The URL can be used to link to this page

PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM COMMENTS ON EXPANSION DRB SIGN PERMIT 1999 .Peabody Essex Museum c 4 Al- O 1.9 A*r � y .xs fo 91 CIO I 00 z ti � �� 'v_ �.� � �.:'ta. � .e.r ,.� __2 ri . wf'sv�"s •A �,a �,C--^. e c t . J, I 'I One Salem Green,Salem,MA 01970 978-745-9595,ext.311 Salem 978-740-0404,fax Redevelopment Authority Fax To: Chris Greene—617-536-0626 From: Ellen Dubinsky Paul Durand—741-0240 Don Giard—740-0404 Meredith Reed—744-1588 David Jaquith—927-0068 Fax: Pages: 5(not including cover sheet) Phone: Date: September 25,2000 Re: Peabody Essex Museum Concern Chart CC: ❑ Urgent X For Review X Please Comment X Please Reply ❑Please Recycle Reminder----- DRB Meeting Thursday, September 28, 2000 at 5:00 pm. Please call me if you are unable to attend. Thank you. , Salem Redevelopment Authority Memo To: DRB Members From: Ellen Dubinsky Date: September 25,2000 Re: Peabody Essex Museum—DRB Comments&Concerns Attached you will find a draft of a concern chart that has been developed as a result of DRB comments raised during the Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Plan review meetings. Please review this document and let me know if you would like to add any other concerns that you may have or remove a prior item if it has been sufficiently addressed. I will be in contact with you over the next two days to discuss these issues in greater detail and receive your feedback regarding each comment and to obtain your ideas on how the DRB should proceed with the review process in order to develop a formal recommendation to submit to the SRA. Thank you. One Salem Green • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CONCERNS DRAFT DRB ICU kf meots ncerns tt Public ROW Essex St./Pedestrian Mall * Lighting plan and fixtures have not been shown to the DRB. • It was expressed that all infrastructure changes (paving 0 Essex St. Mall and crosswalks will be paved with brick materials, curbing, lighting, etc.) should meet the City complimentary to the existing City Hall Pavers. standard to ensure the project fits within the existing downtown context. For example, the City standard for brick is City Hall Pavers "Salem Blend"manufactured by Stiles and Hart. The proposed replacement of a portion of the Essex Pedestrian Mall with new paving materials needs further review.� • The design of Essex Street should clearly communicate where • Major portions of the formerly proposed brick roadway have pedestrian movements should occur and where the pedestrian been revised to show an asphalt paving surface. mall ends. The Board felt that the excessive amount of brick paving within the public right-of-way would make Essex Street appear to be a part of the pedestrian mall, which could lead to dangerous vehicular/pedestrian conflicts. The Board requested alternatives for this critical intersection. • The vehicular and pedestrian circulation pattern should be • A two-way roadway has been designed continues to be improved. The current plan includes New Liberty as a two- discussed at Planning Board. way street that becomes a one way street. This would lead to unsafe turning movements and congestion. The Board suggested that a two-way circulation pattern for Essex and New Liberty Street could solve this problem. • The curb alignment at the intersection of New Liberty and Essex Streets should be examined. The Board requested alternatives for this critical intersection. 1' 3� k ? omen s/Concelr P1 Acton Esplanade • No alternatives provided. • Lawns should be elevated above paths to decrease the use of the grass area as an alternate path. This grade separation would also provide a greater formality for the space. • Concern that proposed fieldstone wall is in close proximity to • Photograph of wall material was submitted. Tercentenary Memorial and proposed wall should not replicate Memorial. Photo of proposed wall material & design to be submitted. • Concern that Esplanade path narrows from 12'8"to 8' at the • No alternative provided. It was pointed out that there are Charter St. end and with large amounts of people, e.g. bus smaller bluestone ancillary paths at the Charter Street tours, embarking and disembarking from this location at one location. time— 12'8"width should be maintained. Esplanade & Armory Park • Total redesign of Armory Park was presented. • Design/Aesthetic concern - appears that they were designed at two different times by two different people • Reads as two different spaces—does not link the elements together • Entrances to each park do not align • No alternatives have been proposed, although Armory Park • Current alignment raises handicap access concern has been totally redesigned, and the arch still remains in the It was requested that the arch be moved to align with the same location and the public walkway within the Esplanade entrance to the public walkway or the walkway be shifted to has not been shifted to align to the arch. align with the Armory arch.. r �, �omrnents%Co�cel�ns ,�' Acton Armory Park • Total redesign of Armory Park was presented. • Entrance should be pulled back to match the setback of Phillips Library to create better visibility of park and buildings along that portion of Essex Street • Trees should be removed in front of Phillips Library/Plummer Hall for better visibility • Concern how the diagonal paths will function—current plan breaks up landscaping pieces, is confusing and nonfunctional The Board requested alternatives for the Armory Park design. w E: -17 Essex Street Pedestrian Mall—Fagade Elevations • No alternatives were provided. • Concern that there was not enough glazing on the fagade of the Dodge Building. It was stated that a major opportunity to show activity along the Pedestrian Mall would be missed if more windows were not incorporated into the design. Interior Arcade—Charter Street Elevation • The vestibule area has been expanded by 1 ''/z' and the exterior • Concern that Charter St. (interior) exit was confusing for the has been redesigned form a two floor design to one large case pedestrian, as it narrows and becomes very congested. opening. These changes open up the area and increase the It was suggested that the freight elevator be moved to a different natural exterior light that can be seen from inside the arcade. location to create a clearer view of the exit. ............ New Gallery facades along Liberty Street • No alternatives were provided. * Concern was expressed regarding the mass of the building DRB suggestions included: increasing the depth between the brick and glazing by adding one more row of bricks; design of some type of step-down landscaping near the building edge, introduction of other patterns or materials to break up the massing. II . City of Salem Planning Department One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 978 745-9595, Ext. 311 Fax 978 . , . , . Memo To: Salem Redevelopment Authority From: Jane A. Guy,Assistant Community Development Director CC: Patrick Reffett Date: July 6, 2000 Re: Peabody Essex Museum expansion project The Salem Historical Commission recently waived the Demolition Delay Ordinance for 13 Essex Street (entire building), 42 Charter Street (3-story rear ell) & 10 Liberty St. (1-story rear ell). A copy of the Waiver is attached which includes Commission Attachments A and B. As part of the review process the Peabody Essex Museum provided the Commission with historical documentation and agreed to several mitigation efforts (see Attachment B). These efforts include but are not limited to documenting the houses through scale drawings, photography, paint samples and archival fragments and seeking individual National Register status for each of the two houses. Prior to the issuance of the Waiver, Commission members expressed several recommendations for this phase of the project. In particular, the Commission recommends that the Salem Redevelopment Authority require the submission of detailed drawings, related to the treatment of both historic buildings being moved, and that a copy of these drawings be forwarded to the Salem Historical Commission for further comment. Additional comments and recommendations made by the Commission or received from the general public are referenced in Attachment A of the waiver and copies of such documents are included within this memo. Also enclosed are copies of the documents referenced in Attachment B. Omitted from this package are the referenced meeting minutes which have not been prepared as yet. Meeting minutes will be forwarded to you once they are approved. • Page 1 1 < .CO s � Salem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404 - -- - - WAIVER OF THE DEMOLITION DELAY ORDINANCE It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has waived the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the proposed demolition as described below, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic Districts Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. Address of Property: 133 Essex Street(entire building).42 Charter Street(3-story rear ell) & 10 Liberty St. (1-story rear ell) Name of Record Owner: Peabody Essex Museum Description of Demolition Work Proposed: 133 Essex Street(entire building), 42 Charter Street (3-story rear ell) & 10 Liberty St. (1-story rear ell) as proposed. This Certificate includes the finding that 133 Essex Street is eligible for listing on the National Register and both rear ells are contributing elements in the current Peabody Museum National Register district. Correspondingly, this Certificate includes the finding that, in the interest of historic preservation, all three properties warrant preservation to the extent feasible within the extensive urban re-development and institutional expansion plans of the Peabody Essex Museum. Furthermore, this Certificate includes a finding that all three properties warrant a permanent record of historical research andphysical documentation prior to commencement of demolition and building moving operations. This Certificate incorporates all recommendations for preservation, research documentation and treatment as discussed in the documents which are listed in ATTACHMENT A. This Certificate also incorporates mitigation for loss of historic structures and fabric proposed by the Peabody Essex Museum, as discussed in meeting minutes listed in ATTACHMENT A, and described in the documents submitted to the Commission by the Peabody Essex Museum, which are listed in ATTACHMENT R Dated: SALEM HISTORIC COMMISSION By: THIS IS NOT A DEMOLITION PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals)prior to commencing work. Cc: Salem Redevelopment Authority, Planning Board ATTACHMENT A: Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance: 133 Essex Street(entire building); 42 Charter Street(3-story rear ell); & 10 Liberty Street(1-story rear ell) Recommendations for Preservation,Research,Documentation and Treatment: • Minutes of Salem Historical Commission meetings - June 7, 2000, June 10, 2000 (site visit) &June 21, • Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI) Memorandum dated October 13, 1999,pages 3 and 4, items#1-4 • Response to HSI Memorandum from Peabody Essex Museum,page 6 • Letter to John Grimes, Peabody Essex Museum from John V. Goff dated June 21, 2000 • "Suggested Conditions for Salem Historical Commission" submitted by Staley McDermet on June 21, 2000 • Written comments verbalized by Commission Chair Lance Kasparian on June 21, 2000 r iMetnorandum October 13, 199911'age 3 Historic Salem,Inc. Comments on Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Plans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Concerns regarding the John Kinsman House(e. 1841) at 10 Liberty Street, the Gilbert Chadwick House(1801- 1805) at 42 Charter Street, and the Summer School Biological Laboratory(1876)at the corner of Liberty and Charter Streets. During the 1998 presentation you stated that the Biological Laboratory will be moved to Brown Street, behind the properties of the former Essex Institute, and the Kinsman House and the Chadwick House will be moved to the east end of the Empire Lot, next to the building at 18 Hawthorne Boulevard, facing onto Charter Street. Historic Salem has only minor concerns,and they all relate to the Kinsman House and the Chadwick House.. 1. Ensure Long Term Preservation of Buildings Concerw Long!-loan, penn:mcol, proservraino of the building%, parlicnlarly if the Museum divests itself of thom nnor their rolucaliuu. Your letter of Seplewbcl I /, 19'la, sidled that you wuldd include "pleselvalluu Icsllictiuns un their future use." While interested in their uses,HSI is more concerned with the preservation of historic building fibric. Recommendation: preservation restrictions regarding historic or significant interior and exterior building fabric should be incorporated into each property's deed when each is moved. O O O O 2. Adequate Lot Size&Siting (We recognize that the east property lines of the Empire lot property will to an extent dictate lot sizes and configurations. However, since new lot lines have apparently not yet been proposed, the issue remains a concern.) - Conce : Adequate lot size to increase the buildings' attractiveness to quality prospective buyers, and historically appropriate siting to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. Itceonunendalion: Lot size should be large enough to include parking and sufficient attractive open space, The mlilw of the buildings should maintain their present orientation to the street, and their locations on their respective lots should be historically appropriate, similar to structures on Hawthorne Boulevard,even if variances from the Salem zoning ordinance must be obtained. Historic Salem would support the Museum's application for variances if such were necessary to accomplish this recommendation. 3. Retention of All Significant Historic Fabric (Your September 17, 1998, reply stated that vour goal"was to move only the "core"structures, and to "recommission(them)in the most practical and responsible manner possible." While we recognize the impact of the Empire lot property lines, our original concerns on this issue remain.) Concern: That only a minimal part of each building will be moved, resulting in the loss of historically significant building fabric and the diminishment of attractiveness and/or functional utility to prospective buyers.ers. Recommendation: The portions of the structures to be relocated should include at a minimum the original buildings and all significant additions as determined by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Concern: That relocation work will not be completed to the extent that 1) sensitive work is left to possibly an inexperienced or insensitive buyer, or 2) the amount of work required by the buyer to complete is of such an amount or complexity to discourage buyers. (This issue was not addressed in your September 17, 1998, reply, or at the August 3, 1999, presentation, anti remains a concern. 1t is unrelated to property lines.) Recommendation: At a minimum, all relocation work shall be complete and permanent, including the moving of the buildings, complete new foundations (all existing, above-grade foundation materials shall be reused), setting the buildings in place and attaching them to the new foundations, installation of all underground utility lines, all rough site work, including removal of asphalt and installation of loam, and all work necessary to insure that the Continued on next page._ it lenmrandmn October 13, 1999111age d Historic Salem, Inc. Comments on Peabody F.ssex A4useunt Expansion Plans buildings are weather light and secure. All work shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 4. O 4. 4. Timing and Assurance of Adequate Funds in the Budget (!'his issue was not addressed in your September 17, 1998, reply, or at the August 3, 1999,presentation, and remains a concern) Concern: That the relocation of the above historic buildings will be eliminated due to budget problems with the addition, or that, at the end of the project, budget problems will reduce the amount of work that can be done on - the above-historic buildings. Recommendation: We support the statement made at the 1998 presentation, that these buildings will be relocated on Charter Street, and their relocation will be carried out at the beginning of the project, mainly for logistical reasons. The Museum should make a commitment to complete all work to relocate the buildings and prepare them for continued use in the first phase of the project. 4. G O O ---------------------------------------------------------------- Concerns regarding open space;streetscape, and circulation(pedestrian& vehicular)design. The question of the retention of the Salem Armory hcadhousc is covered elsewhere in this letter, and the comments expressed below are merely responses to the design presented and the forum, and are not intended to imply acceptance of its removal. 1. Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic (chis issue has nw been ankh-essed rind rrmnins a rnnr-ern.) Concern: Lack of definition among pedestrian/vehicular/mall traffic. The proposal to raise the portion of Essex Street in front of the Armory to the level of the sidewalk and pave it with brick seems to create confusion, especially to the visitor, as to what is street dedicated to vehicular traffic, and what is sidewalk, dedicated to pedestrian traffic. This confusion is only increased by the area's proximity to the adjacent Essex Street Pedestrian Mail. This confusion would likely result in an overabundance of signage attempting to control and direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and frustration and aggravation for the driver and pedestrian. In short, such confusion could result in a design and a space that simply doesn't work. Recommendation: Re-visit the concept. Better define and organize areas that cannot be used by competing interests (vehicles and pedestrians)at the same time. 2. Design of Granite Wall Your September 17, 1998, reply stated that the granite wall of the Witch Trials Memorial will not.be duplicated along the walkway between Essex Street and Charter Street. Therefore this issue has ceased to be a concern. O .0 4 3. Wall along walkway between Essex and Charter streets. Your September 17, 1998, response to this issue has eliminated our concern with the issue. 4 O 4. O 4. Extension of the walkway across Charter Street,along the elderly housing parking lot,to the entrance to the Witch Trials Memorial. The model and plans exhibited at the August 3rd, 1999, presentation show the elimination of the extension of the walkway directly across Charter Street. Discussions with your staff have indicated instead a straight-across Continued on near page_. COMPATIBILITY WITH SALEM ARCHITECTURE Many of Historic Salem Inc.'s concerns with the design of the Museum expansion center on aes- thetic and design preferences. Salem's built environment contains a rich palette of architectural expressions, reflecting a wide range of historical and stylistic references, as evidenced by the illus- trations in this response. The new Museum expansion, as we have shown, draws heavily on ele- ments of Salem architecture. It does not, however, try to mimic Federal or other traditional archi- tectural styles. A great deal of attention has been given to scale, materials, the relationship of the new expansion to pedestrians, and the quality of the urban environment in downtown Salem. We believe that the expansion design is entirely compatible with Salem architecture and that it will add a rich new dimension to Salem's already complex mix of architectural forms. t I 3r 4, t t Concerns regarding Kinsman and Chadwick houses At our previous presentations to HSI we stated that it would be impossible to construct the planned new addition to the Museum without removing the buildings at 10 Liberty Street and 42 Charter Street. The Museum has made a commitment to relocate, rather than demolish, these two buildings, which are by no means the most historically or aesthetically important examples of Salem's traditional residential architecture. The Museum will be spending a great deal of money in order to preserve these structures. These funds will not be recouped through the sale or lease of these properties, which, if sold, would have preservation deed restrictions placed on them similar to those placed on the four Boys and Girls Club building a Bulfinch design which the museum sold in 1997. In re-slung the . Kinsman and Chadwick houses, the Museum will comply with existing zoning requirements. r Sof � 1 r iw�. wwryry: I'Y'�T �tnl - I'IR' r '1114 t G - PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUNI Cly-f�c e Historic Preservation and Design COPY Post Office Box 8655,Salem,Massachusetts 01971 Telephone and Far:978 740.0775 , June 21,2000 John Grimes Planning/Operations Peabody Essex Museum re:John Kinsman&Gilbert Chadwick Houses One East India Square Ill Liberty Street and 42 Charter Street Salem,MA 01970-3783 Salem,MA Dear Mr.Grimes: On behalf of the Salem Historical Conmussion,thank you very much for escorting me dtrouglr the rear ells of both die John Kinsman and Gilbert Chadwick Houses yesterday. And once again, as a former consultant,through Boston Affiliates to the Peabody Essex Museum,let me say right up front,how deeply and personally pleased I am that the Museum has decided,since 1995,to abandon its intent to demolish both houses entirely in favor of alternate schemes designed to preserve the majority of--and to preserve the most historically significant parts of--these two early Salem houses. As you,Fred Johnson,Will Phippcn and I all agreed so enthusiastically yesterday, we all propose and believe that Salem,the Museum and the public at large will all three be greatly enriched by the preservation--through the moving--of thcsc houses to appropriate new parecl(s)nearby. I believe you and the Museum are also probably correct in noting(due to Salem's long history of moving older buildings)that the great Salem diarist Rev.William Bentley would also be pleased by We Museum's new decision to move mrd re-use. Regarding the apparent age,history and significance of the rear ells,I would like to begin by addressing the 10 Liberty Street,or John Kinsman House rear ell--which is not only the most architecturally interesting of the two ells,but also the most historically intriguing,given that the Museum and the Church of latter Day Saints are currently celebrating Nathaniel Felt's and Brigham Young's and Young's daughter Vilate or Violet's Monson 1840s associations with the main house and the property. Indeed,we now have a costumed Brigham Young re-enactor walling our streets! �M� While the slides shown at the last Salem Historical Commission,€rrst srS eemed to suggest that the Kinsman House rear ell could have been entirely of 1840s origin(tike most of the front part of the house),field inspection yesterday revealed that some of the rear ell elements appeared to be 1840s elements re-tooled,and re-worked at a later date. For example, several of the floor joists beneath die rear ell first floor were originally cut with an(early)up-and down saw,but then were trimmed for their current location with a(probably post-Civil War)circular saw upon just one face. Other floor joists are thinner,and evidently also date from the 1860s. The early 6/6 window,with its thin muntins and nicely tooled brownstone lintel and sill,also appears to have been relocated,probably in the 1860s. Combined with additional inspections which have shown blackened wall surfaces upon the ell side of the party wall between the ell and main house,the logical interpretation--and the one upon which we all now agree--is that the current Kinsman House Rear Ell was mostly built in the 1860s to replace an earlier ell mostly or wholly lost in an 1866 fire. Some of the elements, e.g.the window,window lintel,window sill,re-dimensioned floor joists,and blackened wall surface--were all evidently recycled and re-used about 1866 or 1867 from an earlier pre-Civil War period. Prior to recommending wholesale demolition of this rear ell,I would recommend the following five actions: I. a)Financially support the Salem Historical Commission to enable it to hire a disinterested third party consultant to research the history of earlier rear ells upon the John Kinsman House. The purpose would be to see what might have been used in the 1840s and 1850s,possibly as a rear ell kitchen,when the Mormons and others occupied the building. Estimate at least five to ten weeks and$5,000 to undertake a new Kinsman House rear ells study. b)Alternately,include these work items as part of a larger Historic Structure Report to be prepared for the entire house and property. Estimated time and financial commitment to prepare a new H.S.R.:six months,and$20,000. 1 2 2. Explore the possibility of acquiring sufficient new land at the proposed Kinsman House relocation site,to enable a "proper"rear kitchen ell to be re-attached,at a future date,if desired and permitted by the new research findings. The ell is relatively small,and this should(as with the relocated YIN YU TANG ells)be a minor matter. 3. Conduct archaeological survey and detailed material analysis at and around the Kinsman House rear ell foundation walls,prior to removal,in order to attempt to determine from builder's trench excavation material,comparative mortar analysis,fragment analysis,finish analysis,etc. if all ell foundation walls date from the 1860s,or indeed, some may survive wholly or in part from the earlier 1840s and 1850 periods. Recommend consultation with Massachusetts Historical Commission,Brona Simon,Archaeologist,to determine time,cost and recommended scope of new Kinsman House archaeological study. 4. Determine from Debra Benvie,and/or other local members of the Church of Latter Day Saints,if the Mormons maintain any current or future interest in using this house upon its new site for Mormon educational,historic interpretive,exhibit,office,or other purposes. Have the Mormons prepare a formal letter of interest or non-interest within four weeks time. If the Mormons express written interest,include them in all public and private decisions (including future hearings by the Salem Historical Commission)regarding the preservation,re-use and re-siting of Kinsman House rooms and materials. If the Mormons formally express no interest and disinterest in this property, proceed upon the given working assumption that you communicated to me yesterday that Ore house would be used at its new location entirely and perhaps in perpetuity for Peabody Essex Museum new museum office purposes. 5. Determine from Ore Massachusetts Historical Commission,all National Register of Historic Places de-listing and/or re-listing requirements. Conform with all MHC requirements and recommendations for these processes. Regarding the Gilbert Chadwick House rear ell,it appeared to me from the quick walk-through yesterday that all material dates from the 1860s decade or later. The question of the Chadwick House rear ell's significance is something drat the Salem Historical Commission will have to officially rule upon. Were I to have been hired to objectively categorize it as part of a larger Historic Structure Report analysis for that property,(and using National Register Criteria and judging now only from the architectural fabric,not considering any historical associations)I would likely have categorized it,not as a"Must Be Saved Feature" but rather as a"Should Be Saved"feature for most of the ell (the three story part)and as a"Need Not Be Saved"feature for the smaller piece(Ore one story,20th century part). From a functional and architectural reuse point of view,we also observed that the Museum may wish to re-consider demolishing the stair in the rear ell of the Chadwick House,in order to maintain two means of egress in all floors of the building,as required for fire and life safety. I hope this donated professional architectural and historic preservation consultation assists you,the City and the Museum in all current and future planning actions to move,save and re-use all.significant and necessary portions of the Charter and Liberty Street houses. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, johnff 4Histo'nic - Pr &Design Copy: Brona Simon,Archaeologist,Massachusetts Historical Commission,Massachusetts Archives Building,220 Morrissey Boulevard,Boston,MA 02125 Pauline Chase-Harrell,Boston Affiliates,Inc., 156 Milk Street,Boston,MA 02109 Lance Kasparian,Salem Historical Commission, 1 Arbella Street,Salem,MA 01970 Debra Benvie,Public Affairs Specialist,The Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints,6 Hillside Avenue Salem MA 01970 Meg Twohey,President,Historic Salem,Inc.,Post Office Box 865,Salem,MA 01970 r Suggested Conditions for Salem Historical Commission Demolition shall not occur until the following conditions have been met: 1. No building or portion of a building shall be demolished, torn down, or removed until a developer has made a firm and binding commitment to build something acceptable on the site. 2. No building or portion of a building shall be demolished, torn down, or removed until verification of receipt of all required and necessary permits for all portions of the entire Museum Expansion project has been received, verified, and approved by the Salem Historical Commission. 3. No building or portion of a building shall be demolished, torn down, or removed until verification of adequate, irrevocable financing for all portions of the entire Museum Expansion project has been received, verified, and approved by the Salem Historical Commission. 4. No building or portion of a building shall be demolished, torn down, or removed until verification of signed and binding construction contracts for all portions of the entire Museum Expansion project has been received, verified, and approved by the Salem Historical Commission. Submitted by Staley McDermet on 6/21/00 at the Salem Historical commission meeting. COMMENTS ON APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT Page 1 of 5 133 Essex St.; 10 Charter Street;42 Liberty Street Prepared by: Lance Kasparian,Chair Salem Historical Commission Date: 21 June 2000 EMPIRE BUILDING (ca. 1949)- 133 Essex Street(total demolition): Statement of Significance: Having been built in 1949,this building has only recently attained 50 years in age, meeting a basic requirement for National Register listing. This building possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. In particular, it embodies the progressive spirit of local retailing in urban downtowns during the mid-20th century, and is thus associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local history, meeting NR criterion A. In addition, the Essex Street fapade embodies distinctive characteristics of Art-Deco architecture, constructed of substantial and stylish materials, including ornamental cast-stone, multi-colored terrazzo, aluminum and glass, with novel saw-tooth display window plan, metal canopy and integral neon signage, meeting NR criterion C. It is, perhaps the most substantial example of its type surviving in Salem, having been constructed as a total building,rather than as a renovation of a pre-existing building. Recommendations: While it is desirable to preserve this building, it is recognized that the PEM is unwilling to incorporate it into their extensive urban redevelopment and institutional expansion plan. It is also recognized that the architectural and historical themes represented by this property are peripheral to the themes of the Essex National Heritage Area and the surrounding historic properties of the PEM and Salem Common Historic District. a. Under the circumstances, it is recommended that a record of historical research and physical documentation be prepared prior to demolition, including the following: • measured plan and elevation drawings of the building, including detail drawings of the front and back terrazzo paving patterns. • B&W and color photography of the interior and exterior, including details of the interior staircase,terrazzo paving, cast-stone,canopy and storefront. • Samples of representative building materials for permanent deposit in the PEM's architectural artifact collection, including: Cast-stone: a full corner "reeded" unit, field unit (behind the neon sign) and base unit. Metal canopy and storefront: metal glazing system and canopy trim elements. Terrazzo: full section of paving incorporating text and surrounding background pattern; dry bagged samples of each terrazzo color. Neon Sign: preserve the entire neon sign. b. Special precautions must be taken during demolition to protect the abutting Dr. Moses Little House (1811) at 131 Essex Street(Sacoon Jewelry). c. As part of the City's campaign to re-invigorate business in the downtown, it is recommended that the PEM hire a qualified architectural historian to document the evolution of COMMENTS ON APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT Page 2 of 5 133 Essex St.; 10 Charter Street; 42 Liberty Street commercial architecture and storefront design on Essex Street from the 18th through the mid-20th century. Based on this study, PEM should mount an exhibit in a vacant storefront window to highlight this heritage, and assist the City in promoting its downtown fagade renovation grant program. KINSMAN HOUSE (ca. 1841)- 10 Liberty Street(demolish rear ell, move house): Statement of Significance: This building is listed on the National Register as a contributing building within the Peabody Museum National Register Historic District. The house and rear ell possess integrity of location, design, setting,materials,workmanship, feeling and association. In particular, the rear ell meets NR criterion C, in that it is a substantial later integral addition, embodying the distinctive characteristics of the mid-19th century Italianate style and fire resistant construction. This later addition is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local history, by its connection to reconstruction activity in Salem following the downtown fire of May 1866, meeting NR criterion A. The main house, which is proposed to be moved, is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, meeting NR criterion B. The main house was built by John Kinsman (1810-1889), a prosperous local housewright and later superintendent for the Eastern Railroad and Salem & Danvers Aqueduct Co., city alderman, state legislator, and bank president. Furthermore, between 1842 and 1845, Nathaniel Felt, a local tailor who was connected to the early history of the Mormon Church of the Latter Day Saints(LDS) in New England, boarded in Kinsman's house. Felt was president of the local Mormon church from 1842 - 1845. During 1844-45, he is known to have taken in a daughter of Brigham Young, the noted leader of the LDS Church, for whom Brigham Young University at Provo, Utah is named. Brigham Young is known to have visited his daughter at 10 Liberty Street in 1844, at the time when the leader of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith, was martyred. Correspondence related to this visit and Smith's martyrdom is preserved(either in Utah or at the PEM?). Research and advice related to LDS Church connections has been provided by Deborah Benvie, of the local branch of the LDS Church; David Whittaker, Curator of 19th century Mormon Americana at Brigham Young University; and Glenn Leonard, a historian and representative from the public relations department of the LDS Church in Salt Lake City. All of these contacts have declined comment on the demolition and building moving proposal. Mr. Leonard has stated that the property does not meet criteria of the LDS Church for designation as a site significant in Church history and referred the matter to the local branch of the church, which is located in Lynnfield. Mr. Whittaker referred the SHC to a newly published guide to LDS Church historic sites, which discusses Salem: Cannon, Donald C., Sacred Places: A Guide to Early LDS Historical Sites, Vol. I — Northeastern U.S. and Canada., Salt Lake City: publisher? 