Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes, March 24, 2010
City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes


Board or Committee:             Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
Date and Time:                  Wednesday March 24, 2010, at 6:00pm
Meeting Location:                       Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington St.
Members Present:                        Chairperson Paul Durand, Ernest DeMaio, Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides, David Jaquith
Members Absent:                         Michael Blier
Others Present:                         Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder:                               Lindsay Howlett

Board Member Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.

Urban Renewal Area Projects under Review:
  • 196 Essex Street (Café Valverde): Discussion of proposed outdoor dining area
Daniel explains the previous establishment Fuel had outdoor seating but because this is a new business with a new outdoor dining plan, they need to apply for their own permit.

Eleni Valverde passes around an image of the outdoor seating Café Valverde is proposing and confirms the tables are 42” square, black wrought iron with a grated surface. Valverde describes there will be three tables along the front of Essex Street and three tables along the alley side.

Daniel reminds the Board that because they do not serve alcohol they do not need to separate the outdoor seating area from the sidewalk.

Durand suggests rotating the tables 90 degrees to provide more access to the front door of the business. Valverde agrees they would like more access to the front doors.

Durand further adds they might look at a little smaller table size, maybe 36” x 36”. Valverde responds they found it hard to find the right size and style but agrees circulation is needed for the business to do well.

Kennedy states he is concerned with the overall size of the table and agrees the entrance feels like it is crowded. Kennedy asks what the space is between the tables and the front façade to which Valverde responds is 9.4’. Kennedy suggests replacing two of the tables with two smaller café tables to reduce the density.

Valverde responds they would not match in that instance.

Durand thinks the spacing will work by rotating the tables and seats.

DeMaio states that he likes the new signs and the proposed color of the umbrellas but is a little concerned with the size of the tables as mentioned by others. DeMaio further adds the he would like to confirm no text or advertising will be on any of the umbrellas or poles.

Sides: Motion to approve as submitted, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0.

  • 155 Washington Street (Adriatic): Discussion of proposed outdoor dining area
Daniel explains to the Board that the plan is to initially use the existing planters as approved for the Edgewater Café until the Adriatic is ready to install their intended permanent planter.

Durand asks if they new planters will form the same line as the existing to which Kurti responds yes. Durand asks when the new permanent planters will be installed to which Kurti responds next month. Durand asks what the sizes of the tables are. Kurti responds the tables are 28”x 28” and 36” x 36”.

Jaquith states he was going to talk about the mismatched yellow paint on the existing planters but states since the planters are not permanent he is not bothered by it. Jaquith asks where the planters in the photograph are currently located. Kurti responds she did not know as the photograph is a sample photo. Kurti adds that she thinks the boxes are wood, and will be the same color as in the photograph.

DeMaio states that he likes the new styled planters, especially the color of them. DeMaio further adds that the Board should see the umbrellas prior to approving and states he prefers not to have advertising on the umbrellas.

Kennedy states he really likes the flower boxes but will need more information about the flower boxes, colors, materials, etc. Kennedy asks if the number of seats provided outdoors is the same number provided before. Kurti replies yes.

Daniel states Edgewater actually provided more.

Durand requests more construction information about the proposed planters and would also like to see what the umbrellas look like. Durand adds the Board would like to see the existing planters painted if they stay for too long.

Sides: Motion to approve dining area tables and seating with the following conditions:
  • The existing planters may be used provided that they are painted yellow to match the building if they are going to be used past June 15, 2010, and
  • The applicant shall return to the DRB for review and approval of the new planters.
seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.

  • 221 Essex Street (Mud Puddle Toys): Discussion of proposed signage and exterior painting.
Sam Pollard of Mud Puddle Toys states the red door is now black and the colors “blue persuasion” and the lime green “crocodile tears” are consistent with the colors they are using inside the store. Pollard adds inside the windows there will be a red shelf that you will not see unless you are up against the building. Pollard describes the inside of the store walls will be primarily green, blue trim and an off-white vellum in other areas. Pollard states the sign has changed since the last meeting and is now made of sign foam that is at least 2” thick and is a little more fun. Pollard would like to incorporate 3D elements somewhere within the sign, something with the umbrella maybe. Pollard states the bracket and lighting are the same as presented at the last meeting.

Sides states she likes the revised signage and exterior paint.

Kennedy states he likes the sign much more and that it is really coming around. Kennedy states that with some added dimension it will be really nice and playful, no objection to the sign post, really likes the storefront, the colors and the vellum. Kennedy asks if the letters are consistent in size.

Pollard states the font is designed to be consistent between 9” and 10” high. Pollard adds the letters will be individually cut out of sign foam to provide a 3D element as well.

