The URL can be used to link to this page

275-281 ESSEX STREET- VERIZON WIRELESS FACILITIES CF TOMPKINS BUILDING 275-281 Essex Street Verizon Wireless Facilities CF Tompkins Building � S MONO ✓� s � 7 � v ,ate Salem Redevelopment Authority MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Design Review Board { FROM: Tania Hartford,Economic Development Program Directof `� SUBJECT: 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins) — Cell Facilities DATE: April20, 2007 CC: Kirsten Kinzer,CDBG Planner Attached is information submitted by Verizon Wireless regarding the installation of cell facilities installed on the building at 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins). The installation took place prior to approval by the SRA/DRB. The SRA reviewed the project at their meeting on April 11 and referred it to the DRB for design recommendations. As always, feel free to contact me at 978/619-5685 or thartfordesalem.com should you have any questions or concerns prior to the next meeting. 120 Washington Street • Salem Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 619-5685 • Fax (978) 740-0404 GEHRING & ASSOCIATES, LLC Wireless Planning& Zoning Post Office Box 98 860-536-0675 West Mystic, CT 06388 gehring@snet.net April 11,2007 The Salem Redevelopment Authority and Design Review Board City of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: EXISTING WIRELESS INSTALLATION OF BELL ATLANTIC MOBILE OF MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION LTD.D/BIA VERIZON WIRELESS ON THAT REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE C.F.TOMPKINS BUILDING AT 275-281 ESSEX STREET,ASSESSOR'S PARCEL ID 26-0447-0,LOCATED IN THE B-5 ZONING DISTRICT. Dear Members of the Salem Redevelopment Authority and Design Review Board: Bell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corporation Ltd. d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless" or "Verizon") is pleased to submit the enclosed material for your review relative to its existing wireless communications installation on the C.F. Tompkins building at 275-281 Essex Street("Subject Property" or "Subject Building"). The Subject Property is located in the B-5 Zoning District. In March of 2006 the City of Salem issued a Building Permit ("BP") to Verizon Wireless to allow Verizon to effectuate the subject wireless installation as it stands today. (See BP copy enclosed under Tab 1). Subsequent to the BP's March 2006 issuance, the City's Planning Department contacted Verizon relative to requesting a retro-active review by the Salem Redevelopment Authority ("SRA") of this already permitted work. Accordingly, without waiving any of its rights and protections relative to work performed under a Building Permit already issued by the City of Salem, Verizon Wireless herewith voluntarily submits the enclosed information for the SRA's consideration. A. BRIEF BACKGROUND In June of 2005 Verizon's permitting due diligence began on site. At that time, the Zoning Code was reviewed and discussions with a Planning Staff member ensued relative to the SRA guidelines. A copy of the Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Plan ("Plan") was provided by the Planning Department. We were informed that the SRA had neither an 1 application form nor an application fee and that the SRA process began by writing a letter to request being put on the agenda. Furthermore we were told that zoning approval for the proposed installation might be needed and that it might not even be allowed in the downtown district at all. However, Section 5-20) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance ("Ordinance") clearly allows such installations "as a matter of right." Being uncertain of the information received relative to the proposed installation's permitting status we deferred to the Building Commissioner as the enforcement officer of local by-laws and ordinances for guidance. Section 9-1 of the Ordinance as well as MGL 40A Section 7 vests the Building Commissioner with such authority. Furthermore, Exhibit D of the Plan states that "[t]he Building Inspector will not issue a building permit without the [Salem Redevelopment]Authority's approval stamped on the construction documents" so it seemed the Building Commissioner would be able to clarify all zoning related questions as well as render an opinion on the applicability of the SRA to Verizon's proposed "By Right" wireless installation. Furthermore, in many jurisdictions throughout the Commonwealth the entire permitting process begins by making application for a building permit and then getting denied if its issuance is not appropriate under the circumstances. The Building Commissioner is often the last stop, the gatekeeper, to any development. In February 2006 the Building Commission ruled that Verizon could apply directly to his office for a Building Permit and that neither Planning Board, Zoning Board, nor SRA Approval were required for this "By Right" installation. A permit application was submitted that same month. (See Application Cover Letter enclosed under Tab 2). In March 2006 a Building Permit ("BP") was issued by the City of Salem. Construction commenced inside the building in the summer of 2006. In September 2006 the Salem Historical Commission reviewed Verizon's design as part of the MHC NEPA approval process whereupon a member of the Planning Department notified Verizon's NEPA consultant that SRA approval would be required. At that point a Building Permit had already been issued by the City of Salem. This was many months after direct discussions had already ensued with the City relative to the applicability of the SRA, Planning, Zoning or any other board or agency and direction had been given to apply directly for a Building Permit. Clearly some sort of communication breakdown had occurred at City Hall. B. HERITAGE PLAZA WEST URBAN RENEWAL PLAN The Land Use Provisions of the Plan provide "[t]he use of land in the Project Area shall conform to the uses allowed by the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance" (See Plan at page 6). As mentioned above, the Verizon installation is allowed "as a matter of right" pursuant to Section 5-20) of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, as a matter of law the proposed use is allowed on the Subject Property. Furthermore, the Plan enumerates many specific permitted uses allowed within the Project Area and concludes with "accessory uses directly in support of any of the above"(emphasis added) (See Plan at page 8). 2 While personal wireless devices may not have been prevalent when the Plan was first written and adopted, surely today such devices are an intricate part of our culture and lifestyle(s); they are absolutely "accessory" to the many diverse business, residential, social and public uses enumerated in the Plan's Statement of Permitted Uses. The wireless installation is in complete harmony with the purposes and objectives of the Plan in that increased wireless communications actually help promote the "health, safety, amenity and economic viability which will promote the best interests of the City and its people" (see Plan at page 1). Enhanced wireless communications can also be deemed to satisfy the Plan's goal of providing "new, expanded and/or improved public and private services,facilities and utilities" (See Plan at page 2). Along those same lines, the "overall objective" of the Urban Design Criteria of the Plan includes "continuing development of a central business district that can favorably compete in today's market." (See Plan at page C-1). With so many businesses becoming increasingly dependent on wireless technologies and wireless devices, the subject installation directly serves and benefits the aforementioned objective of the Plan by providing state-of-the-art, enhanced wireless communications to the area. This installation is good for economic development. This installation enhances Salem's wireless connectivity thereby benefiting residents and business owners as well as providing tourists with the state-of-the-art communications services to which they have grown accustomed to at home. The physical attributes of the installation are harmonious with the design criteria of the Plan by being unobtrusive. The antennas have been painted to match the surfaces on which they are mounted. The majority of the radio equipment is housed in the basement of the building completely hidden from view. The roof installed equipment is hidden behind a sheathing material similar in appearance and texture to the material that currently sides the existing roof top elevator shaft penthouse. Accordingly, the installation offers enhanced communications without sacrificing the Subject Building's architectural integrity. (See Photos enclosed under Tab 5). Furthermore, Verizon is just a tenant on the Subject Building. When its leasehold term expires Verizon will remove its antennas and equipment. The antennas are simply trade fixtures. The installation will have no long-term deleterious impact on the Subject Building's character or historical surroundings. The installation required no permanent change to the building. No demolition of historic attributes occurred to effectuate the installation. The installation is "temporary" when viewed in perspective to Salem's long historical lineage. In the meantime, however, as previously mentioned, the enhanced wireless service being provided is a boost to downtown economic vitality and development. The installation is a benefit to the community and to the City of Salem's efforts to revitalize downtown. 3 , C. OTHER WIRELESS INSTALLATIONS There are many examples of other wireless installations throughout the SRA district, some of which are more visually obtrusive and of little general public safety and convenience benefit compared with Verizon's installation. (See Photos enclosed under Tab 8). In addition to the above, there is a Sprint PCS installation located at 217-225 Essex Street,just down the street from the Subject Property, which is particularly relevant. The Sprint PCS ("Sprint") installation is relevant because Sprint is another federally licensed wireless service provider similar to Verizon Wireless. Sprint obtained its permits in 1999 for an installation that appears much more visually obtrusive than Verizon's. Sprinfs installation is what is called "pole mounted," up on the roof of a building, visible from many different angles and perspectives around the downtown district. (See Photos enclosed under Tab 7). Furthermore, Sprint also did not formally appear in front of the SRA or DRB for their installation either. In Sprint's case, a member of the Planning Staff requested that the SRA forgo its formal review since Sprint had to appear in front of the Planning Board anyway for a Special Permit. The SRA voted to allow Sprint to forego SRA review in lieu of Planning Board review provided "the Planning Board be informed that their review should take into consideration the most appropriate placement of the equipment so as not to negatively impact the Urban Renewal Area." (See enclosed under Tab 6). While well intentioned, a review of the Planning Board meeting minutes reveal that no such directive was ever passed on. In fact, it was not until the public comment portion of Sprint's Planning Board meeting that a member of the public, who happened to be a former member of the SRA, spoke regarding SRA approval.No one from the Planning Staff or Planning Board indicated either concurrence or affirmation that SRA review functions had indeed been delegated. In short, no mention of the Urban Renewal Area guidelines entered into the Planning Board's discussions. (See Planning Board Meeting Minutes under Tab 6). This example of a prior communication breakdown concerning the SRA's applicability to wireless installations could possibly explain the Building Commissioner's belief that such installations are not subject to SRA review at all. In any case, it is a fact that consideration of the Urban Renewal Area was not discussed during the Sprint meeting; nor were Sprint's antennas required to be any less obvious than what Verizon has installed on the Tompkins building. This point is relevant under the applicable provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which requires that functionally equivalent service providers be treated equally by local governments. (47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)). 4 D. CONCLUSION Regardless of what may have happened in the past with Verizon or any other carrier, progress can be made to rectify theses matters going forward. The Building Commissioner can attest to the fact that Verizon Wireless was willing to abide by any procedure required at the time. We were more than willing to make application to the SRA, or for that matter to the Planning Board or Zoning Board too, if required. At the end of the day Verizon relied, in good faith, on a permit issued by the City of Salem. The fact that its issuance was subsequently red-flagged in September, after having been issued in March, indicates that certain communication breakdowns occurred. These are unfortunate and Verizon Wireless sincerely apologizes for any misunderstanding portrayed by its action in reliance on its Building Permit. By the same token, perhaps something positive can come out of all of this. As previously mentioned, in many jurisdictions throughout the Commonwealth the permitting process begins when making application for a Building Permit. In many of those jurisdictions there is also a process in place whereby an applicant is required to procure departmental signatures on a sign-off form prior to the building permit being issued. Perhaps a similar such procedure in Salem would benefit all departments and help alleviate inter- departmental misunderstandings. Another idea involves amending certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance to clearly leave markers and red-flags that other procedures and approvals might be required notwithstanding a particular use's "as of right" status. For example, it is clear from the Ordinance that the Salem Redevelopment Authority's input is an integral part of the approval of signage in the Entrance Corridor overlay District (See Ordinance Section 7- 19 (c)(5)(a)(3)); or that the Ordinance was recently amended to include Design Review Board input relative to activities in the new North River Corridor. However, when the Ordinance was amended in 1997 to include provisions for Wireless Communications, there was no link provided to the SRA notwithstanding a particular installation's otherwise "as a matter of right" status when clearly a major portion of those districts where such use is allowed "By Right" fall within SRA territory. This sort of ambiguity, combined with the reliance on the word and interpretation of a public official, can lead to problems. These problems can be avoided in the future by drafting express provisions in the Ordinance to address the SRA review of otherwise permitted wireless installations. Section C(5)(1) of the Plan provides for the SRA's waiver and relief in certain cases of hardship and impracticability "where the objectives of the Plan will not be seriously affected." Here Verizon Wireless respectfully requests the SRA's application of this provision to the facts at hand. We respectfully request that this unfortunate misunderstanding be put in the past so that all parties can move forward in a positive direction. 5 To recap, I have enclosed the following documentation, some of which has been referenced above, for your consideration: Tab 1 - City of Salem Building Permit Issued March 2006 Tab 2 - Cover Letter to Building Permit Application(February 2006) Tab 3 - Landowner Authorization Tab 4 -Notice of Lease Tab 5 - Photos of Existing Installation(2007) Tab 6 - SRA and Planning Board Meeting Minutes Relative to Sprint Installation Tab 7 - Photos of Sprint Installation at 217-225 Essex Street (As Approved) Tab 8 - Photos of Other Installations within District(2007) Tab 9 - Brochure for Roof-top Stealth Material Tab 10 - Roof Plan and Elevation Drawing Verizon Wireless looks forward to an amicable resolution to this situation so that the City of Salem's downtown economic development efforts can continue to be energized by Verizon's enhanced wireless service in the area. The Subject installation is good for business, good for the City of Salem and a tremendous benefit to Salem's downtown residents and tourists. An amicable resolution will benefit all parties thus the SRA's reasonableness in this matter is respectfully requested. Sincerely, Carl . ehring Attachments & Enclosures cc: Steve Tompkins - C.F. Tompkins Co. Elizabeth Rennard, Esq. - City of Salem Jerald Parisella, Esq. - City of Salem Honorable Kimberley Driscoll - City of Salem Earl Duval, Esq. - Duval &Associates LLC Chuck Webberly- Structure Consulting Group Inc. Dan Fitzpatrick-Verizon Wireless 6 • N • • 4 •�o11T �f nQVV AD CITY OF SALEM BUILDING PERMIT F1 027' ESSEX STREET 281 698-06 'GIS#: .315 _ COMMONWEALTH OF JLASSACHI:SETTS !Map: 26 Block: — CITY OF SALEM Lot: �0447 _ Category: WIRELESS INSTAL Permit# (698-06 BUILDING PERMIT ,Project# IJS-2006-1444 Est.Cost: $200,000.00 Fee Charged: 1$2,005.00 - —� Balance Due: $.00 PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO: Const.Class: Contractor: License: Use Group: STRUCTURE CONSULTING GROU Lot Size(sq. h.]: 7545 Zoning: -BS Owner: Verizon Units Gained: Applicant: STRUCTURE CONSULTING GROUP,INC. Units Lost: IAT: 0275 ESSEX STREET 281 Dig Safe#: ISSUED ON: 02-Mar-2006 AMENDED ON: EXPIRES ON: 02-Sep-2006 TO PERFORM THE FOLLOWING WORK 698-06 INSTALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ON EXISTING NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TJS PC!ST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM TI(E STREET Electric Gas Plumbin¢ Building Underground: Underground: Underground: (Excavation: Service: Meter: Footings: Rough: Rough: Rough: Foundation: Final: Final: Final: Rough Frame: Fireplace/Chimney: 'D.P.W. Fire Health Insulation: Meter: Oil: Final: House# Smoke: Treasury: Water: Alarm: sewer: Sprinklers: THIS PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED BY THE CITY OF SALEM UP VIOLATION OF ANY OF, ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS. Signa re: Fee Type: Receipt No: Date Paid: Check No: Amount: BUBDING REC-2006-002045 02-Mar-06 9235 $2.005.00 GeoTMS®2006 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,Inc. • w • • Carl W. Gehring Post Office Box 98 Attorney At Law 860-536-0675 West Mystic, CT 06388 gehring@snet.net February 21, 2006 Mr. Thomas St. Pierre Building Commissioner&Zoning Officer City of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT MADE BY BELL ATLANTIC MOBILE OF MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION LTD.D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS CONCERNING THE INSTALLATION OF A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY ON THAT REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE C.F.TOMPKINS BUILDING AT 275-281 ESSEX STREET, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL 11D 26-0447-0,LOCATED IN THE B-5 ZONING DISTRICT. Dear Mr. St. Pierre: Bell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corporation Ltd. d/b/a Verizon Wireless("Applicant" or "Verizon") is pleased to submit the attached Building Permit application to effectuate the installation of wireless communications equipment on the C.F. Tompkins building at 275-281 Essex Street("Subject Property"). The Subject Property is a non-residential building located in the B-5 Zoning District. The proposed installation is allowed By Right on the Subject Property pursuant to Section 5-20) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance("Ordinance")which provides: "A wireless communications facility(WCF)can be located and allowed as a matter of right provided it is located within or on a ore-existing nonresidential buildine_ or municipal structure" (emphasis added). The Ordinance goes on to further qualify those installations located on existing non-residential structures as not being allowed to "exceed fifteen (I5)feet in height above the highest building or structure within three hundred(300)feet" (Section 5-20)(1)). You can see from the submitted plans that the proposed installation is in compliance with this provision of the Ordinance. As mentioned in our recent telephone conversation, there had been some prior discussions with the City that indicated the Applicant might be subject to Redevelopment Authority review for this otherwise permitted and By Right use. However, upon further review of the Ordinance, and a similar review of the Redevelopment Authority's Urban Renewal Plan ("Plan"), it was found that the Ordinance does not specifically address SRA review of WCFs nor does the Plan expressly contemplate the review of such de minimis utility installations. In fact the Plan seems more geared toward the actual demolition, construction, reconstruction, renovation and re-modeling of structures and storefronts,not the simple installation of some additional equipment on an existing, and otherwise unchanged, currently occupied building. Mr. Thomas St. Pierre February 21, 2006 Page 2 of 2 Notwithstanding the foregoing,the Applicant nonetheless went so far as to modify its design to make the installation appear more stealth-like and unobtrusive in keeping with the spirit and intent of the design trends of the downtown district.The Applicant also met with an abutter immediately adjacent to one of the proposed antenna sectors to incorporate that abutter's suggested changes to improve the aesthetics of the proposed installation. As I mentioned in our telephone conversation, the Applicant will comply with any procedure legally required thus we deferred to your guidance, opinion and judgment pursuant to Section 9-1 of the Ordinance which vests such administration and enforcement in your office and hereby make application to your office directly for a Building Permit to effectuate the proposed installation. 