City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday February 24, 2010, at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides
Members Absent:
Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chairperson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects under Review
- 72 Washington Street (Crunchy Granola Baby): Discussion of proposed signage
Jennie Cudmore presents proposed signage. She would like to move the proposed decal to the door. She also feels that the existing signage blends into the building and would like to redo the sign but use the existing sign board and bracket. Durand solicits comments from the Board.
Discussion ensues about the placement of the decal on the door; DeMaio and Kennedy feel that it should be shifted to the right in order to appear balanced in the window.
There are some questions as to the font and logo on the new sign – the logo is new and darker, and the font is more weighted and darker. Some Board members question the weight of the rule around the sign. Cudmore says she wants to make the sign stand out since people don’t see it, but Kennedy points out that the rule outweighs her logo; he suggests cutting the rule in half and weighting the font a bit more. That will keep the definition of the sign and people will notice it, not the rule. As for the hardware, the Board would like to see it painted black.
DeMaio: Motion to approve, on condition that hardware be black, seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0.
- 155 Washington Street (Adriatic): Discussion of proposed signage
Martin and Eljonida Kurti are present; Martin presents. Kurti describes the canopy sign and the color of the wall letters and window panels. He discusses colors with Kennedy.
Helen Sides arrives 6:25PM.
Blier asks how the canopy sign is to be mounted; Kurti replies it will be applied to the brick not the fascia board. He says he can’t work with the fascia board as it’s made of steel; the lights on either side are existing.
DeMaio likes the graphics and opines that the corner sign could be larger than it is – the scale is small and color scheme muted so they could be 25% larger; Kurti says it can’t be bigger due to space constraints.
David Jaquith arrives 6:32PM.
DeMaio thinks letters should be spaced a bit for better impact. Kennedy questions the color of the type for “Adriatic” and wonders if it’s too delicate for the type and perhaps they should make the type brown like other signage. DeMaio likes the wave/green. Kennedy thinks the Adriatic letters should be brown on the letter edge.
Kurti says the logo is gold/green and so he wants to continue the theme. Durand goes back to bolting to the brick—he feels that the sign is too low and asks if it could be made higher. Kurdi says he can raise it a few inches; Durand suggests that, and Kennedy agrees and asks if the existing bracket is being removed. Kurti responds that it is.
Daniel asks about color 4265 (old) vs. 2184 (new). Kennedy asks for confirmation if they are the same or different colors (replacing 4265 or using a different color). Kennedy wants Kurti to keep it consistent on the fascia board and on the sign plate at the bottom of the canopy sign. Blier is concerned with the mount—in attempting to align the bottom of the arching piece, he feels it creates an optical problem, and feels like it’s squatting on the door above the lights. He suggests it would be more visually present if the horizontal line between two were higher.
Kurti says it may not be possible; Durand suggests how to do it with a bracket. Blier compliments the sign design – Front Street has great signs and Adriatic extends it to Washington Street. Kurti discusses the bracket with DeMaio, who reiterates that they want the canopy sign higher if possible. Jaquith agrees with Kennedy on the color of the letters and asks what’s holding the dot on “i.” Kurti says it’s attached to the wall with a pin that’s invisible.
Kennedy: Motion to approve with lifting the sign up as far as possible and confirming that the color of the type is all consistent (either 2184 or 4265), seconded by Jaquith. Passes 6-0.
- 221 Essex Street (Mud Puddle Toys): Discussion of proposed signage, replacement windows, and new entrance
John Seger, Architect, and Sam Pollard present.
Seger outlines changes to the entrance; currently there’s a common entrance to the building, and he would like to create a separate, new entrance for the new retail space, as well as replacing glazing. A center bay would create a double door storefront with side lights and granite flooring for the entrance.
There are accessibility issues due to a difference of 2” in grade from the floor to the outside—the pavers can be reset to create a crown in front of the entrance and create an unnoticeable, gradual slope.
The glazing will be replaced with clear glass to draw in pedestrians. Seger also outlines some corrections to the drawing having to do with the grade/slope.
Durand wants to make sure that the slope doesn’t create problems for passing pedestrians. Seger compares it to Salem Five’s entrance and states that pedestrians do not have a problem there.
Durand doesn’t like the tonality of the storefront, opining that stark black and white is disturbing. He would like to see the panels toned down with different colors; Seger says they can’t redo the entire storefront but can repaint the panels if needed. The frames will stay the same. He feels that gold on black lettering for the top panels works but wonders about the bottom.
Debate ensues over the lettering and whether it should match the lettering already existing on the building or go off in an entirely different direction, given the “playful” nature of the business that is moving in. Three strategies are mentioned: using signage in the same spirit of the original, using complementary signage, or doing some hybrid. DeMaio opines that Pollard is trying to do both and it doesn’t work. The blade sign doesn’t relate to anything else on the façade, and it should be a totally branded idea. What Pollard does should be reflected in his signage.
