City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Special Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday May 9, 2012 at 5:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson Paul Durand, Helen Sides, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy
Members Absent: Ernest DeMaio
Recused Members: Michael Blier
Others Present: Tom Daniel
Recorder: Lisa Donahue
Chairperson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order, and lets Tom Daniel open the meeting up.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
- Essex Street Pedestrian Mall: Discussion of improvements to Essex Street pedestrian mall
Daniel acknowledges Councillor Michael Sosnowski in the audience and notes that City Planner, Lynn Duncan is present. He states that Michael Blier, who is normally a member of the DRB, has recused himself because he is part of the design team. Daniel then introduces the design team: Tim Love of Utile along with Blier and Charlotte Barrows of Landworks Studio.
Daniel thanks the public for their attendance and notes that he sees a lot of familiar faces in the crowd from the previous four workshops that Utile led over at the Salem Five Community room. He describes that this work is a continuation of work that began last year. He states that survey work is being done now on the pedestrian mall in order to get the measurements to give to the design team for further consideration of other elements of work on the mall.
Daniel states that this meeting is specifically to consider the first phase of work for the overall project. The landscaping beds behind the fountain, in front of the Salem Five building, and a few more as you walk down towards the Peabody Essex Museum are being proposed for removal as well as a kiosk. He then states that with these removals, there will be in kind replacement of brick.
Daniel mentions that immediately after this meeting, the SRA is having their own meeting and will be taking into consideration the thoughts of the DRB before a decision is made on the first phase.
Daniel emphasizes that in coming meetings, phase two issues will be discussed such as removal of the fountain and cobblestones in the pedestrian mall. The survey being done now will provide necessary information for the design team so they can then produce accurate drawings and have an informed discussion. He then turns the meeting over to Tim Love.
Tim Love says that his presentation will focus mostly on the phase one summer goal but will also encompass the overarching long term project.
Love presents that the pedestrian mall is “maze like”, and that it would be better if there were clear zones such as a pedestrian zone, a tree zone, and a pedestrian/vehicular zone. This would make it so one could see all the way down the pedestrian mall which makes it more welcoming. He also notes that storm water management can be taken into account as construction is done. Another plus to having zones would be having the ability to organize the spill out of outdoor cafes.
Love proposes the “Strategic Removal” strategy which would include removing landscape beds and trees in order to organize the space into the previously mentioned zones. He goes briefly into removing the fountain and clarifying the cobble stones by making them narrower, clearer, and a better surface. Trees that would be removed are ornamental trees, and trees that are taken out will all be replaced with a canopy type tree in another location. Chairs and tables are another topic that can be considered in the future.
Love closes saying that the most important part of phase one is organizing the spatial structure of the street. The issue to consider with this is the budget. You can’t get the entire project done before the high tourist time with the current budget, but Love states that we can complete these phase one removals before the high season begins. Getting these things done before pinpointing what to do with the cobblestones and fountain will aid in the overall project and will minimize disruption in the high season.
Charlotte Barrows suggests that Love explain what in kind brick replacement means.
Love states that once the landscape beds are removed, brick will be placed over the area to match the current brick around it. It will therefore look like there was never a planter there in the first place and as though the brick had always been there.
Chairperson Paul Durand asks for clarification on what exactly is being removed in this phase one.
Love states the planters behind the fountain, the bulletin board kiosk, and the round planter in front of the Salem Five building. This is the base contract which will have value “x”. He then shows add alternates removals further down the pedestrian mall which could occur depending upon the money available.
Durand then questions if drainage and/or catch basin issues will be considered as the add alternate issues instead of more planter removals.
Love states that water issues will be addressed once the cobble stones are addressed. Those issues will begin to be tackled once they get to survey back on May 14th.
Duncan notes that since funds had not been identified to do everything at once, we had to figure out a phased approach. She states that survey work is needed in order to address drainage issues, and furthermore notes that we are going to move directly into phase two upon completion of the first phase. She asks the team what they think other issues are that should be considered along with drainage which could be focused on in phase two.
Love responds that part of the issue is that we’re trying to use funding from this fiscal year to allocate funds for this phase. In order to do that, we need to have simple scope outlines to proceed, which is what the strategic removal provides.
Durand responds that his only concern is if there is extra money to do extra add alternates, why not use it towards simple maintenance issues instead of removing other planters.
Michael Blier interjects and states that it may be best to analyze simple maintenance issues such as drainage in phase two because removal of cobblestones could affect that. It’s about deciding the best time to deal with the issues.
Durand states that prioritization of maintenance issues versus removing additional planters needs to be considered.
Durand then asks if there are any other comments that the board wants to make before it is turned over to the public.
David Jaquith asks if the brick that is going to replace the planters is going to be put back the way the design team wants it.
Love states yes because where the removals are taking place are where they are depicting the brick field to be. He describes that surgically going in and making small improvements one at a time is better than ripping the whole thing up and replacing it.
Durands asks if it is work that will stay in place for the final design.
Love states yes.
