City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Monday March 26, 2014 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Paul Durand, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan, Glenn Kennedy, Ernest DeMaio, and David Jaquith
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): Discussion of proposed outdoor seating area.
The submission under review includes a cover letter, drawings/plans of the proposed seating area, and a cut sheet of proposed umbrellas to be used in the outdoor seating area. Jim Turner was present on behalf of Turner’s Seafood.
Turner noted that based on the review of the originally submitted seating plan, the Building Department had requested that there be a minimum of 4’ of clearance between the chain of the seating area and the landscaped area on the other side of the sidewalk. A revised proposal is being presented that accommodates this request.
Dimensions for the new tables would be 32”, of which there are now 10.
Turner noted that the proposal also includes the potential use of canvas umbrellas at the tables, to be grey or black.
Turner also noted that the same chain and stanchions used by the previous owner of the restaurant would be used for cordoning off of the seating area.
DeMaio questioned what the chain material and color would be and if there would there be any outdoor signage.
Turner responded that he was not certain of the exact material, but that it is black.
DeMaio asked whether the 4’ of clearance was to the base of the stanchion.
Turner responded by noting that there should be enough clearance to allow 4’ to the base of the stanchion.
DeMaio cautioned Turner noting that sometimes stanchions have the tendency to be moved and that can potentially cause issues with respect to clearance for pedestrians.
Turner noted that there would be no signage advertising the restaurant outside, but that the Health Department required him to post signage stating “no smoking” and “no dogs.”
Sides: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0.
- 283 Derby Street (Brothers Restaurant): Discussion of proposed revisions to previously approved façade treatments – signage, awning, and window/ door frames.
The submission under review includes a letter, drawings, and renderings of the proposed revisions to previously approved façade treatments. Richard Griffin was present on behalf of the applicant.
The representative noted that although it had been approved by the DRB and SRA in the past, there is no longer any outdoor seating being requested for this project.
The original proposal called for a lot of dark green and aluminum/silver.
The proposed color scheme has changed to Hartford green for the awning material and black for the window and door treatments. The awning would be a series of tubes with an aluminum finish – this proposed change in style and materials from what was previously approved puts less stress on the building and accomplishes the goal of deflecting some sunlight, but not necessarily blocking it out.
The representative noted that signage would have raised lettering with a gold finish, as opposed to the silver/aluminum finish that had been proposed previously.
Sullivan questioned if the lights would be green.
Griffin noted that the lights would be green.
DeMaio noted that he would prefer the lights to be black, but that it’s not so much of an objection, so much as it is a preference.
Jaquith: Motion to approve with minor modification, the submission does not need further review by the SRA board.
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 5-0.
Glenn Kennedy arrived at 6:30pm.
North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review
- 70-92 ½ Boston Street (DHM Realty Trust/ Pediatric Associates of Greater Salem, Inc.): Continued discussion of proposed medical office development.
The submission under review includes a letter, presentation, drawings, and renderings of the proposed medical office development. Romeo Moreira and Allen Buie of Perkins & Will were present on behalf of the applicant.
Moriera noted changes that had been made from the previous submission. They include:
- Planting bed with additional low shrubbery located along edges and throughout site.
- Sedum and grass will be kept on-site.
- Air condenser and transformer units will be located on the northeast corner of the Goodhue Street level, and they will be fenced off and on concrete pads.
- Elevations now denote building heights
- A new point of entry for patients has been created on Goodhue street, which is a storefront system with a door that accesses a lobby with an elevator to take them to floors above.
Moreira noted that there had been a question about the view from across Boston Street and whether the lower roof would be seen from across the street. The lower roof can be seen, but not the higher roof.
Moreira then noted that their goal was to obtain a recommendation of approval from the DRB this evening. He noted that they also had an updated PowerPoint presentation that they could show the Board.
Moreira then began moving through the slides of the presentation. He noted the existing conditions of the site.