1 have enclosed the following documentation for your review and consideration: Tab 1 -City of Salem Building Permit Application & Construction Supervisor Information Tab 2 -Statement In Support of Application Tab 3 -Notice of Lease&Landowner Consent Tab 4 -Report Demonstrating Compliance with RF Emissions Guidelines Tab 5 -Noise Compliance Report Concerning Generator Installation Tab 6-Photo-Simulations of Proposed Installation Tab 7-Brochure of Stealth Material to be used for Generator Enclosure Tab 8 -Construction Drawings I have also enclosed a check made out to the City of Salem in the appropriate amount for the Building Permit Application Fee. I trust you will Find the above in good order. Please call me directly at 860-536-0675 if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, ceo-,6 Carl W. Gehring Attachments& Enclosures cc: Mr. Tom Tompkins-C.F. Tompkins Co. Mr. Chuck Webberly- Structure Consulting Group Inc. C. F. Tompkins Co. 45 Maple Street Danvers,MA 01923 February 7, 2005 Ciry of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: Landowner's Consent to File for Land Use and Building Permit(s) concerning 275-281 Essex Street, Salem,MA, Assessor's Parcel ID 26-0447-0, granted to Bell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corporation Ltd. d/b/a Verizon Wireless,also referred to as Cellco Partnership. To Whom it May Concern: The undersigned is owner("Landowner") of that real property known as 275-281 Essex Street, Salem, MA, Assessor's Parcel ID 26-0447-0, also known as the C.F. Tompkins Building ("Subject Property"). Please be advised that Landowner has entered into a lease with Bell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corporation Ltd. d/b/a Verizon Wireless , also alternately known as Cellco Partnership ("Applicant")to install wireless communications antennas and equipment on a portion of the Subject Property and permission is hereby granted to Applicant to make application for Building, Zoning or any other Land Use or Regulatory Permit(s) required to effectuate the installation and attachment of said wireless communications antennas and accessory equipment on the Subject Property. The Applicant or its agent is hereby authorized to execute the required application(s) regarding this matter. Sincerely, C. F. Tompkins Co �;� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII SITE NAME: Salem Center 2003082900435 Bk;21652 Pg,165 LOCATION: 275-281 Essex Street, Salem, Mass., 61970 09/29/2003 11:13.00 OTHER P9 7/9 NOTICE OF LEASE AGREEMENT In accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. c. 183, § 4, as amended, notice is hereby give of the following described lease: PARTIES TO LEASE: The Lease Agreement is between C.F. Tompkins Co. , a Massachusetts Corporation, with its principal offices located at 45 Maple Street, Danvers, Massachusetts, 01923, hereinafter designated LESSOR, and Cellco Partnership, a Delaware General Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, with its principal offices located at 180 Washington Valley Road, Bedminster, New Jersey 07921, hereinafter designated LESSEE. DATE OF EXECUTION OF LEASE AGREEMENT: L(rlk li 00 3 DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES: LESSOR hereby leases to LESSEE an area of approximately four hundred square feet (400 sf) in the basement of the property with a street address of 275-281 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts, 01970, as further identified on the Tax Map 26 of the City of Salem as Lot 0447 and being further described in Deed Book 4569, Page 471, as recorded in the Essex South Registry of Deeds (the entirety of LESSOR' s property is referred to hereinafter as the "Property" ) together with the lease of an area of the roof, as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, together with the non-exclusive right for ingress and egress, seven (7) days a week, twenty-four (24) hours a day for the purpose of installation and maintenance of the demised premises, which basement space, roof space and access are collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Premises" . LESSOR also grants to the LESSEE the right and sufficient space for the installation and maintenance of wires, cables, conduits and pipes as shown in Exhibit "A" running from the leased basement space to the leased roof space and running from the leased basement space to the necessary telephone and electric utility service panels. LESSOR also grants to the LESSEE the right and sufficient space for the installation and maintenance of an auxiliary generator and associated fuel source. TERM(S) OF LEASE: This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of execution by both parties, provided, however, the initial term shall be for five (5) years and shall commence on the Commencement Date, which shall be the first (1st) day of the month following the date this Agreement is executed by the parties or the first (1st) day of the month following the date LESSEE is granted a building permit by the governmental agency charged with issuing such permits, whichever event occurs last. JAMES A. VALERIANI PAGE 1 OF 5 ATTORNEY AT LAW 95 Spring Street Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880 2003082900435 Bk:21652 Pg:166 08/29/2003 11:13r00 OTHER Fe 218 SITE NAME: 'Salem Center LOCATION: 275-281 Essex Street, Salem, Mass., 6Y970 RIGHTS OF EXTENSIONS: This Agreement shall automatically be extended for four (4) additional five (5) year terms unless the LESSEE terminates it at the end of the then current term by giving the LESSOR written notice of the intent to terminate at least six (6) months prior to the end of the then current term. If at the end of the fourth (4th) five (5) year extension term this Agreement has not been terminated by either Party by giving to the other written notice of an intention to terminate it at least three (3) months prior to the end of such term, this Agreement shall continue in force upon the same covenants, terms and conditions for a further tern of five (5) years and for five (5) year terms thereafter until terminated by either Party by giving to the other written notice of its intention to so terminate at least three (3) months prior to the end of such term. END OF TEXT; SIGNATURES OF LESSOR AND LESSEE APPEAR ON NEXT TWO PAGES PAGE 2 OF 5 2003082900435 B01652 F9:167 08/29/2003 11:13:00 OTHER Pe 318 SITS NAME: Salem center LOCATION: 275-281 Essex Street, Salem, Mass., 01970 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their respective seals the day and year first above written. LESSOR: C.F. Tompkins Co. , a Massachusetts Corporation / ! {witness s�na�t/urre title BY: witness signature title y Lu COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS//�� County of / , A;!) e"• �/' ss. i'�Gb of 2 � 2003 On the 215 V4-day of 2003 , before me personally appeared r¢ - y 44 y--/( (name or names) , to me personal y own,/ who being b me duly sworn, did say that he/she/they is/are the k:'s, (title or titles) of C.F. Tompkins Co. , a Massachusetts Corporation, and that said instrument was a}�n_ed nd� sealed pbe�la)f of said C.F. Tompkins Co. , and said = ✓¢- ('d� / d (name or names) acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. I k�m Public Name: JAMC5, 4,sion Expires: JAMES MfHOW VALERIAN NOTARY PUBLIC AN Commission Expires August 14. 2003 PAGE 3 OF 5 2003082900435 B01652 Pg:168 08129/2003 11.13:00 OTHER P9 418 SITS NAME: Salem Center LOCATION, 27S-281 Essex Street, Salem, Mass., 61970 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their respective seals the day and year first above written. LESSEE: Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless A Delaware General Partnership jAA BY: witness David R. Hever ing, Vice resident Network, Northeast Area COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS County of lai5omet, ss. 2003 Before me personally appeared the above-named David R. Heverling, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that he is authorized by the Executive Vice President and Chief Technical Officer of Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, to execute the foregoing instrument and that said instrument was signed on behalf of said Partnership and said David R. Heverling acknowledged said instrument to be his free act and deed. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal a my office in said county and sate of the day and year last above writ n. Diane Gazzola dolary Public /- Notary Public Print Name: *r vl hty commisuon Emirea Commission E ires : q Hovambef 13,2009 1 PAGE 4 OF 5 i ' ' w y� ., � ,� �-_,ti. �,r ♦ � - _ ._. �, � � - .; _ __ -_. � ,,�. �, � � �,�`,�i' __ _ � -�-� .._ .. � � ;� �M r -.� r � '� _ .`` - �� V w - y y R Y I 4WR 04 _ " tr . Cf d NSfQ f- 7 M s. tl � � _ �� a W r .,,�.; - _ .. '. �i �'`. {. _ � � _ ` , .�.� � i ,' .. ` ....::- '.is '.��.` � t �,., iyi .. _..� { - � --, .. �_ �. � � } �,►1 �<�. � -� � _ �_� , � I ��) F � _ 4, � '�� A � i � � I (� +� �`.vg?4 V��V / � � _ � _. �.'- i �� I'� _. 'lii 1 h �� _ _ __ _.. S� 1 '•'All,I � yr 6 n � yam•. r T �[ w .T / M., „.. .. . �-- " 4 Or AM •Ow:�!�� '&w' �:.. ._ ILL, L ' - IL rr r�� r te Air _ R , w •' 4 ' 1, • .. �" � ,� .- � . �. • , • . f t � 1 f t ? � � � 'tea• , . . r r , F , !, Q � f Ilk t �rbt • Ul ( and trees at the Norman Street location. Attorney Murray explained to the Board that the DeLeos purchased this property in December of 1998 and did not realize that the parcel was located in an urban renewal area. At this time David Jaquith, architect for the owners, addressed the Board stating that because of the floor plan of the buildings, there are some visibility issues that he has been hired to address which will include a new landscape plan for the site. Patrick and Anthony DeLeo apologized to the Board for their error and stated they were willing to work with the Board to rectify this situation. Ms. Vinson commented that the owners should take into consideration that this property abuts one of the City's local historic districts. The Board agreed to allow the DeLeos to submit a plan for facade changes and landscaping to the DRB for review. Personal Wireless Service Antenna—Eastern Bank—Essex Street Ms. Cassidy informed the Board that a representative of Sprint PCS has requested approval to erect an antenna on the rooftop of the Eastern Bank on Essex Street. She continued that the City requires a special permit be issued by the Planning Board. However, this building is in an SRA district. Since the Planning Board review is so thorough, Ms. Cassidy asked if the SRA would defer their review process. Mr. Baldini made a motion to acknowledge this wireless service request and have it be sent to the Planning Board for review and approval in lieu of DRB/SRA review7 He continued that e Planning Board be informed that their review should take into consideration the most appropriate placement of the eauirmlent so a-not to negatively impact the Urban Renewal Area. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried. DRB Recommendations Cobblestones—26 Front Street—Sign Application An application was presented to the DRB to erect a 12" x 32 ', right angle sign from an existing bracket. The sign is constructed of mdo wood and has a gray speckled background with black painted letters. The DRB recommended approval of this application as presented. Heritage Cooperative Bank— 71 Washington Street—Exterior Renovation The DRB was presented with an application to renovate a Washington street storefront in conjunction with the Bank's expansion. The plan calls for the relocation of an entrance door to facilitate interior office space. The storefront will be renovated to match existing. The transom will remain, and the new glass will be 1" thick insulated glass with grids in between. The aluminum and copper components will be carried through to the new storefront. The DRB recommended approval of this application as presented. 2 Public Hearine - Wireless Communications Facilitv Special Permit - Sprint PCS - 217-225 Essex Street Margaret Franklin addressed the Board and explained their request for a Special Permit to install 6 panel antennas on the Eastern Bank Building at 217-225 Essex Street. She introduced Jennifer McCook to explain the details of the plan. Ms. McCook explained that the 6 panels would be 56 inches high and 8 inches wide and would be mounted on poles. She noted that the total height above the roof of the Eastern Bank building would be fifteen feet. She explained that the 6 antennas would be mounted on two poles, one pole mounted to the elevator penthouse and the other will be mounted to the chimney like structure on the roof of the building. She explained that the cabinets housing the equipment for the antennas would be housed in the basement of the bank and will not be visible from the outside of the building. Ms. McCook explained that this facility will be unmanned and will not affect traffic in the area. Lee Harrington asked what the purpose of the antennas would be. Ms. McCook noted that they will enhance the indoor and outdoor coverage along Essex Street and Washington Street. Bill Cullen asked when they plan to install the antennas. Ms. Franklin stated that they plan to apply for a building permit when the appeal period is up. Kim Driscoll asked if the considered using City Hall as the location for the antennas. Ms. McCook stated that she did consider City Hall and other i locations in the city but there would have been a greater visual impact at those locations. Walter Power opened the hearing up to Public Comment at this time. Staley McDermott addressed the Board and expressed his concerns about the locations of the antennas. He showed simulated photographs of what the views of the antennas would be. He also suggested that they have built aesthetically pleasing towers on churches in the past and showed an old photograph of the Daniel Lows building which has two towers on either side of the front of the building. He suggested that they could replicate that \/ design to house the antennas. Page 3 I Barbara Cleary of 104 Federal Street, a former member of the Salem Redevelopment Authority addressed the applicant an questioned if the had received approval from the- A Ms. McCook stated that the SRA referred them to the Planning Board. Ms. Cleary cautioned that it was her understandin that they would eed desi�,n approval from the SR k Ms. Franklin state that she would look into that. Kim Driscoll asked if there was any availability to move the antennas around. Ms. McCook stated that the locations were chosen for optimum coverage and less visual impact in the area. Betsy Burns addressed the Board and stated that she feels that it is a shame that in historic downtown Salem we should have to have something so visible and she requested that the Board look into Mr. McDermott's suggestion. Ms. Franklin stated that she felt that it would be cost prohibitive. There being no further questions or comments at this time a motion was made by Kim Driscoll to close the public hearing, seconded by Bill Cullen and approved unanimously. Motion made by Gene Collins to approve the Wireless Communications Facility Special Permit for 217-225 Essex Street - Sprint PCS, seconded by 1 Bill Cullen and approved unanimously. Continuation of Public Hearine - Site Plan Review Special Permit - Osco Drue Store and General Office Buildine - 44-60 Boston Street Atty. Joseph Correnti addressed the Board and recalled that at the last meeting the Board requested a peer review to be conducted on the traffic study that was performed by Bruce Campbell and Associates. He noted that the Planning Department selected the firm of Hayden/Wegman to conduct the peer review. He stated that they have reviewed the recommendations of Hayden/Wegman and would like to address them. Atty. Correnti reviewed the recommendation of Hayden/Wegman that the developer be required to configure the drive onto Boston Street o as to preclude left turns into or out of it. He stated that they could accept that condition although they would rather have that access to the site. The second recommendation that Hayden/Wegman made was that an additional lane be constructed on the Boston Street westbound approach to the Bridge Street intersection. The length of the lane would be limited to the extent of the developers property. Page 4 • �' o� • j f •��,- swr- i VT Ia q ♦A' JL PON N #j 'ry. Ste/ � � . • � . /r)` 4 / � • 3 , 1 �r t � r � 1 r � f � � .r L r Poe � I� ow �� _ ♦ "� a �'"`�� _. • � r '� ��' �.,.• � - ' ' "' ` � ' 'pry ' '.rye Haw • - t.ry Y�t ,y S c � ♦ i '�, * \ .� � r� �- � � \ ti. .__, �, �� ,\ � � � ,. �``t � '�. «� ♦�� \j\\, l` �� } ��.�.� �4 ��'�' � I r�� '1, •_�� ; �,. �; V f��S r..�+. - • ... ' .� _ \1� � + - .-�� . t .. �,` _ ,` �� y� E �_ r ' � 7 � ` , `.. _ / _ • �� .. � . � , =� �? � J!" -r-, '� �_� .�. .` � . .' /�,. ,; i�'�' ` �� R �?' � `. 'r. f_ .� � _��: 1 _ _ .. Q "� ` •, ` � r 1 �6r ,, � � ,.:� -`�` �. F. � f• � a r ' �� A xar �T s i' � r • 1 � 1 1 1l pro I . s t , r UL � I r ' - iMenryrr . ass 11� � � �. ?, e R , � 1 � � • v s � � � i . ` ; , • � � , ,'� 00 D U R A E3orQ�C'�] FIBERGLASS FOAM CORE BUILDING PANELS T �0 I i a� 4 Fiberglass Foam Core Building Panels _ ,`.. Features gk The DURASHIELD® panel is a tongue-and-groove fiberglass pultruded panel comprised of a pultruded skin over a foam . . core.The panel provides these features: _ • Integral Insulation • Lightweight Corrosion Resistance • Non-Conductive • Strength • Flame Retardance • Transparent to Electromagnetic Emissions Sizes DURASHIELD® panels are used as plant roofs and chemical tank covers DURASHIELD11 panels are currently available in 1°x 12'and in corros ve environments, such as the covers (16,800 s.f.) over 3'x 24`sizes. Special thicknesses or widths are possible If the anaerob,c digester units pictures above. quantity warrants.The panels can be produced in any length that is practical. Typical lengths would be in the 12' to 32' range. Materials of Construction The pultruded fiberglass skin is available in either an isophthalic polyester or vinyl ester resin. Both resin systems provide flame retardance (UL94 VO).The vinyl ester is utilized in extreme corrosive applications.A synthetic surfacing veil is incorporated into the skin to improve weathering, corrosion i_ resistance and resistance to degradation from ultraviolet rays. Resistance to weathering can be further enhanced by the application of a polyurethane paint.The core material is a rigid closed-cell urethane foam.The ends of the panels must be encapsulated or coated with a resin similar to the skin resin to maintain the corrosion and weather resistant qualities of the Airtight [nclosure for Dow Chemical protects workers in adjacent areas total panel. against accidental escape of phosgene gas. Applications i _ � DURASHIELD®panels are designed to be used as walls, roofs p ' ` ? and covers. Typical applications are: a , • Radar, Microwave, Radio and TV Antenna Enclosures • Enclosures for Electrical Equipment • Enclosures of Chemical Processing Operations • Buildings for EMI Testing (Computer Testing) • Chemical Pit Covers • Roofs on Wet-End Pulp and Paper Manufacturing — • Modular Buildings Comaa Computer chose a foam core panel building to assure RFUEMI compliance for attenuation. \ DM ©,71 ' • 11 Roofing and Siding Load Tables 1" Panel Allowable Uniform Load (psf) 3" Panel Allowable Uniform Load (psf) SPAN ®A=span/60 ®A=span/120 ®A=span/180 SPAN ®A=span/60 ®A=span/120 ®A=span/180 (n) A Siding Roofing A Siding Roofing A Siding Roofing (n.) A Siding (Roofing A Siding Roofing A Siding Roofing (IN.) (IN.) (IN.) (IN.) (IN.) (IN.) 4 .8 '136 •136 .4 '138 '136 .27 90 88 6 1.2 '340 '336 .6 289 285 .4 190 186 7 1.4 '246 '242 .7 188 184 .47 124 120 5 1.0 '88 '86 .5 72 70 .33 40 38 8 1.6 '189 '185 .8 129 125 .53 85 81 9 1.8 '150 '146 .9 93 89 .60 61 57 6 1.2 '61 '59 .6 38 36 .40 20 18 10 2.0 '121 '117 1.0 69 65 .67 45 41 7 1.4 45 43 .7 22 20 .47 12 10 11 2.2 100 96 1.1 53 49 .73 35 31 12 2.4 84 80 1.2 41 37 .80 27 23 8 1.6 32 30 .8 14 12 .53 8 6 13 2.6 67 63 1.3 33 29 .87 22 18 9 1.8 22 20 .9 8 6 .60 4 2 14 2.8 55 51 1.4 27 23 .93 18 14 15 3.0 45 41 1.5 22 18 1.00 15 11 10 2.0 14 12 1.0 I 6 4 - - - 16 3.2 38 34 1.6 18 14 1,01 12 8 11 2.2 10 B 1.1 4 2 - - _ 17 3.4 32 28 1.7 16 12 1.13 10 a 18 - 3.6 27 23 1.8 13 9 1.20 9 5 /2 2.4 8 6 - - - - - - 19 3.8 23 19 1.9 11 7 1.27 8 4 20 4.0 20 16 2.0 10 6 1.33 7 3 'Controlled by stress with a factor of safety of 1.50 PERFORMANCE:These tables are offered as a guide only.The effects of sustained impact or dynamic loads, the particular corrosive environment and/or elevated temperatures have not been factored into these tables. Please consult Strongwell's EXTRENO Design Manual for guidance and design considerations when applications include any of the above effects. Mechanical Properties (nominal) Physical Properties (nominal) Property 1" Panel 3" Panel Property 1" Panel 3" Panel Flexural Strength (psi) 1,750 869 Weight (lbs/linear ft) 1.99 7.85 Flexural Modulus (101 psi) .2 .17 Panel Width (in.) 12 24 Short Beam Shear(psi) 113 90 'R' Factor 7 21 Coefficient of Thermal Exp. (10-1 in/in/Fa) 5.2 5.2 Foam Density (#/cu ft) 3 3 Pullout Test (pull through) (lbs.) Minimum thickness of • Std.washer(1"dia.w/3/8'hole) 650 730 fiberglass composites skin (in) .060 .088 • Fender washer(2" dia.w/1/2' hole) 1,300 1,620 Flame Spread Rating Crush Test (fi"x 6' load plate) (lbs.) 5,600 6,750 ASTM E-84 Max 25 Max 25 Crush Test(full width) (lbs.) Water Absorption c3% if <.3% if • 1"dia. bar 5,200 properly sealed properly sealed • 2-1/2"dia. bar 18,800 aw _ 95p1 tt.dL5 _It.Cg� zz ry •�xrwacnem• _aa.," 3PCFRIRI".CLOSE"CEI N' trta.+" _nx•m savmwx[soucon[ THK=.030 TIK=.125 igLYURETHNYE FOAM CORE 3"x 24'FOAM CORE PANEL 1"x 12"FOAM COME PANEL Product consistency assures trouble free assembly. ti FIELD EPDXY 4 BOLTS WNVALL 1•F-0AM CORED �PANELS(TYP) ATTACHED TO 1;;;;,,,,�� 1,1/2 FRONT WALL F'$EDTIDN FB1-1/2ct16 / BEYOND) LS 1-1/2W8 SECTION/WALL CORNER DOOR SECTION/BASE 45 o�Pj ATE FOR 01-12x142X114 �a t/2 T8PL ED TO DOORSTOP DOOR PANEL 3/8'DIA' DRILL&TAP FRP BOLT 01-12 W/NUT®1'-0 C1-112xta12s114 V FOAM CORED 1I16 DIP.DRILL /--'PANELS(TYR) ale PLATE& !