Loading...
2022-07-27 Meeting MinutesCity of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board – Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, July 27, 2022, at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Remote Participation via Zoom DRB Members Present: David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Catherine Miller, Marc Perras, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan DRB Members Absent: Chair Paul Durand Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith Recorder: Colleen Brewster Acting-Chair Helen Sides calls the meeting to order at 6:00PM. Roll call was taken. Jaquith left the meeting. Signs in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 40 Front Street: Roost Jamie Metsch was present to discuss the project. Metsch stated that after 13-years they want to rebrand their image to include their original bird logo and to provide pedestrian height signage. The blade sign would be 24-inch diameter marine grade plywood sign with a 3-D PVC bird decal logo, with colors to be painted on using an exterior grade Sherwin Williams paint. Two window decals would be applied to the two entry doors only and no windows would have any additional decals or signage. The total square footage covered by new signage would be 9.66 square-feet for their 37-linear-feet of frontage. They would also repaint the trim, trim and window frame the Gail Force Blue and the door Overjoy, to match the new signage. The new blade signs would be attached to the existing backet mounted to the balconies above. Acting-Chair Sides appreciated their business holding this corner for as long as they have with interesting and new items and she’s grateful to their setting a precedent in Salem’s downtown retail. The signs look great as do the colors, and she is in support of the change in signage. Kennedy agreed with Acting-Chair Sides and was in favor of their bold and brave signage proposal. He suggested the dark outline proposed at the “Roost & Company” door signage be slightly less thick or to center the rule on the outline of the text rather than the edge, which will make the ampersand look less bulky and heavy. Metsch replied that he will try to incorporate the suggestion. Kennedy added that the proposed signage and colors look great, and it will make a nice addition to the storefront. Sullivan was in favor of the proposed signage. Acting-Chair Sides opened public comment. Steve Kapantais, 23 Wisteria Street. Asked if the A-frame signage maintains the 5-feet of clearance for the public right-of-way. Metsch replied that 5-feet of clearance is being maintained by keeping the sign against the storefront and its use was reviewed by the DRB during their initial signage review. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Kennedy: Motion to approve as submitted. Seconded by: Perras. Roll Call: Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sullivan, Sides were in favor. Passes 5-0. 2. 139 Washington Street: Spruce Jamie Metsch was present to discuss the project. Metsch stated that their corner location to the left of Oak & Moss is growing now that the neighboring bank is moving into the Century Bank location. They are expanding their business into the neighboring space, with the potential name of “Spruce Home.” The Washington Street frontage is also 37-linear feet and will have only 1 blade sign at 4-square-feet, although 3 decals are proposed, two at storefront windows and one at the entry door, totaling 14.2 square-feet. A 24-inch-square cedar wood blade sign with tight joints is proposed, with a hand painted logo of a faded table is proposed, wrapped in a 1.5- inch-thick metal frame painted Sherwin Williams: Tricom Black. The window decals would cover 18.5% of the glass pane and be painted Arlon White using vinyl paint and the 2-1/2” window trim painted Underseas. The entry door would be painted Tricom Black, and the decal would be of a reduced size. The previous tenant has a sign bracket which they would reuse for their proposed blade sign. Acting-Chair Sides asked if the existing light on this façade was directed at the proposed sign. Metsch replied no, that is part of the condo associations downlighting at the perimeter of the façade facing Washington Street and there may be another approximately 30-feet to the right of it. Acting-Chair Sides stated that she was in favor of the proposed changes, including the fading table. Perras noted that the window step-down and suggesting leveling the proposed signage in the two windows. Metsch replied yes, they had a similar concern with their Oak & Moss Signage. While he appreciated the visual continuity of leveling the signage, he felt that through a pedestrian experience, they are seen one window at a time. Perras noted that they were less distinguishable when standing closer to the storefront. Kennedy added that it would not make too much of a difference either way. Metsch noted that he preferred framing the window signage with an equal amount of glass. Jaquith rejoined the meeting. Acting-Chair Sides opened public comment. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Perras: Motion to approve as submitted. Seconded by: Kennedy. Roll Call: Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sullivan, Sides were in favor. Passes 5-0. 3. 