City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday October 27, 2010, at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington St.
Members Present: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, David Jaquith, Ernest DeMaio, Helen Sides, Glenn Kennedy
Members Absent:
Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder: Lindsay Howlett
Chairperson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects under Review
- 85 Washington Street (Soucy Insurance): Discussion of proposed signage
Paul Soucy is present on behalf of Soucy Insurance. The Board reviews submitted plans dated October 14, 2010.
Daniel explains the Soucy Insurance proposal is for a wall sign and a blade sign made of PVC. Daniel states additionally there will be gooseneck lighting fixtures on the wall hooked up to four existing junction boxes. Daniel adds the proposal complies with all of the city’s guidelines.
Soucy states they are planning to install a sign that coordinates with surrounding neighborhood aesthetic and states their proposal is very similar to what previously existed, a black background with gold lettering, 15’ across occupying most of the center portion of the building. Soucy adds the blade sign will enhance views from Lafayette Street.
Jaquith states he would rather see smaller bites take out of the corners of the blade sign and is ok with the bracket. Jaquith states he otherwise has no problem with the proposal and adds it is very similar to the Beverly Coop sign.
Blier asks about the existing bracket at the end of the drive-thru as it seems lower than the proposed Soucy Insurance sign.
Soucy responds the proposal shows an artistic rendering but in reality would like to keep it at the same height as the existing drive-thru sign.
Blier asked if the signage was lowered, would it be too low.
Daniel states the rule is to have a minimum eight foot clearance from the bottom of the sign to the sidewalk.
Sides questions if those two signs are the only signs on the building.
Soucy responds yes.
DeMaio and Sides are fine with the proposal.
Jaquith states he does not think the ATM sign ever came before the board.
Durand states the proposal should keep their proposed height and instead have the ATM sign increase in height to match the Soucy Insurance sign.
Jaquith: Motion to approve with the following condition:
- The radius of the corner notches on the blade sign shall be reduced.
seconded by DeMaio – passes 5-0.
- 203 Washington Street (UPS Store): Discussion of proposed signage
HH Hwang is present on behalf of the UPS Store. The Board reviews submitted plans dated October 6, 2010.
Daniel states the UPS Store is taking over the ‘Mailboxes Etc.’ spot in the Hawthorne building, and are proposing to replace the panel face signage.
Daniel adds the Hawthorne building is one of the few where these panel signs are internally illuminated, and in the past the board has acknowledged this special circumstance.
Hwang states their store has to convert from Mailbox Etc to UPS which is why they are proposing a new signage plan. Hwang adds their store is located between Starbucks and Bank of America. Hwang states the signage is the exact same size as the Mailbox Etc, but their design and color is based on the franchise guideline.
Jaquith understands it is a corporate sign that will match the previous sign in size and has no problems with the proposal.
Blier asks if the posts in the windows, as seen in the proposed photo, will be part of the proposal.
Hwang responds no, those are temporary posts.
Blier states he has no problems with the proposal.
DeMaio asks if the ‘Living Well’ signage is illuminated and remembers once having an awning program that was supposed to happen at some point to this building.
Daniel states the only awning that has happened is at the Starbucks. Daniel adds the owner is still interested in pursuing the installation of the remaining awnings but since the cost will be split with the tenants, they would have to work out a plan.
DeMaio states the size of the letters of the UPS on the signage are very large and states he would be happier if they were closer to 10”, especially being illuminated.
Durand asks if the sizes of the letters are a variable in this franchises’ logo.
Hwang responds frankly he cannot say and would have to contact UPS. Hwang adds his size is within the 13” regulation.
DeMaio states the scale and high contrast sign may not need a letter that large.
Sides states the shield is slightly larger than the letters and asks if that is okay with DeMaio.
DeMaio responds yes.
Hwang states the actual ‘UPS Store’ letter is a bit smaller than how it looks on the rendering.
DeMaio states even though the UPS letters are smaller than the shield they appear bigger.
Durand does not disagree and thinks an 11” letter would be fine and thinks it will be better to have more space behind it.
DeMaio states there will be no issue of legibility,
DeMaio: Motion to approve the signs with the following condition:
- The letter size shall be reduced to be no more than 11 inches high.
seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.
- 290/292 Essex Street (YMCA and Salem Housing Authority): Discussion of proposed new entrance design and signage
A previously submitted project proposal is reviewed by the Board. The Board reviews submitted plans dated October 6, 2010.