/ SECTION/WINDOW LOUVERS C1-12 THIS SIDE ONLY TO ATTACH TION ��.. TO ATTACH ROOF C J]]]�1111\1F'SECTION ROOF PANEL �.IONUTS NGUE CUT OFF V+ F MR PANEL DRILL&TAP C1-12 C1-12 1-t12XIM SECTION I DOOR FRAMING ATTACHED TO Ct-112e1-v2x1I4 Y8'DIA.FRP BOLT DOS PANEL ®1'-0 ti DOOR SECTION/ROOF 7/16 DIA.DRILL 3/8 PLATE 4QOCRSTCp 3I8 PLATE FORCI-112 THIS SIDE ONLY 8'CIA,FRP BOLT W1NUT 0 1'0 SECTION/DOOR FRAMING I Supporting Fiberglass Structural Shapes DURASHIELD° panels are made for use with Strongwell's EXTREN"line of structural shapes. EXTREN®is available in over 100 standard shapes.Typical additional supporting shapes are shown below. Use lu Panel Supporting Shapes T' Panel Supporting Shapes Shape Description Shape Description Section/Base 5-1/2"x 1-1/2'x 1/4" F Section Standard EXTRENe Angle Corner Post 3-1/2'x 1/4' Custom Corner Post Standard EXTREN®Angles Inside & Outside Roof Joiner 5-1/2"x 1-1/2"x 1/4' F Section 900 Custom Angle 1-1/2"x 1-1/2" x 1/4" EXTREN®Channel Door Framing 1-1/2"x 1-1/2" x 1/4" EXTREN®Channel 3-1/2"x 2"x 7/32' EXTREN®Channel Window Louvers 1-1/2'x 1-1/2" x 1/4" EXTREN®Channel 3-1/2"x 2'x 7/32" EXTREN®Channel Fasteners 3/8" dla. FIBREBOLTO Stud & Nut 1/2' dia. FIBREBOLr Stud & Nut Stainless Steel (optional) Stainless Steel (optional) I I STRONGWELL ISO-9001 Certified Manufacturing Plants BRISTOL DIVISION* CHATFIELD DIVISION 400 Commonwealth Ave., P.0.Box 580, Bristol,VA 24203-0580 1610 Highway 52 South,Chatfield,MN 55923-9799 (276) 645-8000 FAX(276)645-8132 (507) 867.3479 FAX(507)867-4031 "DURASHIELD®manufacturing location www.strongwell.com E5100302 0 Strongwell E%ISi SO NL (n Tr --EXIST ROUT FAITH Q1 (a O CORI IHROUGHMASONIF'FORCABLk kNINr-= �r L7 EXIST 6[M1 IIYPI Q (MINIMI3I SIII) DO NOT CORE TIIRU EXIST TEI - Y c Q OPl UIPCCRY BELOW BEAM BARING POINT WOVEN L_ / •� L < Q CABLE ENTRY PAN fI 1 BOOTS PER CUNION SPEC, EO co (OR OFIII'II HAIL U WAIEREIGEPSIAL IIYP I PNUPDSF➢VERUGN FACADE MOIINE0 IAWI =FIVhFR POOM-r a �(o 111CLUSE0 All 1XIIIML GF}- ANTENNAS (GAMMA SFCEOR 6ANttNNA51 Sfl I C[NIRniON{IiICONDCNS[R p' r FEEL COAX CABLESi a [FIST LMII WA O1 I 1 IIIAItS FOR AUDl ANTI MVIINI N['MI(1 I r L[Uli>FORT PER XTRI ONYELLI PR VIDE UNI I S ON NEW STEEL POLL C `� FFNIIU MAICN EXIST PENFHONS[ GRAM O O M EXIST CHIMNEY- 'I" C;51'E(NrpAMIM1F RPWr r LNIRYV(TA PM0 -2ONSPoCM1 PROVIDE _. / IIIIY 3.=,LINTEL PER 4 OF WAIT -2 O I IINe_Pn� 1 mml IMAx Ma n - �� LL � CO 1 CABLE TRAY CABLERUN EC, V F%1ST FIEVATOF�. �� .� ciw XIMa[AFLEOM OOR ICHUFA+ r/ d 0 - - ` F%S "I IIIHElrktl CONCLUDE,VAR' sHFF Fr VO 2� t TIN II J - ��__ C9AX 'ABA 51U PEVft11A1Ek%ISI CC TO CCOWN M1 EE➢ SISII VATOP PENT (TUBE well. VICE.11 ENTNYFIT, - 41 IAENmONEGi HA 9 eU. 'NowS[pN W PANEL F A PER VER'ON SPCT•FJP FIR( EOUIPIAf NI P1111.1 _ RfILL WAIEFIC T. A.^.0 IO COONO IARLF / I 1111}T EFVACOR F GAMMP FF^FOSFp v PROP SED ItUIroN c- I ttNLCaCsE FIN FILE n C ---j CIA SEE I " 6SNAf1 WL15ECUIPMENI BOOM IN 4 OA) CAEFSUPTHRLIABANg Pr I t c.. RUN L�UP IHNV El[vniRSNAFi PROV D[VRT CABLE N mmof ' TO COOLED r EXIST CONDITIONS YBtT t4 TOO AUCIFTO EXITCI1 ANAN➢ONI fVATVASYP T RAY S Al AfFISD - GC IO OENFIEIEI .4R(ll'USEO VFNYON _ ❑ III ( :(, Of SMA•1 INTO TOP I 21 D'[OUIP E. STORY CLIENTS SPACE I CABINET IIYP,dxl IXICL NIT PrII J I M[IALSIAI STUD NOIF S C h [V[V IIIA� AR 111 ON WAlt Top CA TISa P/ BIZ 'i� 1%Yll Till lfU II'IIOVIUE2 DUCE,ICOF FIRE LONLI NII _ 1 _ P"ONUSEUVIRIION—�` INITRIIN-ACES d I LAYER ON I%ILRION f Ix1111 Yel NOWLH"OUbf 6 METAL IMON PFR FRUIT IU LLCM ABOVE SF(URRY fA}II N 101 d I -ILA COAX CABLES RUNMIOP I HhllfRv f.AHM(15 n.Vf Rl/EN'V14. PROVIDE I LOUR IILLd ACOUSTICAL I If NO LAW _ 12 FLOOR CEILING SPACE G C IT J W a CHINA; PAINT WALLS PER VERNON SPEC IYp CO ARE M EXIST DorvpmoNs I t I JO.CLIARANCF� ` F9PMtiROO CONCRETE PANNCL VERIFY ORIENTATION OF TRUE NORTH I -PRovluE Nkw FRovlure xaURroaccncx PPn eElcw uullmrnI _. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS CON, van BH pw unDM PAR SHALE ExIwT•BEYONE)III WAIT IOU In ao9n41SLB L� PRoAllONE11 1 L _ ANTENNA ARRANGEMENT PLAN j NO1ti"`"O ENINE AREAA1O0 Hrr=` HONDINTS !{{!''�.. Ar�f I PARTIAL BASEMENT R EQUIPMENT ROOM PLAN - I 13 ANPRuI.'ALL IA I.0 I � I I I F TEAMPRO WE➢V300 E LFACH)SECUREUNITS-` (MAP WE R_DC V LUE SPECS SECURE pRVpOSEI VLNPON GN E,DINT I ILE SEIIOAIAUALTCM(sitr TALS IANI NNAS p TOPLAiFOPM PER VALUE _PtCs r �� AL EA SECTOR-DAMCNNP4 S((OL INIS F(lL Altla \ IMAx WE /O(IOIb..15!('UPI b FM[NNA MOUNTING INFO PANI IOMA<I ULI �'I SRUCNA IN9 TYPEWM wr T'y PARINGMR = PROPOSED CESSDIXER N� LATTOPM PERM NUF ^.IILv \ HRICR OTIB 1T' r Oo1 BWLOPJCIMf BITYPICIU IASILN iIILN[IY iO PLI 5VPF9RNNG liECl w/ V \ COC)i 1El ACCESS _____ r _ __ Y CUORO W vCRIFON SET �L "DOWN 4U'(IC M.AI OMINIARONAS r� / r T-- -� -C9R[I TROUGH MASONRY MR CABLE }I19WN SIk fif NFRPL NOTFSfOR PUpL INIU I UEINLSIOHADUl INTO T y kEND (MINIMIZE ZEI OCIN ITCORf _ - _ "TRY PAN HF HOOTSPURF ILV BfIUW vyCv31 �� SCAM I=PoNi PROVIpC CABLE '� I SU PANEL HOOTS NATTERlON _ wry=A1 ^ SI L COR CMC RAZED 1 ARV IGIII E S XSTILE RA, rrPl Z 1/ I 5 ROOF PLAN e"Ii° RE .. .. 10 .Pweo.1C.0 Iaf 1 —PROPpsr➢vfulax aErvkwv /1 CONBENSI NSON 514E fU.11'lHM - LOU ROOF Lary TOF HURT INI O I L= G Exist EevntoR _ ( i nnnn evsz FOR npnl lrvnl urtAPILL Nrn9H mm�fimnapGRM IN\ A Im .. ...I < / Pft➢OIC0 VFH WC N CI BENET OR d -PROPOSE U VISION CREW It[ \ _ E - ISLLRVOI Platy 1UHFE1pE ENV -rF PENTHOUSE PNOIOSIUVISONS.RLIN SEE 1 YI WN _ 'zW I1 EXIST G:HIMrvEY rn rN.(.L.H X SI [IEVATDR '� .. InWN W LI 1 \ � ILOIEL)psE Nlr- c OE PROPOSED VCRI]N PANEL �� W ANTENNAS(GAMMA �'/-� PIiO1rO5LO VFNIEON III r �� r 1 ( S1 W-rJl ¢V/ V I� PANFI ANTENNAS IHfIAI SB-ACE `° r.� L- -�'-11�JJ�Lw -I RIII'USL�VFHIZON PANEL }EV - = L> z �� SI[S11MI T(IY, %p ANIINNAS PAN IAI 41 ROME IL MN45 O DL I C 79 C- e r. _I _ �- �XQ � z S U (I P OF(UNDERSOLD / _I F W PkOV pffiB MIN O L LI LOT DIRIDTu9v[REx=ST AW aL YtYM1VOOUINFILLCO- -� UAN iRETAILER1 ypppOS pVEp WEN- �F� (SEE Rf IAI fORA°UNINf01 O� :NNpSA IIA _ / ESCAPE PLATFORM 1 PANEL AM[NNIS ,/S BC O AYEENU• IHpH41 ( t n FA C\ SCIA NIL IOC Lu - "PIT cR[ESfAPt �IICI /II sr( N N-lpE cr pFV Pr T RrrrR W� X B Ir Nxal I d v r z xa sPI- W W IL 1 - ppp R, 1 .aNlul ru PG In r-J (� �Tt A'{I SS COLOR Ai __ 11 - ISllIM .� 14 STEEL PLATFORM FRAMING PLAN � CC) W ,� -EXIST IIR[[SPYC - �♦- ' I - I C.ETOMPKINS CO. I - -- �_J fki1W331 rf5[e[tl 1' �Ny AS NNOTED ._�CAD M"n11wJ AY ".Try DPU `T REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION UYv TN= 12 ,N111CA:ALx 111 NOT TO I'll S-1 � � • O Salem Redevelopment Authority September 16, 2009 Carl W. Gehring Gehring & Associates, LLC PO Box 98 West Mystic, CT 06388 Dear Mr. Gehring: Enclosed please find the SRA's decision regarding the application for the proposed wireless facilities located at 281 Essex Street. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, (� Tom Daniel, AICP Economic Development Manager Enclosure Salem Redevelopment Autharltv Salem Redevelopment Authority Decision September 9, 2009 281 Essex Street (Latitude Building): Discussion and vote on proposed wireless facilities SRA Decision At their meeting on September 9, 2009, the SRA voted to approve the proposed design for wireless facilities at 281 Essex Street. Proposal The proposal is to swap out the existing wireless equipment with new equipment. Some of the new equipment is slightly larger. The greatest dimensional change is approximately six inches in length on one type of equipment. Salem Redevelopment Authority MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Salem Redevelopment Authority FROM: Tom Daniel, Economic Development Manager SUBJECT: Wireless Facilities (281 Essex Street: Latitude Building) DATE: September 2, 2009 CC: Lynn G. Duncan, Executive Director Attached is the submission for design approval for a wireless communications facility at 281 Essex Street. The Applicant is proposing to swap out the existing equipment with new equipment. Some of the new equipment is slightly larger. The greatest dimensional change is approximately six inches in length on one type of equipment. The SRA may choose to modify its standard process and approve the proposal subject to DRB review and approval. If not, then the proposal will return to the SRA for final approval in October. RECEIVE AUG 2 7 2009 OEPT.OF PLArilaglg 7 GEHRING & ASSOCIATES, LLC O�9TviUMiIYOEVELOPNENT Wireless Planning& Zoning Post Office Box 98 860-536-0675 West Mystic, CT 06388 wireless@gehringzone.com August 21, 2009 Mr. Thomas Daniel, AICP Salem Redevelopment Authroity 120 Washington Street Salem. MA 01970 RE: VERIZON WIRELESS' PROPOSED MINOR ANTENNA UPGRADES ON THE EXISTING INSTALLATION AT 281 ESSEX STREET Dear Mr. Daniel: Enclosed are Seven (7) copies of Verizon Wireless' SRA Application for the September 9"' meeting as discussed. Please call me if any additional information is required. I appreciate your assistance getting this minor matter on the Docket, and handled, in a single meeting. The changes Verizon is proposing are so minor I apologize for taking your and the Authority's time to even discuss this, but we do want to make sure we are following all protocol properly. Would it be possible to get a copy of the meeting Agenda in advance once ready? Thank you. Sincerely, Gehring & Associates, LLC By-COJ-4-)/-� Carl W. Gs4r)hg, on beha f of Bell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corporation Ltd. d/b/a Verizon Wireless Enclosures cc: Chuck Webberly— Structure Consulting Group GEHRING & ASSOCIATES, LLC Wireless Planning& Zoning Post Office Boa 98 860-536-0675 West Mystic, CT 06388 wireless@gehringzone.com August 20, 2009 Salem Redevelopment Authroity 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL MADE BY VERIZON WIRELESS CONCERNING PROPOSED MINOR UPGRADES TO AN EXISTING WIRELESS INSTALLATION LOCATED AT 281 ESSEX STREET Dear Members of the Redevelopment Authority: • Bell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corporation Ltd., d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Applicant" or "Verizon Wireless") is pleased to submit the attached application for Administrative Approval of the Applicant's proposed de n7inimis upgrade of certain antennas on its existing wireless installation located at 281 Essex Street. Verizon Wireless is in the process of rolling out a new facet of its coverage which will provide enhanced, high-speed data transmission as well as improvements in voice communications. As part of this project, certain existing panel-style antennas must be "swapped out" or replaced with new panel style antennas and other antennas will be rearranged on their existing mounting brackets. The new (and rearranged) antennas will all be mounted back in the same location(s) as they exist today. The existing installation was permitted in May 2007 subject to the antennas being brought back in closer to the fayades upon which they are mounted. Those changes were effectuated shortly after approval and have been in place to this day. The Salem Historical Commission recently reviewed this proposed new work as part of the NEPA Section 106 comment process and requested that we investigate the feasibility of centering the antennas on the Essex Street fagade relative to their background surfaces. That is currently being analyzed. • Salem Redevelopment Authority August 20, 2009 Page 2 of 2 The enclosed plans describe the proposed scope of work and show which antennas are proposed to be replaced. Except for the improvements in wireless telephone service that this will provide, it is doubtful these minor changes will even be noticed by the general public. Enclosed for your review and consideration is the following material which is incorporated into and made part of this Application: Tab 1 - Copy of Original SRA Approval & Recent SHC Comments Tab 2 - Specifications of Existing and Replacement Antennas Tab 3 - Photo Documentation of Prior Antenna Changes Tab 4 - Photo-Simulations of Proposed Antenna Changes Tab 5 - Roof Plans and Elevation Drawings We look forward to discussing the foregoing with you at your meeting on September 9,b. Verizon Wireless looks forward to being able to effectuate these changes so it can provide this enhanced, cutting-edge wireless service to the residents,businesses and visitors in and around this section of the City of Salem. Thank you. Sincerely, Gehring &�A`ssociates, LLC By Carl W on bAlalfdBell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corporation Ltd. d/b/a Verizon Wireless Enclosures cc: Chuck Webberly— Structure Consulting Group Salem Redevelopment Authority SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DECISION May 9,2007 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins Building) —Review of wireless facilities installed on the building SRA DECISION: At their meeting on May 9, 2007,the SRA voted to approve the DRB Recommendation for the wireless facilities installed at 275-281 Essex Street with the following conditions: • Within 45 days, the six panel antennas located on the building's Essex Street facade shall be pulled as close to the building as possible while maintaining the tilt requited for antenna functionality. • By October 15, 2007, the jumper cable located on the Essex Street fascia shall be painted to match the color of the fascia. This color will be selected through the • review of the 275-81 Essex Street redevelopment by the DRB and SRA. If no color is approved by October 15,2007,the cable will be painted to match the existing fascia color. ■ On an ongoing basis, the paint on all portions of the wireless facility visible from the street shall be maintained by Verizon Wireless to prevent peeling or flaking paint. The paint color shall match the existing brick as closely as possible. DRB RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on April 25,2007,the DRB recommended approval of the Verizon Wireless cell facilities installed on the building at 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins) with the following conditions: ■ The six panel antennas located on the building's Essex Street facade shall be pulled as close to the building as possible while maintaining the tilt required for antenna functionality. • The jumper cable located on the Essex Street fascia shall be painted to match the color of the fascia. This color will be selected through the review of the 275-81 Essex Street redevelopment by the DRB and SRA. . • The paint on all portions of the wireless facility visible from the street shall be maintained by Verizon Wireless to prevent peeling or flaking paint The paint color shall match the existing brick as closely as possible. couar Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740.0404 August 6, 2009 Ms. ]Cathryn C. Emmitt EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 RE: Telecommunications facility installation—281 Essex Street Dear Ms. Emmitt: At its meeting of August 5, 2009,the Salem Historical Commission reviewed the additional materials submitted regarding the proposed telecommunications facility replacement\ at 281 Essex Street. The Commission offers the comment to request that a good faith effort be undertaken to investigate the feasibility for each of the four antenna on the Grade Street side of the building to be centered between the decorative brackets. $Sc?c Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Hannah Diozzi Chain Cc: Massachusetts Historical Commission Thomas St. Pierre,Building Inspector • N Mechanical specifications LPA-185080/8CF - Length 1204 mm 47.4 in When ordering replace`_-with wrinectortype Width 104 mm 4.1 in Depth 150 mm 5.9 in Radiation-pattern" A 01 Weight 3.2 kg 7.0 Ibs ro.x ao m Wind Area .Ixj Front 0.125 m' 1.35 ft' Side 0.144 m' 1.55 ft' Rated Wind Velocity(Safety factor 2.0) po 35 Was 20 te+aa a >658 km/hr >409 mph Wind load @ 100 mph(161 kmlhr) 1fi0` a0 Front 202 N 45 Ibs a0\ /�^ Side 270 N 60.8 Ibs x,� /s, 5d Antenna consisting of aluminum alloy with brass feedlines covered by a UV safe fiberglass radome. Horizontal Mounting & Downtilting: Wall mounted or pole tower mount with mounting brackets. i Mounting bracket kit#26799997 • Downtilt bracket kit#26799999 The downtilt bracket kit includes the mounting ' lec ux¢smla tas ° bracket kit. Electrical specifications 16o1• ,/an 11>\ 140 Arr:: Amphenol Antel's Frequency Range 1850-1990 MHz ,x'per ;�x Exclusive 3T(True Impedance 504 ii0 '0 1 Transmission Line 31 Vertical Wo9y Technology) Connector NE, E-DIN Antenna Design: ll VSWR <1.4:1 • True log-periodic design allows for su- Polanzation Vertical Radiation patterns for all antennas perior front-to-side characteristics to minimize sector overlap. " Gain 16 dBl are measured with the antenna • Unique feedline design eliminates the mounted on a fiberglass pole. need for conventional solder joints in z Power Rating 250 W the signal path. Mounting metal Ole WIII • A non-collinear system with access to Half Power Angle g On a p every radiating element for broad band- typically improve the Front-to- width and superior performance. H-Plane 80` Back Ratio. • Air as insulation for virtually no internal E-Plane 8° signal loss. t' Electrical Downtilt 0° Every Amphenol Antel antenna is under a Five-year limited warranty for repair or re- Null Fill 10% placement, Lightning Protection Direct Ground Antenna available with center-fed connector only. "Typical Values "Power Rating limited by connector only. CF Denotes a Center-Fed "NE indicates an elongated N Connector. E-DIN indicates an elongated DIN Connector Connector. --- • "The antenna weigh)listed above does not include the NA M�'Bnol bracket weight.Improvements to mechanical and/oralectdoel padomtance or then le't'Nn• antenna may Ix made without notion. 1 1300 Capital Drive Rockford,IL 61109 Toll-Free (888)417-9562 Tel. (815)399-0001 kel tsion Dana: 4:'21 r'04 Fax. (815)399-0156 Email: antel@antelinc.com www.antelinc.com illillilillillilljoil11111111111100001,1111illillilljllillllllm Mechanical specifications WPA-80080/4CF 50 Length 1205 mm 47.4 in When ordering.replace`—'with connector type Width 285 mm 11.2 in Radiation-pattern" Depth 114 mm 4.5 in " Weight 4.5 kg 9.9 Ibs �.,a -,° M i i0 Wind Area -,w= se uo,' e/.,, Front 0.363 m' 3.9 ft�Side 0.145 m' 1.6 fte so� e Rated Wind Velocity(Safety factor2.0)>653 km/hr >406 mphWind load @ 100 mph(161 kmlhr) ,anFront 522 N 117 Ibs Side 233 N 52 Ibs ,n��'o_— se Antenna so m aa : Antenna consisting of aluminum alloy with brass feedlines covered by a UV safe fiberglass Horizontal radome. Mounting & Downtilting: .,sue Mounting brackets attach to a pipe diameter of 050-127 mm(2.0-5.0 in). Mounting bracket kit#36210002 A. giro • Downtilt bracket kit#36114003 ton ' 1p ^,- 1a no ,o Electrical specifications °° ,w r w Frequency Range 806-960 MHz ++off +° Inlogy Am phenol T(True Exclusive 3T(True Impedance 5052 t0„o'�� ;° `° Transmission Line �1 Connector NE.E-DIN Vertical Technology) Antenna Design: '' VSWR 51.4:1 m Watercut brass feedline assembly for Polarization Vertical consistent performance. '1 Gain 12 dBd Radiation patterns for all antennas a Unique feedline design eliminates the are measured with the antenna need for conventional solder joints in �1 Power Ratin 500 W the signal path. s mounted on a fiberglass pole. . A non-collinear system with access to 17 Half Power Angle every radiating element for broad band- Mounting on a metal pole will width and superior performance. H-Plane 80° typically improve the Front-to- m Air as insulation for virtually no internal E-Plane 15° Back Ratio. signal loss. n Electrical Downtilt 5° Every Amphenal Antel antenna is under a five-year limited warranty for repair or re- Null Fill 10% placement. Lightning Protection Direct Ground Antenna available with center-fed Patented Dipole Design: U.S.Patent No.6,229,496 Bt connector only. "Typical Values "Power Rating limited by connector only. CIF Denotes a Center-Fed ej NE indicates an elongated N Connector. E-DIN indicates an elongated DIN Connector Connector. "The antenna weight listed above does not include the _ -- pqp • bracket weight. VA phenol Improvements to mechanical and/or electrical performance of thaoname may be mad.relth°etnagce. ntel,� � 1300 Capital Drive Rockford, IL 61109 Toll-Free (888)417-9562 Tel. (815)399-0001 Rerl,ion Dure:63'04 Fax. (815)399-0156 Email: antelQantelinacom www.antelinc.com PCs 80010425 • - �"L 650 Panel Antenna SCALA DIVISION Kathrein wideband X-polarized antennas are designed for use in PCS and 3G/UMTS polarization diversity systems. •X-polarized (+45°and-450). • UV resistant pulltruded radomes. •Wddeband vector dipole technology. •DC Grounded metallic parts for impulse suppression. General specifications:_ _ Frequency range 1710-2200 MHz Impedance 50 ohms Intermodulalion(2x20w) IM3:<-150 dBc Polarization +45`and-45• Connector 2 x 7-16 DIN female Isolation >30 dI3 Maximum input power 300 watts(at 501C)per input "- Weigh[ 14.61b(6.6 kg) ` Dimensions 51.3 x6.1 x 2.7 inches (1302 x 155 x 69 mm) Equivalent list plate area 2.98It-(0,277 m� Wind survival rating' 120 mph(200 kph) • Shipping dimensions 55.3 x 6.8 x 3.6 inches _ (1404 x 172 x 92 mm) -trY Shipping weight 17.2 Ib(7.8 kg) Mounting Fixed and lilt mount options are available for 2 to 4.6 inch(50 to 115 mm)OD masts. See reverse for order information. ,. Specifications: 1710-1880 MHz 1850-1990 MHz 1920-2200 MHz ? -. Gain 17.9 dBi 18.1 dBi 18.3 dBi =° •�'!f . ��j*L +45'and-45`polarization 67°(half-power) 66'(half-power) 64'(half-power) � y horizontal beamwidth ' +45`and-45"polarization 6.61(half-power) 6.22(half-power) 5.8"(hall-power) Horizontal pattern vertical beamwidth _ x451-polarization Front-to-back ratio >30 dB (co-polar) >30 dB (co-polar) >30 dB (co-polar) Sidelobe suppression for >14 dB >15 dB A6 dB first sidelobe above main beam First null-fill 25 dB(typical) 25 dB(typical) 25 dB(typical) below main beam Cross polar ratio - / `,,,�+p• 4' _1 Main direction 01 20 dB(typical) 20 dB(typical) 20 dB(typical) Sector i60• >10 dB >10 dB >10 dB Mechanical design is based on environmental conditions as ,,"• '#.