41 Lafayette Street: Barrio Maggie Osborne was present to discuss the project. Osborne apologized for the artist painting over the existing Kokeshi building signage facing Derby Street and she understands whatever decision the Board makes about it already being applied at this meeting. City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes On the Lafayette Street façade, they proposed “Barrio” at 2.6-feet x 10-feet with “tacos + tequila + whiskey” in a smaller font at 9-inches x 11.8” to the right using individual letters. The letters would be black during the day and would illuminate white at night and would be on a timer that shuts off with the business hours, unless the Board preferred the lettering be illuminated using the existing spotlights. On the rear Central Street façade their artists proposed a mural of a face. The brick on this façade is weathered and not in good shape and there are existing openings infilled with wood board. There is no existing signage on this façade. The artist does a lot of urban planning for all the Barrio establishments, and upon getting to know Salem he felt the proposed mural would complement the city and community. Newhall-Smith noted that the SRA will review the signage first. Osborne noted that the rear façade lettering would be reduced and might be painted on, which will make their location more noticeable. Newhall-Smith stated that the dimension of the proposed vertical signage and the Lafayette façade does meet the signage size requirements, 48-square-footage is signage is allowed and the applicant is requesting just over 45. The central Street sign is too large, and with the 33-feet of frontage only 33- square-feet of text is allowed and 48 ½ square-feet is currently proposed. Osborne replied that the Central Street signage can be reduced. Newhall-Smith stated that internally illuminated signage is not preferable in the downtown area, however lettering can be outlined or have a halo effect. There are existing spotlights on this sign that illuminated Kokeshi’s flat building signage. The internal illumination proposed is used at their Haverhill location; a photo was included in the staff report. The board has made acceptations to the sign illumination. Acting-Chair Sides stated that the sign painted in advance of the meeting looks nice although the artist took the liberty of painting the entire section of brick wall. Miller added that the liked the painted wall, noted that the paint could be sandblasted off, she was in favor of the lettering and signage on the Lafayette Street façade but would prefer that the signage not be lit rather than internally illuminated. The art is hard, and the sign would be cooler if left black. The centering of the signage over the openings on Lafayette Street is good. Osborne noted that the artist wanted to paint a sign like the vertical sign, but they came up with this alterative, which is much less of a commitment. She added that an illuminated sign would not be within the artists intentions and the existing lighting would be on a timer and turn off when the business was closed. Kennedy asked if the Lafayette Street signage would be entirely painted on. Osborne replied that she can paint it on or install individual letters. Kennedy was in favor of painting the signage on the façade to better fit the building style and centering the lettering over each opening would be preferable, like the vertical sign. He questioned whether the vertical sign wall was primed before painting the new sign because some of the Kokeshi doll was faintly coming through the new sign but was in favor of the new vertical signage. If a hard lettering was preferred on Lafayette Street, he suggested they be back lit, because internal illumination would take away from the spirit of the brand. Sullivan suggested stacking “tacos + tequila + whiskey” vertically over the window to make the signage more visible when the tree is in bloom. Kennedy preferred a horizontal alignment if the text stayed within the vertical plane of the window below. Sullivan asked if the garage door and window would remain black. Osborne replied yes. Kennedy suggested the downlights below the spotlight be painted black. Osborne agreed and noted an original proposal of painting the Lafayette Street signage with a Black band and Almond lettering to match the vertical sign, which would cover the weather damage on the brick, but it would also take up more square footage. Kennedy disagreed with the original proposal. City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Perras noted his preference for lettering painted directly on the brick. Kennedy suggested adding a spot of Almond in the center of the “O” or the “+” signs between the words. Acting-Chair Sides opened public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Miller: Motion to approve as submitted. Seconded by: Kennedy. Perras amended the motion to include painting the lettering rather than using raised lettering. Seconded by: Kennedy. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sullivan, and Sides were in favor. Passes 6-0. Newhall-Smith noted that one sign is proposed on the Central Street façade and any comments on the proposed mural can be shared with the SRA at their August meeting. Miller stated that downtown Salem is filled with murals and she’s uncomfortable with the fabulous mural becoming a sign. She suggested the mural on the wall remain and the proposed signage was moved to the windows to keep them separate. She also raised concerns with whether the door on this elevation would be used as an entry point. Acting-Chair Sides raised concerns with not being able to see the brick, other murals downtown it’s still very apparent that the façade was still brick, and that the proposed mural extends to the edges obliterates the brick façade completely. Kennedy replied that murals painted on brick do allow the brick pattern to show through. Acting-Chair Sides agreed with Miller on not mixing signage and mural and suggested eliminating the word “Salem”. The Board agreed. Acting-Chair Sides asked if this mural was used at other locations. Osborne replied no, the artist felt this image spoke to Salem and noted that the image will be more colorful than it currently appears. Sullivan