Buie then began to discuss the history of the site, and also showed the various regulatory overlays that dictated how development should occur in the area. With regard to site context, Buie noted that the surrounding structures contain several types of materials, including vinyl, brick, wood, copper, aluminum, and others. Likewise he noted that various buildings around the site take on different characteristics. He also showed slides of buildings throughout the country that utilize metal panel material.
Chairman Durand then invited the members of the public that were present to start with any comments or concerns that they might have.
Mr. Shapiro then began by reading a letter provided by Jim Treadwell of North Salem into the record. It stated that “Pursuant to the provisions of the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NRCC), brick is to be encouraged as a building material in all development within the NRCC. The current redevelopment proposal for the Flynn Tan site does not use brick as a building material. Metal, which is to be discouraged, is used extensively in the PAGS project.
Accordingly, as the Design Review Board (DRB) prepares its recommendation to the Planning Board and, in order to encourage the use of brick in the proposed PAGS project and support compliance with the NRCC, I would request that the DRB consider the inclusion of provisions that would encourage 1. the salvage and reuse of historic brick from the Flynn Tan property and 2. the use of brick, generally, throughout the project and particularly in instances where brick could be substituted for metal screening, cladding, etc.”
Jim Treadwell then rose and spoke himself, noting his disappointment in the lack of changes to the project as currently presented. He then noted that, as presented in the minutes from the last meeting, that there were several, at least 12, adverse comments in terms of the building materials that were proposed to be used for the project. He noted that the way that the applicant addressed pedestrian access on Goodhue was not what he would have hoped in that it does not encourage pedestrian movement along the street.
Mr. Treadwell then noted that the use of metal for this project, as noted by members of the Board and the public, is cold. He also continued by noting that the buildings that were shown in the presentation that utilize metal are stand-alone buildings and do not sit within a residential context. He noted that brick could be used along the base of the retaining wall.
Mr. Treadwell also expressed concern that further details had not yet been discussed with respect to the color of the metal, lighting and signage. He indicated that perhaps the applicant could consider brick edging along Boston Street.
Moreira then noted that additional samples for the metal panel have been collected and he would be happy to share them with the Board.
Durand questioned whether detailed plans had been developed for lighting and signage.
Moreira responded that lighting was still being looked at. They are trying to limit glare for surrounding residents. A lighting consultant is working on this.
Durand asked if any other members of the public had comments.
Emily Udy of Historic Salem Inc. noted that a letter had been submitted to the Board with comments.
Shapiro confirmed that it was disseminated to the Board.
Udy noted that this project would be the first step to redeveloping the Boston Street corridor for pedestrian circulation. Creating some sort of street wall or edge of the site would be important to make sure pedestrian access is satisfied. Having something along the sidewalk would make it feel more like a corridor and less suburban. McDonalds up the street is a good example of how trees can be used to shade a parking area. Materials should be considerate towards the context.
William Sousa of 83 Boston Street (across the street) noted that the building looks great. Sousa commented that he is happy to not see any brick. There is no access from one street to the other now, there doesn’t seem to be a problem. He noted that he likes the idea of the lawn coming out to the sidewalk. He said that he hopes that the project goes forward.
Durand then noted the end of public comment and opened up discussion for the Board to comment.
Durand acknowledged the many comments that have been made about the compliance of the proposed project with the NRCC Master Plan. He said that despite the building materials and other issues that some have expressed, that the project is presented well and that much has been done, for instance the interesting landscaping, to balance out the site. It is a pleasurable and appealing aesthetic, the building is interesting and unique. There are a variety of buildings in the area with a wide range of facade materials. I like the project. The attributes outweigh the concerns. Durand noted that he would like to see lighting, signage, and material samples. An area needs to be designated for loading and they need to be screened appropriately. Durand noted that there are no roof top units to
clutter the design.
Jaquith questioned if his comment has been incorporated into the revision regarding the greenery on the retaining wall.
The architects noted they had not, but that they would take it into consideration. They noted a concern in regards costs for maintenance for such a request.