- stipulated in EIA-222-F(June 1996)and/or EfS 300 019-1-4 I /" which include the static mechanical load imposed on an antenna by wind at maximum velocity.See the Engineering Section of the catalog for further details. Vertical pattern x45"-polarization • 61 11003-A 936.2903/a Kathrein Inc..Scala Division Post Office Box 4580 Medford,OH 97501 (USA) Phone:(541)779-6500 Fax:(541)779-3991 Email:communications@kathrein.com Internet.www,kathrein-scala.com • Product Specifications ANTDREW This specification is PRELIMINARY [NX-6512DS-TWO DualPol®Antenna, 698-896 MHz, 650 horizontal beamwidth, fixed electrical tilt • Continuous wideband operation • Great solution to maximize network coverage and capacity • Excellent gain, VSWR,front-to-back ratio, and PIM specifications for robust network performance • Patented DualPol®technology • Ideal choice for site co-locations and tough zoning restrictions I,- I [F' ';T General Specifications Antenna Type DualPolS Brand DualPol® Operating Frequency Band 698 - 896 MHz Electrical Specifications Frequency Band, MHz 698-806 806-896 Beamwidth, Horizontal, degrees 65 65 Gain, dBd 11.7 12.2 Gain, dBi 13.8 14.3 Beamwidth, Vertical, degrees 18.0 16.0 Beam Tilt, degrees 8 8 Upper Sidelobe Suppression (USLS), typical, dB 18 18 Front-to-Back Ratio at 1800, dB 30 30 Isolation, dB 30 30 VSWR I Return Loss, db 1.35:1 1 16.5 1.35:1 1 16.5 Intermodulation Products, 3rd Order, 2 x 20 W, d8c -150 -150 Input Power, maximum, watts 500 500 Polarization t45• t45- Impedance, ohms 50 50 Lightning Protection do Ground do Ground Dimensions Depth 180.3 mm 1 7.1 in Length 1219.2 mm 1 48.0 in Width 302.3 mm 1 11.9 in Net Weight 9.1 kg 1 20.0 lb • From North America,loll fee Oulvde North Americo 2008 Lomm5cope,.Inc All nghis rcwen Wenhcoe 180U2D5)479 lelep m +I-700-873-2307 All specAlconoos are wbiecl to chance Please.see aoFre l of'3 F-x 1 9Cr0 349.5444 Foa +I 7794358579 w:vw.and,eatom lw The moat anrom m'nimmron 12/16/200.. L_T,�_ _" K p T,H R E i n Preliminary 840 21210 series • S ('. A l- A DIVISION 60e 700 MHz 4' Panel Antenna Kaihrein's 840 21000 panel antennas have been designed to provide exceptional X-poi performance in the 700/800 MHz bands for use with LTE and existing protocols They are designed for long life using high strength UV resistant fiberglass and aluminum back planes, and are DC grounded for impulse suppression. • Superb intermodulation performance. • 2'fixed downtilt increments • MIMO ready for LTE applications • Broadband vector dipoles Specifications: Frequency range 698-694 MHz - Gain 13.1 dBd Impedance 50 ohms VSWR'/Return loss <1.35:1 />16.64 dB (< 1.4:1/>15,56 dB @ secondary lest frequencies) PIM'(2x20w) IM3 IMS IM7-9 <_-150 dBc <_-1 60 dBc <_-170 dBc Polarized +45°and-450 Front-to-back ratio >30 dB(worst case,within x 20 Degree cone) Power handling 500 watts(at 50"C) � _ .--_._..—....... Horizontal beamwidth 60 degrees @ 3 dB points +: Vertical beamwitlth 13-15 degrees @ 3 dB points=11 Electrical downtilt range G-14 degrees(2' increments) - Isolation >30 d8 • Normalized radiation pastern -15 dB envelope at 80'azimuth Normalized radiation pattern -23 dB envelope at 9D"azimuth Normalized radiation pattern -25 dB envelope at IOW azimuth Crosspolar discrimination >20dB azimuth<30' Crosspolar discrimination >10dB 30"<azimuth<60` Connector Amplitude Tracking 4.5dB azimuth<30' Connector Amplitude Tracking <10dB 30"<azimuth<60` Connector Amplitude Tracking <1.5dB 60-<azimuth<90" w,_ Primary Test Frequencies 752MHz,782MHz Secondary Test Frequencies 704MHz,734MHz f\��.` ✓�` Lightning is Connectorprotedien _ 2 xa7-16 DIN female(sealable long neck)(backmounted) -- . 6 Dimensions L x W x D 54 f x 14 6 x 4.3 inches (1372 x 370 x 110 min) y, _Weight 20.9 lb(9.5 kg) -- - , Equivalent flat plate area 4.81 112 (0.447 m2) Horizontal pattern Radome UV-resistant fiberglass s45'-polarization Wind survival' 150 mph(240 kph) Mounting bracket 2-point hot dip galvanized with stainless steel hardware for 2 to 4.5 inch(50 to 115 mm)OD masts. Downtill brackets Hot-dip galvanized with stainless steel hardware for 0-15 degrees downtilt angle _ ,�1 ;_ ; • Y qN See reverse for order information. • .-. . . 'Every antenna is 10W PIM and VSWR tested to exceed specifications. v;fv TfN °Mechanical design is based on environmental conditions as stipulated in EIA-222-F(June 1996)and/or ETS 300 019-1-4 which include the static Vertical pattern I.c®rc'i1 mechanical load imposed on an antenna by wind at maximum velocity. See the Engineering Section of the catalog for further details. x45'-Polarization 11138-FRO 9 9 9 Kathrein Inc.,Scala Division Post Office Box 4580 Medford,OR 97501 (USA) Phone:(541)779-6500 Fax:(541)779-3991 Email:communications@kathrein.com Internet:www.kathrem-scala.eom W • .r am IM 1 1 , i � T w r '` a i J _ { e :I j�; e 1 �. r s. -- �. .., _ � _ _ ,: L� �4 � , M V .��..�. � � '+nip` _ , � � � .� r � C { ��. ��. ' , . ` �� ` r ;� A_ . , {. -�� ,. . ,,� .. �,� - � ,. � � :� f ,� •T .yY� r r. t 1 1 r` Ir NIN _ gal i 4 r a i . . a i . 1 � •i �" w Y - y }J Y ^ t T Yj� �WQ. f•� � y 'y. t r 41 wua ^n :T loll, . f�a`l , [ f "fill i rrill ih a All �l;ljl x i� J x - ♦ 9 • .- 114 • • federal St federal St i07 Ch'Itch St J.. F N Lyntle Stiver St � Fe �?O 6 y Museum r cn Place Mall o. y lover St U) td � 114 Q k•�se. xg� CO _ ® Essex St o -' Subject Building J a n 3 ` Ci v Barton Sq�arc 1 m m �55ex St rA f f ront St SCO .r. 3 t 0} N Norman St 11a x N �,reSMU,51 0 GI ,._, New Derby St ri�.. a Gedney St u m 9 1 m Dodge s; S °o a rP u.,.w c4 N Map showing location of Subject Building (281 Essex Street, Salem, MA) and surrounding area. OMeet 2001 400� veri._om.,•„-i,,,.. SI RLCTU0.E � R .•.,�_ _ r f R Y' y I r. r yry i y i� 1 40 Alp . After: View • • • • - • • : • • proposed VZW antenna Seawall � srxccruxe changes1Photo • 07.19.2009. _ _ a>nscmx: 'i� ,�- e.•�J 'tip y r r m ti � � A 1—C After: View from • of • • 1 i rshowing proposed VZW antenna srx rci onE changesirk 0 • • • taken 07.19.2009. verozonwlmle mvmnnr. `a n ar w� � 1 51�- oil 409 Iowa tTk Y{t,r yp+ . Y � rf .,qt 4Yri mts '. ;�, i1 .YWIW r:' '� �I� i r l r• . r ,!' � � Before: View from Norman Street(Rte. 114), south of Subject Building (281 Essex Street-Salem, MA), showing 2�L->1, existing conditions. Photo taken 07.19.2009. verszonwmiess r 1 �1 y < MCS OW '1 s Y� s�w�r��c�»4�.,��4'. Mimm; ": 1q��•I�`, �`� yy..,.�'r'�• M -1, After: View 2 from Norman • SubjectBuilding i • • srautrune proposed VZW 1' • 1 1 1 • 11• - _ consuinnc p i lip 0 ail; Big 'T 2_C After: View from Norman Street(Rte. 114), south of Subject Building (281 Essex Street- Salem, MA), showing proposed VZW antenna changes (840 21210). Photo taken 07.19.2009. ver.Zon Y ales r . ,r �yy .�y .4. • {� � 7. `t. -J its A!"ate � , � � "K• a Z T t- k �'str +• � Y• � aY, aia .'I , .-t >F d' r-C. �.- Yi I tt.•�.��: ,a,•• y aMf':JiY T"y`k dl�;_ � rytY ai�. �� !t' � ;1 '� r r a � 422 rr .. :� Before: View from Essex Street,west of Subject Building (281 Essex Street- Salem, MA), showing existing 3'A conditions. Photo taken 07.19.2009. verizonwimless I .. r ti 1 'J S. =�e ',yt, fF •' i i o 1. ' 5 �. •►.� •.Ir pr. • 1 2 st �i' •• _. r+M}tl.t41 ;"y� ,{ vil, a� •l m ' ,p i^w�jy� r _ } I P O i1111�1 �ie 3-B After: View from Essex Street, south of Subject Building (281 Essex Street- Salem, MA), showing proposed VZW antenna changes (LNX-6512DS). Photo taken 07.19.2009. v Zonw;�ress J � R Ir 1Y�. ' I pp ' �'T`.F,J_f+ R: 1( - ♦ ��R.."yy� M �'r n v �• .fy 1 174 / y I a y f I , f�� l J x xw'.` • _t. -fir 8 -�. a.�, 1 fie^ +: �. _ �J r. J x VT 'h w71n. , ✓h After: View from Essex Street, south of Subject Building (281 Essex Street-Salem, MA), showing proposed 3_Cf - VZW antenna changes (840 21210). Photo taken 07.19.2009. veriZonwMless ANTENNA CONFIGURATION V . verI20nwireless LTE CELL )CS CELL ..— -- we oeM aroiw Imisu nw i wwwueuo��) .':mnmmv a.neimm. SCOPE m°:wanu'�:'"�'m "•� ) SALEM CENTER MA a e CONSTRUCTION EXHIBITS uei��..xiu.mwcmnruv.' I a xuov I rtwrnlsmmw 1 � �_'�.' _ a..Wa�.�•.uo....T vnrrcavonnnur O � AVWi `6a ,•�FTMHIG W@Ms�R UAMIm OMWNeY: 5R C11F111L:9Y: FM BffE.LLC"FSS 2Bi ESSEX STREET SALEM,MA 01970 mreErmic ROOF PLAN x: r•'r�� ) ROOF PLAN srtE.ruueEn A-1 ANTENNA CONFIGURATION ✓• veff2 nwireless LTE CELL PCS CELL .»eaeEu vaemnr ,S:HI]i'1i91 CTIrVN WN.[A4 M.101%4 rl11TS M11 ISe Ve,1/tlS Mr: SCOPE NrExM/F: ..,,...,m.,.,_,„¢.,•,,,, SALEM CENTER MA wm�:.cm Meuxim CONSTRUCTION EXHIBRS bn Sri ir'e v�i`a:.m`uam.xw mrr.mr r=n b{15 o' L�� a�� r. nonxrr,w,nnwSAnw.iiuuori _ tF o<,<w�rmawr .m,�...�o�-..�i.w eT�,�y�y��4\'t• Y a }= nvo�xar. ern 5-lx encbma� 281 ESSEX STREET SALEM,MA 01970 Nrmmcnmrr AELl1rM1F. ELEVATION _ELEVATION 0 n f 4 ^ .y A-2 RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2007 DEPT.OF PLANNING S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GEHRING & ASSOCIATES, LLC Wireless Planning& Zoning Post Office Box 98 860-536-0675 West Mystic, CT 06388 gehring@snet.net June 21,2007 The Salem Redevelopment Authority City of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: WIRELESS INSTALLATION OF BELL ATLANTIC MOBILE OF MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION LTD.D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS ON THE C.F.TOMPKINS BUILDING AT 275-281 ESSEX STREET,ASSESSOR'S PARCEL ID 26-0447-0 Dear Members of the Salem Redevelopment Authority: You will recall at your May 9th, 2007 meeting you voted to approve the DRB's recommendations concerning Verizon Wireless' installation on the above-captioned building.Those recommendations included,among other things, moving the Essex Street antennas closer to the building's facade and painting the coaxjumper cables to match the background fascia. A copy of the Decision is attached. Verizon Wireless is pleased to inform you that these conditions have been met and in fact exceeded in that all antenna sectors (notjust those along Essex Street) were able to be brought in closer to their mounting surfaces. Verizon also went ahead and painted their jumper cables at this time in order to avoid running afoul of the October 15th deadline. I have attached photographs for your records which show before and after views to evidence the changes made. Verizon Wireless is pleased to be able to support the economic development of downtown Salem by providing its enhanced wireless services through this subject installation. We appreciate your patience and cooperation throughout this process. Sincerely, Car . Gehring Attachments& Enclosures cc: Steve Tompkins -C.F. Tompkins Co. Earl Duval, Esq. - Duval &Associates LLC Chuck Webberly-Structure Consulting Group Inc. Salem Redecrlc��l��ent SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DECISION May 9,2007 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins Building— Review of wireless facilities installed on the building SRA DECISION: At their meeting on May 9, 2007, the SRA voted to approve the DRB Recommendation for the wireless facilities installed at 275-281 Essex Street with the following conditions: • Within 45 days, the six panel antennas located on the building's Essex Street facade shall be pulled as close to the building as possible while maintaining the tilt required for antenna functionality. ■ B% October 15, 2007, the jumper cable located on the Essex Street fascia shall be painted to match the color of the fascia. This color will be selected through the review of the 275-81 Essex Street redevelopment bv the DRB and SRA. If no color is approved by October 15, 2007, the cable will be painted to match the existing fascia color. • On an ongoing basis, the paint on all portions of the wireless facility visible from the street shall be maintained by Verizon Wireless to prevent peeling or flaking paint. The paint color shall match the existing brick as closely as possible. DRB RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on April 25, 2007, the DRB recommended approval of the Vcrizon Wireless cell facilities installed on the building at 275-281 Essex Street(CF Tompkins) with the following conditions: ■ The six panel antennas located on the building's Essex Street facade shall be pulled as close to the building as possible while maintaining the tilt required for antenna functionality. • The jumper cable located on the Essex Street fascia shall be painted to match the color of the fascia. 'I his color will be selected through the review of the 275-81 Essex Street redevelopment by the DRB and SRA. ■ The paint on all portions of the wireless facility visible from the street shall be maintained by Verizon Wireless to prevent peeling or flaking paint. The paint color shall match the existing brick as closely as possible. � J 6 1 8 � \ 10 11 A% 13 ,a - — — --- -- _ 75�� s 16 17 18 13 F i 9 -■ 1 1 1 1 ,., ;; r ,• __ .,� . �^ 1 ' i . �' `.. r � �- � � t�l � ' 0 �_ 1 ; .1 � ' �T c � �, j ;' � - ` .ram' � �_. _ -.-_._ � _t. ....._. _ �►._�--s..r� a ,.J�--- � r. xz � � � ti.� — �c,, �.., _ �. ;: __. -. i �, "� r f X ._S LA i, ' ,_ t 04 Jo i. ; • ` a . � I 1pfer��Q f j LLB_- �N - 4� 'Y iv a 4 R I��09t�i rlid 'F tom : If MdFAAl S w op •...-mot �f� .. lie `p �`�'` � .. �� .I S. ��., r, a. d '�t� `'� �..'w..�—� — „ti.M s i i� 4. he.� ,' Imo' :: '- - ,•� � ,„ y L � � _ � ' � � , , a .` � : 1 f �� y �, ._ -� � � � ',i � � t �� 1 - � � +aM � � �_ r . ��- � \ � w � "�r�- � � v_ \ � , e � • � �-` � � -Soo !7 t Ok r 6 4k /. � i • � P. rJw .00 0014 r r r� z• i 4-_ i t. 1 �1 40 IW f i IA * fit .. y. I � 1 1 -- i eSalem ® Redevelopment Authority MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Salem Redevelopment Authority FROM: Tania Hartford, Economic Development Program Director SUBJECT: Verizon Wireless Facilities—275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins) DATE: April 5, 2007 CC: Lynn G. Duncan, Fxecutive Director Attached is a letter from one of the attorneys representing Verizon Wireless in the matter of the wireless facilities installation at 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins) prior to obtaining SIL1/DRB approval. The attorney realizes that you have already sent the matter to the DRB for their design review of the project, however, he would like the opportunity to introduce himself and discuss the background of the installation. Please feel free to contact me at (978) 619-5685 or thartford(<_t:.salem.com should you have anv questions or concerns regarding this matter. 120 Washington Street • Salem Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 619-5685 • Fax (978) 740-0404 RECEIVED MAR 2 S 2007 DEPGEHRING & ASSOCIATES, LLC PLANNING& COMMUMMU NITT Y DEVELOPMENT Wireless Planning& Zoning Post Office Box 98 860-536-0675 West Mystic, CT 06388 gehring@snet.net March 27, 2007 Ms. Tania Hartford Salem Redevelopment Authority City of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: Salem Redevelopment Authority - April 11,2007 Meeting Dear Tania: I respectfully request to be placed on the agenda for the Salem Redevelopment Authority's meeting on April 11, 2007. 1 can be placed at the end of the docket behind your other regularly scheduled meeting items. The purpose will be to introduce myself and to personally discuss the background of Verizon Wireless'installation at 275-281 Essex Street. Thank you. Sincerely, , -4� �'e9 Carl W. Gehring cc: Earl W. Duval, Esq. - Duval & Associates LLC Dan Fitzpatrick - Verizon Wireless Chuck Webberly - Structure Consulting, Inc. t A- e Tania Hartford From: Tania Hartford Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:15 AM To: 'Dan.Fitzpatrick @ Verizon W ireless.com' Cc: Jojo.Umali@VerizonWireless.com; sptompkins@comcast.net; Lynn Duncan Subject: RE: Salem Center LI El Small Projects 2007 Schedule.doc Review Requirem... Mr. Fitzpatrick, Thank you for your email. I am in conversation with the Building Department about the issuance of the building permit prior to SRA approval. Regardless, your consultant was informed, more than once, of the SRA review requirement months before the installation. I am faxing you a copy of the letter from Jane Guy on behalf of the Salem Historical Commission dated September 7, 2006, in which she references a prior conversation with Mary Stadalnick about the SRA review requirement. I am attaching the requirements of the SRA for their review and approval as well as a list of their upcoming meeting dates and submittal deadlines. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the submittal requirements. Thank you, Tania Hartford Tania Hartford, Economic Development Program Director City of Salem, Dept. of Planning and Community Development 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970 Phone: 978/619-5685 - Fax: 978/740-0404 www.salem.com -----Original Message----- From: Dan.Fitzpatrick@VerizonWireless.com [mailto:Dan.Fitzpatrick@VerizonW ireless.com] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:00 AM To: Tania Hartford Cc: Jojo.Umali@VerizonWireless.com; sptompkins@comcast.net Subject: FW: Salem Center Ms. Hartford, As per our conversation earlier this morning, here is a copy of the building permit for the site in question. As you can see, it was issued on March 2, 2006. Please forward any correspondence you have with respect to a necessary appearance by Verizon Wireless before the Salem Redevelopment Authority with regard to this installation. Thanks. -DPF -----Original Message----- 1 From: FAXCOM_noreply@verizonwireless.com [mai Ito:FAXCOM_noreply@verizonwireless.com] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:56 AM To: Fitzpatrick, Dan J Subject: FAX received FAXCOM RECEIVED FAX REPORT -------------------------- Received Time : 02/16/2007 09:51 (GMT-05:00) Result : ERROR Description : FAXCOM receive mode; disconnect requested. Result Code : 0052 Pages Received: 0001 Bad Pages : 0001 Remote TSI Connect Time : 0240 Seconds Fax line : 17 Routing ID : 6177803343 Baud Rate : 04800 Bps The fax is included as a TIFF G4 image file attachment. The information contained in this message and any attachment may be proprietary, confidential, and privileged or subject to the work product doctrine and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. 2 ELIZABETH M.RENNARD CITY OF SALEM JERALD A. PARISELLA City Solicitor KIMBERLEY L. DRISCOLL, MAYOR Assistant City Solicitor 93 Washington Street One School Street Salem, MA 01970 Beverly, MA 01915 Tel.978,619.5631 LEGAL DEPARTMENT Tel: 978.921.1990 Fax:978,744.1279 93 WASHINGTON STREET Fax:978.921.4553 Email: brennard®salem.com SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Email:jap®alexandertemino.com March 14, 2007 Tania Hartford Economic Development Program Director Salem Redevelopment Authority 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Hartford: I am writing to you concerning the property located at 275-281 Essex Street in Salem, the CF Tompkins Building. You requested an opinion regarding the following: If a building permit is issued, does this preclude the Salem Redevelopment Authority from requiring the party who received the permit from obtaining SRA approval for the work that was done via the building permit? It is my opinion that you may still require SRA approval for such work (if the SRA has jurisdiction over the property) even though a building permit was issued. The facts as I understand them are that a building permit was issued to allow wireless equipment to be placed on the Tompkins Building. The building is located in the Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Area and thus subject to SRA review. In 1962 the City Council accepted the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws that permit the establishment of a Redevelopment Authority. Pursuant to the provisions of Massachusetts General Law chapter 121 B, the Salem Redevelopment Authority has the authority to adopt rules and regulations concerning redevelopment, improvements, construction, etc. in areas of its jurisdiction, to include the Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Area. A building permit is required under two sets of laws and regulations in Massachusetts. First, Chapter 40A section 7 of Massachusetts General Laws requires the building commissioner to withhold a building permit if the construction, alteration or moving of any building or structure violates zoning. Also, the state building code, 780 CMR 110.1 requires a building permit for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, removal or demolition of a structure. In this particular instance, the building commissioner may have issued a building permit because he determined that the installation of the wireless structure met the zoning requirements of the district (such as setbacks and height.) The applicant for the building permit still must meet any additional requirements imposed by law or regulation, in this case, the rules and regulations of the SRA, as adopted pursuant to G.L. c. 12113. I am not aware of any law or case that states that the issuance of a building permit precludes enforcement of other laws or regulations that may affect a particular property. To the contrary, in Zocchi v. Hinsdale, 30 Mass.App.Ct. 803 (1991), a building permit was issued to construct a home on a parcel of land. However, it was later determined that there were wetlands on the property and the Conservation Commission would not grant approval to construct on the site, thus the construction of a home was not permitted. I believe that the mere issuance of a building permit does not preclude the SRA from requiring the applicant to appear before it for approval of the installation of the wireless structure, especially since it is my understanding that prior to installing the structure the applicant was told they would have to obtain SRA approval. Please contact me should you have any questions or concerns. ery truly y ur a- I erald A. Parisella Cc: Elizabeth M. Rennard, City Solicitor Page 1 of 2 Tania Hartford From: gehring [gehring@snet.net] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:52 AM To: Tania Hartford Cc: Dan.Fitzpatrick@VerizonWireless.com; Thomas Stpierre Subject: Verizon Wireless - Essex St. Ms. Hartford- Dan Fitzpatrick asked that I reply to your email below directly as he is out of the office today. Please see Mr. Tom St. Pierre, Building Commissioner & zoning Officer, regarding your request. Last year a valid Building Permit was applied for, issued, and acted on. The installation is not that of "cell towers" as you described, but rather it is a simple By-Right building-mounted installation. I have asked Mr. St. Pierre to discuss this with you. Thank you. -Carl Carl W. Gehring, Esq. P. O. Box 98 West Mystic, CT 06388 860-536-0675, ext. 1 Fax: 860-536-1273 