Durand and DeMaio recuse themselves.
Mike Fields and Debbie Amaral are present on behalf of the YMCA and Salem Housing Authority.
Amaral explains the YMCA has started restoration of the storefronts on Essex Street about 6 years ago, and has recently reached an agreement with the Salem Housing Authority to swap storefronts so that the YMCA regains its marble staircase, allowing direct access to Ames Hall. Amaral adds they hope to begin the swap construction so that they can move on with fundraising in terms of restoring Ames Hall for their next project.
Amaral states Mike Fields is present from Winter Street Architects, representing the YMCA.
Fields reiterates tonight’s proposal shows the Salem YMCA reclaiming the current Salem Housing Authority (SHA) entrance, moving the SHA lobby over one storefront to the left, new coordinating signage and rebuilding the storefronts associated with the project. Fields states some of the signage shown in the packet was previously approved in 2005 but never made it onto the building. Fields adds tonight they would like to revisit those items as well as new signage.
Fields directs the board to sheets A4.0 and A4.1 in their packets to see more details regarding the construction of the two storefronts. Fields summarizes the project scope; removing the current exterior ramp and bronze storefront, replacing that with solid wood detailing more congruent with original construction of the building, proposing new brushed aluminum anodized letters stand off from façade, and one exterior cove light above the SHA entry that will wash the letters.
Fields states the biggest letter will be 6” and the smallest will be 3”. Fields adds there will be window decals indicating the SHA street address only.
Blier asks if the doors being replaced will match.
Fields confirms yes. Fields walks the board through the floor plan explaining the entry swap in further depth.
Blier confirms if right now there is an odd condition at the SHA entry.
Fields responds yes, the SHA currently walks through their entry and take a left to an additional elevator lobby. Fields adds this proposal will make a clear access path.
Jaquith states it is really nice and has no problems with the proposal.
Daniel asks how handicapped access is addressed entering the Y.
Amaral responds they plan to have an internal elevator to Ames hall from the side street around the corner.
Sides asks if that will be permitted as it’s a secondary entrance that is accessible instead of the main entrance.
Amaral states they looked at a lift in the marble staircase space but it is not big enough and consequently the most logical solution is to enter from the side entrance. Amaral adds that the 290 Essex Street entrance is not the primary entrance to the building.
Blier asks for a sense of what was preexisting.
Fields responds they are restoring the doors in the same plane as they were originally constructed and adds the upper transoms are existing to remain.
Sides asks about the signage and change of typeface.
Fields responds the previously approved signage package had not yet been installed to the exterior façade.
Sides reiterates it is an interesting change of typeface as she is accustomed to the YMCA having very blocky letters.
Blier asks for clarification on what is being sought tonight.
Daniel responds the signage program with a few additions as well as the exterior treatment.
Amaral states the SHA and the YMCA new entrances will have the new signage above the doors in the sign band, a new light above the SHA entrance and vinyl street address on the SHA window.
Blier responds this will be a big improvement.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt Street asks if they will be using the new YMCA franchise logo in the new signage.
Amaral responds they will be using the same YMCA logo as always but will eventually need to change over to the new logo in the future.
Treadwell asks if this project needs to go before the Historical Commission.
Daniel states no, it is within the Urban Renewal Area so the SRA will review the project.
Sides: Motion to approve proposal as presented, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 3-0.
North River Canal Corridor Projects under Review
- 401 Bridge Street (Gateway Center): Review of design development details and materials
Harry Gundersen is present on behalf of the Gateway Center Project. The Board reviews submitted plans dated October 15, 2010.
Gundersen updates the board on the continual development of design for the Gateway Center.
Gundersen summarizes the presentation; design of canopy, materials and colors and of course question of signage will be continued. Gundersen adds there was a change in design that had been precipitated from last time everyone met.
Gundersen states the Conservation Commission suggested raising the building above the flood level and after much discussion they settled on 12’ as the ground floor level. Gundersen adds the biggest beneficiaries of the change are the tenants on ground floor which include the city and a potential health club.
Gundersen states from the south side of the building, from a design standpoint, literally nothing will change from the elevation change. Gundersen adds the current curb is fixed around 8.5’ – 11’ as it hits the corner on Bridge Street. Gundersen states if the ground level is at 12’ there will need to be two ramps on either side to get to this entrance with a wall out front.
