City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday July 23, 2014 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Paul Durand, Christopher Dynia, Glenn Kennedy, David Jaquith, J. Michael Sullivan
Members Absent: Helen Sides, Ernest DeMaio
Others Present: Andrew Shapiro
Recorder: Jennifer Pennell
Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
~
- 83 Washington Street (Melita Fiore Cakes): Discussion of proposed A-Frame sign.
The applicant was not present at the meeting and therefore this agenda item was left as the last item to be considered. Andrew Shapiro asked Chairman Durand if he would mind if he presented on behalf of the applicant in the interest of having its application heard. Chairman Durand agreed.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, drawings, and photos.
Shapiro commented that a more detail plan of the proposed A-Frame sign location is needed to review clearances.
Kennedy commented that the “Melita Fiore” type would be nice to see located at the top of the sign.
Durand: Motion to approve with Andrew Shapiro’s review of signage placement and
Melita Fiore type to be located at top of the A-Frame sign.
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0.
- 177 Essex Street (Turtle Alley Chocolates): Discussion of proposed A-Frame sign.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, photos, and cut sheets.
Amy Pearson was present on behalf of Turtle Alley Chocolates.
Pearson noted that the proposal is for an A-Frame sign with photos consistent with the branding of the shop. She was hoping this would be helpful in attracting some more business.
Kennedy commented that he is not a big fan of the white plastic finish with handles. Wood A-Frame signs have a nicer look to them. At the same time, this is not something I could disapprove.
Jaquith: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 5-0.
- 190 Essex Street (The Coven’s Cottage): Discussion of proposed signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, samples, drawings, and photos. Nikki Ball was present on behalf of the applicant.
Kennedy questioned if the proposal is for two signs.
Ms. Ball noted that there are two proposed signs; one sign has been made and one has not yet been fabricated. One sign will be mounted perpendicular to the building and one will be flush with the windows.
Kennedy questioned what the height from the top of the window to the bottom of the brick. Letters should be larger than expressed, they should be about 10 to 11 inches tall and the overall signage should stretch and become larger. The arch does not fit the space.
Kennedy commented that there should be 2 to 3 inches of margin on the sides of the sign. The blade sign type is pushed all the way to the top and left. The other signage text is pushed all the way to the left and bottom rather than the top.
Jaquith commented that extra wood should be added to enhance the margins around the outside perimeter of the blade sign. An additional inch needs to be added to correct the margin discrepancy.
Sullivan questioned if the light is existing.
Ball noted that the current lighting is part of Essex Condominiums and would be used.
Kennedy: Motion to approve blade sign with the following conditions:
- Add strips to the side of the blade sign to increase margins and carve emblem at the bottom.
- Work with Glenn Kennedy for revisions to the horizontal sign
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0.
- 87 Washington Street (Opus): Discussion of proposed revisions to front outdoor seating area, and proposed A-Frame sign.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, plans, and photos.
Shapiro noted that the back outdoor seating area has already been approved by the SRA. Tonight the DRB is only reviewing the front proposal and has final review.
The applicant noted that they would like to revert back to having four 2-tops with seats instead of the previously approved benches for the front area. Additionally, they request the use of an oak bordered a-frame sign with a blue tint and chalkboard, as opposed to a sign that had previously been approved.
Jaquith commented that the a-frame sign proposed is far superior to what had been proposed prior, and that he likes the activity that the outdoor seating will provide.
Sullivan noted that he is concerned about walking down the sidewalk with certain areas only 48” wide.
Kennedy noted that it is a significant interruption to the walking space. Kennedy commented that he is concerned about how far the chain comes out and how it impedes the path of travel. The seating area should not come out 6’6” on the left side. The last table should not be vertical and the chain should come in another foot. The other tables are fine.
Jaquith commented that the dimension on the end can be no greater than 5’-8”. The end table should be 30” and be pushed tight against the building.
Jaquith: Motion to approve with DRB’s recommendations.
- Outdoor seating clearance becomes 5’-8” on the left end.
- A-Frame and location approved as submitted
Seconded by: Sullivan, Passes 5-0.
