street or Flint Street.
Livermore states that it would probably be from Mason Street and there will be a left turn only out to Flint Street.
DeMaio states that the plan, pre-Commercial Street, seems like the terrace is not very well developed because of where it sits and how it relates to the rest of what is going on there. He adds that he thinks the color schemes are interesting but he would need to see elevations depicting the colors on the buildings.
Livermore states that the general colors are depicted in the rendering.
DeMaio states that there are some nagging issues down the road: (1) There is 5,000 square feet of commercial space in building #3 and there is no conviction as to why it is there because that is a residential building, and the mill building is a more commercial building.
Attorney Scott Grover states that it is there because zoning requires that there must be commercial space on the first floor of any building on a main corridor, so they did this to comply with the zoning.
Durand states that the goal is for the commercial tenants to be successful and there is not a bustling commercial use down any of these streets and Building #3 has more of a street presence.
Grover states that it is probably more likely to be used as office space.
Livermore states that they discussed having a gym for the residents and the neighbors in that space.
Durand speaks favorably about the commercial space in Building #3, stating commercial use would be viable there.
DeMaio states that if he were driving through the site looking for a commercial site he would be looking for a mill building.
Durand states that a resident would like to live in a mill building because it would be cool space and the zoning is in place to provide more commercial vibrancy.
DeMaio continues with his concerns: (2) Regarding the future scheme, he states that the access drive to Flint is about 60 feet from where Commercial Street will meet Flint Street and this could create a traffic problem.
Durand states that the traffic issue could be worked on at the time that Commercial Street comes in. He agrees with DeMaio that there would be a potential traffic problem if the access drive stays where it is, but he suggests that the access drive could come down directly into Commercial Street.
DeMaio states that this is still an unresolved issue for him.
Durand states that he can see a possible solution without too much mental gymnastics, and it is resolvable, and at the time, the onus would be on the developers to resolve the potential traffic problems.
DeMaio states that the scheme as it is presented now would present problems for a future Commercial Street, and he would not want the access to go to Flint Street if the Commercial Street intersection is only 60 feet away.
Livermore states that the Planning Board would require a traffic study at the time that Commercial Street were extended.
DeMaio continues: (3) The plan presupposes that there will not be pedestrian access on the north side of Commercial Street.
Livermore states that they based this on having some walking surface right next to the canal, and the fencing that they are showing is theoretical if Commercial Street is added.
DeMaio recommends they do not create barriers that prevent pedestrian access to the north side of Commercial Street.
Sides asks about the parking to access the commercial spaces in Building #3.
Livermore states that there will be some spaces in the garage reserved for use by the commercial unit.
Blier commends Livermore for adjusting the parking and incorporating more into the garage. He states that removing the parking near the canal is good, and the connection of the walkways is well done. He notes his lingering concern about the density issue. He expresses some concern about the riverside being a one-sided street in the future, and having much of the landscaping removed for the addition of Commercial Street. He accepts that this rendering is not actually the proposal.
Durand confirms that the developer does not need to design it now but to design the current plan in a way that will allow for Commercial Street to happen in the future.
Blier agrees and states that this Board and other Boards will have an opportunity to review this design later.
Durand says that Building #1 might need to be cut back a little to allow more latitude for Commercial Street to happen if it is to be developed as a boulevard.
Durand states that he appreciates Livermore’s response to all of the comments from the Board. While acknowledging that there will be differences on the philosophy of the aesthetic, he confirms that he still wants quality, and density provides a means to afford quality. He adds that the renderings allude to the quality. He states that in the event of the road being designed, the only obstacle is that narrow throat at the corner of Building #1.
Livermore states that he sees that being similar in set-back to the church on North Street, and in the context of an urban village, even in the master plan, a lot of the buildings look like they are right on the street. He adds that the jutting corner might be very striking on Commercial Street. He says he can measure it and get the dimension.