Jaquith then noted that he would like to reexamine the screening of the parking garage. Definition at the edge of the property is a good idea.
At this point Moreira and Buie showed the Board a version of the proposed metal siding in a “warmer” “champagne” color. Sides, Durand, and others noted that they appreciated this as opposed to the “cooler” silver siding that had previously been presented.
The architects then showed two different options for the metal screening for the parking garage. One being an originally proposed version with “larger” perforations, and a second options with “smaller” perforations.
Jaquith, Durand, and Sides expressed liking the larger perforations (originally proposed) versus the other one with smaller perforations.
Jaquith questioned if the cast in place concrete would be cast face or split face.
Moreira noted that it would be split-face.
Jaquith noted that he applauds the larger perforated metal panel for the lower portion of the garage screening. He also noted that shading at the reception window needs to be addressed.
The architect noted that the retaining wall consists of an 8” split face concrete, slightly sloped. The greenery along the retaining wall would require maintenance, which the client does not want. Multiple sun-shading studies have been completed.
Kennedy noted that the cast in place concrete would work best applied and lightly sand blasted along the rough edges. An example would be on the walkway in a main park along the water in Pittsburgh, which utilized the same material. A horizontal layout would pick up more dirt and a soot line would be apparent.
Durand noted that the subcontractor in charge of casting and installing the concrete would be of particular importance.
Buie noted that the metal siding would be installed to have the corrugations running vertically.
Sides noted that she likes the project very much. The design really addresses the composition of the site. The architect has made a conscious decision about the openness. She noted that she feels it is somewhat unfair to compel the applicant to have a wall at the edge of the site given that a conscious decision was made to have the site be open and that it does work for this site. The materials are fabulous but unfamiliar to people because they are not accustomed to them. We must think about how buildings change through time and that bricks can’t always be used.
Kennedy noted that it doesn’t feel like it is located in the right place. It feels like it should be located in Burlington, Vermont. That being said, he noted not being opposed to the design. He expressed a slight concern about the length of the sidewalk along Boston Street. Kennedy commented that this is a long run for the pedestrian with the building set back. The greenery however, makes it a nice experience. He noted liking the building and where it’s headed.
DeMaio began by commenting that he liked the project as it was presented at the last meeting and that he still likes the project. He commented that he addressed the screening of the bins at the last meeting and that the applicant seems to have not yet addressed this matter. He noted that it is a significant issue for the project given the adjacency to the residential building across Goodhue Street. The operation of the building and with the sake of convenience, bins could end up open and visible to the public. Screening is important.
DeMaio continued by noting that of perhaps more importance is addressing the site lighting. The site is residential on one side and more urban on the other. Site lighting will be challenging in regards to the look, quality, and effect it would have on the site. More understanding on how this would work is needed.
Sullivan questioned if there was an image from Goodhue Street with the new entry.
Issue of materials has been addressed by identifying how they are used in the surrounding neighborhood. This particular building is located right on the edge of the NRCC and on the tip of another type of neighborhood. The design is part of a larger component. Sullivan noted that he is happy the materials haven’t changed and that the analysis of materials was appropriate. He noted that elevations are needed for Goodhue Street. The entry on this side is very important to address. Dumpsters and the public entry are important pieces to the overall design. He noted that he is glad that there is an entry on Goodhue Street for pedestrians. Sullivan questioned what the material of fence surrounding the condensing units would be.
Moreira noted that there were a couple of different options for fencing and that a contractor was being sought to develop an operable fence at both the dumpsters and and the mechanical elements.
The architect commented that there are now only two bins which will require screening, as opposed to three or more that were presented at the last meeting.
Applicant Mark McKenna noted that the landscaping had changed significantly along the edges of the street to accommodate the pedestrian experience. He noted that it was a challenge on the Goodhue Street side because the sidewalk ends abruptly at Witch City Cyles.
Sides questioned whether the applicant had a lighting consultant.