Kennedy further states that the curve and angle of the lettering are a little too much and suggests the font should form just an arch to make it appear more intentional. Kennedy requests the vents be painted either black or blue.

Pollard responds they can do that and adds the windows will be filled with a lot of color from the merchandise.

Kennedy asks Daniel to confirm the lighting that was previously approved.

DeMaio appreciates the effort; he likes the red letters for the address and thinks they could stay on the black door. DeMaio agrees with Kennedy to paint the vents blue if possible. DeMaio adds dimension to the sign would improve the sign. DeMaio adds he is slightly concerned with the blue color in the bank plaza band but has come around to being okay with it.

Sides states she thinks the blue helps to balance the storefront and without it there the green may look odd.

The Board agrees on the white as shown only on the first floor.

Jaquith states his concerns were previously addressed with the curved and angled lettering. Jaquith adds it would be nice to paint the vents blue; they may have to treat them before applying the paint.

Durand asks the public for comments.

David Pelletier of Crombie Street asks if this attractive sign will have to coexist with the temporary “For Lease” banner currently located in one of the windows. Pelletier adds that the temporary sign is ridiculous.

Durand responds temporary signs go through a different process and Daniel adds that the temporary sign is permitted.

Jaquith: Motion to approve with the following conditions:
  • The lettering that is angled and curved shall be arched instead;
  • The light fixture on the sign shall be reviewed and confirmed by staff;
  • The white paint shall be vellum; and
  • The vents shall be painted to match the blue.
Seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0.


North River Canal Corridor Projects under Review:
  • 401 Bridge Street (Gateway Center): Discussion of proposed Schematic Design
Harry Gundersen explains the presentation is divided into three parts; Building, Site and Landscaping.

Entrance and Outdoor Seating
Gundersen recaps the previous layout of the building. Gundersen agrees with the Board’s previous comments admitting there was visual confusion of where the important entrance of the building was actually located.

Gundersen states there is no longer an atrium in the new plans, but there is a pass through that is a tall single story. Gundersen adds they have compressed the building inward a bit as well and have been able to create a larger lobby with the ability to have an outdoor seating area with landscaping. The new plan also features a relocated entrance to the health club from the public sidewalk.

Corner
Gundersen states they really wanted to stick with the round corner but create some sort of gateway element. Gundersen states it is quite different from the original design. Gundersen adds the two story element is to have a brick finish. Gundersen states it currently looks much less like two buildings connected by an atrium which is a positive step.

Location of Senior Center
Gundersen states they debated with the question, should the Senior Center be located on the corner or not. It was finally concluded better for the project and the corner if it remained retail versus a public function like the Senior Center. Gundersen considered what happens with the spaces if for example the health club goes away – more than likely it would remain retail of some type. The Senior Center is now located on the east end of the building as shown in the diagrams.

Landscaping
Gundersen explains the questions faced when planning the on site buffer; dense vegetated buffer or a less dense buffer. Gundersen concludes the neighbors here are all pretty much in agreement that they would like a dense buffer and that’s what he shows here.

Gundersen states they need to come to a conclusion with the abutters about what the fence is. The buffer has some very mature trees that are on the abutters’ property. Gundersen adds that between those trees they will be planting fairly dense evergreens such as Norway spruce, and eastern red cedar. Gundersen explains under the trees they will be planting arborvitae as it can be controlled, trimmed, and pruned but still have a very dense buffer. Gundersen further states in front of the evergreen buffer there will be accent trees—shadblow, serviceberry, kousa dogwood, and red maple.

Gundersen adds in front of one house that is close to the property line they are planning a pin oak so that in the winter it would be bare, and in the summer would add shade to that house. Gundersen paid special attention to this house and didn’t want to cover their windows entirely with evergreens. Gundersen states the parking lot is to feature lacebark elms in the islands. In another section of the parking lot, honey locust will be featured.

Gundersen explains along the street there will be callery pears which is considered a great street tree and will work very well for the site. The entrance will have two river birch trees to shade the benches out in front of the seating area/lobby.

The ground cover will be made up of creeping juniper, a reasonable and tough ground cover.

Gundersen thinks that was a good overview of the design changes made and would like to open up to comments.

The Board responds to Gundersen’s presentation first.

Jaquith does not have a problem with the building being curved at the intersection to Boston except that he does not like the treatment and thinks that it does not seem to fit with the building. Jaquith states it needs to be something that stops the corner. He is much happier with the way the building steps up, links and overlaps. Jaquith adds the landscaping is much better. Jaquith states he wants the corner to curve but does not like the feature that sticks out at the top and wants to tie it with the brick as he feels it is not a place to change materials. Jaquith states the buffer is much better thought out as well as the trees. Jaquith feels getting rid of the atrium is getting rid of space not being used properly anyway. He would like to see more about the end of the building coming into the health club.

