City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday December 17, 2014 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Ernest DeMaio, Helen Sides, Glenn Kennedy, and J. Michael Sullivan
Members Absent: Paul Durand, David Jaquith, and Christopher Dynia
Others Present: Andrew Shapiro
Recorder: Andrew Shapiro
Helen Sides (acting Chair) calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
- 32 Derby Square (Old Town Hall): Discussion of proposed restoration and replacement of windows
Documents and Exhibitions:
- Cover letter with scope of project
- Elevations
- Photos of existing conditions and proposed methods of repair
Andrew Shapiro (City of Salem) and Colleen Anderson (Gray Architects, Inc.) presented. Shapiro explained that he would be managing this project to restore and replace windows at Old Town Hall. The City received $20,000 from the MA Cultural Facilities Fund and $46,000 from the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) to fund the project. The project almost certainly exceed this total, therefore the City will most likely approach the CPC once more for additional funding once a final budget it developed.
Shapiro then remarked that Gray Architects, Inc. had been contracted by the City to develop bid specifications and oversee construction activity. A request for proposals is projected to be released in January. He explained that some of the windows are in such a poor state of disrepair that they will have to be replaced, rather than restored. The contractor will have to determine whether certain windows will have to be replaced versus restored.
Colleen Anderson then covered the proposed process for the project. She explained that the existing conditions would have to be protected. Windows would be removed from the inside and brought a facility off site. Steaming will most likely be used to remove paint. Pictures detail the poor existing conditions of windows.
Sides questioned whether a window restorer had already been identified.
Anderson explained that that the contractor would be responsible for identifying the restorer and that language will be written into the specifications that will dictate that the restorer should have at least 10 years of experience with historic windows. Anderson also noted that replacement windows will be built to match the exact specification of the original windows.
DeMaio asked whether any study had taken place to determine if something occurring inside the building was affecting the condition of the windows.
Anderson responded noting that her firm had done a study five or six years ago when the building took on a new heating system. Paint damage on the ceilings was noted. That was due to a substandard roof, but nothing else has been identified.
Sullivan asked about the plywood along the basement level of the building.
Anderson responded by noting that some of the plywood boards at the basement level have been damaged by water falling during rainstorms, from an open downspout. The paint has been worn away. These were originally windows, but there are concerns about vandalism if they are restored to be windows once again.
Sullivan remarked that this would be a good opportunity to use a unit price estimate to determine the cost of materials. He also noted that it might be a good idea to prequalify the bidders for working on historic windows.
DeMaio then noted that the expenditure of funds should be prioritized to reflect the most urgent needs of restoring the windows.
Sides then asked if there were questions from the public.
Jane Arlander of Federal Street asked if there were problems with the glass panes of the windows, and if any were to be replaced, will restoration glass be used.
Anderson responded explained that some of the panes will have to be replaced and that restoration glass will be used to match the existing condition.
Kennedy: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: DeMaio, Passes 4-0.
- 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail, Phase II): Final Design Review
Documents and Exhibitions:
- Memo to the Board
- Full set of construction level plans and elevations
- Color renderings
- Material samples
Dan Ricciarelli of Segar Architects and Sara Ann Logan of LabHaus were present on behalf of applicant New Boston Ventures.
Logan explained that both the DRB and SRA approved the final design of the project subject to some final details being reviewed and examined further by the DRB, which is why the applicant is back before the DRB. She said that she would go through the list of conditions outlined in a memo provided to the Board, and address each one.
Logan continued by noting that the project description remained the same from the time that the project was approved; this includes unit and building square footages. She then noted that roof/drainage and eave details have been provided in the construction documents. Only four downspouts would be located on the building – two facing the courtyard and two facing St. Peter Street. The eave band has been thinned out per the direction of the DRB – it is currently about 10 inches and is just wide enough to hold a six inch round gutter.
A full workup of building mechanicals is also detailed in the documents – this includes HVAC, plumbing, and electrical units. A roof plan showing the location and amount of HVAC rooftop units is provided – she noted that none will be viewable from the courtyard or St. Peter Street because they will be shielded by the pitched roofs.
Logan then directed the Board to the landscape and lighting plans, which follow cues provided the original landscaping and lighting plans from phase I of the project. The same types of plantings and brick for the walking path will be used in this phase of the project.
In regards to materials, Logan showed the Board samples of a darker hardie plank that would be used in the pedimented sections of the building, versus a lighter colored siding board that would be used in other sections of the building. She noted that the roof would be a black recycled rubberized material and that cedar slats would be used to screen the parking area underneath the building. None of the presented materials have changed from the previous submission.
Logan continued by noting that all exterior elevations, as well as the site plan, remain the same as what was previously presented to the Board. The parking count and location of parking is the same. Finally, Logan noted that any signage to be installed on site would be brought back before the Board for approval – she explained that once construction was approximately 60% complete, they might be prepared to discuss signage.