gehring@snet.net The information contained in this message and any attachment may be proprietary, confidential, and privileged or subject to the work product doctrine and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Tania Hartford [mailto:THartford@Salem.com] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:42 PM To: Fitzpatrick, Dan J Subject : RE: Salem Center I would like you to apply to the SRA/DRB for installation of the cell towers. I was able to get the SRA to vote last night to send the item directly to the DRB, however, that means you need to get me your submission ASAP and you or a representative for Verizon will need to attend the meeting. The meeting is on Wednesday, February 28 at 6: 00pm. I will need your submission by Monday, February 26 at noon (requirements attached in the 2/23/2007 Page 2 of 2 last email) . If you receive a favorable recommendation from the DRB, you will then go to the SRA for final approval on March 14. Should the SRA require changes to what was installed, you will be required to change it. Let me know if you have any questions or cannot make these deadlines. Thanks, Tania 2/23/2007 Page 1 of 2 Tania Hartford From: Tania Hartford Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 10:54 AM To: Beth Kennard Cc: Lynn Duncan Subject: FW: Verizon Wireless - Essex St. Beth, The correspondence below is regarding the building mounted cell facilities installed in December 2006 at the CF Tompkins Building (275-281 Essex Street). The building is located in the Heritage Plaza West Urban Renewal Area. It is owned by the Tompkins family and Verizon has a lease to locate the towers on the building. Back in March 2006, Tom issued a building permit to allow the wireless facilities to be installed. The SRA was never informed of the project and did not receive an application. The cell facilities are an exterior modification to the building and would require approval of the SRA/DRB. In August 2006, they contacted Jane about Historic Commission review. She responded to them in a letter on September 7, 2006 stating that the building was not in a historic district but would require SRA review and referred her to me. The application did appear before the Historic Commission on October 4, 2006 as part of a MHC review. The towers were installed sometime in mid- December. My question to you is whether the issuance of a building permit would supercede SRA approval. I feel that regardless of the building permit being issued, they still need to obtain approval from the SRA and were informed of that restriction well before the facilities were installed. That being said, we're not clear on enforcement should the property owner refuse to comply; any thoughts? Thanks, Tania -----Original Message----- From: gehring [mailto:gehring@snet.net] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:52 AM To: Tania Hartford Cc: Dan.Fitzpatrick@VerizonWireless.com; Thomas Stpierre Subject: Verizon Wireless - Essex St. Ms. Hartford- Dan Fitzpatrick asked that I reply to your email below directly as he is out of the office today. Please see Mr. Tom St, Pierre, Building Commissioner & Zoning Officer, regarding your request. Last year a valid Building Permit was applied for, issued, and acted on. The installation is not that of "cell towers" as you described, but rather it is a simple By-Right building-mounted installation. I have asked Mr. St. Pierre to discuss this with you. Thank you. -Carl 2/23/2007 { Page 2 of 2 Carl W. Gehring, Esq. P. 0. Box 98 West Mystic, CT 06388 860-536-0675, ext. 1 Fax: 860-536-1273 gehring@snet.net The information contained in this message and any attachment may be proprietary, confidential, and privileged or subject to the work product doctrine and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Tania Hartford [mailto:THartford@Salem.com] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:42 PM To: Fitzpatrick, Dan J Subject: RE: Salem Center I would like you to apply to the SRA/DRB for installation of the cell towers. I was able to get the SRA to vote last night to send the item directly to the DRB, however, that means you need to get me your submission ASAP and you or a representative for Verizon will need to attend the meeting. The meeting is on Wednesday, February 28 at 6:00pm. I will need your submission by Monday, February 26 at noon (requirements attached in the last email) . If you receive a favorable recommendation from the DRB, you will then go to the SRA for final approval on March 14. Should the SRA require changes to what was installed, you will be required to change it. Let me know if you have any questions or cannot make these deadlines. Thanks, Tania 2/23/2007 Tania Hartford From: Tania Hartford Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:42 PM To: 'Dan.Fitzpatrick @ Verizon W ireless.com' Subject: RE: Salem Center I would like you to apply to the SRA/DRB for installation of the cell towers. I was able to get the SRA to vote last night to send the item directly to the DRB, however, that means you need to get me your submission ASAP and you or a representative for Verizon will need to attend the meeting. The meeting is on Wednesday, February 28 at 6:OOpm. I will need your submission by Monday, February 26 at noon (requirements attached in the last email). If you receive a favorable recommendation from the DRB, you will then go to the SRA for final approval on March 14, Should the SRA require changes to what was installed, you will be required to change it. Let me know if you have any questions or cannot make these deadlines. Thanks, Tania -----Original Message----- From: Dan.Fitzpatrick@VerizonWireless.com [mailto:Dan.Fitzpatrick@Verizon W ireless.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:45 AM To: Tania Hartford Subject: RE: Salem Center Tania, Please let me know what you would like us to do here. Thanks. -DPF -----Original Message----- From: Tania Hartford [mailto:THartford@Salem.com] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:15 AM To: Fitzpatrick, Dan J Cc: Umali, Jojo; sptompkins@comcast.net; Lynn Duncan Subject: RE: Salem Center Mr. Fitzpatrick, Thank you for your email. I am in conversation with the Building Department about the issuance of the building permit prior to SRA approval. Regardless, your consultant was informed, more than once, of the SRA review requirement months before the installation. I am faxing you a copy of the letter from Jane Guy on behalf of the Salem Historical Commission dated September 7, 2006, in which she references a prior conversation with Mary Stadalnick about the SRA review requirement. I am attaching the requirements of the SRA for their review and approval 1 as well as a list of their upcoming meeting dates and submittal deadlines. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the submittal requirements. Thank you, Tania Hartford Tania Hartford, Economic Development Program Director City of Salem, Dept. of Planning and Community Development 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970 Phone: 978/619-5685 - Fax: 978/740-0404 www.salem.com -----Original Message----- From: Dan.Fitzpatrick@VerizonWireless.com [mailto:Dan.Fitzpatrick@VerizonW ireless.com) Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:00 AM To: Tania Hartford Cc: Jojo.Umali@VerizonWireless.com; sptompkins@comcast.net Subject: FW: Salem Center Ms. Hartford, As per our conversation earlier this morning, here is a copy of the building permit for the site in question. As you can see, it was issued on March 2, 2006. Please forward any correspondence you have with respect to a necessary appearance by Verizon Wireless before the Salem Redevelopment Authority with regard to this installation. Thanks. -DPF -----Original Message----- From: FAXCOM_noreply@verizonwireless.com [mailto:FAXCOM_noreply@verizonwireless.com] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 9:56 AM To: Fitzpatrick, Dan J Subject: FAX received FAXCOM RECEIVED FAX REPORT -------------------------- Received Time : 02/16/2007 09:51 (GMT-05:00) Result : ERROR Description : FAXCOM receive mode; disconnect requested. Result Code : 0052 Pages Received: 0001 Bad Pages : 0001 Remote TSI Connect Time : 0240 Seconds Fax line : 17 Routing ID : 6177803343 Baud Rate : 04800 Bps The fax is included as a TIFF G4 image file attachment. 2 The information contained in this message and any attachment may be proprietary, confidential, and privileged or subject to the work product doctrine and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. 3 104 Federal Street Salem, MA. 01970 978-744-8202 Fax 978-740-0085 April 25,2007 Salem Design Review Board 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 281 Essex Street,Tompkins Furniture Dear Sir or Madam: As a member of the the Historical Commission, I am submitting my comments on the "review of wireless facilities installed on the building'Unfortunately I am not able to attend this evenings' meeting. The applicant submitted an application for installation attenae arrays on the building.The Commission forwarded comments to the Massachusetts Historical Commission,said comments containing wording "...recommending that the arrays be as flush to the building as possible and that they be the same color as the brick." From the attached photo one can see that the individual attenae stand off the building a good distance,as opposed to "flush".The applicant,at the SHC meeting 10/4/2006, showed photographs of other installations where the attenae units appeared to be "flush" with the buildings. I would like to see the installation be flush to the building. SineeFely,,�� David M. Hart File In M/Galexy 297 4/25/2007 5:38:23 PM i CITY OF SALEM SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET '1'0: FROM Dan Fitzpatrick Tania Hartford COMPANY. DA 1'1'.. Verizon Wireless 2/16/2007 17AR NU MBI?li: 'CO'rAI.NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER 617/780-3343 4 PHONE NUMBER SFINDIUCS RIIFICRIINCF.NUMBF,R. 508/330-3343 978/619-5685 RE SF.NI)FICS FAX NUMBER 275-281 Fssex Street,Salem,MA 978/740-0404 ❑ URGENT ❑ FOR RFVMw ❑rLrnSF. (:0Nrn1aN r ❑ FLF:.NSe 1UN.Y ❑ 1'I.1.As1•: tutC:vra.lt N01LS/CONMIFNIS: Please see attached letter. The second paragraph notes the SRA review requirement. 120 WAS11INGTON STRL'ET SALEM, NIA 01970 T H:IRTFORDQSALEM.C:OM R a Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM.MASSACHUSETfS 01970 (978)745.9595 EXT,311 FAX(978)740.0404 September 7,2006 Ms. Mary Stadalnick EBI Consulting Four A Street Burlington,MA 01803 RE: 281 Essex Street, proposed Telecommunications Collocation Project EBI Project Number: 61063681 Dear Ms. Stadalnick: Thank you for providing me with a copy of your submission packet to Massachusetts Historical Commission WC)concerning a proposed telecommunications installation project at 281 Essex Street. After a cursory review, there are a few erroneous statements that I would like to correct Attachment 4,states that, is our conversation_on August 30,.2006,I stated that the property is"out of the Salem Historical Commission's area of interest". To reiterate what I actually stated,this property is not within a local historic district and therefore does not"require" the Commission approval. However, as I informed you, it is within the Salem Redevelopment Authority's (SRA)jurisdiction and will require their review and approval. I advised you to talk to Tania Hartford, who is also in my office and who is the staff liaison to the SRA. As of today, she has not spoken to anyone in your office,nor received an application for SRA approval. With regard to the Commission's"area of interest",I was not aware that this proposal would required a Section 106 review. Under the Section 106 Review process,the Commission has the ability to comment on the project before Massachusetts Historical Commission renders their determination on effect. To this end,I will provide the members of the Commission with a copy of your submission and request that they provide comment at their next meeting,to be held on September 20,2006. Attachment 9 omits some very significant historic,properties. Please be advised that directly abutting 281 Essex Street is theseven building Crombie Street National Register District. Also, one block away(4 buildings down)is the Downtown Salem National Register District, of which you included a map,but did.not list in Attachment 9. The maps you did provide in your submission included the local historic districts map,but did not include the map of the National Register districts and individual properties, which I have attached. 9/7/06 Page 2 Attachment 10 stated that a"new circa 2000 condo building"has been constructed south of the YMCA building,midway between the Shepard Block and the subject building. I assume you are referring to 289 Essex Street. If so,please be advised that this was constructed as apartments in 1987 and converted to condominiums recently. As I noted above,this proposal will be discussed at the Commission's meeting of September 20, 2006. Shortly thereafter,I will forward their comments to you and Massachusetts Historical Commission in writing. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. SinceG Jane Assity Development Director Clerk of the Salem Historical Commission Cc: Massachusetts Historical Commission �1 v. Wgg u � G 9� p h •`PT .+C - _ -w3n. i`rn STER ST °i{• BST CITY of SALEM, MA Pr T �� 4°o rsT �iEsS� GSA NATIONAL REGISTER ,� qP SQL`' +,�k HISTORIC DISTRICTS 5� �°�� p �,sS e�cb R & LANDMARKS "Ram sQG e��T PPzoa r$y� �4 T kN�ONgITa `G N, CJSS� P�Q yS.: `,lVrEB ST Q�V •-a G c r eN ¢ sLP 3 - r oap `y� dFc syST e o�4 evv�d ,s.e i nva I BR -GE STI .. 'R'k_wi• 7 N d•�° � P sp 0j, ECKET.AVE �GI ST Q4CNP�' K i I '.I ST �.� m m NASHINGTON SQ S A y7'O F•PJ' Ql9 m DERAL - - -_ _ T S �? �� O� LY I- �� :: -; Ws ST, �`{�• pT' i) 'lF �Ff`rT RIVER:ST �V I NDE�T .C� \ �liURCH 5r z. _ dG0` ��' Irl �, Iwi'�cs+ °O _ OVER F7 1 r•I i... p v' c _ EGT -I< yI ESS el O cn N R r r Pl I 'Q II . �j,. I �� 1' Rs4� "� Legend E 6,- -r�^=-:p;,d I �` Ctv .K �T _ \� N� Cj, Notional Register Districts cl N;A'Ga ti numEnsinFEi n CKEOG- NT p N .T m - 1r3;OY V. \ PS WAY cMemruremerr A`EIVDERHYS'1!. o L n Ir fT j ..0 S2'� '.40�5 �1 LilrC nuninn ll/f {I..: t+mmiu mia, - r asFx vm.einc.rmaiax J�F ��P��, T `r'I 7 � o'+• � � s'0.� � Fmevxsmssr S,C,�� - '.:S9 p � ON ST N PrI 'w. � ej` `y,�`�•✓�V�r.. _7 NmseaF ULwEx wat¢n OIn IaNH MM1LL - i seuweawnvu tiC JA4P _ i ST )u LNaronCt D"M ��.w, fr `� s{ kr-' s ,•.i��i++a:ivndum+..� (� a�ilcn Llmxl I�,L 'a>' .u.Fw-marts va , E HP OfficeJet 7410 Log for Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner DPCD 978-740-0404 Feb 16 2007 10:19AM Last Transaction Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result Feb 16 10:16AM Fax Sent 916177803343 3:06 4 OK Salem Redevelopment Authority SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DECISION May 9, 2007 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins Building) —Review of wireless facilities installed on the building SRA DECISION: At their meeting on May 9, 2007, the SRA voted to approve the DRB Recommendation for the wireless facilities installed at 275-281 Essex Street with the following conditions: • Within 45 days, the six panel antennas located on the building's Essex Street facade shall be pulled as close to the building as possible while maintaining the tilt required for antenna functionality. • By October 15, 2007, the jumper cable located on the Essex Street fascia shall be painted to match the color of the fascia. This color will be selected through the review of the 275-81 Essex Street redevelopment by the DRB and SRA. I£no color is approved by October 15, 2007,the cable will be painted to match the existing fascia color. • On an ongoing basis,the paint on all portions of the wireless facility visible from the street shall be maintained by Verizon Wireless to prevent peeling or flaking paint The paint color shall match the existing brick as closely as possible. DRB RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on April 25,2007, the DRB recommended approval of the Verizon Wireless cell facilities installed on the building at 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins) with the following conditions: • The six panel antennas located on the building's Essex Street facade shall be pulled as close to the building as possible while maintaining the tilt required for antenna functionality. • The jumper cable located on the Essex Street fascia shall be painted to match the color of the fascia. This color will be selected through the review of the 275-81 Essex Street redevelopment by the DRB and SRA. • The paint on all portions of the wireless facility visible from the street shall be maintained by Verizon Wireless to prevent peeling or flaking paint. The paint color shall match the existing brick as closely as possible. h' 7 -,;Pow, d �r /- � •1 _ _J � Q J c%m U -K M o:- 0 NJ _. U Li O �i cn \ e LLr.. N Y { 'J Salem Redevelopment Authority DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION April 25, 2007 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins Building — Review of wireless facilities installed on the building RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on April 25, 2007, the DRB recommended approval of the Verizon Wireless cell facilities installed on the building at 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins) with the following conditions: ■ The six panel antennas located on the building's Essex Street facade shall be pulled as close to the building as possible while maintaining the tilt required for antenna functionality. ■ The jumper cable located on the Essex Street fascia shall be painted to match the color of the fascia. This color will be selected through the review of the 275-81 Essex Street redevelopment by the DRB and SRA. • The paint on all portions of the wireless facility visible from the street shall be maintained by Verizon Wireless to prevent peeling or flaking paint. The paint color shall match the existing brick as closely as possible. J R i 1� �� _yf J ' / /'.' • ! / /+r � ri..._p' fir, "AIM, r ' O �I I I I i f t.�.. ter.♦ � r . r N 1 1 h Y r +� r y r _ f a Z a MMF- ` LU HW�•t I I. l a 1 t 1' - 1h A i n 1 c!; Z • I d .* 1 � I 0 n lot. 4 Ai'��•c fig __.,�. r 1r' , r I tr . t l� p000 ,. A IPA ins t I � i / 4qp I i j M `r Y Z � flat CL TH aim I-- s;� U l � rr � It ry 1 i , e F�R �OC 1 i + i _ �S�Ii 1 . • � � 1 1 r 41 f i i ♦ 3 !Y f , i � I y ■ �� . � � a , � - � . . � ` r MM a � . (i 1 w I a t �11 {" n I,vim I ! I 1 _ I � r I; ' d a ru. CL T I I , IM� I � 5 215 - 2f5l Essf-x 5 � COV�StYVG�"II�VI ✓ !'Gw�✓1� �evieW Page 1 of 2 Kirsten Kinzer From: Glenn Kennedy[glennkennedy@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:49 PM To: Kirsten Kinzer Cc: David Jaquith (E-mail); Michael Blier(E-mail); Paul Durand (E-mail) Subject: Re: DRB - CF Tompkins brick review Kirsten, I reviewed the brick and mortar selections at the CF Tompkins site this afternoon. Samples of the brick showing options of varying flash coloring were put together NOT using the recommended mortar. The bricks are very good, however the mortar is not the right color and spacing thickness too large. The recommended mortar sample has been applied to a small section on the 4th floor. The coloring is slightly more yellow and slightly darker in tone than the samples shown. A few conditions for approval. 1. A 50-50 blend of the varying flash vs flat colored bricks. 2.The slightly more yellow and darker mortar sample. 3.Match the spacing of the current bricks that will remain. Architect agreed to all conditions. glk .................................................................. glena kennedy 1 108 leach street I salem ma 101970 978.894.90011 glennkennedy@comcast net On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Kirsten Kinzer wrote: Thanks Glenn. I'll let them know you will be coming by. Just e-mail or call me with your thoughts on the brick selection. Best, Kirsten From: Glenn Kennedy [mailto:glenn ken nedy@comcast.netl Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:37 AM To: Kirsten Kinzer Cc: David Jaquith (E-mail); Michael Blier(E-mail); Paul Durand (E-mail) Subject: Re: DRB - CF Tompkins brick review I can go over today at 1:15. glk ................................................................... glenn kennedy 1 108 leach street i salem ma 101970 978,884.90011 glennkennedy@comcast.nel 7/25/2007 Page 2 of 2 On Jul 24, 2007, at 11i30 AM,Kirsten Kinzer wrote: Hello, I'm looking for a volunteer to swing by the CF Tompkins building and review the mock- ups that include the new brick. Approval of the new brick by the DRB is a condition of the SRA decision. Not surprisingly, they waited to contact me until the masons are ready to start working so if you are available to go by the site today or tomorrow please let me know. Also, if you are planning to be absent from tomorrow evening's meeting please let me know. Thanks, Kirsten Kirsten Kinzer CDBG Planner Department of Planning and Community Development City of Salem 120 Washington Street,3rd floor Salem, MA 01970 T: (978) 619-5685 F: (978) 740-0404 7/25/2007 T 62-7:� SC2.,A 1v C� �� ' A�� 1 F�� p `ac V PPM. - ��.. �_.-.