Loading...
MISC SHC CORRESPONDENCE :�� _ - ��,b_ — I/ 1 � � m s r Salem Histofical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT 311 FAX(978)740.0404 January 8,2009 Brian Ackley, PE Tetra Tech Rizzo One Grant Street Framingham, MA 01701 RE: Bike Path Connection from Bridge Street Bypass to Bridge Street $ Dear Mr. Ackley, The Salem Historical Commission has reviewed the scope of work proposed to construct a bike path connection from the Bridge Street Bypass to Bridge Street within an abandoned J.ormer railroad right-of-way now owned by the Commonwealth. The work proposed includes placement of additional fill between Cross Street and the Bridge Street Bypass bike path and construction of a 10' foot wide paved surface. The fill may partially or completed cover the retaining walls. The Salem Historical Commission is in support of the bike path connection work proposed and feels that the filling will ensure that the retaining walls are preserved. The Commission respectfully requests that the walls,as they exist, be documented with drawings and photographs and that copies be provided to the Salem Historical Commission and Massachusetts Historical Commission. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ?v,,,I t1-2 , Hannah D1ozz1 Chair Cc: David Knowlton, City of Salem Frank Taomina, City of Salem Brona Simon. SHPO 3 d Salem Historical Commissi®n 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM,MASSACHUSEirS 01970 (978)745.9595 EXT 311 FAX(978)740-0404 February 7, 2007 Matthew Shute, P.E. Rizzo Associates One Grant Street Framingham, MA 01701-9005 RE: Bridge Street Reconstruction, Salem,MA Section 106 Review Dear Mr. Shute: The Salem Historic Commission(Commission)would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the 25% Submission drawings for the proposed improvements to Bridge Street in Salem (25% Submission dated December 29, 2006 prepared by Rizzo Associates). In general, the Commission supports the proposed improvements to Bridge Street and looks forward to working with you and MassHighway on the final design details of the proposed improvements. Background: The Commission would like to make reference to Massachusetts Historical Commission's letter dated January 18, 2007, which provides an overview of specific historic resources located within the project area, including the Bridge Street Neck National Register District and the Thomas March Woodbridge House at 48 Bridge Street as well as numerous inventoried properties. Bridge Street is one of the oldest streets in Salem: the original Beverly Bridge was completed in 1788 and there are a number of historic properties which still line the street. Bridge Street forms a part of several historic neighborhoods, including the Salem Common,North River, and the March Street neighborhoods. In addition, Bridge Street is an active commercial street, with retailers lining both sides of the street. In its current state, Bridge Street is over-run with traffic and the historic fabric along the street is threatened. Due to its current condition, Bridge Street is listed as an Endangered Historic Resource by Historic Salem, Inc. The Commission looks forward to the completion of the connector road between the Salem- Beverly Bridge and Washington Street which will help to divert much of this traffic. The proposed improvements to Bridge Street represent an opportunity to restore the historic character of the street and restore the connections between the historic neighborhoods. The Commission has the following comments: General: 1. To the greatest extent possible,Bridge Street should be reconfigured to make it a local neighborhood street that links together the historic neighborhoods on either side. The street should be made as pedestrian friendly as possible to encourage pedestrian activity and to support the local retailers. 2. The width of Bridge Street between Winter Street and the bridge should be reduced to the greatest extent feasible. The current widths of 36' between Winter and Osgood Streets and 44' between Osgood and the bridge seem excessive for the reduced traffic that should be expected along the street. ' 3. To the greatest extent feasible,the existing sidewalks should be widened to encourage pedestrian traffic,particularly the section between Arbella and Osgood Streets. Curb extensions should be provided at all crosswalks to encourage pedestrian traffic and protect parked cars. 4. Parallel parking along the southern side of the street should be encouraged as a means to protect pedestrians and encourage local retail traffic. We recommend this parking be more consistently located and be protected with curb extensions at intersections. 5. Curb cuts along the street should be minimized—wherever possible,we recommend elimination of multiple curb cuts to single properties or relocating curb cuts to side streets. We request that MassHighway consult with the City of Salem to determine if all existing curb cuts are legally authorized—existing illegal curb cuts should be eliminated. 6. We recommend the street be designed to accommodate bicycle traffic to the greatest extent possible.A designated bicycle lane should be provided on both sides of the street to encourage alternate transportation,particularly with a connection to the MBTA train station. The City of Cambridge has successfully incorporated bicycle lanes into busy urban streets and we recommend a similar approach be taken along Bridge Street. 7. We do not support the use of painted medians at the intersection of Bridge and Winter Streets, running from Northey to Lemon Streets. Painted medians tend to be ignored by drivers and wear away over time. Where medians are recommended due to traffic movements, we support either raised medians with landscaping and pedestrian crosswalks to allow pedestrians to cross part way across the street or textured concrete medians that have the look of brick(similar to Salem's crosswalks in the downtown), which will still permit vehicles to make turns over the median to enter/egress driveways on Bridge Street between Northey and Lemon Streets. 8. There is no indication of street trees or other landscaping to be incorporated into the project. We recommend street trees at a regular interval to shelter pedestrians and create an attractive entrance corridor to the City. Specific Comments: 1. There should be a crosswalk provided at Howard Street and Howard Street Extension to facilitate connections between the two neighborhoods. A 1 2. The curbs on the north and south sides of Winter Street should be extended to reduce the pedestrian crossing and protect parallel parking on Winter Street. 3. The median strip on the north side of the Winter Street intersection should incorporate the pedestrian crosswalk. 