2000. It should be noted that the Peabody Essex Museum submitted a report, prepared by Boston Affiliates in 1995, to document the significance of this property. In addition, the PEM has recently mounted an exhibition on the early history of the LDS Church in Salem. The report includes one dismissive statement related to the association with the history of the LDS Church, and the exhibition makes no reference to this property. Recommendations: While it would be desirable to preserve this entire building in its original setting, it is recognized that the PEM is unwilling to consider this within their extensive urban f COMMENTS ON APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT Page 3 of 5 133 Essex St.; 10 Charter Street;42 Liberty Street redevelopment and institutional expansion plan. It is also recognized that the PEM is willing to move the main house to a nearby location and construct a new setting for the relocated structure. a. NR re-evaluation is required. Moved buildings are normally not eligible for listing on the National Register, however, "exclusion b" (a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily of architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event...), provides a possibility for continued listing of the main house under NR criterion B (association with lives of John Kinsman, Nathaniel Felt and Brigham Young) and criterion C (examples of mid-19th century residential architecture in Salem) b. Under the circumstances,_ it is recommended that historical research and physical documentation be prepared for both the main house and the rear ell, prior to demolition, including the following: • B&W and color photography of the interior and exterior of the house and rear ell before, during and after moving and demolition, concentrating on areas of historic fabric to be demolished. • Measured drawings of the main house and rear ell, including, plans, elevations, sections and details, concentrating on areas of historic fabric to be demolished. • Samples of representative building materials for deposit in the PEM's architectural artifact collection, and/or re-use in restoration of areas which are disturbed or exposed after demolition of the ell. • Summary of research related to the history of the house, concentrating on associations with Nathaniel Felt, Brigham Young and other persons associated with the early history of the LDS Church in Salem and New England. c. Guidelines for restoration/ rehabilitation of the moved structure and constructing a new setting for the structure at its new location: • all restoration or rehabilitation work should comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. • reuse granite curbing,fence posts, iron fencing and brick paving. • maintain original foundation facing materials above grade, including brick and granite (no exposed concrete). • retain existing granite steps between the main house and later integral bay window. • install underground utilities. • include adequate off-street parking and yard area to make property marketable in the future and donate preservation restriction to Historic Salem,Inc. if property is sold. COMMENTS ON APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT Page 4 of 5 133 Essex St.; 10 Charter Street;42 Liberty Street d. The SHC should request that the Planning Board and Redevelopment Authority require the Peabody Essex Museum to submit detailed plans for treatment of this property in its new location to the Salem Historical Commission for further comment. CHADWICK HOUSE(ca. 1805)-42 Charter Street(demolish rear ell, move house): Statement of Significance: This building is listed on the National Register as a contributing building within the Peabody Museum National Register Historic District. The house and rear ell possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,workmanship, feeling and association. In particular, the rear ell meets NR criterion C, in that it is a later integral addition, embodying distinctive characteristics of mid-19t century vernacular and fire resistant construction. This later addition is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local history, meeting NR criterion A, by its connection to reconstruction activity in Salem following the downtown fire of May 1866. In addition, the main house embodies distinctive characteristics of federal architecture with later integral features in the mid-19th century Italianate style, meeting NR criterion C. This portion of the building is distinguished as one of 26 buildings constructed of brick,which were listed in an 1806 Salem newspaper. Recommendations: While it is most desirable to preserve this entire building in its original setting, it is recognized that the PEM is unwilling to consider this within their extensive urban redevelopment and institutional expansion plan. It is also recognized that the PEM is willing to move the main block of the house to a nearby location and construct a new setting for the relocated structure. a. NR re-evaluation is required. Moved buildings are normally not eligible for listing on the National Register,however, "exclusion b" (a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value), provides a possible rationale for continued listing of the main house under NR criterion C (being one of 26 recorded brick buildings in Salem in 1806, with later integral features connected with the mid-19th century Italianate style.) b. Under the circumstances, it is recommended that historical research and physical documentation be prepared for both the main house and the rear ell, prior to demolition, including the following: • B&W and color photography of the interior and exterior of house and rear ell before, during and after moving and demolition, concentrating on areas of historic fabric to be demolished. • Measured drawings of the main house and rear ell, including, plans, elevations, sections and details, concentrating on areas of historic fabric to be demolished. • Samples of representative building materials for deposit in the PEM's architectural artifact collection, and/or re-use in restoration of areas which are disturbed or exposed after demolition of the ell. • The measured drawings should locate the precise position of the inscribed stone block in the basement floor. This block should be hand excavated in accordance with the COMMENTS ON APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT Page 5 of 5 133 Essex St.; 10 Charter Street; 42 Liberty Street Secretary of the Interior's Standards for archaeology and retained in the PEM's artifact collection. c. Guidelines for restoration/ rehabilitation of the moved structure and constructing a new setting for the structure at its new location: • all restoration or rehabilitation work should comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. • reuse granite curbing, fence posts, iron fencing and stone paving. • maintain original foundation facing materials above grade, including brick and granite (no exposed concrete). • install underground utilities. • include adequate off-street parking and yard area to make property marketable in the future and donate preservation restriction to Historic Salem,Inc. if property is sold. d. The SHC should request that Planning Board and Redevelopment Authority require the Peabody Essex Museum to submit detailed plans for treatment of this property in its new location to the Salem Historical Commission for further comment. -end- �Y ATTACHMENT B: Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance: 133 Essex Street(entire building); 42 Charter Street(3-story rear ell); & 10 Liberty Street(1-story rear ell) List of Mitigation Proposed by the Peabody Essex Museum for Loss of Historic Structures and Fabric: • "Architectural Significance Assessment of 10 Liberty Street and 42 Charter Street, Salem,Massachusetts." Prepared for the PEM by Boston Affiliates, Inc.,Boston,MA(1995). • List of Scale Drawings,Photography, Paint Samples and Archival Fragments Proposed by the Peabody Essex Museum as Mitigation for demolition. Submitted 6/21/2000. • "Vilate Young (1830-1902)" summary history in connection with 10 Liberty Street. Submitted 6/21/2000. • "10 Liberty Street and the LDS Church: A Chronology." Submitted 6/21/2000. • Letter: Dan L. Monroe to SHC (6/21/200), stating intent to pursue individual NR listing for 10 Liberty Street and 42 Charter Street at their new Charter Street locations. r . Y ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT OF 10 LIBERTY STREET AND 42 CHARTER STREET SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS Prepared for the Peabody Essex Museum East India Square Salem,Massachusetts 01970 By Boston Affiliates,Inc. 156 Milk Street Boston,Massachusetts 02109 November 1995 Y TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS INTRODUCTION I. NATIONAL REGISTER/NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK STATUS 2 Background 2 Chronology of Listings and Boundary Descriptions 3 National Historic Landmark Designation 3 National Register Listing 4 Conclusions 5 11. RESEARCH FINDINGS 6 1. 42 Charter Street 6 History 6 Architecture 7 2. 10 Liberty Street 9 History --- 9 _ 12-----— III. EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE 16 Historical Significance 16 Architectural Significance 19 National Register Listing/Eligibility and Context 19 APPENDICES 22 A. List of Brick Buildings Built before 1806 B. Obituary of John Kinsman C. Memorandum, John Goff, Historic Preservation and Design r Y LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. 42 Charter Street, 1995 8 2. 42 Charter Street, 1876 10 3. 42 Charter Street, 1910 11 4. 10 Liberty Street, 1995 13 5. Central Salem, 1851 17 6. Central Salem, 1883 18 iii ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT OF 10 LIBERTY STREET AND 42 CHARTER STREET, SALEM Introduction This report presents the findings of an assessment of architectural significance of two buildings in Salem, Massachusetts, 10 Liberty Street and 42 Charter Street. The two buildings are owned and used by the Peabody-Essex Museum. 10 Liberty Street as a Director's Residence, and 42 Charter to house the Development Office. Boston Affiliates, Inc. was commissioned to conduct the assessment and report on the archi- tectural history of the two buildings and on any historical associations with events or persons of local, regional or national significance. The buildings were to be ex- amined within their Salem context, considering issues of comparative significance and architectural merit relative to other Salem buildings of the periods, building types and styles. Boston Affiliates began its study on October 26, 1995, and presented a brief summary of findings on November 6. Key staff for the project were Pauline Chase-Harrell and Stanley Moss of Boston Affiliates and John Goff, consulting historical architect. Donna DeBoever assisted with research. For the study the two buildings were in- spected both on the exterior and interior. Research on the history and architectural history of the buildings and their context was conducted at the James Duncan Phillips Library of the Peabody-Essex Museum, the Essex County Registry of Deeds, Massachusetts State Library, and the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Information regarding the National Register and National Historic Landmark status of the buildings was also gathered from the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the National Register Office and National Historic Landmarks Office of the National Park Service in Washington, D.C. 1 s y I. National Register/National Historic Landmark Status The Peabody Museum is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NR) and as a National Historic Landmark (NHL). Boston Affiliates was asked to resolve the question of whether these listings include the buildings at 42 Charter Street and 10 -Liberty Street. The questionisan-important-one-for- the MuseumbecauseNR and NHL listings carry with them protection of historic resources that may be impacted by a federal action, and funding is included in the definition of federal action. Specifically, any project using federal funds must undergo a Section 106 (of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966) Review to ensure that it does not have an adverse effect on NR listed or eligible properties. Should an NHL listed property be involved, an additional Section 110 Review is required, with somewhat higher standards of protection, but conducted simultaneously. Background The exact boundaries of the Peabody Museum National Register listing have been extremely difficult to ascertain for reasons related to the evolution of National Register listing practices over the past few decades and the history of the survey and listing process in Salem. Two specific factors have complicated the issue. First, the Peabody Museum properties were originally listed on the National Register of Historic Places through the National Historic Landmarks program, which operates separately from the broader NR program, but carries with NHL designation auto- matic listing on the NR. Second, the Peabody Museum designation was done early in the program's history, when standards of precision in description, boundaries and other elements of the nomination forms were not as rigorous as they now are. Over the years, the NR program has attempted to bring earlier designations into line with today's more rigorous process, but some anomalies remain. Before trying to sort out the Peabody situation, it is necessary to understand what the National Register is and how it is created, and how the National Historic Landmarks program relates to it. Although a national listing of historic sites or landmarks has existed since the 1930s, the current National Register system was cre- ated by the National Historic Preservation Act ( NHPA ) of 1966. It is a national list of properties that have national, regional or local significance for reasons of their ar- chitecture, their associations with notable historical figures or events, or their poten- tial otential for contributing knowledge of history or prehistory; criteria which are very broadly interpreted. The 1966 Act also defined higher standards of significance (i. e., significance at the national level) for National Historic Landmarks, and folded the 2 existing list into the new National Register system (Duerksen 1983:228-30). Like other aspects of the federal historic preservation program, the National Register program is administered in each state by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The 1966 Act encouraged the creation of a SHPO in each state, and all states now have them, although they have different titles and are lodged in dif- ferent departments in different states. In Massachusetts, the SHPO is the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). National Register nominations and the systematic survey and evaluation of all potentially eligible properties, which is the ultimate goal of the program; are carried out-by the SHPO and reviewed by a State Review Board (in Massachusetts the MHC). Nominations are then forwarded to the Keeper of the National Register in the National Park Service for certification and listing. Each office (NR and SHPO) maintains a perma- nent file on each listing. National Historic Landmarks are generated, as they were prior to the 1966 Act,by the National Park Service (NPS). New designations are now subject to today's more rig- orous standards for listing, and in the 1980 amendments to the NHPA, Congress also redesignated all existing NHL properties in order to prevent future constitutional challenges to previous designations. Chronology of Listings and Boundary Descriptions Based on an exhaustive search of the MHC files, and consultation with both MHC and NR staff, we have established the following chronology: National Historic Landmark DesiMation The first official designation of the Peabody Museum properties was as a National Historic Landmark on October 15, 1966, based on a National Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings inventory form completed in 1965 (prior to the creation of the present National Register by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966). This form con- tained no map and no boundary description (NPS 1965). In 1979, the NHL Boundary Review Project undertook a clarification of the NHL designation, with additional material on description and significance, and the fol- lowing Verbal Boundary Description: The boundary of the national historic landmark designation for the Peabody Museum of Salem is coterminous with the exterior line of the foundation of the .museum complex, including the original building and additions. The latter units are made part of the designation because of their value as symbols of the museum's continuous operation and growth (NRNP 1983a). 3 1 . This "clarification" does not clarify whether "additions" include those made by pur- chase, which would incorporate 42 Charter and 10 Liberty Street, which had been purchased by that time; or whether the term was intended to be limited to newly constructed- portions added onto the original building, which would exclude 42 Charter and 10 Liberty Street. No map is included with the form. The clarification was incorporated into the listing October 12, 1983. National Register Listing Although NHL listing resulted in automatic NR listing as well (also dated October 15, 1966), in 1972, Edwin Small, then Assistant Director of the Northeast Region of NPS, filed an abbreviated version of a National Register nomination form for the Peabody Museum. (This document is not in the NHL files in Washington, and no NR file can be found there for the Peabody listing,but it is in MHC files.) The main purpose of this nomination form seems to have been to clarify the boundaries of the NR listing, perhaps in an efforuo bring NR files up to current standards, or perhaps in anticipation of planned expansion by the Peabody. The verbal description is as follows: Boundaries: Containing 90,101 square feet, bounded northerly by Essex Street 301 feet; easterly by Liberty Street 303.75 feet; southerly by Charter Street 292 feet; westerly by Salem Police Headquarters and First District Court 122 feet; again southerly by Salem Police Headquarters and First District Court 13 feet; and again westerly by Bernard's Jewelry Store in a brick building erected in 1858 at 175 Essex Street 170 feet. The above boundaries encompass about two-thirds of the block bounded by Essex,Liberty, Charter and Central Streets. A commercial building within the boundaries west of Liberty Street will be torn down eventual- ly for the construction of a museum addition. All of the property of the Peabody Museum of Salem lies within the boundaries of Heritage Plaza East, an urban renewal project of the Salem Redevelopment Authority (NRNP 1972). While the verbal boundaries are very precise, no map accompanies this nomination form. The two buildings at 10 liberty Street and 42 Charter Street lie within the above-described boundaries. In the early 1980s, the MHC undertook a comprehensive survey and Multiple Resource Area (MRA) listing for some 63 acres of downtown Salem. The Multiple Resource Area included seven existing NR properties and districts, including the Peabody Museum, and nominations for nine new individual properties and three 4 new districts. The nomination form for the MRA includes the first known map showing the boundaries of the existing Peabody Museum NR listing, which seems consistent with the verbal boundary description of 1972, showing the Essex, Liberty and Charter Street boundaries, and thus encompassing the two properties. The Multiple Resource Area listings were certified on October 18, 1983 (NRNP 1983b). Conclusions The original inventory form for the Peabody Museum National Historic Landmark, listed in 1966, has no boundaries described and no map. A 1972 N .nomination form specifically describes the designation as including everything bounded by Essex, Liberty and Charter Streets,but does not include a map. The 1979 NHL "clari- fication" is ambiguous in its description, including but not defining "additions", and does not include a map. The Multiple Resource Area nomination form of 1983 in- cludes the first known map of the Peabody NR listing, which follows the 1972 de- scription and includes 42 Charter Street and 10 Liberty Street. We therefore conclude that the two buildings are included within the Peabody Museum NR listing. Whether they are also included in the NHL listing is less clear, given the ambiguity of the 1979 clarification. According to NHL staff, it is not unheard of for the NHL listing boundary to be smaller than the NR listing boundary because of the higher significance standards for NHL listing. Given the nature of these properties (see evaluation of significance section below), that distinction would seem to make sense. 5 11. Research Findings 1. 42 Charter Street History: Although the burying ground on Charter Street is an ancient one, the street itself appears first on a map of Salem in 1780 as a 'New Town_ Way." The land on which 42 Charter Street was to be built was owned by Lynde Walter, a Boston merchant, and partners. They sold the property for $1,410 to Gilbert Chadwick, an innholder, in 1801 (Essex Deeds 168: 195), and by 1805 he had built the brick house that still stands on it. It appears in a list of brick houses which was published in a Salem newspaper in 1806. New England towns were conscious of the danger of fires that periodically destroyed their wooden buildings; officials promoted brick con- struction as fire-proof, but few brick structures were built, and they were considered noteworthy. In 1806 there were about 2,000 buildings in Salem; the Chadwick house was one of only twenty-six brick houses in the town (Salem Gazette 4 February 1806; see Appendix A). In 1831, Anna Chadwick, Gilbert's widow and the administrator of his estate, sold the property for $1,455 to Thomas P. Pingree, a merchant (Essex Deeds 259: 257). The property is described as containing a `Brick Building 26 ft. by 40 ft.;' which is the measurement of the present house on the site, excluding the ell. The house was oc- cupied by tenants until the ownership of Daniel H. Jewett, who is listed as living there in 1855 (Salem Directory 1855). He sold to John P. Langmaid in 1859 (Essex Deeds 583: 241). A major fire occurred on 14 May 1866, starting in the interior of the block onto which 42 Charter Street backs. The fire started in the stable near Littlefield's Gymnasium near the rear of the East India Marine Hall. It spread to adjacent wood- en outbuildings, to the Marine Hall itself, to buildings on Essex Street, including the Lynde Block on the corner of Liberty Street (the site of the present Dodge Wing), and to the outbuildings and rear portions of other buildings on Liberty and Charter Streets. (The Marine Hall was only slightly damaged by the fire, but was consider- ably damaged by water; the collections were saved.) (Salem Register 17 May 1866; Salem Gazette 18 May 1866; Salem Observer 19 May 1866). A report of the fire, and accompanying sketch even appeared in a national weekly (Harpers Weekly, 2 June 1866). Although damage to 42 Charter Street is not mentioned in any of the very detailed newspaper reports on the fire, the owner inserted the following "Card" in the news- paper: 6 The undersigned tenders his thanks to Chief Engineer Sanborn, to the Fire Department generally and to his numerous friends, for their kind assistance, in saving his property, from destruction, by fire, on the night of the 14th inst. may 19. J. P. Langmaid (Salem Observer, 19 May 1866). Perhaps in response to damage by the fire, the house was remodeled, subordinating its Federal character to the new Italianate style, with a new entrance on Charter Street and new interior features typical of the 1860s. The house continued to be occupied and sold to successive owners, some of whom (Edward R Hall, John C. McCarthy) lived in the house, while others rented it to ten- ants (Salem Directories). In 1921, McCarthy's daughters sold the house, and it was lived in by two Polish families until 1962, when it was sold to the Peabody Museum (Essex Deeds 2529: 79; 3506: 503; 4912: 8). Since then it has served as a residence for the Museum Director and more recently, the Director of Curatorial Operations. Architecture: 42 Charter Street is a three-story hip-roofed brick building with a wooden addition to the rear (Figure 1). The brick portion, which rests on a granite foundation, measures 26 feet by 40 feet, and is oriented with the narrow end facing Charter Street, with the longer five-bay facade facing to the east. The brickwork is painted, the windows are two-over-two sash, and the sills and lintels are tooled stone. The wooden ell has similar windows to the main house, a brick west facade and unpainted clapboard north and east facades, and a shed roof. The main brick portion of the building has many of the features of a Federal-style residence built around 1800: the east facade is symmetrical; there are five bays; the windows on the third floor are shorter than those on the floors below; and the brick- work rickwork coursing is in Flemish bond. Federal-style features on the interior include the massive timber construction, visible in the basement and attic, and a single splayed window jamb (first floor, northernmost window). The house was altered, perhaps after the 1866 fire. The original central entrance on the east facade was removed and the opening converted to a window matching the others (perhaps moved from the Charter Street facade), and a new Italianate en- trance built on Charter Street, with a projecting hood and oriel window above. On the inside, a new side stair was built from fust to third floors, with 1860s detailing, and new fireplace mantels, ceiling medallions and woodwork of the period insert- ed. Evidence of this re-orientation and updating of the house shows in several features. The granite foundations are finely cut on the south and east facades, and more roughly on the north and west, indicating the two facades of the house considered important. The brickwork around the present first-floor central window opening, 7 wxr k UP 4 �Q rv�!'k. I AM- S� i .�"�€c+-ire§-�+��;�'�x^.t,�.v.;a..,,�--=3er.o........u';,."r�tsEn z+✓. „„o n Figure 1. 42 Charter Street,Salem,Massachusetts. October 1995 8 f cutting and reworking. though well-matched to the original, shows evidence o g $ There is a non-matching rough granite lintel over the basement window below, and cut headers in that area too, that are consistent with an early Federal front door in the east wall. The corner of the basement below the present Charter Street entrance has newer brick piers that support the recessed entrance stone floor slab, and an un- used framed-off opening below the new entrance hall, which appears to indicate that either an early chimney or an early stair to the basement was removed in order to construct the Charter Street entrance. Turn-of-the-century photographs of the house show it with shutters; these are now gone (Figures 2 and 3). Recent changes to the house are few: the addition of alu- minum storm windows and modernization of the kitchen and bathrooms. In comparison with contemporary houses of the early nineteenth century, 42 Charter is a well-proportioned and finely built example. Whereas Samuel McIntyre's career has been studied in great detail (and 42 Charter was not found to be designed by him), other lesser-known Salem housewrights and/or designers were active at the time, including Jabez Smith, William Lummus, John Nichols, Perley Putnam, William Roberts, Sims Brothers, and David Lord. Jabez Smith is known to have designed and built massive timber-framed three-story Federal-style mansions (with splayed window jambs) for his own use. The exceptional quality of the fram- ing and brickwork at 42 Charter Street suggest the hand of a master craftsman (Tolles 1983: 150-51, 185, 199, 202, 208) (See Appendix C, Memorandum of John Goff, Historic Preservation and Design). 2. 10 Liberty Street History: The house now standing at 10 Liberty Street was built about 1841 by John Kinsman, a Salem housewright, for himself. Kinsman (ca. 1810-89) was a promi- nent man in Salem (his obituary appears in Appendix B). He was a builder and con- tractor, superintendent of the Eastern Railroad and later the Salem and Danvers Aqueduct company, a bank director and president, a member of the Massachusetts legislature, and an alderman. Outside of Massachusetts, he was superintendent of a railroad and a gas works in Ohio in the 1860s. In Salem, extant buildings associated with Kinsman include the State Normal School built in 1853-54 at 1 Broad Street, for which he was a contractor; the Kinsman-Cole House at 2 Winter Street, built for him in 1870-71; and the commercial structure named for him, the Kinsman Block (1882), at 81 Washington Street, which he financed (Tolles 1983: 22, 108,226). In 1850 Kinsman sold the house at 10 Liberty Street for $4,500 to Gamaliel Hodges (Essex Deeds 427: 229), who did not live in the house himself, but rented it to Nathaniel Snow (Salem Directory 1851). Hodges' son, John, inherited the property, and he sold it in 1866 (via an intermediary) to George Russell for $5,975 (Essex Deeds 702: 208,702: 37) . 9 .f}' i,t�'rray'•q `y� r t } it �y11 }�ti'�'$r,u�£..f45rfu�'^y3 y. P Ava niy¢lCh >,fj s ,.Iz , r eP yy � eA;;^�,t J }� �(�' itR._� "58✓ J�ja :{4 ''3;: YW"`��. `�. r � P,,p�tt�a�.,+ �7�I�ri,?ar•q"47f1 ,r > �jJ 3> tS Y`�iC 1•`t 557 }} 1 Cufrlf4 S �,Y `�}n r6hJ"; Y yi 'l • �> � i 1�P v Z'a F Y >7l ' p5 y p Y r'yXy � t�t4'llf I I.SI of C y z •3 >L 1 7�(F>�K Jr rive fj dt't.. 1. fE. I:1, � ��! e �I r�rly 'x< l HCl l✓ it, ;1 Q3@ y r v.•:f �y �' I' 7 Jtrx i '.P " r 7s, � it TT 1 +t, 11 r tea ,LI;Nt 1 { � _ • W �L'+F:' e��' 'I� L I�• � 14> `ty tT' 1 f.Yr , (`•� r .,j tJ 1 ��II1} . r wa}IIdH � pTl r P> p•✓ r�,�''�rmw•.r�. I ,I5 t ! 5 1 t r _,• I lil L..,. ..... 1 I i IN ilit r t f u yy T, r f f 'y 1 . > .-ala,:!��.-+•� ' r t ) T r`kP+"� pct P D ;' t ' t y4 }F9F9 rii ,r 5'r y .r K' 1 R *^'" t 5.1 d 1 ' � t ryll t2 E, y"+ u J 1• }y, 1 ,'t t 1 Ir .' Z�u„alCr i �{tA a FSC 4 N (tilt 3 tljri 11 b e a T{5�14 t'k'SyA61 } t ` L r o �1 } 7 q .ryh? 1 J� f �/(f�J f t .�S1 \�rS ^ ✓"•tyt}T' /r 1' YY{ • 1 •'K�51`t4 Y""FFkk 9111 , 1 Y J . • :✓� J t �,1n �Y}flq'^�.a��y wYe;yf�s•45CP i r..� 1 jYl �:, t e 4Cv •• • • • from rlgf SKI James Duncan Phillips • y ; . •• • 5 y Iqt 5 •>fC't�t^"1 +}^v ti-#.' i51 �t l� i�,7 �e4a vr✓+�;. t ��t r4' t N� 4 + I Fk�) + L 1 y r� ,.a •, '`�" r��}fn��'1fi, `tj6r}}'C'ti J"r �� y kP��H�yn<{�-S. " ,+ � yF�3� } Z � z �1 y r �� f D S��`i ��jF�ld. 4u x2t•tzy+� � t `t�l L t ` �uvynid§54 )�`� 'T tt Y` / �r'J,!:e ` [ t t �•, ' � � �- i' �5 tt':� `r.. '��`�S} w�Y+ac vrtr+ '�...n a< y a res',�� •. 't f l�k�;.��.l*,• r,�s t.�r..e. r 4 „3�;•R �y >4�ti. " .9 �Aa,um�3' ,!„ii�tYYT1+Yt C4a�V.tt #`3�' r tk h st 1119 r• y 1 t , f ' T te�,Ig;� ii it ' v-}+ 1Y, c�flk�s• x,� f y^a� ,11, M 1` � ! -.btr pyt 12'': 1 � 1 � 7 'fin 1 `n� upn � r r�yC_{�•h C'$�, }(dtf��y�+ti}t ai 1I t�r �} i , - � ��, `I •e ac �"-' � iyy �} a= r � r i 7 tr i c Russell bought the house on May 1, and two weeks later, the rear of the house was damaged by the major fire described in the history of 42 Charter Street. Newspaper accounts describe the effects of the fire on 10 Liberty Street: . . . The outbuildings in the rear of the dwelling houses of Mr. John Chamberlain, Capt. Geo. Upton and Mr. Geo. Russell, on Liberty street were also burned, and the houses themselves somewhat injured by the intense heat. . . Mr. Russell's loss is estimated at $500 on house—insured at the Springfield Fire and Marine office, and $100 on furniture—insured at the Hampden (Salem Register,17 May 1866). Russell inserted the following Card in the paper: The undersigned tenders his heartfelt thanks to the Firemen for their success- ful exertions in saving his main building from the flames on the morning of the 15th inst. may 19. Geo. Russell (Salem Observer,19 May 1866). Perhaps in response to the fire damage, the house was remodeled with Italianate features: an entrance hood with oriel window above were added; a rear brick ell was built; and a brick bay window on the south side constructed. These new features were skillful alterations of the original Greek Revival building. George Russell and his family continued to live in the house for many years. His widow, Lydia, is listed as living in the house in 1897 (Salem Directory 1897). Russell's daughter Elizabeth Phippen inherited the house, and in 1911 she and her husband Arthur Phippen sold the property to the Peabody Academy of Sciences (Essex Deeds 2121:456). The rumor that Joseph Smith, the Mormon leader, stayed in this house is unfound- ed, since Smith visited Salem only twice: in 1813 and 1836,both before the house was built (Brodie 1946: 8, 192-93). Architecture: 10 Liberty Street is a brick structure that appears to have been original- ly designed in 1841 as a two-and-a-half story Greek Revival residence with its gable end to the street (Figure 4). The building retains many original features: its granite foundation and entrance steps: the gabled roof; a three bay street facade and similar- ly-proportioned window openings on the side elevations with six-over-six sash win- dows; pressed brick on the facade and less fine brickwork on the sides; an off-center recessed entrance with paneled sides, sidelights and transom, framed in a trabiated design with finely carved cornerblocks; and brownstone sills and lintels. 12 _ �'�a+ Y t�,y-�4'�s '".`y` 'EC��yT.•r�'{v}t /fir M'f, s i r„ t e • n, r `k�srg+�a: W .' nvw -'2 ". �'�,¢ c'a -� �a & `ux „ .;w -s � x e .. ' Y R .yw,Mt'"d' �% Figure 4. 10 Liberty Street,Salem,Massachusetts. October 1995 13 • In the 1860s, probably after the 1866 fire,Italianate features were added: a hood over the front entrance, supported by carved brackets, with an oriel window taking the place of the window above the entrance; a one-story brick ell, probably replacing a wooden outbuilding burnt in the fire; and a brick bay window with brick dentilated cornice and two-over-two windows, added on the south facade. These alterations were skillfully done, with brick coursing, lintels and sills that matched the original construction well. Subsequent changes to the building are few: an exterior door to the ell has been bricked up; aluminum storm windows have been added; and the interior converted to offices (with minimal changes to the residential room arrangement). The build- ing is in good condition, with some deterioration of the brownstone lintels and sills, and some wear to the joints of the brickwork, particularly to the rear, and rising damp in the north wall. There are few interior details of note. 10 Liberty Street is a noteworthy example of Greek Revival architecture in Salem, where this style was not grandiose. Greek Revival was a style in vogue between 1820 and 1845, and this was a period of diminishing prosperity in Salem; the style "did not have a deep impact here as in many other New England seacoast commu- nities, and there are few high style examples" (Tolles 1983: xix). In Salem, most Greek Revival residences of similar age and massing are wood buildings. The brick and brownstone materials used in this structure show that 10 Liberty was originally costly and high-class. Some comparable structures are 16 Winter Street, 121 and 123 Federal Street, and a house at the corner of Essex and Hamilton Streets. 16 Winter Street (the Amelia Payson House, now a bed-and-breakfast; shown in Tolles 1983: 21) is a wood struc- ture that is otherwise quite similar in siting, massing, proportions, gable-end-to- street orientation, and Greek Revival detailing. This house has been called "one of Salem's finest examples of Greek Revival architecture," yet because it is a wood structure, rather than brick, it relies upon large pilasters for "show"and architectural effect. 10 Liberty Street is a more restrained example, achieving quality by its fine proportions, excellent workmanship and materials on the street facade, and excep- tional wood carvings in the cornerblocks at the front door. The pair of Greek Revival houses at 121 and 1'23 Federal Street (shown in Tolles 1983: 137-38) are similar in their configuration, although built of wood. Their en- trances have sidelights and transoms similar to 10 Liberty, but are not recessed, and the steps project beyond the house. 10 Liberty Street's neatly recessed entrance and steps allowed the house to be built right up to the sidewalk line, giving it a more urban character. 123 Federal Street has two windows in its pediment, as does 10 Liberty Street. The house at the east corner of Hamilton and Essex Streets (street number and his- 14 tory unknown) is one of the few other houses in Salem with the same combination of features as 10 Liberty Street. This house is brick and brownstone, gable-end-to- the-street Greek Revival, and one of the most sophisticated examples of the style found in Essex County. 10 Liberty Street also has features similar to the nearby Bowker Block, 144-156 Essex Street Mall, dating from 1830 (shown in Tolles 1983: 77). Both have a similar rectan- gular form (in the case of 10 Liberty Street, its form before later alterations) and pro- portions, evenly arranged window openings, stone lintels and sills, and fine brick- work-(See Appendix C, Memorandum of John Goff, Historic Preservation and Design). 