DeMaio questioned the intention of the color of the metal paneled sections of the building. Logan responded by explaining that it was intended to be the darkest of the color palette and that those elements would read as recessed.
DeMaio then asked whether the applicant had given any thought to mortar colors. Logan explained that they want the development to look as monolithic as possible. They would prefer that that the mortar color resemble the CMU block, although Logan expressed a preference to have it resemble slightly lighter. DeMaio said that more historic buildings tend to have mortar that resembles the color of the stone although matching mortar colors can be a challenge for property owners when it comes time to repoint.
DeMaio then expressed an opinion that shingle color is very important, especially for this project because there is so much roof area that it almost resembles a façade.
Ricciarelli noted that the simulated slate for the roof would resemble what had been installed on the actual jail building.
DeMaio also noted that the color palette shown in the renderings seemed warmer than what was being shown in the samples.
Logan noted that the siding would be field painted so perhaps it could be presented again to the Board to ensure that the color palette and contrasts respond appropriately.
Sullivan: Motion to approve as submitted conditional upon the Board being given the opportunity to review field painted elements, mortar color, and signage.
Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 4-0.
North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review
- 72 Flint Street and 67-69 & 71 Mason Street (Riverview Place): Continued discussion of design revisions to proposed residential and commercial development.
Documents and Exhibitions:
- 3-D Renderings
- Plans and Elevations
- Photos
- Material samples
Steve Feinstein of Symes Associates began the presentation thanking the Board and by addressing some issues brought up about the project in a letter from resident Nina Cohen at the last meeting on December 3, 2014. He explained that a sidewalk connecting Mason Street to the complex was indeed part of their plans; handicap access will be available off of Mason Street within a building via an elevator; a standard sidewalk is located in front of the entrances of the commercial storefronts in building 3; there is a patio area – shown in the plans – at one of the buildings closer to the canal, that would function as a gathering area; there is now a key connection through the City’s property into Leslie’s Retreat Park; the location of the dumpster is in the most ideal location that it can be
placed given several factors; we have addressed adding colorful and playful elements in the newest plans; there is a nice buffer between the buildings and the Flint Street neighbors; there is significant open space along the canal; the project footprint restricts the size of the units, so three bedroom units will not be available; and the project will have 10% (13) of the 130 units set aside as “affordable.”
With respect to colors and more clearly identifying entrances, Mr. Feinstein noted that the design revisions incorporate different colored glass, canopies, and banners on different buildings. Feinstein also pointed out the changes in window style, specifically along stair towers, where long colored glass elements would be used.
Sides requested to view the samples of materials. At this point David O’Sullivan of O’Sullivan Architects passed the sample boards around indicating what type of materials would be used on various aspects of the development, as well as what color palette they would be.
Sides and Sullivan both expressed concern with the new blue vertical strip of windows seen on the stair towers. Sullivan noted specifically that they feel a bit “campy.” O’Sullivan responded noting that the look of blue would most likely not be very strong during the day time.
Sullivan then said that perhaps the Board should consider asking the applicant to revert back to the more traditional window types that were presented in the last meeting. Color could be introduced with accent lighting as opposed to the using the window panes themselves.
Kennedy noted that he appreciated the gesture of the stair tower windows, but feels that they may go too far. He expressed liking both the colored banners and canopies.
O’Sullivan noted that perhaps they could maintain the strip of windows, but remove the color from them. He explained that they are in response to comments at previous meetings that there was too much brick on the mill buildings in relation to the amount of glass being used.
Sides said that at the very least, colored windows and glass for canopies should be reviewed by the Board at a future date.
O’Sullivan then went on to Building 3 and noted that a darker toned red was introduced for upper level recessed portions of the building. Also the windows are now a dark trim, as opposed to white. The windows are all eight over eights.
Sides turned to the Board Members and asked how they felt about the vertical strip of windows in the stair towers.
DeMaio expressed a reservation that he did not see the same type of technique being used elsewhere in the development, which doesn’t allow for those windows to be tied well into the rest of the project. Those windows are contemporary, which is not a problem, other than there not being any similar style windows elsewhere in the development. DeMaio also expressed a preference toward a clear glass to be used for those windows. He then noted that he would rather revert back to the design of windows previously presented.
DeMaio noted that he wished there was a little more differentiation in the project. There seems to be a lot of sameness. Building 3 is greatly improved.
Sides noted that she appreciated that the new proposed stair tower windows have a potential to be a signage piece and that the previous design may have not had enough to break up all of the brick of the mill buildings.
Kennedy pointed out that it seems as though the Board feels that most of the elements introduced work, but that reservations still remain about the treatment of windows on the stair towers.
Sides then asked whether any members of the public had input or questions.
