Loading...
2026-03-25 Meeting MinutesDRB March 25, 2026 Page 1 of 7 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Daniel Estes, Kate Martin, Elizabeth Murray, Marc Perras, Catherine Miller, and Sarah Tarbet Others Present: Stephanie Owens, Senior Planner Recorder: Christine Petryszyn The meeting was called to order at 6:02pm. Roll call was taken. Signs in the Urban Renewal Area There are no signs to review. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 50 Washington Street: Schematic Design Review – Review of proposed adaptive reuse of the Salem Tabernacle Congregational Church into 48 studios that are, 100% affordable, permanent supportive housing units for at-risk veterans, with space retained for ongoing use by the church congregation. Christine Granese and Courtney Koslow from Beacon Communities, Danny Turgeon from Bohler Engineering, and Thad Siemasko and Sarah Jane Visnick from SV Designs were present to discuss the proposal: • The proposal is to redevelop the church and create veteran housing. The applicant was before the Planning Board on March 5th. Changes were made to the renderings. A civil engineer has been chosen for peer review. • Mr. Siemasko reviewed the site plan. He reported that they are heading towards using historic tax credits for the project and have received favorable feedback from the National Park Service. • A rendering of the views from Washington Street and Federal Streets were shared and the changes based on previous comments were reviewed. • Changes to the gables and colors were reviewed. • A zoomed in rendering of the courtyard and terrace was shared. That area will be screened from the parking lot. • The materials package was shared. Samples have been left with Ms. Owens. • Mr. Turgeon reviewed the landscape plan updates. The paving pattern was updated and the lawn area was replaced with native plantings. The dogwood was replaced with Service Berry. The lighting has been changed to a more residential-type fixture. Special effort was made to ensure the lights are not impacting abutters. • The planting plan was shared. • Mr. Perras inquired about one of the metal samples provided at City Hall. Mr. Siemasko said those were likely the small washers on the gable returns. DRB March 25, 2026 Page 2 of 7 • Mr. Perras noted that he preferred it without any of the smaller gables but understood that it wasn’t the preferred direction. • Ms. Miller noted that she liked the tone on tone which made the gable options stronger. She also said she liked the perennial garden and ground covers as well as the lighting plan. • Ms. Miller asked if the paver pattern of the running bond could run perpendicular to the face of the building. Mr. Turgeon said they could do that. • Ms. Martin said the scale of the 16’ light was improved. • Mr. Turgeon said they are planning to meet with National Grid regarding a screening plan for the transformers. They are investigating either a planting or a screen but need National Grid to sign off. • Ms. Miller noted that there may be precedent in Salem for screening the transformers with a wood fence. She said that consideration for the street side is the most important. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street inquired about a signage plan. Mr. Siemasko said there would be no signage on Lynde Street. He expects that there will be probably two signs; one at the main entrance of the Church and one for the Soldier On program, but he knows they will have to come back for the review process on those. Ms. Koslow said the Lynde Street will be exit only, so there may be a sign on the door that may say emergency exit. Ms. Owens noted that the Council on Aging provided comment on the project on February 18, 2026, which has been posted on the public SharePoint folder. • The new entry has been pulled back but has not been updated on the plan. Ms. Visnick said they would follow up on a new plan view. It is pushed back in the rendering. VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to approve with the comments provided and that the team follow- up on. Seconded by Perras. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, Estes, and Durand. 7-0 in favor. Projects Outside the Urban Renewal Area 1. 8 Harrison Road, 9 Harrison Road and 262 Loring Ave, 266 Loring Ave: Smart Growth Overlay District -Design review of the proposed first phase of a multi-phase project known collectively as the Forest River Residences. The first phase includes a residential building consisting of 340 units, an above-level parking garage with 524 parking spaces, and two enclosed outdoor courtyards. The proposed work also includes an approximately half-acre central landscaped common, extension of the existing Harrison Road, and connection to the Forest River Conservation Trailhead. Mr. Estes recused himself from this agenda item. Ed Bradford and Mark Klopfer were present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Bradford noted that their intention is to follow up on the commentary received at the February 25th meeting, which included feedback on materials, signage, side and rear elevation, material samples, and roof mechanical equipment. DRB March 25, 2026 Page 3 of 7 • The proposed changes and suggested adjustments were reviewed. The blade sign was removed and the sign is on the brick parapet. Contrasting gray brick was added in place of the cement material. Material colors and transition changes were reviewed along with the updated renderings. More contrast was added to the spandrel panels. Mr. Bradford discussed trying to get more organization of the three-story base. The palette is more restrained for the rear and sides of the building. • A photograph of the board samples was shared, and the originals were dropped off at City Hall. • The strategy for the mechanical equipment is to locate it primarily at the center of the building mass to minimize visibility from various vantage points around the site. The roof plan with equipment was shared. • The section through the parking garage and courtyard and through the interior courtyard was shared. • Mr. Klopfer revised the landscape plan with a focus on responding to comments received on February 25th. Comments included a request for a circulation diagram and concern about pedestrian/vehicle conflict at Avalon Garage. Comments from the February 19th meeting include prioritizing pedestrian safety and connections, consider alternative treatment for