4. Curb extensions should be provided on the crosswalks at the Skerry and Lathrop Street intersection and the March Street intersection. 5. Lighting installed should match the lighting approved by MassHighway for the North Street entrance corridor. In this way,we will be working toward having all entrance corridors having uniform lighting. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide early comment. We look forward to our continued participation as the Section 106 Review process progresses. Sincerely, Hannah Diozzi Chair Cc: Kimberley Driscoll, Mayor Lynn Duncan, Salem DPCD Steve Roper, MHD-CRS Ann Lattinville, MHC Brian Ackerley, Rizzo Associates Historic Salem, Inc. Jane Guy From: Jessica Herbert[Jherbert5@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:52 PM To: hannandd@verizon.net Cc: Jane Guy Subject: Re: Court House comment Hello Hannah: I am just now picking up your email. Thank you for your kind thoughts. I hope that you get my comments before tonight's meeting. I think Larry's comments are excellent. I am in complete agreement with the changes proposed for Bridge Street as the project proceeds: (1) The narrowing of Bridge Street; (2) A Bike Path to be added; (3) Parallel Parking allocated on one side of the street; (4) Street Tree Plantings; (5) Reduction of curb cuts where possible; and, (6) Improved Pedestrian Crossing Points. It is very exciting to imagine how Bridge Street will look and function with these neighborhood-friendly improvements. It will be an outstanding example of how we can restore and preserve important historic elements of our community by -working together and drawing on all the talent, experience, and commitment we have at hand. Kind regards, Jessica hannandd@verizon.net wrote: > Hi Jessica > I 'm hoping and praying that all goes well with your surgery tomorrow. I'll be thinking of you, for sure. > I 'm wondering, if you have any time (or ability to concentrate) today, if you'd like to write any comments on the courthouse project for us to read into the record and make part of the group response. If so, just email it to me and/or Jane and we'll run with it. > Meantime, my very best wishes. > Hannah 1 l Jane Guy From: Larry Spang [spang@arrowstreet.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:36 PM To: Jane Guy Cc: hannandd@msn.com, hannandd@verizon.net Subject: RE: Rizzo - Bridge St. plans C BridgeStreetReview -2007-1-7.do... j Jane and Hannah: Attached please find my initial review of the Bridge Street improvement plans. Generally I think the Commission (and the City) should advocate for more overall improvements to the streetscape - currently the plans seem only to re-create what is there today. I 'm unclear, however, of the State' s obligations for the project so I would appreciate input from the Planning Dept. to determine what we can ask for. Please give me a call if you have questions or comments - I should be around my office most of the morning. Also, Jane I assume you can put these comments into a proper letter format. j thanks, Larry r t Arrowstreet Inc i 212 Elm Street Somerville, MA 02144 (617) 623-5555 (617) 625-4646 fax spang@arrowstreet.com www.arrrowstreet.com 1 The Historic Commission would like to thank MassHighway for the opportunity to review the 25% Submission drawings for the proposed improvements to Bridge Street in Salem(25% Submission dated December 29, 2006 prepared by Rizzo Associates). In general,the Commission supports the proposed improvements to Bridge Street and looks forward to working with MassHighway on the final design details of the proposed improvements. Background: Bridge Street is one of the oldest streets in Salem: the original Beverly Bridge was completed in 1788 and there are a number of historic properties which still line the street.Bridge Street forms a part of several historic neighborhoods, including the Salem Common,North River, and the March Street neighborhoods. In addition, Bridge Street is an active commercial street, with retailers lining both sides of the street. In its current state,Bridge Street is over-run with traffic and the historic fabric along the street is threatened. Due to its current condition,Bridge Street is listed as an Endangered Historic Resource by Historic Salem,Inc. The Commission looks forward to the completion of the connector road between the Salem- Beverly Bridge and Washington Street which will help to divert much of this traffic. The proposed improvements to Bridge Street represent an opportunity to restore the historic character of the street and restore the connections between the historic neighborhoods. The Commission has the following comments: i General: 1. To the greatest extent possible,Bridge Street should be reconfigured to make it a local neighborhood street that links together the historic neighborhoods on either side. The street should be made as pedestrian friendly as possible to encourage pedestrian activity and to support the local retailers. 2. The width of Bridge Street between Winter Street and the bridge should be reduced to the greatest extent feasible. The current widths of 36' between Winter and Osgood Streets and 44' between Osgood and the bridge seem excessive for the reduced traffic that should be expected along the street. 3. To the greatest extent feasible,the existing sidewalks should be widened to encourage, pedestrian traffic, particularly the section between Arbella and Osgood Streets. Curb extensions should be provided at all crosswalks to encourage pedestrian traffic and protect parked cars. 4. Parallel parking along the southern side of the street should be encouraged as a means to protect pedestrians and encourage local retail traffic. We recommend this parking be more consistently located and be protected with curb extensions at intersections. 5. Curb cuts along the street should be minimized—wherever possible, we recommend elimination of multiple curb cuts to single properties or relocating curb cuts to side streets. We request that MassHighway consult with the City of Salem to determine if all existing curb cuts are legally authorized—existing illegal curb cuts should be eliminated. 6. We recommend the street be designed to accommodate bicycle traffic to the greatest extent possible. A designated bicycle lane should be provided on both sides of the street to encourage alternate transportation, particularly with a connection to the MBTA train station. The City of Cambridge has successfully incorporated bicycle lanes into busy urban streets and we recommend a similar approach be taken along Bridge Street. i 7. We do not support the use of painted medians at the intersection of Bridge and Winter Streets. Painted medians tend to be ignored by drivers and wear away over time. Where medians are recommended due to traffic movements, we support raised medians with landscaping and pedestrian crosswalks to allow pedestrians to cross part way across the street. 