- 90 Washington Street (Koto Japanese Grill and Sushi): Discussion of proposed signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, renderings, and photos. Keith Linares was present on behalf of the applicant.
Durand noted that the proposed blade sign is too low, a 10’-0” clearance above grade is required by the City’s sign ordinance.
Dynia noted that the sign appears a bit over scale. Dynia questioned if the sign could be kept above the door headers.
Kennedy commented that there appears to be no consistency between typography of the signs. Kennedy questioned if there is a color similarity or font consistency that could be used. The blade sign should be consistent with window decals. Kennedy commented that he would prefer to see the lettering without the backing because it appears too busy.
Jaquith commented that he would like to see a red band background behind the “Koto” text on the blade sign to create some consistency between the two signs. The letter and line spacing could be a bit tighter.
Kennedy: Motion to approve with the following conditions:
- Height of blade sign no lower than 10’-0”
- Red band behind Koto text on blade sign
- Consistency of font between the two signs
Seconded by: Durand, Passes 5-0.
44:45
- 122 Washington Street (The Ugly Mug Diner): Discussion of proposed signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, drawings, and photos.
The representative commented that the proposal includes a three dimensional blade sign, window signage, and an A-Frame sign.
Shapiro noted that there is a proposal for a lighted projection onto the sidewalk as well. Shapiro commented that there is are no current regulations for this and that he doesn’t consider it part of signage in terms of square footage due to it being able to be turned off.
Durand commented that the blade sign is too low, it should be 10’-0” above the sidewalk. The handle is the logical connection point to the wall. Two pins could connect the mug to the wall.
Sullivan questioned if the sign would be hollow.
The representative commented that the sign would have a top and bottom.
Kennedy commented that the 3D mug and the window decals feel too busy. There would be more of an impact if a few mug decals were eliminated. Kennedy commented that the two decals on the front window should be removed. The side window could have the mug decal placed in the middle. The two signs could be brought together and centered on the window. Kennedy commented that the ugly mug lettering located on the door is not needed.
Durand noted that the proposal should come back to the DRB for review regarding the construction of the 3D mug and its connection to the wall. Drawings, renderings, or a mockup should be presented to the board.
Kennedy: Motion to approve.
- Fabrication drawings for 3D mug sign needs to be approved prior to installation.
- Door sign becomes just the mug
- 10’-0” clear above sidewalk for blade sign
- Remove two mugs on outside window decals
- Lower type with the band to the center of the window.
- Center the mug at the right window
- Approve replacing the green paint with black; rest of the façade may be painted white.
- Lighting projection is approved
- A-Frame sign logo could be top center, sign approved.
Seconded by: Sullivan, Passes 5-0.
North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review
- 72 Flint Street and 67-69 & 71 Mason Street (Riverview Place): Discussion of design revisions to proposed residential and commercial development.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, drawings, and plans. Attorney Scott Grover was present on behalf of Riverview Place, LLC. He noted that the LLC owns the 4.4 acre site located between Flint and Mason Streets, where the Salem Suede and Bonfante Leather Factories once stood. Grover then introduced Landers Symes and Steve Feinstein of Symes and Associates noting that the company had just purchased a controlling interest in the LLC. Grover also introduced Jonathan Stone of O’Sullivan Architects.
Grover noted that the project was originally approved in 2009 and has 130 residential units located in three different buildings on the site, 5,500 sq/ft of commercial space located in the building located along Mason Street, with accommodations for 260 parking spaces for the residential units; this complies with the two spaces per unit requirement of the North River Canal Corridor zone. There are 10 spaces allocated to the commercial spaces, and 12 spaces allocated to the Flint Street neighborhood. The number of units and parking spaces remains unchanged from the original design.
Changes came about due to having filed for a Chapter 91 license, which led to need to move buildings further back from the water. Additionally, in filing with MEPA, that agency asked us to use 2013 flood plain data to establish the lowest plane for habitable space. This required us to place parking underneath the building and place the first floor of residential units one level higher. Grover noted that the change reduced the proposed parking garage by a full level. Overall, the project’s mass and building footprints have been reduced.