fire lanes, providing an expanded play area for children, public amenities, expanded pedestrian path, and bike lanes. • Mr. Klopfer reported that the fire lanes need to be plowed so will remain asphalt. • He said the common area is intended to be a link between the site and Loring Avenue. • No retail or commercial is planned. • There are some opportunities for expanded pedestrian access which Winn will discuss in the future. It is difficult to get a path around the Avalon building due to the slope and bedrock. • The site plan was shown with the proposed crosses. The pedestrian crosses will be raised except for the crosses near the main lobby. The crosswalk from the Winn building will be precast concrete pavers. • The passive play opportunities were reviewed. • The circulation plan was reviewed. • Weston and Sampson just received their peer review and are doing the civil engineering for the project. • The back parking area is for the Winn Harrington residents. • Ms. Miller noted the anticipated increase in use for the trail head. • Mr. Klopfer noted that they are proposing to keep the pavement close to the trail head with an accessible ramp, visitor parking spaces, a bench, bike rack, and interpretative signage. • Ms. Miller noted she is still concerned about vehicles coming out of the garage and the non- standard angle. Mr. Klopfer said the roadway geometry in this area is tricky. He said Ms. Miller’s suggestion was good and that now they have the crosswalk acting as the stop bar. Ms. Miller suggested doing something similar to what is being done at the fire lane. She encouraged anything that could make the area safer. • The site paths will be addressed at a future meeting with Winn as many of the existing paths are on their site. • Mr. Perras asked for another look at the non-primary elevations to review the rhythm of the façade. The elevation was shared and reviewed. DRB March 25, 2026 Page 4 of 7 • Mr. Perras said he thought the gray brick was lovely, but that that red brick was very monochromatic and that he hoped for something with more variation and a smoother surface and recommended that the applicant explore options. Ms. Tarbet echoed Mr. Perras’ comments on the brick. • The brick is not a Roman brick size. • Ms. Tarbet suggested a darker grout color. Mr. Bradford said they could add grout to the samples. • Ms. Tarbet inquired who the signage at the top of the building served given the pedestrian forward project and asked the applicant to consider removing it and doing a landscape sign as your enter the site. Mr. Bradford said they would review it with the team. • Ms. Miller suggested a raised crosswalk on the crossing that she had expressed concerned about. • Ms. Tarbet inquired about the accessibility of the stairs to the little patio area and the entrance to the building which looks like quite a bit of cross ramping. • Mr. Bradford said they have 3 ½ foot grade changes and reviewed the location of the accessible route on the plan. Ms. Tarbet inquired if there was a more direct way to cross the common to the front door. • Mr. Durand noted that the proposed stairs do not seem to comply with the project site connectivity requirements that all new paved path connections shall be sloped walks. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, expressed concern over the phased review of the overall project and the 120-day clock under 40R. She inquired as to whether the review boards had the same clock. She asked if there was any visual relationship between the new build of Avalon and the Winn project side. She worried that they would not look related as there are two different developers. She also noted that the Winn portion of the project is supposed to have a senior component but does not have covered parking. She noted that one house is going to be demolished, and that four will remain. She felt it was abrupt visually. She said the wayfinding will be important and at the pedestrian driver level. • Mr. Klopfer reviewed what was intended to be a tertiary connection and the accessible route. He said there is an inaccessible path that provides connection but that it is parallel to the main path which is accessible. He said he would speak with the civil engineer about the raised crosswalk. There may not be enough space to add a speed bump before the crosswalk, but they would look at it. • Mr. Klopfer said the accessible ramps at the front door have been difficult to solve. He said they were working to also provide a ramp to the package door and trying to avoid cow paths. Each of the circulation paths are trying to address circulation at different levels. • It is a three-foot elevation to the front door. They were trying to avoid having handrails. They will look at removing or revising the location of the small stair. • Ms. Owens noted that the timeline for Phase 1 and 2 are different. The 120 days for Phase 1 started when the applicant first saw the Planning Board and the 120 days for Phase 2 started when that applicant went before the Planning Board. There is time constraint in that the Planning Board will have a quick turnaround to review the DRB recommendations. Ellen Galligan, 22 Cleveland Road, thanked Ms. Wilbert for bringing up many of the issues that other have not thought about or weren’t sure we going to be raised. She said she understood DRB March 25, 2026 Page 5 of 7 that 40R can be longer than 120 days, it just cannot be shorter. She asked that another in- person meeting be considered. She said that there is a lot at stake with the development though she loves much of what is going to happen but she is concerned about safety, traffic, emergency vehicles, pedestrian traffic, etc. • Ms. Owens said that Avalon’s 120 days end on May 7th and Winn on June 4th. She said the timeline may be extended by written agreement between the Planning Board and the applicant. There is language that addresses the DRB review which is required before the Planning Board can take action. The Planning Board has the option to review the application in a joint meeting with the DRB, which they have done. The Planning Board may take action if at least 60 days has passed since delivery of the application if they have not received comments from the DRB. That also may be extended by written agreement of the applicant and Planning Board. • Ms. Wilbert requested that the dates the review ends could be entered into the minutes. She felt it was important that the public understand the timelines. • Mr. Perras said that Ms. Wilbert’s comment about the aesthetics of the architecture referencing one another was a good one. • Mr. Bradford said that both firms are speaking to one another and that the master plan has come together as a group. VOTE: Ms. Martin made a motion to recommend to the Planning Board that the DRB is in agreement with refinements that have been made and that attention should be given to building signage at the parapets versus at grade signage, desire for water struck red brick with variation, specificity about the grout color, that the crosswalk at the garage entrance be further refined, further study into the entrance sloping paths and ramps, and further exploration of the tertiary path with steps which does not meet the letter of the site requirements. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Murray, Tarbet, Perras, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. 2. 4 Franklin Street: North River Canal Corridor – Design review of amendments to the proposed Cataldo Ambulance Service facility. Dave Stockless from Icon Architecture and Jesse Blanchette were present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Stockless said Cataldo was going through the approval process in 2021 and that since that time, the owner has changed and the building code has changed so they are requesting modifications to the previously permitted project. • Renderings of what is proposed and what was previously permitted were shared. • The building is now one story, and the site is now elevated one foot. A ramp and access to the first floor have been added. • Lap siding is proposed rather than board and bat. • Renderings showing the ramp from Franklin Street was shared. They worked to eliminate as much railing as possible. • The doorways for the garage are wider than what was originally permitted. • All mechanical equipment will be placed on the roof so that it will not be visible from the adjacent sidewalks or street. DRB March 25, 2026 Page 6 of 7 • A large retaining wall has been eliminated as a pedestrian connection is no longer needed. Several trees were eliminated due to the new size of the garage being pushed back slightly. • A trellis with vines was recommended at a recent Planning Board meeting in lieu of fake garage doors so that was incorporated into the design. • The roof view rendering was shared. The mechanical equipment was placed the low roof. Elevations and site plans were shared. • Mr. Blanchette reviewed the proposed 2026 landscape plan. He said raising the site caused a lot of trickle-down effects. The walkway coming in caused rearranging of the landscaping in this area. • The 2021 landscape plan was also shared to compare the differences. • There is now only 3 ½ feet between the lot line and building so there is not enough room for the trees. • Mr. Perras noted that the trees are important to both the community and DRB and asked if there was any way to shift the building to recreate the space for the trees. Mr. Blanchette said the issue they are having is that the site is filled tidelands and that they already have Chapter 91 approval. • Mr. Perras said he feels like the primary entrance to the building is more out of scale than it was previously and suggested simplifying it to same version as the other entrance. He does not think it warrants a large structure around it. Mr. Stockless said they would look at that. • Mr. Perras said he would prefer the coping of both the roofs be the same color, perhaps a darker gray rather than white. Mr. Stockless said he agreed with that change. • Two accessible spaces and an accessible route from the public way are required. The landing is on the private property. • Ms. Miller recollected that the City preferred a taller building in this location. Mr. Perras said he did not remember positive comments from the public on this project but that he does prefer the smaller scale. • Mr. Estes suggested changing the orientation of the penthouse screen to match the front of the building. Mr. Stockless said they could do that. • Ms. Tarbet acknowledged the trellis and that it should be a gray to match Mr. Perras’ comment about the coping. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, recommended that an ivy trellis on Olmstead’s house in Chestnut Hill has a turnbuckle so that the trellis falls away when work on the façade is needed. The public hearing was closed. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve with the comments given regarding the different colors for the horizontal banding corners and trellis, working on the primary public entry to downplay the scale, and rotating the mechanical enclosure on the roof. Seconded by Murray. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, Estes, and Durand. 7-0 in favor. DRB March 25, 2026 Page 7 of 7 New / Old Business 1. Approval of Minutes: a. February 19, 2026 VOTE: Ms. Perras made a motion to approve the February 19th minutes. Seconded by Miller . Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Murray, Tarbet, Perras, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. Mr. Estes abstained. b. February 25, 2026 VOTE: Ms. Perras made a motion to approve the February 25th minutes. Seconded by Miller . Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Murray, Tarbet, Perras, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. Mr. Estes abstained. 2. Staff updates, if any Ms. Owens reminded the DRB of the joint meeting with the Planning Board on April 9th. She also reported that she has been in contact with the businesses mentioned at previous meetings that had enforcement issues and she continues to track those. Ms. Miller reported that Pamplemousse has plastic sticks on the outside of their windows showing all the kinds of beer they sell. The owners of Aspire have the same type of sign. She asked if a running list could be created to monitor and track violations. Ms. Owens said she does have a tracking system, but she said she would investigate options such as on SharePoint so that it is viewable. Mr. Durand recommended It be included in the meeting minutes. Upcoming Meetings 1. SRA: April 8 2. Joint Meeting with Planning Board: April 9 3. DRB: April 22 Adjournment VOTE: Mr. Estes made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by: Perras. All in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:11PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033