8. There is no indication of street trees or other landscaping to be incorporated into the project. We recommend street trees at a regular interval to shelter pedestrians and create an attractive entrance corridor to the City. Specific Comments: 1. There should be a crosswalk provided at Howard Street and Howard Street Extension to facilitate connections between the two neighborhoods. 2. The curbs on the north and south sides of Winter Street should be extended to reduce the pedestrian crossing and protect parallel parking on Winter Street. 3. The median strip on the north side of the Winter Street intersection should incorporate the pedestrian crosswalk. 4. Curb extensions should be provided on the crosswalks at the Skerry and Lathrop Street intersection and the March Street intersection. ' t i' Y tti; 6�&0 T t n � ciM�t> Salem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404 ' August 6, 1998 Gregory H. Prendergast Deputy Chief Engineer Environmental Division Massachusetts Highway Department 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 RE: Bridge Street By-Pass Dear Mr. Prendergast: At its regular meeting of August 5, 1998,the Salem Historical Commission reviewed conceptual plans provided by the Salem Planning Department for an alternative alignment of the Bridge Street By- Pass in order to determine its impact on nearby historic resources. The Commission determined that while the roadway in front of the two nearby National Register properties will be widened,thus potentially increasing the generation of noise, pollution and vibration and decreasing access,the elimination of the previously proposed viaduct which would have larger visual impact is an improvement for the community as a whole. In addition,the alternative alignment will provide an opportunity for a coordinated development of the Parker Brothers site and proposed new MBTA garage. This coordination of development in itself would have a mitigating effect for the historic properties. The one issue raised by the Commission was the concern for the stone wall of the 1801 Howard Street Burial Ground. The stone wall is already in a state of deterioration and additional pollution and vibration could increase the rate of deterioration. The Commission proposes that the repair and/or replacement of the stone wall be made part of this project as mitigation effort to protect this historic resource. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Helen Sides Chair Cc: Craig L. Wheeler � I Salem HistoricalCommission ONE SALEM GREEt1, SALEM.i Nj 'MASSACHUSETTS 01970 i508i'745919.:EXT.311 .March 19, 1992 } Don L. Klima Director, Eastern Office of Project Review Advisory Council on Historic Preservation The Old Post Office 'Building 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N,.W. #80.9 Washington, D.C. 20004 RE : Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Salem/Beverly Transportation Project Dear Mr. Klima,: The Salem Historical Commission has reviewed the Draft MOA and respectfully requests the following amendments : x That Section I A & 'B be revised as follows;: A. In consultation with the Salem Historical 4 Commission, the Salem Planning Department, and the Massachusetts SHPO, and subject to the approval of the Salem Historical Commission, a design plan will be developed to ensure that improvements associated with the Bridge Street Bypass are compatible with, neighboring historic properties . The plan shall include the following principles: G 1, Lighting., Lighting, both for the roadway and pedestrian areas, shall be of a style and scale compatible with their respective contexts, and the context of the adjacent historic district, and shall not 'spill-over into the adjacent neighborhoods. Proper provision shall be made for pedestrian lighting, where relevant. E } 2 . Curb cuts, Curbing, and Barriers . Curb cuts should be granite and of suitable dimensions. There shall be -no curb cuts or breaks in the median strip, which shall be thickly planted (see below) . Use of jersey barriers shall not i be permitted. 3 . Landscaping. Landscaping, both associated with be roadway and the waterfront park, shall be employed to provide a consistent year-round visual barrier and buffer between the project and adjacent historic neighborhood. This its particularly critical at the southerly side of the two in-bound lanes ( ie. the new buffer zone) and in the median strip. The southerly landscaped buffer shall be, consistent along the entire corridor from Flint to North Street (approximately) ; in ,particular, commercial establishments shall not be allowed to "spill over" into the newly created spaces in front. of their establishments . Proper provision shall be made for pedestrian walkways, including materials thereof_ The roadway and buffer landscaping shall relate to that of the waterfront park to create a consistent whole. r 4 . Traffic signals;. Traffic signals and signage should be minimized. Mastarms shall not '!be used. Speed shall be regulated to minimize the, noise and adverse safety impact on the adjacent historic neighborhood. 5. Dimensions . The overall road layout to be as previously represented and agreed upon, ie. two new in-bound lanes of twelve feet each,, a fifteen foot median strip, and two out-bound lanes of twelve feet each. The new road system curves away from the neighborhood, beginning at Flint Street and returning more or less at the present overpass off-ramp, thereby creating the new visual and sound buffer at the southerly edge of the roadway varying in width between five and thirty feet at a minimum. ' B. Following completion, the design plan will be reviewed by the Salem Historical Commission, the Salem Planning Department, and the Massachusetts SHPO. Should any of- these parties disagree on any provision of the plan, resolution of said shall first be attempted in accordance with Stipulation V below, DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Final approval of the foregoing issues, however, rests with the Salem Historical Commission, That Section IIL, first paragraph, and Section III B. be amended to include the Salem Historical Commission. - That Section V be amended to add the following as the. I final line of the paragraph: } "Notwithstanding anything else herein to the contrary, final approval of issues outlined in Section I hereof rests with the Salem Historical Commission. " Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION I Annie C. Harris