Moreira responded noted that they do have a lighting consultant, as well as a consultant working on signage. He said that they could follow-up with more information, but that certain calculations needed to be conducted.
Durand, Sides, and Jaquith deliberated for a moment about how to provide certain conditions to any proposed recommendation of approval.
In a discussion about the screening material to be used for the parking garage, DeMaio noted that he may have preferred using smaller perforations – not so much as to not approve recommendation of the project for approval to the Planning Board. He noted that he tends to err on the side of smaller screening on the work that he does, but does not oppose approval.
Durand noted that larger perforations would probably facilitate better airflow and ventilation.
DeMaio noted that a smaller perforation surrounded by more metal material might present a better option for a screening material. He noted always regretting the use of ½ inch perforations on a project at the University of Pennsylvania in the past. You want to have some transparency, but you want to see it in scale and context.
Sides: recommend approval of the plans submitted March 5, 2014 and amended in plans dated March 26, 2014, as well as presented in slides shown on and dated March 26, 2014, for the project at 70-92 ½ Boston Street with the following conditions:
- The applicant will submit final construction plans for review and approval by the DRB prior to obtaining a building permit.
- The landscape plan is in accordance with the landscaping plan dated March 25, 2014.
- The materials and color samples are in accordance with samples submitted and approved by the DRB – the “champagne” color that was presented to the DRB on March 26, 2014 should be used for the corrugated metal siding and the metal screening with the larger perforations of the two samples shown should be used.
- The applicant will submit plans for the screening of dumpsters and mechanical elements to the DRB for final approval prior to obtaining a building permit.
- The applicant will submit a plan for lighting the site and the building to the DRB for review prior to obtaining a building permit.
- The signage for the building and the site must be reviewed and approved prior to obtaining a sign permit
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0.
Minutes
Approval of the minutes from the February 26, 2014 regular meeting.
DeMaio noted wanting to address some of the comments attributed to him. Shapiro agreed to include any requested edits.
Durand: Motion to continue.
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0.
Approval of the minutes from the March 5, 2014 special meeting.
Sides: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: Durand, Passes 6-0.
Jim Treadwell then requested of Chairman Durand to discuss new business. Durand granted the request.
Treadwell noted that the current NRCC plan is out of date and appears to not be valid anymore as it is over a decade old. It contains a lot of guidance in regards to several issues, such as pedestrian movement and materials. It is a matter of law, such as zoning. Treadwell questioned if it would be appropriate to have the plan updated regarding material, zoning, or other relevant issues. With regard to relating to pedestrian movement, ground floor places should have active pedestrian friendly uses – this project does not seem to incorporate this idea.
Durand agreed that it might be a good idea to update the document given the evolution of how development in the City has proceeded. He noted that as far as pedestrian movement goes, he understands that as a medical facility, the applicant might prioritize security and privacy over pedestrian access.
Durand noted that the NRCC recommended the materials but did not say to not use them. Durand commented that it is hard to put a zoning code or building code to every situation. Sometimes judgment needs to be exercised based on what is best for the future of the city. Documents should reflect protecting history and character of the community but also allow for good development.
Sides noted that it can be dangerous when documents pin all such details down in terms of materials and other relevant issues.
Durand noted that he did consider what the Plan said, but that when one considers all opinions, sometimes a design can lose its intent. The DRB should not be designers; it should help the designers move the project and take the position of the City.
Should the Plan updated? Yes, every 10 years or so, it should. We want the documents to reflect all points of view.
Kennedy quickly noted that every building should be considered on a case-by-case basis and judgment should be used.
DeMaio noted that Goode Clancy, who developed the guidelines, has changed as a firm since developing the Plan. This reflects the evolution of how development is thought of.
Treadwell reiterated that the Plan is no longer germane and encouraged the DRB to approach the Planning Department about updating the Plan.
Adjournment
Durand: Motion to adjourn,
Seconded by Jaquith. Passes 6-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:27 pm.
| 