DeMaio also doesn’t like the location of the blade sign and how it floats – it should be mounted more solidly or, if left floating, be more playful as it has no relation to anything. The signage design should be viewed as a whole, not separate elements.
Discussion ensues about the character of the signage and how it should be playful, but tempered; the store is set between serious buildings and needs to balance that. Some suggestions are made for the sign, such as putting “toys” in a more vintage font and making certain aspects of it have depth/dimension. Sides comments that consistency between the wall and blade signs is desirable, but there should be differentiation between the old, historic sign and the new one. The bank sign is the brand for the building; Pollard’s is the brand for his business.
Blier clarifies the material of the grilles – anodized aluminum – which is easily painted. He also points out the granite band in front of the door, and requests that Pollard use this line as a transition. He suggests going all the way to the line, without stopping before it.
There is a bit more discussion on painting the storefront and the panels.
Kennedy suggests separating the storefront from the signage. He would like to approve structural changes, and come back later for the signs. Seger needs to proceed to the SRA with the storefront so Pollard can open for business.
Sides: Motion to approve the storefront and continue discussion of signage and colors, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 6-0.
- 281 Essex Street (Coven): Discussion of proposed signage
DeMaio recuses himself because he’s an abutter and leaves the room.
Jennifer Vourlos and Robert Treeza are present. Vourlos leads the presentation.
Vourlos notes that the blade sign proposal mailed to the Board has been revised. There is a new design which she shows to the Board on her cell phone.
Durand says the bracket should match the “In Shape” bracket with a simple square rod. Vourlos says the rolling pin will be three dimensional; Kennedy suggests putting a cream tone in it. Durand requests documents showing these changes and says there’s a public concern; Vourlos passes her phone around to the audience. Durand requests a printed copy for the records.
Steven Fisher and Carol Moore, who live above the proposed café, are interested members of the public and view the sign.
Discussion ensues about the sign itself, with some suggestions. The letters should be in small caps, not all caps, and the dimensionality on the rolling pin would be good. The Board likes the rule around the sign.
Kennedy asks if the window decal is a final design; Vourlos says yes but it will be on another window. Kennedy likes the concept but doesn’t think the girl logo needs type. There are questions about where the decal will be, as the window will be filled with product. Kennedy opines that the font should be removed or changed to give the decal a retro feel that Vourlos wants rather than a “cartoon” feel.
Blier doesn’t approve of the decal – he doesn’t find it inviting. Kennedy says they can review the blade sign tonight then come back to the next meeting with the window decal. Kennedy will be delegated to work on the sign so they can open on time, but Vourlos will need to come back with a new decal proposal.
Kennedy: Motion to approve the blade sign subject to review and approval of the revisions by Kennedy and to continue the window decal to a future meeting, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.
The discussion is opened to public comments.
Steven Fisher and Carol Moore, who live near the shop, don’t approve of the decal, stating that it doesn’t fit in with the historical character of the neighborhood. Sides reiterates that Vourlos will have to re-do it and re-submit the proposal.
Mary Whitney, Essex Street. She also questions the decal and the approval process; it is again reiterated that Vourlos will be re-submitting it, and the temporary decal can stay.
Dave Pelletier, Crombie Street. He comments that they should go the same route as the Salem Chamber did with a paper sign in the window. Keep it there until they come up with a proposal the Board agrees with.
- 87 Washington Street (Green Land Café): Discussion of proposed signage
Paul Bolden leads the discussion.
Bolden had previously had a design approved by the Board but wants to make modifications to the blade sign, as the original had too much of an “old tavern” feel. This is the same size but more simple, and he would like comments.
Jaquith approves of the new sign. Sides likes it but questions the “café” typeface at the bottom. Kennedy likes different typeface. Sides asks if the sign should be black or really dark green. Others like the black. DeMaio also likes it but asks about the sign on the glass in the rear. Can Bolden incorporate the thin line that holds it together onto window graphic? Bolden responds yes.
Kennedy: Motion to approve, seconded by Sides. Passes 6-0.
North River Canal Corridor Projects under Review
- 401 Bridge Street (Gateway Center): Discussion of proposed Schematic Design
Harry Gundersen and Joe Correnti present.
Gundersen introduces the team: David Sweetser of High Rock and Joe Correnti, legal counsel. He presents a slide show and states that the focus tonight will be on the actual building in the areas of: massing, corner, location of senior center, relationship to neighborhood, historical context, and atrium.
Massing: Issues stem from the setup of the long, narrow site with the preference for placing the building along the street and at the corner. This makes it difficult for people to get to the entrance from the far end of the parking lot. This proposal shows the main entrance in the center of the site. The eastern end is four stories; the western part is two stories with the health club on the first floor. He states that one building is preferable to two since on a site like this, the “rear” building is always viewed as less desirable. Options are to have part of it four stories and the other part two, or all a three-story building, but that would make it very long and less interesting.
