City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board
Date and Time: Tuesday October 11, 2011, at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington St.
Members Present: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, Glenn Kennedy, David Jaquith
Members Absent: Ernest DeMaio, Helen Sides
Others Present: Staff Planner Tom Devine
Recorder: Minutes written by Tom Devine
Chairperson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Discussion of draft design standards and guidelines in the update to the Urban Renewal Plan.
Durand explains that the DRB has convened to discuss the work of the Cecil Group. He and Helen Sides are members of the working group which has helped develop and review the proposed update to the Urban Renewal Plan. The group is large and diverse. They have progressed to the point of having a draft of the update. We are currently at the level of detail of design guidelines and this is before the DRB to develop comments to pass on to the Cecil Group. This updated plan will be in effect for 30 years. Blier asks who has to approve the plan. Devine replies that it must be approved by the SRA, Planning Board, City Council and the state. Durand states that the state sets up guidelines and the City develops a plan within those guidelines. The redevelopment authority works under the approved plan. We have two urban renewal
areas, one is about to expire and the other will eventually expire too. In this current update, we will consolidate two urban renewal areas into one. A few parcels will be added, including the green space in front of the Old Salem Salem Jail, Riley Plaza in front of the Post Office, and the area next to the new court house where the roadway was reconfigured. Kenendy asks how far down Bridge Street this goes. Durand says it extends to the jail. Jaquith asks where the Urban Renewal Area connects with entry corridors. Devine shows on a map where the entry corridors are overlaid.
Durand begins to read through the proposed design guidelines. Under heading Design Criteria, item 1, Kennedy asks how we ensure that sustainability is incorporated into projects. Durand states that sustainability is a matter of measure and it tends to evolve over time. But the LEED program talks about reusing buildings and materials, recycling, and energy efficiency. This encourages the applicant to know that sustainability is one of the criteria we will judge the project on.
Blier asks how we can evaluate architectural contextualization, with these guidelines, that is not historicist. Durand says there is flexibility, where a modern building can be contextual in scale and reflect the surrounding urban fabric, with the example of the PEM addition. Projects can indeed be interpretive rather than imitative. New construction can and should be modern. A historic renovation should be a historic renovation, but modern design is welcome where appropriate. Blier notes that this could discourage certain desirable development. Durand notes that as we move through the standards, this is covered more thoroughly. It doesn’t legislate architecture as much as urban design.
Continuing reading the guidelines, Durand asserts that the section regarding demolition was discussed in detail and was well thought out. Jaquith asks where the local historic districts overlap with the Urban Renewal Area. Devine shows on map where they overlap around Salem Common.
Under Sites and Blocks, subsection Building Setbacks, Kennedy asks if this is relevant to the Gateway Center and all the discussion of its relationship with the street. Durand says an example is the Salem News block with a solid street edge and parking in rear. Kennedy says with the Gateway Center, the idea was to get the building up to the street and corner with parking behind it. Jaquith notes that the Gateway Center was reviewed not under SRA authority, but rather under the North River Canal Corridor zoning district.
After Durand reads through the Sites and Blocks section, Blier asks about dealing with mechanical equipment. Durand states that it needs to be added somewhere to better address issues like what there is behind the former Lyceum.
Under Building Massing and Form, Relationship to Existing Context, Kennedy said it seems a little empty. Durand said there should be some flexibility with height. Devine notes that height is coming up further in the standards. Kennedy suggests changing the word “below” to something more clear in the third sentence in this subsection. Durand notes that the subsections that follow, Proportion and Height, should be formatted so that they are indented subsections below this subsection. Under scale, Blier suggests breaking up the second sentence because it is too long and confusing.
Under the subsection for Height, Kennedy asks how to interpret this guidance to judge what would be the appropriate height. Jaquith contemplates how a balance between zoning and existing context could be found. Durand notes that a wide gap between zoning and context would be mediated by the DRB. Kennedy wonders which nearby building’s height would reflected, since there can be a lot of variation on one street. Durand says the DRB’s mediation can resolve the foreseeable challenges.
Under Façade Length and Articulation, Durand wonders where the exact requirement of articulation at every 50’ of a façade came from. He also suggests replacing the world elevation with the word façade, for clarity. Under Building Massing at Corners, the group recommends adding the word “street” before every instance of the word “corner” to avoid confusion between street and building corners.
Durand recommends addressing screening of mechanical equipment in or after the subsection Roofs, just before the heading Building Facades. Blier asks if cellular towers are addressed. Durand says he believes they are reviewed by the DRB. Jaquith says there is a limit to what can be done, because they have certain legal right to be installed. Durand notes that the DRB is generally able to improve the appearance of cellular equipment. He asks if elevator penthouses are addressed. Jaquith says it is part of the overall review process.
Under the heading Building Facades, subsection Façade Design and Relationship to Existing Context, the group questions whether there is redundancy. Kennedy says that review of plans should begin early in the design process. Sometimes a building is too far along in a design process when the DRB would have saved them time and money by providing their input earlier. An example is the vacant site along the South River where the Halloween carnival takes place. The proposal was too far along in design when the DRB said the design just wouldn’t work there and that may be one of the reasons the project never materialized. Devine notes that the plan calls for a two part process, schematic and final review, that should catch projects early in the design process. Members state that this is the current process, though it
isn’t always followed.
Under subsection Proportion and Pattern of Windows, Kennedy notes that the wording sounds like buildings must conform. If the Red Lion Building were redeveloped, for example, you could make it look like the two buildings it sits between. But it could also be a very contemporary building. Jaquith states that the board has flexibility in such cases. Durand notes that projects are required to “acknowledge and respond” to the context, and this is far from constricting.
Kennedy observes that the text does not directly refer to the figures and they are not lined up with the text they are relevant to. The group agrees that they should match up. Under subsection Signage, Durand suggests language should be modified to avoid confusion between freestanding and portable signs. Under awnings, Durand suggested that wording should be changed from “awnings shall be used” to “awnings may be used” to be clear that awnings are not required.
Under the heading Private and Public Open Spaces, within subsection Site Details, Durand suggests that language should be modified to avoid the implication that public art is required. Blier questions the wording requiring consistency with character of a district. He says he will think further about this and send comments to the Planning Department.
Under the heading Landscape, subheading Landscape Use and Orientation, Blier asks if the City has a street tree survey. There is little sense of continuity among tree species. Durand says he doesn’t think such a survey exists, but in the Urban Renewal Area, the DRB can recommend species that provide for continuity. Under the subsection Trees and Plantings, Blier suggests something more should be added and states that he will send in comments.
Under the heading Parking, within subsection Landscaping of Pre-existing Parking Lots, Blier notes that bringing some existing lots into compliance may be a challenge. Jaquith states that the downtown zoning district does not have high parking requirements. Devine says no parking is required for non-residential uses in the downtown zone.
Under the heading Streetscapes and Sidewalks, within subheading Street Configuration, Kennedy expresses concern that wording may conflict with possible options for the Essex Street Pedestrian Mall. Devine notes that he is flagging this so the Cecil Group can address this problem. Under subsection Sidewalk Configuration, Blier questions the dimensions called out for sidewalk width and the meaning of continuous sidewalks at curb cuts. Under subsection Bicycle Width, Durand recommends that that the word “width” be added for clarity when speaking of dimensions. Under subsection landscaping, Blier says he will submit comments to the Planning Department.
Under the heading Lighting, subsection Signage Lighting, Kennedy suggests removing the word ”shall” from the first sentence, so that it is not interpreted to mean that sign lighting is required. He also recommends eliminating language prohibiting internal illumination, but instead to refer to signage regulations.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55pm.
| 