noted that the proposed signage is blocking the flower which takes away from the beauty of the mural. Osborne replied that the artist wanted to cover up the deteriorated brick façade and the louvers that were boarded up. Acting-Chair Sides noted her preference for that texture being painted over. Kennedy stated that he really likes the mural, location, and the context of it, and if executed properly it could become one of the most beautiful murals in the city. He’s okay with the sign being part of the mural but its too large, it should match the sized proposed on the Lafayette Street and be in proportion to the window below, which will make the flower in the mural more visible, the word “Salem” should also be removed. This does fit in a positive way for Salem, and he could see this mural being used in their south-western locations as well. Sullivan suggested not including “tacos + tequila + whiskey” on this façade because simplifying the sign helps highlight the mural. Kennedy replied that he wouldn’t mind it remaining if it was much smaller. He noted that the mural at Seagrass only references the use of the establishments and it also very well executed. Newhall-Smith stated that the Historical Commission Design Guidelines speaks to designs for buildings more than 50-years-old and states that masonry should be maintained and preserved. The painting, sealing or coating of historic stone, brick and masonry should be avoided. If the masonry has been City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes painted, removal of the paint could be impossible or economically infeasible, and sandblasting could cause damage. She notes that the applicant stated that the colors will be lighter than they appear but if the mural is dark, but what will it take to cover it if Barrio changes their mural or if a new business were to move in. Perras appreciated the comments and suggested this beautiful mural be thought of as a contribution to the city. He requested clarification on the type of signage Kennedy’s suggested for the Central Street façade. Kennedy replied painted on letters. Perras suggested raised letters which could be removed and aren’t associated with the mural, like at Seagrass, since the detachment of the logo from the art is important. Kennedy and Sullivan agreed that raised and back-lit letters would be most appropriate. Jaquith asked if the mural would be lit. Osborne replied no, only by streetlights. She agreed that removing “Salem” is a good call because they don’t want anything to take away from what could become a valuable and beautiful piece of art for the city. She had no issue with using raised letter that could be later removed and noted that no two Barrios are alike, they aren’t cookie cutter locations, they blend into their communities. Acting-Chair Sides opened public comment. Ken McTague, Concept Signs. Suggested resizing the mural so it ended at the window line to separate it from the proposed signage. Sullivan replied that he considered that option but decided it would be better to make the mural the entire building, but the mural lends to allow the signage in its proposed location which will be good. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Sullivan: Motion to approve with raised lettering. Seconded by: Jaquith. Miller amended the motion to include the use of smaller font size, centered over the window, with a revised elevation sent to Kennedy for review, pending review and approval by Public Art Commission and SRA. Seconded by: Kennedy Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sullivan, and Sides were in favor. Passes 6-0. 4. 192 Essex Street: Ascend Ken McTague of Concept Signs was present to discuss the project. McTague stated that the blade sign was approved in July. A similar sign design over the entry door is proposed, at 1-1/2” thick, urethane sign carved with gold leaf. Raised gilded goldleaf letters are proposed at the top of the granite façade in lieu of window graphics. They would be 1” thick PVC letters painted and gilded in 23K gold. Perras asked why window decals were no longer proposed. McTague replied that the owner wanted raised letters and there were square footage limitation concerns. Acting-Chair Sides raised concerns with the legibility of the gold letter signage with the scale of the lettering being maximized against the background material. McTague noted that the goldleaf will be brighter than the rendering depicts. Kennedy agreed with Acting-Chair Sides and asked if the “Get City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Lifted” window graphics would be removed. McTague replied that he believed all window graphics would be removed. Kennedy proposed centering “Ascend” above the window and enlarging “Get Lifted” in the center storefront window. Jaquith agreed. McTague replied that “Ascend Get Lifted” is the name of the shop and the owner wants to keep the lettering together, but with the thin stroke weight the letters when cut out will become very delicate. Kennedy and McTague discussed matching the overall heights of the two proposed signs. McTague noted his suggestion to the owner to create another sign with the blue background, but the owner wanted raised lettering only. Kennedy noted that “Get Lifted” feels like a tag line more than a name. McTague replied that there is another store named Ascend so this owner must use the second line. Acting-Chair Sides noted her preference for the alternative sign with the blue background, which would be more visible. Miller questions whether any of the first-floor stores below the condominiums had signs on the front face of their store. Perras noted that along Charter Stret the signs are blade signs only and he’s opposed to mounting raised letters to the face of the stone. Kennedy and Miller agreed. Miller raised concerns with the inability to patch the façade and noted her preference a blue sign with raised letters. Perras agreed that it would be the better option but noted his preference for the window graphic despite its large size. Miller asked if the proposed sign meets the signage requirements. Newhall-Smith replied yes, 29 square-feet is allowed and the proposal, including the blade sign, is just under 29 square-feet. Acting-Chair Sides opened public comment. Jamie Metsch, 18 Oliver Street. Noted two metal flat brackets on Washington façade of their building that was attached to the brick and were angled down towards the ground, that they presume was used to attach a flat sign. That could be considered for future options. Perras noted that it would work for a single sign rather than individual letters. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Jaquith stated that more design work is needed since the proposed has too much in a small area. “Ascend” would look better on its own and he was not in favor of the attachment directly to the granite. Jaquith: Motion to continue to the August 24, 2022, regular meeting. Seconded by: Perras. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sullivan, and Sides were in favor. Passes 6-0. 5. 161 Essex Street: Polonous European Deli Ken McTague of Concept Signs was present to discuss the project. McTague stated that the existing sign is a flat panel with raised lettering, but the panel is now warped, and some lettering is missing. The same signage installed on their Church Street side is proposed, a new flat ACM panel – 1/8” thick aluminum mounted to the sign band, with flat vinyl graphics and a printed polish flag in the center. This is the same treatment proposed to cover the existing awnings. Acting-Chair Sides stated that the “European Deli” side looks great but suggested thinner lettering for the “Polonus” side. Kennedy suggested matching the text height of “European Deli” would make “Polonus” feel better in the sign that it occupies and possibly make it a little thinner by bringing the rule City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes line to the inside of the text vs. centered or at the outside of the letter. The font could remain the same it would just be of a heavier weight. Sullivan agreed that the “Polonus” font should be reduced a couple points and requesting equal spacing between the text on either side of the flag. Acting-Chair Sides opened public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Jaquith: Motion to approve with thinner “Polonus” text and a height that matches “European Deli”, bringing the rule line to the inside of the text, centering the text on either side of the Polish flag. Seconded by: Sullivan. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sullivan, and Sides were in favor. Passes 6-0. 6. 11 Church Street: Zitelle Ken McTague of Concept Signs was present to discuss the project. McTague stated that an 1/8” ACM board is proposed to cover the entire existing green awning sign band. The previous raised internally lit raised channel letters left many holes, so coverage with a new band will be needed. Flat vinyl graphics are proposed to be centered on the panel, along with small vinyl window graphics and a carved goldleaf sign on the brick wall. Acting-Chair Sides stated that she would reduce the height of the letter in the awning slightly. Kennedy agreed with a 10-15% size reduction but to keep the top of the lettering in place to create equal spacing of the rules both above and below the word “Zitelle.” Miller stated that the carved sign seems too high on the wall. Kennedy suggested the top of the curve in the wall sign match the top of the entry door. McTague noted that the sign would also be centered on the wall and the window decal would be directly on the glass rather than have an opaque background. Acting-Chair Sides opened public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Kennedy: Motion to approve with smaller type in the awning and wall sign and aligning the top of the wall sign with the top of the door. Seconded by: Jaquith. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sullivan, and Sides were in favor. Passes 6-0. 7. 253 Essex Street: Black Craft Ken McTague of Concept Signs was present to discuss the project. McTague stated that the former bank building has beautiful architecture which made it difficult to locate a flat area for new signage and covering the bank signage above wouldn’t make it accessible for pedestrians to view. He proposed a 94-inch-wide x 19-inch-high extruded aluminum square tube frame with black moulding with a white face that would be placed at the frieze, above the door frame and below the pediment, and would rest on top of the fluted capitals at either side of the entry door. The sign City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes would be attached using L-brackets on the top of each corner of the sign to the top of the cornice above. A double-sided 47-inch-wide x 47-inch-high blade sign is also proposed that would use an existing scroll bracket. The sign would be painted black with carved white graphics. Acting-Chair Sides suggested the carved sign float in the pediment rather than attaching a flat wall sign across the architrave. Jaquith noted that the rectangular sign will cover the detail of the architrave and the sub-columns above the moulding. The sign should really float between the sub-columns rather than cover them. Miller suggested the sign move 1-1/2” into the opening rather than above it, where it can be attached at the sides and on the sides. Jaquith suggested providing an 1-1/2” gap around it so it appears to float within the doorway. Perras suggested the sign also be black rather than white. The Board agreed that it would be a better match to the blade sign. Kennedy noted that the font in the wall sign have been stretched and the letters are looking wide, and the kerning that comes with this font are terrible and hand kerning will be required, however, the font in the blade sign is more to scale. Acting-Chair Sides opened public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Sullivan: Motion to continue until August 24, 2022. Seconded by: Jaquith. