City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday October 23, 2013 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Helen Sides, Paul Durand, Ernest DeMaio,
Glenn Kennedy, David Jaquith, J. Michael Sullivan
Members Absent:
Others Present: Andrew Shapiro
Recorder: Jennifer Pennell
Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
~
- 43 Church Street (Turner’s Seafood): Continuation of discussion of proposed flags and revisions to signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, cut sheets, and photos.
Jim Turner was present on behalf of Turner’s Seafood.
Turner noted that he has addressed the previous request to provide a 3-D view of the building with the proposed flags and dimensions. Previous concerns were in regards to the size and cantor of the proposed flag imagery. Turner noted that the proposed blade sign dimensions would be revised to 3’-6” x 3’-6” with a black and gold leaf color scheme similar to the signage across the street.
Turner commented that window graphics slightly increased in size. Window decals would be 3’-0” and the proposed graphics would only be located on the 2 end windows (on the side of the building) and two center windows on either side of the building’s façade. Additionally, one new proposed window decal located on the front door’s window would read “Turner’s Seafood at Lyceum Hall” and would measure 14” x 18”. Turner noted that proposed pinned lettering also will be reduced (19” in height for the larger letters and 15” in height for the smaller letters). All signage combined will total less than 71 square feet in size.
DeMaio questioned if the window graphics stroke could be more similar to the stroke of the letters located at the entry door signage.
Kennedy commented that the rule needs to be thinned down to about half its size on the lettering. The smart quote located on the window signage does not match the straight quote on the building signage. Kennedy commented that they should be consistent and that the curved quote is more appealing. Kennedy questioned if there is a white border around the sign.
Turner noted that there is. Turner agreed to remove the white border around the window signage’s lettering in order to have it match the lettering seen elsewhere.
Sides: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0.
- 50 St. Peter Street (A&B Burgers): Continuation of discussion of proposed signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, data cut sheet, and photos. Tom Holland was present on behalf of A&B Burgers.
Holland noted that the number of colors expressed in the signage has been simplified. The blade sign is now proposed as being perpendicular with the front face of the building.
Sullivan commented that the proposed scale, proportion, and simplicity of the design works well.
Sides questioned if there is a light source present.
Tom Holland noted that an existing light fixture is there now and would be used.
Kennedy questioned if the mounting bracket for the blade sign would be located above the top of the proposed signage and if the proposed signs are the same size.
Holland noted that the sign size and mounting height varies depending on its location. Dimensions have been provided in the packet.
Kennedy commented that the proposed building wall mounted sign appears a bit large in comparison with the surrounding windows. Kennedy commented that the blade sign mount should be concealed. The size of the sign on the data sheet from the sign company appears more proportional. Holland noted that the data sheet from the sign company would be adhered to in terms of the proportional size being represented for the building sign.
Holland noted that the material of the blade sign with the A&B Title would be a laminate sheet that is brushed aluminum.
Kennedy: Motion to approve as presented with the following conditions:
- The proportions follow the dimensions on the data sheet provided by the sign company.
- No exposed fasteners
- Blade signs will be double-backed so as not to expose bars holding up the signs
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0.
- 201 Washington Street (Beijing Herbal Foot Spa): Discussion of proposed signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, data cut sheet, and photos.
Shapiro noted that the proposed A frame signage would consist of white plastic material and be located at the entry door. The proposed signage would be 2’-0” wide with an 8’-0” clearance on the sidewalk to a parking meter that is in front of the storefront.
DeMaio questioned what part of the signage would be temporary. The “grand opening” would be temporary, DeMaio questioned if this voided space would be replaced with additional signage later.
Kennedy commented that the proposed removable yellow sticker with type needs something to replace it. Kennedy noted that the color would fade a bit over time.
Sides: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0.
- 211 Bridge Street (The First Universalist Society): Discussion of replacement of ground level windows.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, data cut sheet, and photos. Sally Millice was present on behalf of The First Universalist Society.
Millice commented that the existing windows were in various states of disrepair, some are covered in plexiglass, and they varied in size.
The proposal is to replicate the existing window dimensions and their original appearance with either a vinyl or high quality double hung windows, and to remove any plexiglass.
Sides noted that one of the existing windows is sitting on the ground. Sides questioned if there is any way to build up this window.