Jennifer Firth said that she would not be excited about looking across the canal to see blue or green lit up strips of windows. It sounds like a college dorm.
Jane Arlander of 93 Federal Street expressed that the project in its current form is much better than originally proposed back in 2007. She noted however that she does not see how the project relates to the historic neighborhoods that surround it. The blue and green windows do not seem to relate either. We need to try to make the project relate better to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Ms. Arlander then raised the issue of climate change and the notion that the local boards seem to be supporting projects that are creating a vulnerable population living along a canal that has the tendency to flood. We should not be doing that. We should not be densely populating an area, and this project is too dense.
Steve Feinstein then responded by noting that the issue of flooding drove a lot of the design changes that were made. The buildings were brought back further from the 100 year flood plain, and in that area, there are no longer any residential units planned on the first floor.
Maureen Scanlon of 77 Mason Street noted that is an abutter of the property on which the project is proposed. She asked why the dumpster is not being placed underneath or inside a structure away from neighbors. She also expressed not appreciating a comment from the applicant at the last meeting, in which he noted that the neighbor that will be next to the dumpster has a lot of junk in his yard. She explained that the neighborhood has had to deal with living next to dilapidated tanneries and vacant land for quite some time.
Sides explained that the issue of the placement of the dumpster has been discussed a lot and that both the DRB and the Planning Board had agreed that the currently proposed place for the dumpster is the best location because of the grade change, and because placing it closer to the water would make it susceptible to flooding. Also, it won’t fit underneath any of the buildings; trucks need a fair amount of height to lift the dumpster.
Arlander commented that 289 Essex Street has parking underneath the building and that it has a room easily accessible by trucks that house the dumpsters.
At this point Andrew Shapiro read a letter from Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street expressing disappointment that the revised design did not appear to respond to the previously given comments coming from the DRB. She noted that buildings appear stark and uninviting.
Lisa Gilbert of 70 School Street then commented that she felt that the design had improved and that she really appreciates the colors shown on building 3. She questioned whether the color scheme used on building 3 could be tied into building 1 and 2.
Sides noted that she feels that the applicant had addressed that issue by introducing the dark red on building 3, which resembles the dark red of the brick being used on buildings 1 and 2. She then explained that the only outstanding issue that the Board needed to address was the design of the stair tower windows. The applicant is seeking an approval and if the Board feels that the previous design of the windows is preferable, then a motion should be made as such.
DeMaio expressed that he is was not in love with either version but that he did not feel as though the current design relates enough to anything else in the project. He said that he dislikes the previous design less.
Conroy Sullivan – a member of the public – asked how many units would be in the buildings and what demographic the units would be marketed to.
Feinstein responded by noting that there will be 130 units, 13 of which will be affordable. He explained that they would not market to anyone specifically, but that the development might be best suited toward a younger demographic, or older people without kids. There are bike racks, access to parks, and easy access to mass transit, as well as close proximity to Salem’s downtown. Anyone who might be interested in those amenities might choose to live in the development.
Sullivan explained that a recent Knight Foundation study found that opportunities and features where neighbors could meet each other and get to know each other better, paved the way for increased economic activity.
Feinstein noted that the development would have many common areas for people to mingle, including roof decks.
Sides then expressed that public comments would no longer be heard.
Sides then said that she did not feel comfortable approving the project with a conditional approval regarding the stair tower – that it is too large of an element.
Sullivan made a motion to continue the project because he felt that it could use more work. No other Board Members seconded the motion; therefore it did not advance.
Kennedy questioned whether the Board would have approved the project if the applicant came with all of the current changes, except for the change made to the design of the stair tower windows. Kennedy said that he would have.
Kennedy: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed mixed-use development subject to the following:
- The applicant shall submit final construction plans for review and approval by the DRB prior to obtaining a building permit.
- The materials and color samples shall be in accordance with those submitted to and approved by the DRB on December 17, 2014, as well as described in a memo reviewed by the DRB titled “Riverview Place – Salem, MA – Materials List” and dated December 12, 2014 at the December 17, 2014 meeting; however final mock-ups and color samples for windows and other treatments shall be submitted for review and approval by the DRB prior to installation.
- The windows (style, color, appearance, and general design) on all stair towers shall be in conformance with the design presented to the DRB on December 3, 2017 (not what was presented on December 17, 2014).
- The signage for the building and the site shall conform to the City of Salem’s Sign Ordinance and be reviewed and approved by the DRB prior to obtaining a sign permit.
Seconded by: DeMaio, Passes 4-0.
Minutes
Shapiro explained that draft minutes of the December 3, 2014 DRB meeting had not yet been produced for review. They will be presented at the next DRB meeting.
Adjournment
Kennedy: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Sullivan. Passes 4-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 8:05 pm.
| 