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sullivan, and Sides were in favor. Passes 6-0. McTague requested approval on the blade sign since the applicants have already moved into the space. Miller amended the motion to approve the blade sign as submitted. Seconded by: Jaquith Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sullivan, and Sides were in favor. Passes 6-0. 8. 103 Washington Street: Paxton Parts & Service Ken McTague of Concept Signs was present to discuss the project. McTague stated that the blade sign bracket was existing but was reinstalled upside after a painting of the façade and will be changed to right side up. A carved double-sided 36-inch-wide x 24-inch-high blade sign is proposed. The A-frame sign is proposed with a word jumble in various fonts styles, as well as a window graphic. Acting-Chair Sides suggested slightly more space between the bottom of the “X” and the top of “Service” below so there is less tension. Perras asked if the “Hair Shop and Paxton” door signage would remain in place. McTague replied that door signage was not proposed, but he would advise him to use entirely new branding. Acting-Chair Sides noted that removal of the door signage could be included in their motion. Kennedy to provide style suggestions outside of the meeting to assist with creating signage with Gatlinburg style typography. City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Acting-Chair Sides opened public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Miller: Motion to approve the window and blade sign with additional space between “Paxton” and “Service”, and to approve the A-Frame sign with input from Kennedy, and to remove the door signage. Seconded by: Jaquith. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sullivan, and Sides were in favor. Passes 6-0. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 5 Higginson Square/10 Derby Square: Small Project Review – Replacement of buildings 3rd floor windows Perras recused himself as an employee of Jones Architecture. Michael Proscia of Jones Architecture was present to discuss the project. Proscia stated a replacement of the windows on the north side of the building are proposed. All the windows on the east and west side of the building would be replaced. The 4th floor windows were previously replaced several years earlier, and the windows in their office on the 3rd floor in the south side of the building were replaced in the spring of 2022. The windows are identical to the previously replaced ones. They are two-tone blue windows with green trim, with simulated divided lites (SDL), and an aluminum fascia over the existing wood frame, which would create another line around the perimeter of each window opening. The windows will be salvaged and reused elsewhere. Acting-Chair Sides opened public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Jaquith: Motion to approve as presented. Seconded by: Sullivan. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Sullivan, and Sides were in favor. Passes 5-0. Perras returned to the meeting. 2. 252 Bridge Street and 32-34 Federal Street: Design Consultation to Revise for Final Design Review – The Exchange Salem – Part 1: Redevelopment of 252 Bridge Street, the ‘Crescent Lot’ into a six-story mixed use building with approximately 7,325 square feet of commercial space, up to 120 residential units that will be offered at varying levels of affordability, creation of public spaces, and site improvements. Ramie Schneider of WinnDevelopment, Steve Prestejohn and Brian O’Connor of Cube 3, and Michael Blier of Landworks Studio, were present to discuss the project. Schneider stated that they appreciated the feedback the DRB provided at the June meeting, and they’ve worked to address those comments and the various faces of the building, understanding that they can no go back to the previously proposed building. They hope this second design consultation prior to the City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes SRA meeting will result in a return to the DRB for final design review in either August or September. O’Connor added that they are excited about the direction the project is headed. Prestejohn stated that there was a strong consensus at the previous meeting that 1. The architect has less of a bold and unique look. 2. The North River elevation has become flat, less dynamic. 3. Try to re-introduce color and playfulness into the fenestration and materials. 4. The site planning and public realm is an improvement over the 2021 design. 