Chairman BN\BN\MOA1¢ e I I j t i i I i I P T t gj¢ g 3 ~ CosWT,, ;M q� '`lnCI-EM WMA Salem Historical CommIV IF ission ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM,MASSACNUSETT601870 k . June 10, 1991 j By FAX (617-973-8035) Frank A. Bracaglia, Deputy Chief Engineer Project Development Massachusetts Department of Public Works 10 Park Plaza, Room 4261 Boston, MA 02116 e Re: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Salem/Beverly Transportation Project EOEA Number„0756 i Dear Mr. Bracaglia: As you know,over the last twelve months the Salem Historical Commission has worked closely with the Department of Public Works, the Mayors Office of the City of Salem, the Massachusetts Historical Commission, concerned neighbors, preservation groups, and other interested parties in an effort to minimize the substantial adverse effects that otherwise would have ; been caused to the adjacent national and state historic districts (i.e. mainly bordering the project between Flint and Washington Streets in Salem) by the original project design. Thanks to the cooperation of all concerned, we feel we have come a long way toward accomplishing that objective. However, notwithstanding the progress that has been made to date, we feel we can not join in the "No Effect" determination by your Department in the F1nal Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, at least at this time. Basically we feel that if the project is implemented faithfully according to the latest modified designs, taking into account the comments we made in our March 6, 1991 letter to Anthony J. Fusco, Division Administrator, U.S. l Department of Transportation, the adverse effects caused by the project will be acceptably minimized. We are enclosing a copy of said letter, which is incorporated herein by reference. } i JU14 W '91 L:40- IIT, "F &CCEM.. Nil P. Frank A. Bracaglia 2 June 10 1991 9 d On the other hand, if the project is not strictly and faithfully implemented, and we point out there are still key details remaining to be. worked out, primarily landscaping and illumination, as more particularly set forth in the enclosed letter, we feel the potential adverse effects caused by the project could be severe. In this sense, the question is not whether constructing a new four lane by- pass road so near to the adjacent historic districts will have an adverse effect on the districts, such as through increased noise and air pollution, vibration, I illumination spill-over etc., but whether those adverse effects will be kept to an acceptable minimum level. Again, because there are critical (albeit specific) design details still to be worked out, upon which the success of the whole Project depends (in terms of its impact on the adjacent historic district), we feel we cannot join in your Department's "No effect" determination until those issues are successfully resolved. Notwithstanding the foregoing, based on our experience to date, we have every confidence that those design details can and will be successfully resolved, and in a timely manner, particularly since the comparatively much tougher problem-Ae. arriving at an acceptable overall conceptual design--is now behind us. For our art we look d to ble so that the specific remaining design issues (see entclosed tettou as e)can n as be resolved at at the earliest opportunity. Very truly yours, SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION John H. arr, Jr., Vice hair an' Enc. cc Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Federal Advisory Council Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission 'in the absence of the Chairman, who is on vacation i Salem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN.SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970 i 6171 745-9595.EXT.311 March 7, 1991 Mr. Anthony J. Fusco Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Region One 55 Broadway, 10th Floor y Cambridge, MA 02142 Project: Beverly-Salem Transportation Project (Salem-Beverly Bridge, Bridge Street By-Pass, Bridge Street Reconstruction) li Reference: Mass. Project BR-F-54 (005) r Beverly-Salem HB-MA Subject: Section 106 Documentation Review Comments pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 i Dear Mr. Fusco: We appreciate the opportunity;to review the latest plans for the Salem Beverly Transportation project, as part of the continuing 106 Review Process. As it has always been, our first and foremost concern is the extent to which " the proposed Bridge Street by-pass road will adversely effect the adjacent eighteenth and nineteenth century residential neighborhood between North and Flint Streets, which is both a federal and state historic district, and includes several properties individually listed on the National Register. k Inasmuch as the proposed project represents increasing Bridge Street from two to four lanes and changing the character of the street to an intra-city four lane by-pass road, the danger is that if it is not done right, the project will significantly increase the existing levels of traffic, noise, air pollution, vibration, and other intrusive elements, which are already at or above tolerable levels, even for a two lane street. f u F You may recall that the plan that was first unveiled in the Summer of 1990 was (and is) totally unacceptable because it called for locating the new four lane undivided road on the site of the existing Bridge Street, i.e. at the very edge of the historic district, thereby maximizing the adverse effect of the proposed new roadway, while at the same time, precluding any meaningful measures to mitigate those adverse effects. Since then, the m Hist ik mission (SHS) has worked closely with the Massachusetts De rt en of Pub ' orks (MDPW), the Mayor's office, the Massachusetts Hist rix mission (MHC), and various neighborhood groups in an attempt to arrive at cceptable design that would not only address Salem's need for improved vehicular access but, as important, one which would minimize the adverse consequences caused to the adjacent historic district by the project. We feel we have gone a long way toward meeting that goal. While we are confident that we will be able to resolve the remaining issues, it should be stressed that unless those issues are satisfactorily resolved, we would not be able to concur with the MDPW's assessment that the project has "no effect" on the adjacent historic district. The major improvement in the present plan, over the previous two plans since last summer, is the extent to which the enlarged roadway is being moved away from the historic district. Basically, the present plan calls for the-new four lane road to curve away from the neighborhood beginning at Flint Street (heading