Jaquith adds the single elevator in the middle of the building may cause some problems but overall there is good progress in the design.

DeMaio states that he and Gundersen have a different idea about what the front door of the building should be. DeMaio states the care, attention, and treatment of the office entry should be at the Boston/Bridge Street corner as that is the gateway. DeMaio states that fundamentally he has a problem accepting the scheme because of that difference of opinion. He states that the design does not achieve the gateway as envisioned in the master plan.

DeMaio explains that he thinks the building has to be positioned on the site so that if spaces were to become something else in the future there could be more of a street life. DeMaio suggests setting it back far enough for potential chairs and tables in the future. DeMaio relates the earlier meeting topics to this building stating, if there is not enough width or space to provide outdoor seating now, and the difference being only a few feet, that would be unfortunate.

DeMaio has a problem with the buffer zone no matter how it is planted as he feels the master plan is very clear about a buffer zone being defined as a minimum of 50’ from any residential use. DeMaio further states there is no ambiguity in the definition and does not see why that should not be respected. DeMaio adds he feels the same way about the buffer zone along Bridge Street by the church property and that there should be a buffer zone there as well.

DeMaio states he sees several problems with the parking plan. DeMaio explains the primary entrance from Boston Street into the property will have cars making that turn in while cars may be backing out of those spots, which could then create a back up of Boston Street traffic. DeMaio states the plan encourages cars to go to the office entry because of the densely planted island. DeMaio does not think the flow of cars is well considered. DeMaio further states he has a problem with the building creating a 400’ dead sidewalk along Bridge Street which will always be nothing more than parking. DeMaio adds he thinks it is a short-sighted way to look at what the master plan is supposed to be about.

Kennedy states he likes more of what is happening with the landscaping but does not speak to the issue of the buffer zone. Kennedy agrees with DeMaio that he at first thought the cover image was the Boston/Bridge Street corner and felt like that image represented more of an entrance to the building that would be located on the corner instead of the entry for the offices. Kennedy adds however that he does not dislike the Boston Street corner but will leave it for more discussion. Kennedy agrees with the consideration of the future uses of these spaces and the length of the building is a bit of a concern. Kennedy states the lobby at the entry makes more sense when the building is a single building and the lobby is that end. Kennedy further adds it would help keep the parking at that end and not over/near the other sides of the building. Kennedy is not really sure about the massing of the building being vertically bigger at the Boston/Bridge Street end. Kennedy likes some of the changes made but does hear the concerns and issues DeMaio brought up with the buffering and how it fits into the master plan.

Sides states that she appreciates the work done and thinks it has greatly improved. Sides likes the lobby at the eastern end and thinks it may be a nice gathering space for the Senior Center. Sides agrees there was no loss getting rid of the atrium but agrees the corner piece is not quite right. Sides states she thinks the gesture to make it taller is right but should be something sturdier. Sides adds she likes the stepping back of the architecture and thinks the revised plan does a better job of interweaving the materials as the building steps up. Additionally Sides states the corner seems to be self contained and is not weaving like the rest of the building. Sides states she thinks the plan looks a lot better and is on board with the program—health club on the corner and the Senior Center inward. Sides adds she is waiting for the final parking numbers to understand that. Sides adds the parking lot entrances are wide enough to quickly swing around the rear of any car backing out. Sides still thinks the main vehicular entrance off of Bridge Street is far removed and adds if the vehicular entrance could ever be moved in closer to the building that would be ideal. Sides agrees with the long stretch of building being a problem. Sides adds the plan has to deal with a lot of conflicting needs of this building where all four sides become the front. Sides states the corner is symbolic only and understands it cannot be the majority of the building—it just does not work to make the people come in from the back parking lot into the building at that corner.

Durand states he feels every issue thus far has been addressed. Durand adds the master plan is a guide that takes a bigger view and does not address any particular development; it talks about concepts of bringing things together. Durand further adds you have to weigh a successful development with the particular site and program. Durand states parking and traffic are always issues in the city, and he likes the landscaped buffer with a lower fence. Durand suggests a solution to have a lower fence to expand the view from the abutters’ backyards into greenery which would shield the building/parking lot.