Corner: Gundersen questions the need for a feature such as a pedestrian plaza, fountain, or sculpture, on the corner. Since the building has four “fronts” and no official “back door” it would be difficult to situate that and indicate a main entrance. The corner will never be the “front door” and there really won’t be any pedestrians on Boston and Bridge Street. So there is no reason for an “event’ on the corner; the design is an understated introduction to the rest of the building, which will have a scale similar to that of the South Harbor garage.
Location: Again, each façade is “front.” The ground floor “real” front is the parking lot side. With the senior center on the east side, the atrium in the middle, and the health club on the west, the main entrance into the senior center will be from the parking lot.
Neighborhood historical context: Gundersen describes the history of the site from industrial times when it was occupied by the Sylvania buildings. His plan is to draw on those, especially the High Grade Lamp building, as those reflect the history of the site. It is not really part of the McIntire Historic District. He reassures the Board that the proportion of the building will be appropriate and high quality materials will be used.
Atrium: Gundersen states that since in New England outdoor space is not utilized in late fall/winter/early spring, it was not incorporated into the plan; instead this atrium was. It can be used year round, and will be adjacent to the senior center. It will face south and have lots of glass/natural light, will have a food component to it, and will serve as a lobby space for upstairs offices. A bridge through the atrium is a necessity to connect the second floor from the senior center side of the building to the health club side. The bridge will allow for vertical modulation of the space, as high spaces can be “echoy” and cold; putting something in at a lower level with seating underneath makes it more inviting.
Gundersen stops there to get comments, as the Board must agree on the massing of the building before moving on.
Jaquith: Says there’s not much of a massing issue but doesn’t think they have to worry about people walking 800’ to the corner of the building. He doesn’t have a problem with two and four floors but thinks the corner doesn’t seem right. It should have an image of being a corner. He agrees that a sculpture and plaza don’t work but thinks there will be more pedestrians than Gundersen thinks.
Durand weighs in and summarizes the description. Gundersen claims there will be some parking confusion. Jaquith doesn’t like how the buildings join via the atrium.
Debate ensues over activity at the health club, and what will happen when it’s no longer there. Gundersen comments that there are separate entrances to the senior center and health club not in the atrium. Health club members will probably not go through the atrium.
Durand questions the entrance on the east end of the building – is it too plain? That is where the majority of the office employees will be entering, yet the main entrance is in the atrium in the middle, so they will feel far away from the entrance/exit. He fells the atrium is contrived.
DeMaio questions having one building, and Gundersen reiterates that the “rear” building, if there are two, is less desirable. He reminds the Board that they could move it to the middle of the site and horseshoe it with parking but the goal is to have the building on the corner.
Discussion continues about massing and some question whether it should be flipped with the four story part on the corner of the site. Other parking strategies are discussed.
Joe Correnti requests clarification on the concept of a “buffer” and it is explained that it’s more than just distance; it’s an effective screen, preferably of tall, dense landscaping. In this case the issues include not limiting the parking and the difference in grade between the site and Federal Street.
DeMaio thinks that having dimension isn’t enough, and that the quality of the buffer at Federal Street matters more, but wonders why they should deviate from the master plan buffer zone requirements. He raises the issue of precedents being set.
The discussion returns to massing and concern about the gateway. Concerns are also voiced about the elevators (three grouped together are better than two in one place and one in another) and Durand outlines different ideas for layout and parking. He believes that Gundersen should match the building to how people behave, not the other way around.
DeMaio goes back to the master plan with its ideals of an urban village and making connections. The building should unify what’s happening in the neighborhood not the building and parking area. No connections are made to the neighborhood with the street sides of the building. The building occupies the corner but its focus is not about that edge—it’s about the edge that abuts the parking lot.
Durand points out that “mythical pedestrians” aren’t there because there’s nothing there now—we need to draw them in and invite other developments. If you restrict them to the corner they will never happen.
Kennedy agrees with flipping the massing of the project. Durand reiterates that it has to be about people – and gives the example of the parking garage in Lynn which is not about people. You have to bring people to a successful development, with accommodations to cars and parking.
There is more debate about the flexibility of the health club/retail area along with the parking lot and atrium and possibilities for flipping the massing. Durand also questions the building’s relationship to the neighborhood and its context with regards to industrial vs. residential history of the area.
Durand opens to the public.
Jim Treadwell, North Salem—He states that the master plan served as the basis for zoning. He attended the Planning Board meeting and heard that seniors will demand 150-200 parking spaces but did not know how they arrived at that figure. The lot will be maintained/plowed by the city and will be identifiable space. He also comments on the green space in the master plan and quotes the language regarding the buffer zone, which states the buffer zone is an area where no construction/destruction of land shall take place, it is a 50’ buffer from residential parcel, and it must include landscaping to shield abutting residential properties.
