City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Special Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday September 3, 2014 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Paul Durand (Chair), Ernest DeMaio, Christopher Dynia, Glenn Kennedy, David Jaquith, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan
Members Absent:
Others Present: Andrew Shapiro
Recorder: Andrew Shapiro
Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
~
- 209 Essex Street (LEAP for Education): Discussion of proposed A-Frame sign
Paul Durand recused himself and left the room.
The submission under review before the DRB included a proposal, photos, cut sheets, and a plan showing where the sign would be placed. Linda Saris and Lyle Harrod were present on behalf of LEAP for Education.
Saris explained that the organization had recently changed its name from Salem CyberSpace to LEAP for Education, and as such, would like to place an a-frame sign in the front of their building to direct people to where they are located. She noted that the sign is a standard 3’x2’ a-frame and would be 9’ from the building’s front door. One side of the sign will be in English and the other in Spanish.
DeMaio asked if the logo presented on the design was the standard logo for the organization. Saris responded noting that it is.
Dynia asked if the sign would only be out for a limited time, or until more people were aware of the name change. Saris commented that the sign would probably stay out indefinitely in order to direct students to their location. Harrod noted that a bus drops students off at the Pedestrian Mall and this sign will be helpful for directing them.
DeMaio noted that there is a lot of information on the sign. He explained that sometimes signs with a lot of information are harder to read. He suggested that the information about the elevators noted on the sign should perhaps be removed and placed somewhere on the inside of the building.
Kennedy noted that he agreed with DeMaio and that there is too much information on the sign.
Saris explained that the signage on the inside of the building was minimal, which explains why they chose to put more information on their sign.
Kennedy noted that the alignment of the sign’s text seems haphazard and that if everything was centered, it would look a lot cleaner.
Sides questioned whether the presence of several colors was appropriate. Kennedy said that he did not mind the colors, although a filled in band at the top where there is currently a band without color, might be a stronger element.
Kennedy explained that he could work further with the applicant to finalize details about the sign.
Sides: Motion to approve on the condition that the applicant work with DRB Member Glenn Kennedy on the sign’s final design.
Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0.
- 30 Federal Street: Discussion of installation of rooftop solar panels
Paul Durand returned to the meeting.
The submission under review before the DRB included a proposal, photos, cut sheets, and several pages of information related to the installation of solar panels. Robert Lutts and a representative of RGS Solar were present on behalf of the applicant.
Lutts explained that he proposes to have 29 solar panels installed on the roof of the building he owns at 30 Federal Street. There is a photo of a home on Moulton Avenue in the packets provided that gives one an idea of how the solar panels will look. He noted further that the gaps between the panels shown in the photo will not be present in the installation he is proposing.
Lutts continued by noting that all of the electronics will go into the building and no equipment will be present or visible on the exterior of the building.
DeMaio asked where exactly the building was located. Lutts explained that his building faces the District Court on Washington Street, but that his building is on Federal Street.
Sides asked how high off of the roof the panels would sit. The representative responded noting that they would rise 3 inches from the roof.
Kennedy asked why they decided to install 29 panels. Lutts explained that it was the most they could fit. One space nearest the chimney would not work as efficiently given the amount of shade it casts.
Sides asked whether panels would ever be installed on the buildings directly adjacent to the one being proposed. Lutts explained that his building was commercial, and the rest of the buildings are residential. Therefore, he could not say whether panels would ever be installed on those buildings.
Kennedy commented that it feels like the shape should be completed with a 30th panel. Lutts noted that he could commit to adding an additional panel to make things look symmetrical.
Jaquith commented that he felt that the panels would not look good, and that he might be inclined to vote against it. He noted that he understands that there is a benefit to installing them.
Durand commented that he thinks this project sends a good message but understands that aesthetically these panels are not always appropriate. He said he would be concerned if this was a historic building. He said he would be supportive of this project.
Sides noted that she agrees with Durand and that solar panels have come a long way. She said that she does not like the contrast between the roof and the panels and would strongly encourage a darker roof when the building is re-roofed.
Kennedy: Motion to approve on the condition that a 30th panel is added to the proposed installation.
Seconded by: DeMaio, Passes 7-0.
- 230 Essex Street (Tibet Arts & Healing): Discussion of proposed blade sign
The submission under review before the DRB includes a drawing with photos. Sangpo, the store’s owner was present on behalf of the applicant.
Jaquith asked whether the lighting on the building is already there. Sangpo responded noting that there are existing lighting fixtures.