Gundersen states they show adding a retaining wall as the grading was not going to work at this elevation change at the lower left corner of the plan.
Gundersen states the retaining wall along Bridge Street will follow a curvilinear shape where graphics can be displayed, in some fashion, as there is a desire among the public to try to acknowledge what has happened at this site in the past. Gundersen adds the retaining wall and wall in front of ramps will be constructed of granite.
Lighting
Gundersen states at the last meeting exterior lighting was questions and they have begun showing the exterior lighting design on tonight’s site plan. Gundersen states the owner is currently discussing with National Grid how to eliminate all of the above, overhead power and existing street lights. Gundersen adds in its place they are proposing a series of Salem standard approved street lights running down the street and around corner, continuing up Boston Street.
Gundersen states there will be additional step lights at the corner and on the inside of the wall at the ramp. Gundersen adds wall lights that shine up and down will mount on brick piers along the parking lot side of the building giving the underside of the canopy a nice glow. Gundersen states additionally there will be a few bollard lights in front of the drop of area in the back of the building.
Gundersen states there will also be three sources of light on the left lower corner on Bridge Street that are long and thin to focus on the vertical of the building. Additionally Gundersen adds there will be lights at the loading dock mounted on the canopy shining up on anticipated building signage.
Gundersen states at the top edge of brick on the fourth floor, where the concrete panels begin, they will mount a thin LED light that will emit a mild glow on the building. Gundersen adds it will be a very small fixture that glows up against the building.
DeMaio asks where, in section, are those lights happening.
Gundersen replies there is a slight setback from the face of the brick to the face of the concrete where the white light source will be concealed.
Gundersen states the parking lot light fixtures will be type F & G as found in the board’s packet.
Senior Center Entrance
Gundersen states another slight modification that was taken began while working with the city’s designer while they were working on the layout of the Senior Center; unanimous decision to enter the Senior Center at their main entrance from the parking lot. Gundersen adds that decision resulted in modifying the parking layout to give them a drop off area.
Canopy
Gundersen states at the last meeting with the DRB, someone had asked to see a section of the canopy and that has also been included in tonight’s packet. Gundersen describes the canopy as having a metal roof with perforated metal ceiling on the bottom side.
Windows
Gundersen continues, stating there was also a question about the windows at the last meeting; they will use painted aluminum windows recessed into the brick with an exterior sill, the windows will be flush when amongst the concrete panels. Gundersen adds the colors will be very similar to that of the concrete panel and will carry throughout the building.
Gundersen clarifies there will be storefront on the ground floor and manufactured windows on the upper floors.
Landscaping
Gundersen states there were two questions about the landscaping plan from the last meeting which he is prepared to answer tonight.
Gundersen states the evergreens at minimum will be seven to eight feet as they are always able to be purchased whereas the ten to twelve foot range are not always available.
Gundersen states the grass mix is referred to as wild flower meadow grass and is a combination of grass and flowers intended to be wild vs. a lawn.
Gundersen further adds there was another modification to the planting along Bridge Street due to the new retaining wall, where trees were eliminated and replaced with ivy along the wall.
Gundersen adds there is a rendering included in the package on Bridge Street looking toward Boston Street, with the curvilinear retaining wall and landscaping.
Sides clarifies the walk along Bridge Street; step inside the low wall, to walk up the ramp and into building. Sides asks how tall the newly proposed wall is.
Gundersen states the top of the wall will be at 12’-4”, making the wall about 3’ high with a railing on top of that. Gundersen adds the wall steps and adding the railing puts the wall just above 4’-11”.
Jaquith asks if the ramp essentially becomes the sidewalk.
Gundersen responds they want the sidewalk to be very wide as it was part of the site’s charm when they decided to set the building back. Gundersen adds they kept the ramp length as short as possible.
Jaquith comments that he cannot imagine anyone walking outside of the ramp.
Blier reiterates to go up to go back down is not always an ideal scenario.
Sides responds there is room to walk along the outside of the ramp.
Blier asks what the width is of that public sidewalk outside of the ramp.
Gundersen responds it depends where you are; it starts wide over seven feet and narrows to a little over five feet, with six and a half feet at the front door.
Blier asks about the light posts in between the trees and states there is a lot going on out there.
Durand questions needing the trees in front of the building, and adds that he likes them when screening the parking lot, but in front of the building asks if they are in the way. Durand adds there is not enough room in front of the tree grates and the sidewalk. Durand suggests removing all of the trees in front of the building along Bridge Street and Boston Street to be consistent.