Blier says that he never suggested a suburban landscape, and that was Livermore’s choice.
Durand states that they wanted the landscaping so that the scale would not look imposing on the surrounding neighborhood.
Livermore says he can try to pull that corner back and Durand says that it would be good if he can.
Durand states that it is nicer to have some separation between traffic and people at that point.
Blier states that the jutting corner is not a big deal for him because it is a relatively urban space, but he is concerned about all of the stuff that will happen between the building and the street to achieve the landscaping.
Much discussion ensues regarding the Commercial Street possibility as it pertains to the landscaping.
Daniel clarifies that plan with Commercial Street extension has the walkway on top of the riprap.
Sides states that there is a lot of attention being paid to this one corner and this scenario exists all over the city and she is not sure how critical it really is, but in a relative sense the people on that corner would feel closer to the street than the other residents.
Durand opens to the public.
Shelby Hypes of 157 Federal Street asks about the gray diamonds.
Livermore states that they are 16”x16” diamond aluminum shingles with an enamel finish. He reviews the other items on the color board.
Jean Arlander of 91-93 Federal Street expresses concern about the design. She commends DeMaio’s early comments about how this project should harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood. She says that the size of this building is huge and the density has dictated the size, and this design does not permit any additional views of the river from the earlier designs. She adds that the inspiration has not changed, because the density is the same. She asks if this project will make things better for the people living in the development or for any neighbors. She answers her own question with “No.”
Darrow Lebovici of 122 Federal Street expresses concern about the density of this project. He urges the board to accept that they have done their best but it is not good enough given the density and suggests the DRB should recommend that that the Planning Board deny this application, or recommend a different design, or at the very least he urges that any recommendation include specific language describing the detrimental impact and limitations of design imposed by density, and the negative impacts (general and specific) in terms of the master plan.
William Penta of 89 Flint Street expresses concerns about the additional traffic that will be attracted to the area by this development. He says that if it becomes a through street it will be unsafe.
Livermore responds stating that this design vastly improves the view to the river from anywhere on Flint Street and Mason Street.
The developer states that they are getting veiled complements for the addition of parking spaces in the garage. He commends all of the Boards that they have gone through, and states that every time they come back they come back with an added cost.
Grover takes issue with the comments that this is not consistent with the master plan for the North River Canal. He reads the master plan objectives for projects in the district and states that they have met all of these objectives except creating artist spaces (although the commercial space could be used this way). He states that they have worked very hard to make this proposal consistent with the master plan.
Durand speaks at length summarizing the progress that the Board and the developer have made with this design, stating that they brought this along in a linear fashion with the criticism and responses, and they have come a long way. He acknowledges that they talked about density and quality, and assured that this project will be detailed in a quality manner. He explains that this process is in the schematic stage now and will be further evaluated when they move to the next stage. He says that aesthetics are subjective, and they have come a long way. He explains that many issues expressed by the public are Planning Board issues and this Board will deal only in aesthetic issues, and he will rely on the Planning Board to work on traffic and other issues in their purview. He acknowledges that it
has been a constructive process, and although there are differences of opinion, he agrees with Grover that the applicant has met all of the Board’s comments right down to the minutia. He confirms that his one comment was only to address the tight corner at Building #1 but he doesn’t have any objection to having an urban feel, so he is okay with this design. He iterates that there are technical issues that they can still review on the next stage. He recommends that the Board move forward with this, either approve it or continue it. He requests a motion from the Board.
Blier agrees that this project should move forward, and asks if there are specific recommendations that need to be listed.
There is some discussion about the way the motion can be crafted.
Grover clarifies that the project must be built in strict accordance with these plans.
Blier: Motion to approve the schematic design as submitted, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
Approval of Minutes – February 4, 2009 Meeting
The members review the minutes and make suggestions for amendments.
Sides: Motion to approve the minutes as amended for the February 4, 2009 meeting, seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0.
Sides: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 7:30 PM.
| 