Durand adds with the greenery the site achieves a real buffer that works, is aesthetically pleasing and is successful. Durand states overall the general landscaping is very good.
Durand further states the corner is not quite there but is really moving in the right direction. Durand suggests making language on top of the corner, more like the stepped up portion of the building. Durand adds the corner top could have more clerestory glass that would tie into the architecture very successfully. Durand states from a human scale that edge is in scale with any of the other buildings on Boston Street. Durand reminds people of the large church down the street which is high. Durand adds though an entrance would be nice at the corner, it would not work as people wouldn’t use it. Durand affirms the building can adapt to change and an entry could work in the future. Durand suggests the lobby in the center of building, from a functioning point of view, could be worked on and developed to be a pretty nice scaled space.

Durand comments on the entry office side of the building and states it is nice and an appropriate and good solution. Durand remarks the Senior Center location works well and is closer to outdoor seating and parking, and the health club is appropriately located as well.

Durand states the vehicular entry on Bridge Street to one side of the site is disturbing to him and still thinks locating the vehicular entry closer to the building with parking on the left or right somehow feels better.

Kennedy adds he sees how it could create a problem if the entry were against the lobby and therefore should not be that close.

Durand suggests the first floor to be recessed about three feet; this would accentuate the corner which would stay strong. Durand adds as a result the architecture would create lots of planning possibilities such as creating an area of refuge or allow an area for outdoor seating in the future.

Durand concludes the project is based on a difficult site, next to a sensitive neighborhood but states architects take all of that and weave it together in a way that resolves things.

Durand opens up the comments from the public.

Ken Wallace of 172 Federal Street expresses his thanks to the architect for changing it so that it does not look like two buildings; there is a lot more character to it now. Wallace adds that as he drives by this, he would say “wow.”

Pam Waldron, 192 Federal Street, located directly behind the site, states she thinks it is great but her main concern is what the traffic is going to entail, but she is very happy with the look.

Dorothy Hayes, Essex Street, states the stepping of the building architecture has improved and as a result it breaks it up. Hayes adds she does not think the corner works and thinks it is going in the wrong direction and is worse than before. Hayes comments it does nothing to tie in the architecture and does not understand how with all of the architectural details seen in Salem, that nothing can be inspiration to make that corner better.

Durand states we are going to work on that corner and are moving in a direction; it is getting there but just needs to eliminate a lot of the complexities seen today and instead focus on one.

Hayes continues the building is being accessed from back and has a theatre set feel; as a result there is no interaction with people on Bridge Street. Hayes states the open plaza in the back may not be attractive to sit looking into an open parking lot and suggests creating some sort of containment for the seating area at this entrance.

Kay Walsh, 5 West Terrace, states some people thought the building would be more open and more of a gathering space. Walsh adds she did not get a good enough view of the lobby and asks if there are a lot of windows as she is concerned about the light.

Gundersen replies yes there are a lot of windows.

Pat Donohue, 12 Dearborn Lane, of the Ad-Hoc Committee for the Senior Center Design states she just heard that atrium has been eliminated. It was one of the important factors about the entrance and she thought many seniors would come in through that space. Donohue adds the concept of senior centers is very different today and discusses the Malden Senior Center which features a small atrium as an inviting space. Donohue further adds the narrow hallway shown in the revised plans now seems very sterile. She states they were always looking for an area where people could sit and meet; something that was more inviting. Donohue concludes the seniors are looking for more amenities and states she is sorry they are so late to the review.

Durand responds the previous atrium was something that only a small percentage of the building population would use. Durand adds the atrium presented a scale issue and would feel awkward. Durand further states a lot of the Board thought it would be a failed building design with the atrium.

Donahue responds that others using the building would be participating in that area as well. Donohue states new senior centers have little cafés and thinks it could be a welcoming point with a lot of light from outside.

Durand replies that they have addressed all of that just not in the old atrium plan.

Gundersen clarifies that it appears Donahue is viewing the middle hallway as a reduced atrium with those functions; it is not. Instead those functions were all moved to the office entry. Gundersen states eventually the seniors may want a separate entry to the Senior Center but that will not preclude the seniors from using the lobby or the outdoor seating at all and in fact use would be encouraged.

Durand adds this new location allows both office use and Senior Center to gather in one location.

David Pelletier of Crombie Street states that the changes to the design respond to his previous comments very well. Pelletier states the buffer treats everything like it is West Peabody and just doesn’t work in a situation like this when you can do an alternative with greenery. He adds that people need to be flexible.

Pelletier states the corner still needs work. He likes the fact of mixing up materials and textures. Pelletier suggests a similar clerestory affect on that corner would be better. Pelletier states the brick may or may not be all the same color and texture because that can be open. Pelletier suggests the window treatments in the first building could be different than the other areas of the building but should get clever with relating the spaces with each other.