Jaquith commented that the material located on the base of the window could change but the window dimensions should remain the same. Jaquith noted that a specific window manufacture and style needs to be presented. Jaquith also noted that vinyl would not be acceptable and that the second proposal (wood windows) would have to be used.
DeMaio questioned if screens would be located on the exterior.
Millice commented that all proposed windows would have exterior screens and should be consistent.
Sides volunteered to review the project further and finalize any details with the applicant prior to presentation at the SRA, upon conditional approval.
Jaquith: Motion to approve with the following condition:
- Applicant to work with Helen Sides on finalization of proposal prior to presentation at the SRA.
Seconded by: Durand, Passes 6-0.
Minutes
Approval of the minutes from the September 25, 2013 regular meeting.
Ernest DeMaio provided revisions to the minutes, including that he did not make the following comments that were attributed to him:
-Page 6: in regards to RCG’s proposal: Canal Street corner; Mr. DeMaio noted that he did not suggest it as a residential entrance.
-Further down page 6: also in regards to RCG’s proposal: Mr. DeMaio did not say that the windows should consist of a different material that was discussed.
Shapiro noted that he would delete the comments that DeMaio noted were incorrectly attributed to him.
Jaquith: Motion to approve with Ernest DeMaio’s revisions.
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0.
At this point, Helen Sides recused herself from the discussion of the next item and left the room.
- 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street, and 231-251 Washington Street (Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Continuation of discussion of proposed development – Schematic Design Review.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a cover letter that describes the overall proposal and description of what is before the DRB this evening, as well as two proposed site plan options. The applicant also provided a PowerPoint presentation with more detailed information. The following individuals were present on behalf of RCG LLC.
Matt Picarsic, RCG
Dave Steinbergh, RCG
Seth Zeren, RCG
Max Hebert, RCG
Jai Singh Khalsa, KDI Architects
Klarens Karanxha, KDI Architects
Richard Bertman, CBT Architects
Mike Blier, Landworks Studio
Picarsic introduced the above noted team representing RCG at the meeting and noted that an effort was made to address previous feedback received from the DRB that the South Building was too monolithic, to perhaps break up that building, and to bring its façade closer to the street edge. Picarsic noted his hope to come away from this meeting with a more defined direction on how to develop the site, especially with respect to the South Building.
David Steinbergh began the presentation by noting that the materials before the DRB this evening reflect two simplified proposals to address how the site should be addressed. He indicated that in both proposals, the implication of moving the South Building toward the street given the significant grade change that occurs, would not allow for first floor retail to occur there. Instead, they propose a series of stoops into first floor entrances to residential units.
Mr. Khalsa noted that the current proposals acknowledge the voids that allow light into alleys and the formation of building clusters as one moves up Washington Street. Meeting accessibility requirements for retail businesses have proven difficult along Washington Street in regards to the site grade changes and allowances for setbacks from the street. Retail for the North Building has been extended halfway down the building facing out onto Dodge Street. RCG proposes relocating the hotel entrance to the corner of the Dodge Street / Dodge Street Court intersection. Khalsa noted that the corner treatment is a great opportunity to create a transition from the commercial downtown to residences along Washington Street. Private entrances enhance the streetscape and material details vary in both alternatives.
The first proposal has a West Building with a more variegated façade that is also more parallel to the street. The second proposal calls for that building to have a stronger curve. The South Building would be called the “Mill Hill Building.” Buildings could transfer in material from more traditional Salem building material – masonry – to more of a clapboard or wooden mill style material for the South Building.
Khalsa also noted that breaking up the proposed development into three buildings would allow for parking for the residential building to be concentrated near or toward it, whereas the central parking area could serve the retail and hotel uses. He commented that pocket parks would occur along the residential part of Washington Street. This would reinforce the notion of picking up the greenscape by providing stoops and tree plantings.
Steinbergh expressed their team’s preference for “Site Plan Option 2,” which proposes a more curved building for the West Building.
DeMaio questioned if residential users and hotel guests would have distinct parking locations and entrances that can be made apparent from the street. DeMaio questioned if hotel visitors would be arriving and departing from Washington Street or comingling with residential users.
Steinbergh responded noting that people using the West and South buildings would primarily enter using the Washington Street entrance. Some parking for upper level permanent uses would have to be accessed via Dodge Street / Dodge Street Court.
Khalsa noted that residents might have to move through certain areas of retail or hotel use parking, but would ultimately have a segregated area of parking at which to arrive.