5. Need to find a happy medium between Schematic Design approval and the Final Design submission. Prestejohn noted two minor changes to the site, widening the bottom of the monumental stair and added a small path to the foot pump room from the exterior. They wanted to return to the layers the riverfront façade and having a closer relationship with the architecture on the north side of the building by carving and moulding the façade. On the Washington Street façade, they wanted to put careful thought into the rhythm of the street edge and an articulation of the wall. Prestejohn stated that at the Washington Street intersection they heard from the Board that the proportion of wood to dark needed adjustment. They are treating the split treatment of the façade as deliberate to help manage the length of façade, with warmth and inviting colors closest to the intersection. Larger glazing is proposed at key elevations, the two noses of the buildings, and an over- framing on the right side to break up the building and have the treatment wrap around to the north. O’Connor added that they wanted to create a holistic and meaningful building, which included time spent reviewing the scale and proportion of the end block facing the intersection and thinking about how to emphasis some vertical expression with a gentle introduction of color and carved out balconette that gesture towards the water. The stone creates a deliberate internal layer that pops out further down the street and along the ramp where the series of tone-on-tone bays are introduced to articulate the roofline and create a rhythm to speaks a little bit to the relationship on the opposite side of the street, which they see as a deliberate and urbanistic response on that edge. The columns and the way the columns hit the ground also have more cohesive language for people to interact with and feel. It goes beyond the materials and proportions, to how they intersect the plaza and how that informs the public experience at that level while bringing more color and brightness to the intersection. Prestejohn stated that at the north façade they wanted to reintroduce a playfulness and flamboyance, which they homed in on. A simple window patterning is proposed to make the curved form feel special, along with the left side of the façade being slightly proud of the right, to get a sense that the pieces are moving and have a sense of flow. Attention was paid to the playfulness of the columns, so only certain column covers were highlighted with the same skin while other columns were treated as a simple backdrop, and the column skin proportion and distribution at the edge were carefully thought-out to ensure that the courtyard felt open. O’Connor added that they played with the radius of the curves, particularly at the far right where the wood tucks into the corner with glazing at the edge to create an end tower expression, a broader curve towards the middle, and a tighter curve again at the lower 3-story portion to the left. This was also done to show the thickness and dimensionality of the building edges. Prestejohn stated that from the North Bridge looking east, there will be a gentle introduction of color that touches the ground, the 4-story wood to the left (north) curves and stops short of the vertical piece, and the 3-story piece beyond also starts to emerge in the background, to build on the experience of the City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes shifting of the building form. O’Connor noted that the window patterning in the grey tower element is still being adjusted which currently feels static. Prestejohn stated that 3 additional views were created, from the North Bridge along the slip ramp the added bays give a residential scale to the building and relates to some of the rhythm, proportions, and openings across the street. O’Connor added that the bays appear to be slide down the façade creating a disconnect at the top floor, and he believes the inset pieces of grey want to be the darker color rather than match the adjacent façade, to add to the depth and layering, which is a change they are still working on. Additionally, they are still playing with the window patterning and whether more color should be added along the Bridge Street façade. Prestejohn stated that their hope is to make the building more dynamic. O’Connor noted that the new renderings provide a better scale for the urban context proposed, as well as the horizontal and vertical layer of the façade, and the connections to the elevated platform above. Prestejohn presented comparison renderings from the June 2022 to the current design. Kennedy stated he liked the introduction of the curved façade, differentiation of the wood vs. the grey, but that has been missed in the view from the Washington Street intersection. A curve, perhaps along the right edge of the building could be introduced because it wants that same softness, even if it were to be an inverse. Prestejohn noted the building tapers over towards Bridge Street which isn’t shown in either rendering. O’Connor replied that the fin-like corners could have a radius. Jaquith stated that the proposed is a much richer building with some design elements of Hugo Aalto along the northern curved façade. He disagreed with Kennedy’s suggestion of needing to bring some curve to the Washington Street intersection, and suggested the proposed lighting be moved to the reveal at the top of the columns rather than on the face of the columns. Sullivan agreed with Jaquith and noted the location of the light fixture is problematic. He also asked for the relationship of the columns to the face of the building. O’Connor replied that the light fixtures will not be located on the columns as shown, it’s one of several items they are still exploring; whether the columns will be flush with the building above or be slightly inset. Sullivan preferred the flush condition and Jaquith preferred the reveal to also place lighting. Acting-Chair Sides stated her preference for the reveal which picks up on the darker lines that wrap the building. The design has come a long way, and she thanked the design team for their efforts. Kennedy noted his preference for flush columns. Acting-Chair Sides stated that at the remains of the bays, the darkness of the sections makes the building seem ominous compared to the excitement of the rest of the building. O’Connor replied that a lighter color bay with vertical patterning that felt nice and provide some texture, that same texture within the top floor inset created a