east) and return to the present Bridge Street more or less where it presently intersects with the overpass off-ramp. This effectively creates the potential for a buffer zone varying in width between five and thirty feet. Also, instead of an undivided roadway, the present plan now calls for a fifteen foot median strip dividing the two twelve foot wide eastbound and westbound traveling lanes. The practical effect of all of this is that the existing two lanes which are currently at the edge of the historic district are being moved out between five and thirty feet, and the two new lanes are being located sixty-nine feet away from the existing southerly curb of Bridge Street (i.e.thirty foot buffer, at its widest point, plus two eastbound traveling lanes at twelve feet each plus fifteen foot median strip). Further, the plan calls for the two new lanes to be screened by plantings in the median strip. Obviously, our first preferencetis that the by-pass road be moved even further to the north, in order to provide the widest possible distance between it an the adjacent neighborhood, since that is the most effective way of minimizing the adverse effects of the enlarged roadway. However, we are told by the MDPW that that would involve realigning the railroad tracks even further to the north, which would not be possible without building a new railroad bridge over the canal, which the state cannot afford. Obviously, we lack the means to judge the track relocation issue for ourselves. Nevertheless, we are willing to accept the proposed roadway as it is presently sited provided that the remaining details are satisfactorily resolved. Unfortunately, the present plans are completely unfinished regarding those remaining details which concern us the most, and about which the ultimate success or failure of the project (in terms of how it will ultimately impact the historic district) will depend. As noted above, the median strip and buffer are absolutely key to the mitigation of the project. If they are to work at all, they must be thickly planted r - with mature trees and shrubs which can simultaneously serve as a year-round visual f screen, a noise barrier, and (in the case of the buffer) a transition between the neighborhood and the roadway. All of these goals would be defeated if the planting were sparce, or if significant gaps were allowed in either the buffer or the median strip. In short, it is imperative that the median strip and buffer constitute a consistent green corridor with as few breaks or gaps as possible, ideally none with respect to the median strip and only those which are absolutely necessary with respect to the buffer. Given that the roadway is intended to serve as a major gateway to Salem's downtown, this will also have the effect of balancing and integrating the new four- lane ourlane roadway with the new waterfront park to the north, and the buffer to the south, thereby further "softening" the impact of the overall project. In short, what looks best, actually works best. In this regard, we want to emphasize that the most troubling aspect of the new plans is the extent to which they are unfinished with respect-to the areas in front of the commercial establishments on the southerly side of Bridge Street, i.e. Alphas Auto Sales, Magarian's Carpets, the Gulf Station and Universal Trading. It is imperative that there be a green buffer in front of these establishments, and that it tie in with the rest of the green corridor. (We feel this can be accomplished ; without unduly limiting legitimate commercial visibility of their businesses.) The one thing we do not want to see happen, however, is the expansion of these f . businesses or their activities into the newly-created open space in front, which would completely destroy the whole visual and functional objectives of the buffer. Similarly, before we can join in a "no effect" determination, we will need to see similar details regarding the following points: A. Lighting - This must be of a style and scale compatible with the context of the adjacent neighborhood. We would want to see proposed locations and numbers of proposed lamps, their footcandle levels, the extent to which any pedestrian lighting is contemplated, and the specifics of same. Clearly we would' want the lighting to be directed toward the road and not "spill over" into the adjacent neighborhood. B. Pedestrian Walkways - We would want to see the location, materials, dimensions, and colors of any proposed walkways, including the specifics of any amenities such as benches. Pedestrian walkways must not be at the expense of the planting buffer, however. C. Curbcuts and Curbing- We would want to see specifics on these as well, particularly as noted above with respect to the areas in front of Alpha Auto Sales, the Gulf Station, Magarian's Carpets, and Universal Wrecking, and the bottom of Lynn and Carpenter Streets. You may also want to consult with the residents of Carpenter, Lynn and River Streets to explore the feasibility and appropriateness of closing off said streets and, in such event, how best to integrate the resulting new space into the project. There should be no curb cuts in the medianstrip, not only for safety reasons, but also because of the erosion that will cause to the function of the median strip as a noise and visual barrier. Curbing should be granite, and should have the appropriate dimensions. D. Planting Materials - As noted above, the plantings should be substantial and should be chosen to provide year-round noise and visual screening. We will want to see specifics of plant types, size and proposed locations, and how they are intended to accomplish the foregoing goals. E. Traffic Signals - We want to see locations and style (i.e. no mastarms), and information with respect to how they will control the speed and flow of traffic, which will have a direct impact on the resulting noise levels'caused to the adjacent neighborhood. F. Roadway Design - The present plans omit any details with respect to the. number of lanes, their width, etc. (We have obtained the information recited above from previous meetings with MDPW officials, but we are unable to confirm their previous representations from the latest plans.) Obviously, we would.have to have precise information on this as well. G. We would also like to see similar specificity regarding the proposed e waterfront park, which we regard as an integral part of the projeoty inasmuch as it will have the effect of further "softening" the project's overall impact. We have been told that the park will be basically bounded by the (reconfigured) canal to the north, the overpass to the east, the new roadway and tracks to the south, and Flint Street to