15 III. Evaluation of Significance In the following evaluations of significance we were guided by criteria of signifi- cance used in listing historic properties on the National Register of Historic Places, and generally accepted among historic preservation professionals. These criteria for evaluation are found-in the Code_of Federal.Regulations, Title 36,Part 60 (NPS 1991). Historical Significance Both buildings have significance historically as rare surviving examples of the resi- dential development that was so closely integrated with the 19th century commer- cial development of Essex Street and surrounding areas of downtown Salem (Figures 5 and 6). From its early history, Essex Street was one of the busiest streets in Massachusetts, containing both residential and commercial structures in close prox- imity. Much of this early development was fueled by the proximity of wharves along the South River, the tidal flats of which originally stretched up into the area now occupied by New Derby Street and Riley Plaza. The maritime wealth of the Federal era led to increased development in the area, including some filling of the tidal flats, the creation of Charter Street, the building of new commercial blocks on Essex Street, and a gradual separation of residential and commercial uses in the growing city. By the mid 19th century, according to Bryant Tolles, Essex Street "was lined with stores, restaurants, hotels, theaters, meeting halls and office blocks, with all architectural styles from the Federal to the Italian Revival in evidence." (Tolles 1983: 71). The blocks just off Essex Street, however, retained much of their residen- tial character throughout the 19th century. The uses listed in various parts of the block affected by the Fire of 1866 give a good picture of the seamless integration be- tween the commercial uses of Essex Street and the residential character of the neigh- boring side streets. Both buildings have significant associations with the Fire of 1866, 10 Liberty Street having been partially burned and presumably renovated as a result, and 42 Charter Street having been saved by efforts of the firefighters. (It is not clear whether the re- modeling of 42 Charter was in response to damage from the fire.) The house at 10 Liberty Street is also significantly associated with John Kinsman, a prominent builder and businessman of 19th century Salem. In the later 19th and early 20th cen- turies, both houses continued to reflect on-going changes in the neighborhood, with 42 Charter Street serving as a residence for immigrant families, and 10 Liberty Street passing into ownership by the Peabody Academy. 16 i a \ a • Vc ya.�avl� \ � �� \�� Baa • c 'AS I,y11111J11Ue111 ' [•(� ' ,I I ��%�f�. t '1I,I11 1, t• row ., • �aG Ilr ��i Q:�. ,,, '1 , A, ^ n n'.�,� �_ �[(1_ f :, ,. rl • � � (� Rif . ". �' �ipi= ~ �(� ;•,1 r jN OW RRO Q� 1.•■may` MI J r 1� 1y.J•/,�.[}{r��y _- �t" l,t �� :,+t �fw♦�ie' .,,j- t�'`['�'l�rf'1'r� .•V\ 'r•)`�l-st•��® ,,��, r{.•UM. \rwra`• , � G ,:�.V�y �fl• •�,,,,,,. o ��6 ® �'Uti .. ,► �.� 6�;i;? - :.••7,yi�y� lj� &d► 74vyY� 7 - /! J r:: � 1� -� �WI !] / f.�' '' j't IIS• :� 'I►•� Jiii P ib ry 1®I, 111 , !r � ..`l�,?� ' �`�10�1�'�•:,'•�wl�" r`= �fM` 1(t�,t•�� /s -' �- I'P'— yV•� F� — T WU •• //{ V• •• � IIc tin ', ,i� l/� � �Ji,•;� �! e,. � I+�1� 1•M1.: n _��Z, ©�0 II�IW+�'r�� ..Y` ?;T�/ y.n�c_1 3�k� � �_ �•%'�•W, i? � %�C i(///! /._-�?ft-.'��I �,. •�_'�/�.� •�' c.fwv��•• ��mlllfla"• �\ ` •1 •t �� i• 1 ", 1'-�� > -'Cr' .4., ��'L///1'!1 7, ' gllryf nA 11� "�1' 1 Q1�L�J7 Irl-__ — ,. •. 1 - I'. s- yr .,, ,�•. �� .'� ,:�.r�^ j•Ci flS.' i •' -- ��is�(•ky{�w�,bl. ] r ` '7 1[ �.•�J7rA�� prowl, J• � r , ..tom' f��`p� + vim17 G 0. Courtesy,James Duncan Phillips , rigure ,tin Library,,�G . .,. lem . • D 7. 0-7 •lf ;� f _� s• ua, ; r • 11 Architectural Significance Both buildings have significance architecturally as fine examples of the vernacular interpretation of the Federal and Greek Revival styles in Salem during its major pe- riod of development in the early 19th century. Both also were adroitly updated to the Italianate style after the mid-century, thus expressing the evolution of architec- tural taste in 19th century Salem. While we have classified them as "vernacular," both houses are clearly at the very upper end of that classification. The house at 42 Charter Street is one of the oldest surviving brick houses in Salem, having been listed in 1806 as one of only 26 brick residences in the town, of which only a handful survive. While no architect is known for the house, its size, its brick construction and utilization of fine Flemish bond brickwork, and its detailing indi- cate that it was a rather ambitious house for the period. Its interior contains some interesting survivals from that period as well as numerous details characteristic of the mid century Italianate style to which it was converted later in the century. The house at 10 Liberty Street is a somewhat unusual example in Salem of a Greek Revival house constructed in brick, and contains some fine details, including the pressed brick construction of the front wall, the corner blocks at the front entrance toward the beginning of his career b a noted Salem tone sills. Built tow d g Y and the browns gl builder, it, too, must be classed as a relatively ambitious house for its period. Its con- version to the Italianate style also reflects quality design and craftsmanship of the period. There is little of note on the interior of this house. National Register ListingMigibility and Context Based on our research in the official files of the Massachusetts Historical Commission and our discussions with the State Historic Preservation Officer, Judith McDonough, as well as research into NR and NHL legislation and regulations, we conclude that both buildings are included in the National Register as contributing elements to the Peabody Museum listing. The Peabody Museum was first listed as a National Historic Landmark in 1966, and its NR boundaries were clarified to include the subject buildings in 1972 and mapped at the time of the Multiple Resource Area nomination in 1983. The two buildings, along with the Museum, are within the Multiple Resource Area. They also relate significantly to the neighboring Downtown Salem District created as part of that nomination, and to the Charter Street District designated in 1975. If they were not already included on the NR, they would be deemed eligible for inclusion based on their historical and architectural significance, and relationship to other his- toric resources surrounding them. However, unlike the rest of the Peabody Museum complex, they have only local significance. 19 REFERENCES Brodie, Fawn M. 1946 No man knows my history: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet. New York, Alfred A. Knopf. Duerksen, Christopher J., ed. 1983 A Handbook of Historic Preservation Law. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation and the National Center for Preservation Law. Essex Deeds Deeds. Essex County Registry of Deeds. Salem,Massachusetts. Harpers Weekly Massachusetts Historical Commission 1979 InventoryForm. 10 Liberty Street, Salem. No, 2474. 1979 Inventory Form. 42 Charter Street, Salem. No. 3538. National Park Service (NPS) 1965 National Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings. The Peabody Museum of Salem, Massachusetts. 1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. Washington, D.C. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 1972 Inventory-Nomination Form. Peabody Museum of Salem. 1975 Inventory-Nomination Form. Charter Street Historic District. 1983a Inventory-Nomination Form. East India Marine Hall; Peabody Academy of Science, Peabody Museum of Salem. 1983b Inventory-Nomination Form. Historic Resources of Downtown Salem (Partial Inventory: Historic and Architectural Properties). Salem Directories 20 Salem Gazette Salem Observer Salem Register Tolles, Bryant F.,Jr. 1983 Architecture in Salem: An Illustrated Guide. Salem, Mass.: Essex Institute. --Maps-and.Plans----. — 1780 Map of Salem about 1780, based on the researches of Sidney Perley and the accounts of Col. Benj. Pickman and Benj. F. Browne with additional infor- mation, assembled by James Duncan Phillips and Henry Noyes Otis. 1937. 1851 City of Salem by Henry McIntyre. 1872 Atlas, Essex County. 1874 Atlas of the City of Salem, Massachusetts. C. M. Hopkins & Co., Parts of Wards 1 and 2,p. 19. 1883 Salem, Massachusetts. Syracuse, New York: D. Mason & Co. 1890 Salem, Essex County,Massachusetts. New York: Sanborn-Perris Map Co. 1897 Atlas of the City of Salem. Richards Map Co., Plate 3. 1906 Insurance Maps of Salem, Massachusetts. New York- Sanborn Map Corporation. 1911 Atlas, City of Salem. Walker Lithograph & Publishing Co. Parts of Wards 1, 3,4and 5. 1914 Map of Burnt District, in Arthur B. Jones, The Salem Fire. Boston: The Gorham Press, 1914. 21 APPENDICES 22 APPENDIX A Brick Buildings in Salem,1806 (Salem Gazette, 4 February 1806) m Is Brick.Buildings. •• of wa,cusaraa, a' PERHAPS the following I.ift of brick.' .'• PERHAPS in Salem maycormwidiin the s rcr ued of your, Correftxmdent •' Cavcion;" who has delired a communication of ayf)Oa jYard No.""_ "—a- eorneaed with the fubjee which he is dd'cur. 4` ' ring. Mare made the lift with care, and b Elf.-r 9Jr4t[. Albcit Gray,'' •t"d' t. believe it contains all our brick.buildipgs. Daniel Saunders,' x - The dads sabered agoiol! tFnw M rhirw aie Robert Prefer t intended to•fhnw w•hcn they were built or Fedrral fp. Jofepb Sprague, I fiuitbcd.—Some of'your.eorrefpomsents.I 1 Courtff. John Derby, I'- hope will eorreft any errors they may, dif. Arehelans Res, 7 : cover in the lift. It will he a curious faa in • the hi8ory of Satan(wh4h wns settled three Ip ftoe fl. Jo¢ath'an Deane t years before BeJlan) that at the beginning of the year r W. there were but fifty build. 26 1; . ings(out of about 2,000)taliiely of brick. Buildings,o`olber defcr;ption,. in the whole lown. FACT. r I Court-Houle,in Couit flreet. - e' t 'Baptilt blecting-Hoofe, Marlbora'•flreet. g ? Salem Bank,1yeexfprect. ' •,• lYerd No. Sugar Hoofer Afh-ftnrt. F..Fx Street.]w S.'Ling, 1 tans. R. Stone'i Diftillery,Nrptune-fpreet. - Benj.Dodge; 1t8•os.. •`John Norris's DiQillvy,Water Strut. MA'S as f John Daland, I "' f .Wm. Gray's Stable,St.Petn'r fheet. Afarketfl. Hathorne&Gray, I tens. 2 Work Shops of t (tory,in.Derby Sreet. . F,fbfl. Samuel Gray,' I _ c i Fort Picketing,on Winter Upend. Cb.rtarft. Gilbert Chadwick, I t8os. t Powder Hu¢te, in the Great Pafpws.-lf. prinrffrrrt.,jdna. Mafon, I ' _ _ Nathan Pciree; s tens.' $uildings partly of Brick. Watrrft,!, Smith&Dooglar" 1' 1804. Sun Tavern, EFexf[reet. Nrpnm R. Eliphalet But'". 't lana. ' Arqu lYbJ.Palle&Ropesr t I Capt. Sage's Houte, do. Dwbyfhnl.Henry,Prince, I Ebenezer Smith,do. Mores Townfcnd,. .t 18os, . 1 John Watfnn,Union Stred. - Ward No.a. i •John Ruft's, Couney fbret. Epx Strut..John Gardner, t Laos. , I W idew of Daniel Rall,do.' William Gray., I : t joGah Patios, !Vater Streif. .Chafe Sc Rai, t. ' .y76y • i (antes Pope's, Marlborough- reel. Jacob Will6 P. tear 1 • Rcv Mr. S aldin 's. Summer• eery.- Coar1 yl.nt.William Sm, ..� t t P g �• , Ward Na.3: William Fahens's, H;SAf reet. Epea Strut.Henry Rult, I Stephen Phillips's, Cbyirutorbit. t .John Ha$oine, t 'i Richard Savary's, Briggs,Kent..-.tz.o John Appllemn, .1 _.1772. r+ Abel Lawrence,. I- 1 •S/1L LM. Mn. HPopm, c TUESDAY, FCVRUARY Igo6. . lYafiigfen f.jofepti Ropes, 1 18os.� 4=--s_—.- Jamna ward, I t . . Svurnrrft. Jofeph Baker, I Cbef4w,fl. Daniel Grcgg, I ' ISOs. Jonathan Hodges', 1 18dS. 'Phomas Saunders, t 1805. Warren fl. Charles Cleveland, t dans. APPENDIX B Obituary of John Kinsman (Salem Evening News,18 November 1889) DEATH OF 004N KINSMAN. one of Salem's most Prominent •iron Passes Away. John Kinsman, one of the greatest pprornotene of,'the building industry In Salam, died-Saturday evening-in hie_79th year: From the time he began building the present he has : been idem- tified with. the .-growth of the city, and many of the large blocks,which adorn the principal streets, as well-as now WTI- tory oppeened up In enbnrbs, are moan- meats he baa left ass citisen .of progrees and abi,ity. The lose of such men is felt keenly.. He had been sick but three weeks, and his death was not apprebendo$ even daring Saturday. During the evening his illness took a serious tarn, and In a short time he had passed away. Mr. Hausman was born in Ipswich and came to 8akIn when;he was but 16oars of age, learning the carpenter's trade o David Lord. 'Afterwards he : en- tered forhimself, and was aatxeeefnl For several years he ]was onperintendent of the old Eastern rail• toad, when it was virtually fri its infancy. He kit there to assume the supperinten- deaey of the Mad Siver.radlroad In Oblo. Subsequently he assumed charge of the ggas worksatBprinfiold,O. He returned to 84u! in 1864 and beeame superintendent of the Eastern railroad car shops until the lease expired, when be assumed direction of the Selem & Danvers acquedact eom any, which position he held uutil 1870 no was president of the Salem Five Cents Savings bank-for several years and at the time of Ws death is director pll the Mercantile National bank. He wan a member of the Maseachusette legislature In 1856 and 1857, and of the board bl al- derman In 1876. } -Mr. Kinsman opened np Bosrdmap, strest ss a raddential part o t e city, and since then every spare bit land .hos. been built upos,�sad the po ation, so< cording'to �8'T�. is as great as in an portion of the - city. He builtthe first. - Lynds block, the Kinsman block oa-Washiogton street, the marble front block on'Emaxstroot; and several other handsome brick build- ings,besides numerous dwelling houses .130 accumulated a large amount o* prop. ! erty as the result of his own work.4nd an- deavor. He leaves a widow. andj three 9008. - --- -- - - -- f APPENDIX C Historic Preservation and Design Post Office Box 8655, Salem,Massachusetts 01971 Telephone and Fax Number:(508) 741-1767 FAX-MEMO Date: November 10, 1995 To: Polly Chase-Harrell,Boston Affiliates,Inc. fax(617) 451-6475 From: John Goff;HPD Re: 42 Charter and 10 Liberty Street,Salem:Investigation and Findings Number of Pages Total(including this page): 4 Please call us immediately if transmission is received poorly or is incomplete. # k*#*#* #* sk##k*st*#*k*#**s* *# 1.Summary of Work: On Friday,November 3, 1995,preservation architect John Goff (Historic Preservation&Design)accompanied Pauline Chase-Harrell and Stanley Moss(Boston Affiliates)to investigate the buildings at 42 Charter Street and 10 Liberty Street in Salem in order to determine probable age and historical significance. Inspections were made both to the interior and exterior of 42 Charter Street,and to the exterior of 10 Liberty Street. Prior to commencing this investigation,there was some speculation that one of the buildings-42 Charter Street— might actually be of Victorian period style and construction,which would likely reduce its rarity and significance. Because this structure was thought to be the most perplexing,it was examined first. The new examinations provided an abundance of evidence suggesting that 42 Charter Street was actually an early 19th century Federal Style residence,which was later modernized,in or about the 1860s. In similar fasbion, 10 Liberty Street was found to be a circa 1840s Greek Revival structure, also modernized and altered at a later date. These new findings serve to underscore the age,rarity and architectural value of both structures. .2- 2. 42 Charter Street 42 Charter Street is a three-story, hipped roof brick building,with a wood addition annexed to the north(rear). The oldest and most prominent part of the structure is the brick portion,which rests upon a granite foundation.It measures about 25 x 40 feet,is a simple rectangle in plan,and is oriented with the narrow end(south side)facing Charter Street with a longer 5-bay facade facing Liberty Street to the east. --- ---- — -. _._._ _.._ . Y The brick part of the house was examined in detail,and found to likely have been first built about the 180 as a fine—ad typical-5 bay Federal Style structure,with original entrance in the middle of the east facade, facing Liberty Street. At a later date—probably around 1860—the Charter Street"end"was reconfigure to be the major fiont of the building.To achieve this alteration,an exterior portico and/or set of steps was apparently removed from the east,a new basement window was inserted where the old steps formerly were located; and the old door opening was partially bricked in and re-worked to hold a window. To create the new entrance on Charter Street, a new opening was cut in the south wall,new steps and staircase were constructed, and many new wood items(tall panels in the side of the new recessed entry,new entrance doors,projecting oriel window,bracketted supports for the oriel window;and new newel post,stairs and banister)were designed in the ca. 1860 Italianate Style.The Victorian alterations were quite extensive and also include new plasterwork,curved walls,marble fireplac*),plaster medallion(s),and millwork on the interior, as well as Victorian period 2/2 windows,which still fill most of the window openings. Although 42 Charter Street was heavily altered in the mid4to-hate 19th century,it still retains its siting,massing and many elements of the early period. The fine Flemish Bond brickwork on the east and south facades is particularly noteworthy,and is a key indicator that this was a high-quality residence when first bulk in the Federal pend..The stone foundation on the two main walls(south and east)is also particularly fine,as is the tooling on the stone lintels and sills found at most window openings. Of acute significance and importance are the splayed interior window jambs which survive intact on the northern most widows in the east wall,first floor.These splayed interior jambs were probably origmally used throughout the first floor openings of the house.They are typical features on many fine Federal Periodmansions in Sateen and were sometimes designed to support and display folding interior shutters,which recessed into the jambs when not used to closeoffthe window.There is a good possibility that the first floor windows of 42 Charter Street were originally detailed in this manner;the surviving jambs noted above Mwly contain clues which should be examined in greater detail.Other Salem buildings of similar period and style include the Jabez Smith House at 397 Essex Street(built of wood),and the Gardner-Pingree House(brick) owned by the Peabody-Essex Museum. Bryant Tolles noted that the Smith House dates from ca 1806,while the Gardner-Pingree House dates from 1804-05. (Tolles,Architecture in Salern pp. 150,6). -3- It is clear from the size,siting, massing,brickwork,stonework,and window jambs that 42 Charter Street was originally built as a very expensive and showy Federal Style mansion when it was first constructed in the early 1800s. Consistent with this categorization is the design and condition of the timber flaming,which supports all floors,as well as the roof fiaming above the brick exterior bearing walls. The timber Beaming in the basement (massive 4 x 12 joists spaced 16 inches on center)and massive and early construction visible in the attic both speak of exceptional craftsmanship worked almost 200 years ago. The first floor floorboards,supported by the old joists,were cut with a vertical saw,which is consistent of the Federal Period.The finish on the basement joists is also consistent with that period.The vertical orientation of the joists(placed`Srpright"notflat)and close spacing reveal an understanding of floor loads which was truly progressive for that early period. The roof structure was also built with massive timbers,given a whitewashed coat,with two upright posts supportrng a ridge pole which is stabilized by diagonal rafters at the comers of the hip. Against this massive and simple structure,additional rafters,purlins,and vertical boards were laid,to construct a roof structure which was economical for housewrights to build,Yet stylish in the new Federal mode. Whereas Samuel McIntire's career has been studied in great detail(and never revealed this to be a McIntire house)it seems likely that other as-Yet-unknown Salem housewrights and/or designers were responsible for building 42 Charter Street. Salem's[now]lesser-known builder Jabez Smith is known to have designed and built massive timber-flamed 3-story Federal Style mansions(with splayed window jambs)for his own use—e.g.397 Essex Street—as well as a number of fine brick mansions along Chestnut Street—all between the years of about 1800 and 1820(397 Essex,ca. 1806;21-23 Chestnut, 1814-15; 37 Chestnut, 1816-17;27 Chestnut ca. 1819;) Tolles also noted that William Lummus,John Nichols,Perley Putnam,William Roberts,Suns Brothers,and David Lord were leading Salem builders as well as Smith during this early period Therefore,we suspect that future research will reveal 42 Charter Street to have been originally designed by Jabez Smith or some of his skilled contemporaries. Tolles refers to Smith as a"master builder"of his day;the exceptional quality ofthe fiaming and brickwork at 42 Charter Street evidence the hand of a talent of such caliber.If Smith did design and build 42 Charter Street,it would have been one of the earliest structures in his career,and clearly the result of the same market forces which led to McIntire being hired to design the nearby Gardner-Pingee House at almost exactly the same period.(Bryant Tolles,Architecture in Salem pp. 150-151, 185, 199,202,208). The moving of 42 Charter Street's front door from east to south appears to have been well done(and/or concealed)in the Victorian period,which probably explains why the dating of this house has complicated casual inspection in the past. When the east door opening was filled in and re-used as a window opening,matching tooled lintel and sill were used on the new window to camouflage it as a new element.However,close inspection of the brickwork adjacent to this window on both sides reveals that the old brickwork was cut and re-worked on both sides to effect the transition. The width of the headers in the old Flemish bond courses changes slightly adjacent to this opening,which proves that an older facade was cut and re-worked.The non-matching rough granite lintel over the basement window below—and cut headers in that area also—are consistent with an early Federal front door in the east wall,which was relocated to Charter Street at a later period -4- When we walk around the comer to the south,we find further evidence of a major door change in the form of newer brick piers which support the Victorian recessed entry stone floor slab(in the basement),and an unused framed-off opening below the Victorian entry hall,which appears to indicate that either an early chimney or an early stair to the basement was removed ca. 1860 in order to move the from door to its new location. All these architectural elements,as well as a comparative analysis of other Federal Period mansions in Salem( 128 Essex, 13 Washington Square East,29 Washington Square North,31 Washington Square North,33-35 Washington Square North,26 Winter Street,etc.),prove quite conclusively that 42 Charter was first designed and built in the Federal Period,and that itwas later renovated with a TraW door relocation in the Victorian pen circa 1860 period is assumed for the time of Victorian changes,because most of the newer elements are Italianate in style, which reached its zenith of popularity in Salem in the years before the Civil War. In conclusion,42 Charter Street appears to be a ca. 1800 Federal style brick mansion,which was slightly altered on the exterior about the year 1860 to display a new from door,entry and stair hall on the south,to be more up- to-date in the Italianate style.The 2/2 windows likely also date from this same period. The major part of the building,however,is an excellent survival from one of Salem's most distinguished periods,and the Flemish Bond,brick construction,building proportions and sophisticated flaming indicate that it is a noteworthy local landmark which deserves additional research,preservation,and interpretation. 3. 10 Liberty Street 10 Liberty Street is a brick-and-brownstone structure which appears to have been originally designed as a gable- end-to-the-street Greek Revival residence about the year 1840.The 3-bay width on the street facade,the side position of the door,the gabled roof and proportions of the facade,as well as trabiated design and comerblocks associated with recessed entry all are consistent with an original build date around the year 1840. Like 42 Charter Street, 10 Liberty Street appears to have been modified in the Victorian era.The westermriost portion of the surviving structure,the semi-octagonal bay on the south side,and the Italianate oriel window over the from door(and supportive Italianate brackets)appear to have been the three main features added probably about 1860. It is possible that some of the Victorian remodeling on both structures was initially triggered by the need to repair and rebuild,after a local fire damaged buildings nearby in downtown Salem in the 1860s decade. In conchision, 10 Liberty Street is a fine example of a Greek Revival residence,modified in the Victorian period to reflect the newer Italianate style. In Salem most Greek Revival residences of similar age and massing are wood buildings.The brick and brownstone materials used in this structure show that 10 Liberty was originally may,and especially high-class. 16 Winter Street,an"elegantly restored Bed&Breakfast"promoted as the Amelia Payson House,is a wood structure which is otherwise quite similar in siting,massing,proportions,gable- end-to-street orientation,and Greek Revival detailing. 16 Winter has been called"one of Salem's finest examples of Greek Revival Architecture"—yet because it is a wood structure,rather than brick,it relies upon large pilasters for"show"and architectinal effect. 10 Liberty Street proclaims its status by using a fine,pressed brick on the entire from facade,and by displaying exceptional wood carvings in the comerblocks near the from door. The house at the east comer of Hamilton and Essex Streets in Salem(street number and history unknown)is one of the few other houses here in Salem which displays the similar combination of features utilized at 10 Liberty. This Essex Street house is brick and brownstone,gable-end-to-the-street Greek Revival,and one of the most sophisticated examples of the style found in Essex County. 10 Liberty,like 42 Charter,is a noteworthy Salem landmark worthy of additional research,preservation,and interpretation. Location Miti ation House Floor Room Detail Include in Photography Paint Archive Scale sample Fragment Drawing 42 Charter St. Attic North Overall X X Floor planks X X TRIG door X X X -ff3ipsed rafters X X Middle Overall X X Window casing(New) X X Floor planks X X Paneling X X Hallwa Ceiling plaster X X Base hoard X X X Window Casing X X Stair banister X X X X Stair Treads&Risers X X X Firewall paintect wood ca X X X Exposed.. .. .. X X 2n Bedroom Overall X X Plaster X X X Base board x X X Hallwa Ceilin [aster X X Base board X X X Window casin X X X Stair banister X X X X Stair Treads&Risers K X X Firewall painted wood ca X X X E sed" " " X X 1st Bedroom Overall X X Plaster X X X Base board x X X Hml�ya Ceilin laster X X Base board X X X Window casing X X. X X X Stair banister X X Stair Treads&Risers X X X Firewall PaIntea wood ca X X X Esed.. .. .. X X X Basement Addition Overall X XX X Stair treads&risers X X X Storage closet X X X Ent a Addition Overall X X X Save for re-use Granite stairs X Basement Main Overall X X Stone with iti X X ll X X overall Exterior ]so X X X Painted mX }{ Save for re-use Brownstone elements X X Roofin Miti ation Location Include in Photography Paint Archive House Floor Room Detail Scale sample Fragment Drawin West Overall X X 10 Libe St. 1 Floor plarks X X T&G door X X X E sed rafters X X East Overall X X Window Casin ew X X Floor tanks X X Panelin X X E sed exterior wall X X X FireDlace and C"---l. X X X Bath Plaster X X X Base board X X X X Window casin X X Fixtures X X E ed exterior wall X X all X X Basement Over Addition overNjasowalls X X X X X list stat Re X X X Chiron maso X Main Overall X Exterior walls X X Save for reuse Brick floor X Save for reuse Exterior Addition ante X X X X Save for reuse Brownstone X X Save for reuse 6 over 6 window X X Wood trim X X X Roofin X X Brick Location Miti atioo Include in Photography amp House Floor Room Detail Scale le Fragment Drawin Em ire 2 Overall X X 1st Overall X X Basement Overall Vilate Young (1830-1902) Vilate Young was born June 1, 1830 in Mendon, New York, the second child of Brigham and Miriam (Works)Young. She „., was named for Vilate Murray, first wife of Heber Chase Kimball, lifelong associate of Brigham Young. In 1844, while the Young Family was in Nauvoo, Vilate was sent East for school, entrusted to the care of Nathaniel and Eliza Felt of Salem. In_May_of_1844,_Brigham_Young traveled East to attend to church business and solicit.support for Joseph Smith's presidential candidacy. He visited Vilate on June 181h, and remained in the Boston area until mid-July. Throughout the summer, the Felt residence at 10 Liberty Street had been a meeting place for visiting elders from Nauvoo, including Young, Heber Kimball, and others. By August, after leaming that Joseph Smith had been assassinated in Carthage, Illinois, Brigham had left the east and headed back to Nauvoo. In June of 1845, Nathaniel Felt sold his tailoring business at 217 Essex Street and headed to Nauvoo. We may reasonably suppose that Vilate had left Salem by this time. By the end of 1846, Vilate was resident at Winter Quarters (now Florence), Nebraska, a stopping place on westward migration to avoid persecution. Vilate was among those who endured hardship and disease during the winter of 1846-47. Six hundred residents of the temporary colony perished. On February 4, 1847, she married Charles Franklin Decker, (b. June 21, 1824, New York state.) The diary of Eliza R. Snow records a verse read to the pair on the occasion: Please accept our warmest wishes for your good, ye youthful pair. That the richest, choicest blessings Heav'n may grant your lot to share. On 17 June 1847, Vilate and Charles left Winter Quarters for Utah, in the company led by Captain Jedediah M. Grant. Most of the thousand-mile journey was accomplished by foot, with hauling handcarts. They arrived at the site of Salt Lake City in September,just two months after Brigham Young's first company, and were thus among the earliest pioneers. Charles and Vilate Decker had eight children. In later years, Charles married two more wives. Near the end of her life, after the death of her husband, Vilate moved to Lewisville, Idaho, to live with her sister. She died in 1902, and they are buried alongside each other. Vilate is said to have been exceptionally intelligent, and musically talented. 10 Liberty Street and the LDS Church: A Chronol� Date Salem Elsewhere August 1836 Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdrey in Salem October 3, 1839 Nathaniel Felt, Salem tailor,marries Eliza Ann Prescott Nauvoo,Illinois incorporated December 16, 1840 1841 10 Liberty Street Salem built by John Kinsman, businessman; 1841 Salem Directory lists Nathaniel Felt,business at 217 Essex,living at 10 Liberty;John Kinsman living at 10 Liberty September 1841 - ---Erastus-Snow visits.Salem Jan 1, 1842 LDS Church formed in Salem 1842 r Natlianiel Felxtoms LDS Churdi 1842 s Salem Directory lists Nathaznel Felf business at 217 ' Essex hvmg of 10 Liberty,John Kinsman hviiig at i0 Winter 1843 i 844 Felt;apponrted presrd6ht of the Salem Branch of LDS church ter Vilate to N h athaniel 1844 Bngham Yourig entrusts laug and 3;hza Felt m Salem o Bnghanr Y migtravels Bask with Hebei May1844 , _ � � Kwiba L � �>ghtto seeksuppo�: h Smtth�' i� ezn` �' for 7osep spies dential d►dao' June 18 1844 f Brigham Young visits daughtevin Salem Bngliam Young with Wilford Woodruff June 27, 1844 4 at Bostmi ' Joseph"Smith assassinated m Carthage, 6e27, 1844 Ilhnois BrighamYoung at Bostolt ctxifer�ee, July;I 1$44 ak Salem when secretary Feltlisted, July9, 1844 Heber Kimball,and Lyman Wight they 1n Boston as BnghamYou>ig-hears rumors '. hearrumors.of Smrtli sassasuiahoir th lease for that Smith has been assasmated ey Boston,later the same daythey proceed to New Yorl4 At 1'et@rhom, zrgham Yom moves f Ca;3uly 16,1844 ' „ confimiationoSmith's death August 28, 1844 Brigham Young writes to Pilate,saying hers uncettam when he w�l tr�l East again- T F s June 5, 184$ Nathamel Felt,.wife�soa leave Salem for,lVauvoo '. °' , Vilate Young married Charles F. Decker February 1847 at Winter Quarters,Nebraska Charles and Vilate Decker leave Winter June 1847 Quarters(Floirence),Nebraska for Utah, arriving at site of Salt Lake City in September 1848 Nathaniel Felt visits Salem 1866 Rear addition at 10 Liberty Street replaced following fire PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM ART ARCHITECTURE CULTURE l June 21, 2000 ESSfy 00 o' b� Salem Historical Commission - EnsrlxDIAsQunRe _:. OneSalem..Green SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS Salem,Massachusetts 01970 01970-3783 USA - TEL 978-745-9500 FAx:978.744.6776 Dear Commission Members: MW ..PEM.ORG In reference to our current discussions regarding the relocation of houses at 42 Charter Street and 10 Liberty Street, the question has been raised as to whether the houses would, by being moved, lose their status as contributing elements to the National Register of Historic Places registration that includes the East India Marine Hall. It is our understanding that moving the houses would, in fact, cause them to lose their status as contributing elements. However,in light of our belief that these structures are excellent examples of Salem's high-end nineteenth-century vernacular architecture, and in keeping with our decision to preserve the houses by moving them, we wish to make the commitment to you that, after the houses are moved, we will seek to obtain National Register status for each house in its own right and not merely as a contributing element to the current registration. We hope this answers your concern regarding the National Register status of these houses. Sincer ly, DMo Monroe Eutlve Director and CEO s ES"Onraa `:71 c ' 77].NY7 i„pygg� �d�av r�io Snrysnrf—: � I I I I t PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CONCERNS' D32B C`animentstlao iris i �� tlo�r - Public ROW Essex St./Pedestrian Mall • Lighting plan and fixtures have not been shown to the DRB. • It was expressed that all infrastructure changes (paving • Essex St. Mall and crosswalks will be paved with brick l per' materials, curbing, lighting, etc.) should meet the City complimentary to the existing City Hall Pavers. standard to ensure the project fits within the existing downtown context. For example, the City standard for brick is City Hall Pavers "Salem Blend"manufactured by Stiles and Hart. The proposed replacement of a portion of the Essex Pedestrian Mall with new paving materials needs further review. • The design of Essex Street should clearly communicate where • Major portions of the formerly proposed brick roadway have Pedestrian movements should occur and where the pedestrian been revised to show an asphalt paving surface. mall ends. The Board felt that the excessive amount of brick paving within the public right-of-way would make Essex Street appear to be a part of the pedestrian mall, which could lead to dangerous vehicular/pedestrian conflicts. The Board requested alternatives far this critical intersection. • The vehicular and pedestrian circulation pattern should be • A two-way roadway has been designed continues to be improved. The current plan includes New Liberty as a two- discussed at Planning Board. way street that becomes a one way street. This would lead to unsafe turning movements and congestion. The Board suggested that a two-way circulation pattern for Essex and New Liberty Street could solve this problem. • The curb alignment at the intersection of New Liberty and Essex Streets should be examined. The Board requested alternatives for this critical intersection. �1RB oMniDUN r. ,flcti ' Esplanade • No alternatives provided. • Lawns should be elevated above paths to decrease the use of O the grass area as an alternate path. This grade separation would also provide a greater formality for the space. • Concern that proposed fieldstone wall is in close proximity to • Photograph of wall material was submitted. Tercentenary Memorial and proposed wall should not replicate Memorial. Photo of proposed wall material & design to be submitted. • Concern that Esplanade path narrows from 12'8"to 8' at the • No alternative provided. It was pointed out that there are Charter St. end and with large amounts of people, e.g. bus smaller bluestone ancillary paths at the Charter Street (� tours, embarking and disembarking from this location at one location. time— 12'8" width should be maintained. Esplanade & Armory Park • Total redesign of Armory Park was presented. • Design/Aesthetic concern - appears that they were designed at two different times by two different people • Reads as two different spaces—does not link the elements together • Entrances to each park do not align • No alternatives have been proposed, although Armory Park • Current alignment raises handicap access concern has been totally redesigned, and the arch still remains in the It was requested that the arch be moved to align with the same location and the public walkway within the Esplanade entrance to the public walkway or the walkway be shifted to has not been shifted to align to the arch. align with the Armory arch.. ...... .a New Gallery facades along Liberty Street . No alternatives were provided. • Concern was expressed regarding the mass of the building DRB suggestions included. increasing the depth between the brick and glazing by adding one more row of bricks; design of some type of step-down landscaping near the building edge; introduction of other patterns or materials to break up the massing. • k� ..w' £ M ar4a+9' �.. � £5 g g 5 F � n'.qi�°� q '>•x yd '1 411 kM1.w!4,1' y+. mE' t ,x rY *p,a• 1 �"< � tF}`'S,A,',,�s �R' l`x? � �� }y �� ,+Cu s d js(( S'MI' 'ly 4� I'k �vffyifj ima i s f g-" 1s{, �. r�„" ...a..,-•.v ry�'o - g�'�y,�i ' � td r I E Vy _ f t � It q 4 R t - -'#�' � � �• lV `� �� F� '%.