shadow. She was intrigued by translating the use of red insets. O’Connor noted that the horizontal lines were meant to break up the wood-like material to eliminate the stacked look. Sullivan agreed with Acting-Chair Sides. Sullivan was intrigued by the returns from the face of the buildings to the windows that will be prominent and add color. O’Connor replied that they are still determining materials, cost, and constructability, so they don’t know if the head and jamb would be the same material. Perras noted that the reveal should remain rather than being flush with the façade. City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Perras preferred that the columns be flush with the plane above and if they aren’t flush, they should be changed to a different material, and the columns locating at the curve could be beautiful. Their intent is for the north façade to read as two separate lanes, but he feels that it would be nicer of the serpentine were continuous or that the color of the 3-story version was changed slightly, because the slight step in the façade is a counterintuitive concept for this side of the building. On the leading edge of the Washington Street intersection, he asked if the rhythm element was being continued into the grey. O’Connor replied no, it was a rendering error. He asked for the type of wood product proposed. O’Connor replied that it hasn’t been determined and that conversation may last a couple of meetings but will be addressed at a later meeting. Perras noted that curves are difficult to construct using panelized material and the north façade will lose its power if it were to become a segmented curve with a tremendous amount of vertical joints. The north façade harkens back to the Baker House. He was in favor of a varied window pattern, but the façade is doing something so special now that the current window variation works quite well. Miller noted her concern for the imposing dark bays along Bridge Street. At the public real, a stair that narrows at the bottom is the opposite of welcoming and as an exterior stair she hopes it will have a 6- inch rise and 12-inch run. Acting-Chair Sides raised concerns with a public comment letter raising concerns with connections to north Salem and what changed may have been made. Schneider replied that no design changes were made, walkways will stay within the crescent lot parking lot and the small remnant parcel that was MBTA land. It will be enhanced with the public spaced being created at the river level, outdoor seating, and bike storage. Sullivan noted a letter he read noting concerns with the Bridge Street sidewalk possibly being reduced, and it’s a path used mostly by people walking to and from North Salem. Schneider replied that the sidewalk width will be widened by eating into Bridge Street to calm traffic and by creating a drop-off zone as well. They’ve been working with the city of Salem and their traffic consultant to ensure that Bridge Street feels like a front door to the building and create a good pedestrian experience. Acting-Chair Sides opens Public Comment: Newhall-Smith stated that the following public comments were received on July 24th before 4PM. • Anne Sterling, 29 Orchard Street • Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI), 9 North Street • Daniel and Lara Fury, Federal Street Anne Sterling, 29 Orchard Street. She questioned whether the drop-off goes under the building. Prestejohn replied no, the red line on the illustrative site plan is the outline of the building above. She thanked them for their clarification of widening the sidewalk and asked if drivers would need to cross into the pedestrian sidewalk to access the drop-off. Schneider replied no, the sidewalk would extend out further in front of and behind the drop-off area. The existing area of striping on the street and will be reduced to widen the sidewalk and arrow the roadway. Approximately 5 vehicles could be stopped in the drop-off area at one time. Sterling cautioned the combination of traffic and vehicles accessing the drop-off area and not creating a line of drivers from waiting to pull into the space. Schneider replied that this is for temporary use only and it will be well equipped with short term parking signage. Sterling City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes asked if the sidewalk would be ADA compliant because it appears to narrow. Schneider replied yes and a diagram of sidewalk widths could be prepared. Emily Udy, Historic Salem Inc. They sent a letter, appreciate that a materials discussion is forthcoming because they would like to see the high-quality materials that are based in nature to ensure that the building in successful in the long-term. They look forward to the examination of the monochromatic grey-on-grey materials along the Bridge Street façade to which they agree with the imposing feel. Their letter also suggesting pulling materials from other parts of the design to soften the monolithic look. Relating to pedestrian access, early in the design there was a discussion about not touching that sidewalk but now it seems as though it will occur, where the building meets the ground in that area should be included in the site design. The current guard rail is complimentary to the building design and those elements should be part of the design conversation. They appreciate Bridge Street being treated as the front door to the building and they appreciate the once in a lifetime opportunity to make this a pedestrian friendly street. One the north facing river façade, subtle details can add interest that make it feel like less of a solid wall, particularly the loss of the balconies, because some interaction with the riverfront would be welcome is something to be considered with either balconies or balconettes. On