Picarsic commented that hotel users would not be using the Washington Street entrance and that hotel parking would be accessible from Dodge Street and Dodge Street Court. Street signage would provide guidance for guests.
Sullivan commented that the notion of three separate buildings breaks the volume up and works well. A model would have helped see the volumes of the buildings within their context.
Jaquith commented that the jutting out at the corner could be used as a special opportunity to transition between buildings. The connections between the buildings should be opportunities to connect with the rear of each structure. By each of these moments being distinct it develops way finding for the pedestrian.
Durand questioned what RCG envisions at the ground plane located at each connector. Durand questioned if the three separate buildings could marry each other and moves a bit closer to one another.
Jaquith commented that these moments allow access into parking locations. The rear of these buildings that faces the parking should translate into a shopping plaza, which houses offices and businesses that don’t require direct street frontage.
DeMaio questioned if the south building would have 1 stoop entry or multiple.
Khalsa noted that there would be multiple stoops along the residential building front façade.
Sullivan commented that retail businesses located on the rear of the south building would be an attractive feature. This would provide life to the parking lot.
Khalsa commented that the north building would be one story; this building would be moved closer to Washington Street.
DeMaio noted that option 2 has more opportunities than option 1 from a massing point of view. It is very difficult viewing the proposal from plan and elevations. DeMaio commented that the hotel appears to be more of the larger mass rather than the corner building in plan view because it is the strongest element. Positioning the taller mass further up the grade only makes the mass appear even larger. Greater density buildings should be located closer to Riley Plaza. The building volumes need to relate to the neighborhood. DeMaio commented that windows would be operable which would provide a lot of overwhelming repetition. Washington Street building scales have smaller windows; more details on the facades, and the masses are smaller clusters. Cladboards are usually in residential structures; everything
surrounding the proposed building is masonry. The hotel details should pick up on brick and detailing from the surrounding buildings. The proposed hotel and west building should be more forward thinking.
Kennedy commented that the west building in plan 1 does not fit in with the surrounding context. The corner-curved building should not look like the corner of the Salem News. The massing of the north building in alternative 2 looks more balanced in the plan than in the elevation. There is an opportunity to make this building larger by adding an additional level or by making this space decorative. The north building should be the most contemporary and forward thinking. Kennedy commented that something similar to the Burlington Hotel image would work well around the corner leading up into the neighborhood. Parking area should appear finished off with a lot of attention and detail. Foot traffic from the Tavern building and the Starbucks pedestrian traffic is coming across the street and straight into the
entry. This should be acknowledged and highlighted as an entry at the retail level. Kennedy noted that he would love to see some rooftop considerations.
Durand commented that the area seems like it wants to be masonry. The west building appears to be a huge mass. Option 1 has opportunities to work on the mass of this. The corner is not a strong corner similar to the tavern, it lacks pedestrian traffic. This should be an interesting strong mass and an entry would enhance this. Durand noted that there is a nice opportunity for window lines and variation between façade treatments. Durand noted that he prefers the south building in option 2.
Sullivan noted that the west building is going to be the landmark.
Emily Udy from Historic Salem commented that she applauds the stoop idea along the residential entrances. Pedestrian access is a great way to approach the downtown area. Udy noted that she does not like the cladboard option. The north building should have a plaza at either end, which could happen, in a number of locations. The pedestrian path in front of the Starbucks would be overshadowed. Realistically this building may be added onto in the future. Udy noted that she is less concerned about introducing a 5-story building at the hotel location. Across Dodge Street Court there is a potential for a future, deeper, sidewalk and front door into the hotel. Material treatments should be cladding used in a way that enhances this opportunity. She noted that a contemporary use of design material would be
preferred over a copy of materials that would have been used in historic structures or something fabricated. Udy commented that ocean views should be acknowledged if possible. Treatment of the mechanical systems should be integrated into the design.
Primary points taken away by the applicant:
- Having the buildings closer to the street
- Incorporating residential access at the grade at South Building
- To proceed with the direction promoted in Site Plan Option 2
Durand noted that although Option 2 was the generally expressed as a preference from the Board, he feels that it’s not to say that aesthetics or other ideas from this plan can’t be questioned in the future.
Durand: Motion to approve continuation.
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0.
Adjournment
Kennedy: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Sullivan. Passes 5-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 8:11 pm.
| 