Daniel comments that this moves the larger project forward and this is just the first step.
Jaquith states there are other reasons this is the approach is being taken, such as limited funds.
Love responds yes and that in the final analysis the issues with the mall aren’t issues of style or materiality, they are simply issues of spatial logic, and with this being addressed it will balance the streetscape and furthermore will create an overall better urban space.
Helen Sides states that she wouldn’t want things to take place in this phase which would eliminate the possibility of addressing the collection of storm water, and furthermore states that she would want that to be integrated in an early phase so those areas are not done over and then torn up again.
Love notes that again the goal is to have specific zones and the zone he really wants to attack is designating a tree zone in order for this to be addressed.
Durand asks about a time frame for phase one.
Love states he wants to get the contractor going by June 29th to be exact because that is the end of the fiscal year which is why the strategic removal contract documents are doable in terms of getting them out, getting bids back, and getting them going within that time frame.
Durand asks what the time frame is for phase two.
Love responds that it has to do with the comfort level of the merchants along Essex Street of continuing work through the summer, or do we have to wait until November 1st to begin that phase. So, that is to be determined, but it is of urgency to get that phase going as quickly as possible.
Jaquith asks that before phase two occurs if you’ll be back before us so we can vote on that and see exactly what it will look like. He further states that he is bothered by the current lack of clarity.
Love states yes we would come back before the board for phase two. He affirms that he is very confident that this first phase of removal is necessary in any case.
Blier adds that what they have presented is a very clear framework of the footprint of the design.
Jaquith says he understands but wants them to make up their mind on the cobblestones.
Durand asks how long it’s going to take phase one to be completed.
Love responds that he is meeting with the contractor next week to have an initial discussion about it.
Duncan clarifies that we don’t need to go through a bid process because the City has a contractor on call from a previous bid process .We have an opportunity to do some improvements on the mall that are consistent with the plans that we have talked about with funding from fiscal year 12 if we can get the money under contract. Unfortunately, there are no detailed plans, but it is her hope that since we have a contractor on board we can get some, if not, most of the construction done in June to avoid the high season and get the dollars expended. Then, later, we can work towards the discussion of the cobblestones and the fountain. She further notes that when the City had some other landscape beds removed last summer and replaced the brick in kind, it opened up the area. The goal is to make it so people can walk side by
side by clearing the obstacles that currently exist. She states that in an ideal world we would already have drawings, but she thinks we would lose valuable time trying to put those drawings together when really this is a design-build type project.
Duncan continues that relative to the project being clear and concise, she suggests that the design team take into consideration the one area of drainage previously mentioned and see if it could be implemented into phase one.
Love explains that it was impossible to prepare design drawings by the City’s deadline because we weren’t getting the survey back in time to do so. Since, the funding was available they got creative and came up with a way to get the project going, hence the phases.
Jaquith asks when phase two will occur and if there is funding available for the design phase.
Duncan affirms this and adds that the design team is charged with moving forward with phase two design seamlessly, and that is why survey work is currently being done for phase two.
Love notes that the survey is due to be completed on May 14th.
Durand wants clarification that the work which is being proposed will keep the mall open, keep traffic flowing, and will be done in a short amount of time. He is concerned about emergency vehicles and delivery trucks not being able to get through.
Love responds that will all be coordinated.
Durand then opens up the meeting for questions from the public.
Ben Arlander of 10 Norman Street is in favor of removing the fountain, the kiosk, and the landscape beds. He notes that putting in benches would be better than table and chairs.
Durand fields this concern and says the benches are not moveable and that you rarely see two people who don’t know each other on one bench so it’s not very efficient. Tables and chairs can at least be rearranged.
Love notes this is an experiment that can be tinkered with. The tables and chairs could be tried here, and if they don’t work they can be redeployed somewhere else in the city.
Durand notes you could even have the space be totally open if you wanted.
Sides states the City has found out that in long term situations benches had been removed due to vagrancy, so she thinks it is better to have portable tables and chairs that can be put away sometimes due to weather or skateboarders.
Love says we will definitely look at this.
Arlander suggests that having benches right along the buildings don’t cause any clutter.
Love responds that it is better when they’re associated with shops. On these kinds of commercial streets that’s when benches are successful. He does believe there are places for fixed benches in this project, but states it will not happen during phase one.
Mary Whitney of 356 Essex Street asks which side of Essex Street the trees will be on and wants to know why they won’t be on both sides.
Love states that if we put trees on both sides the tree canopy wouldn’t be healthy.
Whitney argues that you can have an allée with trees on both sides and that she sees it all the time.
Love says it’s really a dimensional issue but they will look into the tree placement much more in phase two.
Blier adds that this part of the design discussion is active and will be considered in phase two.
Whitney states that she just wanted to understand what the add alternate is.
Love responds that all we are doing is removing planters and putting brick down in place of them.
Duncan further explains that add alternate is a contractual term that is related to bid documents so that’s what is causing the confusion. We are not adding any planters or low shrubs; we are only removing the low landscape beds that are an obstruction to walking.