Sides commented that she thinks it looks fine, but that she would tighten it up so that the words are closer together.
Sango asked if a logo or design could be added in the center of the sign, instead of the use of an ampersand – he suggested a “circle of good fortune” symbol, and proceeded to sketch the design.
Kennedy commented that the Board would need to see any suggested changes to the full design prior to a recommendation for approval.
The representative agreed that he would proceed with the original design that was before the DRB.
Sides commented that the sign is very nice but that it just needs to be tightened up.
Sullivan: Motion to approve blade sign on the condition that the text be brought in to be tighter.
Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 7-0.
- 7 Central Street (New England Dog Biscuit Company): Discussion of proposed signage
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, photos, and designs. Dennis Borgault was present on behalf of New England Dog Biscuit Company.
Borgault noted that the logo used for the blade sign is the logo they use on all of their branding, and on their website. He explained that the blade sign would hang on the existing bracket where the previous sign had hung, and that his proposed blade sign is the same size as Modern Millie’s – the shop next to his.
Kennedy questioned if the window decals would go inside or on the windows. Borgault responded noting that they would go inside.
Sullivan asked if the text of the website could match the text used on the rest of the window and not have a white background.
DeMaio commented that the word “company” on the blade sign might look better if it ran with the curvature of the sign, as opposed to reading straight. Borgault explained that the word is straight on all of the company’s logos.
Kennedy requested that the background behind the website be removed and that the text resemble the rest of the text on the door.
Jaquith: Motion to approve on the condition that the website on the door be just lettering with no background.
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 7-0.
- City of Salem: Discussion of proposed pole mounted cigarette butt recycling receptacles for Downtown
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal with cover letter, presentation with photos, and design. Andrew Shapiro presented on behalf of the City of Salem.
Shapiro explained that the Mayor would like to make a push for smokers in the city to have an appropriate place to dispose of their cigarette butts, as opposed to throwing them on the ground. He continued by referencing the included presentation which shows examples of receptacles that can be mounted to poles. He explained that the City would mount the units to metal light poles in most cases, not ornamental light poles. The idea would be locate the receptacles outside of restaurants or bars, or generally where people would be most likely to congregate to smoke.
Shapiro continued by explaining that the City did not have a specific number in mind in terms of how many receptacles would be placed around the downtown, but he said that the City envisioned ordering about 100 to be placed in and outside of the downtown. All feasible light poles in the downtown have been identified.
Shapiro explained that “Terracyle” would receive and recycle the butts, and donate $1 to “Keep America Beautiful” and Salem Main Streets per every pound of butts recycled.
DeMaio asked whether there was any way to control the color of the mounting brackets. Shapiro responded that he was not aware of what the color would ultimately be.
DeMaio requested that the brackets be the same color, or painted to match the color of the standard city light poles, and that no receptacles be mounted to poles with bike racks.
A member of the public questioned whether the units would be easily vandalized or if someone could break into them. Shapiro explained that he could not attest to the receptacles’ security but did note that they come with a lock and key.
Sullivan asked if there was any way to address the language on the label for the receptacles, to be more active? He expressed that he prefers “Recycle your butts here.”
Jaquith: Motion to approve with the following conditions:
- That the brackets used for mounting match the poles they are mounted to
- That the receptacles not be mounted to poles that also have bike racks
- Suggestion to use active phrasing: “Recycle your butts here”
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 7-0.
North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review
- 28 Goodhue Street (North River Apartments): Discussion of proposed freestanding sign
The submission under review before the DRB included designs and site layout. Two representatives were present on behalf of the applicant.
Jaquith asked what the sign was made out of. One representative noted that it has raised lettering and that the backing is a dark green HDU foam.
One of the representatives noted that the sign would be placed three or four feet from the sidewalk, toward the interior of the site. He also noted that there would be plantings around the sign, and probably a bed of mulch.
Kennedy asked if the brackets would be aluminum. The representative responded noting that they would be aluminum.
Kennedy expressed that the green used on the sign seemed a bit unnatural. Kennedy said that using a darker green, perhaps a hunter green, would be preferable in order to better connect with the building’s darker green color.
Sides noted that she felt that the sign seems too tall.
One of the representatives brought up a concern that if the sign were too low, it might affect visibility into out of the site. Sides expressed that she did feel that it would not be an issue, and that a lower sign would be more in keeping with a residential scale.
After some discussion the representatives and the Board agreed that lowering the sign to 6’6” would be appropriate.