He also quotes the master plan in its desire to create activity and install a pedestrian signal to help pedestrians cross to Dunkin’ Donuts. He reiterates the master plan’s goals for the North River area revitalization. Design goals include: a building close to the street and improvements to the sidewalk along the streets. This plan does not provide for a pedestrian plaza or a gateway feature celebrating entry into downtown.
Dorothy Hayes, Essex Street—She is concerned that the design is not in keeping with the area and could have more character; one possibility would be to play off the three older houses left. She would like to see reorganization with green space included for seniors and says that “form follows function.”
David Pelletier, 12 Crombie Street—He sees a lack of imagination on solving that corner. He says the building looks “like something thrown up on 128.” In the slide presentation, the architect didn’t show the building that used to be on the corner of Washington and Essex (a chipped corner building), which really completed the square. He thought that was an interesting Salem design that no longer exists but could be resurrected. He also suggests other ideas are to put a large building on the corner and rework the parking lot. He says not to wall off the sidewalk from the public so you have to walk all the way around.
He also comments on the need for a “Salem vernacular” storefront and agrees with considering future uses of the health club site: perhaps a Trader Joe’s? There must be more creativity, more green, and not just use of non-building space for parking alone. He suggests looking at the tree screen in front of the oil tank farm by the power plant. It would look nice from the street and be welcoming to pedestrians even if there’s a parking lot behind the trees. He suggests instead of an atrium, a pull-in off of Boston Street so people can be like they’re in front of a hotel. He suggests having an arch like Rowe’s Wharf in Boston. He states that there will never be enough parking spaces so don’t worry about it. This could be a modern interpretation of Salem heritage with a chipped corner.
It would be cost-effective, functional yet aesthetic. He also suggests that people will cut from Boston to Bridge behind the building so there should be a defined walkway for people, also to slow down traffic.
Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street—He stated he had spoken to Meg Twohey. They like the way the building is proposed—going up from west to east—since even though it may not be part of the Federal Street neighborhood, it goes up like the neighborhood. His sense is the building doesn’t have a theme that brings it together and suggests a clock tower or nautical theme – have a theme that says “Salem” instead of “building” so that it fits and works visually. People will do what they do and park where they need to go, but the building should sell itself by making a statement not of what but of where it is.
Alexa Ogno, 182 Federal Street—She suggests putting the senior center on corner so there’s always life in that corner.
Emily Udy, Phelps Street Representing Historic Salem—She feels like many of their concerns have been covered. She understands that the appropriate style is contemporary but can take local cues. For example, the brick residential buildings on Boston Street have a vertical element that breaks up the horizontal. She will have more comments as the design progresses.
Mary Whitney, Essex Street—She is disappointed that the presentation was a response to comments but was a justification to keep things as they are. Jaquith agrees the proposal hasn’t changed and that is because they wanted to have a more thorough discussion of the issues first. Whitney states her concern that history goes further than the industrial era– why emulate a previous building when there is blank slate? There are people who live across the street; she’s one of the “mythical pedestrians.” Bridge Street is not walkable – it is completely given over to cars and that’s what this site is designed for. Many seniors do walk to the center. She doesn’t agree with the atrium taking the place of green space. Also, there needs to be “life at eye level” –
how the building fits on the site and is integrated to the surroundings.
Alexa Ogno speaks again, and asks if there are residential plans for the Flynn Tan and other sites. She is told that there are. Residential developments will be on the “backside” of the building as it is now. She points out that there will be more human/pedestrian activity on the Bridge Street side eventually.
Joe Correnti asks how the neighbors who live at grade feel. Would they want to look at a four-story building? The developer spent five months with the Federal Street Neighborhood Association to incorporate their input. Should they get input on flipping the massing? Durand says all sides should be considered and balanced. Those who live near it do have weight, but the review is for the city as a whole.
Durand says that the DRB is advisory yet wants a thoughtful response to concerns that arise.
DeMaio points out that flipping the massing is not the only answer.
Sides: Motion to continue, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 6-0.
Approval of Minutes—December 22, 2009 and January 27, 2010 regular meetings.
Minutes from December 22, 2009
Jaquith: Motion to approve the minutes from December 22, 2009, seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0 (Durand abstains as he was not present at that meeting).
Minutes from January 27, 2010
DeMaio comments that some of his statements from the previous minutes are incorrect (those regarding the budget for the building, the health club and the atrium) and clarifies what he meant.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the minutes as corrected from January 27, 2010, seconded by Sides. Passes 6-0.
Adjournment
Sides: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Blier. Passes 6-0
The meeting is adjourned at: 9:50 PM.
| 