the North Bridge façade, the previous window arrangement was better than what is currently proposed, so they look forward to those potential changes. Lastly, they should make sure the walking lines for pedestrians makes sense in terms of inviting them both onto and off the site from the intersection, and how that interacts with the proposed courtyard at the courthouses and moving to the MBTA path. Miller stated that its helpful to know that VHB is coming on board at their Civil and Traffic Engineer, because they will address ADA concerns, sidewalks, etc. Schneider replied that an equal amount of time is spent determining the site details, ADA compliance, and pedestrian connectivity. Jamie Metsch, 18 Oliver Street. This is his first time seeing this project and as a member of the community he’s really excited about it. The curve is downright sexy and he’s happy he stayed on the meeting to see the presentation, and he has faith in the Board’s decision. In terms of the west facing façade, he hopes some pedestrian level interest is created, because half the building people will walk by but have no real physical interaction with. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street. Concerned that this residential building resembles an office building, particularly with the loss of the balconies, it looks as if its part of the court system or adjunct office building. The residential nature of the building needs to be better communicated and she suggested inset balconies that would continue the line of the façade. The shape and design of the building does not reflect the context of historic Salem, and she’s not sure how Salem residents benefit from what comes extreme language for architecture, when respecting Salem’s architectural groundings that have stood the test of time. She recalled when Moshe Safdie created the wing on the PEM, how he detailed the colonial building shapes along the walkway and used materials that were grounded in Salem, which was to be an example of how to make it successful through time. She also wondered with whether the height of the buildings on Bridge Street will create a wind tunnel, like in Boston and the Back Bay, that discourages pedestrian travel. The current extreme design is not within the context of Salem, nor does it say Salem, and the maple look to parts of the façade is not derived from anything that currently exists in Salem. It’s risky to create such a contemporary design without some grounding and use of materials that have been seasoned in Salem. City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Victoria Ricciardiello, 5 Foster Street. Would like parking available in the area, even if it’s metered, due to concerns with the Halloween season and those that park in North Salem and walk downtown. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Newhall-Smith stated that this was the design consultation requested by the SRA, so a recommendation could be to refer it back to the SRA and to include whether the DRB believes the design is moving in the right direction. The SRA will consider that in the context of moving the design to a final Design Review. Kennedy: Motion to approve the Schematic Design and refer the project to the SRA so it can return to the DRB for a final Design Review. Seconded by: Jaquith. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sullivan, and Sides were in favor. Passes 6-0. Perras stated that materials will need to be determined and precedent images from similar applications will need to be submitted when the applicant returns to the DRB for final Design Review. Newhall-Smith requested a materials board delivered to her at the City Hall Annex, to allow the public and city Boards to see the proposed materials. Perras and Kennedy stated that the current design is better than what was originally proposed. Jaquith noted that this is a great design. Projects Outside the Urban Renewal Area There are no projects outside the Urban Renewal area to review. New / Old Business 1. Approval of Minutes: a. June 22, 2022 Perras: Motion to approve the June 22, 2022, regular meeting minutes. Seconded by: Sullivan. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sullivan, and Sides were in favor. Passes 6-0. 2. Staff Updates, if any: Newhall-Smith noted that the state extended the remote meeting law until March 31, 2023 and stated that the Board needs to determine whether they would continue to meet remotely or convert to a hybrid meeting, and that can be determined at a later date. Sullivan noted the value of getting together is when there are material boards to review but remote meetings is an effective way to continue dialog and respond to images, but he would be in favor of a hybrid meeting when there are material boards to review. He suggested it be added to the August agenda to discuss it. Miller raised concerns with the logistics of not everything being in the room. Newhall-Smith noted that the hybrid meetings can be mixed, with some members remote and some in person. There is no requirement for a quorum for hybrid meetings, but it would be preferred. Sullivan noted that reviewing materials boards at Newhall-Smith’s office is a great solution and praised remote meeting. Kennedy agreed. Perras requesting attempting a remote viewing of materials prior to making City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes that decision. Newhall-Smith agreed to add the discussion to the agenda after they’ve attempted a future meeting on the crescent lot to review materials. Adjournment Miller: Motion to adjourn. Seconded by: Jaquith. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sullivan, and Sides were in favor. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:45PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-203