Grover then asked Jonathan Stone from Sullivan Architects to go over the design in more detail. Stone noted that the building got moved back about 100’. The size and mass of the building got reduced after decreasing overall unit size. As a result the amount of space being taken up by the building was minimized.
Roadways changed a bit from the shift in the building location. Parking got redistributed and as result the top level was eliminated. Stone noted that views along the site have been improved as a result of the reduction in the parking deck. There would be a 3 percent decrease in building footprint size. A window company created window grilles to match and hide parking.
The unit mix is one and two bedroom units, with at least two three bedroom units. The original proposal was a mill building style. The new proposal simplifies this proposal with less changes in materials, utilizing brick, standing seam metal, and clapboard siding in various portions.
Building number three is meant to fit in with the context of the surrounding streetscape. Brick bases tie this building into the rest of the development.
Chairman Durand then invited any members of the public present to make comments. Durand reminded everyone that this project falls within the North River Canal Corridor Overlay District and therefore, a recommendation must be provided to the Planning Board, per direction provided by the zoning district’s Master Plan.
Jim Treadwell of the Mack Park Neighborhood Association commented that there are three Members of the Design Review Board that had been present on the Board the last time this development was brought forth for review. 28 Goodhue is being met favorably by the Mack Park Neighborhood Association.
The design appears quite different than what was proposed before, which had previously been favored by the neighborhood. Treadwell noted the neighborhood’s concern about the scale and bulk of the project and how it is introduced to the neighborhood. The MEPA review still has not officially commenced.
Treadwell continued by noting that the Master Plan calls for lively 1st floor uses. It would appear that the commercial uses in the case of this development may not be as lively as intended. Treadwell commented that the surface lot located close to the rear of Flint Street properties is supposed to have a 50’ buffer, but it could get redesigned to better accommodate that required buffer.
Morris Shopf of 1 Cambridge Street commented that the Board should scrutinize the basement level, which is now all parking, and to encourage the applicant to identify different materials uses for first and upper floors of the buildings. Shopf commented that the top line of the buildings could be pulled and pushed to change the façade treatment and that the top roofline could have more variation. Shopf continued by noting that the units should be scrutinized; they are as small as they could be. Finally, the method of construction needs to be reviewed. It would seem that the design lends itself to prefabrication.
Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street noted that she much prefers the older design. The old design felt like it had some relationship to the neighborhood. Currently the buildings feel brutal. Twohey noted that she appreciates that the parking has come down a level but questioned how the parking located under the buildings would to be handled.
Durand then closed the period for public comment and began Board commentary. Durand observed that the original proposal was quite dense. The tradeoff was for quality.
Sullivan recommended that the applicant produce a three dimensional model so as to see relationships between buildings and circulation.
Sullivan then asked if there was a chance the applicant could get a variance for the parking requirement to be 1.5 parking spaces per unit.
Grover responded by noting that the applicant would have liked to have less parking required, but was told early in the process not to attempt to seek a variance for such a change; that the parking requirement of two spaces per unit was a standard the City wanted to achieve.
Sullivan continued by commentating that the presence of one-bedroom units are a good thing. He commented that these sized units and fewer parking spaces are a wave of the future – the size of the units and less parking go hand-in-hand. A lot of development in regards to landscaping, parking, circulation, treatment of buildings is needed. Sullivan commented that it looks too much like a mill building; earlier iterations of the project seemed to have more detail.
Sullivan noted his concern that the parking structure appears not to have adequate openings for ventilation. Sullivan noted that the cornice line treatment should be addressed. Treatment at the base of the building should be developed. Sullivan commented that the lower level parking area (north wall) could be perforated.
Sullivan questioned the proximity of development on the Flint Street side, to an earlier point made about the 50 foot buffer zone.
Grover noted that the applicant sought and received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the parking area to encroach into the buffer zone. Moreover, he noted that the grade change of about 8-10 feet allowed for less negative impacts for neighboring parcels. Grover also noted that landscaping would be enhanced for this area to better screen the property.
Sullivan concluded by noting that the pedestrian entrance and driveway needs work. A sense of how pedestrians are going to be walking through the site is needed.