Sides: Motion to approve proposed signage on the condition that the sign be no higher than 6’6” and that it be a darker shade of green resembling Hunter green.
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 7-0.
- 72 Flint Street and 67-69 & 71 Mason Street (Riverview Place): Continued 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, architect David O’Sullivan, and Steve Feinstein were present on behalf of Riverview Place, LLC.
Before the representatives began, David Jaquith noted that he would have liked to have seen plans presented well in advance of the meeting.
Grover responded noting that several members of the Board had expressed an interest at the last DRB meeting, to see the parking reduced to meet a 1.5 spaces per unit standard, as opposed to 2 spaces per unit. After looking at it further, the applicant agreed that reducing the number of spaces by that factor would indeed adequately serve the development. The applicant sought a variance at the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals on this issue, but were rejected. Because the ZBA hearing was only the night prior, the applicant had to rush to prepare materials that responded to the DRB’s previous comments, and that did not include a reduction in parking, which resulted in needing more time to prepare materials.
David O’Sullivan began his portion of the presentation pointing out that some parking had been removed to make way for an outdoor, covered gathering space. The entrance of building 3 was moved and reconfigured to better accommodate wheelchair access. Recesses were introduced so as to break up some of the long, continuous massing. Brick was used to replace alternate materials in between windows, so as to better resemble a mill building.
More brick was introduced to building 2, and the entry to the garage was downplayed. Additional openings were added to the parking deck to break it up.
Sides questioned the number of mullions shown on the windows and expressed that she felt that there were perhaps too many. She also questioned if there would be as many lites as currently shown on the north elevation of building 1.
O’Sullivan noted that the number of mullions and lites would become clearer when design details were further fleshed out.
Sides questioned the size of an entire window. O’Sullivan responded noting that they would be approximately 6’ high, by slightly less than 6’.
Sides expressed that the applicant should play with the scale of the window and consider larger divisions.
Chairman Durand then opened the meeting for public comment.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt Street, also noting his affiliation with the Mack Park Neighborhood Association, expressed that he would like to see a landscaping plan.
Grover noted that a landscaping plan could be presented at a future DRB meeting.
Treadwell continued by noting that the community supported the notion of having a garage onsite, so that more of the site could be green space. He referenced the need for certain caliper and number of trees based on the City of Salem’s Zoning Ordinance with respect to the North River Canal Corridor Mixed-Use District, and that he understood that the Planning Department was examining the issue further.
Treadwell noted that there was no data that expressed that 1.5 spaces per unit would be appropriate for this development, and that the community wanted to err on the side of having more parking versus less, based on current conditions. He said that the neighborhood is favorably disposed to the currently approved plan, and that he would hope that any future changes to the buildings would be vetted as thoroughly by the DRB as they were back in 2009. Treadwell referred to comments made at the last meeting about seeing larger renderings and a three dimensional model, and that he thought that would be fantastic, if produced.
Lastly, addressing height, Treadwell explained that height of the proposed buildings was a topic of discussion in the proceedings the first time this development was considered. Zoning calls for the buildings to be no higher than three stories or 40 feet. He noted that there were adjustments from the last plan, to the current one. He explained that the Building Inspector had found that a level at grades with no openings due to that grade, would not count as a story. Citing documents filed with MEPA, Treadwell explained that the applicant does not consider the basement level of their buildings to count as a story.
Morris Schopf of 1 Cambridge Street commented next. He expressed that he was sorry to see that the new proposed buildings were not juxtaposed against the original approved project because the revisions are minor in nature. He encouraged the Board to take plenty of time to massage details of the project. He wondered what type of brick would be incorporated into the project.
Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street expressed disappointment and that she felt that the applicant had not responded to previous comments from the Board. She explained that the previous project had traded off density for a higher quality of materials, and she asked that the same consideration be given this time around. She pointed out that she could think of no other instance in the North River Canal Corridor where under building parking had been introduced. This is a very important site that she be treated as such.
Paul Durand then closed the public portion of the meeting. He invited Helen Sides to continue with her comments.
In regards to building 2, Sides noted that it did not feel successful given the mass and the scale. The repetition does not work.
Jaquith commented that Building 1 has improved and that the removal of arches was successful. The lowest level of the entry on the building could be pushed further back. A canopy could potentially be introduced. Jaquith asked about the material used on the top of building 1 on the south elevation. O’Sullivan explained that it is metal siding.