the west, and that there will be no light,or office industrial park, which would otherwise undermine the mitigation goals that we are attempting to accomplish. We are relying upon those representations. H. We would also like additional specificity concerning the following major traffic interchanges adjacent to the historic district and other nearby historic properties, including the dimensions, set backs to historic buildings and property lines, overall roadway widths, number of lanes, relative locations of existing and proposed curb lines, and the height and details of construction for the by-pass viaduct; 1. The Bridge Street/North Street interchange abutting the Peirce Nichols House, the Federal Street National Register District, and the McIntire Historic District; and 2. The Bridge Street, Washington Street and by-pass road intersection abutting the Federal Street National Register District, the Bessie Monroe House and the First Universalist Church (both National Register Properties). Finally, we concur with the MHC's findings in its January 18, 1991 letter that it cannot agree with the MDPW's "no effect" determination until it receives the information requested in said letter. Again, the necessity of the above-described information and documentation should not obscure the fact that considerable progress has been made to date, and that what remains to be done is relatively easy by comparison. Considerable credit for this belongs to all of the parties enumerated at the beginning of this letter, who have worked so hard for the last nine months participating in the 106 Review t process. Stili, because the ultimate success or failure of the plan depends on how the remaining details are handled, we must warn that we would not be able to "sign off" on the project until we are convinced that the foregoing questions are satisfactorily answered. We have every confidence that that will be possible, however. Thank you again for your continuing consideration. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to receiving the above information as soon as possible, and we promise to expeditiously respond to same following its receipt. ctfully, i a THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Annie Clay Harris, Chairman John H. Car, Jr., Vice Chairman Walter H. Cook Russell Slam Richard Oedel Daniel Hubbard Pierce Roger Hedstrom Kevin Stanton cc: Mr. James Elliott,MDPW Mr. George R. Turner, Jr., MDPW Ms. Judith B. McDonough, MHC Mr. Don L. Klima, ACHP Beverly Historic District Commission The Salem Planning Department Mr. James R. Treadwell M15WP i II i. i r �t G Salem Historical ;,,om, mission Sr:.I:F 1 GREEN,SALE%t MASSACHUS= .a 1OL970 - 1�3n.5.-c XT. Vrx , i July 24, 1990 By Hand Frank A. Bracaglia, Deputy Chief Engineer Massachusetts Department of Public Works I 10 Park Plaza Room 4261 Boston, MA 02116 i t Re: Draft Supplemental Environment Impact Report Salem-Beverly Transportation Project, Project No. 4756 f t; Dear Mr. Bracaglia: The Salem Historical Commission would like to correct an inadvertent but potentially significant error contained within the July 17, 1990 letter of our chairperson, Annie C. Harris, to you, giving the Commission's initial response to ; the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report relative to the Salem- Beverly Transportation Project. Given time constraints and summer vacation schedules the Commission was not able to review the letter prior to its mailing. 9 The error in question occurs in the opening clause to the firstsentence.in I Section no. 2 of Ms. Harris' letter (i.e. found on page 2); wherein she writes: a "We are not in disagreement with the need to widen Bridge Street I The position we intended to convey is that while we support improving traffic flow between Washington and Boston Streets, we nevertheless oppose 1 the widening of Bridge Street as a specific means of accomplishing that objective. The problem with widening Bridge Street from two to four lanes, as k recently proposed by the DPW, is that it maximizes the adverse consequences that will be inflicted on the adjacent 18th and 19th century neighborhood, which is both a local Historic District established pursuant to Chapter 40C of the Massachusetts General Laws (known as the McIntire Historic District), and is on the National Register of Historic Places. These adverse consequences include Frank A. Bracaglia 2 July 24, 1990 but are not limited to increased traffic, noise, vibration, atmospheric pollution, visual polution (including through lighting and signage), and safety problems, among others. Also, by locating the new roadway at the very edge of the Historic District; as opposed to further out in the North River basin on land that had been previously taken and cleared by the DPW specifically for that purpose, thereis literally no room to effectuate any kind of meaningful measures that would mitigate these adverse consequences. In this sense we feel the proposed widening of Bridge Street represents the worst of both possible worlds in terms of the maximum adverse consequences'it causes the adjacent McIntire Historic District, and the minimum opportunities it offers for mitigating those adverse consequences. Fortunately we feel there is away of addressing the need for improved traffic flow at that particular location, while minimizing any adverse impact to the adjacent Historic District caused by said traffic improvements. c What we favor is retaining the existing Bridge Street as a local two lane street, and building a new two lane by-pass road beginning at or west.of Flint Street and tieing back into Bridge Street more or less in the area of the present i Box Car Cafe. The by-pass road would be located sufficiently beyond the a present railroad tracks to create an adequate buffer zone between the by-pass I road and the McIntire Historic District, which would be thickly landscaped to absorb the noise and pollution of the increased by-pass traffic and would visually screen same. This should be possible without encroaching on the proposed linear park at the edge of the present North River canal, and indeed, should complement it 3 Inasmuch as the DPW has completed the taking and demolition of all of the properties formerly located in the North River basin, and that each of the previous DPW plans (evolving over a period of years) called for locating the roadway in this area, reasonably removed from the McIntire Historic District, we feel this is a practical, workable, and immediate solution to the various competing interests. We also feel that crossing the present little-used railroad j tracks should not constitute an insurmountable problem, particularly since grade crossings of the same tracks were incorporated as part of the recent substantial traffic improvements in Peabody Square. 