� � Ash t'C Iqs� am e .^•- $ „ .fix f r a I:i f`s �..- `A(�`{. ve" �`rp � NA(9M ;ptl• y 74 k^1�r $ 1 TF h �€ •y � 't'f � � it L 'fsa il� AA y, f 1 r tl. t •ice ��' , II�A4 til k i� I �• i { J 11 � +'�' ' t � r + Es 1 y j � r i r r AU ;�"s�"�.. c: Sr' y y: ' u ,nn n 1 W •. i r Y� t - S {• ' w�iL�� I:+� }��`�� . 4 .'tea_; .a�ti,�� .,"�. tfv � •"��tt sti.. 'LM.3.r i f •ir s� f� a, e „ • � .. �.� ; '� (t4 i✓Y.?4'i/¢B svi � t e"°r•3yy lk�.lhs �K :sF >Y to iv �� 03 rj?,�„�kY•��{x"d:=�1. 'Orr, +Y;y, pT 1t� rt ^ � r 6„� Z,e�+4 riri � e C, /' •f�"/� �'+t'-�`yi "a,f' Lto�Arf'�v �t�/i a tSx '� i i ' •/jJ a 1 '�tYr � t� t�ifa. / � fp t ff .. ,ta 91 ��y r�� tr def r�y� r t•Ir 1 'i9lrfill�Wf fit * U', , N1iU :ryr ,F0. rNi +xryn R /Av, f .d� r, ast i "�I�t�e l4 µ, � � " i •r 1�I�`{.ry ' `n + �y, � r I �rr"w }� Iwar ' ( f IF Af` it'P . � vAF ►,7i h`D�la �,, er I$ + ` .• !1 * n. i IIli eyAli "p��" 1 J If A �411 r M rlMl M♦ .\" .�,tdl"rl r ��7,,��pp, ,, r. n ntA,. tdt l ei �'. xu 61t S+00 FIt 1Ylijyf,iM1 t�. 1a. ` oe �t�i; !�+ F.c a• hW�, � ,"t . f' . �' ?•i % F ��F ti' � �M +. T t+,& rA r,al+f�* �"I v, i lad ` ��i�! '�- 4j��r � � t' r�f�Fr ��':� •,�vy� r)ty� A'�1�'ar v ],Y �,` a, �. a A' a �f +-..,��YglaY' .r!- v".'� ��vn�� *.i t• Sty�f�:ar ff+�i'�f�+ ' fi p h i 4t �4 t dh +Wti. 7 'r'�• K� .� ',��y YrrY * gyp'qt'�>''�^^11Y r'� '..`,h "1 1 a+r If r n � `I a y ,y ADw +`py+1 iirM>` If 11�Mt 41, L i i,1'IiryY ' y �Tt�' 04 � rd oif f } il " "fN F�'f�iW�PsmMl.+r.w� {�S'•3t �p it r •.i,� "^� i' it IY ,:, b k I r a S_ M + Rk IAh M t � r w,. V + r �r 7 . A -v l��} I( y ,� j � Y; ^ 17/,�ag]�� 4Y {} ,�`w+ }•ci-.; � tY� r{�fs`'. i �'� � tt.\;� � - M 5 k;Y4 t `F,�'k•, , Mrd °;. ;.7 t l��' • i 1.�L'' �,.[y ,�+c�� gar.: i�-?� r. ei31°jx's �Aj�t.•i.,�� `,��'�,r�'_"mow ..ti'�,�y�i'�'"'��} Air, {, ,. .._.:Ct71 tta�.p t a � `• °[1�'"�� M+r'`t' Y t.. ` Ul— .Jt �t'y � �J �][j vim.�g,;9�y "�'�"��_ �A f''i�i\y't J t�<y�l.•��,��y''1 i�. t• +1 ,# i �'t I�� nrt �` �{€ t o{�'� [ {.711 �R^ y� r r .t i, P +♦.1..' ell i�e.x s .��laiz sy�a'• t.,' t� �� Rt + (+ � J y n (+ �.� I :YM. �'��ih7A Y Y.1• �s """ �jR +' � r•� � i �{ �:�p � j... '�,�v� t-,. I?,a r ?S !rk T_!r� ,tt&�;�1Y� /t-a lu 's >r,. • � ,` 115 t �tf �Q}l.C�'+'a['' �S.od �,�+R 1� {�.�y�r t�i` t F�1.�. A`„b�-,t + , ` n • .Cts%� # i i- ! t ter k,�✓�`'� ��` /��Fv�`yo`��'_) �S C�°� �, ,t �Fi i#t' t ti A �� + 'PC( �ni• �tl. 4 Snlr t ' "4t,9 � V� . �� r 1 � !� i � I^�' 1. 1°dbA cL` Y �� •+15�'h°'is \Y+�, ,+a. ;jy 't r � ♦ •-'r _.. - �'`� ':..r. S+t tit t. .5-'=iej- ! � 1 A ' qs` I � � i� �`� °��. t�'�W,}A�d.�+#y� �•♦��Hf"i�_ `ry'��jl5i' t't ' 4 ! t? 1. r.�`t . l.�"- is•n�i.� :.�'� Vit... �r � r�- ��. `YTf ':Am. ♦�9$ ii ? �� .. ' A r-1 r l rr_i r =i rl rF ri Mr.1 rFi rF1 rl irri MEI rFl rl f TI F77I MTN IRI i rl 171--:1 rt fa- # C� I C {ick rim ••°,owd �t a. .Mt' 4"e. a •- r'r1 •.9. � y•YI •/'• • . . P• i 14 Ls Tf n0'1, `, Lf�- � p� �• ��'� ^ . � :� • !.J,. pr1.• w, d r.T•.b T ow n,� • .. -4 a e • r` N � A7 y I /1•i • �{.,.. ..� �� `fit +, i+ i!� :y�'�Il6 M.j Mutxw,ib WA •J ri 'S $j ;;I" • . �+T f,.•i Y '� T. t,��> /,rt/,.IITY � ."t 1 ✓ � !��. yam• �� el lx So °di I �•�a4 Y�•�'�%.f t i 'r ,t..Y °I ''� ps�i }�`°' •b ♦, �Jd4 �j 9 P�. ! Y • -,t.+ •° �' `'!OBJ diff r 51, IM rq ♦ 'J �f I . AT 3 • � •M�1 i {{ Z I ' w r ..•iw�u • j L 4 f e Al u K - --- mlI mlm LY f `i 1 iF j I ILLYLL IW LU .' :YA I .iYo bili�F-^rj� � '�)'JM t•• i• h y 1. ml .1:) Lr J s �� € bF•. 3 _ �'� 2l c i t A�t r 3 i �/� �•'. �e t r fie€ EM LLI CL a. L4 a q_R• .ix[ s } i w-r-p,l1 l i t6 �� a4Mee it to.J_��rT d� �MAr f3A% - •. An We W IT vi ZX l J si Y['1Qd�•� ,.g�{'r(/'�,X�+-"f,."•3rd�"�d' �,y � y��7t..a'��' "T ►ta� 'f s%y= ��S- .�� ]r �.t 1'�'.�}I.��'aYM ,�r - _ t'�Sr�� Wt� xs '�� ~S - a .S&a•r {�,�.. r '^�yk�r-A��"4" rg :-�Ctel '...�.i'a tw�:.��.. :1d• � E�? "" -.''-e+« ja� LlA M1 W� F'�L � 1A�wF A cw +tea •."a8'X r. ��. t` �.x.- g L ' �- '�♦ s �r`k r - I.r} 4 Com'• �- � ll� � ._ 4 ^^i of ------ . 7v �l- SS�s3 /� - et r •. n pfi,, g y ! fe.yIM :YY' 4' 'S1 -.� fir ,i 3 •.a [�. p � � # 1 i`k \ t �• '. 1 �s3. '4„b Y�19£,s "F Y ') '� , sI e[--.jam''' � g✓`..b 'n(J,4 ' R' jh P IA We 44 ,46 '�AI s sa -g agg# . apy i, x� 41 r t" zb°f9 Y i ` y 'r •til � I `- f�mW� '� t.. " h, - mea ':• e ' tai N„� xh �" b to i qY5" i� t x � •�+. S +r'ti a`k . ' x�_h[.rv��§.-: . bA "t E "�� tet. . �• Ap a STN +3 # kJ' Y Y F a x , � g x tom,` �,�{,� �. a��}c S �?' 'C . 5i-.'Ay�'�e`i e �� •' �w�` +��'Rak,.y,..,v, .� � i.� � 'r� r.,Iy�e�. . '�'n. r .t � !�� s_Y i '- '�'� ^1�'�+ti,R A "y4 r�Ta^99�c, i■g' 1 ;�` R '4��Y>,. +r rr'e. � �r•,,..��rrrt��ry� � ... .i•r � P�'ft�'te�1�}>•iC","�rH"+ :� C -rtw ;: - a AiM. r'T fl'. ....r'zr C w,,#••'^• r* .n `�",k "� h•:_� r•yi rY^+r��,�y� �4� �,} Ti-,- . r �+C+9Ytr1 FY F •ri, rNY i'��vP x'k"A„•"t L''�+1 _�~1'A 1 ..* nj J �r,�. rti ,•,.r! � ,t +, r/R +a> , „rt +Ikt� �• a PSA s }� ,y..� • �x. r •-• • � -."4 �� tei ,y iA yryr{y;n..� "'��^?wre4 "'�^ +t' R'+u, ' A>r� + a 1�:'F r ' R`"J Ah, 1„•. a .4 it , +ro 1r rr ,wy,.1�1,q f•.r� i .�e , ].Ff_oil 4 � t o r • r j} A r ! 1 Y�y.+i f 1 �+ A •T J[ �� !1 'ya` '+ r'q ' A' �7•i t "+'ri rr�. #mWlw. *wr'.. -PF- 'm!fA r* �r,C� tis :�-, s. ' ,!, �, I3p 'd14. i i Y My�,.s y � �1� �•. r �:.• 5�"i . n;a �$1f ""r"�.'� ,{ -'r.�4 .., t ,t �� ; r� f "�• #Y k ,_ r � r '4`"5�1��; + 4i ri rr4 3'. r} i yr ,.�� r.Y r A..r r �� w�",: l r, T,1�, .• } i MY,r a Pi" r. k p` it'y, '.!' '., 1 r•f Fk ��M `1�e t{ r f .r.ar•� wrr 'Ys $ i.\-r rle ..fY M F _ ♦��i. • Ah1.r YIyk . 4+'-$ 1A,+ '� 1' + �b'I � ■ ( �. P FjF .•+ . ;e tit s r r}:. 174V fRy i..f i y, } I�.i ♦ .i "`Y �'�• It + e y '? 4i1 ' 7� r. •.rr ate L rt M `"+§r r 1 ''.A ! V.` r" i ^fi.+)f�•tJ.. . t ,1 41. � s :i/A'" .«. '.9�, ry + I •�" '' ,t'y, ' r, {'. dy'�a y r i► Ilk P P rn a r•s� ... r,�.. $'^y't}E rYr• � .g I • 1- 1" Q "•_,5 7 P-t.Y'rt2" t+!4 4 n,` y � f�3^�yd S''�"�°l��:q�`.,4'el'.{RAJ 'n.+Ay _ - .'_ �'t iF �S'�n �t .�s 3� '� s� 'T1u. T-•��-�,Q'�7"k�'1�'h��t �YY�jc.A � :� w. - 'L•a� f ! i� 6 Cpa44 �{�� ,Aye' tix w`.�1. ws. .rico t { .�_s.. ',�• aY'< fie.. +, ,' a"'-'>.. y6 �w`•r..%k i� iy : '. i ',+'�"�J.°K r+ d. . ,ry`3 b��y�-�afy '4 �D � r► r�" �� 'f•-.. ♦�r ��.1�' n .MIS_ a. nye � • r Ik"*� A'x1Y.Ad}IiA� s *}` _e. �"�T ��: "' 'ri .fes w:b �„J. • 'yf.'. Hedera helix b •it 1) English IvyOMichaelDirr i� yip y ,o lie1IIIxx� Y �`1-. f' IMA OSA r , 43- 1-14N1.41, ,,r,4r-r • ♦ +µi.d,S YrY" �.��R f3v ^ ,ir,S � 1Ttl;. u �'� }t2y, sy .t • µ 1♦ � . �.• .� • z. . v : , • ��d�—� ©� �\�mow\ < f - , � . . . x \ . ^ � «\ Al� > .�� z «<\ � � » �, � .�. . »< < . � � . r.�& » © : • � . »? y \•d 9 law �1�#�-I� rpdVW k� f3 � F tr i+ � je o i ttYB MAT > 44 r ppjF 6Ah2 4 f� N�9 Y x � f YSy♦!e i. 34m`` r F�. pt: � �txK i' StA �'l afji y�`+ �klA c . }' Cy ae iqY J'esL Jtl ft 'k is St"' JP3 Ju�.ig dtY .r t7�i_A�i4 � �•�;,ilh ,#G n�cf;l'..'d:a . `.',k.ff E° �� ,a +:dr!fia •. O j 4 Quercus .. iissima(le4 SavvtoothOak o Michael A. Dirr 1 a � � •yds"" .ac.. ,„y, Y .f Q0.' ..nom .�� .r •�.�. ,_ - �_ r ' t.. , x . '.:: it '� _ . _ • c,-.• "'e' - `'. 7 ry. `•�X Sµ 'f� � 'y ��' � li -aixp{x}��§ 4 / ✓�,.� �� q°a }�T�.x�t� ,�.f.{yam a�, { -y' r J cF J S ♦ ' I t'z'(!;',t �`'b9r wo J t ✓'',w� M Y b tIr 2 µ �n y /fes q# I,(r 34A A t l`� `pa f � tnrq ZAJ �]. k% ✓. P s rf itrw Vv b}` ' ��'^k1 � '� �'�r'+TJ��rS {'S'y!�k-44 ;'rt %l' F^� � �; ; i 4 7 t,.�Y•F e �J='� ;"��, +qpm ♦ i'<b• 3' t': N �(Pi-P eJ,ti '� ♦ � t fl-�r .�l �e r 1 r �'�k� tY� 4 < >^/? .✓ W an��pp,, v ° :•`" ar t^ � b �.t C �`i `,}b4 . 3 Y,I + u } ."1. rr > J,r.ypwJgxJ{a�•d+�,:,,, ( .`+t. 4 `t��µ/ji+.l•r�+'mV, �G'xF A;.•.r`e� �, ✓.xfi°fH Yri (i+'ti f% z! u ` 1 r ry5�r�e NA,�L{. .✓I° ' !'n 7+�,�a {,° ;�rkj�. {,r��'n '^4 r.WS e�p��x. rr..F1 `r?' �' ,`iN I'S' v ..��' {�5 r s.,• a f � � h.�.a ! �r i�' xJr�r h N h, r, f,� ' r( �' y r f { �16 t me•-..:! f Y � r�' r e r•f`a ..t ; r ` J>� �s.«� $r r` ,yTr xk!" � +1.U a a yJ .d.� .� ♦,fi C+ r { q �_+'I,( i.f+t[a i'.' ' �^ 1 ♦ $1�raa'J( k .' ti 7'li :.. ts.`',4(_ ki n} yf''y}�h K '�w Zs. Vs4 ?�J* 1 el <�f, d� z <• {p .G <K'"'� J 4' r� y'4�, ! f j J �. [}-ci i/,`,.E�'4�'�,�n�: . u P� ,r `"'Y' h r,. 'J•-r a I '� .r `. � f, 7 E 7 .1'.. +1' Y.'I A, rl ° r ,f" Jf9 ♦Y.Y { �..y.. - �Jil Y' r ae e'llh° /q`i� •lT r V J yW7ir y.! . S •.r"a.'¢f i� �ar+`Y �'y^A' 7 1 /girt •'.i, ''�- v �,v ^r�, ,+y`d' z .g Ira}2""!i�ysC " ��.}r»i A JM `-J � X7,4 �•� r ', •�' �, Jt .,t 4C 4 e 1 fr` / �4!ryt�'�t x�' � ��' •) '- fir` - 4r � '� yk`q,✓�.err'rl ,YI7°!'*y 1 t br n''S +'Y 2 � � P -�„•,R. '+W VJ a . , h;M� - y f+'a '� ,�.,, ♦ '• "r �'k} ' 4. +t w w ds�i�r .e�F��;y'�i 'x'�� "� `�y„^�` ��y` � '�^ �"�•'1'� 'r ;}+..y r�ya� 't t �; LyY�'/A f#� 'g1�..n}iC' �7*'1+,,�7`+i„�'.+Fif ��,,c,�2� �'r�:�r��r ��' '�J� t 1_r�.��' '��y^$��'}'�(-��'� +, - . •_1 e�+'�:�# I,ty,�4i�4~,,��. ++'s�•^ .rhr:7it�ji�'^'"� �]E !' <.g. .^.ih ��' �';f"��,,.`ylt` �.` a . ';�t r �f 1 { ...`.=:r,rr.r�T. . ��yr'.''�►,,'3ri�A r 4 i�a'� Ifssj�(.•"'.»' �:'`� •�� 'k . i'$ , h� „t ygrr s �' y+�y.`j.{�* r +� 'wf'ya.' � r r �' p.~f•:(y�wy•,a• �7;'.,. � y :,�trq ,r +� .,�,�' y�„fr,`•-*r"+� ��r�.'S'W, Y '/k� y'iFy �, ' si�la*�l �7'�.. _ }'!- ^��r•`�ayr �7<� f� t�' +!'�^t . fi*” 1/�{^°w:` s,�e ,s'�rr t� �rarr.7,�I� . 1r " t l,• f-1 .d A i^ �' ��=i F�YY�•�a*��*��'f��'}y�a°r ��L�+y�tr�ry�L,�� r•F v�r��\ `.. t � �. ii�� ' �!r^v✓7 M��y,. F'i .��' �fw[$r�:r ��rN Sµ:L�.Mj��i��..,A rT#�.h y.M'r�P � T. l •e. '•aT F {i+++4ft �a .! (y ,ky�� iD �r yrie4 bH-,j ,h�lgir Ra1 �! : r h{ ,.fr'1FMP4 F f �y�'r""� 'j� syr. g�� y�v,{g' �("g�_r'�'y«�,Y y �y �4 ,��A xr-.•�Y.rL..v^yy Yt 5(1 14 !� +�i'. -►- ,�y- F .h`s,3 "'f"o-c�r^'�.`�4yy,« i^ +A' 3 �`• nM �Wrr'+t�%�,\�! .4.. � ��(? y. �" �'�jr�„� ♦ N. N r�~�.�yt 4I�;. �ip�'4Y ,may{7'`.w Y' ,. p �pE r T'�li �T .^.•i ^�4t.y.,.} � � a) i�r 4 ��Ij 7y tl,t'��W^a�'fw. .(� � �� g!' k5 s�,'y1`r4��^Y'.��.1'a�r�'�l�a"9:G�FId•� ` wry 5' fY`.y4�hr l% ,�rP'r�� ♦ ffs��^Y)p' '��,'�`+.i�'�� "r1�TE rr ''s.DHy✓x"ti N'.�t''�jS,'•yi��/a.. ��4Ya a� V� '`V Ei R. Mme' '' `' \.a ' \ Y V,�R+�f yri. l�i5•1`J-s.. M..� W : (a\vk>A ;y�y..t �,�,l��C�'ivRr`�,r�' �"rn'f,4t�� f �!"Y,�.C1y�4U2. ' tx'� '' i. „�, ay',�r r• yY �� b �+?l!{{�� 'a'3,15t�'t��r�} i �sr{y�] !��ct ��M�n..rEA ! • ,y t,3�� at�irc.� rn I.d y a Sbtlr {{nliY�S,(ft t 1 i `"14+1`y�+`r5ti,�4t� in rr 'IiJ,PfI iV' • *r.s \ ( Skowl, 5'1� y atiJ � ,++�"! � 'N f! e K! )s~ ,p� 4 �' }��;� ?hrt{p r �- w ♦ 3 n i ^g },Y ,a p Ep,} `�•YY • c e '\+ �,4 ,.r' n�\ r r•.T7r4 h• 1 P" '+ I}ra . s �_' 1 sAf A,.� l��yy ns ill lFai fr C�•sr ^! S a ®I�t.��w� y f'w'""ski 4 r I� �� as 'r 't ;g�y Irl�lli r'•', x M1rW +F^K ,- it 4 a i•./r a,"b iFY Tye � x .f t r<� Aft �� hh v a i'r a ^ \ ` I r r '$ k Tie i$. rH °�^[tt` '�4A '� r «$ ` '4f'•I 4i4J �� T'b ♦j,r 1�. r,i J s T°rte. ) �rrs'�r5�n t't < sq ti.. •Mtk 'fi' WT ..i', J 1 i, � �`.�, ro.eY41..AI 'b 1•�x°r aAYy.1L'f r ,r 1` nty� t.rK,trtt • s-T a4� T� ki1 le n � (a�w,�i�� i s \y�D" �Y ct "� �' f��r�6yi i t ".�+ . '. � 7R- •. �� 4„. �.R r'�.Wa,�f 4•�kT a'� �A�y,.en�.•�( [,k, � `\ �J..�,v #! ayry, � '� .!w':"`f" `f `t 4• `" 1 y4ti i;• r yr., ."lttµn�Yr,'i^�"S",'t 'F"i"- �` r "_ Ti &1.i''�e✓ � - ,'i'M!^Ix�,.h ."•, l�i' �',-i„ Zk'Yk/ty �r r tia�r.;7; ' J.1S"Y H` Gu•� +'1;" 1.. y iut i•'1 e ;.y },._ .Z '_•`, IV ,p J, yi R �ti \•i♦ L r a y} } 7fi' �' \y7i I. orf x rJ +17d .. f��1'A�Mar ^ti� t F , {. ft .l'� �''�, �Jr.c�1,rM w`M �,y r. * 6 ♦ .rlw'jr � pi - �' , 'f R1.� p �r. �i. 'y `��I,'�;•,'4`x,1 a",i�� .KA� y�,. �r.,q •,.,,,w *� � r AIS•�.� _ i'�J y ":�:'� w.k`W f4 Gti� � .�At :��:�'Y�.:,_.t1tid-� "S '�R�,�, t�AS.9".S '� ':4�, 4�♦ "^ //_tgit .± �,.. ,.M"-e d°n.�S�+ �- .�Y� , ..asp:. ./,'. .1µ"41 � � My.. �� , yy�,R! Iap 1}\i � ♦µp s .,1 may{ ,,.�g,I�b �� .=dy 1. ^ �� .; L�S iy+ ,`•� o_ '1,��.:`�?`�'R,. r .." .'r'9� r� �'r � �r �.,dl ,`I'�i "� •f�� ''ah �• �� ,♦: � r � ty� a Viburnum carlesli flower) - ✓ Viburnum0Michael A. Dirr � ? , . � 6 � � \ �® © . Y t eR� oMichael A. Dirr 4yk>�,�'y ,y..3'S�y `�r�� ^��.r -^'�'r �1'' y�"1'rs" �I � '�"" ,.°a.+Y�•!-`*�- Y '7'li .J�tw. � •' •v+., .�.. ��-w ! ^.. "'tet�.++ ' � � „� :.Y'"+66.• Y � t 'y, �.,��"/ '� hl wan a r_�yy ,� w✓">A hFr.. O,r} 3 B 1 .' .*' r ' �€ Sly T �r � ��i��} �R • 1 p k All- y J00 If 10 7 lo .` l` r Y a T .a. !` j�,.yyt +,�' �yY kf"I�F / "'ii r��V✓ ^'e',':. 1 j . a{.r ! jj ♦ � y, r S. i.q, „�y +SYer +� ft-m o g i F+'.y `i.RC § { ♦ Cary ..;4✓y ,.i..1..�.�`a 4-.,1 ,. ^a.taw, rS' 'k a'��",tr�T E. t r' w r - l.,ill�i . Y }t — MICHAEL VAN VALKENBURGH ASSOCIATES, INC. LANDSCAPE .ARCHITECTS Peabody Essex Museum, MWA#9802 Design Review Board/ Relocated Houses on Charter Street Preliminary Plant List A. Shade Trees Quercus acutissima, Sawtooth Oak Ulmus parvifolia, Chinese Elm B. Shrubs Hamamelis mollis, Chinese Witchhazel Viburnum corlesii, Koreanspice Viburnum Rhododendron sp., Azalea and Rhododendron C. Groundcover and Vines Hedero helix 'Baltica', Baltic English Ivy Porthenocissus tricuspidate, Boston Ivy 231 CONCORD.AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138 USA TEL (617) 864-2076 FAX (617) 492-3128 c. } SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI. SR. 978-744-0212 JOHN R. SERAFINI. JR. 781-5BI-2743 JOHN E. DARLING TELECOPIER JOSEPH C. CORRENTI 978-741-4683 ROBERT T. FORD August 4, 2000 VIA HAND DELIVERY � I Robert E. Curran, Chairman :rJ it Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green, 2nd Floor Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Plan Dear Mr. Curran: As you know, on May 25, 2000, the Peabody Essex Museum (the "Museum") filed its application and plans for its proposed expansion with the Salem Redevelopment Authority (the "SRA") . July 12 , 2000, the SRA voted to send the Museum application to the Design Review Board (the "DRB") for its review and recommendations. On July 20, the Museum met with the DRB in what was the first of several review meetings. At the DRB' s last meeting, which was held on August 3rd, the Museum presented the portion of its plans which call for the demolition of the Empire Building and parts of the two historic houses located at 10 Liberty Street and 42 Charter Street, and which shows the relocation of those houses onto two newly created lots on Charter Street. Additionally, the small school house on Museum property will be moved to a temporary location on Charter Street, as shown on the plans. As you know, the relocation of the houses is required in order for the expansion plan to proceed. Also, the demolition of the Empire Building will allow the creation of the public esplanade for pedestrian use to travel between Essex Street and Charter Street once Liberty Street is closed. After the Museum' s presentation and discussion with the DRB, the DRB voted to approve that portion of the plan which calls for the Empire Building to be demolished, the school house to be moved, and the two houses to be relocated onto the proposed lots as shown on the plans. The Museum respectfully requests that the SRA adopt the DRB' s recommendation and vote to allow the demolition of the Empire Building and the relocation of the three buildings as shown on the plans, so the expansion plan can move forward. 1 Robert E. Curran, Chairman Salem Redevelopment Authority August 4 , 2000 Page Two While the Museum realizes that there are several more meetings necessary with the DRB, the timing of this particular approval is critical so as to allow the Museum to avoid demolition and relocation of buildings during the month of October, which is, of course, the busiest time of year in the downtown. VeF truly you s, P'll /�/q�A 'I .++ L' J e h C. '0drrenti JCC:dl cc: Mr. Will Phippen Salem Redevelopment Authority _DRB RECOMMENDATIONS Thursday, August 3, 2000 Meeting Peabody Essex Museum—Demolition Request Representatives from the Peabody Essex Museum(PEM) presented plans to preserve and relocate the homes at 42 Charter Street and 10 Liberty Street to a site located on Charter Street near Hawthorne Boulevard, as shown on the site plan presented. The rear portions of these structures will be demolished. The one story schoolhouse building will be moved across Charter Street and be placed on a block foundation. This is a temporary location and will be relocated at a future date. The other request was to demolish the Empire Building(133 Essex Street)to facilitate the new temporary and permanent public walkway being created as part of this expansion plan. DRB RECOMMENDATION: The Board stated that the proposed expansion plan qualifies as an acceptable reuse plan to allow the rear portion demolition and the moving of the two homes on 42 Charter Street and 10 Liberty Street to the proposed Charter Street location as shown on plan dated 12 May 2000. The moving of the one story schoolhouse to a new,temporary Charter Street location, as shown on plan dated 12 May 2000 was also approved. Although review of the site plan for the two relocated houses was favorable, final approval of details, site design and landscaping will be recommended at a later date. The Board approved the demolition of the Empire Building (133 Essex Street)to accommodate a public walkway. This walkway will help mitigate the impact of the Liberty Street closure. Design/landscaping details of the construction/temporary and permanent walkway will be reviewed in detail and a final recommendation will be submitted to the SRA at a later date. One Salem Green • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 The , i�10 s' Officers i5MAiSSACHl "_ ,I ,:.:r, Past Presidents Russell T Vickers, ChairmanN it F—!7Stanley J. Lukowski(1987-1989) Meredith Reed, President PARTl IERal-I Thomas M. Leonard(1989-1991) Frederick J.Atkins,Vice President 6 Central Street William J.Tinti(1991-1993) Patrick Rattan,Vice President David W. Ives(1993-1996) Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Bruce P Michaud, Clerk (978) 741-8100 Sumner W.Jones(1996-1998) Peter H. Dinsmore,Treasurer Fax (978)745-6131 Russell T.Vickers(1998-2000) Rosemary J. Powers, Executive Director EMail info®salempartnership.org Thomas M. Leonard,Chairman Emeritus Annie C. Harris,Senior Director William J.Tinti,Chairman Emeritus August 1, 2000 Robert Curran, Chairman Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Curran: On behalf of The Salem Partnership, I am writing in support of the Peabody Essex Museum's expansion plan and design of its new buildings. The museum is tremendously valuable to the city and its presence is crucial to the revitalization and development of the downtown area. The museum expansion will allow the Peabody Essex to increase the size of its galleries and exhibitions to bring more of its collections into public view. The expansion is expected to double the number of visitors to the Peabody Essex and the city will undoubtedly reap the economic benefits of increased tourists and visitors to its downtown area. The Peabody Essex Museum has been a good and trusted neighbor to the residents of Salem. The museum's planning and design process has been inclusive one responsive to the concerns of Salem residents and sympathetic to the city's architecture. The expansion plan is more than an investment in our downtown it is an investment in our community. 5 Robert Curran Page 2 August 1, 2000 The Peabody Essex Museum expansion will revitalize and enrich Salem's downtown area. The Partnership commends the museum for its efforts and continuing contribution to our community. Your support and consideration is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, K--� � Rosemary J. Powers Executive Director ti CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PATRICK REFFETT ONE SALEM GREEN 1 City Planner 01970 (978)745-9595 Ext. 311 Fax (978)740-0404 Memo To: Staple omstein, City Engineer 'ttVfain Robert Callahan,Police Department Lieutenant Charles P.Latulippe,Jr.,Fire Prevention Denise Sullivan,Assistant City Planner Paul Tuttle, City Electrician From: Patrick Reffett Date: December 14,2000 Re: Peabody Essex Museum—Essex Street Traffic Plan I would like to invite you to attend a meeting in my office on Tuesday, December 19, 2000 at 9:45 a.m. to discuss the detailed engineering plan for the new roadway configuration and traffic pattern for the portion of Essex Street between Liberty Street and Hawthorne Boulevard. Please confirm your attendance with my Executive Assistant,Ellen Dubinsky. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. cc: Mayor Usovicz I- Oct-16-00 03:36Pm Fran-GOODWIN,PROCTOR & HOAR LLP 8172278591 T-741 P.OZ/03 F-586 z) ' 9 GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR L-LP COUNSELLORS AT LAW ExcKANGE PLACE BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109-2881 T�..ev..oNi s.>,s>oicoo TCLfCOP,ER,S >L22>-u53) R JEFFRE1 LCNA" ,6,7)570,067 ,),Wan�9Gn core n October 16,2000 BY FAX 978'740-04N Mr. Patrick Reffett Executive Director Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green Salem,MA 01970 Re: Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Project Dear Mr_Rttrett: I am writing for our client the Peabody Esse-1 Museum in response to your questions about certain agreements governing disposition of and historic review over the Salem Armory Head House and Drill Shed sires. As you know,there is a long history of events regarding the Salem Armory Head House and Drill Shed,which have resulted in the adaptive reuse of the Drill Shed as a National Park Service Visitor Center and Museum storage space and the plans to create a memorial park dedicated to the Second Corps of Cadets on the site of the Head House- We ouse_We have discussed the questions that you raised(the status of the disposition and historic review agreements)with our client since the Superior Court's denial of the motions filed by Historic Salem,Inc. last spring- It is the Museum's position that none of the disposition or historic review agreements has any relevance to the SRA's consideration of the final platys for the museum's expansion project. The Museum's position is as follows: The S A c Not Re_ggired t0 &Mrr c the O - sit c Void. The February 1992 Memorandum of Agreemeua among six parties(including rhe SRA and the Museum Cooperative)pertained to historic review requirements that were a prerequisite to federal fimding anticipated under two HUD programs. As you recall,you were able to demonstrate that none of these finds were ever spent in connection with the Salem Armory Head House project. With the tuhue of This prerequisite condition to its f y4 Oct-18-00 03:37Pm From-GOODWMPROCTOR & HOAR LLP 8172278591 T-741 P.03/03 F-580 i Mr Patrick Reffett GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR LLP October 16,2000 Page 2 very existence under the National Historic Preservation Act the MOA automatically became void under the Act so that no party is required to address it in any further proceedings. o ceon Apreenten The December 1991 Land Disposition Agreement between the State and the Museum Cooperative pertained to sale and purchase of the Head House site for redevelopment for "museum-related purposes." Any additional steps that eithemaynecessary or appmpr'iate under that Agreement will be negotiated and agreedupon by them so signatories,and the SRA is not a party to this agreement- T�e�RA Is Nor[ nn.iderin�wny Acnotrs;() V9 4rP'I"'Drill Sh Site. The December 1991 Land Disposition Agreement between the State and the SRA and the February 1992 implementing Agreement between the SRA and the Museum Cooperative pertained to sale and purchase of the Drill Shed site for redevelopmem for"civic:,cultural, residential,or commercial uses,including but not limited to a Visitor Center" The SRA covenanted under the Land Disposition Agreement to take certarn actions for this redevelopment, and the Museum Cooperative assumed corresponding obligations under the implementing Agreement. These agreements relate solely to the Drill Shed site, which is not part of the Museum's expansion project that the SRA is now considering. I trust that This lean makes clear the Museums position on the current status and relevance of these agreements. 1 will be availabit at the SRA's meeting on October 18,if you have any further questions about the Museum's position V y R Jeffrey yman RJL jr cc-. Dan Monroe,John Cnimcs,will Phippen(by fax 978 745-8303) Joseph Correnti, fisq. (by fax 978 741-4683) 1019157 11ibb t , MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY f HELD ON OCTOBER 18, 2000 t A meeting of the Salem Redevelopment Authority was held on Wednesday, October 18, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. Chairman Curran called the meeting to order and on roll call, the following members answered present: Conrad Baldini, Michael Brennan, Robert Curran, Michael Connelly and Russ Vickers. Executive Director Patrick Reffett was also present. MINUTES Chairman Curran called for approval of the minutes of the SRA meeting held on October 11, 2000. Mr. Vickers made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried. DISCUSSION/NEW BUSINESS Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Plan Attorney Joseph Correnti, representing the Peabody Essex Museum, addressed the Board. He explained that tonight's meeting is the culmination of a long road of planning and review processes to finalize this expansion plan. He began to tell the history of the • Armory site, beginning with the fire that ravaged the building,the formation of the Museum Cooperative in the 1990's that led to their designation by the State and the SRA as developers for the rebuilding of the headhouse and reuse of the drillshed. A reuse plan, dated October 31, 1991 was submitted that led to the building of the NPS Visitor Center. He continued that along the way the Essex Institute and Peabody Museum merged and the new entity began to look beyond the October 31, 1991 plan to do something grander and address the need for more gallery space and a way to tie the two Museums together as a campus. This resulted in a bigger and better plan, which includes 100,000 square feet of gallery space, a new glass entry and a family center. After this plan was developed there was some discussion of moving the Museum expansion to Boston, but in 1997 the Museum committed to staying in Salem and doing this now project. Mayor Harrington and the City Council executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that showed the City's commitment to keeping the Museum in Salem and kept this project moving forward. Attorney Correnti explained to the Board that this spring, the Armory fagade posed a great danger, as pieces of brick were falling onto the sidewalk. The Building Inspector and an independent engineer deemed the building unsafe and ordered it be secured or demolished. At this point, the fapade was taken down. 'In its place the Museum accelerated its design for a park that would respectfully commemorate the Second Corps Cadets and all veteran groups. The Museum has worked closely with the Second Corps Cadets, and they have reviewed and support this commemorative park. • f SRA Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 2 of 9 • Attorney Correnti stated that this summer the DRB and SRA approved the creation of two new house lots and the moving of homes to these new parcels. The Museum demonstrated that this new plan was a positive reuse plan, and the demolition of the Empire Building was also approved. Attorney Correnti stated that after over a year and one-half of showing this plan to numerous groups which total more than 2,500 people, the official City and SRA review processes began. He continued that the DRB instituted many changes to the plan, as did the Planning Board and Mr. Reffett and his staff have been involved in instituting significant changes to the plan, which make it an even better plan. This plan is being presented to you this evening, and once approved construction can commence this fall. At this time, Attorney Correnti began to discuss the various Agreements that were executed in 1992. The first, a Memorandum of Agreement with six different signatories was executed in anticipation of federal funding being used for the project. Based on a letter received by the City from the HUD office in Washington, no UDAG funds were released for this project and thereby no Section 106 review is necessary and this MOA is void. This position is outlined in a document prepared by the firm of Goodwin, Procter and Hoar, representatives of the Peabody Essex Museum. This document was distributed • to the Board before the meeting. Attorney Correnti pointed out that Attorney R. J. Lyman is present this evening to answer any questions the Board might have. Attorney Correnti stated that the second agreement outlined is the 1991 Land Disposition Agreement (LDA) executed by the State and the Museum Cooperative. The SRA is not a party to this agreement. He explained that the third agreement outlined is the 1991 LDA between the State and the SRA and there is a 1992 Agreement between the SRA and the Museum Cooperative. The LDA involves actions at the drillshed site, which are not parts of this expansion project. The agreement between the Museum& SRA does talk about implementing the plan dated 10/31/91, so some of this language needs to survive along with some of the language regarding future drillshed development. Attorney Correnti suggested that this document be reviewed and updated by the SRA Executive Director and the City Solicitor at a latter time. He continued by requesting the Board amend the SRA and Museum Cooperative 1992 Agreement this evening by replacing the language referring to the proposed plans dated 10/31/91 to reference the new plans dated 10/12/00. Attorney Correnti stated that action this evening is one of the Museum's last review processes. He continued that the Planning Board after approximately six meetings is also at a point where they have asked for a draft decision, so their approval is imminent. The Historic Commission's Demolition Delay Waiver process has concluded. Again,there • were many meetings and site visits and the Museum saved several articles that the f SRA Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 3 of 9 • Historic Commission wanted to save, such as the Empire sign and the tile work. Construction will begin immediately after the SRA & Planning Board approvals. Construction is estimated to be completed in 2 '/z years. Mr. Reffett informed the Board that City Solicitor John Keenan is present tonight to discuss these legal agreements. At this time, Mr. Reffett asked for Attorney Keenan's legal opinion regarding these documents. Attorney Keenan stated that he was asked by Mayor Usovicz and Mr. Reffett to review these agreements and the opinion rendered by Goodwin Procter& Hoar. He stated that he concurs with the opinion that the six parry agreement is void, as the letter from HUD Washington confirms that no federal funding was used for this project. He concurred that the SRA is not a party to the LDA executed for the Headhouse between the Museum Cooperative and the State. Regarding the SRA and Museum Agreement, he also agreed that most of the language relates to the development of the drillshed, some language is no longer relative because of the demolition of the headhouse fagade, some language needs to be changed to reference the new plan, and other language needs to survive. He also stated that a judge has reviewed all these documents, as a result of the HSI lawsuit, and the judge's decision in this case proves the SRA was not in breech of any of these agreements. • Mr. Reffett agreed that the language referring to the second floor space needs to be revised and refined in a new document, but this does not have to be done this evening. Chairman Curran introduced Attorney Lyman to the Board and asked the members if they had any questions to direct to Mr. Lyman. Mr. Vickers asked Mr. Lyman to clarify the relationship of the SRA documents with the 1997 MOU executed by the City. Mr. Lyman responded that there is no direct legal relationship. Mr. Reffett added that the MOU acknowledges that City recognizes that there was a new expansion plan that was different from the one referenced in the various 1992 agreements and the fruition of that intent are the plans before us this evening. At this time, Mr. John Grimes, Deputy Director of Special Projects for the Peabody Essex Museum, explained the programmatic needs of the Museum, which resulted in this expansion plan. He stated that the Museum needs more gallery space to show their collections. He also stated that the current configuration is not efficient and new interior and exterior circulation spaces, along with public amenities are needed. He explained that architect Moshe Safdie was chosen to design this new expansion because he clearly illustrated that he could produce a design that would integrate Salem's historic character while creating a modern museum. The configurations of the new two-level gallery • buildings echo designs of historic structures in Salem. Mr. Grimes pointed out that the f SRA Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 4 of 9 other exciting features of the expansion is the new entry and the siting of the Yin Yu Tang Chinese House. At this time, Mr. Grimes, following the DRB Recommendations, explained each element of the expansion plan. He pointed out the new glazed entrance and roof(spine) element, the exterior changes to the existing Essex Street facade of the Dodge building, the five gallery facades (east elevation) and noted amendment to the plan made by the DRB to increase the depths of the light wells between each structure. The Charter Street, south entrance was shown with the DRB amendment to increase the interior vestibule size and add more exterior glazing. He showed the siting of the Yin Yu Tang House, its forecourt and central courtyard plan and the interior glazed atrium design. As previously approved, he showed the relocation of the houses and school building on Charter Street and the accompanying site work. Mr. Grimes then showed the Board the public garden/esplanade space which the DRB spent a great deal of time reviewing. As per DRB,the esplanade walkway was curved to align with the archway of Armory Park and the south side was enlarged to continue the 12'8"width all along the esplanade. The DRB conditioned that the exposed walls of the Saccon Jewelers and Marine Art Gallery buildings, resulting from the demolition of the Empire Building be improved or screened. Such treatments must be reviewed by the DRB. • Mr. Grimes pointed to the roadway, sidewalk, lighting, etc. configurations and outlined the scope of these improvements. The brick being used is complimentary to the City Standard brick. The City standard light fixtures will be used along the sidewalk and the light fixture chosen by the Museum and approved by the DRB will be used inside Armory Park and in the Esplanade. Lastly, Mr. Grimes showed the revised plan of Armory Square, which is the result of many recommendations from the DRB. Such revisions are the hierarchy of pedestrian paths, the creation of an arrival point at the comer of Liberty and Essex Streets where the Revere Bell will be displayed, and the reproduction of the Armory arch. The drillshed wall will hold the Second Corps Cadets inscription and below this, the timeline bronze plaques will be placed. Mr. Connelly asked Attorney Keenan what was the status of Liberty Street. Mr. Keenan informed the SRA that two lots have already been deeded to the Museum and the remaining portion of the street will be deeded over in November. The Mayor is currently holding the deed in escrow until the Museum starts construction. Mr. Vickers asked the Planning Board's role in this project. SRA Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 5 of 9 • Mr. Reffett explained that the Planning Board has been reviewing the same design documents we have, and a Planning Board Decision could be issued as earlier as tomorrow evening. There are many overlapping design issues and requirements which will be outlined in the Planning Board Decision. One such example is the requirement that the maintenance of the bricks in the public walkway, which will be converted to the Museum's complimentary bricks, be maintained by the Museum and be repaired or replaced at the discretion of the City, if such brick or bricks become loose, broken or endanger pedestrian safety. At this time, Mr. Brennan made a motion that the 10/31/91 plan referenced in the SRA/PEM Agreement be replaced with the 10/2000 plan and modifications to the Agreement be presented to the SRA after review and revisions are drafted by the Executive Director and City Solicitor. Mr. Vickers seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried. Mr. Baldini made a motion to approve the DRB Recommendations as submitted. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion, all were in favor,motion so carried. Attorney Correnti thanked the SRA for their support of this world class project that is sure to bring other investment into the City. • Old Police Station RFP Howland Development Presentation The following were present representing the development team: Michael Howland— President, Paul Richardson—Vice President, Gene Racek—Project Architect, and Stephen Kominski—Project Manager. Mr. Racek explained to the Board that this proposal calls for the creation of 21-24 residential units, which are proposed to be apartments or condominiums. He continued that there is approximately 29,000 square feet of total space and 24,000 square feet of usable space in the building. The exterior will be rehabbed to its original state, and historic tax credits will be sought. An extra floor will be created on the inside of the structure. There are sixteen on-site parking spaces created, the option of underground parking in the basement was explored but is not financially feasible, so the team is asking for the SRA's support if a variance would be sought or if other off-site parking arrangements can be made. He added that underground parking could be done, if funds were available from the City for the construction. Mr. Brennan asked what will determine whether these units will be condominiums or rentals. • SRA Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 6 of 9 • Mr. Kominski replied that currently there are good market conditions for rentals. He continued that the square foot costs will also play a role in determining the type of units. He stated that if the construction cost $90 per square foot, then the units will be marketed as rentals, and if the construction costs are between $100 and$200 per square foot, the units will be sold as condominiums. Currently, the proposal calls for the units to be rentals for five years and then converted to condominiums. Mr. Brennan asked if the building in the rear will be demolished. Mr. Racek responded that everything will be left intact. Mr. Brennan asked for more information regarding parking. Mr. Racek responded that the current configuration results in 15-16 on-site parking spaces and the additional 10 spaces will have to be looked for at an off-site location. Mr. Baldini asked when construction would be completed. Mr. Kominski responded that construction would last between 4 and 6 months. He continued that most of the inside will be demolished and was very confident that the construction period would be no longer than six months. Mr. Racek pointed out that an existing interior staircase will remain. • Mr. Vickers asked how large the units would be. Mr. Racek responded that the units would range from 800 to 1,100 square feet. Mr. Reffett asked the developers to discuss other projects they have undertaken. Mr. Kominski explained his history as a project manager for tax credit properties and past experience with projects similar to this one. Mr. Howland stated that he has owned this company for 42 years and mainly deals with commercial development along the Rt. 128/93 corridor. His company manages leasing of over 1.1 million square feet of space, which adds up to approximately $300 million dollars. Mr. Brennan asked if the units were apartments would Howland continue to own them. Mr. Howland responded that he will retain ownership. Mr. Brennan asked the developers to speak to the timing of the project. Mr. Howland stated that his team is ready to start as soon as possible. Mr. Kominski continued that the design and review process should take between six and seven months • and once all the approvals are granted, the construction can begin immediately. He also SRA Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 7 of 9 • informed the Board that he has knowledge and experience in dealing with environmental tainted sites, and if there is an environmental problem, it can be addressed and resolved quickly. Mr. Connelly asked if the construction period of 4-6 months included demolition. Mr. Kominski responded that the six-month period for completion includes the interior demolition. Mr. Reffett asked Mr. Howland how the project would be financed. Mr. Howland responded that he could sell the tax credit for the project for 20% of the total project cost and receive the other 80% from a lender. He stated that he could offer a personal guarantee. Mr. Reffett asked Mr. Howland why he chose to do this project as a residential project, especially since his company focuses on commercial development. Mr. Kominski responded that this site was looked at to convert to office rental, but the market for office space is not as strong in Salem as the residential rental market, so the conversion costs were too high to support a commercial development. • Mr. Racek asked the Board what their timetable is for selection, since more detailed floor plans and construction documents need to be finalized. Mr. Reffett responded that all the proponents will be interviewed and the Board will discuss each presentation and could then request more information from any or all of the proponents. This process will move quickly, with a designation being made over the next month to month and one-half with an estimated construction start for next summer Mr. Reffett continued that the Board recognizes the fact that if they want more definitive costs, you need to produce more detailed plans to obtain cost estimates. At this time, Mr. Kominski informed the Board that he has restored historical properties, resulting in the construction of over 2,000 units. Mr. Racek pointed out that he has done historical rehabilitation work in Boston and Cambridge, which are referenced in the submitted proposal. Chairman Curran thanked the Howland Development team for their presentation. Paramount Development Presentation SRA Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 8 of 9 Mr. Reffett explained that at the last SRA meeting the Board expressed concern regarding a clause in this proposal that the developer, if selected, had the right to forfeit this project even after such designation if any unforeseen major structural issues are found. Mr. Reffett distributed a letter from Mr. McMahon retracting this statement. Mr. Ed McMahon presented his development plan to the Board. He stated that his proposal approach was a result of studying the real estate multiple listing and realizing there was a market for high-end condominiums. His proposal calls for four units of approximately 3,000 square feet and two, 1,200 square foot units. He continued that no variances would be needed for this project and he would not be applying for tax credits. The entire inside will be gutted and new wood windows will be reproduced for the building. He stated his concern that if there is a hidden, major structural problem; he would not have the additional funds to address this problem. He informed the Board that his development team includes Harry Gunderson as the project architect, Neptune Demolition Company, T. Charles Limited Construction Company and Paul Herrick from Carlson GMAC Real Estate. • Mr. Reffett asked Mr. McMahon to explain his financing plan. Mr. McMahon explained that financing for this project will be through a limited partnership, LLC, which consists of a lead developer and several investors. The tax benefit to an LLC is an individual tax rate is used rather than a corporation tax rate, and the LLC will have the same liability as a corporation. He continued that the Paramount Realty LLC will raise money from investors in the amount of 20% of the total project cost and borrow the remaining 80% from a financial institution. Mr. Brennan asked Mr. McMahon to speak to the 14 months construction time period he indicated in the RFP response. Mr. McMahon replied that there is a substantial amount of asbestos and lead in the building. Specifically,the basement was a firing range, so there is lead contamination, and asbestos is present in the caulking of the windows, around pipes, some roof shingles, etc. The removal of these contaminants requires State permits and monitoring, so this adds to the construction time period. Mr. Vickers asked how confident Mr. McMahon was in raising the 20% of private financing. Mr. McMahon responded that he already has these private financing commitments. • SRA Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 9 of 9 • Mr. Baldini asked Mr. McMahon to detail the parking plan for this project. Mr. McMahon responded that there will be a garage and outdoor parking spaces. Mr. McMahon informed the Board that his goal is to have at least four of the units under agreement before construction begins. Mr. Paul Herrick, who is responsible for marketing of the project, stated that this is a realistic goal. Mr. Vickers asked for further clarification of the project timetable. Mr. McMahon responded that he has allocated four to six months of time to develop final design drawings and proceed through the City's review processes and then construction is estimated to take between eight and fourteen months. Mr. Reffett asked Mr. McMahon if he ever looked at this site for other uses. Mr. McMahon stated that because of the parking congestion which would result in a commercial use (between 30-50 cars daily), other alternatives were not considered. The Board thanked Mr. McMahon for his presentation. There being no further business, Mr. Baldini made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. • Connelly seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried. Meeting stands adjourned. The next meeting of the Redevelopment Authority will be held on Monday, October 23, 2000. Respectfully submitted, 4 Ellen S. Dubinsky Secretary • i • DRB RECOMMENDATION Peabody Essex Museum (PEM) Expansion Plan After several Design Review Board (DRB) meetings, the following recommendations have been set forth for SRA action: These recommendations are based on plans submitted May 12, 2000 and revised October 12, 2000 and minutes of DRB meetings pertaining to the expansion. i Schematic design drawings have been approved for the entire project with design details to follow based upon DRB comments. The design consultants are still refining details and will submit them for DRB review upon completion. Correspondingly, SRA action should include a • condition that states construction/working drawings detailing all exterior elements must be submitted for review by the DRB. These outstanding details are not limited to those that are listed below, and the DRB requests the right to require additional details that may have been omitted from the listings. Each section will summarize the proposed work and note recommendations requested by the DRB and revised by the design team. Essex Street Facades (North Elevation The proposed work calls for construction of a new glazed entrance and roof element (spine) which runs from the north to south elevations and new windows added to the existing Dodge building. These new openings will reveal the Museum's gift shop to provide a retail presence along the Essex Street fagade. DRB RECOMMENDATION: Approve as submitted. Five New Gallery Facades (East Elevation The new gallery buildings will be cladded with brick and stone banding. Material samples were shown to the Board. Light slots divide each building. Per DRB recommendation, the depths of the light slots have been increased 4 inches, the width of a brick, which resulted in a total relief of 16 inches. • i DRB Recommendation Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Plan Page 2 of 3 • DRB RECOMMENDATION: Approve gallery fagade brick and stone banding pattern with the material samples presented and with the revision of the light slot depth total depth to be sixteen inches. Charter Street Facades (South Elevation) This elevation shows brick and stone gallery facades and a south entrance/exit from the interior corridor. The Yin Yu Tang House will also be visible from this elevation. Per DRB recommendation, the interior vestibule has been expanded by eighteen inches and the exterior, south entrance was enlarged and more glazing was added to show one large glazed opening that is encased in limestone. Yin Yu Tang House/Glass Atrium The Yin Yu Tang House, its forecourt and central courtyard plan, atrium design and access, paving and landscaping plans were reviewed by the DRB. DRB RECOMMENDATION: Approve as submitted. Charter Street House Relocation Site Plan • Plans were submitted for the relocation of the two houses to two new lots created on Charter Street and the relocation of the school house. These plans have already been reviewed and approved by the DRB and SRA. DRB RECOMMENDATION: Approve final site plan as shown on revised plan dated October 12, 2000 page number SA.17. Public Garden/Esplanade Plan In its original plan, the esplanade was a straight path that connected Essex Street to Charter Street, which resulted in the handicap ramps and the Armory Archway being misaligned. Following DRB comments, the walkway was revised to form a curve, aligning the handicap ramps and Armory Archway to create new view corridors. The entire width of the path is now 12'8". The location of the ancillary bluestone path has been relocated to the opposite side of the walkway. Due to this new walkway shape, some landscaping plans were altered, such as tree, shrub and groundcover selection and placement, shrub areas being reduced, and minor alterations to the fieldstone wall. DRB RECOMMENDATION: Approve revised plan with the conditions that requires the exposed walls of the Saccon Jewelers building and Marine Art Gallery building be improved or screened and proposed treatments plans be submitted for review; photometric plan be submitted for review; revised planting plan and list be I DRB Recommendation Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Plan Page 3 of 3 updated and submitted for review; and final trash receptacle selection be submitted for review. Armory Square As per DRB recommendation, the design of Armory Square has been totally revised, as shown on revised plan sheet numberSA.16, Armory Square Detail Plan. The Archway now aligns with the Esplanade, there is a low iron fence on granite around the perimeter, the Revere Bell has been moved to the corner of the site, and the Second Corps Cadets sign will be placed on the drillshed wall. The Corps time line is now embedded in the ground by the drillshed wall. DRB RECOMMENDATION: Approve revised plan with the conditions that a photometric plan be submitted for review; final selection of trash receptacles and benches be submitted for review; fence height detail be submitted for review; and revised planting plan and list be updated and submitted for review. Roadway Design, Pedestrian Mall Bricks, Curbs, Crosswalks,Handicap Ramps. Lighting and Signage . As shown on plan, use of a paving brick, complimentary to the City Standard brick, will be used to define the `precinct' of the Museum. This brick will also be used in the Esplanade and Armory Square. DRB RECOMMENDATION: Approved as submitted. Light Fixtures for the Esplanade and interior of Armory Square were submitted for review. As per DRB recommendation,the City Standard streetlights will be used on the public sidewalk. DRB RECOMMENDATION: Approve light fixtures as presented with the condition that the City Standard be used on the public sidewalk and that a photometric plan be submitted for review. Newly designed handicap ramps are shown on the plan. DRB RECOMMENDATION: Approve ramps as designed—must meet ADA requirements. Details of the crosswalk edgings have not been finalized. Brick pattern for pedestrian mall, sidewalk and roadway was approved, however, detail plans need to be submitted. • Signage plans have not been submitted and will be reviewed at a latter date. MICHAEL VAN VALKENBURGH ASSOCIATES, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Peabody Essex Museum, MWA#9802 Design Review Board/ Relocated Houses on Charter Street Preliminary Plant List A. Shade Trees Quercus acutissima, Sawtooth Oak Ulmus parvifolia, Chinese Elm B. Shrubs Hamamelis mollis, Chinese Witchhazel Viburnum corlesii, Koreanspice Viburnum Rhododendron sp., Azalea and Rhododendron C. Groundcover and Vines Hedero helix `Baltica', Baltic English Ivy Parthenocissus tricuspidate, Boston Ivy I 231 CONCORD AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS.02138.USA TEL (617) 864-2076 FAX (617) 492-3128 f i Salem Redevelopment Authority October 11, 2000 Mr. Don Giard Salem Planning Department One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Don: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your hard work and dedication during the review process of the Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Plan. Your time and expert advice are greatly appreciated. I believe that this project has been made better by your valued input. The SRA is embarking on exciting times with projects that include the renovation of the Old Police Station and the former Salem Jail Complex. The DRB will play an important role in the success of these projects. I look forward to continuing to work with you and the Board to see these and other projects through to fruition. Once again, thank you for your efforts. Sincerely, I 1 Patrick Reffett Executive Director cc: Mayor Stanley J.Usovicz,Jr. SRA Members One Salem Green • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 re Salem ' Redevelopment Authority October 11, 2000 Mr. David Jaquith 35 Flint Street, Unit 12 Salem, MA 01970 Dear David: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your hard work and dedication during the review process of the Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Plan. Your time and expert advice are greatly appreciated. I believe that this project has been made better by your valued input. The SRA is embarking on exciting times with projects that include the renovation of the Old Police Station and the former Salem Jail Complex. The DRB will play an important role in the success of these projects. I look forward to continuing to work with you and the Board to see these and other projects through to fruition. Once again, thank you for your efforts. Sincerely, Patrick Reffett Executive Director cc: Mayor Stanley J.Usovicz, Jr. SRA Members One Salem Green • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 eSalem ® Redevelopment Authority October 11, 2000 Ms. Meredith Reed The Halyard Group 8 Central Street Salem,MA 01970 Dear Meredith: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your hard work and dedication during the review process of the Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Plan. Your time and expert advice are greatly appreciated. I believe that this project has been made better by your valued input. The SRA is embarking on exciting times with projects that include the renovation of the Old Police Station and the former Salem Jail Complex. The DRB will play an important role in the success of these projects. I look forward to continuing to work with you and the Board to see these and other projects through to fruition. Once again,thank you for your efforts. Sincerely, o'-Ff� la ck Re ett Executive Director cc: Mayor Stanley J.Usovicz,Jr. SRA Members One Salem Green • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 Salem ® Redevelopment Authority October 11, 2000 Mr. Paul Durand Winter Street Architects 209 Essex Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Paul: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your hard work and dedication during the review process of the Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Plan. Your time and expert advice are greatly appreciated. I believe that this project has been made better by your valued input. The SRA is embarking on exciting times with projects that include the renovation of the Old Police Station and the former Salem Jail Complex. The DRB will play an important role in the success of these projects. I look forward to continuing to work with you and the Board to see these and other projects through to fruition. Once again,thank you for your efforts. Sincerely, 1 Patrick Reffett Executive Director cc: Mayor Stanley J.Usovicz,Jr. SRA Members One Salem Green • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 16 0 Salem Y� Redevelopment Authority October 11, 2000 Mr. Chris Greene 17 Highland Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Chris: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your hard work and dedication during the review process of the Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Plan. Your time and expert advice are greatly appreciated. I believe that this project has been made better by your valued input. The SRA is embarking on exciting times with projects that include the renovation of the Old Police Station and the former Salem Jail Complex. The DRB will play an important role in the success of these projects. I look forward to continuing to work with you and the Board to see these and other projects through to fruition. Once again,thank you for your efforts. Sincerely, Patrick Reffetl Executive Director cc: Mayor Stanley J.Usovicz,Jr. SRA Members One Salem Green • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 ,B Salem Redevelopment Authority BY FAX Memo To: Attorney Joseph Correnti From: Patrick Reffett,Executive Director Date: October 11,2000 Re: Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Project As the design team for the Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Project finalize plans to distribute to the Design Review Board for their final recommendation to the Redevelopment Authority, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that an important,outstanding issue regarding this expansion project remains. Specifically, there is an agreement between the SRA and the Museum Cooperative, dated February of 1992, and the Memorandum of Agreement, dated February of 1992, signed by the Salem Redevelopment Authority, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Park Service and the Museum Cooperative of Salem that must be amended before approval of your design can move forward. Please contact me at your earliest convenience, so we may meet to discuss a course of action regarding these amendment processes. Thank you. cc: Mayor Stanley J.Usovicz,Jr. One Salem Green • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 4 Salem Redevelopment Authority MEMORANDUM TO: Interested Parties to the Peabody Essex Museum Expansion FROM: Patrick Reffett, Executive Director DATE: October 12, 2000 RE: Salem Redevelopment Authority Meeting Agenda for October 18, 2000 Attached please find the meeting notice of the Salem Redevelopment Authority. The Peabody Museum Expansion Plan will be on the agenda. One Salem Green • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 Salem CITY OF SALEM. MA i Redeve c)priient CLERKS OFFICE Authority Iota pCT 12 A 9` 30 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 23A, Chapter 39 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, that a special meeting of the Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority will be held on Wednesday, October 18, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, One Salem Green, Salem, Massachusetts. SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Ellen S. Dubinsky Secretary October 12, 2000 Salem, Massachusetts i/ n041Ci posf61d ¢yl Uui?Qf n s " Clfy kali Ave.. 1jrtam, Mt cc zsi v, 1 _ ` ,' 0 C i 1 2 2000 • ��•^4e'1 LSoyYr:2 One Salcm (:peen • Sulam, %Iassaclwsetts 01971) • (978) 743-9595, Ext 3I I • Fax (978) 740-0=4114 BY FAX Memo To: Attorney Joseph Correnti From: Patrick Reffett,Executive Director Date: ,October 17,2000 Re: Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Project As the design team for the Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Project finalize plans to distribute to the Design Review Board for their final recommendation to the Redevelopment Authority, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that an important, outstanding issue regarding this expansion project remains. Specifically, there is an agreement between the SRA and the Museum Cooperative, dated February of 1992, and the Memorandum of Agreement, dated February of 1992, signed by the Salem Redevelopment Authority, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Park Service and the Museum Cooperative of Salem that must be amended before approval of your design can move forward. Please contact me at your earliest convenience, so we may meet to discuss a course of action regarding these amendment processes. Thank you. cc: Mayor Stanley J.Usovicz,Jr. PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CONCERNS n'T ------------ Public ROW Essex St/Pedestrian Mall * Lighting plan and fixtures have not been shown to the DRB. • It was expressed that all infrastructure changes (paving 0 Essex St. Mall and crosswalks will be paved with brick materials, curbing, lighting, etc.) should meet the City complimentary to the existing City Hall Pavers. standard to ensure the project fits within the existing downtown context. For example, the City standard for brick is City Hall Pavers "Salem Blend"manufactured by Stiles and Hart. The proposed replacement of a portion of the Essex Pedestrian Mall with new paving materials needs further review. • The design of Essex Street should clearly communicate where • Major portions of the formerly proposed brick roadway have pedestrian movements should occur and where the pedestrian been revised to show an asphalt paving surface. mall ends. The Board felt that the excessive amount of brick paving within the public right-of-way would make Essex Street appear to be a part of the pedestrian mall, which could lead to dangerous vehicular/pedestrian conflicts. The Board requested alternatives for this critical intersection. • The vehicular and pedestrian circulation pattern should be • A two-way roadway has been designed continues to be improved. The current plan includes New Liberty as a two- discussed at Planning Board. way street that becomes a one way street. This would lead to unsafe turning movements and congestion. The Board suggested that a two-way circulation pattern for Essex and New Liberty Street could solve this problem. • The curb alignment at the intersection of New Liberty and Essex Streets should be examined. The Board requested alternatives for this critical intersection. I1RB Comments/Concerns EM,Action: Esplanade • No alternatives provided. • Lawns should be elevated above paths to decrease the use of the grass area as an alternate path. This grade separation would also provide a greater formality for the space. • Concern that proposed fieldstone wall is in close proximity to • Photograph of wall material was submitted. Tercentenary Memorial and proposed wall should not replicate Memorial. Photo of proposed wall material & design to be submitted. • Concern that Esplanade path narrows from 12'8"to 8' at the • No alternative provided. It was pointed out that there are Charter St. end and with large amounts of people, e.g. bus smaller bluestone ancillary paths at the Charter Street tours embarkingand disembarking from this location at one location. g time— 12'8"width should be maintained. Esplanade & Armory Park • Total redesign of Armory Park was presented. • Design/Aesthetic concern - appears that they were designed at two different times by two different people • Reads as two different spaces—does not link the elements together • Entrances to each park do not align • No alternatives have been proposed, although Armory Park • Current alignment raises handicap access concern has been totally redesigned, and the arch still remains in the It was requested that the arch be moved to align with the same location and the public walkway within the Esplanade entrance to the public walkway or the walkway be shifted to has not been shifted to align to the arch. align with the Armory arch.. ARB�Gomments/Co ceras PEM Actlon ' a P u r Armory Park • Total redesign of Armory Park was presented. • Entrance should be pulled back to match the setback of Phillips Library to create better visibility of park and buildings along that portion of Essex Street • Trees should be removed in front of Phillips Library/Plummer Hall for better visibility _ • Concern how the diagonal paths will function—current plan breaks up landscaping pieces, is confusing and nonfunctional The Board requested alternatives for the Armory Park design. u. ! .r if! EW r : Essex Street Pedestrian Mall—Fagade Elevations . No alternatives were provided. • Concern that there was not enough glazing on the fagade of the Dodge Building. It was stated that a major opportunity to show activity along the Pedestrian Mall would be missed if more windows were not incorporated into the design. E` Interior Arcade—Charter Street Elevation • The vestibule area has been expanded by 1 %2' and the exterior • Concern that Charter St. (interior) exit was confusing for the has been redesigned form a two floor design to one large case pedestrian, as it narrows and becomes very congested. opening. These changes open up the area and increase the It was suggested that the freight elevator be moved to a different natural exterior light that can be seen from inside the arcade. location to create a clearer view of the exit. EEEZ, E I DTtB 4Ctimments/Concerrns P Action m - New Gallery facades along Liberty Street . No alternatives were provided. • Concern was expressed regarding the mass of the building DRB suggestions included. increasing the depth between the brick and glazing by adding one more row of bricks; design of some type of step-down landscaping near the building edge; introduction of other patterns or materials to break up the massing. 10/18/00 WED 07:59 FAX 9787400072 JOHN D HEENAN 0001/004 Dept. City Legal 222 Essex Street enanSalem, Massachusetts 019 John D. Ke R E G E I V Tel: 978-74111453 SolicitorCity Fax 978-740-0072 SALEM PLANNING DEPT. Fax To: Joseph Correnti,Esq. From: John Keenan, Esq. Fare 978.741.4683 pages: 4 Phoney 978-741-0453 Date: 17 October 2000 Roe Peabody Essex CC: Patrick Reifeft(744-0404) O Urgent X For Review ❑Please Comment Please Reply O Please Recycle e commentm Dear Joe: Patrick and the Mayor asked me to take a look at Attorney Lyman's letter of October 16°1. 1 think its now dear even ,by HUD's confirmation that the Sermon 108 review is not warranted as the headhouse projed moves forward through SRA review. I agree that the SRA was specifically not a signatory to the Head House LDA and SRA is not now considering actions involving the drill shed; however,there seems to be some overlapping that may be inextricably intertwined, to wit, paragraphs D 8 F of the implementing agreement. (Copy attached)_ Now that the fagadelheadhouse is completely gone, the provisions no longer make sense and perhaps need to be addressed to dose up a loose end. Your thoughts welcomed. Very best regards, John 10/18/00 WED 07:59 FAX 9787400072 JOHN D HEENAN 0002/004 iurr,iuu rue iu:u, VAA t0 ooa I clCrn IRed eve!ODf'J e,nt S�r- 7TA __ - _ _- --ONE 76..690, I ' AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into as of the day of ' February,. 1992, by and between SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ( "SRA" ) and MUSEUM COOPERATIVE OF SALEM, INC. ( "MUSEUM COOPERATIVE") . ' WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 108 of the Acts of 1987, as amended by Chapter 151, section 12, of the Acts of 1990 , the SRA and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting through the Commissioner of the Division of Capital Planning and Operations (DCPO" ) , entered into a certain Land Disposition Agreement dated December 23, 1991: and ' WHEREAS, that Agreement was entered into simultaneously with the transfer of land and buildings known as the so-called "Drill ' Shed" portion of the Salem Armory, as more particularly described in a deed dated December 24, 1991, and delivered with that Agreement; and WHEREAS, that Agreement contemplated ' that the SRA was to further transfer title to the Drill Shed, in accordance with all applicable land disposition processes, for development of the property for civic, cultural, residential , commercial or other uses approved by DCPO: and ' WHEREAS, the SRA has proceeded through a formal disposition process and has selected the Museum Cooperative as the designated developer; and WHEREAS, in transferring title to the Drill Shed, to the Museum Cooperative, the SRA wishes to set forth certain understanding between the parties hereto about this transfer and subsequent ' development and use of the Drill Shed. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree: ' A. The Museum Cooperative agree to complete the development in accordance with plans entitled "Salem Center Museum Master Plan, Salem, Massachusetts, SDS-01-08, Dyer/Hrcvn ' s Associates, Inc. revised 10/31/91" . 10/18/00 WED 08:00 FAIL 9787400072 JOHN D HEENAN OOJ/004 1V/11/VV 1VL 1V:LL( }� I Wj 004 V 8. The Museum Cooperative shall commence demolition of the ' Drillshed on February 24th, 1992 A%. 3uch demolition shall Contiane through to Completion with the cooperation of the City of Salem, Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) and National Park Service. ' C. The Museum Cooperative shall, at the date of execution of this document , provide to the SRA a copy of the financing ' commitments, a financing plan and a letter of approval of financing from . the Massachusetts Industrial Finance Agency (MIFA) for the development of the Armory. tD. The Museum Cooperative acknowledge the concern of the SRA and the City that there be visible public commercial activity on the first floor of the so-called "Head House" t portion of the Armory. The Museum Cooperative agree to ! ` place the Museum gift shops on the first floor of the Headhouse portion of the development along the New ' Liberty Street facade. This condition will be waived if the Museum Cooperative is no longer allowed by law to have gift shops. In addition, the SRA will work closely with the Museum Cooperative architect and planner to ' determine the exact location of the Museum Gift Shop(s) and such location can bechangedfrom the first floor headhouse with the approval of the SRA. E. The Museum Cooperative will provide a proposed development plan for the second floor space, consisting of approximately 8,000 square feet, that remains in the Drill Shed after the visitors' Center space is designed. It is understood that this space will be used for activities to which the public has access, as opposed to ' a private use. F. The Museum Cooperative agree that the primary entrance to ' the completed project, i .e. Drill Shed and. Head House will be as shown on a site plan entitled "Salem Center Museum Master Plan, Salem, Massachusetts, SKO-010 ' Dyer/Brown a Associates, Inc. revised 10/31/91". Any proposed exits and entrances nee shown on this plan will be approved by the SFA. ' G. The S&A shall have final approval of all exterior renovations to the property. ' H. Having in mind that the interest of the City is in stimulating activity in downtown Salem, the City will undertake a planning study to determine the economic impact of the development on the Central ousinene ' District and determine the manner in which such impact can be maximized for the Central Business District. The Museum Cooperative will participate in funding a portion Of such a study, with the understanding that they will be consulted and actively involved in the entire process. 