Jaquith noted that he agrees with Sides about building 2. The gables shown on the east elevation two spots don’t seem to work well. He noted that landscaping becomes critical in a few spots, especially on Flint Street, and along the River. Jaquith continued by noting that building 3 looked to be the best building at this point.
DeMaio questioned the buffer zone between the development and the Flint Street residences.
Feinstein explained that they had been before the ZBA and were granted a variance to allow them to place the parking closer than what would normally be allowed, and that the residents had no problem with the change given the steep change in elevation on the Flint Street side of the property.
DeMaio expressed that the treatment of landscaping would be very important to examine given the proximity of this property to neighboring properties. DeMaio then pointed out that the residential buildings call for the use of “thin brick,” and asked the applicant to explain what exactly the material is. He also wanted to know if the brick on building 1 was the same type of brick.
O’Sullivan explained that thin brick is, instead of being 3 and ½ inches thick, cut down to about ½ inch or ¾ inch. It is applied to the building so as to appear as regular brick, and is mortared the same as regular brick. It does not have the mass or heaviness of regular brick. O’Sullivan then continued by noting that on building 1, the areas in between the windows contain regular brick, whereas between the panels under the windows, the brick used is thin brick. Dividing walls are thin brick.
DeMaio noted that on the mill building lacked an appropriate amount of glass (on windows), in proportion to brick. Most mill buildings relied in the past on natural lighting, therefore the current design does not seem authentic. Also the residential scaled mullions on the mill building don’t seem in keeping with the style of the building, while the more residential building with clapboard lacks mullions.
DeMaio concluded noting that the applicant should in the future present materials in advance of meetings so as to allow the Board appropriate time to digest the submitted materials.
Sullivan reiterated the need for a three dimensional model.
DeMaio echoed Sullivan’s comment about the model and also stressed the need to show surrounding residential buildings in order to provide appropriate context.
Sullivan then continued by expressing that he agreed with previous comments about the mullions and that the mullion pattern seems crowded. He also expressed wanting to see a different color on the cornice, perhaps a different shade of the color being used.
Dynia noted that there did not seem to be much change in depth along building 1. The windows seem cookie cutter as they are right now, and it would be nice to see something introduced to break them up.
Sides commented that it is very difficult in this project to respond to the surrounding residential scale of the neighborhood; perhaps it is too difficult to put residential elements on a four story building. She noted that she felt that the building needs to be more cohesive.
O’Sullivan commented that he felt that the original design was not successful, and kind of a mess, which is why they chose to move toward more of a mill housing concept.
Kennedy commented that because the development is trying too hard to fit into the residential complex, that is coming off as very uninspired. This is in regards to buildings 2 and 3 in particular. The size of the windows needs to be addressed as well.
Jaquith noted that the arch used above the windows does not seem to work. Such a sharp arch should not be used.
Durand noted that he agrees with most of the comments. He explained that he feels that this is a totally new design and does not really need reference to the older approved project. We need to look at this in its own design merit. Building 2 is not working. There needs to be another type of articulation besides the faux firewall; the firewall references a lower quality style of development.
Feinstein noted that he felt like the quality of materials compared to the original approved project has improved. Brick is being used more instead of stucco, for instance.
O’Sullivan then noted that with respect to building heights, they tried to keep the same heights that were approved previously, and that the buildings heights had not been shifting.
Feinstein then expressed that they were trying to get guidance from the DRB as to whether the general site configuration and building footprints worked, which would then allow then to advance through the MEPA process and go to the Conservation Commission.
Durand pointed out that there had been no comments with respect to building organization, therefore he felt comfortable with what had already been presented and did not envision the Board changing it in any significant way.
Jaquith: Motion to continue.
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 5-0.
Old / New Business
- Discussion and vote on designation of one DRB Member to serve on “Complete Streets Working Group”
Shapiro explained that a working group was being formed to carry out the City’s new Complete Streets policy, which would oversee development of infrastructure to accommodate all modes of movement throughout the city, including cars, pedestrians, cyclists, and those with disabilities. He noted that the working group would need one representative of the DRB to participate and asked the Board to consider someone to nominate for the position.
DeMaio expressed that he had been involved with the working group to develop the policy and was of course on the Bike Path Committee. He would be inclined to serve on either the Bike Path Committee or Complete Streets Working Group going forward.
Dynia expressed that he would like to serve.
Jaquith: Motion to nominate Christopher Dynia to be appointed to the Complete Streets Working Group.
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 5-0.
Minutes
Approval of the minutes from the September 3, 2014 special 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 8:30 pm.
| 