-�-.ice:. • �� . - J� �ti Page 1 of 6 Tom Daniel From: DeMaio, Ernest [edemaio@elkus-manfredi.comj Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:24 PM To: Tom Daniel; Kirsten Kinzer Cc: David Jaquith; Paul Durand (E-mail); Glenn Kennedy; Michael Blier (E-mail) Subject: RE: CF Tompkins update Attachments: CF Tompkins.jpg Tom: The developer submitted a roof plan to us early on in the DRB review process. My recollection was that plan did not show anything on the roof- no HVAC equipment nor any screen fencing. During a subsequent submission to the DRB a submittal showing the type of fence they were planning to use as a roof screen was submitted for our review, but there was no roof plan to go along with it. We asked for one. In a later submittal to the board, they submitted a roof plan again showing numerous residential-scaled heating units on the roof surrounded by a screen, but nothing was labeled. We specifically asked about them and were told they were typical residential units, less than Thigh. We were told by the developer that the rooftop equipment would be installed low to the roof and the 5' screening would be adequate to screen any rooftop equipment from view from surrounding streets and neighbors. Below are some excerpts from our meeting minutes posted on Salem.com's website pertaining to this project: Feb 28, 2007 DeMaio asks about plans for the penthouse. Musinski states that they were not going to do anything with it. DeMaio asks if there will be more rooftop mots. Musinski states that there may be after the building is finished. Jaquith: Motion to make a recommendation to the SRA to obtain a schematic design with the following conditions: i. Storefronts should be restored or opened up; 2. Bricks should be reused on the Crombie Street facade,where possible,and the reconstruction of the brick must match the existing building exactly, y. Historical preservation specification for repointing,must be included; 4. Entry point for the retail unit(s) and egress for the residential units should be reconfigured; s. Storefront on the Crombie Street facade should be looked at and redesigned; 6. Roof pLI:. ,d; and 7. Residential entry point along Crombie Street should be more prominent. The motion is seconded by DeMaio. All members are in favor. The motion passes 5-0. July 10, 2007 DeMaio expresses concern with the slivers of masonry between the retail windows. Jaquith agrees with DeMaio and suggests a taller fascia between the first and second floor to hold signage. Durand confirms that the members favor the expanded glass storefront with a built-out fascia that more closely reflects the original sign band. 1/10/2008 Page 2 of 6 o Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval by the SRA with the following conditions: • If new brick is required,the selected brick shall be reviewed by the DRB. • ,. ,, J , -1 'r..,i.i ,hall he J, :u i„tiic IUJ,hl t,ii�tig1n in ncV ofthc onEimul de�wl, to h tt r nl,\iJt tic .ri,iil.,nd o;,�rhr+lJ;d poiuon�nrth< Ia�ildm • • Feuding rexi„ is • Only approval of the second Floor location and vertical orientation of the residential project name signage is recommended. The final design of this signage shall be reviewed by the DRB. • The retail entry shall be revised. The motion is seconded by DeMaio. (Passes 5-0) September 26, 2007 Durand asks about rooftop screening and DeMaio clarifies the previous discussion about the screening. Musinski states that they have not changed the screening plans. Atkins states that the Planning Board approved the site review on this project. He reads the approval language which applies to the screening. Durand states that he would like to see the design after the City Planner has approved it. Atkins states that the building permit has been issued already and they are working on the building, but the elements which are being discussed tonight have not proceeded. Durand states that he would like them to return next month to see the plans for the screening. DeMaio: Motion to continue to the next meeting, seconded by Jaquith. (Passes 5-0) If the developer brings any other roof plans to your office tomorrow to show you what was intended to be constructed, please know that these plans were never submitted to the DRB for review or approval. The present condition as built is inconsistent with what was submitted and approved by the DRB during the design review process. What was built should be compared to the plans that were approved by the DRB. Sincerely, Ernie DeMaio n ^� S �Te� From: Tom Daniel [mailto:tdaniel@Salem.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:27 PM To: DeMaio, Ernest; Kirsten Kinzer Cc: David Jaquith; Paul Durand (E-mail); Glenn Kennedy; Michael Blier (E-mail) Subject: RE: CF Tompkins update Ernie: I have the roof plan showing the fencing but there was no elevation. I am waiting to discuss this further with the architect tomorrow. I'll also provide further follow up on the storefront concerns. 1/10/2008 Page 3 of 6 Have a good evening. Tom From: DeMaio, Ernest [mailto:edemaio@elkus-manfredi.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:15 PM To: Tom Daniel; Kirsten Kinzer Cc: David Jaquith; Paul Durand (E-mail); Glenn Kennedy; Michael Blier(E-mail) Subject: RE: CF Tompkins update Tom: Did you have a chance to review the previous drawing submissions to the DRB by the developer, and if so what are your conclusions about what was submitted and approved by us? Sincerely, Ernie DeMaio From: Tom Daniel [mailto:tdaniel@Salem.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:46 PM To: Kirsten Kinzer; DeMaio, Ernest Cc: David Jaquith; Paul Durand (E-mail); Glenn Kennedy; Michael Blier(E-mail) Subject: RE: CF Tompkins update All: Just a quick update. I have exchanged voicemails with the CF Tompkins team since Thursday and will have a live conversation tomorrow. I'll follow up with you after that conversation. Tom From: Kirsten Kinzer Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:43 AM To: 'DeMaio, Ernest Cc: Tom Daniel; David Jaquith; Paul Durand (E-mail); Glenn Kennedy; Michael Blier (E-mail) Subject: RE: CF Tompkins update Dear Ernie, As dealing with CF Tompkins is going to be a bit more complicated than I anticipated, I am passing on the follow- up on these issues to Tom. I'll work with Tom to go through the approved plans and he will then work with the CF Tompkins team to address the issue of the facade and the roof equipment. In pursuing a correction to the present condition in a vigorous fashion, I would ask you to continue to address these issues through the DPCD rather than contacting the development team directly. Thanks, Kirsten Kasten Kinzer CDBG Planner Department of Planning and Community Development Gtyof Salem 1/10/2008 Page 4 of 6 120 Washington Street,3rd floor Salem,MA 01970 T. (978) 619-5685 F: (978)740-0404 From: DeMaio, Ernest [mailto:edemaio@elkus-manfredi.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:22 AM To: Kirsten Kinzer Cc: Tom Daniel; David Jaquith; Paul Durand (E-mail); Glenn Kennedy; Michael Blier (E-mail) Subject: RE: CF Tompkins update Importance: High Dear Kirsten: The response below does not address what the developer is planning to install between the head of the storefront windows and the bottom of the sign band, which in our DRB meeting we all agreed should not be brick. If you look at the existing condition you can see that if they bring the sign band down to the tops of the window heads (which I do not believe they intend to do)the sign band will end up covering over a portion of the ornamental/structural metal columns that they recently uncovered. The question that needs to be asked of the developer is this: what material are they planning to use to fill the void between the tops of the storefront window heads and the underside of the existing cornice/sign band? We do not want brick there. Another matter that is even more disturbing than the sign band/window head condition is what the developer has done on the roof. Over the Christmas/New Years holiday the developer installed a new piece of rooftop equipment that is approximately 12' to 15'above the existing cornice line- I have attached a photo. The unit is much higher up than the (already offensive)existing penthouse structure, and it is a tan/light brown color. The positioning of this unit is not acceptable and is in conflict with everything we were told about what would be done on the roof. When the developer first submitted their plans for DRB review, they had a roof plan attached which showed some rooftop equipment, but there was no information about what the units were or what they looked like. The units were not shown on the building elevations. At our review the DRB specifically asked what was happening on the roof. The developer told us they would submit further information to the DRB. The DRB told them we were very concerned about the appearance of rooftop equipment from neighboring sites and we wanted any new rooftop units to be low and screened from view. The second time the developer submitted drawings to the DRB for review, the roof plan was deleted and not submitted, and a white vinyl screen was presented as a submittal to screen the mechanical units from view. The DRB was unhappy with the color selection of the screen but were forced to accept the white vinyl screen as it provided the best screening option the developer was willing to provide for the project. The DRB was assured however that any rooftop equipment would be low to the roof and screened where it occurred. The DRB also requested that revised plans be submitted to show the rooftop equipment and the screening. A subsequent submission was provided by the developer and the screening was shown. The DRB was assured by the developer that any new rooftop equipment would be set low on the roof and screened so as not to be visible from neighboring sites or the street. This is clearly not the case in the field right now and I am greatly disturbed by this development, both as as DRB member and as a neighbor. Adding screening to the present condition will only make the matter worse. I am asking you and your department to inquire with the developer as to what they plan to do to correct this matter because it is not in keeping with our DRB approval and it is certainly not acceptable to me as a neighbor. As a minimum the unit should be relocated so as to not be any higher than the present penthouse roof and preferably lower than that, and it should be painted to be less visually apparent from the neighborhood. I will await your reply before I comment further but please be assured that I will pursue a correction to the present condition in a vigorous fashion. Sincerely, Ernie 1/10/2008 Page 5 of 6 From: Kirsten Kinzer [mailto:KKinzer@Salem.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:51 PM To: Tom Daniel; David Jaquith; DeMaio, Ernest; Glenn Kennedy; Michael Blier(E-mail); Paul Durand (E-mail) Subject: CF Tompkins update Dear DRB members, I touched base with the CF Tompkins team and their plan is to adhere to the fagade design that you approved, beginning the sign band directly above the windows. This is not evident due to recent demo, but Keith's email below states that the plan is to (eventually)construct the approved design. Best, Kirsten Kirsten Kinzer CDBG Planner Department of Planning and Community Development City of Salem 120 Washington Street,3rd floor Salem,MA 01970 T: (978) 619-5685 F: (978) 740-0404 From: Equilibrium Design [mailto:eqdesign@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:02 PM To: George Atkins Subject: RE: CF Tompkins George, It was our intent to run the sign band across the tops of the windows as shown in the original elevations. The new design will not change from this intention. With the current level of demo at this area it may appear differently, however, the design as presented will be what is constructed. Hope this helps? Please call me if you need anything further. Thanks, Keith From: George Atkins [mailto:gwa@RonanSegal.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:13 PM To: egdesign@comcast.net Subject: FW: CF Tompkins Keith: Could you give me some guidance on a response to this request? George W.Atkins Ronan, Segal&Harrington 59 Federal St. Salem, MA 01970 1/10/2008 Page 6 of 6 Tel. 978-744-0350 x 107 Fax 978-744-7493 gw\wai vansegal.com From: Kirsten Kinzer [mailto:KKinzer@Salem.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:55 PM To: George Atkins Subject: CF Tompkins Dear Attorney Atkins, At the December DRB meeting, Paul Durand provided an update to the members on his on site review of the existing columns at the CF Tompkins building. In this conversation, one of the members raised the question of what material will be used in the area between top of the windows and the sign band. In the approved drawings, the sign band begins directly above the windows but from the current appearance of the fagade, it appears that another material may be used between the sign band and the windows. The DRB is concerned that the plan may be to use brick here, which Paul did not review on site. Could you please either verify that the plan is to adhere to the approved elevations or send me a drawing of any changes to the approved design? Thanks, Kirsten Kirsten Kinzer CDBG Planner Department of Planning and Community Development City of Salem 120 Washington Street,3rd floor Salem,MA 01970 T. (978) 619-5685 F:(978)740-0404 1/10/2008 J, b. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Salem Cemetery & Shade Tree Department for the selection of street trees. The selection and placement of street trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Planning& Community Development prior to installation. C3 c. The final landscaping plan shall be approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a building permit 4. HVAC If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site, it shall be visually screened. The method for �o 0 screening the unit shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to installation. Approved method for screening shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Parking The Condominium Association shall purchase one parking pass per residential unit for the City Parking Garages) on an annual basis. The condominium documents that are recorded at the Registry of Deeds shall reference this requirement, which will be enforceable by the COQ City. The condominium documents shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner. Documentation of the purchase of these parking passes shall be provided to the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Parking Contribution The applicant has voluntarily agreed to contribute$10,000 to be used toward a parking study or actual improvements to increase the availability of parking downtown. Funds to be contributed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Signage All proposed signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a sign permit. 8. Lighting a. No light shall cast a glare onto adjacent parcels or adjacent rights of way. b. A final lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner and the City Electrician for S�Q Q review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. C. After installation, lighting shall be reviewed by the City Planner and the City Electrician C 012 prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 9. Construction Practices All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: From: Equilibrium Design [mailto:eqdesign@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:50 PM To: Tom Daniel Cc: gwa@ronansegal.com Subject: RE: CF Tompkins Tom, I mentioned to George that we were meeting on site with the Mason and window installer yesterday to resolve the current issue. I apologize as this is the first opportunity I've had to give feedback to everyone. Given my field review with Paul Durand of the DRB and our desire to maintain the existing columns (original) we uncovered in our renovations, we will need to alter the detail of what was submitted to the DRB. After review with the Masonry subcontractor yesterday, it appears that the best course of action to have the recently revealed storefronts match the originals as much as is physically possible ,is to eliminate the brick infill Paul and I had spoken about during our review of the existing conditions. As a condition of our approval from the DRB, the storefront windows were aligned with the window divisions on the upper floors. With the new windows in place, this has led to an imbalanced reveal of exposed brick to the left and right of the windows as well as the need to infill above the new windows to maintain the original sign band dimension. To simply what would look historically (and aesthetically) inappropriate to the building, we are proposing to infill the unequal areas (left, right and top) with a weather resistant composite trim (Alzak or equal) painted to match the windows and trim throughout. This will allow for the storefronts to appear as monochromatic assemblies similar to the original photos and will not interfere with the treatment of the sign band or existing column capitals. The elimination of this small amount of brick will also resolve an inconsistency in projection at the base of the building created by the former renovations by allowing the columns to stand out from the face of the building as they would have originally. The uniformity of the color will allow the storefronts to read more continuously across the Essex and Crombie street facades much better than were each window grouping to be "outlined" in the brick as we originally planned. I hope this provides the answers to the questions you raised. Please contact me if you need further clarification. Sincerely, Keith Musinski From: DeMaio, Ernest [mailto:edemaio@elkus-manfredi.com] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 1:23 PM To: Tom Daniel Cc: Kirsten Kinzer; David Jaquith; Paul Durand (E-mail); Glenn Kennedy; Michael Biter (E-mail) Subject: RE: CF Tompkins (Storefront) Tom: I happen to think that eliminating the brick at thejambs, head and sills around the storefront windows is a good thing, architecturally speaking. I agree with Mr. Musinski that having the infill match the color of the storefront mullions is a good solution. I'm not sure that Azek (he calls it Alzak in his e-mail) is the best choice, but they should submit something to us for review. Azek is a composite material (essentially made out of vinyl). It can be painted but needs to be maintained (it must be carefully painted) like any other of painted surface, and it is usually a smooth finish. The windows are factory painted aluminum, and it would be a better job if the "moulding trim"could also be a pre-painted aluminum product to match the windows - perhaps an extruded aluminum moulding trim...but I defer to the applicant to submit what they are thinking of. Whether they use Azek or extruded aluminum my preference would be for the trim to not be "flat" trim but to have a moulded edge profile of some kind, which would be more in keeping with the existing metal columns, but again they should propose something to us. I believe they should be prepared to submitted scaled sketches of what they are proposing for the DRB meeting. Please be aware that I have a conflict on the 23rd and I will most likely not be able to attend that DRB meeting. I am trying to adjust my schedule so that I can attend but as of now I am 90%sure that I won't be able to. That may be important because if I am remembering correctly several Board members were required to recuse themselves from the review of this project and we may not be able to have a quorum. The same is true for the Salem News project, which I believe Michael and Paul are required to recuse themselves from. Sincerely, Ernie DeMaio From: Tom Daniel [mailto:tdaniel@Salem.com] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 12:06 PM To: David Jaquith; DeMaio, Ernest; Glenn Kennedy; Michael Blier (E-mail); Paul Durand (E-mail) Cc: Kirsten Kinzer Subject: FW: CF Tompkins (Storefront) Below is the CF Tompkins response to the storefront matter. I have told them they'll need to submit plans and come to the January 23rd DRB meeting. Mr. Musinski did not address the rooftop equipment screening matter in this e-mail. I have told him this matter will also need to be addressed at the DRB meeting. Other agenda items for the 23ftl include Salem News, 90 Lafayette, and two sign reviews. Have a good weekend! Tom Page 1 of 2 Tom Daniel From: Tom Daniel Sent: Friday,January 11, 2008 11:59 AM To: 'Equilibrium Design' Cc: 'gwa@ronansegal.com'; Kirsten Kinzer;Amy Lash; Thomas Stpierre; Lynn Duncan Subject: CF Tompkins: Rooftop Equipment Attachments: CF Tompkins.jpg Keith, I am starting a second e-mail thread to focus on the rooftop equipment I initially raised on January 3, 2008. A question has been raised about consistency with the DRB-approved plans. In an effort to get clarity, I would like to discuss this at the January 23`d DRB meeting. In addition to the materials needed for the storefront matter I addressed in a separate e-mail, please prepare six copies of a submittal addressing this matter by noon on Wednesday, January 16, 2008. 1 Background As a condition of the SRA/DRB approval process, the screening plan was approved by the DRB on October 30, 2007. According to my records, these plans did not include an elevation but show new vinyl privacy fencing in 5' x 8' panels mounted to the roof with reinforced 5"x 5" posts. The fencing surrounds 20 residential HVAC units. These units were described in DRB meetings as being less than 5' high and they would be adequately screened by the fencing. The attached photo shows a tan/light brown structure that does not appear to be on the plans. It also does not appear that the fencing would adequately screen it. Please explain what the structure is, how it is represented in the plans,and how the fencing screens it. To clarify, I am writing as the staff person to the SRA and DRB. Kirsten Kinzer had been the point of contact while my position was vacant. I am copying her to keep her in the loop during this transition. I am also copying Amy Lash who is the staff person to the Planning Board. A condition of the June 7, 2007, Planning Board approval (below) concerns screening of rooftop equipment. These plans are among items that will need to be submitted to and approved by Amy prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Also copied are Tom St. Pierre,the Building Official who issues CO's, and Lynn Duncan, Director of the Planning and Community Development Department. Please let me know if you have any questions. The June 7, 2007, Planning Board approval states: If an HVAC unit is located on the roof or site, it shall be visually screened. The method for screening the unit shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to installation. Approved method for screening shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Tom Daniel, AICP Economic Development Manager Department of Planning and Community Development City of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem. MA 01970 (978)619-5685 telephone (978)740-0404 tax 1/17/2008 ._` �. �i' r �. s �- �epi � � � r . a; i,'.. M �, _ Salem Web GIS-Printable Map Page Page 1 of 1 Parcel Map &Aerial Photo j. r N11 �t P•mei ID 26_O 8_0 More•, )-MC44 E STftEtiT Map for Reference Only NOT yyALEGAL Y. xpek O Pe • mibmayactmttt m t Nme to mpep, ma"I., Check with the Boerd of Askears to cwntm f i + boundaries vutl at time of •suzamant. http://host.appgeo,com/SalemMA/PrintableMap.aspx?mapType=ortho&sub Symbol=&Ad... 1/17/2008 `✓ I . r.