10/18/00 WED 08:00 FAX 9787300072 JOHND $EENAN U004/004S Lull.I/VU Luc iu:ad rrA I ` I. In the event of breach of Luis Agreement, either party ' shall be entitled to apply for ._.;anctive relief restraining zny actual or threatened breach of this Agreement, and requiring specific performance of it, in addition to any other remedies available to the parties ' at law or equity. ' Executed as an instrument under seal as of the date hereof_ MUSEUM COOPERATIVE OF SALEM, INC. by ' SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTBoRiTY by jm\jm\armagree 1 STALEY McDERMET ASSOCIATES PRESERVATION&RESTORATION ARCHITECTURE 175 Essex Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970-3726 (978)7454969 October 10, 2000 The Design Review Board Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green Salem,MA 01970 Re: Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Dear Design Review Board Members: At the October 5, 2000, Salem Planning Board public hearing on the proposed expansion of the Peabody Essex Museum,the Planning Board was notified that the museum wishes to deviate from a number of the unifying standards that Salem has maintained in its downtown, most since the early 1970's. The museum stated they wish to install a different brick paver than the City Hall Paver, Salem Blend. They wish to install different light fixtures, not only on the streets but also on the proposed public walkway between Essex and Charter Streets, and on the site of the destroyed Salem Armory Headhouse. Finally,they wish to deviate from the standard crosswalks of pavers placed flat and edged with Belgian blocks. The Planning Board took strong exception to the above proposed deviations from Salem City standards. I also take extremely strong exception to any deviation from the standards. I had requested that I be able to address the Design Review Board on these issues,but was informed that I could not; the Board would accept written comments only. The above paver, street and pedestrian light fixture,and crosswalk standards should be maintained for design uniformity and consistency. They are unifying elements not only for the Essex Street pedestrian mall,but for the entire downtown area. To allow deviation, no matter how large the building project, is to open the door for and approve inconsistency throughout the downtown area. As members of the DRB,you must be aware of the myriad aesthetic problems downtown, from the multiplying A-frame signs to cars parking on grassed areas. To now allow deviation from long-held design standards is to accelerate aesthetic deterioration. It was argued at the Planning Board hearing that the proposed pavers would better complement the brick selected for the addition. Architects are supposed to design buildings to be compatible with their environment, not to change the environment to be compatible with the building's design. The scale,lack of detailing, and tombstone ends of the proposed addition are obviously not compatible with the Salem environment,but the proposal to change that environment(violate Salem's design standards)to better blend with an incompatible building is without doubt not the solution. I urge the Board to not allow any deviation from Salem's paver, light fixture,and crosswalk standards. In addition to the mall and the streets,the proposed walkway and Headhouse site are public spaces and should continue the same standards. Finally, the failure of the recently installed flat granite pavers that edged the crosswalk near the Post Office(since partially replaced with brick)also argue for retaining the traffic-calming Belgian blocks. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Staley McDermet SM/sb cc: Salem Planning Board � I I' i I k_ h �I I I ' 1 _ i II ' i i I II I Vesi. — I _ S6.5 445,01L135 ,� 2r-„ ,r�• I za Z it ' 1 ornral ) I SC — _ I _ 1 I Room 1 1FL134� I O I f- 13 A Sp — I f- -1 Vest. I �—�J IL136A L1361 L DN 1 11 R Elev. I 1 l Elev. No. 1 1 Rear No. 2 1 Lobby ` Ll El S i U ;” L 32A Vestibule L1 E2 I L133 L132 2 ILS � _ — A40.01 _ — — I 1 L732B —_ - - - - - R11 f P RZ IX I - z 66 ` I — I i z I _ �" '— 1 I 2 I _ - 6A 6A A 2 A45.04 — A j — I A 6A I I I A I I L1 pV _ = I EI 1B A I I I 6 I L120A I A I I I 6 fl/� - _ _ I L I I I I 6 III I I r -zs-0• RW = I I ug,A_ ,B Iji ILI ► I _ 10 VB 'bule . A _ I .I 16q - u2110 I I I I I III I r I 1 = 1 6A III 62.01 III I I i 1 I I i 16A i I i i A45.03 • � I I Low Ceiling I I I I I 'i 1 a 3W M.CHIFAY RDD h PRECAST CUDgW SR qdl e. SIL PIAR CRDSSBPgNO exµ„� AT AB'= I I I I I I I S°AHHIHD TO Wl.S1/Al A91D1 DPP.FN05 M FHIRINM 1 f'. 6'[ADI 1 6-%AY 1/4• /HVH CDM.SIL .11�'C1\" CAVI.S3L IH0.E I I I I I I I it ASW S MMD DAB PRE SMMDEO MEC SRRI N MOxo id BAn o151IlARDN ('� Q I I I I I I I I I �� PRECAtf VFNEcR PAW ��) Cj� � [ lM1ZDMu Sfl p AS WO'D. 1•-S• Y-J 3/4' 4 - I I I I I I I INur V68DTBIe r b FLI—mi w SPbe IL AHD F.l1EB�A9_ O b PbVL DVZED uU1L 8JD1 P SSI JO L110 CURIAH WHL SYBiFY PRECAST HEAD Nm Sd 10 m O PBEGISf UVB PACE BM L1610 'V 6 BMW I' 2•P - AB1xx - I I I I I a b SIAMIfS$SRIl Q J A'Grl .BEi6 OH N CWG _ xA4WNL BEroxD Y 9.. Ox DfWWGE 2a CDVPDSRE Dx FMRWS & MED fYMJOFD WMRPROMWC-MMW Sx ALIILL THD EUS9 Z° MLnw SYS-REB ro KM DxfS WOR W/GWS M A Rear H V65DDDI0 d LiM b s•-1 vz .9 b . - sqm carwrz sgRs .sr-e'o IDP ^ . •yN OROUf SAW BIFID SLOff A63W .._.PIH BFLgW SSSS FNERY Wt _ _ _ _ _ MYEMIIWS CO WAiEAPIm OR a W/OWU96E FR DIP.WNG W2 B RODR SIRUCNO E I'-M•M FM SE MRLC �1 Conidar o \ Grade w \LO6J L052 / \ . W/RGD ObxL ADMMRIW 91 SR HSII \ SHEEP VIPgI R �MIipRY COMM WDR ro mn •.� .. O�DCpR3��ET � -0 C3- / °� W WMMV I 0O 1 4 i I I i i R , i i I 1 i I0'OVd l I I I,I i t I I i I i _ J I I s e 4"O.C., „ bP 1 0 Plan r v 0 m Elevation Section Picket Fence Detail i I I iI x-is! _.-1 CLEI i I 1LJ --- U35A co SB.5 Ves . A4�.01 v 21'-1i 1/2• 20'5 It I I t Roomi 33-z a Sri I — I I L734 �— I j I w. i. N O I I I 13 A Uq— r--- A vest.� L136L Ji s I DN 11R Elev. I I' Rear No. 2 I Lobby 1 v. NoEl I S I O I ." L 32A Wstbule L1 E2 I L,33 2 I L S 0. — — — A40.01 I L132B --— — I I — — - 31'-91/2• R1 — RZ Ix — - 2 x�00.00 — _ I � — — III _- ' �,�-9,/2• I I z 6A 6A A — A45.04 - - — A — — — A 6A I I A _ y — EI A I L120A I A I I I 6 I I RX - - I L 1B A III 6 r - - � I 6 III III I r - I RW = I I j III III I1 i1A _ _ 1B t26-0• L1I III I I I I I..:. 6A - - - Ve 'bule A . III — J - - = u21 10 I I I I I III 6A 1 = I 6A LII 62,01$ III I I I I i I I I I A45.03 __ of ^ I _ I I I I I I Low Ceiling I I I I 3'6' rn.GNLEM R00 PRECAST C U)DIM SEL FAY - m PLATE CROSSBMQNG AT ae'D.c a•%ax I/a m IH 0-0 D,I R e• -fix I/a' aB3W R SPANNING Ow.E TO SEL NT CX OPP.ENDS OF ENERJMCE aSLOA fi•%ax 1/aLN 6'%Ik I/!• LOM.SEL11 INGIE LOM.m I I I I I I f%ax I/1A• F r SNS MENE SLSPENDED MECASE SOME ae�O.G - SUSPENDED M 'I I� - PRE NG INIT INwuEpN - I zl� I C PREVSf VIIlEDi PDORIa . d I HOR60MTAL OWNG AS REO'D M. 3'-0 V4' 1. II I I IRENEE VbB FLI L9t21IU SpNe Ir BEYOND EY83M B 1110 I B - ffiI➢ll O CURIAMG u WNL MEOW P PRECASE HEAD IL NO.10 W3 PRELAM L.VB e FIDE BIOCX� L1310 �BEYOND 1. B•V II I � I MffRA]R _ STNNUM SEER Q 3 a•GI ETE PAVERS ON C.I.P.C 0 NAVDRNL BEYOND Y MOG 05UL/ON ORAJW4E a. COYPOSRE ON RIERGUS GLUED E%RryDED WAEEWMFMG-PRNIM SNOWMUM.IND OLRM YELDNI SYS.-REF TO MEEK DAGS DOOR W/GIM EVE a Hear D I I I ve6veDm AR3DA r-D' usz MUD GRAMM STEPS 31'-B"O IOP aB3DA E' WATERPROOFING MWNME AND LR01/f SOUR ENDO SLOPE PIN KiSRN SS EM"I CEYENMOUS I ° WATERPR00FlNO W/DRAWL OYFR CJ.P.LONG. _ REM • B' SR; .W Tt IIS IIT R RE IRUCNFOR GRRE I.�. C.I.P.ROPR SLAB BOONN S SMEFY R / \ Gorrldor SFE oW \ y SFMICINGL Grade W ✓ `rn' M6'` P / iir ws . \ \ .. .... • W/RKIO INSUL DOORS TO RI FOWW SR WDEHIN SXER VIPOR R ERP Erow \ CeEDOW DOOR TO LOIS UNOERSI.AB SIkET / �, P AU000RNY _ i./� VMDR 6WRIER ! i I 6-, 's �- , ,00 z 4-7 77 PON ! I I - - r� DESIGN REVIEW BOARD E�'i L 2n MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2000 The Design Review Board met in open session on Thursday, September 28, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. in the second floor conference room at One Salem Green. Those in attendance were: Paul Durand, Chris Greene, Don Giard, David Jaquith, Fred Johnson, and Meredith Reed. Executive Director Patrick Reffett was also in attendance. Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Plan Review Mr. Fred Johnson recused himself from discussion and vote on this agenda item. Ms. Solano began the presentation by stating that DRB comments regarding the redesign of Armory Park were taken into consideration,which resulted in a new design. She pointed out that the Revere Bell will be placed on the comer of Essex and New Liberty Streets to act as a landmark. There will be granite benches surrounding the area, and the bell will sit on a granite platform. A picket fence will surround the park, as shown. The fence will be placed on a curb and in order to convey that the fence is transparent only four piers will be used. The pickets will be 1" x 1" with 2"x 2"piers being used in various locations to secure the fence. Mr. Greene asked that a detail of the fence be submitted. Ms. Solano then pointed out where the lights will be placed in the park and around the perimeter of the park and showed the Board a photograph of the proposed lights. She stated these lights have been chosen so they appear imbedded in the trees. She stated that there will be some specialty lighting at the arch, but these details are not finalized as of yet. She also stated that the proposal calls for replacing some City streetlights with the proposed park lights. Mr. Giard stated that no City streetlight should be replaced and any lights on the City's right-of- ways should conform to City standards. He added that he would like to see a larger version of the City's lights in the park/walkway designs. Mr. Reffett asked Ms. Solano to clarify the placement of the benches near the bell. Ms. Solano responded that the benches have been located so people can see the street and see the activity going on. Mr. Greene asked if the benches have backs. Ms. Solano responded the benches do not have backs. They are granite slabs. Mr. Reffett commented that the benches should allow people to face the nature being created in this park and not at the traffic. 4 Ms. Solano pointed out that there are several types of seating being used, and there are benches located within the park for people to enjoy the landscaping and eat their lunches. She showed a f DRB Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 2 of 8 photograph of the style benches, which are similar to the benches in Central Park with wooden seats and backs and metal uprights. She continued that the corner of the street where the bell is located is going to be an active place, groups will be congregating there and people will be waiting to be picked-up by vehicles that is why this seating was created. Ms. Solano began to discuss the materials for the paths. There will be brick used in the right-of- ways and the internal paths will be constructed of chip and seal asphalt and crushed stone, along the edgings bricks will be set flush with the paths. Granite pavers will be used by the drillshed for the veterans commemorative time line. There are also plans to use brick inside the breezeway,perhaps with commemorative inscriptions. She pointed out that the shrubs being proposed along the park have been replaced with ground cover. Mr. Greene commented that he is puzzled by the notion that the design of the Square has no correspondence to the design of the Esplanade. Being so close, it is almost one space, but there appears to be a deliberate change in the style, connections, plantings, and orientation. He continued that this feels like a missed opportunity. Ms. Solano responded that the design team has had very strong ideas relating these spaces to Salem and its urban fabric. She continued that the design incorporates hard spaces and soft spaces. The Esplanade is meant to be imbedded in the urban fabric. The park is more open, and the two designs are a way to provide a difference between the two spaces. There are the same trees and ground cover being used in both spaces, but she felt that the two spaces did not need a direct relationship. Mr. Greene acknowledged that the two spaces work in different ways,but he stated that the Esplanade and the Arch need to be aligned or else the location of the arch is going to appear arbitrary. No one will understand its placement, and its meaning will be lost. He again stated that the Esplanade path or the arch should be shifted to align with one another. Mr. Greene continued to comment that he felt Armory Park has a split personality: on one hand, some features are detailed, elegant, defined, and refined and on the other hand, some are not— like the pathway approach and its resemblance to an old rural location. He stated that this is an urban location and the edgings on the paths should be finely detailed and granite should be used. He stated that the whole space should have a level of refinement which is appropriate for this City and for a new building. The space should not appear to fight with itself by being a half mralesque common. He felt that the design team should go for it, and have this be an elegant space which will also correspond with the Esplanade and new building design. Ms. Solano responded that she felt differently and went on to explain her reasoning behind the use of materials and design of the park. She stated that the walkways were not bordered in granite because she does not want the visual contrast. She realized that the walkways were important, but the design is made to highlight the atmosphere of the space—a self-contained space where the walkways are calm. The special materials and details are saved for the special areas of the park, e.g. the time line. DRB Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Giard reiterated his concern that the Esplanade path and the arch align. Ms. Solano responded that these are separate spaces and she does not see that years from now these spaces being so closely associated. She continued that moving the Esplanade would cut up the green space too much. She continued that in cities streets do not always line up, and as long as you can see the object, it is not necessary to have it aligned. Mr. Reffett commented that the views you remember when you are visiting a city are those that align with a path you are walking, and the closer you get to this feature the more exciting it becomes. He continued that the open spaces are designed to pull people from one end to the other, and the alignment is needed to `connect the dots'. Ms. Solano commented that in older cities, such as Paris and Rome things do not line up. Mr. Giard commented that the two spaces have been designed at the same time, and it seems disingenuous to make them appear as if they were built at different times. Ms. Reed commented that she felt Armory Square related to the Esplanade and new buildings. Mr. Jaquith stated that it is perplexing that the archway does not align with the walkway. He continued that if it were aligned it would provide a `goal post'. Mr. Durand commented that he was in favor or aligning the pathway and arch. He felt the offset is antagonistic and it is not natural not to go across the street in a straight line. He asked why this change is such a big deal. Mr. Jaquith also asked why moving the arch is such a big deal. He stated that the arch is not the original arch from the Armory. It is only a reproduction. Ms. Solano commented that the Museum has been working closely with the Second Corps Cadets, and as a result of these meetings, the arch has been located in its original position. Mr. Giard suggested that the Esplanade path could be pivoted to align the arch. Mr. Durand suggested that the end of the Essex Street walkway could be widened. Mr. Jaquith stated that it should be explained to the Corps. that the archway would take on more importance and prominence if it were aligned with the walkway. Mr. Greene commented that it is important to keep the handicap ramps straight. Ms. Dubinsky stated that there is a very active Handicap Commission in the City and a private agency,the Assisted Living Center that the plans could be shown to for comments. Ms. Solano stated that she would study the different alternatives suggested by the DRB to align the walkway with the arch. DRB Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 4 of 8 Attorney Correnti asked the Board to clearly define the options the Board wanted to see for re- alignment. Ms. Reed responded that the architects should find a way to make the arch and the walkway line- up. Mr. Greene responded to Mr. Correnti stating that the Board is asking for an amendment to the design so the archway is on axis with the path and the handicap ramps are directly across the street from each other. Mr. Greene stated his concern for the grass being worn out at the comers of the paths in Armory Square. Ms. Solano stated that one of the major reasons a path becomes worn is if you have not taken into consideration where people will walk. The Armory Square design has considered pedestrian movement. She continued that there are many functional things that are being done to protect the grass such as: (1) special soils are being used to help with compaction; (2) an irrigation system is being installed; and(3)the Peabody Essex Museum will be provided with maintenance procedures. Mr. Greene expressed some doubt whether these measures will be sufficient. He continued that the path from the National Park Service to the arch will have large crowds, which can cause wear and tear on the edges. The Square will be an extremely, intensively, used place and it needs to be `armored'. He stated that aesthetically the paths are fine, but he was worried about maintenance. Mr. Greene, Mr. Durand and Mr. Jaquith suggested that the path be made wider.,Mr. Reffett agreed and pointed out that the paths are already different widths. Ms. Solano responded that the widths of the paths have been designed to incorporate the hierachy of travel. Mr. Reffett stated that it is always valuable to have more capacity, especially since there will be large amounts of people traveling both ways on the same path. Ms. Reed commented that hierarchy shown does not seem correct. Mr. Jaquith agreed, and continued that the path that links to the Peabody Essex Museum is larger, but in reality there will be more foot traffic on the path linking the arch to the Visitor Center and garage. DRB Minutes September 28, 2000 + Page 5 of 8 Mr. Greene concurred that the path from the arch to the National Park Service is not wide enough. He also asked why the space in front of the drillshed was widened which resulted in loosing grass area. At this time Mr. Andrew Barassi from John Droll's office addressed the DRB. This firm is designing the commemorative pieces in Armory Square. He stated that the time line,which will highlight the inception of the Second Corps Cadets to present day, has been designed in that area with 2' granite pieces and slightly elevated (1/4") cast bronze plaques. In addition,this area allows you to step back and see the Second Corps. Cadets name being placed on the drill shed wall. Mr. Greene commented that the elevation of the plaques could cause problems during snow removal and could result in the chipping of the plaques and/or granite. Mr. Barassi responded that this area would be hand shoveled. Mr. Greene commented that something needs to be done so people do not walk over the plaques. Mr. Barassi responded that plantings are being proposed. Mr. Greene responded that there still needs to be something else done. Mr. Greene then commented that there will be tremendous circulation around the proposed bell area, and there does not seem to be enough room between the bell stand and the handicap ramp. He suggested the bell be moved back to create a bigger corner so people will not spill into the street. Mr. Durand, Mr. Jaquith and Mr. Giard agreed with Mr. Greene's comments. Mr. Barassi continued that there will be inscriptions on the base of the bell. Mr. Greene asked where the Revere bell came from. Mr. Grimes responded from the East or South Church. Mr. Greene asked if the bell would have the capability to ring. Mr. Phippen responded that this is still being analyzed. Hopefully, it will be made operable so it can be used for special occasions. Mr. Barassi continued that there will be a dedication element under the arch that would be sandblasted into granite stone, and the arch will be lit with specialty lighting. The replica of the Second Corps Cadets sign will be placed on the drillshed wall. It will be reconstructed out of sandstone and the letters will be raised and lithochromed. Mr. Greene asked if the size of the sign equaled the original. Mr. Barassi responded that the new sign will be larger. There will also be accommodations to integrate bunting and flags on the drillshed wall. Mr. Barassi stated that plans are being developed for bricks along the breezeway that may have veterans' names inscribed on them. Mr. Grimes stated that this is still being discussed with the Second Corps Cadets. DRB Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Grimes also stated that it is important to the Second Corps Cadets that the archway be located in its original place. At this time,the DRB discussed each issue listed on the Peabody Museum Expansion Concern Chart. Public Right of Way—City Standard Brick& Liahts Mr. Greene stated that City standard brick and lights be used on the public right of way. Mr. Giard agreed. Mr. Jaquith stated he did not have a tremendous problem with the use of the complimentary brick, but felt that the lighting should adhere to the City standard. Mr. Durand stated that he was in favor of the complimentary brick at the last meeting, but he walked the site and realized he liked the consistency of the City brick and could not find a logical place to transition from one brick to the other. Therefore, he now felt that the City standard brick and lights should be used in the right of ways. Mr. Jaquith asked the Museum to prove their stand on the transition of the bricks, and if they cannot, the Board would insist on the City standard lighting and bricks. Ms. Solano stated that she did show the board transition plans. Mr. Durand requested that she better clarify her plans. She also stated that the Museum is willing to repair the bricks. Ms. Dubinsky stated that she would contact the City Engineer to obtain his recommendations, since his department would be responsible for the right of ways. The Board agreed that all the lights on public property should adhere to the City standard and also expressed that they would like to see the lights in Armory Park be the City lighting. A photometric plan was also requested by the Board for their review. Roadway The concern regarding the roadway has mostly been solved by a redesign of the circulation pattern, allowing Essex Street to Hawthorne Boulevard be a two-way street, the widening of the street and resetting of curbs, and the change in treatment of the street by removing most of the bricks and by the redesign of the crosswalks to be highlighted on each side by brick. The Board requested that the updated drawing reviewed by the Planning Board be submitted to the DRB. Mr. Giard asked if the crosswalks could be highlighted with cobblestones like many other crosswalks in the downtown. Mr. Durand and Mr. Jaquith stated that there could be ordinance DRB Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 7 of 8 and/or safety restrictions regarding crosswalks, and this should be addressed through the Police Department. Mr. Greene stated that this issue does require attention. He stated that the paving detailing be coordinated to ensure that Police Department and ADA requirements are met. Esplanade Mr. Greene stated that he did not object to the lawns not being elevated, but did reiterate that he felt this will cause maintenance problems. The Board concurred with the photograph submitted for the detail of the fieldstone wall. The Board is not requiring that the path end by Charter Street be widened. Armory Pazk The Board is requiring that the arch and the path be aligned; the width of the path from the arch to the Visitor Center be increased; and the space around the bell be increased. The Board stated that they would allow the Museum to decide if edging should be used along the paths, but did recommend it. The Board requested fence details and how the fence works at the base. The Board requested that a photometric plan be submitted for review. The Board requested details of the benches and of the area surrounding the bell. Mr. Greene asked the length of the bench. Ms. Solano responded the benches will be 5'-6'. The Board requested details and location plans of all the commemorative elements in the park. The Board requested that trash can details and locations be submitted for review. Essex Street Pedestrian Mall Facade Mr. Giazd stated that he would like to see more glazing on the Essex Street facades. He showed the Board a sketch he drafted that creates display cases on the outside lip of the Dodge building by bringing glass straight down from the over hang. Attorney Correnti commented that this is an institutional building not a former retail building. Mr. Giazd responded that it is within the context of a retail area and other retail buildings. The rest of the members of the Board agreed that it would be nice to see some more glazing, but this is not an issue the members feel strong enough about to request a change in the plans. DRB Minutes September 28, 2000 Page 8 of 8 Interior Arcade/Charter Street Elevation The Board agreed that the alternative glass entry and enlargement of the interior doorway is acceptable. New Gallery Facades Mr. Greene stated that row of five galleries is too unarticulated of an expanse; if there was more articulation, it would be a more successful design. Mr. Jaquith agreed that the facades need to be better. He stated that the architects refer to them as houses, so they need to get these buildings to look more like individual houses. Mr. Durand stated that if more reveal, more of a shadow line is created this would be acceptable. The Board requested that the plans be amended to either pull the brick out or move the glass in so there is more of a shadow line/separation of the buildings. Attorney Correnti thanked the Board for their guidance and stated that the outstanding issues will be addressed at the next meeting, and hopefully this project can receive a recommendation that can be brought to the SRA meeting on October 11, 2000. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned. The next DRB meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 10, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ellen Dubinsky 1 Transportation Assessment t Peabody Essex Museum Expansion 1 1 Salem, Massachusetts Prepared on behalf of Peabody Essex Museum . East India Square Salem,MA 09170 978 745-1876 Prepared by IM/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Transportation,Land Development,Environmental Services 101 Walnut Street P.O. Box 9151 Watertown,Massachusetts 02471 617 924-1770 May 2000 i MVanasse Hangen BrusNin,Inc. Table of Contents Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Museum Expansion MuseumVisitation......................................................................................................................1 3.0 Liberty Street Closure Liberty Street Closure Impacts-Vehicular Traffic......................................................................5 Existing Liberty Street Traffic Volumes.......................................................................5 Comparison to Other Salem Roadways.....................................................................8 Traffic Diversions due to Liberty Street Closure.........................................................9 Impacts on Drop-Off Activity, Emergency Access,and Bus Operations..................10 ' Liberty Street Closure Impacts-Pedestrian Traffic..................................................................10 4.0 Conclusions 1 A ' \\mm, ld\id\05e42\d.�s\,ep„,n\da,,epdo,ii Table of Contents r — ►17-17 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. List of Tables Table No. Description Page 1 Museum Visitation Summary....................................................................3 2 Daily Traffic Volumes................................................................................6 3 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.......................................................................8 A-1 Annual Museum Visitation....................................................................A-1 A-2 Museum Visitation Monthly Variation....................................................A-2 A-3 Museum Visitation Daily Variation........................................................A-3 A-4 Museum Visitation Hourly Variation......................................................A-4 A-5 Museum Visitation Travel Modes..........................................................A-5 A-6 Museum Visitation Summary................................................................A-6 i 1 ' \\ma., iA4L\o>942\d«\repomNeasrepd«iii Table of Contents �. vim Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. List of Figures Figure No. Description Following Page 1 Existing Roadway Patterns.......................................................................5 2 Peak Commuter Hour Traffic Volumes.....................................................7 3 Downtown Salem Daily Traffic Volumes...................................................8 4 Downtown Salem Daily Traffic Volumes Comparison...............................8 5 Museum Area Vehicle Travel Routes.......................................................9 6 Museum Area Bus Travel Routes...........................................................10 1� r� r ' \\ma,vaid\id\os9az\du Nreports\aa:.ep.noc iv Table of Contents Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Executive Summary 7 The Peabody Essex Museum proposes to expand their existing exhibition facilities in Salem,Massachusetts from 130,000 square feet to 200,000 square feet. The expansion will accommodate additional exhibition galleries,an orientation atrium,public program space, an interior pedestrian walkway,a new landscaped plaza for pedestrian orientation and linkage with Derby Street and the waterfront,expanded exterior landscape and garden area,and exhibit support space. In conjunction with the planned museum expansion, the City of Salem proposes to discontinue Liberty Street between Essex Street and Charter Street. This transportation assessment presents projected traffic estimates for the proposed expansion,and evaluates the traffic impacts of the proposed Liberty Street closure on both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Museum Expansion With the construction of the expansion,the Peabody Essex Museum has estimated that annual museum attendance will double from 130,000 annual visitors to 260,000 annual visitors. This increase in visitation is projected to generate an additional 270 daily vehicle-trips for the average weekday in the peak month(October),750 daily vehicle-trips during the average weekend day in October,40 peak hour two-way vehicle-trips in the busiest hour on a weekday in October,and 110 peak hour two- way vehicle-trips in the busiest hour on a weekend day in October. The expansion is projected to have negligible,if any,impacts on the traffic operations during the morning and evening peak commuting periods (7 to 9 AM)and(4 to 6 PM), as the museum's hours of operation for general visitation are from 10 AM to 5 PM. Evening programs and functions typically start at 7 PM,after the evening commuter peak hours. The proposed expansion is projected to increase parking demand by an additional 50 parking spaces on a weekday,and 130 spaces on a weekend day at its peak visitation. The additional parking demand and loss of parking spaces resulting from the museum expansion will be mitigated with new parking structures recently construction and with additional planned public parking structures financed by the museum. ' \Nmawam\td\05942\do«\report5viasrep.d�EX-1 Executive Summary HBVanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. I' Liberty Street Closure Based on a review of spring,summer, and Halloween season traffic volumes,the discontinuance of Liberty Street will not have a noticeable impact on area traffic flow. Current traffic volumes along this section of Liberty Street are typical of a low- volume,local street. Presently,vehicular traffic along Liberty Street consists of a portion of the traffic traveling to and from the south and the East India Square and Church Street parking facilities and local'cut-through'traffic. Vehicles traveling to and from the nearby parking facilities via Route 128 and other points to the west and north or Route IA towards the east do not use this portion of Liberty Street. The vehicles traveling to and from area parking facilities to and from the south will be diverted as a result of the Liberty Street discontinuance. These vehicles can use several different alternative routes which will be highlighted through updated tourist information,telephone directions,museum brochures,etc. VHB has assessed the impact of these diversions and concluded that they will not have a noticeable impact on area traffic operations. While the discontinuance of Liberty Street will not have a noticeable impact on area ' vehicular traffic,it will provide a marked enhancement for pedestrian traffic. Pedestrians along Liberty Street between Essex Street and Charter Street will be i� accommodated via an interior walkway through the museum and an exterior, landscaped walkway to the east of the new construction. The planned walkways are more than adequate to accommodate peak Halloween pedestrian demands. A clearly-marked, attractive signage program will be provided to enhance connections from the Visitor Center and museum to Derby Street and the waterfront,and will improve pedestrian orientation to all nearby landmarks, attractions and businesses. In summary,the transportation analysis presented herein demonstrates that the expansion of the Peabody Essex Museum and the proposed discontinuance of the portion of Liberty Street between Essex Street and Charter Street will not have a noticeable effect on area traffic operations or access to parking and local businesses. Furthermore,the project will afford the opportunity to improve pedestrian access, orientation,and circulation in this area. \NmaNa]dNid\059}2\d«,\.ePom\eas,pd.�EX-2 Executive Summary Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Introduction The Peabody Essex Museum proposes to expand their existing exhibition facilities in t Salem,Massachusetts from 130,000 square feet to 200,000 square feet. The expansion will accommodate additional exhibition galleries,an orientation atrium,public program space,an interior pedestrian walkway,a new landscaped plaza for lpedestrian orientation and linkage with Derby Street and the waterfront,expanded exterior landscape and garden area, and exhibit support space. In conjunction with the planned museum expansion, the City of Salem proposes to discontinue Liberty Street between Essex Street and Charter Street. The expansion will be constructed to the east of the existing Liberty Street facility, utilizing Liberty Street and portions of the existing Empire parking lot. Liberty Street will be closed to vehicular traffic between Essex Street and Charter Street;pedestrian traffic will be accommodated through an interior passageway through the museum and a new exterior pedestrian landscaped walkway that parallels Liberty Street.The result will be an enhanced pedestrian corridor with greater capacity and amenities providing better pedestrian access to all area businesses. The closure of Liberty Street between Essex Street and Charter Street is a key component of the expansion development program as it allows for integration of the old and new areas of the museum. This transportation assessment presents projected traffic estimates for the proposed expansion, and evaluates the traffic impacts of the proposed Liberty Street closure on both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 1' NNm.w.ld\id\05942\d.,s\.ePo«s\ti,,�ep.doc 1 Introduction V��i� �. M Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. 2 Museum Expansion I � Introduction This chapter presents the existing and projected museum attendance characteristics, and provides an estimate of the additional number of cars and buses that are expected to be generated by the proposed museum expansion. The primary sources used for the vehicle-trip generation estimates are the existing travel patterns of current museum patrons,and future attendance projections. Projected Veh icle-Trip Generation With the construction of the expansion,the Peabody Essex Museum has estimated that annual museum attendance will double from 130,000 annual visitors to 260,000 annual visitors. Additional traffic volumes to be generated by this increase in visitation were estimated as summarized in Table 1 and detailed in the Appendix. The increase in visitation is projected to generate an additional: > 270 daily vehicle-trips for the average weekday in the peak month(October), > 750 daily vehicle-trips during the average weekend day in October, > 40 peak hour two-way vehicle-trips in the busiest hour on a weekday in October, and > 110 peak hour two-way vehicle-trips in the busiest hour on a weekend day in October. The expansion is projected to have negligible,if any,impacts on the traffic operations during the morning and evening peak commuting periods(7 to 9 AM)and(4 to 6 PM),as the museum's hours of operation for general visitation are from 10 AM to 5 PM. Evening programs and functions typically start at 7 PM,after the evening commuter peak hours. 