1 Again, we want to dispel any possible inference, however inadvertent, in Ms. Harris' July 17, 1990 letter that we favor the proposed widening of Bridge Street, and want to go on record now, even before the 106 review, so that no t unnecessary time or money will be wasted pursuing a design that only raises I new and serious problems in different areas. k F ' t f Frank A. Bracaglia 3 July 24, 1990 f f Unfortunately Ms. Harris, who is on vacation, is the only member of our Commission who could not be located to join in this letter. Salem Historical Commission j John H. Carr;Jr., Vice Chairman Waiter H. Cook t Roger Hedstrom Richard Oedei Daniel Pierce Russell Slam cc Secretary John DeVillars, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs i Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission Ellen DiGeronimo, Massachusetts DPW Jane Garvey, Massachusetts DPW Mayor Neil Harrington Councillor Kevin Harvey i f I i la i 'I i I I [i yy d w � r r i l I Ifo I I 3 S L a F JE JiiLLM t,,.c_.IN"6ALEM,;.p.7 C-Gu r July 17 , 1990' Frank A. Bracaglia, Deputy Chief Engineer Massachusetts Department of Public Works 10 Park Plaza Room 4261 Boston, MA 02116 RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Salem-Beverly Transportation Project Dear Mr . Bracagl'ia: The Salem Historical Commission has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EDEA No. 0756) which was sent to us on June 22 , 1990. Members of the Commission also attended the public hearing held on July 9, 1990. we have the 3 following comments to submit at this time. 4 The concept of this project is supported by the Commission because this project has the potential of removing substantial traffic from two very .important historic areas ( 1) Federal/Essex/Chestnut- Streets and (2.) Bridge :Street/Salem Common area. This reduction in the numbers of cars and their noise and. pollution is seen as a very positive benefit to Salem' s historic resources . L However, there are several areas of the Supplemental ' Environmental Impact Report which do not appear to address the impact of the widening of 'Bridge Street in sufficient detail. Our concerns are as follows: L 1. District Boundaries - The boundaries of the McIntire ' Local Historic District are incorrectly drawn on thei graphic materials (both the handout and the wall mounted plans ) supplied at the public hearing. The ) local McIntire Historic District is not shown on any' of the plans included in the draft Environmental Impact Report. The statement., "The rear yards of 4 p of these (properties in the Chestnut Street/McIntire districts ) back up to Bridge Street" (page 4-30) is E t k Page 2 incorrect. There are approximatley 15 properties in the McIntire Local Historic District which directly' abut Bridge Street and the areas of proposed reconstruction. There are 8 oroaertes in the Chestnut Street National Register District and 3 properties in the Federal Street National Register District which abut Bridge Street-. 2 . Bridge Street from Flint to North Streets - We are not in disagreeement with the need to widen Bridge Street, but the statement. "'Because the proposed project does not encroach into the Historic Districts, the proposed project will have no effectl on the Historic District . " is erroneous . This areal , of Bridge Street is an important northern boundary to two National Register Districts, to one National Landmark property and to the largest and most important of Salem' s local historic districts . 4 There are over 400 structures in the McIntire Localf - Historic .District of which 5 are National Register Properties and 2 are National Landmarks . Before the North River was channelled, i't 'was much wider in this area and all of the properties along the north ' side of Federal Street and the adjacent streets kk abutted the river. In fact, 300 years ago the North,I River in this area was known as the Blue Danube because of its great beauty. The DPW' s removal of the old factories and other buildings to clear for the widening of Bridge Street does make this area more open and, therefore, it begins to have some of l the visual characteristics of the 1790 ' s. However, { a four lane, high speed road with break 'down lanes and guard rails is not visually in character with this small scale, residential neighborhood. The edges of historic districts are very important, and this north edge is particularly siginificant because: it is highly visible to almost all visitors to Salem. Therefore, it is important that careful consideration be given to landscaping and providing a generous buffer/transition area between the new modern road and this 18th century, residential neighborhood. Section 4 . 18 states, "For the portion of the project corridor between North Street and Boston Street, the overwhelming visual image is of the generally rundown and neglected appearance of the railyard and the North River Canal . " is no 4 longer correct. Since the 1970 ' s, a number of a residential properties along the southern boundary of Bridge Street have been extensively renovated. This includes the Pierce Nichols House, a National Landmark, which abuts Bridge Street. The entire district has seen millions of dollars in private investment during the past 15 years . There has been a tremendous amount of perservation and restoration gg t s f i Page 3 i in this district. Therefore, the Commission feels that sensitve expansion of Bridge Street is very important. The Draft Supplemental .Environmental Impact Report does not adequately address the issued of landscaping, traffic noise buffering or other issues Which would assist in making a four lane highway compatible with the historic district. The Commission requests a detailed plan of proposed' improvements to determine how the above concerns are ' - addressed. 3 . The canal - The removal of the canal seems regretable: However, its historic significance has been reviewed by a private consultant and concurred with by Massachusetts Historical Commission. The conclusion appears to be that it is not eligible for the National Register and its local significance is not great enough to warrant its, preservation. Basedr , on the advise of the City' s consultant, the C Commission concurs with the decision to move the canal . 4 . Archaeological resources - Section 3.19 states that "after extensive field surveys. . . it was determined that there are no significant resources in the project corridor." Since the Commission has not been provided a final report ( s). which includes the entire project area (Bridge, By-Pass Road & Bridge Street reconstruction) , we cannot 'concur with the finding that there are no archaeological resources . 