�`.. • { I r. 14NI I L. ` 1 A« i - I � IrIV kI rI HPPn •• .� � co �. (.N ROVGH MI 'Ni 1 :,kBJ LNIN - , =1 •. rt rL - a IA Ei ILE SS[ W WE COPE li,Eill USE JXC PAN PI .I V Of.(w,Of F./P NIOZ.1`T. MIYVIII L I np O -PIHCAR CANLI tl I. Mk VFkJ W4h a = () IRE W'EUIVr IW 1SIAL In 1 I NA ! L4 1C'N" "I'l E A:A F:ir)N I la(•� F��>•{ Ik( .fL IR FrFIAA NpY ` rN N' - kd(11 WR •\ 0 CD I LAI r 17 b If AIM "F -ANIrN%Al r t 1 [M. !'I `pI f 41 RI1 P ! NIIN I 11 I__I Alll PN IIN.tIVIl.ININI.INI. IINI NNf! Ik IrNN ( II 1 hN I,p1•wl IININJV5F1 :'pl i. 'Ix IIII IFt Irl :.I ! IS' r IiMNi: .(1 d 1 ` 11 N v.I P. LD I Q E O � -r 1i ♦ _ _ o v Ln fUN 'A Pµ SIt PlNIiWRk%11 _ UTA wAI w all IUII,I vrpr q �Cl 1 III F It N I N u F' O N f I I AF llE wpl t r M f01 /i Nl L I - w __AMMA IA IT /Nr W:t I nxn I - _ LIAI NAME 'I - _ HAIIIPMFNI RGRd N I p M AUV t c Hla•I StI 11( `,0! 111 1 4 4bAN1 11 NAlf MINI ISf! 1'IM1 1 d 'fO LI:1 IYII 11 fltll l(IR SHRL p I ll VII VIP fpFll N AIAGITNF 1111I -0t11A11'bL C 1 NI IN E(nv :All 1�IY I 1 Iv [()LING f1 1.� alarv.nnm •:•A,I I r 20 +F=I 1 v N,II ZF' Ip I i—L�2 - �Af(AI U'I'ClPNOPO4UVIRIYUV - INR i4 1 - PVNi USE1 - TN 1. 1 t(IAR lA8'1�RUNIN TOP- I .WµV'\ IF 6AriErY 1.11.1151llNarElo- J . rn "Ek x'll CIAIINO I - - W I _ I !II.tIIANAHCI� IElNr VNIw - VERIFY ORIENTATION OF TRUE NORTH I L NNE nOBirow BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS I mum NOOM ml h}•r n µxAllr ANTENNA ARRANGEMENT PLAN I Vr ti = • A � 13 PARTIALAli BASENT&EOl11PMENT ROOM PLAN NaLi�P - I ..AI Ire I!dME _ 1 1 � I 1 � I I x YN(WOSkU VIkI((YN LONpLN50R VNN5 I INAv Wl - ..411r- IAO.I NCVPr—Nu +'.I Iv l..l Mnl Ytl lr rM l pV ylnG 1 R14A "I'll. I., ENT _]NVL ros.I SN llk1 1(r •H �[ 1 AY I IN S E.1.11 111 .111 L - IN11 _r1%, _ I' t1GP4uIIII SIIH IAAA llt.l l BIAGNr beR I'POr 1 V rA +IrR hpFrfPAhFMAFI^ SH'• r 11 - O r 4'r BrUl 1 l."Lh Sl VIIIII'1 All SI":N•I iEfl r. 1'6rryl C 1 Sp".W NRIr(W4N/1101 I_ LOOR( fRl)>1 SII 111. 1NHIAIG Nk I"P-AINI • uE1All runUm Inn _I 1 III,, INN IM YL_[L L( N IL(lNF SMEWM SII •INI cpI NOX IWAI rI I- L IH'I IX..1 BIJI(R I kI ELY BITV11 - ` BI AM SLAIIN,PONE PROVIDE.CIBU \I ` j\ vl _� i rNlP PANT a PUV ML"WON v .y - N4ril r - (11 IIN, GAT WAIIG uJµ l * �� S ROOF PLAN F'lio weal. III 1 lO ArIW:IL"A'' PI. 1.. N -.. Q < O ,r COVIN SLU AWNS GIMN:.IURI - _- -.. - It / SEI ROUT rl VI ION S NFO CONDENSERS A L Q P01I OP f r. �MAlt-I LVIS ON.'NfAID)hi%IT 'SEEBO gER 11V LLIS-.l - Fw BEN Cl[VAIOfI \ MAII 1115d TOP AMLINi( 'SEE BODE lF1ilA 4[UI IN �GWJh)\I _",.. PEN1NdJ5( .1 v / l'I RIlUN IHA _ __, LJ � PGOMr51C VISION)-Pl N __ LNpi CHIAW" IANAW/ Sr: Of W �_�1 1 j IA 2trc[ (W NICI / 14 I 1 1 pine IRIIFM(o VFWl(1N rFML 9 'Y4�. LL-L Ixlca c WN! N(IkMt1lS F.ANA4l — <VI -PRIM Sfn VER IM+ _ a _ Z PM'EI ANILNINS INI IM il ACT _ _ '1'1[RrlMtry AuiINW I..AMMAI d NUA uA - x I 'x , �x< U r YIgVIDC66MIN ;I fit Itll'1 UVI IT'S' 411x Sv Y RINBOOD mluED /- euAU BErwllx nw PRohaluvek/uG— !l } sEr.F1 IJU ANE.INr I. 01�1� (� O�1 [SUPf WIrpaAf PFNEI AYiIMMS !y" I ;,rFU f 'L- �V'C - BOf OI ANILNYA IN(q,N - I :.1 )F P vfRG ZI"1" v� �n�r. 1 � 1 .rrvA aLa srE. _LLI � O INEFIRE 6CAM 41 AN rl1. WyNI INn �Q KI.ESS 11%lk 1RlMn ETMnNOR 1�- 14 $TEFL PLATFORM FRAMING PLAN N(n - W PIS EXIST [XW4 I 7 ' S / r 1' 112 REAR ELEVATION "\FRONT ELEVATION '- �. _ Nor IA lMLE 11 rN1111u Sfur C-1 �L- � i c� / i f �. , j J w ,�l-� '_ti t � ' � �" is 1 1 ,� �' ; s �, ° � � _ � E 4 x �. �^: j SI•i.� s � �; � � � � ! , i ,y`�Wi.. i 4 'f r, � i I f :�i I e t'� �s � � � I f .r ry ! a � � .� .- -, :}� �� ;�,. � . , :,� C� �y M i I��.�i r' t k T I// `'� 1 ,� f �. e� Salem ® Redevelopment Authority MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Design Review Board FROM: Kirsten Kinzer, CDBG Planner SUBJECT: CF Tompkins Building final construction drawings DATE: September 21, 2007 Enclosed are the final construction drawings for the CF Tompkins Building redevelopment. A condition of the SRA approval is that the DRB review and approve these construction drawings. For your reference, I have attached the SRA decision on this project. Please feel free to contact me at (978) 619-5685 or kkinzer(@..salem.com should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter. .I Salem ® Redevelopment Authority SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DECISION July 11, 2007 CF Tompkins (275-281 Essex Street) —Review of Final Design Plans SRA DECISION: At their meeting on July 11, 2007, the SRA voted to approve the DRB Recommendation for the 275-281 Essex Street Final Design Plans with the condition that the uses on the first floor shall be retail and/or restaurant,with the exception of the two first floor residential units. RECOMMENDATION: At their meeting on July 10, 2007, the DRB recommended approval of the proposed Final Design Plans with the following conditions: • Final construction drawings shall be reviewed by the DRB. ■ If new brick is required, the selected brick shall be reviewed by the DRB. ■ A horizontal sign band shall be added to the building elevation in the expression of the original design, to better divide the retail and residential portions of the building. • Pending review of the horizontal sign band in the final construction drawings, retail signage shall be located in the sign band. ■ Only approval of the second floor location and vertical orientation of the residential project name signage is recommended. The final design of this signage shall be reviewed by the DRB. ■ The retail entry shall be revised. PROPOSAL: The proposal includes the redevelopment of the budding to include 20 residential units on the second floor and 3 retail units on the ground floor. O O mo i O 2 O 9'-SQ"� ESSEX STREET Existing Existing Conditions for the Door D M S Design E Q U I L I B R I U M C.F. Tomkins Location Architectural Design Services Architectural Design / Interior Design Sosle_NTS Building too Cmnm;nsa Center/Suite 424G 12 Woodland Avenue nate:September z5.voo7 .8t Faeex Street,Salem,MA Beverly,M m915 Beverly, MA 01915 Phone:978-578-5748 Phone: 617-733-5871 ntnwnby. kpm I Fax:866 48-8251 Fax: 978-969-1411 0 I 'l. I x = I I "" s ■a O 0 i I 0' 102" ESSEX STREET Entry Existing Conditions for the DMS Design E Q U I L I B R I U M Door C.F. Tomkins Revisions Architectural Design Services Architectural Design / Interior Design S le:N.T.S Building too Cummings Cenier/Suite 424G 12 Woodland Avenue Data:September�.2oo7 281 Essex Street,Salem,MA Beverly,MA o1q> Beverly, MA 01915 Phone:978-578-5748 Phone: 617-733-5871 Drawn by: kpm Fax:866-648-8251 Fen: Salem Redevelopment Authority MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Design Review Board FROM: Kasten Kinzer, CDBG Planner SUBJECT: CF Tompkins Building final construction drawings DATE: October 18,2007 The CF Tompkins Building roof plan,HVAC screening wall design and revised entry design. The approval of these elements of the design will complete the review of the final construction drawings for the CF Tompkins Building redevelopment. A condition of the SRA approval is that the DRB review and approve the final construction drawings. For your reference, I have attached the SRA decision on this project. Please feel free to contact me at (978) 619-5685 or kkinzerna salemcom should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter. q F 2 C / 1 Me ef r� T \11 O _ � s A R-6.. p Immommoff— Entry Pdstlng Conditions for the Door C.F. Tomkins DMS Design E Q U I L I B R I U M Revisions Building Architectural Design Services Architectural Design/ Interior Design sue:x.rs I ,ae c1�®cm,o/3mec n"o 12 Woodland Avenue saP,t ne: nhor aoq aa,Eaw,34ec1.Sabon.auk Beverly,AfA 0,915 Seven.MA 01915 Ph9m:978-5>fi5Y43 Phone:617J33-5871 manna, qno F.Sao-648-8251 Few:979-969-1411 � omma moral w^n vlm.r mm C I- O O O d Q ES d O O O T .. NEXT 3 YWan am<mmwe NEXT 1 I fO Ili1 E - R New lmlmvq me^a9< n-pr<m enaa le x meumea l0 e,ralma end aomweweal mva _ aavrmmM.rom sryINtomml»aeu GO O O acmMmce wen maMarm9mele II I NEW RETAIL. SIGNAGEI II I 28I I I NEW RETAILSIGNAGH II II Neweq^eye lvm.seeemmr E S S E X Au w^ele amvnw Io ma1Gl wa ,e, Relau evw8%on Newm e1pNrOnl mn4pYrall.—t-m emnry weh le re mmldelM II O / O mll:ervlmlc mmonry zcenfitaW mxh up I Exlm4 NMI W., � NEXT: Remove ew"MGlnflll erOYMlyally 0wr New abrelrnleyYnn Eaerror slpnaee Mve az entry amne Ee Iu4 plazlnp al^4 NevaAme pExit Ilew sprewm doer...11ely weeeme door wwl rml New1.o I emperw 9laea INmlae wm<narware wi leer type naMlm of Nev. PROPOSED ELEVATION / ESSEX STREET Ent` F for Doorr C.F. Tomkins DMS Design E Q U I L I B R I U M �]Revisions Building Architectural Design Services Architectural Design/ Interior Design i 9ale:N.T.B mu commmse Can"/svifeav G 12 Woodland Avenue Unto:9eptembar .coop SBtl r.+^x SMIA.sm.m.MA Bevcrly,MAo1915 Beverly.MA 01915 Phone:q/9-6p8,,8 POone:617-733-5871 nmw^ey: hpm Pu:866-6g8-8¢5r Fax:918-969-3011 Page 1 of l s73 - S'tYp. 7.5" 5.5"x 95.75' S.5' II II 'I III 1.75'X 3.5"Y.95.75' 35' 5£.V !9 ]B S' 95]5" — 75• Aluminum Channel httn-//us.stl 1.vimg.com/us.st.vimp.com/l/usavinvl 1971 26670296 10/18/2007 Heavy Duty Aluminum Posts Inserts. A must for longe ' of your gates! -Vinyl Fencing... Page I of 1 SEARCH I 90 USAVinylFenceCompany MADE IN AMERICA CALL TOLL FREE 1-888-743-3673 seers s:na•am�!`,`L..•.w es�vs w•u••raur any er,.n•.r,r�' '+�.r Our Products Home>Posts>Aluminum Gate Post Inserts Horse Fence Heavy Duty Aluminum Posts Inserts.A must for longevity of i Privacy Vinyl Fence yr it gates! GUARANTEED LOWEST PRICESI Semi Privacy Vinyl Fence FREE IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT WITH EVERY ORDERI Pool Vinyl Fence e, '' Aluminum Gate Post Inserts Vinyl Picket Fence Saves Time and is Stronger-Recommended for Gate Posts 4"x 4"and 5" Vinyl Railing x 5"-we will ship the right size depending on your order. Post Caps • No Mess of Filling Gate Posts with Cement and Rebar Arbors,Trellises,Pergolas, • Gate Hardware Screws Into Aluminum for a Secure Fit Mailbox Posts • Designed for Rails to Slide Into Blank,End&Une Posts. • Highly Recommended for hinge side of gates(and also great for Accessories latch side!) Store Information IMPORTANT LINKS • We will give you the proper size with your order(up to 9'tall) Installation Center •View Schematics Code:ALB Warranty •How to buy and estimate cost Regular price:$49.00 Testimonials •Guarantees Colors Ordering Information •Photo Gallery Enter Quantity: Fl- How to buy and estimate FenOnn exper's are standing by! cost Call toll free: rC Price Guarantee Return Policy and Terms Shipping Information 2%Check Discount! Aluminum Gate Post Inserts SUPERIOR CUSTOMER SERVICE FROM i'ENCING PROFESSIONALS FREE SO 1*4- Privacy Policy I Contact Us I Site Map , .v, RYOn4wr 'yZXj00L 1av swvwc Copyright Cc,2005 USA Vinyl,LLC. PP.OGRr" SNOPV/mair Questions>Call- I-868-743-3673 httn://www.usavinvi.com/aliianoin.htnil 10/18/2007 Huntington - 5' High x 8' Wide- Vinyl Fencing - Horse Fence & Privacy Fence - USA Vi... Page 1 of 2 .I I SEARCH I so LW USAVinylFenceCompany ElMADE IN AMERICA CALL TOLL FREE 1-888-743-3673 FEATURED ON HOME ABOUTUS HOW TO BUY FAQ CONTACT US > SHOPPING CART F( Our Products Home > Semi Privacy Vinyl Fence > The Huntington Vinyl Fence > Huntington -S High x 8'Wide Horse Fence Huntington-5'High x 8'Wide i GUARANTEED LOWEST PRICES! Privacy Vinyl Fence Semi Privacy Vinyl Fence FREE IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT WITH EVERYORDERI Pool Vinyl Fence Huntington-5'High z 8'Wide r Vinyl Picket Fence This semi-privacy fence features a 3"picket spaced.6"apart.Both top, j mid,and bottom rails are"notched"so when you insert them In the posts Vinyl Railing they will not come out!The bottom rail also has a aluminum"I"channel for Post Caps extra strength.Install 97.5"on center with 5"x 5"posts. Arbors,Trellises,Pergolas IMPORTANTLINKS Code:SPHUN58 Mailbox Posts Accessories •View Schematics Regular price:$139.00 Store Information •How to buy and estimate Cost Sale price:$110.00 Installation Center .Guarantees Color:7Whte Warranty •Photo Gallery Testimonials Enter Quantity: F Colors Fenono experts are Standing by! Ordering Information 1_6afH_l�J-N�1 1 How to buy and estimate cost Huntington Gates Our Vinyl Gate Kits include the best gate hardware available—manufactured by D&D Price Guarantee i Technologies.The hardware is black polyvinyl and has a limited lifetime warranty!No Return Policy and Terms rust,binding,deforming or staining!The hinges are"multFadjustable"for vertical and horizontal adjustment—plus tension adjustment for self-dosing.The latches are Shipping Information key lockable!The Double Drive Gates also Include a key lockable drop rod.If you want your own custom gate size-you can reduce the size on site! 2%Check Discount! JEWEL SUPERIOR CUSTOMER F— 46"Walk Gate $305.00 Color: White -:1 Qty:F SERVICE FROM r 60"Walk Gate $310.00 Color:fwhlte Qry:I° FENCING PROFESSIONALS r 2-46"Double Gates $620.00 Color: White Qty: 0 F- 2-60"Double Gates $625.00 Color:I White Qty:F0 FREE 01 1 . ' Huntington Posts S"x 5"x 8 Pods-Each post Is 8'tall and routed to your sped0cation.Please choose the type of routed post you would like-(Line,End,Comer or Blank).All you need to do is add the post cap-choose the style from the Post Caps Section. r Line Post $18.50 Color.Fftite - Qty:I�° F End_Post $18.50 Color: White — Qty:IV r Comer Post $18.50 Color:FWhite - Qty:10 Blank Post $18.50 Color: Whli - Qty:F httn://www.usavinvl.com/hu5hix8wi.html 10/18/2007 ADJACENT LOT a ' ,• .• III � kx_�i . , �, x < , . Wan Existing roof rt Drains * rl u II � I M � 1 L New HVAC Equipmdnt ! a g ' w .for'residential units . Existing HVAC Equip. Accesshartch a on raised 'platform (Verizori) • ' • � • • • • • • ., • • • '_J, /rani � h �` , Line'of existing : Penthouse cornice 9M..xr%.9f • . . New Virlyl privacy fencing 5' x 8' panels mounted to roof w/ reinforced 5"xF posts t .1110 J CROMBIE STREET A ..A �.ur10J$ $�7CRLY, w O �J� �AF4t rif Q¢yA'SS@ ADJACENT LOT N O •1rr"^^I O V! E Q Mechanical Jiaft above _ Mechanical Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit P M VERIZON CELLULAR existing mechanical pit �'-lo s/e" O L co � .dJ Water meters Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Mechanical V) Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit a) °' H > LnL � 0I Line of stair shaft above -0 o m U �6Qnrn O O 0= O o p L a)M V > O X EXISTING CMU WALL EXISTING CMU WALL I L tV N t ro TO REMAIN TO REMAIN W Q r-1 CO a LL I Y v) V J L11 W ON X A u'i W -TT C) ;fl / Up `n T Up T � Y r r y 14 n N U N O O O 6'-2 3/9" 4'-O" 6" () in IS'-3 D/9" O 0 �co O ' I P,c rl U co �9 ,� m Mechanical/ .. co a w Electrical 0 ® ® Elevator Machine room —<1 0 —© Verizon shaft 0 I 1 I I I i i I 4-j n O a� N N ,y N a V1 C) A CROMBIE STREET SF,P� B I I y y P£0 ARC. N .2=3 RLY, ADJACENT LOT '�'�►»��pSS'`a,5 9 ,/8 2'-G' .n. ,/8" e'-� 3/4' 9 ,/e• 4 ,/e" O .�o �� ro A 2'-9 I/8' � 5'-5 5/8' v Me anical Shaft I � 9'-8 5/8' �• c O T i r ^ R1 O v N T a�S Y u W I ^ Q ,� L 1679 SF 3' W O L T Commercial / Retail o 4-) T ;r 919 SF I� C 1 bed / 2 bath 0) work/live .J 0 I ( c n I> F q P TQ Q Q Q -_ o m Q V roQ n`D I mailboxes P P -6 2: �T CY T � 0 _ U O ` O� —� m V m > O X L. N (Lr p 00 P I a n\ j W Q . mac I•Tl • • 1 I /c11 OP ,'-, I/2" v (2'-0" II'-3 I/4" -O' m 31'-b 5/8' f T r^ I P t — `One way '?C � O `o O /y Egress gate 3_b• 6^ r w ^ 001 00 ON U 13 _jCI I m . i Down ' > UP •'� � r b'-II 5/8" 9'-9 3/9' -3 1/9" r9 ,/8" 9 l/8" v �� N 740 SF 2 bed / 1 bath o Q X J Q Q •, Q-- —� m Q y co c }J U ��op 6! �r ra O t 00 qoo .. 1131 SF 824 SIF Commercial / Retail Commercial / Retail 13'-I 3/9" l T Q) 0 O �i Verizon shaft .►--I N 0 0 N .R Cl CROMBIE STREET o wwaV) QA Al 1 ayae nHow. NO 20038 OVERLY, ADJACENT LOT �°;ep� jrN��yp�' � o 4 l/8 2'-6' ,� 8'-2 3/4' � 1 . 3'-2 3/4" � 3'-O" •� p � 2'-9 I/B" � 5'-5 5/e" •'' m W p p a 10 arC,o arC4o _ m 0 I O TN WITH WINDOW MUNTIN /8iW ' U'- ^� I• CVA M 2-3' 3/4" 9'-, 1/8'/M 1, ( 11'-II I/9' r' J Se• ? 1 �� Q 0 3y pl '--- �- _ _ P 1222 SF o 3/, 2 bed / 2 bath P " i _ " 4 3/1' work/live - 1 _O„ CI 1/8" 919 SF I�'I 1 bed / 2 bath -- a work/live Ln > iLn� T p 9 1/e" �9 l/8" iv _9 l/8" 9� V tO Q ^a, 4 l/8= 3'-6 3/8" I i 12'-9 1/8" 1 3'-G-G�� 6'-6 1/2" P (/fir O �D W P I O C I in N , 3/9' 18'-I' ,_• / _J 3/4' c \ I r m 00 r W Q .N-1 m a I- m' \ I I-3 40 (Dr 1'-1 1/2- i ( 2lO� r1 , II'-3 1/2" m T P I Ito IrH" � { I " V /� V J ,n P ---�� I �4 l/B' 4 1/8" 1�1 Y.' ( - --9 I/2„ m �Jm m 5'-1 3/4" ( 9'-0. �.2'-3 1/2°, _ G'-2 I/8" _ _ - I 3 5/1 1'-2 1/'2' 1 5�/(E' / o/\) _� N \ FE]� I O O _° --- (� O O _ 1 iv LO I 5,_0. 9 / I ui LIGN WITH WIN - �-� Co T (� . J n �^^ MUNTIN P -• I�I-----�Ir -- \` m �_ O 00 Down - Q� VJ 0 Up 3/9D0Jr-V 5 3/8' r'-2 1/8" P O \— r m d 9'-3 I/2" I r•��^ ��^ to \ I_1• � r`—� P �d m • I/I . . - M — -� O r . � ❑ o I �`� I ,9 l/8" 1 l/8' 4 l/8• P • C7 M �I• y P \ fO �-^,1 9 ,/8"-� P P 4'-1 3M". � 3'-2 1/8" .( 3'-3 1/4' ( V] 'T N _ ro : 740 SF y }{°) m �— r P r 2 bed / 1 bath Q 9-11 5/8. c^I " P I c ' to to m U Lo c co 00 K1 O 3; bq Ifj W O �, o (^ 2'-3 1/2" MI •� \\ OOO 3m %7\h ��0 S\ ua y�� Ix ry 4 1/8"_1 I iP /B S, m m ram- V C' G�7 q0k 4'-II 3/9" / ^I \y`'ry `'y 0 O• " `//S A• a I L'-1 ,/8" / r T \ O 1E --ALIGN WITH WI nl y O P ^ '" m Q'k" HUNT 0 , W �-. i ' o V -01 AZ9• a * X. ary P 790SF � — nle " 1 bed / 1 bath b /1 / a ° work/live —� T 1 t r-o 9'-2 1/2*1'-3 1/8 -� -- 997 SF C) 916 SF : —a 2 bed / e bath ( u 0 2 bed / 2 bath ��t work/live o r--� o —a to s/B� Verizon shaft P }I m m P O OD cq 18'-2 1/2" ( 13'-2 5/B" ( , IU'-3 I/1" 10'-10 1/2• �0 5'-1 5/8• 2'-0' I 12'-10 1/8' I 9'-9 I/9" \-ALIGN WITH WINDOW ALIGN WITH WINDOW MUNTIN MUNTIN p N CROMBIE STREET 'P-4 ° v v � ' A102 - A1 .04 "1 ," +�4d VE0 Aric u No. 0038 BEb RLY. o� i--1 0 .N 'S � G I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIH I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Existing cornice to be painted to match window color. r 9 PP � L All existing windows to be replaced per window schedule. See sheet O AX.XX.All Windows to be thermally broken aluminum double hung units with 1#2,, screens. Color to be manufacturer standard green.All U associated blocking, exposed panels and trim to match window color rj and material. - a + O n O v I © II I O G O J C C Repoint existing brick as required.All repointing work to be completedCn in accordance with historic masonry specification and approved brick ar Imock-up. c Nmc0 > rnui -i fu Q Fourth Floot - I - - \- - - - - - - ZD :3 0 0 M Existing metal panel trim at center bay to be painted to match window a O A I color. V w c .. Q ,-I -imaa %Fad n EI E1 r UDCID Exterior up/dn accent fixture y s I #EXT 3 I� 4 L E UJ Beam apreaa apreao I New building signage. 1 V prefinished F—I N E Aluminum at IAttex n C mounted to existing quoins at E;.ex and Crombie Street elevations. 00 Final name to be determined. Font style to be q determined in accordance with marketing rn O © materials. +-r 0 rb + U p 0 rn o0 ® O ® O O O � ..00 n U v � c00 SpCWH Flnnir 16 + 4 ! 4 I I I New signage band. See details at sheet AX.XX. I NEW RETAIL SIGNAGE� I NEW RETAIL SIGNAGE All panels and trims to match window color. Revised Retail elevation. New masonry and C ® N storefront configuration as shown.All new +j • rl V) + V masonry work to be completed in accordance y with historic masonry specification and approved mock-up. .� ss rrl V) > �ry • r7 Exterior entry fixture O 'Fj n Exterior signage fixture #EXT 2 #EXT 1 ci ou New Storefront door assembly.Wide stile door panel. Full view I insulated/tempered glass. Provide panic hardware w/lever type O n handles at exterior. O A n PROPOSED ELEVATION / ESSEX STREET a W W Q Q ® 1 a J 1ytkEO 9r o+ \� M. � Na. C38 R1Y, p41 rH ofU S'c. All existing windows to be removed in their entirety.All masonry (fi openings to be restructured/ repointed as required to accommodate new window units. ?-t C) l� 'S C --�H 1 4th I I I II I I I II II I JII II II II II I i Floor Ceiling ,Q I_ J L IL J J I_ IL IL c - - I� - - - ILJet_- J L --I� - J I Ld-1_I C D -20O _ _ � Q Fourth Flnnr J - _ — — —� I I _ _ I ID o6 �_+ p T .. n � v C� 3rd Floor Ceiling _ _ — — _ _ _ _ u > o X IF� �r-- ]I IF— I �� —�I Q .� m a rk L — JI L — JI L — -ill L� J I I L— JI L — J L — L — J T- � � I I � � �� = --7r = T = � IL = JJ] IL Jul— = JJl= J] �L JI LL — ��IL= J� n v� Third Pinny ( _ _ I — I _ _I I — — I bZ — • per; C/1 2nd Floor Ceiling — _ _ — _ _ III -9 IF-- 11 Fr-- -� Imo ,-1 �� - - �� I�� rl--: I- rr--i� _ -� 00 U N u WD Ono Co era 00 ° yaw I— -JUL- = - JAL � I_ JAL- _ = J4LL �� i �� JL-LL = _ jj LL Second Elonr 1st Floor Ceiling — • r—t Lon E-1 t� rj::� W s • P=4 / i ,a�/i � \J• I IM�1 i a r.4 ® Tir'1 N All existing masonry veneer, storefront assemblies, associated ® 4 a flashings, trims and support angles (for storefront only)to be removed in their entirety in shaded area. y� y Q Q EXISTING / DEMO ELEVATION / ESSEX STREET FACADE A,2 . l b LAWlYIllf' d New building signage. 11" prefinished Aluminum letters to be mounted to existing quoins at Essex and Crombie Street elevations. tg Eo AQ �S y��M SK�<s �. Finalname to be determined. Font style to be K determined in accordance with marketing � Na•2 3d � materials, �S 5 'Ft rN f11k3 Existing cornice to be painted to match window color. 54` Repoint existing brick as required.All repointing work to be completed in accordance with historic masonry specification and approved brick mock-up. All existing windows to be replaced per window schedule. See sheet i--i AX. X.All Windows to be thermally broken aluminum double hung oN units with ixs; screens. Color to be manufacturer standard green.All ! O 0 associated blocking, exposed panels and trim to match window color and material. Exterior up/dn accent fixture o #EXT 3 Y I i i I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I i I i i I i I I I I i 071 CD L [ILI UU UUI UU I UU L L 1 II 1 H11 [ILI O O O ® O O a 0 , ► _� , h 1 I I O o � � > > , � •� _ II I O I I I I -- I I IJII Fourth Floor - L -0 Q0 m .