Blier adds there is something about the trees along Boston Street.
Durand adds he is not too concerned with those.
Sides states that the seven centered at the front entrance feels very crowded and looks messy. Sides adds, less than a three foot width from the grate to the retaining wall makes for a narrow walking path.
Jaquith states he likes the trees on Bridge Street and Boston Street but suggests keeping only four on each street at the lower right hand corner and removing the rest.
Daniel asks about the curved portion of the retaining wall on the left and asks why it is curved and comments it is interfering with the sidewalk space as well.
Gundersen responds it is intended for the interpretive graphics depicting the site history either in mounted cast plaque or carving into the granite wall.
Daniel asks if there is another reason the wall is in place.
Gundersen responds the wall is necessary for the grade change
Sides states she likes the wall as it create a nice buffer from the inside looking out and adds she understands the wave.
Durand agrees.
DeMaio states most people will tend to avoid the ramp if not going up into the building.
Durand adds you want people to go their separate ways also.
Blier states he could be sold more on the curve if it were more sympathetic to the building. Blier adds the curve needs a better way to meet the building.
Daniel adds the ivy on top of the granite wall does not tie in with anything going on with the site and he fears it will quickly turn into sad greenery on top that never really does anything.
Sides responds if it is kept in good shape and is really growing it could become a nice pedestrian experience.
Jaquith reiterates the need to fix the curved wall where it meets the building and adds it should be more like a wave. Jaquith adds he wants to see the curvilinear wall to be a continuous and flowing design but feels the individual curves actually create pockets and breaks up the sidewalk.
Gundersen responds the comments the board just made would certainly simplify things as he struggled with making all the pieces fit together.
Jaquith states in general all of the little details proposed tonight are pretty good.
Blier states the shift in the ground floor level has resulted in a loss in regards to narrowing the sidewalk, a loss of trees along the Bridge Street façade and overall is a little bit of a disappointment that this has come up.
Jaquith responds he thinks it is a reality that was brought up and thought about.
Gundersen states it is hard to get a handle on the current flooding condition of the site because no one has seen it since the new road was put in and it has yet to be remapped. Gundersen adds they are basing the new building elevation from a 10’ number they have but no one really knows if it is valid or not.
DeMaio states he has concerns about the ground level being up as high as the elevation markers indicate on the plan which tells him that in regards to long term use of the building, tenants on the ground floor at the Boston and Bridge Street corner cannot have direct access to the sidewalk, specifically from the health club location. DeMaio adds in the future this may be desired by the tenant but will be unachievable.
Gundersen responds the fact of the matter is that you have a continuous slope form corner to corner and they needed to pick some point where this situation was going to happen.
DeMaio notes it did not appear the first floor had any lateral connection from the Senior Center through the lobby to the health club. He asks if the slab elevation could be 3’-4” lower than it is now for the health center.
Gundersen adds he does not know what the future brings and states in the future someone may want to blow through the walls into the lobby and then they would have an issue.
DeMaio responds in terms of conceptually, it would be ideal to have as much access along the outside edge as possible. DeMaio continues stating that he thinks the scheme is limiting the number of access points to certain locations and thinks it would be more advantageous if the building could communicate to the exterior more freely.
Gundersen states they could bring the sidewalk to stay at floor level but then there would be a curb issue but thinks they could always blow through the curb and warp up the site.
Sides asks what color the fixtures mounted on the building are going to be and states the Salem lights are dark black.
Gundersen responds they will match all of the light fixture finishes as close as possible.
Blier asks if Gundersen explored the ideas of integrating grade changes into the lobby vs. outside of the building and asks if so what did he find?
Gundersen responds yes they did and thought it would make for a very strange up and down situation inside the building. Also to DeMaio’s point, they thought about what happens in the future when having a ramp inside.
Blier replies it seems as though the site only needs one ramp and adds that an 8% slope on the north side of the building is not a great scenario in the winter and thinks it could be possible to tuck the grade change in the lobby leaving the sidewalk open.
Gundersen responds it would be a challenge inside the building and would result in a very long interior ramp, about one and a half column bays.
Jaquith agrees they should not design for a storefront use now because it is solvable in future. Jaquith questions how arbitrary the 1.75’ grade difference is.