Kennedy began commentary by noting that the current proposal differs a great deal from what had been previously approved. Parking and building massing has changed in particular, therefore, this should be considered as an entirely new project. The proposed scale of the project and density is a concern. There seems to be so much parking here, considering building size. Kennedy agreed with Sullivan’s comments about smaller unit sizes being the wave of the future, and expanded further by noting that other developments with these unit sizes consider who lives in them and do not accommodate for two spaces per unit. There is more consideration given in those cases to foot traffic, bicyclists, e-bikes, and how they are used. The units shown here with the number of parking spaces provided
almost seems contradictory to what one might find in similar developments, found for instance in Cambridge.
Kennedy commented that he does not understand the need for commercial space located on the first floor. This is not the space for retail that is successful, any mixed-use occupancy should respond to the surrounding neighborhood fabric.
Grover interjected by noting that the development is required under the NRCC zoning to provide a mix of uses, and therefore must provide some level of retail on the ground level. Use variances are no longer permitted.
Kennedy continued by noting that the proposed style of the building feels like it is trying really hard to be a mill building. The success of mill buildings is 90% execution and how they are constructed. If a mill building is not executed properly, it tends to look fake in appearance. Kennedy noted that materials need to be good and put together properly.
Kennedy encouraged the development of more internal space for bike and e-bike storage.
Jaquith began by noting that the proposed entry to the mill type building (building 1) is a problem. It appears like it came from New York City. It is not a milled entry. Window locations and types need to be further analyzed. It looks like a 1920’s style window on an 1800’s style building. Jaquith noted that he agreed that the parking wall should be opened up if possible.
Jaquith commented that the most successful building is located on Mason Street. However, it is a bit too repetitive. Jaquith noted that he agrees with not having commercial space because the site does not demand it.
Jaquith commented that if “we could fight to get you less parking we certainly would because I do not think the parking demand is going to be there.”
Finally, Jaquith noted that the landscaping and lighting plan needs to be reviewed. He commented that he would like to see larger elevations with color.
Durand noted that he agrees with Michael (Sullivan) that a model of the proposed buildings and site is important to understand masses and complexity. Density was a huge concern but the original applicant didn’t want to give up the proposed number of units. Detail was added as a trade off. The current façade appears more simplified from the original, but has become almost brutalist; it’s big, massive, and dense. The prior design had some articulation to mitigate for that. Dense landscaping will certainly help screen parking that has pushed closer to the neighbors. Durand commented that commercial space is a flaw in the zoning. Perhaps the applicant can consider artist live/work areas instead so that it is successful.
Dynia commented that the solid parking garage wall is a hard view from Mason Street and needs refinement. He then noted that he agrees with the statements about commercial use being unnecessary for this site. There is no street access or public visibility to those areas. The building is very industrial looking.
The design appears to have been simplified with the intention to make the buildings look like an old converted mill; with better attention to detailing it could be a nicer looking building. Dynia commented that the repetitive windows across the façade is not working and needs more of a defined feel. The mill housing building has a nice concept buts needs more character. It appears like a prefab box at present. Dynia commented that the size of units in the buildings does not necessitate 2 parking spaces per unit. It seems overkill for this site. Building 3 appears to have the best character reflection of the neighborhood. Building 2 originally approved is a better fit than what is currently proposed.
Grover concluded by noting that their plans would be filed with MEPA and that they felt like they knew what direction they would be going from here on out.
Jaquith: Motion to continue.
Seconded by: Sullivan, Passes 5-0.
Old / New Business
Minutes
Shapiro noted that two sets of minutes would be considered because the minutes from June were tabled and continued from the last meeting due to there not being enough time to review them.
Approval of the minutes from the May 28, 2014 regular meeting.
Jaquith: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: Durand, Passes 5-0.
Approval of the minutes from the June 25, 2014 regular meeting.
Kennedy: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: Sullivan, Passes 5-0.
Adjournment
Jaquith: Motion to adjourn,
Seconded by Dynia. Passes 5-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 8:14 pm.
| 