�-i no roQnrn r r ,aj p ko 00 v 'U � N c� - _ W Q � DC CV de .. II I I II S a UL] It LILI uu !I p LU U ILI DD � { O O I I O O O O, O O T - I I O I I O_a � III _ I � r - I Third Fin _ r+rV N P oeam N Spread R LIL11 - LPv OG OF I O I I 1 I - 11�, IIUUUU I CUU nII I � N Mq .°+ �0 o� .. r C ► r � r � r � R ► ► � r i U 00 Second Flnnr t I I C co a r — a� J _ j NEW RETAIL SIGNAGE II II \ NEW RETAIL SIGNAGE II _ I I ✓' . I ' ' ' , ' 1 '1 AQ C v V it i NEW p O r_r } SRETAIL i IGNAGE EEEE l a Ll 0000 c� I ~ rye • i j ti/ i / r' XN ao 0 0 Exterior entry fixture •H _ N #EXT 2 V� r� o N Exterior signage fixture New exterior wood door. (� u #EXT 1 Exterior entry fixture #EXT 2 o New signage band. See details at sheet AX.XX. � A All panels and trims to match window color. New Storefront door assembly.Wide stile door panel. Full view insulated/tempered glass. Provide panic hardware w/lever type Existing door to remain. Strip/repair and paint to match all new h+i W handles at exterior. windows and trim. 0 A Q Revised Retail elevation. New masonry and PROPOSED ELEVATION / C R O M B I E STREET storefront configuration as shown.All new masonry work to be completed in accordance with historic masonry specification and ' approved mock-up. C4 Az ., 2a tER£D ARC No. 0038 a RLY, ' P� 4rip 0�n AS'fie. All existing windows to be removed in their entirety. All masonry All openings in shaded areas to be reconfigured to coordinate with r�i o openings to be restructured/repointed as required to accommodate revised elevations. See sheet AX.XX for new locations.All new i--� LO new window units. masonry openings to match existing in size and arch configuration. Q Coordinate all new masonry openings with new windows per w window •r-i o schedule. Re-use as practicable all existing window sills in reconfigured openings. New lintels to be sized by structural engineer. A �_1J1LLI I I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I I 111 I I I I I I I I I I I i l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ......_,,,,_._. ._ . ... „_ ._..— .._ _. .., - —._. ._. _ ....._... ..,. . . o r L L ter- rr rr �r �� Tr �r �' rr �r- rr F rr _ r- �� rr 7F 1 rr m \ IL 1J � LILJI LILJ ILILJI' - �r- 1 ► IF 1 A- A LILJ LILJ LILJJ L L L— �L — L L � � � T � � � � � -� r r = --�� r --� r =-r� r ----r r ��l � L` .� �-� � � L� .� �J � � aT r --r � � J .� II LL_ J - IL� JJI LL— J LL_ JJ LL_ JJ LL— LL— JJ �--t C Ps P u� 4 IL - J IL- -JIB - J �L-� �� 1 I i I �1 A I 1 I 1 > u,. � � onCY rr p T ..N U � v 0 X I„u Q ,N-i m a ��JJJIII I I I I rr ter- rr �r- �� / r �r- r �� r ter- r �r- r �� r �r- IL J L IL J �„ �,�; / - rL IL 1 r �� r L IL J IL 1L J L ILL J{ 1 L` I` J L` IL -J_J I� L_ — _j �L=— LL _ �, �I= _ �1 L_ J L— J // p L_ J ' L__ J L__ J J ^ r I� 11 R L J L J ) / hL J � L J 1 � L Jq hL J U in 00 1 1 t .. / / 1 1 1 1 I � •� Third Floor — _ — — I = _ _ � — — — — — F ter— _� �r— �� rr 7r— --i rr -IF � rr -I� � rr it �� rr —�r �' � � co II II I I III II I LILJ LILJ � / IL r= i� il � i� i LILJ LILJ LILJ von010 /� r �- rl �L� .� �J ► L` .� J r :� r =� -- -ri: ro L- J - L_ J / I- J L-_ JJ LL- JJ co LL- JJ q00 II I I I I I I I I I r L J11IL J � / � L JL) L 1 f I I 00 4" � ,JAL_ —J_LL J 11 JAL® = = _ILL — r � Second Floor bjo r - 7 rr ter- rr L IL J L IL JI' E� �I 0 I I Li • ,� JJI JL= � JL_ JJ I Remove existing door and frame. Remove existing door and frame. O •� r�-� -� N All existing masonry veneer, storefront assemblies, associated flashings, trims and support angles(for storefront only)to be T removed in their entirety in shaded area. Remove all existing light fixtures and miscellaneous electrical devices. Remove all existing light fixtures and miscellaneous electrical devices. ® d '40��.W r t� sf EXISTING/ DEMO ELEVATION / CROMBIE STREET FACADE A202b 1 ® RE, 1! � � i S,�gF7ci7 APO �a , No. 003p } v RLY, 1 i4, C is fklN Or this Y4 Existing cornice to be painted to match window color. Repoint existing brick as required.All repointing work to be completed in accordance with historic masonry specification and approved brick mock-up. o w All existing windows to be replaced per window schedule. See sheet •0 0 AX.XX.All Windows to be thermally broken aluminum double hung >, units with rxs; screens. Color to be manufacturer standard green.All associated blocking, exposed panels and trim to match window color and material. Y z L III 11 � 11 1 �� II � i 1 ! 1 1 1 LILI LILI _ > Ln 00 � -00m ~ - Co . rn U t° a ^lo T Fourth Floor _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �00 p ..n c WcA N C .. fXU W Q N v t ,--1 m a u_ _ IPP - I HJ LIL I H I 1 I + O I l O 1 O I ' O I I O I I O I I I I O Cn Third-E''oor — • o Vl Cr N Y LILI 11 1 . 1 II 1 nn 1 11 1 �1 1 NNU� �� U p01000 OR co I r I I I I I I r o � � � a� aw Second Eloor • f..i OO n. N q 4 r - C [S� + O O O _ � _ O O O O � •• f�1/�1 � N o s N ® 4 O N aw � AQ PROPOSED ELEVATION / SIDE ALLEY . A2 . 3a ( 5 Are rF�f All existing windows to be removed in their entirety. All masonry openings to be restructured/repointed as required to accommodate new window units. 0 0 N •r—I o 01 4th Floor Ceiling H Q) 0 Ir - r` -7 Tr ter- �r �� r- �� I F ��' �r _ r- rr 7Ir- �� m L IL L JLJ1 L JLJ L IL J' L IL J L JLJ L IL '—' —r r —r , IFr r Ir - rl T rl r —r( II� it r I L� J La J J L, J L— L� L I L J L J L JI L J L J I li L J I Nu1 W .-I Remove existing door a id frame. L o M n� Fourth Flog _ _ — — — — — — o t°w 0T ..n U �Ce > ox .c r0 � W Co Q � aa r �r Ir -lf` Fr _ I rr f- Tf -lr fr 1f�� LIL J IL IL J IL JLJ L JLJ LJ 'IL IL J 'IL IL J 1 Remove existing fire escape. Patch and repoint as necessary all � r r :r I r :r� 2 / :r Ir I 1 : 1 I attachment points affected by removal. l� n � L_ J I 1 LL_ JJ L� J_1 ,I I I L J J� 1 rL / JI+ rIL J � •U Th/jr i_FJoor Remove existing door and frame. • 4) � N V All openings in shaded areas to be reconfigured coordinate with A _ revised elevations. See sheet AX.XX for new locations. ions.All new Z r �(— masonry openings to match existing in size and arch configuration. r �f r 7F r 7F r �� r �� r �r Coordinate all new masonry openings with new windows per w window /� 0 schedule. Re-use as practicable all existing window sills in �/ ,� a , L IL J L IL L IL L IL L IL / L J J L IL JI reconfigured openings. New lintels to be sized by structural engineer. r/ S U N L—. J L� J L_ J 1 L— J 1 p L— J —1 L— J00 L L J r L J 1 rIL 21 hIL J� �� -/ JI,+ L J � ^ U V O F omaW ---Second Floor — • l�l Vi 00 /� •ri 0 O O rt • N ti � App w A Q A2 . 3b EXISTING / DEMO ELEVATION / SIDE ALLEY FACADE 1 =t v jµEo,4RChi . No. b3s rLY. a` A ~f�iFN DI YASS}''�.o 5/8" GWB (EACH SIDE, 5/8" TYPE-X GWB (EACH SIDE) 5/8" TYPE-X GWB (EACH SIDE) 3 5/8" 25 GA. METAL STUDS 3 5/8" 25 GA. METAL STUDS 3 5/8" 25 GA. METAL STUDS AT 16" O.C. AT 16" O.C. AT 16" O.C. O .r..l zo m GLASS FIBER OR MINERAL WOOL GLASS FIBER OR MINERAL WOOL INSULATION BEARING THE UL INSULATION BEARING THE UL CLASSIFICATION MARKING FOR CLASSIFICATION MARKING FOR C AS TO SURFACE BURNING AS TO SURFACE BURNING 01 CHARACTERISTICS AND/OR CHARACTERISTICS AND/OR '7 FIRE RESISTANCE FIRE RESISTANCE L 1 NON RATED NON—BEARING METAL STUD WALL 2 1/2 HOUR (RATED) NON—BEARING METAL STUD WALL (ULU U4119) I HOUR (RATED) NON—BEARING METAL STUD WALL (ULU U919) 3 L C SCALE: 1 1/2" = I' —O" SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1' -0" SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1' -0" c H d 00 > t oo. �o 0) L Q a�J = n� U 12ar�rn Q) -0E � EXISTING WOOD a_+ 0o >`.°0n FINISH FLOORING _ vai U > c .. EXISTING WOOD L. N L x SUBFLOOR W Q m au EXISTING 2 5/8" TYPE-X GWB 5/8" TYPE-X GWB (2 LAYERS EACH SIDE) (2 LAYERS EACH SIDE) WOOD JOISTSS AT I6" O.C. MIN. Ix3 CROSS BRIDGING OR 3 5/8" 25 GA. METAL STUDS 2x6 WOOD STUDS MIN. 2x10 SOLID BLOCKING AT 16" O.C. AT 16" O.C. 3" GLASS FIBER BLANKETS 2S ii GLASS FIBER OR MINERAL WOOL GLASS FIBER OR MINERAL WOOL ^ INSULATION BEARING THE UL INSULATION BEARING THE UL I-1 CLASSIFICATION MARKING FOR CLASSIFICATION MARKING FOR �. AS TO SURFACE BURNING AS TO SURFACE BURNING N CHARACTERISTICS AND/OR '^ (. d CHARACTERISTICS AND/OR RESILIENT CHANNELS V1 a 00 RESISTANCE RESISTANCE FIRE RESISTNCE g 29" O.C. � q 5/8" TYPE-C GWB IP V N n� a � p 2 HOUR (RATED) NON—BEARING METAL STUD WALL (ULU U919) 2 HOUR (RATED) BEARING WALL (ULU U301) I HOUR FLOOR/CEILING ASSEMBLY (ULU LS16) co > SCALE: 0 1 1/2" = 1' -0" C SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1' -0" SCALE: 1 1/2" = I' —O" o ' " w ww EXISTING WOOD FINISH FLOORING • 1"1 EXISTING WOOD SUBFLOOR EXISTING 2XIO WOOD JOISTS AT 16" O.C. O EXISTING ROOFING SHEATHINGOOD �•�/ K EXISTING 2x10 O � WOOD JOISTS AT 16" O.C. Z MIN. Ix3 CROSS BRIDGING OR v w MIN. 2xIO SOLID BLOCKING 3" GLASS FIBER BLANKETS — —} RESILIENT CHANNELS � SOLID 2x FIREBLOCKING 9 29 O.C. SEALANT c. 5/8" TYPE-C GWB o n I TUBE EXISTING STEELEXISTING WOOD BEAMS TO REMAIN EXPOSED IF BEAM IS �r n a M 7 LARGER THAN 6" WIDE NOMINAL .,� =N V, AND 10" NOMINAL IN DEPTH. E'o THIN-FILM INTUMESCENT 4_j C pp MASTIC COATING. MIN. C) a c 3 THICKNESS= .120 IN. DFT EXISTING WOOD COLUMNS TO ^ Q Q ALBI CLAD TF OR EQUAL / REMAIN EXPOSED IF 8" DIAMETER F+1 Q I STRICTLY FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S Lam/ NOMINAL. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COLUMN PREPARATION. VERIFY FINAL EXISTING STEEL COLUMNS SHALL a THICKNESS OF THE COATING REQUIRED RECEIVE INTUMESCENT FIREPROOFING. RESILIENT CHANNELS TO ACHIEVE THE BUILDING CODE �a 29" O.C. REQUIRED RATING WITH THE MANUFACTURER. 5/8" TYPE-C GWB CI HOUR ROOF/CEILING ASSEMBLY (ULU L516 similar) 1 HOUR (RATED) STEEL COLUMN (ULU X628) 1 HOUR BEAM PROTECTION SRA A3 . 1 SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1' -0" I/ SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1' -0" 8 SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1' -0" i I - ADJACENT LOT 9 1 1 O _ o A '`.._.r l .r .w •:. :...:W.-,,. .._ ..•_.v_J ..,.LI . IIL ....,i.l_...o.._ .1... - .._.,. �0...... .s.. - - - ._.. -- • ' �� - = 1 or p1, 1222 SF 2 bed / 2 bath , work/live �` - �' , _ �` 919 Sr I bed / 2 bath •q work/live ❑_ I -. 00 00 Oo I i 00 t7l 00 "a y --- — +R1 00 0 o I I FFI HI I 00 —00 Down J = - ��/ _� . : . .•.. .... _ _ ` � 740 SF/\ = _ 2 1 bath Gb- `,� ° , _ alp / ° ' ✓� - 790 SF - I 1 bed / 1 bath = •!®; work/live = r 997 SF - 2 bed /-2 bath 0 • 916 SF = = - work/1 ;e --� °' - 2 bed / 2 bath = _ _ - � • I = = Verizon shaft �+ 1 IT New Window Adjusted Window i i `•rp O CROM131 SrI,I: ET I � a �-�s - � f�•� . V �-, v� II cc3/7 �5 ort P 7[YY15'��4fXA��IC `--CJIe-POD lry�(� c.%ocf" 'l1�br SPI 6'q\ UY �c�l lc4 1c2�i�71t7Y.� 1 �I I f159 — �°,, D.I. _-•._ E��( 9 `' Vr A O Un �aY pTNERS�- � r1 ` - n O 1 ^ 1 v . 1 1 1 ► I` / � e ly I 4 I^ , z 4v J 2 I O 1� 1 1 Iq ly ly. ( L ly (j„ © O 0 -� m fD rD J O 5-0 5-D � I N P •• a1 h V tkttl V�j P 42 to `5_0 If -w C•--1 �'> I yam, al I^ -� RE3louA� I II ►:�l 1� I 3 1 aj — I 00 r d — — — — N 1 CoNT(ZDt,_�!A_►`NE ��Tf MtA0 !iQ ITCH al � � o0 AI N I \ )I 5 9 8 O — Cor'1Q�NHT_lo�t cZLstrt?,- u_P t' 1 1 ty I IH 1j LED \e CO I� 11-0 l L-9 11-oj 1'L-3 L N .L 2 7- I C 1 q 1 . 4 0 � I I t 1➢ p � 0�n UNG J ( ly I ev QL -- KqII- $ 1\ $ 11 S 4 =� ` l TAl1FER S�JI"fG}{ES I �-DQUPjt-t C-11CICK �1 - q 5 1 RTL Ct> Nh7 f� E 5J G N at2��R #_3_-_. , 15 GPM OVA LS00 SQ. FT. d 1 I 2 3 9 OUTGtVIL I l we Ivor I v I 54.1 5 10 13A5MNT l' L N OCGIJ�ANC� - - -- --- - S P A G Z — O 7-011.1 A tip _I1�.�� 7-5 B-9 AS S_ U f R1 G U-5-4 R _-_I 55 ` - - REAR of F12ST V: 16. +- UPPEK F► .UO� - L1f � I0n17"Ai,__ S1OE_I.�A �l. lfD = Q ,R• - 155 ' y^ Y- _QENTIAL. - I-tGNT FfA ZflRD — - — - _ N _F .P.q - NO . A5 F - 1 3� T RaTY SA6.CtA FIRE DEFT:- -- --- y Mu P RI NiS4�f, KEn Lo _�aE V �GTA_U_Uc -�D�1E 2�oq' L---oRl �lc'E , c�U1GKR�S�oyS�.� K= S•c� , I55 t---��S-�oT�AI` Nn�RAty RE�� _fSTA'CE . R A SHOF• SURVEYED S •rj- J03 No. i STEVENE. DRAWN S-S. S' 8 •0'1 s LTLE RREPROTECi1Mi APPROVED -�.. y-7 No.39102 SPRINKLER DEGREE 160 212 .286 365 SCALE 1/4 " = 1 -0 NO.SPRINKLERS 7(o SHEET- < 1 >jF 3 COMMONWEALTH 1L X201 111. BOX RD, WA_6885, ! SPRINKLER-CO. 3 P.O BOX FO �I i t ' _ 5141)FT ll 114 1 1 12 0 - 12 0 l 12 a 9 4 2 1O - c 8 -z 11 0 I -'L A-2 it -1 o Z) o0 C�- }1 MAN 1 A.5 1 C l 1" 14-0 l-o 30 t)I P. DN. • � W 6 MEN -�� _ � Zo UE�CD 14TR01r- sTi$IN0 4 4" G-VmJ n Vim to ixMir 1L ' 1'� 1=. tq \ Iq Iw 14 I i Isa 1. 1 C 15- 0 1i.-0 11 ° lo_o i 1 .2 Iz.-a to 8 �� q•o 11-8 11-0 4 9 m?4t �IJ1 _ RpOr< i L.° Q — ---- �' a — Q .. - ---- {3 - DE�_�AREA—,1 _ - O -�� 01E _1500 SQ . VT. IEZ'A�� _SPAGe '� ID 1 t�l 1� 1�. i � 6 $•Il � L-i �` S-i 12 1 I I + Q � TAIL S PgCE �. �< A 2 O O O 2.,OP 4 2 t R _11OaWit_. S- SIDEWALl. ` ROI. -ORAN REAL: ISATE TOt�4C1N5 - i3UiLD. - -IRE XL OF SURVEYED S. S. JOB no- STEVEN E. . . SULESK1 DRAWN - .-- S.S B-H-o7 v 4 - - Paot>c r>N+r� No.39162 APPROVED .. ,. ._ ;-., _ �',- -- SPRINKLER DEGREE 100 212 J 286 361i SCALE 11q� : 1-0 NO.SPRINKLERS 1 -7-3 � 1 � SHEET 2. o 1< 'S 1ec _ COMMONWEALTH -:. SPRINKLER CO. cow 14 ' 130)4 201 W. BOXFOR0, MA. 01885 ■. menm•m : CCo. ! - T O slaw- CID I I r4 1'd 1� 11 Oii le i� 1a � lti iy 1 1 I I l 11 3 '1 10 - o - tLc� 1`A� hDR`( tZDoM 1_-i-VlvlC, KOO.M _ N `v \xEAT6M1 ' �1 N • 12-0 1'Z-o J 7.g � \-'J 11.3 i T 0 Ii •e- - _ _,..,0- n ^, + � 2,�_•L _ � 12-u © ( . V' _ — 1- 0 Q -Q O Q L O - 0 � _ � .9� � � q-�o °� _0 -- -- O pc . � DN 6f D �ooi'\ [CNE1V 21-b i �Z�SS.I�EN bS�T� o 5 .14 coo: iI coo . v l - -- - � (v la 14 I 1;1 .$•" S-IANDPIPE � O '�i OP1� CaNTRo� _ TATIC)� S , T e -11 � 1 e L A 7 l 7 10 6 —� 5. 1= D V 0 1 l Cho , 1 Iq — 1Z >pF I J 1a 4 L� 5 >3 0 9 - �C 11 ! --- © $ 1u 5"4 f5� — z G D -R75Di'1 � - _ �•9ZC - - J -- - S. 114 6- 9 � -O zo- \_1 1�i3TN va a c 0�,0 - -c i1 p (' �+ t; 12 2 11-4 A -9 , q- 10 9 1\ 4 +-g q.1• ThL A 0. T�fI'_� cA1.. FJ-.DOR -��AN _ �^'fl T��+ 9-YK .::-�:t •. So BRa5 _U LG-H-- -HEAD5---_Q, k -- 15S '_ HoR3oN L--S t-DE A�l„_ BADS -Q R_- 155 SRA STEVENE SURVEVEI'1 S,S. JOEirO. SUL6.SKI DRAWN . Cj.Cj. $-8•U7 RRE PROTECTION No.39162 APPROVED SPRINKLER DEGREE ! 10D 2121 2861 366 SCEET 1JO-1 "eF 3 O NO.SPRINKLERS 2-4(e to ; COMMONWEALTH cow SPRINKLER CO. P. 0. sox 201 .. W. BOXFORD,MA. 01885 / GENERAL NOTES e E _ p iY k #5 BARS @ 10" EW.(TYP.) 2" (MIN) CLEAR FROM EDGE Mechanical ihaft above existing _ chimney CEM.CONC FOOTING n Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage - -`Storage - -- 3' (SEE DETK.1) Mechanical nit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit nit rut Unit Unit -� 3' _� ` VERIZON CELLULAR 61IX6" #1 HEM-FIR BRACED TO " CHIMNEY @ MID-HEIGHT � a BETWEEN FLRS. existing mechanical pit 2 x6 BEARING WALL Water meters $torage Storage Storage �orage Storage Storage Storage Storage Storage G./ Mechanical k Unit nit nit nit Unit nit Unit nit Unit I z" I � I - - - - -- -- Line of stair shaft above I I - I �- —�- I — I i i I p i i I f3 s I __ I ( -- - - - - - -- - - - - _ - - - - . _ i 8" CMU WALL CENTERED ON _ f ! f I I ( 2' CONTINOUS FOOTINGS 2"x6" BEARING WALL I I ` - - --- ___ I I I 2"x6" BEARING WALL (HEADER OFF OPENINGS AS REQUIRED) I (SEE DETAILS) Up I _.1 I �`~-�- 8 CMU WALL CENTERED ON - i X CONTINOUS FOOTINGS I SEE DETAILS i ( ) I — Up HE DRAWING IS STAMPED FOR NEW STAIR WELL OPENINGS ONLY __.1 o Q ° 00 Mechanical/ Electrical .y ~� a ---- -- Ho Revision/Issue Date --- — JT-�— \ Elevator Machine room - `�Verizon shaft \\S mer\ hmre \TSQUA -LOGO\tsqua Japm7.GIF _. --- - 3 7 S,R)AE 1 GEORGETOWN, MJ3 (978) 352-5020 (978) 352 5023 FAX STRUCTURAL STAIR WELL DETAILS AT 281 ESSEX STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETT S PREPARED FOR: JEFFERY HOLLORAN Project I Drown k Sheet r - 2007 t00 434MMH a a a s " ;; a F a' F may' Date Checked t MMH x r Scale NTS ; Approved MMH i wee {` .. .. .. _ ... ... „ .::. ..µ,.. ...,, ear,. _,.•. I GENERAL N01"ES ADJACENT LOT Meclianical Shaft �`� existing ; ----- --- — c �' chimney 6"X " 1 HEM-FIR BRACED TO C Y @ MID-HEIGHT E FLRS. --- — ---- 0 1679 SF Commercial / Retail 9]9 SF - I bed / 2 bath work/live 01 I I 2"X6" STUD WALL 12" OC ice' Q O STRUCT. S. YELLOW PINE I� F___ One wayd --'—', �_^}_ • - Egress gate00 P �./, __-___ V ° 2"W STUD WALL 12 OC NOTE: SEE DETAILS OF STAIRWELL STRUCTURES o \\/) Down u STRUCT. S. YELLOW PINE - .—.-.-.__ P � -- --- �� -_ THE DRAWING IS STAMPED FOR NEW STAIR WELL OPENINGS ONLY 740 SF �+ —NOTE: SEE DETAILS OF STAIRWELL STRUCTURE ( a 2 bed / 1 bath --- - - f Q---- / / A r LEZ: E r C 3 F r o me t j _. m cta / R ail s 2 No. Revision/Issue Date --- SISTER 2 X12" JOIST TO EACH EXISTING JOIST - / - ___ \\ retlRNA _ Verizon shaft 37 W. MAIN ST., SUITE 1 GEORGETOWN, MA 01833 (978) 352-5020 (978) 352-5023 FAX STRUCTURAL STAIR WELL DETAILS AT 281 ESSEX STREET CROMBIE STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS PREPARED FOR: JEFFERY HOLLORAN Project 2007-100-1 Drawn Sheet 34 MMH FIRST FLOOR STRUCTURAL .MODIFICATIONS Date CheMM H 8f23/07 2 OF 4 MM Scale NTS ApprovedMMH ,,...., ..,,. /010 GENERAL NOTES ADJACENT LOT 1-1 3/4"X11 7/8" VERSA-LAM 2.0 2800 DF (PRgOVIDE SOLID BLOCKING TO CHIMNEY) - ` ° ° - `u- hir ineY I -- 1 4 — �� 6"X6" #1 HAM-FIR BRACED f0 J N CHIMN� MID-HEIGHT _ D El B EN FLRS. Mco m� > N W ��'. N -- - ^ m f 1222 SF -~� LU \1 n ti W /tea �- 2 bed/ 2 bath 1_.. -.____ J 1 bed - - y 919 work/live L _ � /2 bath X _ _ / _ x work/live M 2-1 ' 4"Xll 7/8" VERSA-LAM 2.0 280 1 DF-', ,i NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL ONLY CUT BEAM AFTER NEW FLOOR ffAo�] STRUCTURES ARE IN PLACE AND PROPERLY BRACED. LEAVE li ENOUGH OFTHE EXISTING BEAM IN PLACE ATTHE COLUMNSTO ( I > PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE COLUMN FROM THE FLOOR ABOVE. � V ✓ _.—.._. � � 1� 1 (� - `�,, � L — _ — — � I{' _I� (SEE DETAIL)00 v j/ \may LT�J 00 , ---- - 00 f- 00 2"X6" STUD WALL 16" OC CT —_ «.. STRUCT. S. YELLOW PINE I �--�a ! I 0 � ( �- - 00 r{/��} i 'ti J 0 00 .. Down _,—, -----' - — ..��VV-Y � UPI _...,.._. W. ......_ Down �" � ---I --NOTE: SEE DETAILS OF ST.U42WELl STRUCTURES C--- I - —'— I ~ --NOTE: SEE DETAILS OF STAIRWELL STRUCTURES THE DRAWNG IS STAMPED FOR NEW STAIR VrLL OPENINGS ONLY !�0 740 SF 1 j 2"X6" STUD WALL 16" OC 2 bed / 1 bath ° STRUCT. S. YELLOW PINE rJ J f, 790 SF d / 1 bed / 1 Uath work/live - w L No, Revision/issue Date F 997 SF 916 SF 2 bed / 2 bath _ 2 bed / 2 bath work/live Verizon shaft \\Server\shared\TSQUARE_LOGO\�GuamlagOV7.GIF i 37 W. MAIN ST., SUITE 1 ' GEORGETOWN MA 01833 - (978) 352-5020 (978) 352-5023 FAX STRUCTURAL STAIR WELL DETAILS AT ESSCSTCROMBIE STREET SAM, MAAHUETS PREPARED FOR: JEFFERY HOLLORAN Project Drawn Sheet 2007-100-134 MH UPPER FLOOR STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION, S Nke Date Checked 8/23/07 AdMH 3 OF 4 Scale . . NT5 .AFPhStAHd -- _ — GENERAL NOTES CONTRACTOR SHALL GROUT WITH SIMFSON ET-22 .,,. VERSA-LAM BEAM ST g p EF'OXY-TIE (OR APPROVED EQUAL) Li Q w \ TRIPLE 2"XG"COLUMN :. y ., .� C'�✓O `\/y /'� (TYPICAL) �::,..•..,. � e +: b A n o " 10"FOUNDATION WALL �� Y �' ' •: ' ` .r Simpson Strong-Tie MBHA 3.56/11.88 o \ O d 8 ALL INTERIOR CEM. CONC. FOOTINGS SHALL y BE 1211 THICK, 4000 PSI,AND LAY UPON F x s`°"°°°`h° R' H 6 1-J 3,2 5 112 ;q":6 UNDISTURBED SOIL HAVING A BEARING " j 1411 CAPACITY OF AT LEAST 2 TONS/ SF. x $?4. ° a>a^F CONTRACTOR SHALL LAG IlVTO EXISTING MASONRY x Sim son Strong Tie � �•n §� ��°�"..4 1 7 / imp son �°:0:'':t7: ' .�• ..; 's Q;.`ti tr,ti WITH 3/4"DIA.x 8"LONG,GRADE A307 OR BEPFER. �: :ob•:9b 4.4C Simpson Strong-Tie NTS (211 MINIMM SIDIMER NTS BEAM & JOIST—MASONRY CONNECTION Sim pson Strong-Tie " PLYWOOD SHEATHING 1 a OUTSIDE STAIR STUD ----__.,•_ ,f a WALLS, ALL FLOORS -- WOOD COLUMN — FOUNDATION CONNECTION DETAIL 2X6 STUD -- —,—_`— NTS B D NTS __ :N r A 13/4"X 11 7/8"VERSA-LAM € NISH FLOORING A= 2" (NUN) s \\\ B=2.9"(MIN INSULATED, FIRE RATED 00 / C= 7-7/9" WALL AS REQUIRED _ 00 SU FLOORINGPLATE -- 2X6 SALE \ ; 2XI2 BLOCKING i ° r 1/2" THRU NUT & BOLT SILL (PROVIDE MOISTURE .BARRIER) W/ WASHER (EVERY BAY) p RX12 BAND JOIST (LAGGED 4' X �: l� TO MASONR BLOCKS) v / �� ANCHOR BOLT ❑P. � , � SILL AND TOP PLATE ALL BOLTS SHALL BE 1/2"GRADE A307 OR GRADE 2OR HIGHER E b R SPECIALTY ANCHOR � ' ,� a L N __---- -- _--'" STAGGERED BOLT PATTERN f AS REQUIRED FIRE RATED CEILING \ NTS ASSEMBLY BOND BEAM 5 AS-REQUIRED RED \ .. ° ® 2X6 STUD MESH OR OTHER -2 GROUT STOP 8 CONCREIE a I, DEVICE MASONRY WALLS MA S ONR Y WA L L — S TUD PVA L L CONNECTION ` I NTS Simpson Strong-Tie MTS30 (BOTH SIDES OF STUDS-4' OC) F�` -- 2X6 STUD THE DRAWING IS STAMPED FOR NEW STAIR WELL WALLS ONLY I / NOTEi 3/4' SHEATHING SHALL EXTEND 2 FT, MIN• PAST TOP PLATE ONTO WALL ON NEXT FLOOR, I e I 1 S TL.ID WALL -- STUD WALL CONNECTION s NTS �J,1 2X6 SALE PLATE F ' j91J r •�,,, . 8" HD CMU W/ WIRE EVERY SECOND COURSE I /Z rv, _ 8' H CM ! 2X6 SALE PLATE: D U Wf #4 BARS 2 16' OC (MIN) -- - N --- Masonry Opening �1 Width = Door 1' PLYWOOD SHEATHING OUTSIDE STAIR STUD 4„ _ WALLS, ALL FLOORS Opening Width + 4 in. (102 mm) FIX12 JOIST ---- 0 1 s F • 1 fl k Masonry Opening —' Height = Window e °` 2X6 sruD 2 �T��v Opening Height + - -- -- j No Revision/Issue H^m Date NOTD CONTRACTOR SET TOP OF FOOTING 8 1n. (203 mm) —� 6' BELOW FINSIHED FLOOR ELEVATION (MINX Simpson Strong—TI HU46TF WP211,88 ��smQ�,n.�,sQonu-locov.a .cam' ' t 4 z __ _ . 2 in. 37 W MAIN ST., E Y 4 . 2X12 BAND JO T <LAGGED .. . (51 mm) TO STUDS) " ' \ , GEORGETOWN, 414, n r �� -., MA 01833 Framing (978) 352 5020 (978) 352--5023 FAX a u k 2" -VAPOR BARRIER Masonry Opening Framing ~\. STRUCTURAL STAIR WELL DETAILS ' _ I 6 ,� 12" Height = Door #5 BARS �— . AT Opening Height + —� - 281 ESSEX STREET 2 in. (51 mm) / ALL INTERIOR CEM. CONC. FOOTINGSSHALL 2' WIDE CEM, CONC. FOOTING 2 in. (51 mm) � � � SALEM, MASSACHUSET (�S A " Pc 3000 PSI Framing PREPARED FOR: BE 1 Z THICK,4000 PSI,AND LAY UPON / 1 UNDISTURBED SOIL HAVING A BEARING CAPACIIYOFATLEAST2TONS/ SF. 01 LIEFFERY HOLLORAN ._._...._.__..�.. ...._.....- - k , " NOTE 3/4` SHEATHING SHALL EXTEND 2 FT. MIN, PAST TOP PLATE ONTO WALL ON NEXT FLOOR. Project Drown Sheet 2007 100 134 ^^`� NCITEt SET FOOTING ON FIRM UNDISTURBED SOIL W/ 4000 LB BEARING CAPACITY MIN. � la � MMH t STUD ! /ALL �— LrOI S T CONNECTION - Date Checked 4 10/20/06 MMH 4OF4 HASEMENT STAIRWELL_ WWA L L SECTION DOOM' Openings MMN N + Scale • ... ......... . Approved NTS *+ ,. `- (Not to scale) r - T