1 \\mawatd\id\03942\do s\reports\6asrep.doc 2 Museum Expansion Iglu Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Table 1 Museum Visitation Summary Increase due to Existing Projected Expansion Annual Visitation 130,000 260,000 130,000 Peak Month Visitation 20,000 40,000 20,000 Peak Week Visitation 5,000 10,000 5,000 Average Weekday(October) Daily Visitation 450 900 450 Daily Vehicles Buses 3 5 2 Automobiles 135 270 135 Peak Hour Visitation 60 135 65 Peak Hour Vehicles Buses 1 1 0 Automobiles 20 40 20 Average Saturday(October) Daily Visitation 1,250 2,500 1,250 Daily Vehicles Buses 7 14 7 Automobiles 375 750 375 Peak Hour Visitation 185 375 190 Peak Hour Vehicles Buses 2 3 1 Automobiles 55 110 55 The additional parking demand to be generated by the museum expansion was also estimated based on the visitor characteristics and projections presented in the Appendix. As presented,the expansion is projected to generate an additional 270 vehicle-trips(or 135 vehicles)during the weekday in the peak month,and 750 vehicle-trips (or 375 vehicles)on a weekend day in the peak month. Based on the hourly temporal patterns of patrons entering and exiting,it is estimated that the parking demand will increase by an additional 5O parking spaces on a weekday,and 130 spaces on a weekend day. This additional parking demand will be able to be accommodated in the existing and planned public parking garages surrounding the area. The East India Square parking garage has approximately 960 parking spaces and the Derby Street garage, 1 \\mawald\Id\05942\do \reports\tia,,ep.dc 3 Museum Expansion ' I11D Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. 1 which is recently opened,has approximately 205 parking spaces. In addition,the Church Street surface parking lot also provides a substantial number of parking spaces. With the museum expansion,the Empire parking lot,which currently has approximately 60 parking spaces,will be acquired by the museum.As part of the agreement with the City of Salem,the museum is providing approximately$650,000 to be used towards new parking structures,including a parking deck at the Church Street lot. Therefore,the additional parking demand and loss of parking spaces I resulting from the museum expansion will be mitigated with new parking public parking structures financed by the museum. 1 I 1 1 N 1 \\mawald\ld\05942\docs\reports\tiasrep.do 4 Museum Expansion B Vanasse Hangen Brctsthn,Inc. 3 Liberty Street Closure Introduction As previously mentioned,the City of Salem proposes to discontinue Liberty Street I between Essex Street and Charter Street in conjunction with the planned expansion of the Peabody Essex Museum.This chapter evaluates the impacts of the street closure on vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the area. Liberty Street Closure Impacts -Vehicular Traffic As part of the museum expansion,Liberty Street is proposed to be closed to vehicular traffic between Essex Street and Charter Street. Liberty Street is a short, 1 narrow,two-lane roadway running between Brown Street and Charter Street,as shown in Figure 1. Liberty Street primarily serves as vehicular access to the East India Square parking garage located at the comer of Liberty Street and Brown Street; the Church Street parking lots located to the west of Brown Street;and the Empire Street parking lot located at the corner of Liberty Street and Charter Street. To assess the traffic impacts of the closure of Liberty Street,existing traffic volumes and expected traffic diversions were investigated. ■ Existing Liberty Street Traffic Volumes Because downtown Salem is a popular visitor destination,traffic volumes within the 1 City vary greatly depending on the time of year. To assess the traffic impacts of the Liberty Street closure,three time periods were analyzed: 'average'conditions in April, 'summer visitor'conditions in August,and peak season conditions in October. Daily traffic volumes along Liberty Street were collected throughout the week for all three time periods. Additionally,peak hour vehicle turning movement counts were collected at key intersections along Liberty Street to evaluate vehicle travel patterns 1 during the morning and evening peak commuting periods(the time of day with the highest amount of traffic on the roadway). \\mawald\ld\05942\docs\reports\ti.,ep.do 5 Liberty Street Closure 0.05942 5942 BSE OVON999:24 - y 3 V y m Route 114 to PeabodyrrrY Route 107 to Beverly C� and Route 128 , _ .v w � O tom , O °r �0 9 Ja N v a oy N. 5 ee\ m Oita9eQ�t ° Federal Street<� gtoa+�s�tee Washin on Sq.South Street v Ohurch �' Essex Street Lynda Street �� t I � E� m 9 p eetpedestnaiiMal\ v t;XS1 � lciosm9) Peabody O ESSe�s�ee\ 3 Essex Museum et tee Ile 1 u, Flo n tv � DQetbysuee``P`1Pl' Norman Street(Rt 114 (Planned) v (Planned) N 1 New De .._: O O �Y Street 0 »° D H1 h tree ^' Route to to Marblehead 0 200 400 Feet � � ---0- One-Way Street Peabody Essex Museum Figure 1 Existing Roadway Patterns 77rr17 - M Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. . .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Daily Traffic Volumes j� Automatic traffic recorders(ATRs)were placed across Liberty Street adjacent to the museum entrance to quantify the number of vehicles using Liberty Street for 24- hours a day for a seven-day period in April/May 1998 ('average'conditions),in August 1998('summer'conditions),and during Halloween week in October 1998 ('Halloween season'conditions). The April/May 1998 traffic counts reflect primarily commuter traffic,whereas the August 1998 traffic volumes reflect a combination of commuter and visitor traffic in the area,and the October 1998 traffic volumes reflect the peak visitor season. As part of VHB's data collection effort, the ATR was checked daily for equipment failure,vandalism,etc. The field checks revealed that the equipment was tampered with on several occasions during the October 1998 count(early Thursday morning, and on Saturday and Sunday). The vandalism,which involved the rubber tube being pulled out of the control box and the tube being cut,resulted in durations of time in which no data was collected. The data for Friday,October 30, 1998 appeared to be in tact,so that was used as the basis for comparison to the Friday data for the other time periods studied. Table 2 summarizes the Friday daily traffic volumes for the average,summer,and Halloween seasons. Table 2 Daily Traffic Volumes Friday Daily ' Season Date Traffic Volumes (two-way traffic) Average(Spring) Friday,April 1998 3,990 Summer Friday,August, 1998 4,030 Halloween Friday,October 30, 1998 4,740 As expected,traffic volumes along Liberty Street increase from the spring to summer season,and peak during the Halloween season. During the spring,Liberty Street processes approximately 3,990 vehicles per day on a Friday. This volumes increases slightly to approximately 4,030 vehicles per day for the summer condition,and peaks at 4,740 vehicles per day during the Halloween season. For all time periods reviewed,the traffic volumes on Fridays were found to be five to fifteen percent higher than the average weekday volumes on Liberty Street. Saturday and Sunday traffic volumes were lower than any of the weekday volumes,as a negligible amount of commuting traffic occurs on these days. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Peak Hour Traffic Volumes During the morning and evening peak commuting hours,Liberty Street primarily Iserves commuters travelling to and from the East India Square and Church Street \\mr„am\id\05942\docs\reports\basrep.do 6 Liberty Street Closure VM Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. parking facilities. To estimate the amount of traffic using Liberty Street between Charter Street and Essex Street during'average'conditions,VHB conducted manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Liberty Street at Brown Street, Liberty Street at East India Square parking garage entrance and exits,and Liberty Street at Charter Street. The counts were conducted during the morning and evening peak commuting hours (7 to 9 AM)and(4 to 6 PM)on a typical weekday in April 1998 to reflect commuter activity on an average weekday. The morning and evening peak commuting hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 2. As shown in the figure,approximately 300 vehicles travel along the roadway during the morning peak hour and 330 travel during the evening peak hour. Additional peak hour data was collected during the Halloween season in October 1998 to compare the amount of traffic traveling during the commuter peak periods to the average conditions. This data was collected during the morning peak commuter hours(7 to 9 AM)and evening peak commuter hours (4 to 6 PM) at the East India Square parking garage and the Liberty Street/Brown Street intersection on Thursday, October 29, 1998. Table 3 summarizes the data results and provides a comparison to the April 1998 data. As with the daily traffic volumes,the October volumes are higher than the traffic volumes collected in April. However,the difference is minimal,particularly during the morning peak hour, as this traffic generally reflects commuters who park in the East India Square garage throughout the year. It should be noted that the Empire parking lot located on the corner of Liberty Street and Charter Street will become incorporated into the museum expansion, therefore 1 P P the traffic demand on Liberty Street will be even less than indicated by the traffic volume counts. l r \\mawamvd\05942\docs\mpor„\easrep,doc 7 Liberty Street Closure LD.05N2 5942-NET O U999:1B —120 (145) Church Street 65((10) (250) 130—► (135)280 N N N r M T 1 v v ..O gNational East a Park India 0, �- Service - '- Square_ - - Parking t Center Garage (195) 10 1 .. (85)5 OCf w � Mc O N LO v N N C� r Essex Street Peabody o Museum.- LO-" J v LO i0 LO �w {O N LO Y 50(40) 30(40) Charter Street (65) 110 2 (20)30—► XX -AM Peak Hour Liberty Street Figure 2 (XX)-PM Peak Hour Peak Commuter Hour Traffic Volumes 'Average' Conditions ,, Source:VHB,April 1998 vimVanasse Hangen Brnsthn,Inc. Table 3 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Season April 1998 October 1998 I East India Square Garage Morning Peak Hour Entering Garage 310 320 Exit Garage 15 15 i Total 325 335 Evening Peak Hour Entering Garage 25 35 Exit Garage 280 300 Total 305 335 Liberty StreeUBrown Street Morning Peak Hour Entering Liberty Street 345 375 Exiting Liberty Street 70 70 Total 415 445 Evening Peak Hour Entering Liberty Street 145 160 Exiting Liberty Street 320 365 Total 465 525 ■ Comparison to Other Salem Roadways The traffic volumes being carried by Liberty Street are typical of a local,low-volume roadway. To provide a comparison of vehicular activity on other Salem roadways, ' automatic traffic recorders were placed on Church Street,Derby Street,Charter Street,and Hawthorne Street for 24-hours a day for a seven-day period in August 1998. These roadways were selected to provide a cross-section of different levels of traffic activity in downtown Salem. Figures 3 and 4 summarize the results of the data collection effort.On Figure 3, the traffic volumes presented first represent average weekday daily traffic volumes(i.e.,an average of traffic volumes collected on Monday through Friday) for the'summer visitor'condition. The volumes shown in parentheses represent Saturday daily traffic volumes for the'summer visitor' condition. As shown in the figures,Derby Street and Hawthorne Street carry large amounts of traffic(approximately 24,000 and 17,000 vehicles per day(vpd),respectively). Church Street carries approximately 7,400 vpd on a weekday and 5,900 vpd on a Saturday. Both Liberty Street and Charter Street carry considerably less traffic volumes than other roadways in downtown Salem. Charter Street carries approximately 4,200 vpd on a weekday and 3,300 vpd on a Saturday,and Liberty oma.aid VdN05942\dx\upo,t,Nt;asrep.do 8 Liberty Street Closure M 05942 5942-M OM999:18 * v / :Ka m Route 107 to Beverly 114 to Peabody r and Route 128 � i. CP JT N 1 o a oc v may m 7,420 x g�dOeo m (51880) eek Federal Street <� v E_ gtoa+OSttWashin on Sq South 3,900 N 0 Church Street vGm (3,440) Essex Street r Lynde Street A w N teetPedeslrtanM 17,750 (16,680) Peabody treet se�S�ee` w Essex Museum had r 4,230 ES 3 Fron re `O (3,260) S e i lN o D o0 Norman eet(O 4) v oe�O�S`�ee',\e` (Planned( nN New Derby Street 23 400 0 , (24,360) ih Stree x r~ Route 1A to Marblehead 0_ 20� Feet D �. 0/� n n n —> One-Way Street Downtown Salem Figure 3 XX Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes Daily Traffic Volumes (XX) Saturday Daily Traffic Volumes 'Summer' Conditions 1 Source:VHB,August 1998 r, M M " Mae " " M r M M MM r "am MM W.0594NraphmVigures\5942-CHART p65 Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes (Summer Season) 259000 239400 205000 - >% 17,750 c 0 15,000 a a� 10,000 � 7,420 55000 45230 3,900 m-. Church Derby Charter Liberty Hawthorne Street Street Street Street Street Figure 4 Daily Traffic Volume Comparison VB Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Street carries approximately 3,900 vpd on a weekday and 3,400 vpd on a Saturday as reported above. ■ Traffic Diversions due to Liberty Street Closure The closure of Liberty Street will require the diversion of the traffic currently using -, the roadway. A review of the peak hour traffic volumes in Figure 2 reveals that the majority of the traffic on the roadway is travelling along Liberty Street to and from the East India Square and Church Street parking areas. Existing major travel routes ' to these parking areas,as presented in Figure 5,include: > to/from northwest(Route 128/Route 114): Route 114 to Bridge Street to Saint 1 Peter Street to Church Street to Liberty Street; > to/from northeast(Route 1A/Beverly): Bridge Street to Pleasant Street or Winter Street to Washington Square to Brown Street to Liberty Street;and > to/from south(Route 1A/Marblehead): Route IA to Charter Street to Liberty ' Street,or Route 1A to Washington Street to Church Street to Liberty Street,or Route 1A to Derby Street to Hawthorne Street to Essex Street or Brown Street to Liberty Street. Commuters,visitors, and local traffic will also use variations of these travel routes depending on their specific origin/destination,travel conditions,and other factors, however,these travel routes reflect the most common,direct major travel patterns to the area. Based on these general travel routes,only the traffic travelling to and from 1 the south would be affected by the proposed Liberty Street closure. Vehicles travelling to/from the parking areas to and from Route 128 and other points to the west and north do not travel on Liberty Street,nor do vehicles travelling to Route 1A ttowards the east. With the Liberty Street closure,traffic travelling to/from the south would have to divert to other travel routes. This traffic has several different diversion options. The most direct routes,as shown in the solid orange line in Figure 5,are: > Route 1A to Washington Street to Church Street, > Route 1A to Charter Street to Hawthorne Street,and > Route 1A to Derby Street to Hawthorne Street to Essex Street or Brown Street The amount of traffic to be diverted to other roadways and added to adjacent intersections is projected to be minimal based on the commuting peak hour traffic 1 volumes(see Figure 2). For example,during the morning peak hour approximately 110 vehicles currently travel down Charter Street and make a left-tum onto Liberty Street. These vehicles will disperse to either of the travel routes described above or to other options,resulting in negligible impacts (less than 100 vehicles per hour) to 1 1:\05942\docs\reports\tiasrepdoc 9 Liberty Street Closure L0.0594ZprVg 94&MTP=09916:11 Route 114 to Peabody Route 1A to Beverly and Route 128 �r 1 d Q c 0 5 ei�00eo`tee .� N t� Federal Street E— Q nSt�eet Washln ton S .South 9to� o ' L nde Street F Street 2 D Essex Street t� �£ m y N � Streetpedestnan c yy Peabod " O `tees N cn Essex Museum Q �S�+S 3 Gliadel Stteat 1 fro tre y N o � Norman Street(Rt 114) o I v New DerbyD t�P1 (Planned) JDODED Street toyS�ces��P 1 a Hi tree ' T z ^ , Route 1 A to Marblehead 0 .� Feet ] .. e" I O/ / \ 1� n n =�i r_ Route 128 Travel Route Museum Area Figure 5 Route 1A togrom North Travel Route Travel Routes _ - - ' ® Route 1A to/from South Travel Route _ (with Liberty Street Closed) - - - 1 C®® Route to to/from South Travel Route (Existing) Vanasse Hangen Bmstlin,Inc. traffic operations at the adjacent intersections. Additionally,most of the diversions will occur at right-turn movements only,which are typically not the critical movements at the adjacent intersections. During the evening peak hour,the data indicate that approximately 110 vehicles currently tum right out of the East India Square parking garage. With the Liberty Street closure,these vehicles would be required to tum left,and then turn left or right at Brown Street. To assess the impacts of the additional traffic volumes to be added to the Liberty Street/Brown Street intersection,VHB performed level of service analyses for the critical evening peak hour. This analysis revealed that the critical approach(northbound Liberty Street)is projected to operate acceptably(level of service D)with a maximum queue of approximately seven vehicles with the additional traffic due to the Liberty Street closure. With the closure of Liberty Street,the Peabody Essex Museum brochure and telephone directions should be revised to direct visitors arriving from the south to the alternate routes. The closure of the portion of Liberty Street is projected to have minimal impact on visitors ability to travel throughout downtown Salem,as the majority of visitors travel to and from Salem from I-95/Route 128 and do not travel ' down Liberty Street. ■ Impacts on Drop-Off Activity, Emergency Access, and Bus Operations Museum drop-offs currently occur on Essex Street and Liberty Street. With the street closure,drop-off activity will no longer be able to occur on Liberty Street. However, this activity will be incorporated along Charter Street adjacent to the proposed new Charter Street entrance.Regular service access to the museum will continue to be from Charter Street at the existing service entrance and loading dock. Emergency access to the museum will be retained as it is currently provided via the loading dock area on Charter Street and the pedestrian mall on Essex Street. Vehicular access to the Marine Arts Building and its private garage located at the comer of Liberty Street and Essex Street will continue to be provided with the street closure. ' Bus drop-off areas will also be provided on both Charter Street and Essex Street. The recommended bus routes are shown in Figure 6. As shown,the buses will access the bus drop-off areas along Essex Street and Charter Street via the local roadway system and will not be impacted by the closure of the portion of Liberty Street. The layover area for the buses has not been determined at this time,as the City of Salem is ' currently evaluating options for bus layover facilities within the City. Liberty Street Closure Impacts - Pedestrian Traffic The impact of the closure of Liberty Street on pedestrian traffic was also investigated. One of the key visitor sites in Salem is the National Park Service Visitor Center \\mawald\ld\05942\docs\reports\tiasrep.doc 10 Liberty Street Closure LD.05942 5942 BTO 4/1/9910:12 v and N� N m Route 114 to Peabody Route 107 to Beverly �01� �� t �. and Route 128 �ee�Q ♦♦♦♦♦.�2A� ♦. v It♦1♦♦ ♦♦♦�o� w 0000 IN ♦fes ■ ♦♦ Qa i �t�aa e ■D� ; � • Federal Street 40 i v gron�S�tee` Washin ton Sq•South SUeei ■ Lynde Street L � Ohutch v i ° Essex Street t s An p _ ped ...- 1 estv y ■ ■ ■ StEssexstleet. (closing) v i Peabody ■■■■�♦ O rc�e�s`iee` : Essex M�eu0 3 he♦ ■e`■■ 3 ♦. ♦Gin Stc � ` u, i Front treet a \� ■ v ■ y � � 1 IN ■ P\ lEl ■ Norman (O 4) ■ v Ner,perb i (Planned) �}■■ Street y ■ Qetbl N ■ 00 Dt ' Hi h StreeSOD ■ A ■ ■ ♦■■■♦♦ p Route 1A to Marblehead 0 2� Feet ] / I 0�♦♦-� n n �--� ' —> One-Way Street Museum Area Figure 6 i Bus Travel Routes ,L1L>• Vanasse Hangen Bmstlin,Inc. ' located on the comer of Liberty Street and Brown Street, across from the East India Square parking garage. Many visitors begin their visit in Salem at the Visitor Center ' and then either walk to their destination or board the Salem trolley. Liberty Street is currently used by pedestrians travelling between the Visitor Center and cultural and commercial establishments along Derby Street and the waterfront. With the proposed street closure,these pedestrians will be accommodated via new interior and exterior walkways along the former Liberty Street path,thus enhancing the connection to the cultural and commercial areas to the south. The interior walkway will be located within the museum along the current Liberty Street axis. This walkway will be accessible in both directions and will be identified as a pedestrian way(free of charge)from the outside at both Essex and Charter Streets. In the proposed plan,the pedestrian walkway will consist of a two-story arcade housing museum exhibits and cultural information. The exterior pedestrian connection will be provided with a new landscaped park and walkway located immediately to the east of the expansion. This exterior walkway will be landscaped and signed appropriately to provide a clear sense of arrival for ' Salem's visitors and will establish a strong link relationship with the businesses and museums on lower Liberty Street and Derby Street to Essex Street and the Visitors Center. To assess the ability of the planned walkways to accommodate pedestrian volumes, pedestrian volume data were collected along Liberty Street between Essex Street and ' Charter Street on Saturday,October 31, 1998 from 3 PM to 6 PM to evaluate the number of pedestrians traveling along the roadway on the busiest day of the year (Halloween). These pedestrians will need to be accommodated with the new landscaped walkway and interior pathway in the museum once Liberty Street in closed. The data collection revealed that the peak hour of pedestrian volume occurred from 3:45 PM to 4:45 PM,with approximately 4,630 pedestrians traveling along Liberty Street. The current project design calls for a twelve-foot landscaped pedestrian walkway and an adjacent five-foot pedestrian path to be provided connecting Essex Street to Charter Street,along with the interior walkway throughout the length of the museum. As defined in the Highway Capacity Manual,Chapter 13 Pedestrians (TRB, ' 1994),walkways become restricted (LOS D)when the pedestrian flow rate meets or exceeds 15 pedestrians per minute per foot of walkway width. This equates to a walkway capacity of 900 pedestrians per hour per foot of walkway width. Assuming the current design plan of a total of 17 feet of exterior walkway,approximately 15,300 pedestrians could be accommodated per hour along the new exterior walkways. This planned capacity is more than three times the number of pedestrians traveling ' along Liberty Street on the busiest day of the year(Halloween),therefore,the planned pedestrian improvements are more than adequate to serve the pedestrian demands throughout the year. \\mawald\Id\Oi9a2\docs\reports\6asrep.doc 11 Liberty Street Closure Vanasse Hangen Brnstlin,Inc. It is important to note that the field observations and pedestrian counts revealed that many pedestrians seem disoriented when they reach the Liberty Street/Essex Street intersection. There is currently minimal signing directing pedestrians at that location to the attractions along Derby Street and along the waterfront. An enhanced signage and orientation program will be implemented as part of the construction of the interior and exterior walkways. This program will enhance connections from the Visitor Center and museum to Derby Street and the waterfront,and will improve pedestrian orientation to all nearby landmarks,attractions and businesses. Additionally,the program can be tailored to enhance connections with the Harborfront Mater Plan currently being prepared by the City of Salem. 1 \\maxald\ld\05942\docs\reports\tiasrep.do 12 Liberty Street Closure IILLI Vanasse Hangen Bmstlin,Inc. 4 Conclusions The Peabody Essex Museum expansion and closure of Liberty Street between Charter Street and Essex Street is not projected to have a significant impact on traffic operations and circulation in downtown Salem,even during the peak Halloween season. The museum expansion is projected to have negligible,if any,impacts on the traffic operations during the morning and evening peak commuting periods(7 to 9 AM) and (4 to 6 PM), as the museum's hours of operation for general visitation are from 10 AM to 5 PM. Evening programs and functions typically start at 7 PM,after the evening commuter peak hours. The proposed expansion is projected to increase parking demand by an additional 50 parking spaces on a weekday, and 130 spaces on a weekend day at its peak visitation. The additional parking demand and loss of parking spaces resulting from the museum expansion will be mitigated with new parking structures recently construction and with additional planned public parking structures financed by the museum. Liberty Street is primarily used for vehicles to access the East India Square and Church Street parking areas. Vehicles travelling to/from the south currently using Liberty Street to access these parking areas have several different travel route options ' onto which they may divert without significantly degrading traffic operations of the adjacent intersections. These alternative routes will be highlighted through updated tourist information,telephone directions,museum brochures,etc. Vehicles traveling to and from the nearby parking facilities via Route 128 and other points to the west and north or Route 1A towards the east do not use this portion of Liberty Street. Pedestrian traffic along Liberty Street will be accommodated via an interior walkway through the museum and an exterior park/landscaped walkway to the east of the new construction. The planned walkways are more than adequate to accommodate ' peak Halloween pedestrian demands. A clearly-marked,attractive signage program will be provided to enhance connections from the Visitor Center and museum to Derby Street and the waterfront,and will improve pedestrian orientation to all nearby landmarks, attractions and businesses. NNmawald\ld\05942Ndc s\reporn\easrep.doc 13 Conclusions VUB Vanasse Hangen Bmstlin,Inc. Based on the findings of this study,the portion of Liberty Street between Essex Street and Charter Street,as it currently exists,is not a necessary roadway to keep vehicular ' and pedestrian traffic moving throughout downtown Salem. As such,the expansion of the Peabody Essex Museum and the discontinuance of Liberty Street will not have a noticeable effect on area traffic operations or access to parking and local businesses. Furthermore,the project will afford the opportunity to improve pedestrian access and circulation in this area. I 1 \\ma. am Ntd\os9az\does\reports\tia:rep.doc 14 Conclusions Il7.0 Vanasse Hangen Bmstlin,Inc. ■ Appendix A / ' \\mawald\Id\0394?\docs\reports\tiasrep.doc I[W Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. ' Museum Visitation Since the consolidation of the Peabody Museum of Salem and the Essex Institute in ' 1992,annual attendance has ranged between 105,000 and 150,000 visitors,with an average annual attendance of approximately 130,000 visitors. With the proposed expansion,average annual attendance is projected to double,increasing to 260,000 visitors.' Table A-1 presents the 1997(the most recent year with detailed data available) and projected annual visitation classified in the following categories: > Gate: general visitors,including members > Education Groups: school groups and adult education groups > Programs: patrons attending programs, typically occur during the evening hours > Group Tours: pre-arranged group tours,most commonly international visitors ' arriving by chartered buses > Function Rentals: includes patrons arriving for pre-arranged functions such as wedding receptions,cocktail parties,etc.,.which typically occur after museum ' hours > Cafe: the museum cafeteria is open to both museum patrons and the general public ' > Other: includes badged employees and visitors Table A-1 Annual Museum Visitation 1997 Visitation Projected Visitation ' Gate 50,911 39% 117,000 45% Education Groups 22,963 18% 41,600 16% ' Functions/Rentals 14,116 11% 20,800 8% Group Tours 5,428 4% 15,600 6% Programs 15,241 12% 33,800 13% ' Cafe 17,635 14% 26,000 10% Badged Visitors 3 902 3% 5 200 2% 130,196 100% 260,000 100% Source: Peabody Essex Museum Staff,April 1998. Seasonal attendance at the Peabody Essex Museum follows the trends for visitors to Salem,with the lowest attendance in January and February and peaks in the late spring and summer months and again in the month of October, the peak visitation 1 'John Grimes,Peabody Essex Museum,April 1,1998. \\masaald\ld\05942\docs\reports\ciasrep.do A-1 Appendix IllU Vanasse Hangen Bmstlin,Inc. month in Salem. Table A-2 summarizes the actual monthly variation for 1997 and the projected monthly variation with the expansion,assuming the seasonal visitation patterns will remain the same. ' Table A-2 Museum Visitation Monthly Variation Month 1997 Visitation Projected Visitation January 8,586 6.6% 17,146 February 8,905 6.8% 17,783 March 8,171 6.3% 16,317 April 8,904 6.8% 17,781 May 13,226 10.2% 26,412 June 11,131 8.5% 22,228 July 10,401 8.0% 20,771 August 10,544 8.1% 21,056 September 9,847 7.6% 19,664 October 19,673 15.1% 39,287 ' November 12,265 9.4% 24,493 December 8 543 6.6% 17 060 130,196 100.0% 260,000 As shown in the table,the peak month of visitation is October. With the museum expansion,the peak month visitation is projected to be approximately 40,000 visitors, with one-half of the visitors (20,000 visitors)being generated by the proposed expansion. Generally assuming constant visitation over the peak month,the average peak weekly visitation is projected to be approximately 10,000 visitors. ' Visitation to the museum also varies by day of week. According to the museum, ' approximately 50 percent of the visitors come to the museum during the five weekdays,the other 50 percent visit during the two weekend days. Friday is the busiest weekday,as is typical for museum destinations. Specific day of the week data is not available from the Peabody Essex Museum,however,weekday visitation was estimated based on visitation patterns observed at similar facilities',as summarized in Table A-3. ................................................................................................................... 1 Data from the Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield,MA and the New England Aquarium in Boston,MA. \\mawald\ld\05942\d«s\repoa541asrep.do A-2 Appendix ILLVanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. ' Table A-3 Museum Visitation Daily Variation ' (Peak Month-October) ' Percent Projected Visitation Saturday 25.0% 2,500 Sunday 25.0% 2,500 Monday 9.0% 900 Tuesday 9.0% 900 Wednesday 9.0% 900 Thursday 9.0% 900 Friday 14_0% 1400 100.0% 10,000 ' As shown in Table 3,the average weekday visitation during the peak month is projected to approximately 900 visitors and the average weekend visitation is projected to be 2,500 visitors. Again,half of these visitors currently patronize the museum;the proposed expansion is projected to generate approximately 450 ' additional visitors a day on a weekday and 1,250 visitors a day on a weekend day during the peak month of October. ' The museum is open to the general public from 10 AM to 5 PM Monday through Saturday and 12 PM to 5 PM on Sundays. (The museum is closed Mondays during the non-peak season). Functions/rentals,which are projected comprise 8 percent of ' the annual visitation(see Table A-1)are typically held after museum hours,as are educational programs(13 percent of annual visitation). Specific data on hourly variation is not available for the museum;Table A4 presents the estimated hourly ' variation based on visitation patterns at similar facilities and conversations with the museum staff. 1 \\mawald\Id\05942\docs\reports\tiasrep.doc A-3 Appendix ' IL1L Vanasse Hangen Bmstlin,Inc. Table A-4 ' Museum Visitation Hourly Variation (Peak Month-October) ' Projected Visitation Projected Visitation Time Percent -Weekday -Weekend 10 AM-11 AM 5% 45 125 11 AM-12 PM 15% 135 375 12 PM-1 PM 15% 135 375 1 PM-2 PM 15% 135 375 ' 2 PM-3 PM 15% 135 375 3 PM-4 PM 10% 90 250 4 PM-5 PM 10% 90 250 ' after PM' 15% 135 375 100% 900 2,500 typically approximately 7 PM During the peak month,hourly visitation during the average weekday is projected to range from 45 to 135 visitors per hour entering or existing the museum. For the average weekday during the peak month,this number is projected to increase from 125 to 375 visitors per hour. One-half of these visitors currently patronize the museum;the proposed expansion is projected to generate approximately 25 to 70 ' additional visitors in the peak hour on a weekday and 60 to 190 additional visitors in the peak hour on a weekend day during the peak month of October. To estimate the additional amount of traffic added to the roadway system as a result of the proposed museum expansion during critical peak hours, the mode of travel and number of visitors per vehicle was considered. According to the Salem Transportation Plan', approximately 3 percent of visitors arrive to Salem via public transportation(commuter rail or bus), 15 percent arrive by tour bus,and the ' remaining 82 percent arrive via private automobiles. These travel characteristics are expected to be similar for the Peabody Essex Museum patrons,with the exception of the group tours and school group population, which are projected to be slightly higher(see Table A-1). Table A-5 presents the estimated travel modes for Peabody Essex Museum patrons. ................................................................................................................... 1 'The Salem Project,Transportation Plan,National Park Service,October 1990,p.ES-9. ' \\mmcald\Id\05942\docs\reports\das,ep.d«A-4 Appendix HBVanasse Hangen Bmstlin,Inc. Table A-5 ' Museum Visitation Travel Modes (Peak Month-October,Peak Hour) Projected Visitation Projected Visitation Mode Percent -Weekday -Weekend Public Transportation 3% 5 10 Tour/School Bus 22% 30 85 Automobile 75% 100 280 100% 135 375 Source: Salem Transportation Plan and Peabody Essex Museum Staff The majority of the visitors will arrive by bus and automobiles. To estimate the ' number of vehicles travelling to and from the museum, the average number of people per bus and automobile was estimated. It was assumed that the average number of visitors per bus is 40 people(the capacity of typical coach buses)and the average number of people per automobile was 2.5. This vehicle occupancy rate is based on characteristics of similar facilities (Basketball Hall of Fame and the New England Aquarium);it if further supported by the fact that,according to the Salem ' Visitor Profile survey,60 percent of Salem visitors come as a family unit(typically 3 or more people). ' To determine the additional bus and automobile traffic generated by the proposed expansion, the projected visitors by mode presented in Table A-5 were divided by the appropriate vehicle occupancy rate. For example,during the average weekday peak hour, 100 visitors are projected to arrive by automobile. Assuming 2.5 visitors per automobile, this equates to approximately 40 one-way vehicles-trips during the critical peak hour. ' Table A-6 summarizes the existing annual,peak month,peak week,and peak hour visitation for the Peabody Essex Museum,as well as estimated bus and vehicles trips. ' \\mawaid\id\03942\d«s\reporrs\9asrep.daA-5 Appendix ■7�rp Il1U Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Table A-6 ' Museum Visitation Summary Increase due to Existing Projected Expansion Annual Visitation 130,000 260,000 130,000 Peak Month Visitation 20,000 40,000 20,000 Peak Week Visitation 5,000 10,000 5,000 ' Average Weekday(October) Daily Visitation 450 900 450 Daily Vehicles Buses 3 5 2 Automobiles 135 270 135 Peak Hour Visitation 60 135 65 Peak Hour Vehicles Buses 1 1 0 Automobiles 20 40 20 Average Saturday(October) ' Daily Visitation 1,250 2,500 1,250 Daily Vehicles Buses 7 14 7 Automobiles 375 750 375 Peak Hour Visitation 185 375 190 ' Peak Hour Vehicles Buses 2 3 1 Automobiles 55 110 55 ' As summarized in the table,during the peak month the expansion is projected to generate an additional 135 vehicles(or 270 vehicle-trips)during the average weekday and 375 vehicle(750 vehicle-trips) during the average weekend day. During the ' busiest hour of the day,the expansion is projected to generate 20 additional automobiles(40 trips)during the average weekday,and 55 automobile(110 trips) and one bus trip during the average Saturday. It is important to note the museum ' expansion projected to have negligible,if any impacts on the traffic operations during the peak commuting periods (7 to 9 AM) and(4 to 6 PM),as it's hours of operation for general visitation are from 10 AM to 5 PM. Evening programs and ' functions typically start at approximately 7 PM,after the evening commuter peak period. Even during the peak month(October)conditions during the busiest hour on the weekend the traffic impacts of the proposed expansion are projected to be negligible. ' \\mawald\id\05942\do�1\1ep.�nwa�rep.d.