Gundersen responds it is the number the owner would like to achieve but adds the overall 10.25’ is somewhat arbitrary.
Durand suggests dropping the grade difference to be a 1.5’ difference; this will fix the condition in the back and will make the difference in the front less as well. Durand adds he has not really seen water at this site in a long time, and does not think it is that much of a problem anymore.
Discussion is opened to the public.
Teasie Riley-Goggin of 9 Wisteria Street comments that for a five million dollar project the seniors should be able to enter their center through the front door but if they are smart they will not be using the Bridge Street entrance due to its location. Riley adds she heard that the seniors have chosen to make their entry at the back of the building adjacent to the parking lot but would like to hear the users state it.
Riley-Goggin asks Gundersen where the fire lane is located.
Gundersen responds through the parking lot.
Riley-Goggin adds part of the reason this property has not flooded is because there is no building on the site, once you put a building on the premises, water will become displaced.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt Street: Comments to the board that they may have seen a legal notice in the paper that the City Planning Department has put our proposal for a bid for the National Environmental Policy Act review and Historic Preservation review. Treadwell adds the Planning Department has decided to do environmental assessments.
Treadwell states the following must be considered: visual quality, coherence, compatible use and scale.
Treadwell adds that from the last meeting there were a list of issues that were to be addressed tonight that have yet to be brought up; mechanical equipment and signage.
Gundersen responds they will definitely be coming back to the DRB for the signage and once the mechanical equipment has been determined they will come back with proposed screening methods as well.
Treadwell states the NEPA and Historical Act have to be considered with Chapter 91 in regards to filled tie lands.
Treadwell states he would like to know more about the interpretive signs as the Bridge Street sidewalk is not used often and wonders how much value they would add. Treadwell adds his point being if interpretive signs and Chapter 91 go forward, there may be more detail required.
Treadwell comments on the site flooding stating that the flood hazard rate map says a large portion of this site does flood and that is what is going to be have to be lived with and adds this has been discussed with the Conservation Commission as far as displacement by elevating the building up to the ten feet. Treadwell adds it seems Con-Com would be interested in terms of storm water management.
Gundersen responds the civil engineer will have to address the Con-Com issue and adds if they raise the building to the twelve feet he suspects they would notify Con-Com.
Treadwell states the North River Canal Corridor requires plans to go before the DRB and reads an excerpt to the board. Treadwell continues stating that all signage shall follow the Salem sign ordinance except in the North River Canal corridor where signage should be half the size allowed by the Salem sign ordinance.
Treadwell adds he thinks it is a great idea to eliminate the overhead wires.
Sides responds that she appreciates all of the information Treadwell brings to these meetings but adds she sometimes does not understand what Treadwell is talking about and suggests it may be her lack of knowledge on urban planning but asks that in the future Treadwell explains some of his statements in layman’s terms.
Treadwell responds they are usually told to stick to the point with a maximum speaking time of three to five minutes.
Sides responds the board appreciates the public criticism.
The board responds to Gundersen’s presentation.
Ground floor lighting plan:
Sides states that she suggests the lighting be brought down slightly to 11’9” a 1.5’ difference from what is proposed.
The board is ok with the overall lighting package.
Building elevations, retaining wall and ramps:
Blier states he is not for the external ramp and thinks there are other ways to solve that problem, such as putting the ramp in the lobby but overall feels like it is a band-aid.
Durand adds he is not happy with the exterior ramp either, but with the 11’ 9 elevation change, it gets less.
DeMaio responds if the elevators and machines were not located in the lobby, he would agree with the limited ability to open up the spaces but feels those things are already creating a division within the building.
Durand suggests there may be another way to solve this, as they only have to provide one accessible route.
Gundersen responds they already tried that but every entrance does have to be accessible.
Durand suggests that Gundersen explores additional solutions besides giving up that sidewalk; if there are steps and a lift in a little vestibule it would be a lot better than a plagued sidewalk.
Curvy wall:
Durand states he is not exactly happy with it and would like to see a more successful solution.
Daniel adds it does not come together for him either.
Canopy:
Board states the canopy, site plan, stone, windows, concrete finishes and light fixtures are all fine.
Landscape plan:
Durand reiterates it was decided to eliminate the trees at the front of the building but is still in play with the ramp and curvy wall.
Bier states the plantings are fine.
Durand: Motion to approve with exceptions noted, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.
Durand: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:51 pm.
| 