Pelletier adds the office lobby could be two stories without interfering with the building space behind it. Pelletier states the back does give a sense of entrance instead of a first floor feel only. Pelletier comments the corner does need work but is better than the whole building needing work. Pelletier asks people to think of the building in its context with what is across the street, i.e., cookie cutter Walgreen’s, Dunkin’ Donuts, and the Public Storage facility.

Pelletier concludes the design at Boston and Bridge accommodates change of use down the road and overall the building proposal has come a long way.

Emily Udy of Phelps Street representing the Historic Salem states she appreciates the trees at the doorway on Boston Street into the health club. Udy agrees working on the corner design is a good step but appreciates that a doorway could be added in the future. Udy states that just brick does not necessarily fit into the context of Salem and would like to see detail in the brick. Udy comments that vertical eliminates would be appreciated. Udy asks if there will be a café space in the new lobby.

Gundersen responds that is not a question that can be easily answered. Gundersen adds they have talked about having a café but are not sure how it works with Senior Center. He still thinks the design has the same ability to have a café as when the atrium existed.

James Moskovic, 10 Rawling Street, representing Ward Four states he is glad to hear the neighbors are happy and wants to thank the developers for working with the neighbors. Moskovic asks the Board to remember the anchor for this project is the Senior Center and if they have concerns he really hopes they get listened to and get heard. Moskovic concludes it is a great project that he supports the great job.

Mary Whitney of Essex Street states she likes what she is seeing and thinks it is much better from the design presented a month ago. Whitney likes the use of native plants and wishes there could be more. Whitney adds layering would be important in the buffer zone and suggests considering witch hazel to give color at this time of the year. Whitney states she is still having a problem with Boston/Bridge Street side of the building and is more inclined to agree with DeMaio. Whitney does not like the rounded corner or the flair coming off the roof and suggests looking more at historic corner treatments. Whitney adds it is not Salem and does not like the sign on building that says Gateway Center. Whitney feels the building should be able to speak for itself as the gateway and would love to minimize the number of parking spaces. Whitney concludes she looks forward to seeing more progress on the Boston/Bridge Street side of the building and would like to see something that relates to the other side of the building.

Patrick DeIulius of 6 Seemore Street states he thinks that Gundersen has done a remarkable job addressing the issues from the last meeting. DeIulius thinks that pragmatism needs to come into the mix to get this project permitted and built. He adds he is encouraged to hear the comments tonight and was not expecting the positive feedback. DeIulius states he understands everyone has constructive ideas about what they want the building to be and look like but some deference should be given to the amount of work someone has put into something and if the developer wants the building to be a certain size, people should not necessarily be so critical of every design feature.

Pelletier adds he hopes an extra utility trunk is placed in the foundation as it would be so cheap to put it in right now for future restaurants, etc. Pelletier adds even if it was an empty box it would be really smart to put in now.

Gundersen responds the foundation would be piled so they would consider the extra trunk even more because you can not just cut it up after the fact.

Kennedy asks Gundersen to check out an office building at 265 First Street in Cambridge as it is an active and nice space with an atrium. Kennedy comments they have a temporary café setup and always wishes they had thought to install it during construction. Kennedy adds he will be looking for how the signage program is going to work as there is a real opportunity here to create a guideline for now and future tenants.

Durand closes the public hearing concluding that though the comments are not 100% unified they are aligning.

Durand summarizes the comments:
  • The buffer is qualitative and thinks the people who would be living behind an eight foot fence need to contemplate his earlier comments about the view and asks Gundersen to defer to whatever the neighbors want.
  • Parking at the Boston Street entry is a momentary problem. The entry off of Bridge Street is a recurring question and asks Gundersen to explore that a little bit more.
  • To evaluate the seating area aesthetics, possibly create a hardscape with planting detail but may not be there yet in the project.
  • Although the atrium has been eliminated, the Senior Center’s desires are still being addressed. He asks Gundersen to work with the Senior Center representatives to confirm the new lobby works.
  • Architecturally the corner is still an issue. The idea is that the corner would be an event. Durand states they are moving in that direction and have made the important step and are now focusing on the corner.
  • The Board will be interested in materials and detail in the brick but that is a finer detail at this point in the process.
Gundersen asks about the schedule over the next month or so and states that they are scheduled at Planning Board next Thursday. Gundersen asks how to address the progress made here at the Planning Board.

Durand responds it is just what you heard and adds that Helen Sides will act as a liaison and that the meeting minutes will be done by then.

Jaquith:        Motion to continue, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0.

Correnti requests a special meeting between April 1st and the 15th just for this project. This special meeting will be scheduled through Tom.

Minutes
Approval of the minutes from the February 24, 2010 regular meeting.

Adjournment
Meeting is adjourned at 8:30 pm.