5. Land taking - It has come to the attention of the Commission that the DPW :is proposing to take a { portion of land at l .Harrington Court ( located in the McIntire Historic District) for road widening. r We could not find any reference of such taking in the report, yet the property owner has stated they !!j had been notified. The Commission requires the opportunity to review this and any other proposed land takings as any land takings in an historic 2 district appear to be inappropriate. 6. The Federal Street National Register District - We understand that this section of the proposed projects ) has not been designed yet, therefore , we cannot comment at this time. However, landscaping and E buffering should be considered here as well. j 7 . The Bridge - Although the Commission feels that a lower bridge wouldbe more in keeping with the scale : of the historic Beverly Harbor, we do not ssee that the proposed bridge will have a negative impact on Salem' s historic districts . s s Page 4 F Based on the above remarks, the Commission feels that the Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Report is incomplete and that there are outstanding issues that require further information for our review and comment. Again, these include a , detailed plan of landscaping, buffering and other improvementsto lessen the impact on the historic districts and properties, a final archaeological report(s ) for the entire project area and ad plan of any proposed land takings in historic districts . Thank you for your consideration of Salem' s historic and archaeological resources . Sincerely, P j THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSIOIN Annie C Harris { Chairman , cc : Secretary John DeVillars Brona Simon, MHC Ellen DiGeronimo, MDPW Jane Garvey, MPDW f James Hoyte, EDEA J3i19 ' t i i i I � ( n i g J# 5 �iG FI,IT,I I jd if Gly„CF UJB! Saien� Hist®rIC Comm ' ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (617)745-9595. EXT. 311 July 17 , 1990 i Secretary John DeVillars Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Salem-Beverly Transportation Project Dear Secretary DeVillars : i Enclosed please find a copy of the Salem Historical Commission' s comments that were sent to Frank Bracaglia at the Massachusetts Department of Public Works with regard to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report submitted for the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project. While the Commission supports the concept of the project, our comments address the lack of information provided with regard to landscaping, noise buffering, archaeological investigation and land takings as well as inaccuracies of historic district boundaries and of the impact the project will have on historic resources . We respectfully request that you consider our comments when conducting your evaluation of the report. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Annie C. Harris Chairman J3720 w Sai m Aistorica1 '"immission ONE SALEM GREEN. SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 March 7 , 1989 Mr. James L. Eng, Project Manager Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Regional Construction Office 21 Arlington Avenue Charlestown, MA 02129 RE: Proposed Parking Garage at MBTA/Salem "Crain Station Dear Mr. Eng: Pursuant to your telephone conversation with Mr. Daniel Pierce of the Salem Historical Commission, the Commission would Like to acknowledge our mutual objective of providing an appropriate design solution for the proposed parking facility in Salem, by thanking you for agreeing to meet with the Salem Historical Commission in the near future. As you are aware, the site of the proposed garage is not only adjacent to a National Register Historic District and several National and State. Register properties, but is also adjacent to the McIntire Historic District of Salem. Since these historicalLv significant sites serve as a gateway into Salem from North Street (Route 114) , it i.s the opinion of the Salem Historical Commission that new construction adjacent to the historic districts be designed with particular attention to the concerns of scale, context , and appropriateness of materials. The Salem Historical. Commission is prepared to meet with you at your earliest convenience to further the process of design review by offering our input and professional observations regarding the subject project . The Commission, by unanimous vote is in agreement that this project deserves special attention, due to the prominence of its site, and is willing to assist you in any way possible to assure a successfulsoLution to such a challenging architectural design problem. It is our understanding that you and your consulting architects should be ready to meet with the Historical Commission before the end of March. We look forward to hearing from you to confirm such a meeting. i Sincerely, Annie C. Harris Chairman cc: Mayor Anthony V. Salvo William Luster, Acting City Planner T2Rl7 �I fl a Salem 41'storical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN. SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 March 6, 1989 William Luster Acting City Planner City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 RE: Projects: 1 . Proposed parking structure at MBTA Salem Train Station 2. Bridge Street Bypass and Viaduct 3 . Bridge Street and North Street interchange reconstruction Dear Mr. Luster: The Salem Historical Commission would Like to schedule a meeting with you to review the status of the referenced projects. As you are aware, the sites for the proposed projects are adjacent to a National Historic Register District, several National and State Register properties, and the McIntire Historic District of Salem. Since these historically significant sites serve as a gateway into Salem from North Street (Route 114) , it is the opinion of the Salem 11istorical Commission, that new construction adjacent to the historic districts be designed with particular attention to the concerns of scale, context , and appropriateness of materials. The Salem Historical Commission is prepared to meet with you at your earliest convenience to further the process of design review by offering, our input and professional observations regarding these projects. The Commission, by unanimous vote, is in agreement that these projects deserve special attention due to the prominence of the sites, and is willing to work with you in any way possible to assure a successful solution to such challenging design problems. We look forward to hearing from you in the near future to confirm such a meeting. Sincerely, L) Annie C. Harris Chairman cc: Mayor Anthony V. Salvo J2838 L