Whitney asks if the addition of trees will occur in the second phase.
Love responds yes and further notes that the tree lay out will be considered in much more depth in phase two. He also notes that conceptually there may be areas where adding trees on both sides of the street could work.
Jim Kearny of 1½ Cambridge Street asks in regards to run-off, if all the existing pavers are set in concrete or if they are set more conventionally in something that can drain.
Love responds that they are set so they can drain but we are unaware of the exact subservice conditions.
Blier adds that there is a layer of impervious under the brick however beneath the cobble stones it does not come to anything solid.
Kearney notes that there are so many places where paving creates drainage problems, so the extent that it could be pervious would solve multiple problems. He then asks when the pattern and type of brick will be specified.
Love responds that we could come back as soon as June, and again notes that they can’t really start on that until they get the survey back on May 14th, but as soon as they do they will work on it immediately.
Kearney notes that the City has been doing some ADA handicap accessible work lowering curb cuts and replacing brick, and while those were also in kind brick replacement, he felt those projects were atrocious and didn’t match.
Love states that this will be their biggest challenge and that they will get into that pretty quickly the next couple weeks to figure out the best solution to make the brick match as good as possible. He also notes that they have to make sure they don’t run into any code issues during installation.
Duncan adds that the design team is on board doing construction oversight to make sure that the construction is high quality and fits as well as possible, which she thinks is different than how it was done previously.
Frank Fagley of 213 Essex Street states that sidewalk in front of the Magic Parlor and Derby Books is perfectly level. He adds there are two mature trees as well as benches. The only problem is the cobblestones. He is also concerned about the electrical outlet. He then asks why the design team would upset something that already looks good.
Love responds that they can’t fix the cobblestones now because they don’t have enough time to get that done by June 29th.
Fagley states you can’t remove the planters by June 29th.
Love says that is easy to do.
Fagley says the bricks in front of his business are perfect.
Love explains they are not taking out any existing brick, they are only taking out the landscape beds and replacing that with brick to match the existing brick.
Fagley then expresses concern about his 10 x 10 canopy that he has been doing for the past ten years.
Love says that the goal is to create more room to spill out for merchants by removing the low planter zones. We want this to be an active retail street and that’s why we’re doing this.
Blier adds that he has experienced walking by Fagley’s canopy and how crowded it gets which forces him to walk on the other side of the planter. Therefore, removing the planter would avoid this exact problem.
Judith Lazdowski of the Museum Place Mall states that her business is in the mall, but if it were on the street she would not want benches backed up against her window.
Love responds that if they decide to replace benches we’ll meet with each of the property owners near each one. This, again, is something that will be discussed in phase two.
Durand interjects and states that Love gave a background of the overall project but the questions should be limited to the removal strategy of phase one and possibly the alternates. Anything that will occur in phase two will be discussed at the appropriate time.
Duncan states in regard to the Magic Parlor comment, that the goal is to make this more pedestrian friendly. In the past, when we got rid of landscape beds, we noticed that it became additional outdoor vending space. So the City is also looking how to best manage that so there is still open pedestrian space.
Mike Lash of Balcomb Street wants to know if the news box can be removed in this phase.
Love responds it’s a freedom of speech issue because they are newspapers but there are ways to deal with it.
Lash secondly notes there should be bike racks along Essex Street and thirdly, states that our tourism kiosk is placed in front of the fountain every season which blocks the visibility also. He asks where the tourism outreach will continue without blocking the visibility of the mall.
Love says his points are well made, and it will be important to have a clear plan for the bike racks as well as Lash’s other points too.
Joan Brennan of Witch Tees at 173 Essex Street agrees with everything they’re doing but doesn’t agree with the timing of the project because of the summer months and tourist season. She understands fiscal budgets and if we already have a contractor in line why don’t we appropriate funds for that contractor and avoid the summer months.
Love states that this phase would be done in June.
Brennan replies that June is the start of their tourist season and things are not going to happen in a month.
Love states we are meeting with the contractor in a week and we’re going to get going as quickly as possible.
Brennan states that she does not want phase two to begin anywhere between June and October.
Love clarifies that we are here specifically for phase one, which will be done as quickly as possible. As far as phase two, November 2nd might be the best time to begin, but that will be determined later.
Durand comments that the mall can still be active with tourism during phase one because it is a limited scope.
Lara Jay of 54 Derby Street is concerned with the root systems of the trees and thinks the necessary precautions have not been completed to consider how much further the roots may reach. She also agrees that phase two should not begin until Nov 2nd.
Love knows the roots of some trees are within the planters because of their construction. With the trees they are unsure of, he says the typically roots extend as far as the tree’s canopy.
Blier adds that some of the trees are stunted in their growth because of the concrete surrounding, and that anecdotally we do have a good idea of what is going on.
Love closes saying he thinks we’ll be able to manage it very well.
Durand states it is time to have a motion.
Sides makes a motion to recommend approval of the phase one plans, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 4-0.
Adjournment
Sides: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 4-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 6:25 pm.
| 