�A-6 Appendix '1 Site Plan Review Narrative Buildings The Site Plan Submission depicts a facilities expansion that will meet the Museum's significant programmatic needs while enhancing the quality of downtown Salem. It includes extensive site landscaping and a 106,000 square foot addition to the existing main Museum. The addition consists of a central public atrium space connecting new exhibition galleries with the existing museum buildings, and an interior pedestrian concourse(or spine)linking Charter and Essex Streets. It also includes a 191i c. Chinese house to be reconstructed on-site and linked to new galleries. Along with the main museum building,there are presently 5 accessory buildings including a mechanical plant and a small collections storage building that will both be retained. The one-story wooden"Red Schoolhouse"will be relocated to a nearby site. Two 191i century brick dwellings will be relocated to two residential lots approximately 300 feet east of their present location,the small rear extensions of each to be demolished. In addition, along Essex Street,the Empire building will be demolished to make way for the pedestrian esplanade. Parldng and Loading The Museum is located in the B-5 Central Development District where on-site parking is not required for non-residential uses. Twenty-five(25)new parking spaces will be provided on the east side of the site, 10 of which will be reserved by easement to the Salem Housing Authority. Two loading spaces currently exist off Charter Street and will be retained. Traffic Flow and Circulation The expansion creates a new public park on the Armory headhouse lot(Armory Square), a pedestrian esplanade(or public garden)between Essex and Charter Streets, and the interior public pedestrian concourse(spine). These changes will dramatically improve pedestrian flow and orientation. Automobile traffic circulation will be modified by the conversion of a one-block long segment of Liberty Street to the interior pedestrian mall and by shifting parking to the south side of Essex Street. A Transportation Analysis by VHB,included as part of the Site Plan Submission, evaluates these changes in local traffic circulation and indicates no adverse impacts External Lighting Exterior spaces throughout the site will have varied level lighting appropriate to the use of each portion of the site. The conventional streetlights on the Essex Street frontage will be replaced by fixtures that match the new on-site lighting. Landscaping and Screening The site will include numerous unique and attractive landscaped spaces. The Museum will develop a public park at Armory Square. The design of the Second Corps Cadets Armory Park includes paving, seating and low walls of traditional materials,rebuilt architectural elements of the former headhouse, inscriptions and other commemorative features, as well as trees and other plantings. The esplanade will serve as an important pedestrian corridor linking Essex and Charter Streets, and the downtown to the waterfront area. In addition to traditional paving,it will include screening walls and plantings, seating, lawns and numerous large specimen trees. The 196 c. Chinese house will be largely surrounded by the addition and landscaped to enhance its aesthetic setting and interpretive educational value. Utilities Most utility services will be extended from the existing Museum building to serve the new addition. A thoroughly revamped storm drain system will be provided to serve the site as well as segments of Essex and Charter Streets fronting on the project site. Utilities within the former right-of-way of Liberty Street will be relocated or abandoned as appropriate. Snow Removal Snow will be removed from pedestrian areas as required and will not create substantial storage requirements. The new 25 space parking area is designed to accommodate snow storage. Natural Area Protection and Enhancement Except for portions of the existing Museum grounds,there are virtually no landscaped or natural areas within the project areas. New public parks will be created in areas now occupied by vacant land, buildings and paved parking areas. Architectural Compatibility The design of the addition creates massing and forms complementary and sympathetic to the scale of surrounding historic buildings while recognizing the Museum as a major institution in the city. The design creates paths of movement, entries and outdoor spaces that acknowledge the presence of the other public spaces and historic sites that constitute the heritage of Salem. The exhibition galleries are a grouping of "houses"similar in scale to Salem's Federal style residences. The gently curved interior concourse follows the traces of Liberty Street and terminates in inviting, transparent walls,which on Essex Street echoes the scale of the East India Marine Hall fagade. The skeletal glass roof rises over the concourse and central atrium linking the new galleries with the existing building. Orientation is enhanced by providing constant glimpses to the outside, emphasizing the Museum's connection with the city outside. The architectural materials show textural richness that captures the spirit of the City's past. The main cladding material is a brick that has been carefully selected for sympathy in color,texture, finish, and tolerances with the surrounding context of brick buildings in Salem. Clear,non-mirrored glass will be used throughout glazed areas and visible roofs will be clad in gray lead-coated copper. (Narrative 000524) APPENDIX A ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Pursuant to Section 7-18, Site Plan review, of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, below please find the Environmental Impact Statement as set out in Appendix A of the Subdivision regulations: Natural Environment 1. Air a. Describe possible sources and duration of significant amounts of odors, smoke and dust. The project is not expected to cause discernible odors. Minor sources of odor include the kitchen exhaust and paint spray exhaust Any dust created during construction or demolition will be subject to a dust control plan to be submitted to the Board of Health. b. Describe precaution to be taken to eliminate or minimize the adverse environmental effects of the smoke, dust or odors generated. The paint spray exhaust is provided with filters.Also a dust control plan will be prepared and submitted to the Board of Health. C. Describe the relationship of the location of the subdivision and prevailing wind patterns to nearby residence,businesses, recreation area, and other public areas. The dominant wind direction is from the northeast in the winter and from the southwest in the summer. The Peabody Essec Museum owns much of the land northeast and southeast of the project site. As the museum is not ecpected to cause discernible odors, downwind areas will not be impacted d. If incineration of refuse is proposed for the subdivision, describe the effects resultant emissions will have on air quality in the area. Include proof that the incinerator complies with the latest local and state standards. No incineration of refuse is proposed 2. Land Describe the existing, general physical conditions of the site, including existing use, general topography, unusual geological formations and soils, and how the project will affect these features. This urban site is presently fully developed and includes a roadway to be discontinued, the Empire building and both public i and private parking lots. In addition to the main museum building, there are also presently five accessory buildings on the existing lot, including a mechanical plant and a collections storage building. There is a one-story wooden "Schoolhouse" and two brick dwellings dating from the nineteenth century. The Schoolhouse will be relocated across Charter Street, next to the Pickman House. The two residential structures will be relocated to two residential lots approximately 300 feet east of their present location. The topography is generally,flat There are no unusual geological formations. Generally project soils consist of 7 to 10 feet of granular soils overlying medium dense to dense naturally occurring silty sand deposits. The proposed expansion project will replace the Empire building, parking areas and vacant land with a museum addition and extensive landscaped areas, including the Second Corps Cadets Armory Park(at Armory Square) and the esplanade(or public garden) connecting Essex and Charter Streets. b. Describe any limitations on proposed project caused by subsurface soil and water conditions, and methods to be used to overcome them. The proposed basement,lloor will potentially be below seasonal high groundwater levels Foundation drain and under- slab drainage systems are proposed to minimize the chance of any potential groundwater intrusion. C. Describe procedures and findings of percolation tests conducted on the site. No percolation tests were conducted for this project No leaching systems are proposed d. Describe the types and amounts of land that will be permanently affected by construction of the subdivision. The entire project is located within previously developed urban land, as shown on the plans submitted herewith. e. Describe proposed rough grading plans. The basement of the old Empire Building will be backfilled to grade. Otherwise, no major changes in grade are anticipated f. Describe location and extent of existing marshes,wetlands, or seasonal wet areas and any proposed alterations. No wetlands exist on the proposed site or its environs.. 3. Water and Wetlands a. Evaluate how and to what extent the project will affect the quality and quantity of any existing or potential public or private water supply, including watersheds, reservoirs and groundwater. No public or private wells or reservoirs will be impacted because there are no aquifers or surface water supplies in the vicinity or down gradient of the project site. Although groundwater is not used as a source of water supply, the proposed project will result. in beneficial impacts on groundwater resources. The project will reduce parking upon the site reducing the amount of oils, salts and other chemicals related to motor vehicle operations. It will provide an increase in the amount of unpaved space allowing for a greater amount of groundwater infiltration. b. Describe the methods to be used during construction to control erosion and sedimentation and siltation including use of sediment basins and type of mulching, matting, or temporary vegetation; approximate size and location of land exposure; covering of soil stockpiles; and other control methods used. Evaluate effectiveness of proposed methods on the site and on the surrounding area. The proposed project will employ state of the art erosion control practices to control sediment during construction. Specific erosion and sedimentation control measures will include silt fences,filter fabric over catch basin grates, temporary rock construction access drives, and street sweeping as necessary. C. Describe the permanent methods to be used to control erosion and sedimentation. Include description of: (1) any areas subject to flooding or ponding;N/A (2) proposed surface drainage systems;Installation of new deep sump catch basins. (3) proposed land grading and permanent vegetation cover;All open space not covered with paving will be covered by lawns or ground cover beds. (4) methods to be used to protect existing vegetation;Most of the construction area is paved with little landscaping. For existing trees to be preserved,protective fences will be erected prior to construction, and be maintained throughout the construction process. (5) the relationship of the development to the topography; The project proposes to follow existing topography as close as practicable. (6) any proposed alterations of shorelines, marshes or seasonal wet areas;N/A 3 (7) any existing or proposed flood control or wetland easements;N/A (8) estimated increase of peak runoff caused by altered surface conditions, and methods to be used to return water to the soils. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the beneficial impacts on hydrological resources by decreasing existing impervious coverage and thereby decreasing stormwater runoff. Substantial new landscaped areas will be created resulting in a decrease in the peak and total volume of stormwater runoff from this site. Water will naturally infiltrate the soil in these landscape areas. d. Discuss probability that project will increase pollution or turbidity levels within receiving waterway and precautions to be taken to minimize the effects. The proposed project will reduce parking use of the site thereby reducing the amount of oils,salts and other chemicals related to motor vehicle operations. e. Discuss the project's effect on the waterway's aquatic biota and use as habitats. N/A f. Discuss the project's effects on groundwater quality and supply and efforts to recharge groundwater supplies. The project will cause beneficial impacts on groundwater resources by increasing the amount of open space allowing for a greater amount of groundwater infiltration. g. Discuss what effect the project will have on increasing the incidence of flooding, including areas outside the subdivision. The project site is not located within a floodplain. Also, due to the decrease in impervious area, the project will decrease runoff and thereby decrease any potential for minor flooding in down- gradient areas. h. Discuss the effects of the proposed sewage disposal methods on surface and groundwater supplies and quality. The existing building is and will be connected to the city sewer system. Therefore, sewage disposal will not effect groundwater. 4. Energy a. Describe the types and increased quality of energy required to serve the needs of the projects residence.Energy-efficient mechanical equipment has been spec fed for use throughout the project site a b. Indicate what the sources of this energy will be. Steam for heating will be provided from#Z oil or natural gas. Chilled water for cooling will be obtained using cooling towers. 5. Noise a. Describe the time, duration, and types of noises generated by the project,both during and after construction. In the near term, construction operations will generate noise typically associated with construction sites. Construction work is typically limited to the hours of 8.00 AM and 5.00 PM. Following completion of construction, the operation and use of the expanded museum buildings is not expected to cause an increase of measurable noise b. Discuss what effects these noises will have on both humans and wildlife. Noise generated by construction activity is not expected to cause adverse effects on humans or wildlife C. Describe the controls that will be used to eliminate or minimize the effects of these noises. Construction equipment including mufflers will be maintained in proper working order. Construction truck and equipment routes will be selected to minimize impacts on residential areas. 6. Local Flora and Fauna a. Discuss the project's effects on land-based ecosystems, such as the indigenous wildlife, stream bank cover, and vegetal or wooded growth. This project is located in an urban area with little remaining wildlife habitat b. Describe proposed types and amounts of vegetal cover. Currently, the project site consists of vacant land, buildings and pavement The planting palette for the new garden spaces is predominantly deciduous shade trees,flowering trees, and lawns. Several parts of the garden will have flowering broadleaf evergreen shrubs and specimen evergreen trees. Tree species include Japanese Zelkova,Pagoda Tree, Ginkgo, Chinese Elm, Goldenrain Tree, Dogwood, Cherry, Cedar, trees. Shrubs include Rhododendron, Azalea, and Viburnum Approximately 75 trees and 150 shrubs will be planted C. Discuss the existence of rare or endangered plant, wildlife or fish species in the project area. There are no known rare or endangered plant, wildlife or fish species in the project area or its environs. S Man-made Environment 1. Land use a. Describe how the proposed project conforms with the growth plans for the area and the City in general. The Museum expansion is a crucial link in the City's plan to link its downtown with the waterfront After orientation at the Park Service Visitor Center, visitors to Salem will enter the downtown at a new arrival point (Armory Square).Access to the Museum, the waterfront, downtown businesses and businesses along Derby Street will be facilitated by the esplanade(public garden). The museum addition and overall expansion plan will help generate new economic activity in the downtown and in the city generally. b. Describe land use adjacent to the project. Adjacent land uses include commercial establishments, institutional uses including other parcels owned and operated by the Peabody Esser Museum, and residences C. Describe any existing or proposed public or common recreational or open areas within the subdivision. The City of Salem has made a major commitment to emphasizing pedestrian spaces in the downtown. The proposed project advances this planning principal by the creation of the public park at Armory Square and the public esplanade between Essex and Charter Streets d. Discuss the site's proximity to transportation, shopping, educational facilities, recreational facilities, etc. The site is situated in the downtown and is conveniently located near transportation, shopping, educational facilities, and recreational facilities. F 2. Density a. Provide a tabulation of proposed buildings by type, size(number of bedrooms, floor area), ground coverage, and a summary showing the percentage of the tract to be occupied by buildings, parking and other paved vehicular areas, and usable open space. Existing Museum Parcel (Site west of existing Liberty Street-Lot 230) Tvpe Floor Lot Lot Areas Coverage On Cover e Exist. Lot - 88,770 100.0 Museum 186,065 58,350 65.7 Boiler Bldg. 1,828 1,828 2.1 Boat House 1,133 1,133 1.3 Total Bldg. 189,026 61,311 69.1 Pavements - 8,110 9.1 Open - 19,349 21.8 Additional Museum Parcel (Liberty Street,Lots 218, 229&portion of 219) Tvpe Floor Lot Lot Areas Coverage OQ Coverage Add Lot - 53,765 100.0 Museum 51,024 18,100 33.7 addition Pavements - 10,600 19.7 Open - 25,065 46.6 7 Relocated John Kinsman House (Portion of Lot 219) Tvne Floor Lot Lot Areas Coverakre NO Covera e Lot - 2,344 100.0 House 2,256 1,128 48.1 Pavements - 380 16.2 Open - 836 35.7 Relocated Gilbert Chadwick House (Portion of Lot 219) Tvpe Floor Lot Lot Areas Coverage 01) Covera e Lot 2,870 100.0 House 3,411 1,137 39.6 Pavements - 340 11.9 Open - 25,065 48.5 3. Zoning a. Indicate the zoning designations for the site and adjacent areas. The Museum and adjacent areas are located in the B-5 Central Development District 4. Architecture a. Describe the architecture and landscaping techniques that will be used to blend the structures with the surrounding area. The design of the addition creates massing and forms complementary and sympathetic to the scale of surrounding historic buildings while, at the same time, recognizing the museum as an important institution within the downtown. The exhibition gallery "house" forms are similar in scale to Salem's Federal style buildings. In addition, creation of urban park settings using traditional R materials and design features(walls, walks, etc.) will enhance the downtown environment b. Discuss the heights of the structures in relation to the surrounding area.At its perimeter,the new addition is tallest at the south gallery along Charter Street; 56 feet at the ridge. Within the center of the site, the courtyard skylight rises an additional 4 . The entire Museum complex will be less massive than either the neighboring parking garage/shopping mall across Essex Street or the Salem Housing Authority Tower on Charter Street Heights of other buildings in the vicinity are.NPS Visitor Center, 53 feet;East India Marine Hall, 50 feet; 144 Essex, 45.5 feet; 173 Essex Street, 50.5 feet; 129 Essex Street, 47 feet; Plummer Hall, 50 feet; City parking garage, 51 feet;Housing Authority building, 111 feet C. Discuss the project's visual impact and possible interference with natural views. The addition is scaled to be sympathetic with the existing historical contexts and buffered with extensive new landscaping. There are no existing natural views that will be negatively impacted d. Describe type of construction building materials used, location of common areas, location and type of service facilities (laundry, trash, and garbage disposal). The addition will be of protected steel construction with a masonry fagade. Cladding material is red brick with stone highlights. Windows and skylights are of clear glazing. Roofs are of lead-coated copper.All services will utilize the existing loading dock area. 5. Historic Buildings, Historic Sites and Archeological Sites a. Indicate location and significance of any historic buildings or sites on or adjacent to the project. On the project site there are the following.East India Marine Hall, 1825, a National Historic Landmark property, 10 Liberty (John Kinsman House), a 1841; and 42 Charter Street(Gilbert Chadwick House), 1806. On adjacent sites are 144 Essex Street(Museum Office Center), c.1836,45 Charter Street(Pickman House), c.1681; the Armory Drill Shed, 1890,and Plummer Hall, 1865. Public Facilities 1. Water supply, flow,pressure and distribution. a. Describe the groundwater and/or surface water supply to be used. Water service is now and in the future will be supplied by the City's distribution system. a b. Discuss the demands of the project for consumption and fire protection. The Museum will use an estimated 9,200 gallons of water per day for domestic use The City's water distribution system can provide sufficient water to satisfy fire protection requirements of 850gpm at 70psi. 2. Sanitary sewerage connection, distribution and facilities. a. Discuss the quality and type of sewage that will be generated by the project. The Museum will generate domestic sewage only. b. Describe the method of sewage that will be generated by the project. Sewer service is and will be to the city distribution system. 3. Storm drainage facilities a. Describe where connection to the City system is proposed. Slight modifications are proposed to accommodate the footprint of the new addition but the existing connections to the city remain effectively unchanged 4. Disposition of stormwater a. Indicate the location of all proposed outfalls. N/A b. Describe the effects of the outfalls and their discharge on the receiving waters, i.e., increased flows, pollution,etc. N/A C. Discuss the quality of stormwater to be discharged. The project proposes to reduce parking on the site reducing the amount of oils,salts and other chemicals related to motor vehicle operations, and the quality of storm water from the site should be improved 5. Refuse disposal a. Estimate the quantity and types of refuse that will be generated by the subdivision. Solid waste will be comprised of non-toxic material similar to that generated by office use. Solid waste generation will increase roughly in proportion to the increase in floor area. b. Describe the proposed methods of refuse disposal.A private dumpster is located in the loading area. Currently, it is replaced twice a month, and the rate of future service may increase in 6. Traffic facilities a. Discuss future vehicular circulation patterns including number and types of vehicles. The Museum commissioned VHB,Inc. to prepare a Transportation Assessment that is included with this filing. The expansion will have negligible impacts on the traffic operations during the morning and evening peak commuting periods as the museum's hours of operation for general visitation are from 10"to 5 PM. Evening programs typically start after the peak evening commuter hours b. Describe the proposed pedestrian circulation pattern. Pedestrian circulation will be enhanced by the public esplanade between Essex and Charter Streets and the park at Armory Square, both of which will include signage for orientation and way finding. C. Discuss the location and number of parking spaces proposed. Twenty-five(25) new parking spaces will be provided on the east side of the site. Ten of these spaces are reserved for use by the Housing Authority. 7. Electric power a. Discuss the power demand of the subdivision. The facility will consume around 5 WISF or approximately 1,200 8W. b. Discuss the source of the electric power and the method of supplying the area.Electric power will be distributed by Mass Electric Company. 8. Gas a. Discuss the demands of the subdivision. Usage will typically be limited to modest kitchen usage. The boilers, while capable of gas firing, will typically be fared by oil b. Describe what the gas will be used for in the area. Cooking, except for backup capability to fire boilers. C. Describe the source of gas supply and the proposed method of supplying the area. Gas will be supplied by the local utility company. n Community Services 1. Schools a. Discuss the effects if the subdivision on existing schools, including number and ages of children generated by the subdivision. Salem's schools will benefit by the enhanced capabilities of the Museum as a resource. All Salem students are now admitted free of charge to the Museum and this policy will continue. b. Describe the location of the nearest existing schools, Phoenix, Saltonstall,Bentley and Federal Street schools are closest 2. Recreation a. Describe existing and proposed recreational facilities, including active and passive types; and age groups participating, and state whether recreational facilities and open space are available to all Salem residents. There are no existing recreational facilities or activities on the sitz The new park and the new esplanade will provide significant opportunities for passive recreation. b. Indicate location and width of existing and proposed pedestrian ways, bikeways or bridle paths. The plan increases pedestrian access by replacing the Liberty Street sidewalks with an interior pedestrian concourse l3 feet wide at its narrowest A paved exterior walkway along the esplanade is at least 13 feet in width, although the esplanade itself will be approximately 65 feet wide. Walkways within Armory Square are in addition to existing sidewalk width that will remain. 3. Police a. Estimate the total population projected for the subdivision.N/A b. Estimate the total number of automobiles for the area. The Transportation Assessment prepared by VHB, Inc. accompanies this submittal 4. Fire a. Discuss the total number of buildings to be constructed and their types and construction. The project is an addition to the existing complex, constructed of protected steel frame with masonry cladding and sprinkled 2. Parks, forests and recreational areas b. Discuss how the siting and construction of the project will affect existing and potential park and recreation areas, open spaces, natural areas, and scenic values. The proposed project creates a public park at Armory Square with interpretive Inscriptions commemorating the Second Corps of Cadets and the veterans and military history of Esser County. The park and the highly landscaped esplanade between Esser and Charter Streets enhance the quality of the pedestrian experience and enjoyment of the immediate environment b. Discuss how the project will affect recreational opportunities in the area due to removal of parks, forests, or open areas from public use. Except for portions of the existing Museum grounds, there are virtually no landscaped or natural areas within the project areas. The proposed project will add substantial new open space and natural areas. New park areas will be created in areas now occupied by vacant land, buildings and paved parking lots. 3. Public Health a. Discuss the project's effects on resident's public health due to changes in water quality, air quality,noise levels, etc. Increasing landscaped areas on site should improve groundwater and air quality, as should the discontinuance of a public parking lot immediately across from the Housing Authority complex on Charter Street (Environmental Impact statement 000524) 14 C SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI. SR. 978-744-0212 JOHN R. SERAFINI. JR. 781-581-2743 JOHN E. DARLING TELECOPIER -JOSEPH C. CORRENTI 978-741-4663 ROBERT T. FORD August 4 , 2000 VIA HAND DELIVERY Robert E. Curran, Chairman ; Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green, 2 n Floor = 1 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 <= _� II Re: Peabody Essex Museum Expansion Plan Dear Mr. Curran: As you know, on May 25, 2000, the Peabody Essex Museum (the "Museum") filed its application and plans for its proposed expansion with the Salem Redevelopment Authority (the "SRA") • July 12, 2000, the SRA voted to send the Museum application to the Design Review Board (the "DRB") for its review and recommendations. On July 20, the Museum met with the DRB in what was the first of several review meetings. At the DRB's last meeting, which was held on August 3`d, the Museum presented the portion of its plans which call for the demolition of the Empire Building and parts of the two historic houses located at 10 Liberty Street and 42 Charter Street, and which shows the relocation of those houses onto two newly created lots on Charter Street. Additionally, the small school house on Museum property will be moved to a temporary location on Charter Street, as shown on the plans. As you know, the relocation of the houses is required in order for the expansion plan to proceed. Also, the demolition of the Empire Building will allow the creation of the public esplanade for pedestrian use to travel between Essex Street and Charter Street once Liberty Street is closed. After the Museum' s presentation and discussion with the DRB, the DRB voted to approve that portion of the plan which calls for the Empire Building to be demolished, the school house to be moved, and the two houses to be relocated onto the proposed lots as shown on the plans. The Museum respectfully requests that the SRA adopt the DRB's recommendation and vote to allow the demolition of the Empire Building and the relocation of the three buildings as shown on the plans, so the expansion plan can move forward. i Robert E. Curran, Chairman Salem Redevelopment Authority August 4 , 2000 Page Two While the Museum realizes that there are several more meetings necessary with the DRB, the timing of this particular approval is critical so as to allow the Museum to avoid demolition and relocation of buildings during the month of October, which is, of course, the busiest time of year in the downtown. Ve truly you s, J e h C. -it renti JCC:dl cc: Mr. Will Phippen t 4� TheC`� SALEM-- n Officers ' M A S S A C H U S E T 4-S,t c-?, Past Presidents Russell T.Vickers,Chairman �:" L. Stanley J. Lukowski(1987-1989) Meredith Reed, President PARTNERSHIPa Thomas M. Leonard(1989-1991) Frederick J.Atkins,Vice President 6 Central Street - William J.Tinti(1991-1993) Patrick Reffetl,Vice President Salem, Massachusetts 01970 David W. Ives(1993-1996) Bruce P. Michaud, Clerk (978) 741-8100 Sumner W.Jones(1996-1998) Peter H. Dinsmore,Treasurer Fax(978) 745-6131 Russell T. Vickers(1998-2000) org Rosemary J. Powers, Executive Director EMail info@salempartnership. Thomas M. Leonard,Chairman Emeritus Annie C. Harris, Senior Director William J.Tinti,Chairman Emeritus August 1, 2000 Robert Curran, Chairman Salem Redevelopment Authority One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Curran: On behalf of The Salem Partnership, I am writing in support of the Peabody Essex Museum's expansion plan and design of its new buildings. The museum is tremendously valuable to the city and its presence is crucial to the revitalization and development of the downtown area. The museum expansion will allow the Peabody Essex to increase the size of its galleries and exhibitions to bring more of its collections into public view. The expansion is expected to double the number of visitors to the Peabody Essex and the city will undoubtedly reap the economic benefits of increased tourists and visitors to its downtown area. The Peabody Essex Museum has been a good and trusted neighbor to the residents of Salem. The museum's planning and design process has been inclusive one responsive to the concerns of Salem residents and sympathetic to the city's architecture. The expansion plan is more than an investment in our downtown it is an investment in our community. Robert Curran Page 2 August 1, 2000 The Peabody Essex Museum expansion will revitalize and enrich Salem's downtown area. The Partnership commends the museum for its efforts and continuing contribution to our community. Your support and consideration is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Rosemary J. bowers Executive Director 4 If lj�� U.S.DEPA12UMNTOMOUSING AND URBAN DEVELCHTIENT MIN WASHINGTON,D .20410-7000 ➢IICcN III ASSISI III SCc111,1 lzl _ .. - AUG v '2000 - I Ok lLmaIUN III'I'LAI6I%[b nFD jhV1l 1,0PFILKI The Honorable Stanley J . Usovicz , Jr . Mayor Of Salem Salem City Hall 93 Washinaton Street Salem, MA 01970-3592 Dear Mayor USOViCz : Thank you for your letter of May 15 , 2000 , and the additional information taxed on June 22 , 2000 . You requested confirmation than the proposed demolition of the deteriorated -accede or the historic Salem Armory ry 1- y its pri'v'ate owner, we ieabody FSSex. museum, '-4ill not require compliance with the revW, .requirements under the regulations governing use of Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) funds , including 36 CFR Part 800 , which governs historic preservation . The facade was to have been preserved under UDAG number. B-87-AA-25-0289 , but the project was not implemented . The information communicated by the Field Office in its letter of April 13 , 2000 , 1s accurate . Under these circumstances there is no " federal action" under either the current UDAG or from the use of the "miscellaneous revenues" from repayments of the previous UDAGs . For that reason, the review requirements under the historic preservation regulations and the terms of the MOo do not apply, and the private owner ' s actions are not coverned by the UDAG agreements . if you have any questions about this letter, please call John Haines of this office, (202) 708-0614 x4616 . Sincerely, Anthony Johnsto . Supervisor Development Grants Section u 00 0 AUGl ] ' I Vy C%Ay()R'S OFFICEM re Salem ® Redevelopment Authority ___-DRB RECOAMENDATIONS_._. .. Thursday,August 3, 2000 Meeting Peabody Essex Museum—Demolition Request Representatives from the Peabody Essex Museum(PEM) presented plans to preserve and relocate the homes at 42 Charter Street and 10 Liberty Street to a site located on Charter Street near Hawthorne Boulevard, as shown on the site plan presented. The rear portions of these structures will be demolished. The one story schoolhouse building will be moved across Charter Street and be placed on a block foundation. This is a temporary location and will be relocated at a future date. The other request was to demolish the Empire Building(133 Essex Street)to facilitate the new temporary and permanent public walkway being created as part of this expansion plan. DRB RECOMMENDATION: The Board stated that the proposed expansion plan qualifies as an acceptable reuse plan to allow the rear portion demolition and the moving of the two homes on 42 Charter Street and 10 Liberty Street to the proposed Charter Street location as shown on plan dated 12 May 2000. The moving of the one story schoolhouse to a new,temporary Charter Street location, as shown on plan dated 12 May 2000 was also approved. Although review of the site.plan for the two relocated houses was favorable, final approval of details, site design and landscaping will be recommended at a later date. The Board approved the demolition of the Empire Building (133 Essex Street)to accommodate a public walkway. This walkway will help mitigate the impact of the Liberty Street closure. Design/landscaping details of the construction/temporary and permanent walkway will be reviewed in detail and a final recommendation will be submitted to the SRA at a later date. One Salem Green • Salem, Massachusetts 01970 • (978) 745-9595, Ext 311 • Fax (978) 740-0404 40 t J AF��yOuy�o. c I ,V �,I.k lit ea Vk r I � ` AM l� QI+ 4 j �) V I`+`'i to�� .1 �•� \�� x� ��N��. Vii` F � t?�I�Ti �— � �• .a�ll� z, x�ia��lY Qi VW + 1 MM 11D. rw � ,r It io : lTI MM 'QP �n ts. r Y W i r r C 4 f R, I 1 Salem Redevelopment CM-ALIthority 4 1 Memo To: Peter Strout, Building Inspector From: Ellen Dubinsky, SRA Secretary( Date: September 7,2000 Re: Peabody Essex Museum Demolition Request As per your request, I have attached a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Salem _ Redevelopment Authority held on August 9, 2000. Specilically,'these minutes reflect the Authority's approval of the demolition of the rear portion and the moving of the two homes on 42 Chatter Street and 10 Liberty Street to the proposed Charter Street location as shown on plan dated 12 May 2000, the moving of the one story schoolhouse to_a new, temporary Charter Street location, and the demolition of the Empire Building(133 Essex Street) to accommodate a public walkway. If you have any questions regarding this action or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thant: you. Onc S':dCnl Green Spicrn, Mai sSd innctts 01970 • �91S1 745-995, Ext 31 1 F:ix (978) 7410-040-1 1 •-